The Education Gadfly Weekly

College Board
2001

You may already know all you need about the College Board's recent release of the 2000-1 SAT scores. Even though this test remains controversial, though some colleges are backing away from it, and though everyone knows the test-taking population is not representative of the U.S. student population (it included 45% of 2001 high school graduates) and that it changes over time, these numbers are still widely used as a barometer of the performance of K-12 education. The short version: math was flat last year, verbal up a single point. The College Board wants you to think this is good news, part of a decade-long rising trend. Some of us remember, though, that this was the same decade when the Board opted to "re-center" all its scores because they had sagged so badly. Indeed, if you adjust for the re-centering and look over a longer period of time, the news is none too good, especially with respect to the verbal score, now at 506 compared to 530 in 1972. Math is somewhat rosier-514 today versus 509 in 1972-and surely better than its low of 492 in the early 1980's. It's also important to note, as Education Secretary Rod Paige commented, that the new data reveal as grave a black-white test score gap as ever-though both have risen. And the College Board itself remarked upon the evidence of rampant grade inflation: the GPA of test-takers in 2001 was 3.28, compared with 3.10 a decade earlier, and test-takers with A averages now number 41%, compared with 28% in 1991. Moreover, the SAT scores of the A students are themselves declining (not too surprising, as more youngsters are found in that sub-population). As Secretary Paige remarked, there's reason for concern if SAT scores are basically flat, NAEP scores are basically flat yet the kids themselves are getting ever rosier feedback from teachers and schools concerning their academic performance. In the penetrating query of a USA Today editorial, "What are parents supposed to think when their A-average children turn in test scores that are, well, average?" For more information you can contact the College Board staff at (212) 713-8502 or surf to http://www.collegeboard.org/press/senior01/html/082801.html.

Tom Loveless, The Brown Center on Education Policy, The Brookings Institution
September 2001

Last year's inaugural Brown Center Report on American Education-which found, inter alia, that many federally-recognized "blue ribbon" schools were none too effective-made quite a splash. (And federal officials responded, recently announcing that academic excellence will henceforth be the primary factor in selecting award recipients.) This year's report, authored by Brown Center Director Tom Loveless, may also ruffle a few education feathers. The first of its three sections takes a close look at reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-analyzing NAEP's several versions-and draws different conclusions than much-publicized recent studies by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP). But the analysis is complicated, due to the fact that different versions of the NAEP test yield different results over time. In general, Loveless finds, math results are improving while reading is stagnating. He speculates that this is because "math achievement is more dependent on 'within-school' activities and responds more quickly to curriculum changes," while reading achievement is more highly influenced by activities and experiences outside the classroom, rendering it more difficult to change. In part two of the report, Loveless looks into international comparisons, briefly recounting America's dismal performance on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), which placed the U.S. near the middle of world achievement. He then presents the findings of a new survey that the Brown Center conducted this past school year to determine how challenging American high school classes were for foreign exchange students compared to classes in the students' native countries. A whopping 56% of the 500 students surveyed labeled U.S. classes as much easier; 29% described them as a little easier. Just 11% found them harder. The report's final section seeks to estimate "the achievement gaps that urban schools must overcome to reach parity with their urban and suburban counterparts." It concludes that we cannot think of urban schools as monolithic because of the tremendous variation among them. Urban schools in the Sun Belt, for instance, tend to have higher achievement compared with their respective state averages than do schools elsewhere. There's a lot in this report; you will probably want your own copy. View it online at http://www.brookings.edu/GS/brown/bc_report/BC_Report_hp.htm or order one by contacting The Brown Center on Education Policy, The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036; telephone 202-797-6406; fax 202-797-2973.

