The Education Gadfly Weekly

Paul L. Kimmelman and David J. Kroeze
2002

In this interesting but dense book, Paul Kimmelman and David Kroeze argue that, to create "world-class schools," educators and policy makers must rethink how education systems are organized. They construct their argument around the human genome model, contending that an education system, like a genome, is far more than the sum of its constituent parts. The authors write, "Schools and school districts are living, dynamic organizations." Thus, changing one part of the system will have an impact on other parts. Kimmelman and Kroeze call for replacing piecemeal education reform with a more holistic view. The model they develop consists of six organizational chromosomes, grouped under two headings. Under the heading "capacity-building chromosomes" reside leadership, change and professional development. Under the heading "teaching-learning process chromosomes" are curriculum, instructional practice and assessment. The book explores all six components in detail and shows what effective practice in each looks like. For example, within the section on the curriculum is a thorough discussion of a standards-based approach to school improvement. These six organizational chromosomes are held together by four central organizing principles - continuous improvement, rigorous research, a commitment to continuous professional development, and a self-evaluation component. This is a complex argument but exciting because it ultimately seeks to help "education become a more mature profession such as medicine, law and business." The book also contains informative essays written by American and international commentators. For more information, go to http://www.christopher-gordon.com/Authors/kimmelman.htm.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics
July 2002

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics recently issued this useful 127-page volume of data spanning a wide array of indicators of U.S. children's well-being, billed as the sixth annual report on "the condition of children." It includes basic demographics, "economic security," education, health and "behavior and social environment" and within many categories it displays trend data as well as the latest numbers. Outside of educational achievement, there's much good news here having to do with declining poverty, crime and mortality rates. This is a reference work, not a news item, but worth having in your data library. You can find it on the web at http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
March 2002

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has surveyed California teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and issued a new report with a heavily spun subtitle: " Individual Benefits Substantial, System Benefits Yet to Be Realized." A more accurate representation of the findings is found in the report's executive summary, which says, "[Certification] is more valued for its intangible benefits than in helping teachers acquire new skills they can use in their daily work." If there's anything to be learned from this survey, it is in comparing different facets of the National Board program. Teachers give relatively high marks to the process for increasing their confidence and helping them work with colleagues. Half say it improved their teaching ability, but few report that it helped them work with parents and utilize community resources. To read the report, http://www.cftl.org/documents/Beldenreport2002.pdf. For a critique of the NBPTS process, check out "The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Can It Live Up to Its Promise?" by Danielle Wilcox (see http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=15#48), part of the 1999 Fordham Foundation report, "Better Teachers, Better Schools" (available in its entirety at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=15).

Shazia Rafiulla Miller and Robert M. Gladden, Consortium on Chicago School Research
June 2002

The Consortium on Chicago School Research continues to issue valuable reports on various developments in K-12 education in the Windy City. In the ongoing series called ???The State of Chicago Public High Schools: 1993 to 2000,??? the latest entry is this 55-page report on special-ed enrollments in Chicago???s ???neighborhood??? high schools, which ballooned during the 1990???s. The reason, say the authors, is that Chicago school reform, while positive in many ways for the city???s children, also served to concentrate more special-needs adolescents in eleven high schools. According to the data reported here, those schools??? special-ed enrollments swelled from 16% of their students in 1993-94 to 30% in 1999-2000. There are many implications here, some of them teased out by the authors, implications for special ed and ???regular ed??? alike. You can get this report (and two others in its series, one dealing with high school student performance, the other with enrollments) by surfing to http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/p54.html.

Dan Lips, Goldwater Institute
August 1, 2002

This 23-page paper was written for the Goldwater Institute by associate scholar Dan Lips. It uses the experience of Arizona???s 1997 education tax credit program to design one for the nation. According to the author???s estimates, such a program would cost the federal fisc about $3 billion per annum but, by enabling 1.6 million youngsters to shift from public to private schools, would save state-local taxpayers some $11 billion in public-school budgets. (Whether such a savings can in fact be realized depends, of course, on the elasticity of public-education budgets during a period of enrollment decline. Also uncertain is whether today???s private schools could accommodate that many additional pupils and whether a supply-side response would create more student slots.) It???s a worthwhile contribution to the continuing discussion of school choice via the tax code. Arizona Issue Analysis 173 is findable on the web at http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/113.html.

