The Education Gadfly Weekly

Patrick J. Murphy and Michael M. DeArmond, Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington
August 2003

This short report takes a fresh look at teacher shortages, offering some insights into how schools react and how policies may alleviate the problem. The report uses surveys, interviews, and data from 1999-2000 and, not surprisingly, finds that shortages are most common in urban areas, low income and minority schools, and among special ed, math, and science positions. (Social studies, elementary, and English positions are easiest to fill.) But it focuses on the reactions of schools and districts to their hiring needs. Unfortunately, the culture in many human resource departments appears to be part of the problem. Staffers fail to plan ahead for upcoming shortages without specific positions in mind and are unable to break away from standard operating procedures in order to solve problems. The report notes some interesting exceptions, however, such as San Jose, which built affordable housing for new teachers, and the many districts that have expanded their recruiting efforts across the country and beyond. Two recurrent problems are union demands and certification barriers, although administrators express much greater concern for the former than the latter. The report recounts a sad example of one district's effort to decentralize teacher placement, which the union nominally supported but then undercut. We know that teacher shortages have many causes, but our first priorities must be to change the status quo by lowering entrance barriers to entry and reforming archaic salary structures. Then, perhaps, we can focus more of our energy on teacher quality and less on quantity. This report offers numerous policy tips that would move us in the right direction. It's available at http://www.crpe.org/pubs.shtml#teachers.

Congressmen John Boehner and Buck McKeon
September 2003

The head of the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the chair of the Competitiveness Subcommittee released this 20-page analysis of college costs and their implications for American higher education. With reauthorization of the Higher Education Act cranking up (in piecemeal fashion so far), it's important to know that the two most influential Republican House members in this area believe that the "gains of the Higher Education Act are being severely hampered by what can only be described as a college cost crisis." This they define as tuition increasing faster than inflation, faster than family income, and faster even than "increases in state and federal financial aid." Report the authors, "These cost increases are pricing students and families out of the college market, and forcing prospective students to 'trade down' in their postsecondary educational choices because options that may have been affordable years ago have now been priced out of reach." The authors attribute the problem to laxity and profligacy in many (but not all) institutions of higher education, the absence of productivity gains, and lack of consumer-accountability in the higher education industry. In releasing the report, Messrs. Boehner and McKeown hinted at what the Washington Times termed a "new round of federal accountability measures" during the forthcoming legislative cycle.

The basic analysis is surely right. What's missing, however, is consideration of a very different approach to higher-education financing, one that some states seem to be sliding toward without acknowledging what they're doing. Once termed "full cost pricing," it would set the "sticker price" for higher ed - public as well as private - at or near the true cost of delivering the service, then devote all available federal and state (and private) resources to sweeping need-based aid programs that would make these prices affordable for all Americans. This approach has three big pluses: it eliminates unneeded subsidies for wealthy families attending public colleges and universities and targets the subsidy money on those who need it. It more or less erases the tuition gap between private and public institutions, thus eliminating that policy-induced incentive to attend a state college rather than a private campus. And by, in effect, "voucherizing" all public subsidies for higher education (save for R & D and other activities that need direct institutional financing), it empowers consumers (and the marketplace) to express their preferences and hold down prices.

A quarter century ago (yikes!), Dave Breneman and I proposed this approach in a Brookings book entitled Public Policy and Private Higher Education. It made sense then. I believe it makes sense today - and is more constructive than just decrying high tuitions. Though our proposal was long assumed to be politically unrealistic, the fact is that in the past several years many states are de facto allowing their public college tuitions to float upward in a way that isn't very different from what we proposed. Why not do it purposefully - and make sure the needed student aid follows? Meanwhile, you can find the Congressional report on tuitions at http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation...

