The Education Gadfly Weekly

Bryan C. Hassel, Progressive Policy InstituteSeptember 21, 2004

Bryan C. Hassel authored and the Progressive Policy Institute published this terrific account of the first three years of charter schooling in Indianapolis under the extraordinary leadership of Mayor Bart Peterson. What's most remarkable about this tale is its coherent, strategic purposefulness. In effect, the Mayor's Office is creating a whole new "sector" of public education in Indianapolis, and it's off to a strong start. With ten schools operating and several more soon to open, this sector is on course to enroll about 4,500 youngsters within a few years. (That's about ten percent of total district enrollment.) The "new approach" alluded to in the subtitle of this 37-pager is the mayor's role as charter authorizer. But in fact the report contains lessons, insights, and sage advice for other authorizers and communities, and is a welcome addition to the burgeoning literature on charter schooling. You can find it online here.

Robin J. Lake, Progressive Policy InstituteSeptember 2004

This insightful report serves as a worthy companion to the Indianapolis study noted above. Although Lake focuses on developments in Gotham, she also provides information about the growing charter movements in Rochester and Buffalo and generally offers a good overview of the Empire State's current charter scene. We see that the best charter schools in New York City are outperforming their district counterparts by a sizable margin, but we also encounter numerous problems and insightful ideas for solving them. Lake would have city policy makers integrate charter schools with other district schools, create many more charters, and use charter schools to meet the demands of NCLB. At the state level, she recommends streamlining the authorizing process and closing the funding gap between charter schools and traditional public schools. A nice piece of work, which you can find here.

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Ph.D., Center of the American ExperimentSeptember 22, 2004

In this short report, former Minnesota education commissioner Cheri Yecke reports on the findings of her discussions with Minnesota educators about the challenges of NCLB. She heard more than bellyaching and offers a practical set of tweaks and improvements, both to the federal law and to her state's accountability practices, seeking "to strengthen No Child Left Behind," not "to dodge the law or mask accountability." In particular, she urges Washington to consider value-added measures of achievement to measure and understand changes over time. She suggests improvements related to special ed, including a modification to the teacher quality provision (so that a teacher covering five subjects need not prove proficiency in each); a pitch for replicating Florida's McKay scholarship program; and flexibility in the AYP formula (noting that as students improve they might no longer be classified as special ed, thus mislabeling good schools as needing improvement in that area). She notes the folly of holding school leaders accountable for results if they are powerless over their teachers, leading her to urge Minnesota to make it easier to fire bad teachers, reform tenure, and enable performance pay. And she would grant states more freedom with their federal funds in exchange for increased accountability (an idea abandoned on Capitol Hill in 2001 in favor of NCLB's regulatory approach). Overall, Yecke's report is a rewarding read for anyone hoping to improve NCLB. It also provides revealing charts on state-by-state minority achievement gaps (Minnesota's is among the worst) and concrete suggestions. It's available online here.

The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption, released today by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is a splendid survey of what's wrong with textbooks today and how they went awry.

The main problem besetting textbooks, we know, is their quality. They are sanitized to avoid offending anyone who might complain at adoption hearings in big states, they are poorly written, they are burdened with irrelevant and unedifying content, and they reach for the lowest common denominator. As a result, they undermine learning instead of building and encouraging it.
 
This newest Fordham study, and others that have examined textbooks (see A Consumer's Guide to High School History Textbooks), show that it need not be this way. There are plenty of examples of fine textbooks from the recent past, as well as from other countries. Good history books contain vivid narratives about significant people and exciting events that changed the course of human affairs; such books certainly do not sidestep controversial topics. Good literature anthologies contain a blend of outstanding traditional literature as well as recent writing that is worthy of study and analysis; such anthologies are not assembled primarily in terms of the authors' gender and ethnicity (unless they are intended to be compilations of writings by women, men, or members of specific groups). Good textbooks in mathematics and science focus on the facts and ideas that are necessary to build a cumulative foundation of knowledge in each field; they do not avoid issues that raise hackles, like evolution, and they are not stuffed with irrelevant sociopolitical commentary about subjects like global warming and the accomplishments of women and individuals with disabilities in these fields.
 
In my research for The Language Police, I found - as this new report does - that the textbook adoption process in California, Texas, Florida, and other states had warped the books' quality. I talked to many publishers who told me (off the record, of course) that their editors were trained to remove anything controversial or potentially controversial from their materials before submitting them to any of the twenty-one adoption states. Editors were instructed to avoid or delete anything that might offend feminists, conservative religious groups, disability groups, ethnic activists, or any other imaginable self-designated spokesmen for any other conceivable organization of aggrieved victims.
 
