Fresh from Canada, this compact package of ten papers, edited by the Fraser Institute's Claudia R. Hepburn, looks at whether and how competition-based reforms could benefit the Canadian education system. More than a few of its lessons also apply to-indeed, many were derived from research performed in-the United States.
Fresh from Canada, this compact package of ten papers, edited by the Fraser Institute's Claudia R. Hepburn, looks at whether and how competition-based reforms could benefit the Canadian education system. More than a few of its lessons also apply to-indeed, many were derived from research performed in-the United States. The compilation is partly the result of a spring 2000 Fraser Institute conference on school choice. South-of-the-border contributors include our own Checker Finn, with "Reinventing Public Education via the Marketplace" (based on the keynote address he gave at the conference); economist Caroline Hoxby, contributing an eye-opening essay called "Analyzing School Choice Reforms that Use America's Traditional Forms of Parental Choice"; and Jay Greene, providing "A Survey of Results from Voucher Experiments: Where We Are and What We Know," which dispels many common misconceptions about voucher research. From the Canadian side, William Robson offers "Publicly Funded Education in Ontario: Breaking the Deadlock, " which explains why that province could use an infusion of parent-empowering reform, especially to reduce its stubborn achievement gap between poor and wealthy youngsters. The University of Calgary's Lynn Bosetti shares "The Alberta Charter School Experience." (Alberta was the first province in Canada to enact a charter law which, though limited to just a handful of schools, is already revealing benefits for students.) A print version of Can the Market Save Our Schools? will be available in July and can be purchased by contacting [email protected] or by calling (604) 688-0221, ext.580 or (800) 665-3558, ext. 580. Or you can download all of the papers from the Fraser Institute's website by surfing to http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/market_schools/index.html
The University of Washington's Paul Hill has written a fine short background paper for the Progressive Policy Institute on "charter districts," an idea that has been gaining interest as the charter-school movement has spread. (President Bush, it may be recalled, also proposed a "charter states" program, although Congress knocked the stuffing out of it.) In five pages, Hill explains his version of a charter district, namely a public school district that charters all its schools instead of running any of them directly. (Another concept of a charter district would be one that obtains freedom from state regulations, union contract constraints and other impediments to operating its schools as it thinks best, in return for demonstrated improvements in pupil achievement. One can also envision a hybrid of those two concepts.) He notes that several U.S. school systems are already all-charter, that several more are moving in that direction, and that seven state charter laws would permit any district to do likewise. Appended to this paper is a useful one-page synopsis by Andy Rotherham of Chester-Upland, Pennsylvania's recent move (under strong state pressure) to out-source all of its schools that weren't already public charter schools. You may obtain it from Progressive Policy Institute, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 400, Washington DC 20003. Phone (202) 547-0001. Fax (202) 544-5014. E-mail [email protected] or surf to www.ppionline.org.
by Jack Bowsher
This new book by Jack E. Bowsher, who for many years ran IBM's education programs, is a worthy contribution to the standards-based reform movement. In 350 pages, it offers a sweeping rationale for reform-of both school quality and costs-and insists that this cannot be done piecemeal but must be "systemic." The author reviews why past "quick fixes" haven't worked, even as they boosted costs. Then he offers his version of "systemic" reform. Perhaps his most important contributions are the introduction of classroom-level "learning systems" and his suggestions for major management (and "change-management") innovations in schools and school systems. He ends-inevitably but less interestingly-with a ringing call for dynamic leadership! This one is probably worthy of a place on your shelf. The ISBN is 0834219042. It's published by Aspen Publishers, Inc., 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. The website is www.aspenpublishers.com.
Diallo Dphrepaulezz's new report for the Pacific Research Institute tells the story of San Francisco's Edison Charter Academy, which made sizable gains in test scores after being taken over by Edison Schools, but which was nonetheless notified by the San Francisco Board of Education in March 2001 that its charter was about to be revoked. In one school year, the Academy's test scores rose faster than those at every school in the district but two. African American students' scores rose 25% over the previous year, and Latino students' scores rose 15%. Why would a school like this lose its charter? Many charges were leveled at the school by opponents, including allegations that the school had a very high teacher turnover rate, and that it had encouraged low-income and African American students to leave. Dphrepaulezz debunks each claim, then goes on to describe a "grassroots movement mounted by parents in an attempt to save their charter school" which was outgunned by a bureaucracy that seemed to fear looking bad by comparison and so went to great lengths to destroy the school. Copies of the briefing may be obtained by calling (415) 989-0833 or by surfing to www.pacificresearch.org and clicking on Publications.
