The Education Gadfly Weekly

Public Education Network
May 2006

From September 2005 to January 2006, the Public Education Network (PEN) held a series of hearings around the nation where students, community members, and parents were invited to testify about their experiences with No Child Left Behind. The events were attended by some 1,500 people, 300 of whom "testified." This report summarizes the testimony, and from those 300 folks draws conclusions about the public's perception of NCLB. (Perhaps not surprisingly, those conclusions mirror PEN's longstanding views about the law.) Here they are in thumbnail: Although the public supports accountability, it rejects single, standardized tests as adequate evaluators of school effectiveness; the public rejects labeling schools as "in need of improvement" because the label is too punitive and may erode public support for those schools; the public thinks high-stakes testing causes students and teachers too much anxiety; the public is not receiving information about NCLB (such as data about school performance, or about opportunities for school choice or supplemental services) in a timely manner; and the public sees a disconnect between teachers deemed "highly qualified" and those who are able to engage students in the classroom. The report touches on other criticisms, and it offers some suggestions (broaden the definition of "highly qualified" teachers, for example), but informed readers won't find much new here. While PEN's hearings were no doubt useful for gauging the temperament in individual cities and districts, 300 testimonials can hardly be translated into nationally-representative "public opinion." Plus, these complaints and recommendations are a bit generic-there's no gripe or solution in this report which hasn't been put forth before. It's nice to know what 300 people across the country think about NCLB, but this report gives no compelling data, nor does its sample size confer legitimacy. You can read the report here.

Center for the Future of Arizona & Morrison Institute for Public Policy
March 2006

Latinos are the fastest growing population sector in Arizona, but their graduation rates in that state in 2004 lagged behind those of white, non-Hispanic students by close to 18 points. If those numbers don't improve, upwards of 10,000 Arizona Latino students per year could fail to graduate high school by 2012. This new study pinpoints key factors that contributed to improving performance in 12 predominantly Hispanic and low-income Arizona schools. Researchers compared these 12 schools to others similar in all but performance, looking for factors that led to academic success. Six elements stood out in successful schools: a clear bottom line (emphasizing achievement for every student); ongoing assessment (tracking student performance data); a strong and steady principal; collaborative solutions (effective work teams of consultants/teachers); sticking with the program (carefully choosing an educational program and "sticking with it"); and "built to suit" (customized instruction/intervention for students). For example, at Wade Carpenter School, students take online quarterly tests that track their academic progression, and teachers use these data to plan instruction around the "content clusters" in which students are weakest. This border school with almost 100 percent Spanish-speaking, low-income students has improved its test scores by almost 20 percentage points. Beat the Odds would've been much stronger if it presented in-depth profiles of the individual schools, rather than brief, snapshot examples. But overall, this is a useful report. It shows that targeted education reforms within schools can work, and that they can narrow the achievement gap for Latino students. Read the report here.

Private scholarship programs faced turbulent waters up and down the Atlantic coast this week. In Florida, a constitutional amendment to undo the state Supreme Court's anti-voucher decision failed in the Senate by one vote, and although the Senate may reconsider the issue, it seems unwilling to do so (patience is waning). The stakes are high, especially for the hundreds of low-income students participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program who are headed back to crummy public schools unless the governor and his allies prevail. Meanwhile, Maine's supreme court ruled that lawmakers are free to exclude religious schools from the state's "tuitioning program," which allows, Vermont-style, rural families to send their children to private schools at government expense (in the absence of a nearby public school). But there is a silver lining. According to the court, the legislature is free to add the religious-schools option if it wants to. The Institute for Justice-which argues that excluding religious schools from the program is tantamount to religious discrimination-is hinting at an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's hoping for smoother sailing on the shores of the mighty Potomac.

