The Education Gadfly Weekly

Bryan C. Hassel, Emily Ayscue-Hassel, and Julie Kowal
National Association of Charter School Authorizers
2006

NCLB watchers know that the law's mandate that districts "restructure" their chronically failing schools is loophole-laden and typically leads to cosmetic changes that do little to reform a blighted school's core. A nation of brick and mortar Dorian Grays. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers suggests a new approach that uses charter school wisdom to help ailing districts: "starting fresh" (Public Impact previously put out a report with a similar philosophy). This approach empowers education providers--which can be groups of teachers or parents, community-based organizations, school management organizations, or charter school operators--to start a new school within the walls of the old under a clear, performance-based contract. One finds in this report practical guidance for implementing such a restructuring strategy. Its five parts give an overview of the potential of starting fresh, and advice on engaging parents and the community, selecting the right providers, establishing relationship terms, and collaborating with teachers. All in all, this is good stuff. It provides an actionable plan for interested parties while underscoring that, if NCLB is to fulfill its promise to kids, the restructuring of dysfunctional schools has to be more than adding lip gloss and eyeliner. Read the first part here (you'll have to order the other four parts from NACSA).

National Conference of State Legislatures, Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education
October 2006

This twelve-page NCSL commission report diagnoses the ills and shortcomings of American higher education, and comes up with many of the same conclusions as several other recent reports (see here): we're no longer first in the world, not preparing people well for the challenges of the 21^st century, too expensive, qualitatively uneven, etc. It then tasks states with responsibility for grappling with these challenges and "specifically calls upon legislators to seize the opportunity to lead the higher education reform movement in the states." Like the analysis of the problem, the fifteen recommendations that follow are mostly predictable, sound as far as they go, but so briefly and vaguely stated that they come across more as the table of contents for an action plan than anything truly actionable. The main thing you'll get from this one is evidence that, when it comes to U.S. higher education, the NCSL is thinking clearly. One wishes it offered more concrete advice to states that might actually want to do something. Read it here.

Forget the sleek and powerful PS3. Designers for the nonprofit project One Laptop Per Child have modified a conventional computer and made it ultra portable, energy efficient, and incredibly cheap. The new $150 laptop will be making its way into the hands of millions of students in developing countries in mid-2007. Seymour Papert, a distinguished computer scientist and adviser to the project, believes that access to these laptops will help kids to "learn how to learn." This is "a more valuable skill than traditional teaching strategies that focus on memorization and testing," he argues. But not everyone is jumping on the bandwagon: both Intel and Microsoft have their doubts (and Intel is pushing its own alternative machine). Larry Cuban, a Stanford University emeritus education professor, is also skeptical. He agrees that access to technology can be a good thing, but the new laptop won't "revolutionize education" in the third world. If the One Laptop Per Child initiative is meant to expose youngsters across the globe to technology and broaden their horizons, fine. We can see it doing much good, especially in rural communities that have trouble sustaining decent schools. But it won't replace sound curricula, high standards, and a host of other education requisites.  

"For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate," by John Markoff, New York Times, November 30, 2006

"Anti-poverty paternalism." Applied to education, it means teaching "middle class" habits to poor children and rewiring the dysfunctional behaviors and values imparted by neighborhoods and, sometimes, parents (see here, for instance). Philadelphia's Mayor John Street took this approach to the next level last week by seeking to change the behavior of parents themselves. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, he demanded that thousands of parents of chronic truants attend a meeting "or face jail time." At the event--attended by at least 4,000--Street exclaimed, "We say tonight, ‘No more excuses--every child must go to school.'" To back up his threats, he's added 400 anti-truancy officials. Parents at the session signed pledges promising good attendance in return for amnesty for past unexcused absences. Whether Street is all bark and no bite remains to be seen, as is apparent from the article's closing line: "It was unclear last night what the administration would do about the hundreds of parents who ignored the summons." Still, it's encouraging to see the "truant officer" make a comeback. Kids rarely learn things--at least good things--if they don't come to school.

"Arena full of parents lectured on truancy," by Kristen A. Graham, Philadelphia Inquirer, December 1, 2006

Teachers union, which have defended the "single salary schedule" like the Rock of Gibraltar, are beginning to sign on to "combat pay", i.e. bonuses for teaching in high-poverty schools. Both the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Bay State's AFT chapter recently announced their support for this form of "differential" pay. AFT Massachusetts president Thomas J. Gosnell said, "I don't see how [students in high-poverty schools] can get better services if there are not incentives for teachers to provide additional time and programs for the students." Unfortunately, the unions still oppose merit pay, which ties teacher salaries to student achievement. Nor do they support extra cash for teaching a high-need subject, such as math or science. So much for incentives. Still, cracks are starting to show in the union's armor, and sooner or later the entire single salary schedule is likely to crumble.

