The Education Gadfly Weekly

Partnership for 21st Century Skills
August 2003

This short report from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills outlines that organization's vision for changing education to meet society's needs today and in the future. The Partnership is comprised of firms such as Apple, Dell, and Microsoft, so it's no surprise that its recommendations emphasize technology and advocate tailoring curricula so that students will be prepared to encounter spreadsheets, Palm Pilots, and the internet. The group also includes the NEA, so it's even less surprising that it rehashes old arguments for student-centered learning and curricula heavy on teaching "understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of ethnic, cultural, religious, and personal differences." Yet despite self-serving pleas from computer companies and the usual fare from the union, the report has some merit. It recognizes the importance of standards and accountability, of an education strong on basic skills (particularly civics and financial literacy), of teaching children personal responsibility, and of the need for teachers to acquire a "solid foundation in core subjects" (though in schools of education). To learn more about the 21st Century Project, see www.21stcenturyskills.org or download this report at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf.

William G. Ouchi, Simon and Schuster
September 2003

UCLA management professor William G. Ouchi has written an important book. Though dressed up as a "how to do it" handbook, it's the result of a careful study of six big-city school districts (five U.S., one Canadian) to determine which ones work best and why. After extensive analysis, he has distilled the essential elements of district-level success into "seven keys." To wit: Every principal is an entrepreneur. Every school controls its own budget. Everyone is accountable for student performance and for budgets. Everyone delegates authority to those below. There is a burning focus on student achievement. Every school is a community of learners. And families have real choices among a variety of unique schools. The rest of the book explains the seven keys in depth, suggests how he reached these conclusions, and what "you" can do with them to "improve your school." A most insightful and important piece of work that holds out real hope for urban school reform at the system level. But, of course, the changes implied by Ouchi's seven keys would, for many communities, be wrenching and politically difficult. The ISBN is 0743246306, the publisher is Simon & Schuster and you can get more information at http://www.simonsays.com/book/default_book.cfm?isbn=0743246306&areaid=33.

Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, Phi Delta Kappan and the Gallup Organization
August 20, 2003

Yesterday, Phi Delta Kappa and the Gallup Organization released the 35th edition of their annual poll. It offers some interesting data, including:

" Only a quarter of the public (and 22 percent of public-school parents) considers itself well informed about the No Child Left Behind act. And fewer than one in five has a favorable impression of it. (An assertion that some Republicans, including House Education and the Workforce Committee chairman John Boehner, have disputed, calling the poll's questions about and descriptions of NCLB biased.)

" In Gallup's words, "the public shows little support for the strategies that are an integral part of NCLB as it is being implemented." For example, just 15 percent of Americans think the federal government should "have the greatest influence in deciding what is taught in the public schools here" and about the same number favor gauging school performance based on student achievement in relation to a fixed standard. (Most prefer a "value added" approach.)

" On the other hand, 45 percent of those surveyed would like tutoring for a failing child to be provided by "an outside agency you would select from a state-approved list" versus "tutoring provided by teachers in child's school."

" Eighty percent of respondents are concerned (and half of these are concerned "a great deal") that NCLB's and states' emphases "on testing for English and math only to judge a school's performance will mean less emphasis on art, music, history, and other subjects."

" Not many people (16 percent, the lowest in 3 years) believe that the "achievement gap between white students and black and Hispanic students [is] mostly related to the quality of schooling received." Eighty percent attribute to "other factors" such as home and neighborhood. Yet 90 percent believe it's important to close these achievement gaps.

" Gallup has asked about vouchers in various ways over the years. In the most negative phrasing of the question, responses favoring vouchers this year were 38 percent - down from last year but up from 2001. On the other hand, a newly phrased question, citing the Supreme Court's Zelman decision and asking "do you favor or oppose your state making such vouchers available" elicited 42 percent in favor - including 46 percent of public-school parents. On a question asking people whether they think allowing children to move to private schools using vouchers would improve those children's academic achievement, 54 percent say yes. And on a question asking parents what they would do if their school-age child were given a full-tuition voucher, just 39 percent of public-school parents say they would send that child to a public school. Thirty-eight percent would opt for a church-related private school and 21 percent for another kind of private school.

