The Education Gadfly Weekly

Another new Koret Task Force volume from Hoover, this one is edited by Paul Hill, runs 222 pages and, in seven chapters, closely examines the issue of children alleged to be "left behind" by school-choice programs. The authors suggest a number of policies and design principles to mitigate social-equity harm from choice programs, while showing that such programs confer the greatest benefit on the neediest youngsters and families-and arguing that they (the choice programs) should be judged in relation to the real world alternatives available to such children, not against idealized standards. After Hill's introduction come a chapter on how to assess choice programs (by Hill and Kacey Guin); one setting forth the evidence from experimental studies in New York, Washington and Dayton (by Paul Peterson, David Campbell and Martin West); one offering a "supply-side view of student selectivity" (John Chubb); one on the "quality of peers" left in traditional public schools (the tireless Eric Hanushek); a detailed review of the evidence of the effects of choice on students in conventional public schools (the prolific Caroline Hoxby); and a concluding essay on "the structure of school choice" by Terry Moe. The ISBN is 0817938923. This volume, too, can be obtained for $15 plus $4 shipping fee by calling 800-935-2882 or visiting http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/books/choice.html.

And now for something completely different, not a book or report but a website. Surf to the MegaSkills website to learn about this education training program, developed in 1972 by Dorothy Rich, a champion of parental involvement in education and founder and president of the Home and School Institute. Focusing on primary and secondary education, MegaSkills stresses what Rich terms the "inner engines of learning." She has identified eleven of these, including initiative, effort, caring and teamwork. Although the website's main purpose is to promote the MegaSkills program, it's not a hard sell. You'll find a thorough explanation of the program, testimonials from parents, teachers and employers, and some school-level evaluations of the program's success. Prospective buyers can even access sample materials and tips for use and implementation. The website is a good resource for educators and parents seeking to supplement traditional reading, math, and science lessons with habits and traits that are valuable for young and old alike. Learn more at www.megaskillshsi.org.

edited by Williamson Evers and Herbert Walberg
2002

Edited by Williamson Evers and Herbert Walberg, this new Hoover Institution book is a product of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education. In 198 pages and 6 chapters (plus an editors' introduction) it furnishes a basic guide to results-based education accountability. Diane Ravitch offers important historical context for today's testing and accountability reforms. I try to delineate the several different forms of accountability in people's minds today and suggest a resolution among them. Caroline Hoxby explores the (modest) price tag of test-based accountability and judges it a bargain. Eric Hanushek and Margaret Raymond offer a general state-policy framework and examine some key issues that lawmakers must resolve. Lance Izumi and Bill Evers offer case studies of Florida, Texas and California. And Herb Walberg suggests a dozen "design principles" for effective accountability systems. The ISBN is 0817938826. To learn more, order your very own copy (for $15 plus $4 shipping fee) by dialing 800-935-2882 or surfing to http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/books/accountability.html.

edited by Margaret C. Wang and Herbert J. Walberg
2002

The endlessly productive Herbert J. Walberg and the late Margaret C. Wang edited this 400-page volume, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Arising from a Wingspread conference, it offers four chapters on school choice programs (by Walberg and Joseph Bast, Bruno Manno, Terry Moe and Paul Peterson) and six on systemic reform (which the editors prefer to term "best systems"), these being by Kenneth Wong, Margaret Wang and JoAnn Manning, Diana Lam, Education Secretary (then Houston superintendent) Rod Paige and Susan Sclafani, John Bishop and Ferran Mane, and James Guthrie. The editors do their level best (in an epilogue) to distill commonalities and shared lessons from both reform strategies, but their more useful contribution is to explain how and why the two approaches are "reconcilable and, in fact, being reconciled in policy and practice," a proposition I also advanced in last week's Education Gadfly (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=60#864). The ISBN is 0805834877 and you can buy a paperback copy for $32.50 (or a hard cover for a lot more) from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07439. Surf to www.erlbaum.com/Books/searchintro/BookDetailscvr.cfm?ISBN=0-8058-3487-7. Or phone (800) 926-6579 or e-mail [email protected].