Aubrey H. Wang et al., Educational Testing Service
September 2003

This 44-pager from the Policy Information Center at ETS reports on how seven other countries prepare teachers and control access to the teaching field, and how these compare with U.S. practices. The focus is on teachers of 8th grade science and math. It's hard to generalize - the countries are so different - but several points struck me: (1) In other lands, prospective math and science teachers must demonstrate "competency in mathematics and science knowledge" before being admitted to undergraduate teacher education programs. (2) "In most other countries, too, university entry is more difficult than in the United States. . .Since entry to teacher education programs usually requires university student status first, the relative difficulty of university entry is pertinent to any comparison of the rigor of teacher education program entry across countries." (3) For entry into graduate-level teacher education programs, "most of the other countries surveyed require an undergraduate degree and, in some cases, a master's level degree in the subject area." (4) Among the seven other countries, only England has "alternate teacher certification." You won't likely reach any striking conclusions from reading this report, but you're apt to find it interesting. You can track it down at http://www.ets.org/research/pic/prepteach.pdf.

Donna Walker James and Glenda Partee, American Youth Policy Forum
September 2003

Since the seminal works of Daniel P. Moynihan and James Coleman in the 1960s, it has been understood that there is a clear and positive relationship between family involvement and positive outcomes for children and youth. For the authors of this 152-page report, sponsored by McKnight Foundation, positive outcomes include higher student grades and test scores, better attendance, more homework done, fewer special-ed placements, more positive attitudes and behavior, higher graduation rates and greater college enrollment. Strong families breed better students than do weak families. Trying to build on this truth, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Workforce Investment Act, and other federal laws now "require" family involvement in both school and youth programs. In offering guidance for turning federal requirements into reality, the authors assert that "young people should not be treated as 'islands' by schools and youth programs, separate from the context of their families and neighborhoods." "No More Islands" describes 27 school and youth programs, showing how they involve families in decisions and activities that impact on children's learning and well-being. These 27 programs employed four main (and rather obvious) family involvement strategies, including: communicating with families and reinforcing program goals; designating staff to coordinate with families and professional development; designing and implementing family member-related services and activities; and expanding family roles and relationships. In sum, the report encourages schools and youth programs, and those who support them, to see family involvement as an asset to build upon on rather than to ignore or discourage. To read the report, surf to http://www.aypf.org/publications/nomoreisle/index.htm.

Minnesota's current statewide social studies standards are, as education commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke bluntly puts it, an "embarrassment." Encouraging, then, that this week Minnesota released a new set of draft standards in science and social studies that are, on their face, terrific.[For earlier coverage of the battle over pitching the Profiles, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=24#104.] We especially like the social studies standards, which are rich in content, sequentially sound, and historically balanced. Check out these and the new science standards at http://education.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/... Now it falls to Yecke and Governor Tim Pawlenty to get the new standards through what promises to be a bruising round of public comment. How important is their success? Later this month, when Fordham releases Effective State Standards in U.S. History: A 2003 Report Card, you will get fresh evidence as to why a social studies upgrade is desperately needed in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

"Academic standards strike nerves," by John Welsh, St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 9, 2003

"New school standards stress basics," by Norman Draper, Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 9, 2003

In a late-night vote Tuesday, the House of Representatives, by a razor-thin margin, approved the controversial bill to provide $10 million in private school tuition grants to at least 1,300 D.C. schoolchildren next year. As Gadfly reported last week, three prominent D.C. officials, all former voucher foes, came out strongly in favor of the new "scholarship" program. Since then, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), also a longtime voucher opponent, has reiterated her support for the program, claiming that, while she does not support vouchers for her own state, she believes "local leaders should have the opportunity to experiment with programs that they believe are right for their area."

This week's vote, which was divided almost exactly along party lines, is doubly interesting in light of a recent Heritage Foundation report showing that 38 percent of House Democrats send at least one child to private school - thus exercising private school choice of their own. This number, of course, does not include the countless others who exercise school choice by buying homes in good public school districts, a luxury that poor families cannot afford. What's good enough for the goose ought, in our view, also be available to the gander.

In another interesting turn of events, when queried by Siobhan Gorman for the Washington Monthly, NEA president Reg Weaver came out swinging against the D.C. voucher initiative. When pressed on the details, he couldn't quite explain why the program should not be tried in the District. In the end, he was forced to make the perfect the enemy of the good by arguing that vouchers "would only help a limited number of students [in D.C.]." When asked if he would support a program that gave all students vouchers, Weaver responded, "If they would give [all] 67,000 students a voucher, yeah."

