The Education Gadfly Weekly

Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, and The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
February 2004

This new report is a joint product of Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, and Fordham. Two years in the making, it offers the functional equivalent of voluntary national standards in English and math that 12th graders should attain by the time they graduate, and says these standards should serve as benchmarks for state exit exams, for college entrance and placement decisions, AND for employers seeking workers who are truly qualified for today's demanding jobs. It contends that most of today's high-school graduates aren't really prepared for the "real world" of 2004 even if they've completed their state's graduation requirements and passed the exit exams. It deplores the gap between what the K-12 system requires for exit and what the postsecondary system and job market require for successful entry. And it sets forth numerous policy actions to solve these and related problems. Released this week, it can be found on the web at http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/StandardForm3?openform&parentunid=F4D77F181E14ED7485256DB90062DBF1.

"Diploma called 'a broken promise,'" Washington Times, February 10, 2004,

"Study says U.S. should replace states' high school standards," by Karen W. Arenson, New York Times, February 10, 2004,  (registration required)

MetLife
2003

The MetLife teacher poll is now 20 years old, and celebrated that milestone by interviewing principals, parents and students (grades 3-12) this year in addition to teachers. School leadership was the focus. The main message seems to be dissonance as to what the principal's role is and differing views on how successfully the principal is carrying out his/her responsibilities. For example, 89 percent of principals say their school is "welcoming to parents" but just 61 percent of parents agree. Eighty-nine percent of principals describe their relationships with teachers as "collaborative," a view that's shared by barely half the teachers. Relatively few teachers - one in ten - are keen to become principals. Yet two-thirds of principals pronounce themselves very satisfied with their jobs (and nearly all the rest are "somewhat satisfied"). As for the challenges they face, 60 percent of principals report that finances and "pressure to deliver results" are among their greatest challenges, but only 29 percent cite personnel issues and 20 percent remark on student unruliness. This is not an earth-shattering study but you might want to have a look. It's on line at http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emetlife%2Ecom%2FWPSAssets%2F20781259951075837470V1F2003%2520Survey%2Epdf)

Sandra Thompson and Martha Thurlow, National Center on Educational Outcomes
December 2003

This piece is primarily a compilation of survey data culled from state directors of special education; it offers little in the way of conclusions or recommendations and may bore those outside special ed. For those in the field, however, it offers a variety of information on states' reactions to No Child Left Behind - specifically, their standards, assessments, and processes. You can read about states' differences with respect to grade promotion, their use of graduation tests, alternate assessments, how they group students, and more. It provides specific information and examples from states as well as summaries of the data. (For example, 24 states require special ed students to pass a graduation test to earn a high school diploma, while only six use assessment results for grade promotion.) What one won't find here, surprisingly, are pleas to diminish the demands of NCLB. From a group facing perhaps the stiffest of education challenges, the collective response here is that there are "more positive than negative consequences of the participation of students with disabilities in standards, assessments, and accountability." We hear that the MCAS results in Massachusetts now document that view: the overwhelming majority of disabled youngsters are passing those tests. You can find the report online at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.

Department for Education and Skills, United Kingdom
February 2004

This paper gives a brief overview and comparison of participation, tuition rates, and government spending on higher education in several countries, focusing on the countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The findings are widely varied, with higher ed entry rates ranging from 20 percent in Turkey to 76 percent in New Zealand. Some countries, such as the United States and New Zealand, charge varied tuition for both public and private universities. Other countries, such as Germany and Sweden do not currently charge tuition to attend university. Other interesting tuition methods include those of Australia and China. In Australia (with a 65 percent participation rate) students do not pay any upfront fees. "Instead they repay their deferred fee after graduation once their income reaches Aus$25,000 a year." Meanwhile, in China "fees are set according to market conditions - taking into account both costs and demand." This paper does not make specific policy recommendations but does provide several interesting comparisons, especially as America's tuition fees continue to rise. To view the paper, visit http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/12/12/Intpaper.pdf.

