George Washington would not be happy

Kathleen Porter-Magee , Chester E. Finn, Jr. / February 17, 2011

“How unpardonable it would be for us,” the eminent historian David McCullough declared at Hillsdale College in 2005, “with all that we have been given, all the advantages we have, all the continuing opportunities we have to enhance and increase our love of learning—to turn out blockheads or to raise blockheads.”

Unpardonable or not, we have mounting evidence that American education is doing just that—creating a generation of students who don’t understand or value our own nation’s history.

On the 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, not even half of twelfth graders made it to NAEP’s basic level in U.S. history—and barely 13 percent were proficient. What does that really mean? Here’s an example: When asked to “identify a significant factor that led to United States involvement in the Korean War” and “explain why this factor was significant,” only one high school senior in seven was able to supply a satisfactory answer, such as America’s efforts to curb the spread of communism after World War II.

Though scores in 2006 were up a bit from earlier rounds, the overall results were still appalling. (NAEP tested U.S. history again in 2010; these scores will be made public in a few months.)

What causes this alarming vacuum of basic historical knowledge? There are multiple explanations, of course, but the most significant is that few

» Continued

George Washington would not be happy

The President???s cynical budget proposal

Michael J. Petrilli / February 17, 2011

   Photo by Daniel Borman

Well, we must hand it to them: The folks behind Ed in ’08 were successful after all. It just appears that they are achieving their goal—making education a central plank in the presidential election—four years behind schedule. As reported by Politico this week, the President used “the issue of education to help frame the budget debate.” Expect to hear a lot about his support for America’s public schools (versus Republican indifference) between now and November 2012.

But his rhetoric—that education is a critical investment that deserves protecting—isn’t backed up by his own policy. Sure, Mr. Obama called for a few small-scale programs that Republicans will oppose, like extending Race to the Top (for districts this time, not states) and recruiting 100,000 new math and science teachers. But this is “school uniforms” sort of stuff. Regardless of what happens to the federal education budget (which will sway a few billion in this direction or a few billion in that—on an Education Department budget nearing $80 billion), even under the “draconian” Republican plan for 2011), education spending in the real world is going to take a huge hit. That’s because of the “New Normal”—as Arne Duncan described it—that is playing out in

» Continued

The President???s cynical budget proposal

Evaluating the stimulus legacy

February 17, 2011

Two years and one hundred billion dollars later, what impact did the big federal stimulus package have on education reform? According to a recent Hechinger-led analysis: not much. Yes, the stimulus funds slowed teacher firings and kept short-term school budgets level, but we’re already seeing (thanks to the “funding cliff”) that they merely delayed the inevitable. Furthermore, skeptics are increasingly calling Race to the Top’s long-term efficacy into question. Nineteen districts, for instance, have already dropped out of the program in Massachusetts and the lure of the Bay State’s $250 million in Race to the Top winnings isn’t keeping the state’s teacher unions from pushing back against the use of student test scores in evaluating their members. In Maryland, political and policy hang-ups have stalled implementation of the state’s promised legislation tying 50 percent of teacher evaluations to student performance. In other words, even in winning states, the big policy victories that reformers scored last winter and spring are seeping away.

“Impact of education stimulus far from certain,” by Michele McNeil, Hechinger Report, February 12, 2011.

“How many jobs did the education stimulus save?,” by Michele McNeil, Hechinger Report, February 12, 2011.

» Continued

Evaluating the stimulus legacy

The IMPACT of data beyond teacher assessments

February 17, 2011

D.C.’s classy new teacher-evaluation system, IMPACT, is just gaining traction (even as the new Mayor is hinting that he wants it redone). But the data generated through its process are already finding other uses. The evaluation tool, which grades teachers based on classroom observations and value-added measurements, has thus far been used to fire instructors ranked ineffective (seventy got the boot under Michelle Rhee’s reign) as well as to reward those in the upper echelons (Rhee also doled out performance-based bonuses to 600 teachers). But District education officials are beginning to think bigger. Most encouragingly, they’re noodling ways to use IMPACT data to assess teacher-preparation programs, tracking both stellar and shoddy teachers back to the source. Never mind about the NCTQ/U.S. News and World Report assessment of education schools; D.C. is generating a homegrown ranking system all of its own.

