The Education Gadfly Weekly

The American Enterprise Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the National Council on Teacher Quality October 2003

The American Enterprise Institute, in conjunction with the Progressive Policy Institute and the National Council on Teacher Quality, held an uncommonly interesting conference last week. While you needed to be there to get the full flavor of what discussants and audience had to say, and while many revisions doubtless lie between drafting and publishing, drafts of the ten papers worked over at the conference are available on line and at least a few repay attention. In two longish overview papers, Stanford's Heidi Ramirez and PPI's Andy Rotherham and Sara Mead chronicle the evolution of the federal and state roles vis-??-vis teacher quality. Four papers (by Bryan Hassel, Michael Podgursky, Kate Walsh, and Gary Sykes) propound new (well, more or less new) models of teacher preparation and licensure. And in a path breaking analysis of actual content of teacher-prep courses in elite ed schools (based on course syllabi in foundations, psychology, reading and math), Boston University's David Steiner finds that "The schools of education we reviewed are neither preparing teachers adequately to use the concrete findings of the best research in education, nor are they providing their students with a thoughtful and academically rich background in the fundamentals of what it means to be an outstanding educator." You can find the papers - remember, they're drafts, to be revised based on conference discussion and authors' second thoughts - at http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.624,filter.,type.past/event_detail.asp

Paul T. Hill and Kacey Guin, University of Washington
Education Policy Analysis Archives
October 2003

This short but useful paper makes an undeniable point: that any school choice program, to be judged fairly, should be compared to the existing public school system, not to its "idealized aspirations." In other words, those who argue that choice programs - be they charters, vouchers, or otherwise - are flawed often overlook the fact that our public schools themselves are imperfect. School choice reforms come under attack for potentially "skimming" the best students, leaving poor and minority students in the worst schools; yet our public schools are already divided along these lines. Choice critics fear that resources might be distributed unfairly; yet public schools often spend far more on their best students than on their neediest. Such critiques and more come under fire in this paper, which neatly summarizes the aspects of today's public schools against which any choice proposal should be measured. All school systems contain mechanisms for choice - families can move and parents can pester administrators for favored treatment - but usually these are bureaucratic and thus hard to monitor and manage. With open forms of choice, winners and losers are visible, and programs can be designed to benefit those most in need. Why then does the burden of proof lie with choice proponents, to show that their proposals will do no harm, rather than with opponents, to prove that today's public schools are better than all alternatives? Here Hill and Guin deftly point out the absurdity of this double standard. To read for yourself, visit http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n39/.

AARP Knowledge Management, NRTA: AARP's Educator Community, and HarrisInteractive Inc.2003

This report from the American Association of Retired Persons uses survey data from teachers to determine what makes fine instructors leave the classroom and what policymakers can do to try to get them to stay. The report looks at the problem through the eyes of teachers - those that have remained and those who opted to leave. Some of the reasons former teachers cited for leaving were lack of support from administration, low pay, and feeling undervalued and under-appreciated by society and the community. "Everyone knows it is one of the most important fields of society, but actions do not follow suit with this knowledge," cites one former teacher. Based on the teachers' responses, rewarding and recognizing performance and improving communication and flexibility between teachers and administration can help schools recruit and retain motivated teachers. Yes, this report is marred by familiar teacher gripes about how tough a row they've picked to hoe. And it's not exactly ground-breaking. But worth a look. Check it out at http://research.aarp.org/general/exodus.pdf.

Amanda K. Miller and Kathryn Chandler, National Center for Education StatisticsOctober 2003

Recall the recent flap about states (with rare exceptions) reporting that few or none of their public schools are "persistently dangerous"? (See, for example, http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=04Dangerous.h23&keywords=%22persistently%20dangerous%22.) Remember the sarcastic comments that followed, as in, "Try telling the parents of the south Bronx and eastern Brooklyn that there are only two persistently dangerous schools in all of New York State"? And the obvious conclusion: that leaving it to states to devise their own definitions of dangerous schools and their own methods of tabulating such data is a formula for uneven underreporting? If you need more convincing, look at this valuable new NCES report on school violence in 1999-2000. (Another source of danger to the Republic is that it takes NCES three years to produce such studies, but that's a different issue.) In this case, principals did the reporting, Westat conducted the survey (a sample of 2270 elementary, middle and high schools), and the definitions were clear and uniform. What we learn could justly be termed chilling: 71 percent of public schools had at least one "violent incident" during that school year, 20 percent had a least one SERIOUS incident (rape, attacks with weapons, robbery, etc.), and 7 percent of the schools accounted for half of the total (1,466,000) violent incidents that occurred. It seems reasonable to conclude that at least seven percent of U.S. public schools might fairly be described as dangerous. That's roughly 6,000 schools. If you confine it to the 2 percent of schools that account for half the SERIOUS violent incidents, we're still talking 1,700 schools. Of course, one would never know that from the NCLB data reported by states. But you'll learn plenty more from this lengthy, technical NCES study, including lots about the characteristics of schools that are and aren't associated with high levels of violence. You can find it on-line at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004314

The lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses today is not just an issue for conservatives. On Wednesday, four witnesses, three of them self-proclaimed liberals, talked with the Senate HELP Committee about the dangers of the one-sided education being provided at America's colleges and universities. (This was the second such hearing organized by Chairman Judd Gregg.) Students are being taught by homogeneous professors who are busy propagating their political ideas, or else teaching monotonous courses that seek to avoid all words and actions deemed politically incorrect. Either way, at a time when young adults should be encouraged to debate contentious issues freely, they are being driven to silence by an academic culture that gets vaporous at the prospect of being thought "offensive." Regardless of the ideology of individual professors, students deserve an education that exposes them to multiple views and perspectives. As Anne Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni stated, "Even this ideological imbalance would not be fatal if students were given the knowledge and background that empowers them to think for themselves."

"Is intellectual diversity an endangered species on America's college campuses?," Senate HELP Committee Hearing, October 29, 2003

The GOP is responding to allegations that No Child Left Behind is an "unfunded mandate" and that not enough federal dollars are being appropriated for it. This week, House education committee chairman John Boehner issued a letter to Republican colleagues (not available online) that charged Democrats with demagoguery on this issue, while Education Secretary Rod Paige echoed that in a Wall Street Journal column. Both made a technical argument about the difference between "authorization" and "appropriation" and a more philosophical argument about how America's education woes are not caused by too little money. But old habits die hard. Both Paige and Boehner began their defense by recounting just how much money the Bush administration HAS thrown at Title I education - $11.7 billion in fiscal year 2003 - which rather seems to give away the argument before it's even begun. When will Republicans learn that they never win these "bidding wars" and it's folly to engage in them?

"It's not about the money," by Rod Paige, Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2003  (subscription required)

In the October 16 Gadfly, I cited a "sage observer" of the school choice scene who suggested that grassroots activism and the large sums being spent thereon are not actually influencing votes in the halls of Congress or state legislatures and that all this money and energy might better be deployed to elect different candidates rather than struggling to change minds of those already elected. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm#1494). I invited comments and dissents, and many flooded in. Here is a representative sampling, with names omitted to protect the cautious:

D.C. Organization Head:
One problem (and our major complaint throughout) - there has been absolutely NO GRASSROOTS EFFORT WHATSOEVER, save a few parents here and there in D.C. going to the Hill. The big money has been spent on ads, not personal grassroots attention. Throughout this effort, the people spending other people's money have focused on big heavy top roots, not grassroots. Sad. That's our continual problem. No one seems to understand the value of the little people anymore.

D.C. Observer:
I can think of one [vote that was influenced]: Harold Ford voted for the DC program after being anti-school choice. He was lobbied by X and Y and parents. Ford went to private schools as a child and was willing to admit it was helpful. His union backers are no doubt very displeased.

D.C. Parent Activist:
Today someone told me that we put up a good grassroots fight here in D.C. Yes, we did. For me it was an incredible experience watching low-income mothers become strong advocates for change. They were empowered and they'll never be the same. That is what this country is all about: citizens standing up and fighting for what they believe. I believe that their strength and steadfastness has made a big difference in what has happened here in the District. I truly believe that had it not been for their passion and willingness to put themselves on the front line, the D.C. legislation would not have even gotten as far as it has. Whatever happens (and we don't know) has changed these families forever. I know that they will NOT give up on being a part of an effort to bring about change in the educational system (AND anything else they want for themselves and their families) for our children. No one can tell me that they didn't make a difference and that they didn't make this a truly courageous effort. Electing folks who support choice is an interesting thought, but we know that won't be enough. We have seen that we need citizens to take a stand on things they believe in and fight with passion and energy.

Another Parent Activist:
No one will ever convince me that our parents are not making a difference. I know they are and if the bottom line is at the polls, then they'll take their stand there as well!