The federal budget process is something of a kabuki drama, with affected special interests acting out their ritualized poor-mouthing on cue. This is especially the case for Fiscal 2005, in which the White House gave the Department of Education a $1.7 billion increase in a very tight fiscal environment. That includes new money for NCLB, $1.1 billion for Reading First, and an extra $823 million for Pell Grants. Cause for rejoicing in education land? Don't be silly. The budget, you see, eliminates 38 small programs under the department's aegis, penny-ante programs like $5 million for dropout prevention - a ludicrously small amount for a federal program that has shown little in the way of tangible results - or Comprehensive School Reform programs that are generally superseded by NCLB. "Star Schools." Senator Kennedy's pet "Whaling Program." Critics can be counted upon to term this a "budgetary shell game." No doubt Congress will restore some of the cuts (while keeping the increases). And the drama continues.

"Budget shuffle: Schools both gain and lose," by April Austin, Christian Science Monitor, February 9, 2004

"Domestic spending: Gains for education but not much else," by Diana Jean Schemo and Lynette Clemetson, New York Times, February 3, 2004  (registration required)

Former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner once said, "Never confuse activity with results." New York City Deputy Schools Chancellor Diana Lam could do well to learn that lesson. Unfortunately, rather than judging schools by results, Lam and her team have focused on mandating superficial activity for teachers - apparently assuming that teachers, left to their own devices, could never do right by students. Specifically, Lam' s shop has developed a laundry list of do's and don'ts wherein teachers are forbidden, for example, to correct pupil "errors with red ink because that color is 'aggressive'"; from teaching grammar because it's "dull"; from giving spelling tests "because they supposedly strike fear, do not relate experience, and produce a distaste for language." Does any of this stuff yield positive results? Lam and her boss, Chancellor Joel Klein, were quick to claim credit for New York's performance (among the top two) on the recent big-city version of the National Assessment of Education Progress, asserting that the NAEP results proved that their mandated "balanced literacy" program was working. But as Diane Ravitch pointed out in the New York Post, the first round of NAEP tests were given in 2002, when Lam was still in Providence and before the mandated reading program had been implemented. Further, "NAEP was not designed to answer arguments among proponents of different ways of teaching reading. It tests samples of students. No one knows which students and which schools were tested, nor which reading method their teachers employed when the test was given."

"Klein's educrats undermine good teaching," by R.M. Isaac, New York Daily News, February 9, 2004 

"Klein's data distortion," by Diane Ravitch, New York Post, January 30, 2004

Last week, we reported that the Utah House Education Committee sent a bill to the floor barring state schools from "any further participation in the No Child Left Behind Act." (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=133#1656 for background info.) Now it seems that legislators have decided that, while they can live without the law's accountability measures, they can't live without Title I cash. So the bill was amended to allow Utah's continued participation while forbidding districts from using use state or local money to comply with NCLB. State Representative Margaret Dayton explained that Utah can't afford to lose the federal Title I dollars but "won't be bullied into spending sparse state funding to fulfill mandates the federal government underfunds." Who will finally back down? We suspect other states are watching closely.
 
"New bill keeps school mandate," by Ronnie Lynn, Salt Lake Tribune, February 11, 2004

"Utah house rebukes Bush with its vote on school law," by Sam Dillon, New York Times, February 11, 2004  (registration required)

Jake Bogdanovich, an Ohio senior randomly chosen to take a standardized test to gauge his district's progress toward meeting the goals of a school reform program, decided to engage in a little sabotage. As he observed, no "scholarship opportunities" were connected to the test, nor would its outcome be reflected on his report card. So he drew tic-tac-toes on the answer form, sketched a character from the cartoon "South Park," had an ostentatious coughing fit, and generally acted like a jerk. For his pains, he was suspended for three days, lost his position working in the school office, and jeopardized his National Honor Society membership. We suspect that testing opponents will look to Bogdanovich as a great example of speaking truth to power (one listserv was alight this week with tributes to Bogdanovich's courage). We're not so sure they ought to hang their ideological hat on a 17-year-old's tantrum. We rather agree with the lad's mother, who told the Beacon Journal, "His wings are going to be clipped a little."