edited by Sandra Vergari
July 2002

This excellent new reader on charter schools, edited by SUNY/Albany professor Sandra Vergari, explores numerous aspects of charter schools, particularly as they operate in individual states, and serves as a fine overview of the topic. Vergari wrote three of the fourteen chapters. The others were prepared by a mix of well-known scholars and new faces. Most consist of state-specific case studies (Minnesota, Arizona, California, Michigan, Colorado, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, New York and the Canadian province of Alberta), though these have different emphases and reach different conclusions. The editor???s concluding chapter is balanced, thoughtful and perceptive. A worthy addition to the libraries of charter aficionados and policy types, it is published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. The ISBN is 0822941805. You can get more information at http://www.pitt.edu/~press/2002/vergari.html.

Core Knowledge Foundation
2002

The fact-intensive K-8 curriculum sequence developed by E.D. Hirsch's Core Knowledge Foundation is famously demanding of students, but its rigorous and highly specific content can also be demanding of teachers who are expected to explain the nuances of classical music or African geography, perhaps for the first time. To help teachers prepare for the challenge, Core Knowledge has developed a college curriculum called "What Elementary Teachers Need to Know." The publication consists of syllabi for 18 recommended courses, written by experts and provocative in their specificity and comprehensiveness (and their length - often around 70 pages). Most courses are surveys of traditional liberal arts subjects, though devised with an eye to content that a solid K-8 curriculum will require teachers to know. (Two of the courses - Reading Instruction and Children's Literature - fall outside the traditional liberal arts core.) Core Knowledge believes that such an education would be invaluable for all teachers, not only those teaching in Core Knowledge schools, and could go a long way toward solving the nation's teacher quality crisis recently highlighted by Secretary Paige (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=54#802). Download the syllabi - as well as a companion essay suggesting ways in which schools of education could apply the recommendations - at http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/resrcs/syllabus.htm.

Three weeks ago, we directed readers to an article in The Wall Street Journal by Jay Greene arguing that, contrary to what was reported by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, private schools are actually more integrated than public schools. ("Choosing Integration," July 8, 2002, available to subscribers only) The Wall Street Journal published a letter by Sean Reardon in response to Jay's piece. ("Vouchers, Private Schools and Segregation," July 25, 2002, available to subscribers only) In the interest of clarifying the debate over private schools and segregation, we present here a letter from Jay Greene responding to points made in Reardon's letter.

To the Editor,

Sean Reardon's July 25th letter in response to my July 8th op-ed did not offer a defense of his research findings on the effects of private education on racial integration; it merely repeated the same methodologically flawed results that my op-ed critiqued. In my op-ed, I described how the study by Mr. Reardon and John Yun produced statistically biased results because it over-represented private elementary schools. This is significant because elementary schools - public or private - tend to be more segregated because they usually draw students from smaller neighborhoods. Reardon and Yun's results really only show that private schools educate younger students, not that they are more segregated. Their findings are also distorted by looking at school-level data that are misleading because of the fairly common public school practice of re-segregating students within schools by tracking, racially-biased course assignments, and housing all- or mostly-white magnet schools in buildings located within minority neighborhoods.

My own research, looking at integration in the classroom and comparing students in public and private schools in the same grade (a national sample of 12th graders), produces results that are exactly the opposite of Reardon and Yun's claims. Without their methodological flaws, we find that private schools are significantly better integrated than public schools. Other than dismissing my critiques as "quibbling," Mr. Reardon offers no defense of his research methodology and does not explain why readers should not be more strongly persuaded by my positive findings about the effects of private education on classroom (and lunchroom) racial integration.

Mr. Reardon does respond to my analysis of the effects of Cleveland's voucher program on integration, arguing that it is inappropriate to compare integration in private schools receiving voucher students to public schools in the Cleveland metropolitan area because "families in Cleveland cannot choose from among the public schools in the suburbs of Cleveland..." But of course families can choose suburban public schools if they have the resources to move to the suburbs - residential choice being the most common (and least egalitarian) type of school choice. In fact, the greater ability of white families to exercise residential choice and leave the city's failing schools is precisely why racial integration is so severe around Cleveland. A family wishing to live and work in that area could choose a public school in the city or suburbs or (if poor) could choose to live in the city and receive a voucher to attend a private school. If they choose the voucher option, they have better odds of being in a racially mixed school. The fact that residential choice and the voucher program are both options makes the comparison of the voucher schools to all Cleveland metropolitan schools necessary and appropriate.