You will most likely want to see the entire Gallup report, which you can find on the web at http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0309pol.pdf.

"Secretary Paige issues statement on Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll," press release from Department of Education, August 20, 2003

Keith Gayler, Naomi Chudowsky, Nancy Kober, and Madlene Hamilton, Center on Education Policy
August 2003

Jack Jennings's Center on Education Policy is the source of this 137-page study of state exit tests, the second annual such. Much useful data here, including charts showing the characteristics of various state high-school exit test regimens and 50 pages of state profiles that say to what the test covers, when it's given, when its "stakes" take effect (and in what form), what options are available for students (including waivers, alternatives to testing, etc.) Additional policy analyses lead to four main findings: (1) Though states are "forging ahead with these tests," they are also fiddling with content, levels of difficulty, options, and timing. "While several states have revised or delayed their exit exam requirements in response to public opposition, high failure rates, and concerns about negative effects of tests on minority, poor, and special needs students, most of the adjustments made have affected small numbers of students or bought states time. . . . The debates over these changes show how complicated it is to strike a balance that addresses legitimate concerns about the exams without losing their rigor." (2) NCLB is "influencing the performance goals, content, and timetables of state exit exam systems. Most states with current or planned exit exams intend to use these exams to comply with the Act's high school testing mandates, but most must modify their testing systems to do so." (3) "Exit exams appear to encourage school districts to cover more of the content in state standards, better align curriculum with state standards, and add remedial and other special courses for students at risk of failing." (4) "The current costs of implementing an exit exam policy are substantial. . . . States have made little provision for the 'hidden' costs . . . such as . . . teacher professional development and prevention programs for students at risk of failing." A solid, timely, interesting report and valuable resource. You can find it on the web at http://www.cep-dc.org/highschoolexit/1/exitexam4.pdf

"High school exit exams are here to stay," by Ben Feller, Detroit News, August 14 2003

Jay Greene and Marcus Winters, Manhattan Institute
August 2003

The unquenchable Jay Greene is back with a new study on the effect that vouchers, and the threat of competition from vouchers, have on Florida's public schools. The results are staggering. Voucher-eligible schools (schools that have received at least two Fs on the Florida state assessment in four years, making students eligible for state-funded "opportunity scholarships," or vouchers) improved by a statistically significant 9.3 scale score points more than gains made by other Florida public schools between 2001-02 and 2002-03. The gain was similar for schools that have received one failing grade ("voucher-threatened" schools): 6.7 scale score points more than other schools. But schools that are only in danger of receiving their first F, or are chronic D-performers - in other words, schools not immediately threatened by vouchers - posted statistically insignificant gains, while schools that were formerly threatened by vouchers actually lost ground compared to others. Greene and Winters also tested whether it was actual competition or the threat of competition that produced gains, i.e. what some have termed the "stigma" of being labeled failing. They conclude that it is actual vouchers and not mere stigma that produce the observed effect. Check it out at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm.

"Report: vouchers have a positive effect on schools," by Nancy Cook Lauer, Tallahassee Democrat, August 20, 2003

With schools re-opening, daily attacks in the middle east, and the second anniversary of 9/11 hard upon us, teachers can expect another round of nonsense from experts who think it's more important to boost children's self-esteem and tolerance than to instruct them in the history of their own and other countries, the wellsprings of citizenship, and the price of defending freedom.

Worse, the bad advice from such quarters as the National Council for the Social Studies, National Education Association, and National Association of School Psychologists, telling educators what to teach about September 11 (and terrorism and Iraq), is only the tip of the crumbling mountain known as "social studies." It begins in the early grades with a dreary curriculum called "expanding environments" that acquaints children with "community helpers" (e.g., "your friendly postal service worker") but neglects to introduce them to the great tales of patriotism and treachery that make history so gripping. It continues in middle school with a multicultural pi??ata from which the world's foods, holidays, and quaint customs shower down on youngsters who possess no foundation in basic chronology or geography. It finishes in high school with a quick dash through U.S. history and perhaps a civics course that nowadays may be replaced by semi-politicized volunteer work called "service learning."

