The Education Gadfly Weekly

National Governors Association
January 2005

The National Governors Association has issued two reports arising from the work of its Task Force on School Readiness, which commenced in 2002-3 when Kentucky's Paul Patton was NGA chairman. (Today, under Virginia's Mark Warner, the focus is high school reform. One of NGA's challenges is steering a steady course.)
 
The Task Force's 40-page Final Report goes from unimpeachable, even banal, principles to scads and SCADS of recommendations for state policy and action, nearly all of these also sensible if not obvious. I spotted no high-controversy items (such as a call for universal publicly-funded pre-school) but plenty of common-sense suggestions across a host of domains, many of them process-heavy, some of them substantive. To my eye, the most important proposals here are a call for states to develop "early learning standards . . . that set clear expectations for what young children should know and be able to do before, during, and after school entry," then to use those standards "to guide early education curriculum and assessments to ensure that what is being taught and measured matches expectations." You can find the report here.
 
The companion publication, a 35-page "Governor's Guide to School Readiness," mostly gives examples of extant state programs and practices that illustrate and implement the Task Force's recommendations. With respect to pre-school standards and curricula, for instance, it points to Rhode Island, Kentucky, and Maryland, and shows you where to find more information. (As an example, here are Rhode Island's promising "expectations" for "literacy" in young children. You can find Maryland's version here by scrolling down to page 15.) You can download this NGA report here. 

Cyril Taylor and Conor Ryan, David Fulton Publishers
2004

From across the sea comes this perceptive account of school improvement efforts in England, especially those under the umbrella of the Specialist Schools Trust. The primary author, Sir Cyril Taylor, is that organization's inspiration and admiral, as well as an advisor on education policy to the Blair government. In 300+ pages and 18 chapters, he and his colleague get fairly concrete about the essential elements of successful schools, turning around failing schools, getting the curriculum right, deploying the school team, and much else. Though their policy framework is England (and Wales), U.S. education leaders could learn much from their wide-ranging experience, their sagacity and their erudition. The ISBN is 1843122138, the publisher (in the U.K.) is David Fulton, and you can learn more here.

Gary Wolfram, Cato Institute
January 25, 2005

This short piece in Cato's Policy Analysis series explores the "Bennett hypothesis," the former education secretary's argument that federal student aid programs drive up college tuitions and thus do less good for students and their families than intended. Such programs cost $68.8 billion in 2004 (and Bush has asked for $73 billion in the FY2006 budget), so it's important to understand the effects of these programs. Wolfram first takes readers back to economics 101 to get reacquainted with the theory that such subsidies shift the demand curve and thus shift the equilibrium quantity and price - in his example, to a point where more students attend college but face higher tuitions. The actual slopes of the supply and demand curves (elasticity) determine whether, in real life, enrollments actually increase (a school may prefer to remain selective) and how much tuitions rise. On that point, Wolfram reviews empirical studies of the relationship between federal aid and tuition and finds convincing evidence of a connection. The effect varies in size - in some cases tuition rose by more than the aid amounts, in others less - but nonetheless exists. The net effect is that federal student aid probably does as much to enrich our colleges (and hold down state aid to students) as it does to ease tuition burdens. The problem is exacerbated by the rising level of aid available to wealthier families today (see here) and complicated by the continued layering of new federal programs on top of old. What's the solution? Wolfram would gradually abolish all federal student aid, in the hope that both private aid and the market system would compensate. (Remember, this is a Cato publication.) Toward the latter, he offers Milton Friedman's argument for "human capital contracts," by which investors might provide tuition aid in return for a portion of the student's future earnings. Of course, such a system might encourage students to major in the most employable subjects in order to be attractive to investors (which Wolfram briefly acknowledges) and would effectively make financial aid more merit-based than need-based (a point not mentioned, though presumably he hopes charity will fill this gap). Besides which, the idea is a political pipe dream. (Though cash-strapped students might note that such a service apparently exists; see www.myrichuncle.com.) Overall, this paper has some interesting arguments and analyses but no practical fix for escalating college costs. It's available online by clicking here.

