The Education Gadfly Weekly

DC College Access Program, DC Education Compact, DC Public Schools, DC State Education Office
October 2006

This study confirms that the District of Columbia's public schools (DCPS), despite multiple reform efforts (see here and here), are still failing most of their students, particularly when it comes to college preparedness. According to the report, only 9 percent of D.C. ninth-graders will complete college within five years of graduating high school (compared with 23 percent nationwide). As its title suggests, the report focuses on how to double this number for today's ninth-graders--the high school class of 2010. The authors offer a "10-Point Plan." One recommendation, for instance, calls on the city to "put systems in place to monitor student progress." The District would thereby fall in line with such cities as New York and Philadelphia, both now using data tools to determine, among other things, when and why students drop out. Another recommendation is for D.C. to expand student access to college-prep curricula such as AP and IB. The report's final recommendations mostly concern the leap from high school to college and identify the need for: better guidance counseling for both parents and students; increased access to financial aid; more college-level guidance on matters such as student loans; and improved district relationships with area colleges. All in all, it's a solid plan for beginning to address the major challenges facing those in D.C. who aspire to graduate college. Although one wonders why the authors pay so little attention to deeper, potentially more effective, systemic reforms such as replicating successful charter school models. Regardless, the path that DCPS ultimately takes will rely on soon-to-be-Mayor Adrian Fenty, who seems poised to make a grab for control of the district. He should take a look at this report.

Hilary Pennington
Center for American Progress
October 2006

Students in China spend nearly 30 percent more time in school than their American peers. That's a bit shocking. But so, too, is the finding that, twenty-three years after A Nation at Risk, "the only recommendation that has not been implemented in any systematic way is the proposal for increasing learning time by extending the school day and/or year." This report examines high schools that require an extended learning day (rather than offer it as a voluntary elective), evaluates the success of these schools, and analyzes how such reforms could be accomplished on a larger scale. While more time in class is no "silver bullet" for raising student achievement, the author correctly notes, successful extended learning schools have some things in common. They supplement the added hours with a culture focused on preparation for life after high school, place high expectations upon their students, and offer a solid core curriculum. For example, University Park Campus School (UPCS) in Worcester, Massachusetts, a 7^th-12^th grade public high school recognized as one of the nation's best, requires all entering seventh graders to attend a month-long academy that force feeds them the institution's culture of academic achievement. Budget issues in Worcester forced the school to cut back its extended learning periods, so UPCS now uses extended learning at critical points--when students enter seventh grade, and when they're nearing graduation in eleventh and twelfth--instead of throughout a student's stay. The older students often spend their extended hours in internships or structured independent study. Nearly all the school's students--the majority of them low-income, minority, and immigrants--pass the state MCAS test on the first try, and all graduates have attended college. That type of success doesn't come about just from longer school days. It's the overwhelming achievement culture, of which extended learning may be a part, that breeds the success. Extra time can be wasted, too. The report profiles other successful schools, and how they're using extended learning to boost student achievement. Find it here.

Bryan Hassel, Charter School Leadership Council
February 2005

The short answer to the implied question in this report's title is: not enough but much of what we know is brighter than the New York Times wants you to think. Bryan Hassel of Public Impact looked at 38 studies of charter school achievement that meet certain criteria for timeliness, analytic seriousness, and scope. His report finds that the studies are all over the map, both in their usefulness and their findings. Some have serious methodological shortcomings (especially in looking at aggregated school performance rather than disaggregated student performance). About half, including the infamous AFT study from last August are less-useful snapshots rather than appraisals of performance over time. Of the 21 that do look at data over time, 12 find charters outpacing public school achievement gains generally or for specific at-risk populations, five call it a draw, and three say charters are behind. A murky picture, though on balance encouraging, and we should take to heart Hassel's call for more and better data and analysis of charter school performance. You can find the full report at http://www.charterschoolleadershipcouncil.org/PDF/Paper.pdf.