edited by Tom Loveless
2002

Tom Loveless edited this fine new Brookings collection of 14 chapters addressing the "reading and math wars." Based on a 1999 Harvard conference, it does an exemplary job both of adumbrating the views of major contenders in each of those "wars" and of suggesting how and why the conflicts arose and what might bring an end to them. They're not identical disputes, however, as Loveless points out in a helpful introduction. The math wars are mainly about content, the reading fights about pedagogy. He notes that, by and large during the 1990's, the "progressive" approach prevailed in math while the "traditionalists" were dominant in reading. And he makes this astute observation: "[T]he side in political ascendancy [in either field] is prone to declare that a balanced approach has been achieved. Thus critics of NCTM and the advocates of whole language were less likely to be enthralled with the balanced approaches touted by policymakers at the end of the decade." Anybody wondering "what the heck is going on in reading and math" will come away from this 360-page volume considerably enlightened if not necessarily heartened. The ISBN is 0815753098. You can learn more, and order a copy, by surfing to http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/books/curriculum_debate.htm.

Gary Miron and Christopher Nelson
2002

Every criticism that has ever been leveled against charter schools can be found in this book. There would be nothing shocking about this if it weren't that Messrs. Miron and Nelson are researchers at the Western Michigan University's Evaluation Center, which is viewed by many as an impartial judge of charter schools and often signed on to evaluate them, in Michigan and beyond. What's Public About Charter Schools claims to "provide an in-depth examination of the charter concept as it has been operationalized in one of the nation's most populous states." Indeed it provides some useful analysis of how charter schools have worked in Michigan since 1993, but within each chapter the reader will also discover a subtle attack on charter schools. Some of these criticisms are fair, while others seem based more on bias or preference than an objective reading of the facts. For example, the authors appear upset that individual charter schools do not serve the needs of every type of young person a community might produce. They seem to equate public education with the concept of the large "comprehensive school" that could theoretically meet the needs of every kid in town-from those wanting honors courses to those content with taking vocational courses. No doubt such schools provide an economy of scale, yet it's common knowledge today that large-scale learning factories ill-serve far too many young people who slip through the cracks. In working with charter schools, one hears teachers, students, and parents say they value the smaller scale of charter schools because they believe it is easier for such schools to stay focused on their most important mission-helping children learn. It is true that charter schools often narrow their focus. They don't try to be all things to all children; rather, they participate in a philosophy of choice that encourages families with different priorities to opt for different schools. Miron and Nelson seem to think that every school should provide a full range of student services such as guidance counseling, health care, psychological services, social work, teacher consultants, and athletics. But is it really a problem that individual schools want to narrowly focus on teaching and learning? Miron and Nelson also claim that charter schools fail children with disabilities and, in Michigan at least, encourage "cream-skimming." Despite the rhetoric of empowering the consumer, the authors argue, charter schools select whom they want to attend while children and their parents take what they can get. This, Miron and Nelson claim, leads to social sorting and even downright segregation. In trying to explain why parents would tolerate these injustices the authors contend it's because they don't know any better. They write, "It is important, however, to distinguish between reasons for choosing and what actually exists at the charter school, especially since most of the parents chose their charter school before it was even open and would have had limited information about the actual quality of instruction that would be offered." The authors also believe that charter schools receive more funding than conventional schools, if one looks at "the true cost of educating different groups of students." They make this case despite the fact that charter schools in Michigan receive $1500 to $2000 less a year in actual funding per pupil. It's an interesting enough book, but it's unbelievable that those who wrote it are viewed by anyone as impartial on the subject of charters. You order a copy from Corwin Press for $29.95 (paperback) by downloading an order form at http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/charter/order_form.pdf and/or e-mailing [email protected], calling 800-818-7243, or faxing 800-417-2466. - Terry Ryan

The New York Times is gaga once again over America's "new philanthropists" and the giant "wealth transfer" that is said to be transforming American philanthropy. Says a recently retired investor named Michael Zaleski, "Wealth has been spread across a much greater percentage of society, so there are a lot more people, like me and my family, who can afford to be generous." Boston College philanthropy analyst Paul G. Schervish estimates that close to $7 trillion new dollars may be directed into charitable giving over the next sixteen years. He avers that today's philanthropists are more demanding-and far more involved in their giving-than yesterday's individual donors and foundations. The phrase "venture philanthropy" gets tossed around almost as often as "venture capitalism."

What does this mean for education reform? The implications could be far-reaching. We've already seen some stellar examples, people like Teddy Forstmann, John Walton, Eli Broad, Don and Doris Fisher and John Doerr, whose astute and courageous giving is helping transform the education landscape and reform debates. We also see new foundations, such as the massive Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, seeking (with mixed success) to chart promising courses in education.

