The Education Gadfly Weekly

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
November 2003

Findings from this Fordham-sponsored survey - the fourth survey of Dayton parent/community attitudes toward education since 1988 - present a fascinating array of opinions about today's schools (and those who are responsible for them) and the changes that could be made tomorrow.  In particular, more than 70 percent of Dayton-area parents support the idea of allowing students in failing schools to attend other schools of their choice; most urban parents favor education vouchers; and the number of parents who feel that Dayton schools are improving is going up (from 12 percent in the last survey to nearly a quarter this year).  There's also strong support for charter schools in this city with a great many of them. For every person who would close them, four would keep or expand them. And, despite the ongoing complaint (from school-system defenders) that charters take money from traditional schools, almost two-thirds of parents say that "tax money is for a child's education, no matter what school he attends." Parents also support the use of standardized testing and think these tests should have consequences. In fact, more than three-quarters of the respondents agreed that getting promoted to the next grade or graduating from high school should depend at least in part on passing state tests. The report is available at the Fordham website at www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=322.

MassInsight Education
October 2003

MassInsight Education is the source of this revealing survey of Bay State high-school students who failed the state's MCAS exams at least once. The goal was to determine, from the young people's perspective, what difference MCAS was making in their lives and what uses (if any) they are making of various forms of academic support to boost their prospects for passing this crucial test. The findings depict a half-full, half-empty situation. On the upside, 82 percent "of students who did not pass MCAS on the first try now report having participated in opportunities for extra help. . . . [Forty-seven] percent say they are increasing their level of effort in their schoolwork. . . . Nearly two-thirds . . . cite participation in extra-help programs as either a big or small reason for their success in passing the retest." On the downside: almost 9 in ten students who failed MCAS the first time around had a high-school GPA of "C" or better-and 71 percent of them plan to go to college. In other words, a chasm yawns between the reality of their performance as gauged by the state exit exam and their impression of performance as refracted by school results and life plans. Are they living in a fool's paradise? Writing about this study at Washingtonpost.com, veteran education journalist Jay Mathews described the failing students as "confused" over "what got them into this fix. The researchers interviewed about 600 of them and the vast majority said something like: how could I flunk this test when I was passing my English and math classes?" As Mathews observes, "teachers . . . have no business giving students the impression that they are going to graduate from high school. They award these phony passing grades, at least in part, because they didn't want to deal with angry kids, angry parents, and angry principals." You can find the MassInsight report at http://www.massinsight.org/pdf/SeizingtheDayReport.pdf, and Mathews's excellent column about it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Nov11.html.

Rolf K. Blank, Council of Chief State School Officers
November 2003

Rolf K. Blank of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is the author of this careful if depressing analysis of states' readiness to comply with the NCLB dictate that, by 2005-6, all teachers of core academic subjects in U.S. public schools must be "highly qualified." As readers no doubt recall, NCLB says a "highly qualified" teacher must (a) hold a bachelor's degree, (b) be fully state certified, (c) have passed "rigorous" tests of subject content and pedagogy, and (d) have majored (or the equivalent) in his/her subject (if a middle or high school teacher). Using federal "Schools and Staffing Survey" data from 1994 and 2000, Blank was able to gauge where states stood on (a) and (d) as of 1999-2000. The bottom line is that sizable problems lie ahead, particularly with reference to math and science teachers. Nationally, 88 percent of them were "fully certified" in those fields-and these rates ranged widely from state to state. (The corresponding rate for grade 7-12 English teachers was 91 percent, for social studies teachers 92 percent.) As for teachers who combine a subject-matter major with full state certification, the numbers are bleaker still: 63 percent in math (ranging from 90 percent in MN down to 38 percent in Nevada) and 67 percent in science. Moreover, the numbers worsened between 1994 and 2000. Blank's conclusion: the goal of meeting the highly qualified teacher criteria "appears very difficult to accomplish." He goes on to suggest policy steps that states could take - though none qualifies as courageous or imaginative, such as deregulating entry into teaching or sharply boosting the salaries of teachers in shortage fields. You can see for yourself by surfing to http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/HighlyQualifiedTeachers.pdf.