Mr. Reardon's theory for why segregation is more severe in private schools is something out of Alice's Wonderland. He contends that "private schools tend to be more racially segregated...because most private school students attend religious private schools in their local neighborhood... mirror[ing] the high levels of residential segregation in the U.S." Mr. Reardon has it exactly backward. Racial segregation in public schools is generally more severe because public school students are constrained by attendance zone and district boundaries to attend schools that reflect racially segregated housing patterns. Because private schools do not face these constraints, they have a better chance of mixing students from different neighborhoods and school districts. By expanding the ability of families to choose private schools and thereby further detaching schooling from housing, vouchers offer a promising avenue for reducing school segregation.

Jay P. Greene, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Andrew J. Coulson, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
July 2002

Freelance scholar Andrew J. Coulson is a libertarian who believes that Americans will have far better (and more economical) educations if the state backs out entirely, except for subsidies to low income families, leaving it to parents to pay for their children's education and encouraging for-profit education providers to flourish. If you read his major book of a few years back, Market Education: The Unknown History, you are acquainted with the extensive historical background he adduces for this argument. If you haven't read the big book, you might want to have a look at this 33-page mini-book, published by Michigan's Mackinac Center for Public Policy. You can learn more on the web at http://www.mackinac.org/4447.

With New York City focused on the question of what it takes to be an effective school system leader for the 21st century, the Times published profiles of four respected superintendents in this Sunday's Education Life section: Alan Bersin (San Diego), Carmen Russo (Baltimore), Joseph Olchefske (Seattle), and Barbara Byrd-Bennett (Cleveland). Two come from nontraditional backgrounds - one was a U.S. attorney, and one was an investment banker - and two came up through the education system, but all four seem to share a no-nonsense approach and a tireless devotion to a 24-hour-a-day job. "The Super Bowl," by Sol Hurwitz, The New York Times, August 4, 2002

New research shows that, despite a decade of federal efforts to promote them, the three most popular programs that schools use to discourage kids from using drugs are ineffective or unproven. "Anti-drug programs like D.A.R.E. called a bust," by Greg Toppo, Chicago Sun-Times, August 4, 2002

When evaluating schools and education reform initiatives, analysts (and the policymakers who depend on them) are often hampered by poor data. Conclusions about school and program effectiveness would be far more robust if states had a mechanism for linking student test scores over time. In testimony prepared for the California legislature, which is considering a bill that would create such a data system for the state, RAND???s Laura Hamilton outlines some advantages of using unique student identifier numbers to link student records over time: this would allow researchers to remove the effects of student mobility from their analyses, to examine pupils??? transitions from one school to another, and to answer questions about the growth trajectories of different types of students. ???A statewide I.D. system would dramatically improve the quality of research and evaluation that can be done on local and state initiatives,??? Hamilton concludes. It was in part because of the inadequacies of the state???s current data system that researchers have been unable to agree on the impact of the state???s massive effort to reduce class size. The No Child Left Behind Act, which requires annual testing in grades 3-8, will create a treasure trove of data for researchers in states that are game to link student records over time using unique identifiers. The privacy issues can readily be dealt with. Whether the political issues - the many forces that don???t want robust evidence on schools??? and educators??? effectiveness over time - can be laid to rest is quite another matter. ???Benefits of a Statewide Student Identifier System for California,??? by Laura Hamilton, Testimony Presented to the California State Senate Education Committee, April 24, 2002

The standards and accountability movement that is transforming K-12 education has begun to permeate the ivory tower, as colleges and universities are being pressed to prove that they can deliver results, not just rest on reputation. Although some public universities are phasing in state assessments, many higher education officials don???t want to open that Pandora???s box. Says one Brown University professor, ???The real reason we don???t test is, we would rather not know. . . . If we start measuring, we will start finding out that you didn???t learn how to think, you didn???t learn about the great traditions of Western thought. Then we have a nasty little problem on our hands.??? For details, see ???Tests Are Not Just for Kids,??? by Kate Zernike, The New York Times, August 4, 2002

States are revving up to carry out the No Child Left Behind Act. At the leadership level, dozens of them are eager and energized. And several sources of help have lately become available. The Business Roundtable has chosen seven states to assist with policy and communications. (Many jurisdictions must revise their own testing-and-accountability laws to conform to NCLB's terms.) Secretary Paige and his colleagues are barnstorming the country with words of encouragement and advice. And the Education Leaders Council has just selected six states to take part in its "Following the Leaders" (FTL) project. (If appropriations permit, more states will join later.)

