The Education Gadfly Weekly

Christopher T. Cross, Teachers College Press
December 2003

Veteran Washington education operative Christopher T. Cross authored, and Teachers College Press published, this 190-page chronicle of federal education policy making from Truman to George W. Bush. (Paul Manna wrote the NCLB chapter.) It's a workmanlike, clearly written, and generally balanced account of the past - one that would be useful for anyone wondering how the present Rube Goldberg policy structure came to be built - and a satisfactory primer for an introductory education-policy course. Cross's account of the Education Department's creation is helpful and accurate and his mini-portraits of the tenures of several Education Secretaries are perceptive and fair. The book's shortcomings are its que sera, sera view of the current state of federal education policy and its unimaginative extrapolation of present into future. In other words, your $25 investment (the paperback price) won't leave you bowled over by the courage or incisiveness of its recommendations and prognostications, nor will you find here a penetrating critique of Washington's role in education in 2004. But you will come away with enhanced understanding of what got us where we are today. The ISBN is 0807743976 and you can find additional information at http://store.tcpress.com/0807743976.shtml.

Kim K. Metcalf, Stephen D. West, Natalie A. Legan, Kelli M. Paul and William J. Boone
Indiana University School of Education
December 2003

This is the final report in a series examining the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program (CSTP), recently the star of the Supreme Court's Zelman decision (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=19#200 for earlier coverage of this series). Using achievement data and demographic information from 1998-2002, along with telephone surveys, the analysts address two related sets of questions. First, which students use the CSTP, what types of classrooms and teachers do they experience, and how does their achievement compare to those not in the program? Second, why do parents choose to enroll their children in the program and what school characteristics do they most value? The questions, alas, are more intriguing than the results. The authors find no noticeable difference in achievement between voucher students and public school students. We also don't learn anything terribly new or surprising about parents' preferences: mostly, they want safe schools, with academics a close second. (Recall that surveys rarely uncover actual preferences, as people often say one thing and do another.) But the report does raise some interesting issues. To wit, the achievement analysis continues to show better results for students in larger classes. And the report contends that the program doesn't help the neediest, as some families said that the required contribution from their own pockets toward tuition (10 percent, or about $250) kept them from taking the vouchers. And finally, the implications of the Supreme Court decision itself are noteworthy. Zelman raised awareness of the CSTP, which perhaps helped in recruiting participants. But the uncertainty that surrounded the program while the case was unresolved may have reduced the number of parents willing to try the vouchers and limited the types of schools participating. To explore these issues, and the achievement data, in greater depth you can find the technical reports and a summary online at http://www.indiana.edu/~iuice/rprt_rqs.html.

The Philanthropy Roundtable
January 2004

Since 1992, the number of charter schools has exploded to around 2,700, serving more than 650,000 students. Much of this growth is attributable to the energy and drive of passionate and committed parents, teachers, and community leaders, and to a handful of committed philanthropists. This report, written by Public Impact and published by the Philanthropy Roundtable, is an account of the funders' role and a set of recommendations for other donors keen to advance the charter movement. It synthesizes the experiences and best practices of philanthropists to identify four strategic priorities:

" Building a robust supply of high-quality new schools by expanding successful, well-managed brands (KIPP, Aspire Public Schools, etc.), and supporting "enablers" (BAEO, National Council of La Raza, and quality charter incubators).
" Addressing critical operational challenges such as financing facilities, obtaining "back office" services, special education services, etc.
" Improving charter school quality controls through strong and effective charter school sponsors (those organizations that give birth to, and provide oversight of, charter schools).
" Forging charter-friendly public policies.

This report makes clear that the charter school movement is at a crossroads. Either it and its supporters will figure out how to replicate quality schools or it will remain fragmented and marginal. Academic success will make it easier for politicians to back the spread of charter schools. Conversely, a multitude of faltering charter schools with weak academic achievement will cripple, even kill the movement. This report shows clearly how savvy donors can help bring about the happier outcome. Check it out at http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/guidebooks.html.

2004 could turn out to be the year of the teacher, the year that the bureaucratic, ideological, and regulatory strangleholds under which the teaching profession labors might just be broken. Last year ended with the Education Trust's stern rebuke of federal and state officials for playing fast and loose with NCLB's highly-qualified teacher requirement. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=128#1608.) The new year opened with an unexpectedly bold, almost radical, "call to reform" from Lou Gerstner's Teaching Commission; a generally bullish evaluation of Denver's pilot "pay for performance" effort; and a surprising speech by New York City teachers' union head Randi Weingarten that urged decades-overdue streamlining of the "teacher discipline process." What next?

