The Education Gadfly Weekly

Phyllis McClure, Dianne Piché, William L. Taylor
Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights
July 2006

This report by the D.C.-based Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights (CCCR) criticizes federal and state governments for shirking No Child Left Behind's teacher quality provisions. These provisions require two basic things: 1) all teachers of core academic subjects must be "highly qualified" by 2006, and 2) states and districts must ensure that poor and minority pupils have equal access to qualified teachers. CCCR examined U.S. Department of Education site-visit reports from forty states in 2004. The commission concludes that states' compliance with the HQT provisions was woefully inadequate that year. The authors allege that "many states provided highly suspect and misleading data during the early years of the law, claiming that virtually all of their teachers had already met the law's goals with regard to teachers' qualifications and their equitable distribution to schools." In reality, no state was even close to meeting the requirements. (One of the study's authors wrote as much here.) The report also blames the Department and the Bush Administration for waiting a full four years after NCLB's passage to begin enforcing teacher quality provisions. And even Secretary Spellings's recent tough talk on highly qualified teachers doesn't satisfy these critics, who rue the Department's decision to allow states showing "good faith" an extra year to achieve compliance. The authors make eleven recommendations for raising teacher quality, organized into four general categories: transparency and open records, data quality, fostering innovation, and enforcement. These are all fine as they go, but they don't address the fundamental problems with the HQT provisions in the first place--namely their reliance on teacher certification and their wimpiness when it comes to subject-matter knowledge (see here). You can find the report here.

James S. Leming, Lucien Ellington, and Mark Schug
Center for Survey Research and Analysis, University of Connecticut
May 2006

We know where social studies "went wrong" (see here), and we have a good sense for the generally miserable quality of state standards for teaching history (see here and here). But what do social studies teachers themselves have to say about the subject they teach? As it turns out, quite a lot. That is what three members of the Contrarian Project--a group of longstanding National Council of Social Studies members concerned about the organization's anti-content leanings and PC approach to the subject--found out in this first-of-its-kind survey of 1,051 second-, fifth-, and eighth-grade social studies teachers across the country. The Contrarians examined teachers' views on the quality of their textbooks (favorable-just 6 percent said their textbooks were "poor") and how important social studies is in their schools (not very-most teachers rank it far behind math and reading in importance and well below science). Interestingly, a strong majority (74 percent) says that passage of NCLB hasn't reduced the amount of time they spend teaching the subject--though that time was short to begin with. Among the most disconcerting findings: 65 percent of social studies teachers took fewer than 10 courses in the field as undergraduates. And they're aware of the problems this creates for them. When asked to choose what would improve them most as teachers, 66 percent said gaining a better understanding of the subject material. Social studies may not be making the grade, but many teachers are aware of their own shortcomings and want to improve. The next step is doing it. You may request copies of the report by emailing [email protected].

Look around you--everywhere, even on the front page of the New York Times, boys are failing. Young men are in trouble. And everyone's trying to figure out why.

Or so we and many others thought (see here, here, and here) until last month when Sara Mead jolted those riding the "The Trouble With Boys" bandwagon with her study, The Evidence Suggests Otherwise: The Truth About Boys and Girls. In it, she contends that "The real story is not bad news about boys doing worse; it's good news about girls doing better."

She cites NAEP data showing that, over the past 35 years, boys as a group haven't gained or lost ground to girls on test scores. And she answers those who worry that women are flooding college campuses, leaving men outside the gates, by arguing that more men are in college today than ever--it's just that women had more ground to gain, and they've done that. (For more, see here.)

Christina Hoff Sommers, author of The War Against Boys, and Michael Gurian, author of The Minds of Boys, wasted no time in firing back (see here and here). Like Mead, both cite NAEP data and use their best culture war language to argue that boys are in desperate straits. Sommers points to minority males' deplorable track record on NAEP and how much better minority girls are doing. Gurian claims that Mead overlooks the larger cultural forces at play against males.

Because both sides draw on the same data sources, the average observer may well wonder who's right.

