The Education Gadfly Weekly

James Tooley
CATO Institute
April 2009

James Tooley, the eminent British educationist who introduced the western world to the plethora of "six dollar a month" private schools that serve thousands of poor families in the third world, will shortly publish (with CATO's help) an important new book that recounts his own discovery of these schools, why they're important, what to make of them, and what lessons wealthier lands (and people) might draw from them. "In the fissures of crumbling public education systems," Tooley writes, "a vibrant and confident education industry is beginning to emerge. It is serving the poor as well as the rich. It is bringing much higher standards than appear possible under public education. And with judicious support, it can engage to meet the needs of all, and can innovate through competition to improve teaching and learning and expand the curriculum, in ways that are unimaginable under public systems....My hunch...is that the educational enterprise will go from strength to strength in India and China, and in Africa too. And if for India, why not for us?" Why, indeed, not? You can learn more here.

Alex Standish
Routledge Publishers
October 2008

Alex Standish, a young and formidably articulate British-bred geographer at Western Connecticut State University, is something of a libertarian when it comes to education (the state should meddle less in schools) but also something of a "universalist" about curriculum. (He's unfond of charter schools, for example, because of the curricular balkanization he thinks they foster.) He's just published a well-wrought and much-needed exposé of politicization in the geography curriculum of British and American schools--this being a subject that's long been taken seriously in the UK and woefully neglected on our side of the Atlantic--that firmly and cogently argues the traditional liberal-arts case for geography education: not to fill kids' heads with grownups' notions of environmentalism, multiculturalism, and such, but rather to equip them with the skills and knowledge that will enable them later to work such things out for themselves. To "reestablish the intrinsic worth" of geography in the curriculum, he writes, "all political, social and economic extrinsic aims for geography [must be] expelled from the discipline. Schools need to be recognized as institutions of education, not a place to fix social and political problems which arise in the adult political sphere." Bravo, hooray, and please see for yourself. You can learn more about the book here and more about Standish's views on NCLB, Obama, and such here.

Pam Grossman and Susanna Loeb, eds.
Harvard Education Press
2008

This book sets out to do just what its subtitle suggests: map a new landscape of teacher education. Crucial to that terrain, posit editors Grossman and Loeb, both Stanford education professors, is a new typology of teacher preparation. Simply comparing "alternative" to "traditional" certification is not valuable, particularly since these programs are "hardly distinguishable...in terms of substance" (we couldn't agree more). Moreover, when programs do vary, defining them as a single group masks important differences and hinders the field's ability to learn from and improve them. Grossman and Loeb's proposed typology defines teacher education programs via four dimensions: the nature of the provider (e.g., college, university, district, private organization, or a mix of these); the focus of recruitment and selection (e.g., via highly selective colleges, military recruitment, or local recruitment); addressing the needs of the labor market (e.g., district needs or high-needs certification areas like special education); and the timing and focus of course work and fieldwork preparation (e.g., six-week pre-entry program, full-year of co-teaching induction, or something in between). The book also calls for more experimentation in teacher preparation programs, particularly matching differential supports to teacher profiles. For example, how might a program preparing teachers to work in schools with large percentages of English language learners differ from those heading to English-dominant schools? Other chapters provide background on alternative certification programs, the types of candidates most apt to enter them, evidence supporting their effectiveness (including retention rates), and the difficulties involved in conducting reliable research in this area. It's a useful overview of alternative routes to teaching and a sensible new way to consider the topic. You can buy it here.

For an education watcher, the most striking parts of President Barack Obama's sober, yet stirring, inaugural address weren't the oblique references to our schools (which "fail too many" and will be "transformed" to "meet the demands of a new age"). Rather, it was his old-fashioned call for us to usher in "a new era of responsibility--a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly." That's because, in this Age of Accountability, too many of us in the education policy world have been loath to talk about "responsibility," particularly "parental responsibility." It's high time that we did. 

"A parent's willingness to nurture a child...decides our fate," Obama said this week. In his big education speech last May, and on the campaign trail, he was more explicit: "There is no program and no policy that can substitute for a parent who is involved in their child's education from day one. There is no substitute for a parent who will make sure their children are in school on time and help them with their homework after dinner and attend those parent-teacher conferences...And I have no doubt that we will still be talking about these problems in the next century if we do not have parents who are willing to turn off the TV once in awhile and put away the video games and read to their child."

It's hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with these sentiments, particularly coming from the most famous (and powerful) father in the world. Yet they challenge the most important unsaid assumption held by policy wonks of all persuasions: that many parents, especially poor parents, will be irresponsible in the raising of their children--and that there's not much that the government can do about it.

