The Education Gadfly Weekly

Todd Oppenheimer
2003

Oppenheimer is a journalist, not an education scholar, which accounts for both the good and the bad in this new book on schools' uses of computers in the classroom. Fortunately, the good outweighs the bad, and this work may contribute productively to an important debate. In writing that is often persuasive and always engaging, Oppenheimer details numerous failures of computers in schools: they dull kids' imaginations, stymie real thinking, supplant effective instructional methods, substitute for worthier expenditures, allow kids to goof off, and, perhaps most obviously, too often simply don't work. Schools would do better to stick to the basics and use computers more judiciously, for there is little proof that they help students and tons of evidence that they detract from schools' core mission. This is particularly true among younger students, who don't really need to develop multimedia presentations and can wait until high school to learn computer programming. The book goes awry when Oppenheimer intermittently abandons his topic to comment (and gripe) about other aspects of education reform: Bush's "obsession" with the "fad" of standardized testing; the dangers of privatization; the unproven Texas education "miracle" as evidence of teaching to the test; etc., etc. Because of these digressions, the book stretches to more than 400 pages. In between, however, its discussions of how and how not to use computers make it a worthy read. Educators may appreciate his encounters with outstanding teachers who discuss their methods, which often avoid computers or simply use them in interesting ways. And his observations on the organizational benefits of technology--for tracking student progress, facilitating parent-teacher communication, distributing school announcements, etc.--are on target. Most importantly, one hopes this book will succeed where other such efforts have failed: in alerting us to the incredible amount of money, effort, and classroom time that is wasted on computers. The ISBN is 1-4000-6044-3, and the book is available for $19 on Amazon.com.

The Center for Education Reform
November 2003

This new release from the Center for Education Reform reports on progress by 24 states' charter schools. With information organized by state, it allows readers to glimpse the charter schools' progress, while also providing a stage for comparing charter schools' characteristics and performance from state to state. It's more anecdotal than analytic, and perhaps selective in its focus on good news, but some of its findings are fascinating. For example, 17 of Arizona's 25 highest-performing elementary and middle schools in 2003 were charters. Kansas City's 26 charter schools, which serve a population that is 90 percent minority and 75 percent low income, managed to produce a 93 percent increase in the number of students achieving at "near proficiency" on their state exam in 1999. While this report provides sufficient evidence of the merits of charter schools in "the 24 states that offer good data," it doesn't provide much information about the problems that have plagued some charter schools and doesn't provide much of a blueprint for helping the struggling schools to achieve the successes highlighted herein. But it supplies an extensive bibliography that may help those looking for more specific information about how charters have fared. To check it out for yourself, go to http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CSTRecordSuccess2003.pdf.

Andrew Coulson, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
May 2003

This paper provides an interesting overview of the research on school choice and privatization in poor and developing countries. Its nominal purpose is to spur action, as it notes that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has set a goal that "there should be universal primary education (UPE) in all countries by 2015," yet little has been done to achieve this goal. Instead, the OECD's plans for "education for all" are, "at best . . . rough guidelines . . . for what a policy should accomplish." Coulson admits this is understandable, given that the latest of these world fora had 1,100 participants. However, a large volume of research clearly shows that competition, choice, private management, and minimal government regulation are key factors in school effectiveness in poor countries. This is not surprising, especially when one learns that, in rural northern India, only half of all government schools "had any teaching activity whatsoever going on." Why, then, have people such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argued that the "evil of private tuition must be uncompromisingly overcome" so that wealthier parents might be forced, as their only option, to focus on improving government schools - despite Sen's own research showing that private tutoring is effective and no evidence that mere effort without competition will improve government schools? (For another take on the revolution of private schooling in India, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=4#42.) To Coulson, this inconsistency shows that many researchers and policymakers are willing to ignore the effectiveness of market schools, where tuition is paid in part by parents, because "this reality conflicts with the cherished belief that schooling should/must/will be provided free-of-charge by the state" (italics in original). Those who would bury their heads in the sand this way - and favor ideology over evidence - do no service to the schools they affect. To view a copy, visit http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/coulson_milan-(2003).pdf