“D.C. schools to use data from teacher evaluation system in new ways,” by Stephanie McCrummen, Washington Post, February 14, 2011.

» Continued

The IMPACT of data beyond teacher assessments

What's in a racial group?

February 17, 2011

Meet Michelle López-Mullins, a student of Peruvian, Chinese, Irish, Shawnee, and Cherokee descent. Under new Department of Education requirements that take effect this year, Ms. López-Mullins—who acknowledges partial Hispanic ethnicity—will, regardless of her rainbow-hued heritage, be reported to federal officials only as Hispanic. Multiracial students with no Latino blood will be labeled with the vague catchall “two or more races.” As the Times notes, these new designations for K-12 students will probably “increase the nationwide student population of Hispanics, and could erase some ‘black’ students who will now be counted as Hispanic or as multiracial.” This sort of racial classification, we are told, is necessary: It’s the only way the nation can judge how a certain race is doing academically, and whether or not its members are being “left behind.” But in a society where one in seven couplings are now interracial or interethnic, where these types of categorizations can whimsically change from year to year, maybe it is time to move away from outdated classifications and toward a post-racial society.

“Counting by Race Can Throw Off Some Numbers,” by Susan Saulny, New York Times, February 9, 2011.

“Take the Politics out of Race,” by Shelby Steele, New York Times Room for Debate, February 14, 2011.

» Continued

What's in a racial group?

Hope for America???s Children: School Choice Yearbook 2010-2011

Gerilyn Slicker / February 17, 2011

Get out your pom-poms. The Alliance for School Choice has released its 2010-11 yearbook—offering a visually stimulating look at the nation’s twenty private-school choice programs, as well as some background on the school-choice movement in general. The report declares that 2010 “showcased the resilience of the school choice movement” after a challenging 2009. A few highlights: Student enrollment in private-school choice programs—defined by the Alliance as vouchers and tax credit scholarships—grew by four percent (bringing total participation in these programs to 190,000); two new choice programs were enacted with bipartisan support in Louisiana and Oklahoma; and existing programs saw growth (those in Ohio and Louisiana even exceeded their enrollment caps)—all amidst a troubling economic environment. The yearbook rounds out with a recap of choice-friendly research from 2010 and state-specific profiles of the various private-school-choice programs in thirteen states. Like any yearbook from advocacy groups, this one is slightly self-aggrandizing. But the fact remains: Private-school-choice programs have come a long way since their inception twenty years ago.

» Continued

Hope for America???s Children: School Choice Yearbook 2010-2011

Location, Location, Location: How Would A High-Performing Charter School Network Fare in Different States?

Chris Tessone / February 17, 2011

As it turns out, success in growing charter-school networks is about three things: location, location, and location. This report from Bellwether Education Partners speaks to questions of the scalability and financial stability of charter schools; it examines the hypothetical financial health of a single charter network, Aspire Public Schools, if it took up shop in any one of twenty-three states instead of its current home in California. The analysis indicates that, in eighteen out of twenty-three jurisdictions studied, Aspire would be more financially sustainable, enjoying an average of $1,410 in additional surplus funds per student. In D.C., Aspire would receive $6,383 more per pupil. In only three states (Idaho, Colorado, and Arizona) would Aspire operate under a deficit. (In Ohio and North Carolina, the operating costs would be comparable.) Admittedly, the paper is a thought experiment rather than a full-blown financial analysis—it relies heavily on the recent Ball State study of inequitable charter-school financing and on some assumptions about cost differences between California and other states. Noting the gravity of these assumptions, the results of this analysis are still powerful. There is no denying that certain states are much more charter-friendly than others. As such, expect to see robust expansion of charter-school networks only in states with favorable financing landscapes, with CMOs in states with weaker financing just limping along.