That assumption isn't entirely crazy. There are plenty of parents falling down on the job, and there are also lots of reasons to be cynical about past efforts to get the government--especially the federal government--involved in this territory. For instance, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has long required Title I schools to put in place "parental involvement plans"; but does anyone think that mandate is actually leading to greater parental engagement? In a land of liberty, how does society impact what happens inside the home? The truth is that it's bloody hard to do.

And then there are less defensible reasons that many of us avoid the parent issue, related to what President Obama might call "worn-out dogmas." On the left, it's considered uncouth to talk about "bad parents" (versus those that are merely "disadvantaged"), since it's akin to "blaming the victim" and dismissing "institutional racism" and the like. Meanwhile, the right--particularly the libertarian right--tends to see parents as mere "consumers" in the "education marketplace"--and beyond reproach or government interference in whatever choices and decisions they make for their kids, however foolish. And for reformers of all stripes, it's risky to discuss parental irresponsibility lest it appear that you believe that schools may thereby be let off the hook. President Obama might call that a "false choice."

So we all avoid talking about parents and instead debate how to compensate for their failures. On the one side are those who think that schools alone will have to do the job via benign paternalism (see David Whitman's recent book), and on the other are those who believe that schools plus social service agencies are the answer (see the Broader/Bolder manifesto).

But maybe it's time to challenge the assumption that there's nothing policymakers can do to encourage, cajole, or enable parents to play their own roles better. Perhaps we'll never reach "100 percent parental responsibility," just like we'll never reach "100 percent proficiency" in reading and math. But maybe, just maybe, we could do dramatically better than we are today in getting parents to show up for their job as their child's first and most important teacher. 

If KIPP schools can get ten thousand parents to sign contracts promising to be full partners in the learning process, why not launch a national effort to get 100 million parents to do the same? Call it a "responsibility covenant," and let pastors, rabbis, imams, community leaders, and others join the president--and teachers and principals--in asking parents to sign. Put Bill Cosby in charge.

Or why not hold "parent responsibility summits" that highlight innovative ways that schools and community groups are making parents feel like welcome partners in the learning process? Or ask for contributions of desks, lamps, and computers to create conducive learning-and-homework environments in poor homes? Or expand the Harlem Children's Zone's "Baby College" program (that instructs new parents on how to nurture their young children) to sites nationwide, and provide refreshers for parents of elementary, middle, and high school students, too? 

To be sure, "responsibility" isn't just for parents. All of us in the education enterprise have to "take responsibility" for our piece of the puzzle. (Even we think tankers and other researchers, who have a duty to wield data responsibly, not to be blinded by ideology but to be willing to change our minds depending on the facts.) Educators have a duty to get good results in student achievement, but also to do it responsibly, without "shortcuts" (another Obama term) and without violating, again in Obama's words, the "values upon which our success depends: honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism." Read that list again and ponder the stories of schools narrowing the curriculum, getting rid of everything but reading and math, squeezing out history and civics, forcing children to suffer through weeks of test prep--and telling weak students to stay home on test day. A "New Era of Responsibility" would put an end to all of that.

"Accountability" remains an important concept in American education reform, and Obama himself uses it frequently. Adults that fall short, particularly those employed by the education system, should be held accountable. But that term connotes blame and recrimination. "Responsibility," meanwhile, connotes honor and an appreciation for our duties to one another. Obama has urged us to grow up, to "set aside childish things." Perhaps it's time for school reform to grow up too, moving from accountability alone to a new partnership of accountability and responsibility. These twin ideas--or consider them two parents if you like--might be exactly what we need in order to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." Are you ready?

Will President Bush get a last education laugh? That's what Richard Whitmire, president of the National Education Writers Association and founder of the Why Boys Fail blog, predicts. Eight years ago, Bush took his Texas-style accountability system to Washington, surprising legislators when he unveiled what became No Child Left Behind two days into his first term. And although the damaged NCLB brand has been criticized heavily from almost all sides, Whitmire sees education reform as Bush's lasting legacy. Why? "The notion that Obama would gut a law exposing the maleducation of millions of black children is a fantasy," he explains. Sure, they'll change the name, and maybe they'll really fix the law's flaws (and may we offer a few suggestions?), but accountability is here to stay. We concur.