Herbert J. Walberg and Joseph L. Bast, Hoover Institution Press
November 2003

This accessible book provides a wealth of information on economic principles and neatly summarizes the many reasons they might help improve America's schools - if only the powers-that-be in education were more open to such ideas and less fearful of markets and choice (i.e., capitalism). This fear is the reason "market-based school reforms poll well but fail in the political arena." The book begins with a useful summary of the many shortcomings of our schools and then transitions into an explanation of economics and capitalism that any beginner will find intelligible. In the process it debunks many of the myths and arguments that often appear in opposition to market-based reform. The book thus clearly makes the case for school choice and goes a step further by describing the specifics of an effective voucher program.  Unfortunately, it offers a purely libertarian focus, which will no doubt give critics ample fodder to attack it for suggesting that markets are a panacea. By dismissing all arguments against choice, many will wonder if this story is too good to be true. And the authors' suggestion that the complete privatization of schooling has merit will no doubt drive public-school proponents to hysterics. But this book is worth reading - especially by those wary of market-based approaches. Because of its clear distillation of much evidence and theory, it should become part of any reformer's library. You can read it online or order your own copy at http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/edcap.html.

Winter 2004

The new issue of Education Next is out, with a focus on school financing and the mounting debt that many districts face. Jon Fullerton identifies four underlying reasons that many school districts find themselves in financial trouble: inefficient financial oversight and a general na?vet? about how budgeting and financial planning work; constraints on how districts can manage their budget; political pressures from elected officials; but especially, a "use it or lose it" mentality that encourages districts to spend their full allocation each year and makes it hard for them to adjust to changing financial realities. In a companion article, UCLA professor William Ouchi argues for personnel and financial decentralization as a way out of these structural problems. Elsewhere, David J. Ferrero argues that choice is good for teachers, as it would allow them to band together in schools with a common educational mission instead of forcing them together in schools riven by radically different pedagogical approaches and attendant tensions. And that's just the beginning. Check it out at http://www.educationnext.org/20041/.

This week, a New York City Council hearing intended to be a debate about the contentious, union-mandated teacher "work rules" (which limit, among other things, how long a teacher can work each day, how schools set faculty meeting agendas, and how teachers are hired and fired) devolved into a heated argument between council member Eva Moskowitz and NYC teachers' union president Randi Weingarten. In her opening remarks, Moskowitz likened the hearing "to NYPD whistleblower Frank Serpico and the 1970s hearings on corruption in [New York]." Weingarten was outraged by the claim and insisted that the union "did not strong-arm anyone not to testify" and complained that Moskowitz's comments made the union look like thugs. (That two of the three principals who agreed to testify would only do so anonymously may be suggestive.) In a slightly more substantive exchange, the city education department's director of labor and policy, Dan Weisberg, blasted the union rules governing teacher compensation and staffing, saying that "the system, as far as removing incompetent teachers, is broken." Some damning evidence in support of Weisberg's claim also came this week when a tenured Bronx teacher "with a sexual harassment record dating back to 1991" was finally fired after "asking gay students to identify themselves during class and then demanding three lesbian students be 'immediately' transferred out of his room."

"Teacher contract hearing turns into battle," by Ellen Yan, New York Newsday, November 14, 2003

"Political lesson," by Carl Campanile, New York Post, November 13, 2003

"Dread of the class," by Jeane MacIntosh and Carol Campanile, New York Post, November 17, 2003

An "educational revolution is under way" in India, writes the New York Times, as millions of low-income parents dig deep to furnish private schooling for their children, a luxury once reserved for the well-to-do. Dissatisfaction with deteriorating public schools is driving the creation of hundreds of low-cost private schools, some charging just a few dollars a month in tuition-still a significant cost in a nation where per capita income is around $500 per year. The shift to private education is so profound that one government economist predicts that," within 10 to 15 years, government schools will be almost wiped out." James Tooley, a British researcher quoted in the Times, has been looking into these schools and others in Third World countries for several years (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=4#42). We look forward to the findings of his massive longitudinal study of private schooling, now underway in a dozen countries.

