The Education Gadfly Weekly

Frederick Hess, the Progressive Policy Institute
January 2003

The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project (with financial assistance from the Broad Foundation) just released this thoughtful 24-page treatise by Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute. Its central contention: U.S. public schooling needs to look for leaders in many more places than it has traditionally done, including talented executives outside the education field; it needs to replace old ideas of licensure for school leaders; and it must recast their training, too. Some of this sort of thing is occurring through specialized programs such as "New Leaders for New Schools," to be sure, but Hess contends it should become the rule, not the exception. You'll find it at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=181&contentid=251239.

The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
January 2003

This bulky, pompous tome from the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) - its first major report since Tom Carroll took the helm from Linda Darling-Hammond - was described in initial press accounts as a recasting of the country's teaching problem into one of turnover and attrition. [See one example at http://www.startribune.com/stories/1592/3620590.html.] That would have at least been interesting, coming from an outfit that has long emphasized preparation and licensure. And there's a veneer of accuracy to those reports, as NCTAF declares in these (150+) pages that, "In most cases poor school performance is being driven not by an insufficient supply of teachers, but by extremely high turnover rates that stem from chronic, unaddressed conditions in the schools." When you dig under the surface, however, into the Commission's three recommended "strategies" for solving this problem, we find the same old NCTAF. Beyond the tautology that better schools will tend to attract and keep better teachers, this new bottle is full of familiar grape juice: tighter regulation of entry and training, mandatory accreditation and certification, heavy reliance on National Board recognition, etc. Though the words say it's "time to abandon the futile debate over 'traditional' vs. 'alternative' preparation for teachers," what the Commission really means is that the alternative approach should vanish. Note, too, that its conviction that turnover in teaching is a bad thing flies in the face of the view of teaching that says short-termers should be welcomed and made the most of in ways that complement the work of career educators. You may not want this burden on your bookshelf - chances are that you have innumerable earlier NCTAF tomes - but you can get a copy by surfing to http://www.nctaf.org/dream/dream.html. For two other astute analyses of this report, surf to http://members.aol.com/educationintel/communique.htm (for Mike Antonucci's deconstruction of the NCTAF analysis) and http://www.uidaho.edu/~jwenders/Essays%20In%20Persuasion/New2/Retention--msw.htm (where you'll find a critique by economist John Wenders).

Larry Cuban and Michael Usdan, editors, Teachers College Press
December 2002

The movement to reform education in the United States is mainly about improving urban schools. To revive their cities, politicians and business leaders have been driving a series of governance and leadership changes to reform their troubled schools. According to Stanford's Cuban and the Institute of Educational Leadership's Usdan, their theory of action presupposes that "Increased political effectiveness (governance and leadership changes) and enhanced organizational effectiveness (systemic alignment of functions within the district) will produce classroom effectiveness (improved students' academic achievement)." The strategy for putting that theory into practice includes greater mayoral control and the hiring of non-educators to lead city school systems. To gauge the effectiveness of this strategy, Cuban and Usdan present case studies of six cities that have been at the forefront of education reform since the early 1990s: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego and Seattle. The lessons they draw are mixed. Among the most interesting have to do with such unintended consequences as high turnover in principals and other school administrators. As for academic achievement, there are some interesting commonalities across all six case studies: a spike in elementary test scores but no discernible change at the high-school level. Mostly, though, we learn that there is no single model of successful reform, which demands customized tactics, excellent leadership, community support, good timing and a bit of luck. "Establishing the right conditions for district reform matched to the unique features of a city is," the authors note, "painstakingly crafted work that often puts off impatient advocates but is necessary, based on the evidence of these six cities." The authors give high marks to Boston, Seattle and San Diego, but say that reform efforts in Philadelphia, Chicago and Baltimore have been less successful. To get a copy for yourself (the ISBN is 0807742929) go to http://store.tcpress.com/0807742929.shtml#726.

The Center on Education Policy
November 2002

The Center on Education Policy here tackles "virtual education" and tries to pin it to the ground. If the Center had its way, on-line learning, for the foreseeable future, would only be accepted as a supplement to regular public schooling, not a replacement for brick-and-mortar education. (There is the nebulous suggestion that one day, after more is learned and an infinity of safeguards are put in place, it might become a substitute.) The report offers a set of lofty principles to govern all education reforms, predictable maxims that assume a uniform and monolithic school system. In other words, they stay squarely within the box of public-education-as-we-know-it rather than venturing outside. What a pity. See for yourself at http://www.ctredpol.org/democracypublicschools/preserving_principles_online_world_full.pdf.

