The Education Gadfly Weekly

Education Writers Association
April 2003

No subject is more wrapped in mystery than your average school district's budget. This brief introduction to the legal history and issues surrounding school finances serves as an excellent initiation into those mysteries. The report starts out with an overview of the terminology and basic knowledge necessary to even begin the process of slogging through budgets, as well as an overview of important cases and the current school financing battles. But the bulk of the report is devoted to an in-depth, case-by-case examination of some of the most radical, controversial, and arguably beneficial movements in education spending. Complete with a list of topics to address in one's own district, this report is a valuable resource for everyone interested in school finance whether or not they are, as the title implies, reporters. The guide is free on the web for EWA members; everyone else can order it for $12 at https://www.ewa.org/cgi-bin/formengine.cgi?form=orderform.

International Reading Association
2003

In 1999, the International Reading Association convened the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation to conduct a national survey of programs that prepare elementary reading teachers, and to study the effectiveness of the graduates of such programs. A blue-ribbon panel narrowed the field to eight institutions that had "outstanding credentials" for preparing reading teachers. The study finds, rather unsurprisingly, that teachers who spend time in quality reading education programs are more successful in teaching kids to read than those who don't. What is interesting is the study's examination of the effectiveness of beginning teachers in the field, whereas most studies on this subject focus solely on the quality of teaching and learning within the university/college setting. The report, though, begs the question: What precisely does an "outstanding" teacher preparation program look like and why don't we have more of them? Visit http://www.reading.org/pdf/commission_summary.pdf to view the executive summary; to order the full report, go to http://www.reading.org/.

Mass Insight Education
2003

The latest report from Mass Insight Education (MIE) unveils a detailed plan to attack the state's troublingly low math achievement scores. MIE blames the state's math crisis upon the lack of teacher competency and "chronic shortage" of proficient math teachers. Citing the high rate of failure among 10th graders taking the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam as proof of the state's failing math instruction, MIE proposes four solutions: the implementation of rigorous standards for teacher training, tougher rules for teacher certification, managerial and teacher development, and increasing federal and local funding for these programs. The authors maintain that the proper introduction of these "key levers" will produce an ample supply of talented math teachers, thus raising student math achievement. Although the study makes a legitimate argument and provides sufficient evidence of low math achievement among students, they cite only rough and broad estimates of teacher incompetence. MIE utilizes statewide evidence of a general lack of teacher certification in math, higher mathematical education, and failure of standardized math teacher tests in an attempt to draw a direct correlation between teacher incompetence and low student performance. A more interesting analysis would compare a math teacher's education, certification, and standardized test scores with their students' math MCAS performance to see if there is a direct correlation between teacher quality and student achievement in math. For more information about this report, please see http://www.massinsight.com/meri/pdf_files/RaisingMathAchievement.pdf.

The driving premise behind this Annenberg funded report is this: Districts need help in meeting the student achievement goals now being established by state and federal policies. This study emerged out of the Annenberg Institute's National Task Force on the Future of Urban Districts, which is seeking to help create "smart districts," which "incorporate some of the functions of a traditional district, eliminate others, and involve a much wider spectrum of community members, organizations, and agencies than is typically the case now." According to "Reforming Relationships," school districts realize they need the help on a range of public, quasi-public, private for-profit, and nonprofit organizations, which are lumped together as reform support organizations (RSOs). The study focuses on five partnerships between districts and RSOs in Flint, Michigan; Durham; Kansas City; Hamilton County (Chattanooga) Tennessee, and Cleveland. These case studies show how both community based organizations and national foundations partner with urban school districts to affect real change. Outside organizations can play an important role in getting reforms started, but according to the authors, sustained reform "is primarily a local endeavor that involves district persistence, local capacity, and adequate resources." It also requires a superintendent who can provide the vision and fortitude to stay the course despite resistance. There is much to study in this report; check it out for yourself by surfing to http://www.schoolcommunities.org/images/RR.pdf.

For more than 30 years, I've been - or at least, have tried to be - an agitator. The classroom has been my bailiwick, unsuspecting and complacent students my target. I am the sort of teacher who aims less to please than to annoy, to stir things up, to agitate. And it seems to me that a call for more such teachers is among the things - perhaps the thing - most needful for us all as American citizens. My purpose, I assure you, is not self-promotion. The stakes are far too high. So, let me explain, first, the problem uppermost on my mind, and second, why I think more and better teachers - teacher-agitators - are the one thing most needful for our polity, as well as what it means and what it takes to be such a gadfly.

