The Education Gadfly Weekly

Mass Insight Education
Fall 2001

The useful Boston-based outfit named Mass Insight Education has issued this concise guide to helping secondary schools catch up academically. It focuses on preparing Bay State high school students to pass the state's MCAS test, which is required for graduation beginning with the class of 2003. The report distinguishes among various categories of students in need of help. It seems that Massachusetts pupils are doing a lot better in English than in math, which is especially interesting considering that NAEP and SAT data show national trends moving upward in math but not English. Not surprisingly, the most acute needs are among special ed and urban students. To address those needs, the report suggests a number of actions, most of them sound but obvious (e.g. more time, different pedagogies, better-trained staff, better tracking). As other states get closer to making their tests actually count for high-school graduation, they are apt to find this kind of analysis helpful. If you would like to see it, I suggest turning to the web: http://www.massinsight.com/meri/pdf_files/A%20New%20Commitment.pdf

Ohio Department of Education
September 2001

The Ohio Department of Education has issued this appraisal of 21 reading programs widely used in the elementary schools of the Buckeye State. It was prepared by David Pearson of Michigan State University and Steven Stahl of the University of Georgia. They looked to see how well each program meets eight criteria that research says are important for effective literacy programs. These include five aspects of early reading (phonemic awareness, word recognition and phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension), two operational concerns (meeting individual needs, professional development for teachers) and "evidence of effectiveness." This last is a bit shaky, as the evaluators relied on program vendors to supply the evidence - and they comment that "few programs...met the 'gold standard' for evaluation," i.e. an experimental study by independent analysts. Most of the 85-page report consists of a few pages per program, summarizing the reviewers' conclusions and ratings. These are done on a scale from - in effect - zero to 3, with 3 representing "strong evidence" of a program's success in addressing the particular criterion. Few programs display lots of 3's - and some with high ratings are new to me. (Among them are also several that I'm acquainted with, including Open Court and Success for All.) I don't believe that any two reading experts would agree on these sorts of ratings, and some of what I see in this evaluation - e.g. high marks for Reading Recovery - gives me pause. But have a look. At the very least, it's apt to show you some reading programs that you probably DON'T want to use. You could phone (614) 466-0224 but I think your fastest path is via the web: http://www.ohiorc.org/articles/consumer_guide.pdf

Center for Urban Research and Policy Studies, University of Chicago
August 2001

Lawrence B. Joseph, a social scientist at the University of Chicago and program director of the Chicago Assembly, edited this collection of essays from the Chicago Assembly - a regional improvement organization that holds two-day seminars leading to policy recommendations and a background book. This is the book emerging from an Assembly session held nearly four years ago. 368 pages long, it contains seven essays, commentaries on them, and the 35-page "report" issued by the Assembly. The latter seems perfectly sound and sensible as it works through the rationale, problems and solutions of standards, tests and accountability arrangements with particular reference to the Chicago metropolitan area and makes solid if general recommendations. Some of the supporting essays are first-rate, particularly for those wanting to know more about the convoluted Chicago school-reform story. I was especially taken with Alfred Hess's piece unpacking the "conundrums" of statewide standards-based reform in Illinois and by Charles Payne's analysis of "building-level obstacles to urban school reform." There is a lot here for watchers of standards-based reform in America, much of it in the form of a Chicago/Illinois case study. The ISBN is 0-962675563. The publisher is the University of Chicago's Center for Urban Research and Policy Studies but the distributor - probably a better starting point - is the University of Illinois Press. The most direct path I can find is via the internet at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f01/joseph.html 

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
May 2001

It's become a mantra for education reporters: during the next decade, American schools will need to hire over two million new teachers to cope with rising enrollments, staff retirements, and the exodus of younger teachers from the classroom. Policymakers therefore need good information about effective ways to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. To assist them, the federally funded North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) surveyed superintendents in seven Midwestern states to identify which programs had been adopted with what degree of success. On the recruitment side, urban and suburban districts report success with manipulating salary schedules to better compensate teachers whose skills are in high demand, as well as partnering with higher ed institutions to give students and graduates on-the-ground training in the classroom. Rural schools have found recruiting within the community to be effective. To retain instructors, urban and suburban school districts are establishing and beefing up support programs for new teachers, with one-on-one mentoring and mandatory program participation the hallmarks of the most successful initiatives. Other strategies include involving teachers more in decision making, implementing team-teaching, and allowing common planning time for teachers. Based on the survey, authors Debra Hare and James Heap compiled a list of mostly common-sense - and mostly inside-the-box - recommendations for state and local policymakers. The most noteworthy: "respond to the market if possible" and "implement policies that result in more small learning environments in the district." But don't expect to find here any bold proposals for alternative certification or the like. For a free copy of the report - and its copious state-level data - contact Gina Burkhardt, Executive Director, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563; phone 630-649-6500 or 800-356-2735; fax 630-649-6700; email [email protected]. The report is also online at http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/strategy