Any number of things can be said about next week's election and I will forbear from most of them. But one issue has surfaced that is genuinely alarming for education reformers: indications that some Democratic candidates (and office holders) are turning against standards-based reform and moving to roll back the assessment regimen that plays a crucial role in it.

A decade ago, when Bill Clinton proposed a form of national testing, I quipped that the political challenge this plan faced was that "Republicans don't like national and Democrats don't like testing." And in fact the Clinton proposal crashed and burned.
         
In the years since, however, standards-based reform has enjoyed bipartisan support in most states and certainly on Capitol Hill, where the mother of all standards-based measures, the No Child Left Behind act, was famously the joint product of two Democrats (Kennedy, Miller) and three Republicans (Gregg, Boehner, Bush). Most observers agree that it wouldn't otherwise have happened--and that without bipartisan backing in the future it probably cannot endure.
           
I don't know what a Democratic majority in the House and/or Senate during the 110^th Congress means for federal education policy in general and NCLB in particular. (I can certainly foresee livelier appropriations tussles, but it's hard to think the authorizing gridlock could get any worse!) 
           
In the states, however, trouble lies ahead if newly-elected leaders set out to tip over the tripod of standards, testing, and accountability. Indeed, trouble may already be at hand if this reform strategy has become a partisan football.

Washington Post reporter Peter Whoriskey recently wrote that "This election season may be the first in which the growing use of high-stakes school testing...has reached this level of political prominence," citing Texas, Florida and Ohio as specimens of places where statewide testing looms large in the gubernatorial contests (see here). The Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, Jim Davis, promises to "stop using the FCAT to punish children, teachers and schools." His counterpart in Texas is running a TV ad that says U.S. kids "should be leading the world, and they're not going to get there by filling in little ovals all day long." In Ohio, candidate Ted Strickland promises a top-to-bottom review of the state testing program.

An Associated Press story says Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick would keep the Bay State's well-regarded MCAS tests but de-emphasize their results in favor of educating the "whole child." (The Independent and Green party candidates, though electoral long-shots, would scrap MCAS as a graduation requirement.)

There's nothing wrong with fine-tuning a complex accountability system and adding elements that objective tests may not capture. I don't know any state that couldn't usefully improve its K-12 reform regimen. But the implication in all four of these state races, and doubtless others that I don't know about, is that mean Republicans have imposed punitive tests on innocent kids and teachers and kindly Democrats will ease this burden, if voters will just give them the opportunity.

In my experience, heavy-duty reform of any major public enterprise doesn't gain traction--or last long enough to prove itself--without bipartisan support. The premier case-in-point is of course welfare reform. It couldn't really happen, at least nationally, until leaders of both parties acknowledged the need for it, then enacted it, then stuck with it.

I thought NCLB heralded a similar era for standards-based education reform. Both parties compromised; many members of Congress took deep breaths, even held their noses, as favorite education nostrums were sacrificed on the altar of consensus.

If this now comes unglued at the state level, three problems will swiftly arise.

• More states will push back against NCLB, maybe even opt out of it, seek to ease its provisions and soften its enforcement.

• Educators, parents and students will conclude that standards-based reform, like (say) school uniforms, is a passing fad, something they can wait out rather than altering their behavior to comply with.
• Both parties will revert to type, with Democrats tending to lavish goodies on the teacher unions and Republicans pressing for vouchers--and each doing its best to stymie the other.

Above all, the achievement gains already associated in many places with standards-based reform will stop being realized and progress toward more universal proficiency will slow. We know that schools, teachers, and kids change slowly and any education reform takes time (and credibility and sustainability) to gather momentum. Reforming education means changing the behavior of reluctant people and resistant institutions. That's a slow and painful process, one far easier to halt than to accelerate.

