The Education Gadfly Weekly

Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony, Center on Reinventing Public Education
March 2004

Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony have just released the first serious study that appears to find that teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) are more effective than those who are not. This is a significant event for those (myself included) who have insisted that such evidence is needed before U.S. schools and states should embrace the National Board. As the authors summarize their findings, "NBPTS-certified teachers, based on student achievement gains, appear to be more effective than their non-certified counterparts and . . . NBPTS is successfully identifying the more effective teachers among NBPTS applicants."

So far, so good. (You knew a "however" was coming.) However, the numbers and regressions need to be rechecked by other experts. And everyone should know that this pioneer study is quite limited - limited to North Carolina in the late 1990s, for starters, and to students in (and teachers of) grades 3, 4, and 5. Many of the student gains associated with NBPTS-certified teachers are small and some aren't statistically significant. (It depends on grade levels and student characteristics.) More important, going through the NBPTS process and becoming certified does not make teachers more effective; it simply identifies those who are already more effective. As a public investment, therefore, NBPTS only makes sense if the costs associated with it result in those effective teachers remaining in the classroom longer than they otherwise would. It's also important to note that, during the application year, some teachers become less effective: those who become certified are no more effective that year than non-applicants, while unsuccessful applicants lose effectiveness during that year. Hence having lots of teachers seek NBPTS certification could prove counterproductive in terms of student achievement and the cost of conferring bonuses on those who succeed may or may not be warranted.

Still, it's an important study that you should be aware of.  Read more at http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2004archive/03-04archive/k030804a.html.

Richard D. Kahlenberg, editor
The Century Foundation
2004

This well-written book offers three chapters related to the under-representation of poorer students in American colleges and universities. In the first, Lawrence Gladieux examines the cost of higher education and argues for more need-based financial aid and less merit-based aid. He notes that poorer families often over-estimate the cost of college (and are thus needlessly deterred), and he thinks we need a return to funding strategies that attract students who would not attend at all "but for such aid." Gladieux's problem with today's aid programs is that they subsidize the middle class, who can already afford college. In the second essay, Michael Timpane and Arthur Hauptman stress that improving the readiness of low-income students is crucial to increasing their enrollment in post-secondary education. Among their many suggestions is a call to better align college entry requirements and high school standards (such as the Fordham-Achieve-Education Trust "American Diploma Project" is attempting; see www.achieve.org). They explain that "as higher education institutions and systems expanded, their governance at the state level was organized and carried on with little or no connection to the K-12 systems." Finally, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose urge an expansion of economic affirmative action (building on their earlier paper, reviewed by the Gadfly last year; see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=22#122). They argue that many low-income students who could succeed at top colleges don't attend, and that admissions decisions often show a bias toward high-income applicants - those who are legacies or whose families might become large donors. All three essays offer insights, data, and propositions that are sure to intrigue readers. For example, do you buy the argument that graduation rates might increase if more of the best prepared low-income students attended college? You can find a copy for $15 via the Century Foundation's website at http://www.centuryfoundation.org/4L/4LMain.asp?SubjectID=1&TopicID=1&ArticleID=428.

Clifford Adelman, Institute of Education Sciences
January 2004

The ablest analyst left in the depleted professional ranks of the federal Institute of Education Sciences is Clifford Adelman, who for years has been productively mining the data seams accumulated by several consecutive longitudinal studies undertaken by the National Center for Education Statistics. These are among our most valuable sources for understanding the educational (and life) trajectories of young Americans and Adelman is gifted at teasing interesting findings, patterns, and trends from them. The simplest way to view this new study is a tracing of the college patterns of the high school classes of 1972, 1982, and 1992. What Adelman found is often surprising and frequently fascinating. Here are some of the many nuggets, fraught, it seems to me, with implications for the Higher Education Act and key bits of K-12 policy, too:

" Average elapsed time-to-degree for those who earned bachelor's degrees within 8.5 years of high school graduation in the class of 1992 was 4.56 calendar years, compared with 4.45 years for the comparable group in the class of 1982 and 4.34 years for the comparable group in the class of 1972.

" Seventy-seven percent of the high school class of 1992 attended at least one postsecondary institution within 8.5 years of scheduled high school graduation. This access rate compares with 63 percent for the class of 1982 over an 11-year period, and 58 percent for the class of 1972 over a 12-year period.

