The Education Gadfly Weekly

Robert Perkins, Brian Kleiner, Stephen Roey, and Janis Brown, Westat and National Center for Education Statistics
April 2004

This whopper from the National Center for Education Statistics recounts changes in high-school course-taking patterns during the 1990s, based on transcript studies conducted in connection with NAEP. (You'll be able to make earlier comparisons - back to 1982 - with the help of a forthcoming "tabulations report" from NCES.) Sounds dry, yes, but it's full of important and somewhat encouraging data regarding the classes that high school students take before graduating, significant increases in AP and IB course-taking during that decade, intersections between course-taking and grades, and NAEP scores related to course-taking. To whet your appetite, here are three findings:

• The average number of course credits earned in "core" academic subjects by U.S. high-school graduates rose from 13.7 to 15 during the 1990's.
• Those who took AP and/or IB math/science courses also earned better grades (average of 3.6) than those who didn't (2.9), though everybody's GPA rose (from an average of 2.7 to 2.9).
• Private school graduates do better on NAEP than their public-school peers, but not hugely better. In 2000, the former earned an average NAEP "scale score" in math of 318 (of possible 500) while the latter averaged 300.

There are tons more where these came from. Check it out at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004455.

Caroline M. Hoxby
2003

Hoxby presents a compelling report on the impact of three choice programs - Milwaukee's vouchers, and Michigan and Arizona's charter schools - on school productivity and student achievement. She limits her study to these three because they are the only choice programs that meet her strict criteria for competition effects - that is (in addition to offering sufficient data), they introduce true competition by allowing a substantial amount of money to follow the student; allow for changes in the number of schools (i.e. a "supply effect"); and do not place the choice program under the supervision of the schools with which it competes. She finds that schools in these three locales that faced competition did improve their productivity (test scores divided by per pupil spending). This remained true when controlling for a host of factors, including pre-existing trends and "creaming" (which wasn't actually a factor). The lay reader will also be interested in some of Hoxby's general observations - for example, that school productivity in the United States has declined some 50 percent since 1970, even after controlling for differences in students and changes in teacher salaries. She also comments on the recent controversy regarding Peterson's analysis of the New York City voucher program, in which he found positive results for black students - only to have Krueger and Zhu note flaws in the analysis. Hoxby suggests that those two fished for the results they wanted by "arbitrarily" assigning race classifications in violation of "standard social science practice." And she sheds some light on why the only positive results were found for black students - namely, that there were differences in the samples because the reform was aimed at helping black students. In other words, choice programs might work for the population they are intended to help, mirabile dictu. Her analysis is rigorous, yet her writing is straightforward. Well worth attention. Find it online at http://www.ekradet.konj.se/sepr/SEPRvol10Nr2/Hoxsby.pdf.

As its name suggests, this is a free-market research institute, based in London, that includes a strong education-policy program and has issued a number of provocative papers and reports by the likes of James Tooley and Chris Woodhead. Though (understandably) UK-oriented, much of what it has to say has broader applicability, so you may want to become acquainted. To meet the Institute, check out http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/theasi.htm. To find out about the "Better Education Project", go to http://www.adamsmith.org/cissues/education/project.htm. And for a list of the Institute's education publications, check out http://www.adamsmith.org/policy/publications/education-pub.htm#jump8.

Writing in The Nation, Stanford professor Claude Steele makes a number of points about the "ability paradigm," his term for the testing system that assesses the academic readiness and achievement of individual students, guides placement decisions (such as whether a student will go on to the next grade level or a competitive college), and guides political and social decisions as to how educational resources will be allocated. Steele's article focuses on how this "paradigm" affects minorities, especially African-Americans. It may surprise readers that we agree with many of his recommendations, though he is far more skeptical about the usefulness of testing than we. But you'll find no disagreement here that "ability" ought to be less important than "achievement" (or, as Steele prefers, "skill level") in making decisions about placement. We agree that remedial placements ought not become "life sentences" for minority youths. And we definitely agree that all students ought to take a high-quality, demanding curriculum. We're a little unclear on what Steele means when he talks of "additional metrics [to assess] such signs of student readiness as motivation and desire, breadth of life experience, degree of experience in the relevant domain, work discipline, maturity, etc.," since none of these desirable attributes quite substitutes for actually knowing the material. But overall, there is much sense in this article, despite its improbable venue.

