The Education Gadfly Weekly

David F. Salisbury, The Cato Institute
March 20, 2003School Vouchers and Students with Disabilities
National Council on Disability
April 15, 2003

Responding to the debate over whether to include vouchers in the upcoming reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (which the House of Representatives nixed yesterday), both the National Council on Disability and the Cato Institute have recently added their two cents, Salisbury's in a short briefing paper and NCD's in a longer policy report. Each is interesting, though of course they disagree. Salisbury believes strongly in school choice, while NCD, though claiming to open to the idea, worries that, without proper oversight, vouchers could do more harm than good. Their differences mirror the fundamental differences between those who favor and fear choice. Salisbury contends that market forces will hold private schools accountable; NCD wants all schools accepting vouchers to be subject to the same IDEA regulations as public schools. Salisbury describes those regulations as a "bureaucratic stranglehold" while NCD regards them as an essential safety net. And while Salisbury argues that special education often fails in public schools, NCD thinks it's doing pretty well, all things considered. Is either of them right? Salisbury's views may be a bit too libertarian - even a choice regimen needs government to ensure that parents get accurate and intelligible comparative information schools - but NCD is overfond of regulation and offers too rosy a view of public schools. A reasonable middle ground must be found, for as Salisbury argues, "Parents raising a child with a disability deserve the freedom to choose from all the options available." The matter, in any case, now heads to the U.S. Senate. The Cato briefing paper is available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-081es.html; the NCD policy paper, which also summarizes voucher research and interprets the Zelman decision's relevance to IDEA vouchers, can be found at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/vouchers.html.

U.S. Department of Education
September 2002

The U.S. Department of Education is the source of this 180-page plain-language guide to NCLB's innumerable provisions. (It was published in September 2002 but has only just crossed our desks.) Besides briefly explaining such much-discussed features of that massive legislation as "highly qualified teachers," "adequate yearly progress" and "supplemental services," it goes on to describe the many other elements of the law that have not entered everyday parlance, from "safe and drug free schools" to Indian education to bilingual education. It is, in effect, a layman's version of the 2002 E.S.E.A. amendments in all their diverse and complex majesty and should be useful for school board members, parents, business leaders, teachers, etc. You can obtain a hard copy by phoning (877) 433-7827 or (800) 872-5327, by emailing [email protected] or faxing (301) 470-1244. It appears to be out of stock at present, however, so you may prefer to download it from www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference.html.

Policy Study Associates, Inc.
October 2002

Since 1998, The After-School Corporation (TASC) has provided programming intended to enhance the availability of after-school opportunities for children throughout New York State. A recent evaluation by Policy Studies Associates (PSA) gauges the effectiveness of the program, which serves approximately 45,000 K-12 students in 264 schools. This interim report is one of two volumes (the second deals with the implementation and quality of the TASC afterschool programs). It finds that students who were active participants in TASC programs for a year or more showed greater improvement on standardized tests than similar classmates who did not participate. Students who participated in programming more frequently and for longer periods of time showed the greatest gains in math, and TASC students showed more improved school attendance records than similar non-participants. The findings of this report contrast with a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which examined the effectiveness of the 21st Century Learning Centers program (the primary federal funding source for after-school programming). [To see the Gadfly's review of this report, go to http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=11#341.] The Mathematica report noted discouraging and mixed results such as stagnant test scores for participants, and troubles on the behavior front, such as drug use and study habits. Citing that report, the Bush administration has proposed a significant funding reduction for the program in 2004. Given these contradictory findings, however, some further research on the effectiveness of after-school programs may be warranted. To view the executive summary of either interim volume, go to http://www.policystudies.com/studies/youth/Evaluation%20TASC%20Programs.html. To view the consolidated summary of both reports, visit http://tascorp.org/pages/psaYear3.pdf. The full reports are not available via the Internet, but TASC can provide copies upon request by calling (212) 547-6950.

