The Education Gadfly Weekly

Bryan C. Hassel, Michelle Godard Terrell, and Julie Kowal
Education Sector
May 2006

With the heat and humidity descending on Washington and points south, it seemed a fine time to review Education Sector's latest report, an examination of Florida charter schools. It's part of an ongoing series of case studies (begun at the Progressive Policy Institute) that analyze "state and urban experiences with charter schooling." Why hot and humid? Perhaps because Florida charters are flourishing in the Sunshine State's greenhouse-like environment, nurtured by rapid population growth and increasingly bipartisan support. While charters in Florida have faced resistance from the usual quarters, in 2006 "the Florida School Boards Association, the Florida Association of District School Superintendents, and the Florida Education Association decided to neither support nor oppose charter school legislation in their legislative platforms. Instead they planned to battle Florida's school voucher programs." Unfortunately, those battles against vouchers have been somewhat successful (see here), but on the bright side they may have provided political cover for charter schools to expand with relative ease. Thus, in one decade Florida has gone from five charter schools to 334. But even in this steamy climate of spawning, the Sunshine State's charter schools face problems. "Most notably," the authors write, "the second half of the charter school autonomy-accountability bargain has been largely unfulfilled." That is, low-performing charter schools in Florida are not being shut down. Other findings are routine: Florida's charter schools are underfunded, district authorizing is ineffective, and student achievement is mixed. The study offers some solutions: enhance the quality of, and open alternate routes to, charter school authorizing (Florida just passed legislation which does this); require authorizers to crack down on low-performing schools; equalize charter school and district-school funding; and coalesce the state's splintered charter support organizations. Educators, policymakers, and Florida parents could all benefit from this comprehensive study. Kick off your shoes, mix a fresh mojito, and read the report here.

Education Week
May 2006

Education Week's special edition on technology in education is a treasure trove, at least for those who embrace technology and the potential for student learning that it can unleash. Besides its predictable statistics (the number of computers available per student in schools and classrooms, etc.), tech-junkies will enjoy reading about efforts to establish state-wide data systems and the challenges that these present. For example, nearly all states have created unique student and teacher identification codes that track individuals over time as they move within the state. But far fewer have linked these IDs to attendance and transcript information for students or to highly qualified status and salary rate for teachers. Among states that use data to drive policy, Florida leads the pack. The report's update on SIF (Schools Interoperability Framework)-a project to create a common set of rules, definitions, and specifications that will one day allow educational groups to share data-is also helpful. And for those with the patience to trek through the state-by-state write-ups, more goodies await. Other interesting findings include how many children per classroom have access to high-speed internet connections, and which states have established virtual schools. Whether one loves, loathes, or avoids technology, however, it's clear from this report that states are committed to collecting data and finding new and better ways of using it. No state received an F grade for its use of technology, though only two received As. Oh, and the state with the highest technology score is West Virginia, largely because of its wide implementation of virtual schools. It will be interesting to see if the Mountaineer State's embrace of computers leads to smarter kids. You can review the online report here.

Public Agenda
2006

From 1998 through 2002, Public Agenda conducted Reality Check surveys of parents, teachers, students, employers and college professors, asking them questions about educational accountability and testing. The 2006 surveys, of which this is the second in a series, cover a broader topical landscape. This report’s focus is clear from its title, and its results are derived from a pair of focus groups and sizable national telephone survey. Some findings are interesting, others less so, and some are rather unfortunate. An example of the latter: 65 percent of black and Hispanic students, and 69 percent of white students, believe they are learning “a lot when it comes to reading, writing, spelling, and vocabulary.” This is a fine sentiment, but patently not true. Test after test after test, not to mention sundry testimonials from exasperated business leaders and college professors, makes clear that students are, in fact, not learning a lot in those subjects. Further evidence that students (and parents) are clueless and/or misled about how they’re doing educationally. Also of note, “twice as many black parents as white parents give the local superintendent fair or poor marks for ensuring that the district has high standards and students get the support they need to reach them,” and 40 percent of black parents (compared to 26 percent of white parents) “say that a diploma from a local high school doesn’t guarantee a student has learned the basics.” More positively, “the vast majority of all youngsters, white, black and Hispanic, are aiming for college” (although, if these students aren’t adequately prepared, the results will be profoundly negative), and 84 percent of black and Hispanic students, and 79 percent of white students, think “it is a good idea for school districts to require students to meet higher academic standards or go to summer school to catch up.” The report rightly wonders if adults, were they forced to endure environments as chaotic as our nation’s schools, could learn anything there, either. Read it here.