Carrie Lips and Jennifer Jacoby, Cato Institute
September 17, 2001

After major voucher initiatives in California and Michigan were strongly defeated at the ballot box last fall, many school-choice advocates looked to education tax credits as a less controversial means to expand education opportunities for children. In this Cato Institute Policy Analysis, Carrie Lips and Jennifer Jacoby analyze the impact of Arizona's $500 education tax credit. Signed into law in 1997, the measure allows taxpayers to receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to nonprofit organizations that award scholarships to private elementary and secondary schools. Critics claim the credit amounts to a subsidy of private schools that will drain the public purse. Lips and Jacoby found, however, that although the state initially loses money, the tax credit is at least revenue neutral, since the state also saves money by having fewer pupils to educate in the public schools. (This saving arises when scholarship recipients were not already attending private schools, which is not always the case.) Other critics charge that the tax credit is a perk for rich taxpayers rather than a tool to help children trapped in failing or unsafe schools. The authors found that between 1998 and 2000, Arizona taxpayers contributed about $32 million to 30 scholarship organizations, financing 19,000 scholarships for students who were overwhelmingly low-income. Anyone interested in a serious alternative to vouchers should view the report-which includes tables and charts showing who is using the credits and where their money is going-at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-414es.html, or order a copy for $6 from the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC, 20001; phone 800-767-1241; fax 202-842-3490.

The school choice movement is gaining in complexity as lawmakers increasingly opt for tax credits instead of vouchers as a way to help citizens, poor and otherwise, pay private school tuition for their children.

Six states-Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida-already have laws that give taxpayers a credit for some education expenditures when they pay their taxes, though not all cover private school tuition. These tax credit plans come in two basic flavors. In some states (Illinois, for instance), individual taxpayers receive a credit against their tax liabilities for at least some of the private school tuition they pay for their children. In other states (Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida), individuals or corporations can receive tax credits for donating to special funds that award private school tuition scholarships to low-income children.

Here's a quick look at how tax credits work in a few states:

1) Tax credits for tuition payments:

a) Minnesota was the first state to offer tax credits for education-related spending. The credit was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983. Today families can get a credit of up to $2,500 a year for almost any education-related expense except private school tuition. (Private school tuition is, however, tax-deductible.)
b) In Illinois, nearly 134,000 families have taken advantage of the state's tuition tax credit, a break aimed at helping people send their children to private school by allowing families to subtract up to $500 from their tax bill for private school tuition expenses.

2) Tax credits for donations to scholarship funds:

a) Arizona's 1997 tax credit law-recently upheld by the state Supreme Court-allows individuals to make contributions of up to $500 to scholarship organizations and receive a 100% tax credit. The scholarship groups collect donations and award scholarships.
b) In Florida, corporations receive full credit against their tax liabilities for donations as large as $5 million to scholarship funds. (Total donations statewide under the program cannot exceed $50 million.)
c) Earlier this year, Pennsylvania made it possible for corporations to get a tax break in return for donating up to $100,000 to scholarship organizations that assist low and moderate income families. Corporations receive a tax credit of 75% of the amount of their donation, 90% if the company agrees to make the donation for two consecutive years. Once $20 million has been raised statewide, however, the tax credit will not be available for any additional donations.

Which kinds of tax credit plans are likely to raise the most money for scholarships, funds based on corporate contributions (Florida, Pennsylvania) or those based on individual contributions (Arizona)? Corporations have deeper pockets and are capable of making much larger donations, but pressure from teachers' unions and other organizations may discourage them from supporting private education. Individuals don't have to worry about the PR implications of supporting school choice, but few can write such big checks, and they may also be less likely to know about a tax credit law.

Tax credits are seen as superior to vouchers in some political and policy circles. Bret Schundler, the Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey and one of the standard-bearers for school choice, is now pushing for tax credits instead of vouchers. The Cato Institute has published a series of reports on tax credits, including one, The Arizona Scholarship Tax Credit: Giving Parents Choices, Saving Taxpayers Money, released just this week. (A summary appears below.)

Part of what makes tax credit plans appealing is their indirectness; it's difficult for opponents to complain about money being "drained" from public schools or to charge the government with violating the separation of church and state if people's taxes are simply being lowered. In contrast to a voucher plan, the government is not sending money to a private school, but simply taking in less revenue. Tax credits ordinarily involve less government involvement with private schools than voucher programs do, and therefore less tampering with those elements that make private schools successful.

