The Education Gadfly Weekly

Sara Mead, Progressive Policy Institute
September 12, 2002

No one denies that many schools' missions are compromised by decrepit and outdated facilities. But not everyone agrees on how to fix the problem. Favored by education lobbyists and many Democrats but largely opposed by Republicans, tax credit bonds - which enable schools and districts to invest in new buildings by paying the interest on school construction bonds via a federal tax credit for bondholders - have been punted back and forth on Capitol Hill in recent years. But while Congress argues, the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB), a small federal program launched in 1997 to pilot tax credit bonds, has been quietly helping needy districts with their school facilities. The Progressive Policy Institute's Sara Mead writes that, despite obstacles such as low funding, inadequate federal and state support for implementation, and resistance from educators and financiers unfamiliar with the concept, QZABs have become well established in most states. Though less helpful to charter schools and others lacking access to capital, QZABs have been a godsend to "small, rural and innovative" schools. Tax credit bonds are no comprehensive solution to school facility needs but Mead finds QZAB a promising partial solution. This 10-pager is available at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=134&contentid=250833.

Scott Joftus, Alliance for Excellent Education
September 2002

Hoping to prevent policy makers from focusing all their resources on toddlers and primary students at the expense of older students, the Alliance for Excellent Education's Scott Joftus has conceived a "Framework for an Excellent Education" directed at improving the achievement of U.S. middle- and high-schoolers. Joftus reminds his readers that less than 75% of today's eighth graders will graduate from high school in five years, and approximately 25% of all high school students read at below-basic levels. He then introduces four initiatives on adolescent literacy, teacher and principal quality, college preparation, and small learning communities. He would expand the federal Reading First program to support literacy specialists in high-need secondary; add financial incentives for teachers and principals in high-need schools; strengthen the "highly qualified" teacher provisions of NCLB to include a requirement that all secondary school teachers have the equivalent of an academic major in their content area; and break down large, factory-like high schools into smaller learning communities. Joftus's most interesting recommendation centers on having all entering ninth graders develop a college preparation plan with the assistance of teachers, counselors and parents. Few of his initiatives are new ideas, but he presents useful research in support of them, and it's hard to argue with the view that students need more personal attention and better support if they are to succeed. The report is available at http://www.all4ed.org/policymakers/Every/index.html.

Peter Cookson, and Kristina Berger
2002

Peter Cookson, a sociologist at Teachers College, and New York education consultant Kristina Berger wrote this new book on charter schools. It's a hatchet job, lightly disguised as social science and dressed up with a lot of left-wing sociology, the kind that sees nearly everything other than government itself as part of a right-wing plot to weaken the common weal by promulgating "markets," which they regard as creations of the devil. Though perceptive about the challenges of creating and operating a successful charter school - and nowhere are those challenges greater than in New York - the authors shed little fresh light on that familiar topic. At bottom, they're hostile to school deregulation and education freedom. They have a mystical (and often syrupy) faith in government to fix whatever is not yet quite right with our education system. No wonder two of the jacket blurbs are by school-system apologists Bruce Biddle and Alex Molnar. (The third is from Cookson's colleague Henry Levin.) Save your $26. In any case, about five of those dollars simply pay for a copy (reproduced in the appendix) of SUNY's charter school application kit, which you can probably get for free. If you cannot resist, the ISBN is 0813366313 and the publisher is Westview Press. You can find it at http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus-cgi-bin/display/0-8133-6631-3.

Anthony S. Bryk and Barbara Schneider
2002

Anyone who has ever been in a failed relationship or a failed business knows the importance of trust, and the problems that arise when it is broken. University of Chicago scholars Bryk and Schneider write here about the key role trust plays in effective school reform. They note that "a broad base of trust across a school community lubricates much of a school's day-to-day functioning and is a critical resource as local leaders embark on ambitious improvement plans." This focus on trust in effective school reform is something Bryk and Schneider grew interested in over the years as they observed the workings of several Chicago elementary schools struggling to implement the city's decentralization reform effort. Building on the work of Robert Putnam, Francis Fukuyama and the late James Coleman, they have constructed a theory of social trust in school communities. To build and maintain trust in a complex organization like a school requires four key criteria: respect, competence, personal regard for others and integrity. If there is a breakdown in one of these areas, there will be a collapse of trust across the organization. For example, "Gross incompetence is corrosive to trust relations. Allowed to persist in a school community, incompetence will undermine collective efforts toward improvement." This is a fascinating book, to be taken seriously even by hard-nosed types preoccupied with student achievement. According to Bryk and Schneider, schools high in trust show far greater levels of improvement on reading and math test. In fact, schools weak in trust "had virtually no chance of showing improvement in either reading or mathematics." These data, argue the authors, is the "first evidence directly linking the development of relational trust in a school community and long-term improvements in academic productivity." More information can be found at http://www.russellsage.org/publications/titles/trustschools.htm.