The existing evidence isn't likely to resolve the debate-though Mead has some things to answer for. A little international perspective might help, however. Neither Mead nor Sommers consider the Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRL) assessment, which shows that fourth-grade boys' scores in each participating country trailed those of fourth-grade girls in 2001. This raises an interesting question that neither wonk wants to entertain: Is there a problem with boys in general or is it possible that boys and girls simply develop intellectually (and in other ways) at different rates?

The same point in reverse can be made with math and science. Both internationally and in the U.S., boys have lost some ground to girls in those subjects, but boys still score better on average. This despite 30 years of programs in the United States encouraging women to study more hard sciences and opening more doors for them to do so. Outgoing Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers was politically incorrect in the remarks that cost him his post, but just as girls do better in reading when they're younger, perhaps there's something to boys doing better, on the whole, in math and science.

The trouble with "The Trouble With Boys" argument is that it forces us to home in on boy-girl trend lines and ignore the individual. Girls may excel in reading and writing, but no shortage of greats such as Maxwell Perkins, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck show that boys can do it, too. Ditto boys and science. Sure, statistically they may fare better, but Sally Ride, Jane Goodall, and Evelyn Boyd Granville prove girls can soar.

In a recent Esquire article, Kati Haycock does a good job of putting girls' gains and boys' struggles in perspective: The gains of girls, she explains, are "the result of a couple of generations of advocacy on the part of women, and girls getting the message that anything is possible.... That's what's owed the boys. It's a matter of generational focus."

Today's generation of policy worriers is focusing on boys. So let's capitalize on it. Let's instruct teachers to use emerging brain science to inform the way they teach boys in their classrooms. Let's face the possibility that, in creating opportunities for girls, we may have overcompensated and done away with things that work for boys, like more competition and greater classroom structure. Let's make sure there are plenty of books that young boys will find interesting (books about sports and soldiers are more apt to catch a young lad's eye than Max and Ruby or Dora.)

But let's realize that it's most important to see and teach Johnny and Jenny based on their innate talents--all of them. So whether Johnny opts for becoming the next Neil Armstrong or the next Neil Simon, he's prepared to pursue either course that interests him.

School buses have never been particularly comfortable, efficient, or hip. So how would Mickey Velilla make the morning commute easier on students? Let them take limos. Velilla is president of Diamond Star Limousine, one of several Tampa Bay-area limo companies that offer transportation for youngsters who need to get to and from school but find public transportation and yellow buses thoroughly distasteful. The trend is blossoming on the Suncoast, but some parents "wonder" if the limos create a status divide and spoil well-off kids. Hmm, seems like a possibility. But Kim Lang, a Tampa mother who owns a candle company and sacrifices work time to transport her children, finds the idea quite sensible. And her kids would love it. "They're really all about pomp and circumstance," she said. "They are all into status." Of course, with limos transitioning from extravagance to everyday, one wonders how students will commute to such soirees as the eighth grade dance, homecoming, or prom--traditional limo haunts, all. Hansom cabs? Luxury rickshaws? Does anyone know the number to Diddy's cell?

"School busing in style," by Ben Montgomery, St. Petersburg Times, July 8, 2006

We'll try to hide our grin as we note the end of Michael Winerip's education columns in the New York Times. Over the past four years, he somehow managed to travel the country reporting about K-12 education and never deviate from his initial, illogical perceptions (see here). And so it is in his final piece, where the Defender of All Things Status Quo offers suggestions for "improving" NCLB when its reauthorization rolls around next year. As expected, his claims are standard fare: reduce class sizes ("a moral issue"), stop blaming teachers when their students can't read, etc. Winerip refuses to budge from his belief that the country's K-12 education system shouldn't be held accountable. Instead, he calls for teachers to be "trusted." (Does he feel the same about stockbrokers or corporations or everyone else in our society, or are educators a special class?) He manages to forget that, before standards-based reform began in a serious way in 1989, teachers were pretty much allowed to monitor their own progress. They didn't produce inspiring results, especially for poor and minority students. Public education exists to serve the citizenry, and it is to the citizenry that it must ultimately answer. As for Mr. Winerip, perhaps the Times will now deploy him to report on auto sales.