Chris Lozier and Andrew J. Rotherham, “Location, Location, Location: How Would A High-Performing Charter School Network Fare in Different States?,” (Washington, » Continued Location, Location, Location: How Would A High-Performing Charter School Network Fare in Different States? A Chance to Make History: What Works and What Doesn???t in Providing an Excellent Education for All Jamie Davies O'Leary / February 17, 2011   On the twentieth anniversary of Teach for America, founder Wendy Kopp (with some help from Teaching As Leadership author Steven Farr) reflects on lessons from TFA teachers and alums about what it takes to lift achievement for low-income kids. Despite an over-abundance of TFA lingo and countless anecdotes that—while inspiring—are redundant, formulaic, and idealized, the book makes several compelling arguments. Most notably, TFA teachers and alums have shown that it’s possible to significantly lift performance of low-income students. Kopp goes on to offer candid perspectives on funding, school choice, class-size reduction, technology, and even “heroic teaching”—noting that not one of these education-reform bullets is silver. Unfortunately, she also leaves some important questions unanswered. Though the book articulates the need for more effective teachers, it doesn’t address the supply-side of the talent equation (i.e., how to attract better teachers to the profession other than through alternative certification). Sure, the book hails success stories from high-performing charter management groups (KIPP, YES Prep), whole cities (New Orleans, NYC, D.C.), and other innovative models (School of One, Rocketship Education), but for those not living in dynamic hubs of educational innovation and able to cultivate such talent-dependent reforms, the book’s lack of tangible policy recommendations is discouraging. Kopp calls for ways to increase the pace of change—including fostering political leadership and advocacy infrastructure—but skims over political and policy barriers affecting these initiatives. While there’s much to like about the book’s inspiring, can-do attitude, it doesn’t go far enough in providing the real-world advice that » Continued A Chance to Make History: What Works and What Doesn???t in Providing an Excellent Education for All Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success Daniela Fairchild / February 17, 2011 This summative report—compiling much primary- and secondary-source information—is the culmination of a four-year charter-school project from the National Charter School Research Project. In it, Betheny Gross offers an insider’s look at charter-school leaders, teachers, and academic programs via surveys, case study analyses, and evaluation of third-party longitudinal data. The report is full of interesting tidbits about charters (35 percent, for example, operate for an extended school year, though few have adopted novel instructional models), and well-articulates the benefits and obstacles for school leaders and teachers who work in the charter-school sector. The abundance of information presented in this report, while informative, also somewhat overshadows the main thesis—that charter autonomy can only create the opportunity for success, not assure it. Based on all of the information garnered through the four-year Inside Charter Schools project, Gross comes away with policy recommendations aimed at supporting charter-school leaders and teachers. Among them: “Authorizers need to look closely for a clear and achievable mission” and “State laws should allow charter schools to operate outside traditional teacher contracts.” Those interested in unlocking the door to the charter-school classroom need look no further. Betheny Gross, “Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success,” (Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, February 2011). » Continued Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success Announcements March 25: AEI Common Core Event March 21, 2013 While most discussion about the Common Core State Standards Initiative has focused on its technical merits, its ability to facilitate innovation, or the challenges facing its practical implementation, there has been little talk of how the standards fit in the larger reform ecosystem. At this AEI conference, a set of distinguished panelists will present the results of their research and thoughts on this topic and provide actionable responses to the questions that will mark the next phase of Common Core implementation efforts. The event will take place at the American Enterprise Institute in D.C. on March 25, 2013, from 9:00AM to 5:00PM. It will also be live-streamed online. For more information and to register, click here. Read more announcements Archives Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Sign Up for updates from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute    Please leave this field empty Gadfly Podcast The World is Phat play pause stop mute unmute National         About Us Our Mission Board of Trustees Staff Fellows EEPS Funding and Financing Partners Careers Contact Us Subscribe to the Education Gadfly Online Policy Priorities Standards-Based Reforms Quality Choices A Reform-Driven System Commentary Education Gadfly Weekly Education Gadfly Daily Flypaper Ohio Gadfly Daily Common Core Watch Choice Words Videos Podcasts Publications Standards, Testing & Accountability Talented Tenth Charters & Choice NCLB School Finance Governance Ohio Policy Curriculum & Instruction Digital Learning Teachers Additional Topics Events Upcoming Events Past Events Ohio Policy Ohio Education Gadfly Ohio Publications   Ohio Charters Fordham-Sponsored Schools Applying for Sponsorship Resources for Schools © The Thomas B. Fordham Institute Privacy Policy Usage Agreements 1016 16th St NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 (202) 223-5452 thegadfly@edexcellence.net nonprofit software