The Education Gadfly Weekly

Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily
Institute for Justice and the American Legislative Exchange Council
April 2007

This first-of-its-kind report catalogs each state's constitutional provisions and court decisions that may affect future voucher legislation. In most states, voucher programs could face challenges from so-called "Compelled Support" Clauses and Blaine Amendments, one or both of which exist in all but three state constitutions. The former bar states from forcing their citizens to support religious institutions while Blaine Amendments prohibit states from funding "sectarian" institutions, such as religious schools. The resemblance of these provisions to the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause has been a great boon to school choice supporters, however, because in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that Cleveland's voucher program did not breach the separation of church and state. But while Zelman set a powerful precedent for voucher proponents, some state courts have interpreted their Compelled Support Clauses and/or Blaine Amendments more narrowly. Moreover, some states also have "uniformity" provisions that require them to provide a "uniform" public education system available to all children. For instance, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Sunshine State's "uniform" public school requirement precluded the use of state money for the non-public Opportunity Scholarship voucher program (a ruling that is logically obtuse, at best; see here). In other states, such as Arizona and Wisconsin, courts have interpreted uniformity clauses only to establish a baseline above which additional spending on non-traditional educational options is permissible. To bypass all such headaches, most states can implement private school choice using tax credits, which take advantage of the distinction between state dollars and money that is withheld from the state by private citizens and firms. Crave more of this legal nitty-gritty? This report is aimed at policymakers who might design voucher programs in their own states, but you can read it, too, by going here.

Ken Futernick
The Center for Teacher Quality
California State University
2007

Like other states, California needs qualified teachers. But it also needs to keep the qualified teachers it already has, a challenge, considering that 22 percent of California teachers leave the profession before they're in the classroom five years. And lots of research has shown that the teachers most likely to hit the road are also most likely to be smart, savvy, innovative folks. This turnover doesn't only disrupt schools and drain them of the most-talented instructors, but it costs California nearly half a billion dollars each year in squandered teacher training. Conventional wisdom says Golden State teachers are leaving the classroom because they're not making a lot of money. And while lots of dissatisfied teachers (41%) do explain that poor compensation and benefits contributed to their decision to quit, more say that stifling bureaucracy (56%), poor district support (52%), low staff morale (45%), and lack of resources (42%) are the real problems. This report offers six solid recommendations for how to retain California teachers, recommendations that the state would do well to heed. You can read them here.

The Gadfly's been leading a fleet of one against the Think Tank Review Project. On two occasions (see here and here), we've launched counterattacks against this faux impartial outfit, whose reviewers bombard research by organizations friendly to school-choice issues in particular and education reform in general. Now Linda Seebach--always an astute observer, even when she pans Fordham--has seen the problem. A recent column notes that this "research group" is funded with National Education Association money. (It comes via grants from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, a nonprofit that in turn is funded by the national NEA and NEA affiliates in the Great Lakes area.) Project co-director Kevin Welner tells Seebach that (in her words) "there is no intention on anyone's part to make the project political." But look at the "Think Tanks That Are Currently Being Monitored" by TTRP page on the Great Lakes site. Fifteen are listed, every single one of them a friend of school choice in its various forms. Bombs away.

"Think tank project exists to please NEA," by Linda Seebach, Rocky Mountain News, April 28, 2007

It is with bittersweet anticipation that Hogwarts disciples await the final installment of the Harry Potter series, to be released across the land at midnight on July 21^st. Young readers such as Ithaca, New York, sixth-grader Marcus Weathersby won't be the only ones sad to witness the dynasty's end, however; lovers of learning should be just as disappointed. According to a 2006 survey of readers ages 5 to 17 and their parents, these masterly tales of wizardry have not only helped improve kids' attitudes toward reading, but have positively affected other schoolwork, too. Young Weathersby for one credits the Harry Potter books for getting him interested in reading. "I whip through 50 books a year," he said. Wonder whether Marcus conjured up a hyperbole potion in his spare time. But he clearly now enjoys reading, and the Harry Potter series has helped millions of youngsters like him across the country and globe figure out how magical reading and books can be. If Gadfly had tear ducts, he'd be a little weepy.

