The Education Gadfly Weekly

Lawrence A. Uzzell, Cato Institute
May 2005

This policy analysis was the centerpiece of a symposium at Cato this week (get audio here) that also featured our own Checker Finn, as well as Nina Rees from the Department of Education and Margaret Dayton, the Utah legislator who led that state's NCLB revolt. Uzzell declares that the No Child Left Behind act entices schools, districts, and states to cover up their problems, misrepresent their academic and demographic data, and encourage cheating and gaming of the system. Rather than continuing down the current doomed path, Uzzell advocates removing state and federal "control" of schools and placing power at the local level, especially with parents via - yup, you guessed it - healthy free market competition. No big surprises, considering the publisher. But it's a bit ironic that, after classifying NCLB as an "ideological strain that is novel for Republican presidents: utopianism," Uzzell's recommendations suffer from the same syndrome. To read for yourself, surf here.

"Dayton claims NCLB is immoral," by Robert Gehrke, Salt Lake Tribune, June 1, 2005

"Local support lacking for NCLB," by George Archibald, Washington Times, June 1, 2005

Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy at MassINC
Spring 2005

Even after setting high standards and developing a strong accountability system (for which the Bay State has won plaudits), Massachusetts's education work is far from over. Low-performing districts and schools lack the capacity and infrastructure to make student achievement soar. Instead of simply giving more money to districts and schools, the study asserts that the state should provide technical assistance or contract out such duties to help the low-performers improve. This paper identifies several areas where the state could play a larger role: curriculum and professional development, assessment and data, and leadership building. The authors interviewed principals, superintendents, and others involved in Massachusetts education policy, as well as experts in other states, to frame the needs and capabilities of districts, schools, and state education departments. No state has a perfect system in place, but the authors sketch a "model state role" for Massachusetts and beyond. They also identify obstacles that impede their recommendations. Overall, a perceptive inquiry into steps that a state already headed in the right direction can take to move itself further down the road to academic achievement. See it here.

William G. Howell, editor, Brookings Press
June 2005

This 14-essay, 350-page Brookings volume provides pots of information about local school boards in America and explains that they are a deeply rooted institution that is apt to be around for some time to come, albeit in diminished form. But it does not persuasively argue that this institution is effective, efficient, responsive, or good for children, saying more about the inevitability than the desirability or utility of school boards. Perhaps that's good, realistic political science not to shout against a hurricane. But I have scant patience for education governance mechanisms or institutions that are easily captured by adult interests, that don't boost student learning in our era of standards-based reform, and that, with rare exception, do their utmost to maintain monopoly control and discourage competition. Several authors in this collection seem to share that view; others manifestly do not. See for yourself - and learn a lot about school boards from this covey of astute and knowledgeable analysts, led by Harvard's William Howell. The ISBN is 0815736835 and you can obtain additional information here.

Lisa Petrides and Thad Nodine, Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management of Education
May 2005

This 84-pager was prepared on behalf of the NewSchools Venture Fund. It seeks to discover how urban school systems can do a better job of adopting "performance-driven practices that are explicitly directed toward increasing student achievement." (Two more papers on this topic will follow.) An example of such practices: frequent diagnostic assessments used for benchmarking. The authors come to six conclusions, none of which will surprise you, including their final observation that "Districts face significant hurdles in adopting performance-driven practices." Still, there's food for thought here amongst urban superintendents, school board members, and state officials contemplating intervening in "districts in need of improvement." You can see for yourself here.

The spirit of Albert Shanker lives on, at least some days it does, at the union he once led. The latest edition of AFT's American Educator focuses on NCLB and concludes that accountability and standards are the right approach, but that substantial changes are required in the law - fix it, don't scrap it. John Cole, president of the Texas Federation of Teachers, writes a sound lead story on how standards and accountability saved Texas. Many teachers and administrators knew which schools (mostly serving low-income and minority students) were failing to educate and did nothing to fix them. Standards and accountability outed these schools to the public and "ended the conspiracy of silence." More money helped in Texas, but without reform, it would have been spent on everything except "the things that effect academic achievement." In a second article, Lauren Resnick and Chris Zurawsky show how a standards-based system is "starting to work, especially for the poorest children in the most challenged schools. For the first time in our history, American schools are truly focused on fostering the academic achievement of all students." While AFT and Gadfly differ on some issues, at least one union seems willing to keep the bipartisan comity of 2001 alive. A good lesson for us: not all teacher unions are the same, at least not all the time.