Think Tanker:
Your sage observer is far too impatient. To be effective, grass-roots organizations need the power to inflict pain on elected officials at the ballot box. Those D.C. parents who have labored tirelessly for the voucher bill will never have the opportunity to vote Congressional "bums" out, and the "bums" know it. PACs are a part of the political equation, sure, but his/her advice ("take all the money and use it to elect legislators") is shortsighted at best. Do the teachers' unions rely on PACs alone? Without a well-oiled network of grass-roots foot soldiers, would the NEA be able to keep its bought politicians in line? I don't think so.

The millions spent on grassroots advocacy haven't been wasted. They've changed the education landscape and brought school choice into the mainstream of ideas. Grassroots school choice organizations are in their infancy. They will crawl and walk before they build a team and conquer. In time they will conquer if they aren't killed in their cradles.

Veteran Teacher:
Whatever the effect on already elected politicians, the war of ideas matters in terms of influencing the behavior of would-be elected officials. Who can doubt, for example, that the Washington Post's recent turn-about on school choice does not matter? The Christian Science Monitor's? Twenty-five years ago the Wall Street Journal's? (I remember when the Journal opposed tuition tax credits.) Conversions like these, small and large, are going on all the time affecting the behavior of officials yet to be elected if not those already in office. It is, however, very difficult to precisely gauge the effect of any single campaign in the "war of ideas." Over the last 25 years, I've had countless exchanges with columnists, letters in papers, etc. I suspect some of these had the effect of nudging a paper, a columnist, etc. in the direction of school choice. But I don't have "hard data," just the sense that the idea of school choice is taken much more seriously than 20 years ago despite the continued ferocious opposition of the unions. I look at it as a "dam bursting" kind of phenomenon. When the pressure gets to be too great, things could happen very fast. Which is why every school choice struggle - recent examples being the 15 charter schools in Detroit and the D.C. choice bill - is a life-or-death struggle for the Democratic Party and the unions.

State-based Advocate:
The public persuasion/education efforts must also continue. Without the public being persuaded, politicians won't feel comfortable supporting school choice. When I started in the school choice movement six years ago, our local newspaper did a poll that showed the majority of state residents did not support school choice, certainly not the kind that includes private, sectarian schools. We knew we had to flip those poll numbers before we could seriously interest politicians in helping us. And we did. In 1999, a radio station poll showed that the numbers had flipped: the majority of residents now supported the most expansive forms of choice. Other statewide polls echo those findings. We've also persuaded some key media voices.

Now that we have the public on our side, our job is to persuade policy makers. And here is where I have come to share your conclusion: we have changed all the legislative minds that we can. Now it's time to change the bodies, i.e. to elect new people.

Last year, we formed a PAC. We got started late so all we did was endorse statewide candidates and some legislative ones. We would like to make a greater effort in the coming election year. But money is a serious problem. We are fortunate to have a philanthropist in the state who backs our efforts. But we need to widen our donor base if we're going to be effective. And when you live in a state where many major donors prefer another brand of politics, that's like slogging up hill through mud. With the wind in your face.

D.C. Association Chief:
Good lobbying is almost never built on efforts to change the minds of legislators; good
lobbying is built on either catching legislators before they have an opinion (which is almost never) or getting like-minded legislators to do what they might have done anyway if they had only thought of it. Changing minds on the Hill is almost always a waste of time. Now, changing the actual legislators is another matter. . . .

Checker:
It's evident - and no surprise - that people who have plunged themselves into grassroots activism feel passionately about the value and impact of their efforts. Yet I sense that such efforts may do more good for the activists themselves (empowerment, sense of personal efficacy, justifying their organizations, etc.) than for roll call votes on Capitol Hill and in statehouses. What if all those energies (and money) went into election campaigns instead, or in addition? Another sage observer explained the other day that Wisconsin legislators who vote for vouchers and charters for Milwaukee kids aren't themselves from Milwaukee, while those who do come from Milwaukee generally toe the teachers' union line. This creates an inherently unstable situation.

Yet another keen analyst explained to me that it's hard for inner-city residents to vote for Republicans who may be "with them" on school choice but oppose sundry other policies and programs that also matter to such voters. That's an important insight. Surely it means that the choice movement must identify and elect more Democrats who take the parents' side on education issues. That, however, means mustering a war chest of money, shoe leather, call centers, and get-out-the-vote efforts that rival those of the unions. A formidable challenge.