Paul Hill, The Progressive Policy Institute
January 2003

The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project (with financial assistance from the Broad Foundation) last week issued this 19-pager by Paul Hill of the University of Washington. After an insightful exegesis of why typical public-school governance arrangements do not foster educational quality, he urges the development of "performance-focused" school boards. These, Hill contends, would escape three ubiquitous "traps" (accumulated entitlements, opaqueness, false certainty) and rework the board's mission around three core precepts of education governance: vest decision making as near to the child as possible, make everything hinge on performance, and limit the board's own powers. Pie in the sky? It's famously difficult to get political bodies to reduce their own roles, and public education's innumerable vested interests all work against the recasting that Hill urges. But it makes good sense on paper. Have a look at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=181&contentid=251238.

Peter Brimelow
February 2003

Veteran financial journalist, immigration controversialist and National Education Association (NEA) watcher Peter Brimelow has penned a devastating and marvelously readable account of the malign role of teacher unions in American primary-secondary education. Be warned, though, this volume is about as subtle as a 2 x 4 applied forcefully to the reader's skull. The book contends that America's two big teacher unions, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have expertly exploited government's near monopoly of K-12 schooling to achieve a hammerlock on the operation of the schools themselves, the allocation of their resources, the terms of employment of their teachers and staff - and all efforts to change or reform them. The unions' capacity to retain this position of privilege owes much to its effectiveness in equating the interests of teachers with the vitality of that revered American institution known as "public education" and thus with the long-term well-being of democracy itself. The teacher unions are apt to retain much power, though perhaps a bit less than before. And education reform in America is apt to continue progressing at a worm-like pace. For a fuller appraisal of this book, you can surf to my long review at http://www.washtimes.com/books/20030202-89799328.htm. The book, to be published this month by Harper Collins (ISBN 0060096616) is available from the usual outlets.

Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
December 2002

Those expecting to find practical advice for superintendents in this report will be disappointed. Instead, Belfield and Levin have written a paper - thinly disguised as advice - that presents the case against vouchers and gives only minimal credence to the arguments in their favor. Instead of explaining to superintendents how vouchers might affect school funding and enrollments, or suggesting ways by which traditional public schools can compete more effectively in the voucher era, the authors soothe the fears of their putative readers by suggesting that, despite the Zelman decision, vouchers are unlikely to spread because they have so little public support. (Note that this paper was produced in conjunction with the American Association of School Administrators.) The report does have some value, as it points the reader toward a bit of the existing evidence on vouchers' effectiveness. It also neatly summarizes the challenges of building support for voucher programs, including a few subtle ones, such as the possibility that the terrorist attacks will renew interest in public institutions at the expense of privatization. In the end, however, its point of view is clear: vouchers don't seem to work and, if they did, they would damage our notion of "public" schooling. If you'd like to read it anyway, you'll find a copy on the NCSPE site at http://www.ncspe.org/keepout/papers/00063/914_AASAfinal.pdf.

While support for many federal agencies will remain flat, President Bush has proposed a large increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities in his FY 2004 budget, with nearly all of the new dollars going to the "We the People" program. Created last year to encourage better understanding of U.S. history by supporting opportunities for teachers and other state and local projects, this program would receive $25 million.

"Humanities Endowment Would Receive Big Increase, Focused on New Program in American History," by Anne Marie Borrego, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 4, 2003 (subscription required)

This week, the Bush Administration released its proposed multi-trillion dollar federal budget for 2004. Included is $75 million for a new Choice Incentive Fund that would allow the Department of Education to make competitive awards directly to states, local education agencies and community-based non-profit organizations with proven records of securing educational opportunities for children. [For a summary of the proposed U.S. Department of Education budget, go to http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget04/04summary/section1.html and scroll down to "expanding options for parents".] The Department says that priority will be given to applicants that provide expanded choice opportunities to large numbers of students, and that a small portion of the money would be reserved for school choice programs in Washington, D.C. (Last year, the President proposed $50 million for a Choice Incentive Fund but it didn't survive.)

