The Education Gadfly Weekly

Edison Schools, Inc.2004

The long-awaited independent RAND evaluation of the performance of Edison-run schools won't be done until later this year, but Edison's own annual report (the sixth such, covering the 2002-3 school year) contains encouraging data on academic gains being made in many of the public "partnership" schools that Edison is operating. This report is based primarily on spring '02 to spring '03 grade-level averages on state tests. The company-wide averages are encouraging - including progress in schools deemed "in need of improvement under NCLB" - as are learning-gap reductions in predominantly minority schools, at least when compared with district and state averages in those communities. Also evident is that some schools are doing a lot better than others. (In Dayton, for example, one of the Edison-run charter schools surpassed the district average while the other lagged behind it.) Parent satisfaction levels remain very high just about everywhere. One should be a bit wary of self-studies, and all efforts at calculating achievement gains give rise to sundry methodological quandaries. Still, this report conveys positive news for Edison and - much more important - for the kids attending its schools. You can find a summary at http://www.edisonschools.com/design/d23.html and the complete (PDF) report at http://www.edisonschools.com/sixthannualreport.pdf.

Robert C. Enlow, Milton & Rose Friedman FoundationMarch 2004

You may not be surprised to learn that, according to this review of various school choice programs, none entirely lives up to Milton Friedman's vision of what a pure, market-based voucher system should be.  But two come close: Florida's McKay Scholarship program, which gives vouchers to disabled students to use at any school in Florida and Arizona's Tax Credits for Student Tuitioning Organizations, which gives a credit to taxpayers who donate money to private organizations providing vouchers. These and other school choice programs were evaluated by Robert C. Enlow for the Milton & Rose Friedman Foundation and graded on whether they overly restrict student eligibility by imposing academic or income restrictions or program-scope restrictions (i.e., by limiting which students are eligible for vouchers). The ideal program, of course, would impose none of these restrictions, give all students vouchers for the full amount that is expended per-pupil in the public schools, and let students use them at any school, regardless of religion, tuition, or exclusivity. The McKay Scholarship program, which received the best overall grade, was marked down only because it's limited to disabled students. The Arizona program was marked down because the state limits the amount of money coming into the system, thus restricting the program's size and scope. The top five also include two little-known programs that have existed for over a century in Vermont and Maine that provide "to students in small towns that do not have local schools at their grade levels" a voucher usable at any public or non-religious private school in or out of state. If you're not a school choice purist, you may not entirely agree with the grading scale, but this report offers an interesting comparison of the various choice programs. Find it at http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/news/2004-03-15.html.

Lewis C. Solmon, Human Resources Policy Corporation, and Pete Goldschmidt, Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLAMarch 2004

Although this Goldwater Institute study does what its title implies - compare traditional public and charter schools on retention, school switching, and achievement growth - it does something more: dispels the myth that performance differences between students in charters and traditional public schools are due to "better" students attending the former type of school (at least in the Grand Canyon state). Analysts calculated the overall effects of attending Arizona charter schools vs. district-operated schools on achievement and achievement growth, using SAT-9 reading test scores. The findings indicate that charter students started with lower scores in the elementary grades but have annual achievement gains larger than their traditional public school counterparts. The achievement growth for students who switch to charter schools later is less impressive. District high school achievement gains surpass those of charter high schools. The authors attribute this to the different nature of charters at this level; elementary charters focus on developing academic skills while high school charters are more apt to serve students who might "slip through the cracks" or to specialize in vocational ed, former drop-outs or children with disabilities. To see for yourself, go to http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/431.html.

It's apparent by now that Congress is not going to follow most of the excellent recommendations of the Bush administration's commission on the reform of IDEA, least of all its suggestion that federal funds be able to be used by states for special-ed vouchers a la Florida's "McKay Scholarships." (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=51#755 for coverage of the Commission's report and see https://www.opportunityschools.org/Info/McKay/default.asp?&noCache=20044593231 for information about the Florida program.) Indeed, it's far from certain at this writing that the 108th Congress will even complete work on the extremely modest reforms that House and Senate are contemplating for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Some grumpy parents are protesting the slightest changes and this is ground that most politicians find shaky during an election year. So maybe nothing will happen in Washington except a continuation of the present law.