This week, Time has a chilling report on the increase in violent incidents among very young students. In Philadelphia, for example, schools chief Paul Vallas had to institute a get-tough policy after 21 serious assaults on teachers and fellow students by kindergartners last year, including one boy who punched a pregnant teacher in the stomach. This year has seen 19 violent incidents already among the under-eight set in the City of Brotherly Love. In Fort Worth, examples of the phenomenon include "a 6-year-old who told his teacher to 'shut up, bitch,' a first-grader whose fits of anger ended with his peeling off his clothes and throwing them at the school psychologist, and hysterical kindergartners who bit teachers so hard they left tooth marks." Explanations range from the plausible - violent television shows and video games, stressed-out and disengaged parents, the possible effects of day care, and a broad cultural decline in manners - to the absurd. With a straight face, some educators are blaming these tantrums and outbursts on, what else, the No Child Left Behind act! Sure, we've heard a lot of griping about the unintended consequences of NCLB, and done a bit ourselves. But we doubt that AYP pressure (which arguably doesn't even set in until third grade) is causing tykes to bite and curse their instructors.

"Does kindergarten need cops?," by Claudia Wallis, Time, December 7, 2003

Discipline - or, if you prefer the euphemism, classroom management - is essential, both in the classroom and in life. But it is not the reason we have schools. We have schools to help kids learn and teach them civil behavior. While it is a teacher's job to create a minimally-disrupted classroom atmosphere that encourages learning, such an environment is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieving academic goals.

Many education policy types may scarcely have heard of Ron Clark, a Disney Teacher of the Year who wrote The Essential 55: An Award-Winning Educator's Rules for Discovering the Successful Students in Every Child. But for practitioners, he's ubiquitous; his book spent weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, was heralded on Oprah, and has catapulted its author way up the professional development ladder, such as it is.

Clark's book provides 55 (well, actually, 80+ if you break down one of his rules into its 26 components) rigid guideposts for students that, he believes, are the answer to transforming the raw material of children into the finished product of well-mannered, purposeful and presentable adults. For Clark, discipline is the end. Ah, the beauty of simplicity.

But I wonder if anyone is actually reading with a critical eye what this Disney teacher of the year has written? I suspect not, because if they did, there surely would have been questions raised, as he made the rounds of TV talk shows, about his zero-tolerance approach to classroom management. Maybe the public actually believes that setting down a myriad of inflexible rules for small children to follow is the long-sought, fool-proof means to control unruly classrooms. That would be regrettable.

Consider Clark's Rule #9: "Always say thank you when I give you something. If you do not say it within three seconds after receiving the item, I will take it back. There is no excuse for not showing appreciation."

Who could deny that it's a fine thing to teach children to be appreciative of things given to them? But the example Clark uses of how he ENFORCED this rule is truly appalling. One of his 5th grade students "won a set of books for having the highest score on a social studies test. The little girl was so excited that she was jumping up and down [for more than three seconds]. Others in the class quickly pointed out that she forgot to say thank you, and I had to take the books away from her."

Imagine taking back books that a child had earned just because she didn't say thank you within the "appropriate" (though arbitrary) three seconds. Is it less appreciative to show excitement for five seconds and then to show gratitude? What lesson does Clark hope this student and her classmates will learn?

This example illustrates the problem with much of the book: Clark sees rules as "all or nothing." This is right, that is wrong. Nothing is gray. He evidently fails to grasp the basic idea that teachers must be on-the-spot decision-makers, and that good teachers are good decision-makers. They are called upon in the course of a busy day to make hundreds of decisions, ranging from minute to major. Many require the skill of judgment, how best to interpret a rule given a specific set of circumstances. Isn't that the basis of our justice system? To reduce classroom discipline to an "always do this" mentality is absurd.