My contribution to this particular discussion was to discover that the education publishing industry - including both textbook publishers and test publishers - had adopted internal guidelines that listed words, phrases, and representations of reality that were to be avoided. These guidelines included hundreds of words and scores of representations (otherwise known as "stereotypes"), and they were broadly disseminated, shared, and acted upon by private companies, as well as state and federal testing agencies. I called these behaviors censorship because the private companies were not acting of their own free will. They were taking steps to please state agencies and qualify for state contracts. Most notably, the publishers were self-censoring in order to win contracts from the big states that practice statewide adoption and purchasing.
 
Since publication of The Language Police, I have learned a few things that add to my sense of outrage.
 
First, I found that the actual list of proscribed words and phrases is far larger than what I had originally reported. My glossary of banned words had only about 500 fairly well-known words that bias reviewers had decided to oust from common parlance, like "fireman" and "actress." Several months after my book appeared, however, I received a set of guidelines used by the New York State Education Department that included a significant number of additional words that were deemed offensive; these guidelines were drawn from a book that contained literally thousands of words said to be "biased." It was clear to me that these trends, unchecked, would continue to eviscerate the expressive and denotative power of the English language.
 
Second, I discovered that there is no natural ally in the fight against the corruption of textbooks. In my book, I argued that the adoption process should be eliminated because it provided a means for pressure groups that wanted to impose their political views on publishers and thereby on children. I argued for a free market in textbook publishing, where decisions about which book to buy were made by individual teachers or schools, not by state agencies. I imagined that the organization best suited to leading this fight against state regulation was the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which represents the industry. That organization, I felt sure, would be in the forefront of freedom to publish and therefore prepared to oppose a process that allowed bureaucrats and political pressure groups to determine content.
 
Unfortunately, I was wrong. When I spoke to the annual meeting of the Association of American Publishers in February 2004, I urged them to assume the leadership of the fight against state textbook adoptions because of the censorship pressures exerted on publishers. They listened politely; a few publishers at the meeting agreed with me. But the organization itself, I discovered (by reading its reports on lobbying activities in the states) was actively working to block any legislative efforts to weaken or abandon statewide adoptions. At the AAP meeting, in fact, some publishers worried that states might reduce their textbook spending if there were no adoption process, although there is no evidence that adoption states spend more per pupil than non-adoption states, called "open territories." The AAP, sadly, uses its considerable clout to protect the adoption process in the big states, a process that benefits a very small number of publishing giants and disadvantages a large number of small publishers who cannot afford to meet the expensive requirements of the process and thus break into the textbook market.
 
Third, the politically correct censorship of education materials does not end in the classroom. My readers have told me of innumerable instances of similar censorship in children's trade publishing, in college textbooks, in hymnals, and in other arenas of publishing as well.
 
I continue to read textbooks, especially history textbooks, and to be deeply dismayed by their abysmally dumb and oversimplified content. I do not gainsay the difficulty of writing a comprehensive textbook of U.S. or world history, but it is shocking to see how thin is the content presented to American students, whether in elementary school, junior high, or high school. Recently, when reading the report of the 9/11 Commission, I was impressed by its terse, clear history of Islamic fundamentalism. It was accurate, dramatic, and informative. What struck me was recalling that in every high school textbook in either U.S. or world history, the same subject is glossed over with a few bland paragraphs, with no account of the history of fundamentalism within Islam. How can our young people possibly be prepared to understand international events when they are given so little background and context?
 
The lack of any advocacy group that brings citizens together to demand action on the recommendations of this report continues to be a problem. I have had literally hundreds of emails from readers who wanted to know, "Where can I join up to be part of this movement?" I regretfully informed correspondents that no such organization exists. It should.
 
I hope that Fordham's edifying and comprehensive study of the politics of textbook adoption will bring us closer to the day when policy makers recognize that they must eliminate state textbook adoption altogether. There is no good reason for the state to restrain competition and provide a platform for every grievance group that wants to exclude whatever they don't like from textbooks. There is no good reason for state interference in the educational materials marketplace, other than to offer research-based information about which textbooks are of the highest quality, gauged solely by their effectiveness in helping children meet academic standards.

This editorial was adapted from Diane Ravitch's introduction to The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption.

Diane Ravitch, author of The Language Police, is a research professor at New York University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She is a member of the boards of trustees of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Institute.