Too bad. But more disappointing is the wimpiness that may be descending upon states that have been considering their own versions of Florida's pioneering program. That excellent idea is under discussion in Texas and Colorado. But the Utah precedent is disheartening. That state's legislature passed a version of this program only to have it vetoed by Governor Olene Walker, a Republican who offered a limp constitutional explanation for wielding her veto pen.

It wasn't a huge program, just $1.4 million. But the proposed "Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship" program, named for a five-year-old autistic Utah child, would have enabled kids with disabilities to take some $5,000 apiece in state funds to the school of their choice. That's pretty much how the McKay program works in Florida (see below for our review of a report that grades the McKay scholarship and other voucher programs).

Walker is running for governor in her own right this year, having inherited the mantle from Mike Leavitt when he left the banks of the Great Salt Lake for the mud of the Potomac. One need not know a lot about the politics of Utah, however, not even conservative-tending Utah, to know that a lot of folks whose approval and votes she covets don't want any sort of voucher for any sort of child, not even the most disabled. In any event, this was one of just six bills that Walker vetoed among the 391 enacted by the legislature. Utah political analysts say that she was simultaneously currying favor among "social" conservatives by signing measures dealing with marriage, abortion, etc. A political balancing act, I suppose. It's a pity, though, when disabled children become pawns in political games, whether in the statehouse or on Capitol Hill.

"Debating the Carson Smith special needs scholarship," by Cheryl Smith, Salt Lake Tribune, April 4, 2004 

"Walker under fire from parents of disabled kids," ABC 4 News, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 29, 2004

"Utah governor flunks bill on school vouchers," by Dan Harrie, Salt Lake Tribune, March 24, 2004

"Governor, lawmakers, at odds on vetoes," by Rebecca Walsh, Salt Lake Tribune, March 26, 2004

"Walker's veto pen," Salt Lake Tribune, March 25, 2004 

"Governor Walker turns down voucher bill," by Michelle R. Davis, Education Week, March 31, 2004

This week, headlines lit up with the news that "one school [in Milwaukee, Wisconsin] that received millions of dollars through the nation's oldest and largest voucher program, was founded by a convicted rapist" and that "another school reportedly entertained kids with Monopoly while cashing $330,000 in tuition checks for hundreds of no-show students." Voucher critics were quick to charge that "schools are required to report virtually nothing about their methods to the state, or to track their students' performance" and therefore that they are "a prime target for abuse." While there is no doubt that this kind of scandal (similar to ones that have rocked public schools and their teacher unions around the land) should not go uninvestigated and, if true, unpunished, we agree with Howard Fuller, former superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools and longtime voucher proponent. He notes that "it would be unfair to cast a shadow over all voucher schools because of one failure." A related item: this week's Democratic mayoral primary was won by former Congressman Tom Barrett, who has opposed raising the cap imposed on the percentage of Milwaukee students who can participate in the voucher program-a real issue now that demand for this program is bumping up against that cap.

"Milwaukee voucher program hit by scandal," by Juliette Williams, Associated Press, April 5, 2004

"School choice offers faint contrast in race," by Sarah Carr, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, March 24, 2004

Lately, it seems that just about everyone has a bone to pick with No Child Left Behind. Critics on right and left complain that the law's provisions are causing too many headaches, and schools, districts, and legislators are vowing to reject federal funding so as to avoid some of its tricky accountability provisions. It's easy to forget that, back in January 2002 when President Bush signed NCLB into law, the statute had broad bipartisan support. Fortunately, there are still some education leaders like the Education Trust's Kati Haycock to haul out the painful realities of present school performance, remind us that the goals of NCLB are noble and worth attaining, and insist that "this challenge we have set for ourselves as a country is a doable challenge."

