The Education Gadfly Weekly

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
2002

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has turned into a valuable source of comparative international education data. Its latest 376-page update is chockablock with important information, too much of which signals trouble for the United States. When it comes to high school graduation, for example, 9 OECD countries now surpass us. Checking rates of entry into university-style postsecondary education, we see a similar pattern. It was once the case that, while other countries outpaced the U.S. in the quality of their education programs, we led the world in quantity, especially in number of years of schooling. That's still true among the older population (e.g. we have the greater percentage of high school graduates in the 55-64 year old cohort) but no longer among the young. This OECD report also addresses dozens of other issues, including literacy, math and science attainments among 15 year olds - the U.S. is middling here - and a wide variety of gauges of education investments, outcomes and rates of return. There are also data on teacher-student ratios - the U.S. is again near the middle - and school policies and resources. Though often presented in dense tables and laborious prose, this report contains a trove of information that any serious policy wonk will want close at hand. You can order a (pricey $49) hard copy at http://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/1110332108/Product/View/962002031P1 or download a (bulky but free) version by surfing to http://www.sourceoecd.org/data/cm/00008680/9602031E.pdf. (If you choose the latter option, we recommend napping while it downloads!).

Eric Brunner and Jon Sonstelie, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
October 2002

This "occasional paper" by Eric Brunner of San Diego State University and Jon Sonstelie of the University of California at Santa Barbara is number 56 in the LONG series emerging from the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Based on an analysis of who voted for and against California's voucher referendum in 2000, the authors conclude that homeowners without children probably base their stance toward vouchers on their defense of property values. Which is to say, childless homeowners in neighborhoods with good public schools are more apt to oppose vouchers because vouchers would be more apt to depress their property values, inasmuch as they would (presumably) reduce the demand for high-quality public schools. Conversely, homeowners in areas with bad public schools are more apt to favor vouchers. The authors suggest that this may be why it's so difficult to enact voucher programs in the U.S. It's an interesting argument - a tantalizing complement to Tom Nechyba's suggestion that vouchers would lead to greater residential integration because education-minded families would become more apt to buy homes in lower-priced neighborhoods. Still, it's the sort of analysis that only an economist could do with a straight face, because it assumes that economic self-interest is the dominant consideration in everybody's decisions about everything and it ignores the possibility that selflessness, civic-mindedness, or concern for one's neighbors might also affect decision making on hot public policy issues. Maybe those living in neighborhoods with bad public schools favor vouchers because they care about the educational opportunities available to their neighbors, nephews and fellow parishioners. Maybe they're tired of the disorder and trouble that often accompany inferior public schools. Maybe they actually care about the quality of life in their community and the future well being of their society. Perhaps I'm na??ve. But let's at least stipulate that other human motivations might be at work alongside those that economists are wont to discern. You can read it for yourself at http://ncspe.org/keepout/papers/00058/938_OP56.pdf.

Dennis Carlson
2002

This book intrigues and infuriates. Author Dennis Carlson exposes the reader to big ideas that span human history, admirably explaining, for instance, the significance of Plato's "cave analogy" in The Republic. That analogy, he writes, is a dichotomy between knowing and knowledge, logos and mythos, which in turn is the basis for the two primary views of education - progressive and traditional. He also explores the work of such other major thinkers as Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Saint Augustine. But his book - billed by the publisher as a "tour de force" - is also dangerous because it's filled with contradiction, faulty analysis, and political bias. In typical progressivist fashion, Carlson laments that today's students spend too much time learning facts, and not enough on developing new knowledge. He spends much time espousing radical leftist theories, decrying the "dominant hegemonic order," and commending such outrages as 1999's lawless anti-globalism protests in Seattle. Building on a synthesis of philosophy and trends in current affairs and economics, Carlson seeks to construct a new progressivism. But his model veers far left of many progressive educators. The extent of his fanaticism becomes obvious when readers encounter statements that run counter to all research and conventional wisdom, such as this one: "Conservative professors still outnumber progressive professors on most campuses, and especially in liberal arts institutions; and conservative professors have, more than progressives, engaged in 'indoctrinating' students into accepting a 'correct' truth about the world. They, after all, are the ones who view themselves as guardians of timeless truths and values." For more information, see http://www.routledge-ny.com/books.cfm?isbn=0415933765.