Predictably, D.C. school board president Peggy Cooper-Cafritz condemned the new plan, declaring herself appalled that the Administration wants to inflict unwanted choice dollars upon the District. What most alarms Ms. Cooper-Cafritz is that the Bush proposal "probably reflects lobbying by people whose goals are different than the people who live here." Maybe she means goals that are different from those running the public-school system! There's no doubt that proponents of the new Choice Incentive Fund have opted to put the goal of expanding opportunities for D.C. children above the traditional District focus on sustaining mediocrity and expanding bureaucracy. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting delegate to the House, also expressed her shock that the Administration would insert a voucher proposal into the budget without consulting city officials.

As for the Administration, it seems of two or three minds about its own D.C. proposal (which is one of a number of choice-related items in the new budget). First, Secretary Paige announced that the choice fund would only pay for private school vouchers if the city agrees to the program. Later, however, Education Department spokesman Dan Langan implied that such assent might not be a prerequisite, noting that "a nonprofit organization in the city might be an entity that would get the grant." Of course this is all moot if Congress again spurns the President's request for any type of education-choice fund.

"Bush aide says voucher offer would require D.C.'s agreement" by Justin Blum and Michael A. Fletcher, The Washington Post, February 4, 2003

"Bush budget includes D.C. school vouchers" by Lena H. Sun and Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post, February 3, 2003

Last June, the parent of a high school senior in New York City examined reading passages on the state's high-stakes Regents exams and discovered that somebody was sanitizing literary excerpts - doctoring the reading passages by literary greats to make sure that nothing offensive was included. After the story ran on the front page of The New York Times, state officials promised to stop tampering with famous literary works. In January, however, the Times reported that the state was at it again, this time altering passages by Franz Kafka and Aldous Huxley on the exam administered in August. Last week, the state was caught altering yet another excerpt, this one on the test given in January 2003. This time, state officials blame an anthology that, they say, misquoted the poem "Dover Beach," by Matthew Arnold. Commented one English teacher "Don't they have anyone making up the exam who can recognize one of the most famous poems in the English language?"

"Ah, Love, Let Us Be True, or at Least Be Accurate," editorial, The New York Times, January 30, 2003

"How New York Exams Rewrite Literature (A Sequel)," by Michael Winerip, The New York Times, January 8, 2003

Standard & Poor's this week released its second comprehensive analysis of Michigan's K-12 education system. The report, reviewing both academic and financial data from districts in the state, covers a five year period: 1996-97 through 2000-01. It underscores the fact that higher spending doesn't always translate into greater student success; of the Michigan districts that spend more per pupil than the state average, half had below-average passing rates on the state assessment; half the districts with below-average spending had above average passing rates.

"Good scores don't always cost," by Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki and Lori Higgins, Detroit Free Press, February 4, 2003

"Standard & Poor's New Statewide Insights Tells "The Whole Story" about Michigan Schools," press release, February 3, 2003

Educators and parents are sometimes blamed for using medications like Ritalin to make overactive kids compliant and faulted for their inability to control their children without chemical assistance. An article in The New Republic by debunker extraordinaire Michael Fumento argues that the critics are wrong and the much-maligned Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a real, treatable disorder. Fumento rebuts common myths about ADHD, such as the idea that it is part of a feminist conspiracy to make little boys more like little girls, and that it is part of an effort of public schools to warehouse docile kids rather than to discipline and teach them.

"Trick Question," by Michael Fumento, The New Republic, February 3, 2003 (free registration required)

President Bush is in trouble with the Head Start establishment again, if you can believe The Washington Post, whose reporters on this beat seem to have swallowed the view that Head Start is swell and ought not be pushed to do anything different from what it's always done. (See "Head Start Changeover Proposed" by Valerie Strauss and Amy Goldstein, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8588-2003Jan31.html.)

Wrong. The Head Start establishment is pigheaded about the glories of its current program. The Post's reporters should go back to journalism school. And the Bush Administration has this one pegged: Head Start may be an iconic, 38-year-old federal program but it's sagging badly. It needs a makeover. More than Botox.

The President's commitment to such a makeover dates back at least to his 2000 campaign. So does that of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Shortly before his inauguration, we urged that Head Start be recast with greater emphasis on pre-literacy and a structured, cognitive curriculum. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=37.) My own consciousness has been raised by three developments in the decades since Head Start appeared as part of LBJ's War on Poverty:

First, we've all seen studies indicating that typical Head Start programs don't give poor kids much of a head start on success in school - and that such boosts as do occur seldom last long. We now know that a big reason for the program's meager academic impact is its meager academic aspirations. Rather than seeing their three- and four-year-old charges as very young pupils in urgent need of a coherent, research-based, pre-literacy curriculum, most Head Start people are wedded to the "child development" view whereby structured cognitive learning isn't nearly as important as health, socialization, "family support" and self-esteem. Few Head Start staffers view themselves as "teachers." Indeed, many have not even completed college.