No wonder our kids cannot find Baghdad or Jerusalem on a map, have little or know understanding of how today's world came to be the way it is, and are clueless about why - and even when - the Civil War was fought. Social studies is a deeply boring, intellectually muddled, and politically correct mess, taught by people who themselves have not studied much history and ruled by statewide academic standards that often consist of present-minded "themes" and pop-psych "strands" but little serious academic content.

For a long time, this field's decline resembled that of the Roman Empire: protracted, inexorable and sad, but not something one could do much about, even as evidence mounted that youngsters were emerging from high school with scant knowledge of history, geography, civics or economics. Evidence also mounted that the movers and shapers within social studies had little respect for Western civilization; a disposition to view America as a problem for mankind rather than its best hope; a tendency to pooh-pooh history's factual highlights as "privileging" elites; a tendency to view geography in terms of despoiling the rain forest rather than locating Baghdad on a map; a notion of "civics" that stresses political activism rather than understanding how laws are made and why they matter; and anxiety that studying economics might unfairly advantage the free-market version.

So intractable and hopeless was the social studies problem that serious education reformers tended to forget about it and hope this empire would quietly decline until it fell. Other issues - phonics, testing, vouchers, etc. - absorbed people's attention.

Then came the 9/11 attacks (and their counterparts from Yemen to Nairobi to Riyadh) and an immediate dilemma: what to teach children about these horrific events. The establishment answer was teach them to feel good about themselves, forgive their trespassers, not blame the perpetrators (lest this foster hatred or prejudice), laud diversity, and consider the likelihood that America was itself responsible for the evil visited upon it.

Teachers were not urged to explain why bad people and tyrannical regimes abhor freedom; why America is repugnant to those who would enslave minds, subjugate women, and kill people different from themselves; why the United States is worth defending; and how our forebears responded to previous attacks. Avoid teaching such things. They are jingoistic, pre-modern, dogmatic, wrong. So signaled the mandarins of social studies.

And thus they also showed that their field was no harmless, crumbling wreck but a mischievous force within our schools. In 2003, we urgently need our children to learn what it means to be American, to understand the world they inhabit and the conflicts that rock it, and to grasp the differences between democracy and totalitarianism and between free and doctrinaire societies. Yet the subject we rely on to teach youngsters such things has actually become a hindrance to their learning.

What to do? Exposure may help. Sunlight usually does. One source is test results and their continuing evidence of what U.S. students do and don't know. Yet many states don't even include social studies in their testing programs, few test history per se, and practically nowhere do the results count. Although the National Assessment of Educational Progress intermittently probes history and civics, its results are not reported for states or districts and don't count in the No Child Left Behind act (which focuses on reading and math).

If it's true that "what gets tested is what gets taught," then testing students' knowledge of U.S. history (and geography, civics, etc.) would provide a boost to teaching and learning these subjects. Making such scores count for promotion and graduation - and school and state "accountability" - would help more. It would also oblige governors, superintendents, and journalists to focus on social studies rather than entrusting this field to its mandarins.

Yes, testing would help. More than that, however, we need to bring the basics back into social studies. Start with a few simple curricular tenets: That democracy is the worthiest form of human government and that we cannot take its survival for granted. Rather, it depends on our transmitting to each new generation the political vision of liberty and equality that unites us as Americans - and a deep loyalty to the political institutions our founders established to fulfill that vision.

Jefferson prescribed education for all citizens "to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom." This is truer today then ever.

Welcome back to school, boys and girls.