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, Manhattan Institute
February 2005

Jay Greene's latest review of graduation rates paints a stark picture of the national graduation rate and finds wide discrepancies in achievement levels between racial and ethnic groups. Never mind the government figures; Greene finds that only 71 percent of public school students graduated with a regular diploma in 2002, down from 72 percent in 1991. And while 78 percent of white students graduated with a regular diploma, only 56 percent of African-American students and 52 percent of Hispanic students did the same. The study did find a slight increase in the proportion of students graduating with the skills needed to succeed in college, up from 25 percent in 1991 to 34 percent in 2002. Greene attributes that gain to "the increased standards and accountability programs over the last decade, which have required students to take more challenging courses required for admission to college without pushing those students to drop out of high school." But again, while 40 percent of white students were ready for college, only 23 percent of African-American students and 20 percent of Hispanic students were similarly prepared. You can read the full study on the web by clicking here.

This week, Time reports that teachers have the toughest time managing their . . . students' parents. Teachers frequently complain of overbearing parents who "undermine the education and growth of their children." For example, one sixth-grade teacher told a student that she must work on her reading at home, only to have the girl's angry mother complain that the teacher had "emotionally upset her child." Another elementary school teacher complains that she can no longer make objective comments about her students without parents intervening, like some who demand that their kids never be reprimanded or even corrected. "We handle children a lot more delicately," she says. "We've given them this cotton-candy sense of self with no basis in reality." Many parents will demand tough, rigorous standards - until those standards are applied to their own kids. Some have even sued schools that have attempted to expel the little dears for cheating, blaming teachers who "left the exams out on a desk and made them too easy to steal." Unfortunately, the reporter gives time to zealots like Alfie Kohn, who blames all this mayhem on, you guessed it, standardized testing. Despite such madness, the article illumines a real problem: the tendency of some parents to demand high standards and strong disciplinary measures for everybody but my child.

"Parents behaving badly," by Nancy Gibbs, Time, February 21, 2005 (subscription required)

American education research has turned a corner. The 2002 creation of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the ascendance of accountability, and the No Child Left Behind act's demand for "scientifically based research" have radically altered an educational research culture that just a few years ago bridled at the "medical model" and too often championed ethnographies, action research, "critical narrative," "discourse analysis," and other approaches that provided parents, practitioners, or policy makers with little useful information.

Together, both NCLB and IES represent a demand that rigorous scientific principles be used to assess programs. This development did not "happen" and it was not an inevitable evolution embraced by the education research community. Rather, this change was the consequence of prodigious efforts by proponents like Congressman Michael Castle, reading expert Reid Lyon, and IES head Russ Whitehurst. For their efforts, they have met with fierce resistance from some quarters of the education research community, as well as professional discourtesy, bizarre conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks.

The notion that education ought to hold science in the same high regard as do medicine and engineering would seem axiomatic. In principle, IES's mission to transform education "into an evidence-based field in which decision makers routinely seek out the best available research and data before adopting programs or practices" is entirely to the good. The changes have focused researchers on questions of validity, reliability, and replicability, and raised the bar for the investment of federal funds.

Amidst this good news, however, lurks the risk that the pendulum will swing too far, that the lure of "scientifically based research" will cause certain methods of study - especially randomized field trials - to be demanded even when ill-suited for the issue at hand. This risk looms in light of the new research "priority" published in the Federal Register on January 25 that dramatically expands the scope of activities subjected to "scientifically based research."

I am - emphatically - not issuing here another plea for "mixed methods" nor expressing concern about the practice of science. Instead, I am raising a more concrete and practical concern: that we risk stifling sensible and promising structural reforms in schooling. This risk is posed when we start to imagine that reforms to personnel, management, or financial systems need to be subjected to these scientific standards. In such cases, a premature or unyielding application of the tenets of "scientific research" could insulate ineffective and dysfunctional arrangements from needed and attainable reform.

How does this danger arise? In large part, it occurs from an imperfect understanding of how the "medical research model" works in medicine and how and when to import it into education. It's vital to recognize that there are really two kinds of "reforms" in medicine or education - and that the proper role of science and scientifically-based research is very different from one to the other. One kind of reform relates to specialized knowledge of how the mind or body works, and the other relates to the manner in which we design and operate organizations, governments and social institutions.

In education, the former category deals with the science of learning and with behaviors and programs that induce it. Such measures include pedagogical and curricular practices and interventions that relate to the development, knowledge, skills, and mastery of individual students. Relevant approaches would include methods of literacy instruction, bilingual education, sequencing mathematical subjects, and so on. Each of these entails the application of discrete treatments to identifiable subjects under specified conditions in order to achieve specific ends. Such interventions are readily susceptible to field trials, and findings on effectiveness can reasonably be extrapolated to other populations. It is desirable and appropriate that such reforms be subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation (and, whenever possible, to randomized field trials) and that educators be encouraged, even pressed, to use demonstrably superior approaches - and to eschew those lacking such evidence.