"Not just a test," by Claude Steele, The Nation, May 3, 2004

The Wall Street Journal this week highlighted a new study (by acclaimed reading expert Sally Shaywitz) published in the journal Biological Psychiatry that used magnetic resonance imaging to measure the brain activity of poor readers and gauge the brain wave effects of an intensive phonics program. The study provides biological evidence that with the right type of intervention program, poor readers can show improvement by, literally, strengthening the functioning of the relevant portions of their brains. The intensive (105 tutoring hours) phonics-based approach yielded a marked improvement in children's reading accuracy and fluency and continued to be effective long after the tutoring sessions were through. Imaging done a year after the program's conclusion showed that the brain activity of the poor readers did not lapse back to pre-program levels but maintained the level/type of activity that developed over the course of the reading sessions. Standard school-level interventions (special education and tutoring) did not have the same positive effect (either long or short-term) on the brains of poor readers. This suggests that an intense approach emphasizing phonics helps re-train the brains of poor readers to function more like those of good readers.

"Poor readers, given new lessons, show changes in brain activity," by Christopher Windham, Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2004 (subscription required)

In Minnesota, a state Senate committee voted yesterday along party lines to reject the nomination of Cheri Yecke to be state superintendent. Her apparent sin? Being too "controversial," which is code for getting useful things done. And get things done she has, including dumping the state's atrocious Profile of Learning standards and shepherding a crackerjack set of social studies standards into being. Though Governor Tim Pawlenty has promised a vigorous fight before the full Senate, state Democrats seem determined to deprive the people of Minnesota of the services of a nationally recognized middle school and gifted education expert, experienced policy maker, and passionate advocate for reform. If they succeed, the loss will be not just theirs but that of every student in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

"Senate panel votes against Yecke," by Norman Draper, Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 29, 2004

As we know, K-12 education is beset by snake oil and flim-flam. Usually, we don't bother to comment, on grounds that life is too short, that it's best not to draw attention to nonsense, that it's bad for our digestions, etc.

But sometimes, there crops up an example of meretriciousness so obnoxious we must take note. Thus it is with "High Test Scores? Look at Columbine," by Margaret McKenna, the president of Lesley University in Massachusetts, a commentary originally published in the Washington Post and syndicated nationally by the Post newswire.

As you may recall, April 25th was the fifth anniversary of the worst school shooting in U.S. history. Half a decade later, as Slate magazine has admirably demonstrated (see http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2099203), we now know that many of the conclusions the press and public jumped to about why Columbine happened, and how to prevent it from recurring, were simply false. As FBI investigators have concluded, there was no "Trench Coat Mafia," there was no dark history of abuse by jocks and preps, there was no sick social structure at Columbine High that drove Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to kill. In fact, while Klebold was a sad and troubled loner under the sway of a stronger personality, Harris, we now know, was a textbook psychopath, drunk with a sense of his own grandeur. He had contempt for the lower beings around him and expressed pleasure at the thought of their suffering and death.

Such troubling moral realities - the reality, indeed, of evil - are far too stark for Ms. McKenna, who mouths psychobabble platitudes about "regimentation," "student alienation," "anonymity," and "supporting and developing human beings." (Platitudes that, by the way, would have driven Eric Harris crazy with rage, and which he was extremely adept at manipulating.) And, like those who think that the jocks bullied Harris and Klebold into murder, she has her own novel theory about what's to blame for Columbine - none other than George W. Bush and Uncle Sam!