"Standards-based reform and accountability," American Educator, Spring 2005

Japanese education reform redux

Amid all the recent furor over Japan's new school textbooks, whose whitewashing of World War II atrocities fed outrage in Korea and massive government-sanctioned demonstrations in China, few outside Japan are paying much attention to the lackluster results of its latest round of education reforms and the rethinking that is now underway within that country.

Three years ago, after an education reform conference in Tokyo, I wrote in this space (see here) that Japan's then-new "rainbow plan" (yutori ky??iku ) for revitalizing elementary-secondary education might strengthen America's prospects for besting the Chrysanthemum Kingdom in the next round of international assessments. Among that plan's seven elements were steps to lighten curriculum content by an estimated 30 percent and shorten Japan's famously long school year. (You can read more here.)

The rationale at the time, of course, was that stagnation in Japan's long-vibrant economy meant that the country needed new forms of human capital, people who were more creative and flexible, less robotic, and more concerned about others. There was talk of making "the learning environment . . . enjoyable and free of worries." It was said that "integrated studies" would foster a greater "zest for living" via "hands-on activities."

My hunch was that such easing up would likely prove bad rather than good for Japan's international competitiveness. While one hates to say "I told you so"...Or is it Schadenfreude? In any case, we now glimpse early signs that Japanese student achievement is declining relative to other nations, at least if recent rounds of PISA and TIMSS tests are to be believed.

Professor Kondo Motohiro of Nihon University wrote in Japan Echo last month that "In science, eighth-graders dropped from fourth place in the 1999 TIMSS to sixth place in 2003. The average mathematics score fell for both eighth-graders and fourth-graders, and the average science score fell for fourth-graders, indicating a clear decline in basic academic skills." Motohiro adds that this handwriting had been on the wall for some time:

Various national surveys had shown not only a drop in achievement but also an increase in the number of unmotivated children and a decline in the amount of time spent on homework. In short, the verdict has been in on yutori ky??iku for some time now. However, it was not until January 2005 that Education Minister Nakayama Nariaki publicly expressed his misgivings about the 'room to grow' policy and announced his intention to carry out yet another comprehensive curriculum review (see here).

Given the curricular changes that have been underway in Japan, it's no surprise that objective test scores would in time falter: "Sets and probability disappeared from the elementary math curriculum in 1992," Motohiro writes, "and children were taught that the value of pi was 'about 3' (although the number 3.14 did appear in textbooks). Traditional science and social studies classes were eliminated for first- and second-graders and replaced by 'everyday life' classes, which included such hands-on activities as growing vegetables."

It could be coincidence, but Japanese schools have also been suffering mightily of late from a breakdown in classroom discipline and student behavior.

So now, it seems, the Koizumi government is setting out to reform Japanese education all over again. That's a very protracted process. Despite (or perhaps because of) its highly centralized national education system, Japan's notoriously controlling bureaucracy is very slow to move. "At least three years are bound to elapse," Motohiro says, "between the time the Education Ministry identifies the problem and the implementation of a solution.....The result is that the country's education system is always several years behind in responding to change."

It first struck me almost twenty years ago when, at the U.S. Department of Education, I presided over the American side of a joint U.S.-Japanese bilateral education policy study (see here), that it was remarkable to see Japanese reformers in search of progressivism at the very same time the U.S. was commencing its long march "back to the basics." Our march continues. Could Japan, finally, be heading in the same direction?

Bush high school reform: R.I.P.

It's more or less official now. The 109th Congress is not going near high school reform, despite that being top priority on the Bush administration's education agenda this year.

In January, the White House, you may recall, offered up an ambitious set of proposals that would, in effect, extend the NCLB umbrella to cover high schools. (You can see a summary here.) The $1.5 billion price tag was to be funded by redeploying vocational ed dollars into high school reform.

This turned out to be a non-starter, both because Congress is (inexplicably) devoted to vocational education and because members are loath to widen the reach of NCLB, which seems contentious enough on its present scale.

Hence a Perkins Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 366) recently cleared the House and landed in the Senate, where some version of it will surely pass. And in remarks the other day, House education committee chairman John Boehner courteously informed the world that, while he's much in favor of high school reform and hugely appreciates the President's leadership, in fact he has no intention of pressing for this to occur at the behest of Uncle Sam. "I think we need to take a look at what states and communities are already doing proactively to transform high schools," quoth the chairman, "and ask whether additional federal requirements are even justified" (see here).