Yet many voucher supporters are deeply suspicious of tax credit plans. Tax credits for families paying private school tuition (as in Illinois) benefit families who pay taxes and can afford private school tuition, but may not help poorer families. Tax credit laws can be difficult to understand. If credited donations remain capped (as in Florida, which only allows $50 million a year in donations), only a fraction of eligible kids might be able to receive scholarships to attend private schools.

But tax credits might be the best we can do after the dismal election-day performances of voucher ballot measures in California and Michigan. And the speed at which so many states are now passing (or considering) tax credit laws is heartening, more so, certainly, than the pace of voucher progress today. -Matthew Clavel

"School-Choice Alternatives," by Dan Lips, National Review Online, September 6, 2001,

"Extra Credit," The Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2001, (available only to subscribers)

WAY TO GO, MR. PRESIDENT! THAT WAS A HELLUVA SPEECH. WE'RE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY!

It's been more than a little upsetting to watch the education community respond to last Tuesday's terrible attack on the United States. The prize for greediest, most self-promoting and solipsistic response goes to an outfit called the Public Education Network. Within 24 hours of the tragedy, they issued a statement that, after a few pieties, proclaimed that "access to a high-quality public education is the bedrock of our democracy" and urged that "as important calls for rethinking our commitment to our national defense and the war terrorism are made, the Public Education Network asks policymakers and citizens to remember the important role that public education plays...." Translation: "We're so selfish that we think our stuff is more important than the security of a nation within which our stuff is possible." Maybe they'd like to spend a little time experiencing "public education" under the Taliban.

Far more widespread have been well-meaning efforts to help schools, teachers and parents respond appropriately to children during this traumatic time. Many educators are struggling with how best to do this, and all of us welcome well-formulated advice about how to deal with kids' fears and anxieties. When something awful happens, it's normal for a child to wonder whether it could happen to him-and to be fearful until the grownups in his life offer comfort and reassurance. So it's great to advise grownups on handling the emotional and psychological parts of all this. And for the many children directly impacted by last Tuesday's tragedy-through loss of friends, relatives, neighbors, etc.-how the grownups respond to their emotional needs is doubly important.

But trouble arises when we turn to the political and moral dimensions of these events for the millions of children not immediately affected by them. The attacks created an important "teachable moment" and raised urgent questions in kids' minds about why they occurred. So what lessons should educators (and parents, etc.) impart?

No doubt some are doing a fine job. But not all. The worst-lesson prize goes to the Maryland teacher, one of whose 12 year old pupils offered this account to The Washington Post: "Why do some people hate America? Why did they do it? They wanted to bomb our symbols. That's what my mom said. Because we're bossy. That's what my teacher said. She said it's because we have all the weapons and we think we can boss other countries around. They're jealous of us."

America, in this rendering, has only itself to blame for the other guys' aggression. I'm reminded of the depths of the Cold War when the unilateral-disarmers produced "nuclear winter" curricula for U.S. classrooms that said, in effect, that America is responsible for the world's parlous state and if we would only renounce our militaristic ways everyone would be a lot safer.

Need I add that history shows just the opposite to have been the truth?

Not all the dubious instructional advice that has flooded the airwaves and websites in recent days takes the form of "blaming America." Much more widespread is simple disregard for patriotism and democratic institutions, non-judgmentalism toward those who would destroy them, and failure to teach about the heroism and courage of those who defend them.

Article after article and website after website counsels teachers to promote tolerance, peace, understanding, empathy, diversity and multiculturalism. Here, for example, are some excerpts from a broadside by the National Association of School Psychologists. (If you'd like to see the whole miserable thing, surf to http://www.nasponline.org/NEAT/crisis_0911.html)

"A natural reaction to horrific acts of violence like the recent terrorist attacks on the United States is the desire to lash out and punish the perpetrators.... While anger is a normal response felt by many, we must ensure that we do not compound an already great tragedy....Most importantly, adults must model tolerance and compassion in their words and behavior. They should also encourage children to explore their feelings about prejudice and hate....Violence and hate are never solutions to anger....All people deserve to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity....Vengeance and justice are not necessarily the same....We need to work for peace in our communities and around the world. The best way that we can stand up for our country at this point is to unite behind the principals (sic) that make us strong...Tolerance is a lifelong endeavor...Avoid stereotyping people or countries that might be home to the terrorists....Address the issue of blame factually....Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters....Discuss how it would feel to be blamed unfairly by association....Emphasize positive, familiar images of diverse ethnic groups....Read books with your children that address prejudice, tolerance, and hate."

