Samuel Meisels, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Yange Xue, Donna DiPrima Bickel, Seung-Hee Son, Education Policy Analysis ArchivesFebruary 28, 2003
Samuel Meisels, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Yange Xue, Donna DiPrima Bickel, Seung-Hee Son, Education Policy Analysis Archives
February 28, 2003
This study, released last month by the Education Policy Analysis Archives, examined the change in scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) of low-income, urban, third and fourth grade students enrolled in classrooms where the Work Sampling System (WSS) was used for at least three years. (WSS is a curriculum embedded performance assessment.) Participants' performance on the ITBS was compared with students from matched schools who had not been exposed to the program. The study's premise was that traditional standardized tests are not effective assessment tools because they do not evaluate students based on a specific set of skills taught throughout the year. It is contended, therefore, that if teachers focused on preparing students for a performance-based assessment of the curriculum, students would both learn more AND score higher on the ITBS. Not surprisingly, results indicated that students in WSS classrooms displayed yearly growth in reading that "far exceeded" the contrast group. But the study had significant limitations that may affect these results. In particular, WSS was enacted as part of a district restructuring effort that also included implementation of new reading, mathematics and social studies curriculum, but the authors did not know in which schools the curricula were changed. Hence they had no way of knowing for sure whether the measured gains in student achievement were due to WSS or other factors. To see the study, go to http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n9/.
People for the American Way Foundation and
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
March 6, 2003
This report claims to be a "thorough analysis" of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers to students with disabilities so that they may enroll in private schools. Unfortunately, it's a painfully shallow analysis that reads more like a hostile editorial. Its language is inflammatory, its logic often suspect. In the end, its conclusions are also predictable: the McKay program drains money from public schools, tricks parents into giving up their right to a free public education, and sends students to opportunistic private schools that may be worse than their public schools. The report even suggests that such voucher programs are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to "limit how much taxpayers must pay to educate the disabled and begin a movement toward cost containment." The report does make a few worthy points, however: some aspects of the McKay program have been implemented sloppily; parents have not been fully informed of their rights and options; and participating private schools have not been well-screened and monitored (leading to a number of highly publicized scandals). And perhaps more importantly, Florida does not require private schools to test these students, as The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education urged for such programs. Valid concerns, yes, but they do not negate the value of providing a choice to parents, especially those whose children have special needs. If you can stomach a visit to PFAW's website, you can find this report at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9063.
Anne T. Henderson, ParentLeadership Associates
2002
An Action Guide for Community and Parent Leaders: Using NCLB to Improve Student Achievement
Public Education Network, 2002
When No Child Left Behind Act became law in January of 2002, there was great hope that Washington's heightened role in education would lead to a better day for America's children. There was also plenty of confusion as to what the law actually meant. These two reports, the first written for parents, the second for community leaders, should help answer questions about the law. Anne Henderson's summary of NCLB is written to help parents, particularly parents from low-income communities, use the law to leverage improvement in failing schools. The Public Education Network summary is also a useful resource for parents and groups that serve them. It identifies the specific rights, roles, and responsibilities that parents and community leaders can take advantage of to send "a no-nonsense message that unequal educational opportunities will no longer be tolerated in their public schools." The report explains the major elements of NCLB; provides general information on the scope and requirements of each major area of community and parental engagement; and makes the statutory language comprehensible to laypeople. It also has a welcome glossary of terms and index of resources. For Henderson's report for parents go to http://www.plassociates.org/publications.pdf. For the PEN guide, go to http://www.publiceducation.org/pdf/nclbbook.pdf.
Students for Teachers, Yale University
Spring 2003
This is the inaugural issue of a publication sponsored by Students for Teachers, a non-profit organization founded last spring by a group of Yale University students "deeply concerned with the future of public education in America" who seek to create a voice for students in the education reform debate. Among the more interesting articles is a column by Aaron Tang who believes that, in order for states to meet the highly-qualified teacher challenge of NCLB, they must reduce the certification barriers that prevent many qualified candidates from entering the field, while also raising teacher pay to attract more highly qualified professionals. In related articles, Ethan Hutt argues for career ladders for teachers that reward quality, rather than simply experience and degrees earned, and Adam Brenner challenges policy leaders to consider merit pay as a way to increase teacher accountability. As a group, the authors of this journal seem mostly to be out-of-the-box thinkers who are open to new remedies for old problems. (Of course they're also quite young!) It can be found at http://www.yale.edu/sft/our%20education-spring03.pdf.