James Tooley
September 2002

Recently published in the U.S., a new book by the University of Newcastle's James Tooley is certain to stir up as much controversy here as it has across the sea. Though characterized by British critics as another "putting-women-in-their-place" tract aimed at returning the fair sex to the kitchen and nursery, the book is actually a thoughtful, reasoned look at whether current education policies benefit women in the U.K. and U.S. Tooley questions whether "gender equity" practices and relentless efforts to push women into traditionally male domains like math and science - prompted by Title IX, the Women's Education Equity Act, and their British equivalents - have actually helped women. Calling it "the Bridget Jones Syndrome," he points to the dissatisfaction of thirty-something career women like Miramax's fictional (big-screen) character who find themselves alone and unhappy despite professional success. Women who are pushed to be like men will ultimately be unfulfilled, Tooley suggests, because they have different innate preferences. Tooley builds his case on evolutionary psychology to explain cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women. To undo the damage he believes feminist education has wrought - devaluing domesticity and overvaluing work in the public domain - Tooley recommends doing away with gender education prohibitions and programs. He believes we should end our obsession with numerical equivalency and allow greater variation in how boys and girls are taught. Some readers will have coronaries. Others will find this book a refreshing counterpoint to the feminist-inspired message that nurturing a family is a second-rate choice and a waste of talent. Not every woman is a lonely Bridget Jones, to be sure, but there may be enough such to demand a close examination of gender practices in education. The book deserves attention even if, in the end, you disagree with it. For more information, see http://www.continuumbooks.com/book_details.cgi?bid=2620&ssid=P5JCDJWEKBCUED06A4F07S.

Edward E. Gordon
September 2002

This useful, 122-page book by Edward E. Gordon, who runs the Chicago-based Imperial Tutoring firm, is a consumer's guide to tutoring services: how to find a good one, what to look for, what to expect, what it will cost, etc. There's a catalog of several dozen tutoring outfits, even a Better Business Bureau list of standards for this line of work. Parents seeking tutors for their kids may find this helpful. So should state and local education officials struggling with the "supplementary services" provision of the No Child Left Behind act, under which (limited amounts of) Title I dollars may be deployed for the purchase - by parents - of tutoring services (and other supplements) from private providers that make it onto state-approved lists. The ISBN is 0873678400. The publisher is Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. You can get more information from http://www.pdkintl.org/products/npf021.htm.

Texas education commissioner Felipe Alanis has ordered five charter schools in the Lone Star State (including two in Houston) to close by the end of the school year because they have failed for three years in a row to meet state standards. The closures would be the first to occur for purely academic reasons since the legislature authorized charters in 1995. We call this a belated sign of a healthy accountability system. "State to shut 2 other local charter schools," by Rad Sallee and Melanie Markley, Houston Chronicle, November 7, 2002

An analysis of new Illinois data revealed "startling disparities" between test scores of white and black students at some of the Chicago area's most esteemed suburban schools. Masked by strong average scores in years past, the disparities were forced to light by NCLB's mandate that schools disaggregate their performance data by race, income, etc. The new data, which come as a shock to many who are "unaccustomed to seeing their schools cast in such a poor light," are Exhibit A in the case for a rigorous system of standards, testing and accountability for all schools. "Scores reveal surprise gap," by Stephanie Banchero and Darnell Little, Chicago Tribune, November 13, 2002

Sunday's New York Times Magazine contained a brace of insightful pieces by crack journalist James Traub. "Does it Work?" explores the tension between education practitioners who prize "a priori beliefs about the way children ought to learn [and] about the relative value of different kinds of knowledge," and those at the Education Department and on Capitol Hill who seek to mandate the use of "scientifically based research" by U.S. schools. No Child Left Behind, writes Traub, may mark a turning point in the battle; classroom practices will henceforth have to meet explicit criteria to prove they "work" in order to qualify for federal grants. His second piece, "Success for Some," casts a skeptical though not unfriendly eye upon three prominent whole-school reform models - Success for All, Accelerated Schools and Core Knowledge - which represent the scripted, progressive and traditional approaches to classroom transformation. Created to assess evidence of scientific effectiveness, the Bush administration's newly minted "What Works Clearinghouse" will devote much time and treasure to examining such models. See "Does it work?" and "Success for Some."

