The Education Gadfly Weekly

Dan Lips and Matthew Ladner
Goldwater Institute
September 2008

This report from the Goldwater Institute examines the 10-year (1998-2008) impact of various "incentive-and instruction-based" reforms implemented in Florida under former Governor Jeb Bush. It catalogs and reviews existing research on the Sunshine State's reforms, including its A+ Accountability Plan (which grades schools A to F based on student performance), policies to end social promotion, alternative certification pathways, school choice and voucher programs, and universal pre-K program, to name a few. Associated with and perhaps caused by these reforms, argue the authors, was  "remarkable improvement" in Florida's NAEP scores. They note that the pre-Jeb era found nearly half of Florida's 4th graders scoring below basic in reading on the national test; today 70 percent are at or above basic. Florida's 4th grade Hispanic students, on average, are posting enviable reading gains, too, beating the overall average score of all 4th grade students in 15 states. We agree that there's lot to love about Florida and its school reforms, but not all is yet sunny. The state's academic standards (currently under revision) need more specificity and its funding system could be better tied to students, not programs. Still, states would be wise to take a page (or chapter) from the Florida K-12 playbook. You can start by reading the Goldwater study here.

Douglas J. Besharov and Douglas M. Call
Wilson Quarterly
Autumn 2008

In the new Wilson Quarterly, the University of Maryland's Douglas Besharov and Douglas Call have published an important challenge to the misguided clamor for "universal pre-school." Their key point--and it's powerful--is that most pre-school youngsters already have access to sundry pre-K programs and funding mechanisms both public and private. There's no sound reason except pure politics to launch a big and costly new universal program that confers a needless windfall on many families, fails to rectify (indeed, will likely replicate) the shortcomings of present-day programs, and delivers too little by way of intensive intervention to do much good for the kids who need it most. Not to mention that most pre-K effects (such as they are) fade during the elementary grades. As they say, "Universal pre-K might be a boon to the middle class...but it would still leave unmet the much more serious needs of low-income children." Read it here. And if this topic interests you, also make sure to have a look at Bruce Fuller's fine book, Standardized Childhood: The Political and Cultural Struggle Over Early Education.

Mikyung Ryu
American Council on Education
October 2008

This report tracks the educational achievement of minority groups, specifically inquiring whether younger generations surpass their elders in postsecondary attainment. Unfortunately, recent trends show that the overall percentage of young adults with at least some kind of post-secondary degree in relation to older generations has stalled, and fallen for some minority groups. About 35 percent of all adults from 25 to 29 had earned a college degree in 2006--the same percentage as adults over the age of 30. But 18 percent of older Hispanics had at least an associate degree in 2006, while only 16 percent of younger Hispanics had reached the same education threshold. While African American attainment levels remained flat at 24 percent, only 18 percent of younger American Indian adults had at least an associate's degree, compared with 21 percent of older American Indian adults. But the news isn't all bad. In absolute numbers, minority enrollment at colleges and universities rose by 50 percent between 1995 and 2005--from 3.4 million to 5 million students. While high school graduation rates for African Americans remained flat at 76 percent, African American college enrollment increased by 46 percent to 2 million students during that decade. Still, only whites and Asian Americans continue to surpass their elders in terms of educational attainment levels; in 2006, 41 percent of 25-29 year old white adults had at least as associate's degree compared to 37 percent of white adults over 30. Similarly, 66 percent of younger Asian American adults had at least a two year postsecondary degree, while only 57 percent of older Asian Americans had reached the same. Sounds like the elementary and secondary achievement gap is creeping into tertiary education, too. Find out more here or here.

