The Education Gadfly Weekly

Richard Fry, Pew Hispanic Center
June 2003

A new report on Hispanic graduation rates from the Pew Hispanic Center puts a new spin on an old set of faulty data. The faulty data: a Census survey purporting to show relatively low dropout rates (about 15 percent) among Hispanic youngsters. The spin: immigrants who dropped out before they came to the U.S. have been wrongly counted as dropouts so even that low rate is inflated. Richard Fry, the report's author, argues that, because of this over-reporting, U.S. public schools have been blamed more than they should be for Hispanic dropouts. Unfortunately, removing immigrants from the data set doesn't even come close to rescuing the Census survey from a number of more serious problems. For example, it doesn't include prisons, where a disproportionate number of dropouts reside. Also, it report appears to count GED recipients as high school graduates. More reliable ways of calculating the graduation rate, such as using enrollment data (which would only include students enrolled in U.S. public schools), consistently yield overall dropout rates around 30 percent, and even higher rates for minorities like Hispanics. In this report, Fry simply dismisses such calculations without any real basis. You can read it at http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/high%20school%20dropout%20report--final.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education
May 2003

The Department of Education answers oft-asked questions and provides a summary of NCLB's main provisions in this guide for parents. After an introduction to what NCLB means for parents and children, the report responds to questions in the areas of accountability, testing, reading, teacher quality, charter schools, and supplemental educational services. An appendix directs parents to websites with more information on specific issues such as accountability and programs such as Reading First. This guide can be downloaded at http://www.nclb.gov/next/parentsguide.pdf. But for a more comprehensive, user-friendlier guide [previously reviewed in Gadfly at http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=15#269], you might want to get a $15 copy of No Child Left Behind: What's In It for Parents from http://www.plassociates.org/publications.html#nclb.

James Tooley and Pauline Dixon, Centre for British Teachers
May 2003

Newcastle professor James Tooley has been doing fascinating and important work in examining one of the least-understood sector of education in the world: low-cost private schools serving very poor children in third-world countries. [For his earlier report on the Philippines, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=36#520.] His latest report is based on field research in the slums of Hyderabad, India, a big city in which, amazingly, some, 61 percent of low-income students attend private schools. This is due to the widespread failure of government schools to provide a decent education and has, predictably, caused an explosion in the number of private schools despite official attitudes that range from disinterested neglect to overt hostility toward private education, as well as onerous government regulations. Tooley says that many of these schools are demonstrating remarkable success in educating students at an amazingly low cost--with essentially no public subsidy and with tuitions set at levels that all but the very poorest can afford. As for the stifling government regulations, school operators have found a very Indian solution: bribing officials to wink at them. You can find this very interesting report at http://www.cfbt.com/cfbt/web.nsf/97cae391....../FinalPipe.pdf.

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
2003

In 1995, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Program for Student Achievement began an experiment in standards-based reform that - unlike most other such - focused solely on the middle grades. This report details the planning, implementation, and evaluation of that effort in six districts, including brief mention of an evaluation of student achievement (using student NAEP and standardized test scores as the litmus test). Unfortunately, because "the foundation did not consider raising test scores to be a major objective in the design of the program," there is little discussion of the findings from the district evaluations. There are, however, vignettes from school and district leaders about the implementation challenges they faced, which may be interesting to school and district leaders now trying to implement No Child Left Behind and other standards-based reforms in middle schools. You can see the report for yourself at http://www.emcf.org/pdf/student_comprehensivereport.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics
June 2003

