The Education Gadfly Weekly

Center on Education Policy
September 2006

Reading First, a grant program enacted as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, distributes federal money to districts and schools that use scientifically-based programs to teach children how to read. This CEP report evaluates the impact this billion-dollar-per-year grant program is having and reports much positive news. Of fifty states surveyed, thirty-five reported that reading achievement was improving (according to the views of state and district officials), and nineteen of these said that Reading First instructional programs were an important or very important factor in the improvements. Districts responding to the survey were even more enthusiastic. Ninety-seven percent of surveyed Reading First districts said Reading First programs had either an important or very important impact on raising student achievement. Among the more interesting pieces of information: 60 percent of Reading First districts said they had to adopt a different reading program in order to qualify for a subgrant, giving one some idea of how many unscientifically-based methods of reading instruction were previously being used in the nation's classrooms. One shortcoming of Reading First, according to the report, is that it could be better coordinated with Early Reading First, another federal program that's aimed at pre-kindergarten youngsters. This small bump aside, Reading First looks to be getting the job done. Read it here.

Kevin Carey
Education Sector
September 2006

This report blows the whistle on the Ivy League, darling of U.S. News and World Report's annual list of "America's Best Colleges," and shows that Harvard, Yale, and their ilk might be doing a worse job educating students than some supposedly third-tier institutions. Author Kevin Carey begins by dissecting the criteria used in U.S. News rankings and finds that only one indicator (graduation rate performance), representing a mere 5 percent of a college's final score, actually evaluates school quality. The other 95 percent of a university's U.S. News ranking is based on fame, wealth, and exclusivity. Carey continues by pointing out (with the available data) that schools at the fame-wealth-exclusivity hierarchy's pinnacle, while privy to applicants with higher SAT and ACT scores, don't always do a good job raising their students' abilities to a higher level. And when it comes to finding good jobs, a diploma from a top-tier institution might not matter as much as some people think. For example, Florida compiles an annual profile of its public university graduates who live in the state. Out of the state's nine largest public universities, six rank poorly in the U.S. News rankings. But it's from these six that the highest earning graduates hail. "The school ranked highest by U.S. News--the University of Florida--ranks second to last," writes Carey, "in terms of average earnings of graduates. This is not a one-year anomaly; similar numbers were reported for 2003 and 2002." The word is getting out: many of our nation's supposedly flagship institutions aren't as good as we think (Ed Secretary Margaret Spellings told us so). Carey's astute work should encourage parents to think twice before flippantly dashing off $60K checks to a brand-name college. This isn't the first time the fatuousness of the U.S. News rankings has been pointed out, but it adds to a rising tide of discontent (see here and here). Read it here.

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters
Manhattan Institute
September 2006

This report continues last year's research, which studied the introduction of a test-based retention policy in Florida schools. That policy, enacted in May 2002, requires students in third grade to score at or above the Level-2 benchmark on the reading portion of the state's FCAT assessment in order to be promoted. (Only students who score at Level 3 or above are considered to be proficient for the purposes of NCLB evaluations.) The first study showed that social promotion is not as beneficial to student achievement as making low-performers repeat grades and found (like the comprehensive report on Chicago's elimination of social promotion) significant student academic improvement in the year following retention. Unlike the Chicago report, however, this new study finds that students subject to Florida's retention policy continue to perform markedly better than their peers even in the second year after being held back. The authors write that, "students lacking in basic skills who are socially promoted appear to fall farther behind over time, whereas retained students appear to be able to catch up on the skills they are lacking." The authors used two analytical models, first focusing on across-year comparisons, and then focusing on comparisons of same-age students who were either just above or just below the state's cut-off for promotion. The two models are intended to be redundant to account for each other's inherent statistical weaknesses--thus, Greene and Winters strengthen their overall conclusions. This report is a thought-provoking nugget, which should encourage educators to reevaluate softer criteria for retention and hammer home the benefits of making students try, try again.

