The Education Gadfly Weekly

Peter Gibbon
July 2002

This terrific book by Peter Gibbon of the Harvard Graduate School of Education is a sort of curricular Mount Rushmore, combining profiles of dozens of heroes with a careful discussion of why educators should teach children about such people. It seems especially timely in the aftermath of September 11, which revealed its own heroes (and villains) and it's a wonderful antidote to two ugly trends in contemporary social studies (and in our culture): the debunking of great men and women so that children see their flaws ahead of their greatness (Churchill drank brandy and smoked cigars&); and the tendency to teach history from the perspective of serfs and shoemakers instead of the central national and international events that shaped their (and everybody else's) lives-events that were substantially influenced by leaders. Not all those leaders were heroes, to be sure. Many were rascals. Children should meet the bad guys, too. But heroism has its own special quality and can contribute immeasurably to children's moral and character education, and to that ancient yearning to live one's life as nobly and fruitfully as someone else did. At a time when rap singers, ball players and movie stars are apt to be the figures that children want to emulate, Gibbon has done a huge service by reminding us that celebrities and heroes are seldom the same-and giving us a generous supply of the latter to use with our students and ourselves. The ISBN is 0871138530 and you can learn more at http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/wc.dll?groveproc~book~2545.

Paul Hill and Robin Lake with Mary Beth Celio
2002

The indefatigable and prodigious Paul Hill, here joined once again by Robin Lake and Mary Beth Celio, has produced this outstanding Brookings study of charter-school accountability, based on an examination of 150 schools and 60 authorizers in six states. Much is packed into these 120 pages that will interest followers of charter schools as well as students of education accountability. Given today's lively interest in charter-school accountability itself, the book couldn't be timelier. It's interesting, provocative, thoughtful and informative. It breaks new ground in its discussion of the (mostly lackluster) performance of charter authorizers. It explores such new concepts as "internal accountability." It accurately depicts the several directions in which charter schools are simultaneously accountable. And it elegantly describes the complex, fruitful interplay between charters and standards-based reform. A first-rate and welcome piece of work, the ISBN is 0815702671 and you can obtain further information from http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/schools_accountability.htm.

Lowell Milken, Milken Family Foundation
July 2002

Lowell Milken invented the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) three years ago and, in this new 50-page publication from the Milken Family Foundation, he explains what's happened to it so far. It's also a fine introduction to the (five) principles and practices of TAP, if you haven't previously made their acquaintance-and that's worthwhile because the privately-led TAP is one of the most creative and smartest approaches so far devised for restructuring the teaching profession and expanding the supply of good teachers. It can also be adapted to specific state and local (and even school-level) circumstances. Indeed, it's been adapted since its invention, due to the stickiness of the original proposal to rework teacher salaries completely. The modified version places heavier emphasis on "augmenting" salaries and giving performance awards. (These changes also boost the dollar cost of implementing TAP in a school or school system while mitigating the political cost and organizational angst.) Though TAP hasn't been going long enough to be fully evaluated, it's being picked up by a number of states and school systems and is well worth your attention. You can obtain this report by surfing to http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=303.

edited by Laura Hamilton, Brian Stecher and Stephen Klein, RAND
2002

Three RAND scholars (Laura Hamilton, Brian Stecher and Stephen Klein) edited this 170-page book, containing six papers, some written by the editors, some written or co-authored by Dan Koretz, Vi-Nhuan Le and Lorraine McDonnell. Funded by the National Science Foundation and based on a pair of RAND-organized conferences, the book is fairly dense for the "educators and policy makers" at whom it is directed and far more successful at raising issues, illustrating dilemmas and posing problems than at giving specific guidance to anybody. Its general advice, however, seems sound if mostly obvious. Its main conclusions: accountability is not a monolithic thing, and the specific details of an accountability regimen matter greatly. And (surprise) more research is needed. The ISBN is 0833031619. You can learn more at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1554/.