The second category of reform entails governance, management, or policy innovations intended to improve organizational effectiveness. It includes such innovations as permitting mayors to appoint school boards, permitting schools to operate free of some regulations, paying employees based on performance, and so on. None of these changes is unique to education. They draw upon a mass of experience gained in other sectors - and their effects are consistent enough and understood well enough across a broad swath of human experience that it's neither useful nor appropriate to use the scientific method to determine whether, for example, initiatives to reward excellence, increase managerial flexibility, or ensure accountability may hold promise in schooling. Such interventions are rarely precise, do not take place in controlled circumstances, and generally are administered to classes of people rather than discrete clients. Since the results of these structural reforms will be contingent on the context and manner in which they are implemented, even well-designed studies will find it problematic to draw lessons from isolated experiments that trump our broader body of knowledge regarding the use of incentives or markets. Of course, we should welcome inquiry and take new findings into account when reflecting on policy or program design. However, it's vital to remember that we've got a vast store of knowledge on these questions, and that whatever the results of small-scale experiments with merit pay or educational competition, this existing body of knowledge ought to weigh more heavily than the results of one or another context-specific study.

Reforms that address pedagogy, curricula, or teaching practices are fundamentally different from those that seek to change the incentives under which educators operate, how much flexibility they have, or how they are hired, managed, or held accountable - and should be treated as such. For instance, in medicine, while we deem it appropriate for the Food and Drug Administration to monitor and approve drug therapies and treatments, we don't require FDA approval before we permit doctors, hospitals, or health care firms to change their management practices, compensation strategies, accountability metrics, or work routines.

In truth, charter schooling, accountability systems, school vouchers, alternative certification, and merit pay are not really "educational" innovations in any meaningful sense. They don't rest on conceptions of teaching or learning processes or practices in the way that decisions about literacy or math programs do. They are decisions about how to arrange and deliver services, similar to those made in social welfare, library management, higher education, or private enterprise. Such decisions draw upon our experience across a wide range of human endeavors and organizations. They apply practical wisdom and experience about human behavior from a wealth of sectors. We should welcome research on the effects and efficacy of such reforms and use them in debating and crafting policy. But we also need to understand the limits of science.

The notion that rewarding performance ought to be subject to scientific validation before adoption is akin to suggesting that the National Institutes of Health should determine permissible compensation systems for doctors. If we applied that logic to other agencies of state government, we may well never have automated state revenue departments, streamlined departments of motor vehicles, or permitted states to reward whistleblowers who expose fraudulent activities.

As we seek to build a scientific knowledge base in education, after a century of dawdling, we should be careful not to swing the pendulum so far that we come to regret it. While the elevation of "educational science" is laudable, it's important to keep it in perspective. The push for scientific inquiry should not undermine sensible efforts to promote flexibility, competition, efficiency, and accountability. Those who want school reform to track both science and common sense must take care that proper respect for science is accompanied by a similar respect for the limits of science.

"Push for science-based research is expanded," by Debra Viadero, Education Week, February 2, 2005

Rick Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and executive editor of Education Next.

According to Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee, in California schools the phrase 'English Learner' is "finally starting to mean what it says." The latest results from the California English Language Development Test show that 47 percent of English Language Learner (ELL) students in the Golden State scored either "advanced" or "early advanced" (meaning at or approaching fluency) in 2004, up from 25 percent in 2001. Weintraub attributes this spike to implementation of the Proposition 227, the contentious 1998 ballot measure that all but eliminated bilingual education in favor of English immersion. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=71#1026 and http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=17#227 for more.) Of course, some educators contend that the score gains are due, at least in part, to the fact that not all students who achieve fluency are then mainstreamed. Since schools receive state and federal funds to serve ELL students, there is a financial incentive not to reclassify students. In fact, in 2003, 8.3 percent of ELL students were reclassified as fully English proficient despite the fact that 42 percent of them scored high enough to be considered "fluent." According to Wayne E. Wright, an assistant professor of cultural and bilingual studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio, "there's probably some magic number where you reclassify enough to meet federal standards, but not so many that you lose money." California state superintendent Jack O'Connell recently said that he would push districts across the state to become more efficient at reclassifying students, arguing that "there should be more of a correlation between the test scores and the reclassification rates."