The latest reading results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), released last week, constitute a data trove to be mined for many purposes in the months ahead. I also see them as establishing the No Child Left Behind reading "baseline" in grades four and eight, i.e. marking the level from which our schools must boost their pupils if everyone is to become "proficient" in reading (as well as math) by 2014. And what these results show is that America has an ENORMOUS distance still to go. Granted, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) has a fairly ambitious view of what it means to be a "proficient" reader. A proficient fourth grade reader, accordingly to NAGB, "demonstrate(s) an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences." After four more years of schooling, says NAGB, a proficient eighth grade reader should also "be able to identify some of the devices authors use in composing text. For example, & students & should be able to give details and examples to support themes that they identify. They should be able & to interpret the actions, behaviors, and motives of characters&." States may expect less from their "proficient" readers. That's up to them. If they set lower standards, more of their pupils will meet them. But according to NAGB's standards, when tested in 2002, just 31 percent of U.S. fourth graders and 33 percent of eighth graders reached the proficient level. That means more than two thirds of our schoolchildren are reading below that level. And when we look at minority and low-income youngsters, we find perilously low rates of proficiency: for black students, 12 percent of fourth graders and 13 percent of eighth graders; for Hispanic children, 15 percent in both grades. As for pupils in Title I schools, just 15 percent of fourth graders and 14 percent of eighth graders were reading at (or above) the proficient level. These are mighty wide gaps to close - and arguably the biggest education challenge facing the nation. You can get these data and much more, including state-specific results (which vary greatly), from the NAEP reading report, which comes in various lengths and formats. Begin by surfing to http://www.nagb.org/or http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2002/, then selecting the version you want.

Last week the Washington Post ran a two-part series (by Justin Blum and Jay Mathews) on the state of D.C. charter schools. It's a good summary of how the schools are doing compared to traditional public schools (mixed) and the effect they're having on the D.C. school system (scant). The articles lead to reasonable conclusions: not all charters are stand-outs, but neither have they creamed the best students from the public schools, nor has the large shift of D.C. pupils into charters yet sparked the kind of change in the public school system that choice advocates had envisioned. Mathews and Blum refrain from drawing conclusions about whether the District charter movement has been good or bad overall. But the fact that the debate now centers around which schools are educating students well, rather than on how much more money should be funneled into a failing system, is certainly a victory for students.

"Quality uneven, despite popularity," by Justin Blum and Jay Mathews, Washington Post, June 19, 2003

"Staying the course, despite competition," by Justin Blum, Washington Post, June 20, 2003

Special ed reform is in the air. The House has passed and the Senate has introduced bills to overhaul the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The stated purpose of both versions is to make America's main program for educating disabled students better targeted, less litigious, less bureaucratic, more generously funded, and more precisely focused on educational achievement. These are unimpeachable goals. The key question is how do the pending bills stack up against their aspirations?

Prior to 1975, states and localities were under no federal compulsion to educate children with disabilities. Many students with physical or cognitive limitations were exempt from mandatory state schooling laws. In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was signed, guaranteeing disabled youngsters a "free and appropriate public education" in the "least restrictive environment." This federal mandate, and the modest amount of federal funding attached to it, opened school house doors to millions of students with disabilities who otherwise would have been left to their own (or their family's) devices to be educated, if at all. It was a major policy milestone; later renamed IDEA, it has become an integral part of the education landscape.

But it isn't perfect. Parents, advocates, policy makers, educators, and analysts all complain about various aspects of IDEA. They claim that it is under-funded, poorly targeted, overly adversarial, buried in paperwork, and insufficiently focused on results, to cite some of the most common complaints.

When the 1975 law was passed, Congress stipulated that Uncle Sam would contribute up to 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure (APPE) to states to ease the fiscal burden of providing special education services. Whereas federal appropriators treated 40 percent as a funding ceiling, and never have appropriated more than the current 19 percent, many advocates viewed 40 percent as a promise unkept, arguing that states should receive 40 percent of the annual APPE per special education student as a federal entitlement.

The House-passed bill (HR 1350) stops short of making IDEA funding an entitlement but does provide more money--a 245 percent increase, in fact, from $10.3 billion in 2004 to $25.2 billion in 2010. The formula is complex, especially its sundry "hold harmless" provisions, which include a stipulation that no state's grant be less than in the previous year. Up to 12 percent of each state's grant can be used for administrative, evaluative, and reform purposes at the state level, while the remaining 88 percent is earmarked for local public (and charter) schools. In the world of special ed funding, this qualifies as "simplification."

Both bills include provisions to focus special education funds and programs on the students that truly need them. This is important, since studies suggest that certain subpopulations--African American males and students with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia--are either over-diagnosed or misdiagnosed. Up to 15 percent of a state's new federal funding can be used for preventive measures, such as programs to enhance early reading skills. The bill bans the dubious practice of diagnosing learning disabilities based on gaps between students' IQ and achievement. Such changes should result in fewer non-disabled students being tagged for special education.