We will admit that, when former IBM CEO Louis V. Gerstner formed his 19-member blue-ribbon teaching commission, it was so exquisitely "balanced" that we assumed it would be able to recommend little more than an extrapolation of present policies and practices into a better-financed future. We're delighted to have been proven wrong. The Commission's recommendations are far-reaching and generally commendable. Yes, it calls for plenty more money, but also for linking pay to effectiveness (based on value-added measures of student achievement), to subject specialty, and to working conditions. It urges new forms of accountability for teacher-education programs, making new teachers pass demanding tests of content knowledge, and removing needless certification obstacles. And it would empower school principals as "CEOs" with control over personnel decisions. Bravo. It's 60 pages long and you can find it at http://www.theteachingcommission.org/publications/FINAL_Report.pdf.

Denver's pay-for-performance pilot program wasn't very bold, large, or long-lasting, but it seems to have made a positive difference in many, though not all, of the participating schools. The 145-page study explaining this is full of information (much of it rather technical) but it also suggests that a real city CAN implement the kind of performance-linked compensation plan that the Gerstner team is urging, and can even do so with the union's cooperation. The report is available at http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/PayForPerformance.pdf.

As for Randi Weingarten's January 14 speech to the Association for a Better New York, it seeks to answer the question, "How to get a highly qualified teacher into every New York City classroom--and keep them there?" Much of her answer is standard stuff: better base pay, a cursory nod toward performance-linked compensation, a professional career ladder, greater respect for teacher expertise, etc. But then she turned to the problem of teacher incompetence and - after blaming management for not solving it - offered a promising proposal of her own. Its gist is that management should move aside and give the union 90 days (no more) to set a faltering teacher either on the course to improvement or the road to exiting. In the latter case, she says, the union will then back principal and chancellor if they opt to "remove the person for incompetence." Though Ms. Weingarten made several more discipline-related recommendations, the 90-day time limit captured the headlines. After all, New York City claims that under present procedures it cannot remove an incompetent teacher in less than two years. Fascinating. You can find her text at http://www.abny.org/docs/UFT_speech.pdf.

Three promising moves, at least on paper. And - let us, who often rap the unions, not fail to comment - all involved teacher unions. Two are obvious. In the Gerstner case, note that one of his panel members is AFT president Sandra Feldman. Good for them. Now they must walk the walk.

"Commission wants teacher pay tied to test scores," by Ben Feller, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 15, 2004

"Merit pay helps students, too," Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 20, 2004

Today is a red-letter day for parents and kids trapped in failing D.C. public schools. The Senate has just passed the much-delayed omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2004, which has language attached to it authorizing a voucher program in the District. The vote comes after several days of delay and threats of filibuster from Democrats and a handful of Republicans who objected to the pork-laden measure. In fact, a motion to close debate on the bill failed on Tuesday, 48-45. But Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said the minority has "made its point" and has no interest in shutting down the federal government. Look for the President to sign the bill shortly. Now, more than likely, D.C. vouchers are off to the courts.

"GOP hopes to push lagging spending bill," by Alan Fram, Associated Press, January 22, 2004

"Dems' stance on omnibus spending bill hardens despite threats by GOP," by Alexander Bolton and Geoff Earle, The Hill, January 20, 2004

"Fate of $820 billion omnibus spending bill still unclear," by Peter Cohn and Jerry Hagstrom, Congress Daily, January 16, 2004

A Missouri circuit court judge last week ruled that a Cass County school district violated state law when it awarded "commitment" bonuses to a handful of teachers who agreed to sign two-year contracts. The Sherwood Education Association and three teachers filed suit against the district, arguing that its move violated the Missouri Teacher Tenure Act, "which requires a school board to adopt a salary schedule that applies to all teachers." Superintendent Margret Anderson argued that officials had no intention of harming the rest of the teachers, but were merely "having difficulty recruiting teachers" and thought that the "commitment fees" would help the district recruit and keep teachers for a couple of years, thereby "creating stability in the district." Sally Barker, the NEA attorney on the case, disagreed, saying, "If the school district wanted to do that, the best way to do it was to offer commitment fees to all teachers."