The Abell Foundation
September 2006

Not one of Baltimore's twenty-one traditional public middle schools met annual yearly progress requirements in 2006, but two charter schools--KIPP Ujima Village and The Crossroads School--did. This report from the Abell Foundation, which awards grants to improve education, healthcare, and other social services in Baltimore, examines how the two schools achieved this feat and suggests what the district can learn from their successes. Those familiar with KIPP will recognize many of the findings, which in many ways mirror the program's Five Pillars. First, the report lauds both schools' "clear and powerful vision[s]" and "high academic and conduct expectations," as embodied in the Commitment to Excellence at KIPP and the Parent/Student/Teacher Compact at Crossroads. Students also spend more time at these schools than they would at traditional public schools--the KIPP school day is 60 percent longer on average than a district school day; Crossroads' day is 20 percent longer. Principals at both schools are better trained and are given authority to make staffing and curriculum decisions. Finally, both schools focus heavily on outcomes, a commitment reflected by their strong reliance on assessments to gauge student progress. The report is refreshing because it doesn't simply recommend that failing middle schools adopt the successful practices identified in the report (although they should). Instead, Abell advises the district to "encourage successful current operators such as KIPP and Crossroads to open more schools" and to "add other operator-led schools targeting middle school students." Read the report here.

Had our attempted conquest of Canada in the War of 1812 succeeded, the U.S. education system might very well rank much higher than it does today--and Alberta would be the reason why. Were Alberta its own country, it would rank among the top four nations worldwide in math, reading, and science achievement, according to the OECD's 2003 PISA study. How does this vast and wild expanse of alpine forest and prairie do it? Simple: a system of standards and accountability that should be the envy of the NCLB faithful, complete with a solid core curriculum; clear achievement goals; and high-quality, province-wide exams, which have all made Alberta the brightest jewel in the Queen's crown. Alberta's success also stems, in large part, from the bold innovations of its capital city. Edmonton's extensive system of school choice has proved extremely successful, especially because its schools are anchored by provincial standards and tests. It was also the first district to implement weighted student funding, a reform which helped turn around its struggling schools in the late 1970s. We Americans could learn a thing or two about education by listening to our northern neighbors--if we can get past their funny accents.

"Clever red-necks," The Economist, September 21, 2006

The brouhaha over the federal Reading First program illustrates everything that's wrong with government today--not the alleged improprieties, but a twisted government culture that prioritizes "proper procedures" over actual results and that looks for scapegoats and fall-guys when the going gets tough.

Let's recap what happened. On Friday, the Department of Education's Inspector General issued a scathing report that accused Reading First officials of steering dollars toward preferred programs such as Direct Instruction (DI)--a reading strategy with massive evidence of effectiveness--by putting fans of the program on the review panels that decided which state applications would be funded.

As Chris Doherty, Reading First's director, said in a now infamous email: "You know the line from Casablanca, ‘I am shocked that there is gambling going on in this establishment!' Well, ‘I am shocked that there are pro-DI people on this panel!'"

After all, his direct orders from Congress and the President were to ensure that Reading First dollars went only to certain reading curricula--those that had been proven to work.

In 2001, when Congress created Reading First as part of the No Child Left Behind act, it represented a sharp break from past policy. Rather than being agnostic to the specifics of teaching and learning, with monies from this program Uncle Sam would fund only reading programs that are based on "scientifically-based reading research." In other words, instead of letting a thousand flowers bloom, the feds would hand-pick a few roses and daffodils and weed out the rest of the garden.

This was a reasonable strategy. After all, the nation's education system has been captured for decades by educators and publishers enamored of "whole language reading"--the notion that children learn how to read naturally, as they learn how to speak. It's a charming theory, but it's patently untrue. Thirty years of rigorous studies all reach the same conclusion: children must be taught to read systematically. Primary reading is perhaps the one domain of the elementary-secondary curriculum where there is clear, definitive scientific evidence of what works and what does not. Congress agreed with the Bush team that only the former should get federal funding.

So it drafted the most heavy-handed program in the history of federal education policy. The statute spends 17 pages spelling out the program's requirements, including five paragraphs that define "scientifically-based reading research" and six that define "reading" itself.  

President Bush embraced this aggressive approach. On September 10, 2001, urging Congress to approve the program, he explained the challenge: "One of the unfortunate aspects that we find in many states is that there are great teachers who have got wonderful hearts who don't know how to teach reading; that don't know the science of reading....What we find is a good curriculum based upon the science of reading is necessary to make sure no child gets left behind."