Darrel Drury and Harold Doran, New American Schools
January 2003
Darrel Drury and Harold Doran of New American Schools wrote this wee (4-page) policy research brief for the National School Boards Association. It supplies an excellent introduction to value-added analysis of test-score data, addresses a number of concerns and objections that have been raised about this kind of analysis, indicates some important uses to which such analyses can be put, and briefly discusses the relationship of value-added analysis to No Child Left Behind. Well worth your while, and findable at http://www.newamericanschools.org/uploadedfiles/DruryDoranPolicyResearchBriefWeb%20site.pdf.
Katherine Boles and Vivian Troen, Yale University Press
March 2003
Katherine Boles of the Harvard ed school and Vivian Troen of Brandeis co-wrote this 220-page book, subtitled "Why the teacher crisis is worse than you think and what can be done about it." Their diagnosis is wholly familiar if largely true: underqualified candidates, weak training, a "culture of isolation" in the schools, etc. A bunch of familiar policy cures (e.g. smaller classes, high-stakes testing, school choice, "teacher-proof" curricula) are then examined and dismissed. That enables the authors to offer their own cure-all, at least for the elementary grades, a design that they term the "Millennium School" and that they claim would "utterly restructure the profession of teaching." Said design incorporates a number of promising features and is surely worth trying somewhere, though I'd want to see a lot of evidence before treating it as a sure route to placing highly qualified teachers in every American classroom. You may want to have a look. The book is full of earnestness. It's also about 2/3 full of conventional thinking about teaching and teachers. The final third, however, is worthwhile. The ISBN is 0300097417, Yale is the publisher and more information can be found at http://www.harvard.com/cgi-bin/newarriv.cgi?isbn=0300097417&ver=sc.
In a recent Gadfly (http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=13#305), I sketched the main findings of Hoover's Koret Task Force in Our Schools & Our Future: Are We Still at Risk?, a reflection on what's happened to American education in the two decades since A Nation at Risk was issued in 1983. What I didn't make clear is that this new Hoover volume contains not just the group statement but also special-focus chapters by each of 11 task force members. There you will find Diane Ravitch on A Nation at Risk's place in history; Paul Peterson on gains in student achievement; Caroline Hoxby on what has and hasn't actually changed in U.S. education during this period; Paul Hill and associates on minority students; Eric Hanushek on the economic contribution of school quality; Terry Moe on the politics of ed reform (with special reference to teacher unions); Bill Evers (and Paul Clopton) on the curriculum; E.D. Hirsch on the early grades; Herb Walberg on "real accountability"; John Chubb on "real choice"; and yours truly on "teacher reform gone astray." To whet your appetite for this collection of original essays, here's the gist of mine:
Teaching was a top concern of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which found that "[N]ot enough of the academically able students are being attracted to teaching; that teacher preparation programs need substantial improvement; that the professional working life of teachers is on the whole unacceptable; and that a serious shortage of teachers exists in key fields."
To solve those problems, the Commission made numerous recommendations, including higher standards for teachers, demonstrated competence in an academic discipline, performance-based pay, actions to "improve or terminate" weak teachers, career ladders and alternative certification, especially in math and science.
A Nation At Risk took an instrumental view of teachers as crucial workers in an underperforming industry, namely U.S. schools. It issued no clarion summons to "empower" them, place them in charge of key education decisions or reinvent schools around them.
Almost before the commission's ink had dried, however, Americans were presented with a very different view that emphasized "teacher professionalism." Originating in the Carnegie-sponsored report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, its most notable feature was a shift from teachers-as-instruments-of-school-improvement to teachers-as-architects-of-school-improvement.
