The Education Gadfly Weekly

Philanthropy magazine
by Joanne Jacobs
October 2005

Those who dispute the "Great Man" theory of history may have to reconsider their position. Philanthropy magazine's essay on the late John Walton's influence on school choice leaves little room for doubting that a single person can change the world. The tribute, ably and eloquently penned by Joanne Jacobs, includes a parade of examples showing how Walton and his family's foundation catapulted school choice from a good idea shared by a few people to a nationwide movement. Consider just two of these. Walton (and Ted Forstmann) underwrote scholarships for 40,000 American students through the Children's Scholarship Fund. When CSF was launched, more than 1.2 million people applied. "That was the beginning of a national debate," says Gisele Huff, because the overwhelming interest made it "impossible to ignore the desperation of parents whose children were in low-quality public schools." Another example: the quarter-million dollars that the Walton foundation provided to each of more than 500 charter schools. Says NewSchools Venture Fund head Kim Smith, "I don't know if we'd have a charter school movement without John Walton." Indeed. Walton also backed and helped to build a network of state and local advocacy organizations, including the Black Alliance for Educational Options and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options. But Jacobs does more than capture the dollars and cents side of Walton's impact on education; she also evokes his persona and character. "Before the tenth anniversary gala for the Center for Education Reform," she writes, "...Walton asked whether he needed to rent a tuxedo." Seems he didn't want to because whenever he wore one, "people treated him differently." He was "Just John," says Jacobs, to everyone who met him - including me. I had the pleasure of talking briefly with him at an event in San Diego. Though surrounded by dozens, when I called out, "Mr. Walton, can I take your photo for Philanthropy magazine?" he stopped and replied, "Sure, but just call me John." Fortunately for us all, Walton's "just" being John was more than enough. And because of him, today there are hundreds of thousands of school children receiving a better education.

Greg Forster
The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation
October 2005

School choice starts with legislation, but it doesn't end there. Each choice program's success depends upon implementation, which is handled by school districts and state or local authorities who can aid the program with simple enlistment procedures or stifle it with convoluted participation policies. This Friedman Foundation study assesses how easy it is for students to participate in each of the nation's fourteen K-12 school-choice programs (choice, here, meaning vouchers, tax-funded scholarships, and tax credits and deductions - charter schools are conspicuously absent). Ratings are based on an analysis of eligibility criteria and application processes. The study also examines each program's history, noting the number of eligible students who participate year-to-year. The results? As one might expect, it's easy for parents and students to participate in some choice programs and hard to take part in others. Milwaukee's voucher system, for example, is rated "excellent." The city sets no application deadline, and students are admitted on a rolling basis. Interested parents can access application forms online or pick them up from participating schools. Finally, students need not reapply each year. On the other hand, Florida's A+ voucher program, rated "poor," is faulted for its procedural burdens. Participation is limited to students in schools whose schools have received an "F" grade (based on test scores) twice in four years. After the state announces school grades, parents of eligible students have two weeks to complete the web-only application process. The report finds that short window especially restraining. Author Greg Forster terms it "a major procedural burden," and writes that parents "do not even know whether they are eligible until school grades come out, at which point the two-week clock begins ticking." Perhaps that's why Milwaukee's voucher participation has skyrocketed over the past five years, and Florida's has not. Interested readers will be rewarded by this simple yet informative report. Find it here.

National Association of Secondary School Principals2005
National Association of State Boards of EducationOctober 2005

There are plenty of sound materials for teaching young children to read, but not many for instructing adolescents to do the same. Alas, these two new publications, aimed specifically at the problem of adolescent literacy, don't much help. Creating a Culture of Literacy is more of the same, tired whole-language rhetoric (successful literacy programs use "motivation," "self-directed learning," and "effective instructional principles embedded in content" to raise achievement). And despite its frequent invocation of the word "data," the report is seriously lacking in numbers to back up its claims. Of the five school-success profiles it offers, just one (J.E.B. Stuart High School in Virginia) references specific data to support its assertion that the adopted reading literacy curriculum had a positive impact. The study cites that school's overall improvement on the Virginia Standards of Learning Tests - passing rates in Reading and Literature jumped from 64 to 94 percent between 1998 and 2004. But these gains are suspect because most schools in Virginia have shown similar gains on state tests. Reading at Risk values phonics-based reading instruction, but its primary focus is influencing state leaders by encouraging them to set high literacy goals, paying for teacher training, and requiring districts to adopt only research-based literacy strategies, not discussing what does and doesn't work in the classroom. The report does reference both the Just Read, Florida! and the Alabama Reading Initiative programs, but details of these programs' successes with adolescents are lacking. Still, for those interested in influencing state leaders to set a sound policy course on secondary-school reading, this one is worth perusing.

