School & College
A Special Report from the Chronicle of Higher EducationMarch 10, 2006
School & College
A Special Report from the Chronicle of Higher Education
March 10, 2006
This might be the most important treatise on high school reform in years-no small thing for a field clouded with reports and bursting at the seams with Gates Foundation largesse. Yet it's gone mostly unnoticed by education bloggers and reporters. That's a shame. In 56 broadsheet pages, this compilation makes the case that "the revolution in the nation's elementary and secondary schools has finally reached academe's ivory towers." Throughout its eight articles and ten opinion pieces (including Chester E. Finn, Jr.'s, featured last week in Gadfly), you can hear the steady drumbeat of a simple message: we need to align our high school graduation expectations with college entrance requirements. Making K-12 educators and the professoriate agree on what "college ready" means, however, isn't getting any easier. According to a fascinating Chronicle survey presented in the report, high school teachers' assessments of their students' abilities are consistently more positive than those of college professors. For instance, only 6 percent of professors say their students are very well prepared in writing, compared to 36 percent of teachers; the numbers for math are 4 percent and 37 percent respectively. Overall, 84 percent of professors say that high school graduates are unprepared or only somewhat prepared for college, compared to 65 percent of teachers. The Chronicle reports on a number of initiatives underway to close this expectations gap, especially the growth of P-16 councils and the like. But if you want to understand how we got to this point, two commentaries are worth reading. First, Diane Ravitch's "The Fall of the Standard-Bearers," which traces the College Board's "abdication" of its role in setting curriculum standards, and second, Stanley Katz's "The Liberal Arts in School and College," which decries our nation's habit of postponing challenging curriculum and content until higher education. One conclusion jumps out from both essays: we desperately need to find the Charles Elliot of our day-a college president with national prestige willing to demand excellence from the nation's high schools. In the meantime you can read the full report, and order a free copy, here.
In Defense Of Big Schools
Gotham Gazette
March 2006
The book Small Victories: The Real World of a Teacher, Her Students, and Their High School, which examines Seward Park High School on the Lower East Side of Manhattan,was written almost 20 years ago. The Gotham Gazette recently sat down with the book's author (now New York Times education writer) Samuel Freedman, and with Jessica Siegel, one of the teachers profiled in Small Victories, to find out how the education landscape has changed and why Seward Park has since been closed and split into smaller schools. During the long interview, Freedman and Siegel discuss varied topics, from Joel Klein's reforms to the merits of teaching The Great Gatsby in high-poverty schools. An interesting tidbit: both veterans agree that author Jonathan Kozol-who has built his career writing books about squalid and segregated school environments-consistently overlooks the real problems that face urban public education. Freedman actually calls Kozol's views "a high-minded excuse for paralysis." This interview transcript does a fine job presenting information through two important perspectives-that of an experienced education writer and that of an experienced public school teacher-and is worth a look. Read it, here.
The art of the possible
While some unimaginative sorts still argue that national standards and tests are politically infeasible, former John Kerry campaign aide Robert Gordon makes the case that a bipartisan coalition could turn the idea into reality. We currently have a form of education federalism that is the worst of both worlds, he argues: the feds are mucking things up, while the states are playing games and lowering standards. A grand consensus is possible if Washington sticks to setting goals and measuring progress, and communities are empowered to run their schools. Or as the New America Foundation's Michael Dannenberg put it in an Education Sector forum last week (the transcript is forthcoming, we hear), "civil rights trumps everything on the left, and competitiveness trumps everything on the right." National tests in return for local control; civil rights combined with economic competitiveness-this idea might not just be politically palatable, but powerful too.
"Why the Idea of National Education Standards is Crossing Party Lines," by Robert Gordon, Education Week, March 15, 2006 (subscription required)
Why can't learning disabled students read?
Americans are generally supportive of "special education." Educating disabled children so they can live independent, satisfying lives appeals to our sense of fairness and shared responsibility.