Alan Wolfe, editor, Princeton University Press
January 2003

Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe edited this 350-page, 12-essay collection by a number of people who do and don't favor school choice. (It's based on a conference two years ago.) Wolfe describes the endeavor as an examination of the "moral, normative, philosophical, and religious concerns" posed by the school-choice debate. The book's four sections address equality, pluralism, the "social ecology" of the schools, and legal matters, the latter mainly having to do with First Amendment issues. It's a balanced treatment by smart, literate, strong-minded experts from diverse disciplines and viewpoints. It won't resolve the debate but reading it will inform the debaters! The ISBN is 0691096619, the publisher is Princeton University Press and you can get further information at http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7421.html.

National Center for Education Statistics
March 2003

NCES has issued a 222 page report (and CD with video clips) that supplements previous TIMSS reports with an extensive investigation of teaching practices in eighth grade math classrooms in a number of countries. There is a wealth of interesting, if dryly presented, information here about comparative pedagogies and classroom methods (at least in math). There's also much complexity, as it turns out that "Different methods of mathematics teaching can be associated with high scores on international achievement tests." There is, we again find, no "one best system." Behind the bland prose, much of what is said about U.S. 8th grade math classes is troubling - and helps to explain the mediocrity of our 8th grade TIMSS results. For example, "Through most of the first half of the lesson time in the United States, the majority of eighth-grade mathematics lessons focused on reviewing previously learned content....[T]he United States was among the countries with the smallest percentage of lesson time devoted to introducing and practicing new content (48 percent)....69 percent of the problems per lesson were found to be posed with the apparent intent of using procedures - problems that are typically solved by applying a procedure or set of procedures - a higher percentage than problems that were posed with the apparent intent of making connections between ideas, factors, or procedures, or problems that were posed with the apparent intent of eliciting a mathematical convention or concept....91 percent of the problems per lesson in the United States were found to have been solved by giving results only without discussion of how the answer was obtained or by focusing on the procedures necessary to solve the problem...." You can obtain this report by http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003013.

Public Agenda
2003

According to this "survey of surveys" by Public Agenda, most U.S. employers and college professors rate recent public school graduates as barely literate, poorly motivated slackers who know a lot about computers. This is one of the blunter findings in this compilation of public opinion analyses on education over the past decade, but not the only interesting one. We also learn that parents, teachers, employers and professors all give high marks to the basic concepts that constitute the No Child Left Behind Act. All of those groups strongly support high standards and the efforts to back them up with real action. "In fact, majorities of parents, teachers, students, employers and professors say it is much worse for a child to be promoted and passed along without learning what was expected than to be held back a grade." This support for strong measures applies to testing as well. Before students are awarded a high school diploma, say more than half of all parents, teachers, employers and professors, they "should be required to pass a basic skills test." Yet few believe that testing should be the only gauge of student, teacher or school success. All groups think schools should use "standardized test scores and teacher evaluations as basis for promotion." Teachers support high standards but believe the problems facing schools and children will never be solved by tests and standards alone. More than half of high school students say that "teachers in their school spend more time trying to keep order in the classroom than teaching students," and many high school teachers agree. This report is a useful compilation of the attitudes and views of groups toward education and learning at the dawn of the 21st century. It is worthy reading. To check it out, go to: http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/wherewearenow/wherewearenow.htm.

Yesterday, by a vote of 251-171, the House passed a $125.9 billion, seven-year reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). [For a more in-depth explanation of the bill and its provisions, go to http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=16#243.] This reauthorization (which includes reforms that are consistent with recommendations made in Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, the May 2001 book we edited and published with the Progressive Policy Institute) refocuses IDEA on student results, rather than on bureaucratic compliance by emphasizing early identification and intervention strategies designed to help reduce the misidentification and overrepresentation of students in special education, and by reducing the paperwork burden placed on special ed teachers while increasing accountability for student outcomes. Though Republicans were not able to garner enough support to push through two school choice amendments, the House Rules Committee was able to stop amendments that would have made special education funding a mandatory entitlement, which would have required appropriations bills to fund the maximum levels each year.