Everywhere in our country, the vast consequences of September 11th continue, still, to unfold. But nowhere have they been more conspicuous than in the reawakening of our moral imaginations. Americans have always rallied in times of crisis, and this time is no exception. There is a new moral seriousness abroad, manifested by a redoubled desire to give and to serve, and by new efforts to promote the common good. But what to do, what to give - be it time, talent, or treasure - however well intentioned, is seldom self-evident.

And, more important, in the absence of obvious distress and disaster, civic or personal, why one should serve is, for many, even less evident. Compassion, however important, is finally not reliable. For service to country and your fellow citizen to become a lifelong habit, all of us, especially young people, need to understand why it is so crucial for the health and perpetuation of our common civic life. We need to know more history. We need to know more civics.

But that said, piling up more and better history and civics requirements will surely not be sufficient. Far more important than knowing facts and figures is knowing our civic principles, our lofty ideals - and, even more crucial, making them our own. We need, in short, to understand, appreciate, and agitate what it means to be an American. But given the current educational climate, I am less than sanguine that this will happen. Most of my teacher colleagues, and even more so the students I meet, even the most idealistic, are, at best, cynical about what it means to be an American. Indeed, more often than not, they are inclined to think that it does not mean anything much at all. Most everyone these days is a multiculturalist.

Moved largely by the seemingly salutary desire to promote ethnic and racial pride, multiculturalists fundamentally think of our nation as many separate and distinct cultures. Notwithstanding the commonality of the name "American," they regard these cultures, in decisive respects, as non-overlapping and mutually exclusive. What is called "American," then, describes, for them, only those who are white and of European descent. All other racial and ethnic groups are not and cannot be part of American culture. Indeed, any attempt to transcend race and ethnicity in the name of human individuality, or common humanity, never mind the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is regarded as foolhardy.

Not too long ago, an incoming university student drove this home most vividly: In response to a colleague's description of his regular freshman seminar offering, which included the study of Sophocles' Antigone, Homer's Iliad, and Plato's Apology of Socrates, she quipped, "Oh, I see, you must be Greek." Not one of the 50 other students present at that orientation session dissented. Not even when prodded.

Seen in this light, however seemingly salutary its goals, our multicultural ethos should give us pause. Under its aegis, we are playing a very high stakes game. For if culture and race are really regarded as all-powerful determinants, and if human beings are not only marked but also decisively separated by ethnicity and race, how will we, American citizens, be able to sustain our common civic life and national polity? How can we even begin to think about our common good? What will keep us from justifying the group antagonisms that plague our society today? Even more troubling, what will sustain the tolerance necessary for the peaceful coexistence of the very subcultures that advocates of difference aim to preserve? Can many cultures really continue to coexist peacefully if we accentuate only the differences among them? If each of us as individuals is simply and indelibly stamped by our origins, and if we are therefore incapable of thinking freely and acting for ourselves, what happens to the essential American dream, the possibility of genuine, individual human dignity, the possibility of creating one's own future?

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that cultural diversity is not important - nor even that it must lead to cultural antagonism, or is somehow incompatible with American unity. On the contrary, I believe that the study of our cultural pluralism can, in fact, contribute to a richer and deeper appreciation of American principles and of our lives as Americans. But for history and civics education to make the difference we desire, it will have to restore the understanding of many-ness in our nation's motto: E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one).

This is where more and better teachers come in. They can make it happen. But here's what it will take:

Teachers who know historical facts and figures, but even more important, who know the complex meanings, as well as the many possibilities of our nation's principles. Teachers who teach not for the test but for the real tomorrow, whose gaze is aimed not merely at student performance but at developing active, engaged, and responsible citizens. Teachers who take the time and have the patience to listen to, and to converse openly with, their students. Teachers who have the courage to examine their own long-accepted opinions, and to stir their students to do the same. Teachers who awaken students to look beyond their particular stories and to find commonalities with peers who are different from themselves, as well as with those who have come before them.

Long ago, Lincoln reminded us that the American creed requires dedication to the proposition that all men are created equal. He urged us to continually challenge ourselves to know the importance of this pursuit and to build its reality. We need teachers who will stir the knowing, so that the building can and will continue.

I challenge all teachers to think through their own opinions about this crucial matter. I also challenge them to become an annoyance to friends and neighbors: prod them to speak with you about our fundamental principles of freedom and equality, what they mean, and why they matter. Better yet, let me challenge each of you to go into our nation's classrooms, and to become a gadfly: annoy, agitate, stir your students toward the higher individualism and public service that will continue to allow our country to flourish.

Amy Kass is a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, a member of the National Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and an advisor to the Lilly Endowment's Project on Civic Reflection. This editorial is adapted from a speech to the youth service organization City Year.