Hence the action now moves to governors and legislators, to groups like NGA and Achieve, to funders like Gates, and to innumerable agitators and advocates.

Troubled as the U.S. high school scene is - with far too many dropouts and far too little learning among most of those who make it through - decentralized pluralism is probably the right formulation for now. Washington has its hands full and should figure out how to succeed with NCLB before trying to do still more.

In this week's New Republic, Robert Gordon, a former Kerry education advisor, indicts his own party for straying from its egalitarian ideals and losing credibility on education policy. America's education system is obviously flawed, Gordon alleges, yet Democrats can only defend the failing status quo or attack any plans that don't involve more blank checks to the current system. Those whom Democrats claim to help (the lower class, minorities, etc.) have to wonder why they continue to vote blue. Many Democrats oppose standards and accountability (which have proven to narrow racial and economic achievement gaps); they oppose combat pay, which would encourage the best teachers to work in the worst schools by providing bonuses (where they are the most desperately needed and have the largest impact); they oppose NCLB as an unfunded mandate on grounds that it requires states to spend more money (or simply because the President supports it, though many Democrats before Bush supported accountability); they oppose choice options that would allow poor students to escape terrible schools - the list goes on. Gordon urges Democrats to offer their own plans for reform or risk losing their last shred of credibility. Improving teacher quality, he suggests, could be the rallying cry, but it "requires changes to the pay system and school culture that abet mediocrity. Standing alone, the usual liberal solution - across-the-board pay hikes - perpetuates the maldistribution of good teachers and reinforces the irrelevance of achievement." But these changes are resisted by powerful teacher unions, to which Democrats seem blindingly beholden. Gordon provides the much-needed progressive analysis of NCLB that has so far been drowned out by union dogma. As he notes, NCLB is legislation that Lyndon Johnson Democrats could only dream of. Perhaps liberals would be wise to reexamine their stance and rediscover their ideals.

"What Democrats need to say about education," by Robert Gordon, New Republic, June 6, 2005 (registration required)

He's baaaaaack. Alan Bersin, deposed San Diego superintendent - a victim of a fierce union effort to undo reforms that were overturning settled ways of operating (see here) - has been named California Secretary of Education by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The post does not have tons of direct control but it will at least give Bersin the opportunity to use the bully pulpit to shake things up. As the Christian Science Monitor notes, he will not be a wallflower. Gadfly was not 100% enthused by Bersin's reforms and some of his moves were clearly missteps (see "Lessons from San Diego," for more) but we've always admired his reformist zeal as well as his energy, intellect and integrity. With Bersin hitched to Schwarzenegger - who has his own set of reform ideas (see "Whither tenure?" for more) and a happy-warrior mentality - we predict stormy but productive days ahead in Sacramento.

"A lightning rod takes on California's schools," by Randy Dotinga, Christian Science Monitor, May 31, 2005

"Effects of unions hard to gauge, study says," by Bess Keller, Education Week, May 25, 2005

In the past, being valedictorian of one's high school class was mostly an opportunity to subject the assembled graduates and well-wishers to a string of mindless clich??s. ("We'll all be friends forever!") But a fascinating New Yorker essay by the talented Margaret Talbot notes that so coveted is the valedictorian slot among elite high schoolers that students are increasingly gaming the system, choosing courses carefully to rack up bonus G.P.A. points, and even filing suit to force schools to name them the winner of the high school sweepstakes. Driving this trend is the practice of awarding extra points on the traditional 4-point G.P.A. scale, which allows students to reach 4.5 and beyond. So out of hand have the valedictorian sweepstakes become that some schools are considering dropping the practice of naming the top academic achiever in a class. As one principal notes, that should only happen when the high school football team lets everybody play quarterback - schools should honor exceptional academic achievement. But the system clearly needs reform, and a lot of hyper-stressed parents and their kids need to chill out. It is one of life's great truths that being at the top of the high school heap matters a lot less than you think at the time.