As a footnote, on Tuesday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that as a result of an intricate backroom deal, the Board of Education has decided not to renew the Edison Charter Academy's contract, but it will not officially revoke the charter, which would have precluded Edison Schools from asking the California Board of Education for a state-issued charter. Edison officials said they felt confident that the state board would approve the charter and allow the company to continue running the school.
"Edison makes deal to end contract," by Mark Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, June 26, 2001.
While public discussion of the education bill has focused on such hot-button issues as vouchers, much of the real drama in Washington-"what everybody was E-mailing and voice-mailing everybody else about"-is the "adequate yearly progress" or A.Y.P. formula, writes Nicholas Lemann in a narrative account of the progress of Bush's ambitious education plan through the Congressional gantlet. (Lemann's piece appears in this week's New Yorker.)
As if Lemann were a fly on our wall, a group of us inside-the-beltway types got together the other day to parse some of the perplexing dilemmas that will face Senate and House conferees when they turn to the A.Y.P., testing, and accountability sections of the pending E.S.E.A. bills. The deeper we went, the more alarmed we became at just how knotty some of these issues are. This section of the legislation simply doesn't lend itself to "splitting the difference" or melding rival versions. To have any realistic hope of ending up with something in this area that can actually be implemented without causing untold mischief, the conference committee must, in essence, start afresh. Here are some unsolicited precepts to guide that difficult process.
First, the gold standard for analyzing student achievement is value-added analysis that employs annual test scores for individual students, with results aggregated for schools, districts, states and other relevant institutional units-and whatever demographic groupings need their academic progress tracked.
Second, we must understand the key distinction between value-added and achievement-level analysis, also sometimes known as "standards-based" analysis. In the latter case, states and schools are judged based on the percentages of their students who achieve proficiency-or make some prescribed level of progress over time toward proficiency. The E.S.E.A. bills assume achievement-level analysis, which is certainly important, but manifestly incomplete. Far more useful is value-added analysis that concentrates on gains made by students. For such analysis to be practical, however, (at least) annual data are needed. This poses a problem, for most states lack such data now and the pending legislation doesn't mandate annual testing until four or five years after it demands the onset of "adequate yearly progress."
Third, whether value-added or achievement-level assessment is used, high-stakes rewards and sanctions for states, districts and schools oughtn't be based on a single year of data. They should be based on three-year (or longer) rolling averages. If states identify "failing" schools based on just one or two years of data, they may well "punish" the wrong schools. Hence until several years of data are available, Washington shouldn't prescribe the method by which a state or district identifies a failing school. People on the ground are likely to possess far more complete information about schools that allows them to identify those that are truly failing and in need of corrective action.
Fourth, it may be wise to keep the current accountability system (from E.S.E.A.'s 1994 amendments, though these have not yet been fully implemented) in place until there are enough data to install a new system using annual tests that have yielded several years of data. (The current system could be supplemented with a data-disaggregation requirement that isn't there now.)
Fifth, we need to recognize that annual administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), as it currently operates, is extremely unlikely to yield reliable external audit data that can "confirm" state-level academic gains and losses. The most noteworthy characteristic of NAEP trend lines is their flatness. Odds are almost nil that state-level data disaggregated by race will show significant yearly change. Indeed, state-level data of every sort probably won't show significant changes from one year to the next. Unless one relishes the prospect of an interminable national debate about statistical significance, Congress needs to weigh new options here. A comprehensive overhaul (and expansion) of NAEP is one possibility. Better, I think, is to decouple NAEP results from high-stakes decisions about state-level academic progress. Require NAEP participation, by all states, yes, but test every two years, not annually, and use the resulting data only to inform the public about how their states are doing. NAEP data are fine demonstrating whether a state's standards are high or low, whether its students are doing better or worse over time, and how it is faring in relation to other states and the nation as a whole. But don't try to base federal rewards and sanctions on NAEP results.
