The Education Gadfly Weekly

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Center for School Change August 2005

The states' slow progress in meeting No Child Left Behind demands has most governors looking for ways to increase how quickly and effectively school districts change. How's this for a spark? Providing Quality Choice Options in Education, authored by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Joe Nathan's Center for School Change, offers up school choice as a solution. The policy prescriptions that the NGA presents aren't novel but they're sound - and good to see in an NGA report. Details aren't spelled out, and the report favors leaving specific policies for individual states to decide. But it does construct a school choice framework, including: disbursing per-pupil funding equally and offering start-up resources for school providers; funding transportation for choice schools; and encouraging and strengthening charter laws. The report also wisely notes that schools of choice must be held to account for their results.  Find it at http://preview.nga.org/Files/pdf/EDUCATIONCHOICE.PDF.

Center on Education Policy
August 2005

University professors and myriad employers across the nation have repeatedly voiced the same complaint - the majority of U.S. high school graduates lack the skills necessary to succeed in either the collegiate or professional world. High school exit examinations, instituted in large part to address this problem, are now a requirement in 26 states. In 19 of them, students must register a passing score to receive a diploma. In its fourth annual report dissecting exit examination trends in all but one of these states, the Center on Education Policy finds mostly depressing results. The percentage of students passing exit exams on their first try has stagnated, and large gaps persist between minority students, special education students, and English-language learners, and the rest of their classmates. To get greater traction, states are starting to invest both time and money to develop more support for students preparing for the exams. In some states, more dollars have been funneled to remediation programs for struggling students, and in others, curricula have been redefined so higher-level material is introduced in earlier grades. Unfortunately, not all reforms reflect this sound approach, and some seem regressive. Arizona, for example, has instituted the self-defeating practice of using a student's good grades to make up for his or her low exit exam scores. (If grades represented meaningful standards, we wouldn't need statewide exams.) Other states have simply downgraded their exit exam passing requirements altogether. Will the recent efforts of the nation's governors to make high school more rigorous lead to greater progress in time for next year's report? Stand by. Meanwhile, you can find this year's here.

The stated purpose of the "National Task Force on Public Education," appointed by President Clinton's former chief-of-staff John Podesta, was to "address the challenges facing our education system in an increasingly complex and interconnected world." Its true purpose was to carve out an education agenda for the Democratic Party. That's no easy task. Five years after George W. Bush scrambled education politics by embracing the "new Dems'" platform of stronger federal power, top-down accountability, and increased spending (and in doing so narrowed the "Who do you trust on education?" gap between the two parties from 27 percent during the Clinton-Dole race in 1996 to just 9 percent in 2000), Democrats are still struggling to regain their footing. Should they reach to the reactionary right like Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who last week sued the federal government on grounds that NCLB is an unfunded mandate and an invasion of states' rights, putting him in the unfavorable position of defending his state's yawning achievement gap? Should they lurch to the loopy left and embrace the arguments of Richard Rothstein, the unions, and others who declare education improvement impossible until poverty is eradicated? Or should they cling to the syncretistic center, with its grand bargain of reform in return for resources?

Thankfully, the task force of policy makers, scholars, and business leaders chose the latter. The objectives expressed in its report, "Getting Smarter, Becoming Fairer: A Progressive Education Agenda for a Stronger Nation," are clear - and right: close the achievement gaps within our country, as well as between the U.S. and its global competitors. Its tone is positive. There's little of the defeatism spotted in the latest Educational Testing Service poll, which found only 26 percent of teachers believing that all students are capable of reaching high academic standards. And plenty of its policy prescriptions deserve embracing: more time on task; high expectations, standards, and accountability; and connecting schools with families and communities.

Many of the specific recommendations, to be sure, are familiar and questionable liberal stalwarts: make pre-K education universal; support more after-school programs; dramatically boost federal funding; include measures other than standardized test scores in accountability systems; increase resources for social services. But some are counterintuitive. There's a call for a longer school day and year, for example, and the cited model is none other than the Knowledge is Power Program. (Read last week's KIPP write-up here.) There's a proposal to redesign U.S. high schools so that they prepare every student for college (sorry, voc-ed teachers). There's a hint at voluntary national standards (Why not go all the way and make them mandatory?) and justified criticism of state standards and their definitions of "proficiency," which are all over the map. Most shocking, there's a call for merit pay: "Traditional salary structures should also be reexamined and aligned with the state standards and accountability systems now geared toward raising student achievement." True, the report goes on to say that such pay systems should be "negotiated with teachers unions"; still, this feels like something out of The West Wing rather than real life.

