The Education Gadfly Weekly

Administration for Children and Families, Health and Human Services
June 11, 2005

The first installment of this Congressionally-mandated study of 5,000 Head Start kids in 84 programs finds modest impacts on participants' cognitive development and less impact on physical or social-emotional health or parenting practices. Three and four-year-olds in the program demonstrated small-to-moderate gains in pre-reading, pre-writing, vocabulary, and parent reports of children's literacy skills, though none in oral comprehension or early math skills. But surprisingly, there were only small or no gains for either age group in such measures as socialization or improved attitudes toward learning, and while access to health care improved, the actual health of Head Starters did not budge. And parental attitudes and practices changed only minimally - a little less spanking, a little more use of educational activities. So the findings are all over the map and do not lend themselves to easy use by either side in the Head Start debate, though it's obvious that this program is not coming even close to shrinking the achievement gap. Future installments of this study will follow kids through the 1st grade and, let's hope, even further. Keep in mind that most previous Head Start studies found the cognitive gains fading during the first few years of regular school (more a commentary on the school systems than on Head Start). In the meantime, check out the data here.

"Head Start children show some gains," by Kevin Freking, Associated Press, June 9, 2005

Katherine S. Neville, Rachel H. Sherman, and Carol E. Cohen, The Finance Project2005

The Finance Project, a D.C.-based nonprofit research firm, cites the failure of "traditional teacher preparations and in-service training . . . to produce the level of quality demanded by the new educational environment" (adding to a growing list of criticizing studies released this year, see here and here). The report compares training and professional development in education to that of six other fields: law, accounting, architecture, nursing, firefighting, and law enforcement. By highlighting how other professions address pre-service preparation, in-service training, and financing, ideas and practices are presented that might be used for teacher preparation - or at least expose the odd, convoluted, and flawed way in which individuals become teachers. We learn that, while most professional fields have fairly uniform standards and require a passing score on a national exam,  education has only disparate state standards. Many fields, including firefighting, nursing, and law enforcement, have programs that prepare participants for difficult situations they will face and place a higher premium on peer support and learning; but most teachers go through ineffective "student teaching" instead of being immersed in ways of meeting the special challenges of low-performing, low-income schools. Further, the salaries of architects, lawyers, and accountants are tied to performance, whereas teacher compensation is based on years in harness and completion of graduate courses, which has "a weak link between expenditures and desired results." Obviously, what works for other fields won't necessarily work for education, but the differences in professional development among them helps expose some of the fundamental problems with teacher training. You can find it here.

C. Emily Feistritzer, National Center for Education Information
June 2005

This useful report from the National Center for Education Information surveyed 2,647 teachers certified through "alternate routes." We learn that almost one-third (35,000) of entering or first-time teachers were certified through such programs this year. Fifty percent of respondents reported teaching in a large urban area, and almost half (47 percent) came into education from careers in other fields. More than half (54 percent) note they probably would not have become teachers without the option of an "alternate route." In other words, they would not have returned to campus to acquire an education degree. Also encouraging: almost two-thirds of them plan to continue teaching K-12 for at least five years. The complete findings paint a picture of alternatively certified teachers substantially different from the caricatures of opponents. So check them out for yourself here.

"New teachers take alternative routes," by George Archibald, Washington Times, June 3, 2005

Standard & Poor's, School Evaluation Services
2005

This twelve pager seeks to dispel four "myths" about urban school systems: that they spend more per pupil than other districts in their states; that their academic performance is not improving; that their education problems are largely confined to minority youngsters; and that they're ineffective in boosting student achievement. The relatively cheery conclusions that follow are the product of some interesting calculations, heroic assumptions, and imaginative analyses, and even then they mainly apply to just a fraction of the schools in the 25-district sample. (For instance: "14 percent of all schools in this sample managed to raise student achievement . . . above the state average.") The paper also strikes me as schizophrenic regarding what should be expected from poor/minority youngsters and their schools, namely, should they be expected to attain uniform high standards or to have their results "explained" by their demography? Still, you'll probably want to have a look, so surf here.