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania
August 2001

With the 1995 inception of an initiative called Children Achieving, Philadelphia became one of the first urban districts to implement systemic school reform. Superintendent David Hornbeck's sweeping reform plan - carried out in conjunction with the Annenberg Challenge in that city - sought to boost student achievement through standards-based instruction; school-level autonomy; and increased collaboration between parents, educators, and school officials. Evaluations of Children Achieving have been conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and its partner Research for Action (RFA) since 1996. In "Contradictions and Control in Systemic Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia Schools," (available online at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/children03.pdf) author Ellen Foley considers the role played by the district's central office in Children Achieving. What she found was a "gradual, but consistent, retreat" from the concept of school-level autonomy, attributable to the central office staff's struggle with "the competing demands of accountability, decentralization, and equity," as well as the alienation of key district partners - including parents, the teachers union, state officials and business leaders--put off by the central office's overbearing behavior. Foley concludes that, while Children Achieving - effectively dismantled in August 2000 with Hornbeck's departure--"fell far short of the vision of re-energized learning communities that motivated its architects," it did have notable success in raising test scores and framing the city's school reform debate around standards and accountability. (For a slightly more critical look at Philadelphia's Children Achieving initiative, see "Grant Brings High Hopes, Modest Gains to Philadelphia School Reform," by Carol Innerst in Can Philanthropy Fix Our Schools? , published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in April 2000. It can be found at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=41)

A second paper, "Clients, Consumers, or Collaborators? Parents and their Roles in School Reform During Children Achieving, 1995-2000" (available online at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/children04.pdf), finds that, while many Philadelphia schools established structures and processes to heighten parent participation, few actually engaged parents meaningfully, especially in racially isolated and low-income schools. As the report explains, teachers and principals jealously guard their authority and power - despite much rhetoric about building stronger bridges between home and school - and frequently underestimate the time and resources necessary to cultivate parent participation. Two notable exceptions - both involving parents from poor and minority neighborhoods - are profiled to illustrate how parents and educators can forge true working partnerships with the help of intermediary groups. To learn more about Philadelphia's successes and failures in its systemic reform experiment, view these studies online or order free copies from CPRE at 215-573-0700 x233 or [email protected]. (See http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/Publications.htm for links to additional papers.)

Joe Nathan and Karen Febey, Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota
2001

Drawing on a host of existing studies along with some original research, Joe Nathan and Karen Febey of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute offer up the latest hurrah for small schools. Their report summarizes the benefits of smaller learning environments - reportedly including higher achievement and graduation rates; fewer disciplinary problems; better teacher retention; and more satisfied students, parents and teachers. It also shows how schools that share facilities with other organizations - museums, libraries, centers for the elderly, and businesses - expand students' learning opportunities, offer higher quality services and use tax dollars more efficiently. Case studies of twenty-two public schools - including charter schools - in twelve states in urban, suburban and rural settings illustrate the benefits of thinking creatively about school structure and management. Skeptics say that building many small schools is more expensive than one larger school. Nathan and Febey contend, however, that innovative shared facilities are actually more cost-effective than traditional schools. You can find it at http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/saneschools.pdf or request a copy from the Center For School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455; phone 612-626-1834.

It's the eve of Yom Kippur, when many people of the Jewish faith reflect on their transgressions, atone for their misdeeds, and try to get right with God and their fellow men. Not Bill Ayers. His new book - which I confess I cannot bring myself to purchase - seeks instead to justify the heinous acts of his youth. (It's named "Fugitive Days" and if you don't care where your money goes you can obtain it from your local bookstore or Beacon Press.)

There are four things to know about Bill Ayers. The first is that he's an ex-Weatherman who boasts that he planned and participated in numerous acts of domestic violence during the late 1960's and early 1970's that left people dead and buildings badly damaged. Then he went "underground" for a decade to avoid being apprehended by the FBI. (His now-wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a notorious Weatherperson in her own right, was on the "most wanted list" for years.)

Second, he's now a "distinguished" professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, described by the University as specializing in moral education and the "ethical and political dimensions" of teaching.