Virginia Roach and Benjamin A. Cohen, National Association of State Boards of Education
2002

This short paper by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) succinctly makes the case for alternative teacher certification programs as a way to broaden and improve the pool of teachers hoping to enter the nation's classrooms. It's refreshing to see that state policy makers, many of whom are struggling with shortages of highly-qualified teachers, are warming to the idea of pathways other than those that pass through colleges of education as sources of teachers. Authors Virginia Roach and Benjamin Cohen write that the arguments for alternative certification (the deregulatory "open-market" approach) and against it (the regulatory approach) create an unnecessary polarization that usually "confuse[s] the process of teacher preparation with the product of teacher preparation." Their report, however, is not entirely accurate in classifying the two main approaches to improving teacher quality. It states that market reformers would have alternative certification programs focus on the product of teacher preparation, while the regulators seek such process-oriented licensure reforms "as strengthening entrance requirements, fostering closer links between K-12 schools and teacher preparation curricula"-as if the deregulators weren't equally interested in higher standards and curricular alignment. That quibble aside, the report offers a useful overview of why alternative certification programs complement traditional certifications programs, what their key components are, and how state boards can design them effectively. The report-which includes state-by-state analysis and alternative certification program contact information-can be found online at http://www.nasbe.org/alt_cert_report.pdf. Hard copies are available for $10 each plus $4.50 shipping and handling by calling NASBE at 800-220-5283.

Naomi Chudowsky, Nancy Kober, Keith S. Gayler, and Madlene Hamilton, Center on Education Policy
August 2002

Standards-based education reform can be chipped away from many directions. Perhaps most predictable was the claim that these high standards, tough tests and "high stakes" consequences would prove harmful to disadvantaged and minority youngsters who would get lower scores and suffer more adverse consequences, such as having their high school diplomas delayed or denied. That's part of what led to the easing of academic standards in the aftermath of the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty, an easing that did much to place us at risk as a nation and that, we now know, didn't do anything good for the poor and minority children on whose behalf it was done. And that is, in effect, the conclusion of this new report from the Center on Education Policy, headed by Jack Jennings, who for several decades shaped federal policy as top education staffer for the Democrats on the House education committee. The 145-page report (you can also get a glossy 12-page "action summary") covers a lot of ground associated with high school exit exams, but the press coverage, such as it is, has centered on one narrow finding: that black and Hispanic students are less apt to pass these state tests on the first try. The implication, of course, is that exit exams are already having an adverse impact on minority youngsters. Yet this "finding" turns out to be based on one-year data from exactly three states. Moreover, just about every place that uses high-school exit exams permits multiple re-takes of those tests by students who fail them. Even the authors acknowledge that, for those states where they could get such data, "the cumulative passing rates were very high." (In Indiana, for example, about two-thirds of the students passed the first time but 98.5% of those in the class of 2000 eventually got their diplomas.) The report's policy recommendations are numerous and many are sound, pro-student but not averse to standards-based reform. More problematic is the suggestion that states allow alternate methods (besides test scores) for students to show their stuff. Examples include "waivers or substitute tests; collections of student work&; written recommendations from teachers&; or good grades and good attendance&." I've no problem with states creating some alternatives for youngsters who, for a thousand reasons, freeze at the sight of a test or cannot be properly tested. Testing itself is not the point. But when we head down the slippery slope that starts with teacher recommendations, for example, we begin to revert to the bad old days when every teacher and school set its own "standards" and there were no common statewide standards that everybody had to meet. You can obtain a copy by surfing to the Center's homepage (http://www.cep-dc.org/) and then opting for the PDF or HTML version.

edited by Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute
2002

In 1996, California launched an ambitious $8 billion initiative to reduce class size in that state's elementary schools. According to Education Week, "some 40 states have such initiatives, and federal money for class-size reduction is available as well." Is this a good use of resources? It is this essential question that the economists Eric Hanushek and Alan Krueger tangle over in "The Class Size Debate." Hanushek contends that investments in reducing class size are not an efficient use of public resources. He uses data from more than 50 studies to conclude that, "Despite the political popularity of overall class size reduction, the scientific support of such policies is weak to nonexistent. The existing evidence suggests that any effects of overall class size reduction policies will be small and very expensive." Krueger turns Hanushek's findings on their head arguing that, "when the various studies in Hanushek's sample are accorded equal weight, class size is systematically related to student performance (italics belong to Krueger), even using Hanushek's classification of the estimates-which in some cases appears to be problematic." In other words, applying different methodologies to the same data, Krueger comes up with opposite results. Much of the book is made up of statistical equations and tables showing why one side is right and the other is flawed. The reader is left to form his own conclusions. But who ever said that economics is an exact science? Editors Mishel and Rothstein try, in their introduction, to find "points of consensus" between the two camps. The middle ground they identify appears to us closer to Hanushek's conclusions than to Krueger's. To dig into this debate, go to http://www.epinet.org/.