Islamic schools are in the news this week. Time profiles an Islamic pre-K-12 school in suburban Chicago that has a mainstream curriculum and typical after-school activities, but also maintains traditional Islamic practices like dress codes, separation of the sexes, and regular prayer and Koran studies. The New York Times reports that Jordan, facing extremism at home and pressure abroad, is attempting to change its textbooks by downplaying the violence often associated with jihad. While Jordanian textbooks are, by Middle Eastern standards, light on religious extremism, they still emphasize themes like the Western plot against Muslims and deceitful Jews attacking Islam. Eliminating these entrenched radical beliefs will take a delicate balance of religiosity and modernity. Finally, two days after the Times discussed the widespread violent fundamentalism associated with Islamic schools, it published an op-ed asserting that the United States has nothing to fear from madrassas (religious Muslim schools, which are often accused of fostering violent Islamic fundamentalism, see here) because such schools "do not teach the technical or linguistic skills necessary to be an effective terrorist." The authors, Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey, attempt to prove this by noting that only nine of 75 terrorists behind recent terror attacks were educated at madrassas. Yikes. Even if these schools aren't teaching the "technical" skills of terrorism, they often imbue young Muslims with a violent interpretation of Islam that fosters and foments these terrorist acts.

"The model school, Islamic style," by Marguerite Michaels, Time, June 11, 2005

"Jordan is preparing to tone down the Islamic bombast in textbooks," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, June 12, 2005

"The madrassa myth," by Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey, New York Times, June 14, 2005

G. Reid Lyon, champion of research-based reading instruction (i.e. Reading First) at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and adviser to the Bush administration on scientifically proven effective reading programs and much much more, is leaving his government post to join a private-sector effort to develop alternatives to traditional schools of education. He will work with Dallas-based Best Associates, advised by both former Secretary of Education and Fordham trustee Rod Paige and former Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Moses, to create the American College of Education, a new breed of education school that uses scientifically proven research to train prospective teachers. "The majority of education courses are not rigorous whatsoever," said Lyon. "They typically are based on philosophical ideas and ideology, not the research we have on how children learn." If he approaches this new venture with the courage and tirelessness that he brought to his government work, the ed school establishment should be quaking in its boots.

"Challenge to teacher ed," Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, June 14, 2005

"National reading czar to leave public sector for teacher ed. venture," by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, Education Week, June 8, 2005

This week, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel features a week-long qualitative assessment of that city's landmark voucher program. Reporters visited 106 of Milwaukee's 115 "voucher schools" and emerged with an interesting but mixed story. "Those visits, along with dozens of interviews with parents, students, teachers, principals, administrators, and academics, revealed that many of the popular conceptions and politically motivated depictions of the program are incomplete and, in some cases, flat-out wrong." The topics addressed throughout the seven-part series include the level of accountability for voucher schools in the city, why and how parents select voucher schools for their kids, and the extent to which voucher kids participate in religious education (seventy percent of voucher-bearing pupils attend religious schools). Sprinkled throughout are anecdotes about particular schools, especially those that seem to have management problems. Overall, the series makes a case, through anecdotal evidence, that while the program has done a great job of opening up more options for all low-income parents and students in Milwaukee, one key part of the market competition theory (i.e., that parents would pull kids out of failing voucher schools, thus closing them down) isn't being borne out. On the whole, this is a tough but fair-minded series that abounds in good news and bad news for advocates and opponents alike. At day's end, however, what's most needed is solid quantitative research into schools' (and program's) effectiveness in "adding academic value" to children. Voucher supporters should note, though, that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's anecdotes build a pretty persuasive case for working harder to weed out participating schools that aren't doing much for kids. That may be more than should be expected of parents.  

"Inside choice schools: 15 years of vouchers," by Alan J. Borsuk and Sarah Carr, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 13, 2005

