The Education Gadfly Weekly

National Council on Teacher Quality
May 2006

We know what it takes to teach reading. Thirty years of research have shown time and again that teaching young children to read is a science, and for it to take, certain steps must be followed sequentially. Because upwards of 40 percent of U.S. children fail to learn to read (a group comprised of youngsters of all races and economic backgrounds), one would expect universities to work double time to ensure that future educators possess the tools they'll need to teach reading well. Wrong. That's the central finding of this disturbing new study by the National Council on Teacher Quality. The survey upon which the report is built is notable for its breadth (72 schools representing the range of college selectivity in America were reviewed, and 222 required courses and their syllabi were studied). It looked at course materials to find how often professors who train future K-5 teachers lectured on the science of teaching reading. Despite generous grading parameters (passing grades could be earned even if a professor devoted just 20 percent of lectures to the science of reading), just 11 of the institutions surveyed (or 15 percent) taught all five components of the science of reading as codified by the National Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Among the prominent schools failing their education students: the University of Iowa and the University of North Carolina. There are eight other findings, ranging from the disappointing (courses claiming to provide a "balanced" approach to reading instruction ignore the science of reading) to the outrageous (low expectations rule, with professors placing more emphasis on keeping their classes "fun"). If time is of the essence, you can read USA Today's brief but useful squib, or the longish executive summary. But this report is worth taking the time to absorb in its entirety. Find it here.

Florida Department of Education
May 2006

Florida gets a lot of grief for its low ranking in national surveys of average teacher salaries. But this study by the state's education department posits that such comparisons of teacher pay are unfair and don't account for the wide variations in how analysts calculate average salaries. The report examines studies of teacher salaries-including those by the NEA, AFT, and NCES-and also investigates how fourteen other states (some in the Southeast, others with demographic similarities to Florida) calculate their average teacher pay. It found that "valid and reliable comparisons of states' teacher salaries continue to elude statisticians and researchers across the country." Why? Because states arrive at their individual average teacher salaries in wildly different ways. Seven of the fifteen states surveyed (Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) include bonuses in their calculations, and four (Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee) include supplemental pay. And all but two of the states in question (Florida and Texas) have state income taxes. Thus, the average teachers in those thirteen taxed states have take-home paychecks thousands of dollars lower than their reported salaries suggest. Further complicating matters is that states not only vary in their definitions of "average salary" but also in their definition of "teacher." Florida counts all instructional staff-librarians, social workers, guidance counselors, etc.-in its average teacher salary calculations, while Georgia and North Carolina count only classroom educators. In short, the report illustrates that valid cross-state comparisons of average teacher salaries are nearly impossible with current data. Commendably, the authors put forth a concrete example of a simplified system that would make such calculations easier, unified, and useful. Let's hope that other states are receptive to the idea. As it now stands, comparing teacher salaries in Alabama and Connecticut is akin to comparing apples and prunes. Read the report here.

Katherine L. Hughes and Melinda Mechur Karp
American Association of Community Colleges
2006

This report summarizes current state policies and practices to facilitate student transition from secondary to post-secondary schools and work, an instructional division that the authors would like to see disappear. The report argues not for a leap from one style of schooling to another but for a smooth path combining academic and technical coursework across levels. Because this isn't reality in most states, the authors write, we experience such undesirable outcomes as high dropout rates. The report finds that high school career and technical education (CTE), for example, remains mostly separate from traditional academic programs, despite longstanding efforts to integrate the two. This is a problem, because for CTE to succeed, its students must have just as rigorous an academic education as those in college-prep courses. Some states are finding innovative ways to integrate different educational options. Missouri's school accreditation programs, for example, require that CTE provides dual credit. Although the report doesn't give much new information, it does a decent job summarizing current state policies and commenting on their successes and failures. It's online here.

Few chapters in American history are more painful than the Atlantic slave trade. Historian Sheldon Stern, author of Fordham's Effective State Standards for U.S. History: A 2003 Report Card, is certainly aware of that. "For nearly two and a half centuries," he writes in the current issue of Academic Questions, "the overwhelming majority of black people in America were classified as ‘chattel slaves'.... After the abolition of slavery, black Americans had to endure a century of segregation...that thwarted the chance to earn a decent living, get an education, shop or eat in a public facility, and even vote." But he's also aware that the Atlantic slave trade was larger than what transpired in the United States. And his new paper is a call for American educators to do a better job covering the entire sordid affair-from the internal trade in Africa to the selling of slaves in the shadows of the U.S. Capitol. A provocative subject, no doubt, but one with a history that deserves a detailed and truthful telling. The article, entitled "The Atlantic Slave Trade-The Full Story," is not currently available online, but you can order a copy (though it will take some effort) by contacting Metapress, here.

Education bigfeet Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch have been at odds on school-related issues over the last thirty years. But when they recently met over lunch to prepare for a debate about No Child Left Behind, both were surprised by how much common ground they shared. While their solutions to disparate problems often differ, both recognize the seriousness of the same problems and the earnestness of the other side's arguments. What's more, both are able to acknowledge the flaws in their individual solutions and to identify the tradeoffs that must be made. They write, "Our differences helped us consider ways to rethink our ideas and find places where those holding different views might compromise, and perhaps learn to live under one umbrella. What we hope to model is the idea of democratic engagement, the notion that citizens need to think about and debate their beliefs and values with others who do not necessarily share all of them." In our age of American Idol episodes garnering more votes than American presidential elections, our young people would do well to take Meier and Ravitch's words to heart. So might you.