"[S]ome of the most important lessons of Columbine," she writes, "have been all but forgotten - left behind, so to speak, in no small measure because of another educational development of recent years: the No Child Left Behind Act. As class time becomes more regimented and tight budgets create larger class sizes, schools are becoming environments even less conducive to teachers' knowing their students well. [The law] forces communities to focus more on raising test scores than on raising kids." A fevered McKenna delivers what she apparently imagines to be the coup de grace: "The growing belief that rising test scores alone equate to successful schools is false, and it can breed a deadly complacency. The test scores at Columbine High were among the highest in Colorado."

The logic is as tortured as the notion is repulsive. Never mind that, as McKenna notes, "statistics on school violence have shown a continuing decline since 1995" or that the reports she cites showing a rise in school bullying are routinely scoffed at by serious social scientists. Never mind that schools, high- or low-achieving, are in fact significantly safer than malls, public parks, private homes, and other places that children congregate. Never mind that, sadly enough, serious school violence, when it occurs, disproportionately does so in low-achieving schools. Never mind that there is not one shred of serious evidence linking school violence to high academic standards, and quite a bit indicating that a focused and serious curriculum can help create a disciplined learning environment.

Indeed, never mind that on every factual point, McKenna is grievously, irretrievably wrong. Let us state her central contention baldly: Those who advocate for high standards and accountability are pursuing a policy that leads, in due course, to mass murder. Such a contention is outside the bounds of civilized discourse; to use a massacre like Columbine as an excuse to score debating points about testing is despicable.

A few months ago, Secretary of Education Rod Paige joked about the National Education Association being a "terrorist organization." Whatever one's view of that comment, you can't say that Paige went unrebuked for his remark. Margaret McKenna, we suspect, is not kidding. And yet, from the anti-testing and standards crowd concerning her remarks: silence. That silence shames them as deeply as McKenna's words shame her.

"High test scores? Look at Columbine," by Margaret McKenna, New York Newsday, April 25, 2004

The Sun-Times reports that Chicago students who used the school-choice provision of No Child Left Behind to transfer from weak to stronger schools showed gains in reading and math. Further, the transfers didn't harm either the schools they left or the schools they entered, according to a study performed by the Chicago Board of Education at the paper's request. More such studies are needed in other cities, and scholars have some quibbles with this one, but the news is certainly welcome for choice and NCLB supporters - in particular, for those who wished NCLB contained more choice and that fewer bureaucratic and capacity hurdles confronted kids hoping to exercise it. Chicago is not without blame on the latter point, having allowed just 2,500 of its 120,000 eligible students to transfer (this figure will drop to 457 students in the coming school year). One might hope this news would cause the school system to widen the transfer option, but Chicago Schools CEO Arne Duncan says otherwise: "We refused to overwhelm schools. That's why this worked well." Maybe. But we suspect that the threshold for "overwhelming" a district of 400,000 students is a bit higher than 457.

"Early results on 'No Child': progress," by Rosalind Rossi, Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2004

The next step in New York City's education "reform" will be perhaps the least democratic school board election ever held. In this unique election, only parents of currently enrolled public school students are eligible to serve and only a handful of parent "leaders" will be allowed to vote.

The "Community District Education Councils" (CDECs) to emerge from this odd process result from a legal settlement between Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, and New York State legislative leaders last spring. Under that arrangement, the CDECs replace elected community school boards, themselves created in the turmoil of the late 1960s to "reform" what was then perceived as an overly-centralized system.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, most New Yorkers agree that the decentralization effort went too far. But in this early stage of the current reform effort, a queasy feeling is developing that the pendulum may have swung back too far in the opposite direction.

The CDECs will have little power, though they'll have input on a number of issues including zoning and the evaluation of the city's ten Regional Superintendents and 113 Local Instructional Superintendents. But all real decisions rest with Tweed (as Joel Klein's operation is now termed, after the old courthouse in which its headquarters reside). For Klein and the mayor, the CDECs give the illusion of parent and community involvement in the autocratic decision-making process that has quickly evolved since Bloomberg assumed control.

