The Education Gadfly Weekly

Craig Jerald and Richard Ingersoll, Education Trust
August 2002

The Education Trust's Craig Jerald and the University of Pennsylvania's Richard Ingersoll teamed up to produce this fine, short (12-page), hard-hitting look at the problem of out-of-field teaching, based on recently issued federal data. It concludes that "The amount of out-of-field teaching in the nation and states remains unacceptably high, with classes in high-poverty and high-minority schools much more likely to be assigned to a teacher lacking minimal academic qualifications in the subject being taught&.[W]hile out-of-field teaching is far too pervasive at the high school level, the problem is even worse in middle schools, where very high rates of mis-assignment suggest a staggering disregard for whether teachers have the minimal academic foundation necessary to teach classes in core academic subject areas." Worse, the study finds "no progress" in solving this problem between 1993 and 2000. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that it's not mostly a consequence of teacher shortages. Rather, as Ingersoll has written elsewhere, "the solution to a big chunk of this problem is in the hands of state officials and local administrators-right now." The data are sobering. For example, in high-poverty/minority middle schools, about half of the core academic classes are taught by people who did not even earn an academic "minor" (much less a major) in those subjects. (This is also true of nearly two-fifths of low-poverty/minority middle schools.) Moreover, the numbers show wide variation by state. In Minnesota, fewer than 10 percent of core secondary classes are taught by teachers with neither majors nor minors in those fields; In Louisiana, Delaware, New Mexico and Tennessee, however, that's the case with more than 35% of secondary classes. Even in high-spending Connecticut and Alaska, it's nearly 30%. Small wonder a bunch of states are nervous about the new federal requirement that every teacher be "highly qualified" a few years hence! You can download your very own copy (in PDF format) at http://www.edtrust.org/main/documents/AllTalk.pdf.

Committee for Economic Development
August 2002

In this 11-page brief, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) examines the No Child Left Behind act's (NCLB) key assessment and accountability provisions and issues surrounding their implementation. The report is a follow-up to a CED tract ("Measuring What Matters: Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning") that was released early last year-while NCLB was still being tossed around in Congress and standards and testing systems were more matters of state than federal policy. If NCLB is to improve student learning, the new report says, it must meet a trio of challenges (all pretty obvious yet critical): 1) test results must measure and report student achievement accurately; 2) educators must teach solid content, not just "teach to the test"; and 3) low-performing schools must be given extra assistance. Following an explanation of each challenge is a list of related issues to be monitored and questions that policymakers ought to ask when designing and reforming standards and accountability systems. Download this short, straightforward report in PDF form at www.ced.org/docs/report/report_education_update.pdf or order a copy for $15 plus $3 shipping from CED at 261 Madison Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10016.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
August 2002

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently published this 37-pager on vouchers after the Zelman (Cleveland) decision. It's in two parts. The first part is a "joint statement by leading law professors" summarizing the Supreme Court's decision and explaining the next rounds of Constitutional debate on vouchers (primarily arising from state constitutional provisions). It's a balanced, nonpartisan effort-the authors include lawyers from both sides of the issue-and helpful in understanding the present state of constitutional play. The authors stress that the Supreme Court applied three criteria to the Cleveland program in determining whether it provided "true private choice" (as opposed to some sort of state aid to religious institutions): "The program was neutral toward religion; any monies flowing to religious schools flowed through the decisions of individuals rather than as direct payments from the state; and the program offered parents genuine secular options for their children's schooling." Perhaps the most interesting section of this first paper is its brief discussion of upcoming clashes between state constitutional restrictions ("Blaine amendments") and federal constitutional rights: "On the one hand is the commitment to treating religious persons, activities and organizations no worse than others that are similarly situated in terms of their access to government funds. On the other hand is a commitment to allowing the government some discretion in how it spends its resources to provide educational opportunities for children, and a commitment to states' rights-in this case, discretion for a state to separate church and state more strictly than the federal Constitution requires." The second part, "The Next Chapter in Educational Policy," is comprised of competing policy papers by Harvard's prolific Paul Peterson and Stanford's Martin Conroy. These do a good job of recapitulating pro-con arguments about the desirability of vouchers from the standpoint of education policy. Peterson urges citywide voucher pilot programs, arguing that a proper test of the idea is still needed; Carnoy contends that vouchers haven't yet proven their effectiveness. Overall, a worthy 37 pages. You can find a PDF version on the web at http://pewforum.org/issues/files/VoucherPackage.pdf.