Yet persistence pays off. The latest Fordham study, How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children?, illustrates some of this payoff. It looks at the achievement of poor and minority kids, state by state, as measured by NAEP; at changes over time in that achievement; and at a host of reforms, many dealing with standards and testing. While we don't claim social-scientific certainty (a rarity at best), we see clear linkages between states that have taken education reform seriously and those that can point to achievement gains among the kids who need them most. Quoting our report:

Interestingly, the top ten school reform states also made at least some progress--and in five cases, moderate progress--in boosting the achievement of their poor and minority students over the last decade or so. This is a welcome sign suggesting that setting clear, rigorous standards in the core subjects of the academic curriculum; holding schools accountable for helping all their students reach them; and giving parents meaningful choices appear to be a winning combination, especially for our most disadvantaged students. Which makes it all the more tragic that half the states in the nation are missing the bus on education reform.

The states in which poor and minority youngsters have racked up the greatest (albeit "moderate") achievement gains in recent years include Texas, Florida, and Massachusetts. (Ohio can claim "limited" gains.) What a shame it will be if that progress slows or ceases (or reverses) because the reform regimes that fostered it have the brakes put on. How ironic it will be if those brakes are applied by leaders of the party that purports to look out for the interests of the poor and minorities. What a disaster for America if states that have painfully climbed aboard the reform bus now jump back down into the roadside dirt.

Student Walter Petryk must have known when he donned a Hitler costume this past Tuesday morning that administrators at Leon M. Goldstein High School for the Sciences wouldn't be pleased. Probably for that precise reason, or because he had grown a mustache for the occasion, he did it anyway. Dean Paul Puglia removed Petryk from second period English: "Excuse me, führer, can I talk to you for a minute?" After convening in the hallway, Puglia asked the student, "Are you out of your mind, you idiot?" and told him, "Consider yourself my prisoner of war." Under interrogation, however, Petryk refused to remove the costume. Der Jugend's Jewish stepfather, Howard Bloom, editor of the New Paradigm book series and oft-censored author of The Lucifer Principle, defended the outfit as free expression. But fighting for free expression at school is one thing. Apparently, fighting for it (really fighting) on the New York subway is quite another--Petryk disguised himself as Charlie Chaplin during his morning commute.

"Hitler Youth H'Ween Shock," by David Andreatta and Patrick Gallahue, New York Post, November 1, 2006

"Makes no sense at all.... A truly dumb idea." A commentary on Mike Tyson's recent announcement that he wants to fight women? Nope. It's Koret Task Force member (and Stanford political science professor) Terry Moe's assessment of paying teachers based on tenure rather than merit. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Moe dismisses the idea that schools should "hire employees for life and pay them without regard for their performance." According to Moe, in a school, "like any organization, the key to effective performance lies in getting the incentives right... This is Management 101: elementary, fundamental, essential." So why don't more schools adopt these basic managerial practices? Moe says teachers unions present the biggest obstacle, although he optimistically claims that they "are surrounded by more incentive-pay brush fires than they can put out" (see here, here, here, and here). We think he's right. It's ridiculous to pay teachers of gym and physics the same wage, and to ignore teacher performance when calculating salaries and raises. The unions can't forever get away with denying the obvious.

"Management 101 for Our Public Schools," by Terry M. Moe, Wall Street Journal, October 31, 2006

Schools in Garfield, New Jersey, boast the latest in high-priced amenities, including a spanking new $40 million middle school. Odd for a blue-collar city with low school taxes, unless one knows that Garfield is in a so-called Abbott school district--one of 31 poor New Jersey districts that, by court order, have received $35 billion in state aid since 1997. Today, over half of all money each year allotted by Jersey to its 616 districts goes to those 31. The money seems to have helped in some places: 79.9 percent of Garfield's fourth graders, for example, reached the proficient level in language arts in 2005. But student achievement in other cities such as Camden has stagnated, and their schools are often mired in scandal. "Lots of money has been spent, and in some places, there is very little to show," said Lucille E. Davy, the state's education commissioner. New Jersey is right to base its school funding on need, but the Abbott formula is far too crude and, because it focuses on entire districts and not individual students, often ends up benefiting affluent kids in poor districts (at the expense of needy students in richer areas). But one can't expect much more from adequacy lawsuits, such as the one that generated the Abbott system. States take heed: To do need-based funding right, fund the child. And leave the courts out of it.