Because we at Fordham have a small role in the FTL project, we had the opportunity last weekend to take part in interviews with a dozen state teams that were raring to move forward, not just with the formal requirements of NCLB but with hands-on efforts to assist schools to improve. A stunning 28 states had sought (on very short notice) to join this project. (You can learn more about it at http://www.followingtheleaders.org/.) Most of the teams that came to make their case included district superintendents who also radiated enthusiasm.

"The stage is set," commented governor Bob Wise, "for West Virginia to become a national example for assessment, accountability and education policymaking." "It is critical that we move forward now," explained Pennsylvania education secretary Charles Zogby, "rather than waiting for federal rules and regulations so that we develop programs, rather than comply with rules."

This is seriously encouraging, signaling as it does that NCLB is not just a heap of dreams and mandates, that a lot of states and local school systems want to make it work.

But the mandates and rules are also showering down. One must wonder whether they'll chill the ardor and quash the innovation in some places even as they press others to act.

Last week, the Education Department unveiled 245 pages of proposed regulations spelling out how the new Title I provisions will be carried out and what states and districts must do to comply with them. These draft regs - they're open for comment until September 5, after which they'll be finalized - deal with some of the new law's stickier wickets, such as the measurement of "adequate yearly progress" (AYP), the meaning of "highly qualified" teachers, and who is responsible for fixing broken schools. (You can find them on the web at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SASA/nprmtitleifinal.pdf.)

Secretary Paige has also dispatched a companion letter assuring state officials that the Education Department will deal "flexibly" with their implementation plans (which must be submitted by January 2003, though several states have already filed them and a number of NCLB provisions are already in force). He seems to be inviting states to propose their own approaches. Let us hope. For the new regulations betray few signs of flexibility. Indeed, I'm struck by how prescriptive they are and how much they expect from states and school systems.

This is not because the bureaucracy ran amuck or because Education Department lawyers yearn to run U.S. schools from Washington. The regulations appear to be a faithful rendering of the law. But NCLB is the most prescriptive federal education statute ever. And so, therefore, are the regs. For example, a two-page section addressing the AYP requirements uses the word "must" thirteen times. A page explaining how school systems will identify Title I schools for improvement employs that word seven times.

How many states, districts and schools have the capacity - the intellect, zeal, imagination and leadership - to do the many things that NCLB demands of them? How deep into the public-education infrastructure is vein of reform ardor that we observed in those eager state teams last weekend? Particularly when it comes to schools not making decent academic progress, recall that many are veterans of that situation. (It's because almost 9000 such schools have been on their states' lists of weak performers for at least two years that their students are already supposed to qualify for public school choice - a requirement that is not going at all well as the new school year begins, as we noted in last week's Gadfly.) Since most educators try to do right by children, we can fairly assume that few schools have lingered on this hit list because they want to. If they knew how to turn themselves around, they probably would have. They're in trouble today because they lack the capacity to get out of it. But NCLB says they must change. Where's all that added inspiration and ability to come from? Is there enough to go around?

Like its predecessors, NCLB assumes that each level of the education system is responsible for holding the level below it to account and fixing it when necessary. Districts are supposed to intervene in broken schools and states are to repair broken districts. Congress assumed that each level has what it takes to succeed at this.

Hence the immense challenge ahead. Many faltering Title I schools are located in troubled districts that can barely get the textbooks delivered and the bus routes organized. Indeed, many such districts contain dozens, sometimes hundreds, of failing schools. I recently asked the leaders of one urban system how many of their schools were on the Education Department's mandatory-public-school-choice list. They replied that just a few were not.