The CDEC electoral process would shame the old Soviet Politburo. Only parents of enrolled public school students are eligible to serve on the councils - nine for each of 32 CDECs (with two additional members appointed by the Borough President, plus a non-voting student member). And only the president, secretary, and treasurer of school-based parents' associations in each of the 32 community school districts, as well as citywide districts for high schools and special education students, are eligible to vote (each officer gets two votes). That breaks down to about 7,500 qualified electors casting ballots for about 300 seats, in a city with more than 4 million registered voters and school system with more than a million pupils.

Not surprisingly, enthusiasm for this quasi-election is invisible. Weeks before the filing deadline, only 54 people had filed to be candidates. At that point, the deadline was extended, and Chancellor Klein ordered each of the city's 1,200 "parent coordinators" (a new position the mayor created for each school, which pays nearly as much as a starting teacher) to recruit at least one candidate. Magically, more than 1,000 new applicants surfaced. But when public forums began to be held earlier this month, a majority of those candidates failed to appear to air their views to what were essentially empty rooms.

When the election is held on May 11, a laundry list of stakeholders will lose their franchise. What about parents of children not yet of school age? Don't they have an interest? Or the parents of private and parochial school students who may have fled the public system, but might return if the schools were fixed to address their concerns?

Most important, what of the ordinary citizen concerned about public education and paying taxes to finance it? Doesn't everyone have a stake in the schools? Didn't we once fight a war over "taxation without representation?"

Even if you accept the questionable premise that only current public school parents should have a right to vote, the Bloomberg/Klein plan falls short. Officers of any parents' association are given equal votes, whether they represent the smallest boutique "theme" school with maybe 100 students or a large high school with more than 5,000. Not quite "one person, one vote."

The real problem with parents' associations choosing the external leadership of the schools, however, is not that they are unrepresentative but that many of them are run by cliques - and the cliques themselves are chosen in undemocratic elections in which few parents participate. School officials privately acknowledge widespread thievery in the parents' associations but are unwilling to crack down. In a very few instances, prosecutions have resulted, such as the 1995 conviction of Madeline Vasquez, the P.A. president who set fire to an East Harlem middle school in a clumsy attempt to cover up her theft of the money the association collected for the school yearbook. She served six months in prison.

But for every incident of corruption that results in prosecution, scores go unreported. A few years ago, things got so bad that a Bronx school board member, Herbert Suss - elected by the public, not chosen by a clique - launched a probe. That effort was taken so seriously that the then-head of the United Parents Associations, Ayo Harrington, journeyed to the Bronx to lead an angry demonstration against any investigation into or reform of parents' association financial activities. Today, Ms. Harrington is a key aide to Democratic Assemblyman Steven Sanders, who chairs the State Assembly Education Committee and helped shape the Bloomberg/Klein plan that removes people such as Mr. Suss from participation in this election.

In sum, a handful of unrepresentative hacks, many of them ethically challenged, will choose the members of impotent school oversight bodies from a limited, unrepresentative group of candidates. In the end, only the consultants benefit: the Department of Education awarded a no-bid contract to KPMG LLP for a fat $1,422,846 to run this election, a cost of about $200 per voter. Nice work if you can get it.

But all of this suits Messrs. Bloomberg and Klein, who have systematically taken the reins of power over the school system into their own hands. This New Tweed Ring seems to believe that less democracy is better than more.

After last month's "Monday Night Massacre," in which Bloomberg summarily removed two of his own appointees to the citywide Panel for Educational Policy in order to insure support for his policy on social promotion, some New Yorkers are starting to wonder whether concentrating so much power in so few hands was a good idea after all. There is a dawning realization that mayoral "accountability" is limited. Mr. Bloomberg runs for reelection next year, but is then term-limited. That means he'll have four full, unsupervised, unaccountable years of reform or ruin, with no structure in place to nudge him back on track should things go wrong.

Andrew Wolf writes on education matters frequently for the New York Sun. His forthcoming book, The New Tweed Ring, published by Reed Press, will be published in the fall. Portions of this article first appeared in the New York Sun and are reprinted with permission.