" When the universe is confined to students in the class of 1992 who earned standard high school diplomas within a year of scheduled graduation, the differences in access rates between white and both African-American and Latino students are statistically insignificant while differences by socioeconomic status remain.

" Eighty-eight percent of the students from the class of 1992 who entered postsecondary education persisted from their first to second year. Among those who did not persist, two-thirds started in community colleges and 70 percent earned less than 10 credits in their first calendar year of attendance.

" Among those who earned bachelor's degrees, nearly 60 percent attended more than one school as undergraduates in the class of 1992, 58 percent in the class of 1982, and 57 percent in the class of 1972. Among those in the class of 1992 who started in a 4-year college and earned a bachelor's degree, one out of five earned the degree from an institution other than the one in which they began their postsecondary careers.

" The proportion of all students earning bachelor's degrees in education fell from 16 percent in the 1970s to 6 percent in the 1980s, then rebounded to 9 percent in the 1990s.

" The most notable change in the distribution of letter grades over the history of the three cohorts is the rise (from 4 percent for the class of 1972 to over 8 percent for the class of 1992) in the proportion of grades that were no-penalty Withdrawals and No-Credit Repeats.

" The proportion of all students who took at least one remedial course dropped from 51 percent in the class of 1982 to 42 percent in the class of 1992. This decline took place principally for students who started in 4-year colleges, where the remediation rate fell from 44 to 26 percent. At the same time, the proportion of students starting in community colleges who required at least one remedial course showed no significant change, remaining in the 61-63 percent range.

These points, and a bunch more, are to be found in the summary online at www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/prinindicat/index.html, where you will also find a link to the full (PDF) report. And more is coming. When the Education Department gets around to it, you will also be able to access another Adelman report, "The Empirical Curriculum: Changes in Postsecondary Course-Taking, 1972-2000." It includes fascinating data on the undergraduate educations of new K-12 teachers. There we learn that, for all the palaver about why it would be better to major in a "real" subject rather than education, more than half majored in education! And 80 percent graduated from non-selective colleges. Watch for it.

No Child Left Behind is focusing so much attention on the 4th and 8th grade results that American students (and states) get on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) that a lot of people scarcely remember that NAEP also tests 12th graders. Sure, everyone dimly knows that 12th grade NAEP results cause an occasional stir, such as when they demonstrate that high-school seniors know next to nothing about U.S. history, that a non-trivial fraction of them can scarcely read, or that 12th grade black students' scores aren't much different from those of white 8th graders.

After the tut-tutting and tsk-tsking, however, 12th grade NAEP slips back into obscurity. One reason is that there have never been state-by-state results for 12th grade NAEP assessments. (These are now mandated for 4th and 8th grade reading and math.) Another is that, when NAEP budgets are tight, the Education Department and National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) tend to skimp on the senior year. There's the concern that NAEP's 12th grade results may not be terribly accurate, due to shaky test participation rates by high schools and their seniors and the suspicion that even those 12th graders who sit for the assessments don't take them seriously, are not moved to do well on them, and may just fool around with their test booklets and answer sheets. And there's the problem that neither the "frameworks" by which the tests are created nor the standards (basic, proficient, advanced) by which their results are reported are aligned with actual expectations of employers or colleges.

In fact, 12th grade NAEP has long been a problem, at least since my time on NAGB in the late Middle Ages (1988-96).

To address that problem, in early 2003 NAGB empanelled a blue-ribbon "National Commission on NAEP 12th Grade Assessment and Reporting," a diverse 18-member group co-chaired by NAGB veterans Mark Musick and Michael Nettles. Last week, its report was released. It's a cogent and concise document that deserves the attention of serious education reformers.

The panel calls for fundamentally "redesigning" 12th grade NAEP, contending that it "has the potential to supply crucial information about student achievement" that cannot come from any other source, but that it needs big changes to boost its "relevance and usefulness."

Three reforms are key.

First, the Commission urges that state-level results be regularly obtained and reported for 12th grade NAEP. This, after all, is the culmination of a state's primary-secondary education system and the locus of mounting high-school reform efforts and innumerable accountability policies (such as stiffer graduation requirements and exit tests). "State education leaders said that they want a periodic, external measure of 12th grade student achievement," reports the Commission. "They want to compare 12th grade achievement results and performance standards of their state . . . with those of other states and the nation and use the results to help make informed decisions about state-based high school improvement and reform initiatives. . . . They recognize NAEP's unique capability to serve as a trustworthy, stable, independent means of monitoring 12th grade progress over time."