"Bush leaves gift of education reform behind," by Richard Whitmire, Politico, January 15, 2009

After much poking and prodding, supporters of Catholic schools may finally be springing into action. As we (amongst others) pointed out last year, these schools are essential options for low-income and minority students in urban areas, but have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Over 2,000 Catholic schools have closed since 1990, most of those in the last eight years. It is music to our ears to hear that some dioceses and their communities across the country are rising to the challenge. "It was taken for granted for a long time that Catholic schools would always be there," explains Dr. Karen M. Ristau, president of the National Catholic Education Association. "People are beginning to realize that this is a false assumption." Out: cries of poverty, declining enrollment, and pessimism. In: community involvement, better financial management, and a renewed energy to solve the mounting problems stacked up against these educational jewels. Most notably, these efforts have focused on redefining the governance arrangements of parish schools; instead of putting the administrative burden solely on the shoulders of an overworked priest or nun, dioceses are enlisting parents, alumni, and community members to play a larger role. But shrinkage continues to occur on many fronts and these initiatives are largely small and local. We're cheered by this news, but these efforts may be too little, too late.

"For Catholic Schools, Crisis and Catharsis," By Paul Vitello and Winnie Hu, The New York Times, January 17, 2009

Alex Standish
Routledge Publishers
October 2008

Alex Standish, a young and formidably articulate British-bred geographer at Western Connecticut State University, is something of a libertarian when it comes to education (the state should meddle less in schools) but also something of a "universalist" about curriculum. (He's unfond of charter schools, for example, because of the curricular balkanization he thinks they foster.) He's just published a well-wrought and much-needed exposé of politicization in the geography curriculum of British and American schools--this being a subject that's long been taken seriously in the UK and woefully neglected on our side of the Atlantic--that firmly and cogently argues the traditional liberal-arts case for geography education: not to fill kids' heads with grownups' notions of environmentalism, multiculturalism, and such, but rather to equip them with the skills and knowledge that will enable them later to work such things out for themselves. To "reestablish the intrinsic worth" of geography in the curriculum, he writes, "all political, social and economic extrinsic aims for geography [must be] expelled from the discipline. Schools need to be recognized as institutions of education, not a place to fix social and political problems which arise in the adult political sphere." Bravo, hooray, and please see for yourself. You can learn more about the book here and more about Standish's views on NCLB, Obama, and such here.

James Tooley
CATO Institute
April 2009

James Tooley, the eminent British educationist who introduced the western world to the plethora of "six dollar a month" private schools that serve thousands of poor families in the third world, will shortly publish (with CATO's help) an important new book that recounts his own discovery of these schools, why they're important, what to make of them, and what lessons wealthier lands (and people) might draw from them. "In the fissures of crumbling public education systems," Tooley writes, "a vibrant and confident education industry is beginning to emerge. It is serving the poor as well as the rich. It is bringing much higher standards than appear possible under public education. And with judicious support, it can engage to meet the needs of all, and can innovate through competition to improve teaching and learning and expand the curriculum, in ways that are unimaginable under public systems....My hunch...is that the educational enterprise will go from strength to strength in India and China, and in Africa too. And if for India, why not for us?" Why, indeed, not? You can learn more here.

Pam Grossman and Susanna Loeb, eds.
Harvard Education Press
2008

This book sets out to do just what its subtitle suggests: map a new landscape of teacher education. Crucial to that terrain, posit editors Grossman and Loeb, both Stanford education professors, is a new typology of teacher preparation. Simply comparing "alternative" to "traditional" certification is not valuable, particularly since these programs are "hardly distinguishable...in terms of substance" (we couldn't agree more). Moreover, when programs do vary, defining them as a single group masks important differences and hinders the field's ability to learn from and improve them. Grossman and Loeb's proposed typology defines teacher education programs via four dimensions: the nature of the provider (e.g., college, university, district, private organization, or a mix of these); the focus of recruitment and selection (e.g., via highly selective colleges, military recruitment, or local recruitment); addressing the needs of the labor market (e.g., district needs or high-needs certification areas like special education); and the timing and focus of course work and fieldwork preparation (e.g., six-week pre-entry program, full-year of co-teaching induction, or something in between). The book also calls for more experimentation in teacher preparation programs, particularly matching differential supports to teacher profiles. For example, how might a program preparing teachers to work in schools with large percentages of English language learners differ from those heading to English-dominant schools? Other chapters provide background on alternative certification programs, the types of candidates most apt to enter them, evidence supporting their effectiveness (including retention rates), and the difficulties involved in conducting reliable research in this area. It's a useful overview of alternative routes to teaching and a sensible new way to consider the topic. You can buy it here.