Accompanying that power shift were different ideas about schooling itself, away from the view that teachers should impart specific knowledge and skills to youngsters and toward the constructivist view that the teacher's foremost mission is to help the child become a learner.
Unlike the Excellence Commission, which detonated its report and then went out of business, the Carnegie task force had powerful allies with great staying power and political clout. The campaign that it launched also had access to ample private and public dollars. Hence we oughtn't be surprised that this "teacher professionalism" campaign gained far more traction than the recommendations concerning teachers contained in A Nation At Risk.
Among the professionalizers' organizational progeny are the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) and a strengthened National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
Today, those entities wield much leverage over how one gets trained for teaching, becomes licensed to teach, and advances within the field. Sixteen states have created "teacher professional standards boards" that are largely beyond the influence of elected policymakers, voters and taxpayers. Nearly every state now has a "partnership" with NCATE and in many that accrediting group wields joint power in determining which preparation programs are approved for purposes of teacher certification. As for NBPTS, half the states now offer financial bonuses to board-certified teachers, as do several hundred local districts.
Considering all this activity and the immense political, legislative and budgetary resources that it has consumed, one might say the teacher professionalism agenda has functioned like a "black hole" in space, sucking in much of the available energy, attention and funds and leaving little for other education changes.
That would be okay if we were confident that such moves will yield the desired results for students as well as teachers. But there is no basis for such confidence. Professionalizing turns out to be a weak if costly strategy for addressing the problems at hand. Worse, it keeps running afoul of today's two dominant education-reform strategies, both the standards-based kind and the choice-based kind. Worse still, it tends to inflame other education ills. Notably, the push to "raise standards" for entry into the classroom does little to ensure quality control while aggravating teacher shortages and boosting opportunity costs for career-switchers.
These are heavy burdens for the professionalizers and they haven't gotten any lighter in recent years. Indeed, resistance is widening as alternative certification spreads, as heterodox programs such as Teach for America demonstrate their success, and as charter schools (which are usually free to employ whatever teachers they like) proliferate. Because most such schools are also free from mandatory collective bargaining, their popularity weakens the unions, ed schools, and other cartel institutions from which the professionalizers draw most of their political oomph.
Skeptics are multiplying, too. They now include U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige, whose 2002 report on teacher quality must be seen as a major setback to the professionalizers. "Raising teacher standards," he said, "is only half of the equation.... [S]tates must also tear down the wall that is keeping many talented individuals out of the profession." It turns out that's very similar to the advice of the Excellence Commission almost two decades earlier. Perhaps this time we'll heed it.
You can find the full text of this essay at http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/fulltext/ourschools/211.pdf.
The table of contents of the entire Koret volume can be accessed at http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/osof.html. And you can obtain shorter versions of many of the essays from the most recent issue of Education Next, available at your newsstand, by subscription, or at http://www.educationnext.org/.
* * *
Earlier this week, Secretary Paige restated his view that we need to create new options for individuals who would be discouraged from teaching by the hoops and hurdles of traditional certification programs. Endorsing the new American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, which will certify teachers based on their knowledge of their subjects and their excellence in the classroom, Paige praised the program as "radically better than the system we have now, a system that drives thousands of talented people away from our classrooms."
"Paige backs reform in certification of teachers," by George Archibald, The Washington Times, March 19, 2003
Sylvan Learning Systems, the nation's top K-12 tutoring company, announced last week that it will sell its tutoring centers and focus entirely on higher education (operating colleges overseas and on the internet), an area which the company believes has greater long-term potential for growth. The purchaser, Apollo Management, a New York-based investment fund, will run the tutoring centers under a new corporate name, Educate, Inc. It isn't clear how this change will affect the availability of tutoring services for children funded by the supplemental services provision of the No Child Left Behind Act. Executives of the new firm say the change shouldn't affect consumers at all. Sylvan is already certified as a provider of such services in 23 states, although presently Sylvan is tutoring just 2400 children with funding from the federal law. More than 900 Sylvan Learning Centers currently operate in North America.