Yale and Stanford universities last week became the most elite campuses to end the early decision process, whereby successful applicants must accept offers of admission months ahead of schedule, no matter where else they are eventually accepted. Besides devaluing the senior year of high school, an effect noted by Diane Ravitch and others [see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=76#1073], early decision can harm low-income students by wiping out their leverage in negotiating financial aid packages. Both schools plan to adopt an "early action" system in which early applicants are notified of but not bound to accept admission. "Yale, Stanford abolish early decision process," by Jay Mathews, The Washington Post, November 7, 2002

In a tough job market, people with doctorates in other disciplines are seeking employment in K-12 education, trading the high-wire uncertainties of university teaching for the stability of public school tenure. While their numbers are still small - about 1.7 percent of teachers held doctorates in subjects other than education as of 1996 - they are believed to be growing. This could bode well for public education, though private schools also attract many such professionals who are reluctant to jump through the teacher-certification hoops. "Scholars in a teenage wasteland," by Brian Hanson-Harding, The New York Times, November 10, 2002

While pundits dissect last week's election results - two-thirds of all education measures on the ballot were approved - policymakers sweat over where to find the money for smaller classes, after-school programs, school construction and, in Florida, universal preschool. Faced with big deficits, states will be hard-pressed to fund such popular but pricey programs - some in the tens of billions range - without unwelcome tax hikes and painful policy tradeoffs. But it's not just budget priorities that stand to change. With power shifting in the U.S. Senate, expect to see heightened emphasis on results and accountability - not just funding - in upcoming reauthorization battles over special ed and higher ed. Although Republican leaders say they don't expect to re-open the No Child Left Behind Act, they may seek to expand its testing and school choice provisions. Meanwhile, GOP gains in state legislatures have given vouchers a "second wind," or so says The Wall Street Journal.

"62% of measures win approval," by John Ritter, USA Today, November 7, 2002; "The Education Election," by Tamar Lewin, The New York Times, November 10, 2002; "GOP Foresees Expansion of Party Themes on Education," by Diana Jean Schemo, The New York Times, November 10, 2002; and "Republicans' Election Gains Give Vouchers Second Wind," by Robert Tomsho, The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2002 (subscribers only)

As Massachusetts high school students who failed the MCAS gear up for re-tests, schools must "get smarter" about developing ways to help them pass, quote the Globe in a recent editorial. Educators should teach beyond the test, not only by arming students with lessons in English and math, but also analyzing test question patterns, identifying curricular weaknesses and sharing teaching methods that work. Bay State education leaders must also publicize the most effective practices. West Roxbury High School has followed the Globe's prescription with success, raising its MCAS achievement dramatically. Will other schools follow suit? "Improving on the MCAS," editorial, The Boston Globe, November 12, 2002

Once upon a time, I helped to create a new federal entity called the National Institute of Education (NIE). As the junior-most education staffer in the White House during the early Nixon administration (functioning mainly an aide to Pat Moynihan, then Assistant to the President for Urban Affairs), I helped draft Richard Nixon's 1970 message to Congress, wherein the NIE was conceived. Two years later, thanks to the midwifery of Congressman John Brademas, it was born within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare but outside the U.S. Office of Education.

I thought this was a momentous achievement, terming it (in a February 1972 article) "in formal, organizational terms," the "most important addition to the federal government's education efforts in this century." The new agency was meant to bring talent, objectivity, scientific rigor and coherence to Washington's scattered efforts to advance human understanding of education. It was supposed to build the knowledge that would cause faltering federal programs, such as Head Start and Title I, to work better. (When Nixon proposed the NIE, the Coleman Report was just four years old and Moynihan was taken with its finding that traditional assumptions about achievement gains - that they follow from more school resources and inputs - rested on sand.) [See "What the NIE Can Be," Phi Delta Kappan, February 1972, pp. 347ff. Fuller accounts of the agency's origins and Coleman connections can be found in "The National Institute of Education," The Yale Review, Winter 1975, pp. 227ff. and Education and the Presidency, Lexington Books, 1977.]