"Star student gets F for attitude," by Stephanie Warsmith, Akron Beacon Journal, February 7, 2004

In an editorial, USA Today notes that the 15,000 National Merit Scholars are not just chosen on the basis of, well, merit, but also geography. That is, scholarships are apportioned to each state based on the number of graduating seniors in that state relative to the number nationwide. Thus, Mississippi, with 1 percent of graduating seniors nationwide, gets 1 percent of National Merit Scholars, despite the fact that the Mississippi winners had test scores well below winners (and also-rans) from other states. (In 2001, according to the article, students from Mississippi needed only 200 out of 240 on the nationwide test, while students from Maryland needed at least a 220.) The National Merit Scholarship Corporation defends its actions, saying that the test was never designed to highlight state educational shortcomings. Of course, the scholarship can set any guidelines for distributing scholarships it wants (though we question the logic of then calling them "National" scholars), but it's interesting to note once again that national tests really can shed light on important educational inequities that exist among states.

"National Merit Scholars," USA Today editorial, February 9, 2004

Education and political circles are buzzing with talk of the unfair burdens that Congress has allegedly heaped upon states and districts via the No Child Left Behind Act. Such burdens are generally depicted in two categories: hassles and dollar costs.

Under the former heading, states grumble that NCLB is forcing them to do things differently than they were accustomed to doing, or planned to do, on their own: different tests, different ways of reporting on school and student success and failure, different teacher qualifications, different accountability interventions, new choice programs, and so on. These boil down to policy differences: the state had a policy that said "A," the feds now say to do "B." The result is conflict and confusion.

Some of these complaints have legs. NCLB is undeniably rigid in some respects (and lax in others). It does not, for example, allow a state with a well-developed testing-and-accountability system (e.g. Florida, Virginia) to continue using its own system instead of the NCLB schema. Likewise with school-choice policies. Uncle Sam should allow states that have made great headway on these fronts to show that their homegrown systems are substantially equivalent and then use their own, perhaps with some tweaking. Another way to say this: the NCLB system should be the "default" for states that don't have a satisfactory version of their own.

Dream on, you say. Yet there wouldn't be such a backlash if that were possible.

Which brings us to NCLB's alleged costs. Here one finds gallons of snake oil and plenty of politics. In case you hadn't noticed, it's an election year, and numerous Democrats have decided that one way to blunt the GOP's education edge - and take some wind out of President Bush's NCLB sails - is to say that the Republican Congress and White House aren't spending nearly enough to meet the costs of NCLB.

Considering that several of Bush's would-be challengers voted for NCLB in the Senate, they find it awkward to say the statute is wrongheaded (though Senator John Edwards has said so). So they fault Mr. Bush for not adequately funding it. Note, though, that NCLB-related increases in the President's 2005 budget total a couple of billion dollars, partly offset by the proposed scrapping of some lower-priority programs (a couple of which are dear to Senator Kennedy's heart). For more budget details, see the first item below.

But it's not just Democrats who are grumbling about spending levels. GOP legislators in Virginia, Ohio, and Utah are doing the same. And one state after another is hiring consultants to estimate for them the costs of complying with NCLB.

That's where the snake oil comes in. The slipperiest example I've seen is a recent "study" done for the Ohio Department of Education at the direction of the state legislature. Written by analysts at a state-level "Beltway bandit" firm in Columbus, it purports to estimate Ohio's marginal costs of NCLB "compliance" at about $1.5 billion per year. Of which, they say, Washington can be expected to supply about $44 million. The upshot, if you follow their reasoning, accept their assumptions, and believe their numbers: a ten percent increase in the Buckeye State's present K-12 education spending, at a time when state coffers are said to be empty despite recent tax hikes.

This sort of thing is catnip to politicians and they haven't been shy about mewing loudly. Which gets amplified by press reports of a "growing backlash" against NCLB. I'm reminded of the old parlor game called "telephone" in which misstatements get exaggerated and errors compounded as a statement circulates.