"Good news for state's 'English learners,'" by Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, February 13, 2005 (registration required)

"English scores improve," by Jon Fortt, San Jose Mercury News, February 9, 2005

"More students show fluency in English," by Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, February 9, 2005

"State schools chief O'Connell announces significant gains in percentage of English learners reaching English proficiency," California Department of Education press release, February 7, 2005

The Wisconsin Senate last week moved to ease the enrollment cap on Milwaukee's successful voucher program. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=168#2039 for more on the debate.) The bill would raise the current limit of 15 percent of Milwaukee's K-12 students by 1,500 for one year, to 16,500 students. But the opposition continues to cry foul. Democratic state Sen. Tim Carpenter, an opponent of the bill, accused supporters of focusing "on a wedge issue that pits poor people in the city of Milwaukee against other poor people." Governor Jim Doyle is expected to veto the bill, because, according to a Doyle spokesman, "he stands by his belief that any change to the cap should be part of a broader package that would benefit all schoolchildren in Milwaukee." That's politician-speak for reining in the program, plus lavish new public school spending. One proponent of easing the cap cried, "Don't hold the children hostage for crimes adults committed." Too late.

"Senate approves new voucher school cap," by Todd Richmond, Associated Press, February 8, 2005

"Doyle veto likely for one-year reprieve," by Sarah Carr, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, February 8, 2005

American educators are streaming to Edmonton, Alberta to study that city's successful implementation of site-based management, which gives individual schools wide-ranging control over curriculum, budgets, and management. Known as one of the most innovative school districts in North America, Edmonton requires that all students reach high standards, but gives schools greater autonomy and discretion to obtain these achievements. Superintendent Angus McBeath argues that giving educators a stake in reform efforts and allowing them to direct school operations will ultimately lead to more innovative, effective, and accountable schools. "When you give people the money and the authority, they behave like owners, and boy, do they do that in our system," says McBeath. Parents from the district are free to choose any school they wish, which encourages schools to create innovative programs (e.g. foreign-language immersion,  performing arts) to attract students. Site-based management creates a sense of ownership that encourages teachers to participate in all forms of running the school, which in turn exposes teachers to new methods. "The one thing that I am absolutely certain about all of this is, that when you can get teachers talking to each other about what they're doing, student achievement will improve," says John Edey, a former Edmonton principal. Indeed, American educators are wise to emulate a system that fosters competition, innovation, and accountability, and we could definitely use more leaders like McBeath, who promises, "We're in an endless system of reform. We're not finished yet."

"An Edmonton journey," by Jeff Archer, Education Week, January 26, 2005

"Site-based management in Edmonton: An evolving idea," Education Week, January 26, 2005

Contrary to what you may have read, not everybody in San Diego wanted Superintendent Alan Bersin gone (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=179#2143). Less than a day after the school board bought out his contract, administrators and teachers praised the "courage and guts" of his reform efforts. Bersin's training, they said, "created a culture where teachers frequently have conversations about what works and what doesn't." Principal Robin Stern vowed, "We have to be sure this work continues and that will be my work." Unfortunately, the victorious school board is already rolling back Bersin-era reforms. First on the agenda, they lowered academic expectations for kindergarten students because, as teacher Cathy Perry explained, the demands placed on children have forced teachers into "limiting the use of Play Dough, crayons, and coloring." What a tragedy! The board didn't stop there. The next day, a board member proposed eliminating the peer coaches who act as mentors to classroom teachers, and teacher supervisors, who evaluate and guide teacher planning, because the board should "send the most experienced teachers into the classroom to work with the lowest-achieving kids, not have them supervise teachers." Larry Mikulanis, another district teacher, pled for mercy on the program's behalf. "Give us the chance to have that retraining from qualified professionals that we respect." No luck there either, however - the program has been axed. Expect other Bersin reforms to come onto the chopping block.

"Bersin given emotional ovation," by Helen Gao, San Diego Union-Tribune, January 29, 2005

"S.D. trustees ease up on kindergarten expectations," by Helen Gao, San Diego Union-Tribune, February 9, 2005

"San Diego schools scrap teacher-leader policy for coming year," by Helen Gao, San Diego Union-Tribune, February 10, 2005

Cyril Taylor and Conor Ryan, David Fulton Publishers
2004

From across the sea comes this perceptive account of school improvement efforts in England, especially those under the umbrella of the Specialist Schools Trust. The primary author, Sir Cyril Taylor, is that organization's inspiration and admiral, as well as an advisor on education policy to the Blair government. In 300+ pages and 18 chapters, he and his colleague get fairly concrete about the essential elements of successful schools, turning around failing schools, getting the curriculum right, deploying the school team, and much else. Though their policy framework is England (and Wales), U.S. education leaders could learn much from their wide-ranging experience, their sagacity and their erudition. The ISBN is 1843122138, the publisher (in the U.K.) is David Fulton, and you can learn more here.