"House passes special-education reform," by George Archibald, The Washington Times, May 1, 2003

"House backs change in special education. Early help planned to cut later need," by Michael A. Fletcher, The Washington Post, May 1, 2003

"Rethinking Special Education for the 21st Century," The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute, May 2001

The U.S. Department of Education has reorganized itself to focus more attention and resources upon scientifically based research and education programs with proven results. Though many believe this new focus will ultimately boost student achievement, some education experts are cautioning reformers to learn from mistakes of the past. In a speech given at the Office of Innovation and Improvement's recent Innovations in Education conference, Diane Ravitch, former Assistant Secretary for education research and improvement, challenged reformers in the fledgling OII to take a hard look at what gets called "innovative." All too often, she contends, these "innovations" are nothing more than failed programs from the past that have been dusted off and given new life.

"Does education really need more innovation in the age of scientifically based research?," presented by Diane Ravitch at the Innovations in Education conference, Harvard University, April 15, 2003

Last week, Standard and Poor's released its newest analysis of the performance of the charter schools run by Central Michigan University (CMU). The results are mixed. Though average passing rates on state tests taken by students in CMU charter schools in 2002 lagged behind the state average, over half of these charter schools serve more economically disadvantaged students than the average Michigan school. In addition, most CMU charter schools have fewer resources than local public schools. Yet even while spending some $1,500 less per student, 14 of the 56 CMU charter schools still managed to outperform schools in their local district. Results are available online at http://www.ses.standardandpoors.com.

"S&P: New Michigan Charter School Reports Available online," Press Release, April 24, 2003

On April 10, the lower house of the California legislature passed an amendment to the Education Code that would allow teacher unions to post political propaganda in public schools. Today, section 7050 of the Code prohibits school district "funds, services, supplies, or equipment" to be used "for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, and candidate for election to the governing board of the district." In other words, school bulletin boards, mailboxes, etc. cannot be used to post or distribute political literature. But Assembly bill 503, now before the state Senate, provides that such prohibitions do not apply to an "employee organization" that exercises its right to use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes, and other means of communication so long as postings are not in public view. In other words, teacher unions (i.e. "employee organizations") may post signs and distribute letters in support of their candidates or preferred policies so long as these can be seen only by those who work in schools. If enacted, these changes would further strengthen the unions' grip on public education, allowing favored candidates to use school bulletin boards and teachers' mailboxes for their campaigns while prohibiting other candidates from doing the same since they are not promoted by "an employee organization."

Assembly Bill 503

California Education Code Section 7050-7058

"Turning school campuses into union propaganda centers," by Lance T. Izumi, The Pacific Research Institute Capital Ideas, Volume 8, Number 16, April 24, 2003

After being chided by education officials in Washington for trying to sidestep the No Child Left Behind Act's "highly qualified" teacher mandate, the California state Board of Education is still struggling to define what makes a teacher "highly qualified" to comply with federal guidelines. Some fear that a strict interpretation of that standard will exacerbate the teacher shortage by forcing out thousands of teachers, many of whom now work in disadvantaged schools. Last August, the Board sought to classify teachers on emergency credentials as "highly qualified." Critics, including Rep. George Miller (D-CA), one of the bill's primary authors, assailed the Board, saying that attempting to bypass NCLB requirements was "an audacious and reckless action that suggests a lack of regard for students, parents and taxpayers." Now the Board is considering an alternative definition that would require new teachers to pass a state test to be considered "highly qualified," and would require veteran teachers to pass a performance review. Not surprisingly, the California Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association are lobbying against all such measures. The State Board is scheduled to decide the matter in June.

"Teachers may take state test," by Kara Shire, The Contra Costa Times, April 25, 2003

The Department of Education released a proposal this week that would overhaul and consolidate the 37-year old Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) to make it more efficient and cost-effective. The current system is comprised of 16 clearinghouses devoted to specific subject areas, which, under the Department's new plan, would be consolidated and run by a single contractor. According to Russ Whitehurst, director of the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences, the aim of the overhaul is to make the system more uniform and to reduce the amount of time it takes to update information online. Veterans of ERIC wonder whether this ancient program can ever be reformed-and whether putting all of the government's ERIC eggs in a single basket will constitute an improvement. The draft statement of work is posted online at http://www.eps.gov/EPSData/ED/Synopses/3286/Reference-Number-ERIC2003/ERICDraftSOW.doc, and is open for public comment until May 9.

