The Education Gadfly Weekly

Patrick J. Wolf and Stephen Macedo, editors, The Brookings Institution
2004

Much of the value of this terrific and timely but bulky (400 page) Brookings volume can be gotten from its fine introductory chapter by co-editors Macedo (Princeton) and Wolf (Georgetown). Ten more chapters offer case studies of the interplay of school choice and civic values in Europe and Canada, while the final five essays by U.S. experts seek to adduce lessons for the American policy context. The basic dilemma explored in these pages is familiar to everyone who has been awake during our school choice debates: will more choice lead to worrisome civic fragmentation and balkanization as diverse schools erase the hope of shared values and "common schooling?" The conceptualizers of this project sensibly went off to see what might be learned from the experience of countries where publicly funded school choice is normal rather than something viewed as a risky policy innovation. The findings are fascinating and illuminating. Though it's never easy to generalize about the education systems of other countries or to apply their experience in the American context, the basic finding of this book is that other countries accommodate pluralism, diversity, and choice in the supply of primary-secondary education by extending to all schools, public and private, a high degree of government regulation. It takes many forms, to be sure, sometimes focusing on inputs (e.g. curriculum, teacher qualifications), sometimes on school "inspections," sometimes on academic results. But as the co-editors observe in their introduction, "The story that follows is in the main about a certain sort of publicly funded pluralism in education: pluralism justified by value differences but contained by significant regulation and tamed by systems that ensure accountability. This is not a story about wide-open market competition among minimally regulated schools." There's plenty here to ponder as the U.S. school-choice debate evolves from whether there should be any to the terms on which it will be done and the policy structures within which it will be implemented. The ISBN is 0815795173 and you can obtain more information here.

Ted Kolderie, Education/Evolving
September 2004

The basic premise of this book is that states need finally to move beyond trying to fix their broken systems of education - the "old public-utility model" - by focusing their reform efforts squarely on creating "new schools." In short, the author argues, it's easier to create new schools - charter schools, contracted schools, site-managed schools - than to fix a broken Industrial Age system laden with layers of entrenched special interests. According to Kolderie, one of America's foremost charter school pioneers, it's time for policy makers and educators to "acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the effort simply to transform existing schools." Why? All children don't learn the same way so they need different schools that actually meet their needs and align with their individual learning styles. How to create the capacity for change? First, state leaders need to accept the premise that the system is broken. Second, they need to create policy space for the emergence of "new schools." Third, they need to provide real incentives for districts to change. Fourth, district leaders need to stop thinking of themselves as the owners and operators of schools, and start thinking of themselves as the "education board" overseeing and managing a portfolio of individually operated schools. Kolderie is describing the future of education, where schools are largely free of bureaucratic red-tape, micro-managing outsiders, and indiscriminate demands. In return, they are responsible for truly educating all their children and managing their organizations. However, this freedom comes with the responsibility to provide the "education board," the state, parents, and taxpayers with quality academic and financial information that shows that schools are indeed producing results. Now all that's needed is for the establishment to step out of the way. To order the book, go to: www.educationevolving.org.

Brian C. Anderson, The Philanthropy Roundtable
2004

Herewith an excellent introduction to the world of school choice. Anderson is writing mainly for donors and does a fine job of explaining how various strategies provide more (or less) bang for your funding buck. He begins by outlining the pros and cons of various choice options, including private scholarships, vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. His analysis of each option is brief but insightful. After a short interlude on the urgency of simply increasing the supply of good choice options, Anderson proceeds to the heart of the report: seven "imperatives" for reform-minded philanthropists. This candid section emphasizes strategies for practicing "tactical philanthropy" and, like the rest of the report, features honest, helpful advice from people on the front lines of the education wars.. Qualified donors can get free copies, and others can receive copies for $1.50, by emailing [email protected].

Outgoing education secretary Rod Paige is a great education reformer and distinguished public servant who leaves office after four years of accomplishment, candor, nonstop dedication to America's children, and loyal service to the Bush administration.

With Cabinet members exiting in droves, it's hard to know for sure who's being nudged out the door and who is leaving on their own volition. Paige had signaled that he was game to stick around a while longer, but the White House reportedly wanted a four-year commitment, which is a lot to ask of a 71-year-old. So as he packs to return to Texas, let us dwell not on the circumstances of his departure but on his achievements, his legacy, and his character. "We all serve at the pleasure of the President," he told his staff, "and it is perfectly appropriate that I leave now."