OK, school reformers, it's pop-quiz time. Take out your # 2 pencils and circle the answer with which you agree.

To boost teacher quality, policy makers should:

a.     Allow principals to hire the best teachers they can find, regardless of credentials; or

b.     Require new teachers to pass a rigorous test of subject matter knowledge or possess a major in their field.

Do you find yourself wanting to answer "both, of course"? If so, join the club. And consider yourself part of the problem, because, frankly, together we have made a mess of teacher quality policy.

It's not for lack of good intentions. Unlike the teacher unions, whose positions on this issue cannot be disentangled from their members' self-interest, reformers can claim purity of heart and selflessness of intentions. But we are also of two minds. We feel the tug of competing values. And, too often, we try to split the difference, to have it both ways.

The values at war are deregulation versus academic rigor. Let's examine the case for each.

The argument for deregulation is strong. Much of the rhetoric of the standards-and-accountability movement (and its cousin, the charter school movement) is about results in return for flexibility, giving principals more power in return for stronger outcomes. Now that school leaders are in the hot seat, facing exposure and sanctions under No Child Left Behind if they don't boost achievement, they have every incentive to hire great teachers who can help them succeed in making adequate yearly progress (AYP). This was not always the case; in the bad old days before accountability, principals might have been tempted to engage in nepotism, or been too lazy to search out the best and the brightest. After all, results didn't much matter. But no longer. Surely any principal worth his salary knows that teacher quality is the number-one determinant of student achievement, at least among factors within his control.

Besides, so much of what makes a teacher effective is hard to measure (at least until the value he or she adds to student achievement can be determined). One study by analyst Dan Goldhaber found that 97 percent of a teacher's effectiveness could not be predicted by easy-to-measure factors such as test scores or certification status. While teachers with majors in their field, high scores on Praxis, and Ivy League pedigrees might, in general, outperform teachers without those attributes, exceptions abound. And a principal-who can interview the teacher candidate, talk to his or her references, even watch a mock lesson being taught-will have far better information than any regulator or bureaucrat with which to make a shrewd decision and maybe find a diamond in the rough.

Consider the experience of Teach for America. TFA recruits more teachers every year than all but the largest districts, and it seems to have cracked the code on identifying teachers who succeed in challenging classrooms. While the program is well-known for attracting Ivy League grads with lofty test scores, its unheralded genius is its extensive selection process (essays, interviews, practice lessons, etc.) that pinpoints subtle differences among candidates, differences that seem to predict classroom success. TFA has been particularly effective in finding individuals with high expectations. According to a survey released earlier this month, seven of ten second-year TFA teachers disagreed with the statement, "Students who don't have basic skills by junior high or middle school will never be able to catch up," and almost the same proportion believe that their own expectations have a significant impact on their students' achievement.

NCLB's obliviousness to such subtle indicators of quality is what makes its "highly qualified teachers" provision so maddening to many principals. Imagine a school leader in Appalachia who employs a dynamic, inspiring math teacher who gets great results in the classroom and helps all her students reach proficiency. Should the state or federal government care if that teacher majored in chemistry instead of math? How should that principal feel when told that this fine math teacher must jump through a bunch of hoops to meet the "subject matter competency" requirement? It makes you want to yell: "Cut the red tape! Peel back the bureaucrats! Trust the results!"

And yet, the case for academic rigor is also strong. Mounds of evidence show that school districts have not made academic credentials a top priority when hiring teachers. To wit: according to the  latest federal Schools and Staffing Survey, 38 percent of all middle- and high-school math teachers did not major or minor in math (or even math education). One-third of English teachers are also teaching "out of field," as are 28 percent of science teachers, and about one-quarter of social studies teachers. To think that the people who hire teachers will suddenly change their ways and put a premium on academic credentials because of the pressure to raise test scores is to enter the zone of wishful thinking. After all, K-12 educators and ed school professors have long downplayed the importance of subject matter knowledge. One could even argue that the dominant cultural trait of the education system is anti-intellectualism. That's not likely to change overnight without a strong push. And unless we can infuse the system with smart, well-educated teachers, it may never change.