Education Writers Association
June 2002

"Must an effective principal be a superhero?" asks this special report by the Education Writers Association. Until recently, principals mainly supervised teachers, managed the building, and dealt with parents. Today, they are also being asked to develop visions of learning, build school cultures, and develop instructional programs conducive to learning for all. Increasingly, they must be able to handle budgets, personnel, politics, and public relations for their schools, as more authority is devolved to them and they become more accountable for academic results. Does this add up to more than an ordinary human can reasonably manage? This report argues that the era of the effective principal as a "larger than life maverick" is over. Today, the authors write, "The truly effective principal is the first among equals, a team builder, a leader of leaders who encourages others to take responsibility for what happens in the school." As many as 40 percent of all principals are expected to retire in the next decade. Traditionally, principals have emerged through the teaching ranks, yet more teachers are turning their backs on administrative positions. Why take on the responsibilities of a 24/7 job for a small bump in pay? An added obstacle is the woeful preparation provided those who do seek to become school leaders. According to Harvard's Richard Elmore, who is quoted extensively in this report, "The content and institutional structure of existing training programs are fundamentally unsuited for the jobs we are asking [principals to take]." In Elmore's view, we are preparing a generation of "unqualified and credentialed" principals, when we need something drastically different. To check this report out for yourself go to www.ewa.org.

John Wenders, Idahoans for Tax Reform
August 2002

Idahoans for Tax Reform commissioned John Wenders, emeritus professor of economics at the University of Idaho, to examine that state's teacher pay in national context. It certainly makes for lively reading and may be worth your while for its deft unpacking of the non-market (and highly political) means by which public-school teaching salaries are presently set. Wenders also takes a few swats at the certification process. His bottom line: measured in ways that he thinks are most accurate, Idaho is doing a better job of compensating its teachers than one might gather from a simple examination of averages. (So is the nation.) Though one tends to expect such a conclusion from "tax reform" groups, Wenders's analysis is clear, plainspoken and perhaps worth a look. You can find this short (22-page) paper in PDF form at http://www.idtaxreform.com/PDFs/Teacher%20Comp%20Wenders.pdf.

Mary Soliday
September 2002

Mary Soliday is a professor of English at C.C.N.Y. and favors open admissions. She has delivered herself of a 220-page book that provides what might be termed a "progressive" view of remediation in higher education, namely that it's part of a selfish plot by colleges to meet their own needs for money, students, challenges to their admissions standards, etc. and is not, in her opinion, something done on behalf of students' needs. Besides being tendentious, the book is full of literary and pedagogical jargon. You probably want no part of it but, if you do, the ISBN is 0822941864, the University of Pittsburgh Press is culpable, and more information can be had at http://www.pitt.edu/~press/2002/Soliday.html.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
August 2002