Third, his new book, though published as a "memoir," contains fabrications, distortions, boasts and cover-ups. The 56-year old university professor says it should be read as "one boy's story."

Finally, and most importantly, he is completely unrepentant. ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' he told The New York Times. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

I ask you, what does it say about this country's view of teachers and the proper preparation of those to whom we will entrust our children that a major state university confers so solemn a responsibility on such a person? One might understand it in a pragmatic sort of way if he were teaching physics or chemistry (you need those for bomb-making, right?) or maybe fiction-writing. But moral education? The ethical dimensions of teaching? What, pray tell, does Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, know about morality or ethics?

Through an exceptionally unhappy coincidence, the Times' big feature on Ayers and his book appeared on Tuesday, September 11. Which meant people looked up from that morning's revelation that "He participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972" to see - well, to see modern Weathermen converting civilian planes into bombs and hurling them at New York and the Pentagon (and maybe taking aim at the Capitol as well).

About that time on the morning of the 11th, one imagines, Ayers strolled into his Chicago classroom to talk with tomorrow's 3rd grade teachers about morality and ethics. Or possibly to read them the passage from his book that says he still finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance.'' (One regrets that Ayers was too far from the World Trade Center to revel in that day's "poetry" and its awful consequences.)

His most notorious statement from those earlier "days of rage" was urging the young to "kill all the rich people [Ayers' father was C.E.O. of Chicago's main electric company and most assuredly one of 'the rich people'], break up their cars and apartments, bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's at." When, thirty years later, a reporter asked him if he meant it, Ayers waffled - and blamed the media. He told the Times interviewer that "Many things were said in a kind of a humor....They were taken literally mainly by the for-profit media to show how crazy we were."

Should a middle-aged adult be absolved of criminal behavior undertaken when he was in his mid-20's and hardly an innocent child? What about homicidal words uttered at the time? On the behavior side, we know that thousands of people are serving lifetime prison sentences for deaths they caused when relatively young. (Ayers was 27 when the Pentagon was hit the first time.) Our justice system generally regards adult responsibility as beginning at age 18 - when one can also join the military (which Ayers of course didn't) and vote. As for the angry words, in a land that celebrates free speech one can, of course, say practically anything without being held to account. But candidates for university posts generally have their writings (and sometimes their speeches) carefully scrutinized by faculty committees, deans and provosts. An elaborate dossier is ordinarily assembled and vetted before a professorial candidate is approved, particularly for a tenured post. (Mt. Holyoke College recently suspended Pulitzer-prize winning author-professor Joseph Ellis for lying about his past.) One wonders whether Ayers would have made it through the faculty screening process if he had voiced praise for the American role in Vietnam. One doubts that his present colleagues would have welcomed him if he had dropped bombs on an enemy of the United States. It seems, however, that there is no penalty for dropping them ON the United States. It certainly didn't interfere with this tenure decision!

What of redemption and forgiveness? Yom Kippur is a good day to reflect on such things. But it would seem that this process must begin with atonement. And that's what Bill Ayers has never done. Rather, he boasts of his youthful exploits - and praises those who do similar things today. (He terms the recent violent protests in Seattle and Genoa "signs of a wonderful activism.") We can only imagine what those third grade teachers emerge with from his classes. But we can reasonably doubt that anything they learn in the classroom of this unrepentant terrorist has much relationship to morality or ethics.

"No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen," by Dinitia Smith, The New York Times, September 11, 2001, (An abstract is free; the full text of the article must be purchased.)

"Forever Rad," interview with Hope Reeves, The New York Times Magazine, September 16, 2001, (Although an abstract is not available, the full text of the article may be purchased here.)

While small schools are increasingly seen by experts as a promising way to boost student achievement (see Smaller, Safer, Saner Successful Schools reviewed below), parents and teachers have other ideas. A survey by Public Agenda found that parents and teachers think smaller schools have many advantages, but they haven't thought much about that particular school reform strategy and would not put it at the top of their education agenda, preferring to focus on stronger discipline, reducing class size, or improving teacher salaries. For Public Agenda's analysis, surf to http://www.publicagenda.org/aboutpa/aboutpa3ll.htm

There is nothing new about the charges raised by a trio of recent publications on college athletics: that campus sports once fostered values like teamwork and perseverance, but now promote crass commercialism while contributing to a campus atmosphere of play and partying that distracts students from academic pursuits. Yet some of the details might shock you. The number of student hours and university dollars devoted to sports are astounding, and efforts to field strong athletic teams have led to a serious degradation of academic standards for athletes, who receive an admissions "bump" far greater than alumni kids and minority applicants. In a review article in this month's Commentary, Checker explains why these problems are serious, what it would take to clean up college sports' act, and why this isn't apt to happen. Read "The Cost of College Sports," by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Commentary, October 2001 (not yet available online)