Extra chores, withheld desserts, and grounding may be going the way of poodle skirts and cherry coke floats if the latest installments in the Nebraska safe-haven law saga are any indication. Two grandparents dropped their 14-year-old granddaughter off at Creighton University Medical Center last week, but later changed their minds, deciding a temporary sojourn as a ward of the state was enough to teach the poor girl "a lesson." Not so lucky for a 13-year-old boy from Michigan. His mother, who drove 12 hours to drop him off, is unlikely to develop seller's remorse, given the amount of time she had--12 hours!--to mull over her decision. (Next thing you know, hospital gift shops will be selling preshrunk cottons reading, "I went to Omaha to get rid of my kid and all I got in return was this lousy tee-shirt.") Fortunately, the state legislature is also changing its mind--about the ill-conceived law itself; too bad that mistake cannot be rectified until lawmakers reconvene in January.

"Nebraska: After Second Thoughts, Guardians Take Back Abandoned Girl," Associated Press, October 10, 2008

Everyone knows that this year's is a "change" election, and everyone also knows that our education system could benefit from some real change, too. I vote for reinserting history and related subjects back into the curriculum. 

Every week, it seems, another study highlights how little knowledge our young people possess about history, civics and geography. Earlier this year, Common Core found that half of the 17 year olds polled didn't know whom Senator McCarthy investigated or what the Renaissance was, while the Bradley Foundation told us that most eighth graders couldn't explain the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. The list goes on. In 2006, National Geographic revealed that nearly two-thirds of 18-24 year olds could not identify Iraq on a map of Asia, and fully 88 percent could not find Afghanistan--apparently refuting Ambrose Bierce's suggestion that "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." 

As an organization that believes in the power of standards and school accountability to boost student achievement, StandardsWork naturally looks first to see if faulty state standards are the culprit. Not surprisingly, we find that social studies standards are both more out-of-date (fully 20 percent are more than 10 years old) and of poorer quality than the standards for any other subject. Generally, older state standards documents haven't benefited from rising expectations for clarity, specificity and rigor. Fordham's most recent reviews of social studies standards gave states an average grade of D, with half receiving F's in US History and almost as many F's in World History--far worse than in English, math or science. 

The American Federation of Teachers' recent report, Sizing Up State Standards 2008, similarly gave states their lowest marks in social studies. Only three were found to have adequate social studies standards at the elementary level. The reason? Social studies standards typically lacked substance, with 39 percent of failing marks due to "missing or vague content."

What about testing? Is it possible that assessments more than standards are driving good instruction by at least providing us with important information about what students know and don't know?

Unfortunately, the picture here is, if anything, worse. In a recent analysis conducted by StandardsWork, fewer than half the states were found to test at all in social studies or in any of its constituent disciplines. Just eight states have tests specifically targeting history (whether U.S. or World) in any given grade. Only 16 test social studies at the elementary level--and far fewer state assessments in this field carry any "stakes" or consequences. 

While many are ambivalent about championing high-stakes social studies testing, there is clear evidence from the (now defunct) Council for Basic Education and from Martin West's analyses that social studies testing, where it occurs, has increased the amount of instructional time devoted to the subject. Perhaps this is reason enough to push for it? 

Before embracing that solution, however, we ought to take a hard look at what's on these tests. Consider some of the items we found (in states that will remain nameless):

From an 8th grade test:

 Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men--the balance-wheel of the social machinery.
--Horace Mann, Twelfth Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1848

 In the excerpt above, Mann shows his support for--

A. women's suffrage
B.  prison reform
C.  public schools
D.  improved sanitation

From a 4th-6th grade test:

The following question appears under an illustration of a boy at the beach, sitting behind a hot chocolate stand that he's set up featuring a hand-written sign saying, "Sam's hot chocolate--50 cents." Sam is under a beach umbrella, as is a woman across from him in a bathing suit on a chaise lounge. Steam is rising from one of the cups already poured on Sam's table.

Why is Sam having difficulty selling his hot chocolate? How might he solve his problem?

