Will's poor disposition

January 19, 2006

George Will has had it with ed schools and their insatiable desire to inject political bias into tomorrow's teachers. "Many education schools discourage, even disqualify, prospective teachers who lack the correct 'disposition,' meaning those who do not embrace today's 'progressive' political catechism," he writes. "The permeation of ed schools by politics is a consequence of the vacuity of their curricula." How true. Instead of informing tomorrow's teachers about, say, the best methods of reading and writing instruction, ed schools are forwarding vague social goals. Students at the University of Alabama's College of Education, for example, are taught "to promote social justice, to be change agents, and to recognize individual and institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism." Will's solution? "Close all the schools of education." Wishful thinking, but Gadfly sure is glad to see we aren't the only ones talking about this anymore. 

"Ed Schools vs. Education," by George F. Will, Newsweek, January 16, 2006

» Continued

---

Will's poor disposition

Boy bandaids

January 19, 2006

What explains the chasm in achievement between boys and girls - and the decline in the percentage of males on college campuses - and why isn't anyone paying attention? Richard Whitmire, who by day writes perceptive editorials for USA Today, explores the issue in this New Republic article. Whitmire identifies poor reading skills as the major culprit. He points to genetic differences that give girls a verbal edge, and to societal factors that discourage boys from picking up books, as effectively fueling males' education decline and leading many young men to avoid college. According to Whitmire, rather than obsessing about the gap or trying one of myriad fads, educators should implement high-expectations instruction that eschews excuses and focuses on getting all kids reading. In this way, some schools have already been able to eliminate the gender gaps in their classrooms. (Some schools weren't even aware they existed!). That's good news for males, and for females, too - especially "any sorority sister seeking a date to the next formal." 

 

"Boy trouble," by Richard Whitmire, New Republic, January 23, 2006 (free registration required)

» Continued

---

Boy bandaids

Stunting Growth: The Impact of State-Imposed Caps on Charter Schools

Michael J. Petrilli / January 19, 2006

Todd Ziebarth
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
January 2006

The nation's umbrella charter school advocacy organization is off to a good start in 2006 with this "issue brief" - the first of five planned for the year. It summarizes and evaluates, in plain English, the various caps that states place on charter school growth and their effects. The best-known caps are ceilings on the total number of schools allowed in a state, such as New York's 100-school cap which threatens Joel Klein's charter expansion plans (see here). Another sort of restriction limits the number of charters that particular authorizers may approve. This cap exists in Indianapolis, among other places, where Mayor Bart Peterson, despite a track record as one of the best charter sponsors in the nation, may only launch five new charters every year. There are also caps on the number, or percentage, of students who are allowed to enroll in charter schools - either statewide or, absurdly, within individual charter schools. (Connecticut's charters, for example, can't enroll more than 300 students each.) All told, 25 states plus the District of Columbia place some sort of arbitrary limits on charter school growth; in 10 states, according to NAPCS, these caps are "severe constraints on charter schools' ability to serve families who need them now." So why do states have such limitations on their lawbooks? And how can we fix the problem? As the National Alliance recognizes, some

» Continued

---

Stunting Growth: The Impact of State-Imposed Caps on Charter Schools

Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts: Findings from 2002-03

January 19, 2006

U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
November 2005

This study is the second in a three-part series that examines the implementation of No Child Left Behind's Title I accountability provisions. It evaluates data from 2002-03 (NCLB's first full year) and finds that local governments and schools, despite overall progress in carrying out the law's accountability requirements, still have work to do. The study points out, for example, that although NCLB requires states and districts to provide support systems (i.e., mentors, curriculum assistance, data analysts, etc.) for schools tagged as needing improvement, almost two-thirds of principals in those schools received no such help. Complying with NCLB's supplemental services and school choice provisions also proved troublesome. Only about half the districts required to offer supplemental services did so, and only 7 percent of eligible students in districts offering services received them. On the brighter side, a majority of districts required to offer school choice (which allows youngsters in "needs improvement" schools to transfer) did so. Unfortunately, they did so in such ways that a paltry 1 percent of eligible students in those districts actually exercised their choice option. This report provides a plethora of information (some of it reported previously), but the authors warn that inferences from 2002-03 should be made with caution because many NCLB policies (notably the precise definitions of adequate yearly progress) were still in development at the time. This series will be more helpful

» Continued

---

Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts: Findings from 2002-03