The problem with zero-tolerance policies - in a classroom or schoolwide - is that they do not allow the punishment to fit the crime. While teachers should surely encourage and reward good behavior, they must be able to make a distinction between a student who is so overjoyed with having performed well on a test and one who is downright ungrateful. Students need to understand that good manners are important, that violence is bad, and that treating people with respect is essential, but they also need to learn that there is no one-size-fits-all fix to every problem.

The book is a bestseller, yet I contend that people who are buying are likely not actually reading it. Surely they're not reflecting deeply on what it would mean to implement Clark's 55 rules so inflexibly in a classroom. In August, I spoke to an education group that had decided to distribute 400 copies of the book to all new teachers because a parent suggested this might be a good idea. When I later asked if anyone on staff had actually read the book before giving it their seal of approval, the head of the group said no, the book was being accepted and disseminated because the idea sounded so wonderful. Of course, the real danger in accepting the book's premise without actually reading it is that new teachers will be given the impression that this authoritarian style of discipline is the ideal. In fact, classroom management is a much more nuanced practice that requires a teacher's constant attention and judgment.

Clark is writing a sequel that has already garnered a multi-million dollar advance. Pray that he spares us from further lectures on simplistic behaviorism. A better proposition to guide teachers and students might be called the Essential 1:"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The "Golden Rule" found in so many cultures is what Mr. Clark needs to consider. And by the way, Mr. Clark, when you received your latest teaching paycheck, did you call the payroll office - within 3 seconds - to thank them?

Dennis Denenberg, a thirty year veteran educator, is co-author of 50 American Heroes Every Kid Should Meet, www.heroes4us.com.

Andrew Wolf reports in the New York Sun that the New York City department of education has "overspent its budget for professional service contracts by more than $200 million" over the past year, in pursuit of the elusive and unproven "professional development." According to Wolf, the Big Apple's schools are essentially trying to make up for the failings of their chosen "progressive" math and reading curricula by spending vast sums to train the teachers to properly use the programs, above and beyond the $150 million already allocated. "By subjecting the teachers to an endless program of professional development," Wolf quips, "maybe those dullards will finally 'get it' and be able to implement the failed pedagogy like whole language and fuzzy math correctly." Worse, the recipients of this largesse are not nationally known education experts or teacher trainers but obscure progressives and anti-testing activists. Take, for example, Diane Snowball, a native Australian whose company, AUSSIE (Australian and United States Services in Education), has taken in some $10 million this year for professional development services. After an extensive media search, Wolf was able to uncover precisely four mentions of Diane Snowball - none of which help to explain why her company (owned by her and her husband) was given "enough money to put a[n additional] teacher in every New York City public school."

"Beware the flying pigs," by Andrew Wolf, New York Sun, December 5, 2003

The tragedy of urban education is the dearth of effective schools for poor kids. That acute shortage belies the right nominally conferred by the federal No Child Left Behind Act, namely that parents can move their children from failing public schools to better ones. Many communities have nowhere near enough capacity in well-functioning schools to provide an education haven for those thousands of youngsters. (In cities like New York and Chicago, we're talking hundreds of thousands.)

Federal law also says such kids may go to charter schools, but there aren't enough of them, either, at least not the highly effective kind.

How to get more? Take advantage of the charter option and become more creative and open-minded. Many cities with weak public schools have strong churches and faith-based organizations. And one thing that many parents crave for their children is a school that not only teaches the 3 R's, not only keeps Tony and Tanika safe, not only gives them a teacher who knows their names and cares if they're learning - but that also supplies them with values, morals, a code of behavior, and a sturdy faith in God.

Yet the No Child Left Behind legislation doesn't include the right to go to private schools, where such things are routine. Paul G. Vallas, the chief executive officer of the Philadelphia school system, is seeking a way around that restriction, hoping to send disadvantaged youngsters from troubled public schools into archdiocesan classrooms that have space and are willing. But, like vouchers, this is an uphill political battle. And even with voucher aid, many children who would benefit from the curricular and moral offerings of private schools cannot afford to matriculate. But faith-based organizations seeking to operate zero-tuition charter schools have, until now, been compelled to exclude all forms of religiosity - thus quashing one of their major incentives to serve children and barring one of the things they do best.