"Teachers, and a law that distrusts them," by Michael Winerip, New York Times, July 12, 2006 

Mexico's presidential election brought a rare consensus in the U.S. press. Ideologically diverse outlets from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal seemed to agree (see here and here; subscriptions required) that Felipe Calderón, Mexico's new leader (recount notwithstanding), has two choices. He can either revive a faltering economy by opening the country's mostly-closed economy to outside investment or he can cast his lot with leaders of other Latin American states who prefer either populist demagoguery or inaction to real reform. By choosing the former, they argue, he can develop good opportunities for Mexicans at home and help stem the flow of workers northward.

Yet the media focused so intently on economic issues that they largely ignored another Mexican system in urgent need of reform: K-12 education. Even with liberalized economics, it's impossible to create jobs and promising opportunities when large swaths of the country's population remain mostly uneducated.

Mexico has a lot going for it. It's flush with natural resources, is blessed with thousands of miles of coastline, and abuts the world's most prosperous nation. Yet Mexico remains mired in poverty and continues to hemorrhage human capital to the United States.

That's not surprising when the nation's K-12 schools are models of bureaucratic incompetence and corruption. They are also in thrall to the all-powerful National Education Workers Union, which has done much to devalue and degrade classroom instruction for Mexican children.

For example, the teachers union has advocated keeping the elementary school day limited to a paltry four hours of instruction. It has opposed any overhaul of an 80-year-old middle school curriculum that perceptive government officials say is in desperate need of modernizing.

And then there's teacher absenteeism, a major problem in Mexico because firing teachers, even when they habitually miss work, is prevented by the union. A 2004 Washington Post article quoted one principal, Jose Luis Gonzalez, who could not fire his school's ninth-grade math teacher despite the instructor's taking another job and missing 75 percent of his classes.

Even more shocking is the union's de facto custom of "selling" teaching jobs, or taking bribe money to expedite certain individuals' teacher applications. A top Education Ministry official told the Post, "The union is a business for selling jobs."

Add to this graft the schools' incompetent, centralized control and the results are predictable: a 2005-06 World Economic Forum report placed the quality of Mexican education 81st out of 117 countries. Only 25 percent of the nation's students graduate from high school.

When U.S. politicians discuss immigration, and when the White House begins negotiating with the new Mexican administration, improving that nation's elementary-secondary education system should be a priority. Illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States may be primarily the result of Mexico's lagging economy, but according to a recent World Education and Development Fund paper (and common sense), "One of the key factors thwarting economic growth in Mexico is the extremely poor education level of its citizens."

Those who are most frequently shortchanged in Mexico's classrooms come from rural areas, many in the country's south. And the vast majority of undocumented immigrants come from those areas, too. A recent New York Times Magazine article details that 60 percent of Mexican immigrants in the United States are dropouts.

Calderón espouses sound, market-based policies on the economic front, but change may still be slow to come. According to Stephen Johnson of the Heritage Foundation, Mexican citizens are notoriously wary of efforts to reform their country's "sacred cows," whether that means fighting the teacher unions or allowing principals more control over their schools.

Mexico's outgoing President Vicente Fox missed the chance to reform his nation's public schools. Let's hope the United States leans on Calderón to do the right thing and that Mexico's new leader has the cojones to enact some real change.

Who was Captain Cook, and what did he discover? Prime Minister John Howard wants young Aussies to know this and much more, and is calling for a "root-and-branch renewal of the teaching of Australian history... and the way it is taught." Education Minister Julie Bishop tacks with him, complaining that history is currently presented in vague themes, and "squashed... together with other social and environmental studies." She, Howard, and their allies want history taught in a narrative style, without social and ideological brainwashing. But opposition leader Kim Beazley and Queensland Education Minister Rob Welford prefer the social studies soup. Says Welford, "I think we have learnt over the years that the regurgitation of facts and figures is not really ‘learning.'" Sound familiar? At least in Cook's day bad ideas didn't travel around the world quite so quickly. Prime Minister Howard: throw those pedagogical pirates overboard!