Yet not all the news is good. New givers can be as misguided as old. Good money can be thrown after bad. Silly fads and passing fancies can bedazzle and seduce inexperienced donors (and their earnest but often na??ve staffers). Computers, field trips and after-school programs can absorb billions of well-meaning dollars even as children don't learn to read, their social studies curriculum contains no serious history or geography, would-be teachers are waylaid by archaic certification systems, principals lack authority over their budgets and staffs, poor youngsters are trapped in unsafe schools and a hundred other failings of the system itself go unfixed. Above all, the school establishment-aided and abetted by the philanthropy establishment that's done so much to build and sustain it-can co-opt new givers into its own blighted ideas about what constitutes "reform" and what changes are taboo.

That's pretty much what happened to Walter Annenberg, a generous and public-spirited man whose handsome benefactions to public education brought little by way of lasting change in the urban school systems that soaked up his money. (See our report cited below.) That's more-or-less the direction a philanthropist would be pointed if he turned to the Ford Foundation's "GrantCraft" project for help. (See www.grantcraft.org.) The education reform case study that it disseminates is something called Project Grad, which began in Houston with the largesse of former Tenneco CEO Jim Ketelson and, with Ford's help, has spread to other cities. It's a well-intentioned program that no doubt is doing good things for a number of children. But its underlying "theory of change" is to pump added resources and expertise into the existing school system-much like Annenberg did. That's not reform. It's better seen as compensation for the system's innate failings.

Is there a better approach? When my colleague Kelly Amis and I took up the topic of effective education-reform philanthropy in our 2001 report Making it Count (see link and ordering instructions below), we concluded that indeed there is. In fact, there are two superior approaches for the donor bent on transforming the system, not simply maintaining-or even incrementally improving-it. Not surprisingly, both work from outside the system and both also happen to be the most prominent and promising education-reform ideas in America today: the standards-testing-accountability strategy and the competition-and-choice strategy.

But that's not all we learned or all you can get. On our website (though not presently available in hard-copy) are seven terrific papers on education philanthropy from which many more lessons can be drawn. (Each can be found in HTML and PDF formats at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=318 under the heading "Seven Studies in Education Philanthropy.")

When Education Philanthropy Goes Awry. Bruno Manno and John Barry describe and explain three sizable failures in education philanthropy of the "systemic" variety: the lordly Ford Foundation's own multi-decade, multi-project endeavors, which led to one mess after another (including organizational carnage and racial divisiveness in New York City); the Annie E. Casey Foundation's ambitious "New Futures" project, which produced real gains in a couple of participating cities while causing mischief and ill-will in others (but which Casey has been honest in evaluating, candid in discussing and smart about learning from); and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, which concluded from its "systemic" efforts that it would be better advised to abandon the field altogether!

Inside Venture Philanthropy. Peter Frumkin of Harvard's Kennedy School suggests that there's less that's original and successful in "venture philanthropy" than its boosters would have us think. "To date," he concludes, "venture philanthropy remains something of an unfulfilled promise. To truly make good on the new language it has created, important breakthroughs are needed in practices that create real distance between venture philanthropy and traditional giving. For now, it is very difficult to find authentic innovations that justify the new terminology. Many of the 'investments' made by venture philanthropists look just like 'grants' made by other donors....The most egregious breaches of clear thinking have been in the area of evaluation, where the rhetoric of measurement and return has outstripped the practices that venture philanthropy has developed to date."

Philanthropy and Teacher Quality. Lew Solmon describes the Teacher Advancement Program of the Milken Family Foundation (where he is senior vice president) and sets forth the terms on which donors should proceed: "Philanthropists that want to boost teacher quality in the United States should work to help change the system of teacher employment. This includes supporting programs that enable effective teachers to progress along meaningful career paths, reward teachers for strong performance, provide ongoing opportunities for teachers to collaborate and get better at what they do, allow capable college graduates to enter the profession without being forced through myriad hoops and hurdles, and/or push the system to rid itself of ineffective teachers."

Evaluating Education Philanthropy in Action. Margaret Raymond (of CREDO, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford's Hoover Institution) contends that rigorous evaluation is the "missing link" in effective philanthropy-a view she shares with Peter Frumkin-and explains how it can be done better.