Yet look what NCLB, as refracted through the new draft regs, expects from such unsuccessful districts and schools. Here's a passage from Section 200.39:

"[I]f an LEA [local education agency, aka school district] identifies a school for improvement, the LEA must provide all students enrolled in [it] with the option to transfer to schools served by the LEA that have not been identified for improvement. The LEA also must ensure that the school receives technical assistance in identifying and addressing the problems that led to the identification for improvement. The school must develop and implement a school improvement plan...[that] incorporates scientifically based strategies for strengthening instruction....The LEA must...approve the plan within 45 days...."

And if that doesn't work? Then (Section 200.42) the troubled school moves from "improvement" status into "corrective action." Whereupon its "LEA must...take at least one of the corrective actions specified in the statute. These...include replacing the school staff, implementing a new curriculum, decreasing management authority at the school, appointing an outside expert to advise the school, extending the school day or year, and reorganizing the school internally."

What if the LEA itself isn't up to that challenge? Indeed, what happens when an entire system fails to make adequate progress? Then (Section 200.52) the state must turn it around: "[I]f an SEA [state education agency] identifies an LEA for improvement, the LEA must develop...an...improvement plan that incorporates scientifically based strategies to strengthen instruction..., addresses the professional development needs of the LEA's instructional staff..., and includes specific measurable goals and targets....The improvement plan also must incorporate extended learning time strategies...and promote effective parental involvement....[T]he SEA must provide... technical or other assistance in developing and implementing the improvement plan...."

And so forth. If the LEA's voluntary improvement plan doesn't do the job, the state must intervene. Here the options range from installing a new curriculum to removing schools from district control, from replacing district staff to abolishing the LEA itself.

On paper, this is a swell design for making each level of the system deliver satisfactory progress, repair itself or submit to an involuntary overhaul by the next level up. Terrific, so long as the capacity is there. But I keep thinking of those 9000 schools that are already in trouble, those districts where many schools have been in trouble for years, and those thinly staffed state education departments that have seldom shown the will or know-how to run schools or turn around failed school systems. Just how realistic are the law's - and the regs' - assumptions about who is going to fix what? How much help can the various technical assistance projects supply? Where will the rest come from? Who will pay for it? Who will lead it?

* * *

A press release announcing the states that have been selected to participate in the first phase of the Following the Leaders Project can be found at http://www.followingtheleaders

Putting a wrinkle into Governor Jeb Bush???s plans to allow students trapped in failing schools to transfer to private schools, a Tallahassee judge earlier this week struck down Florida???s three-year-old voucher program, ruling that it violated the state constitution by aiding religious schools with tax dollars - and following very different jurisprudential reasoning than the U.S. Supreme Court followed in the recent Cleveland voucher decision. For details, see ???State judge strikes down voucher law,??? by Daniel A. Grech, The Miami Herald, August 5, 2002

Religious leaders in Pakistan are blasting a government plan to crack down on that nation???s 10,000 madrasas, Islamic schools that often foster religious extremism, and the government has been too nervous to press for reforms, according to an article in The New York Times. Government ministers had hoped to get the madrasas to register, submit to financial oversight, and accept teacher training and textbooks in exchange for broadening their curriculum beyond Islamic teachings, but school leaders say they will never accept reforms that they assert are being imposed by Americans. U.S. officials deny that they are behind the proposals. Meanwhile, the madrasas continue filling hundreds of thousands of young Pakistani minds with hatred. ???Pakistani clerics fight school plans,??? by Ian Fisher, The New York Times, August 4, 2002

Budget shortfalls have led California to abandon its $100 million cash reward program for teachers in schools that demonstrate significant improvements in test scores. While the state will continue to rank schools based on academic gains, state lawmakers have not included any funding for these awards in the 2002-03 budget bill. Critics of high-stakes testing who lobbied to end the program now complain that it???s unfair to distribute cash rewards one year and take them away the next. ???Davis yanks incentives for teachers,??? by Suzanne Pardington, Contra Costa Times, August 3, 2002

California has been in the hot seat since the U.S. Department of Education noticed that it was planning to meet the ???highly qualified teachers??? requirement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act by labeling teaching interns and those with emergency certification as ???highly qualified.??? The new law requires that all newly-hired teachers who work with Title I students must be highly qualified, and that all teachers of core subjects in all schools must be highly qualified by 2005-06. NCLB defines a highly qualified teacher as one who has full state certification or is participating in an alternate route certification AND who has demonstrated competence in the subjects he or she teaches. Rep. George Miller, one of the driving forces behind NCLB, criticized members of the California Board of Education who devised the sketchy plan for meeting the requirement and urged them to reconsider the policy. If the state does not revise its definition of highly qualified so that it comports with the federal law, the U.S. Department of Education could withhold some of the state???s Title I funds (which total nearly $1 billion).