Back to Basics: Reclaiming Social Studies

A new Ohio law removes the state's Department of Education from the charter school authorizing business and allows school districts, county education service centers, public universities AND qualified nonprofits to sponsor charter schools in the Buckeye State. Moreover, because nearly all of Ohio's existing charters were sponsored by the state, the new law means they need new sponsors within two years or will become orphans. To assist with the training and development of competent new charter sponsors, the legislature also earmarked some funds. The new Ohio Charter School Sponsor Institute is newly launched by the Ohio Foundation for School Choice and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, joined by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers and supported by some of those state dollars and matching grants from the Walton Family Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its goal: to recruit, prepare and help deploy about ten high-quality charter-school sponsors for Ohio over a two-year period. Though the changes ushered in by the new law bring risks - e.g. allowing a variety of organizations with varying motives to sponsor charter schools - they also create an unprecedented opportunity for boldly innovating with this unconventional way of delivering public education.

Institute to prepare new sponsors for Ohio charter schools, press release, August 13, 2003

Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade?, Louann Bierlein Palmer and Rebecca Gau, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Please note, this is not our April's Fools edition. Officials in Beaufort County, South Carolina have decided to institutionalize grade inflation by mandating that no student receive less than a 62 (out of 100) in the first semester of any class, so that students will not be prevented from passing the class if they improve in the second semester. "What we're trying to do is look at how can we send the message to students that we want them, number one, to be successful," deputy superintendent Edna Crews said. We doubt this method will send precisely that message.

"Beaufort County district limits poor grades," Charleston Post and Courier, August 18, 2003

At a time of budget crunching, why would teacher unions, legislators, and state education officials turn down free money? Yet under pressure from these groups, that is exactly what Michigan's governor is about to do. Governor Jennifer Granholm has vowed to veto a bill that would enable a local Detroit businessman to donate $200 million to build 15 new charter schools in the Motor City. Last week, after that measure squeaked through the state Senate on a party-line vote, Granholm announced that she was holding out for "more comprehensive" charter legislation - translated, a bill that would limit both the total number of charter schools operating in Michigan and the number that can be sponsored by universities and community colleges.

"Debate over adding 15 charter schools isn't a surprise," by Chris Christoff, Detroit Free Press, August 18, 2003

"Senate OKs charter schools," by Gary Heinlein and Mark Hornbeck, Detroit News, August 14, 2003

Last fall, 52 percent of Florida voters supported a constitutional amendment that would cap class sizes in public schools throughout the state. Now, given the severe budget crunch and high cost of class-size reduction - more than $1 billion this year and next - Florida's State Board of Education has voted to join Governor Jeb Bush in an effort to roll back part of the amendment. Though the Board supports smaller classes in kindergarten through third grade, its members believe that everything beyond that is money better spent on other reforms. As we've long said, smaller classes are nowhere near as important to improving student achievement as quality teachers - and may actually have the perverse effect of putting more incompetent teachers in front of classrooms by forcing districts to hire from deeper into the talent barrel. In any case, it is clear that such class-size reduction amendments are no quick - or cheap - fix for struggling schools.

"State board seeks repeal of class-size amendment," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, August 20, 2003

"Let's rethink the class size amendment," by Dom Armentano, Foxnews.com, August 6, 2003

The New York Times recently published a two-part series on the newly discovered problem of "push-outs" in the New York City public schools. The articles charged that principals were pushing out low-performing students in order to protect their school's performance scores and attendance rates. This practice, the reporters suggested, was the result of high-stakes testing mandated by the state and the federal government. Administrators were reacting to the testing pressure by dumping low-performing and disruptive students into the streets or into ineffective GED programs.

Since the two articles appeared, there has been a follow-up editorial in the Washington Times, as well as op-ed articles in New York City tabloids. The city chancellor, Joel Klein, has promised to put a halt to the practice of "pushing" kids out.

The trouble with this story is that its logic is wrong. The practice of pushing low-performing and disruptive students out is not new. Teachers and principals know that it has been occurring for many years. The mega-high schools, the ones with enrollments of 3,000 or 4,000 kids, have a long history of dumping recalcitrant students into alternative schools or onto the streets. In confidence, principals will say that they do this in order to protect the learning environment for the students who come to class and want to learn. Also in confidence, they will tell you that the kids who were transferred elsewhere (anywhere) were not coming to school, and when they did show up, they hung out in the hallways and didn't go to class, and if they did go to class, they prevented others from learning.