The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) has released a new report on teacher retention based on data analyzed by the very busy Richard Ingersoll. NCTAF complains that the conventional wisdom holds that we don't have enough teachers, or enough good teachers, while the real problem is a staggering teacher turnover and attrition rate. The main reasons teachers give for leaving their jobs are poor working conditions (in high-poverty schools) and low salaries (in low-poverty schools). To tame attrition rates, NCTAF proposes a three-part strategy: 1) downsize and reorganize schools into smaller learning communities focused on achieving clear instructional objectives, 2) ensure that all teacher preparation programs meet high standards, and 3) establish mentoring programs and rewarding career paths for accomplished teachers. While reorganizing schools so that they better support teaching and learning is a no-brainer, downsizing schools is a peculiar recommendation, given that Ingersoll's data show that turnover is a bit higher in small public schools (16.4 percent) than in large ones (14.5 percent) and that it's much higher in small private schools (21.8 percent) than in large ones (13.5 percent). Advocating more teacher preparation has long been NCTAF's bread and butter, and we are pleased to see that the organization now favors "an end to the debate over 'alternative' vs. 'traditional' teacher preparation," stressing the importance of "ensuring that all teacher preparation programs-alternative and traditional-set and meet high standards." NCTAF argues that teachers hired through certain kinds of alternative certification programs leave teaching at higher rates, which may be true, but begs the question of what degree of teacher turnover might be acceptable, even desirable. It is notoriously difficult to identify effective teachers before they set foot in a classroom; if some of the turnover lamented in the report is made up of individuals who were not cut out for teaching, then this attrition is not a bad thing. And if outstanding individuals who make fine teachers want to spend only part of their working lives in the classroom, this may not be so bad either. Many private schools succeed with a core group of experienced teachers constantly mentoring a continuous stream of bright, energetic younger instructors. It may be necessary to dig deeper into the turnover statistics-19.7 percent a year for private school teachers, 12.9 percent a year for teachers in low-poverty public schools, and 15.7 percent a year for teachers in public schools overall-to determine which parts of the turnover are the real problem. This report is available at http://www.nctaf.org/whatsnew/index.html.

This month's Worth magazine ranks the public and private high schools with the best records of placing graduates at the most elite colleges. Roxbury Latin, Brearley, and Collegiate top the list: at all three schools, at least 20 percent of graduates over the last four years attended Harvard, Yale or Princeton. 94 of the top 100 schools on the list are private, and the article takes a close look at what these schools do to prepare and package kids to get into top colleges. "Getting Inside the Ivy Gates," by Reshma Memon Yaqub, Worth, September 2002

In an essay in this month's Commentary, Paul Peterson reflects on whether the Supreme Court's Zelman decision will be a turning point in how Americans think about education, akin to the Court's Brown vs. Board of Education decision half a century ago. Both decisions mean much more for black students than for other Americans, Peterson writes, but while Brown was (at least in principle) self-enacting, Zelman does not compel the formation of new voucher programs. Public opinion is divided on vouchers and many political obstacles face voucher proponents, but the key to the growth of voucher programs, he writes, lies within the black community and, especially, with parents. Education change does not come quickly in America, Peterson warns, but choice, once won, is seldom yielded back. "Victory for Vouchers?" by Paul Peterson, Commentary, September 2002. (Not yet available online.)

The average math score on the SAT rose two points (to 516) this year, while the average verbal score dropped two points to 504, according to figures released this week by the College Board. Math scores have gradually gone up 15 points over the past decade, a trend that Gaston Caperton, the College Board's president, thinks might be caused by an increase in students taking challenging math courses in high school. (It's not clear what caused the verbal score to sag, though a plausible hypothesis might be kids not reading much.) "SAT math scores reach 32-year high," by Nancy Trejos, The Washington Post, August 27, 2002

As America readies itself for the "anniversary" of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, innumerable education groups and experts are again bestirring themselves to tell schools and teachers what to teach their students on this topic.

Unfortunately, much of that advice is bad and some is awful. The most prominent vendor of dubious guidance is the mammoth National Education Association, which created a special web site for the purpose. Called "Remember September 11"-you can find it at http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/september11/materials/lessonhome.htm on the Internet, though we don't recommend going there-it's a mishmash of pop-psychotherapeutics, feel-goodism, relativism and overblown multiculturalism, even more noteworthy for what's not there: history, civics, patriotism, etc. George Will went into this at length in a recent column, and we shan't dwell on it, except as Bad Example #1 of advice for educators. You can find plenty more of the same, courtesy of the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Council for the Social Studies, and other such "resources" for educators.

This has been happening since last September, and we remarked on it then. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=90#1339 and http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=88#1316 for earlier Gadfly comments.) But with the passage of time, many things decay, and it seems evident that a deep rot now infects the conventional wisdom of much of the education field about the obligations of schools and educators vis-??-vis 9/11.