National Endowment for the Humanities
September 2002

As we reported in last week's Gadfly, President Bush recently announced two new government initiatives to invigorate the teaching of American history, civics and culture. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=41#594.) One of these initiatives is "We the People," proffered by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to combat the historical illiteracy of young Americans by building knowledge, celebrating heroes and challenging young people. A three-pronged initiative, "We the People" consists of a call for applications to NEH for projects exploring major themes and events in American history; an annual lecture by "a scholar or an individual whose heroism has helped to protect America"; and an essay contest for high school juniors. The initiative will expand to include assistance for schools and universities to improve their teaching of U.S. history, more opportunities for teacher education, special exhibits and an annual conference. For more information, see http://www.wethepeople.gov.

Earlier this month, the Gadfly reviewed a study of the effectiveness of Teach for America participants and other teachers without full certification in Arizona, a study that we found to be severely flawed. [To read that review, go to http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=42#621.] That study, by Ildiko Laczko-Kerr and David Berliner, found that students of teachers without full certification score lower on tests than students of certified teachers, but the researchers were not able to control for students' prior test scores, leaving unclear whether teachers without full certification are assigned to students who score lower on tests to begin with. Rick Hess, now at the American Enterprise Institute, eloquently dismissed the study in the Progressive Policy Institute's newsletter last week (available at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=900001&contentid=250847)

Not satisfied to hear that people who are already skeptical of teacher certification reject the conclusions of the Laczko-Kerr/Berliner study, the folks at Teach for America sought out two analysts with no connection to the debate over teacher certification and asked them to evaluate the study's methodology and the claims made by its authors. These researchers, Paul Freedman of the University of Virginia and Kosuke Imai of Harvard, both found the study unconvincing. A summary of their reviews can be found at http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/reports/ASUStudyResponse09_23_02.doc. The review by Freedman is available at http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/freedman_TFA_memo.pdf and Imai's is at http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/imai_TFA.pdf.

Even more big guns were brought out by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) to evaluate a small study that examined the effectiveness of teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) in Tennessee. That study (actually a 4-page brief followed by 4 pages of data), by J.E. Stone of East Tennessee State University and the Education Consumers' Clearinghouse, analyzed the value-added achievement gains produced by NBPTS-certified teachers in Tennessee, as generated by the much-vaunted Tennessee Value Added Assessment System. [For more about Stone's study, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=58#846.]

Stone found that none of the 16 Board-certified teachers who teach in grades 3-8 in Tennessee met a standard for exceptional teaching. (That standard was producing 115 percent of a year's academic growth in their local school system in three core subjects over three years, a standard now used to identify exceptional teachers in a new incentive program in Chattanooga. [For more about the program, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=65#963.])

ECS asked four prominent scholars to examine the Stone study: Dominic Brewer, Susan Fuhrman, Robert Linn, and Ana Maria Villegas. (We hope ECS will continue this admirable practice of asking independent scholars to review all future studies of the effectiveness of the NBPTS, not just short briefs produced by board critics.) The reviewers complained that it was unclear how the 16 teachers were selected for the study and expressed concern that the teachers included in the study might not be representative of Board-certified teachers in Tennessee, but Stone's study makes clear that the 16 teachers are the only Board certified teachers in Tennessee who teach in grades 3-8. (Value-added scores are not available for Tennessee teachers in other grades.)