Solution: Let religious schools become part of the charter system so long as they're willing to abide by the results-based accountability arrangements that other charter schools must accept, namely state academic standards and tests. And allow churches to found new charter schools without shedding their sectarianism.

In most countries, this wouldn't qualify as an innovation, for they assume that government has an obligation to support church-affiliated as well as secular schools. In the United States, however, a daft reading of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause was long held to bar public aid to religious schools.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 Zelman decision changed this. It said there's no federal prohibition on state dollars going to such schools so long as this results from free and open choices by parents. It thus legalized voucher programs in several states and others struggling to be born, including the new one in Colorado and the District of Columbia plan now pending in Congress.

But vouchers aren't the only education innovation that Zelman makes possible. Charter schools, too, get public dollars only when parents freely choose them. No child is compelled to attend a charter school. If parents don't select it, it has neither pupils nor revenue.

Yes, charter schools must be "sponsored" by state-approved agencies, and some will see excessive "entanglement." But private schools also need state licenses and, under the pending District of Columbia voucher program, must accept other constraints devised by Congress. Doing so will not, however, erase their religious character.

True, other differences remain between private and charter schools. Wholly private schools can restrict attendance to members of their faith and expel youngsters who refuse to behave. They can operate separate programs for girls and boys and need not comply with Uncle Sam's myriad rules for educating children with disabilities.

Because they value such freedoms, many private schools will shun greater involvement with government. So be it. But some would welcome the opportunity to serve more children. In most places, per-pupil funding for charters, meager as it is, exceeds current tuition levels—and is more than vouchers would bring. In any case, the entanglements that accompany charter school status are not much worse—as is becoming clear in Florida, where new rules are raining down upon private schools that take part in that state's several voucher programs. It's a calculation each school can make for itself.

—

A few private schools have converted to charter status, but they did so by severing all religious ties. A few others have created sister schools that operate as charters. I visited an interesting pair of schools in Houston, one private (and religious), the other charter (and secular), sharing facilities but functioning as separate organizations.

Creating a secular sister school is one viable model for a parochial school or church that wants to serve more kids. It may be the only option in states with "Blaine amendments" that prohibit public dollars from flowing into religious institutions no matter what the Supreme Court says about the U.S. Constitution. But in the dozen or so states without such impediments, why not try religious charter schools?

Watchdog groups will rush back to court at the first sign of a new breach in their cherished "wall of separation," and in time this education innovation would also wind up in the Supreme Court. But that's no reason to forgo it. Cash-strapped states may fear the budgetary impact of private school pupils suddenly qualifying for public subsidies. Yet that cost can also be contained. Since many state charter laws bar private school conversions, most religious charters would be new schools, serving kids not already in the private school orbit—and adding to the supply of seats in decent schools for youngsters who need them.

Overriding all objections is America's woeful lack of such seats. Every possible asset should be brought to bear on the creation of more. Religious charter schools deserve consideration.

This article first appeared in Education Week. 

American society is groaning under a tide of litigiousness, and education is one of the fields most profoundly affected by it. "Legal fear" - the paralysis caused by frivolous lawsuits - has deprived "teachers and principals of the freedom to use their own common sense and best judgment. Thanks to judicial rulings and laws over the past four decades, parents can sue if their kids are suspended for even a single day - for any reason - without adequate 'due process.'" It has also tied the hands of administrators seeking to do what's best for the greatest number of students, as in the case of the serial vandalizer who was expelled from a public school after a $40,000 graffiti spree. The lad's mother hired psychologists who diagnosed attention deficit disorder - and the courts ordered him returned to school on grounds that the system had failed to prove that his previously undiagnosed malady hadn't been a factor in his behavior. Besides the financial costs - New York City alone spends $550 million a year on legal settlements - this regimen rends the fabric of trust necessary to keep civil society strong. The authors of this long article (in three parts; only one deals with education) advocate tort reform, a greater reliance on arbitration, and also removing disputes about student discipline from the courts completely, relying instead on parent-teacher committees to provide oversight of administrators who would otherwise be free to use their common sense to protect the rights of other children in the classroom. There's also a fine profile of Philip Howard and his group, Common Good, which last month kicked off a new initiative in legal reform for America's schools with a Brookings Institution conference (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=122#1533).  Howard is fighting the good fight on tort and legal reform.