"Harry Potter and the magic of reading," by Shayna Garlick, Christian Science Monitor, May 2, 2007

Education reformers around the nation are keeping an eye on Massachusetts, which this school year implemented an "Expanded Learning Time" initiative (ELT), putting into practice the much-ballyhooed idea of longer school days. The Bay State's program awards an extra $1,300 per student to ten high-need schools that volunteer to extend their day by at least 25 percent. The program's a big hit--at least with participating schools. "I don't know of a single educator who wouldn't say this is a good idea," said José Salgado, the principal of Umana/Barnes Middle School in Boston. His school appears to be doing it right. Rather than simply tacking on extra hours, it uses the time to supplement academics. A Harry Potter book club is offered for students performing at grade level; stricter instruction is on tap for those youngsters who are lagging behind. Other schools have used the additional time to offer more subjects, such as drama, that wouldn't fit into a regular school day. And all the ELT programs are, at the very least, keeping kids out of trouble. As the program expands next year, however, pushback is expected, especially from suburban parents whose students are involved in multiple activities outside of school. Here's hoping that "extended learning time" isn't another structural innovation to go the way of "smaller high schools," i.e., fine in theory, bad in execution. Massachusetts seems to be on the right track, though: making school days not just longer, but more worthwhile.

"Saved by the (Later) Bell," by Lisa Prevost, Boston Globe, April 29, 2007  

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of floppy-hatted revelers will descend upon Churchill Downs to watch the 133rd running of the Kentucky Derby. To witness this spectacle--the quaffing of sundry Mint Juleps (a delicious bit of Julep trivia, here), the scads of money wagered on the whims of equine beasts, the men clad in copious pink--is to witness something from another era. And for our purposes, it gives satisfactory reason to turn attention to Louisville's schools.

The Supreme Court is set to rule in the weeks ahead on whether the Jefferson County school district (Louisville and its suburbs) can continue its policy of using race to determine school assignments. To refresh:

After Brown v. Board of Education (1954) outlawed de jure school segregation, districts across the country began assigning students to campuses by race, which meant that lots of kids were bused across town to ensure proper classroom ratios. Jefferson County's desegregation program began in 1975. In 1991, however, the Supreme Court ruled that busing was no longer necessary and that individual districts could return to "neighborhood schooling" (assigning students to the schools closest to their homes) regardless of whether classrooms would become re-segregated.

But Louisville liked its integrated schools and opted to keep parts of the 1975 program in place. Jefferson County's current system allows parents to apply for the schools they want--92 percent get their first or second choice--and, according to the district's director of student assignment, race is only one of a number of factors used to determine placement.

As was bound to happen, however, someone didn't initially get the school she wanted and decided to sue. Plaintiff Crystal Meredith argues that by taking race into account, Jefferson County has sent up an unlawful quota system.

Just as horse racing seems likes something from another era, so too this bickering over the racial composition of the schools. That perception is exacerbated when one takes a closer look at Jefferson County's achievement data. District officials may trumpet their success in achieving a desegregated classroom, but they haven't done much to achieve desegregated academics.

Did white kids in Jefferson County schools make AYP in 2006 in math and reading? Yup: 63.1 percent hit the proficient mark in reading, 50.7 percent in math. How about black kids? Nope: only 38.6 percent were proficient in reading, and 22.5 percent in math. Looks like Louisville's schools are pretty segregated, after all.

And Kentucky has no charter-school law (one of just ten such states), meaning that while "choice" may exist in Louisville, low-income black kids have only the district schools to choose from--schools that are clearly not doing a good job teaching them. But, hey, at least they've got diversity.