The reviewers' main concern is that teacher value-added scores jump around from year to year and vary significantly by subject and school district. Volatility of gain scores does present a challenge for efforts to identify effective teachers this way. But Stone looks at both averages and scores from individual years in his analysis, and no matter what angle he used, Board-certified teachers simply didn't produce exceptional gains in student learning. The Tennessee testing system is not perfect, and it would have been helpful to know more about the distribution of exemplary and deficient scores among the general teaching population in Tennessee, but it does not appear that Tennessee's Board-certified teachers are setting records for the value they add to student achievement.

While none of the Board-certified teachers in Tennessee was able to meet the standard set by Chattanooga for exceptional teaching, at least four teachers of 4th or 5th grade in Chattanooga did meet that standard, according to Ken Jordan, a special assistant to Mayor Bob Corker. Those four teachers applied and were selected to teach in high-need elementary schools in the district after they submitted evidence that they had produced gains of at least 115 percent of one year's growth in three core subjects over three years.

"The Value-Added Achievement Gains of NBPTS-Certified Teachers in Tennessee: A Brief Report," by J.E. Stone is available at http://www.education-consumers.com/briefs/stoneNBPTS.shtm.

To read the Fuhrman synthesis of reviews of the Stone study commissioned by ECS, go to http://www.education-consumers.com/briefs/ECS review.htm.

For a response by J.E. Stone, go to http://www.education-consumers.com/briefs/Response to ECS.htm.

Jay Mathews of The Washington Post is generally a fan of standards and tests, but in a recent column in Washingtonpost.com he praises Deborah Meier's newest anti-testing book, In Schools We Trust: Creating Communities of Learning in an Era of Testing and Standardization. Meier understands exactly where the standards movement is coming from, Mathews writes, but she believes that holding schools accountable to test scores contradicts what we know about how human beings learn and what tests can and cannot do. He wonders whether the Meier model - with kids learning in small seminars, debating with learned teachers and doing their own research - is realistic, given today's teaching force. "A Champion in the Fight Against Testing Standards," by Jay Mathews, Washingtonpost.com, September 24, 2002.

Some businesses and corporate foundations are limiting or withdrawing their funding of public education after seeing little improvement as a result of their support. Companies complain that education's bureaucracy, internal squabbling and foot-dragging prevent corporate dollars from reaching and impacting students and classrooms. As a result, some are turning toward bolder reform strategies such as privately funded school choice and measures to end teacher tenure. "Poor performance, red tape drive off corporate dollars," by Del Jones, USA Today,
September 18, 2002 (Available for a fee at www.usatoday.com)

The Supreme Court's decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris will not bring an end to the challenges faced by publicly funded voucher programs. In addition to ongoing legal scuffles at state and local levels with teacher unions and the NAACP, vouchers may face yet another constitutional challenge if school choice laws saddle private schools with the same regulatory straitjackets now burdening public schools. Steven Menashi argues that these regulations are unnecessary, according to the Supreme Court's decision in Zelman, and may even be unconstitutional. To read more about the Court's precedents regarding government oversight of and interference with religious institutions, see "The Church-State Tangle," by Steven Menashi, Policy Review, No. 114, August 2002.

Private schools are increasingly feeling the heat to release data about their students' achievement, acceptances into college, and other vital performance statistics, though some contend that these schools need only be accountable to parents, not to the general public. As public funding of private schools increases, though, and private schools find themselves more frequently competing with public and charter schools, they'll need to fill the information void or will find themselves judged by whatever data reporters, parents and other interested parties dig up. "Private Schools Pressured For Data," by Jay Mathews, The Washington Post, September 24, 2002.

Did you ever wonder how they think about politics, policy and the future of teacher education at the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE), principal trade association of the ed schools? See for yourself by surfing to http://www2.gasou.edu/coe/july.htm ("Contextual Scan -- July 2002"). The author is AACTE president David Imig. There's good news and bad here for those who would reform America's approach to teacher preparation and licensure. But Imig is nothing if not a realist: "If we fail to respond, the policy community is fully committed to by-passing us and creating a world of alternatives and choices for the preparation of teachers and school leaders. They have the will and the resources to do so."

For those tracking Washington's handling of federal education research, statistics and assessment (you can find previous Gadfly commentaries on this subject at http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=66#983 and http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=64#932), be aware that yesterday the Senate education committee endorsed a revised version of S. 2969, which overhauls the existing Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and which must now be reconciled with the House-adopted version, H.R. 3801.