So Doherty did precisely what Congress and the president expected him to do: he implemented the program aggressively. He selected panelists whose views were supportive of scientifically-based reading research. (Though, importantly, he ensured that none of these panelists would benefit financially from their own decisions.) And he raised concerns when school districts wanted to use Reading First funds for unproven whole-language programs.

What was the result of this assertive approach? If you read the Inspector General report, you won't find out, because its authors don't consider this an important question. They're not interested in whether children learn to read. But two recent studies--one from the government and one from the Center on Education Policy (CEP) (see below), a think tank led by a former democratic Congressional aide--reach the same conclusion: Reading First is working. Here's the headline from the CEP report: "Majority of participating states & districts credit Reading First for achievement gains in early grades...billion-dollar federal program is driving significant changes in instruction, curriculum, assessment." State Reading First directors give much of the credit to Doherty and his team for their forceful leadership.

Did Doherty push the bureaucratic and procedural envelope? Absolutely. Did he do what his bosses in Congress and the White House expected him to do? Absolutely. Did his actions help millions of children in classrooms nationwide? Absolutely.

So why, then, have leaders in the Administration and Congress raced to hang him out to dry? Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings told the auditors, "I acknowledge that some of the actions taken by Department officials as described by the draft report reflect individual mistakes." Democrat George Miller, ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said, "They should fire everyone who was involved in this...This was not an accident, this was not an oversight. This was an intentional effort to corrupt the process." He has since called for a criminal investigation.

Perhaps Miller's comments can be chalked up to election-year politics. If the Democrats win back the House, he will win the coveted chairmanship of the education committee. But Spellings? As the President's first-term domestic policy advisor, she micromanaged the implementation of Reading First from her West Wing office. She put one of her most trusted friends inside the Department of Education to make sure Doherty and his colleagues didn't go soft and allow just any reading program to receive funds. She was the leading cheerleader for an aggressive approach. And now she bobs and weaves: "Although these events occurred before I became secretary of education, I am concerned about these actions and committed to addressing and resolving them." (Regrettably, much of the media bought this spin--hook, line, and sinker. See here, for instance.)

Shame on Spellings for not backing a loyal, selfless, and truly capable lieutenant. Shame on the auditors for missing the forest for the trees. But mostly shame on all of us if we allow "gotcha" politics and adult power struggles to distract us from the first duty of education: making sure all of our children learn to read so that they can go on to become productive members of our society.

When the lights flood Vaught Hemingway Stadium on Saturday nights, and Ole Miss fans raise the Rebel Yell from the stands, gentle Michael Oher is there savoring every moment. He never misses a game, though by all rights he shouldn't even be in college. Growing up homeless on the streets of Memphis, he was one of the lost. The public schools found it easier to pass, and ignore, him than to fail him. (He never attended third grade, but was promoted to fourth.) He also had a measured IQ of 80--ranking him in the bottom ninth percentile of the human race. But Briarcrest Christian School took a chance on him. Why? Because at 6'5", and 330 pounds, with speed to boot, he was a "freak of nature," an "aberration," that one-in-a-million man who can play the toughest line position in football--left tackle. You guessed it, Oher plays for Ole Miss. The New York Times Magazine cover story on him will make you cheer, and reflect. Had Oher been 30 pounds lighter, a half-second slower, a fraction less strong, he wouldn't have been noticed by Briarcrest's coach (and every college coach in America), and would still be on the street. The numbers of "lost" children are staggering. And they shouldn't require a physique like Oher's to have a chance.

"The Ballad of Big Mike," by Michael Lewis, New York Times Magazine, September 24, 2006

The Texas Education Agency's fine arts curriculum framework for fifth graders describes a model lesson from a real classroom: the teachers "replicate painting on the ceiling as the Renaissance painters did by taping butcher paper to the bottom of students' desks and asking students to lie on the floor to paint." It's a clever idea (at least for classrooms with clean floors) and a clear endorsement of the world's most famous example of Renaissance ceiling art, Michelangelo's glorious Sistine Chapel frescoes, which happen to depict naked figures in various postures for all eyes to behold. But then why would the Frisco (TX) school board suspend 28-year veteran teacher Sydney McGee merely because she permitted her fifth graders to stumble upon a nude sculpture on a museum field trip? In this rash act of censorship--apparently motivated by a complaint from a single parent--the board is not unlike Monsignor Sernini, ambassador from Mantua, who organized the so-called "Fig-leaf Campaign" to protest the exposed genitals on Michelangelo's ceilings. (Not unlike this other prudish leader from more recent history.) What's next: no more visits to the monkey habitat at the local zoo, either?

