The Education Gadfly Weekly

National Center for Education Statistics
November 2006

2005 was is the first time NCES conducted its Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) for science. The report is now out and, as in other subjects, poor and minority kids in these ten big cities don't do well. This study compares these cities' test results to national averages and urban scores in general. Some of the ten score higher than others, some lower; some score higher than cities-in-general, others don't. All urban results are below the national average, but the achievement gaps in TUDA cities are not significantly different from national achievement gaps. No trend data are yet available. Almost as alarming as those gaps, however, is the attempt at positive "spin" that the National Assessment Governing Board is putting on the results. For starters, check out the "slide show" here (which offers no real news). Then read the report's text and see if you encounter any mention at all of the fact that "proficient"--reached by far too few, especially poor and minority youngsters--is the level that everyone is supposed to reach. NAGB seems content with "basic"--at least for these kids. Have they, too, succumbed to the soft bigotry of low expectations? The text report can be accessed here.

Sara Mead
Education Sector
October 2006

This concise report on charter schools in Michigan brings welcome clarity to the confusing history and status of chartering in the Great Lakes State. It is another in the excellent series, previously published by the Progressive Policy Institute, examining how charters are faring across the nation. With some 230 schools enrolling almost 100,000 students, and a political climate that even James Carville would find challenging, Michigan's charter landscape is vast and varied. Mead explains how tiny Bay Mills Community College--a tribally controlled school on the Upper Peninsula--busted the state's cap on charters to become a major authorizer; how and why Detroit blew a chance to receive 200 million private dollars to build 15 charters; and how Education Management Organizations have created strong schools while undermining public trust. Of the charters themselves, Mead notes that their efforts to improve student achievement, while exceptional in a few instances, have been modest in general. Compared to nearby district schools, charters do marginally better. But compared to traditional public schools statewide, charters have considerable ground to make up. Mead's recommendations for improving Michigan's charters are sound (with specific suggestions to address the state's charter school cap and its funding problems), if sometimes predictable ("improve quality in mediocre charter schools," "close low-performing schools," "improve ... data collection," etc.). Important reading, both for Michiganders and for all charter mavens. Read it here.

Ruth Curran Neild and Robert Belfanz
Project U-Turn
November 2006
Turning it Around: A Collective Effort to Understand and Resolve Philadelphia's Dropout Crisis
Project U-Turn
November 2006

Philadelphia has a dropout crisis. Project U-Turn's dual reports on this topic offer some important insights that could help policymakers tackle the problem more effectively. Their main virtue is the use of cohort data, which track a particular group of students over time instead of simply looking at a one-year snapshot. By doing this, the authors show not only that 40 percent of students leave Philadelphia high schools without graduating, but also which youngsters are at greatest risk. They argue that "about half of the dropouts in the city's public schools can be identified in the 8th grade" depending on whether students attend school 80 percent of the time and whether they fail either English or math. Factor in predictors for at-risk ninth-graders--attending school less than 70 percent of the time, earning fewer than two credits, not being promoted to tenth grade--and you've identified 80 percent of the dropouts. Other places, such as New York, have undertaken similar data-gathering projects (see here). Now the challenge is turning insight into action; the report's City-Wide Action Agenda is a good start. Read the reports here.

Stacy Childress, Richard Elmore, and Allen Grossman
Harvard Business Review
November 2006

This study, carried out by the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP), a partnership between Harvard's business and education schools, examined 15 urban districts in hopes of identifying management practices that are most effective in raising student achievement. It begins by noting that districts are not businesses and should not be run like businesses (unclear, though, why all the recommendations sound like material straight out of Management 101). Contrary to reformers who stress devolving power to individual schools, these authors argue that a strong central office is necessary. Look at charter schools, they implore, victimized by their own autonomy and in need of central organizations (authorizers, charter management organizations, networks, etc.) that construct "accountability systems, share best practices, and recruit and retain teachers." Recommendations follow for districts to get their acts together. On balance, there's little new here. The trick isn't identifying an effective framework; it's implementing it. And the major problem in these districts isn't lack of know-how, but politics. If you persist in wanting to read the report, you can find it here (but you'll need a credit card--this is Harvard, after all).

Despite its posturing, the Ivy League remains out of reach for most high schoolers. And entrance into many state "flagship" universities can be a long shot, too. Enter community colleges, which currently enroll some 6 million degree-seeking students and are attracting ever-more philanthropic dollars. California's Irvine Foundation, for instance, is giving to community colleges because it believes they are a crucial stepping stone for many high schoolers (especially poor and minority students) who may be intimidated by big four-year universities or who may not have the academic credentials to matriculate upon leaving twelfth grade. Moreover, these students are less likely to drop out if they see a clear path to postsecondary education. Community colleges are also getting into the teacher-training game, which creates additional competitive pressure for hidebound ed schools. Philanthropists take note: Harvard's endowment could buy a small country; community colleges are a better investment.