Rod Paige wasn't perfect in this role. He is not, for example, a great public speaker when working off a prepared text. (He is wonderfully eloquent, sometimes thrilling, when he speaks from the heart.) He tends to voice the truth as he sees it, even when it upsets folks. (One can scarcely forget his apt - if politically incorrect - comparison of the NEA to a "terrorist organization" or his terrific Wall Street Journal critique of the NAACP leadership.)

What he was, however, what he is, is a dedicated educator of children and crusader for better breaks for the poorest and neediest among them. A black man who rose from the humblest start in Jim Crow's Mississippi, a product of segregated schools, he became a teacher, coach, administrator, counselor, dean, school board member, and, in time, the reforming superintendent of the largest school system in Texas.

He left that post to travel to Washington at Mr. Bush's behest and there he led the Education Department for four eventful years. He didn't always have the leeway he should have to lead it as well as he could. The White House tether was shorter than in previous administrations, far shorter than when I worked there with Bill Bennett in the late 1980s. Paige had limited authority to pick his team and less to pick his policy targets.

He is, for example, a stalwart believer in the power of school choice, both to create opportunities for children and to put transformative pressure on "the system." But (save for the new D.C. voucher project and the valiant efforts of the Department's small "innovation and improvement" office) this has not been a choice-minded administration. Indeed, the person named yesterday to be Paige's successor, White House policy maestro Margaret Spellings, is a standards-testing-accountability booster who can be counted upon to defend and extend the No Child Left Behind act, but who has signaled that the only way to fix American K-12 education is to lean on "the system" from above, not to empower its clients. (See "The G.O.P. education opportunity" for more.) A smart woman, Bush loyalist and skilled staffer, perhaps Spellings will demonstrate in her highly visible new role that she has more than one policy gun in her arsenal and the personal attributes that will cause people to want to follow where she leads. We wish her well.

Back to Paige. A short tether, yes, but he made the most of his position. He tirelessly barnstormed the country, talking of the need to boost achievement and leave no child behind. He implemented NCLB with conviction and steadfastness, occasionally nudging it toward a bit more flexibility and reasonableness. That epochal statute is now, in Paige's words, "indelibly launched. A culture of accountability is gripping the American educational landscape."

The Secretary also did his best, despite yawns at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to revamp teacher training and certification; to reform the special ed program (which showed some results yesterday when the Congressional conference committee finished work on it); and to make overdue changes in higher ed and vocational ed. He invested the Education Department's skimpy discretionary dollars in boldly reformist initiatives, such as the American Board for Certification of Teaching Excellence. He oversaw a wholesale revamp of the Department's research and evaluation functions, including wider use of experimental designs (even control groups!) in most federal studies.

Though scarcely noted by the press, Paige also shaped up the Education Department's tattered management and accounting systems. (He was helped in this venture by such able colleagues as Bill Hansen, Gene Hickok, and John Danielson). The agency is, for example, getting its third consecutive "clean audit," which may not sound like much but is a lot better than the alternative - and tons better than what he inherited from the Clinton team.

Some of his other accomplishments will bear fruit after his departure, such as rigorous appraisals of curricula and instructional programs by the new "What Works Clearinghouse," regulations that open the door for single-sex schools, and Washington's most successful outreach effort to community- and faith-based organizations.

Along the way, Rod Paige showed himself to be a good boss, effective leader, friend to many, and thoroughly decent human being. But he never let the grown-ups get in the kids' way. He is a children's educator, not a panderer to adult interests.

And time and again he used his bully pulpit to address the moral imperative of gap-closing and to frame civil rights correctly for the 21st century. Read, for example, his superb Harvard address on the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. In fact, while you're at it, read a selection of Paige's speeches and statements, which you can find here. This isn't just the oeuvre of a dutiful federal official. It's the work of a dedicated educator, a serious reformer, a rigorous thinker, and a courageous man.

I'm going to miss Rod Paige. So will America's children.