Gadfly applauds Mr. Weaver for his generous and visionary boldness and is pleased to note that he seems to have embraced the proposition that education choice for all is the best of all education systems. We look forward to co-publishing with the NEA a new manifesto on behalf of universal school choice.

"D.C. school voucher bill passes in House by 1 vote," by Spencer S. Hsu and Justin Blum, Washington Post, September 10, 2003

"How members of Congress practice school choice," by Krista Kafer and Jonathan Butcher, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, September 3, 2003

"Labor Pain," by Siobhan Gorman, Washington Monthly, September 2003

"Pro-choice," by Siobhan Gorman, Washington Monthly, September 2003

President Bush this week announced a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Education and the Broad Foundation-in conjunction with Standard & Poor's and the education data-crunching outfit Just for the Kids (JFTK) - to make disaggregated state student achievement data and other NCLB-related information readily available via the web for parents and policy makers. Uncle Sam will supply $4.7 million over two years for a "No Child Left Behind Website," while Broad and other groups will kick in more than $50 million to get the project going. Standard & Poor's and JFTK will ramp up their present efforts at providing info about state achievement data for a national effort. "We want full disclosure," said Bush. "We have nothing to hide in America when it comes to results." The trip was part of a determined pushback by the White House on behalf of its signature education law, which is becoming a major issue in the developing presidential campaign as Democratic contenders attack NCLB on various grounds, mostly having to do with money.

"Bush touts new system to track education data," by Edwin Chen, Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2003

Just for the Kids

The Broad Foundation

A California bill that would strengthen state oversight of charter schools has come one step closer to becoming law, passing the California Senate and heading to the General Assembly, possibly within days. [For earlier coverage, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=3#48.] AB 1137 would require charter authorizers to ensure that the schools they oversee comply with specified reporting requirements and meet at least one of several objective academic performance criteria in order to receive a charter renewal. Sadly, though, a companion bill, AB 1464, which would allow colleges and universities, mayors and, in some cases, nonprofit organizations to authorize charter schools [as recommended by the Fordham Institute publication Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade?] is dead for this year. Passing 1137 and not 1464 would severely put out of whack the accountability-cum-freedom tradeoff that makes charter schools the promising innovations they are.

"Charter school bill advances," by Jennifer M. Fitzenberger, Sacramento Bee, September 9, 2003

Over the past few years, the number of private schools in China has grown rapidly, numbering more than 54,000 by the end of 2000 and likely far more today. These private schools have sprung up in response to the increased demand for primary, secondary and higher education - a demand that the government cannot afford to meet, given the size of China's student population. Now, seeking to encourage further growth of private education, the Chinese government has given them equal legal status with state-owned schools. According to the new law, this move gives those who run private schools preferential treatment when applying for loans as well as preferential tax policies.

"China declares equal status for private schools," People Daily, September 3, 2003

"China to draft law on private schools," China Daily, May 23, 2001

On this solemn anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, in lieu of a conventional editorial, we offer excerpts from five of the 29 thoughtful essays in Fordham's recent publication, Terrorists, Despots, and Democracy: What Our Children Need to Know. Gadfly joins with the rest of the nation in honoring the victims and heroes of 9/11 as well as those who have given the last full measure of devotion in the global war on terrorism and despotism.

America: Always Vulnerable, Never Inevitable
Richard Rodriguez

When I was in school, U.S. history classes seemed happily fated. There were past calamities, to be sure - slavery, the massacre of Indians, the mistreatments suffered by the poor - but these were mere obstacles to the present, obstacles overcome by battles or treaties or acts of Congress, or by the lucky coincidence of heroic lives and national need. As a boy, I loved American history, precisely for its lack of tragedy. I loved Ben Franklin and the stories of the Underground Railroad and the New Deal, because everything led happily to me, living at 935 39th Street in Sacramento, California.