"India's poor bet precious sums on private schools," by Amy Waldman, New York Times, November 15, 2003

Trying to out-sing the chorus of negativism surrounding No Child Left Behind, the Hartford Courant reports that 100 minority superintendents have signed a letter expressing support for the law. "We need to be held accountable. We should not be making excuses like, 'Oh, this kid is from a poor neighborhood,'" said Hartford school chief Robert Henry. Though many signatories say they believe NCLB funding is inadequate - a constant complaint from NCLB critics - they nonetheless agree that funding is no excuse for poor performance. Kati Haycock of the Education Trust, which organized the letter, went even further, accusing NCLB critics of a "deeply cynical" effort to kill the law by claiming, in essence, that poor and minority kids can't learn.

"Minority educators back Bush initiative," by Robert A. Frahm and Rachel Gottlieb, Hartford Courant, November 19, 2003 (registration required)

"Don't turn back the clock: NCLB not perfect, but hugely important," The
Education Trust

Two years ago, the Gates and Casey foundations made grants to Brookings to host a group called the National Working Commission on School Choice, chaired by the University of Washington's Paul Hill and consisting of 13 other members, mainly academics, deemed to represent a reasonably wide spectrum of the informed school-choice debate. Mercifully lacking in interest-group representatives and strident ideologues, this was not your usual Noah's Ark panel whose inability to agree on even the most basic principles means nothing gets done - at least nothing of any consequence. Its charge was to "explore how choice works and to examine how communities interested in the potential benefits of new school options could obtain them while avoiding choice's potential damage." The Commission organized its work under four headings: benefits to children whose parents choose new schools; benefits to children whose families do not exercise choice; effects on the national commitment to equal opportunity and school desegregation; and advancement of social cohesion and common democratic values.

After two years of labor, the group has just issued its 42-page report, entitled "School Choice: Doing It the Right Way Makes a Difference." (A set of commissioned papers will follow.) On its own terms, this is a lucid, eloquent, fair-minded, insightful, and balanced piece of work. But it isn't apt to end the school-choice wars and may not even yield much of a truce.

That's because the Commission views choice chiefly from a "community" or "public education" perspective, not from the standpoint of parents (or educators). And the guidelines it sets forth, reasonable as they are, seek to balance competing public goods, not to enhance personal freedom or minimize government coercion. Thus a choice program that scrupulously follows the Commission's guidelines will end up looking like a large but fairly heavily regulated charter-school program. It won't look much like vouchers, tax credits, or home schooling and the schools it includes will forfeit some of the most cherished attributes of private schooling. At day's end, this report is about re-engineering public education to include more options.

That's a fine thing to do and we should all be for it. But if this were about, say, choice in clothing, the conclusion it would lead you to is that everybody ought to wear shirts and slacks. Sure, they should be free to choose their colors (so long as top and bottom are coordinated) and style (so long as nobody is offended by excessive baring of skin). Within limits, they could even choose their fabric (so long as its sources are environmentally friendly and no child labor is used in their production). But one may not opt to wear a dress, a tuxedo, a swimsuit-or nothing at all. One mustn't wear slacks on top and shirt on the bottom. Nor don garish prints. And one must keep his garments clean and pressed or some community clothing-choice-cop will haul them to the laundry.

Limited choice, in other words, what some call "controlled choice." Schools would not, for example, be able to select their students. (A lottery would handle admissions decisions where demand outstrips supply.) They may not charge extra tuition. (The government per-pupil payment must suffice.) And they can't avoid state academic standards and the federal accountability regimen established by No Child Left Behind-though many of today's private schools have made plain that this is a deal-breaker in terms of their participation in any sort of voucher program.

I'm being a tad unfair to this insightful report. Its classification of choice plans along the dimensions of spending and government prescriptiveness yields a welcome and clarifying way to sort programs and policies and to picture the benefits and disadvantages of each combination. For example, full funding plus heavy prescription results in relatively little change-but also minimal risk. (The authors say this combination "looks very much like the provisions governing charter schools in New York State.") By contrast, full funding with low prescription leads to many more choices but also to the risk of flaky schools being created and more segregation. (They say this "resembles the Milwaukee voucher program.") The other two quadrants both involve skimpy funding, and there the authors find little benefit resulting from either the high-prescription version (which they analogize to Michigan charter schools) or the low-prescription sort (akin to Arizona's charters).