For a particularly noisome specimen, have a look at the Teachers College Record series on teaching about September 11th. This now includes a number called "On the Spirit of Patriotism: Challenges of a 'Pedagogy of Discomfort' " by Michalinos Zembylas and Megan Boler, who are, respectively, adjunct professor of teacher education at Michigan State and associate professor of teaching and learning at Virginia Tech.

If you want to understand why many Americans mistrust ed schools to impart sound ideas to nascent educators, read this essay, which includes this depressing statement: "Patriotism invoked during the aftermath of 9/11 represents not simply an understandable reaction of grief and loss but, arguably, the ethically questionable political manipulation of public sentiment. In the name of patriotism, these public emotions of grief and anger have been used by ideological forces such as mass media to support a radical legislative redefinition of civil liberties, military and foreign policies justified by careful definitions of who counts as a terrorist, and new justifications for racism."

And you wondered why patriotism is so conspicuously missing from the education establishment's 9/11 curricular and pedagogical advice? It's not just that the suppliers of that advice are concerned with kids' feelings. It's that they harbor doubts about patriotism!

But patriotism isn't all that's absent. Also in lamentably short supply are U.S. and world history, civics, character development and heroism. Such content has been replaced by psychotherapy, diversity and multiculturalism. Is it possible that the 9/11 guidance is but a window into what's happening to the K-12 curriculum more broadly?

This is a huge problem for American education and, more importantly, for America, if our education leaders are abdicating their responsibility to forge tomorrow's citizens with a copious understanding of history and civics, a well-honed capacity to distinguish right from wrong, clear-headedness about America's founding principles and why these appeal to millions but are hated by others, and a hearty appreciation for heroes (and the capacity to distinguish them from villains).

Fortunately, there are plenty of competent, patriotic educators now doing right by their students with scant heed to the nonsense emitted by their organizations. They know their stuff, care deeply for their country and are both serious and capable when it comes to forging children into knowledgeable citizens.

But what about the profession's leaders? Those who teach tomorrow's teachers? And those whose materials actually get used by practitioners who are not up to the task of developing their own?

We at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation set out to fill a small portion of this huge void. We did this with specific reference to September 11, but the resulting report has curricular implications that go well beyond that anniversary.

Entitled "September 11: What Our Children Need to Know," it can be found-newly posted on our website-by surfing to www.edexcellence.net. Its centerpiece is 23 short essays by a distinguished array of Americans, including educators, historians, political scientists and policy analysts. Some are Democrats, some Republicans. Some have a national perspective, some a state purview, some a local focus. We sought a range of perspectives but did not seek people who would repeat the conventional wisdom, who would psychologize the topic or whose reverence for tolerance dwarfs their appreciation of other compelling civic values. Above all, we sought people who take history and civics seriously, who take America seriously. They all responded to this question: "What civic lessons are the most imperative for U.S. K-12 teachers to teach their pupils, as the 'anniversary' of the September 11th attacks draws near, about the United States and what it means to be an American?"

Their advice ranges widely, as you will see, but most of it focuses on the solemn responsibility of schools and educators to help our children learn their nation's history, how precious and hard-fought our liberty is, what it's like in countries that don't share our freedoms, how to appreciate heroism and human excellence, and how to conduct themselves well as young Americans.

Besides expert essays and an introduction, the new Fordham report provides an extensive reference bibliography for educators seeking to learn more.

I hope you will examine it, perhaps even read it. We'd appreciate your comments. Even more, we'd appreciate your passing it along to teachers and others who might make use of it, on 9/11/02 to be sure, but also before and after. Nothing we publish is copyrighted so nobody needs permission to print, duplicate or forward it. Cross-link to it from your website. Make it your own.