"Senate reverses, keeps hope for vouchers alive," by Joni James and Letitia Stein, St. Petersburg Times, May 3, 2006

"Bush suffers voucher defeat," by Letitia Stein and Steve Bousquet, St. Petersburg Times, May 2, 2006

"Court: State still can't fund religious schools," by David Sharp, Central Maine Morning Sentinel, April 27, 2006

Several weeks ago, Baltimore managed to thwart a state takeover of several failing schools, including seven of the city's twenty-three failing middle schools (see here). This week, another story brings the Baltimore school district's bureaucratic inertia into sharp relief. City officials say the reason there's been little progress toward improving middle schools is a dearth of high-quality models to replicate. Yet the Baltimore Sun managed to find two high-achieving middle schools without leaving the city limits (and Cheri Yecke offered yet another local alternative). So what's the real problem? The high-achieving schools- Crossroads Academy and KIPP's Ujima Academy-are charter schools. And though Alexandra Hughes, assistant to the Baltimore schools CEO, pledges that the district plans to use "some of the things that are working for the charters," Jason Botel, the KIPP principal, doesn't buy it. "There hasn't really been a concerted effort for a dialogue," he said. Gadfly isn't surprised. The Sun points out that in order for Baltimore to replicate successful charter school features, the city would need to rethink "the educational bureaucracy." Heaven forbid!

"Models of middle school success," by Sara Neufeld, Baltimore Sun, May 1, 2006

Over the past decade, champions of bold K-12 education reform, ourselves included, have often termed charter schools the most promising innovation. It's fitting that this week-National Charter Schools Week-educators, reformers, and policymakers are examining where the charter movement stands and where it's headed.

Here's what we see: charters are educationally diverse (though they can be grouped into useful categories). That they face severe obstacles both financial (see Charter School Finance: Inequity's Next Frontier) and political (here's one such example). And perhaps most importantly, that authorizing-the act of actually chartering or licensing these schools-is the key to creating high quality charter schools (see our new report, Trends in Charter School Authorizing). Indeed, chartering is the most promising educational innovation of our time-and the one that could have the greatest impact if embraced and replicated by the traditional public-education system.

To be sure, there's little you can find in charter schools that doesn't also exist somewhere in the vast and varied world of public and private schools. But the process of authorizing new public schools-allowing them to open, overseeing their progress, shutting them down if necessary, but not actually running them, as traditional school districts do-is entirely new. This radically different approach to school regulation points to a promising "third way" between the laissez-faire approach of most voucher programs and the crippling red tape of the traditional school system.

Getting the balance right is hard but essential if charter schools are to thrive, and if the charter movement is to fulfill its great promise.

How many of today's charter "authorizers" are doing it right? To find out, we surveyed all of them and asked how they tackled their jobs. The results are illuminating.

We learned, for example, that when authorizers don't renew a charter school's contract, it's usually for academic reasons. This is how it's supposed to be but also flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Charter friends and critics alike have said in recent years that authorizers don't take strong enough action to terminate academically failing schools. Yet our data indicate that's exactly what they're doing. A good thing, too; the charter movement's credibility depends on bad schools not continuing.

As for closing schools before their contracts are up, authorizers typically act not because of low test scores but because schools are self-destructing financially or organizationally. This, too, is appropriate. Raising student achievement takes time and except in unusual circumstances new schools deserve the 3-5 years of their contracts to prove that they can do this. But if a school is falling apart or children are in harm's way, patience is not in order.

Authorizers are also becoming choosier on the front end, when deciding whether to grant new charters. Over the past two years, they've become significantly more selective, lowering the national approval rate from 70 percent in 2003 to approximately 50 percent today. Contrary to what we expected to find, state-mandated caps on the creation of new schools turn out not to be the main reason for this; authorizers in states both with and without caps have reduced their approval rates similarly.

This is healthy, too. It's hard to run a successful charter school and, while authorizers need to stay open to promising but unproven approaches, they are right to be skeptical about half-baked ideas or wannabe school leaders who lack the educational or business acumen to get the job done. It's important that authorizers feel comfortable saying no.

This study's other major finding is less surprising and less welcome: almost half of all authorizers practice limited oversight of their schools, demonstrating scant concern either for school quality (by rigorously screening applicants, holding schools accountable for student achievement, etc.) or for compliance (by ensuring fiduciary responsibility, enforcing federal laws, etc.). On the other end of the spectrum, 31 percent of authorizers are aggressive about both quality and compliance.

