The Education Gadfly Weekly

RAND Education
2003

This report seeks to provide a comprehensive review of charters in California. It examines who attends charters, how well their students do, and how charter schools differ from conventional public schools. It also discusses integration, special ed, student access, and the authorizing process, while providing a number of recommendations for improvement. Prepared by RAND for the California Legislative Analyst's Office, as required by California's charter school law, the report is informative if a bit dry. Of greatest value is its analysis comparing the academic gains in charters to those in public schools. In some cases, the authors were able to make use of student-level testing data; in other instances, they relied on aggregate data (in the form of the Academic Performance Index, or API). However, they did control for pupil characteristics and they found little overall difference between charters and conventional public schools - this despite the many ways in which charters get less by way of resources than do conventional public schools. They also compare the racial compositions of charters and non-charters, finding only small disparities. The report provides detailed information on many aspects of California charters - such as teacher and principal experience - and also offers some recommendations that all states should heed. Most notable is its call for more coordinated testing and tracking efforts, so that student-level data can be used to evaluate the performance of all schools. To find a summary of this lengthy yet accessible report, visit http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1700/MR1700.sum.pdf. For the full report, surf to http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1700/.

Erika Frankenberg and Chungmei Lee, The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University
July 2003

When the Harvard Civil Rights Project issues a new study on school segregation, you really don't need to read it to know what it will say. Their recent report on segregation in charter schools is utterly predictable: according to the authors, charter schools are more segregated than their conventional counterparts. What's interesting is that their methodology is growing increasingly suspect. This time, to prove that charter schools are more segregated, they've compared charters' demographics with those of traditional public schools in the entire state. In other words, rather than comparing a charter with public schools in the same school district (which are more likely to have demographics similar to the local charters and which are also the plausible alternative option for students enrolled in charters), they compare the racial composition of a charter school to the demographics of all public schools in its state, including schools in more diverse neighborhoods, in affluent suburbs, in rural areas, etc. The authors reason that "because charter schools are created under state law and are, or could easily be [emphasis added] made, independent of district boundaries & it seems appropriate to compare them with other schools in the state rather than schools in the particular community where they are physically located." What a load of nonsense - and more proof of the old adage about lies and statistics. Should you care to subject yourself to this report, hold your nose and go to http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Charter_Schools03.pdf.

Richard P. Phelps, with a foreword by Herbert J. Walberg and a preface by J.E. Stone, Transaction Publishers
2003

This book reads like a Shelby Foote Civil War history, chock-full of martial phrases like "Attack Strategies and Tactics," "The Battle Rages," and "Agony of Defeat." Phelps isn't describing the death and destruction of Gettysburg, but rather the combat between those who support standardized testing and those who attack it. As Phelps notes, most Americans support standardized testing, preferably with high stakes. This war, then, is largely among elites. Those who oppose standardized testing are the "education providers - education professors, teachers' unions, and a proliferation of education administrator groups with large memberships and nationwide organization." The animosity of these groups is not aimed at testing per se, since education providers like using tests, and the data they generate, to inform what they do in schools. They just don't want the education consumer - the general public, parents, students, and employers - to know what they know and they don't think tests should make any real difference with respect to accountability for students, educators or schools. Phelps (who is rather more adept at asserting conclusions than documenting them) describes in detail the strengths and weaknesses of standardized testing. Phelps quotes University of North Carolina psychometrician Greg Cizek, who states emphatically that "High-stakes tests have evolved to a point where they are: highly reliable; free from bias; relevant and age appropriate; higher order; tightly related to important, public goals; time and cost efficient; and yielding remarkably consistent decisions." Despite public support, Phelps asserts, opponents keep on the offensive through a "protracted propaganda effort." Critics of standardized testing contend in education journals and the general press that test boosters are "right-wing ideologues" hell-bent on forcing all children into a one-size-fits-all model of education. Meanwhile, the battle rages. The publisher is Transaction. The ISBN is 0765801787. To order a copy, go to http://www.transactionpub.com/cgi-bin/transactionpublishers.storefront.

Alliance for Excellent Education
July 2003

Middle schools, like middle children, are misunderstood. The No Child Left Behind Act adds to the confusion by treating middle schools as high schools at times and elementary schools at others. Since the definition of teacher quality differs with each classification, the distinction matters. In addition to outlining the teacher quality requirements of NCLB, this concise policy brief explicates NCLB's requirements for testing and defining adequate yearly progress for middle schools, and lists recommendations for states regarding NCLB implementation. Look it up at http://www.all4ed.org/publications/NCLB%20and%20Middle%20Schools_Confronting%20the%20Challenges.doc.