"Education pick comes from inside Bush circle," by Gail Russell Chaddock, Christian Science Monitor, November 18, 2004

"Reformer' named education chief," by George Archibald, Washington Times, November 18, 2004

"Resignations signal several new faces for Cabinet," by James Lakely and George Archibald, Washington Times, November 16, 2004

"Education Secretary Paige plans to step down," by Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen, Washington Post, November 13, 2004

For the third time since the law was enacted in 1999, Florida's Court of Appeals ruled that the state's Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows students in failing schools to use vouchers to attend a public or private school of their choice, violates the state constitution's controversial Blaine Amendment. (For more click here.) In the 8-5-1 ruling (one judge disagreed with both the majority and the dissent because he felt that the program's constitutionality should be decided on a school-by-school basis), Judge William Van Nortwick declared that "courts do not have the authority to ignore the clear language of the Constitution, even for a popular program with a worthy purpose." To add additional fuel to the anti-voucher fire, five of the majority judges signed a separate opinion that suggested the law could also be unconstitutional under a different provision outlining the state's duty to provide a "uniform, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public education." Dissenting from the decision was a forceful minority of five judges who argued that "the Florida Constitution should not be construed in a manner that tips the scales of neutrality in favor of more restrictions and less free exercise of religion." The case now moves to the state Supreme Court, which must weigh the impact of extending this narrow interpretation of Florida's Blaine Amendment to other programs where state funds reach a religiously affiliated institution. According to the Institute for Justice, the ruling may put in jeopardy other state programs, including the McKay Scholarships (click here for more), state-subsidized childcare, and college scholarships. Some say that broad attack is precisely what the teachers' unions seek.

"Florida court of appeal strikes down school choice program," Institute for Justice, November 12, 2004

"Another ruling against vouchers," Lakeland Ledger, November 15, 2004

"The governor's voucher stall," St. Petersburg Times, November 16, 2004

On Wednesday, just after noon, I typed the term "teacher" into the Google news alert search engine. Here are five of the 10 headlines that came back:

• "Teacher won't be charged with crime," about a teacher accused of attacking a student.
• "Appeals court says Racine district must release teacher's records," about a teacher accused of sexual assault.
• "School board suspends teacher," for unspecified "inappropriate conduct."
• "Child porn teacher is spared jail," self-explanatory.
• "Teacher caught up in prostitution raid in motel," ditto.

Not an edifying result.

Now, would it be appropriate for me to conclude from this survey of an ordinary day's news that half of all teachers are violent and/or sexually twisted? Of course not. Every reasonable person knows that bad news gets play while the boring good news doesn't. Reasonable people further understand that in any large population there are rotten apples who ought not spoil our perception of the whole bushel. Suggesting that all, or most, or even many teachers are abusers because some are would be an injustice.

Unfortunately, that very injustice is frequently perpetrated on home schoolers.

The Akron Beacon-Journal has this week been running a series on home schooling that in years of biased reporting on education may just take the cake. Here's a gem from one story, headlined "Racists can use home schools to train youths":

Home schooling has a strain of racism running through it that may reflect similar ideas held by others in the broader society. There are no studies or numbers to put racism and home schooling in perspective, but home-schooling laws that ensure that parents have the freedom to make socialization choices for their children also allow some families to completely withdraw from society.

Let's unpack the nonsense: Home schooling has a strain of racism running through it that may reflect similar ideas held by others in the broader society. So, is home schooling racist, or is society racist, or both, or none? Is there more racism in home schooling than in the broader society? Who are these "others" - you, me, the local Klan? In sum, what precisely does this sentence mean? There are no studies or numbers to put racism and home schooling in perspective and we are not going to go to the effort of finding any, evidence being unnecessary when vague intimations accomplish the same purpose. But home-schooling laws that ensure that parents have the freedom to make socialization choices for their children also allow some families to completely withdraw from society. Yup, and the freedom to drive means that some people will get into car wrecks and the freedom to watch "Last Comic Standing" means that some people will turn into mush-brained morons and the freedom to. . . . You get the point.