The bottom line in New York City is that the four-year graduation rate has been consistent for at least the past decade at about 50 percent. Sometimes it is up a few points, sometimes it is down a few, but that's what it is. There is no new data to support the Times' claim that the problem of pushouts has suddenly escalated to new heights.

Now, a 50 percent graduation rate is nothing to boast about. In fact, it is abysmal. But the point of the Times' series was not to draw attention to this longstanding and deplorable situation. It was to blame the No Child Left Behind act and testing in general for the problem of push-outs. It seems that testing has now become the all-purpose punching bag in education, which will now take the blame for all the ills of the schools. Whatever goes wrong, even if it went wrong many years ago, can be attributed to the demands of NCLB. If only we could get rid of tests, then all would be well.

Diane Ravitch, research professor of education at New York University and the Brown chair in education at the Brookings Institution, is a trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Jay Greene and Marcus Winters, Manhattan Institute
August 2003

The unquenchable Jay Greene is back with a new study on the effect that vouchers, and the threat of competition from vouchers, have on Florida's public schools. The results are staggering. Voucher-eligible schools (schools that have received at least two Fs on the Florida state assessment in four years, making students eligible for state-funded "opportunity scholarships," or vouchers) improved by a statistically significant 9.3 scale score points more than gains made by other Florida public schools between 2001-02 and 2002-03. The gain was similar for schools that have received one failing grade ("voucher-threatened" schools): 6.7 scale score points more than other schools. But schools that are only in danger of receiving their first F, or are chronic D-performers - in other words, schools not immediately threatened by vouchers - posted statistically insignificant gains, while schools that were formerly threatened by vouchers actually lost ground compared to others. Greene and Winters also tested whether it was actual competition or the threat of competition that produced gains, i.e. what some have termed the "stigma" of being labeled failing. They conclude that it is actual vouchers and not mere stigma that produce the observed effect. Check it out at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm.

"Report: vouchers have a positive effect on schools," by Nancy Cook Lauer, Tallahassee Democrat, August 20, 2003

Keith Gayler, Naomi Chudowsky, Nancy Kober, and Madlene Hamilton, Center on Education Policy
August 2003

Jack Jennings's Center on Education Policy is the source of this 137-page study of state exit tests, the second annual such. Much useful data here, including charts showing the characteristics of various state high-school exit test regimens and 50 pages of state profiles that say to what the test covers, when it's given, when its "stakes" take effect (and in what form), what options are available for students (including waivers, alternatives to testing, etc.) Additional policy analyses lead to four main findings: (1) Though states are "forging ahead with these tests," they are also fiddling with content, levels of difficulty, options, and timing. "While several states have revised or delayed their exit exam requirements in response to public opposition, high failure rates, and concerns about negative effects of tests on minority, poor, and special needs students, most of the adjustments made have affected small numbers of students or bought states time. . . . The debates over these changes show how complicated it is to strike a balance that addresses legitimate concerns about the exams without losing their rigor." (2) NCLB is "influencing the performance goals, content, and timetables of state exit exam systems. Most states with current or planned exit exams intend to use these exams to comply with the Act's high school testing mandates, but most must modify their testing systems to do so." (3) "Exit exams appear to encourage school districts to cover more of the content in state standards, better align curriculum with state standards, and add remedial and other special courses for students at risk of failing." (4) "The current costs of implementing an exit exam policy are substantial. . . . States have made little provision for the 'hidden' costs . . . such as . . . teacher professional development and prevention programs for students at risk of failing." A solid, timely, interesting report and valuable resource. You can find it on the web at http://www.cep-dc.org/highschoolexit/1/exitexam4.pdf

"High school exit exams are here to stay," by Ben Feller, Detroit News, August 14 2003

Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, Phi Delta Kappan and the Gallup Organization
August 20, 2003

Yesterday, Phi Delta Kappa and the Gallup Organization released the 35th edition of their annual poll. It offers some interesting data, including:

" Only a quarter of the public (and 22 percent of public-school parents) considers itself well informed about the No Child Left Behind act. And fewer than one in five has a favorable impression of it. (An assertion that some Republicans, including House Education and the Workforce Committee chairman John Boehner, have disputed, calling the poll's questions about and descriptions of NCLB biased.)