Gail Jones, Brett Jones, and Tracy Hargrove, Rowman and Littlefield
2003

A perfect example of educationists' propaganda campaign against high-stakes testing mentioned above, this is a 180-page rant complete with students' drawings meant to illustrate their "stress and anxiety." If you accept the authors' underlying assumptions, which are unadulterated education progressivism/constructivism, then you, too, may share their conclusion that high-stakes testing has side effects that are bad for children and other living things (including teachers). They trace the current wave of test-based reform to A Nation at Risk and of course they don't much like No Child Left Behind (though, like all of that measure's critics, they claim to agree with its goals). If you want a single-volume recapitulation of all the arguments against high-stakes testing that you've ever encountered, this is the book for you. The one point they make that resonates with me is the curricular narrowing that is apt to result when such testing is done in only two or three subjects. The rest you can have. Published by Rowman & Littlefield, the ISBN is 0742526275, and you can get additional information at http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742526275.

Former Los Angeles school board president Caprice Young, who warmed the hearts of education reformers during her four years in office and accomplished more than anyone expected with that sprawling, balky school system, has agreed to head a newly formed organization that will support the 400+ charter schools in California and help others get started. The as-yet-unnamed group will merge several existing organizations, including the California Network of Education Charters (CANEC), in the hopes of providing charter schools with better representation before state policy makers and local districts, who seek to extend the restrictive regulations that California charters now labor under.

"Former trustee Caprice Young to lead charter school group," by Erika Hayasaki, Los Angeles Times, July 22, 2003

James Tooley has spent years documenting how private education can work wonders for low-income students in international settings. [For coverage of his fascinating recent report on private schools in India, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=4#42.] Now, from the Indian government itself comes new data on the explosion of private spending on education in that country, especially among the 40 percent of the population that lives below the poverty line. While private spending on education has grown 10.8 times across the country as a whole, spending among the poor rose 12.4 times between 1983 and 1999. Along the way, Muslims and low-caste Indians have pulled near to parity with the Hindu majority in the number of years spent in school, and the gap between the number of years girls spend in school compared to boys has fallen, from 30 percent to 10 percent. Still, high school age students in India have spent, on average, just over six years in school, far less than the U.S. and four years less than Indian law requires.

"Poor are spending more on education," by Sunil Jain, Rediff.com, July 22, 2003

With encouragement from the Council of Great City Schools and various dispensations and special funding from the powers that be at NAEP, a handful of America's big-city school systems are doing something gutsy and important: administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests to representative samples of their 4th and 8th graders and allowing the results to be reported just as if they were states instead of districts.

Classically, NAEP hasn't reported on any identifiable units smaller than states. (Until a decade ago, it didn't report on anything smaller than regions of the country!) A number of people-myself included-have felt for a long time that districts, too, should be able to track their students' and schools' progress on NAEP in relation to that assessment's achievement levels and in comparison with national and statewide performance.

In 2002, five courageous districts (Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York City) took part in NAEP's 4th and 8th grade assessments of reading and writing. (So did the District of Columbia, but it was already being reported among the states.) In 2003 they were joined by Boston, Charlotte, Cleveland and San Diego - those results are expected out in September in reading and math.

The 2002 results - out this week - aren't good. By and large, the kids in these cities did worse than the nation, worse than their states, worse even than the national central-city average. They basically got scores similar to the national average for Title I schools, which isn't really too surprising. When disaggregated by race, there were some interesting if limited exceptions. (Hispanic kids in Houston did better than Hispanic kids in central cities nationwide, though Blacks and Hispanics in Chicago and Los Angeles did worse. White kids in Atlanta and D.C. - small populations to be sure - did better than white kids nationally.)

One assumes the home town papers and civic leaders in these cities will give their school systems a drubbing because of the fresh evidence of how far they have to come to get their kids up to "basic" on the NAEP scale, let alone to "proficient." And yet the proper way to view these data is as a revealing baseline-and the leaders of these schools systems deserve praise rather than brickbats for their willingness to engage in this kind of honest comparison with the nation's gold-standard assessment system and their embrace of the principle of transparency. May their fine example spread. For the executive summary of both reports, go to http://www.nagb.org/release/summary_7_03_02.html; for the reading report see http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003523, and for the writing report, http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003530.