But too often, special education inflicts harm by keeping children from reaching their potential. Instead of giving these students an extra hand, the special education bureaucracy unnecessarily segregates them while passing them from one grade level to the next, irrespective of how well they've mastered material. The result is a system that creates in these students a crippling sense of helplessness and entitlement. This is certainly the case for the least well-defined subgroup of special ed students, learning disabled (LD).
Though the LD label is used for a wide array of learning problems, there is a thread that ties these diagnoses together: students whose "basic psychological processes," which are required for spoken or written language, are flawed. In other words, students who don't listen, think, speak, or read on grade level are often labeled LD. Any number of disorders can cause a breakdown in listening, reading, or writing. Some, such as acute brain injury, are legitimate medical conditions that require special attention. Too frequently, however, the only problem a child has is that he or she never learned to read and write effectively in the lower grades. (The primary culprit here is trendy, "progressive" teaching methods. See Louisa Moats's Fordham report.) A child with poor reading skills finds learning increasingly difficult beginning in 3rd or 4th grade, when school shifts from learning basic skills to acquiring knowledge in various content areas. Struggling readers hit a performance wall over the next few grades and experience failure in class after class. Significantly, many of these students become disruptive and disinterested (especially boys), and/or they withdraw (especially girls). These behaviors and the poor performance driving them most often appear at ages 10-12, when they're tested for LD.
Unfortunately, the tests used to diagnose LD aren't designed to recognize reading deficiencies. Many of them are built on the "discrepancy model," which measures individual intellectual ability and achievement to determine if a "severe" gap exists between the student's ability and achievement. In short, before a reading problem is diagnosed, students must establish a record of "low achievement" (i.e., failing) before anyone bothers to ask why they are not learning.
In 2002, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) recommended abandoning the intellectual ability-achievement discrepancy classification method because of the problematic measurement and conceptual problems surrounding it. Nevertheless, it's still the basis for LD classification in most educational jurisdictions. The latest version of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) made some progress on this front, allowing (though not requiring) states to move away from the discrepancy model and supporting early identification and intervention. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Education has failed to complete the law's regulations, so the old, flawed method marches on.
The co-occurrence of serious reading difficulties with LD classification raises a fundamental question: What is the root cause of these students' difficulties? In a very real way, classifying as LD a struggling reader who has fallen behind in academic performance (using the discrepancy model described earlier) is little more than an institutionalized way to escape the fundamental question: Is the student legitimately handicapped, or just incapable of reading well? In addition, because special education places no meaningful emphasis on remediation, but rather on "accommodation" to help students progress to subsequent grades, a high proportion of LD students never acquires effective reading skills.
Interventions for struggling readers that produce significant and comparable performance improvement results for both "disabled" students (classified as LD) and general education students are readily available. A growing body of research on these interventions clearly locates the cause of reading difficulties (and consequent academic underperformance) in the child's educational experiences, and not in something deficient in the child. In other words, the child's capacity to learn to read is not the problem.
This is not an indictment of special ed teachers (I'm one of them, after all), who work under oftentimes outrageous institutional constraints and demands imposed by public education. Instead, it's an indictment of a system that has refused to measure and test students adequately, so that reading problems are caught early and dealt with.
NCLB is helping. Special education students are now required to participate in statewide testing to determine whether schools are making "adequate" progress and performing effectively. The system is far from perfect. But the test has administrators demanding that special education teachers immediately address (and solve) the academic performance shortfall of their students. Rather than resisting the expectation that students must be measured against the same standards, educators might more productively argue that-because many special ed students have been left behind-school officials should be prepared to accept responsibility for working with these students to meet the standards, but on an appropriately modified timetable.