Transforming an Education System: Milwaukee's Private Sector Catalyzes Major Change. Journalist Joe Williams provides a thoughtful case study of how business, foundation, and community leaders in Milwaukee shrewdly launched the pathbreaking education reforms for which that city is renowned.

Education Philanthropy for the 21st Century. The University of Washington's Paul Hill conducts a perceptive tour of the intersection between education reform and philanthropy. He poses three large dilemmas that the donor-reformer must resolve: how to improve individual schools without allowing the system to use them as buffers against change; how to support tangible, small-scale initiatives while also addressing underlying system-size problems; and how to invest in new ideas-and ensure that they actually get used. Then he outlines two promising strategies for capitalizing on the private sector's distinctive strengths.

The History of Philanthropy for Education Reform. Leslie Lenkowsky (now CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service) and Indiana University graduate student Emily Spencer provide a thorough and insightful survey of previous efforts to use philanthropy to improve American education, amply illustrating the familiar maxim that, by studying history, we may be able to avoid repeating it.

Indeed, the history of education reform in the United States is intimately entangled with the history of private philanthropy. Surveying the meager record of the former, one can fairly conclude that the latter has not, on the whole, been either smart or effective. If those new trillions entering into the philanthropic arena in the years ahead aren't to be wasted, at least with respect to K-12 education reform, the generous impulses of the heart must begin to be matched by the rigorous engagement of the brain.

"The Newly Rich Are Fueling a New Era in Philanthropy," by Stephanie Strom, The New York Times, April 27, 2002

"Can Philanthropy Fix Our Schools?" Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, April 2000

"Making It Count: A Guide to High-Impact Education Philanthropy," by Chester E. Finn Jr. and Kelly Amis, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, September 2001

Single copies of these and other Fordham Foundation reports (except the "Seven Studies in Education Philanthropy") can be ordered for free by calling 888-823-7474 or emailing [email protected].

As federal officials gear up to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, state policymakers are all over the map in their plans for addressing the requirements of that complex new law. In Vermont, Governor Howard Dean said he will ask state officials to consider rejecting federal education funds to avoid having to meet the new federal testing requirements. Dean, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2004, says that it will be extremely expensive for the state to rebuild its testing system, but analysts say that Dean's assessments of the cost of new tests and of the amount of federal Title I aid that Vermont would lose if it spurned federal funds are shaky. Maryland officials announced that they would abandon the MSPAP, the state's performance-based testing program, which has long been a favorite of testing experts despite serious questions about its reliability and usefulness. The state's test does not meet the requirements of the new federal law because it does not yield results for individual students nor are its results available by the beginning of the next school year. In Indiana, the state superintendent unveiled a new online exam featuring essays and open-ended questions scored by a computer. In New Jersey, the governor has endorsed a plan to create a new system of standardized tests and more flexible student evaluations. Will the U.S. Department of Education be able to herd these cats? A long article in Government Executive magazine outlines the challenges that agency faces as it shifts from a compliance relationship with the states to one of guiding them on how to meet the new requirements. The article looks at the department's struggles in boosting compliance with the requirements of the 1994 reauthorization and critically assesses the agency's capacity to provide technical assistance to states. Stay tuned as this long-term drama continues to unfold. "Dean wants state to reject education aid," by Greg Toppo, Rutland Herald, April 18, 2002; "Maryland school test is dropped," by Mike Bowler, The Baltimore Sun, April 25, 2002; "Computer testing pilot wins educators' praise," by Barb Berggoetz, Indianapolis Star, April 23, 2002; "Jersey overhauls student testing," by John Mooney, The Star-Ledger, April 26, 2002; and "Making the grade," by Matthew Weinstock, Government Executive Magazine, May 1, 2002.