"Sylvan Learning, Changing Focus, Sells K-12 Sector," by Mark Walsh, Education Week, March 19, 2003
"Sylvan selling tutoring business," by Andrew Ratner, Baltimore Sun, March 11, 2003
The cash-stressed New York City school system is spending about $70 million this year on paid sabbaticals for 1000 veteran teachers, the New York Post reported last week. The teachers are on six- and twelve-month leaves of absences, taking college courses part-time. Their union contract allows teachers to take a full-year sabbatical at 70 percent pay after fourteen years of service and a six-month sabbatical at 60 percent pay after 7 years. The Post notes that some of the courses are of a recreational nature, such as Beginning Tennis.
"Teachers on leave cost city millions," by Carl Campanile, New York Post, March 10, 2003
First elected to the Milwaukee school board in 1995, independent labor organizer John Gardner is best known for his passionate support of Milwaukee's voucher experiment. But Gardner's tenure on the board may draw to an end with an April 1 election in which he is being challenged by Tom Balistreri, a former high school principal whose campaign is being generously bankrolled by a hodgepodge of anti-voucher (and anti-Gardner) groups. Balistreri's school reform strategy is "short on specifics"--he won't even talk about vouchers in public--but, with union support, he beat Gardner by 1,000 votes in the February primary and could inherit another 2,000 votes from another candidate. While the anti-voucher camp will likely spin a Gardner loss as a vote of no confidence in the city's sizable voucher program, the survival of that program does not hinge on this election. It was created by the Wisconsin legislature and only that body can end it.
"Showdown at the voucher corral," by Eli Lehrer, The Weekly Standard, March 24, 2003 (available to subscribers only)
"A Milwaukee election may test voter view of vouchers," by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, The Christian Science Monitor, March 18, 2003
In several publications, the Fordham Foundation has helped to expose some of the suspect claims made by "intelligent design" advocates as they've tried to insert their neo-creationist perspective on evolution into science instruction in K-12 schools. Readers interested in this controversy may want to check out this month's issue of Commentary magazine. Last month's issue included an article by a critic of evolution, and the March issue includes a lively "controversy" section on the debate between scientists and intelligent design creationists.
"Darwinism versus intelligent design," by David Berlinski and Critics, Commentary, March 2003
Good Science, Bad Science, by Lawrence S. Lerner, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, September 2000
Politicizing Science Education, by Paul Gross, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, April 2000
We learn from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, from surveys by the National Geographic Society, and from a hundred other sources that American students' knowledge of history and geography is lamentably thin, that their understanding of their nation's past is weak, and that their comprehension of the world outside U.S. borders is skimpy indeed. Yet there has never been a time when such knowledge mattered more. Geography plays a crucial role in shaping history and the study of history provides an important context for students learning geography. Yet K-12 teachers rarely take advantage of the complementary nature of these two subjects by teaching both in one integrated curriculum. A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation shows how the study of U.S. history can be enriched by blending geography into the curriculum. The centerpiece of the report is an innovative curricular framework for studying the American past, a course in which each historical period is supplemented and enriched by the introduction of relevant geography. See www.edexcellence.net to download a copy of the report or to order a hard copy.
The Best of Both Worlds, Blending History and Geography in the K-12 Curriculum, by Richard G. Boehm, David Warren Saxe and David J. Rutherford, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, February 2003
Why is Edison Schools, a start-up firm that advanced a great idea to address a pressing need, an outfit with many talented people and lots of investor capital, still struggling to succeed in its core business of managing schools? According to Tom Toch, analyst at the National Center on Education and the Economy and author of a long-awaited forthcoming book on Edison, the firm's difficulties arise from the political environment it has encountered while dealing with traditional public school and charter school boards. Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, Toch noted that Edison doesn't run its own schools; it runs other people's schools and a variety of political barriers in many locales have left the company unable to implement its school plans without making serious compromises. Edison has full control over the hiring of only about 40 percent of its principals and thus cannot always let the weakest principals go. Edison has also inherited veteran teachers whom it is powerless to get rid of--teachers who are at the top of the salary schedule but are not invested in Edison's vision. Edison's plight, Toch concludes, is a lesson in why the nation's schools are so troubled and why it is so hard to fix them. Following Toch's AEI presentation, Mary Ann Schmitt of New American Schools added her own analysis of mistakes Edison has made and challenges that any for-profit or nonprofit provider will face in the current policy environment.