Some of that is fine, but nowhere in this or many similar efforts do we find the suggestion that teachers should also read books with their pupils that address patriotism, freedom and democracy, that deal in a realistic way with the presence of evil, danger and anti-Americanism in the world, or that hail the heroism of those who have defended our land against foreign aggressors-including those who perished last week.

If you look hard, you can find some worthy exceptions. On September 14, for example, the U.S. Department of Education launched a mostly-swell website that includes (in the Department's own advice for educators and other grownups) the suggestion that "adults...can explain that we were attacked because of our commitment to protecting the freedom, opportunity and safety of people throughout the world. They can point out the bravery and goodness of those who have already done so much to help the victims, and reinforce that our country will prevail....Remind your students about the value of living in a country that respects individual liberty and the rule of law. Talk about the principles that led to the independence of our country....Engage in patriotic activities...."

Bravo. But even the Education Department's website (http://www.ed.gov/inits/september11/index.html) refers people to the school psychologists and some of the other purveyors of relativistic foolishness.

It would be nice to insulate our children from ideological differences among adults. But that isn't going to happen. So let's guard against those who would use these "teachable moments" to channel dubious lessons into the minds of kids. And pause a moment to ask whether our schools are doing what they should to ensure that today's students become tomorrow's patriots.

The New York City Board of Education has figured out how to privatize schools without seeming to. Last spring, parents at five troubled public schools voted down the Edison Project, and it appeared that nonpublic managers were not welcome in the school system. That turns out to be untrue. This fall, the system turned over a new school to Bard College, which is now operating Bard High School Early College.

This program gives Bard President Leon Botstein a chance to try out his ideas about what to do with the traditional four years of high school. Botstein has written several articles on the subject, and now the Board of Education has given him his own public school. The four-year program will allow its students to collect a two-year college degree when they graduate, to prove Botstein's belief that eleventh grade students are ready for college studies. Bard College will have considerable control of admissions, staffing, curriculum, and other key decisions.

The Bard program is one of many examples of quiet privatization; it joins the dozens of schools managed by New Visions for Public Education, the Center for Collaborative Education, the Consortium for Public Education, and other nonprofit organizations, which, like Bard have gained unusual control over school curriculum and staffing.

This manner of privatization seems to be far less controversial than the for-profit operation of Edison, or than the creation of charter schools, which continues to limp along at a snail's pace.

"Getting an Early Jump on College," by Karen Arenson, The New York Times, September 6, 2001, (An abstract is free; the full text of the article must be purchased.)

The day before the disaster in New York City, The New York Times reported good news about City University of New York. This is a story that deserves to be told, not forgotten.

One of the most polarized debates in New York City in recent years occurred when the trustees of the City University of New York (CUNY) decided two years ago to set minimum standards for entry for freshmen. The very idea that college students should be expected to read, write, and do mathematics unleashed paroxyms of rage: Students demonstrated, professors ranted, and The New York Times printed story after story about how equality of educational opportunity was endangered in the city's public university system.

Readers with a long memory or advanced years will recall that CUNY adopted "open admissions" under extreme pressure in 1969, in response to student demonstrations (actually, students chained themselves to college gates to demand the end of admissions standards and the city quickly capitulated). Every graduate of the New York City public schools was guaranteed admission, regardless of their ability to pass simple (10th grade level) tests of basic skills. With the arrival of large numbers of students who were not prepared for college work, the City College of New York (once known as the Harvard of the proletariat), Brooklyn College, and other senior colleges within the CUNY system, saw their graduation rates plummet and their faculty's energies increasingly devoted to remediation rather than higher education.