On Monday, the Department of Education released extensive new guidelines for states, districts, and providers of supplemental educational services, a complex, contentious and confused area of NCLB. States have complained that they were unclear on how best to implement the SES provisions of the law and needed more guidance. (Skeptics say they just want to be able to blame the feds for every decision they make in this area.) There has also been real confusion over who can provide SES and under what circumstances. And of course, there have been a few hucksters and fly-by-night operators attempting to tap into this suddenly lucrative market (see here). Education Week reports, "The new document - the first written update of guidance on supplemental services since August 2003 - outlines what states, districts, and providers should and shouldn't do to ensure tutoring is handled well. Much of the guidance has already been made public, piece by piece, in the department's responses to states or districts in specific situations." Handling tutoring well includes making sure parents are informed of their options and ensuring that states, not districts, evaluate the effectiveness of providers. Indeed, these guidelines generally serve to shift more responsibility for SES from districts to states, a much-needed reform considering how few districts have embraced this option and how many are struggling to keep all the SES money within their own coffers. But states aren't perfect either, and the new guidance includes a note that SES will be subject to the Department's new "Raising Achievement" guidelines (see here for more on this), meaning that, while these SES guidelines serve as a starting point, if states have an objection to them, they can apply for a waiver. That combination appears to make SES, along with special education assessment and highly qualified teachers, a negotiable NCLB provision. This announcement tends to lend credence to Gadfly's concerns (see here) about nickel-and-dime NCLB "reforms."
 
"Education dept. issues guidance on tutoring," by Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, June 14, 2005

"Education Department offers new guidance," Associated Press, June 13, 2005

"To help more families access high-quality tutoring, Department clarifies roles of states, districts and providers," U.S. Department of Education press release, June 13, 2005

Philadelphia's public school system, under the leadership of Paul Vallas, has been making so much progress on so many fronts that it's a special disappointment when they blunder. But blunder they are doing.

In February, the "School Reform Commission" voted to offer courses in African and African American history in the city's high schools. Last week, the district decreed that every high school student, beginning with September's freshman class, will be required to take a year-long course in African and African-American history. That course, tentatively slated for 10th grade, becomes one of the 23.5 units required for graduation and joins U.S. history, world history, and geography on the list of mandatory high-school social studies courses. (Nobody has said what will happen to the African-American parts of the U.S. history course or the African parts of world history. One doubts they'll be axed to make time for other topics. Maybe they'll be taught twice.)

It's a fine thing to get students to study history, the more of it the better, and African/African-American history, properly conceived and taught, is a legitimate elective course. It deserves to be on the list, along with the history of China, the history of music, the history of science, the history of Europe, art history, and more.

But should every student in a vast municipal school system, regardless of their own race or interests, be required to take this particular history course? I think not.

Philadelphia's 196,000 public-school students are 65.5 percent black. The others are 5.3 percent Asian, 14.5 percent Latino, 14.2 percent white, 0.2 percent Native American and, presumably, 0.3 percent "other." It's a characteristically mixed urban school system that early in June staged a "multicultural fair." The head of the school system's "Office of Language, Culture and the Arts" (a woman named Chin, whose deputies are named Alvarez and de la Pe??a) sends out "Dear Parent" letters in eight languages, including Albanian and Khmer.

Yet every pupil must now take African and African-American history.

A founding principle of the republic is protecting minorities from the excesses of majority rule. The School District of Philadelphia is majority black. Everyone else is a minority. Yet who is protecting their interests? Why are they and their heritages being discriminated against? One imagines families of Mexican, Trinidadian, Irish, Korean, and Bangladeshi backgrounds asking why the school system is "privileging" its African-American students' heritage and neglecting their own.

System officials know better. Reform Commission chairman James Nevels said, "The ideal I would love to see is a rich, diverse, textural, and contextual history of all those who make up the fabric of America."

Exactly so. But instead of insisting on that "ideal," Nevels and Vallas are yielding to Mayor Street (who appoints two of the Commission's five members) and community activists bent on "reparations" for slavery. Says the education chief of the local NAACP chapter, when asked about equal time for other ethnic groups, "None of those people came here as slaves except for African Americans. . . . The Asians came over here because they wanted to. The Hispanics, too."

What sort of course will this be? The Inquirer says the African portion was designed by a controversial Temple University professor whose website, www.molefiasante.com, modestly depicts him in these words: "Molefi Kete Asante, the founding preeminent theorist of Afrocentricity, is one of the most important intellectuals at work today. His works continue his tradition of combining an extraordinary intellectual range with impressive ability to identify and clarify central issues in the current discourse on Afrocentricity, Multiculturalism, race, culture, ethnicity, and related themes."