As reported earlier, Minnesota's swell new social studies standards are out for public comment [see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=114#1433]. Now you can read some of these comments and, alas, many are both harsh and moronic. ("Roe v. Wade will be gone if these standards are passed.") Others are nasty and ad hominem. ("The Commissioner should be removed from office.") A few are constructive. But the vast majority break down into three old and tiresome complaints. We can't do this; it's too hard. We can't do this; there's not enough money. And we can't do this; it's too eurocentric/intolerant/undiverse/jingoistic. The issues change; the whining continues.

Minnesota academic standards, history and social studies (with public comments),

"Proposed school history standards draw criticism," by Norman Draper, Minneapolis Star Tribune, October 30, 2003,

In 1970, on the reasonable assumption that teachers need to know something before they can teach it, California legislators passed the Ryan Act, mandating that people training to become teachers in the Golden State must earn a bachelor's degree before taking classes in pedagogy and suchlike. In the decades since, however, California's education establishment has turned undermining the Ryan Act's effectiveness into an art form. The first effort involved the creation of "liberal studies" - an ostensible major that includes classes in English, math, science, history, social studies, physical education and the arts. This let would-be teachers avoid the burden of picking a true disciplinary major. In the late 1990s, when the teacher shortage was at its worst, critics of the Ryan Act worked to roll back its content requirements, arguing that content classes, even the nebulous liberal studies, "needlessly prolong[ed] teacher training" and that these requirements "should be dropped or shortened." The teacher shortage has largely abated, but the assault on the Ryan Act continues. The latest erosion is SB 81, recently signed by lame duck governor Gray Davis, that reduces the total number of credits necessary to graduate with CA state certification, thus supposedly accelerating the production of teachers. But what will get cut? We fantasize that ed school pedagogy classes will make way for rigorous, content-specific courses. Not.

"Can little Mary learn if teacher's in the dark?" by Jerry Griswold, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2003,

Earlier this month, D.C. mayor Anthony Williams began to lobby for mayoral control over District schools - a move that has been tried in other big cities with mixed results. This week, in a closed-door session with the city council, Williams outlined the details of his plan, which includes extending the school year by six weeks and the school day by several hours, merit pay for teachers, and giving principals of successful schools greater autonomy. "A Mayor's Vision" has met with criticism from all the usual places: school board president Peggy Cooper Cafritz claims that the proposals are ones she's already made herself, and that Hizzoner's approach "is about power, not about the kids," while board member William Lockridge accused the mayor of "intentionally withholding money that he plans to provide if he gets control of the school system." If that wasn't enough, he called the mayor "selfish and immature" because "[Williams] doesn't want the school system to improve under the current structure . . . [rather], he wants it to improve under his structure." We'll gladly settle for the decrepit D.C. school system improving under any structure. And we agree with Paul Ruiz of the Education Trust, who notes that Williams's plan to lengthen school days and years won't boost achievement unless coupled with curricular and instructional reforms. Watch this space.

"D.C. school proposals coolly received," by Craig Timberg and Justin Blum, Washington Post, October 30, 2003

We are heartened by news that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to dramatically expand the number of Gotham's charter schools from two dozen to more than 50. And we're pleased that he and schools chancellor Joel Klein are including private funders in the plan - an admirable public-private venture for the benefit of kids, and one that, if used as a nationwide model, could go a long way toward easing the daunting start-up costs of charter schools. The funders, which include the Robertson Foundation, the Robin Hood Foundation, and philanthropists Joe and Carol Reich, will provide up to $70 million to a new nonprofit that will manage the new schools - many of which will be failing public schools that have been reconstituted. Of course, the devil is in the details, and we'll watch to see whether the new schools have the right amount of autonomy and flexibility in such key areas as budget, staffing, and curriculum. But Klein and Bloomberg are definitely talking the talk, and making steps toward walking the walk.

"Failed city schools may go private," by Carl Campanile, New York Post, October 31, 2003

"Charter school push," by Carl Campanile, New York Post, October 28, 2003

AARP Knowledge Management, NRTA: AARP's Educator Community, and HarrisInteractive Inc.2003

This report from the American Association of Retired Persons uses survey data from teachers to determine what makes fine instructors leave the classroom and what policymakers can do to try to get them to stay. The report looks at the problem through the eyes of teachers - those that have remained and those who opted to leave. Some of the reasons former teachers cited for leaving were lack of support from administration, low pay, and feeling undervalued and under-appreciated by society and the community. "Everyone knows it is one of the most important fields of society, but actions do not follow suit with this knowledge," cites one former teacher. Based on the teachers' responses, rewarding and recognizing performance and improving communication and flexibility between teachers and administration can help schools recruit and retain motivated teachers. Yes, this report is marred by familiar teacher gripes about how tough a row they've picked to hoe. And it's not exactly ground-breaking. But worth a look. Check it out at http://research.aarp.org/general/exodus.pdf.