With one big exception, the Senate bill is a modest improvement over the House version. The exception is that perennial consumer of federal education research dollars, the regional labs. The House had sensibly removed them from the revamped research office and placed them under the Education Secretary, while requiring more competition for their contracts. If the labs - now 37 years old and not wearing well - belong anywhere, it's within the Department's new "innovation" office, which is meant to handle "school improvement" efforts. But that's not what the Senate did. Rather, it concocted a position (inside the new research unit) with the Orwellian title of "Commissioner for Knowledge Utilization" and entrusted him/her with the labs' care and feeding. Moreover, instead of telling the labs to focus laser-like on helping states and districts comply with No Child Left Behind, the Senate bill leaves them pretty much in charge of their own fates. We must therefore expect more of the same: wasted money, dashed hopes and another missed opportunity to clean up this mess.

Where the Senate bill is somewhat superior is in its handling of statistics and assessment. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and its commissioner gained some needed independence. And the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) got a bit more protection, too, with its governing board's jurisdiction clarified. Until the 11th hour, it looked as if the board would also be entrusted with the release of NAEP results, a key function that for years has been ambiguously shared among governing board, statistics commissioner and Education Secretary, giving rise to endless conflict and the biding risk of politicizing NAEP reports.

The board is where that authority squarely belongs if NAEP results are to have the public trust they deserve. But White House lawyers were said to be furious at the prospect that issuing federal data reports - in this case NAEP reports - would be delegated to an "independent" board rather than a Presidential appointee. There were murmurs of "separation of powers" issues, even hints of a veto. And, at the very last minute, Senators were prevailed upon to reduce the board's role to "overseeing" the reporting function, thus maintaining the present murky mess. It's a damn shame. NAEP results belong to the public, not the executive branch, and Congress should assign their reporting to an independent board (whose members, not so incidentally, are appointed by the Secretary of Education, who is appointed by the President.)

As this bill heads for the Senate floor and then maybe to conference with the House - nobody knows whether it can make it through the remaining hoops before the 107th Congress limps to an end - it's high time for legislation that boosts NAEP's independence and strengthens its governing board. The Education Department is meddling more than ever before in the pre-publication vetting of NAEP data, even the selection of the board's next executive director. Some recent appointees to the board itself, though indisputably able individuals, enjoy close ties to the White House and the Department. While everybody knows that NAEP results are of consuming importance to the Bush administration, they must recognize that they can damage this vital national barometer by clutching it too tightly to their bosom - and that in this sensitive domain, appearances matter as much as reality. If they're blind to this at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Congress should directly address the matter of NAEP independence, because there's a compelling national interest in its lasting credibility - more important than ever due to NAEP's key role as monitor of educational progress under NCLB.

Both bills have one good thing in common: they transfer responsibility for program evaluation from the Secretary's office to the new research unit, which is dubbed the Academy of Education Sciences in the House version, the Institute of Education Sciences in the Senate version. What's less clear is whether the new Institute/Academy will itself have any real autonomy. Both measures contain ambiguous language that seems to say such vital functions as grants, contracts, personnel and public affairs will remain squarely within the Education Department bureaucracy. If that's so, the new entity could be called the EMPIRE of Education Sciences but its presumptive emperor, Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, won't have any more power than he does as assistant secretary for OERI.

Watch this space.

The public-school choice provisions of No Child Left Behind have been getting plenty of attention in recent weeks, mostly negative. It's time to reflect more broadly and candidly on the potential of public-school choice to solve vexing education problems.

That potential seems limited at best. For one thing, public-school choice can't work unless constantly tended, fertilized and watered by education officials who WANT to help children move to better schools. But how often do we encounter that situation?

Moreover, when public-school choice appears on their radar screens, even the best intentioned of policymakers are apt to attach scads of conditions and restrictions to it. In the end, like Gulliver pinned to earth by the Lilliputians' strings, little movement can actually occur.

A related problem is people who say "choice" but don't mean it, except as a fig leaf to hide very different purposes. That's how to understand the new report from the Century Foundation, whose Task Force on the Common School, chaired by former Senator Lowell Weicker and staffed by foundation fellow Richard Kahlenberg, has just delivered a 250-page tome entitled "Divided We Fail: Coming Together Through Public School Choice." (You can find more information at http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Detail.asp?ItemID=168.)