Asante is, to say the least, an outspoken fellow who analogizes the Iraq war to Hitler's invasion of Poland and opposes African history being taught by white professors and teachers. (He likens it to Nazis teaching Holocaust history.) He is, in fact, perhaps the nation's foremost proponent of what Diane Ravitch terms "particularistic multi-culturalism," which is precisely the opposite of the "ideal" espoused by James Nevels. Until now, advocates of this approach have merely urged schools to teach children the history and culture of their own ancestors. Philadelphia is going further, saying to kids of Lao or Italian or Nicaraguan or Navajo origin that, like it or not, they must study African history - and the heck with their own.

The Inquirer says the textbook for this course will be The African American Odyssey by Darline Hine, et al. It's published by Prentice Hall (now a branch of Pearson) and sells on Amazon for $77 a copy. I haven't seen it but spent a few minutes on its companion website, which contains at least a few troubling things. For example, in the book's last chapter ("Modern Black America"), the four recommended website links take students to the home pages of Louis Farrakhan's deeply anti-Semitic Nation of Islam and Jesse Jackson's ethically challenged Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, as well as the "Million Man March" (and a page of biography that I was unable to access). See here.

Philadelphia is setting a woeful precedent. If it holds firm to this mandate, it will either anger 35 percent of its own students by ignoring their stories, perhaps driving them out of the public schools and further segregating that system. Or it will have to follow its required course in African/African-American history with scads of others, tailored to the singular histories of other groups and places. The latter is obviously impossible, at least for required courses, though plenty of scope remains for electives. The former course of action is undesirable. The last thing America needs is for its schools to foster intergroup tension and resentment. And the last lesson our children need to learn in school is that any one group commands special attention from everyone.

Philadelphia, though, seems to be slipping into the reparations habit. A municipal ordinance passed earlier this year (following Chicago's lead) requires companies doing business with the city to disclose whether they or their corporate antecedents ever profited from slavery. The next step - a bill introduced last week - will require all such firms annually to provide the city with a "statement of financial reparations," i.e., a list of investments and contributions that seek to make amends.

This is racialist politics that's bad enough in city hall. It's even worse in the public school curriculum. Voucher opponents often make alarmist predictions that schools of choice will promulgate "centric" curricula of one sort or another and we'll head toward an American version of Islamic madrassas. Could the route in that direction instead be getting mapped by the Philadelphia School District itself?

"African study plan stirs debate," by Susan Snyder and Dale Mezzacappa, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 10, 2005

"Philly's African education plan may have merit in Milwaukee," by Eugene Kane, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 11, 2005

"Companies' ties to slavery disclosure, not punishment," Philadelphia Inquirer, June 12, 2005

In this month's Policy Review, Paul Hill chronicles one key element of Britain's two-decade old education reform strategy, one that does an imaginative job of blending private largesse, innovation and management expertise with public education. As Tony Blair has built atop a foundation of Thatcher-era reforms, he has boosted  the popular program of  "specialist schools" (secondary schools with an emphasis on engineering, arts, math, etc.) by offering prospective schools onetime government grants of ??100,000 to convert to specialist status, dependent upon the school raising ??50,000 in private donations. Sixty percent of English secondary schools are now specialist schools, and the number continues to grow. The Specialist Schools Trust, a nonprofit organization that receives government contracts but remains a private firm, oversees this fleet of educational institutions and works to support and expand the good ones while weeding out the failures. Hill writes that England was uniquely prepared for the competition in education that specialist schools bring. It has a national curriculum, which necessitates core subjects and thus allows specialization, as well as a national testing system that serves to hold all schools accountable for their results. Moreover, school governance is highly devolved, with principals controlling teacher hiring and firing and ninety percent of school funding. Thus, parents (and communities, benefactors, etc.) can easily judge and choose schools on objective and uniform criteria, and principals have freedom to adapt to individual circumstances. When debating these reforms, Blair heard the same criticism from his own Labour party that choice opponents level in the U.S., yet he persevered and seems to have proven the naysayers wrong.

"Lessons from Blair's school reforms," by Paul T. Hill, Policy Review, June and July 2005

Kudos to StandardsWorks founder and Fordham friend Leslye Arsht, formerly the senior advisor to the Iraqi Minister of Education, who has won the Good Housekeeping award for women in government. Arsht braved insurgents, logistical nightmares, and blazing desert heat to help the Iraqi government rebuild its K-12 education system. We can't think of anyone more deserving.