Second, 12th grade NAEP results should henceforth be reported in terms of "students' readiness for college-credit coursework, training for employment, and entrance into the military." This means changing how NAEP's frameworks and test questions are formulated and how its reporting standards are set. Today, 12th grade NAEP (like 4th and 8th) seeks to reflect what is taught in today's schools rather than what the post-secondary world requires of its entrants. In the Commission's words, it looks "backwards" to the schools rather than "forecasting" their graduates' prospects for success in the stages to come. This the Commission wants to change. (Though the panel made no specific mention of the American Diploma Project, the latter's new report urges that 12th grade NAEP be aligned to the math and English "benchmarks" that it set for high-school graduation based on recommendations from colleges and employers.)

Third, the Commission makes many suggestions for boosting the lackluster 12th grade NAEP participation rates of states, schools and students: an imaginative array of requirements, incentives, rewards, sunlight, and jawboning. Panel members would compel states to participate in 12th grade reading and math and encourage them also to take part in science and writing by having Washington cover their costs. (Other 12th grade NAEP results, such as history and geography, would be reported only at the national level.) The commission believes it's possible to boost students' motivation by, for example, augmenting the Pell grants of (eligible) NAEP participants, giving discounts in college bookstores, even at record stores and movie theaters.

Sound recommendations, all. Yes, making them happen will take some money, some legislation, further research, and a lot of energy sustained over several years. One can already hear the grumbling of commercial test-makers, overburdened high-school officials, and test-weary parents, not to mention the usual chorus of test-haters and both fringes of Congress. One also wonders whether the Bush Administration, blinded by NCLB, will pay attention, exert the requisite effort, or earmark the funds.

You can help. Read the report and see if you agree with its analysis and proposals. (Being a thoughtful person, you probably will.) Then use your own networks, contacts, publications, and megaphones to spread the word. This sort of thing gets overlooked by the mainstream media (especially in an election year) because at first glance it appears obscure and technical. We know better.

"12th Grade Student Achievement in America: A New Vision for NAEP," National Assessment Governing Board, March 5, 2004  

"American Diploma Project," Achieve, Inc.; The Education Trust; and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, February 2004 

"Creating a high school diploma that counts," by Michael Cohen, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Kati Haycock, Education Week, March 10, 2004

A mixed bag of results has arrived from New Jersey's charter schools, with a few showing strong gains but many falling behind local district schools. Only 17 percent of eighth graders in Garden State charters, for example, passed state math tests, compared to 74 percent of students across the state. In many cases, school operators blame outside management companies that did a great job finding facilities but little to put demanding and test-aligned curricula in place. New Jersey is a poster child for how a bad charter law can strangle innovation in its crib: The 52 charters in that state labor under serious constraints, with little freedom from state licensure and collective bargaining requirements, no funding for facilities, and only 90 percent of per-student funding that district schools receive. On last year's Fordham evaluation, Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade? (http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=67), the state's charter policy environment received an anemic C-. So, while performance is not what it ought to be, one could also say that in New Jersey, charter schools have not yet been fully tried.

"Charter schools come up short," by Ken Thorbourne, New Jersey Journal, March 6, 2004,

After a run of bad press about plummeting stock prices and voided contracts with districts, Edison Schools, Inc., finally seems to be hitting its stride in at least one of the districts it serves. In its third year of a "$30 million, five-year contract to manage six elementary schools and a middle school in disadvantaged areas for the Clark County, Nev. [Las Vegas] School District, [the] elementary schools reported that their math scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills increased by at least six percentile points in every grade, with the fourth-graders making a particularly impressive gain of 12 percentile points." Even better for Edison, "comparable elementary schools in the district with similar student profiles also rose, but at a slower pace." Company spokesman Adam Tucker says he was not surprised. "When you look at Edison schools that have been working with us for an extended period of time - for three, five, or seven years - we're able to show steady and consistent gains." Look for an external evaluation of Edison's effect on student achievement to be released later this year by the RAND Corporation.