State officials say that experienced teachers are in short supply, and that low-income schools will be forced to raise class sizes to 50 or 60 pupils if they cannot hire teachers without full certification. The number of uncredentialed teachers in California soared after the state began its massive class-size-reduction initiative in 1996, but the state does have 350,000 fully certified teachers. These teachers meet the definition of highly qualified under NCLB and, if they were deployed in Title I schools, the state would be in compliance for 2002-2003. In other words, California could meet NCLB???s expectations for staffing Title I schools if it redeployed its teaching force and stopped concentrating new instructors and those with the least subject knowledge in schools that enroll poor and minority children. For the longer run, however, this state (and most others) will need to rethink its system of licensure so that individuals who might be talented teachers are no longer discouraged by the hoops and hurdles of traditional certification.

???California Education Funding Imperiled,??? by Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, August 6, 2002

???State, U.S. Feud over Teachers,??? by Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, August 6, 2002

???Tortuous Routes,??? by David Ruenzel, Education Next, Spring 2002

While the superintendent???s job is being rethought, their lieutenants are still part of the old order, at least in Connecticut. Even assistant superintendents are protected by the state???s teacher tenure laws and cannot be fired without the hearings and process afforded to teachers, according to a state supreme court ruling in Connecticut. ???Ruling helps fired school official,??? by Rachel Gottlieb, The Hartford Courant, August 2, 2002

The Advanced Placement (AP) program has taken a beating this year, with Harvard announcing that it would only give credit for scores of 5 on AP tests and several prominent private schools withdrawing from the program altogether. But as Jay Mathews explains, these developments are really a healthy sign for the AP program, which, like the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, offers the challenge of college-level courses to high school students. ???AP, IB to be the next SATs???? by Jay Mathews, The Washington Post, August 6, 2002

USA Today reports that 19 schools designated as "Blue Ribbon Schools" of excellence by the U.S. Department of Education also appear on states' lists of failing schools. As noted in last week's Gadfly, the federal Blue Ribbon Schools program was the subject of a Brookings expose last year and the Department recently announced that it would begin making test scores a major component of the selection process. "19 of USA's 'finest' schools are 'failing'," by Karen Thomas and Anthony DeBarros, USA Today, August 5, 2002

Three weeks ago, we directed readers to an article in The Wall Street Journal by Jay Greene arguing that, contrary to what was reported by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, private schools are actually more integrated than public schools. ("Choosing Integration," July 8, 2002, available to subscribers only) The Wall Street Journal published a letter by Sean Reardon in response to Jay's piece. ("Vouchers, Private Schools and Segregation," July 25, 2002, available to subscribers only) In the interest of clarifying the debate over private schools and segregation, we present here a letter from Jay Greene responding to points made in Reardon's letter.

To the Editor,

Sean Reardon's July 25th letter in response to my July 8th op-ed did not offer a defense of his research findings on the effects of private education on racial integration; it merely repeated the same methodologically flawed results that my op-ed critiqued. In my op-ed, I described how the study by Mr. Reardon and John Yun produced statistically biased results because it over-represented private elementary schools. This is significant because elementary schools - public or private - tend to be more segregated because they usually draw students from smaller neighborhoods. Reardon and Yun's results really only show that private schools educate younger students, not that they are more segregated. Their findings are also distorted by looking at school-level data that are misleading because of the fairly common public school practice of re-segregating students within schools by tracking, racially-biased course assignments, and housing all- or mostly-white magnet schools in buildings located within minority neighborhoods.

My own research, looking at integration in the classroom and comparing students in public and private schools in the same grade (a national sample of 12th graders), produces results that are exactly the opposite of Reardon and Yun's claims. Without their methodological flaws, we find that private schools are significantly better integrated than public schools. Other than dismissing my critiques as "quibbling," Mr. Reardon offers no defense of his research methodology and does not explain why readers should not be more strongly persuaded by my positive findings about the effects of private education on classroom (and lunchroom) racial integration.