The No Child Left Behind Act makes no bones about the primacy of reading. According to Bloomberg News, a forthcoming NCES report shows that schools are responding to the law's signals by boosting the instructional time in reading while reducing it in everything else, at least in grades 1-4. The question is whether this "narrowing" is good or bad, and if other subjects suffer because of it. The Washington Post squeezed in a Sunday editorial on the topic, jumping off last week's science NAEP results. "Far from discouraging science education," the Post wrote, "the new emphasis on reading and math standards in elementary school appears to have helped boost science achievement among younger students.... As the Education Trust hypothesizes, higher reading and math standards may have made science textbooks more accessible to more students." That's certainly one plausible interpretation of the NAEP results (here's another), and if there's ever a time to focus narrowly on reading, the early elementary grades are it. But as E.D. Hirsch, Jr. argues in his new book, reading instruction should switch as soon as possible from decoding letters, phonemes and words to the acquisition of content-in other words, students study science, history, and literature within reading curricula. Yes, reading should come first. But if the nation is serious about preparing high school graduates for increasingly competitive jobs (especially those requiring advanced science and math), the other subjects shouldn't come last.  

"Science test," Washington Post, May 28, 2006

The winner of the 2006 Scripps National Spelling Bee will be crowned tonight, and all the pomp will be broadcast live on ABC. But it's worth wondering whether the Scripps bee still merits such publicity while the estimable National Geographic Bee (held last week, and hosted by Alex Trebek) goes relatively unnoticed. The National Geographic Society recently released a survey showing that 60 percent of college-age Americans can't find Iraq on a map, and half can't find New York state. But rather than educate our students by emphasizing words with geographic and real historical value-Peloponnesus, say, or Djibouti-the spelling bee chooses shamelessly to tout its own passé-ness. Thus, words such as pelisse (use in a sentence: "Your great grandmother called; she wants her pelisse back.") and retinue (welcome to the 21^st century, Scripps-try "entourage") are the norm. So while Chinese and Indian engineers and cartographers come to dominate the global markets, Americans of Chinese and Indian descent will be left behind, spelling their way into irrelevance. A peccadillo? More like sesquipedalian treason.

"War of the Worlds," by Charles Passy, New York Times, May 26, 2006

Colleges are reporting that this year's SAT results were significantly lower than those of years past. A problem with the test? Is poor Susie fatigued by the new writing portion? David Kahn, head of a private tutoring company in New York City, doesn't think so. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kahn posits that the SAT's revamped design better exposes students' mediocre schooling. The new test places more emphasis on reading comprehension and higher-level math-and everyone knows that mastering both takes years. A 6-week cram course doesn't help much anymore; students actually have to read widely and learn some real content to perform well. That's the good news. The bad news is that, thanks to the nation's wayward schools, most students have experienced a content-free education, and are now going to pay the price. Welcome to adulthood, kiddos!

"How Low Can We Go?" by David S. Kahn, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2006

Editor's note: This commentary is drawn from No Child Left Behind: A Primer (Peter Lang, 2006), available here.

Thousands of schools are "in need of improvement," the "highly qualified teachers" deadline has come and gone without a single state in compliance, and millions of parents and educators are still struggling to make sense of terms like "adequate yearly progress." Newspaper stories flag problems with state testing systems and supplemental educational services. This tumult has led some to suggest that the ambitious No Child Left Behind Act is staggering, especially as it comes up for reauthorization in 2007. 