"Edison scores a much-needed victory," by Steve Friess, Christian Science Monitor, March 5, 2004

Diana, we hardly knew ye. Or, apparently, what you were up to. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, schools chancellor Joel Klein, and their chosen deputy chancellor for teaching and learning, Diana Lam, brought their sordid New York story to a partial close with Lam's forced resignation after news broke that she had given her meagerly qualified husband a cushy administrative job and teaching position without seeking proper approval. In the city of Boss Tweed and honest graft, Bloomberg's and Klein's expressions of shock! shock! seem a bit overdone (apparently, Klein knew of the appointment since June, and the spouse in question never actually received a paycheck). So there is speculation that this was a convenient excuse to dump the deputy chancellor, who had become a political lightning rod. In fact, there seems to be an emerging Bloomberg-Klein pattern: enact a reform hastily, without concern about unintended consequences, the challenges of implementation, or the advice of experts; defend it vigorously even as evidence mounts that you hadn't done your homework; then find a reason to jettison it without admitting that insufficient thought had gone into the whole thing in the first place. Case in point, episode 1: Lam's chosen reading program, Month by Month Phonics. Lam chose the program; experts criticized it for not employing proven reading methods and warned that the city could lose millions in federal dollars if it was adopted; Bloomberg and Klein eventually sidelined it rather than risk losing the money, then criticized the feds for inflexibility. Now comes Lam's dismissal. Experts, education reformers, teachers, and school administrators have argued for months that she ought never have been hired (her record in Providence, San Antonio, and elsewhere was spotty, to say the least) and should have been sent packing over the phonics debacle. Yet Gotham's school leaders won't admit error; hizzoner even "defended the choice of Diana Lam, the educator who was supposed to turn around the nation's largest school system," just hours before Klein announced her resignation. What will the third example be? We don't know (though we'd guess either the social promotion or middle school reorganization plans), but Bloomberg and Klein ought to take advantage of the second chance - rare in politics and rarer in school superintendents' tenures - that Diana Lam's departure gives them.
 
"Lam's legacy," by Diane Ravitch, New York Post, March 10, 2004, 

"Lam scandal sets off political scramble," by Ellen Yan and Glenn Thrush," New York Newsday, March 9, 2004

"Lam chopped," by David Seifman and Carl Campanile, New York Post, March 9, 2004

Some weeks ago, we noted that Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews was seeking "true life stories" of how NCLB is affecting classrooms, good and bad (http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=133#1658). He specifically declined to accept comments from researchers and advocates in favor of dispatches from parents, teachers, and students. Now come his findings. With due respect to a fine journalist, the comments he gathered don't add a heckuva lot to the NCLB mid-course appraisal. It's not just that they are necessarily impressionistic - no classroom will ever encompass the range of NCLB effects, positive or negative - but rather that they track rather closely what researchers and advocates (on all sides of the debate over NCLB) have been saying for two years. On one side are those praising the law for empowering parents of poor students and getting schools back to basics. On the other are parents and teachers complaining about nonstop testing and the perverse effects of some accountability measures. Is it possible that Mathews's process was gamed by researchers and advocates (not us, we swear!) posing as "real people?"

 "Examining No Child Left Behind," by Jay Mathews, Washington Post, March 9, 2004,

Yesterday, the Washington state legislature narrowly passed a bill that will allow both the creation of 45 charter schools for disadvantaged students over the next six years and the conversion of an unlimited number of failing public schools into charters. The bill, which the governor is expected to sign into law in the next few weeks, marks a major legislative victory for charter advocates in Washington who have been working to pass such legislation for the better part of a decade.  "It's a big day for children and families and educators who know that we can do better for our kids if educators have the freedom and parents have more choices," said Jim Spady, who along with his wife has been working to get charters approved in Washington since his now 15 year-old son was in kindergarten.  Charles Hasse, president of the state's largest teachers union, said "it was hard to express how disappointed he was."  Charters, he said, give "a foot in the door to those who would like to privatize public schools and turn them over to profiteers."  Hasse isn't simply giving in; legal battles are likely, with some arguing that charters violate the state constitutional guarantee for a "general and uniform system of public schools."