"'No Child' advocate scores points with facts," by Jay Mathews, Washington Post, April 6, 2004

More high praise for the Defense Department's school system, where last year black and Hispanic 8th graders outperformed their peers in every single state. To be sure, the DoD system has built-in advantages, such as a unified command structure and ability to enforce parental involvement that other schools can't match. (It is not unheard of for principals in DoD schools to call the commanding officers of parents who miss back-to-school night.) Note, though that these schools also deliver excellent results despite enormous turnover (some kids changing schools twice in a year), relatively low levels of parental education, and below-par household incomes. As we've said before (pace Immanuel Kant): the fact that it can happen somewhere means it can happen anywhere.

"Military schools producing army of solid performance," by Fredreka Schouten, USA Today, March 30, 2004

The Bush administration has recently come under fire for insufficient education spending. Senator Ted Kennedy has been savage on the subject and Democratic candidates have attacked the No Child Left Behind Act as an "unfunded mandate." Presidential hopeful John Kerry declares in his book, A Call to Service, that the Bush administration has "undermin[ed] education funding as part of a larger strategy of directing every available school dollar toward tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

In a surprising turn of events, the Bush team has responded not by calling for more responsible and efficacious education spending but by bragging about its generosity and berating states for leaving $6 billion in federal education aid unspent.

The administration is factually correct, for what it's worth. Since 2001, the Department of Education's discretionary budget authority has increased by 39 percent. Title I, the main program providing federal dollars to schools serving poor children, has grown 52 percent. In the Bush administration's first two years, Title I spending increased more than during the previous seven years under President Clinton.

In fact, this entire NCLB spending debate is serving to obscure the fact that American schools are actually well-funded, by any reasonable standard. After-inflation education spending in the U.S. more than tripled between 1960 and 2000.

In fact, it may surprise some to learn that we rank at the top of the international charts when it comes to education spending. In 2000 (the latest available data), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calculated that the U.S. spent significantly more than any other industrial democracy, including those famous for generous social programs. In primary education, on a per-pupil basis, the United States spent 66 percent more than Germany, 56 percent more than France, 27 percent more than Japan, 80 percent more than the United Kingdom, 62 percent more than Belgium, and 122 percent more than South Korea. High school figures were similar.

Despite this spending, the U.S. ranked 15th among the 31 countries that participated in the OECD's 2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading exam. Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand were among those that outperformed us while spending far less per pupil. The results in math are equally disquieting: on the 1999 TIMSS study, the U.S. ranked 19th of 38 participating countries. Most troubling is that America's standing actually deteriorates as students spend more time in school.

Not only are we investing education dollars without adequate return, but we're actually spending even more than we think. School accounting guidelines would bring smiles to an Enron auditor. Unlike private-sector businesses, public school bookkeeping systems exclude such major costs as property acquisition and capital construction when computing "current expenditures."

UCLA business professor Bill Ouchi has calculated that, in New York City in 2001-02, debt service, school construction, and renovation added $2,298 per pupil to the $11,994 in reported current expenditure - meaning that the district actually spent upwards of $14,000 per student. In Los Angeles, the true per pupil cost in 2001-02 was $13,074, compared to the $6,740 reported by the district.

A reasonable estimate is that widely reported per-pupil spending figures represent only 70-80 percent of what the U.S. spends on education. Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby has estimated that in 2000 we actually spent more than $9,200 per pupil, compared to the widely reported "official" figure of $7,392.

From 1995-96 to 2003-04, U.S. public education spending grew by more than 53 percent, from $287 billion to more than $440 billion. In California, which for three years has wrestled with massive budget shortfalls, personnel costs outstripped revenue growth in 13 of the state's 20 largest school districts between 1996-97 and 2001-02. Sacramento had enrollment growth of four percent, revenue growth of 33 percent, and yet increased personnel costs by 41 percent - the result of more employees (many of them non-teachers), more generous salaries and more opulent benefits. In short, public school personnel costs are out of control. They are even outpacing the constant growth in school revenues. This helps to explain why so many school system officials feel strapped amidst what the rest of the world would regard as ample, rising budgets.