Furthermore, even if a principal understands that he should recruit knowledgeable teachers, he lives with imperfect information. He lacks access to candidates' Praxis scores, much less their SAT results. And with trendy fads overwhelming the college curriculum, especially the obsession with "depth over breadth," it's hard to know whether even candidates with a major in their subject (say, history) actually know enough of the content that the state requires students to learn. Why not, at the least, require them to pass a test in that subject? Better yet, why not make their test scores (not just "pass" or "fail") available to employers? The trifling inconvenience of making prospective teachers endure a test is a small price to pay for quality control. And if recruiting knowledgeable teachers with a passion for their subjects helps tamp down the progressivism that dominates our schools ("all that matters is learning to learn"), so much the better. Raise the bar! Down with mediocrity! Let's start valuing intellectual pursuit!

Which brings us back to where we started. Can't we have it both ways, giving principals more hiring flexibility (allowing them to engage uncertified teachers, for instance), with the single caveat that all teachers be knowledgeable in their subjects? Have we ever tried that? Enter Section 9101(23) of the No Child Left Behind Act, which explicitly exempts charter schools from the law's requirement that schools hire certified teachers (at least in states where the charter law provides this same flexibility). However, it does not exempt charters from the mandate that their teachers, too, demonstrate subject matter competence in the subjects that they teach. So we have a nice natural experiment. Take Washington, D.C., for example, where charter principals have almost unlimited freedom around hiring decisions, except that their teachers must "demonstrate subject matter competence" by passing a test, majoring in their field, or meeting the "High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation" (HOUSSE). Seems reasonable. But how's it playing out?

It's a mess. The subject matter exams (Praxis II in D.C.) aren't offered very often, and for some subjects (arts, physics, some foreign languages) they aren't offered at all. Almost four years into NCLB implementation, D.C. still doesn't have a "HOUSSE" process. The rules for what counts as a "major" (set by the District of Columbia Public Schools-the charters' main competitor) are arbitrary: 33 semester hours, of which 18 hours must be in 300-level courses and above. Consider the headaches of this respected D.C. charter school: "We had one Teach for America corps member with a mechanical engineering degree who was not 'highly qualified' to teach math or physics because he did not have enough credit hours in either subject. We had a teacher who was fluent in German, had passed the government tests in German, but was not 'highly qualified' to teach German. We had a teacher who was a talented artist and architect and a business major who was not qualified to teach the arts and architecture class."  In other words, charter principals are dealing with a thicket of confusion, paperwork, and one-size-fits-all regulations-exactly what they sought to escape when they "went charter." Their autonomy has been severely curtailed.

 What's the lesson? It's simply not possible to have it both ways. We must either give principals full autonomy to make hiring decisions, or we must require all teachers to demonstrate subject matter knowledge. Trust principals, or don't. On which side of that divide are you?

No Child Left Behind was recently highlighted by two conservative columnists, David Brooks and George Will. In the Times, Brooks tweaked NCLB by arguing that the future is in human capital - that is, the cultural, social, moral, cognitive, and aspirational aspects of each individual. Skills and knowledge, "the stuff measured by tests," are but one part of this. Therefore, he reasons, nothing is gained by pouring money into huge federal programs such as NCLB and treating students "as skill-acquiring cogs." Instead, the instructional emphasis must come at a personalized and local level through demanding teachers who help transform all aspects of students' lives. But trouble can brew when local entities assert their autonomy. George Will examines the growing NCLB tension between state and federal authorities which, in some instances, is pitting Republicans against each other. His case-in-point is Utah, the nation's most reliably red state, which has, nonetheless, rebelled against President Bush's NCLB legislation. Conservatives believe in high standards, Will says, but they also believe in the principles of federalism, which give states significant autonomy over their internal governance (education included). Both pundits raise significant questions. Answering them is the tricky part.

"Psst! 'Human Capital,'" by David Brooks, New York Times, November 13, 2005 (Times Select subscription required)

"In Utah, No Right Left Behind," by George Will, Washington Post, November 11, 2005

While gubernatorial races hogged election-day press coverage, a couple of local races in Michigan and California have raised eyebrows. In the Great Lakes State, 18-year-old Michael Sessions is making a case for "hands-on" learning. Why study civics? Just do it! He won the Hillsdale mayoral race, as a write-in candidate, by two votes. Sessions campaigned on a platform of stimulating Hillsdale's economic development. In a town with an unemployment rate hovering around 6 percent, and where more than 10 percent of the population lives in poverty, Sessions's foci hit home. Until he graduates from high school in May, though, he'll fulfill his mayoral duties after school. An equally interesting display of democracy occurred in California where Randy Hale, an inmate of the California Institution for Men in Chino, was elected to the Romoland school board. A political science professor at UC Riverside thinks Hale may have won "because he was at the top of the ballot." Remember that the next time you hear the National School Boards Association celebrating the genius of "local control." Hale's release is scheduled for February 15th. Until then, he'll have plenty of free time in which to craft a revolutionary plan for the revitalization of Romoland's district schools. First action item: School uniforms (orange, of course).