In many states, teachers (and other state or local government employees) are prohibited by federal law from collecting "spousal retirement benefits" from the Social Security system when they retire if they have state or local government pensions. But a loophole in the law allows them to receive such benefits if they spend a single day-their last working day-in a different job. A GAO report found that school districts not covered by the federal law are arranging for retiring teachers from other districts to work for a single day as a janitor, clerk, or food service employee so that they can retire with the full spousal benefit. The districts charge up to $500 to arrange the one-day job for teachers who want to take advantage of this loophole; sometimes they advertise this deal on their websites. Teachers who participate eventually receive on average $4,800 per year in spousal benefits from Social Security. "Pension loophole exploited," by Allen Pusey, The Dallas Morning News, August 16, 2002

The American Federation of Teachers and some other educators are scrambling to distance themselves from the "blame America" lesson plans produced by the National Education Association for use on and around September 11, 2002. The NEA's lessons urge teachers to discuss instances of American intolerance but avoid suggesting that any group is responsible for last September's terrorist attacks.
NB: On September 3, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation will release (via our website) our own September 11 curricular recommendations, setting forth what a number of experts believe that children need to learn about American history and civics, about patriotism, heroism and terrorism. "NEA plan for 9/11 not backed by teachers," by Ellen Sorokin, The Washington Times, August 20, 2002

While many are suspicious of the changes that the College Board and ETS are planning for the SAT (changes made largely to placate the University of California, which had threatened to stop requiring the test), college admissions counselor John Harper argues in the cover story of this week's Weekly Standard that the new test is a big improvement. The old one purported to measure student aptitude or sheer intelligence rather than academic achievement, which is heavily influenced by the quality of the school that a student is lucky enough to attend. But Harper points out the reality that higher scores on the old SAT could be bought by those with the means to afford expensive test prep programs, which made a mockery of the idea that the test would equalize opportunities by identifying "diamonds in the rough" who had the misfortune to attend mediocre high schools. "The New, Improved SAT," by John Harper, The Weekly Standard, August 26, 2002

The results of the 34th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools were released on Tuesday, and as in other years, early attention has focused on what those results show about public support for vouchers.

A few months back, Terry Moe of the Hoover Institution attacked last year's PDK/Gallup poll for "cooking the questions" on vouchers by posing two separate queries on the issue, phrased and framed in different ways, then highlighting in their press release the results that seemed to show less support for vouchers.

This year, the poll found that support for vouchers rose significantly no matter how the question was phrased. When asked whether they favored a policy permitting parents to choose private schools for their children to attend "at public expense" (which Moe notes invites a negative response because it presents vouchers as a special-interest program for an exclusive group), 46% said that they would favor it, up from 34% last year. When asked if they favor allowing parents to send their children to any school they choose, with the government paying all or part of the tuition-the same basic question, but using different language-52% said yes, up from 44% last year.

The press release issued by PDK/Gallup this year made no attempt to disguise the fact that support for vouchers rose, though it did emphasized that a majority (52%) still oppose the idea (using numbers from the question which is biased against support for the program). Note that the survey was conducted before the Supreme Court announced its decision upholding the Cleveland voucher program. It's likely that this rise in public support for the policy, combined with the Court's go-ahead, will add momentum to the voucher movement.

A separate survey commissioned by the Center for Education Reform and also released on Tuesday found even higher support for vouchers. When asked if they favor allowing poor parents to be given the tax dollars allotted for their child's education and permitting them to use the money to send their child to a private school of their choice, 63% said yes. When asked if they support providing parents with the option of sending their children to the school of their choice-public, private, or parochial-76% supported the policy.