"Civil wars," by Stuart Taylor, Jr. and Evan Thomas, Newsweek, December 15, 2003

This week, Education Secretary Rod Paige announced new guidance on one of the stickiest questions surrounding the AYP requirements of NCLB: just how to deal with severely disabled pupils in calculating who is and isn't making adequate yearly progress. The answer is that up to 9 percent of special ed students (or 1 percent of the total student body) may henceforth be assessed for proficiency against the goals of their personal IEPS rather than being forced to meet the general proficiency benchmarks that other pupils must meet. This strikes us as welcome flexibility, an overdue acknowledgment that some students truly cannot clear a high academic bar but can make other important progress. It maintains the spirit and intent of NCLB while giving the lie to the baleful chorus about how unfeeling and unyielding the proponents of standards and accountability are.

"New No Child Left Behind provision gives schools increased flexibility while ensuring all children count, including those with disabilities," U.S. Department of Education, December 9, 2003

"Rules on testing some disabled relaxed," by Andrew Mollison and Dana Tofig, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 10, 2003

"Test regulations for special ed students revised," by Beth Braverman, The Express-Times, December 10, 2003

This week, the pilot District of Columbia voucher program cleared another important barrier when it passed the House as part of a huge consolidated spending bill. Included are $13 million for the voucher program itself, $1 million for administrative expenses, and an additional $13 million for both D.C. public and charter schools. Children in D.C. have one more hurdle, the Senate, which won't drag itself back into session to pass the federal budget (now more than two months overdue) until late January. We are cautiously optimistic, however, since the Senate has also folded the program into its appropriations bill and Democrats have already conceded that they will not filibuster to stop the program from becoming law. And after it passes, the program is (likely) off to the courts. Stay tuned.

"House approves vouchers for D.C.," by Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, December 9, 2003

"House again approves D.C. vouchers, ban on human patents," BP Press, December 9, 2003

"Boehner applauds House passage of historic school choice initiative for District of Columbia," press release, Committee on Education and the Workforce, December 8, 2003

If there is a master plan behind the school reform agenda of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his chancellor, Joel Klein, we have yet to divine it. On some issues, their instincts are good - charter schools, for example (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=121#1520). On others - such as hiring curriculum chief Diana Lam to engulf the nation's largest school system in progressivist nonsense - they show appalling judgment. The confusion continues this week, when Lam told an N.Y.U. audience that the city planned to "expand the definition of what it means to be gifted and talented," essentially cutting the legs out from under a G&T program that has kept many middle class families from fleeing Gotham's public schools. The aim, of course, is diversity, as minority youngsters are said to be "underrepresented" in the program as presently constituted. After an ensuing uproar, Klein contradicted his deputy and allowed as how the city has a "strong commitment to the gifted-and-talented programs." Now nobody is sure just what the city will do, so rumors fly and, once again, a reformist team is sending confused and vexing signals.
 