A summary of the AEI event, "The Future of For-Profit Schooling: What Do Edison Schools Reveal about the Politics of School Reform?" held on January 13, 2003, is available at http://aei.org/events/eventID.60/summary.asp
Rarely does a newly introduced bill deserve comment before it's even gotten to the stage of hearings, but you should know about this one. Senator Lamar Alexander--former U.S. Secretary of Education, Governor of Tennessee, president of that state's flagship university, and chairman of the National Governors Association--used the occasion of his "debut" speech on the Senate floor to introduce S. 504, The American History and Civics Education Act of 2003. As he put it, this bill joins "two urgent concerns that will determine our country's future&: the education of our children and the principles that unite us as Americans." It authorizes the National Endowment for the Humanities to create a dozen "Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and Civics" and a like number of "Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics." (It also provides for a new "National Alliance of Teachers of American History and Civics.) Authorized at $25 million, the measure is seen by Alexander and his co-sponsors as a pilot to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of residential summer programs for K-12 teachers specializing in history and/or civics, and for high school students who are accomplished and interested in those subjects. About 300 teachers would attend each 2-week program (i.e. about 3600 per annum) as would a similar number of students (their programs would last a month). Universities and education research organizations would run these projects. If enacted, these would be substantial--as well as highly symbolic--sources of encouragement to K-12 and higher education to pay closer heed to what Alexander terms "better teaching and more learning of the key events, persons and ideas that shape the institutions and democratic heritage of the United States."
Senator Alexander's terrific speech can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:8:./temp/~r108KXskyZ:e0:. You can read the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108TZ8TL3::.
Anne T. Henderson, ParentLeadership Associates
2002
An Action Guide for Community and Parent Leaders: Using NCLB to Improve Student Achievement
Public Education Network, 2002
When No Child Left Behind Act became law in January of 2002, there was great hope that Washington's heightened role in education would lead to a better day for America's children. There was also plenty of confusion as to what the law actually meant. These two reports, the first written for parents, the second for community leaders, should help answer questions about the law. Anne Henderson's summary of NCLB is written to help parents, particularly parents from low-income communities, use the law to leverage improvement in failing schools. The Public Education Network summary is also a useful resource for parents and groups that serve them. It identifies the specific rights, roles, and responsibilities that parents and community leaders can take advantage of to send "a no-nonsense message that unequal educational opportunities will no longer be tolerated in their public schools." The report explains the major elements of NCLB; provides general information on the scope and requirements of each major area of community and parental engagement; and makes the statutory language comprehensible to laypeople. It also has a welcome glossary of terms and index of resources. For Henderson's report for parents go to http://www.plassociates.org/publications.pdf. For the PEN guide, go to http://www.publiceducation.org/pdf/nclbbook.pdf.
Darrel Drury and Harold Doran, New American Schools
January 2003
Darrel Drury and Harold Doran of New American Schools wrote this wee (4-page) policy research brief for the National School Boards Association. It supplies an excellent introduction to value-added analysis of test-score data, addresses a number of concerns and objections that have been raised about this kind of analysis, indicates some important uses to which such analyses can be put, and briefly discusses the relationship of value-added analysis to No Child Left Behind. Well worth your while, and findable at http://www.newamericanschools.org/uploadedfiles/DruryDoranPolicyResearchBriefWeb%20site.pdf.