"September 11: What Our Children Need to Know," Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, September 2002

Test scores in Los Angeles elementary schools are rising nicely and many view such gains as evidence that state and district reforms in math and reading are working. Turning its back on a hodgepodge of exploratory math programs, L.A.U.S.D. standardized its math program and now uses only two textbooks in the elementary grades, both of which stress fundamental skills. The latest Stanford 9 math results show that the percentages of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders scoring at or above the national average are all about 20 points higher than 4 years ago. Reading scores also rose for the fourth consecutive year in grades 2 through 5, and teachers and administrators say that the district's embrace of the Open Court reading program, a heavily scripted curriculum, may deserve some of the credit. The state's high quality academic standards and a statewide accountability system that ranks schools based on their test scores were also given some credit for the impressive results. "Math Scores Equal Success," by Solomon Moore and Erika Hayasaki, Los Angeles Times, August 22, 2002; "L.A. Unified Hails Reforms as Test Scores Rise for Fourth Year," by Duke Helfand, Solomon Moore, and Erika Hayasaki, Los Angeles Times, August 21, 2002

Almost half of New York City's 1200 principals have been on the job for less than three years, and principal retirements are expected to grow in the next few years. To help novice principals learn the ropes, the New York City school system offers an innovative 10-day summer seminar, seminars during the school year, and 40 veteran principals who have agreed to be available for calls and visits with new principals. This program is led by ace public-school educator Mary Butz. See "As Veterans Retire, New Principals Get Summer School," by Anemona Hartocolis, The New York Times, August 21, 2002.

It has often been noted that high-poverty schools tend to be staffed by less experienced teachers. In an online piece at WashingtonPost.com, the always-thoughtful Jay Mathews examines some of the reasons for this and some of the proposed solutions. In the end, he concludes that the key to keeping good teachers in high-poverty schools may be to put our best principals in our worst schools and persuade them to stay there. He suggests some ways to make this happen. "Teacher Experience Lags at Poorer Schools," by Jay Mathews, WashingtonPost.com, August 27, 2002.

The dropout rate for Massachusetts high school students in 2000-2001 stayed steady at 3.5 percent, possibly disappointing critics of the state's new high-stakes graduation exam (MCAS), who had predicted that making the test a graduation requirement would cause dropout rates to skyrocket. In Boston, the rate declined from 9.4 percent in 1999-2000 to 8.5 percent in 2000-2001. (That was the first year the test was taken by students who would have to pass it to graduate.) "State says MCAS produced no jump in dropout rate," by Michele Kurtz, The Boston Globe, August 27, 2002

The public school choice provision of the No Child Left Behind act isn't all that different from a federal choice program created two years ago, writes Alexander Russo in this month's Washington Monthly, and the lesson of that Clinton-era program is that providing viable transfer options for children in failing schools is far harder than it sounds. Expect the new program to be limited, Russo says, by lack of enthusiasm on the part of bureaucrats, who will have trouble finding space for children in non-failing schools, and by lack of interest on the part of parents. He considers three ways to improve options for kids in failing schools: work harder to find slots for them to transfer into and to let parents know about their right to transfer their kids; set up "mandatory choice" programs that force all parents to actively choose a school for their child; and increase the supply of better schools through measures like vouchers and charter schools. But he's not too hopeful. In the end, he concludes, we should just focus on fixing the schools these children already attend-as if that were an option that has been considered and rejected. "When School Choice Isn't" by Alexander Russo, The Washington Monthly, September 2002.

Committee for Economic Development
August 2002

In this 11-page brief, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) examines the No Child Left Behind act's (NCLB) key assessment and accountability provisions and issues surrounding their implementation. The report is a follow-up to a CED tract ("Measuring What Matters: Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning") that was released early last year-while NCLB was still being tossed around in Congress and standards and testing systems were more matters of state than federal policy. If NCLB is to improve student learning, the new report says, it must meet a trio of challenges (all pretty obvious yet critical): 1) test results must measure and report student achievement accurately; 2) educators must teach solid content, not just "teach to the test"; and 3) low-performing schools must be given extra assistance. Following an explanation of each challenge is a list of related issues to be monitored and questions that policymakers ought to ask when designing and reforming standards and accountability systems. Download this short, straightforward report in PDF form at www.ced.org/docs/report/report_education_update.pdf or order a copy for $15 plus $3 shipping from CED at 261 Madison Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10016.

