The Education Gadfly
A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
September 18, 2003, Volume 3, Number 32
Contents
From Checker's Desk
Guest Editorial
Recommended Reading
- A Tale of Two Schools
- Charter schools-what they're cracked up to be
- Class size reduction-not what it's cracked up to be
- The benefits of creative thinking
Short Reviews
- Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Classrooms
- Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States
- Making Sense of Leading Schools: A Study of the School Principalship
- In Need of Improvement: Ten Ways the U.S. Department of Education Has Failed to Live Up to Its Teacher Quality Commitments
- Old Education Ideas, New American Schools: Progressivism and the Rhetoric of Educational Revolution
From Checker's Desk
On Vouchers and Trojan Horses
The lively debate over a proposed federal voucher program for needy children in the District of Columbia has re-surfaced a familiar issue. In today's guest editorial, Andy Rotherham calls it ensuring "accountability" for private schools receiving voucher-bearing students. In the Sunday Washington Post, it's described benignly as "comparing the progress of voucher-funded students with that of children who are not in the program."
Most people know that prior research is incomplete and thus inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of voucher programs in boosting pupil achievement. That's due largely to the fact that there's never been an adequate experiment coupled with a well-designed study of its effectiveness. Unfortunately, the proposed D.C. program will not be a true experiment, either-no randomized assignment of children to "treatment" and "control" groups, for example-so rigorous social scientists will never be entirely satisfied with the evidence it produces.
Still, the proposed program holds huge significance for the national voucher debate. It's important to learn all we can from it while ensuring that (in the late Johnny Cash's hallmark phrase) it "walks the line" between accountability and freedom.
Those who hate vouchers and want to halt the D.C. program (teacher unions, for example, and People for the American Way) are using "accountability" to kill it. They say the accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind must apply to participating private schools, including state standards, tests, "adequate yearly progress," and a cascade of interventions. Private schools simply won't succumb to this-and they shouldn't, for then they would forfeit the essential characteristics of freedom and uniqueness that make them worth attending in the first place. Beware of "accountability" turning into a Trojan horse. And laugh or cry at the sight of groups that decry NCLB in other contexts now citing it as a bulwark of public education-when the voucher votes are close and it helps their side to wrap themselves in the accountability flag.
Yet it's important to monitor the academic progress of voucher students and compare it with more-or-less similar youngsters in public schools. This can be done, albeit imperfectly, via a plan under consideration at the U.S. Department of Education: track D.C. public-school students via their scores on the SAT-9 tests that the District already uses and track voucher students via their scores on the Terra Nova test that many local private schools (including those of the Washington Archdiocese) already use. Comparing one national standardized test with another isn't perfect-but it's serviceable, whether one uses percentile rankings or what analysts call "normal curve equivalents."
What about private schools that use neither the SAT-9 nor the Terra Nova? Let them agree to administer one or the other, at least to the kids with vouchers, or forego participation in the program. And make sure that a few ace researchers are involved from the get-go in structuring all this and analyzing the data that result.
Test scores are by no means all one wants to know about the effects of a voucher program. (Student turnover, attrition and completion rates are examples of other important information.) But they're the most sensitive territory and the one where voucher supporters need to make reasonable accommodation with the demand for evidence and accountability-and opponents need to be unmasked as hostile Greek warriors hiding inside the accountability "horse" that Troy's leaders are being cajoled to let through the gates.
"Voucher Plan Lacks Method of Assessment," by Justin Blum, Washington Post, September 14, 2003
"Vouching for children," by George F. Will, Washington Post, September 14, 2003
"Give poor students a choice," by William Raspberry, Washington Post, September 15, 2003
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Guest Editorial
On Vouchers and Accountability
When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Zelman v. Harris, I thought the ruling would have little impact on the school choice debate because it dealt only with constitutionality, not the politics of actually passing a voucher bill. Now events in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere make me think I was wrong.
The voucher debate has changed since Zelman. Previously, only Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida had publicly funded voucher programs. Now, in addition to the proposed D.C. program, Colorado has adopted a voucher plan despite a history of resistance to the idea, and proposals are pending elsewhere as more politicians consider vouchers a plausible option. In addition, policy intellectuals on the left are floating voucher proposals of their own. Citizens Commission on Civil Rights chairman William Taylor and Berkeley law professor and former Clinton Department of Education aide Goodwin Liu recently proposed limited and targeted vouchers to help increase school integration.
What has not changed are inconsistencies and hypocrisies on all sides of the issue. The support for vouchers among minorities and political elites means that voucher proponents will likely carry the day in Washington (it now seems more a question of 'when' than 'if'). So their inconsistencies deserve more attention, especially to the extent that vouchers in D.C. are viewed as a model for the nation.