If my three-decade old euphoria sounds like press releases issued a few days ago by Secretary Paige and the House Education Committee, celebrating final passage of the "Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002" and giving birth to a new "Institute of Education Sciences," that's because the resemblance is close.

I wrote in 1972 that the new structure would bring visibility, prestige and resources to education research, coordinate and set priorities for a motley array of scattered initiatives, and tackle education problems in a systematic, scientific way.

Thirty years later, Rod Paige declared that "One of the major tenets of our education policy is that teaching and learning practices be based on sound, scientific research.... [T]he new Institute...will allow us to move forward aggressively to support the high-quality research, evaluation and statistical activities needed to improve education policy and practice."

Hope springs eternal. But it has never worked before in this domain. The 1972 edifice had termites in its foundation and they immediately started chewing. Through my fog of optimism, I also spotted seven "potential threats" to the new NIE structure. All but one of these (an obsession with technology) turned to be real menaces to the new agency's viability. Briefly stated, the other six were: falling into the hands of traditional education researchers, "complete with their second water abilities"; sinking into "the swamp of federal bureaucracy, with managers where it should have scholars, civil servants when it needs scientists"; policymakers who rapidly lose patience with the new agency; alternatively, too much patience, i.e. no real demands that it produce anything timely or useful; too many missions, lots of them trendy and faddish; and an overemphasis on "development" at the expense of "research."

I also noted, though with insufficient alarm, that the new NIE wasn't truly starting from scratch because Congress made it shoulder responsibility for "a wild assortment of ongoing R & D programs," including "a dozen regional laboratories, research and development centers, and hundreds of scattered university research programs."

Trouble came fast. Within three years, the new Institute was in trouble. I wrote in 1975 that it "was slow to begin," "generally failed to develop a comprehensible statement of what it was trying to do," had a staff that "exhibited a certain political na??vet?? about Congressional needs" and, by paying too much attention to basic research and not enough to "the dissemination of immediately usable ideas," had already lost support on Capitol Hill. (Yes, that last problem contradicted one of my initial concerns but turned out to be a big political liability in its own right.) [See "On the National Institute of Education, The Yale Review, Spring 1975, pp. 477ff.]

A decade after its birth, I termed the NIE a "profound and hopeless disappointment" and proposed its abandonment. (See "What the NIE Cannot Be," Phi Delta Kappan, February 1983, pp. 407 ff.) Two years later, as the new assistant secretary responsible for this part of the Education Department, I worked with Bill Bennett, Emerson Elliott and others to dismantle that creaky structure (using general "reorganization" powers entrusted to the Secretary of Education) and replace it with the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). Subsequently, Congress reorganized OERI at least once more (a 1994 bill championed by Representative Major Owens) before the latest round.

Hence the new Institute of Education Sciences is (at least) the fourth major reconstruction of the federal education research enterprise in thirty years. Perhaps it will work better than its three predecessors. But I doubt it. For five reasons:

First, the greedy slurpers at this trough - the selfsame entities that have consumed most of the agency's limited resources for three decades, namely the labs, centers and ERIC clearinghouses - are still there and slurping faster than ever. Congress once again lacked the gumption to starve them, even to shove them to a different trough.

Second, the talent is sparse and isn't likely to be recruited. What kept NIE and OERI from being more like NIH is that large numbers of distinguished scientists couldn't be drawn to work there. Soon-to-be Institute director Russ Whitehurst thinks this will now change. We'll see.

Third, while the new agency's commitment to scientific and experimental research in education is commendable, it's going to be a long, hard sell, both on Capitol Hill and in the education community, which tends to want quick fixes and "practical" information - the more so as NCLB ratchets up the stakes.