"Big Givers Turn to Poorly Financed Community Colleges," By Karen W. Arenson, New York Times, November 13, 2006

Not only did the Democratic Party take control of Congress in last week's election; it also captured a majority of the nation's governorships. And not just on the coasts; Democrats Chet Culver and Bill Ritter won open seats in Iowa and Colorado, and Democratic incumbents held onto their jobs in Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Now these progressive politicians need to face an uncomfortable question: What's the matter with Middle America?

What do we mean? Click here and ponder the states shown in blue. They are notable for their failure to make any (statistically significant) progress in getting poor and minority students to NAEP's "proficient" level over the past decade or more. Observe how many are in the nation's midsection. From Illinois across to Oklahoma, over to Utah and back to Wisconsin, it's an unsettling "no progress" zone that cries out for some explanation--particularly for anyone worried about the plight of disadvantaged children.

Education Week generated this map using data compiled by Fordham for our recent report, How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children?  That study contains some good news: eight states made "moderate" progress in boosting poor/minority NAEP scores, meaning that at least two of three subgroups (African-American, Hispanic, or low-income students) gained in at least two of three subjects (reading, math, or science). These include a few each from the Northeast (Massachusetts and New York), the Mid-Atlantic (Delaware and New Jersey), the South (Florida and Texas), and the West (California and Washington). Note, though, that every one of them has a seacoast. Another 23 states, scattered around the country, made "limited" or "minimal" progress. But 13 states made no progress, almost all of them clustered in the nation's center.

Not many years ago, that's how people talked about the South. It was America's educational dead zone. Has the heartland become the "new south"? What is it about this region--a big chunk of the rust-belt and agricultural Midwest, stretching into the Mountain West--that explains its lack of academic progress by poor and minority students? Let's consider an obvious answer: demographics. It's true that many of these states have small minority populations; still, all but Montana and the Dakotas had large enough African-American or Hispanic populations for NAEP to measure--and for us to include in the study. And it's true that Illinois deserves special consideration, as it did not start participating in NAEP until 2000 in math and science and 2003 in reading. So it hasn't had much time to register progress.

But consider the others. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Colorado have large African-American populations in urban centers. And Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah have plenty of poor and Hispanic students. (Colorado, too, has many Hispanic youngsters.) Why aren't any of those states making academic progress with their disadvantaged students? Let's try a few societal explanations.  

It's possible that black students in, say, St. Louis are worse-off than black students in, say, Houston. Minority students in the Midwest do attend schools that are more racially isolated; the Harvard Civil Rights Project reports that 26 percent of black students in the Midwest attend schools that are virtually 100 percent minority--the highest rate in the nation. Over the past twelve years, attendance in these uniracial schools has increased slightly, while in other regions it has dropped or stayed the same. On the other hand, Hispanic students in the Midwest tend to attend less-isolated schools than their peers in the rest of America.

Maybe it's the economy. The Midwest and Great Plains have been plagued of late by unemployment and depopulation. Perhaps tough times have made poor students there even poorer, deflating their achievement. It might also be the "brain drain" effect--the flight of the best-educated families and the exit of promising college graduates have left behind the most challenging students. Yet, the great symbols of industrial stagnation--Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio--are actually among the few Midwestern states whose poor or minority students have made recent academic progress.

There's one more explanation, and it's the one we put the most credence in: policy. Simply put, the "no progress" states, by and large, have refused to adopt the comprehensive education reforms that are showing results elsewhere.

Our study examined the degree to which states have embraced policies such as high standards, tough accountability, and school choice. Remember the eight states that made "moderate progress" in achievement for their poor and minority students? Five of them are also among the top ten states when it comes to education reform. California, for example, has the best academic standards and the most charter schools in the country; it has demonstrated progress for low-income and Hispanic students across all three subjects, and for black students in math. Massachusetts also boasts excellent standards, a rigorous test, and a high school exit exam; it has seen gains for black students in reading and math, and also for low-income students in math and science.

Now consider the "unlucky 13"--the "no progress" states: None is among the top ten education-reform states and just four are among the top 25. True, not all are reform wastelands. Minnesota and Wisconsin boast strong school-choice sectors, though they're hampered by weak academic standards. Colorado has decent content standards, but set the bar for No Child Left Behind at one of the lowest levels in the country. None of these states has embraced the full reform package. And states such as Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma--at the bottom of the school reform barrel--can't claim to be doing much of anything to help their disadvantaged students succeed. With lame (or non-existent) academic standards, few charter schools or other forms of parental choice, and only the weakest forms of (NCLB-mandated) accountability, they have taken laissez-faire to the extreme.