This report is good news for school reformers. It signals a convergence among the leadership of the two major parties over several key ideas: all students should be held to the same high standards; parents should have a choice among quality schools; teachers should be paid and treated like true professionals; funding should be equitable and follow the child. Rather than entirely heeding their teacher-union base and turning No Child Left Behind into a wedge issue, Democrats in this report are largely embracing and building upon that legislation. (Perhaps this is explained by the selection, as task force co-chair, of George Mason University professor and civil rights activist Roger Wilkins, whose daughter Amy, employed by Education Trust, was as much an architect of NCLB as anyone.)

We hope that Republicans will take this opportunity to declare victory and work across the aisle to improve our schools. After all, there are plenty of other issues to fight over besides education. But there's a real danger that, at the very moment a bipartisan, results-oriented coalition is in sight, the GOP will allow its own anti-federalist base (led by the likes of Utah state senator Margaret Dayton) to take it back to the wilderness of "intelligent design" and "local control." That would be a disaster for the party and a lost opportunity for the nation. If  Democrats can put a little needed distance between their traditional "base" and their education reform priorities, Republicans should be able to do at least as much.

You can read the task force's report, "Getting Smarter, Becoming Fairer: A Progressive Education Agenda for a Stronger Nation," here.

"The Connecticut Stakes," Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2005 (Subscription required)

"President's Edge on Education Dwindles," by John Harwood, Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2005 (Subscription required)

New York Times columnist Michael Winerip seldom gets kudos here but last week he turned in a great profile of an outstanding lifelong teacher. Jean Louise Stellfox was a Shakespeare-quoting, grammar-loving English teacher in the coal-mining town of Shamokin, Pennsylvania, who set high, exacting goals and held all her students to them. Students stayed in touch with her long after leaving school, often to thank Miss Stellfox for the skills and lessons she imparted. To ensure that her legacy and love of teaching lived on, she willed her estate - a surprising $1.5 million - to Dickinson College. It will be used to bring writers to her alma mater, where the Great Poet, Robert Frost, once spoke and unwittingly inspired the young Stellfox to become an English teacher. Winerip writes, "If you're lucky, once in a lifetime you have a teacher like Jean Louise Stellfox." It's the only sad line in this otherwise uplifting piece, because luck has everything to do with whether students are assigned to a Miss Stellfox, or someone far less qualified.

"Careful Plan Keeps an English Teacher's Devotion Alive," by Michael Winerip, New York Times, August 24, 2005, (subscription required)

What does the National Education Association eat? Every serious school reformer wants to know. And so, as official Washington took its usual late-August snooze, we recruited some friends and investigated. (Sorry, Mike Antonucci, we did not wear trench coats.)

Yes, the NEA Caf?? is open to all, though whether to bulk up the revenue stream or to comply with some heretofore unknown government regulation barring exclusive restaurants isn't known. Union members receive a discount, but anyone can stroll into the hulking headquarters building at 16th and M for breakfast or lunch (Monday through Thursday only during summer months). Prices are reasonable for downtown D.C.

The ambiance in the spacious, well-lit atrium at the center of the building is clean and bright, the tables are well-spaced, the chairs are comfortable enough, and the ficus trees sport cute little light bulbs. A large mobile with an education theme complements the environment; unfortunately, it shares space with a massive "TEAM NEA" poster that looms over the atrium and is less conducive to good eating. So are atrium-facing office windows dotted with anti-Arnold and other political placards.

The restaurant is, at heart, a cafeteria catering to diverse tastes, with the virtues and vices of that genre. On the one hand, there are lots of choices. (If the NEA ran its restaurant by its education policy precepts, everyone would be served the same food - and told where to sit.) On the other hand, much of what's on offer is mediocre.

The food-service section, though cramped and confusing, is organized into stations: a salad bar, "Grill Works," the "special of the day" (often fried but with "South Beach" alternatives), the deli-sandwich counter, etc. Staffers are reasonably efficient and helpful; we watched one who wasn't busy come over unbidden to assist a co-worker whose station was mobbed.

As for the food, my made-to-order chicken-and-havarti sandwich was generous and tasty enough, though entombed in a plastic clamshell before being handed to me. (That can't be good for the environment.) The salad bar is ample and varied, and its shrimp and fruit salads were fine. But most of its offerings are standard, some of them require physical contortions to reach, the Caesar salad's romaine was fading, and there's no excuse for unripe tomatoes in August.

The salmon with green beans drew mixed reviews from our crowd. A taco-salad eater found the shell "not crispy enough, but otherwise good."

Some dishes were yummy but unhealthy, precisely the sorts of thing the NEA doesn't want to see served in schools. Lots of sweets and sodas on all sides, including convenient little packets of candies and nuts for afternoon snacking. A friend who opted for the "Grill Works" line - where he found a menu displaying "every dietary no-no" - ordered a "chicken finger sandwich." No, not a bun full of claws. Rather, he was served "a New Orleans Po' Boy, piled high with [deep fried] chicken tenders, cheese, barbeque sauce, and lettuce and tomato.... And it was delicious." It came with Texas steak fries ("not the shoestring McDonald's variety"). So why not also have some tiramisu? "I consider myself something of a tiramisu snob, but even I was wowed by this one.....Total bill out the door: $8.25, not including the cost of angioplasty."