Those who would change the teaching profession by instituting pay incentives tied to performance can learn some things about teacher attitudes toward the issue from the latest Public Agenda study, Stand By Me. Here, I'd like to focus on what teachers told us was a glaring flaw in the public schools and what they would support to solve it.

Today, the most experienced teachers tend to teach the best students in the best schools. In focus groups, teachers told us that new teachers are more likely to draw the short straw: at the building-level, they're assigned to teach the toughest kids; at the district-level, they're sent to work in the toughest neighborhoods. This seems paradoxical and, according to teachers themselves, plain wrong. In our survey, only 20 percent say this is reasonable because veterans have earned it while fully 61 percent say it's wrong because it leaves inexperienced teachers with the hardest-to-reach students. Not surprisingly, newer teachers are most likely to feel this is wrong (69 percent) but the majority of veterans (55 percent) agrees.

It's likely that many rookies who would otherwise be on track to becoming good teachers are overwhelmed by their first experiences and drop out. Those who stay in the profession may seek better positions at the first opportunity, leaving the most challenging kids for the next poor draftee to struggle with. The principal of one low performing school described to us his frustrations. Because of his school's reputation, he's often reduced to filling vacancies with new teachers he judges to be promising. He invests in their mentoring and professional development. But just as his bets seem about to pay off, he frequently loses these teachers to districts or schools that can offer better work environments and less stress. For him, this is a frustrating treadmill. For education leaders, it's a public policy dilemma.

Would teachers support an incentive system designed to tempt the most talented professionals to tackle the biggest challenges and then reward them for doing so? According to our survey, most would. Of the seven different kinds of incentive and merit pay proposals we asked about, a majority of teachers supported five. The proposal that garners the most support - with 70 percent of all teachers backing it - would provide financial incentives to "teachers who work in tough neighborhoods with low-performing schools." A majority of teachers (63 percent) also supports higher pay for teachers who "teach difficult classes with hard-to-reach students."

Previous studies have demonstrated teacher support for "combat pay." But the underlying reasons for this steadfast support are crucial to keep in mind. Teachers can recognize the best within their ranks and would be glad to see superior instructors rewarded for working with the kids who need them the most. According to our findings, teachers know that some of their colleagues work harder and put in more effort. Most say it's easy to spot the truly great teachers in their building, that there would be no argument about who they are, and that there would be little resentment if those teachers were paid more for taking on the harder assignments. Moreover, it's logical that, with an incentive system to entice first-rate teachers into hard-to-staff classes and schools, the kids with the greatest learning needs will have a better chance of landing in the hands of someone who can help them succeed.

As reformers seek to reshape a profession whose current structure is dictated by so many complicated forces, they face a set of policy tangles. No incentive plan for teachers can be successfully implemented until other modifications are also in place, such as giving school leaders more freedom to make staffing decisions.

Challenging indeed. But that's not the whole story. Reformers need to understand what makes teachers tick, because extra money will only be a small part of the broad array of incentives that would entice them into the tougher assignments. A previous Public Agenda study showed that, given a choice, most new teachers would forego more money in favor of a good principal, the chance to work with other highly motivated teachers, or an orderly, focused school atmosphere. Several years ago, I moderated a focus group of parochial-school teachers in Westchester County, New York. Though all grumbled about low pay - some were even waiting for higher paying jobs in local public schools - none was willing to go to higher paying jobs in New York City, where they perceived a difficult school atmosphere.

Certainly, many people do respond to higher salaries, but professionals also respond to other things, including the desire to be productive, simple praise, threat of punishment, etc. So by all means pay good teachers a bonus but, even more importantly, bring them into challenging schools as part of a hand-picked team, with a good leader, a shared philosophy, and a sense of purpose. Financial recognition may turn out to be just the icing on the cake that will lure the best teachers into the classrooms where they're needed most.

Stand by Me: What Teachers Really Think About Unions, Merit Pay and Other Professional Matters, Public Agenda, June 2003

Steve Farkas is research director of Public Agenda.

Florida's Opportunity Scholarship program, which lets students in persistently failing schools use a publicly funded voucher at the school of their choice, is doubling in size as more and more families in the (so far) nine failing Florida schools become aware of their options. Still, the program remains small - 631 students requested vouchers for the coming school year, in addition to 556 students continuing in the program. Voucher proponents are worried, however, by a new push for the state to regulate the private and religious schools that accept the vouchers, in the wake of a controversy concerning 100 students that used their vouchers at an Islamic school that has since been accused of having ties to terrorists. The state's innovative Corporate Tax Credit, which allows companies to fund vouchers for low-income students in lieu of paying some state taxes, is also growing, from $50 million to $88 million - to the chagrin of school officials who say the program drains district funding by moving students to private schools.