Why the states in this region have been so hesitant to embrace strong educational policies is a mystery, but let's consider some possibilities. Perhaps the frontier attitude of "local control" remains more firmly in place here. Perhaps high average scores have fostered complacency. Perhaps they haven't come to grips with their influx of poor Hispanic students. Or perhaps their political culture allows these predominantly-white states to ignore or marginalize the educational disasters that are unfolding in their relatively few urban cores. Whatever the reason, those attitudes are going to need to change if these states are to have any chance of economic and social renewal.

Twenty years ago, Southern governors with names like Clinton, Riley, Alexander and Hunt came to understand that education was the key to their states' shaky economic fortunes--and their dreams of a more just society. Experiencing the loss of jobs overseas, brain drain to even sunnier climates, and high unemployment rates, they and many of their peers embraced education reform as the key tor economic and social recovery. Now Heartland governors (such as Messrs. Culver, Ritter, and Doyle) have an opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to use bold education reforms to address their states' own economic and social challenges--and to offer a brighter future to all of their children.

Milton Friedman died today at 94. The Nobel-prize winning economist was, among innumerable other accomplishments, the intellectual father of school choice in America. We mourn his passing even as we celebrate his life and work. For additional information, see here and here.

Making sense of mid-term elections is akin to making sense of the opening break in a pool game. Casual observers sometimes believe that if the person breaking puts several balls into the pockets, he has the inside track on winning. But experienced players know it's how the remaining balls set up that determines the victor.

The opening break last Tuesday was obviously a good one for Democrats, as voters snapped the 12-year Republican hold on both House and Senate and a bunch of governorships as well. Much crowing ensued among the Dems, while the White House dusted off the "bipartisanship" dictionary that it shelved soon after No Child Left Behind cleared the Congress in 2001.

Among education watchers, the speculation began even before the election about how a Democratic "revolution" would affect NCLB's pending re-authorization in 2007 (though few believe it will happen then). Education Week rightly notes that both Rep. George Miller, the next chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, incoming (and returning) chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, stand behind the principles of NCLB (after all, they helped to write it) and that its key components are safe in their hands (though much-needed improvements aren't likely to occur).

So far, so good for those of us, whatever our party affiliation, who want to keep NCLB's heart beating. But the law's supporters can't rest easy, because this billiard table doesn't set up so well for NCLB in the near future.

That same Education Week article notes there is a growing anti-NCLB coalition, headed by Sen. Christopher Dodd and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. Each will likely hold powerful education subcommittee seats and may try to rally others to defang the law.

It's these more critical voices that worry party strategists, writes Paul Basken in Tuesday's Bloomberg News. According to his squib, Democratic critics of NCLB are being encouraged by party strategists to tone down their rhetoric lest "they strengthen Republicans who want to kill the law altogether."

Who are these Republicans? They're people such as Rep. Mike Pence, who believes that his party is now in the minority because Bush abandoned the GOP values--limited government and low taxes--that were the foundation of the Reagan Revolution in 1980 and the Republican Revolution in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and company ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House.

"Returning Republicans to the Reagan roots," writes Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal (see here; subscription required), "is Mr. Pence's obsession." Which is why he defied W in 2001 and voted against funding for NCLB. "Why," Pence asked at the time, "are we federalizing schools and education?"

Pence is running for Minority Leader against John Boehner, who coauthored NCLB and has spent the past five years as one of its cheerleaders. Odds are that Boehner will win when the vote is taken tomorrow (let's hope the prognosticators are right). But even if he loses, Pence and like-minded Republicans are prepared to make a grab for power in Congress should Republicans regain control again in '08.

Nearly everyone agrees the Ds' victory last Tuesday was less an endorsement of that party's vision than a sign of widespread frustration with Bush. In other words, the old "Reagan Democrats" turned on the GOP and supported Dems such as James Webb in Virginia, Heath Shuler in North Carolina, and Jon Tester in Montana--people who hardly share the progressive notions of party leaders Pelosi, Kennedy, Miller, Dodd, and Woolsey.

If the party leadership forgets this fact (Pelosi promises that she won't, but don't bet on it), those same Reagan Democrats who contributed to the Ds' success last week may show them the door in '08, empowering the newly energized conservatives.

That could spell trouble for NCLB. (And for my colleague's "Washington Consensus.") Pence and his followers wouldn't just tinker around the law's edges. They would be more apt to shoot it through the head. While that's admittedly a long shot, they could weaken it into a shadow of its current self.

For the sake of those states that have embraced NCLB and built new systems that are beginning to show real achievement gains, let's hope that Pelosi and company don't lose their heads.