Well, the CUNY trustees-courageously led by Herman Badillo-followed through on their promise to end open admissions, and to direct unprepared students to the system's community colleges, and the sky did not fall. In fact, The New York Times reported last week that enrollment was rising in most of the eleven senior colleges of the CUNY system, along with standards. Having sent the weakest students-those who could not pass not-very-demanding tests of reading, writing, and math-to the community colleges, the senior colleges nonetheless saw a jump in enrollment, confounding those who predicted dire and inequitable consequences.

One of the most outspoken critics, a professor of psychology at City College, continued to warn that the new policy might be excluding immigrants, Latinos and other students who had not mastered English, although no figures are available for the new students' demography. And then, too, one must wonder what benefit students who are unable to read and write English will get from higher education that is conducted entirely in English.

In time, we will know more about the racial and ethnic composition of those admitted to CUNY, but in the meanwhile we can all be reassured to know that the act of setting admission standards has produced a larger student body and a better prepared student body. This is surely good news for both faculty and students at the City University.

"Enrollment and Standards Rise at CUNY," by Karen Arenson, The New York Times, September 10, 2001, (An abstract is free; the full text of the article must be purchased.)

In response to parents who were uncomfortable with the existing sex ed curriculum, one school district in Minnesota created a two-track program, offering an abstinence-only class alongside the traditional one, which covers contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and other hot topics. Parents could enroll their child in the class of their choice. The tale of how conflicts among members of the Osseo (Minn.) Human Sexuality Curriculum Advisory Committee led to divisions in the district's high schools and the community at large is told in "The Sex-Ed Divide," by Sharon Lerner, The American Prospect, special supplement, Fall 2001, http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/lerner-s.html

To get around uniform salary schedules that prevent schools and districts from paying extra for teachers with rare skills, these teachers could be hired on a contract basis and shared by many schools, suggests education policy thinker Paul Hill. An advanced physics teacher could work in two or three different high schools rather than just one, maybe even while still working part-time in industry. Hill suggests that the specialist teachers could be employed by teacher cooperatives, which would contract with districts and pay salaries and benefits to teachers based on scarcity of skills and individual performance. For more, see "Solving Shortages through Teacher Cooperatives," Hoover Institution Weekly Essay, September 17, 2001, http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/current/hill_0901.html

Neighborhood activists in Chicago think hiring illegal immigrants who taught in their homelands could be a solution to chronic teacher shortages in the Chicago Public Schools. Lawyers for the school district are researching the many hurdles facing this proposal; opponents argue that rewarding immigrants who have broken the law sends the wrong signal to children. For details, see "Answer to Teacher Shortage May Be Near," by Oscar Avila, Chicago Tribune, September 16, 2001. http://chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0109160392sep16.story

We need to stop thinking of teacher training as imparting a set of prefabricated solutions to predictable problems and instead encourage prospective teachers to delve into the subjects they love and then apprentice themselves to master teachers, according to Deborah Wadsworth of Public Agenda and Daniel Coleman of Bennington College. The authors describe an innovative program offered at Bennington, which has no education school or department and offers no traditional "methods" courses, but nonetheless trains liberal arts students as teachers. For more see "From Training to Transformation: How Liberal Arts Colleges Can Bring the Best Students into Teaching," American School Board Journal, October 2001 (not yet available online).

Carrie Lips and Jennifer Jacoby, Cato Institute
September 17, 2001

After major voucher initiatives in California and Michigan were strongly defeated at the ballot box last fall, many school-choice advocates looked to education tax credits as a less controversial means to expand education opportunities for children. In this Cato Institute Policy Analysis, Carrie Lips and Jennifer Jacoby analyze the impact of Arizona's $500 education tax credit. Signed into law in 1997, the measure allows taxpayers to receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to nonprofit organizations that award scholarships to private elementary and secondary schools. Critics claim the credit amounts to a subsidy of private schools that will drain the public purse. Lips and Jacoby found, however, that although the state initially loses money, the tax credit is at least revenue neutral, since the state also saves money by having fewer pupils to educate in the public schools. (This saving arises when scholarship recipients were not already attending private schools, which is not always the case.) Other critics charge that the tax credit is a perk for rich taxpayers rather than a tool to help children trapped in failing or unsafe schools. The authors found that between 1998 and 2000, Arizona taxpayers contributed about $32 million to 30 scholarship organizations, financing 19,000 scholarships for students who were overwhelmingly low-income. Anyone interested in a serious alternative to vouchers should view the report-which includes tables and charts showing who is using the credits and where their money is going-at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-414es.html, or order a copy for $6 from the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC, 20001; phone 800-767-1241; fax 202-842-3490.