"In New Jersey, System to Help Poorest Schools Faces Criticism," by Winnie Hu, New York Times, October 30, 2006

Last week the Department of Education announced new rules that clear the way for public school districts to open single-sex schools and classrooms. Since then, a flood of criticisms from women's groups and some civil rights organizations has spewed forth.

The changes, they contend, portend the re-segregation of public schools and threaten to undermine the civil rights gains for women that so many have worked so hard to secure. Nancy Zirkin, vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, told Diana Jean Schemo of the New York Times, "Segregation is totally unacceptable in the context of race.... Why in the world in the context of gender would it be acceptable." (See story here.)

Siding with Zirkin are the National PTA, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women (NOW), and a host of others fretful that we are returning to a segregated society.

But for low-income parents who mostly create the demand for single-sex public schools and for educators who operate and support them, such schools present no challenge to civil rights. In fact, they are one of the keys to delivering what the civil rights movement promised: equal opportunity for all.

That's the opinion of William Lawson, who since 2002 has run the William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity middle school (WALIPP), a single-sex charter school in Houston. Lawson wanted a school that would cater to low-income black males, who, he argues, learn better in single-sex schools under the direction of black male teachers. "We think [our students] can learn better in an all male environment," he told the Houston Chronicle. And their soaring scores in math and reading suggest he's right. He's applied to convert his school from charter to traditional public.

Tom Carroll, chairman of the Brighter Choice Charter Schools in Albany, New York, has also seen first-hand the difference same-sex schools can make. Brighter Choice operates two schools-one for boys, one for girls-and their students have excelled in the classroom and on state exams (see here). And parents are responding. Roughly one-third of Albany's elementary students applied for the 50 single-sex slots available at his schools last year.

So impressed with Brighter Choice's success was Martin Luther King III that he spoke to the schools' leaders earlier this year. For King, Brighter Choices is an extension of the civil rights movement, not a threat to it.

Said King: "Like the American Civil Rights Movement, [Brighter Choice's] efforts to educate ... children ... is about liberation-liberation from prejudice, liberation from socially imposed limitations, and liberation of the dignity, capabilities, and potential for excellence that dwells in the heart of every human being."

Benjamin Wright, regional director of Victory Schools in Philadelphia, a private manager of public schools, would most likely agree with King.

In 2000, Wright was principal of the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School. Concerned about his students' abysmal test scores, he turned to single-sex education as a way to focus their attention and to allow teachers to target problems that plagued the majority of boys (poor English skills) and girls (poor math skills). He divided his troubled 343 students into boys' and girls' classes, and "turned the school upside down," he said. The boys in the school surged from just 10 percent meeting state reading requirements to 66 percent in two years. Girls' scores, too, climbed, though not as sharply.

Leonard Sax, executive director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Schools, has been in the vanguard of single-sex schools for more than a decade. Stories such as those told by Lawson, Carroll, and Wright aren't anomalies, he would argue. In fact, the evidence is mounting that single-sex schools work.

On his NASSPS website, Sax chronicles the growing number of studies that show the advantages, both academic and personal, that boys and girls reap when they attend single-gender schools. (Wealthy parents have known for years that single-sex education benefits their children, which is one reason why they dole out tens of thousands of dollars a year to send them to exclusive prep schools.) A review of research by Pamela Haag further strengthens Sax's conclusion (see here).

Still, Zirkin is unimpressed. Same-sex schools are "a gimmick," she tells CNN.com. "You don't know the impact on the other kids who are left behind."

But the children these schools are serving--mostly poor and minorities--have already been left behind. The bottom line, Sax explains, is that boys and girls learn differently. Recognizing this, and responding appropriately, only makes sense.

Single-sex schools aren't for everyone--Sax (as well as Lawson, Carroll, and Wright) will be the first to admit that. But for those who could potentially benefit, we owe it to them to give them this chance. It's a matter of basic civil rights.