"High School Kid by Day, Mr. Mayor by Night," by P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2005

"Prisoner elected to Calif. school board," Fox News, November 10, 2005

In Penfield, N.Y., high-flying math whiz Jim Munch looked to be the poster child for constructivist math curriculum. He scored a 5 on the A.P. Calculus exam, and hopes to become a theoretical mathematician. Turns out, he succeeded in spite, not because of, his school's progressivist training. Munch's parents (one an engineer, the other an educator) instructed him by night as his school teachers pushed "fuzzy" math by day. (See here and here for more on the problems of this fad.) "Kids do not do better learning math themselves," young Munch said. "There's a reason we go to school, which is that there's someone smarter than us with something to teach us." A novel idea, that. Ardent constructivists, such as the folks who lead the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Penfield School District, don't think "old-fashioned" math skills (including learning basic items such as multiplication tables) are necessary for academic success. That simply doesn't compute.

"'Innovative' Math, but Can You Count?" by Samuel G. Freedman, New York Times, November 9, 2005

My friend, colleague, and boss Gaynor McCown died this week, leaving this earth far too soon at the age of 45. Gaynor started as Executive Director of The Teaching Commission during the same month that I started at the National Council on Teacher Quality. She set up a lunch so that we could meet and talk about how our two organizations could work together. I thought I was going to have lunch with a man - a misunderstanding I didn't hide very well when I saw this petite blonde waiting for me at the restaurant - but Gaynor reacted with grace and laughter. We immediately hit it off, discovering not only that we held very similar views about teacher quality issues, but also that we shared similar backgrounds. We had both gone to colleges in the same town at about the same time. After college, Gaynor did social justice work in Latin America and became life-long friends with a woman who had been my college roommate and bridesmaid but with whom I had completely lost touch. Gaynor made it clear she thought that was disgraceful and then made it her personal mission to make sure we reconnected.

Gaynor McCown epitomized graciousness. She knew all along that relationships are the most important thing about life. She knew absolutely everyone. Everyone loved her from the instant they met her, drawn in by her self-effacing humor and that charming Southern accent still so prominent after years of living in Manhattan. Any time I needed a door opened for NCTQ, Gaynor knew whom to call and was always happy to provide an entree. Without her personal support and eagerness to help, I know that our organization would not be thriving today. She was determined to help us succeed, having decided from the start that NCTQ should carry on the teacher quality work of The Teaching Commission when it closed its doors as scheduled. Inspired by Gaynor's gentle, but determined soul, our daunting challenge feels a little lighter.

Godspeed, Gaynor.

- Kate Walsh

Kate Walsh is president of the National Council on Teacher Quality. Gaynor McCown chaired NCTQ's board.

Parents who contend that schools are failing their special needs children will now have to do more than make the claim in order to get the additional services they desire. They'll have to prove their case. The Supreme Court's decision on Monday that parents, and not school districts, bear the burden of proof when contesting the goals and instructional methods spelled out in their children's individualized education plan(s) (IEP) could greatly reduce the number of cases that go to court for resolution. Districts see an opportunity to save big bucks. In the District of Columbia, the amount spent on IEP appeals jumped from $499,000 in 2001 to $2.9 million in 2005. "This will help us pare down the amount of money spent on special education and allow us to use that money to give students a world-class education in the D.C. school system," says the D.C. school board president. We'll see about that. Others worry that the children of parents unable to afford costly litigation will suffer most. Gadfly wonders: why not leave the school systems in charge of the services they provide (which the ruling does) but also offer parents scholarship money so, if they disagree with their district's special education approach, they can move their children to another school?