Critics of international education comparisons often complain that they are misleading because the variation in student performance is so great in the U.S. "The achievement of American schools is a lot more variable than is student achievement from elsewhere," asserted Berliner and Biddle in The Manufactured Crisis. A new study by three RAND researchers says that's not so. In an examination of eighth grade math scores on the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), the researchers find that the standard deviation (or spread) of the US sample was near the middle of the pack of the seven countries they analyzed. Student scores in Hong Kong and Japan show much greater variation than in the US; American scores vary about the same amount as those of students in England and New Zealand. For more, see "Predicting Variations in Mathematics Performance in Four Countries Using TIMSS," by Daniel Koretz, Daniel McCaffrey, and Thomas Sullivan, Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 9 no. 34, September 14, 2001, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n34/

Center for Urban Research and Policy Studies, University of Chicago
August 2001

Lawrence B. Joseph, a social scientist at the University of Chicago and program director of the Chicago Assembly, edited this collection of essays from the Chicago Assembly - a regional improvement organization that holds two-day seminars leading to policy recommendations and a background book. This is the book emerging from an Assembly session held nearly four years ago. 368 pages long, it contains seven essays, commentaries on them, and the 35-page "report" issued by the Assembly. The latter seems perfectly sound and sensible as it works through the rationale, problems and solutions of standards, tests and accountability arrangements with particular reference to the Chicago metropolitan area and makes solid if general recommendations. Some of the supporting essays are first-rate, particularly for those wanting to know more about the convoluted Chicago school-reform story. I was especially taken with Alfred Hess's piece unpacking the "conundrums" of statewide standards-based reform in Illinois and by Charles Payne's analysis of "building-level obstacles to urban school reform." There is a lot here for watchers of standards-based reform in America, much of it in the form of a Chicago/Illinois case study. The ISBN is 0-962675563. The publisher is the University of Chicago's Center for Urban Research and Policy Studies but the distributor - probably a better starting point - is the University of Illinois Press. The most direct path I can find is via the internet at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f01/joseph.html 

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania
August 2001

With the 1995 inception of an initiative called Children Achieving, Philadelphia became one of the first urban districts to implement systemic school reform. Superintendent David Hornbeck's sweeping reform plan - carried out in conjunction with the Annenberg Challenge in that city - sought to boost student achievement through standards-based instruction; school-level autonomy; and increased collaboration between parents, educators, and school officials. Evaluations of Children Achieving have been conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and its partner Research for Action (RFA) since 1996. In "Contradictions and Control in Systemic Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia Schools," (available online at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/children03.pdf) author Ellen Foley considers the role played by the district's central office in Children Achieving. What she found was a "gradual, but consistent, retreat" from the concept of school-level autonomy, attributable to the central office staff's struggle with "the competing demands of accountability, decentralization, and equity," as well as the alienation of key district partners - including parents, the teachers union, state officials and business leaders--put off by the central office's overbearing behavior. Foley concludes that, while Children Achieving - effectively dismantled in August 2000 with Hornbeck's departure--"fell far short of the vision of re-energized learning communities that motivated its architects," it did have notable success in raising test scores and framing the city's school reform debate around standards and accountability. (For a slightly more critical look at Philadelphia's Children Achieving initiative, see "Grant Brings High Hopes, Modest Gains to Philadelphia School Reform," by Carol Innerst in Can Philanthropy Fix Our Schools? , published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in April 2000. It can be found at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=41)

A second paper, "Clients, Consumers, or Collaborators? Parents and their Roles in School Reform During Children Achieving, 1995-2000" (available online at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/children04.pdf), finds that, while many Philadelphia schools established structures and processes to heighten parent participation, few actually engaged parents meaningfully, especially in racially isolated and low-income schools. As the report explains, teachers and principals jealously guard their authority and power - despite much rhetoric about building stronger bridges between home and school - and frequently underestimate the time and resources necessary to cultivate parent participation. Two notable exceptions - both involving parents from poor and minority neighborhoods - are profiled to illustrate how parents and educators can forge true working partnerships with the help of intermediary groups. To learn more about Philadelphia's successes and failures in its systemic reform experiment, view these studies online or order free copies from CPRE at 215-573-0700 x233 or [email protected]. (See http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/Publications.htm for links to additional papers.)