"Teacher reprimanded after student sees nude art on museum trip," Houston Chronicle, September 26, 2006

When "core curriculum" supporters like E.D. Hirsch, Jr. do their advocating, it goes something like this:

"In order to gain power in our democracy and economy, children must develop ‘cultural literacy' in a common core of knowledge so they can function in a world where interactions and understandings are greased by shared reference points and allusions."

Such a view always had a lot going for it, but now the core curriculum's case seems to be growing even stronger.

A good indication of that comes from The Long Tail, a new book by Chris Anderson, who edits Wired magazine and is a former Economist reporter. Anderson's premise is that the blockbuster--the all-encompassing "it" product that unites people from sundry backgrounds--is in irrevocable decline, and that niche marketing is rapidly taking its place.

"If the twentieth-century entertainment industry was about hits," he writes, "the twenty-first will be equally about niches."

The author uses well-known companies such as Netflix and Google to support his thesis.

While 90 percent of movies rented at Blockbuster Video stores are new releases, 70 percent of Netflix rentals, from a library of over 60,000 DVDs, are from the back catalogue.

Take, for another example, the online music retailer Rhapsody, which has a library of about 1.5 million songs. It's reasonable to expect lots of people will click on the top 50,000 or so songs, and that's certainly the case--50 Cent, Michael Jackson, and '70s rock bands still command the spotlight.

But it's not only Rhapsody's top 50,000 songs that are streamed at least once a month. Those ranked 50,001 to 900,000 songs all receive such treatment, and the numbers are growing even larger. To be sure, Top 40 artists are vastly more popular than, say, a new-age musician from Goa, but Rhapsody is betting that someone, somewhere, will still crave that musician's sitar-infused psychedelic trance. It's a good bet.

Online music is stored with ease, so Rhapsody has found an essentially unlimited market. That market is the Long Tail.

And when dealing with products even less confined than online music--such as information--the Long Tail grows, well, longer. Consumers can access the information they want without having to slog, as they once did, through reams of resource books, bibliographies, and card catalogs. With tools such as Google, it's instant info-gratification.

The upshot of all this, of course, is that our society could become so niche intensive that we have enormous trouble finding any common ground. Or that we become so fragmented that inter-niche socialization grows infrequent.

Some developed nations are already witnessing this trend. Japan is confronting a widespread problem, known as hikikomori, of young men who grow disillusioned with social interaction, shut themselves in their rooms (often for years), and communicate only through electronic means. Recent crimes in the United States and Canada (see here and here) were committed by members of online niches most people never knew existed.

Certainly teaching Shakespeare and colonial history in K-12 schools won't stop such antisocial behavior. But as our social fabric seems to unravel more each day, isn't it worth cultivating some type of shared ground? Shouldn't young people grow up with an understanding of the core knowledge that gave rise to the myriad niches surrounding them, and will no doubt give rise to more?

Some might argue the opposite. Because we are entering a niche world, they point out, why shouldn't students be able to fashion their own niche educations?

And they're partially right. Diversity is laudable, especially diversity in ideas and interests. Yet, if the modern world's panoply rests on a deteriorating foundation, the whole point of diversity--to learn from others' ideas in order to inform one's own--is lost.

A world of niches with nothing to unite it.

Center on Education Policy
September 2006

Reading First, a grant program enacted as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, distributes federal money to districts and schools that use scientifically-based programs to teach children how to read. This CEP report evaluates the impact this billion-dollar-per-year grant program is having and reports much positive news. Of fifty states surveyed, thirty-five reported that reading achievement was improving (according to the views of state and district officials), and nineteen of these said that Reading First instructional programs were an important or very important factor in the improvements. Districts responding to the survey were even more enthusiastic. Ninety-seven percent of surveyed Reading First districts said Reading First programs had either an important or very important impact on raising student achievement. Among the more interesting pieces of information: 60 percent of Reading First districts said they had to adopt a different reading program in order to qualify for a subgrant, giving one some idea of how many unscientifically-based methods of reading instruction were previously being used in the nation's classrooms. One shortcoming of Reading First, according to the report, is that it could be better coordinated with Early Reading First, another federal program that's aimed at pre-kindergarten youngsters. This small bump aside, Reading First looks to be getting the job done. Read it here.