This tedious series goes on, and on some more, in similar vein. With nary a shred of proof, the Beacon-Journal suggests that the ranks of home schoolers are rife with child abusers, white supremacists, and other maladjusted folks; that home schooling often amounts to nothing more than tagging along while Mom shops for groceries; and, in a particularly obnoxious twist (because the Beacon-Journal's own trumped-up data show the exact opposite), that home-schooled children are at greater-than-average risk to their physical safety. Of course, the hoary old charge that home schoolers aren't properly "socialized" is repeated ad nauseam. The writers even trot out a nameless "public educator" to sniff that "those are the ones who fall under the radar," speaking of home schooling parents who "want to control their children's education." The nerve of them!

Forget for a second the Orwellian tint of that charge. (You . . . will . . . be . . . socialized!) Forget the absurdity of this anonymous "public educator," more than likely tenured, who refuses to put his name behind an accusation that would have zero consequences to his career, safety, or reputation. Even forget the cowardice of a reporter who lets said public educator get away it, the heck with journalistic ethics. To get to brass tacks: who the hell's business is it to decide which kids will be socialized, and how? I'd plump for parents, and I bet most Americans would, too.

There are more than 1.1 million home schoolers in this country (a number that may be underreported), more than all charter and voucher students combined. They come to home schooling for a variety of reasons, with close to half of their parents reporting that they are chiefly concerned about school environment or the academic quality of their children's schools (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=158#1933). This is a diverse, mature community that cannot be reduced to a Bible-thumpin', sister-marryin', gun-totin' cartoon. Are there abusers, racists, and other unsavory persons among the ranks of home schoolers? Sure, just as there are among public school teachers, corporate executives, carpenters, doctors, and any other large group. You can find fools, charlatans, and quacks anywhere. Perhaps even in such rarefied settings as the editorial offices of the Akron Beacon-Journal.

"Tracking home schooling: special report," by Doug Oplinger and Dennis J. Willard, Akron Beacon-Journal, November 15-17, 2004

Has the time come for value-added assessment? That's what some are suggesting in this Ed Week article by Lynn Olson. She reports that 16 states have written to the Education Department requesting permission to explore value-added assessments as a way of meeting NCLB requirements, with Ohio and Pennsylvania moving ahead to install such systems for state testing purposes. Unfortunately, while everyone seems to like value-added assessment as a tool for refining teaching strategies or informing curriculum decisions, state bureaucrats and teacher unions get jittery if anyone suggests that such assessments be used in "high-stakes situations." Meaning: use them so long as they don't count. Our view is that value-added assessments are critical to solving a central problem with NCLB: the wide disparity in "proficiency" targets state-by-state. When the administration goes to Congress to extend NCLB to high school, we hope they include this common sense fix.

"'Value-added' models gain in popularity," by Lynn Olson, Education Week, November 17, 2004

According to the National Education Association, of the 41 states that have reported their NCLB test results from spring 2004, 32 showed improvement in the number of schools meeting their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals. Cause for celebration? Perhaps. But before anyone makes grand claims, take a careful look at what those numbers mask. Specifically, while 32 states have reduced the number of schools that "need improvement," according to the Center on Education Policy, at least 35 states have amended the rules that determine which schools pass and which schools fail. As the Wall Street Journal reports, in North Carolina, for example, only 660 schools failed to meet AYP in 2004 - just half the number that didn't meet the state's AYP goal in 2003. But, since last year's AYP results were released, the Department of Education has allowed the Tar Heel State "to make 11 changes to the rules that the state uses to determine what its schools must do to meet the yearly target. One of those changes alone resulted in 10 percent more schools passing this year than last." The Education Department also allowed Delaware, among other states, to label a school district as failing "only if children at all three school levels - elementary, middle, and high school - miss their learning goals." (Previously, a district was deemed "in need of improvement" if children in one grade in any level failed to meet AYP - a rule that last year resulted in 17 of 19 Delaware districts being labeled "in need of improvement.") Nancy Wilson, head of the Delaware school improvement office, insists that "It's not about ducking accountability. It's about managing morale. These labels are morale busters." What, one wonders, is their current morale based on? Failure?