Mr. Reardon does respond to my analysis of the effects of Cleveland's voucher program on integration, arguing that it is inappropriate to compare integration in private schools receiving voucher students to public schools in the Cleveland metropolitan area because "families in Cleveland cannot choose from among the public schools in the suburbs of Cleveland..." But of course families can choose suburban public schools if they have the resources to move to the suburbs - residential choice being the most common (and least egalitarian) type of school choice. In fact, the greater ability of white families to exercise residential choice and leave the city's failing schools is precisely why racial integration is so severe around Cleveland. A family wishing to live and work in that area could choose a public school in the city or suburbs or (if poor) could choose to live in the city and receive a voucher to attend a private school. If they choose the voucher option, they have better odds of being in a racially mixed school. The fact that residential choice and the voucher program are both options makes the comparison of the voucher schools to all Cleveland metropolitan schools necessary and appropriate.

Mr. Reardon's theory for why segregation is more severe in private schools is something out of Alice's Wonderland. He contends that "private schools tend to be more racially segregated...because most private school students attend religious private schools in their local neighborhood... mirror[ing] the high levels of residential segregation in the U.S." Mr. Reardon has it exactly backward. Racial segregation in public schools is generally more severe because public school students are constrained by attendance zone and district boundaries to attend schools that reflect racially segregated housing patterns. Because private schools do not face these constraints, they have a better chance of mixing students from different neighborhoods and school districts. By expanding the ability of families to choose private schools and thereby further detaching schooling from housing, vouchers offer a promising avenue for reducing school segregation.

Jay P. Greene, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Andrew J. Coulson, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
July 2002

Freelance scholar Andrew J. Coulson is a libertarian who believes that Americans will have far better (and more economical) educations if the state backs out entirely, except for subsidies to low income families, leaving it to parents to pay for their children's education and encouraging for-profit education providers to flourish. If you read his major book of a few years back, Market Education: The Unknown History, you are acquainted with the extensive historical background he adduces for this argument. If you haven't read the big book, you might want to have a look at this 33-page mini-book, published by Michigan's Mackinac Center for Public Policy. You can learn more on the web at http://www.mackinac.org/4447.

Core Knowledge Foundation
2002

The fact-intensive K-8 curriculum sequence developed by E.D. Hirsch's Core Knowledge Foundation is famously demanding of students, but its rigorous and highly specific content can also be demanding of teachers who are expected to explain the nuances of classical music or African geography, perhaps for the first time. To help teachers prepare for the challenge, Core Knowledge has developed a college curriculum called "What Elementary Teachers Need to Know." The publication consists of syllabi for 18 recommended courses, written by experts and provocative in their specificity and comprehensiveness (and their length - often around 70 pages). Most courses are surveys of traditional liberal arts subjects, though devised with an eye to content that a solid K-8 curriculum will require teachers to know. (Two of the courses - Reading Instruction and Children's Literature - fall outside the traditional liberal arts core.) Core Knowledge believes that such an education would be invaluable for all teachers, not only those teaching in Core Knowledge schools, and could go a long way toward solving the nation's teacher quality crisis recently highlighted by Secretary Paige (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=54#802). Download the syllabi - as well as a companion essay suggesting ways in which schools of education could apply the recommendations - at http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/resrcs/syllabus.htm.

Dan Lips, Goldwater Institute
August 1, 2002

This 23-page paper was written for the Goldwater Institute by associate scholar Dan Lips. It uses the experience of Arizona???s 1997 education tax credit program to design one for the nation. According to the author???s estimates, such a program would cost the federal fisc about $3 billion per annum but, by enabling 1.6 million youngsters to shift from public to private schools, would save state-local taxpayers some $11 billion in public-school budgets. (Whether such a savings can in fact be realized depends, of course, on the elasticity of public-education budgets during a period of enrollment decline. Also uncertain is whether today???s private schools could accommodate that many additional pupils and whether a supply-side response would create more student slots.) It???s a worthwhile contribution to the continuing discussion of school choice via the tax code. Arizona Issue Analysis 173 is findable on the web at http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/113.html.