From a 5th grade test:

Place these events on the time line in the correct order:

• 1803--Ohio becomes the 17th state
• 1763--Treaty of Paris is signed
• 1787--Northwest Territory is formed
• 1795--Treaty of Greenville is signed

If read to him, a 2nd grader could probably get the first one right; with a scribe, a kindergartener could surely answer the second; and assuming he was proficient in math, a 3rd grader should be able to nail the last one (since most state standards expect one to compare and order numbers to 10,000 by 3rd grade).

The bottom line is this: No matter how we measure our commitment to a subject--whether it's the quality of state standards; the frequency, quality or consequences of testing; the amount of instructional time; or the availability of curriculum tools (clearly a problem in many school districts where we've worked)--history and its kin, by whatever indicator, are the stepchildren of K-12 education today. 

And while I worry a lot about the consequences of low levels of civic literacy, a lack of knowledge about the country's past, and the ability to make connections in a global way, I am most concerned by the squandering of an opportunity to fire the minds of students by learning about stuff in which they're interested!

During Congressional testimony in 2006, historian David McCullough described how human beings have a natural interest in history and find it to be a source of pleasure. He went on to say that "to deny our children that pleasure is to deny them a means of extending and enlarging the experience of being alive."

Worse, the squeezing out of social studies is felt hardest in elementary schools, particularly high-poverty schools that are under the gun to make AYP. Those are precisely the places where we're wringing our hands trying to figure out how to increase student engagement.

That's why my vote is for doing whatever it takes to put social studies back into our schools. Let's not diminish our children's experiences by denying them the passion of history, the pleasure of social studies. Let's let them live big.

It's no military step routine for sure, but the recent federal suit filed by the New York City United Federation of Teachers is certainly out of step. At issue is a city policy that makes political buttons and signs verboten in schools. On September 23, UFT president Randi Weingarten sent an email to union leaders detailing how to distribute campaign materials for AFT- (and UFT-) endorsed Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Chancellor Joel Klein fired back with a strict reminder that while "on duty or in contact with students, all school personnel shall maintain a posture of complete neutrality." No amicable solution, here. The union sued, arguing that this is an infringement of teachers' First Amendment rights to free speech--and, as Weingarten alleged, they'd know, since "teachers, maybe more than others, understand how important democracy is and how important the Constitution is, especially the Bill of Rights." Or not. When in school, teachers are public employees paid with public dollars, not private citizens minding their own business. It's bizarre that the UFT doesn't see the distinction since, according to Weingarten herself, "teachers understand they cannot proselytize their personal beliefs and they also understand the importance of showing students the value of civic participation." Hmm. And lapel-pasted political beliefs are not proselytizing how?

"Teachers Sue Over Right to Politic," By Jennifer Medina, New York Times, October 11, 2008.

Here's a riddle. You're the Secretary of Education. A deeply unpopular law is starting to label even good schools as failures. What do you do? Think positive! "Pretty much every organization needs improvement," Margaret Spellings told the New York Times this week. That's certainly true as far as it goes; even Gadfly tries to muscle-up his wings from time to time. But it's unlikely to placate state and local education officials whose schools are being branded as "failures" by the press. "The law is diagnosing schools that just have the sniffles with having pneumonia," explains South Carolina's superintendent. One such school is Stephen Knolls, a specialized campus in Montgomery County, Maryland serving "medically fragile children with severe physical and cognitive disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, spina bifida and Rett syndrome." Yet it failed to make the grade under NCLB because its attendance rate wasn't high enough. (That's because more than a few of its students were in the hospital.) Maybe our next Secretary of Education will admit that, for an accountability system to work, it's got to do a better job differentiating between and among good and bad schools.

"Under 'No Child' Law, Even Solid Schools Falter," by Sam Dillon, The New York Times, October 13, 2008

"School Attendance Law 'Gone Awry,'" by Daniel de Vise, The Washington Post, October 14, 2008

"Common Sense Left Behind," Editorial, Washington Post, October 16, 2008

Oceans of ink and big chunks of cyberspace and the radio spectrum will be consumed, starting a few weeks hence, by speculation about who will or should or mustn't occupy key roles in the Presidential administration of John McCain or Barack Obama.