Healthy choices were available, though, for those seeking them: the aforementioned salad bar, juice, "vitamin water," and fruit (though our test banana was badly bruised).

Other offerings were truly blah. My split-pea soup was as bad as any I've had, tasteless and so starch-thickened that it formed a gluey skin as soon as it was taken off the heat source. A "Jamaican meat patty," perhaps the most exotic item on the menu, was spicy enough, but its shell was dry and tough, its filling (which tasted more like beef than chicken) pureed like baby food. The pepperoni pizza was a heat-lamp victim, soft and soggy. (Said its eater: "It might warrant a score of basic but certainly not proficient.") The chicken with cornbread stuffing (a "daily special") was, reported its taster, "very dry. Perhaps I should have opted for the scary school-cafeteria-looking gravy, but I didn't want to take a chance."

Policy wonks take note: NEA Caf??'s operation is outsourced to a private, for-profit vendor, Seasons Culinary Services - precisely what the union abhors in public education. This firm's philosophy is worth sharing, both because it's a fine one for a food service outfit and because it reads like the gustatory equivalent of a charter school. You can find the whole thing on the company's website. Here's part of it:

"Seasons Culinary Services, Inc. was formed as a reaction to the ever growing demand for increased personal attention and culinary flare in the food service industry.... Our culinary trends, customer driven programs and innovative ideas can be enacted more immediately because there are no large corporate barriers. While large food service companies have many programs and resources to offer, we feel that Seasons will continue to earn its reputation on our personal commitment to service and quality. Our focus is our customer and our company goals are regional, not national or global....We aim to rid our accounts of the old stereotypes of corporate cafeterias and food lines by implementing creative menus, home made food, colorful presentation, and healthy alternatives in a simple and clean atmosphere."

As with charter schools, the NEA Caf??'s reach sometimes exceeds its grasp, but at least it's trying. An earnest sign over the deli counter, for example, declares the eatery's desire, evidently in response to customer requests,  to give "soup and half-sandwich" consumers more options. It then details in confusing language several combos involving beverages, chips, and suchlike. The description called to mind a school system struggling to depict its magnet programs. It certainly is "in need of improvement."

On balance, the NEA runs a restaurant that embraces capitalism, freedom, customer service, diversity, and choice. Its execution is flawed, but it's steering by the right stars. Why can't it do the same for schools, for teachers, and for kids?

Upon taking office in February, Secretary Spellings explained her views on NCLB flexibility to Education Week: "There is room to maneuver through the administrative process without waivers. But this 'waive everything' - no. That's a slippery slope." Well, either she has changed her mind or she's discovered she likes slopes or she doesn't consider the law's parental options provisions central to its working. Last week she issued to the Commonwealth of Virginia her first waiver, which allows four districts there to provide underachieving students supplemental services before affording them public school choice. Wednesday, she granted the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) authority to provide tutoring (i.e. "supplemental educational services") directly even though the district has been deemed "in need of improvement." The Virginia decision makes sense; it's hard to find anyone who thinks that low-income children should have to suffer through three years of school failure before they have a shot at free tutoring. But the Chicago call is a disaster; CPS already failed these kids during the school day. Why give the district a chance to fail them again after the bell rings? One of the seminal mistakes in NCLB was Congress's decision to allow districts both to provide "supplemental services" directly and to serve as gate-keeper for other providers. To its credit, the Education Department mitigated that folly by ruling earlier that districts "in need of improvement" lose the option of being direct providers. This Chicago waiver undoes that sound policy and thereby weakens the educational prospects of thousands of children.

"Virginia Gets First-Ever Waiver to Reverse Order of NCLB Sanctions," by Lynn Olson, Education Week, August 29, 2005 (Subscription required)

"Spellings to Listen, But Not Retreat, on NCLB," by Erik W. Robelen and Lynn Olson, Education Week, February 9, 2005 (Subscription required) 

"Chicago to Get Relaxed Tutoring Rule," by Ben Feller, Chicago Sun-Times, August 30, 2005

Don't be fooled, says Hoover Institution senior fellow Terry Moe, by recent headlines; despite popular belief, unions are not in decline.  While private sector unions, which have seen their memberships plummet from 35 percent of the private work force in the 1950s to a mere 8 percent today, may be experiencing problems, public sector unions are thriving.  "School teachers, for example," Moe writes, "are 80 percent unionized."  And, of course, these public sector unions don't always have the public's best interests at heart; in a recent Education Week piece, our own Michael J. Petrilli recounts how the National Education Association successfully drained NCLB's "highly qualified teachers" provision of its usefulness and transformed it from a promising possibility into divisive issue. Reformers can hope for public sectors to implode like their private sector counterparts, but it appears they'll be waiting a long time.