As an analytic tool and heuristic device, this alone would make the Commission report worth having. So does its clear exposition of numerous issues and trade-offs. When all is said and done, however, the cautions and constraints outnumber the opportunities and freedoms. What's being encouraged is the kind of choice regimen that gives greater weight to society's interest in getting everybody educated than to a family's yearning to get the best possible education for its own children. The authors don't really trust markets to produce the greatest good for the greatest number in the most efficient way. They don't seem to have much interest in Milton Friedman's rationale for school choice. If Friedman were on one side of a seesaw and Horace Mann on the other, they'd be leaning on Mann's end to make sure that Friedman stayed well above the ground on which real children walk.

But by all means get it, read it, ponder it, and debate it.

"School choice: Doing it the right way makes a difference," A report from the National Working Comission on Choice in K-12 Education, The Brookings Institution, November 2003 

"Panel says choice benefits worth risk," by Caroline Hendrie, Education Week, November 19, 2003 (registration required)

As almost everybody knows, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) last week released - faster than ever before - summaries of its 2003 assessments of reading and math, including both national and state-specific results in grades 4 and 8. This was the first time that (per NCLB requirements) every state had to take part in the NAEP reading and math assessments, like it or not. These results can be thought of as the real No Child Left Behind "baselines." As you may recall, NCLB both requires states to set their own standards and test their own pupils in reading and math AND creates a role for NAEP as a sort of independent audit of state standards and achievement in these key subjects. When one observes, for example, that NAEP shows 4th grade reading prowess declining from 2002 to 2003, as happened in Massachusetts, or rising, as in Florida, one wants to take a closer look at the trends that those states are reporting from their own tests calibrated to their own standards. Putting it differently, when one sees that Ohio, for example, has 30 percent of its 8th graders scoring at or above the "proficient" level in math as gauged by NAEP, that other states are as high as 38 percent (Massachusetts again) and as low as 12 percent (Mississippi), one wants to know how the state itself is reporting its students' levels of attainment according to its own definition of proficiency and its own assessment system.

Besides the NCLB "audit" function, NAEP results also tell us, as has long been the case with this invaluable federal program, about national trends (up in math, flat in reading), achievement gaps, and absolute levels of performance vis-??-vis standards set by NAEP's independent governing board. What do we conclude? Judged by NAEP standards, the country has a vast distance to cover before all youngsters are "proficient" in core subjects. Today's public school students attain that level in math at rates of 31 percent (4th grade) and 27 percent (8th grade). The corresponding performance in reading is 31 percent proficient in grade 4 and 32 percent in grade 8. In other words, more than two-thirds of U.S. pupils are not yet where they ought to be-and in reading they're not getting closer. Moreover, while certain achievement gaps have narrowed a bit, the most troubling of them remain dismayingly wide. In 8th grade reading, for example, just 12 percent of black students and 14 percent of Hispanics are proficient or better (and an alarming 46-47 percent are "below basic.") In math, the picture is still worse: 7 percent of black 8th graders, and 11 percent of Hispanics, are at/above proficient while 61 percent and 53 percent are "below basic."

Secretary Paige strove to squeeze rhetorical lemonade from these lemons: "slowly picking up steam," "reforms are starting to work," "a turning of the corner." That's his job, I suppose: to be encouraging, positive and avuncular. To my eye, however, "sour" remains the apt adjective. Whatever you conclude, you will want these data at hand, both for the nation and for your state. They're the most accurate profile of student achievement that you'll find anywhere and by far the best source of comparative data. You can find Rod Paige's comments at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/11/11132003.html and the reports themselves at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

After the Supreme Court's recent ruling in two Michigan affirmative action cases, Gratz and Grutter, legal scholars predicted that a flurry of suits would seek to round out the Court's somewhat confusing jurisprudence on this topic. One of these cases, Doe v. Kamehameha, took its first step toward the high court this week, where most observers-including the judge in the case - predict it is likely to end up. The case concerns a private school supported by the Bishop Trust, a charitable trust founded in the 1880s by the last direct descendant of King Kamehameha I, with the goal of supporting and cultivating native Hawaiian culture. Two non-Hawaiian students who were denied admission to the school because of its policy of barring non-natives sued for racial discrimination. A federal judge dismissed the boys' claim on grounds that the remedial education provided by the school, expressly for the purpose of raising the educational and economic prospects of native Hawaiians, trumps longstanding case law forbidding racial discrimination in private education. The case now goes to a federal appeals court; you can read the judge's full decision at http://gohawaii.about.com/library/weekly/bl_doe_vs_kamehameha.htm.