But why wait? In the world of education policy wonkdom, two of the keyest slots are already opening, with the recently-announced and soon-to-occur departures of Russ Whitehurst from the directorship of the Institute for Education Sciences and Mark Schneider from the commissioner's office at the National Center for Education Statistics. (Yesterday, in fact, was Schneider's swan song at NCES.) And it's never too early to start thinking about who could and should fill them.

They really do matter. Though neither official dispenses big bucks, the IES director steers the principal vehicle by which Uncle Sam supports education R & D and evaluates education programs. And the statistics commissioner is responsible for pretty much all the data by which we know how we're doing throughout the education sector, how much we're spending, how many teachers there are, you name it. In a time of widespread discontent with the performance (not to mention the efficiency and productivity) of U.S. schools and colleges, and a time when so many of Uncle Sam's efforts to alter that situation aren't working very well, the people in these two offices bear weighty responsibilities.

They need to be decent administrators and deft politicians, of course, but above all they need sound ideas, strong intellects--and the fortitude to demand and maintain their independence in an environment where just about every decision they make is likely to upset somebody influential. Maybe a lot of somebodies.

Neither Whitehurst nor Schneider is going very far--the former to head the Brown Center at the venerable Brookings Institution, the latter to develop new projects at the less venerable but ultra-entrepreneurial American Institutes of Research (AIR). Neither is apt to be mute, either. Whitehurst's mandate is to chart a much more ambitious course for Brookings in education policy and to ramp up that organization's productivity and visibility in this field. Schneider is known for clear, straight talk--and is also known to be brimming with insights and concerns that have accumulated during his government tenure. (One hopes the controversy-averse, contract-seeking folks at AIR won't muzzle him.)

They'll both be missed, too, though in different ways. While in government, Whitehurst did a good job of relaunching the federal research agency in its current guise and is well regarded for insisting on rigor and, wherever possible, experimentalism. (For a time he went overboard on the latter but eventually recovered a better balance.) He ensured IES's independence, even when some of its studies clashed with administration priorities (remember Reading First!) and he worked pretty well with a policy board comprised of eminent and strong-willed individuals. A bit of a control freak, he's not the warmest or funniest guy around but is widely respected.

Schneider had to wrestle to maintain NCES's precious semi-autonomy within IES--Whitehurst was a problem here--and to garner adequate funding for its work. (His successor may face real struggles on these fronts, particularly when Congress takes up the IES reauthorization.) But he insisted on the integrity of federal education data while accelerating their production--no easy double feat. And he launched important new projects, notably the incorporation of state-representative samples into major national data collections, including the high-school longitudinal study; greater attention to longitudinal data in general; new surveys of teacher compensation (including benefits!) that will--finally--free NCES from union-collected stats in this sphere; and some terrific moves to make NCES data usable by ordinary folks at the retail level as well as veteran analysts poring over macro-stats. (High school kids can even start their postsecondary search with the help of NCES's new College Navigator.)  

Who should fill these shoes? The great risk is that the next President and secretary of education--both the IES and NCES posts are White House selections requiring Senate confirmation but you can bet that the EdSec will want a say in who gets picked--won't ask who could do the best job but will instead seek to repay political debts or placate members of their coalitions. Big mistake, and one that's been made before. (I could name names but, being a courteous fellow, will bite my tongue.) These might, in truth, be the only two jobs in the Education Department that really need to be filled on the basis of merit. Yet because they're not very visible--and don't pay badly--there's always a temptation to treat them as rewards.