IDEA has long mandated that each child diagnosed with a disability that affects education must have his/her special ed services mapped out in an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The IEP is supposed to be a product of fruitful collaboration between the student's parents and educational and medical professionals. Although such cooperation often occurs, in a non-trivial minority of cases parents clash with professionals. If the parents have access to legal representation, then both sides gird for litigation and the matter proceeds ponderously and contentiously through the courts.

Enough parents have won legal judgments against school districts that failed to satisfy key provisions of IDEA that most states and localities now have exceedingly burdensome accountability systems to verify that all the Ts get crossed. Although parents see little value in such procedural "box-checking," and special ed teachers and administrators view it as a major distraction, top education officials and some courts insist on a procedural-compliance system for regulating special ed so they are shielded from adverse legal actions.

The pending bills contain changes that could make special education less litigious, less bureaucratic, and more results-oriented. They attempt to make the program user-friendlier for teachers and administrators and more customer-friendly for parents. To those ends, House and Senate both propose that the requirement for annual IEP updates be relaxed to one that mandates such a process every three years unless parents request annual adjustments. Minor changes in a child's IEP could be effected based on the mutual consent of parents and education officials. Disputes over the type and quality of special education services provided to a student, which previously invited legal proceedings, could first be referred to mediation and arbitration. States and districts are told to minimize procedural rules and paperwork, and the General Accounting Office is directed to evaluate their compliance. Importantly, changes made in IDEA make it consistent with the results-based accountability and teacher quality provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

From my perspective, neither House nor Senate proposal is a complete reform. Both bills contain language about residual procedural protections that could stop education officials from eliminating unnecessary paperwork. The achievement testing requirements are not sufficiently strong and specific to fully transform the IEP into a "performance IEP," as Bryan Hassel and I (and others) have recommended. There are no major school-choice provisions in the legislation (beyond those available through NCLB) to strengthen the hand of parents who are dissatisfied with their child's education experience. This last shortcoming is particularly disappointing in light of a recent study indicating that students with disabilities are well-served by Florida's McKay special ed voucher program.

Despite those reservations, however, the proposed changes would move special education towards more emphasis on teaching and learning and fewer litigation logjams and paperwork avalanches. Although it would be wonderful if lawmakers enhanced their reform proposals with stronger results-based accountability and parental choice provisions, they also should beware of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Our special education system will never be perfect in the eyes of all its "stakeholders." But it's vital for it to continue to get better in meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities. The pending reforms bring us some distance down that road.

For additional background on IDEA, see "Rethinking special education for a new century," Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, edited by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Andrew J. Rotherham, and Charles R. Hokanson, Jr., May 2001

Patrick Wolf is an assistant professor of public policy at the Graduate Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University.

In what may prove a classic case of unintended consequences, California school districts, in a supposed effort to raise standards, are launching "No-D" grading policies, which require students to earn a C or better to pass a course. Proponents maintain that "if the passing grade is set at C, that's where many students will aim their efforts." Critics respond that "a D means you're not working to the standards yet, but you may be trying to do the work," and add that if a D student "is trying his best" and still fails s/he might just give up the effort altogether. Notably absent from this debate is the effect such policies will have on already rampant grade inflation. Will setting C as the minimum passing grade encourage students to work harder, or will it simply encourage teachers to give Cs where they used to assign Ds? Given that ed schools urge their graduates to worry more about bruising Johnny's self-esteem than about making sure he knows how to read, write, and count, we'd predict the latter.

"No-D policy gains wider acceptance," by Jia-Rui Chong, Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2003

It happens that the Supreme Court's decision in two affirmative action cases came out just days after the release of the latest reading results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The latter show clearly that America still faces a wide education achievement gap between white and minority students. (See below for our take on the results.) We'll leave it to others to sniff out the various emanations and penumbras of the High Court's dual rulings. One point, however: Instead of focusing on postsecondary admission procedures, America would make far more consequential (and less controversial) gains for its minority students if we concentrated on closing those gaps in K-12 education. It's the discrepant achievement levels of our school children, not their college admissions rates, that comprise America's real education scandal. Justice O'Connor's opinion gives the country twenty-five years to close those gaps and erase the rationale for affirmative action. No Child Left Behind is less patient. So are we.