The Colorado legislature has passed, and Governor Bill Owens is expected to sign, a bill creating a voucher program for higher education in that state. The new program will give Colorado students $2,400 to spend on up to 140 credit hours at state colleges and universities. It will also loosen some of the arcane?and ruinous?funding regulations that Colorado colleges labor under. Critics, of course, vow a court challenge, with one state senator muttering darkly about "hidden agendas." (An aside: nationwide, voucher opponents are beginning to sound like Howard Hughes in his tissue-box-shoes phase, no?) To us, it sounds like a solid step toward rationalizing an increasingly burdensome higher education funding system. Let's hope other states take notice.

"Voucher bill passes," by Peggy Lowe, Rocky Mountain News, April 28, 2004

As its name suggests, this is a free-market research institute, based in London, that includes a strong education-policy program and has issued a number of provocative papers and reports by the likes of James Tooley and Chris Woodhead. Though (understandably) UK-oriented, much of what it has to say has broader applicability, so you may want to become acquainted. To meet the Institute, check out http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/theasi.htm. To find out about the "Better Education Project", go to http://www.adamsmith.org/cissues/education/project.htm. And for a list of the Institute's education publications, check out http://www.adamsmith.org/policy/publications/education-pub.htm#jump8.

Caroline M. Hoxby
2003

Hoxby presents a compelling report on the impact of three choice programs - Milwaukee's vouchers, and Michigan and Arizona's charter schools - on school productivity and student achievement. She limits her study to these three because they are the only choice programs that meet her strict criteria for competition effects - that is (in addition to offering sufficient data), they introduce true competition by allowing a substantial amount of money to follow the student; allow for changes in the number of schools (i.e. a "supply effect"); and do not place the choice program under the supervision of the schools with which it competes. She finds that schools in these three locales that faced competition did improve their productivity (test scores divided by per pupil spending). This remained true when controlling for a host of factors, including pre-existing trends and "creaming" (which wasn't actually a factor). The lay reader will also be interested in some of Hoxby's general observations - for example, that school productivity in the United States has declined some 50 percent since 1970, even after controlling for differences in students and changes in teacher salaries. She also comments on the recent controversy regarding Peterson's analysis of the New York City voucher program, in which he found positive results for black students - only to have Krueger and Zhu note flaws in the analysis. Hoxby suggests that those two fished for the results they wanted by "arbitrarily" assigning race classifications in violation of "standard social science practice." And she sheds some light on why the only positive results were found for black students - namely, that there were differences in the samples because the reform was aimed at helping black students. In other words, choice programs might work for the population they are intended to help, mirabile dictu. Her analysis is rigorous, yet her writing is straightforward. Well worth attention. Find it online at http://www.ekradet.konj.se/sepr/SEPRvol10Nr2/Hoxsby.pdf.

Robert Perkins, Brian Kleiner, Stephen Roey, and Janis Brown, Westat and National Center for Education Statistics
April 2004

This whopper from the National Center for Education Statistics recounts changes in high-school course-taking patterns during the 1990s, based on transcript studies conducted in connection with NAEP. (You'll be able to make earlier comparisons - back to 1982 - with the help of a forthcoming "tabulations report" from NCES.) Sounds dry, yes, but it's full of important and somewhat encouraging data regarding the classes that high school students take before graduating, significant increases in AP and IB course-taking during that decade, intersections between course-taking and grades, and NAEP scores related to course-taking. To whet your appetite, here are three findings:

• The average number of course credits earned in "core" academic subjects by U.S. high-school graduates rose from 13.7 to 15 during the 1990's.
• Those who took AP and/or IB math/science courses also earned better grades (average of 3.6) than those who didn't (2.9), though everybody's GPA rose (from an average of 2.7 to 2.9).
• Private school graduates do better on NAEP than their public-school peers, but not hugely better. In 2000, the former earned an average NAEP "scale score" in math of 318 (of possible 500) while the latter averaged 300.

There are tons more where these came from. Check it out at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004455.