"Education Department proposes overhaul of ERIC system, consolidating databases and cutting services," by Will Potter, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 23, 2003 (subscription required)

"Ed. Dept. floats plan for overhaul of ERIC clearinghouses," by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, Education Week, April 30, 2003

People (myself included) who favor the radical overhaul of educators' training are wont to suggest that ed schools should become more like journalism schools: optional institutions that you attend if you think they add value but that you're not obliged to attend before entering this profession, so long as somebody wants to hire you and give you a chance. (Business schools are another frequent analogue.) We tend to suggest this as alternative and antidote to the conventional wisdom in the education field that prefers to compare itself with medicine or law, professions where - thanks to their own cartels' influence over public policy - attendance at designated and accredited university graduate programs is now a prerequisite for getting a license to practice.

But what if, instead, journalism schools were to become more like ed schools? That's the direction they are pointed by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, who recently issued a "statement on the future of journalism education" that was brilliantly dissected and rebutted by Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson. [Bollinger's manifesto can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/04/lcb_j_task_force.html.]

Bollinger presides over one of America's more prominent journalism schools but he isn't happy with it - and, not long ago, interrupted its search for a new dean to try to reshape the institution along new lines. He also ended up plucking Nicholas Lemann from The New Yorker to become dean. Lemann's credentials include authoring The Big Test, a fine history of the S.A.T. He's a highly accomplished journalist/scholar. He did not, however, attend journalism school. He began his career in this field by editing the Harvard Crimson as an undergraduate and then went on from job to job. (Imagine installing someone at the helm of an "ed school" who possesses only an undergraduate degree!)

Yet the reforms that Bollinger espouses for journalism education could have come from the world of ed schools, perhaps from Columbia's very own Teachers College or maybe the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. After numerous pieties about the role of journalism in a free society, he urges that the basic master's degree program in that field be lengthened from one to two years - the heck with the cost to all concerned - and that its "educational goal" should be "to develop a base of knowledge...that is crafted specifically for what leading journalists need to know;" that it include practice time "outside the classroom," such as "clerkships with outstanding practitioners;" and that the program should "integrate thought and action." He cautions against paying excessive attention to "basic skills training," never mind that journalism students crave it "because they are eager to become professionals...and think basic skills will enhance their immediate employment prospects." Shame on them for not appreciating what they really need to know, which is something far loftier: "a mastery of journalistic inquiry and expression at their highest, most sophisticated, level," according to Bollinger. "This implies an educational environment where clear expression interacts with complex understanding." And on and on.

Bob Samuelson is one of America's keenest, most astute journalists, but he never went to journalism school either. Instead, he, like Lemann, learned his craft "on the job," also beginning at the Harvard Crimson as an undergraduate. And last week he shot a volley across Bollinger's bow that should be required reading for educators (and those who would prepare or make policy for them) as well as people in journalism. Most of his points apply directly to teaching (and school leadership) as well. Excerpts follow:

"Bollinger's vision amounts to snob journalism: journalism by an elite for an elite.... [His] manifesto brims with platitudes....No media enterprise has a captive audience. In a thriving democracy, people have more choices. The trouble for the news media is that they're not choosing news. His proposals wouldn't improve matters. Journalism is best learned by doing it. Mostly, an aspiring reporter needs a job, preferably for an exacting editor. You try to be accurate, clear, quick, perceptive and engaging. These are not abstract skills learned in a classroom. At best, journalism schools are necessary evils. They provide basic training - usually through mock newsrooms - that most papers and broadcast stations won't....But keep it brief.....The intellectual leavening that many journalists want is best acquired through midcareer sabbaticals and university programs (there are already many). Even now, journalists' self-importance stirs public resentment. Bollinger would make it worse by insisting we're a 'profession.' Journalism is a job, a craft and often a passion. What's wrong with his word is that our audiences aren't mainly doctors, lawyers and accountants - aren't 'professionals' - and the new label adds an extra air of superiority. Bollinger says the label is needed to create 'strong standards and values'....How condescending. Most good journalists already believe in accuracy, independence and fairness....The main villains are personal ambition, deadline pressure, media competition and unconscious bias. A new label won't eliminate those....Here is a larger issue that should preoccupy Bollinger and other college presidents. As a society, we're sending more and more young people to college. Presumably, one task of college is to engage students in the big ideas and events of their time. On the evidence, that's not happening. Why - and what should colleges do about it?"