The man awoke, years later, to see jet airliners (the symbol of our mobility) turned against us by terrorists; to see the collapse of the World Trade Center (the symbol of our global capitalism); to see a wall of the Pentagon (the assurance of our self-defense) in flames. What I realized that Tuesday morning is that America is vulnerable to foreign attack.

But I wonder now if we understand that our civilization has always been vulnerable. Our American values and laws emerged over time, after false starts and despite many near-reversals. For example, our tradition of religious tolerance and secularism, that today makes America home to every religion in the world, was not born easily or quickly. Mormons, Jews, Catholics - a variety of persons have in the past suffered religious persecution at the hands of their American neighbors. Today, to their and our shame, there are some in America who attack Muslims.

Lacking a sense of the tragic in U.S. history books, our children never are taught that America finally was formed against and despite the mistakes and reversals we committed against our own civilization. Now, our children glance up to wonder at the low-flying plane on the approaching horizon. They need, also, to look back in time, to see America ever-invented, forged through difficult decades into a civilization. That civilization was always at risk. Always vulnerable. Never inevitable. Not just because of threats from without. But from our own ignorance of all we possessed.

Richard Rodriguez is the author of a trilogy on American public life and his own life: Hunger of Memory, Days of Obligation, and Brown.

Seizing This Teachable Moment
William Bennett

War and violence are always regrettable but sometimes necessary. There is no honor in remaining idle, or simply watching, as a family member, or indeed as any human being, has violence done to him. We did not allow King George to continue to reign over us; we declared our independence and took up arms based on the self-evident truths that all humans are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. In World War II, of the three Axis powers we took arms against, only Japan had first struck at our homeland. But it is beyond debate that our taking up arms to defeat all three enemies of liberty made those countries better. Japan, Germany, and Italy are all now thriving democracies. Their people are better off, we are better off, and the world is better off - not because of their leaders in World War II, but because of ours.

After being attacked two years ago by terrorists who were financed and harbored by terrorist-supporting states, we are engaged in military efforts to end the regimes of those states - and, in the process, ending terror, securing our nation, and improving the conditions of life for those in those states. As we did to the Axis in World War II, we will do to the evil, terror-sponsoring states in this war. And the blessings of liberty will spread.

Children born in America are so accustomed to those blessings that they may not recognize them. The same lessons of democracy that we seek to export for the good of all people must be explicitly taught to American students at home. To fail to do so is to cheat our children, and the immigrants who come to live here, of their birthright.

William J. Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, is founder of K12, an Internet-based education company, and chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.

What Is "Education for Democracy"?
Katherine Kersten

In the end . . . teaching young people to be good citizens requires more than conveying knowledge. It also requires encouraging the cultivation of certain traits of character. In a word, it requires what the ancient Greeks called a paragon, or character ideal.
Many students today have difficulty distinguishing between a celebrity and a hero. We can help them to discern that all-important difference by acquainting them with champions of democracy and inspiring them to say, "I want to be like that."

To that end, our students need to hear the heroic stories of George Washington at Valley Forge and Nathan Hale's last words. They should also hear the voices of ordinary Americans, like Union soldier Sullivan Ballou, who wrote movingly to his wife before the Battle of Bull Run about his love of country. Novels and stories are another powerful vehicle for conveying the virtues of the citizen and patriot. My own children have thrilled to Johnny Tremain, and I still remember how moved I was at reading Edward Everett Hale's "The Man Without a Country" in ninth grade.

Our task as educators is to help young people see that America is worthy of their love and to help them become worthy of their heritage as American citizens.

Katherine Kersten is a distinguished senior fellow for cultural studies at the Center of the American Experiment.

How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love American Exceptionalism
Sheldon M. Stern

Sadly, in the rush to "understand" the 9/11 attacks, the social studies establishment has bungled a stunning opportunity to teach the history and importance of American constitutionalism. "It was not self-evident in 1776," historian Lance Banning wrote in 1987,

that all men are created equal, that governments derive their just authority from popular consent, or that good governments exist in order to protect God-given rights. These concepts are not undeniable in any age. [Including today!] From the point of view of 18th century Europeans, they contradicted common sense. The notions that a sound society could operate without natural subordination, where men were either commoners or nobles, or that a stable government could be based on elections, seemed both frightening and ridiculously at odds with the obvious lessons of the past.