Even more popular than vouchers, however, is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Fifty seven percent of those surveyed by PDK/Gallup believe that that the federal government's heightened involvement in local school affairs is a good thing and two-thirds favor annual testing in grades 3-8. Indeed, most would go further than NCLB: 68% would require all states to use a single, nationally standardized test, and 66% favor a national curriculum-these being two of the great education bugaboos of Washington politicians. Large majorities support offering "in-district" choice for students in schools that fail to meet state standards (86%), offering tutoring by state-approved private providers (90%), and termination of the principals and teachers in failing schools (56%), though most oppose closing the school (77%). The public seems unworried by the increase in testing and does not share the concern of some educators that the emphasis on reading and math in NCLB will result in less reduced attention for other subjects. (56% say this would be a good thing.)

The 34th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools, by Lowell Rose and Alec Gallup, August 20, 2002

Center for Education Reform 2002 National Survey of American's Attitudes toward School Choice, August 20, 2002

"Cooking the Questions," by Terry Moe, Education Next, Spring 2002

In a long essay in the Summer 2002 issue of Daedalus, Diane Ravitch ponders whether the current round of standards-based reform can solve the endemic education problems that undermine effective teaching of history and literature. She describes the spread of the belief that our schools need not teach a common set of facts about history or a common set of literary texts, and she highlights the role that self-censorship by textbook publishers and testing companies have played in purging the curriculum of content. (Think of this essay as a preview of her forthcoming book on that topic.) She shows how bias and sensitivity guidelines developed by these publishers and testing firms have led to the exclusion from textbooks and tests of classic literature on grounds that it reinforces stereotypes; doesn't portray people who are sufficiently diverse; and may contain material that is controversial or could upset students. As a result, Ravitch writes, only the blandest, least controversial, and ultimately least interesting passages are deemed acceptable for tests and textbooks. State academic standards are similarly written to avoid giving offense to anyone; as a result, they eschew content and focus on skills. The resulting content-thin curriculum will make education not a great leveler, but a great divider, Ravitch writes, as only students at some elite private and public schools will be exposed to the great works of literature and the historical events that shaped our world. As our common culture becomes constricted, Ravitch warns, so does the possibility for informed citizens to debate the shape of their shared future. "Education after the culture wars," by Diane Ravitch, Daedalus, Summer 2002. Devoted to education, this issue includes responses to Ravitch's article by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Ted Sizer, and others, which can be found at http://daedalus.amacad.org/issues/summer2002/Su2002coverweb.pdf.

School and classroom websites, once hailed as a way to let parents know what their kids are doing in school, often languish today, with students and parents likely to find only outdated information such as school menus or homework assignments from the previous year. Teacher training in the use of the Internet has been spotty, and many teachers have only limited access to the hardware and Internet connections they need, which makes it hard for them to create and operate the constantly updated websites that parents and students would find useful. A survey of teenagers released last week by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that students are frustrated that teachers are not making better use of the Internet. "Ghosts of Classrooms Past: A Web Teaching Tool Languishes," by Jeffrey Selingo, The New York Times, August 15, 2002; "Wanted: Web-Savvy Schooling," by Ellen McCarthy, The Washington Post, August 14, 2002

Don't think for a minute that June's Supreme Court decision upholding Cleveland's school-voucher program has opened the floodgates of education choice for American families. Opponents succeeded earlier this month in persuading a Florida judge to nix that state's exit-voucher program, whereby youngsters stuck in public schools that repeatedly fail to meet Florida's academic standards may take their money to private schools or other public schools. (His analysis, contrary to that of Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas, held that, because many of these children opt for parochial schools, the program violates a provision in the state constitution barring state aid to sectarian institutions.)

But what really has education watchers twittering is how little actual choice is resulting from a new Congressional mandate that youngsters enrolled in failing "Title I" schools may exit them for other public (and charter) schools.

When Congress overhauled the Title I program last year in the "No Child Left Behind" Act, it included a provision somewhat like Florida's: if a Title I school fails for two straight years to make adequate progress toward its state's academic standards, the local school system must provide its pupils with "public school choice" and may use some of their federal dollars to pay for the transportation.