Sixth, while we're at it, let's think again whether it makes sense for Washington to bestow any rewards or sanctions on states based on whether all children reach proficiency as defined by the state's academic standards. Our group was struck by the fact that this could easily penalize states that set high standards and thus encourage them to set low standards. Under American custom-as well as the pending E.S.E.A. bills-each state sets its own standards, then tracks its students' progress toward them. This means that a state that wants all its children to become academic lions will inevitably have greater difficulty attaining that standard than a state that sets about to create academic hamsters. Do we really want Washington encouraging hamsters by penalizing the failure to produce lions while rewarding states that do a good job of hamster creation?
Worth reading: "Testing Limits: can the President's education crusade survive Beltway politics?" by Nicholas Lemann, The New Yorker, July 2, 2001. Available for $3.50 at newsstands; not available at www.newyorker.com)
One highlight: (Lemann on testing, from "Testing Limits") "Bush is right that you can't figure out whether schools are doing a good job unless you have some way of measuring how much their students are learning. Go on the Web and read a Texas Assessment of Academic Skills test-are you really comfortable with kids' not knowing that material?...A guarantee by the national government of a decent education for every child is a noble cause, and so is the idea that all Americans will acquire a common body of skills and knowledge as they come of age. (Memo to Scarsdale, New York, where parents have been boycotting state tests: Your kids should learn that stuff, too, after which they can go back to being little geniuses.)"
Patrick Welsh, a veteran Alexandria, Virginia high school English teacher who often writes for the Outlook section of the Washington Post, describes what a new superintendent faces in Alexandria: "constant negotiations with and back-biting from a crowd of self-appointed community experts who think they know best how to run a school system." No superintendent can survive the minefield of aggressive, well-educated parents together with a divided school board that has strong opinions on everything, Welsh writes, which means that the district will likely face a never-ending stream of superintendents who come in lauded and depart vilified.
"They'll love the new superintendent-until the discord begins," by Patrick Welsh, Washington Post, June 17, 2001
One in 10 Rhode Island students was suspended last year, and either sent home or forced to sit in isolated rooms for hours. The Providence Journal looks at who is suspended (disproportionately black students), why (less for violent offenses than for truancy and tardiness), and with what result. You can find this multi-part series at http://projo.com/extra/suspensions/.
Over the past few months, federal policymakers have grappled with both education and taxes. Americans want both improved education and tax relief, but some say these dual priorities are in conflict. That need not be so, according to the Cato Institute. In a new report analyzing the effect of education tax credits, Cato researchers Darcy Ann Olsen, Carrie Lips and Dan Lips bring good news to those who'd like to have our cake and eat it too. The study assesses the fiscal impact of a two-pronged education tax credit on state and federal budgets. The plan would contain a "parental choice credit," which would offer a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal income tax liability of up to $500 per child for money spent on tuition. It would also include a "scholarship credit," which would provide an additional $500 tax credit for donations to a nonprofit scholarship clearinghouse for low-income children. Cato researchers conclude that the plan would cost $9.2 billion in federal revenues but would save $14 billion in state education spending. Most importantly, it would allow 2 million new students to attend private schools. The report's conclusions flow from a (less than universally accepted) theory that students who transfer to private schools decrease state education expenses and that tax credits (and scholarships) will increase the number of students who transfer. The report also estimates the 'savings' for individual states; of course, savings are largest in states where demand for private schooling is greatest and where public-school per-pupil expenditures are highest. To find out more, obtain an electronic copy of the report at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-398es.html, or call the Cato Institue at (202) 842-0200.
In "No Vouchers for You," Sam MacDonald explores the growing political divide between black elites and typical black voters over vouchers. Exhibit A is a new study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies that examines divisions between young and old generations within the African-American community and finds, among other things, that "a large majority (69 percent) of black elected officials oppose vouchers, while a large majority (60 percent) of the black public support vouchers." The political fallout from this division is unclear. Will young black choice supporters turn to the Republican party? Maybe not, if the Bush administration's refusal to go to the mat for vouchers is any indication of what the party stands for.