"Extra pay urged at poorest schools," by Maria Sacchetti, Boston Globe, November 30, 2006

Who knew that the New Republic's Jonathan Chait had such love for the free market? But there he was the other day in the Los Angeles Times, the liberal writer doing his best imitation of F.A. Hayek. He wrote that conservatives are right to deduce from articles such as the New York Times Magazine's recent "What It Takes To Make a Student" (see here) that poor and minority children can be educated at high levels. But, he continues, there is a major shortage of talented and dedicated teachers like those at the handful of top-performing charter schools. Worse, Chait correctly claims, the talent we have is poorly distributed, with many of the worst teachers staffing the highest-need schools. His beef with conservatives? They aren't conservative enough! They glorify the free market yet lose faith in incentives when it comes to paying top dollar for talented teachers, especially those working in low-performing schools. Merit pay is good, but an extra two thousand dollars per year isn't going to attract savvy folks who could easily make six figures working elsewhere. Hiring fewer teachers, only the best teachers, and paying them much more, is probably the way to go. "You can't build a national education strategy around relying on the kindness of strangers," Chait writes. Thus spake the liberal.

"The right's education fantasy," Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2006

Principal Al Sanchez thought he was doing the student a favor. When Fidel Maldonado Jr.--a 15-year-old at Rio Grande High School and a boxer--showed up on campus with what Sanchez took to be a gang-style haircut, he gave the student a choice. Shave it off or face suspension. The offending cut, which Maldonado had donned prior to a boxing match, outlined New Mexico's area code "505" and the Zia symbol (the sunburst shape on the Land of Enchantment's flag) on his very own scalp. What happened next is up for discussion. Sanchez claimed they had a nice chat about his boyhood home while driving to the barber shop. Maldonado claims the principal grabbed his neck on the way over. In any case, the barber refused to cut the boy's hair, tapering the principal's plan and spiking Maldonado's father into action. He's considering legal action. And the principal? He's just looking for a bowl to hide under. Paternalism has its risks.

"Haircut could get principal in hot water," Associated Press, December 4, 2006

Bryan C. Hassel, Emily Ayscue-Hassel, and Julie Kowal
National Association of Charter School Authorizers
2006

NCLB watchers know that the law's mandate that districts "restructure" their chronically failing schools is loophole-laden and typically leads to cosmetic changes that do little to reform a blighted school's core. A nation of brick and mortar Dorian Grays. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers suggests a new approach that uses charter school wisdom to help ailing districts: "starting fresh" (Public Impact previously put out a report with a similar philosophy). This approach empowers education providers--which can be groups of teachers or parents, community-based organizations, school management organizations, or charter school operators--to start a new school within the walls of the old under a clear, performance-based contract. One finds in this report practical guidance for implementing such a restructuring strategy. Its five parts give an overview of the potential of starting fresh, and advice on engaging parents and the community, selecting the right providers, establishing relationship terms, and collaborating with teachers. All in all, this is good stuff. It provides an actionable plan for interested parties while underscoring that, if NCLB is to fulfill its promise to kids, the restructuring of dysfunctional schools has to be more than adding lip gloss and eyeliner. Read the first part here (you'll have to order the other four parts from NACSA).

National Conference of State Legislatures, Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education
October 2006

This twelve-page NCSL commission report diagnoses the ills and shortcomings of American higher education, and comes up with many of the same conclusions as several other recent reports (see here): we're no longer first in the world, not preparing people well for the challenges of the 21^st century, too expensive, qualitatively uneven, etc. It then tasks states with responsibility for grappling with these challenges and "specifically calls upon legislators to seize the opportunity to lead the higher education reform movement in the states." Like the analysis of the problem, the fifteen recommendations that follow are mostly predictable, sound as far as they go, but so briefly and vaguely stated that they come across more as the table of contents for an action plan than anything truly actionable. The main thing you'll get from this one is evidence that, when it comes to U.S. higher education, the NCSL is thinking clearly. One wishes it offered more concrete advice to states that might actually want to do something. Read it here.