edited by Sandra Vergari
July 2002

This excellent new reader on charter schools, edited by SUNY/Albany professor Sandra Vergari, explores numerous aspects of charter schools, particularly as they operate in individual states, and serves as a fine overview of the topic. Vergari wrote three of the fourteen chapters. The others were prepared by a mix of well-known scholars and new faces. Most consist of state-specific case studies (Minnesota, Arizona, California, Michigan, Colorado, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, New York and the Canadian province of Alberta), though these have different emphases and reach different conclusions. The editor???s concluding chapter is balanced, thoughtful and perceptive. A worthy addition to the libraries of charter aficionados and policy types, it is published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. The ISBN is 0822941805. You can get more information at http://www.pitt.edu/~press/2002/vergari.html.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics
July 2002

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics recently issued this useful 127-page volume of data spanning a wide array of indicators of U.S. children's well-being, billed as the sixth annual report on "the condition of children." It includes basic demographics, "economic security," education, health and "behavior and social environment" and within many categories it displays trend data as well as the latest numbers. Outside of educational achievement, there's much good news here having to do with declining poverty, crime and mortality rates. This is a reference work, not a news item, but worth having in your data library. You can find it on the web at http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/.

Paul L. Kimmelman and David J. Kroeze
2002

In this interesting but dense book, Paul Kimmelman and David Kroeze argue that, to create "world-class schools," educators and policy makers must rethink how education systems are organized. They construct their argument around the human genome model, contending that an education system, like a genome, is far more than the sum of its constituent parts. The authors write, "Schools and school districts are living, dynamic organizations." Thus, changing one part of the system will have an impact on other parts. Kimmelman and Kroeze call for replacing piecemeal education reform with a more holistic view. The model they develop consists of six organizational chromosomes, grouped under two headings. Under the heading "capacity-building chromosomes" reside leadership, change and professional development. Under the heading "teaching-learning process chromosomes" are curriculum, instructional practice and assessment. The book explores all six components in detail and shows what effective practice in each looks like. For example, within the section on the curriculum is a thorough discussion of a standards-based approach to school improvement. These six organizational chromosomes are held together by four central organizing principles - continuous improvement, rigorous research, a commitment to continuous professional development, and a self-evaluation component. This is a complex argument but exciting because it ultimately seeks to help "education become a more mature profession such as medicine, law and business." The book also contains informative essays written by American and international commentators. For more information, go to http://www.christopher-gordon.com/Authors/kimmelman.htm.

Shazia Rafiulla Miller and Robert M. Gladden, Consortium on Chicago School Research
June 2002

The Consortium on Chicago School Research continues to issue valuable reports on various developments in K-12 education in the Windy City. In the ongoing series called ???The State of Chicago Public High Schools: 1993 to 2000,??? the latest entry is this 55-page report on special-ed enrollments in Chicago???s ???neighborhood??? high schools, which ballooned during the 1990???s. The reason, say the authors, is that Chicago school reform, while positive in many ways for the city???s children, also served to concentrate more special-needs adolescents in eleven high schools. According to the data reported here, those schools??? special-ed enrollments swelled from 16% of their students in 1993-94 to 30% in 1999-2000. There are many implications here, some of them teased out by the authors, implications for special ed and ???regular ed??? alike. You can get this report (and two others in its series, one dealing with high school student performance, the other with enrollments) by surfing to http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/p54.html.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
March 2002

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has surveyed California teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and issued a new report with a heavily spun subtitle: " Individual Benefits Substantial, System Benefits Yet to Be Realized." A more accurate representation of the findings is found in the report's executive summary, which says, "[Certification] is more valued for its intangible benefits than in helping teachers acquire new skills they can use in their daily work." If there's anything to be learned from this survey, it is in comparing different facets of the National Board program. Teachers give relatively high marks to the process for increasing their confidence and helping them work with colleagues. Half say it improved their teaching ability, but few report that it helped them work with parents and utilize community resources. To read the report, http://www.cftl.org/documents/Beldenreport2002.pdf. For a critique of the NBPTS process, check out "The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Can It Live Up to Its Promise?" by Danielle Wilcox (see http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=15#48), part of the 1999 Fordham Foundation report, "Better Teachers, Better Schools" (available in its entirety at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=15).