The steady growth of spending in the past decade, as in previous decades, has allowed schools to avoid cutting fat even as other organizations have slimmed down. In 1949-50, schools employed one non-teacher for every 2.36 teachers. By 1998-99, there was a nonteacher for every 1.09 teachers. In Washington D.C., the school system employs 11,000 people (for 65,000 students), less than half of whom are teachers. Meanwhile, school systems resist proposals for outsourcing support functions, shuttering unneeded school buildings, terminating ineffective programs, or installing technology-assisted methods of instruction and assessment that reduce the demand for personnel.

Dismissing concerns that money is being spent thoughtlessly, educators complain that, until they get even more money, they cannot reasonably be held responsible for helping all students to succeed. Ken Baker, principal at the Wyoming High School in Cincinnati, complained during 2003: "We're supposed to drive all the kids toward success, and we have to do it with one hand behind our backs. The fact is that there are going to be students left behind." (In 2001-02, the Cincinnati school district spent $10,328 per attending pupil.)

Such comments are not the exception; rather, the mindset they represent is pervasive. When asked by Public Agenda about the most pressing issue facing their districts, 27 percent of superintendents agree that "lack of funding is such a critical problem that only minimal progress can be made" in the school systems for which they're responsible.

It's possible that, even if we spent every penny wisely, creating the schools we desire would end up costing more than we are currently spending. However, until we start wringing out inefficiencies and finding ways to use today's dollars more effectively, there's no way to know. Until we start rethinking how we use education dollars, boosting expenditures is little more than a costly recipe for avoiding hard decisions.

Tough-minded reformers must unapologetically argue that we ought not boost spending on schools until we see proof that money is being spent in a more disciplined fashion. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has permitted the conversation to be framed so that it finds itself proclaiming support for heightened school spending as the way to prove its bona fides on the issue. While the administration's stance is understandable given election year political pressures, this line of argument weakens efforts to promote radical change and leaves would-be reformers crouched in a defensive posture.

Buying off the status quo is no way to focus the education debate on accountability, choice, flexibility, or results. Rather than brag that they, too, can spend like drunken sailors, reformers should instead demand that educators aggressively pursue efficiencies. The truth is that our schools can do a lot better for the money we currently spend. This fall, elected officials should remember that - and run on it.

Frederick M. Hess (http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.30,filter.all/scholar.asp) is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Common Sense School Reform, published this month by Palgrave Macmillan. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=141#1746 for more information.)

The latest issue of American Educator has a fantastic series of stories urging high school teachers and counselors to level with students about a basic truth: if you don't do well in high school, you won't do well in college or in the labor market. The lead article, by Northwestern professor James Rosenbaum, lays out the bracing facts: 86 percent of students with a C or worse average in high school do not earn a college degree. Students who do little homework in high school are less apt to finish college and will earn significantly less over a lifetime than those who do 15 or more hours of homework a week. Students who take advanced high-school classes, such as pre-calc or calculus, are significantly more likely to earn a B.A. To Rosenbaum, it's time to be frank with students on the amount of work you need to do in high school to get into-and graduate from-college, rather than wrapping all students in the fantasy that they will go to college no matter what their transcript looks like. The issue even includes a pull-out poster to distribute to students. We hope it's reproduced widely. One odd note, though. This hard-hitting series on the truth about high school preparation is followed by a gauzy feature called "Education in wonderland: Outdoor classrooms and rich murals make learning a delightful adventure." Apparently, not everyone who writes for the American Educator is on board with rigor and content. The articles are not yet online, but look for them in the near future at http://www.aft.org/american_educator/index.html.

"It's time to tell the kids: If you don't do well in high school, you won't do well in college (or on the job)," American Educator, Spring 2004

Juvenal said, "Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses." Even that famously cynical Roman poet might have been taken aback by some quarters of American K-12 education. In Baltimore this week, a high-school presentation on anger management erupted into "chaos," in the words of administrators, after a parent accosted a group of students who, she said, were picking on her daughter. Within minutes, a cafeteria-wide melee had erupted, with students standing on chairs to get a better view of the action and the anger management "facilitators" screaming wildly for people to sit down. Unrelated fights broke out, and eventually two people - including the parent - were arrested and 11 students suspended. In the same school, 10 people were arrested last year for disorderly conduct and assaulting a police officer at an evening fashion show. Honestly, administrators at Woodlawn may want to reconsider the extracurriculars.