Though the Ohio study has drawn much attention, few have noticed the rare and commendable thing that the state education department did: solicit peer reviews of the study results by other experts, including national heavy hitters, and transmit their comments, together with the study itself, to legislators along with a perceptive cover memo from state superintendent Susan Tave Zelman. (All of this can be found at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/legislator/COST_OF_NCLB/COST%20OF%20IMPLEMENTING%20NCLB-012104.pdf)

Bottom line: most of the outside experts eviscerate the state-hired experts who generated the numbers now appearing in all the newspapers! Here is Zelman's own summary of the reviewers' conclusions: "Two believe that the analysis and costs are basically accurate. Two believe that the analysis substantially understates the cost of implementing NCLB. Three believe that the analysis substantially overstates the cost. . . . Three believe that the assumptions and degree of speculation on which the report is based substantially undermine the accuracy of the cost estimates. . . . Eight of the ten experts believe that the analysis was hampered by the assumption that current revenue (state and federal) will continue to be used as it has been used in the past. . . . The estimated cost of providing individual student intervention represents 93 percent of the total identified. . . . Eight of the ten experts raised concerns about the appropriateness of this cost in light of the lack of research to support the efficacy of the identified intervention strategies. . . ."

Putting it more simply: more than nine-tenths of the cost of "compliance" is a guesstimate of what it would take to bring up to "proficiency" the quarter of Ohio youngsters who apparently wouldn't be expected to get there under the state's pre-existing accountability system. (Ohio was aiming for 75 percent proficiency; today, its performance is in the 55-65 percent range.) In making that calculation, however, analysts assumed that all current state (and federal and local) dollars would continue to be spent exactly as they've always been spent, neither re-directed nor made more efficient, i.e. nothing really changing in the schools. That all costs of boosting proficiency would thus be add-on costs. And that the way to do this is via summer school, after-school programs, and suchlike for the lowest achieving students in the earliest grades. Then they devised a budget for these extra programs for a quarter of the children in the state.

To be sure, one must assume SOMETHING when doing an analysis. But what a ridiculous and unfounded string of assumptions this is!

Moreover, it's wrong to term this the "cost of compliance" with NCLB. The peer review of the Ohio study by the Education Trust usefully reminds us that NCLB does not "mandate" 100 percent proficiency in the sense that Uncle Sam will penalize states that fail to achieve this. As EdTrust says: "So long as Ohio measures the achievement of all students against state standards, publicly reports disaggregated results, and commits to undertake improvement efforts in schools not making AYP, Ohio will be in compliance with the student achievement provisions of the law" and won't be at risk of losing federal dollars, even if the students themselves are not achieving at the "proficient" level.

In fact, the true "mandate" parts of NCLB are relatively inexpensive. They involve such things as giving tests, analyzing and reporting data, and undertaking certain interventions (chosen from an extensive menu) in failing schools. Many, if not all of those expenses are covered by additional ESEA money appropriated in the aftermath of NCLB and boosted in the President's new budget. Yet student achievement per se is not "mandated." It's highly desirable, all would agree. But it's not required by federal law and nothing (except embarrassment) befalls a state whose children fail to learn what they ought. Hence boosting pupil achievement cannot legitimately be termed an unfunded mandate. Merely a moral imperative.

NCLB Under a Microscope: A Cost Analysis of the Fiscal Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 on States and Local Education Agencies, AccountabilityWorks and the Education Leaders Council, February 2004

"Exploring the cost of Accountability," by James Peyser and Robert Costrell, Education Next, Spring 2004

"No politician left behind," Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2004 (subscription required)

This week, California Education Secretary Richard Riordan introduced a plan that would cede control over a school's administration and budget to its principal, taking it away from the central office administration. A hearty thumbs-up for this fine proposal, but now we learn that some principals would just as soon have the buck stop with someone else. Said one Jim Sieger, "I want to be working with teachers and students. . . . I'm here to be the educational leader, not the general manager. . . . I'm not an MBA or a CPA. I can barely balance my checkbook." Mr. Sieger is not really strengthening his case with such admissions. More to the point, if principals cannot handle the additional responsibility, perhaps it's time to think about hiring school CEOs who can take charge of all aspects of school leadership delegate instructional matters to folks like Sieger. The Los Angeles teachers union naturally denounced Riordan's plan, saying they're "not interested in the idea of having entrepreneurial principals" because "the collective wisdom of teachers is better than the collective wisdom of one principal." Very zen-like, that, but since the plan concerns devolving power from central office to principal, not to teachers, completely beside the point. They also grumbled that Riordan's plan could require "a wholesale change in teachers' contracts and also in state bargaining law." One can only hope.