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters
Manhattan Institute
September 2006

This report continues last year's research, which studied the introduction of a test-based retention policy in Florida schools. That policy, enacted in May 2002, requires students in third grade to score at or above the Level-2 benchmark on the reading portion of the state's FCAT assessment in order to be promoted. (Only students who score at Level 3 or above are considered to be proficient for the purposes of NCLB evaluations.) The first study showed that social promotion is not as beneficial to student achievement as making low-performers repeat grades and found (like the comprehensive report on Chicago's elimination of social promotion) significant student academic improvement in the year following retention. Unlike the Chicago report, however, this new study finds that students subject to Florida's retention policy continue to perform markedly better than their peers even in the second year after being held back. The authors write that, "students lacking in basic skills who are socially promoted appear to fall farther behind over time, whereas retained students appear to be able to catch up on the skills they are lacking." The authors used two analytical models, first focusing on across-year comparisons, and then focusing on comparisons of same-age students who were either just above or just below the state's cut-off for promotion. The two models are intended to be redundant to account for each other's inherent statistical weaknesses--thus, Greene and Winters strengthen their overall conclusions. This report is a thought-provoking nugget, which should encourage educators to reevaluate softer criteria for retention and hammer home the benefits of making students try, try again.

Kevin Carey
Education Sector
September 2006

This report blows the whistle on the Ivy League, darling of U.S. News and World Report's annual list of "America's Best Colleges," and shows that Harvard, Yale, and their ilk might be doing a worse job educating students than some supposedly third-tier institutions. Author Kevin Carey begins by dissecting the criteria used in U.S. News rankings and finds that only one indicator (graduation rate performance), representing a mere 5 percent of a college's final score, actually evaluates school quality. The other 95 percent of a university's U.S. News ranking is based on fame, wealth, and exclusivity. Carey continues by pointing out (with the available data) that schools at the fame-wealth-exclusivity hierarchy's pinnacle, while privy to applicants with higher SAT and ACT scores, don't always do a good job raising their students' abilities to a higher level. And when it comes to finding good jobs, a diploma from a top-tier institution might not matter as much as some people think. For example, Florida compiles an annual profile of its public university graduates who live in the state. Out of the state's nine largest public universities, six rank poorly in the U.S. News rankings. But it's from these six that the highest earning graduates hail. "The school ranked highest by U.S. News--the University of Florida--ranks second to last," writes Carey, "in terms of average earnings of graduates. This is not a one-year anomaly; similar numbers were reported for 2003 and 2002." The word is getting out: many of our nation's supposedly flagship institutions aren't as good as we think (Ed Secretary Margaret Spellings told us so). Carey's astute work should encourage parents to think twice before flippantly dashing off $60K checks to a brand-name college. This isn't the first time the fatuousness of the U.S. News rankings has been pointed out, but it adds to a rising tide of discontent (see here and here). Read it here.

The Abell Foundation
September 2006

Not one of Baltimore's twenty-one traditional public middle schools met annual yearly progress requirements in 2006, but two charter schools--KIPP Ujima Village and The Crossroads School--did. This report from the Abell Foundation, which awards grants to improve education, healthcare, and other social services in Baltimore, examines how the two schools achieved this feat and suggests what the district can learn from their successes. Those familiar with KIPP will recognize many of the findings, which in many ways mirror the program's Five Pillars. First, the report lauds both schools' "clear and powerful vision[s]" and "high academic and conduct expectations," as embodied in the Commitment to Excellence at KIPP and the Parent/Student/Teacher Compact at Crossroads. Students also spend more time at these schools than they would at traditional public schools--the KIPP school day is 60 percent longer on average than a district school day; Crossroads' day is 20 percent longer. Principals at both schools are better trained and are given authority to make staffing and curriculum decisions. Finally, both schools focus heavily on outcomes, a commitment reflected by their strong reliance on assessments to gauge student progress. The report is refreshing because it doesn't simply recommend that failing middle schools adopt the successful practices identified in the report (although they should). Instead, Abell advises the district to "encourage successful current operators such as KIPP and Crossroads to open more schools" and to "add other operator-led schools targeting middle school students." Read the report here.