"No Vouchers for You," by Sam MacDonald, Reason Online, June 15, 2001
Diverging Generations: The Transformation of African American Policy Views, by David A. Bositis, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Diallo Dphrepaulezz's new report for the Pacific Research Institute tells the story of San Francisco's Edison Charter Academy, which made sizable gains in test scores after being taken over by Edison Schools, but which was nonetheless notified by the San Francisco Board of Education in March 2001 that its charter was about to be revoked. In one school year, the Academy's test scores rose faster than those at every school in the district but two. African American students' scores rose 25% over the previous year, and Latino students' scores rose 15%. Why would a school like this lose its charter? Many charges were leveled at the school by opponents, including allegations that the school had a very high teacher turnover rate, and that it had encouraged low-income and African American students to leave. Dphrepaulezz debunks each claim, then goes on to describe a "grassroots movement mounted by parents in an attempt to save their charter school" which was outgunned by a bureaucracy that seemed to fear looking bad by comparison and so went to great lengths to destroy the school. Copies of the briefing may be obtained by calling (415) 989-0833 or by surfing to www.pacificresearch.org and clicking on Publications.
As a footnote, on Tuesday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that as a result of an intricate backroom deal, the Board of Education has decided not to renew the Edison Charter Academy's contract, but it will not officially revoke the charter, which would have precluded Edison Schools from asking the California Board of Education for a state-issued charter. Edison officials said they felt confident that the state board would approve the charter and allow the company to continue running the school.
"Edison makes deal to end contract," by Mark Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, June 26, 2001.
Fresh from Canada, this compact package of ten papers, edited by the Fraser Institute's Claudia R. Hepburn, looks at whether and how competition-based reforms could benefit the Canadian education system. More than a few of its lessons also apply to-indeed, many were derived from research performed in-the United States. The compilation is partly the result of a spring 2000 Fraser Institute conference on school choice. South-of-the-border contributors include our own Checker Finn, with "Reinventing Public Education via the Marketplace" (based on the keynote address he gave at the conference); economist Caroline Hoxby, contributing an eye-opening essay called "Analyzing School Choice Reforms that Use America's Traditional Forms of Parental Choice"; and Jay Greene, providing "A Survey of Results from Voucher Experiments: Where We Are and What We Know," which dispels many common misconceptions about voucher research. From the Canadian side, William Robson offers "Publicly Funded Education in Ontario: Breaking the Deadlock, " which explains why that province could use an infusion of parent-empowering reform, especially to reduce its stubborn achievement gap between poor and wealthy youngsters. The University of Calgary's Lynn Bosetti shares "The Alberta Charter School Experience." (Alberta was the first province in Canada to enact a charter law which, though limited to just a handful of schools, is already revealing benefits for students.) A print version of Can the Market Save Our Schools? will be available in July and can be purchased by contacting [email protected] or by calling (604) 688-0221, ext.580 or (800) 665-3558, ext. 580. Or you can download all of the papers from the Fraser Institute's website by surfing to http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/market_schools/index.html
The University of Washington's Paul Hill has written a fine short background paper for the Progressive Policy Institute on "charter districts," an idea that has been gaining interest as the charter-school movement has spread. (President Bush, it may be recalled, also proposed a "charter states" program, although Congress knocked the stuffing out of it.) In five pages, Hill explains his version of a charter district, namely a public school district that charters all its schools instead of running any of them directly. (Another concept of a charter district would be one that obtains freedom from state regulations, union contract constraints and other impediments to operating its schools as it thinks best, in return for demonstrated improvements in pupil achievement. One can also envision a hybrid of those two concepts.) He notes that several U.S. school systems are already all-charter, that several more are moving in that direction, and that seven state charter laws would permit any district to do likewise. Appended to this paper is a useful one-page synopsis by Andy Rotherham of Chester-Upland, Pennsylvania's recent move (under strong state pressure) to out-source all of its schools that weren't already public charter schools. You may obtain it from Progressive Policy Institute, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 400, Washington DC 20003. Phone (202) 547-0001. Fax (202) 544-5014. E-mail [email protected] or surf to www.ppionline.org.
by Jack Bowsher
This new book by Jack E. Bowsher, who for many years ran IBM's education programs, is a worthy contribution to the standards-based reform movement. In 350 pages, it offers a sweeping rationale for reform-of both school quality and costs-and insists that this cannot be done piecemeal but must be "systemic." The author reviews why past "quick fixes" haven't worked, even as they boosted costs. Then he offers his version of "systemic" reform. Perhaps his most important contributions are the introduction of classroom-level "learning systems" and his suggestions for major management (and "change-management") innovations in schools and school systems. He ends-inevitably but less interestingly-with a ringing call for dynamic leadership! This one is probably worthy of a place on your shelf. The ISBN is 0834219042. It's published by Aspen Publishers, Inc., 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. The website is www.aspenpublishers.com.