" In Gallup's words, "the public shows little support for the strategies that are an integral part of NCLB as it is being implemented." For example, just 15 percent of Americans think the federal government should "have the greatest influence in deciding what is taught in the public schools here" and about the same number favor gauging school performance based on student achievement in relation to a fixed standard. (Most prefer a "value added" approach.)

" On the other hand, 45 percent of those surveyed would like tutoring for a failing child to be provided by "an outside agency you would select from a state-approved list" versus "tutoring provided by teachers in child's school."

" Eighty percent of respondents are concerned (and half of these are concerned "a great deal") that NCLB's and states' emphases "on testing for English and math only to judge a school's performance will mean less emphasis on art, music, history, and other subjects."

" Not many people (16 percent, the lowest in 3 years) believe that the "achievement gap between white students and black and Hispanic students [is] mostly related to the quality of schooling received." Eighty percent attribute to "other factors" such as home and neighborhood. Yet 90 percent believe it's important to close these achievement gaps.

" Gallup has asked about vouchers in various ways over the years. In the most negative phrasing of the question, responses favoring vouchers this year were 38 percent - down from last year but up from 2001. On the other hand, a newly phrased question, citing the Supreme Court's Zelman decision and asking "do you favor or oppose your state making such vouchers available" elicited 42 percent in favor - including 46 percent of public-school parents. On a question asking people whether they think allowing children to move to private schools using vouchers would improve those children's academic achievement, 54 percent say yes. And on a question asking parents what they would do if their school-age child were given a full-tuition voucher, just 39 percent of public-school parents say they would send that child to a public school. Thirty-eight percent would opt for a church-related private school and 21 percent for another kind of private school.

You will most likely want to see the entire Gallup report, which you can find on the web at http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0309pol.pdf.

"Secretary Paige issues statement on Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll," press release from Department of Education, August 20, 2003

Partnership for 21st Century Skills
August 2003

This short report from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills outlines that organization's vision for changing education to meet society's needs today and in the future. The Partnership is comprised of firms such as Apple, Dell, and Microsoft, so it's no surprise that its recommendations emphasize technology and advocate tailoring curricula so that students will be prepared to encounter spreadsheets, Palm Pilots, and the internet. The group also includes the NEA, so it's even less surprising that it rehashes old arguments for student-centered learning and curricula heavy on teaching "understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of ethnic, cultural, religious, and personal differences." Yet despite self-serving pleas from computer companies and the usual fare from the union, the report has some merit. It recognizes the importance of standards and accountability, of an education strong on basic skills (particularly civics and financial literacy), of teaching children personal responsibility, and of the need for teachers to acquire a "solid foundation in core subjects" (though in schools of education). To learn more about the 21st Century Project, see www.21stcenturyskills.org or download this report at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf.

William G. Ouchi, Simon and Schuster
September 2003

UCLA management professor William G. Ouchi has written an important book. Though dressed up as a "how to do it" handbook, it's the result of a careful study of six big-city school districts (five U.S., one Canadian) to determine which ones work best and why. After extensive analysis, he has distilled the essential elements of district-level success into "seven keys." To wit: Every principal is an entrepreneur. Every school controls its own budget. Everyone is accountable for student performance and for budgets. Everyone delegates authority to those below. There is a burning focus on student achievement. Every school is a community of learners. And families have real choices among a variety of unique schools. The rest of the book explains the seven keys in depth, suggests how he reached these conclusions, and what "you" can do with them to "improve your school." A most insightful and important piece of work that holds out real hope for urban school reform at the system level. But, of course, the changes implied by Ouchi's seven keys would, for many communities, be wrenching and politically difficult. The ISBN is 0743246306, the publisher is Simon & Schuster and you can get more information at http://www.simonsays.com/book/default_book.cfm?isbn=0743246306&areaid=33.