"Court upholds use of race in university admissions," by Joan Biskupic and Mary Beth Marklein, USA Today, June 23, 2003

"Supreme court quotas," editorial, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2003

Senator Lamar Alexander's excellent bill to create national academies to strengthen education in civics and history for both teachers and high school students has sailed through the Senate. [For Gadfly's earlier treatment of this bill, go to http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=15#258] The summer academies, to be run by the National Endowment for the Humanities, would help rebuild the depleted stock of civic and historical knowledge among U.S. students. This $100 million program would be on top of the $100 million already set aside by the Bush administration for its "We the People" initiative, which has similar goals. If all this comes to pass, the challenge for the Endowment will be to find enough worthy grantees and to keep these praiseworthy initiatives from falling into the clutches of the usual social-studies suspects.

"Senate votes to establish national academies to teach history, civics," by Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2003

Color us na??ve, but it seems like the stars may be aligning for a serious test of school vouchers in the District of Columbia. Tuesday, the House Government Reform Committee held hearings on a bill (H.R. 2556) that would provide private school tuition scholarships of up to $7,500 to low-income children in the nation's capital. Testifying in support were Secretary of Education Rod Paige, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, and Representative John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Even the Washington Post has come out in favor of a "federal school reform initiative that would provide ample support for a private tuition grant pilot program, an expanded flow of resources for traditional public schools and public charter schools, and a study component to evaluate student performance and the effect of competition in each of the three systems." Sounds good to us. As Dan Lips writes in National Review Online, these developments may just be the "tipping point" in the voucher wars, the place where the idea breaks into the mainstream in a big way. Government Reform chairman Dan Burton promises action on the proposal after the 4th of July legislative recess.

"The voucher initiative," editorial, Washington Post, June 24, 2003

"Tipping point for school choice?" by Dan Lips, National Review Online, June 24, 2003

"Paige testifies on school choice plan for District of Columbia," U.S. Department of Education press release, June 24, 2003

H.R. 2556

One of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's grand campaign promises was a pledge to reform bilingual education. Coupled with California's 1998 referendum that replaced bilingual education with English language immersion, it seemed that the end was nearing for an education approach that is, as Manhattan Institute fellow Tony Coles puts it, "one of the least successful educational policies in modern times." But this week, Bloomberg bowed to political pressure and introduced a meek reform proposal that, rather than living up to his promise of "total immersion for youngsters," merely "tinkers around the edges" of the existing bilingual ed program. Worst of all, this "reform" plan includes $20 million in new money that will simply be injected into the old, ineffective system, which as the editor-in-chief of the Spanish-language newspaper El Diario/La Prensa says, does not deal with "the real problem" - a fundamentally unsound approach to teaching English to foreign students. So, it seems that Bloomberg has gone the way of the education status quo - infuse more money into a dying system and hope for the best.

"In Spanish or English, double talk," by Joyce Purnick, New York Times, June 25, 2003

"Mike surrenders," by Tony Coles, New York Post, June 26, 2003

James Tooley and Pauline Dixon, Centre for British Teachers
May 2003

Newcastle professor James Tooley has been doing fascinating and important work in examining one of the least-understood sector of education in the world: low-cost private schools serving very poor children in third-world countries. [For his earlier report on the Philippines, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=36#520.] His latest report is based on field research in the slums of Hyderabad, India, a big city in which, amazingly, some, 61 percent of low-income students attend private schools. This is due to the widespread failure of government schools to provide a decent education and has, predictably, caused an explosion in the number of private schools despite official attitudes that range from disinterested neglect to overt hostility toward private education, as well as onerous government regulations. Tooley says that many of these schools are demonstrating remarkable success in educating students at an amazingly low cost--with essentially no public subsidy and with tuitions set at levels that all but the very poorest can afford. As for the stifling government regulations, school operators have found a very Indian solution: bribing officials to wink at them. You can find this very interesting report at http://www.cfbt.com/cfbt/web.nsf/97cae391....../FinalPipe.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics
June 2003