In the original Bush formulation, a student's choices would also have included private schools and public schools in other districts. But Congress instantly balked at "vouchers" and the White House quickly yielded. Then the education establishment pressed lawmakers to confine children's options to public schools within the same district. Hence Chicago children have no right to enroll in Winnetka's excellent schools nor Los Angeles youngsters in those of Beverly Hills nor Boston kids in those of neighboring Brookline. Their choices are limited to schools run by their present systems (and charter schools within district boundaries).

That does not create a lot of appealing options for kids in faltering systems that abound in failing schools and boast few good ones. But once the lobbyists were finished, that's as far as Congress would go. Except for one wrinkle that was barely noticed when the bill was signed in January: limited as it is, the school-choice provision applies right now-today, school year 2002-3-to more than 8000 Title I schools that have already lingered for two years or longer on their states' lists of education failures.

School districts across America were flabbergasted to learn this summer that they must immediately provide public-school options for those millions of youngsters.

How are they responding? A handful are behaving as they should. District of Columbia superintendent Paul Vance doesn't like this provision-he fears it will "drain" the abler students from the weaker schools in his troubled system-but is nonetheless seeking to clear a number of slots for youngsters transferring from the city's 15 worst-performing schools. "The law is the law," he told The Washington Post. "My job is to implement it."

Across the nation, however, many states and districts are resisting this school-choice requirement, deferring until it's too late for kids to switch, ignoring the law entirely or reinterpreting it in ways that suit them. Thus Education Week reports that "relatively few students will parachute out of low-performing schools this fall."

Many stratagems are at work to frustrate the new federal rule. In a matter of weeks, Ohio whittled its list of failing Title I schools from 760 to 212-not by improving the others but by fiddling with test scores and criteria. Rural South Carolina districts claim that they have so few schools that there's really nothing to choose among-and it's too much bother and expense to send youngsters to schools operated by nearby districts (which NCLB mandates in such situations "to the extent practicable.") Kentucky has decided to wait until mid-September to finalize its list of eligible schools. Texas is holding off until the end of August. By then, of course, the school year will be well underway in those two states and fewer families will want to move their children.

In some cases, it's not clear whether the district's limp response is due entirely to foot-dragging or to genuine problems of capacity. In Baltimore, where 30,000 children are enrolled in failing schools, the district says it has just 200 openings in better ones. In Chicago, a staggering 125,000 kids in 179 schools were originally deemed eligible to transfer but the system has somehow cut that list to 50 schools-and is now "pairing" them with other schools rather than giving students a full range of options. (It says that all 179 schools will get extra help with tutoring and suchlike.) Vance's Washington D.C. is providing pupils who want to move with four alternative schools-but has excluded many of the District's highest-performing elementary schools (which tend to be in upper middle class neighborhoods).

Notwithstanding such shenanigans, thousands of youngsters are changing schools under the new federal requirement, including such upscale places as Montgomery County, Maryland. Denver estimates that almost 5000 students will leave their neighborhood schools, though some are opting into other schools on the list of weak performers. (Down the interstate in Colorado Springs, principals of exit-eligible schools wrote personal letters to parents pleading with them not to leave.) And some families are making these moves for reasons having more to do with playgrounds and personalities than academic achievement. "It's hard to quantify why they picked what they picked," remarked the head of Denver's Title I program.

When all is said and done, however, it's just a few thousand poor children, not millions, who are fleeing bad schools for better ones this fall, never mind the explicit requirements of No Child Left Behind. Mainly what we're seeing is widespread flouting of that law's intent-and a federal government that can do little to make recalcitrant states and school systems change their ways. Though the Bush administration has revived its interest in school choice-filing an important Supreme Court brief in the Cleveland case and proposing tax credits for school expenses-it has few enforcement tools at times like this. The Education Department's hard-working, tough-minded undersecretary, Eugene Hickok, is monitoring the situation and intervening where he can, but nobody is about to cut off Title I funds to districts or states that dawdle over school choice. In fact, No Child Left Behind authorizes the withholding only of a smidgen of administrative money from states and districts that do not fulfill its mandates. Nor do any rewards-save perhaps in Heaven-await those that conscientiously provide solid alternatives for their students.