Katherine Boles and Vivian Troen, Yale University Press
March 2003
Katherine Boles of the Harvard ed school and Vivian Troen of Brandeis co-wrote this 220-page book, subtitled "Why the teacher crisis is worse than you think and what can be done about it." Their diagnosis is wholly familiar if largely true: underqualified candidates, weak training, a "culture of isolation" in the schools, etc. A bunch of familiar policy cures (e.g. smaller classes, high-stakes testing, school choice, "teacher-proof" curricula) are then examined and dismissed. That enables the authors to offer their own cure-all, at least for the elementary grades, a design that they term the "Millennium School" and that they claim would "utterly restructure the profession of teaching." Said design incorporates a number of promising features and is surely worth trying somewhere, though I'd want to see a lot of evidence before treating it as a sure route to placing highly qualified teachers in every American classroom. You may want to have a look. The book is full of earnestness. It's also about 2/3 full of conventional thinking about teaching and teachers. The final third, however, is worthwhile. The ISBN is 0300097417, Yale is the publisher and more information can be found at http://www.harvard.com/cgi-bin/newarriv.cgi?isbn=0300097417&ver=sc.
People for the American Way Foundation and
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
March 6, 2003
This report claims to be a "thorough analysis" of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers to students with disabilities so that they may enroll in private schools. Unfortunately, it's a painfully shallow analysis that reads more like a hostile editorial. Its language is inflammatory, its logic often suspect. In the end, its conclusions are also predictable: the McKay program drains money from public schools, tricks parents into giving up their right to a free public education, and sends students to opportunistic private schools that may be worse than their public schools. The report even suggests that such voucher programs are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to "limit how much taxpayers must pay to educate the disabled and begin a movement toward cost containment." The report does make a few worthy points, however: some aspects of the McKay program have been implemented sloppily; parents have not been fully informed of their rights and options; and participating private schools have not been well-screened and monitored (leading to a number of highly publicized scandals). And perhaps more importantly, Florida does not require private schools to test these students, as The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education urged for such programs. Valid concerns, yes, but they do not negate the value of providing a choice to parents, especially those whose children have special needs. If you can stomach a visit to PFAW's website, you can find this report at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9063.
Samuel Meisels, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Yange Xue, Donna DiPrima Bickel, Seung-Hee Son, Education Policy Analysis Archives
February 28, 2003
This study, released last month by the Education Policy Analysis Archives, examined the change in scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) of low-income, urban, third and fourth grade students enrolled in classrooms where the Work Sampling System (WSS) was used for at least three years. (WSS is a curriculum embedded performance assessment.) Participants' performance on the ITBS was compared with students from matched schools who had not been exposed to the program. The study's premise was that traditional standardized tests are not effective assessment tools because they do not evaluate students based on a specific set of skills taught throughout the year. It is contended, therefore, that if teachers focused on preparing students for a performance-based assessment of the curriculum, students would both learn more AND score higher on the ITBS. Not surprisingly, results indicated that students in WSS classrooms displayed yearly growth in reading that "far exceeded" the contrast group. But the study had significant limitations that may affect these results. In particular, WSS was enacted as part of a district restructuring effort that also included implementation of new reading, mathematics and social studies curriculum, but the authors did not know in which schools the curricula were changed. Hence they had no way of knowing for sure whether the measured gains in student achievement were due to WSS or other factors. To see the study, go to http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n9/.
Students for Teachers, Yale University
Spring 2003
This is the inaugural issue of a publication sponsored by Students for Teachers, a non-profit organization founded last spring by a group of Yale University students "deeply concerned with the future of public education in America" who seek to create a voice for students in the education reform debate. Among the more interesting articles is a column by Aaron Tang who believes that, in order for states to meet the highly-qualified teacher challenge of NCLB, they must reduce the certification barriers that prevent many qualified candidates from entering the field, while also raising teacher pay to attract more highly qualified professionals. In related articles, Ethan Hutt argues for career ladders for teachers that reward quality, rather than simply experience and degrees earned, and Adam Brenner challenges policy leaders to consider merit pay as a way to increase teacher accountability. As a group, the authors of this journal seem mostly to be out-of-the-box thinkers who are open to new remedies for old problems. (Of course they're also quite young!) It can be found at http://www.yale.edu/sft/our%20education-spring03.pdf.
