The Education Gadfly Weekly

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
December 2007

Last week we reported the results of the latest Progress in International Reading Literacy test (PIRL). The punch line: American fourth grade readers are stagnating while other countries pass us by. This week, it's déjà vu all over again. The OECD released findings from the 2006 PISA exam, and guess what: U.S. 15-year-olds are performing more or less the same in math and science as they did in 2003 while students in other lands surge ahead. American students now trail their peers in 16 of 30 OECD countries in science and 23 in math. (In 2000, the U.S. was behind just eight OECD countries in math.) Finland is now the top performer in both math and science, with scores well above the OECD average. Other strong performers include Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. The full report, along with scads more findings, can be found here.

The holidays are here just in time, because seven of the District of Columbia's inner-city Catholic schools are in need of a Christmas miracle. Like their peers nationwide, they face a crippling financial crisis that threatens to bring their heralded work to an end.

Though indisputably a crisis, it's no surprise. The basic problem has been worsening for decades as middle-class families decamped for the suburbs, leaving weakened parishes and disadvantaged children behind, even as education costs rose. To their great credit, the Catholic schools continued to serve students in the Washington community, as did their counterparts in many other cities, even though, by and large, their parents couldn't afford the modest tuition, nor did many of them share the faith. But as Washington's legendary Cardinal James Hickey once said, "We don't educate these children because they are Catholic, but because we are Catholic." And not only did the church open its door to poor children from all walks of life, it succeeded in providing many of them with a top-rate education. Studies consistently show urban Catholic schools outperforming similar public schools--and even other types of private schools--because of their no-nonsense approach to curriculum, firm but loving discipline, dedicated teachers, and high expectations for all.

Of late, however, competition from public charter schools, as well as the fiscal toll of the church's sex-abuse scandal, have combined to threaten the already-fragile balance sheets of these treasured community institutions.

To its credit, the Archdiocese of Washington has proposed a highly imaginative solution that will keep these schools open, though no longer Catholic: It will turn them over to a secular non-profit organization to manage as public charter schools. Rather than offering Catholic instruction, they will provide a "values-based" education, along with a solid academic curriculum. It's a solution, yes, but far from a perfect one. As Holy Comforter teacher Courtney Pullen told the Washington Post about her young charges, "They're going to miss being able to pray and talk about religion." The schools' spiritual mission has guided and inspired their educational mission; whether the latter will collapse without the former is an open question.

Converting the seven schools into secular charters is certainly better than closing them. But why are we forcing such a painful choice? Here's a more promising idea: Turn the "Saintly Seven" into public charter schools--and keep them Catholic, too. In other words, allow for religious public schools.

Wouldn't this violate the Constitution's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing religion? Probably not. In its 2002 decision upholding Cleveland's school voucher program--whose funds overwhelmingly flowed via families into Catholic schools--the Supreme Court decreed the education plan neutral toward religion because it was part of Ohio's "general and multifaceted undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children in a failed school district." Low-income parents could take advantage of the voucher program to send their children to religious schools, but they also had plenty of secular options, including regular public schools, magnet schools, and charter schools.

That would be the case in the District, too. The addition of seven Catholic charter schools wouldn't dramatically change the menu of educational options in D.C., with its 97 other charter schools and 187 traditional public schools. Parents who don't want a Catholic education for their children would have plenty of other free, public options.

But what about taxpayers? Why should they have to pay for religious education that might conflict with their own beliefs and values? It's an unimportant question in this case, because the public already pays for religious education in the District through the federally funded voucher program--and gets little in return by way of accountability for results. (All of us also subsidize both secular and sectarian instruction at Notre Dame, Yeshiva, and other religious universities.) But were Catholic schools welcomed into the public charter school fold, they would have to agree to public reporting of test scores, an open admissions policy, and adherence to civil rights and special education laws. From where I sit, that's a better deal for the public than school vouchers.

Allowing religious charter schools in the District would require a change to the District's charter school law, and thus an act of Congress--no small political feat. So here's a chance for Democrats and Republicans--including those running for president--to show that they care about poor children and appreciate the Catholic Church's longstanding social justice mission in inner-city neighborhoods. And if that's not enough, helping to save these schools might curry favor with the country's Catholic swing voters, too. Which just goes to show that doing good can also be good for you--especially in this season of giving. (Read more about religious charter schools here and here.)

A version of this article appeared in the December 4th Washington Times.