DC College Access Program, DC Education Compact, DC Public Schools, DC State Education Office
October 2006

This study confirms that the District of Columbia's public schools (DCPS), despite multiple reform efforts (see here and here), are still failing most of their students, particularly when it comes to college preparedness. According to the report, only 9 percent of D.C. ninth-graders will complete college within five years of graduating high school (compared with 23 percent nationwide). As its title suggests, the report focuses on how to double this number for today's ninth-graders--the high school class of 2010. The authors offer a "10-Point Plan." One recommendation, for instance, calls on the city to "put systems in place to monitor student progress." The District would thereby fall in line with such cities as New York and Philadelphia, both now using data tools to determine, among other things, when and why students drop out. Another recommendation is for D.C. to expand student access to college-prep curricula such as AP and IB. The report's final recommendations mostly concern the leap from high school to college and identify the need for: better guidance counseling for both parents and students; increased access to financial aid; more college-level guidance on matters such as student loans; and improved district relationships with area colleges. All in all, it's a solid plan for beginning to address the major challenges facing those in D.C. who aspire to graduate college. Although one wonders why the authors pay so little attention to deeper, potentially more effective, systemic reforms such as replicating successful charter school models. Regardless, the path that DCPS ultimately takes will rely on soon-to-be-Mayor Adrian Fenty, who seems poised to make a grab for control of the district. He should take a look at this report.

Hilary Pennington
Center for American Progress
October 2006

Students in China spend nearly 30 percent more time in school than their American peers. That's a bit shocking. But so, too, is the finding that, twenty-three years after A Nation at Risk, "the only recommendation that has not been implemented in any systematic way is the proposal for increasing learning time by extending the school day and/or year." This report examines high schools that require an extended learning day (rather than offer it as a voluntary elective), evaluates the success of these schools, and analyzes how such reforms could be accomplished on a larger scale. While more time in class is no "silver bullet" for raising student achievement, the author correctly notes, successful extended learning schools have some things in common. They supplement the added hours with a culture focused on preparation for life after high school, place high expectations upon their students, and offer a solid core curriculum. For example, University Park Campus School (UPCS) in Worcester, Massachusetts, a 7^th-12^th grade public high school recognized as one of the nation's best, requires all entering seventh graders to attend a month-long academy that force feeds them the institution's culture of academic achievement. Budget issues in Worcester forced the school to cut back its extended learning periods, so UPCS now uses extended learning at critical points--when students enter seventh grade, and when they're nearing graduation in eleventh and twelfth--instead of throughout a student's stay. The older students often spend their extended hours in internships or structured independent study. Nearly all the school's students--the majority of them low-income, minority, and immigrants--pass the state MCAS test on the first try, and all graduates have attended college. That type of success doesn't come about just from longer school days. It's the overwhelming achievement culture, of which extended learning may be a part, that breeds the success. Extra time can be wasted, too. The report profiles other successful schools, and how they're using extended learning to boost student achievement. Find it here.

Bryan Hassel, Charter School Leadership Council
February 2005

The short answer to the implied question in this report's title is: not enough but much of what we know is brighter than the New York Times wants you to think. Bryan Hassel of Public Impact looked at 38 studies of charter school achievement that meet certain criteria for timeliness, analytic seriousness, and scope. His report finds that the studies are all over the map, both in their usefulness and their findings. Some have serious methodological shortcomings (especially in looking at aggregated school performance rather than disaggregated student performance). About half, including the infamous AFT study from last August are less-useful snapshots rather than appraisals of performance over time. Of the 21 that do look at data over time, 12 find charters outpacing public school achievement gains generally or for specific at-risk populations, five call it a draw, and three say charters are behind. A murky picture, though on balance encouraging, and we should take to heart Hassel's call for more and better data and analysis of charter school performance. You can find the full report at http://www.charterschoolleadershipcouncil.org/PDF/Paper.pdf.