Why did James Madison grasp in 1788 a reality that social studies "experts," post-modernists, and Marxists fail to understand two centuries later? "If men were angels," he wrote, "no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. . . . You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Why did Americans develop such beliefs at a time when no other country lived by them? The question itself is dead on arrival in the world of multicultural social studies education because it suggests American exceptionalism. . . .

To paraphrase the 1983 commission on excellence in education, we must recognize that, if the enemies of open, democratic societies had used force to impose historical and civic ignorance on our children, we would have considered it an act of war. Instead, we have done this to ourselves.

Sheldon M. Stern served as historian at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston from 1977 to 1999.

Six Truths About America
William Galston

There is such a thing as civic virtue, and whether or not citizens possess it can be a matter of life and death. The memory of police, firefighters, and random civilians doing their duty (and more) in the face of overwhelming danger is as indelible as are the images of the collapsing World Trade Center and the maimed Pentagon. The stunning live pictures of our troops fighting in Iraq showed us how much rests on the discipline and dedication of our armed forces, many of whom are barely out of high school.

Because civic virtue is not innate but must be learned, we must pay careful attention to the processes - institutional and informal - through which it is cultivated. Public schools have an important role to play in encouraging thoughtful citizenship, not only in civics classes but also through student government and extra-curricular activities that teach young people how to organize groups and work together toward shared goals.

We must ask ourselves whether civic virtue is something that can be delegated to others, so that some act while the rest of us watch, or whether it requires engagement from everyone. We cannot all fight fires, or foreign foes. But we can all pay attention to public affairs, vote, serve on juries, and discharge the modest obligations our country asks of us in return for the blessings of American citizenship.

William Galston is professor of public affairs and director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland. He is also the founding director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), which focuses on the civic life of American young people. He served as deputy assistant for domestic policy to President Clinton from 1993 to 1995.

Back to Basics: Reclaiming Social Studies

Aubrey H. Wang et al., Educational Testing Service
September 2003

This 44-pager from the Policy Information Center at ETS reports on how seven other countries prepare teachers and control access to the teaching field, and how these compare with U.S. practices. The focus is on teachers of 8th grade science and math. It's hard to generalize - the countries are so different - but several points struck me: (1) In other lands, prospective math and science teachers must demonstrate "competency in mathematics and science knowledge" before being admitted to undergraduate teacher education programs. (2) "In most other countries, too, university entry is more difficult than in the United States. . .Since entry to teacher education programs usually requires university student status first, the relative difficulty of university entry is pertinent to any comparison of the rigor of teacher education program entry across countries." (3) For entry into graduate-level teacher education programs, "most of the other countries surveyed require an undergraduate degree and, in some cases, a master's level degree in the subject area." (4) Among the seven other countries, only England has "alternate teacher certification." You won't likely reach any striking conclusions from reading this report, but you're apt to find it interesting. You can track it down at http://www.ets.org/research/pic/prepteach.pdf.

Congressmen John Boehner and Buck McKeon
September 2003

The head of the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the chair of the Competitiveness Subcommittee released this 20-page analysis of college costs and their implications for American higher education. With reauthorization of the Higher Education Act cranking up (in piecemeal fashion so far), it's important to know that the two most influential Republican House members in this area believe that the "gains of the Higher Education Act are being severely hampered by what can only be described as a college cost crisis." This they define as tuition increasing faster than inflation, faster than family income, and faster even than "increases in state and federal financial aid." Report the authors, "These cost increases are pricing students and families out of the college market, and forcing prospective students to 'trade down' in their postsecondary educational choices because options that may have been affordable years ago have now been priced out of reach." The authors attribute the problem to laxity and profligacy in many (but not all) institutions of higher education, the absence of productivity gains, and lack of consumer-accountability in the higher education industry. In releasing the report, Messrs. Boehner and McKeown hinted at what the Washington Times termed a "new round of federal accountability measures" during the forthcoming legislative cycle.