"Best in class," by Margaret Talbot, New Yorker, June 6, 2005

As the voucher flurry of 2005 winds down (see here and here for recent news), a few new developments have popped up. First, a recap of Florida's "opportunity scholarship" debate (see here) one week in advance of the Florida Supreme Court voucher decision highlights the arguments of both supporters and opponents of Florida's Blaine amendment regarding public spending on religious institutions. What will happen next? Stay tuned. And now, after last week's round of good charter news (see here), vouchers are up for a journalistic reappraisal this week. Tuesday's Washington Post puts a human face on the contentious federal D.C. voucher program, telling of the lengths (and distances) one mother in southeast D.C. travels to "take full advantage of the voucher program." Says mom Nikia Hammond: "I am just focusing on what I am doing it for, to pull myself up and my children up." And the Washington Times writes a great story about the implementation of Colorado's college tuition vouchers (for complete details of the program, see here) that are an effort to counter the "Colorado Paradox" - the state ranks first in the nation in the percentage of people over age 25 with a college degree, but the number of resident high schoolers attending college remains surprisingly low. Nancy McCallin of the Colorado Community College System hopes that, by putting "a face on all these dollars," the state colleges will "increasingly have to put the focus on students, or they'll leave."

"Justices to decide future of vouchers," by Joe Follick, Lakeland Ledger, May 31, 2005

"D.C. family finds voucher journey well worth it," by Jay Mathews, Washington Post, May 31, 2005

"College vouchers put a face on funds in Colorado," by George Archibald, Washington Times, May 31, 2005

Lawrence A. Uzzell, Cato Institute
May 2005

This policy analysis was the centerpiece of a symposium at Cato this week (get audio here) that also featured our own Checker Finn, as well as Nina Rees from the Department of Education and Margaret Dayton, the Utah legislator who led that state's NCLB revolt. Uzzell declares that the No Child Left Behind act entices schools, districts, and states to cover up their problems, misrepresent their academic and demographic data, and encourage cheating and gaming of the system. Rather than continuing down the current doomed path, Uzzell advocates removing state and federal "control" of schools and placing power at the local level, especially with parents via - yup, you guessed it - healthy free market competition. No big surprises, considering the publisher. But it's a bit ironic that, after classifying NCLB as an "ideological strain that is novel for Republican presidents: utopianism," Uzzell's recommendations suffer from the same syndrome. To read for yourself, surf here.

"Dayton claims NCLB is immoral," by Robert Gehrke, Salt Lake Tribune, June 1, 2005

"Local support lacking for NCLB," by George Archibald, Washington Times, June 1, 2005

Lisa Petrides and Thad Nodine, Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management of Education
May 2005

This 84-pager was prepared on behalf of the NewSchools Venture Fund. It seeks to discover how urban school systems can do a better job of adopting "performance-driven practices that are explicitly directed toward increasing student achievement." (Two more papers on this topic will follow.) An example of such practices: frequent diagnostic assessments used for benchmarking. The authors come to six conclusions, none of which will surprise you, including their final observation that "Districts face significant hurdles in adopting performance-driven practices." Still, there's food for thought here amongst urban superintendents, school board members, and state officials contemplating intervening in "districts in need of improvement." You can see for yourself here.

Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy at MassINC
Spring 2005

Even after setting high standards and developing a strong accountability system (for which the Bay State has won plaudits), Massachusetts's education work is far from over. Low-performing districts and schools lack the capacity and infrastructure to make student achievement soar. Instead of simply giving more money to districts and schools, the study asserts that the state should provide technical assistance or contract out such duties to help the low-performers improve. This paper identifies several areas where the state could play a larger role: curriculum and professional development, assessment and data, and leadership building. The authors interviewed principals, superintendents, and others involved in Massachusetts education policy, as well as experts in other states, to frame the needs and capabilities of districts, schools, and state education departments. No state has a perfect system in place, but the authors sketch a "model state role" for Massachusetts and beyond. They also identify obstacles that impede their recommendations. Overall, a perceptive inquiry into steps that a state already headed in the right direction can take to move itself further down the road to academic achievement. See it here.

William G. Howell, editor, Brookings Press
June 2005

This 14-essay, 350-page Brookings volume provides pots of information about local school boards in America and explains that they are a deeply rooted institution that is apt to be around for some time to come, albeit in diminished form. But it does not persuasively argue that this institution is effective, efficient, responsive, or good for children, saying more about the inevitability than the desirability or utility of school boards. Perhaps that's good, realistic political science not to shout against a hurricane. But I have scant patience for education governance mechanisms or institutions that are easily captured by adult interests, that don't boost student learning in our era of standards-based reform, and that, with rare exception, do their utmost to maintain monopoly control and discourage competition. Several authors in this collection seem to share that view; others manifestly do not. See for yourself - and learn a lot about school boards from this covey of astute and knowledgeable analysts, led by Harvard's William Howell. The ISBN is 0815736835 and you can obtain additional information here.