A clear-eyed assessment of special education shows that it is bedeviled by the same cultural and institutional constraints that explain the inadequate performance of public education in general. Special education is an extreme example of the shortcomings of public education as a whole: the lack of accountability, preoccupation with process rather than results, and hostility to change and innovation resulting in squandered resources. These shortcomings reduce the chances for millions of children to complete public school with the skills and capabilities to live independent, productive lives.
Jim Williams is a former business executive turned special education teacher, now teaching in Northern Virginia. Read about his experience as a mid-career-switcher here.
Selection bias
Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Oregon just aren't what they used to be-at least in the eyes of the Oregon Education Association. The teachers union spent Saturday auditioning six likely contenders for the Governor's Mansion, but decided to delay its endorsement because none of the six made a match as the union's candidate. The editorial board of The Oregonian offers an explanation: "In our view, no responsible, electable candidate for governor could fully satisfy the teachers union...and still win office in November.... Not if the teachers union holds to its general position that nothing ails Oregon schools that more money would not solve." The editorial then issues a call to "change the school debate." It's a start, and The Oregonian now joins a growing number of editorial boards (see here) that question union orthodoxy and rightly wonder whether simply handing out more money will improve public schools (it won't). As for the OEA, it can always endorse a green party candidate, or maybe a communist?
"Speaking truth to the teachers union," The Oregonian, March 14, 2006
Honk if you see me
Chicagoans love their car horns, and it's not just because the city's drivers are among the rudest in the nation. It's because they're scared to death of blind drivers. That's right-blind drivers. Chicago Public Schools requires that all sophomores, even those who can't find their way to a car without a seeing-eye dog, take and pass driver's education. To be fair, as far as we know the visually impaired have no intention of climbing behind the wheel. But try telling that to the district bureaucrats, who require them to sit through ten weeks of instruction nonetheless. There are a few officials who understand the absurdity of the situation. But interest group politics being what they are, it will take a fight to remove the requirement. The chairman of the Illinois High School/College Driver Education Association (we're not making that up) argues that "you can never get enough traffic safety." That's right, and rule number-one is that friends don't let friends drive blind. Hoohah!
"Driver's ed for blind kids?" by Tracy Dell'Angela, Chicago Tribune, March 10, 2006
International lessons for the gulf coast
The Harvard Educational Review hit upon a novel idea recently when its editors proposed that America should look to the international community for guidance in delivering education to the roughly 370,000 students displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In particular, the journal says we should learn from international relief agencies that routinely deal with educating refugee children displaced by war, famine, and other disasters.
A close reading of the five lessons-to-be-learned, however, finds several not-very-novel thoughts, such as securing high-quality teachers and ensuring that minority and poor children are not marginalized and forgotten. No arguments there. But why look to the Third World, when ed reformers in this country, such as KIPP, Aspire, and Teach for America, have for years been testing and refining successful models that address these problems?
The recommendation that caught my eye, however, is that officials "integrate displaced students within community schools, and not in schools erected specifically for them." Don't be duped by this well-meaning sentiment-it's a shot at charter schools.
Most students displaced by the hurricane have been integrated into their adopted communities and schools, so there's no reason to believe, as the editors hint, that America is creating refugee camp schools. In fact, the editors can cite only one example of a school, New Orleans West College Prep in Houston, established solely for educating hurricane victims. NOW College Prep, a KIPP school, came about not as government policy, but the desire of KIPP Schools to do something positive for those who need it. It's an (excellent) option available to those interested in taking it, no more. To suggest, as the editors do, that by hosting this school in its district Houston is advancing a policy of herding victims into refugee-style schools is, to put it kindly, disingenuous.
We can, in fact, learn a great deal from international aid agencies. But why look to the Third World when America is bubbling with education alternatives that fit the Gulf States' needs perfectly? Perhaps in ten years, Harvard can play host to a conference of international aid workers who flock to New Orleans to learn how the best ideas in American education rose to meet the challenge of educating hundreds of thousands of children there, and across the nation, well.