Samuelson is right. Journalism schools may be a necessary evil for those who cannot get good training elsewhere. That's also a perceptive way to think about ed schools. Let them be an option. Let people attend them if they add value or supply needed skills. But the government should stop forcing people into them.

Fortunately for us all, government cannot force people into journalism schools. As Lee Bollinger notes, America "will never have an official system of licensing of journalists, given our First Amendment, so that the possibility of becoming a journalist without having a degree in journalism will continue." This leads him to argue that journalism school programs need to be developed that are "so compelling that the most promising future leaders in journalism decide that a professional education is critical to a successful career and life." In other words, let these institutions prove themselves in the market. How about embracing that as education policy, too? How about a constitutional amendment saying that government shall make no laws restricting freedom of education?

"Snob journalism," by Robert Samuelson, The Washington Post, April 23, 2003

Alan Wolfe, editor, Princeton University Press
January 2003

Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe edited this 350-page, 12-essay collection by a number of people who do and don't favor school choice. (It's based on a conference two years ago.) Wolfe describes the endeavor as an examination of the "moral, normative, philosophical, and religious concerns" posed by the school-choice debate. The book's four sections address equality, pluralism, the "social ecology" of the schools, and legal matters, the latter mainly having to do with First Amendment issues. It's a balanced treatment by smart, literate, strong-minded experts from diverse disciplines and viewpoints. It won't resolve the debate but reading it will inform the debaters! The ISBN is 0691096619, the publisher is Princeton University Press and you can get further information at http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7421.html.

David F. Salisbury, The Cato Institute
March 20, 2003School Vouchers and Students with Disabilities
National Council on Disability
April 15, 2003

Responding to the debate over whether to include vouchers in the upcoming reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (which the House of Representatives nixed yesterday), both the National Council on Disability and the Cato Institute have recently added their two cents, Salisbury's in a short briefing paper and NCD's in a longer policy report. Each is interesting, though of course they disagree. Salisbury believes strongly in school choice, while NCD, though claiming to open to the idea, worries that, without proper oversight, vouchers could do more harm than good. Their differences mirror the fundamental differences between those who favor and fear choice. Salisbury contends that market forces will hold private schools accountable; NCD wants all schools accepting vouchers to be subject to the same IDEA regulations as public schools. Salisbury describes those regulations as a "bureaucratic stranglehold" while NCD regards them as an essential safety net. And while Salisbury argues that special education often fails in public schools, NCD thinks it's doing pretty well, all things considered. Is either of them right? Salisbury's views may be a bit too libertarian - even a choice regimen needs government to ensure that parents get accurate and intelligible comparative information schools - but NCD is overfond of regulation and offers too rosy a view of public schools. A reasonable middle ground must be found, for as Salisbury argues, "Parents raising a child with a disability deserve the freedom to choose from all the options available." The matter, in any case, now heads to the U.S. Senate. The Cato briefing paper is available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-081es.html; the NCD policy paper, which also summarizes voucher research and interprets the Zelman decision's relevance to IDEA vouchers, can be found at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/vouchers.html.

National Center for Education Statistics
March 2003

NCES has issued a 222 page report (and CD with video clips) that supplements previous TIMSS reports with an extensive investigation of teaching practices in eighth grade math classrooms in a number of countries. There is a wealth of interesting, if dryly presented, information here about comparative pedagogies and classroom methods (at least in math). There's also much complexity, as it turns out that "Different methods of mathematics teaching can be associated with high scores on international achievement tests." There is, we again find, no "one best system." Behind the bland prose, much of what is said about U.S. 8th grade math classes is troubling - and helps to explain the mediocrity of our 8th grade TIMSS results. For example, "Through most of the first half of the lesson time in the United States, the majority of eighth-grade mathematics lessons focused on reviewing previously learned content....[T]he United States was among the countries with the smallest percentage of lesson time devoted to introducing and practicing new content (48 percent)....69 percent of the problems per lesson were found to be posed with the apparent intent of using procedures - problems that are typically solved by applying a procedure or set of procedures - a higher percentage than problems that were posed with the apparent intent of making connections between ideas, factors, or procedures, or problems that were posed with the apparent intent of eliciting a mathematical convention or concept....91 percent of the problems per lesson in the United States were found to have been solved by giving results only without discussion of how the answer was obtained or by focusing on the procedures necessary to solve the problem...." You can obtain this report by http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003013.