Jackie Robson shows why the U.S. is the globe's innovator. She's a gifted 14-year-old who skipped high school, attends Mary Baldwin College, lives in a dormitory and takes classes such as Folk Dance and Japanese 101. When reflecting on her middle-school experience, Jackie says, "Most of the stuff throughout the year I knew already. We had these worksheets with 20 questions, and it was, ‘Oh great, you're done. Here's another one.'" Such drab routines can stifle creative and curious minds. But while more than a few gifted U.S. students like Jackie have options, few students in China do. David Brooks writes in his New York Times column that the top tier of Chinese students--those who pass the national exams that reward rote learning, who follow the rules and make it through the best universities into promising jobs in the Communist Party--are richly rewarded for doing what they're told. He wonders, though, whether, in the middle of the night, any of China's smartest people ask themselves if their country can sustain its amazing economic growth when everyone, no matter how brilliant, is treated like sheep. Many parts of America's education system are bad. But it has some things going for it.

"Young, Gifted, and Skipping High School," by Maria Glod, Washington Post, December 2, 2007

"The Dictatorship of Talent," by David Brooks, New York Times, December 4, 2007

Last week, U.S. News and World Report, the most widely known source of college and grad-school rankings, decided to try its hand at ranking America's high schools. This probably got Newsweek (which once had a monopoly on judging high schools) all bent out of shape.

Journalism professor Samuel Freedman, who sometimes pens the "On Education" column in the New York Times, was a bit unsettled, too. "The ranking is a centerpiece of what we might call the Anxiety Industry," he wrote yesterday. Freedman also quotes Stanford educationist David Labaree, who finds the proliferation of U.S. News's franchise "a little disquieting" and thinks that it "exacerbates the rankings mania that's harming education at all levels."

At a time when traditional weekly newsmagazines don't have a lot of traction, respect, or revenues, one readily understands the business impulse behind U.S. News's penchant for ranking everything that isn't tied down. But it wouldn't work if the customers didn't buy it. Lots of people clearly want to know which hospitals, business schools, etc. are better than others, and U.S. News has provided them answers where before few existed.

The answers are not always reliable, though. The magazine's college rankings, for example, are famously quirky and in many cases do a better job of conferring stature upon institutions than in evaluating their quality. U.S. News judges universities by such criteria as alumni giving and freshmen SAT scores, while paying scant attention to how well schools actually teach their students.

Fortunately, the magazine's new high-school rankings rely on a markedly stronger methodology that takes into account minority achievement and college readiness, and does a better job showing whether schools are educating all their students well. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

So why are U.S. News's college rankings superficial while its high-school rankings are much more solid? Competition.

As noted earlier, Newsweek has long dominated the high-school ranking landscape. Since 1998, it has used the Challenge Index, developed by Washington Post education reporter Jay Mathews, to sort America's secondary-education providers. The Challenge Index is simple: the number of AP, IB, or Cambridge level tests a high school gives is divided by the number of seniors it enrolls. The higher the number, the better the school.

Along came Education Sector's Andy Rotherham, who convinced U.S. News that the Challenge Index, while simple, doesn't judge by the right criteria and doesn't give parents an accurate picture of which schools are better than others. U.S. News sees an unfilled niche--a new way to rank high schools that will appeal to more parents--and goes for it.

To be clear, this is all for the good. Curious parents are now presented not only with lists of the best high schools, but they're able to choose which list uses the best criteria for its rankings.

Now it's Newsweek's turn to crash the party. It should produce its own college rankings (using criteria similar to those of Washington Monthly's higher education judgments) to provide parents and students a more nuanced way to compare universities. If a widely read publication such as Newsweek started ranking colleges, and used well thought-out criteria, it could really change the way Americans view higher education (it would sell lots of magazines, too). The conversation might be less about names and reputations, and more about classes and learning.

And it might spur some accountability in the higher ed arena. Right now, colleges that receive federal money don't have to show that they're using those dollars to educate undergraduates well (Education Secretary Spellings has considered college accountability testing because of this). But if the conversation shifts, if rankings get steadily better at evaluating which universities are actually turning clueless freshmen into savvy seniors, accountability may gradually come from the private sector, without government-imposed monitoring.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal got into the act by ranking high schools by which get the most graduates into top universities. Let's hope the competition continues to heat up.