Amanda K. Miller and Kathryn Chandler, National Center for Education StatisticsOctober 2003

Recall the recent flap about states (with rare exceptions) reporting that few or none of their public schools are "persistently dangerous"? (See, for example, http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=04Dangerous.h23&keywords=%22persistently%20dangerous%22.) Remember the sarcastic comments that followed, as in, "Try telling the parents of the south Bronx and eastern Brooklyn that there are only two persistently dangerous schools in all of New York State"? And the obvious conclusion: that leaving it to states to devise their own definitions of dangerous schools and their own methods of tabulating such data is a formula for uneven underreporting? If you need more convincing, look at this valuable new NCES report on school violence in 1999-2000. (Another source of danger to the Republic is that it takes NCES three years to produce such studies, but that's a different issue.) In this case, principals did the reporting, Westat conducted the survey (a sample of 2270 elementary, middle and high schools), and the definitions were clear and uniform. What we learn could justly be termed chilling: 71 percent of public schools had at least one "violent incident" during that school year, 20 percent had a least one SERIOUS incident (rape, attacks with weapons, robbery, etc.), and 7 percent of the schools accounted for half of the total (1,466,000) violent incidents that occurred. It seems reasonable to conclude that at least seven percent of U.S. public schools might fairly be described as dangerous. That's roughly 6,000 schools. If you confine it to the 2 percent of schools that account for half the SERIOUS violent incidents, we're still talking 1,700 schools. Of course, one would never know that from the NCLB data reported by states. But you'll learn plenty more from this lengthy, technical NCES study, including lots about the characteristics of schools that are and aren't associated with high levels of violence. You can find it on-line at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004314

Paul T. Hill and Kacey Guin, University of Washington
Education Policy Analysis Archives
October 2003

This short but useful paper makes an undeniable point: that any school choice program, to be judged fairly, should be compared to the existing public school system, not to its "idealized aspirations." In other words, those who argue that choice programs - be they charters, vouchers, or otherwise - are flawed often overlook the fact that our public schools themselves are imperfect. School choice reforms come under attack for potentially "skimming" the best students, leaving poor and minority students in the worst schools; yet our public schools are already divided along these lines. Choice critics fear that resources might be distributed unfairly; yet public schools often spend far more on their best students than on their neediest. Such critiques and more come under fire in this paper, which neatly summarizes the aspects of today's public schools against which any choice proposal should be measured. All school systems contain mechanisms for choice - families can move and parents can pester administrators for favored treatment - but usually these are bureaucratic and thus hard to monitor and manage. With open forms of choice, winners and losers are visible, and programs can be designed to benefit those most in need. Why then does the burden of proof lie with choice proponents, to show that their proposals will do no harm, rather than with opponents, to prove that today's public schools are better than all alternatives? Here Hill and Guin deftly point out the absurdity of this double standard. To read for yourself, visit http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n39/.

The American Enterprise Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the National Council on Teacher Quality October 2003

The American Enterprise Institute, in conjunction with the Progressive Policy Institute and the National Council on Teacher Quality, held an uncommonly interesting conference last week. While you needed to be there to get the full flavor of what discussants and audience had to say, and while many revisions doubtless lie between drafting and publishing, drafts of the ten papers worked over at the conference are available on line and at least a few repay attention. In two longish overview papers, Stanford's Heidi Ramirez and PPI's Andy Rotherham and Sara Mead chronicle the evolution of the federal and state roles vis-??-vis teacher quality. Four papers (by Bryan Hassel, Michael Podgursky, Kate Walsh, and Gary Sykes) propound new (well, more or less new) models of teacher preparation and licensure. And in a path breaking analysis of actual content of teacher-prep courses in elite ed schools (based on course syllabi in foundations, psychology, reading and math), Boston University's David Steiner finds that "The schools of education we reviewed are neither preparing teachers adequately to use the concrete findings of the best research in education, nor are they providing their students with a thoughtful and academically rich background in the fundamentals of what it means to be an outstanding educator." You can find the papers - remember, they're drafts, to be revised based on conference discussion and authors' second thoughts - at http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.624,filter.,type.past/event_detail.asp