Napping 'till November

Chester E. Finn, Jr. / July 29, 2004

On Tuesday, the Democratic Convention adopted a platform containing a 3-page education plank that offers something for everybody, but nothing in particular, save for a pointed 3-paragraph dig at George W. Bush. Insofar as one can detect policy impulses in the fog, however, many of them resemble what Republicans also say. Think of them as standard education pabulum circa 2004: attention to "fundamental skills" and "fundamental values," "a great teacher in every classroom," closing learning gaps, higher graduation rates, citizenship education, parent partnerships, school choice (confined, for Democrats, to charter and magnet schools), making college affordable, etc.

The closest the platform comes to a provocative idea - and the closest that John Kerry has come - deals with teachers. In 1998, you may remember, he gave a much-noted speech that called for "ending teacher tenure as we know it." (He also urged that every public school become "essentially a charter school.") It seemed, for one brief shining moment six years ago, as if he might be breaking from the Democrats' ancient obeisance to the teacher unions.

A remnant endures in the new platform, presumably written by the Kerry team: "We must raise pay for teachers, especially in the schools and subjects where great teachers are in the shortest supply. . . . At the same time, we must create rigorous new incentives and tests for new teachers. . . . And teachers deserve due process protection from arbitrary dismissal, but we must

» Continued

Napping 'till November

CBE, we hardly knew ye

Diane Ravitch / July 29, 2004

When I learned recently that the Council for Basic Education had closed its doors, I felt terribly sad. According to an article in Education Week, some attributed its demise to a "tight fund-raising environment for education groups" and suggested that CBE had expired because it was swimming in a crowded pond. When I worked in Washington in the early 1990s, there were about 150 education organizations, and by now there must be far more. So CBE must have had a hard time making its voice heard above the din, especially when so many others seemed to be purveying a similar message.

But I wasn't especially saddened by the loss of one fish in that big pond of advocacy groups. I was saddened because I knew how far CBE had strayed from its roots. It did not begin in 1956 as an organization that ran programs in collaboration with other organizations. It was not a member of the education establishment. It did not partner with the federal government. It did not have a staff of twelve.

No, it began as a lonely outpost for a small, outspoken group of articulate critics who agreed that the public schools were foolishly trying to be all things to all people; who believed that progressive educationists had saddled the schools with bad ideas; and who insisted that the mission of the schools was not socialization but intellectual development.

The Council for Basic Education was founded

» Continued

CBE, we hardly knew ye

Blood and cuts in Gotham

July 29, 2004

In the New York Sun, Andy Wolf reports that "virtually all schools [in New York City] received budget cuts that in some cases exceeded 20 percent," despite an increase of $264 million in total funding for Gotham's public schools in 2004-05. Where did the money go? Wolf suggests that it went to a variety of frills - curriculum "coaches" hired to implement the favored citywide reading and math programs of departed deputy chancellor Diana Lam; massive professional development contracts (often awarded in a no-bid process); a small schools initiative; and Mayor Bloomberg's plan to hold back underperforming third graders. Meanwhile, Wolf echoes reporting from local community papers suggesting that disaffection and turnover are high among principals and instructional leaders.

"Getting down to blood money," by Andrew Wolf, New York Sun, July 23, 2004

» Continued

Blood and cuts in Gotham

The unintended consequences of "adequate" funding

July 29, 2004

In 1994, the Lake View (AR) school district - a tiny, rural district with declining enrollment and a high proportion of poor and minority students - sued Arkansas, arguing that the state's system of education finance was inequitable. (See Eric Hanushek's "Who could be against 'adequate' school funding?", for more on the foolishness of such lawsuits.) The courts sided with the district and ordered the legislature to make the per-pupil spending in the Natural State more equitable; that is, to make spending levels in poor, rural districts closer to those of wealthier districts. In response, legislators determined that all districts would spend at least $4,300 per pupil and the state would contribute as much money as needed for all districts to meet that amount. Too low, Lake View argued, and after two additional lawsuits, in 2002 the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered the legislature to undertake an "adequacy" study to determine how much money is required to provide an adequate education to all students. At the time, Attorney General Mark Pryor expressed "grave concerns" about the adequacy ruling, arguing that "what we'll see here in the state of Arkansas is mass consolidation [of school districts] and also a great increase in taxation." This week, Pryor's predictions came true: Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee struck a deal with the legislature to hike sales and services taxes to boost school spending while consolidating any district with fewer than 350 students - including Lake