Second, E.D. Hirsch and others helped me realize that pre-school programs in many other countries are very different. (France is a good example.) They work at structured learning - appropriate to tiny students, yes, but structured nonetheless. (A pre-literacy curriculum for three- and four-year-olds might, for example, stress shapes, sounds, sizes and colors.)

Third, when Bill Bennett, John Cribb and I wrote the pre-school chapter of The Educated Child (Free Press, 1999), we set out to create a "kindergarten readiness list" that laid out the skills and capabilities that a five-year-old should possess upon reaching school in order to maximize his prospects for succeeding there. To our amazement, that list consumed four pages. (If you have the book, check pages 37-40. If not, you can order it from the usual places.) It included dozens and DOZENS of entries. Fortunate children, we realized, get these from attentive parents, loving aunts and grandpas, private pre-schools, well-chosen software, carefully edited TV, etc. But what about poor kids? They depend far more on programs like Head Start. If it and kindred programs don't do the job, these children will find themselves behind the educational eight ball from the moment they arrive in school.

All of which is to say that the President and his team are right: if we're serious about not leaving poor kids behind, Head Start must refocus from child development to school readiness, especially pre-literacy. It can continue with the hugs, the carrot sticks and the dentist visits, sure, but it also needs to help those boys and girls get ready to read.

The first major Bush proposal along these lines came in April 2002. The National Head Start Association (NHSA) threw a fit. (You can find that plan's main elements at http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/initiatives.htm and my earlier commentary at http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=63#908.) But elements of it began to be put into place, including summer training for several thousand Head Start staffers-which the Washington Post's reporter said they didn't like receiving - and, more recently, an assessment plan by which to determine how effective individual Head Start centers are and how well their children are doing. (You can find Assistant Secretary Wade Horn's explanation at http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/access.htm.) This caused even more fur to fly, since the notion of assessments aimed at evaluating whether four-year-olds have learned age-appropriate literacy skills irks both the "developmentally appropriate" crowd and the anti-testing pack.

Now the Administration is dropping another big shoe. The President's 2004 budget would empower state governors to make major Head Start decisions while refocusing the entire program to include pre-literacy. [To see the Department of Health and Human Services release explaining this proposal, go to http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030203.html.] In the view of the Head Start establishment (and its journalistic mouthpieces), both ideas are dreadful. States have had scant say in Head Start and the program's acolytes don't want them to. And, as noted above, the literacy focus is at odds with the program's traditional child-development thrust - and threatens the job security of staffers (often local moms) who aren't up to teaching it.

As if those two changes weren't distressing enough to NHSA and its cronies, Mr. Bush also proposes relocate Head Start from Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Education Department.

Eeek, goes the response from an establishment that has striven to keep Head Start in HHS ever since Jimmy Carter first sundered the old Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (Their main argument, once again, is that it belongs with other child development and family-support programs, not with school-centered programs.)

Expect fierce establishment resistance. Head Start advocates are vehemently opposed to any system that holds this cherished program to account for its results and NHSA president Sarah Green has already pronounced the Bush proposals a "disaster" and vowed to fight on Capitol Hill to "maintain Head Start intact." But the states are interested. Having greater say over Head Start would enable them to coordinate this federal program with their own pre-school and kindergarten efforts, with the Reading First program, with the accountability demands of No Child Left Behind, and with the qualifications they are setting for teachers and curricula.

A good deal of money is at stake: the new Bush budget seeks $6.8 billion for Head Start, $148 million more than last year - about $7367 per child expected to be served. It will, of course, be said that these numbers should be larger. Perhaps that's so. But until this familiar program gets its overdue makeover, more dollars cannot be counted upon to bring more learning. And learning needs to be the name of the game for Head Start just as for the K-12 system that these children move into.

A battle lies ahead. It's one worth fighting. But you may want to follow its progress through some other source than the largest circulation newspaper in the nation's capital.

California State University officials report that 59 percent of freshman entering the university system this fall needed remediation in math or English, despite ranking in the top third of their high school classes and having a B average in high school. While the percentage of students needing remediation in math declined in 2002 (in part due to a new math proficiency test that is easier), the percentage needing remedial help in English rose 3 percent. The CSU trustees adopted a policy in 1996 calling for the system to limit the number of freshmen needing remedial help to 10 percent or less by 2007.

"CSU freshmen lag in English, math," by Terri Hardy, Sacramento Bee, January 29, 2003

"Cal State sees reduced need for remediation, but finds English skills lacking," by Sara Hebel, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 29, 2003 (subscription required)

A new book aimed at discovering why there are so few black and Hispanic professors points the finger at undergraduate affirmative action policies that steer minority students to schools where they don't achieve high grades. According to the book, Increasing Faculty Diversity, the reason there are so few minority Ph.D.s is that most minority undergraduates don't do well enough in college to get into graduate school, a consequence of affirmative action policies that often direct them into elite institutions where they are ill-prepared to earn high marks. Of minority students in the study who scored over 1300 on the SAT, only 12 percent attending elite liberal arts colleges wound up with GPA's in the "A" range, compared with 44 percent of high-scoring minority students who attended state universities. The findings of this five-year study may influence the Supreme Court's deliberations over affirmative action this spring.

"The Unintended Consequences of Affirmative Action," by Robin Wilson, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 31, 2003 (subscription required)

"That flailing feeling," by John Leo, US News and World Report, February 10, 2003

Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students, by Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber, will be published by Harvard University Press next month. (Its ISBN is 0674009452)

Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
December 2002

Those expecting to find practical advice for superintendents in this report will be disappointed. Instead, Belfield and Levin have written a paper - thinly disguised as advice - that presents the case against vouchers and gives only minimal credence to the arguments in their favor. Instead of explaining to superintendents how vouchers might affect school funding and enrollments, or suggesting ways by which traditional public schools can compete more effectively in the voucher era, the authors soothe the fears of their putative readers by suggesting that, despite the Zelman decision, vouchers are unlikely to spread because they have so little public support. (Note that this paper was produced in conjunction with the American Association of School Administrators.) The report does have some value, as it points the reader toward a bit of the existing evidence on vouchers' effectiveness. It also neatly summarizes the challenges of building support for voucher programs, including a few subtle ones, such as the possibility that the terrorist attacks will renew interest in public institutions at the expense of privatization. In the end, however, its point of view is clear: vouchers don't seem to work and, if they did, they would damage our notion of "public" schooling. If you'd like to read it anyway, you'll find a copy on the NCSPE site at http://www.ncspe.org/keepout/papers/00063/914_AASAfinal.pdf.

Frederick Hess, the Progressive Policy Institute
January 2003

The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project (with financial assistance from the Broad Foundation) just released this thoughtful 24-page treatise by Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute. Its central contention: U.S. public schooling needs to look for leaders in many more places than it has traditionally done, including talented executives outside the education field; it needs to replace old ideas of licensure for school leaders; and it must recast their training, too. Some of this sort of thing is occurring through specialized programs such as "New Leaders for New Schools," to be sure, but Hess contends it should become the rule, not the exception. You'll find it at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=181&contentid=251239.

Larry Cuban and Michael Usdan, editors, Teachers College Press
December 2002

The movement to reform education in the United States is mainly about improving urban schools. To revive their cities, politicians and business leaders have been driving a series of governance and leadership changes to reform their troubled schools. According to Stanford's Cuban and the Institute of Educational Leadership's Usdan, their theory of action presupposes that "Increased political effectiveness (governance and leadership changes) and enhanced organizational effectiveness (systemic alignment of functions within the district) will produce classroom effectiveness (improved students' academic achievement)." The strategy for putting that theory into practice includes greater mayoral control and the hiring of non-educators to lead city school systems. To gauge the effectiveness of this strategy, Cuban and Usdan present case studies of six cities that have been at the forefront of education reform since the early 1990s: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego and Seattle. The lessons they draw are mixed. Among the most interesting have to do with such unintended consequences as high turnover in principals and other school administrators. As for academic achievement, there are some interesting commonalities across all six case studies: a spike in elementary test scores but no discernible change at the high-school level. Mostly, though, we learn that there is no single model of successful reform, which demands customized tactics, excellent leadership, community support, good timing and a bit of luck. "Establishing the right conditions for district reform matched to the unique features of a city is," the authors note, "painstakingly crafted work that often puts off impatient advocates but is necessary, based on the evidence of these six cities." The authors give high marks to Boston, Seattle and San Diego, but say that reform efforts in Philadelphia, Chicago and Baltimore have been less successful. To get a copy for yourself (the ISBN is 0807742929) go to http://store.tcpress.com/0807742929.shtml#726.