Voucher opponents argue that allowing some children to exit public schools for private schools will burden the public system with the most difficult to educate children, who are presumed to be left behind by school choice. However, the experience of other countries that have adopted school choice as part of their national education policy reveals that, far from creating ghettos of costly and tough children, well-designed parental choice policies can actually produce better outcomes for learning disabled children (at least when it comes to their inclusion in mainstream education settings), according to an article by Lewis Andrews in the current issue of Policy Review. In Denmark, which has a long history of having resources follow special needs children to schools approved by their parents, only a tiny percentage of learning disabled students are schooled in specialized institutions. In the Netherlands, where children who require additional services for serious learning disabilities are awarded a personal budget that their parents can spend at either a special or a mainstream school, inclusion of learning disabled children is high and the policy is widely supported. Getting the details of a choice policy right is crucial, however. In Sweden, where parental choice exists for all but disabled youngsters, who are subject to a centrally managed system, special-needs students are primarily educated in separate institutions and the percentage of children classified as needing special ed services is high. In the United Kingdom, where parental choice is essentially limited to government-run schools, difficult-to-educate students have tended to be excluded from popular schools, and many are confined to failing schools in poorer districts. The author concludes that the key variable in achieving good results for learning disabled children is the willingness of legislators to extend freedom of choice to parents of the learning disabled. See "More choices for disabled kids," by Lewis M. Andrews, Policy Review, April and May 2002.

And now for something completely different, not a book or report but a website. Surf to the MegaSkills website to learn about this education training program, developed in 1972 by Dorothy Rich, a champion of parental involvement in education and founder and president of the Home and School Institute. Focusing on primary and secondary education, MegaSkills stresses what Rich terms the "inner engines of learning." She has identified eleven of these, including initiative, effort, caring and teamwork. Although the website's main purpose is to promote the MegaSkills program, it's not a hard sell. You'll find a thorough explanation of the program, testimonials from parents, teachers and employers, and some school-level evaluations of the program's success. Prospective buyers can even access sample materials and tips for use and implementation. The website is a good resource for educators and parents seeking to supplement traditional reading, math, and science lessons with habits and traits that are valuable for young and old alike. Learn more at www.megaskillshsi.org.

Another new Koret Task Force volume from Hoover, this one is edited by Paul Hill, runs 222 pages and, in seven chapters, closely examines the issue of children alleged to be "left behind" by school-choice programs. The authors suggest a number of policies and design principles to mitigate social-equity harm from choice programs, while showing that such programs confer the greatest benefit on the neediest youngsters and families-and arguing that they (the choice programs) should be judged in relation to the real world alternatives available to such children, not against idealized standards. After Hill's introduction come a chapter on how to assess choice programs (by Hill and Kacey Guin); one setting forth the evidence from experimental studies in New York, Washington and Dayton (by Paul Peterson, David Campbell and Martin West); one offering a "supply-side view of student selectivity" (John Chubb); one on the "quality of peers" left in traditional public schools (the tireless Eric Hanushek); a detailed review of the evidence of the effects of choice on students in conventional public schools (the prolific Caroline Hoxby); and a concluding essay on "the structure of school choice" by Terry Moe. The ISBN is 0817938923. This volume, too, can be obtained for $15 plus $4 shipping fee by calling 800-935-2882 or visiting http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/books/choice.html.

edited by Margaret C. Wang and Herbert J. Walberg
2002

The endlessly productive Herbert J. Walberg and the late Margaret C. Wang edited this 400-page volume, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Arising from a Wingspread conference, it offers four chapters on school choice programs (by Walberg and Joseph Bast, Bruno Manno, Terry Moe and Paul Peterson) and six on systemic reform (which the editors prefer to term "best systems"), these being by Kenneth Wong, Margaret Wang and JoAnn Manning, Diana Lam, Education Secretary (then Houston superintendent) Rod Paige and Susan Sclafani, John Bishop and Ferran Mane, and James Guthrie. The editors do their level best (in an epilogue) to distill commonalities and shared lessons from both reform strategies, but their more useful contribution is to explain how and why the two approaches are "reconcilable and, in fact, being reconciled in policy and practice," a proposition I also advanced in last week's Education Gadfly (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=60#864). The ISBN is 0805834877 and you can buy a paperback copy for $32.50 (or a hard cover for a lot more) from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07439. Surf to www.erlbaum.com/Books/searchintro/BookDetailscvr.cfm?ISBN=0-8058-3487-7. Or phone (800) 926-6579 or e-mail [email protected].