Policy Study Associates, Inc.
October 2002

Since 1998, The After-School Corporation (TASC) has provided programming intended to enhance the availability of after-school opportunities for children throughout New York State. A recent evaluation by Policy Studies Associates (PSA) gauges the effectiveness of the program, which serves approximately 45,000 K-12 students in 264 schools. This interim report is one of two volumes (the second deals with the implementation and quality of the TASC afterschool programs). It finds that students who were active participants in TASC programs for a year or more showed greater improvement on standardized tests than similar classmates who did not participate. Students who participated in programming more frequently and for longer periods of time showed the greatest gains in math, and TASC students showed more improved school attendance records than similar non-participants. The findings of this report contrast with a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which examined the effectiveness of the 21st Century Learning Centers program (the primary federal funding source for after-school programming). [To see the Gadfly's review of this report, go to http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=11#341.] The Mathematica report noted discouraging and mixed results such as stagnant test scores for participants, and troubles on the behavior front, such as drug use and study habits. Citing that report, the Bush administration has proposed a significant funding reduction for the program in 2004. Given these contradictory findings, however, some further research on the effectiveness of after-school programs may be warranted. To view the executive summary of either interim volume, go to http://www.policystudies.com/studies/youth/Evaluation%20TASC%20Programs.html. To view the consolidated summary of both reports, visit http://tascorp.org/pages/psaYear3.pdf. The full reports are not available via the Internet, but TASC can provide copies upon request by calling (212) 547-6950.

Public Agenda
2003

According to this "survey of surveys" by Public Agenda, most U.S. employers and college professors rate recent public school graduates as barely literate, poorly motivated slackers who know a lot about computers. This is one of the blunter findings in this compilation of public opinion analyses on education over the past decade, but not the only interesting one. We also learn that parents, teachers, employers and professors all give high marks to the basic concepts that constitute the No Child Left Behind Act. All of those groups strongly support high standards and the efforts to back them up with real action. "In fact, majorities of parents, teachers, students, employers and professors say it is much worse for a child to be promoted and passed along without learning what was expected than to be held back a grade." This support for strong measures applies to testing as well. Before students are awarded a high school diploma, say more than half of all parents, teachers, employers and professors, they "should be required to pass a basic skills test." Yet few believe that testing should be the only gauge of student, teacher or school success. All groups think schools should use "standardized test scores and teacher evaluations as basis for promotion." Teachers support high standards but believe the problems facing schools and children will never be solved by tests and standards alone. More than half of high school students say that "teachers in their school spend more time trying to keep order in the classroom than teaching students," and many high school teachers agree. This report is a useful compilation of the attitudes and views of groups toward education and learning at the dawn of the 21st century. It is worthy reading. To check it out, go to: http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/wherewearenow/wherewearenow.htm.

U.S. Department of Education
September 2002

The U.S. Department of Education is the source of this 180-page plain-language guide to NCLB's innumerable provisions. (It was published in September 2002 but has only just crossed our desks.) Besides briefly explaining such much-discussed features of that massive legislation as "highly qualified teachers," "adequate yearly progress" and "supplemental services," it goes on to describe the many other elements of the law that have not entered everyday parlance, from "safe and drug free schools" to Indian education to bilingual education. It is, in effect, a layman's version of the 2002 E.S.E.A. amendments in all their diverse and complex majesty and should be useful for school board members, parents, business leaders, teachers, etc. You can obtain a hard copy by phoning (877) 433-7827 or (800) 872-5327, by emailing [email protected] or faxing (301) 470-1244. It appears to be out of stock at present, however, so you may prefer to download it from www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference.html.