"Kamehameha Schools win admissions case," by David Waitte, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 18, 2003

In a surprise announcement given after a "hastily called" school board meeting, D.C. school superintendent Paul Vance announced his resignation. When pressed for details about why he was leaving so abruptly, he cited several reasons, including the move by D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams to try to gain control over the beleaguered school system, the system's financial problems, and the D.C. voucher program now before Congress (and, which yesterday cleared a major hurdle and is now embedded in a omnibus appropriations bill that the Democrats have said they will not filibuster). "To be very candid with you," Vance sighed, "I just don't want to be bothered with it." Give him points for honesty. The response to his exit has been mixed, with many D.C. officials saying that he had "fought the good fight" but that the lack of progress on his watch made it time for him to go. Vance noted that his three-and-a-half year tenure was a "modern record" for the D.C. system, which has seen 16 chiefs in 36 years. But his departure will only be good news for D.C. students if the school board manages to appoint a leader "who [will stick] around for more than a brief visit" and who will "insist on real authority." Of course, since the mayor is currently vying to control the system himself, it seems more likely, as Marc Fisher of the Washington Post predicts, that there will be "a long struggle for control of a system from which good managers and teachers flee at their first opportunity, a system that is still hemorrhaging students and failing to educate."

"Vance resigns as chief of D.C. schools," by Justin Blum and David Nakamura,
Washington Post, November 15, 2003

"Foolishness isn't centralized, it's all over the map," by Marc Fisher,
Washington Post, November 18, 2003

"Republicans reach deal on D.C. voucher bill," by Spencer S. Hsu, Washington
Post, November 20, 2003

Herbert J. Walberg and Joseph L. Bast, Hoover Institution Press
November 2003

This accessible book provides a wealth of information on economic principles and neatly summarizes the many reasons they might help improve America's schools - if only the powers-that-be in education were more open to such ideas and less fearful of markets and choice (i.e., capitalism). This fear is the reason "market-based school reforms poll well but fail in the political arena." The book begins with a useful summary of the many shortcomings of our schools and then transitions into an explanation of economics and capitalism that any beginner will find intelligible. In the process it debunks many of the myths and arguments that often appear in opposition to market-based reform. The book thus clearly makes the case for school choice and goes a step further by describing the specifics of an effective voucher program.  Unfortunately, it offers a purely libertarian focus, which will no doubt give critics ample fodder to attack it for suggesting that markets are a panacea. By dismissing all arguments against choice, many will wonder if this story is too good to be true. And the authors' suggestion that the complete privatization of schooling has merit will no doubt drive public-school proponents to hysterics. But this book is worth reading - especially by those wary of market-based approaches. Because of its clear distillation of much evidence and theory, it should become part of any reformer's library. You can read it online or order your own copy at http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/edcap.html.

MassInsight Education
October 2003

MassInsight Education is the source of this revealing survey of Bay State high-school students who failed the state's MCAS exams at least once. The goal was to determine, from the young people's perspective, what difference MCAS was making in their lives and what uses (if any) they are making of various forms of academic support to boost their prospects for passing this crucial test. The findings depict a half-full, half-empty situation. On the upside, 82 percent "of students who did not pass MCAS on the first try now report having participated in opportunities for extra help. . . . [Forty-seven] percent say they are increasing their level of effort in their schoolwork. . . . Nearly two-thirds . . . cite participation in extra-help programs as either a big or small reason for their success in passing the retest." On the downside: almost 9 in ten students who failed MCAS the first time around had a high-school GPA of "C" or better-and 71 percent of them plan to go to college. In other words, a chasm yawns between the reality of their performance as gauged by the state exit exam and their impression of performance as refracted by school results and life plans. Are they living in a fool's paradise? Writing about this study at Washingtonpost.com, veteran education journalist Jay Mathews described the failing students as "confused" over "what got them into this fix. The researchers interviewed about 600 of them and the vast majority said something like: how could I flunk this test when I was passing my English and math classes?" As Mathews observes, "teachers . . . have no business giving students the impression that they are going to graduate from high school. They award these phony passing grades, at least in part, because they didn't want to deal with angry kids, angry parents, and angry principals." You can find the MassInsight report at http://www.massinsight.org/pdf/SeizingtheDayReport.pdf, and Mathews's excellent column about it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Nov11.html.