To start, the legislation is weak on accountability. Although it requires some data collection and evaluation, these provisions are weak and it is missing many "hard" accountability elements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which many voucher proponents insisted be applied to public schools. Soft accountability measures such as parental satisfaction have limited usefulness, but don't substitute for hard data. It is not asking too much for private schools that seek taxpayer dollars to meet the same standards that we're asking of public schools. Even President Bush-who just this month, in unveiling an NCLB-related grant, said, "What we're interested in doing is laying out the facts for people to see, so people can make informed decisions" about schools and education-is unwilling to apply the same standard to vouchers and the schools that receive them.
Schools are notoriously opaque. This is in part because teaching and learning cannot be fully quantified, but also because it is often difficult to get accurate and accessible basic information about educational performance, finances, and personnel. If you want to buy a car or DVD player, plenty of information is available. Want to choose a school in D.C. or most other locales? Good luck, try checking with a realtor.
Conservatives know that information helps markets work. In education this means, as NCLB requires, common assessment and clear, accessible reporting about schools for parents. Researchers need one kind of data but parents don't care about z scores and p values. They want straightforward, comparable information. Let's remember, achievement gaps, which national policy is now focused on closing, are found in public, private, and parochial schools. NCLB represents the new consensus that holding schools accountable for closing that gap is a national priority.
Of course, "accountability" is at once a legitimate policy issue and a political Trojan horse used by choice opponents (including charter school opponents) to undermine these proposals. Cynicism abounds. Too many choice supporters resist every sort of public accountability, misread how markets work, and regard unfettered parental choice as a final good. Likewise, the sincerity of many choice opponents is questionable because they resist not only vouchers but also charter schools and public school choice plans. They claim to love accountability, until it is put into practice. NCLB's accountability framework never has as many friends as when vouchers become a serious possibility.
The pending D.C. measure caps vouchers at $7,500. While that is not an insignificant amount, it breaks faith with the notion of giving D.C. parents the same educational buying power or choices as members of Congress. It also means that it is unlikely that the voucher program will lead to the creation of many new schools. As Paul Hill has written, the school choice debate can be considered through the lens of "who chooses" and "who provides." This proposal changes the provision landscape very little, necessarily limiting choices.
This shortcoming is compounded by another flaw. Under the proposal, D.C. parents can't use their vouchers at schools in neighboring Maryland and Virginia, where there are good public and private schools. Even if they could, those public schools annually spend more than $7,500 per student and do not offer scholarships offsetting the additional costs. Though often framed as public versus private/parochial, most poor parents care more about school quality than governance. A dearth of public higher education opportunities in Washington led Congress to subsidize the tuition of D.C. college students at colleges and universities in other states. A serious plan for offering D.C. school children real choices would include a similar provision regarding Maryland and Virginia schools.
For these and other reasons, I don't support vouchers, at least not as currently conceived. The issue is not choice per se and I do not think the D.C. proposal will "destroy" the public schools. On the contrary, I think it will do little and in the end be the latest in a sorry tradition of raised expectations and dashed hopes for District residents.
I'd rather see the enormous energy and resources of voucher proponents put toward creating more accountable choice options like public charter schools and contract schools in low-income neighborhoods. Charter schooling has greater potential than vouchers because more generous financing and public oversight mean it can address the supply-side problem in low-income communities. At the same time, policymakers must directly focus on fixing low-performing public schools rather than hoping they fix themselves through secondary effects of competition. This work involves tough issues affecting teachers, leadership, teaching, curriculum, and intra-district finance, issues that do not capture the interest of the media or most voucher proponents. (To its credit, the Fordham Foundation is somewhat unique among voucher supporters because it puts forward ideas, analysis, and proposals on a host of issues besides choice.)
In a few years, there will be more evidence to test claims on all sides of the issue. In the meantime, in this debate to the victors go not spoils but responsibility. Choice advocates in Washington and elsewhere must now make vouchers work, not as a handy political wedge but as a public policy that improves education outcomes for children. After all, vouchers were touted as a systemic change-change much needed in cities like Washington. Unfortunately, if the D.C. voucher bill and experiences elsewhere are any indication, things are not off to an encouraging start.
Andrew J. Rotherham is director of education policy at the Progressive Policy Institute.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Recommended Reading
A Tale of Two Schools
Last Saturday's Washington Post reported on two underperforming area schools, one on Virginia and one in Maryland. At Maury Elementary in Alexandria-the only school in the Virginia suburbs of D.C. to be identified as "needing improvement" under No Child Left Behind-13 percent of students have transferred to other area schools, private and public. The superintendent calls the transfers a "fresh start. The people who are there want to be there." Across the Potomac River in Prince George's County, by contrast, Seabrook Elementary was taken off Maryland's list of schools slated for state takeover after it showed two straight years of test gains. A tough-minded, detail-oriented, and innovative principal instituted a relentless focus on the basics at the mostly poor and minority Seabrook, as well as other reforms like school uniforms, while the state kicked in extra money for remedial and after-school programs. Both tales illustrate intervention at its best-giving parents options and forcing change.
"Triumphs, transfers at troubled schools," by Nancy Trejos, Washington Post, September 13, 2003
"Some parents opt to transfer children from struggling Alexandria school," by Elaine Rivera, Washington Post, September 13, 2003
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Charter schools-what they're cracked up to be
This week, a draft of New York State's five year report on charter schools was presented to the governor and legislature. To the dismay of charter opponents, it shows that "charter schools in operation for two or more years have shown dramatic increases in student performance that equals or surpasses [sic] the local traditional public schools," and that there is "little financial disruption to school districts where a charter school drew students and their per-pupil public aid." In a telling response, a representative of the New York school boards' association said they "don't think [the report] tells the whole story" because the results don't "necessarily square with what our member districts are telling us about the charter schools' impact on them." So while charter supporters point to the facts gathered by an impartial statewide review, opponents are left only with the unsurprising assertion that "our members disagree."
"Regents to act on report of charter school success," by Michael Gormley, Associated Press, September 11, 2003
"State reports charter schools surpassing competing public schools," by Michael Gormley, Associated Press, September 10, 2003
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Class size reduction-not what it's cracked up to be
Florida voters take note! The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a report this week that's chock full of interesting findings about schools and reform strategies around the world. Among the more interesting results, the OECD report found that class size reduction is not the cure-all reform that many want it to be. According to the report, "class size makes a small difference, but doesn't have a substantial effect. There are other kinds of interventions that can have much more powerful effects." Instead, policymakers should consider giving schools the freedom to funnel limited resources into reform strategies that will have the greatest payoff in terms of student achievement. Watch this space for more on the OECD findings.
"Class size overrated, research suggests," by Heather Sokoloff, National Post, September 17, 2003
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
The benefits of creative thinking
Most businesses, when faced with a budget crunch, pare non-essential activities to save money. Firing essential staff is generally a last resort. In schools, however, teachers are often the first to go when money gets tight. But consider this: one resourceful Michigan school district, rather than laying off essential teachers, outsourced its food service operations to a private vendor, which is expected to save the district $180,000 in its first year alone. Better, if the new food service makes good on its promise to increase participation in the lunch program from 30 to 70 percent, the district will keep $50,000 of the added revenues, for a total savings of $230,000. That sounds like 3 or 4 teacher salaries to us.
"Clare schools using privatization to keep teachers," by Michael LaFaive, Mackinac Privatization Report, September 4, 2003
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Short Reviews
Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Classrooms
This fascinating new report starts with the well-known fact that poor, urban, and minority classrooms are less apt to be staffed by highly qualified teachers, then challenges the conventional wisdom that such people generally shun jobs in "hard to staff" places. Turns out that's not true. Plenty of well-prepared and qualified teachers APPLY for such teaching posts. But they don't get hired. Why? Because urban districts don't make up their minds about which new teachers they want to hire until mid-summer, by which time the really good candidates-who have plenty of options-have already taken jobs elsewhere. Why are urban districts so tardy? First, departing teachers (who create vacancies by leaving) don't even notify their employers until early summer. Second, teacher union contracts give other senior teachers within the system the right of first refusal, which further delays the posting of vacancies and selection of replacements from outside the system. Third, states and districts make budget decisions so late in the year that those doing the hiring often don't know until the last minute whether they will have the money to hire people. Fascinating stuff. You can find it on the web (complete with two case studies and a number of recommendations) at http://www.tntp.org/docs/reportfinal9-12.pdf.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States
Jay Greene and Greg Forster, Manhattan Institute
September 17, 2003
One can no longer assume that a high school diploma means the recipient knows much or has the skills and knowledge to make their way in the world. The prolific Jay Greene has underscored this sad reality with his new report, funded by the increasingly venturesome Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Among the findings: only 32 percent of the high school Class of 2001 was ready to attend four-year colleges, meaning that they had graduated from high school, taken "certain courses in high school that colleges require for the acquisition of necessary skills, and . . . demonstrate[d] basic literacy skills." Especially troubling, Greene reports, just 20 percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Hispanic students are college ready when they leave high school. One can quibble with certain parts of this "readiness index." For example, students only meet it if they've taken "four years of English, three years of math, and two years each of natural science, social science, and foreign language." A worthy standard, yes, though a student without those courses could likely find a college that would readily accept him/her. And some of Greene's data is a bit old. But these are quibbles. The report is solid and further proof that not enough students are getting high school diplomas-and that the diplomas themselves mean less and less. Check it out at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Making Sense of Leading Schools: A Study of the School Principalship
Bradley Portin et al., Center on Reinventing Public Education
September 2003
Herewith another excellent study of the principalship. Making Sense of Leading Schools is the third report issued by the Center on Reinventing Public Education as part of its leadership series funded by the Wallace Foundation. It looks at successful leaders in a variety of schools and draws some policy conclusions from how they do things. It concludes, for example, that principals are first and foremost diagnosticians who need to grasp the strengths and weaknesses of the school, then target resources accordingly; that schools need leadership in seven critical areas (instructional, cultural, managerial, human resources, strategic, external development, and micropolitical); that principals are more like CEOs managing department heads than superheroes who know and do it all; that governance matters; and that the skills required to be a good principal can't be taught, but instead must be learned on the job. The authors make four recommendations:
- Principals need the authority and freedom of action necessary to meet the demands expected of them.