Fourth, education research has few fans. Three decades of slim pickings and paltry payoffs have made the 1972 problem worse. We've all had way too much experience with statements that begin "Research shows" and then go on to promote unproven nostrums. Is there some gold amid all the pyrite? Sure. But America doesn't have clear-cut mechanisms for distinguishing one from the other. It has lousy dissemination systems and reluctant users. And we've grown cynical that education research has much to contribute to improved pupil achievement, which is the real coin of the realm today.

Fifth, many of the dreams that people invested in the latest restructuring rested upon the assumption that the new Institute will be more independent than its predecessors, less vulnerable to political pressure, better insulated from the evanescent priorities of Congress and the executive branch. Yet Congress spelled out a zillion things that it must and mustn't do. And on November 5 the White House accompanied the bill signing with a curious, legalistic statement that reasserted the authority of the Education Secretary and the President over the new Institute's functions and said, in effect, that all other input concerning its work is merely advisory. [See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021105-4.html.] Considering that the new agency inherits no tradition of autonomy or scientific respectability, this combination of Congressional meddling and executive authority suggests that, when it comes to executing the Institute's work, very little has truly changed.

The moral of this tale: don't expect much from the latest reorganization of the federal education research enterprise. The real problems of education research are not structural and, to the extent that they are, this new set-up fails to solve them.

PS: Keep your fingers crossed for the new Department of Homeland Security. Education research is not the only government activity where restructuring is no panacea.

PPS: Memo to myself: don't write any more about federal education research for a long time. Readers are weary.

Dennis Carlson
2002

This book intrigues and infuriates. Author Dennis Carlson exposes the reader to big ideas that span human history, admirably explaining, for instance, the significance of Plato's "cave analogy" in The Republic. That analogy, he writes, is a dichotomy between knowing and knowledge, logos and mythos, which in turn is the basis for the two primary views of education - progressive and traditional. He also explores the work of such other major thinkers as Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Saint Augustine. But his book - billed by the publisher as a "tour de force" - is also dangerous because it's filled with contradiction, faulty analysis, and political bias. In typical progressivist fashion, Carlson laments that today's students spend too much time learning facts, and not enough on developing new knowledge. He spends much time espousing radical leftist theories, decrying the "dominant hegemonic order," and commending such outrages as 1999's lawless anti-globalism protests in Seattle. Building on a synthesis of philosophy and trends in current affairs and economics, Carlson seeks to construct a new progressivism. But his model veers far left of many progressive educators. The extent of his fanaticism becomes obvious when readers encounter statements that run counter to all research and conventional wisdom, such as this one: "Conservative professors still outnumber progressive professors on most campuses, and especially in liberal arts institutions; and conservative professors have, more than progressives, engaged in 'indoctrinating' students into accepting a 'correct' truth about the world. They, after all, are the ones who view themselves as guardians of timeless truths and values." For more information, see http://www.routledge-ny.com/books.cfm?isbn=0415933765.

Edward E. Gordon
September 2002

This useful, 122-page book by Edward E. Gordon, who runs the Chicago-based Imperial Tutoring firm, is a consumer's guide to tutoring services: how to find a good one, what to look for, what to expect, what it will cost, etc. There's a catalog of several dozen tutoring outfits, even a Better Business Bureau list of standards for this line of work. Parents seeking tutors for their kids may find this helpful. So should state and local education officials struggling with the "supplementary services" provision of the No Child Left Behind act, under which (limited amounts of) Title I dollars may be deployed for the purchase - by parents - of tutoring services (and other supplements) from private providers that make it onto state-approved lists. The ISBN is 0873678400. The publisher is Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. You can get more information from http://www.pdkintl.org/products/npf021.htm.