Be not deceived by the title. This report is not about choice, not about improving school quality and absolutely not about freedom or competition. Indeed, the task force is bluntly hostile to vouchers, would entangle charter schools in much red tape, and objects to "unregulated public school choice." Its report is actually a blueprint for a complex social engineering project aimed at racial integration of the schools, except that compulsory busing is here replaced by precisely calibrated transportation routes along which children may "voluntarily" travel so long as they end up in the schools the engineers want them in, sitting alongside the kids the engineers think best for them.

Kahlenberg has beaten this drum for some time, notably through his earlier book, All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through Public School Choice. Now he has mustered a blue-ribbon panel to boost the noise level. The task force probably had a swell time when it met, as its members pretty much agreed about education, race and politics before they even got together. Most are veteran school integrators and social engineers, presumably selected by the Foundation not because they would bicker but because they would readily assent to Kahlenberg's essential proposition: integration is an overriding education policy goal but, at a time when courts and lawmakers are loath to move people around against their will, when education choice is in the air, and when race is a suspect category (at least in some circuits) by which to shape enrollment in publicly operated educational institutions, racial integration must be pursued through less overt means, such as tucking it within socio-economic integration. "Controlled choice" is the mechanism selected by the task force to effect this integration.

The panel's core belief, like that of the Harvard Civil Rights Project from which numerous reports have recently emanated, is that "school integration is imperative, both to promote equal opportunity and to forge social cohesion." Its central recommendation is that "federal, state and local governments adopt a policy of giving every child in America the opportunity to attend an economically and racially integrated school. Every education policy decision&should seriously weigh whether the action will promote or hinder the central goal of integrated schools."

Talk about a time warp: "the central goal of integrated schools." Not high-achieving schools full of effective teachers who know their subjects and assure that children learn them. Not safe schools where parents know their children will be well looked after. Not schools that impart to youngsters the values, morals and character traits that parents prize. Not schools that do a stellar job of satisfying their clients. No, just "integrated schools," to be achieved through "controlled choice."

What exactly does that mean? First, find a geographic area large enough to house a diverse array of people, varied by race and socio-economic status, but not so large as to make student transportation unwieldy. It's no accident that most of the places where this has been tried are smallish communities like Montclair, Cambridge and La Crosse.

Then invite parents to select several schools in order of preference using whatever basis they like - curricular variety is mainly what the Task Force envisions - but actually assign children to schools according to an elaborate computer program designed to foster the maximum amount of socio-economic integration in each building, on the understanding that this will also yield racial integration without having to use that legally questionable criterion.

Finally, within each school, obliterate all forms of tracking and grouping that might tend to "re-segregate" classrooms.

Since it's a safe bet that this advice will be widely ignored - schools are busy trying to get kids to read and cipher, every state is awash in reform schemes, and the country has little stomach for social engineering - why is this report worth our attention? Mostly because it shows how easily "public school choice" can function as a Trojan horse in the larger debate over education in America, slipping inside the policy walls on the assumption that it's a gift to the choice movement rather than a menace. (This one, however, is none too subtle. Its overt hostility to what most people construe as school choice is so strong that two task force members entered dissents, saying they're not convinced that vouchers are a bad idea.)

How many times have you heard someone say, "Of course I'm for school choice, so long as it stays within the public system"? It's time to start calling people on that statement. Sometimes, sure, it's innocently earnest, but mostly it means "choice" as a warm veneer behind which government bureaucracies continue to make all the important education decisions, as if one of those political consultants who advises on word selection had said "People will like your authoritarian policy better if you say it involves 'choice'."

America's experience with public-school choice has not been great, at least when poor kids are involved. Note the widespread resistance in recent months to the public-school choice feature of the No Child Left Behind act. Note the refusal of Cleveland's suburbs to let youthful voucher-bearers enter their schools. Note the mounting efforts by school systems to foil parents who fib about their address (or send the kid to live with Grandma) in order to access a public school outside their district. Baltimore County is reportedly deploying 35 staff members to root out this practice; a Vermont father could face a long jail term for establishing a "false residence" in order to send his daughters to a safer school.