edited by Tom Loveless
2002

Tom Loveless edited this fine new Brookings collection of 14 chapters addressing the "reading and math wars." Based on a 1999 Harvard conference, it does an exemplary job both of adumbrating the views of major contenders in each of those "wars" and of suggesting how and why the conflicts arose and what might bring an end to them. They're not identical disputes, however, as Loveless points out in a helpful introduction. The math wars are mainly about content, the reading fights about pedagogy. He notes that, by and large during the 1990's, the "progressive" approach prevailed in math while the "traditionalists" were dominant in reading. And he makes this astute observation: "[T]he side in political ascendancy [in either field] is prone to declare that a balanced approach has been achieved. Thus critics of NCTM and the advocates of whole language were less likely to be enthralled with the balanced approaches touted by policymakers at the end of the decade." Anybody wondering "what the heck is going on in reading and math" will come away from this 360-page volume considerably enlightened if not necessarily heartened. The ISBN is 0815753098. You can learn more, and order a copy, by surfing to http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/books/curriculum_debate.htm.

edited by Williamson Evers and Herbert Walberg
2002

Edited by Williamson Evers and Herbert Walberg, this new Hoover Institution book is a product of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education. In 198 pages and 6 chapters (plus an editors' introduction) it furnishes a basic guide to results-based education accountability. Diane Ravitch offers important historical context for today's testing and accountability reforms. I try to delineate the several different forms of accountability in people's minds today and suggest a resolution among them. Caroline Hoxby explores the (modest) price tag of test-based accountability and judges it a bargain. Eric Hanushek and Margaret Raymond offer a general state-policy framework and examine some key issues that lawmakers must resolve. Lance Izumi and Bill Evers offer case studies of Florida, Texas and California. And Herb Walberg suggests a dozen "design principles" for effective accountability systems. The ISBN is 0817938826. To learn more, order your very own copy (for $15 plus $4 shipping fee) by dialing 800-935-2882 or surfing to http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/books/accountability.html.

Gary Miron and Christopher Nelson
2002

Every criticism that has ever been leveled against charter schools can be found in this book. There would be nothing shocking about this if it weren't that Messrs. Miron and Nelson are researchers at the Western Michigan University's Evaluation Center, which is viewed by many as an impartial judge of charter schools and often signed on to evaluate them, in Michigan and beyond. What's Public About Charter Schools claims to "provide an in-depth examination of the charter concept as it has been operationalized in one of the nation's most populous states." Indeed it provides some useful analysis of how charter schools have worked in Michigan since 1993, but within each chapter the reader will also discover a subtle attack on charter schools. Some of these criticisms are fair, while others seem based more on bias or preference than an objective reading of the facts. For example, the authors appear upset that individual charter schools do not serve the needs of every type of young person a community might produce. They seem to equate public education with the concept of the large "comprehensive school" that could theoretically meet the needs of every kid in town-from those wanting honors courses to those content with taking vocational courses. No doubt such schools provide an economy of scale, yet it's common knowledge today that large-scale learning factories ill-serve far too many young people who slip through the cracks. In working with charter schools, one hears teachers, students, and parents say they value the smaller scale of charter schools because they believe it is easier for such schools to stay focused on their most important mission-helping children learn. It is true that charter schools often narrow their focus. They don't try to be all things to all children; rather, they participate in a philosophy of choice that encourages families with different priorities to opt for different schools. Miron and Nelson seem to think that every school should provide a full range of student services such as guidance counseling, health care, psychological services, social work, teacher consultants, and athletics. But is it really a problem that individual schools want to narrowly focus on teaching and learning? Miron and Nelson also claim that charter schools fail children with disabilities and, in Michigan at least, encourage "cream-skimming." Despite the rhetoric of empowering the consumer, the authors argue, charter schools select whom they want to attend while children and their parents take what they can get. This, Miron and Nelson claim, leads to social sorting and even downright segregation. In trying to explain why parents would tolerate these injustices the authors contend it's because they don't know any better. They write, "It is important, however, to distinguish between reasons for choosing and what actually exists at the charter school, especially since most of the parents chose their charter school before it was even open and would have had limited information about the actual quality of instruction that would be offered." The authors also believe that charter schools receive more funding than conventional schools, if one looks at "the true cost of educating different groups of students." They make this case despite the fact that charter schools in Michigan receive $1500 to $2000 less a year in actual funding per pupil. It's an interesting enough book, but it's unbelievable that those who wrote it are viewed by anyone as impartial on the subject of charters. You order a copy from Corwin Press for $29.95 (paperback) by downloading an order form at http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/charter/order_form.pdf and/or e-mailing [email protected], calling 800-818-7243, or faxing 800-417-2466. - Terry Ryan