Craig Jerald and Richard Ingersoll, Education Trust
August 2002

The Education Trust's Craig Jerald and the University of Pennsylvania's Richard Ingersoll teamed up to produce this fine, short (12-page), hard-hitting look at the problem of out-of-field teaching, based on recently issued federal data. It concludes that "The amount of out-of-field teaching in the nation and states remains unacceptably high, with classes in high-poverty and high-minority schools much more likely to be assigned to a teacher lacking minimal academic qualifications in the subject being taught&.[W]hile out-of-field teaching is far too pervasive at the high school level, the problem is even worse in middle schools, where very high rates of mis-assignment suggest a staggering disregard for whether teachers have the minimal academic foundation necessary to teach classes in core academic subject areas." Worse, the study finds "no progress" in solving this problem between 1993 and 2000. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that it's not mostly a consequence of teacher shortages. Rather, as Ingersoll has written elsewhere, "the solution to a big chunk of this problem is in the hands of state officials and local administrators-right now." The data are sobering. For example, in high-poverty/minority middle schools, about half of the core academic classes are taught by people who did not even earn an academic "minor" (much less a major) in those subjects. (This is also true of nearly two-fifths of low-poverty/minority middle schools.) Moreover, the numbers show wide variation by state. In Minnesota, fewer than 10 percent of core secondary classes are taught by teachers with neither majors nor minors in those fields; In Louisiana, Delaware, New Mexico and Tennessee, however, that's the case with more than 35% of secondary classes. Even in high-spending Connecticut and Alaska, it's nearly 30%. Small wonder a bunch of states are nervous about the new federal requirement that every teacher be "highly qualified" a few years hence! You can download your very own copy (in PDF format) at http://www.edtrust.org/main/documents/AllTalk.pdf.

Education Writers Association
June 2002

"Must an effective principal be a superhero?" asks this special report by the Education Writers Association. Until recently, principals mainly supervised teachers, managed the building, and dealt with parents. Today, they are also being asked to develop visions of learning, build school cultures, and develop instructional programs conducive to learning for all. Increasingly, they must be able to handle budgets, personnel, politics, and public relations for their schools, as more authority is devolved to them and they become more accountable for academic results. Does this add up to more than an ordinary human can reasonably manage? This report argues that the era of the effective principal as a "larger than life maverick" is over. Today, the authors write, "The truly effective principal is the first among equals, a team builder, a leader of leaders who encourages others to take responsibility for what happens in the school." As many as 40 percent of all principals are expected to retire in the next decade. Traditionally, principals have emerged through the teaching ranks, yet more teachers are turning their backs on administrative positions. Why take on the responsibilities of a 24/7 job for a small bump in pay? An added obstacle is the woeful preparation provided those who do seek to become school leaders. According to Harvard's Richard Elmore, who is quoted extensively in this report, "The content and institutional structure of existing training programs are fundamentally unsuited for the jobs we are asking [principals to take]." In Elmore's view, we are preparing a generation of "unqualified and credentialed" principals, when we need something drastically different. To check this report out for yourself go to www.ewa.org.

John Wenders, Idahoans for Tax Reform
August 2002

Idahoans for Tax Reform commissioned John Wenders, emeritus professor of economics at the University of Idaho, to examine that state's teacher pay in national context. It certainly makes for lively reading and may be worth your while for its deft unpacking of the non-market (and highly political) means by which public-school teaching salaries are presently set. Wenders also takes a few swats at the certification process. His bottom line: measured in ways that he thinks are most accurate, Idaho is doing a better job of compensating its teachers than one might gather from a simple examination of averages. (So is the nation.) Though one tends to expect such a conclusion from "tax reform" groups, Wenders's analysis is clear, plainspoken and perhaps worth a look. You can find this short (22-page) paper in PDF form at http://www.idtaxreform.com/PDFs/Teacher%20Comp%20Wenders.pdf.