Paul Hill, The Progressive Policy Institute
January 2003

The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project (with financial assistance from the Broad Foundation) last week issued this 19-pager by Paul Hill of the University of Washington. After an insightful exegesis of why typical public-school governance arrangements do not foster educational quality, he urges the development of "performance-focused" school boards. These, Hill contends, would escape three ubiquitous "traps" (accumulated entitlements, opaqueness, false certainty) and rework the board's mission around three core precepts of education governance: vest decision making as near to the child as possible, make everything hinge on performance, and limit the board's own powers. Pie in the sky? It's famously difficult to get political bodies to reduce their own roles, and public education's innumerable vested interests all work against the recasting that Hill urges. But it makes good sense on paper. Have a look at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=181&contentid=251238.

Peter Brimelow
February 2003

Veteran financial journalist, immigration controversialist and National Education Association (NEA) watcher Peter Brimelow has penned a devastating and marvelously readable account of the malign role of teacher unions in American primary-secondary education. Be warned, though, this volume is about as subtle as a 2 x 4 applied forcefully to the reader's skull. The book contends that America's two big teacher unions, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have expertly exploited government's near monopoly of K-12 schooling to achieve a hammerlock on the operation of the schools themselves, the allocation of their resources, the terms of employment of their teachers and staff - and all efforts to change or reform them. The unions' capacity to retain this position of privilege owes much to its effectiveness in equating the interests of teachers with the vitality of that revered American institution known as "public education" and thus with the long-term well-being of democracy itself. The teacher unions are apt to retain much power, though perhaps a bit less than before. And education reform in America is apt to continue progressing at a worm-like pace. For a fuller appraisal of this book, you can surf to my long review at http://www.washtimes.com/books/20030202-89799328.htm. The book, to be published this month by Harper Collins (ISBN 0060096616) is available from the usual outlets.

The Center on Education Policy
November 2002

The Center on Education Policy here tackles "virtual education" and tries to pin it to the ground. If the Center had its way, on-line learning, for the foreseeable future, would only be accepted as a supplement to regular public schooling, not a replacement for brick-and-mortar education. (There is the nebulous suggestion that one day, after more is learned and an infinity of safeguards are put in place, it might become a substitute.) The report offers a set of lofty principles to govern all education reforms, predictable maxims that assume a uniform and monolithic school system. In other words, they stay squarely within the box of public-education-as-we-know-it rather than venturing outside. What a pity. See for yourself at http://www.ctredpol.org/democracypublicschools/preserving_principles_online_world_full.pdf.

The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
January 2003

This bulky, pompous tome from the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) - its first major report since Tom Carroll took the helm from Linda Darling-Hammond - was described in initial press accounts as a recasting of the country's teaching problem into one of turnover and attrition. [See one example at http://www.startribune.com/stories/1592/3620590.html.] That would have at least been interesting, coming from an outfit that has long emphasized preparation and licensure. And there's a veneer of accuracy to those reports, as NCTAF declares in these (150+) pages that, "In most cases poor school performance is being driven not by an insufficient supply of teachers, but by extremely high turnover rates that stem from chronic, unaddressed conditions in the schools." When you dig under the surface, however, into the Commission's three recommended "strategies" for solving this problem, we find the same old NCTAF. Beyond the tautology that better schools will tend to attract and keep better teachers, this new bottle is full of familiar grape juice: tighter regulation of entry and training, mandatory accreditation and certification, heavy reliance on National Board recognition, etc. Though the words say it's "time to abandon the futile debate over 'traditional' vs. 'alternative' preparation for teachers," what the Commission really means is that the alternative approach should vanish. Note, too, that its conviction that turnover in teaching is a bad thing flies in the face of the view of teaching that says short-termers should be welcomed and made the most of in ways that complement the work of career educators. You may not want this burden on your bookshelf - chances are that you have innumerable earlier NCTAF tomes - but you can get a copy by surfing to http://www.nctaf.org/dream/dream.html. For two other astute analyses of this report, surf to http://members.aol.com/educationintel/communique.htm (for Mike Antonucci's deconstruction of the NCTAF analysis) and http://www.uidaho.edu/~jwenders/Essays%20In%20Persuasion/New2/Retention--msw.htm (where you'll find a critique by economist John Wenders).