Regardless of how one feels about using race in assigning students to schools, it's pretty clear that Jefferson County is fighting the wrong battle. Race shouldn't be the district's main concern; getting all its students to high academic levels should be. At the very least, the city could push state policymakers to pass some type of charter law so that students in Jefferson County have a real choice among public schools. Right now, to the best of Gadfly's knowledge, nobody in Frankfort is even thinking about bringing charter schools to the Blue Grass State--a real pity.

My Old Kentucky Home is a fine anthem. But in education, Kentucky would do well to start whistling some new tunes.

Is it possible that the greatness and longevity of a social movement are determined more by the excesses it avoids than the successes it achieves? That to stand the test of time, reforms need to embrace mid-course corrections and shun the temptation to overreach?

If so, then the life expectancy and ultimate impact of No Child Left Behind will be determined by its current reauthorization, when Congress has a chance to walk the law back from the brink of backlash--a backlash that could bring down standards--based reform in general, not only the federal version.

Education Trust, a leading advocacy group and NCLB's chief architect, moral guide, and cheerleader, appears to sense what's at stake--but only to a point. Its newly released reauthorization proposal would bring some welcome rationality to the law's aspirational accountability system. However, its love affair with a heavy-handed federal role may put the entire NCLB enterprise at risk.

If history is a guide, there's every reason to believe that Congress will follow Ed Trust's lead. After all, its president (and recent Fordham excellence-in-education prizewinner), Kati Haycock, was voted the most influential individual in American education save for President Bush and Secretary Spellings (see here). She and her organization are respected by many Republicans and worshipped by lots of Democrats. Their pronouncements are taken seriously. But should this one be?

Let's start with the good part. Education Trust has finally admitted that "every child proficient in reading and math by 2014" is much better as a slogan and aspiration than as the operating principle for a serious accountability regime. It's the classic overreach, the epitome of excess. This pronouncement-cum-policy has encouraged states to play games: mucking around with "n-sizes" and "confidence intervals" to avoid the "every child" component, racing to the bottom with their definitions of "proficiency," and back-loading their timelines in the expectation of a miracle in the last year or two before the 2014 deadline.

Ed Trust appears to have gotten the picture. Regarding "every child," its proposal would allow states with high standards (those that indicate readiness for college and work) to aim for 80 percent of students in every subgroup achieving proficiency rather than 100 percent. (Ninety-five percent of students would have to achieve a "new basic" level, "indicating preparation for active citizenship, military service, and entry into postsecondary education or formal employment training.") Furthermore, it would differentiate between those schools that miss their performance targets by a mile and those that fall short by a few inches. Regarding "proficiency," it would provide incentives for states to boost their standards and require those with particularly weak-kneed definitions of "proficiency" to get at least 50 percent more of their kids to the "advanced" level. Plus, it would count as "proficient" those students who are "on a trajectory to meet proficiency in three years"--an acceptance of student growth as a cornerstone of any sensible accountability system. As for the 2014 deadline, Ed Trust would allow high-standards states to reset NCLB's 12-year timeline, giving them until 2019 to achieve the law's goals.

This isn't perfect. Giving states incentives to sign on to rigorous national standards would be better, as would adding science and history to the mix. And yes, it's wonky and complex. Still, the menu of options Ed Trust offers the states would move NCLB's accountability system in the right direction.

That might save the law from faltering under its own weight. But not if some of Ed Trust's other recommendations become law. For they are chock-full of Washington-knows-best requirements that drive educators crazy with red tape and inflame those who believe that state and local officials deserve a little freedom to figure a few things out for themselves. Consider:

• Ed Trust would dictate the contours of every state's data system, including elements such as teachers' "professional development program participation" and the "ability to link data systems to data from workforce development, unemployment insurance, and military services information systems." States that don't comply would lose Title I funding.
  
• Ed Trust would limit states' and districts' already-meager ability to move funds from one federal account to another, specifically barring them from using their Title II (teacher quality) grants for Title I (school improvement) purposes.
  