It's true that many troubled school systems don't have room for more students in their handful of high-performing schools. The larger truth, however, is that many well-functioning systems don't want to accept non-residents, especially if they're poor and black or brown. As a suburban "community activist" told The Baltimore Sun, "When you allow that to happen, you allow those behaviors to come in - negative behaviors."

What to do? One can give up in despair and wait for bad schools to improve, however long that takes and however many kids are lost meanwhile. One can join Rick Kahlenberg and Gary Orfield and the Century Foundation in dreaming of top-down fiscal and regulatory schemes so meticulously engineered and heavy-handed as to (maybe) overcome the barriers that public schools erect to bar kids they don't want. Or one can throw open the doors, urge youngsters to abandon failed schools, encourage new charter and private schools to come into being and let families take their education dollars to whatever school suits them. Perhaps there's also a way to get good suburban schools to open their doors-but it's not through the engineering schemes of the Century Foundation and its ilk.

"Divided We Fail: Coming Together Through Public School Choice," Task Force on the Common School, The Century Foundation, September 2002

"Balto. County seeks out schools' 'outsiders,' " by Jonathan D. Rockoff, The Baltimore Sun, September 16, 2002

In Massachusetts, 81 percent of the class of 2003 has already passed the state's high-stakes MCAS test and is scheduled to graduate next spring, but the 19 percent of students who have not yet passed it are now the subject of a federal lawsuit. Lawyers representing six pupils contend that the state has failed to prepare thousands of students in struggling school districts for the test, and that the exam discriminates against minorities, the disabled, and non-English speakers. The editors of The Boston Globe wrote earlier this week that, while the claim deserves serious examination, it "should not deter the Department of Education or the state's thousands of teachers and students and parents from pressing ahead with a policy that has already shown great success."

The editors note that the lawsuit "spotlights once again the urgency of identifying and getting help to the students who most need it - a job that MCAS is helping to accomplish. The test does not cause educational inequities; it helps identify them." The Globe editors argue that the curriculum frameworks have been in place long enough to expect students to be able to pass the MCAS. But if schools have not implemented the frameworks, they note, then teachers and administrators should be held accountable, not students.

On Tuesday, Bay State education commissioner David Driscoll outlined a plan for awarding a "certificate of achievement" to students who are denied diplomas for failing the graduation exam but who have tried tutoring and met other local graduation requirements. Concerned that the certificates could lead to lower expectations and undermine efforts to raise education standards, the state board of ed, which votes on the proposal in November, suggested a three-year limit on the certificates. Students who don't pass the test before their scheduled graduation can continue taking the test indefinitely and are eligible for remedial help. Driscoll also said he hopes community colleges will accept students who receive the certificate of achievement and that these students will be made eligible for federal financial aid for community college.

"Lawsuit to allege MCAS is widely discriminatory," by Anand Vaishnav and Michele Kurtz, The Boston Globe, September 19, 2002; "A test in court," editorial, The Boston Globe, September 22, 2002; "Limit put on state certification plan," by Michele Kurtz, The Boston Globe, September 25, 2002

Anthony S. Bryk and Barbara Schneider
2002

Anyone who has ever been in a failed relationship or a failed business knows the importance of trust, and the problems that arise when it is broken. University of Chicago scholars Bryk and Schneider write here about the key role trust plays in effective school reform. They note that "a broad base of trust across a school community lubricates much of a school's day-to-day functioning and is a critical resource as local leaders embark on ambitious improvement plans." This focus on trust in effective school reform is something Bryk and Schneider grew interested in over the years as they observed the workings of several Chicago elementary schools struggling to implement the city's decentralization reform effort. Building on the work of Robert Putnam, Francis Fukuyama and the late James Coleman, they have constructed a theory of social trust in school communities. To build and maintain trust in a complex organization like a school requires four key criteria: respect, competence, personal regard for others and integrity. If there is a breakdown in one of these areas, there will be a collapse of trust across the organization. For example, "Gross incompetence is corrosive to trust relations. Allowed to persist in a school community, incompetence will undermine collective efforts toward improvement." This is a fascinating book, to be taken seriously even by hard-nosed types preoccupied with student achievement. According to Bryk and Schneider, schools high in trust show far greater levels of improvement on reading and math test. In fact, schools weak in trust "had virtually no chance of showing improvement in either reading or mathematics." These data, argue the authors, is the "first evidence directly linking the development of relational trust in a school community and long-term improvements in academic productivity." More information can be found at http://www.russellsage.org/publications/titles/trustschools.htm.