"At Woodlawn High, fight erupts amid anger management lesson," by Julie Bykowicz, Baltimore Sun, April 2, 2004

Edison Schools, Inc.2004

The long-awaited independent RAND evaluation of the performance of Edison-run schools won't be done until later this year, but Edison's own annual report (the sixth such, covering the 2002-3 school year) contains encouraging data on academic gains being made in many of the public "partnership" schools that Edison is operating. This report is based primarily on spring '02 to spring '03 grade-level averages on state tests. The company-wide averages are encouraging - including progress in schools deemed "in need of improvement under NCLB" - as are learning-gap reductions in predominantly minority schools, at least when compared with district and state averages in those communities. Also evident is that some schools are doing a lot better than others. (In Dayton, for example, one of the Edison-run charter schools surpassed the district average while the other lagged behind it.) Parent satisfaction levels remain very high just about everywhere. One should be a bit wary of self-studies, and all efforts at calculating achievement gains give rise to sundry methodological quandaries. Still, this report conveys positive news for Edison and - much more important - for the kids attending its schools. You can find a summary at http://www.edisonschools.com/design/d23.html and the complete (PDF) report at http://www.edisonschools.com/sixthannualreport.pdf.

Lewis C. Solmon, Human Resources Policy Corporation, and Pete Goldschmidt, Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLAMarch 2004

Although this Goldwater Institute study does what its title implies - compare traditional public and charter schools on retention, school switching, and achievement growth - it does something more: dispels the myth that performance differences between students in charters and traditional public schools are due to "better" students attending the former type of school (at least in the Grand Canyon state). Analysts calculated the overall effects of attending Arizona charter schools vs. district-operated schools on achievement and achievement growth, using SAT-9 reading test scores. The findings indicate that charter students started with lower scores in the elementary grades but have annual achievement gains larger than their traditional public school counterparts. The achievement growth for students who switch to charter schools later is less impressive. District high school achievement gains surpass those of charter high schools. The authors attribute this to the different nature of charters at this level; elementary charters focus on developing academic skills while high school charters are more apt to serve students who might "slip through the cracks" or to specialize in vocational ed, former drop-outs or children with disabilities. To see for yourself, go to http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/431.html.

Robert C. Enlow, Milton & Rose Friedman FoundationMarch 2004

You may not be surprised to learn that, according to this review of various school choice programs, none entirely lives up to Milton Friedman's vision of what a pure, market-based voucher system should be.  But two come close: Florida's McKay Scholarship program, which gives vouchers to disabled students to use at any school in Florida and Arizona's Tax Credits for Student Tuitioning Organizations, which gives a credit to taxpayers who donate money to private organizations providing vouchers. These and other school choice programs were evaluated by Robert C. Enlow for the Milton & Rose Friedman Foundation and graded on whether they overly restrict student eligibility by imposing academic or income restrictions or program-scope restrictions (i.e., by limiting which students are eligible for vouchers). The ideal program, of course, would impose none of these restrictions, give all students vouchers for the full amount that is expended per-pupil in the public schools, and let students use them at any school, regardless of religion, tuition, or exclusivity. The McKay Scholarship program, which received the best overall grade, was marked down only because it's limited to disabled students. The Arizona program was marked down because the state limits the amount of money coming into the system, thus restricting the program's size and scope. The top five also include two little-known programs that have existed for over a century in Vermont and Maine that provide "to students in small towns that do not have local schools at their grade levels" a voucher usable at any public or non-religious private school in or out of state. If you're not a school choice purist, you may not entirely agree with the grading scale, but this report offers an interesting comparison of the various choice programs. Find it at http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/news/2004-03-15.html.