You've watched Rotherham and Finn duke it out over the Bush administration's record on education. So let's hear from the administration, shall we? This week, the White House released a new "policy book" detailing its education successes and pointing toward future plans. As befits a campaign piece, the self-reviews of NCLB are more-than-glowing, but there are also some interesting factoids and revelations here. The list of new initiatives is notable mostly for its caution (community college grants, job training, taking high school seriously, fiddling with Head Start). Perhaps the White House has had its fill of bold education initiatives and radical overhauls, at least before the election.

"Education: The promise of America," White House Policy Book, September 26, 2004

The British House of Commons education committee recently recommended greater flexibility in teacher pay as a way to combat specific teacher shortages. In particular, they recommend that "super teachers" be given bonuses for working in tough schools, and that schools that face persistent recruiting problems should be able to pay more to entice new teachers. Of course, teachers unions on all sides of every ocean are opposed to anything that smacks of merit pay, especially if it links teacher pay to student outcomes. BBC education correspondent Mike Baker argues that this opposition stems from historical precedent. More than a century ago, it seems, some British teachers' pay was linked to their pupils' achievement, which led to abuses and cheating. Perhaps that's the reason, and maybe it's pure self-interest in contemporary context, but British leaders are looking to the more recent example of Sweden, which suggests that merit pay can be made to work. The Swedish model, said to be supported by teachers and their unions, is a more flexible system that allows individual teachers to negotiate their salary directly with the principal, who can consider student performance as a factor in deciding how much to offer. Strange, that capitalist America pays each teacher according to his needs, not his ability, while socialistic Sweden has chosen the invisible hand of supply and demand.

"More money for 'super teachers'?" by Mike Baker, BBC News, September 24, 2004

Last week, Gadfly editorialized that "Putting most of the available energy, political capital, brain power and money into 'helping' districts engage in chartering rather than devoting those (limited) assets to advancing the frontier of independent charter schools: removing caps on their numbers and enrollments, creating multiple authorizers, strengthening school autonomy, securing adequate funding and facilities, etc.," could harm independent chartering. This week, independent charter school operators and would-be operators in Chicago were dismayed to discover that the Renaissance 2010 plan being pushed by Mayor Richard Daley would effectively cut per-pupil funding for new and existing charter schools, once a hefty new charge for building maintenance and rent is deducted. According to the plan, elementary schools would receive $4,325 per pupil and high schools would receive $5,075 after these fees are deducted - well below what schools now receive. Further, charters would be required to use district-employed janitors, security staff, and technical personnel who would answer to the Chicago Public Schools. Charter operator Rod Joslin told the Chicago Tribune, "I want to be empowered. I want the janitor to report to the principal, not someone at CPS. I don't want their security guards at all. I don't want their technology. And why should I pay rent to CPS? It's shameful they are even suggesting it." Dave Weinberg, director of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools, told the Tribune that he's hopeful the formula will be changed. "These numbers are not encouraging," Weinberg said. "Some of the national funders are going to be quite dismayed."

"New charter school plan assailed as underfunded," by Ana Beatriz Cholo and Tracy Dell'Angela, Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2004 (registration required)

As any education researcher will tell you, conducting a "scientific" study of educational programs or practices is difficult at best, primarily because so many factors contribute to pupil achievement, including students' previous knowledge, teacher quality, the degree of parental and community support, etc. But a recent article by education blogger Joanne Jacobs questions whether these underlying difficulties are the true cause of the dearth of scientifically based research in the field, or whether the problem is more fundamental: most education researchers don't really know how to conduct rigorous scientific studies. Already this year, the Chronicle of Higher Education (click here) reported that "fewer than 10 percent of American Education Research Association [AERA] members are knowledgeable about randomized trials. And even fewer have actually worked on a randomized trial." Worse still, rather than learn the skills necessary to conduct such studies (which are now required to earn the "scientifically based" moniker), education researchers demonstrate "a deep well of hostility to cold, hard, number-heavy science." And, as Thomas Cook has shown, the intellectual culture of colleges of education has little use for randomized experiments and kindred research. As a result, economists (like Caroline Hoxby, mentioned above), statisticians, and psychologists are increasingly being called upon to conduct the scientifically based studies that traditional education researchers are unwilling to take on.

"Rigor-free research," by Joanne Jacobs, TechCentralStation.com, September 27, 2004

"Sciencephobia," by Thomas D. Cook, Education Next, Fall 2001

Caroline Hoxby recaps the Great Charter Debate (or should we call it Ambush?) of 2004 in the Wall Street Journal this week. She compares her recent study of pupil achievement in charter schools (click here for our review) - which concluded that charter students are more apt to pass state tests than similar public school counterparts - to the "crude" AFT study that found charter students lagging their public school counterparts on NAEP tests (click here for more). As usual, Hoxby marshals an array of facts and astute analysis to back her argument. So where's the New York Times article on Hoxby's study? Don't hold your breath. See below for (Hoxby-compatible) new information from Dayton schools regarding the achievement of charter and district students on Ohio tests in 2004.