Rolf K. Blank, Council of Chief State School Officers
November 2003

Rolf K. Blank of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is the author of this careful if depressing analysis of states' readiness to comply with the NCLB dictate that, by 2005-6, all teachers of core academic subjects in U.S. public schools must be "highly qualified." As readers no doubt recall, NCLB says a "highly qualified" teacher must (a) hold a bachelor's degree, (b) be fully state certified, (c) have passed "rigorous" tests of subject content and pedagogy, and (d) have majored (or the equivalent) in his/her subject (if a middle or high school teacher). Using federal "Schools and Staffing Survey" data from 1994 and 2000, Blank was able to gauge where states stood on (a) and (d) as of 1999-2000. The bottom line is that sizable problems lie ahead, particularly with reference to math and science teachers. Nationally, 88 percent of them were "fully certified" in those fields-and these rates ranged widely from state to state. (The corresponding rate for grade 7-12 English teachers was 91 percent, for social studies teachers 92 percent.) As for teachers who combine a subject-matter major with full state certification, the numbers are bleaker still: 63 percent in math (ranging from 90 percent in MN down to 38 percent in Nevada) and 67 percent in science. Moreover, the numbers worsened between 1994 and 2000. Blank's conclusion: the goal of meeting the highly qualified teacher criteria "appears very difficult to accomplish." He goes on to suggest policy steps that states could take - though none qualifies as courageous or imaginative, such as deregulating entry into teaching or sharply boosting the salaries of teachers in shortage fields. You can see for yourself by surfing to http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/HighlyQualifiedTeachers.pdf.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
November 2003

Findings from this Fordham-sponsored survey - the fourth survey of Dayton parent/community attitudes toward education since 1988 - present a fascinating array of opinions about today's schools (and those who are responsible for them) and the changes that could be made tomorrow.  In particular, more than 70 percent of Dayton-area parents support the idea of allowing students in failing schools to attend other schools of their choice; most urban parents favor education vouchers; and the number of parents who feel that Dayton schools are improving is going up (from 12 percent in the last survey to nearly a quarter this year).  There's also strong support for charter schools in this city with a great many of them. For every person who would close them, four would keep or expand them. And, despite the ongoing complaint (from school-system defenders) that charters take money from traditional schools, almost two-thirds of parents say that "tax money is for a child's education, no matter what school he attends." Parents also support the use of standardized testing and think these tests should have consequences. In fact, more than three-quarters of the respondents agreed that getting promoted to the next grade or graduating from high school should depend at least in part on passing state tests. The report is available at the Fordham website at www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=322.

Winter 2004

The new issue of Education Next is out, with a focus on school financing and the mounting debt that many districts face. Jon Fullerton identifies four underlying reasons that many school districts find themselves in financial trouble: inefficient financial oversight and a general na?vet? about how budgeting and financial planning work; constraints on how districts can manage their budget; political pressures from elected officials; but especially, a "use it or lose it" mentality that encourages districts to spend their full allocation each year and makes it hard for them to adjust to changing financial realities. In a companion article, UCLA professor William Ouchi argues for personnel and financial decentralization as a way out of these structural problems. Elsewhere, David J. Ferrero argues that choice is good for teachers, as it would allow them to band together in schools with a common educational mission instead of forcing them together in schools riven by radically different pedagogical approaches and attendant tensions. And that's just the beginning. Check it out at http://www.educationnext.org/20041/.