"Legislators clear path for charter schools, by Linda Shaw, Seattle Times, March 11, 2004

"Charter schools are on the way," by Joseph Turner, Tacoma News Tribune, March 11, 2004

Wash. Passes Charter - School Bill, Associated Press, March 11, 2004

NPR recently aired a fascinating story on the schools operated by the Department of Defense for children of military personnel, and whether they, too, should be subject to NCLB's requirements. (Today they're not, because they're not funded by the Department of Education and Title I.) The National School Boards Association says they should be. The Pentagon school system says it's doing fine with its own reform and accountability schemes, which it claims are more vigorous than those of most states. These schools - which educate a highly transient population, often from lower-income homes with low levels of parental education - nonetheless manage strong scores on assessments like NAEP. One troubling point: at the end of this story, reporter Nancy Marshall noted that the Pentagon is considering turning over its schools to local districts. One wonders if they would stay as good as they are today. 

"Should military schools be 'left behind?'" by Nancy Marshall, NPR, March 9, 2004, (audio link, Real Player or Windows Media Player required)

For months now, Minnesota's courageous and passionate education commissioner, Cheri Pierson Yecke, has been the target of unrelenting criticism for her team's proposed social studies standards. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=8#370, http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=114#1433 and http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=21#129 for earlier coverage.) Opponents are even lobbying the state Senate to block her confirmation, scheduled for later this month. Yecke supporters are now rallying, too, including a petition endorsing her. (To access it, go to http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/confirm_yecke/.) Also last week, Yecke's proposed standards cleared their first legislative hurdle, passing the House Education Policy Committee 18-12, with all but one Republican supporting them and every Democrat opposing. The Minnesota Council for the Social Studies, which has been fighting Yecke and these standards tooth and nail, is now focusing its attention on the House GOP leadership. Last Friday, Council President Nance Purcell approached House Speaker Steve Sviggum with a letter from MCSS members requesting that the proposed standards be scrapped and rewritten by "a stakeholders panel that consists mostly of active, licensed teachers." House Republicans aren't surprised or overly concerned about the continued opposition to the proposed standards, saying that "it merely reflects the difficulty of making everyone happy on such issues as what history shall be taught in the state's classrooms." Watch this space for updates.

"Social studies standards teachers request a rewrite," Twin Cities Pioneer Press, March 6, 2004

"Standards advance in House," by John Welsh, Minnesota Pioneer Press, March 5, 2004 

Minnesota Education Reform News, March 4, 2004

Clifford Adelman, Institute of Education Sciences
January 2004

The ablest analyst left in the depleted professional ranks of the federal Institute of Education Sciences is Clifford Adelman, who for years has been productively mining the data seams accumulated by several consecutive longitudinal studies undertaken by the National Center for Education Statistics. These are among our most valuable sources for understanding the educational (and life) trajectories of young Americans and Adelman is gifted at teasing interesting findings, patterns, and trends from them. The simplest way to view this new study is a tracing of the college patterns of the high school classes of 1972, 1982, and 1992. What Adelman found is often surprising and frequently fascinating. Here are some of the many nuggets, fraught, it seems to me, with implications for the Higher Education Act and key bits of K-12 policy, too:

" Average elapsed time-to-degree for those who earned bachelor's degrees within 8.5 years of high school graduation in the class of 1992 was 4.56 calendar years, compared with 4.45 years for the comparable group in the class of 1982 and 4.34 years for the comparable group in the class of 1972.

" Seventy-seven percent of the high school class of 1992 attended at least one postsecondary institution within 8.5 years of scheduled high school graduation. This access rate compares with 63 percent for the class of 1982 over an 11-year period, and 58 percent for the class of 1972 over a 12-year period.

" When the universe is confined to students in the class of 1992 who earned standard high school diplomas within a year of scheduled graduation, the differences in access rates between white and both African-American and Latino students are statistically insignificant while differences by socioeconomic status remain.

" Eighty-eight percent of the students from the class of 1992 who entered postsecondary education persisted from their first to second year. Among those who did not persist, two-thirds started in community colleges and 70 percent earned less than 10 credits in their first calendar year of attendance.

" Among those who earned bachelor's degrees, nearly 60 percent attended more than one school as undergraduates in the class of 1992, 58 percent in the class of 1982, and 57 percent in the class of 1972. Among those in the class of 1992 who started in a 4-year college and earned a bachelor's degree, one out of five earned the degree from an institution other than the one in which they began their postsecondary careers.

