Minnesota's loss
Minnesota is a diminished place this week, Cheri Pierson Yecke having been rejected (by the state Senate, on a straight party-line vote of 35-31) as commissioner of education. Her sin was being an educator of strong principle who would not bend to expediency and whose concern for the state's children overrode the temptation to pander to adult interests. By which I mean not just the teacher unions but also the sizable band of frenzied ideologues that populates the education system of the Land of 10,000 Lakes. She stoutly supported high standards, rigorous and substantive content (especially bona fide history), school choice, and results-based accountability. Educators balked. And by targeting her, Minnesota's faltering DFL party was able to score a rare victory over GOP governor Tim Pawlenty?evidently, a higher priority than closing the state's $160 million budget gap. Having dispatched Yecke, the legislature adjourned for the year. Dr. Yecke will live to fight another day, perhaps in another place. She's one of the all-too-rare human treasures of American education. It's Minnesota that will suffer from her (temporary) eclipse.
"Legislature adjourns after name-calling, hurried voting," by Kevin Duchschere, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 16, 2004
"Yecke having her say, moving on," by Norm Draper, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 19, 2004
"School reformer rejected for post," by George Archibald, Washington Times, May 20, 2004
Equivalent to what?
The New York Times on Saturday reported a troublesome phenomenon that they (naturally) seek to blame on No Child Left Behind: the practice of using GED prep programs as alternatives to regular high schools for young people who might not otherwise graduate and/or who are at risk of dropping out. Some of the "experts" quoted in Karen Arenson's story allege that, with graduation requirements rising (due to high-stakes testing, tougher course-taking rules, and the demise of lesser diplomas), with NCLB requiring high school graduation rates to be tracked and reported, and with intensifying concern over how low those rates are in many places, states are taking advantage of the fact that young people steered into GED programs "are usually off school rolls, but in many states are not counted as dropouts."
If the GED were a true "equivalency" program, perhaps this would not be a foul deed, but it's widely understood that people presenting such a certificate in lieu of "real" diplomas do not get as far in life, land equal jobs, earn as much, or have as good a shot at higher education. The GED is a poor relation. Moreover, though Ms. Arenson failed to note this, the GED's home office (American Council on Education) sets a low minimum passing score for this battery of tests. States are free to set higher bars, but few do. (A hasty Internet search revealed, for example, that California and New Mexico?the first two jurisdictions I could find?use ACE's recommended scores.)
Nobody doubts that many young people find today's high schools dull, inhospitable, and sometimes dangerous places that they'd rather not linger in. There's also no doubt that, until we deliver better high school options, a lot of young people will either drop out or avail themselves of semi-decent alternatives such as the GED exams and the sundry face-to-face, on-line, and solo means by which one can prepare for them. But counseling young people into these alternatives is irresponsible, the more so if the motive for doing so is to ease them out of regular high schools?or ease the pressure to revitalize those schools. That's akin to sending irksome kids to special ed to get them out of regular classrooms. It's hard to believe, though, that this one is fairly laid at NCLB's doorstep, if only because there's scant evidence to date that anybody is actually altering behavior in response to this federal law. If schools are tempted to nudge weak students out the door?as opposed to educate them?it likely has more to do with state-level changes in graduation requirements and the onset of high-stakes tests that are harder than the G.E.D. to pass.
General Education Development Testing Service, Scoring
"More youths opt for G.E.D., skirting high-school hurdle," by Karen Arenson, New York Times, May 15, 2004
Energy sources
A few days back, I had occasion to participate in the unveiling of an interesting pair of reports on standards-based reform, jointly authored by the Boston-based Mass Insight Education and the Seattle-based Partnership For Learning. One of them we have previously reported. (Seehttp://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=145#1789). The other, a set of "lessons learned" from the two states' reform experience, is in draft on the web. But I want to note a different point: the extraordinary value of organizations such as these two, privately-run and privately-funded, for sustaining state-level momentum for education reform. Politicians come and go. But reform's enemies never leave. They are ubiquitous and permanent, superbly organized, and massively financed. Unless effectively countered, they will eventually resurrect the status quo ante. Reforms (be they standards-based or choice-based) are undertaken for the benefit and in the name of children, families, and taxpayers, yet those "interests" aren't organized at all. Who, then, will agitate, advocate, inform, and persevere on behalf of education reform when the politicians are term-limited, face a close election, or acquire a new enthusiasm? There's a decent answer to that question in states blessed with these private advocacy organizations. (Besides Massachusetts and Washington, there are good ones in, for example, New York, Wisconsin,Kentucky, and Michigan. But they're conspicuously missing in many jurisdictions, such as Ohio, Maryland, and Florida.)
Lessons From the Front Lines of Standards-Based Reform, MassInsight Education, May 13, 2004
