Don't punish schools for teaching white students too well

Michael J. Petrilli , Janie Scull / May 20, 2010

No Child Left Behind can be summed up in four words: good ideas gone awry. Unfortunately, one key part of the Obama Administration’s “blueprint” for overhauling the landmark federal law might perpetuate that legacy for another ten years. In particular, the President wants to intervene in schools with large achievement gaps—a well-intentioned instinct that, if implemented sloppily, could punish racially integrated schools for teaching white students too well.

Let’s start with a little context. The most consequential part of the Administration’s NCLB plan isn’t about school turnarounds, or merit pay, or even teacher effectiveness. It’s the call to focus federal accountability efforts on the very worst-performing schools in the country—and to leave the rest alone (or to the mercy of the states). This would be an enormous change, and would take pressure off the vast majority of the nation’s schools.

The proposal makes eminent sense, for, as Secretary Arne Duncan said when releasing his boss’s plan, ED can't micromanage 95,000 schools from Washington and instead needs to focus on a smarter, more targeted federal role. Obama and Duncan would still publish achievement results for all schools—disaggregated by race, income, special education status, etc.—but the typical American school would be more or less off the hook from federally-mandated sanctions.

But there’s an obvious downside to this approach: It pulls back from the notion that all schools should be held accountable for the performance of all of their students. It would

» Continued

Don't punish schools for teaching white students too well

Now that's expensive!

May 20, 2010

What’s the price of common sense school reform? If Central Falls is any guide, the answer is sit-ins, protests, and demonstrations, a strongly worded rebuke by the President of the United States (and his Education Secretary), and grandiose rhetorical battles played out on the opinions pages of every major newspaper. The recent consensus reached by superintendent and union head in this small mill town is commendable; the plan, we hear, even strong. To wit, Francis Gallo not only got her original six requested concessions (to provide after-school tutoring, for example), but another half-dozen on top of them. But let’s put this in perspective. A school is failing—chronically. Should it really take three months, national press coverage, and bitter rebukes from national union leaders to add… 30 minutes to the school day? Good grief!

“RI school district agrees to rehire fired teachers,” Associated Press, May 16, 2010

» Continued

Now that's expensive!

Skip college, go votech?

May 20, 2010

Conventional wisdom says that a college degree equals a better job, higher lifetime earnings, and a happier life. But is college the only way to live the American Dream? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only seven of the thirty fastest-growing jobs in the next decade will require a bachelor’s degree; and among the top ten, only two will. Postal carriers, nurses’ aides, and store clerks could make a much better investment of the time and money spent on a bachelor’s (or associate’s) by, say, taking vocational courses in their chosen profession. And that’s the argument of a few top economists, who allege our obsession with getting more kids into college is really just shoving a one-size-fits-all solution on a problem that merits a diversity of answers. We’re certainly open to that argument—and concerned about the rhetoric that “college is for everyone.” But at a time when only about 30 percent of Americans have a college degree (of either variety), is this really our most pressing education “problem”?  

“Plan B: Skip College,” by Jacques Steinberg, New York Times, May 14, 2010

“College for All? Experts Say Not Necessarily,” by Alan Scher Zagier (AP), Boston Globe, May 13, 2010

“A Lament for the Class of 2010,” by Joe Queenan, Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2010

» Continued

Skip college, go votech?

Ballyhoo at Bighorn

May 20, 2010

Steven Brill thinks that Race to the Top era will be the teachers’ unions’ undoing. It’s a combination of forces, he explains—five to be exact: a cadre of hard-hitting reformers; a new crop of ed-reform friendly Democratic pols; high-powered foundations giving billions to ed reform initiatives; a charter-school movement providing a stark backdrop to the incompetency of many traditional schools (sometimes in the same building); and RTT itself, which, Brill explains, “before Duncan had dispensed a nickel” had set off “more school reform than [the country] had seen in decades.” But the battle certainly is not over. In perhaps the most piquant theme of Brill’s NYT Mag exposé is the structural and procedural problems with RTT—game-playing if you will. For example, not a trivial number of states checked all the boxes for “stakeholder support,” only to include the final language of their memoranda of understanding in their application appendix with this gem: “Nothing in this M.O.U. shall be construed to override any applicable state or local collective-bargaining requirements.” Then there’s the huge variation in the grading standards of the so-called neutral and well-trained competition judges (explained more fully in Brill’s recent Ed Week piece). So while movement in state capitals has been encouraging, we can’t help but wonder if most of the promised—or even legislated—reforms are like NYC Chancellor Joel Klein says: “telling a woman you’ll marry her in the morning.”

“The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand,” by Steven Brill, New