"Judge rules against teachers' bonuses," by Eyobong Ita, Kansas City Star, January 16, 2004 (registration required)

Ahh, young love. It makes the world go round, no? And faking it may also cost Randi Coy, a 23-year-old teacher in Arizona, her job. Coy is the star of the new Fox reality show, "My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Fianc??," in which she has to convince her family and friends that she is engaged to a, well, big, fat, obnoxious man. If she does, she's promised a million dollars. Sadly, though, the joke's on her: the fianc?? is an actor charged with sabotaging the staged wedding with antics like parading before Coy's family in his underwear. (We've only seen the previews, but it looks pretty funny.) Not amused, however, were authorities at Pope John XXIII Catholic School in Scottsdale, where Coy teaches first grade. It seems they object to their teachers marrying strangers for money on national television. Some kind of hang-up about the sanctity of marriage, or something like that. Coy makes recourse to her youth ("I'm young, and I did this for the experience") and hopes for the best. If she gets fired, of course, there's always "Bachelorette."

"Teacher ripped for reality TV role," Arizona Republic, January 20, 2004

A counterpoint to the doom and gloom surrounding most accounts of the rebuilding of Iraq. The Hoover Institution's Bill Evers, who for five months was part of the small team of U.S. advisors working to overhaul the Iraqi K-12 education system, recounts the challenges and joys (and long hours) of rebuilding schools destroyed by war, looting, or years of neglect; purging pro-Saddamist propaganda from textbooks; and slowly turning authority for education over to the Iraqi education ministry. A couple of fascinating points: Evers notes that women make up a significant percentage of students in Iraqi schools, in contrast to Afghanistan. And Iraqi parents "love standardized testing and were fervently concerned not to let either the war in March and April, or the subsequent guerilla skirmishes, interfere with the nationwide testing programs." A heartening and well-told story.

"An Iraqi education," by Bill Evers, Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2004 (subscription required)

In the effort to reform American education, big-city school systems are where the action is. But remarkably, until now nobody could answer with a modicum of reliability a rock-bottom question: How are students faring academically in Los Angeles relative to those in Atlanta? There just wasn't enough information to make those kinds of city-to-city comparisons.

It is thus a very welcome development that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has embarked on a "trial urban district assessment" that looks at fourth- and eighth-grade student performance in ten cities. In fact, only nine of the cities provide useful comparative data, since the tenth - Charlotte-Mecklenburg - is demographically distinct.

What does this "trial" assessment - let's hope it continues - tell us? At heart, the lesson is: schools matter. Students who appear demographically similar learn more in some educational settings than in others.

For example, compare Houston and Washington, D.C. The comparison is politically fraught: Secretary of Education Rod Paige's record as superintendent of that city is under attack, as part of a general effort to discredit the No Child Left Behind reforms that are partly based on "the Houston miracle." Congress is contemplating vouchers for D.C. students. The new NAEP data provide ammunition for supporters of both voucher experiments and the testing and accountability provisions in the federal legislation. Houston does consistently well, while NAEP scores in the nation's capital are dismal.

On the 4th grade math test, an abysmal 64 percent of students in D.C. public schools lacked what NAEP defines as the minimal "basic" command of the subject expected of all students. But in Houston, only 30 percent of fourth-graders fell below the basic level--a big contrast. By 8th grade, the percentage with a less-than-basic command of math rose to 48 percent, still far better than D.C.'s 71 percent. Similar, though somewhat less dramatic, differences between the two cities showed up on 4th and 8th grade reading tests.

Of course, in all nine cities, the "Below Basic" figures tell only part of the story. Intercity differences may simply reflect variations in demographic makeup. The schools in D.C. have a much higher proportion of black students than those of Houston. Los Angeles, which ranks near D.C. at the bottom, has many more Hispanics than New York City, whose scores tend to cluster near the top, like Houston's.

Because of this, you need to break down the data by race and class. It might be, after all, that the higher concentration of Hispanics in Houston is obscuring African American scores that are as poor as those in D.C., where black performance cannot be concealed by averaging.

In fact, that's not the case. On 4th grade math tests, for instance, blacks in Houston came in first (average score 221), while those in D.C. placed last (average of 202). That 19-point gap is huge. On the 2003 national NAEP math assessment, black 4th-graders scored an average of 27 points lower than whites. Given the magnitude of the racial gap in academic achievement across the nation, the difference between average white and black scores is naturally likely to be greater than the difference between black student scores in two cities. But the difference in NAEP scores between black students fortunate enough to attend the Houston schools, and those unfortunate enough to be enrolled in the D.C. system, was a surprising two-thirds as large as the national black-white gap.

Figure 1. Math scores of black 4th- and 8th- graders by eligibility for federal lunch program, 2003

D.C.'s Hispanic 4th-graders were also at the bottom, while Houston's were again at the top, with a gap of 21 points between them. The national gap between whites and Hispanics in 2003 was also exactly 21 points - suggesting, again, the magnitude of the disparity between the two cities.

Figure 2. Math scores of Hispanic 4th- and 8th- graders by eligibility for federal lunch program, 2003

Black 8th-graders in D.C. again came in last on the math assessment - 19 points behind top-ranked Houston. Hispanics also did poorly in the nation's capital, but those in Los Angeles did even worse, scoring 21 points below Houston.

Reading scores varied a bit less from city to city, perhaps because math skills depend more on school quality. But the differences were still striking. Black 4th-graders in D.C., for instance, scored 17 points behind their peers in Houston and New York. In 8th grade, African Americans in Los Angeles did even worse than in D.C. Likewise, Los Angeles Hispanics were in last place, 21 points below those in top-ranked Chicago.

Figure 3. Reading scores of black 4th- and 8th- graders by eligibility for federal lunch program, 2003

Perhaps these inter-city differences in NAEP scores reflect social class disparities that are not apparent in looking at race or ethnicity alone. By the measures of family income and education, African Americans in low-scoring D.C. and Los Angeles could be much more disadvantaged than those in Houston or New York, with their higher levels of academic skill. That is, looking at the scores of black students in nine cities may obscure important socioeconomic differences; perhaps African American family income is typically much lower in D.C. than in Houston.

Figure 4. Reading scores of Hispanic 4th- and 8th- graders by eligibility for federal lunch program, 2003

In comparing such disparities in poverty rates, we run into a problem of imperfect information. NAEP identifies the children who participate in the federal lunch program, but eligibility for lunch subsidies is a crude proxy for income. Eligible children come from families across a wide economic spectrum, with incomes ranging from below $10,000 to more than $30,000 a year. Some black children falling into NAEP's low-income category, in other words, suffer deeper poverty than others. Likewise, in controlling for parental education, the data fail to capture subtle differences that may have an impact on school performance. Some high school dropouts have stayed in school longer than others, for instance. In addition, NAEP unfortunately gathers no information on family structure, and there could be intercity differences in the incidence of two-parent families that are related to achievement levels.

The data are thus imperfect; nevertheless, they're good enough to allow us to draw some conclusions. Most non-Asian minority students qualify for the federal lunch subsidy, and thus controlling for income might be expected to provide little additional information. Indeed, that turned out to be the case. Black 4th-graders in L.A., for example, scored 14 points below those in Houston, but that difference only rose to 16 points when more affluent kids were removed from the calculation. Thus, with respect to black and Hispanic youngsters, family poverty does not alter the basic story: Houston and New York ahead, Los Angeles and D.C. behind.

What about parental education? Perhaps the superior Houston results simply reflect a higher percentage of students with better-educated parents. Again, not the case. Taking parental education into account, the spread remained between Houston and New York, on the one hand, and D.C. and L.A. on the other. Looking at Hispanic 8th-graders whose parents lack a high school diploma, the difference in math scores between Houston and Los Angeles is 18 points. Hispanic 8th-graders who had a parent with some college education, but no diploma, scored 29 points higher in New York than in Los Angeles, a gap 9 points wider than the overall difference in Hispanic performance in the two cities.

What to conclude from these numbers? The new NAEP data reveal consistent inter-city differences when we look just at black and Hispanic scores. African American and Latino kids are faring much better in Houston and New York than in D.C. and Los Angeles. (Atlanta scores also hover near the bottom, but those in the four other cities in the study generally fall somewhere in the middle.) The racial gap in academic achievement has not disappeared - whites and Asians still outperform blacks and Hispanics nationwide - but the urban comparisons add a new dimension to our understanding of that gap.

Per pupil spending and class size do not explain these large inter-city differences. The district that tops the nation in most of the comparisons is Houston, yet District of Columbia schools spend 75 percent more per pupil. Further, the pupil-teacher ratio is about a third higher in D.C. San Diego is indistinguishable from Los Angeles in both expenditures per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios, yet it outperforms its Southern California neighbor, by an average of more than 8 points, in every comparison that can be made. Its students also almost always do better than those in D.C. and Atlanta as well, despite those cities' greater spending and lower student-teacher ratios. New York and Boston, to be sure, spend a lot and do comparatively well. But New York usually does better than Boston, even though the student-teacher ratio is more than 40 percent higher in the Big Apple.

Recent attacks on Houston's education reform record make that city's impressive accomplishments particularly noteworthy. It's not possible, in the available space here, to review the errors made by Houston's critics; suffice to say, they do not stand up to scrutiny. And that's good news for America's black and Hispanic students: testing and accountability, done well, can make a difference.

Abigail Thernstrom is a member of the Massachusetts State Board of Education and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Stephan Thernstrom is a professor of history at Harvard University. They are coauthors of the recently published No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning (Simon & Schuster).

Christopher T. Cross, Teachers College Press
December 2003

Veteran Washington education operative Christopher T. Cross authored, and Teachers College Press published, this 190-page chronicle of federal education policy making from Truman to George W. Bush. (Paul Manna wrote the NCLB chapter.) It's a workmanlike, clearly written, and generally balanced account of the past - one that would be useful for anyone wondering how the present Rube Goldberg policy structure came to be built - and a satisfactory primer for an introductory education-policy course. Cross's account of the Education Department's creation is helpful and accurate and his mini-portraits of the tenures of several Education Secretaries are perceptive and fair. The book's shortcomings are its que sera, sera view of the current state of federal education policy and its unimaginative extrapolation of present into future. In other words, your $25 investment (the paperback price) won't leave you bowled over by the courage or incisiveness of its recommendations and prognostications, nor will you find here a penetrating critique of Washington's role in education in 2004. But you will come away with enhanced understanding of what got us where we are today. The ISBN is 0807743976 and you can find additional information at http://store.tcpress.com/0807743976.shtml.

Kim K. Metcalf, Stephen D. West, Natalie A. Legan, Kelli M. Paul and William J. Boone
Indiana University School of Education
December 2003

This is the final report in a series examining the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program (CSTP), recently the star of the Supreme Court's Zelman decision (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=19#200 for earlier coverage of this series). Using achievement data and demographic information from 1998-2002, along with telephone surveys, the analysts address two related sets of questions. First, which students use the CSTP, what types of classrooms and teachers do they experience, and how does their achievement compare to those not in the program? Second, why do parents choose to enroll their children in the program and what school characteristics do they most value? The questions, alas, are more intriguing than the results. The authors find no noticeable difference in achievement between voucher students and public school students. We also don't learn anything terribly new or surprising about parents' preferences: mostly, they want safe schools, with academics a close second. (Recall that surveys rarely uncover actual preferences, as people often say one thing and do another.) But the report does raise some interesting issues. To wit, the achievement analysis continues to show better results for students in larger classes. And the report contends that the program doesn't help the neediest, as some families said that the required contribution from their own pockets toward tuition (10 percent, or about $250) kept them from taking the vouchers. And finally, the implications of the Supreme Court decision itself are noteworthy. Zelman raised awareness of the CSTP, which perhaps helped in recruiting participants. But the uncertainty that surrounded the program while the case was unresolved may have reduced the number of parents willing to try the vouchers and limited the types of schools participating. To explore these issues, and the achievement data, in greater depth you can find the technical reports and a summary online at http://www.indiana.edu/~iuice/rprt_rqs.html.

The Philanthropy Roundtable
January 2004

Since 1992, the number of charter schools has exploded to around 2,700, serving more than 650,000 students. Much of this growth is attributable to the energy and drive of passionate and committed parents, teachers, and community leaders, and to a handful of committed philanthropists. This report, written by Public Impact and published by the Philanthropy Roundtable, is an account of the funders' role and a set of recommendations for other donors keen to advance the charter movement. It synthesizes the experiences and best practices of philanthropists to identify four strategic priorities:

" Building a robust supply of high-quality new schools by expanding successful, well-managed brands (KIPP, Aspire Public Schools, etc.), and supporting "enablers" (BAEO, National Council of La Raza, and quality charter incubators).
" Addressing critical operational challenges such as financing facilities, obtaining "back office" services, special education services, etc.
" Improving charter school quality controls through strong and effective charter school sponsors (those organizations that give birth to, and provide oversight of, charter schools).
" Forging charter-friendly public policies.

This report makes clear that the charter school movement is at a crossroads. Either it and its supporters will figure out how to replicate quality schools or it will remain fragmented and marginal. Academic success will make it easier for politicians to back the spread of charter schools. Conversely, a multitude of faltering charter schools with weak academic achievement will cripple, even kill the movement. This report shows clearly how savvy donors can help bring about the happier outcome. Check it out at http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/guidebooks.html.