» Continued

The unintended consequences of "adequate" funding

Union grievances

July 29, 2004

According to a new report from the Capital Research Center - penned by Education Intelligence Agency sleuth Mike Antonucci (see http://members.aol.com/educationintel/) - an organization you've heard of "files unfair labor practice charges and restraining orders. Circumvents the other side's negotiators. Threatens to replace employees who go on strike. Cuts off employee health insurance coverage. Crosses picket lines." A big three automaker? Halliburton? Martha Stewart? Nope, it's the National Education Association, which deals with its own employees' union in ways that would raise caterwauls if it were a school district giving what-for to teachers. (Don't feel too bad for the NEA employees, though; Antonucci notes that "the average New Jersey Education Association professional staffer earned more than $100,000 - with an additional $32,000 in benefits and 34 paid off-days. In 2001, the compensation package for professional staffers at the California Teachers Association exceeded $135,000.") And the Wall Street Journal reports on the growing membership of non-union teachers' associations in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Virginia, and Washington. These new groups have contributed to flat membership growth at the NEA and AFT by siphoning off members unhappy with the unions' far-flung pronouncements on social policy and intransigence on various education reforms.

"Do as I say, not as I do," by Mike Antonucci, Capital Research Center, July 2004

» Continued

Union grievances

Direct instruction over "discovery learning"

July 29, 2004

Gadfly is pleased to report the results of a recent study, to be published in Psychological Science this fall, comparing the effectiveness of "direct instruction" (where teachers actually teach, rather than observe or facilitate) and "discovery learning" (where children are given certain materials and are expected to "discover" scientific principles on their own) in science classrooms. It turns out that students exposed to direct instruction were far likelier to be "able to design at least three out of four experiments without confounds" and were better able to critically evaluate "deeply flawed experiments." To nobody's surprise, fans of discovery learning are struggling to discredit the research, arguing that the type of discovery learning studied is rarely used in the classroom anymore. But, at least one critic, Psychologist Richard Shavelson of Stanford University, admits that the study "uses a strong research design" and says he'd like to see it replicated with the "more typical" guided discovery that many teachers use.

"Instruction versus exploration in science learning," by Rachel Adelson, Monitor on Psychology, June 6, 2004

» Continued

Direct instruction over "discovery learning"

The home schooling spectrum

July 29, 2004

Jay Mathews's latest column at washingtonpost.com offers selections from emails he received after confessing his "deep ignorance about the home-schooling movement" earlier this summer. He makes it clear that the stereotype of home schoolers - usually depicted as fundamentalist or right-wing zealots - doesn't bear much relation to reality. In fact, there are many reasons why parents and children pursue home schooling, not all of them religious or political. And the benefits of home schooling can be tremendous. Mathews is no cheerleader, though; he quotes plenty of parents and children who have had negative experiences. All of the stories he recounts about this rapidly maturing movement are interesting and some are quite surprising.

» Continued

The home schooling spectrum

Full-day and Half-day Kindergarten in the United States

Chester E. Finn, Jr. / July 29, 2004

National Center for Education Statistics June 2004

The National Center for Education Statistics is doing a markedly better job these days of gathering, analyzing and reporting data than of "getting the word out" about what you can learn from it. I don't know why it and the Education Department are so muted about so many first-rate statistical products. One surmises it's a consequence of submerging NCES in the new Institute of Education Sciences, which seems interested only in research and evaluation, not data, though the latter are generally more informative and unimpeachable. In any case, we have here another strong and illuminating (if tardy) report, based on the first installment of an important longitudinal study that began with the kindergarten class of 1998-99. The essence of this 68-page report is conveyed in a four-page concluding chapter, which says, among other things, that:

• Fifty-six percent of all U.S. kindergarteners are in full-day programs while the remainder attends for a half-day.
• Full-day programs are most often found in the South, least often in the Northeast, and more often in Catholic than public (or other private) schools.
• Poor and minority children are more apt to be in full-day programs than affluent and white youngsters.

• » Continued

  ---

  Full-day and Half-day Kindergarten in the United States

No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers

July 29, 2004

U.S. Department of Education May 2004

This publication is a revision of an earlier teachers' guide to the No Child Left Behind Act. It starts with an overview of the law and a long explanation of its controversial "Highly Qualified Teacher" requirements. The authors put much effort into clearing up teachers' misconceptions via numerous "Myth vs. Reality" subsections, and they include information on resources and rewards available to teachers under NCLB. The report closes with a chart-style comparison of federal, state, and local responsibilities under NCLB, and an overview of some state and local initiatives to promote teacher quality through professional development, recruitment, and retention. There is also additional information for ESL and special ed teachers. You can find by clicking here.  

» Continued

No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers