The Education Gadfly

A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute

September 22, 2005, Volume 5, Number 33

Short Reviews

Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe about Our Schools?And Why It Isn?t So
The Governor?s Commission on Quality Education in Maryland
Solving the Charter School Funding Gap: The Seven Major Causes and What to Do About Them

From Checker's Desk

Blind hogs and behaviorist laws

"Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while," quoth the late Russell Long (D-LA), longtime chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. And so it is with the customarily education-blind New York Times editorial page, which unearthed a back-to-school acorn of wisdom on September 6.

Perhaps inspired by the flat-world musings of Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the editors delivered themselves of a perceptive analysis, noting that NCLB has done well at forcing states, districts, and educators "to focus at last on educational inequality, the nation's most corrosive social problem." But, they continued, "it has been less successful at getting educators and politicians to see the education problem in a global context, and to understand that this country is rapidly losing ground to the nations we compete with for high-skilled jobs that require a strong basis in math and science.... The United States can still prosper in a world where its labor costs are higher than the competition's, but it cannot do that if the cheaper workers abroad are also better educated." (emphasis added)

That sentence should be written on the blackboard a thousand times by everyone balking at the demands of NCLB and other standards-based reform strategies. For such reforms seek to secure America's future in two ways. One is by narrowing our domestic achievement gaps. The other is by boosting our overall level of academic prowess, at least up to the level that states have defined as "proficiency." Those who decry NCLB have their eyes on today, or maybe yesterday, not on tomorrow.

Skeptics say the dual goals are in conflict. Closing the achievement gap, they argue, means dumbing down standards and reining in high achievers, whereas a regimen that propels young Americans to world-class norms in demanding fields such as math and science would leave some of their classmates behind.

That paradox is true in part. We cannot be completely equal and truly excellent at the same time. But we could be more of both than we are today. Imagine what a different country this would be if 70 percent of all our kids were "proficient" in key subjects rather than the 30-odd percent who are today. (I'm using the NAEP gauge of proficiency, not the squishier versions adopted by most states.) Picture a society in which 90 percent of all young people graduate from high school on time (instead of today's 70 percent) with diplomas that signify readiness for college and modern jobs.

To get anywhere near those outcomes, however, we must make major changes in how we organize, pay for, and deliver K-12 education. This is in addition to the accountability mechanisms we impose upon the system and its various components?including the people who work in it.

If we don't change our ways, we won't get different results. (Recall the old definition of insanity.) And that's what NCLB, at bottom, is about: pressing states, districts, schools, and educators (not to mention kids) to change their ways, alter their behaviors, do things differently than they're accustomed to. It's the strongest behaviorist statute I can remember in the field of education; Uncle Sam at his pushiest.

This explains why others are pushing back. People don't like to change their behaviors and institutions resist altering their established practices.

Through such a lens one should view the machinations of the NEA, of Connecticut's attorney general and state superintendent, of Utah's legislature, and sundry other instances of NCLB backlash. Prodded by Washington to do things differently, they're balking. They don't want to change. But that's hard to admit. So they're finding a million other rationales ("local control," "unfunded mandate," "unconstitutional") to justify their resistance. They're demanding waivers, exemptions, and "flexibility" so they don't have to change, at least not much. And to a lamentable degree the U.S. Department of Education is yielding of late, just as the Clinton Department of Education did when states balked at implementing both "Goals 2000" and the 1994 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

No, NCLB isn't perfect. I have as long a list as anyone of its malfunctions, unintended consequences, and needed amendments. And yes, a handful of states (not including Utah or Connecticut, by the way) had pretty decent systems of pre-NCLB standards-based reform that were showing gains; it's hard to fault them for not wanting to retool just because Uncle Sam has a slightly different approach.

Still, the country's K-12 education arrangements, taken as a whole, need to change in a big way. Otherwise, we'll neither close our domestic gaps nor catch our international rivals. Change means altering behavior, which usually means being compelled, dragooned, bribed, or outsmarted into doing things differently. Despite not wanting to.

Boosters of NCLB in particular and standards-based reform in general would be wise to rest their case on two grounds, as the blind-hog Times did: the moral and political imperative of narrowing the achievement gap at home and the economic and geopolitical need for a population that can out-compete the countries now striving to whip us. So far, the former argument is practically all one hears. The White House should join the Times editors, as odd a coupling as that may seem, in making the second argument, too. Further, the White House should quit letting people off the hook just because they don't want to change. Instead, the president should point out that not altering behavior means not changing our results, and that, my fellow Americans, will not get us where we need to be.

"Back to School, Thinking Globally," New York Times, September 6, 2005 (paid subscription required)

"Bush faces growing revolt over education policy," Reuters, September 5, 2005

"Why Is State Really Bucking 'No Child' Law?" by Lewis M. Andrews, Hartford Courant, September 6, 2005 (paid subscription required)

Email to a friend | Comments (0)

From Diane's Desk

Sandra Feldman, in memoriam

Sandra Feldman was a brilliant and dedicated teacher unionist. From her earliest days in the civil rights movement, she exhibited intelligence, courage, and leadership. She was one of Albert Shanker's closest associates, and she shared his passion for democracy and civil rights.

As president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, she was an outspoken advocate for better education and a fearless defender of teachers' rights. Having lived through the contentious teachers' strikes of the late 1960s, she was wary of any effort to remove due process protections from her membership. As president of the American Federation of Teachers, Sandy Feldman was a powerful supporter of efforts to raise educational standards. She was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, of course, but she defended No Child Left Behind, realizing its potential to direct more attention and resources to the neediest students.

Like her mentor Al Shanker, Sandy Feldman was actively involved in efforts to promote democracy in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and wherever it was denied. She cared about children and teachers. Her clear, strong, and sensible voice will be missed.

She lived her final days as she lived her life: with courage, humor, and strength in the face of adversity.

by Diane Ravitch

Email to a friend | Comments (0)

News and Analysis

Of minivans and charter schools

An article in the September 12^th edition of the Indianapolis Star (not available online) reported that the Hoosier State's charter schools are starting to sprout in the leafy suburbs. Similar news came out of Minnesota last summer. Is this a trend? And is it good for the charter school movement?

Suburban parents' reasons for choosing charters are varied. Some are looking for smaller education settings. In upscale Carmel, Indiana, for example, a number of students and parents, concerned that the local Goliath of a high school (the 4,000-plus-student Carmel High) isn't a good fit for them, are opting for the David-esque Options Charter High School (student population around 130, with a waiting list of more than 60). Five other suburban charter schools in Indiana are attracting students for similar reasons.

Marty Dezelan, who heads Ball State University's charter school office, is quick to point out that this expansion of charters into the suburbs is a "trickle, not a flood." Nevertheless, more suburban-based schools are in the works to meet the rising demand for slots.

Other parents want charters that offer a back-to-basics curriculum, which frequently isn't found in their children's local schools. National Heritage Academies, for example, has some 50 schools in five states?many in the suburbs?catering to parents and students who appreciate the back-to-basics philosophy. One of these schools, Canton Academy in Canton, Michigan, has a student population of around 600, and a waiting list nearly as long. And its students are, for the most part, far from poor. Less than 6 percent of that city's population lives below the poverty line.

Some suburban Minnesota parents are turning on to charters because these schools can specialize. In addition to Core Curriculum schools, charter schools are "offering arts education,... foreign language immersion, and other specialties."

This interest in charters by suburban parents should surprise no one. The notion that suburban schools are bastions of intellectual power has been proven wrong time and again, most powerfully in Class Warfare: Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence by J. Martin Rochester. And some suburban parents have long known this. In the past, they've exercised their right of choice by educating their children at home or placing them in one of the many Catholic or Protestant schools mushrooming in bedroom communities across the country.

But is expanding into the suburbs good for the charter school movement? There is some reason to be concerned. Most notably, suburban charters increase the risk that charter schools will be labeled as elitist institutions. This charge has hampered the charter movement as a whole in Colorado, where charters have a strong suburban (and rural) presence, a relatively (for charters, anyway) lower percentage of poor/minority pupils?and in response have something of a reputation for functioning as publicly supported "private" schools for white, middle-class students.

But there's much to be gained politically as well as educationally by soccer moms being able to pull their minivans up to the doors of their favorite charter school. Most notably, suburban charters would greatly expand the base of support for the charter movement, and perhaps lead policymakers to remove the onerous caps that now hamper charter growth in so many states. (Those caps include barriers even to creating suburban charters. In Ohio, for example, caps restrict start-ups to districts in serious academic difficulty.) On the other hand, suburban legislators who have, to date, been supportive of charter schools "for other kids" might balk once the school districts they represent start to feel the pinch of competition.

Still, the war for school choice marches forward, and suburban charters may well prove to be the battalion that turns the tide. That would be good for moms and dads in every community.

by Martin A. Davis, Jr.

Email to a friend | Comments (2)

Short Reviews

Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe about Our Schools?And Why It Isn?t So

Jay Greene
Rowman & Littlefield
2005

Jay Greene's new book works on a simple premise: Education is prone to myths?here are the facts. He goes about debunking 18 common education inaccuracies, and he relies on actual numbers to do it. Are schools dangerously under funded, are teachers sorely underpaid, are over-crowded classrooms sinking prospects for our nation's students? Well, according to the data, no. Not surprisingly, the book's causing some consternation in the usual places. The Washington Post dubs Education Myths a "data-driven polemic." "Still," the reviewer bafflingly writes, "all the numbers in the world won't end debate over what's true." Maybe not, but they do create a common ground for discussion. On the left coast, the usually sane Richard Lee Colvin, writing in his old haunt, the Los Angeles Times, calls Greene's conclusions, which Colvin frequently misconstrues, "absurd." Greene, for example, notes in a couple of sentences that smaller school districts generally perform better than larger ones. Colvin turns Greene's observation into a demand when he writes, "Breaking up Los Angeles into districts the size of Manhattan Beach or Beverly Hills isn't going to change the quality of teaching or make poor and immigrant kids from single-parent or no-parent families without healthcare suddenly perform like the children of well-paid executives." No, it wouldn't, and surely Jay Greene would be the first to agree. What most upsets such critics, and leads them into hyperbolic accusations and poor arguments, is Education Myths' emphasis on evidence. In the ongoing debates about education reform, it is true that reasonable people will disagree on policies. But if progress is to be made, it's essential that everyone come to the table with shared facts. Education Myths is a good step in that direction. Which may be why innumerable sticks-in-the-mud are trying to discredit it. You can order a copy here.

"Stories from the front lines of American schools reveal the world beneath policy debates," by Eric Hoover, Washington Post, September 4, 2005 (article purchase required)

"A free-market primer for the classroom," by Richard Lee Colvin, Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2005

by Liam Julian

Email to a friend | Comments (0)

The Governor?s Commission on Quality Education in Maryland

September 2005

As a Marylander who hasn't done much for his state, I was honored to serve on this commission, which was appointed by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and chaired by Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele. Though a large, Noah's Ark-ish assemblage, its talented members worked hard and came forth with 30 recommendations for overhauling K-12 education in a state that has been wary of major reforms but that needs them. The policy advice ranges from plain vanilla (more parent involvement, seamless early childhood services), through pistachio (a statewide school-ratings system, a close review of all teacher preparation programs), to rocky road (differential pay for teachers, a much stronger charter school law). Then there are recommendations (e.g. a fully portable pension system) that would be welcomed and applauded anywhere but public education, whose astoundingly conservative leaders immediately balked. So far, in fact, reactions (at least those reported by the papers) have been absolutely predictable, with every interest group and politician saying exactly what you would expect. I second the governor's recommendation to them: How about reading the report first. It runs 50 pages but has a good executive summary of the key suggestions.

"Lt. Governor Releases Guidelines for Md. Schools," by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post, September 15, 2005

"Teachers union critical of report by Steele panel," by Sara Neufeld, Baltimore Sun, September 17, 2005

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Email to a friend | Comments (0)

Solving the Charter School Funding Gap: The Seven Major Causes and What to Do About Them

Center for Education Reform
2005

This short paper by CER, released the week after Fordham's Charter School Funding: Inequity's Next Frontier, provides insight into the reasons charters are shortchanged when school funds are doled out. They frequently lack access to facilities funds and cannot participate in local bond measures. Moreover, school districts often have the power to withhold funds from charters or exclude them from categorical programs. District schools benefit from "hold harmless" clauses that allow them to retain funds for services ostensibly provided to charters, such as transportation, and minimize the impact on districts of losing funds to charters. Perhaps the most pressing problem is one that CER describes as "funding flow," such that "even when the law specifies a percentage of funds should go to the charter, this does not necessarily occur," because the state itself does not control the money?local funds are kept by districts and not shared with charters. CER lays out a variety of solutions, which boil down to improving state legislation and management so that charters get their fair share. We heartily concur. You can find it online here.

by Eric Osberg

Email to a friend | Comments (0)

From Our Readers

A poor disposition

By William Damon

It is welcome to hear that the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) does not sanction ideological indoctrination. (See Arthur E. Wise's letter about my recent Fordham paper, Personality Test: The dispositional dispute in teacher preparation today, and what to do about it.) Since NCATE's own disposition standard apparently was invoked as a way of justifying this indoctrination attempt, NCATE should publicly and explicitly disavow such uses of their standard in this case and wherever else they may occur. This would go a long way toward demonstrating NCATE's professional objectivity.

I am less sympathetic with NCATE's assertion that it "defines dispositions for teaching in another way." As members of a common linguistic community, we do not get to make up our own meanings for words. As I documented in my Fwd., the behavioral sciences have defined "dispositions" in a clear and rigorous way, in contrast to NCATE's jumbled attempt. The scientific definition is available for NCATE to adopt. The reason that I alluded to Orwell's 1984 was to point out the serious mischief that can be created by altering the meanings of established words. Any of us can make an error, but when people operate in good faith (my assumption here and in my article), they admit to their error and correct it. NCATE should revise the way it defines its disposition standard and follow a principled approach to its implementation.

William Damon is a professor at Stanford University

Email to a friend | Comments (0)

No surrender

By Amy Wilkins

Though both my father and I have several shortcomings, neither of us has much trouble speaking for ourselves. I know enough not to try to speak for Dad. So let me, finally, speak for myself concerning two recent Gadfly writings. (Find them here and here).

Poverty and racism do outrageous and inexcusable damage to millions of American children everyday. The damage done to these children diminishes each of us and our nation as a whole. Fighting poverty and racism is a moral obligation and patriotic duty that each of us bears.

That said, as we wage the fight against poverty and racism, we cannot continue to allow these dark forces to excuse the educational malpractice inflicted on low-income, African-American, and Latino children every day in every part of this country. While most Americans believe education is the surest route out of poverty and the strongest weapon against racism, the fact is that our school systems are so riddled with inequities that our schools compound rather than ameliorate the damage that poverty and racism do. Our education system takes the kids who have the very least to fall back on at home and in their neighborhoods and shortchanges them again at school.

Of course simultaneous and dramatic social, economic, and education reform is the ideal, but low-income students and students of color cannot be asked to wait for high-quality education until the stars align and the politicians?who daily demonstrate a stunning disregard for them, their families, and their communities?design, implement, and fund a comprehensive anti-poverty agenda.

Right now we know a lot about what is wrong with the schools that poor children and children of color attend. Right now we know a lot about how to fix these schools. Right now we know that when these children attend good schools they achieve at the highest levels?despite their poverty, race, or ethnicity. There is no excuse for not getting to work on these schools?right now.

But too many educators are waiting.

Faced with damage that racism and poverty inflict, too many educators have simply given in and given up on these children, insisting that as much as they care about these kids, they are powerless to change their life chances until someone else acts to improve the conditions of their families and their communities. And they back up these claims and their inaction with quotes from people like Messrs Mishel and Rothstein. In a very real sense these educators?with rhetorical support from Mishel and Rothstein?have surrendered to racism and poverty. And in doing so they have surrendered their students to dim future at the cold and lonely margins of our economic and cultural mainstream.

But some educators are not waiting and have not surrendered. These educators must not have yet read or heard Rothstein and Mishel and don't know that what they are doing is impossible. These are the educators who have chosen to fight, fight hard and smart against racism and poverty by teaching their students well?despite the challenges that racism and poverty present. And fools that they are, these educators are helping poor, black and brown students gain the intellectual tools necessary not only to secure their own futures but also to do battle against racism and poverty on behalf of their communities. These educators are the true warriors against racism and poverty. Let's hope that they never learn that what they are doing can't be done!

Amy Wilkins is a principal partner at The Education Trust

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.

The Education Gadfly

Contents

From Checker's Desk

From Diane's Desk

News and Analysis

Recommended Reading

Short Reviews

From Our Readers

From Checker's Desk

Blind hogs and behaviorist laws

From Diane's Desk

Sandra Feldman, in memoriam

News and Analysis

Of minivans and charter schools

Recommended Reading

Playing the Blaine game

Left behind in L.A.

Three cheers for Madigan

Trading places

Short Reviews

Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe about Our Schools?And Why It Isn?t So

The Governor?s Commission on Quality Education in Maryland

Solving the Charter School Funding Gap: The Seven Major Causes and What to Do About Them

From Our Readers

A poor disposition

No surrender

About Us

News/Commentary