"Bridging Differences," by Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch, Education Week, May 24, 2006 (subscription required)

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford thinks he's found the solution to the state's school funding disparities. The Palmetto State's current model, he says, "disadvantages rural South Carolina." But a system "where you were funding kids and you put the money in the kid ... would lead to complete portability ... and equity." In other words, Sanford wants to delegate responsibility for education funding to the state (instead of to school districts) and then distribute the dollars based on the educational needs of individual students, not the tax base of the district in which they reside. As students change schools, their funding follows them. This is called "weighted student funding (WSF)," various forms of which exist in a few cities-including Cincinnati and San Francisco. But to date, no entire state has implemented it. That's a bit surprising, because WSF holds advantages for both liberals and conservatives. It's a fair way to solve funding inequities between districts, and by allowing money to follow individual students, it also opens the door to more school choice. In late June, look for a new Fordham report on weighted student funding and how it can work for states such as South Carolina. Governor Sanford, you're at the top of our mailing list!

"How Sanford's vision of 'choice' can fit with tax reform, school progress," by Cindi Ross Scoppe, The State, May 16, 2006

Massachusetts's most recent test results show that non-native English speakers have trouble functioning in a regular classroom, and bilingual education activists are hyping the news like Don King promoting a Tyson fight. According to the Boston Globe, three years after the Bay State ended bilingual education in favor of English immersion, "Eighty-three percent of children in grades 3 through 12 could not read, write, speak, or understand English well enough for regular classes after their first year in Massachusetts schools." To be sure, some districts enjoyed success with the immersion method. More than half the limited-English students in affluent Newton, for example, achieved fluency within a year. Not surprisingly, urban areas with concentrated numbers of limited-English students (and generally dysfunctional school systems) fared worse. One bilingual education proponent and (surprise!) ed school professor declared, "Empirically, kids are definitely worse off now." We're not so sure. English immersion is no silver bullet, but forcing children to languish in interminable bilingual programs certainly didn't work either. Combining immersion with plenty of support is more like it, sí?

"Bilingual law fails first test," by Maria Sacchetti and Tracy Jan, Boston Globe, May 21, 2006

Florida Department of Education
May 2006

Florida gets a lot of grief for its low ranking in national surveys of average teacher salaries. But this study by the state's education department posits that such comparisons of teacher pay are unfair and don't account for the wide variations in how analysts calculate average salaries. The report examines studies of teacher salaries-including those by the NEA, AFT, and NCES-and also investigates how fourteen other states (some in the Southeast, others with demographic similarities to Florida) calculate their average teacher pay. It found that "valid and reliable comparisons of states' teacher salaries continue to elude statisticians and researchers across the country." Why? Because states arrive at their individual average teacher salaries in wildly different ways. Seven of the fifteen states surveyed (Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) include bonuses in their calculations, and four (Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee) include supplemental pay. And all but two of the states in question (Florida and Texas) have state income taxes. Thus, the average teachers in those thirteen taxed states have take-home paychecks thousands of dollars lower than their reported salaries suggest. Further complicating matters is that states not only vary in their definitions of "average salary" but also in their definition of "teacher." Florida counts all instructional staff-librarians, social workers, guidance counselors, etc.-in its average teacher salary calculations, while Georgia and North Carolina count only classroom educators. In short, the report illustrates that valid cross-state comparisons of average teacher salaries are nearly impossible with current data. Commendably, the authors put forth a concrete example of a simplified system that would make such calculations easier, unified, and useful. Let's hope that other states are receptive to the idea. As it now stands, comparing teacher salaries in Alabama and Connecticut is akin to comparing apples and prunes. Read the report here.

Katherine L. Hughes and Melinda Mechur Karp
American Association of Community Colleges
2006

This report summarizes current state policies and practices to facilitate student transition from secondary to post-secondary schools and work, an instructional division that the authors would like to see disappear. The report argues not for a leap from one style of schooling to another but for a smooth path combining academic and technical coursework across levels. Because this isn't reality in most states, the authors write, we experience such undesirable outcomes as high dropout rates. The report finds that high school career and technical education (CTE), for example, remains mostly separate from traditional academic programs, despite longstanding efforts to integrate the two. This is a problem, because for CTE to succeed, its students must have just as rigorous an academic education as those in college-prep courses. Some states are finding innovative ways to integrate different educational options. Missouri's school accreditation programs, for example, require that CTE provides dual credit. Although the report doesn't give much new information, it does a decent job summarizing current state policies and commenting on their successes and failures. It's online here.

National Council on Teacher Quality
May 2006

We know what it takes to teach reading. Thirty years of research have shown time and again that teaching young children to read is a science, and for it to take, certain steps must be followed sequentially. Because upwards of 40 percent of U.S. children fail to learn to read (a group comprised of youngsters of all races and economic backgrounds), one would expect universities to work double time to ensure that future educators possess the tools they'll need to teach reading well. Wrong. That's the central finding of this disturbing new study by the National Council on Teacher Quality. The survey upon which the report is built is notable for its breadth (72 schools representing the range of college selectivity in America were reviewed, and 222 required courses and their syllabi were studied). It looked at course materials to find how often professors who train future K-5 teachers lectured on the science of teaching reading. Despite generous grading parameters (passing grades could be earned even if a professor devoted just 20 percent of lectures to the science of reading), just 11 of the institutions surveyed (or 15 percent) taught all five components of the science of reading as codified by the National Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Among the prominent schools failing their education students: the University of Iowa and the University of North Carolina. There are eight other findings, ranging from the disappointing (courses claiming to provide a "balanced" approach to reading instruction ignore the science of reading) to the outrageous (low expectations rule, with professors placing more emphasis on keeping their classes "fun"). If time is of the essence, you can read USA Today's brief but useful squib, or the longish executive summary. But this report is worth taking the time to absorb in its entirety. Find it here.