Joe Nathan and Karen Febey, Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota
2001

Drawing on a host of existing studies along with some original research, Joe Nathan and Karen Febey of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute offer up the latest hurrah for small schools. Their report summarizes the benefits of smaller learning environments - reportedly including higher achievement and graduation rates; fewer disciplinary problems; better teacher retention; and more satisfied students, parents and teachers. It also shows how schools that share facilities with other organizations - museums, libraries, centers for the elderly, and businesses - expand students' learning opportunities, offer higher quality services and use tax dollars more efficiently. Case studies of twenty-two public schools - including charter schools - in twelve states in urban, suburban and rural settings illustrate the benefits of thinking creatively about school structure and management. Skeptics say that building many small schools is more expensive than one larger school. Nathan and Febey contend, however, that innovative shared facilities are actually more cost-effective than traditional schools. You can find it at http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/saneschools.pdf or request a copy from the Center For School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455; phone 612-626-1834.

Mass Insight Education
Fall 2001

The useful Boston-based outfit named Mass Insight Education has issued this concise guide to helping secondary schools catch up academically. It focuses on preparing Bay State high school students to pass the state's MCAS test, which is required for graduation beginning with the class of 2003. The report distinguishes among various categories of students in need of help. It seems that Massachusetts pupils are doing a lot better in English than in math, which is especially interesting considering that NAEP and SAT data show national trends moving upward in math but not English. Not surprisingly, the most acute needs are among special ed and urban students. To address those needs, the report suggests a number of actions, most of them sound but obvious (e.g. more time, different pedagogies, better-trained staff, better tracking). As other states get closer to making their tests actually count for high-school graduation, they are apt to find this kind of analysis helpful. If you would like to see it, I suggest turning to the web: http://www.massinsight.com/meri/pdf_files/A%20New%20Commitment.pdf

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
May 2001

It's become a mantra for education reporters: during the next decade, American schools will need to hire over two million new teachers to cope with rising enrollments, staff retirements, and the exodus of younger teachers from the classroom. Policymakers therefore need good information about effective ways to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. To assist them, the federally funded North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) surveyed superintendents in seven Midwestern states to identify which programs had been adopted with what degree of success. On the recruitment side, urban and suburban districts report success with manipulating salary schedules to better compensate teachers whose skills are in high demand, as well as partnering with higher ed institutions to give students and graduates on-the-ground training in the classroom. Rural schools have found recruiting within the community to be effective. To retain instructors, urban and suburban school districts are establishing and beefing up support programs for new teachers, with one-on-one mentoring and mandatory program participation the hallmarks of the most successful initiatives. Other strategies include involving teachers more in decision making, implementing team-teaching, and allowing common planning time for teachers. Based on the survey, authors Debra Hare and James Heap compiled a list of mostly common-sense - and mostly inside-the-box - recommendations for state and local policymakers. The most noteworthy: "respond to the market if possible" and "implement policies that result in more small learning environments in the district." But don't expect to find here any bold proposals for alternative certification or the like. For a free copy of the report - and its copious state-level data - contact Gina Burkhardt, Executive Director, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563; phone 630-649-6500 or 800-356-2735; fax 630-649-6700; email [email protected]. The report is also online at http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/strategy

Ohio Department of Education
September 2001

The Ohio Department of Education has issued this appraisal of 21 reading programs widely used in the elementary schools of the Buckeye State. It was prepared by David Pearson of Michigan State University and Steven Stahl of the University of Georgia. They looked to see how well each program meets eight criteria that research says are important for effective literacy programs. These include five aspects of early reading (phonemic awareness, word recognition and phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension), two operational concerns (meeting individual needs, professional development for teachers) and "evidence of effectiveness." This last is a bit shaky, as the evaluators relied on program vendors to supply the evidence - and they comment that "few programs...met the 'gold standard' for evaluation," i.e. an experimental study by independent analysts. Most of the 85-page report consists of a few pages per program, summarizing the reviewers' conclusions and ratings. These are done on a scale from - in effect - zero to 3, with 3 representing "strong evidence" of a program's success in addressing the particular criterion. Few programs display lots of 3's - and some with high ratings are new to me. (Among them are also several that I'm acquainted with, including Open Court and Success for All.) I don't believe that any two reading experts would agree on these sorts of ratings, and some of what I see in this evaluation - e.g. high marks for Reading Recovery - gives me pause. But have a look. At the very least, it's apt to show you some reading programs that you probably DON'T want to use. You could phone (614) 466-0224 but I think your fastest path is via the web: http://www.ohiorc.org/articles/consumer_guide.pdf