"Packing a Punch," by Terry M. Moe, Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2005 (Subscription required)

"Improving Teacher Quality: Better Luck Next Time," by Michael J. Petrilli, Education Week, August 31, 2005

Cristo Rey schools are placing low-income students on the corporate ladder. Students who enroll in one of the network's eleven Catholic college-preparatory schools, which combine high academic standards with real-world work experience in corporate America, take on entry-level positions one day each week with a sponsoring company. In return, the school, not the student, receives a paycheck. Those funds are put toward the school's general operating expenses which, in turn, enable it to keep tuition low. At Notre Dame High School in Lawrence, Massachusetts, for example, students pay just $2,200 a year in tuition, instead of the $5,000 to $9,000 that most Boston-area Catholic high schools charge. Because Cristo Rey schools accept only children from low-income families, some worry that these students will be tempted to stay in entry-level positions. But, according to the Cristo Rey Network, students from its original (Chicago) school aren't idling on low rungs. The class of 2004 saw 100 percent of its students accepted to at least one college, while overall 82 percent of the school's grads have pursued post-secondary study. Those results are reflected in positive attitudes throughout the Cristo Rey community. One student from Notre Dame High School says: "This school makes you think, 'I can have a future if I just prepare.'"

"When high schools put teens to work," by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christian Science Monitor, August 25, 2005

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences has great influence on teacher practice. After all, shouldn't teachers be conscious of whether Johnny is spatially, musically, or linguistically intelligent and tailor their instruction accordingly? Well, not quite, according to Daniel T. Willingham, a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Virginia. "Cognitive science has taught us that children do differ in their abilities with different modalities," such as spatial or linguistic, he writes, "but teaching the child in his best modality doesn't affect the educational achievement." (Italics in original.) The reason, he explains, is that our minds store information in terms of its meaning, for the most part, not as a visual or auditory representation. And because it is meaning that teachers generally aim to impart, teachers need to focus on the modality that best conveys the meaning of a lesson, rather than attempt to tailor their teaching to each student's learning strength. For example, the shape and grandeur of pyramids can best be explained visually, while one might read a sonnet to convey its rhythm, or lift a Civil War pack to understand its weight. But it's pointless for teachers to tailor a single lesson so that Billy learns about these visually, Janet musically, and Tammy kinesthetically. One hopes that teachers are among those who take in the lesson, best learned in this case by reading this short article. (Setting it to music loses something in the translation.)

"Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Do Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic Learners Need Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic Instruction?" by Daniel T. Willingham, American Educator, Summer 2005.

Center on Education Policy
August 2005

University professors and myriad employers across the nation have repeatedly voiced the same complaint - the majority of U.S. high school graduates lack the skills necessary to succeed in either the collegiate or professional world. High school exit examinations, instituted in large part to address this problem, are now a requirement in 26 states. In 19 of them, students must register a passing score to receive a diploma. In its fourth annual report dissecting exit examination trends in all but one of these states, the Center on Education Policy finds mostly depressing results. The percentage of students passing exit exams on their first try has stagnated, and large gaps persist between minority students, special education students, and English-language learners, and the rest of their classmates. To get greater traction, states are starting to invest both time and money to develop more support for students preparing for the exams. In some states, more dollars have been funneled to remediation programs for struggling students, and in others, curricula have been redefined so higher-level material is introduced in earlier grades. Unfortunately, not all reforms reflect this sound approach, and some seem regressive. Arizona, for example, has instituted the self-defeating practice of using a student's good grades to make up for his or her low exit exam scores. (If grades represented meaningful standards, we wouldn't need statewide exams.) Other states have simply downgraded their exit exam passing requirements altogether. Will the recent efforts of the nation's governors to make high school more rigorous lead to greater progress in time for next year's report? Stand by. Meanwhile, you can find this year's here.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Center for School Change August 2005

The states' slow progress in meeting No Child Left Behind demands has most governors looking for ways to increase how quickly and effectively school districts change. How's this for a spark? Providing Quality Choice Options in Education, authored by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Joe Nathan's Center for School Change, offers up school choice as a solution. The policy prescriptions that the NGA presents aren't novel but they're sound - and good to see in an NGA report. Details aren't spelled out, and the report favors leaving specific policies for individual states to decide. But it does construct a school choice framework, including: disbursing per-pupil funding equally and offering start-up resources for school providers; funding transportation for choice schools; and encouraging and strengthening charter laws. The report also wisely notes that schools of choice must be held to account for their results.  Find it at http://preview.nga.org/Files/pdf/EDUCATIONCHOICE.PDF.