National Endowment for the Humanities
September 2002

As we reported in last week's Gadfly, President Bush recently announced two new government initiatives to invigorate the teaching of American history, civics and culture. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=41#594.) One of these initiatives is "We the People," proffered by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to combat the historical illiteracy of young Americans by building knowledge, celebrating heroes and challenging young people. A three-pronged initiative, "We the People" consists of a call for applications to NEH for projects exploring major themes and events in American history; an annual lecture by "a scholar or an individual whose heroism has helped to protect America"; and an essay contest for high school juniors. The initiative will expand to include assistance for schools and universities to improve their teaching of U.S. history, more opportunities for teacher education, special exhibits and an annual conference. For more information, see http://www.wethepeople.gov.

Peter Cookson, and Kristina Berger
2002

Peter Cookson, a sociologist at Teachers College, and New York education consultant Kristina Berger wrote this new book on charter schools. It's a hatchet job, lightly disguised as social science and dressed up with a lot of left-wing sociology, the kind that sees nearly everything other than government itself as part of a right-wing plot to weaken the common weal by promulgating "markets," which they regard as creations of the devil. Though perceptive about the challenges of creating and operating a successful charter school - and nowhere are those challenges greater than in New York - the authors shed little fresh light on that familiar topic. At bottom, they're hostile to school deregulation and education freedom. They have a mystical (and often syrupy) faith in government to fix whatever is not yet quite right with our education system. No wonder two of the jacket blurbs are by school-system apologists Bruce Biddle and Alex Molnar. (The third is from Cookson's colleague Henry Levin.) Save your $26. In any case, about five of those dollars simply pay for a copy (reproduced in the appendix) of SUNY's charter school application kit, which you can probably get for free. If you cannot resist, the ISBN is 0813366313 and the publisher is Westview Press. You can find it at http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus-cgi-bin/display/0-8133-6631-3.

Sara Mead, Progressive Policy Institute
September 12, 2002

No one denies that many schools' missions are compromised by decrepit and outdated facilities. But not everyone agrees on how to fix the problem. Favored by education lobbyists and many Democrats but largely opposed by Republicans, tax credit bonds - which enable schools and districts to invest in new buildings by paying the interest on school construction bonds via a federal tax credit for bondholders - have been punted back and forth on Capitol Hill in recent years. But while Congress argues, the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB), a small federal program launched in 1997 to pilot tax credit bonds, has been quietly helping needy districts with their school facilities. The Progressive Policy Institute's Sara Mead writes that, despite obstacles such as low funding, inadequate federal and state support for implementation, and resistance from educators and financiers unfamiliar with the concept, QZABs have become well established in most states. Though less helpful to charter schools and others lacking access to capital, QZABs have been a godsend to "small, rural and innovative" schools. Tax credit bonds are no comprehensive solution to school facility needs but Mead finds QZAB a promising partial solution. This 10-pager is available at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=134&contentid=250833.

Scott Joftus, Alliance for Excellent Education
September 2002

Hoping to prevent policy makers from focusing all their resources on toddlers and primary students at the expense of older students, the Alliance for Excellent Education's Scott Joftus has conceived a "Framework for an Excellent Education" directed at improving the achievement of U.S. middle- and high-schoolers. Joftus reminds his readers that less than 75% of today's eighth graders will graduate from high school in five years, and approximately 25% of all high school students read at below-basic levels. He then introduces four initiatives on adolescent literacy, teacher and principal quality, college preparation, and small learning communities. He would expand the federal Reading First program to support literacy specialists in high-need secondary; add financial incentives for teachers and principals in high-need schools; strengthen the "highly qualified" teacher provisions of NCLB to include a requirement that all secondary school teachers have the equivalent of an academic major in their content area; and break down large, factory-like high schools into smaller learning communities. Joftus's most interesting recommendation centers on having all entering ninth graders develop a college preparation plan with the assistance of teachers, counselors and parents. Few of his initiatives are new ideas, but he presents useful research in support of them, and it's hard to argue with the view that students need more personal attention and better support if they are to succeed. The report is available at http://www.all4ed.org/policymakers/Every/index.html.