"Talent for reaching out," by Joe Williams, New York Daily News, December 6, 2003  

 "School reform: RIP? " New York Post, December 9, 2003 

 
"Mixed signals over fate of gifted-and-talented programs," by David Herszenhorn, New York Times, December 10, 2003,  (registration required)

Andrew Coulson, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
May 2003

This paper provides an interesting overview of the research on school choice and privatization in poor and developing countries. Its nominal purpose is to spur action, as it notes that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has set a goal that "there should be universal primary education (UPE) in all countries by 2015," yet little has been done to achieve this goal. Instead, the OECD's plans for "education for all" are, "at best . . . rough guidelines . . . for what a policy should accomplish." Coulson admits this is understandable, given that the latest of these world fora had 1,100 participants. However, a large volume of research clearly shows that competition, choice, private management, and minimal government regulation are key factors in school effectiveness in poor countries. This is not surprising, especially when one learns that, in rural northern India, only half of all government schools "had any teaching activity whatsoever going on." Why, then, have people such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argued that the "evil of private tuition must be uncompromisingly overcome" so that wealthier parents might be forced, as their only option, to focus on improving government schools - despite Sen's own research showing that private tutoring is effective and no evidence that mere effort without competition will improve government schools? (For another take on the revolution of private schooling in India, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=4#42.) To Coulson, this inconsistency shows that many researchers and policymakers are willing to ignore the effectiveness of market schools, where tuition is paid in part by parents, because "this reality conflicts with the cherished belief that schooling should/must/will be provided free-of-charge by the state" (italics in original). Those who would bury their heads in the sand this way - and favor ideology over evidence - do no service to the schools they affect. To view a copy, visit http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/coulson_milan-(2003).pdf

The Center for Education Reform
November 2003

This new release from the Center for Education Reform reports on progress by 24 states' charter schools. With information organized by state, it allows readers to glimpse the charter schools' progress, while also providing a stage for comparing charter schools' characteristics and performance from state to state. It's more anecdotal than analytic, and perhaps selective in its focus on good news, but some of its findings are fascinating. For example, 17 of Arizona's 25 highest-performing elementary and middle schools in 2003 were charters. Kansas City's 26 charter schools, which serve a population that is 90 percent minority and 75 percent low income, managed to produce a 93 percent increase in the number of students achieving at "near proficiency" on their state exam in 1999. While this report provides sufficient evidence of the merits of charter schools in "the 24 states that offer good data," it doesn't provide much information about the problems that have plagued some charter schools and doesn't provide much of a blueprint for helping the struggling schools to achieve the successes highlighted herein. But it supplies an extensive bibliography that may help those looking for more specific information about how charters have fared. To check it out for yourself, go to http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CSTRecordSuccess2003.pdf.

Todd Oppenheimer
2003

Oppenheimer is a journalist, not an education scholar, which accounts for both the good and the bad in this new book on schools' uses of computers in the classroom. Fortunately, the good outweighs the bad, and this work may contribute productively to an important debate. In writing that is often persuasive and always engaging, Oppenheimer details numerous failures of computers in schools: they dull kids' imaginations, stymie real thinking, supplant effective instructional methods, substitute for worthier expenditures, allow kids to goof off, and, perhaps most obviously, too often simply don't work. Schools would do better to stick to the basics and use computers more judiciously, for there is little proof that they help students and tons of evidence that they detract from schools' core mission. This is particularly true among younger students, who don't really need to develop multimedia presentations and can wait until high school to learn computer programming. The book goes awry when Oppenheimer intermittently abandons his topic to comment (and gripe) about other aspects of education reform: Bush's "obsession" with the "fad" of standardized testing; the dangers of privatization; the unproven Texas education "miracle" as evidence of teaching to the test; etc., etc. Because of these digressions, the book stretches to more than 400 pages. In between, however, its discussions of how and how not to use computers make it a worthy read. Educators may appreciate his encounters with outstanding teachers who discuss their methods, which often avoid computers or simply use them in interesting ways. And his observations on the organizational benefits of technology--for tracking student progress, facilitating parent-teacher communication, distributing school announcements, etc.--are on target. Most importantly, one hopes this book will succeed where other such efforts have failed: in alerting us to the incredible amount of money, effort, and classroom time that is wasted on computers. The ISBN is 1-4000-6044-3, and the book is available for $19 on Amazon.com.