"In Special-Ed Case, Court Backs Montgomery Schools," by Charles Lane and Lori Aratani, Washington Post, November 15, 2005

"D.C. Schools See Opportunity to Pare Back," by Lori Aratani and V. Dion Haynes, Washington Post, November 15, 2005

"Parents Carry Burden of Proof in School Cases, Court Rules," by Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, November 15, 2005

Greg Forster
The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation
October 2005

School choice starts with legislation, but it doesn't end there. Each choice program's success depends upon implementation, which is handled by school districts and state or local authorities who can aid the program with simple enlistment procedures or stifle it with convoluted participation policies. This Friedman Foundation study assesses how easy it is for students to participate in each of the nation's fourteen K-12 school-choice programs (choice, here, meaning vouchers, tax-funded scholarships, and tax credits and deductions - charter schools are conspicuously absent). Ratings are based on an analysis of eligibility criteria and application processes. The study also examines each program's history, noting the number of eligible students who participate year-to-year. The results? As one might expect, it's easy for parents and students to participate in some choice programs and hard to take part in others. Milwaukee's voucher system, for example, is rated "excellent." The city sets no application deadline, and students are admitted on a rolling basis. Interested parents can access application forms online or pick them up from participating schools. Finally, students need not reapply each year. On the other hand, Florida's A+ voucher program, rated "poor," is faulted for its procedural burdens. Participation is limited to students in schools whose schools have received an "F" grade (based on test scores) twice in four years. After the state announces school grades, parents of eligible students have two weeks to complete the web-only application process. The report finds that short window especially restraining. Author Greg Forster terms it "a major procedural burden," and writes that parents "do not even know whether they are eligible until school grades come out, at which point the two-week clock begins ticking." Perhaps that's why Milwaukee's voucher participation has skyrocketed over the past five years, and Florida's has not. Interested readers will be rewarded by this simple yet informative report. Find it here.

National Association of Secondary School Principals2005
National Association of State Boards of EducationOctober 2005

There are plenty of sound materials for teaching young children to read, but not many for instructing adolescents to do the same. Alas, these two new publications, aimed specifically at the problem of adolescent literacy, don't much help. Creating a Culture of Literacy is more of the same, tired whole-language rhetoric (successful literacy programs use "motivation," "self-directed learning," and "effective instructional principles embedded in content" to raise achievement). And despite its frequent invocation of the word "data," the report is seriously lacking in numbers to back up its claims. Of the five school-success profiles it offers, just one (J.E.B. Stuart High School in Virginia) references specific data to support its assertion that the adopted reading literacy curriculum had a positive impact. The study cites that school's overall improvement on the Virginia Standards of Learning Tests - passing rates in Reading and Literature jumped from 64 to 94 percent between 1998 and 2004. But these gains are suspect because most schools in Virginia have shown similar gains on state tests. Reading at Risk values phonics-based reading instruction, but its primary focus is influencing state leaders by encouraging them to set high literacy goals, paying for teacher training, and requiring districts to adopt only research-based literacy strategies, not discussing what does and doesn't work in the classroom. The report does reference both the Just Read, Florida! and the Alabama Reading Initiative programs, but details of these programs' successes with adolescents are lacking. Still, for those interested in influencing state leaders to set a sound policy course on secondary-school reading, this one is worth perusing.

Philanthropy magazine
by Joanne Jacobs
October 2005

Those who dispute the "Great Man" theory of history may have to reconsider their position. Philanthropy magazine's essay on the late John Walton's influence on school choice leaves little room for doubting that a single person can change the world. The tribute, ably and eloquently penned by Joanne Jacobs, includes a parade of examples showing how Walton and his family's foundation catapulted school choice from a good idea shared by a few people to a nationwide movement. Consider just two of these. Walton (and Ted Forstmann) underwrote scholarships for 40,000 American students through the Children's Scholarship Fund. When CSF was launched, more than 1.2 million people applied. "That was the beginning of a national debate," says Gisele Huff, because the overwhelming interest made it "impossible to ignore the desperation of parents whose children were in low-quality public schools." Another example: the quarter-million dollars that the Walton foundation provided to each of more than 500 charter schools. Says NewSchools Venture Fund head Kim Smith, "I don't know if we'd have a charter school movement without John Walton." Indeed. Walton also backed and helped to build a network of state and local advocacy organizations, including the Black Alliance for Educational Options and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options. But Jacobs does more than capture the dollars and cents side of Walton's impact on education; she also evokes his persona and character. "Before the tenth anniversary gala for the Center for Education Reform," she writes, "...Walton asked whether he needed to rent a tuxedo." Seems he didn't want to because whenever he wore one, "people treated him differently." He was "Just John," says Jacobs, to everyone who met him - including me. I had the pleasure of talking briefly with him at an event in San Diego. Though surrounded by dozens, when I called out, "Mr. Walton, can I take your photo for Philanthropy magazine?" he stopped and replied, "Sure, but just call me John." Fortunately for us all, Walton's "just" being John was more than enough. And because of him, today there are hundreds of thousands of school children receiving a better education.