"Voucher program doubles in size," by Matthew I. Pinzur, Miami Herald, July 23, 2003

Gadfly tries not to read the political tea leaves, preferring a just-the-facts approach. But when the senior Senator from California, Democratic impresario, and teachers' union darling Dianne Feinstein comes out in favor of private school vouchers, something important is going on. Feinstein has emerged as a potential swing vote in the Senate, where foes of the D.C. voucher bill are threatening to filibuster the measure if it comes to the floor. This week, Senator Feinstein wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, "I have never before supported a voucher program. For 30 years, I have advocated strongly for our public schools, because I believe that they are the cornerstone of our education system.... But as a former mayor, I also believe that local leaders should have the opportunity to experiment with programs that they believe are right for their area." Feinstein's union allies, of course, are furious. "They're calling her office in Washington to say don't do this, and that's the politest thing I can say," said California Teachers Association President Barbara Kerr. Feinstein said that low achievement in the D.C. public schools - despite ever-increasing funding - convinced her that "if the mayor wants this program, it should be given the chance to work." Keep watching; a deal may be in the offing.

"Let D.C. try vouchers," by Dianne Feinstein, Washington Post, July 22, 2003

"Feinstein backs vouchers for D.C. schools," by Edward Epstein, San Francisco Chronicle, July 23, 2003

"Foes halt vote on school vouchers," by Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, July 17, 2003

"Are vouchers stalled?" by Seth Stern, Christian Science Monitor, July 22, 2003

Across the country, art and music programs in schools are being squeezed by contracting budgets and the demands of No Child Left Behind, which places the curricular focus on reading and math. Devotees of these programs are fighting back with letter-writing campaigns and a website, http://www.supportmusic.com/index-home.html. One high school band recently took to the steps of the Utah capitol to protest cuts in arts and music education funding in that state. (Their tactic: Playing "Smoke on the Water," a 1972 hit by the band Deep Purple.) Gadfly is of two minds on the subject. We've talked about the curricular distortions that are apt to be an unintended consequence of NCLB [see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=22#114] and how music, art, or some other focus can be a useful way of schools distinguishing themselves and adding to the education choices available to parents. But we can't help but notice that there is little in the way of serious accountability for the millions of dollars districts spend every year on art, music, drama, and related subjects. Of one thing we are certain, however: Any band that emulates Deep Purple deserves to be defunded.

"Mullen: 'No frills' education just jargon for churning out drones," by Holly Mullen, Salt Lake City Tribune, July 17, 2003

"Basic skills forcing cuts in art classes," by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, July 23, 2003

"Final stanza for music?" by Ben Feller, Associated Press, July 22, 2003

We don't always agree with every single thing the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has to say about education but they're growing wiser with age, particularly when it comes to charter (and private) schools. We sincerely commend to you a new newsletter published by the foundation, "Possibilities: an education update." Sign up at http://www.gatesfoundation.org/mediacenter/relatedinfo/subscribe.htm?List=Possibilitieshtml.

"Possibilities: an education update," Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Winter 2003

Alliance for Excellent Education
July 2003

Middle schools, like middle children, are misunderstood. The No Child Left Behind Act adds to the confusion by treating middle schools as high schools at times and elementary schools at others. Since the definition of teacher quality differs with each classification, the distinction matters. In addition to outlining the teacher quality requirements of NCLB, this concise policy brief explicates NCLB's requirements for testing and defining adequate yearly progress for middle schools, and lists recommendations for states regarding NCLB implementation. Look it up at http://www.all4ed.org/publications/NCLB%20and%20Middle%20Schools_Confronting%20the%20Challenges.doc.