The truth is that NCLB's future hangs less on what is happening in the nation's classrooms than on the Washington Consensus. While we like to think that the real force in schooling is parents and local educators, the Beltway crowd will determine whether NCLB keeps its bite or is muzzled.

The term "Washington Consensus" originated in foreign policy circles. It refers to ideas that enjoy widespread support among political elites across the ideological spectrum. No matter which party is in power, so long as the Washington Consensus stays in place policies change only in minor ways.

There is now a Washington Consensus in education. It has been entrenched since the middle of the Clinton Administration, was integral to the crafting of NCLB in 2001, and for the most part remains intact today. It embraces three big ideas. First, that the nation's foremost education objective should be closing racial and economic achievement gaps. Second, that excellent schools can overcome the challenges of poverty. And third, that external pressure and tough accountability are critical components of helping school systems improve.

These ideas are politically tendentious. Republicans are uncomfortable talking about achievement gaps, implying, as they do, the need for policies that take explicit account of race and class. Democrats have been uncomfortable expecting schools and educators to overcome the social problems children bring with them to the classroom. And both parties sing the praises of "local control" even while eroding it. Yet among policy elites-the President and top officials in the Administration; the chairmen and ranking members of the education committees on Capitol Hill, and key staff-these are now bedrock principles.

Outside Washington, support for the consensus is tepid. The 2005 Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup poll reported that just 44 percent of voters agree that test data should be broken out by race. Educators are even more skeptical. Only 26 percent of high school teachers, according to a 2005 Education Testing Service poll, think all students should be held to a common standard. And the legislatures of at least 31 states have expressed their concern about Washington-style "external pressure" by passing anti-NCLB resolutions.

There are reasons to think the Washington Consensus might fall. Its most visible contemporary champion-President Bush-is growing weaker. The Republicans who chaired the education committees during NCLB's creation have moved on-Senator Gregg to head the budget committee, Representative Boehner to serve as House Majority Leader. Conservatives in the House, perhaps suffering from buyer's remorse, last year flattened proposals to extend No Child Left Behind to the high school level. GOP presidential contenders are running away from the law; Virginia Senator George Allen, for example, recently told the party faithful that his state would not be dumbing down its standards to please "federal department of education bureaucrats." Moreover, the senator expected to play a key role during the law's renewal, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, is pressing a new "American competitiveness" agenda, which could swing the pendulum away from a focus on "equity" and gap-closing to a focus on "excellence" and boosting our highest-achieving students.

Hence the future of Bush's signature law may lie critically, and somewhat ironically, with the leading Democrats who helped shape it the first time around. Pivotal to determining whether the Washington Consensus holds will be the stance of two liberal lions-Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative George Miller, ranking members of Congress's education committees-and their determination to stand up to angry teacher unions and popular unrest. Miller especially has shown real grit, arguing that even schools serving the most disadvantaged children should be expected to ensure that their students reach proficiency in reading and math. He's echoed the President in calling any alternative view a form of "bigotry." If their support starts to go south, NCLB could be in real trouble.

The other key Democrat to watch is Senator Hillary Clinton. She's played to the teachers unions by criticizing the law's funding, but she has thus far remained faithful to its central tenets. She may be NCLB's best hope. The Washington Consensus was born during the first Clinton Administration, after all. It's hard to believe that it wouldn't continue to prosper under a second one.

Bryan C. Hassel, Michelle Godard Terrell, and Julie Kowal
Education Sector
May 2006

With the heat and humidity descending on Washington and points south, it seemed a fine time to review Education Sector's latest report, an examination of Florida charter schools. It's part of an ongoing series of case studies (begun at the Progressive Policy Institute) that analyze "state and urban experiences with charter schooling." Why hot and humid? Perhaps because Florida charters are flourishing in the Sunshine State's greenhouse-like environment, nurtured by rapid population growth and increasingly bipartisan support. While charters in Florida have faced resistance from the usual quarters, in 2006 "the Florida School Boards Association, the Florida Association of District School Superintendents, and the Florida Education Association decided to neither support nor oppose charter school legislation in their legislative platforms. Instead they planned to battle Florida's school voucher programs." Unfortunately, those battles against vouchers have been somewhat successful (see here), but on the bright side they may have provided political cover for charter schools to expand with relative ease. Thus, in one decade Florida has gone from five charter schools to 334. But even in this steamy climate of spawning, the Sunshine State's charter schools face problems. "Most notably," the authors write, "the second half of the charter school autonomy-accountability bargain has been largely unfulfilled." That is, low-performing charter schools in Florida are not being shut down. Other findings are routine: Florida's charter schools are underfunded, district authorizing is ineffective, and student achievement is mixed. The study offers some solutions: enhance the quality of, and open alternate routes to, charter school authorizing (Florida just passed legislation which does this); require authorizers to crack down on low-performing schools; equalize charter school and district-school funding; and coalesce the state's splintered charter support organizations. Educators, policymakers, and Florida parents could all benefit from this comprehensive study. Kick off your shoes, mix a fresh mojito, and read the report here.

Education Week
May 2006

Education Week's special edition on technology in education is a treasure trove, at least for those who embrace technology and the potential for student learning that it can unleash. Besides its predictable statistics (the number of computers available per student in schools and classrooms, etc.), tech-junkies will enjoy reading about efforts to establish state-wide data systems and the challenges that these present. For example, nearly all states have created unique student and teacher identification codes that track individuals over time as they move within the state. But far fewer have linked these IDs to attendance and transcript information for students or to highly qualified status and salary rate for teachers. Among states that use data to drive policy, Florida leads the pack. The report's update on SIF (Schools Interoperability Framework)-a project to create a common set of rules, definitions, and specifications that will one day allow educational groups to share data-is also helpful. And for those with the patience to trek through the state-by-state write-ups, more goodies await. Other interesting findings include how many children per classroom have access to high-speed internet connections, and which states have established virtual schools. Whether one loves, loathes, or avoids technology, however, it's clear from this report that states are committed to collecting data and finding new and better ways of using it. No state received an F grade for its use of technology, though only two received As. Oh, and the state with the highest technology score is West Virginia, largely because of its wide implementation of virtual schools. It will be interesting to see if the Mountaineer State's embrace of computers leads to smarter kids. You can review the online report here.

Public Agenda
2006

From 1998 through 2002, Public Agenda conducted Reality Check surveys of parents, teachers, students, employers and college professors, asking them questions about educational accountability and testing. The 2006 surveys, of which this is the second in a series, cover a broader topical landscape. This report’s focus is clear from its title, and its results are derived from a pair of focus groups and sizable national telephone survey. Some findings are interesting, others less so, and some are rather unfortunate. An example of the latter: 65 percent of black and Hispanic students, and 69 percent of white students, believe they are learning “a lot when it comes to reading, writing, spelling, and vocabulary.” This is a fine sentiment, but patently not true. Test after test after test, not to mention sundry testimonials from exasperated business leaders and college professors, makes clear that students are, in fact, not learning a lot in those subjects. Further evidence that students (and parents) are clueless and/or misled about how they’re doing educationally. Also of note, “twice as many black parents as white parents give the local superintendent fair or poor marks for ensuring that the district has high standards and students get the support they need to reach them,” and 40 percent of black parents (compared to 26 percent of white parents) “say that a diploma from a local high school doesn’t guarantee a student has learned the basics.” More positively, “the vast majority of all youngsters, white, black and Hispanic, are aiming for college” (although, if these students aren’t adequately prepared, the results will be profoundly negative), and 84 percent of black and Hispanic students, and 79 percent of white students, think “it is a good idea for school districts to require students to meet higher academic standards or go to summer school to catch up.” The report rightly wonders if adults, were they forced to endure environments as chaotic as our nation’s schools, could learn anything there, either. Read it here.