"Rule changes help schools stay ahead," by June Kronholz, Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2004 (subscription required)

The latest issue of Education Next came our way this week, and it's a good one. The cover story - Jim Traub's fascinating profile of the Hyde schools, where the focus is on rigorous character education - is a must-read. There's also a trio of articles about options for reworking the antiquated teacher pay schedule. A pair of essays discusses Chicago's program of ending social promotion in its public schools. The rest is good, too: Brad Bumsted gives us the scoop on Reading, Pennsylvania's failed NCLB lawsuit; David Steiner makes us worry (again) about ed school curricula; and there's a nice research piece on Tennessee's merit pay program. A fun bonus at the end: a much-needed summary of the Old Grey Lady's inability to deliver anything even remotely resembling rigorous education writing.

Education Next, Winter 2004

Brian C. Anderson, The Philanthropy Roundtable
2004

Herewith an excellent introduction to the world of school choice. Anderson is writing mainly for donors and does a fine job of explaining how various strategies provide more (or less) bang for your funding buck. He begins by outlining the pros and cons of various choice options, including private scholarships, vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. His analysis of each option is brief but insightful. After a short interlude on the urgency of simply increasing the supply of good choice options, Anderson proceeds to the heart of the report: seven "imperatives" for reform-minded philanthropists. This candid section emphasizes strategies for practicing "tactical philanthropy" and, like the rest of the report, features honest, helpful advice from people on the front lines of the education wars.. Qualified donors can get free copies, and others can receive copies for $1.50, by emailing [email protected].

Patrick J. Wolf and Stephen Macedo, editors, The Brookings Institution
2004

Much of the value of this terrific and timely but bulky (400 page) Brookings volume can be gotten from its fine introductory chapter by co-editors Macedo (Princeton) and Wolf (Georgetown). Ten more chapters offer case studies of the interplay of school choice and civic values in Europe and Canada, while the final five essays by U.S. experts seek to adduce lessons for the American policy context. The basic dilemma explored in these pages is familiar to everyone who has been awake during our school choice debates: will more choice lead to worrisome civic fragmentation and balkanization as diverse schools erase the hope of shared values and "common schooling?" The conceptualizers of this project sensibly went off to see what might be learned from the experience of countries where publicly funded school choice is normal rather than something viewed as a risky policy innovation. The findings are fascinating and illuminating. Though it's never easy to generalize about the education systems of other countries or to apply their experience in the American context, the basic finding of this book is that other countries accommodate pluralism, diversity, and choice in the supply of primary-secondary education by extending to all schools, public and private, a high degree of government regulation. It takes many forms, to be sure, sometimes focusing on inputs (e.g. curriculum, teacher qualifications), sometimes on school "inspections," sometimes on academic results. But as the co-editors observe in their introduction, "The story that follows is in the main about a certain sort of publicly funded pluralism in education: pluralism justified by value differences but contained by significant regulation and tamed by systems that ensure accountability. This is not a story about wide-open market competition among minimally regulated schools." There's plenty here to ponder as the U.S. school-choice debate evolves from whether there should be any to the terms on which it will be done and the policy structures within which it will be implemented. The ISBN is 0815795173 and you can obtain more information here.

Ted Kolderie, Education/Evolving
September 2004

The basic premise of this book is that states need finally to move beyond trying to fix their broken systems of education - the "old public-utility model" - by focusing their reform efforts squarely on creating "new schools." In short, the author argues, it's easier to create new schools - charter schools, contracted schools, site-managed schools - than to fix a broken Industrial Age system laden with layers of entrenched special interests. According to Kolderie, one of America's foremost charter school pioneers, it's time for policy makers and educators to "acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the effort simply to transform existing schools." Why? All children don't learn the same way so they need different schools that actually meet their needs and align with their individual learning styles. How to create the capacity for change? First, state leaders need to accept the premise that the system is broken. Second, they need to create policy space for the emergence of "new schools." Third, they need to provide real incentives for districts to change. Fourth, district leaders need to stop thinking of themselves as the owners and operators of schools, and start thinking of themselves as the "education board" overseeing and managing a portfolio of individually operated schools. Kolderie is describing the future of education, where schools are largely free of bureaucratic red-tape, micro-managing outsiders, and indiscriminate demands. In return, they are responsible for truly educating all their children and managing their organizations. However, this freedom comes with the responsibility to provide the "education board," the state, parents, and taxpayers with quality academic and financial information that shows that schools are indeed producing results. Now all that's needed is for the establishment to step out of the way. To order the book, go to: www.educationevolving.org.