What we're really seeing, once again, is how the public-education establishment despises school choice, how little it will bestir itself to assist poor families trapped in failing schools to gain access to better schools (even within the same districts), and the hardball tactics it deploys to keep lawmakers from adding more exit doors. If angry, frustrated parents now ratchet up the campaign for private-school vouchers, tax credits and unlimited charter schools, that same establishment will have only itself to blame.

The lesson: Congress can paste whatever label it wishes on its shiny new statute, but when it entrusts a choice program to the same people who brought us 8600 failed schools in the first place, it leaves millions of children behind.

A somewhat different version of this article appears in this week's Weekly Standard. It's available to subscribers at http://www.weeklystandard.com.

"Parents Feeling Left Behind by Schools," by Scott Stephens and Janet Okoben, The Plain Dealer, August 17, 2002

"School Choice Falling Short," by Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2002

A memo issued by the California Department of Education last month warned parents that they may not home-school their children unless they have professional teaching credentials, the Washington Times reports. If such a thing were ever enforced, California would become the only state in the union that would require home schooling parents to be certified teachers, according to Michael Smith of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Home schooling advocates said the memo was merely a ploy aimed at frightening parents into sending their children to public schools. For details see "California warns home schoolers," by Ellen Sorokin, The Washington Times, August 21, 2002.

The Heritage Foundation's Krista Kafer has compiled an education "CliffsNotes" of sorts, drawing from data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics and others. If you're looking for fast facts on achievement, expenditures, special education and the like, you'll find some of them at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/WM134.cfm.

Teachers and administrators at a Florida elementary school hope to convince students that the "F" their school received from the state's accountability system really means "fantastic" and "fun." Pep rallies and t-shirts declaiming "F = Fantastic" are just some of the strategies this failing school is using to boost everybody's sense of self-esteem and complacency. "School's Spin: F = Fantastic," by Lori Horvitz, Orlando Sentinel, August 13, 2002

Currently about 25 percent of 8th graders complete algebra or a higher-level math course, but students who don't complete first-year algebra by 8th grade are seldom able to take calculus in high school, which colleges like to see on transcripts. In a two-part series in The Washington Post this week, veteran reporter Jay Matthews describes the efforts of some states and school districts to get more of their students-maybe even all of them-to pass algebra by the end of eighth grade. This gives rise to its own problems, including the dumbing-down of some "algebra" classes.

Many believe that setting high standards for all students in middle school is a way to help them make the transition to the stiffer expectations of high schools, and there is some evidence that low-performing students raise their performance when placed in more challenging classes. But some educators complain that their 8th grade students are not ready to handle algebra.

One response has been to offer classes that bear the name algebra but little of its content. According to Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution, many schools are giving up on kids who can't do basic arithmetic, putting them in faux algebra courses to cover up the problem. And sometimes the states are complicit in this practice. For example, Maryland officials acknowledge that their statewide algebra test contains very little actual algebra. They say Maryland's strategy is gradually to raise the bar and offer stronger algebra courses and tests later. Virginia has adopted a different approach, developing a strong algebra test in part to persuade schools to upgrade their teaching and toughen their curricula in this "gatekeeper" subject.

In several Virginia school districts surveyed by Mathews, 35, 41, even 60 percent of 8th graders are taking algebra, which suggests that setting the bar high is having an effect. Perhaps states like Maryland should to take a harder look at why so many 8th graders lack preparation for algebra.

"Algebra Poses a Problem of Timing," By Jay Mathews, The Washington Post, August 18, 2002

"Algebra = X in One School, Y in Another," by Jay Mathews, The Washington Post, August 19, 2002

edited by Laura Hamilton, Brian Stecher and Stephen Klein, RAND
2002

Three RAND scholars (Laura Hamilton, Brian Stecher and Stephen Klein) edited this 170-page book, containing six papers, some written by the editors, some written or co-authored by Dan Koretz, Vi-Nhuan Le and Lorraine McDonnell. Funded by the National Science Foundation and based on a pair of RAND-organized conferences, the book is fairly dense for the "educators and policy makers" at whom it is directed and far more successful at raising issues, illustrating dilemmas and posing problems than at giving specific guidance to anybody. Its general advice, however, seems sound if mostly obvious. Its main conclusions: accountability is not a monolithic thing, and the specific details of an accountability regimen matter greatly. And (surprise) more research is needed. The ISBN is 0833031619. You can learn more at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1554/.