Elite flyer
In many respects, the Charter School of Wilmington should make the charter school movement proud. It is considered the "flagship" of the Delaware public education system, and it posts the state's highest SAT scores and a nearly perfect college matriculation rate. An independent study found that the school is making greater test score gains than comparison schools, even controlling for demographics and prior student achievement. It's such a great school that U.S. Senator Tom Carper-one of the nation's leading Democratic proponents of charter schools-sends his sons there. There's just one catch: the school uses a selective admissions policy, complete with an entrance exam. That policy cuts against a central tenet of charter schools-that they are public schools open to all. As the excellent News Journal article points out, none of the nation's selective high schools (think Stuyvesant) are charter schools, except this one. The school's supporters argue that high-achieving students have special needs too; a math teacher eloquently explains, "Bush's mantra is no child left behind. My mantra is no child held back." Good mantra, bad politics. We say keep the school, but remove the "charter" label. Plenty of states have created schools for the gifted, such as the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics; Delaware can do the same, while keeping the notion that "charter" equals "public."
"Selective admission makes Charter too elite, critics say," by Cecilia Le, Wilmington News Journal, March 3, 2006
School & College
A Special Report from the Chronicle of Higher Education
March 10, 2006
This might be the most important treatise on high school reform in years-no small thing for a field clouded with reports and bursting at the seams with Gates Foundation largesse. Yet it's gone mostly unnoticed by education bloggers and reporters. That's a shame. In 56 broadsheet pages, this compilation makes the case that "the revolution in the nation's elementary and secondary schools has finally reached academe's ivory towers." Throughout its eight articles and ten opinion pieces (including Chester E. Finn, Jr.'s, featured last week in Gadfly), you can hear the steady drumbeat of a simple message: we need to align our high school graduation expectations with college entrance requirements. Making K-12 educators and the professoriate agree on what "college ready" means, however, isn't getting any easier. According to a fascinating Chronicle survey presented in the report, high school teachers' assessments of their students' abilities are consistently more positive than those of college professors. For instance, only 6 percent of professors say their students are very well prepared in writing, compared to 36 percent of teachers; the numbers for math are 4 percent and 37 percent respectively. Overall, 84 percent of professors say that high school graduates are unprepared or only somewhat prepared for college, compared to 65 percent of teachers. The Chronicle reports on a number of initiatives underway to close this expectations gap, especially the growth of P-16 councils and the like. But if you want to understand how we got to this point, two commentaries are worth reading. First, Diane Ravitch's "The Fall of the Standard-Bearers," which traces the College Board's "abdication" of its role in setting curriculum standards, and second, Stanley Katz's "The Liberal Arts in School and College," which decries our nation's habit of postponing challenging curriculum and content until higher education. One conclusion jumps out from both essays: we desperately need to find the Charles Elliot of our day-a college president with national prestige willing to demand excellence from the nation's high schools. In the meantime you can read the full report, and order a free copy, here.
In Defense Of Big Schools
Gotham Gazette
March 2006
The book Small Victories: The Real World of a Teacher, Her Students, and Their High School, which examines Seward Park High School on the Lower East Side of Manhattan,was written almost 20 years ago. The Gotham Gazette recently sat down with the book's author (now New York Times education writer) Samuel Freedman, and with Jessica Siegel, one of the teachers profiled in Small Victories, to find out how the education landscape has changed and why Seward Park has since been closed and split into smaller schools. During the long interview, Freedman and Siegel discuss varied topics, from Joel Klein's reforms to the merits of teaching The Great Gatsby in high-poverty schools. An interesting tidbit: both veterans agree that author Jonathan Kozol-who has built his career writing books about squalid and segregated school environments-consistently overlooks the real problems that face urban public education. Freedman actually calls Kozol's views "a high-minded excuse for paralysis." This interview transcript does a fine job presenting information through two important perspectives-that of an experienced education writer and that of an experienced public school teacher-and is worth a look. Read it, here.