Eric Brunner and Jon Sonstelie, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
October 2002

This "occasional paper" by Eric Brunner of San Diego State University and Jon Sonstelie of the University of California at Santa Barbara is number 56 in the LONG series emerging from the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Based on an analysis of who voted for and against California's voucher referendum in 2000, the authors conclude that homeowners without children probably base their stance toward vouchers on their defense of property values. Which is to say, childless homeowners in neighborhoods with good public schools are more apt to oppose vouchers because vouchers would be more apt to depress their property values, inasmuch as they would (presumably) reduce the demand for high-quality public schools. Conversely, homeowners in areas with bad public schools are more apt to favor vouchers. The authors suggest that this may be why it's so difficult to enact voucher programs in the U.S. It's an interesting argument - a tantalizing complement to Tom Nechyba's suggestion that vouchers would lead to greater residential integration because education-minded families would become more apt to buy homes in lower-priced neighborhoods. Still, it's the sort of analysis that only an economist could do with a straight face, because it assumes that economic self-interest is the dominant consideration in everybody's decisions about everything and it ignores the possibility that selflessness, civic-mindedness, or concern for one's neighbors might also affect decision making on hot public policy issues. Maybe those living in neighborhoods with bad public schools favor vouchers because they care about the educational opportunities available to their neighbors, nephews and fellow parishioners. Maybe they're tired of the disorder and trouble that often accompany inferior public schools. Maybe they actually care about the quality of life in their community and the future well being of their society. Perhaps I'm na??ve. But let's at least stipulate that other human motivations might be at work alongside those that economists are wont to discern. You can read it for yourself at http://ncspe.org/keepout/papers/00058/938_OP56.pdf.

James Tooley
September 2002

Recently published in the U.S., a new book by the University of Newcastle's James Tooley is certain to stir up as much controversy here as it has across the sea. Though characterized by British critics as another "putting-women-in-their-place" tract aimed at returning the fair sex to the kitchen and nursery, the book is actually a thoughtful, reasoned look at whether current education policies benefit women in the U.K. and U.S. Tooley questions whether "gender equity" practices and relentless efforts to push women into traditionally male domains like math and science - prompted by Title IX, the Women's Education Equity Act, and their British equivalents - have actually helped women. Calling it "the Bridget Jones Syndrome," he points to the dissatisfaction of thirty-something career women like Miramax's fictional (big-screen) character who find themselves alone and unhappy despite professional success. Women who are pushed to be like men will ultimately be unfulfilled, Tooley suggests, because they have different innate preferences. Tooley builds his case on evolutionary psychology to explain cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women. To undo the damage he believes feminist education has wrought - devaluing domesticity and overvaluing work in the public domain - Tooley recommends doing away with gender education prohibitions and programs. He believes we should end our obsession with numerical equivalency and allow greater variation in how boys and girls are taught. Some readers will have coronaries. Others will find this book a refreshing counterpoint to the feminist-inspired message that nurturing a family is a second-rate choice and a waste of talent. Not every woman is a lonely Bridget Jones, to be sure, but there may be enough such to demand a close examination of gender practices in education. The book deserves attention even if, in the end, you disagree with it. For more information, see http://www.continuumbooks.com/book_details.cgi?bid=2620&ssid=P5JCDJWEKBCUED06A4F07S.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
2002

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has turned into a valuable source of comparative international education data. Its latest 376-page update is chockablock with important information, too much of which signals trouble for the United States. When it comes to high school graduation, for example, 9 OECD countries now surpass us. Checking rates of entry into university-style postsecondary education, we see a similar pattern. It was once the case that, while other countries outpaced the U.S. in the quality of their education programs, we led the world in quantity, especially in number of years of schooling. That's still true among the older population (e.g. we have the greater percentage of high school graduates in the 55-64 year old cohort) but no longer among the young. This OECD report also addresses dozens of other issues, including literacy, math and science attainments among 15 year olds - the U.S. is middling here - and a wide variety of gauges of education investments, outcomes and rates of return. There are also data on teacher-student ratios - the U.S. is again near the middle - and school policies and resources. Though often presented in dense tables and laborious prose, this report contains a trove of information that any serious policy wonk will want close at hand. You can order a (pricey $49) hard copy at http://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/1110332108/Product/View/962002031P1 or download a (bulky but free) version by surfing to http://www.sourceoecd.org/data/cm/00008680/9602031E.pdf. (If you choose the latter option, we recommend napping while it downloads!).