edited by Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute
2002

In 1996, California launched an ambitious $8 billion initiative to reduce class size in that state's elementary schools. According to Education Week, "some 40 states have such initiatives, and federal money for class-size reduction is available as well." Is this a good use of resources? It is this essential question that the economists Eric Hanushek and Alan Krueger tangle over in "The Class Size Debate." Hanushek contends that investments in reducing class size are not an efficient use of public resources. He uses data from more than 50 studies to conclude that, "Despite the political popularity of overall class size reduction, the scientific support of such policies is weak to nonexistent. The existing evidence suggests that any effects of overall class size reduction policies will be small and very expensive." Krueger turns Hanushek's findings on their head arguing that, "when the various studies in Hanushek's sample are accorded equal weight, class size is systematically related to student performance (italics belong to Krueger), even using Hanushek's classification of the estimates-which in some cases appears to be problematic." In other words, applying different methodologies to the same data, Krueger comes up with opposite results. Much of the book is made up of statistical equations and tables showing why one side is right and the other is flawed. The reader is left to form his own conclusions. But who ever said that economics is an exact science? Editors Mishel and Rothstein try, in their introduction, to find "points of consensus" between the two camps. The middle ground they identify appears to us closer to Hanushek's conclusions than to Krueger's. To dig into this debate, go to http://www.epinet.org/.

Lowell Milken, Milken Family Foundation
July 2002

Lowell Milken invented the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) three years ago and, in this new 50-page publication from the Milken Family Foundation, he explains what's happened to it so far. It's also a fine introduction to the (five) principles and practices of TAP, if you haven't previously made their acquaintance-and that's worthwhile because the privately-led TAP is one of the most creative and smartest approaches so far devised for restructuring the teaching profession and expanding the supply of good teachers. It can also be adapted to specific state and local (and even school-level) circumstances. Indeed, it's been adapted since its invention, due to the stickiness of the original proposal to rework teacher salaries completely. The modified version places heavier emphasis on "augmenting" salaries and giving performance awards. (These changes also boost the dollar cost of implementing TAP in a school or school system while mitigating the political cost and organizational angst.) Though TAP hasn't been going long enough to be fully evaluated, it's being picked up by a number of states and school systems and is well worth your attention. You can obtain this report by surfing to http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=303.

Naomi Chudowsky, Nancy Kober, Keith S. Gayler, and Madlene Hamilton, Center on Education Policy
August 2002

Standards-based education reform can be chipped away from many directions. Perhaps most predictable was the claim that these high standards, tough tests and "high stakes" consequences would prove harmful to disadvantaged and minority youngsters who would get lower scores and suffer more adverse consequences, such as having their high school diplomas delayed or denied. That's part of what led to the easing of academic standards in the aftermath of the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty, an easing that did much to place us at risk as a nation and that, we now know, didn't do anything good for the poor and minority children on whose behalf it was done. And that is, in effect, the conclusion of this new report from the Center on Education Policy, headed by Jack Jennings, who for several decades shaped federal policy as top education staffer for the Democrats on the House education committee. The 145-page report (you can also get a glossy 12-page "action summary") covers a lot of ground associated with high school exit exams, but the press coverage, such as it is, has centered on one narrow finding: that black and Hispanic students are less apt to pass these state tests on the first try. The implication, of course, is that exit exams are already having an adverse impact on minority youngsters. Yet this "finding" turns out to be based on one-year data from exactly three states. Moreover, just about every place that uses high-school exit exams permits multiple re-takes of those tests by students who fail them. Even the authors acknowledge that, for those states where they could get such data, "the cumulative passing rates were very high." (In Indiana, for example, about two-thirds of the students passed the first time but 98.5% of those in the class of 2000 eventually got their diplomas.) The report's policy recommendations are numerous and many are sound, pro-student but not averse to standards-based reform. More problematic is the suggestion that states allow alternate methods (besides test scores) for students to show their stuff. Examples include "waivers or substitute tests; collections of student work&; written recommendations from teachers&; or good grades and good attendance&." I've no problem with states creating some alternatives for youngsters who, for a thousand reasons, freeze at the sight of a test or cannot be properly tested. Testing itself is not the point. But when we head down the slippery slope that starts with teacher recommendations, for example, we begin to revert to the bad old days when every teacher and school set its own "standards" and there were no common statewide standards that everybody had to meet. You can obtain a copy by surfing to the Center's homepage (http://www.cep-dc.org/) and then opting for the PDF or HTML version.