"Chalk it up," by Caroline Hoxby, Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2004 (subscription required)

The New York Times this week featured a column by Arthur Levine (often a sensible fellow, despite being president of Teachers College) outlining a "third way" on social promotion. Levine contends that "neither social promotion nor holding back students works. Leaving students back increases their dropout rate. . . . Socially promoted students, meanwhile, are unable to learn more advanced material in the next grade and are more likely to become disruptive, diminishing their classmates' ability to learn as well." His solution? Group students not by age and grade, but by academic achievement in specific areas, and be flexible about how long it takes to earn a diploma. In the current system, Levine observes, students "are all expected to learn the same material in 180 days even though they come to school with different levels of ability and experience. Inevitably, some students can't keep up, forcing schools to decide whether to promote them or leave them back." Instead, he believes, the education system should "simply recognize that children learn at different rates." That might mean letting advanced students graduate in as few as 10 years, while slower learners take as many as 14 years to complete their elementary/secondary studies. An interesting idea, albeit one that would mean the total reorganization of American schooling and would give pause to a great many parents wanting to know "what grade" Mandy and Jason are in. It's one that could only work if harnessed to high standards, rigorous assessment, and strict results-driven accountability. Can we count you in, Dr. Levine?

"Failing the grade system," by Arthur Levine, New York Times, September 26, 2004

Bryan C. Hassel, Progressive Policy InstituteSeptember 21, 2004

Bryan C. Hassel authored and the Progressive Policy Institute published this terrific account of the first three years of charter schooling in Indianapolis under the extraordinary leadership of Mayor Bart Peterson. What's most remarkable about this tale is its coherent, strategic purposefulness. In effect, the Mayor's Office is creating a whole new "sector" of public education in Indianapolis, and it's off to a strong start. With ten schools operating and several more soon to open, this sector is on course to enroll about 4,500 youngsters within a few years. (That's about ten percent of total district enrollment.) The "new approach" alluded to in the subtitle of this 37-pager is the mayor's role as charter authorizer. But in fact the report contains lessons, insights, and sage advice for other authorizers and communities, and is a welcome addition to the burgeoning literature on charter schooling. You can find it online here.

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Ph.D., Center of the American ExperimentSeptember 22, 2004

In this short report, former Minnesota education commissioner Cheri Yecke reports on the findings of her discussions with Minnesota educators about the challenges of NCLB. She heard more than bellyaching and offers a practical set of tweaks and improvements, both to the federal law and to her state's accountability practices, seeking "to strengthen No Child Left Behind," not "to dodge the law or mask accountability." In particular, she urges Washington to consider value-added measures of achievement to measure and understand changes over time. She suggests improvements related to special ed, including a modification to the teacher quality provision (so that a teacher covering five subjects need not prove proficiency in each); a pitch for replicating Florida's McKay scholarship program; and flexibility in the AYP formula (noting that as students improve they might no longer be classified as special ed, thus mislabeling good schools as needing improvement in that area). She notes the folly of holding school leaders accountable for results if they are powerless over their teachers, leading her to urge Minnesota to make it easier to fire bad teachers, reform tenure, and enable performance pay. And she would grant states more freedom with their federal funds in exchange for increased accountability (an idea abandoned on Capitol Hill in 2001 in favor of NCLB's regulatory approach). Overall, Yecke's report is a rewarding read for anyone hoping to improve NCLB. It also provides revealing charts on state-by-state minority achievement gaps (Minnesota's is among the worst) and concrete suggestions. It's available online here.

Robin J. Lake, Progressive Policy InstituteSeptember 2004

This insightful report serves as a worthy companion to the Indianapolis study noted above. Although Lake focuses on developments in Gotham, she also provides information about the growing charter movements in Rochester and Buffalo and generally offers a good overview of the Empire State's current charter scene. We see that the best charter schools in New York City are outperforming their district counterparts by a sizable margin, but we also encounter numerous problems and insightful ideas for solving them. Lake would have city policy makers integrate charter schools with other district schools, create many more charters, and use charter schools to meet the demands of NCLB. At the state level, she recommends streamlining the authorizing process and closing the funding gap between charter schools and traditional public schools. A nice piece of work, which you can find here.