Erika Frankenberg and Chungmei Lee, The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University
July 2003

When the Harvard Civil Rights Project issues a new study on school segregation, you really don't need to read it to know what it will say. Their recent report on segregation in charter schools is utterly predictable: according to the authors, charter schools are more segregated than their conventional counterparts. What's interesting is that their methodology is growing increasingly suspect. This time, to prove that charter schools are more segregated, they've compared charters' demographics with those of traditional public schools in the entire state. In other words, rather than comparing a charter with public schools in the same school district (which are more likely to have demographics similar to the local charters and which are also the plausible alternative option for students enrolled in charters), they compare the racial composition of a charter school to the demographics of all public schools in its state, including schools in more diverse neighborhoods, in affluent suburbs, in rural areas, etc. The authors reason that "because charter schools are created under state law and are, or could easily be [emphasis added] made, independent of district boundaries & it seems appropriate to compare them with other schools in the state rather than schools in the particular community where they are physically located." What a load of nonsense - and more proof of the old adage about lies and statistics. Should you care to subject yourself to this report, hold your nose and go to http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Charter_Schools03.pdf.

Gail Jones, Brett Jones, and Tracy Hargrove, Rowman and Littlefield
2003

A perfect example of educationists' propaganda campaign against high-stakes testing mentioned above, this is a 180-page rant complete with students' drawings meant to illustrate their "stress and anxiety." If you accept the authors' underlying assumptions, which are unadulterated education progressivism/constructivism, then you, too, may share their conclusion that high-stakes testing has side effects that are bad for children and other living things (including teachers). They trace the current wave of test-based reform to A Nation at Risk and of course they don't much like No Child Left Behind (though, like all of that measure's critics, they claim to agree with its goals). If you want a single-volume recapitulation of all the arguments against high-stakes testing that you've ever encountered, this is the book for you. The one point they make that resonates with me is the curricular narrowing that is apt to result when such testing is done in only two or three subjects. The rest you can have. Published by Rowman & Littlefield, the ISBN is 0742526275, and you can get additional information at http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742526275.

RAND Education
2003

This report seeks to provide a comprehensive review of charters in California. It examines who attends charters, how well their students do, and how charter schools differ from conventional public schools. It also discusses integration, special ed, student access, and the authorizing process, while providing a number of recommendations for improvement. Prepared by RAND for the California Legislative Analyst's Office, as required by California's charter school law, the report is informative if a bit dry. Of greatest value is its analysis comparing the academic gains in charters to those in public schools. In some cases, the authors were able to make use of student-level testing data; in other instances, they relied on aggregate data (in the form of the Academic Performance Index, or API). However, they did control for pupil characteristics and they found little overall difference between charters and conventional public schools - this despite the many ways in which charters get less by way of resources than do conventional public schools. They also compare the racial compositions of charters and non-charters, finding only small disparities. The report provides detailed information on many aspects of California charters - such as teacher and principal experience - and also offers some recommendations that all states should heed. Most notable is its call for more coordinated testing and tracking efforts, so that student-level data can be used to evaluate the performance of all schools. To find a summary of this lengthy yet accessible report, visit http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1700/MR1700.sum.pdf. For the full report, surf to http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1700/.

Richard P. Phelps, with a foreword by Herbert J. Walberg and a preface by J.E. Stone, Transaction Publishers
2003

This book reads like a Shelby Foote Civil War history, chock-full of martial phrases like "Attack Strategies and Tactics," "The Battle Rages," and "Agony of Defeat." Phelps isn't describing the death and destruction of Gettysburg, but rather the combat between those who support standardized testing and those who attack it. As Phelps notes, most Americans support standardized testing, preferably with high stakes. This war, then, is largely among elites. Those who oppose standardized testing are the "education providers - education professors, teachers' unions, and a proliferation of education administrator groups with large memberships and nationwide organization." The animosity of these groups is not aimed at testing per se, since education providers like using tests, and the data they generate, to inform what they do in schools. They just don't want the education consumer - the general public, parents, students, and employers - to know what they know and they don't think tests should make any real difference with respect to accountability for students, educators or schools. Phelps (who is rather more adept at asserting conclusions than documenting them) describes in detail the strengths and weaknesses of standardized testing. Phelps quotes University of North Carolina psychometrician Greg Cizek, who states emphatically that "High-stakes tests have evolved to a point where they are: highly reliable; free from bias; relevant and age appropriate; higher order; tightly related to important, public goals; time and cost efficient; and yielding remarkably consistent decisions." Despite public support, Phelps asserts, opponents keep on the offensive through a "protracted propaganda effort." Critics of standardized testing contend in education journals and the general press that test boosters are "right-wing ideologues" hell-bent on forcing all children into a one-size-fits-all model of education. Meanwhile, the battle rages. The publisher is Transaction. The ISBN is 0765801787. To order a copy, go to http://www.transactionpub.com/cgi-bin/transactionpublishers.storefront.