NEA President Reg Weaver must have been flying high without much oxygen when he lauded Southwest Airlines' no-merit-pay policy. "Southwest thrived by sharing ideas," he wrote, "building a strong, unified corporate culture, and--here's a radical notion--encouraging workers to help one another." What's radical is Weaver comparing the rule-bound, change-resistant public education monopoly to an innovative upstart born from deregulation. Sure, Southwest eschews merit pay, but it also pushes its employees to work harder and for less money than other airlines do. And, according to this case study, part of its success is due to the fact that its "unions are not interested in pushing their roles beyond the traditional collective bargaining and grievance functions they perform." Are you willing to take that deal, Mr. Weaver? In the meantime, let's get something straight: charter schools are the Southwests and Jet Blues (and, to be fair, the Independence Airs) of the education industry. Without deregulation and competition, having the Blob mimic Southwest's promising practices will amount to peanuts. Ooops. Pretzels.  

"To boost students and teachers, steer clear of merit pay on the road to reform," by Reg Weaver, Christian Science Monitor, November 13, 2006    

National Center for Education Statistics
November 2006

2005 was is the first time NCES conducted its Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) for science. The report is now out and, as in other subjects, poor and minority kids in these ten big cities don't do well. This study compares these cities' test results to national averages and urban scores in general. Some of the ten score higher than others, some lower; some score higher than cities-in-general, others don't. All urban results are below the national average, but the achievement gaps in TUDA cities are not significantly different from national achievement gaps. No trend data are yet available. Almost as alarming as those gaps, however, is the attempt at positive "spin" that the National Assessment Governing Board is putting on the results. For starters, check out the "slide show" here (which offers no real news). Then read the report's text and see if you encounter any mention at all of the fact that "proficient"--reached by far too few, especially poor and minority youngsters--is the level that everyone is supposed to reach. NAGB seems content with "basic"--at least for these kids. Have they, too, succumbed to the soft bigotry of low expectations? The text report can be accessed here.

Ruth Curran Neild and Robert Belfanz
Project U-Turn
November 2006
Turning it Around: A Collective Effort to Understand and Resolve Philadelphia's Dropout Crisis
Project U-Turn
November 2006

Philadelphia has a dropout crisis. Project U-Turn's dual reports on this topic offer some important insights that could help policymakers tackle the problem more effectively. Their main virtue is the use of cohort data, which track a particular group of students over time instead of simply looking at a one-year snapshot. By doing this, the authors show not only that 40 percent of students leave Philadelphia high schools without graduating, but also which youngsters are at greatest risk. They argue that "about half of the dropouts in the city's public schools can be identified in the 8th grade" depending on whether students attend school 80 percent of the time and whether they fail either English or math. Factor in predictors for at-risk ninth-graders--attending school less than 70 percent of the time, earning fewer than two credits, not being promoted to tenth grade--and you've identified 80 percent of the dropouts. Other places, such as New York, have undertaken similar data-gathering projects (see here). Now the challenge is turning insight into action; the report's City-Wide Action Agenda is a good start. Read the reports here.

Sara Mead
Education Sector
October 2006

This concise report on charter schools in Michigan brings welcome clarity to the confusing history and status of chartering in the Great Lakes State. It is another in the excellent series, previously published by the Progressive Policy Institute, examining how charters are faring across the nation. With some 230 schools enrolling almost 100,000 students, and a political climate that even James Carville would find challenging, Michigan's charter landscape is vast and varied. Mead explains how tiny Bay Mills Community College--a tribally controlled school on the Upper Peninsula--busted the state's cap on charters to become a major authorizer; how and why Detroit blew a chance to receive 200 million private dollars to build 15 charters; and how Education Management Organizations have created strong schools while undermining public trust. Of the charters themselves, Mead notes that their efforts to improve student achievement, while exceptional in a few instances, have been modest in general. Compared to nearby district schools, charters do marginally better. But compared to traditional public schools statewide, charters have considerable ground to make up. Mead's recommendations for improving Michigan's charters are sound (with specific suggestions to address the state's charter school cap and its funding problems), if sometimes predictable ("improve quality in mediocre charter schools," "close low-performing schools," "improve ... data collection," etc.). Important reading, both for Michiganders and for all charter mavens. Read it here.

Stacy Childress, Richard Elmore, and Allen Grossman
Harvard Business Review
November 2006

This study, carried out by the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP), a partnership between Harvard's business and education schools, examined 15 urban districts in hopes of identifying management practices that are most effective in raising student achievement. It begins by noting that districts are not businesses and should not be run like businesses (unclear, though, why all the recommendations sound like material straight out of Management 101). Contrary to reformers who stress devolving power to individual schools, these authors argue that a strong central office is necessary. Look at charter schools, they implore, victimized by their own autonomy and in need of central organizations (authorizers, charter management organizations, networks, etc.) that construct "accountability systems, share best practices, and recruit and retain teachers." Recommendations follow for districts to get their acts together. On balance, there's little new here. The trick isn't identifying an effective framework; it's implementing it. And the major problem in these districts isn't lack of know-how, but politics. If you persist in wanting to read the report, you can find it here (but you'll need a credit card--this is Harvard, after all).