"Andy and Me: Two Ways to Rate High Schools," by Jay Mathews, Washington Post online, December 4, 2007

"A Rank Exercise," by Andrew J. Rotherham and Sara Mead, Washington Post online, June 22, 2007

"If you can't beat ‘em, sue ‘em," has become an unofficial American motto, and one that the teachers unions shrewdly employ across the land, pretty much wherever they lose in the legislature. This week's example comes from the Badger State. Terrified about competition from the Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA), an online school affiliated with K12, the Wisconsin Education Association Council took its sponsor, the Department of Public Instruction, to court. The resulting union victory represents the first case in the country to go against virtual schools. (This Education Next article provides an excellent primer on the legal background of virtual schooling.) A court of appeals panel found that the school violated the state's charter school, open enrollment, and teacher licensing laws. The latter finding is most troubling; Judge Richard Brown wrote in his decision, "The problem is not that the unlicensed WIVA parents teach their children, but that they 'teach in a public school.'" Following that logic, will high school students who teach themselves have to become certified as teachers, too? Brown, painting himself as an anti-activist judge, argues that "if, as its proponents claim (and its opponents dispute), WIVA has hit upon a bold new educational model that educates pupils in a way equal to traditional school at a fraction of the cost, then the legislature may well choose to change the law to accommodate WIVA and other schools like it." Let's hope it does. Meanwhile, the case heads for the Wisconsin Supreme Court even as K12 embarks on a public offering of its stock. (Disclosure: Fordham's Checker Finn is a former director of K12.)

"Group: Ruling could shut down virtual schools across Wis.," by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, December 5, 2007

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty is spending political capital like it grows on trees. At least that's how it seemed last week, when Fenty announced his plans to close 23 District schools and received serious backlash from the city council. The Washington Post reports that Councilmember (and former Mayor) Marion Barry, normally such a picture of poise and decorum, attempted to give Fenty advice on his governing style and then swore when the mayor didn't care to listen. Those most affected by the school closures aren't too thrilled with hizzoner, either. Clarence Cherry, president of the PTA at the soon-to-be-shuttered John Burroughs Elementary School, said Fenty's decision "puts a question mark on the leadership we elected for the city." The mayor, for his part, thinks he still represents "that overwhelming tidal wave of outpouring of ‘Fix the schools.' People want us to fix the schools almost by any means necessary because it's taken so long." The Post editorial board is siding with Fenty, writing that "the final decisions should be based on the needs of students and not tit-for-tat ward politics." Gadfly agrees. Fenty is clearly thinking of children first; heaven knows what the council members, especially Mr. 8th Ward, are thinking of.

"D.C. School Closings," Washington Post, November 29, 2007

"Fenty's Mode On Schools Is Breeding Alienation," by David Nakamura and Nikita Stewart, Washington Post, December 3, 2007

Which is scarier: a high-school student who can't read or a fifth grader with a beard? Since 2002-03, Texas has required third and fifth graders to pass a test in order to move on to the next grade level. The law, brainchild of then-Governor George W. Bush, does allow an exception: If a committee of parent, teacher, and principal agrees that a certain student should move to the next grade despite failing the test, that student can be promoted. The exception has now become the rule. Only 20 percent of fifth graders who fail the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) are held back. But the promotion is not without justification. Researcher Jay Greene points out that "there may well be harm from the social disruption caused by retaining an older student," especially for a fifth grader, all of whose friends will have left for middle school. But should students begin sixth grade--new school, new teachers, new classes--without knowing basic skills? Texas claims that the 80 percent of socially promoted fifth graders are given additional support. That's fine if true. But then why hold back any students at all? This is a tricky question. But Texas's current policy, which appears to be assembly-line promotion, isn't the answer.

"4 in 5 fifth-grade students who fail TAKS are promoted," by Terrence Stutz, Dallas Morning News, November 29, 2007

If you live in New Zealand and you feel like chicken tonight, perhaps you should settle for The Other White Meat. That's because 17-year-old Kiwi Jane Millar, while working toward her IB Programme Diploma, conducted a science experiment that showed that several local supermarket chickens contained anti-biotic resistant bugs. (Fordham recently gave the IB biology course an "A," by the way.) When the young scientist treated the poultry-produced bacteria with several antibiotics, including some used in humans and not in chickens, a few strains refused to keel over like good prokaryotes should. "The main finding is that we can create resistance to medically important antibiotics by using antibiotics that are presumably safe in agriculture," Millar said. Whatever. The main finding is to go vegetarian, but stay away from the bagged spinach. And that Fordham's reports are clearly spot-on in all their assessments, always.

"Student exposes bugs in chicken," The Press, December 1, 2007

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
December 2007

Last week we reported the results of the latest Progress in International Reading Literacy test (PIRL). The punch line: American fourth grade readers are stagnating while other countries pass us by. This week, it's déjà vu all over again. The OECD released findings from the 2006 PISA exam, and guess what: U.S. 15-year-olds are performing more or less the same in math and science as they did in 2003 while students in other lands surge ahead. American students now trail their peers in 16 of 30 OECD countries in science and 23 in math. (In 2000, the U.S. was behind just eight OECD countries in math.) Finland is now the top performer in both math and science, with scores well above the OECD average. Other strong performers include Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. The full report, along with scads more findings, can be found here.