"Financial empowerment a mixed bag for principals," by Duke Helfand and Erika Hayasaki, Los Angeles Times, February 9, 2004  (registration required)

Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, and The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
February 2004

This new report is a joint product of Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, and Fordham. Two years in the making, it offers the functional equivalent of voluntary national standards in English and math that 12th graders should attain by the time they graduate, and says these standards should serve as benchmarks for state exit exams, for college entrance and placement decisions, AND for employers seeking workers who are truly qualified for today's demanding jobs. It contends that most of today's high-school graduates aren't really prepared for the "real world" of 2004 even if they've completed their state's graduation requirements and passed the exit exams. It deplores the gap between what the K-12 system requires for exit and what the postsecondary system and job market require for successful entry. And it sets forth numerous policy actions to solve these and related problems. Released this week, it can be found on the web at http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/StandardForm3?openform&parentunid=F4D77F181E14ED7485256DB90062DBF1.

"Diploma called 'a broken promise,'" Washington Times, February 10, 2004,

"Study says U.S. should replace states' high school standards," by Karen W. Arenson, New York Times, February 10, 2004,  (registration required)

Department for Education and Skills, United Kingdom
February 2004

This paper gives a brief overview and comparison of participation, tuition rates, and government spending on higher education in several countries, focusing on the countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The findings are widely varied, with higher ed entry rates ranging from 20 percent in Turkey to 76 percent in New Zealand. Some countries, such as the United States and New Zealand, charge varied tuition for both public and private universities. Other countries, such as Germany and Sweden do not currently charge tuition to attend university. Other interesting tuition methods include those of Australia and China. In Australia (with a 65 percent participation rate) students do not pay any upfront fees. "Instead they repay their deferred fee after graduation once their income reaches Aus$25,000 a year." Meanwhile, in China "fees are set according to market conditions - taking into account both costs and demand." This paper does not make specific policy recommendations but does provide several interesting comparisons, especially as America's tuition fees continue to rise. To view the paper, visit http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/12/12/Intpaper.pdf.

MetLife
2003

The MetLife teacher poll is now 20 years old, and celebrated that milestone by interviewing principals, parents and students (grades 3-12) this year in addition to teachers. School leadership was the focus. The main message seems to be dissonance as to what the principal's role is and differing views on how successfully the principal is carrying out his/her responsibilities. For example, 89 percent of principals say their school is "welcoming to parents" but just 61 percent of parents agree. Eighty-nine percent of principals describe their relationships with teachers as "collaborative," a view that's shared by barely half the teachers. Relatively few teachers - one in ten - are keen to become principals. Yet two-thirds of principals pronounce themselves very satisfied with their jobs (and nearly all the rest are "somewhat satisfied"). As for the challenges they face, 60 percent of principals report that finances and "pressure to deliver results" are among their greatest challenges, but only 29 percent cite personnel issues and 20 percent remark on student unruliness. This is not an earth-shattering study but you might want to have a look. It's on line at http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emetlife%2Ecom%2FWPSAssets%2F20781259951075837470V1F2003%2520Survey%2Epdf)

Sandra Thompson and Martha Thurlow, National Center on Educational Outcomes
December 2003

This piece is primarily a compilation of survey data culled from state directors of special education; it offers little in the way of conclusions or recommendations and may bore those outside special ed. For those in the field, however, it offers a variety of information on states' reactions to No Child Left Behind - specifically, their standards, assessments, and processes. You can read about states' differences with respect to grade promotion, their use of graduation tests, alternate assessments, how they group students, and more. It provides specific information and examples from states as well as summaries of the data. (For example, 24 states require special ed students to pass a graduation test to earn a high school diploma, while only six use assessment results for grade promotion.) What one won't find here, surprisingly, are pleas to diminish the demands of NCLB. From a group facing perhaps the stiffest of education challenges, the collective response here is that there are "more positive than negative consequences of the participation of students with disabilities in standards, assessments, and accountability." We hear that the MCAS results in Massachusetts now document that view: the overwhelming majority of disabled youngsters are passing those tests. You can find the report online at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.