The latest reading results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), released last week, constitute a data trove to be mined for many purposes in the months ahead. I also see them as establishing the No Child Left Behind reading "baseline" in grades four and eight, i.e. marking the level from which our schools must boost their pupils if everyone is to become "proficient" in reading (as well as math) by 2014. And what these results show is that America has an ENORMOUS distance still to go. Granted, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) has a fairly ambitious view of what it means to be a "proficient" reader. A proficient fourth grade reader, accordingly to NAGB, "demonstrate(s) an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences." After four more years of schooling, says NAGB, a proficient eighth grade reader should also "be able to identify some of the devices authors use in composing text. For example, & students & should be able to give details and examples to support themes that they identify. They should be able & to interpret the actions, behaviors, and motives of characters&." States may expect less from their "proficient" readers. That's up to them. If they set lower standards, more of their pupils will meet them. But according to NAGB's standards, when tested in 2002, just 31 percent of U.S. fourth graders and 33 percent of eighth graders reached the proficient level. That means more than two thirds of our schoolchildren are reading below that level. And when we look at minority and low-income youngsters, we find perilously low rates of proficiency: for black students, 12 percent of fourth graders and 13 percent of eighth graders; for Hispanic children, 15 percent in both grades. As for pupils in Title I schools, just 15 percent of fourth graders and 14 percent of eighth graders were reading at (or above) the proficient level. These are mighty wide gaps to close - and arguably the biggest education challenge facing the nation. You can get these data and much more, including state-specific results (which vary greatly), from the NAEP reading report, which comes in various lengths and formats. Begin by surfing to http://www.nagb.org/or http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2002/, then selecting the version you want.

Richard Fry, Pew Hispanic Center
June 2003

A new report on Hispanic graduation rates from the Pew Hispanic Center puts a new spin on an old set of faulty data. The faulty data: a Census survey purporting to show relatively low dropout rates (about 15 percent) among Hispanic youngsters. The spin: immigrants who dropped out before they came to the U.S. have been wrongly counted as dropouts so even that low rate is inflated. Richard Fry, the report's author, argues that, because of this over-reporting, U.S. public schools have been blamed more than they should be for Hispanic dropouts. Unfortunately, removing immigrants from the data set doesn't even come close to rescuing the Census survey from a number of more serious problems. For example, it doesn't include prisons, where a disproportionate number of dropouts reside. Also, it report appears to count GED recipients as high school graduates. More reliable ways of calculating the graduation rate, such as using enrollment data (which would only include students enrolled in U.S. public schools), consistently yield overall dropout rates around 30 percent, and even higher rates for minorities like Hispanics. In this report, Fry simply dismisses such calculations without any real basis. You can read it at http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/high%20school%20dropout%20report--final.pdf.

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
2003

In 1995, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Program for Student Achievement began an experiment in standards-based reform that - unlike most other such - focused solely on the middle grades. This report details the planning, implementation, and evaluation of that effort in six districts, including brief mention of an evaluation of student achievement (using student NAEP and standardized test scores as the litmus test). Unfortunately, because "the foundation did not consider raising test scores to be a major objective in the design of the program," there is little discussion of the findings from the district evaluations. There are, however, vignettes from school and district leaders about the implementation challenges they faced, which may be interesting to school and district leaders now trying to implement No Child Left Behind and other standards-based reforms in middle schools. You can see the report for yourself at http://www.emcf.org/pdf/student_comprehensivereport.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education
May 2003

The Department of Education answers oft-asked questions and provides a summary of NCLB's main provisions in this guide for parents. After an introduction to what NCLB means for parents and children, the report responds to questions in the areas of accountability, testing, reading, teacher quality, charter schools, and supplemental educational services. An appendix directs parents to websites with more information on specific issues such as accountability and programs such as Reading First. This guide can be downloaded at http://www.nclb.gov/next/parentsguide.pdf. But for a more comprehensive, user-friendlier guide [previously reviewed in Gadfly at http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=15#269], you might want to get a $15 copy of No Child Left Behind: What's In It for Parents from http://www.plassociates.org/publications.html#nclb.