Mary Soliday
September 2002

Mary Soliday is a professor of English at C.C.N.Y. and favors open admissions. She has delivered herself of a 220-page book that provides what might be termed a "progressive" view of remediation in higher education, namely that it's part of a selfish plot by colleges to meet their own needs for money, students, challenges to their admissions standards, etc. and is not, in her opinion, something done on behalf of students' needs. Besides being tendentious, the book is full of literary and pedagogical jargon. You probably want no part of it but, if you do, the ISBN is 0822941864, the University of Pittsburgh Press is culpable, and more information can be had at http://www.pitt.edu/~press/2002/Soliday.html.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
August 2002

The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) has released a new report on teacher retention based on data analyzed by the very busy Richard Ingersoll. NCTAF complains that the conventional wisdom holds that we don't have enough teachers, or enough good teachers, while the real problem is a staggering teacher turnover and attrition rate. The main reasons teachers give for leaving their jobs are poor working conditions (in high-poverty schools) and low salaries (in low-poverty schools). To tame attrition rates, NCTAF proposes a three-part strategy: 1) downsize and reorganize schools into smaller learning communities focused on achieving clear instructional objectives, 2) ensure that all teacher preparation programs meet high standards, and 3) establish mentoring programs and rewarding career paths for accomplished teachers. While reorganizing schools so that they better support teaching and learning is a no-brainer, downsizing schools is a peculiar recommendation, given that Ingersoll's data show that turnover is a bit higher in small public schools (16.4 percent) than in large ones (14.5 percent) and that it's much higher in small private schools (21.8 percent) than in large ones (13.5 percent). Advocating more teacher preparation has long been NCTAF's bread and butter, and we are pleased to see that the organization now favors "an end to the debate over 'alternative' vs. 'traditional' teacher preparation," stressing the importance of "ensuring that all teacher preparation programs-alternative and traditional-set and meet high standards." NCTAF argues that teachers hired through certain kinds of alternative certification programs leave teaching at higher rates, which may be true, but begs the question of what degree of teacher turnover might be acceptable, even desirable. It is notoriously difficult to identify effective teachers before they set foot in a classroom; if some of the turnover lamented in the report is made up of individuals who were not cut out for teaching, then this attrition is not a bad thing. And if outstanding individuals who make fine teachers want to spend only part of their working lives in the classroom, this may not be so bad either. Many private schools succeed with a core group of experienced teachers constantly mentoring a continuous stream of bright, energetic younger instructors. It may be necessary to dig deeper into the turnover statistics-19.7 percent a year for private school teachers, 12.9 percent a year for teachers in low-poverty public schools, and 15.7 percent a year for teachers in public schools overall-to determine which parts of the turnover are the real problem. This report is available at http://www.nctaf.org/whatsnew/index.html.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
August 2002

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently published this 37-pager on vouchers after the Zelman (Cleveland) decision. It's in two parts. The first part is a "joint statement by leading law professors" summarizing the Supreme Court's decision and explaining the next rounds of Constitutional debate on vouchers (primarily arising from state constitutional provisions). It's a balanced, nonpartisan effort-the authors include lawyers from both sides of the issue-and helpful in understanding the present state of constitutional play. The authors stress that the Supreme Court applied three criteria to the Cleveland program in determining whether it provided "true private choice" (as opposed to some sort of state aid to religious institutions): "The program was neutral toward religion; any monies flowing to religious schools flowed through the decisions of individuals rather than as direct payments from the state; and the program offered parents genuine secular options for their children's schooling." Perhaps the most interesting section of this first paper is its brief discussion of upcoming clashes between state constitutional restrictions ("Blaine amendments") and federal constitutional rights: "On the one hand is the commitment to treating religious persons, activities and organizations no worse than others that are similarly situated in terms of their access to government funds. On the other hand is a commitment to allowing the government some discretion in how it spends its resources to provide educational opportunities for children, and a commitment to states' rights-in this case, discretion for a state to separate church and state more strictly than the federal Constitution requires." The second part, "The Next Chapter in Educational Policy," is comprised of competing policy papers by Harvard's prolific Paul Peterson and Stanford's Martin Conroy. These do a good job of recapitulating pro-con arguments about the desirability of vouchers from the standpoint of education policy. Peterson urges citywide voucher pilot programs, arguing that a proper test of the idea is still needed; Carnoy contends that vouchers haven't yet proven their effectiveness. Overall, a worthy 37 pages. You can find a PDF version on the web at http://pewforum.org/issues/files/VoucherPackage.pdf.