College Board
2001

You may already know all you need about the College Board's recent release of the 2000-1 SAT scores. Even though this test remains controversial, though some colleges are backing away from it, and though everyone knows the test-taking population is not representative of the U.S. student population (it included 45% of 2001 high school graduates) and that it changes over time, these numbers are still widely used as a barometer of the performance of K-12 education. The short version: math was flat last year, verbal up a single point. The College Board wants you to think this is good news, part of a decade-long rising trend. Some of us remember, though, that this was the same decade when the Board opted to "re-center" all its scores because they had sagged so badly. Indeed, if you adjust for the re-centering and look over a longer period of time, the news is none too good, especially with respect to the verbal score, now at 506 compared to 530 in 1972. Math is somewhat rosier-514 today versus 509 in 1972-and surely better than its low of 492 in the early 1980's. It's also important to note, as Education Secretary Rod Paige commented, that the new data reveal as grave a black-white test score gap as ever-though both have risen. And the College Board itself remarked upon the evidence of rampant grade inflation: the GPA of test-takers in 2001 was 3.28, compared with 3.10 a decade earlier, and test-takers with A averages now number 41%, compared with 28% in 1991. Moreover, the SAT scores of the A students are themselves declining (not too surprising, as more youngsters are found in that sub-population). As Secretary Paige remarked, there's reason for concern if SAT scores are basically flat, NAEP scores are basically flat yet the kids themselves are getting ever rosier feedback from teachers and schools concerning their academic performance. In the penetrating query of a USA Today editorial, "What are parents supposed to think when their A-average children turn in test scores that are, well, average?" For more information you can contact the College Board staff at (212) 713-8502 or surf to http://www.collegeboard.org/press/senior01/html/082801.html.

Tom Loveless, The Brown Center on Education Policy, The Brookings Institution
September 2001

Last year's inaugural Brown Center Report on American Education-which found, inter alia, that many federally-recognized "blue ribbon" schools were none too effective-made quite a splash. (And federal officials responded, recently announcing that academic excellence will henceforth be the primary factor in selecting award recipients.) This year's report, authored by Brown Center Director Tom Loveless, may also ruffle a few education feathers. The first of its three sections takes a close look at reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-analyzing NAEP's several versions-and draws different conclusions than much-publicized recent studies by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP). But the analysis is complicated, due to the fact that different versions of the NAEP test yield different results over time. In general, Loveless finds, math results are improving while reading is stagnating. He speculates that this is because "math achievement is more dependent on 'within-school' activities and responds more quickly to curriculum changes," while reading achievement is more highly influenced by activities and experiences outside the classroom, rendering it more difficult to change. In part two of the report, Loveless looks into international comparisons, briefly recounting America's dismal performance on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), which placed the U.S. near the middle of world achievement. He then presents the findings of a new survey that the Brown Center conducted this past school year to determine how challenging American high school classes were for foreign exchange students compared to classes in the students' native countries. A whopping 56% of the 500 students surveyed labeled U.S. classes as much easier; 29% described them as a little easier. Just 11% found them harder. The report's final section seeks to estimate "the achievement gaps that urban schools must overcome to reach parity with their urban and suburban counterparts." It concludes that we cannot think of urban schools as monolithic because of the tremendous variation among them. Urban schools in the Sun Belt, for instance, tend to have higher achievement compared with their respective state averages than do schools elsewhere. There's a lot in this report; you will probably want your own copy. View it online at http://www.brookings.edu/GS/brown/bc_report/BC_Report_hp.htm or order one by contacting The Brown Center on Education Policy, The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036; telephone 202-797-6406; fax 202-797-2973.