Paul Hill and Robin Lake with Mary Beth Celio
2002

The indefatigable and prodigious Paul Hill, here joined once again by Robin Lake and Mary Beth Celio, has produced this outstanding Brookings study of charter-school accountability, based on an examination of 150 schools and 60 authorizers in six states. Much is packed into these 120 pages that will interest followers of charter schools as well as students of education accountability. Given today's lively interest in charter-school accountability itself, the book couldn't be timelier. It's interesting, provocative, thoughtful and informative. It breaks new ground in its discussion of the (mostly lackluster) performance of charter authorizers. It explores such new concepts as "internal accountability." It accurately depicts the several directions in which charter schools are simultaneously accountable. And it elegantly describes the complex, fruitful interplay between charters and standards-based reform. A first-rate and welcome piece of work, the ISBN is 0815702671 and you can obtain further information from http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/schools_accountability.htm.

Peter Gibbon
July 2002

This terrific book by Peter Gibbon of the Harvard Graduate School of Education is a sort of curricular Mount Rushmore, combining profiles of dozens of heroes with a careful discussion of why educators should teach children about such people. It seems especially timely in the aftermath of September 11, which revealed its own heroes (and villains) and it's a wonderful antidote to two ugly trends in contemporary social studies (and in our culture): the debunking of great men and women so that children see their flaws ahead of their greatness (Churchill drank brandy and smoked cigars&); and the tendency to teach history from the perspective of serfs and shoemakers instead of the central national and international events that shaped their (and everybody else's) lives-events that were substantially influenced by leaders. Not all those leaders were heroes, to be sure. Many were rascals. Children should meet the bad guys, too. But heroism has its own special quality and can contribute immeasurably to children's moral and character education, and to that ancient yearning to live one's life as nobly and fruitfully as someone else did. At a time when rap singers, ball players and movie stars are apt to be the figures that children want to emulate, Gibbon has done a huge service by reminding us that celebrities and heroes are seldom the same-and giving us a generous supply of the latter to use with our students and ourselves. The ISBN is 0871138530 and you can learn more at http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/wc.dll?groveproc~book~2545.

Virginia Roach and Benjamin A. Cohen, National Association of State Boards of Education
2002

This short paper by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) succinctly makes the case for alternative teacher certification programs as a way to broaden and improve the pool of teachers hoping to enter the nation's classrooms. It's refreshing to see that state policy makers, many of whom are struggling with shortages of highly-qualified teachers, are warming to the idea of pathways other than those that pass through colleges of education as sources of teachers. Authors Virginia Roach and Benjamin Cohen write that the arguments for alternative certification (the deregulatory "open-market" approach) and against it (the regulatory approach) create an unnecessary polarization that usually "confuse[s] the process of teacher preparation with the product of teacher preparation." Their report, however, is not entirely accurate in classifying the two main approaches to improving teacher quality. It states that market reformers would have alternative certification programs focus on the product of teacher preparation, while the regulators seek such process-oriented licensure reforms "as strengthening entrance requirements, fostering closer links between K-12 schools and teacher preparation curricula"-as if the deregulators weren't equally interested in higher standards and curricular alignment. That quibble aside, the report offers a useful overview of why alternative certification programs complement traditional certifications programs, what their key components are, and how state boards can design them effectively. The report-which includes state-by-state analysis and alternative certification program contact information-can be found online at http://www.nasbe.org/alt_cert_report.pdf. Hard copies are available for $10 each plus $4.50 shipping and handling by calling NASBE at 800-220-5283.