Only one in ten authorizers practices the "tight-loose" model upon which the original charter concept rests: a strong focus on quality and results coupled with a more laid back approach towards compliance and procedure. What happened to the mantra, "accountability in return for autonomy"?

What happened was that reality hit hard. From our experience authorizing charter schools in Ohio, we speedily saw that we needed to be as concerned about the niggling details of finance and regulation as about achievement and accountability. After all, if a school is accused of fiscal malfeasance or procedural missteps, the political reaction can be swift and severe. Thus, authorizers committed to quality education soon learn to be attentive to compliance issues, too, even those issues that the legislature should have exempted charter schools from. 

The least enthusiastic (if most numerous) authorizers of all are traditional school districts. Only a handful of them are serious about quality and compliance and practically none would recognize the "tight-loose" model if it landed in their laps. Lawmakers need to understand this, because the public-education establishment ceaselessly presses them to restrict authorizing to local school systems.      

Who takes authorizing more seriously? After reviewing all seven types of authorizers, we conclude that nonprofit organizations and independent chartering boards-like the one Congress created in the District of Columbia-show the greatest promise. They engage in chartering by choice, not coercion, have ample resources (financial and human) to draw from, and can skillfully navigate the treacherous politics of charter authorizing. As more of them jump into the chartering fray let us hope they continue to succeed at scale.

Now that we know that many authorizers neglect their fundamental oversight duties, it is clear that legislators should give this weighty responsibility to organizations that want it and take it seriously. We wouldn't force educators to start a charter school against their will; the same rule should apply to authorizers. That's the best way to make sure that the charter school movement grows in quality and quantity in the years to come-and that National Charter Schools Week is worth celebrating.

This article originally appeared in the May 3, 2006 edition of National Review Online.

Talk to education reformers about the potential for district school boards to bring about positive change, and they’re likely to channel Nietzsche: School boards are dead. But are they? May’s Governing magazine profiled the school board in our hometown of Dayton, Ohio, which over the past several years has measurably improved Gem City’s perennially failing schools. After recruiting committed people to serve on the board and implementing simple steps (by developing, for example, a partnership with the nearby University of Dayton), the city’s test scores rose, allowing the district to compete more effectively with local charter schools. Other cities—such as Houston, St. Louis, and Portland, Oregon—also have reform-minded school boards that run their districts like forward-thinking businesses. The vast majority of American school districts operate under elected boards, and Don McAdams, who directs the Center for Reform School Systems, has confidence those elected boards can be effective. “The voters don’t always send us ideal candidates,” he said, “but democracy’s a messy business.” Indeed, and that’s why it’s often a poor method for micromanaging schools. Nietzsche went crazy, so we’ll stay away from eschatological pronouncements and keep an open mind about the potential for school board reform. But we aren’t holding our breath.

“Battered School Boards,” by Rob Gurwitt, Governing, May 2006

Last month, the Washington Post's David Broder wrote a column trumpeting the value of teaching civics to American students. He interviewed Sandra Day O'Connor and former Colorado Governor Roy Romer (now serving as Superintendent of Los Angeles's schools), both of whom are spokespersons for the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools (CMS).

A trip to CMS's website reveals many applause-worthy sentiments-indeed, simply acknowledging the importance of civics education is commendable.

Yet both CMS and Broder's fawning column make the same mistake that plagues many civic education initiatives. Instead of proposing that students learn civics through rigorous study of historical events, meaty biographies of important Americans, or lessons that integrate American history and politics with philosophy and character education, CMS offers a different model. One that puts the cart before the horse.

CMS offers "six promising approaches to civic learning" of which "Guided discussion of current local, national, and international issues and events" is one. What does this look like? The organization envisions teachers discussing "issues students find personally relevant ... in a way that encourages multiple points of view."