Gary Wolfram, Cato Institute
January 25, 2005

This short piece in Cato's Policy Analysis series explores the "Bennett hypothesis," the former education secretary's argument that federal student aid programs drive up college tuitions and thus do less good for students and their families than intended. Such programs cost $68.8 billion in 2004 (and Bush has asked for $73 billion in the FY2006 budget), so it's important to understand the effects of these programs. Wolfram first takes readers back to economics 101 to get reacquainted with the theory that such subsidies shift the demand curve and thus shift the equilibrium quantity and price - in his example, to a point where more students attend college but face higher tuitions. The actual slopes of the supply and demand curves (elasticity) determine whether, in real life, enrollments actually increase (a school may prefer to remain selective) and how much tuitions rise. On that point, Wolfram reviews empirical studies of the relationship between federal aid and tuition and finds convincing evidence of a connection. The effect varies in size - in some cases tuition rose by more than the aid amounts, in others less - but nonetheless exists. The net effect is that federal student aid probably does as much to enrich our colleges (and hold down state aid to students) as it does to ease tuition burdens. The problem is exacerbated by the rising level of aid available to wealthier families today (see here) and complicated by the continued layering of new federal programs on top of old. What's the solution? Wolfram would gradually abolish all federal student aid, in the hope that both private aid and the market system would compensate. (Remember, this is a Cato publication.) Toward the latter, he offers Milton Friedman's argument for "human capital contracts," by which investors might provide tuition aid in return for a portion of the student's future earnings. Of course, such a system might encourage students to major in the most employable subjects in order to be attractive to investors (which Wolfram briefly acknowledges) and would effectively make financial aid more merit-based than need-based (a point not mentioned, though presumably he hopes charity will fill this gap). Besides which, the idea is a political pipe dream. (Though cash-strapped students might note that such a service apparently exists; see www.myrichuncle.com.) Overall, this paper has some interesting arguments and analyses but no practical fix for escalating college costs. It's available online by clicking here.

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, Manhattan Institute
February 2005

Jay Greene's latest review of graduation rates paints a stark picture of the national graduation rate and finds wide discrepancies in achievement levels between racial and ethnic groups. Never mind the government figures; Greene finds that only 71 percent of public school students graduated with a regular diploma in 2002, down from 72 percent in 1991. And while 78 percent of white students graduated with a regular diploma, only 56 percent of African-American students and 52 percent of Hispanic students did the same. The study did find a slight increase in the proportion of students graduating with the skills needed to succeed in college, up from 25 percent in 1991 to 34 percent in 2002. Greene attributes that gain to "the increased standards and accountability programs over the last decade, which have required students to take more challenging courses required for admission to college without pushing those students to drop out of high school." But again, while 40 percent of white students were ready for college, only 23 percent of African-American students and 20 percent of Hispanic students were similarly prepared. You can read the full study on the web by clicking here.

National Governors Association
January 2005

The National Governors Association has issued two reports arising from the work of its Task Force on School Readiness, which commenced in 2002-3 when Kentucky's Paul Patton was NGA chairman. (Today, under Virginia's Mark Warner, the focus is high school reform. One of NGA's challenges is steering a steady course.)
 
The Task Force's 40-page Final Report goes from unimpeachable, even banal, principles to scads and SCADS of recommendations for state policy and action, nearly all of these also sensible if not obvious. I spotted no high-controversy items (such as a call for universal publicly-funded pre-school) but plenty of common-sense suggestions across a host of domains, many of them process-heavy, some of them substantive. To my eye, the most important proposals here are a call for states to develop "early learning standards . . . that set clear expectations for what young children should know and be able to do before, during, and after school entry," then to use those standards "to guide early education curriculum and assessments to ensure that what is being taught and measured matches expectations." You can find the report here.
 
The companion publication, a 35-page "Governor's Guide to School Readiness," mostly gives examples of extant state programs and practices that illustrate and implement the Task Force's recommendations. With respect to pre-school standards and curricula, for instance, it points to Rhode Island, Kentucky, and Maryland, and shows you where to find more information. (As an example, here are Rhode Island's promising "expectations" for "literacy" in young children. You can find Maryland's version here by scrolling down to page 15.) You can download this NGA report here.