"Beazley against history revival," by Imre Salusinszky and Dan Box, The Australian, July 6, 2006

"History back in schools," by Imre Salusinszky, The Australian, July 5, 2006

Will the marriage of Paul Vallas and Philadelphia's School Reform Commission (SRC) soon end in divorce? The two got off to a lovely start in 2002, when Vallas implemented a series of innovative reforms, such as closing chaotic middle schools and creating unique partnerships with the private sector, but passions have cooled since the honeymoon and Vallas's bosses now seem less enthusiastic about renewing their vows. It's unfortunate that the seven-year itch has hit SRC and Vallas three years early. Under the couple's guidance, the City of Brotherly Love's schools have made good progress. Alas, SRC members find Vallas's celebrated intensity tough to live with. One member suggested that Philadelphia needs "a bureaucrat rather than a messiah." Others resent Vallas's aggressive style and independent decision-making. One commentator even called him "crazy." But a strong-willed partner is no reason for a divorce. Perhaps the two should sit down with Boston's recently retired Superintendent Thomas Payzant, whose tenure in Beantown is a testament to sticking together through the tough times--and paid off for its children. Come on, Philly, give it one more try.

"Vallas may be ‘crazy,' but we'd be crazier to let him go," by Ronnie Polaneczky, Philadelphia Daily News, July 6, 2006

"Vallas' future here is uncertain," by Susan Snyder and Martha Woodall, Philadelphia Inquirer, July 2, 2006

James S. Leming, Lucien Ellington, and Mark Schug
Center for Survey Research and Analysis, University of Connecticut
May 2006

We know where social studies "went wrong" (see here), and we have a good sense for the generally miserable quality of state standards for teaching history (see here and here). But what do social studies teachers themselves have to say about the subject they teach? As it turns out, quite a lot. That is what three members of the Contrarian Project--a group of longstanding National Council of Social Studies members concerned about the organization's anti-content leanings and PC approach to the subject--found out in this first-of-its-kind survey of 1,051 second-, fifth-, and eighth-grade social studies teachers across the country. The Contrarians examined teachers' views on the quality of their textbooks (favorable-just 6 percent said their textbooks were "poor") and how important social studies is in their schools (not very-most teachers rank it far behind math and reading in importance and well below science). Interestingly, a strong majority (74 percent) says that passage of NCLB hasn't reduced the amount of time they spend teaching the subject--though that time was short to begin with. Among the most disconcerting findings: 65 percent of social studies teachers took fewer than 10 courses in the field as undergraduates. And they're aware of the problems this creates for them. When asked to choose what would improve them most as teachers, 66 percent said gaining a better understanding of the subject material. Social studies may not be making the grade, but many teachers are aware of their own shortcomings and want to improve. The next step is doing it. You may request copies of the report by emailing [email protected].

Phyllis McClure, Dianne Piché, William L. Taylor
Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights
July 2006

This report by the D.C.-based Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights (CCCR) criticizes federal and state governments for shirking No Child Left Behind's teacher quality provisions. These provisions require two basic things: 1) all teachers of core academic subjects must be "highly qualified" by 2006, and 2) states and districts must ensure that poor and minority pupils have equal access to qualified teachers. CCCR examined U.S. Department of Education site-visit reports from forty states in 2004. The commission concludes that states' compliance with the HQT provisions was woefully inadequate that year. The authors allege that "many states provided highly suspect and misleading data during the early years of the law, claiming that virtually all of their teachers had already met the law's goals with regard to teachers' qualifications and their equitable distribution to schools." In reality, no state was even close to meeting the requirements. (One of the study's authors wrote as much here.) The report also blames the Department and the Bush Administration for waiting a full four years after NCLB's passage to begin enforcing teacher quality provisions. And even Secretary Spellings's recent tough talk on highly qualified teachers doesn't satisfy these critics, who rue the Department's decision to allow states showing "good faith" an extra year to achieve compliance. The authors make eleven recommendations for raising teacher quality, organized into four general categories: transparency and open records, data quality, fostering innovation, and enforcement. These are all fine as they go, but they don't address the fundamental problems with the HQT provisions in the first place--namely their reliance on teacher certification and their wimpiness when it comes to subject-matter knowledge (see here). You can find the report here.