The basic analysis is surely right. What's missing, however, is consideration of a very different approach to higher-education financing, one that some states seem to be sliding toward without acknowledging what they're doing. Once termed "full cost pricing," it would set the "sticker price" for higher ed - public as well as private - at or near the true cost of delivering the service, then devote all available federal and state (and private) resources to sweeping need-based aid programs that would make these prices affordable for all Americans. This approach has three big pluses: it eliminates unneeded subsidies for wealthy families attending public colleges and universities and targets the subsidy money on those who need it. It more or less erases the tuition gap between private and public institutions, thus eliminating that policy-induced incentive to attend a state college rather than a private campus. And by, in effect, "voucherizing" all public subsidies for higher education (save for R & D and other activities that need direct institutional financing), it empowers consumers (and the marketplace) to express their preferences and hold down prices.

A quarter century ago (yikes!), Dave Breneman and I proposed this approach in a Brookings book entitled Public Policy and Private Higher Education. It made sense then. I believe it makes sense today - and is more constructive than just decrying high tuitions. Though our proposal was long assumed to be politically unrealistic, the fact is that in the past several years many states are de facto allowing their public college tuitions to float upward in a way that isn't very different from what we proposed. Why not do it purposefully - and make sure the needed student aid follows? Meanwhile, you can find the Congressional report on tuitions at http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation...

Donna Walker James and Glenda Partee, American Youth Policy Forum
September 2003

Since the seminal works of Daniel P. Moynihan and James Coleman in the 1960s, it has been understood that there is a clear and positive relationship between family involvement and positive outcomes for children and youth. For the authors of this 152-page report, sponsored by McKnight Foundation, positive outcomes include higher student grades and test scores, better attendance, more homework done, fewer special-ed placements, more positive attitudes and behavior, higher graduation rates and greater college enrollment. Strong families breed better students than do weak families. Trying to build on this truth, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Workforce Investment Act, and other federal laws now "require" family involvement in both school and youth programs. In offering guidance for turning federal requirements into reality, the authors assert that "young people should not be treated as 'islands' by schools and youth programs, separate from the context of their families and neighborhoods." "No More Islands" describes 27 school and youth programs, showing how they involve families in decisions and activities that impact on children's learning and well-being. These 27 programs employed four main (and rather obvious) family involvement strategies, including: communicating with families and reinforcing program goals; designating staff to coordinate with families and professional development; designing and implementing family member-related services and activities; and expanding family roles and relationships. In sum, the report encourages schools and youth programs, and those who support them, to see family involvement as an asset to build upon on rather than to ignore or discourage. To read the report, surf to http://www.aypf.org/publications/nomoreisle/index.htm.

Patrick J. Murphy and Michael M. DeArmond, Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington
August 2003

This short report takes a fresh look at teacher shortages, offering some insights into how schools react and how policies may alleviate the problem. The report uses surveys, interviews, and data from 1999-2000 and, not surprisingly, finds that shortages are most common in urban areas, low income and minority schools, and among special ed, math, and science positions. (Social studies, elementary, and English positions are easiest to fill.) But it focuses on the reactions of schools and districts to their hiring needs. Unfortunately, the culture in many human resource departments appears to be part of the problem. Staffers fail to plan ahead for upcoming shortages without specific positions in mind and are unable to break away from standard operating procedures in order to solve problems. The report notes some interesting exceptions, however, such as San Jose, which built affordable housing for new teachers, and the many districts that have expanded their recruiting efforts across the country and beyond. Two recurrent problems are union demands and certification barriers, although administrators express much greater concern for the former than the latter. The report recounts a sad example of one district's effort to decentralize teacher placement, which the union nominally supported but then undercut. We know that teacher shortages have many causes, but our first priorities must be to change the status quo by lowering entrance barriers to entry and reforming archaic salary structures. Then, perhaps, we can focus more of our energy on teacher quality and less on quantity. This report offers numerous policy tips that would move us in the right direction. It's available at http://www.crpe.org/pubs.shtml#teachers.