• Ed Trust would require a litany of needs assessments, data collections, and state plans that "must describe the state's procedures for reviewing and monitoring compliance with LEA obligations."
  
• Ed Trust would maintain the law's next-to-useless "highly qualified teachers" mandate, indeed would make it more restrictive.
  
• Ed Trust would require each Comprehensive Restructuring Plan (mandated for failing schools) to be "reviewed by a peer review committee, which shall include a principal of a high-performing Title I school, distinguished educators in the subject(s) that caused the school to be identified as In Need of Comprehensive Improvement, and at least one designee of the governor."

What happens if a state decides it doesn't care to track professional development in its data system, or doesn't want to link its education data up with the Pentagon? What if states and districts want to spend all of their federal funds on Title I improvement activities? What if schools are getting great results with instructors who don't meet the paperwork requirements of the highly qualified teachers provisions? What if the governor never gets around to designating a member of the Comprehensive Restructuring Plan peer review committee?

Once upon a time, advocates for standards-based reform promised local schools greater authority and autonomy in return for more rigorous results-based accountability. That's still the right bargain, especially when Uncle Sam is involved. Obviously Education Trust disagrees, and believes in trying to change behavior both through incentives and through old-fashioned rules and regulations. That's its prerogative. It's a liberal advocacy group, after all. But that doesn't mean that members of Congress--Republicans especially--have to go along.

For the sake of Ed Trust's baby, its cherished NCLB, let's hope it wins the day on accountability and loses the fight on federal micromanagement. Otherwise get ready for No Backlash Left Behind--and another promising reform washed away by the errors of its excess.

Ken Futernick
The Center for Teacher Quality
California State University
2007

Like other states, California needs qualified teachers. But it also needs to keep the qualified teachers it already has, a challenge, considering that 22 percent of California teachers leave the profession before they're in the classroom five years. And lots of research has shown that the teachers most likely to hit the road are also most likely to be smart, savvy, innovative folks. This turnover doesn't only disrupt schools and drain them of the most-talented instructors, but it costs California nearly half a billion dollars each year in squandered teacher training. Conventional wisdom says Golden State teachers are leaving the classroom because they're not making a lot of money. And while lots of dissatisfied teachers (41%) do explain that poor compensation and benefits contributed to their decision to quit, more say that stifling bureaucracy (56%), poor district support (52%), low staff morale (45%), and lack of resources (42%) are the real problems. This report offers six solid recommendations for how to retain California teachers, recommendations that the state would do well to heed. You can read them here.

Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily
Institute for Justice and the American Legislative Exchange Council
April 2007

This first-of-its-kind report catalogs each state's constitutional provisions and court decisions that may affect future voucher legislation. In most states, voucher programs could face challenges from so-called "Compelled Support" Clauses and Blaine Amendments, one or both of which exist in all but three state constitutions. The former bar states from forcing their citizens to support religious institutions while Blaine Amendments prohibit states from funding "sectarian" institutions, such as religious schools. The resemblance of these provisions to the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause has been a great boon to school choice supporters, however, because in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that Cleveland's voucher program did not breach the separation of church and state. But while Zelman set a powerful precedent for voucher proponents, some state courts have interpreted their Compelled Support Clauses and/or Blaine Amendments more narrowly. Moreover, some states also have "uniformity" provisions that require them to provide a "uniform" public education system available to all children. For instance, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Sunshine State's "uniform" public school requirement precluded the use of state money for the non-public Opportunity Scholarship voucher program (a ruling that is logically obtuse, at best; see here). In other states, such as Arizona and Wisconsin, courts have interpreted uniformity clauses only to establish a baseline above which additional spending on non-traditional educational options is permissible. To bypass all such headaches, most states can implement private school choice using tax credits, which take advantage of the distinction between state dollars and money that is withheld from the state by private citizens and firms. Crave more of this legal nitty-gritty? This report is aimed at policymakers who might design voucher programs in their own states, but you can read it, too, by going here.