"Rebuilding schools of hope," by Sarah Felix, Good Housekeeping, June 14, 2005

Administration for Children and Families, Health and Human Services
June 11, 2005

The first installment of this Congressionally-mandated study of 5,000 Head Start kids in 84 programs finds modest impacts on participants' cognitive development and less impact on physical or social-emotional health or parenting practices. Three and four-year-olds in the program demonstrated small-to-moderate gains in pre-reading, pre-writing, vocabulary, and parent reports of children's literacy skills, though none in oral comprehension or early math skills. But surprisingly, there were only small or no gains for either age group in such measures as socialization or improved attitudes toward learning, and while access to health care improved, the actual health of Head Starters did not budge. And parental attitudes and practices changed only minimally - a little less spanking, a little more use of educational activities. So the findings are all over the map and do not lend themselves to easy use by either side in the Head Start debate, though it's obvious that this program is not coming even close to shrinking the achievement gap. Future installments of this study will follow kids through the 1st grade and, let's hope, even further. Keep in mind that most previous Head Start studies found the cognitive gains fading during the first few years of regular school (more a commentary on the school systems than on Head Start). In the meantime, check out the data here.

"Head Start children show some gains," by Kevin Freking, Associated Press, June 9, 2005

C. Emily Feistritzer, National Center for Education Information
June 2005

This useful report from the National Center for Education Information surveyed 2,647 teachers certified through "alternate routes." We learn that almost one-third (35,000) of entering or first-time teachers were certified through such programs this year. Fifty percent of respondents reported teaching in a large urban area, and almost half (47 percent) came into education from careers in other fields. More than half (54 percent) note they probably would not have become teachers without the option of an "alternate route." In other words, they would not have returned to campus to acquire an education degree. Also encouraging: almost two-thirds of them plan to continue teaching K-12 for at least five years. The complete findings paint a picture of alternatively certified teachers substantially different from the caricatures of opponents. So check them out for yourself here.

"New teachers take alternative routes," by George Archibald, Washington Times, June 3, 2005

Katherine S. Neville, Rachel H. Sherman, and Carol E. Cohen, The Finance Project2005

The Finance Project, a D.C.-based nonprofit research firm, cites the failure of "traditional teacher preparations and in-service training . . . to produce the level of quality demanded by the new educational environment" (adding to a growing list of criticizing studies released this year, see here and here). The report compares training and professional development in education to that of six other fields: law, accounting, architecture, nursing, firefighting, and law enforcement. By highlighting how other professions address pre-service preparation, in-service training, and financing, ideas and practices are presented that might be used for teacher preparation - or at least expose the odd, convoluted, and flawed way in which individuals become teachers. We learn that, while most professional fields have fairly uniform standards and require a passing score on a national exam,  education has only disparate state standards. Many fields, including firefighting, nursing, and law enforcement, have programs that prepare participants for difficult situations they will face and place a higher premium on peer support and learning; but most teachers go through ineffective "student teaching" instead of being immersed in ways of meeting the special challenges of low-performing, low-income schools. Further, the salaries of architects, lawyers, and accountants are tied to performance, whereas teacher compensation is based on years in harness and completion of graduate courses, which has "a weak link between expenditures and desired results." Obviously, what works for other fields won't necessarily work for education, but the differences in professional development among them helps expose some of the fundamental problems with teacher training. You can find it here.

Standard & Poor's, School Evaluation Services
2005

This twelve pager seeks to dispel four "myths" about urban school systems: that they spend more per pupil than other districts in their states; that their academic performance is not improving; that their education problems are largely confined to minority youngsters; and that they're ineffective in boosting student achievement. The relatively cheery conclusions that follow are the product of some interesting calculations, heroic assumptions, and imaginative analyses, and even then they mainly apply to just a fraction of the schools in the 25-district sample. (For instance: "14 percent of all schools in this sample managed to raise student achievement . . . above the state average.") The paper also strikes me as schizophrenic regarding what should be expected from poor/minority youngsters and their schools, namely, should they be expected to attain uniform high standards or to have their results "explained" by their demography? Still, you'll probably want to have a look, so surf here.