" The proportion of all students earning bachelor's degrees in education fell from 16 percent in the 1970s to 6 percent in the 1980s, then rebounded to 9 percent in the 1990s.

" The most notable change in the distribution of letter grades over the history of the three cohorts is the rise (from 4 percent for the class of 1972 to over 8 percent for the class of 1992) in the proportion of grades that were no-penalty Withdrawals and No-Credit Repeats.

" The proportion of all students who took at least one remedial course dropped from 51 percent in the class of 1982 to 42 percent in the class of 1992. This decline took place principally for students who started in 4-year colleges, where the remediation rate fell from 44 to 26 percent. At the same time, the proportion of students starting in community colleges who required at least one remedial course showed no significant change, remaining in the 61-63 percent range.

These points, and a bunch more, are to be found in the summary online at www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/prinindicat/index.html, where you will also find a link to the full (PDF) report. And more is coming. When the Education Department gets around to it, you will also be able to access another Adelman report, "The Empirical Curriculum: Changes in Postsecondary Course-Taking, 1972-2000." It includes fascinating data on the undergraduate educations of new K-12 teachers. There we learn that, for all the palaver about why it would be better to major in a "real" subject rather than education, more than half majored in education! And 80 percent graduated from non-selective colleges. Watch for it.

Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony, Center on Reinventing Public Education
March 2004

Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony have just released the first serious study that appears to find that teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) are more effective than those who are not. This is a significant event for those (myself included) who have insisted that such evidence is needed before U.S. schools and states should embrace the National Board. As the authors summarize their findings, "NBPTS-certified teachers, based on student achievement gains, appear to be more effective than their non-certified counterparts and . . . NBPTS is successfully identifying the more effective teachers among NBPTS applicants."

So far, so good. (You knew a "however" was coming.) However, the numbers and regressions need to be rechecked by other experts. And everyone should know that this pioneer study is quite limited - limited to North Carolina in the late 1990s, for starters, and to students in (and teachers of) grades 3, 4, and 5. Many of the student gains associated with NBPTS-certified teachers are small and some aren't statistically significant. (It depends on grade levels and student characteristics.) More important, going through the NBPTS process and becoming certified does not make teachers more effective; it simply identifies those who are already more effective. As a public investment, therefore, NBPTS only makes sense if the costs associated with it result in those effective teachers remaining in the classroom longer than they otherwise would. It's also important to note that, during the application year, some teachers become less effective: those who become certified are no more effective that year than non-applicants, while unsuccessful applicants lose effectiveness during that year. Hence having lots of teachers seek NBPTS certification could prove counterproductive in terms of student achievement and the cost of conferring bonuses on those who succeed may or may not be warranted.

Still, it's an important study that you should be aware of.  Read more at http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2004archive/03-04archive/k030804a.html.

Richard D. Kahlenberg, editor
The Century Foundation
2004

This well-written book offers three chapters related to the under-representation of poorer students in American colleges and universities. In the first, Lawrence Gladieux examines the cost of higher education and argues for more need-based financial aid and less merit-based aid. He notes that poorer families often over-estimate the cost of college (and are thus needlessly deterred), and he thinks we need a return to funding strategies that attract students who would not attend at all "but for such aid." Gladieux's problem with today's aid programs is that they subsidize the middle class, who can already afford college. In the second essay, Michael Timpane and Arthur Hauptman stress that improving the readiness of low-income students is crucial to increasing their enrollment in post-secondary education. Among their many suggestions is a call to better align college entry requirements and high school standards (such as the Fordham-Achieve-Education Trust "American Diploma Project" is attempting; see www.achieve.org). They explain that "as higher education institutions and systems expanded, their governance at the state level was organized and carried on with little or no connection to the K-12 systems." Finally, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose urge an expansion of economic affirmative action (building on their earlier paper, reviewed by the Gadfly last year; see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=22#122). They argue that many low-income students who could succeed at top colleges don't attend, and that admissions decisions often show a bias toward high-income applicants - those who are legacies or whose families might become large donors. All three essays offer insights, data, and propositions that are sure to intrigue readers. For example, do you buy the argument that graduation rates might increase if more of the best prepared low-income students attended college? You can find a copy for $15 via the Century Foundation's website at http://www.centuryfoundation.org/4L/4LMain.asp?SubjectID=1&TopicID=1&ArticleID=428.