Assuming, for now, that merit will be the watchword of those making these selections, who might do a great job? Fortunately, plenty of strong candidates are available to either administration. Without trying to assign party labels, one could proudly suggest (for the IES post) Eric Hanushek, Kati Haycock, Caroline Hoxby, Mike Castle, Ted Mitchell, Reid Lyon, Stefanie Sanford, Rick Hess or John Winn, to name but a few. At NCES, consider such folks as Patrick Wolf, Gregory Cizek, Robert Costrell, Bill Jackson and Tom Loveless.

And there are plenty more.

Dan Lips and Matthew Ladner
Goldwater Institute
September 2008

This report from the Goldwater Institute examines the 10-year (1998-2008) impact of various "incentive-and instruction-based" reforms implemented in Florida under former Governor Jeb Bush. It catalogs and reviews existing research on the Sunshine State's reforms, including its A+ Accountability Plan (which grades schools A to F based on student performance), policies to end social promotion, alternative certification pathways, school choice and voucher programs, and universal pre-K program, to name a few. Associated with and perhaps caused by these reforms, argue the authors, was  "remarkable improvement" in Florida's NAEP scores. They note that the pre-Jeb era found nearly half of Florida's 4th graders scoring below basic in reading on the national test; today 70 percent are at or above basic. Florida's 4th grade Hispanic students, on average, are posting enviable reading gains, too, beating the overall average score of all 4th grade students in 15 states. We agree that there's lot to love about Florida and its school reforms, but not all is yet sunny. The state's academic standards (currently under revision) need more specificity and its funding system could be better tied to students, not programs. Still, states would be wise to take a page (or chapter) from the Florida K-12 playbook. You can start by reading the Goldwater study here.

Douglas J. Besharov and Douglas M. Call
Wilson Quarterly
Autumn 2008

In the new Wilson Quarterly, the University of Maryland's Douglas Besharov and Douglas Call have published an important challenge to the misguided clamor for "universal pre-school." Their key point--and it's powerful--is that most pre-school youngsters already have access to sundry pre-K programs and funding mechanisms both public and private. There's no sound reason except pure politics to launch a big and costly new universal program that confers a needless windfall on many families, fails to rectify (indeed, will likely replicate) the shortcomings of present-day programs, and delivers too little by way of intensive intervention to do much good for the kids who need it most. Not to mention that most pre-K effects (such as they are) fade during the elementary grades. As they say, "Universal pre-K might be a boon to the middle class...but it would still leave unmet the much more serious needs of low-income children." Read it here. And if this topic interests you, also make sure to have a look at Bruce Fuller's fine book, Standardized Childhood: The Political and Cultural Struggle Over Early Education.

Mikyung Ryu
American Council on Education
October 2008

This report tracks the educational achievement of minority groups, specifically inquiring whether younger generations surpass their elders in postsecondary attainment. Unfortunately, recent trends show that the overall percentage of young adults with at least some kind of post-secondary degree in relation to older generations has stalled, and fallen for some minority groups. About 35 percent of all adults from 25 to 29 had earned a college degree in 2006--the same percentage as adults over the age of 30. But 18 percent of older Hispanics had at least an associate degree in 2006, while only 16 percent of younger Hispanics had reached the same education threshold. While African American attainment levels remained flat at 24 percent, only 18 percent of younger American Indian adults had at least an associate's degree, compared with 21 percent of older American Indian adults. But the news isn't all bad. In absolute numbers, minority enrollment at colleges and universities rose by 50 percent between 1995 and 2005--from 3.4 million to 5 million students. While high school graduation rates for African Americans remained flat at 76 percent, African American college enrollment increased by 46 percent to 2 million students during that decade. Still, only whites and Asian Americans continue to surpass their elders in terms of educational attainment levels; in 2006, 41 percent of 25-29 year old white adults had at least as associate's degree compared to 37 percent of white adults over 30. Similarly, 66 percent of younger Asian American adults had at least a two year postsecondary degree, while only 57 percent of older Asian Americans had reached the same. Sounds like the elementary and secondary achievement gap is creeping into tertiary education, too. Find out more here or here.