- The pipeline for quality school leaders need not run solely through the classroom.
- Schools of education need to focus less on classroom theory and more on practical experience.
- Districts should work hard to match talent to the job at hand.
This report should be read by all concerned about providing schools with quality leaders. Check it out at www.crpe.org/pubs.shtml#leadership. Leadership junkies seeking more should check out: http://www.edexcellence.net/issues/index.cfm?topic=2.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
In Need of Improvement: Ten Ways the U.S. Department of Education Has Failed to Live Up to Its Teacher Quality Commitments
Education Trust
September 3, 2003
In this ten-pager, the Education Trust takes off the gloves and harshly pummels "Paige's team at the Department" for what it sees as their neglect of the "teacher quality provisions of NCLB." Besides their general meanness of spirit, Ed Trust's authors are dead wrong on at least one point: faulting the Department for excessive flexibility in interpreting NCLB's "highly qualified" teacher provision. Not only is this criticism misplaced; it's also out of whack with several of EdTrust's other gripes, which have to do with TOO LITTLE flexibility. But six recommendations are spot on: gather better data on teacher quality; press states to redistribute more good teachers to the classrooms of disadvantaged children; press on higher ed to relieve spot shortages in the teaching ranks; give parents better information regarding their kids' teachers; attend to value-added analyses of teacher effectiveness; and make the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act further the teacher-related goals of NCLB. You can find the whole thing, right and wrong, online at http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/6FF0031F-EEFC-4415-9E0D-1C0432F29FF8/202/TeacherQuality1.pdf.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Old Education Ideas, New American Schools: Progressivism and the Rhetoric of Educational Revolution
Jeffrey Mirel, University of Michigan
Paedagogica Historica, Volume 39, No. 4
August 2003
This informative paper presents both a brief history of progressive education and a summary of New American Schools' reform efforts. It builds on Mirel's 2001 Fordham study (see http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=44), which showed the revolutionary ambitions that birthed NAS in the early 1990s evolving into commonplace reform efforts. Now, however, his point is less to criticize NAS and more to provide a lesson on the basics of progressive education. Mirel argues that scholars rarely agree on the impacts of progressive reforms partly because they can't even agree on which reforms are progressive. Thus this paper provides a nice synopsis of the major Deweyite tenets. It also explains the seductive appeal of progressive rhetoric and the failings of child-centered learning. A classic example "of the triumph of hope over experience," progressivism remains popular amongst educators despite ample evidence of its failings. Though it's easy to grasp the importance of engaging the student and developing critical thinking skills, even Dewey himself did not suggest these could occur without a strong foundation in content. Sadly, Mirel's fine paper is unavailable except to subscribers, but you can order single copies at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00309230.html.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
About Us
The Education Gadfly is published weekly (ordinarily on Thursdays), with occasional breaks, by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Regular contributors include Amy Fagan, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Kyle Kennedy, Mickey Muldoon, Jamie Davies O’Leary, Eric Osberg, Stafford Palmieri, Emmy Partin, Michael J. Petrilli, Laura Elizabeth Pohl, Terry Ryan, Janie Scull, Saul Spady, and Amber Winkler. Have something to say? Email us at thegadfly@edexcellence.net. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email thegadfly@edexcellence.net with “unsubscribe gadfly” in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward Gadfly to others, and from our website you can also email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may either email thegadfly@edexcellence.net with “subscribe gadfly” in the text of the message or sign up online here.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is a nonprofit organization that conducts research, issues publications, and directs action projects in elementary and secondary education reform at the national level and in Ohio, with a special emphasis on our hometown of Dayton. (For Ohio news, check out our Ohio Education Gadfly, published bi-weekly, ordinarily on Wednesdays.) The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.