The problems with this proposal are legion. It says that issues discussed be limited to those that "students find personally relevant." One wonders how relevant most 14-year-olds would find many international events, such as the recent country-wide protests in Nepal or Chinese President Hu Jintao's U.S. visit. A major objective of civics instruction should be to educate students and make international events and issues relevant in their lives. It doesn't work the other way around.

Equally disturbing is the belief that any discussion must promote "multiple points of view." Conspicuously missing is any mention of facts. It's unwise to encourage young students to put forth multiple views before they secure a solid knowledge base. Civics education should not strive to create classes of opinionated high schoolers; it should first strive to create classes of educated high schoolers. There is a significant difference.

Emotion and opinion are highly valued by CMS. Its members seem to believe that to be a productive citizen of a democratic society, students must constantly be active in "hands on" political activities-working on campaigns, running for student government (the Founders despised cafeteria food!), or protesting for or against this, that, and the other.

The message here-one that will assuredly do more harm than good-is that knowledge and learning comes second to frenetic activity.

To wit: picking up a sign and protesting immigration law or the war in Iraq does not make one a good citizen. Protesting is easy these days (especially when it's encouraged by authority figures). What's difficult, what requires effort and commitment, is putting down the sign, going alone to the library, and hitting the books to understand the history and nuances behind the debate.

Civics education should encourage the latter pursuit. And if our schools do that well, the former will evolve as it should.

Center for the Future of Arizona & Morrison Institute for Public Policy
March 2006

Latinos are the fastest growing population sector in Arizona, but their graduation rates in that state in 2004 lagged behind those of white, non-Hispanic students by close to 18 points. If those numbers don't improve, upwards of 10,000 Arizona Latino students per year could fail to graduate high school by 2012. This new study pinpoints key factors that contributed to improving performance in 12 predominantly Hispanic and low-income Arizona schools. Researchers compared these 12 schools to others similar in all but performance, looking for factors that led to academic success. Six elements stood out in successful schools: a clear bottom line (emphasizing achievement for every student); ongoing assessment (tracking student performance data); a strong and steady principal; collaborative solutions (effective work teams of consultants/teachers); sticking with the program (carefully choosing an educational program and "sticking with it"); and "built to suit" (customized instruction/intervention for students). For example, at Wade Carpenter School, students take online quarterly tests that track their academic progression, and teachers use these data to plan instruction around the "content clusters" in which students are weakest. This border school with almost 100 percent Spanish-speaking, low-income students has improved its test scores by almost 20 percentage points. Beat the Odds would've been much stronger if it presented in-depth profiles of the individual schools, rather than brief, snapshot examples. But overall, this is a useful report. It shows that targeted education reforms within schools can work, and that they can narrow the achievement gap for Latino students. Read the report here.

Public Education Network
May 2006

From September 2005 to January 2006, the Public Education Network (PEN) held a series of hearings around the nation where students, community members, and parents were invited to testify about their experiences with No Child Left Behind. The events were attended by some 1,500 people, 300 of whom "testified." This report summarizes the testimony, and from those 300 folks draws conclusions about the public's perception of NCLB. (Perhaps not surprisingly, those conclusions mirror PEN's longstanding views about the law.) Here they are in thumbnail: Although the public supports accountability, it rejects single, standardized tests as adequate evaluators of school effectiveness; the public rejects labeling schools as "in need of improvement" because the label is too punitive and may erode public support for those schools; the public thinks high-stakes testing causes students and teachers too much anxiety; the public is not receiving information about NCLB (such as data about school performance, or about opportunities for school choice or supplemental services) in a timely manner; and the public sees a disconnect between teachers deemed "highly qualified" and those who are able to engage students in the classroom. The report touches on other criticisms, and it offers some suggestions (broaden the definition of "highly qualified" teachers, for example), but informed readers won't find much new here. While PEN's hearings were no doubt useful for gauging the temperament in individual cities and districts, 300 testimonials can hardly be translated into nationally-representative "public opinion." Plus, these complaints and recommendations are a bit generic-there's no gripe or solution in this report which hasn't been put forth before. It's nice to know what 300 people across the country think about NCLB, but this report gives no compelling data, nor does its sample size confer legitimacy. You can read the report here.