According to the California state board of education's definition of a "persistently dangerous" school, there are no persistently dangerous schools in the state. This might come as a surprise to the students in Banning High in the Los Angeles Unified School District where there were 28 battery cases, two assaults with a deadly weapon, a robbery, and three sex offenses reported during the 2001-02 school year, or to students in the many other troubled schools in the state. Gadfly, however, is not surprised. This week, to avoid failing large numbers of students, the state board of education also voted to postpone for two years the requirement that students must pass the state's high school exit exam to graduate. These are just two more examples of states setting the bar for academic, disciplinary, and other standards just low enough to avoid allowing students to transfer out of public schools, as required by No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, the Golden State is not alone. Two weeks ago, New York voided results from its math exam because of appallingly low pass rates that would have cost thousands of students their high school diploma. And last month, Florida governor Jeb Bush signed a law permitting students who failed his state's graduation exam to receive a diploma if they passed college entrance or military exams or high school equivalency tests - a measure that he insists doesn't lower standards, even though it allows students to sidestep state graduation requirements that should have been enforced for the first time this year. Once again, politicians and policy makers are placing their own interests above what's best for kids to preserve the status quo.

"No schools in state overly dangerous," by Duke Helfand, Erika Hayasaki, and Cara Mia DiMassa, Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2003,

"School danger narrowly defined," by Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2003,

"California postpones exit exam," by Greg Winter, New York Times, July 10, 2003,

"Delay spurs standards debate," by Sarah Tully, Orange County Register, July 10, 2003,

"Law gives FCAT takers new chance," by Steve Bousquet, St. Petersburg Times, June 20, 2003,

It's hardly news to say that students complain about school being boring. But it ought to give us pause that such a wide and varied range of students report, contemptuously, that America's high schools are almost uniformly incapable of sparking their intellectual interest. For example, take this completely anecdotal but nonetheless fascinating article in Educational Horizons, produced by Pi Lambda Theta. The authors asked more than 70 students to keep journals about their experiences in school. The 52 students who brought back usable journals were uniformly displeased, and 50 of them had one complaint in common: uninterested teachers who refused to deviate from the textbook or enliven instruction with example, discussion, or outside materials. The two words these youths used most often to describe their education were "boring" and "stupid." Pretty standard adolescent fare, perhaps, but even academic high-flyers were disengaged, and the general tone of the responses is remarkable for its ferocity. Write the authors, "Even students who received mostly good marks said that they endured their classes to attain marks that would qualify them for particular colleges&. One college-bound student in an urban school wrote, 'Sitting on your a-- all day and doing nothing is a waste. I wouldn't come to school, even if someone paid me. Personally, I'd rather take out the trash than show up for first period.'"

"Disengagement and loathing in high school," by Lawrence A. Baines and Gregory Kent Stanley, Educational Horizons, Summer 2003

In case you were wondering, the National Education Association has decided that it opposes the No Child Left Behind Act. Meeting in New Orleans this week, union members approved a plan to lobby Congress to drop or amend major portions of the law, allow states control over when its accountability measures will - if ever - take effect, and provide new federal funding for its implementation. Union leader Reg Weaver stirred up the crowd with a blistering attack on No Child Left Behind (a phrase, the union decided, it will no longer dignify by repeating, preferring instead to call it the "reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act"). Fulminating about Education Secretary Rod Paige's characterization of the union as a "coalition of the whining," Weaver announced a full-court legal press to challenge the law as "the granddaddy of all unfunded federal mandates." More in sorrow than in anger, he told the 9,000 delegates, "Team NEA, we would love to stay out of politics and in the classroom, but as long as Washington favors millionaires over children, we have to fight." The union's adverseness to politics might be slightly more believable if the membership hadn't also passed resolutions calling for a public relations campaign "on the consequences of the Bush administration's tax cuts" and endorsing "progressive tax reform and other means of redistributing corporate wealth," and raised more than $1.2 million for its political action committee. Somewhat counterintuitively, Weaver later characterized the anti-NCLB public relations and legal campaign as an effort to find "common ground" with Republicans on education policy.

"NEA vows to undo President Bush's education programs," by Greg Toppo, USA Today, July 6, 2003,

"NEA takes stand against Bush education law," by Bess Keller, Education Week, July 7, 2003,

"NEA 'reaching out' from the left to GOP," by George Archibald, Washington Times, July 8, 2003,

As the number of charter schools has grown across the country, so has the number of bureaucratic requirements and red tape surrounding charter school operation. In California, for example, the state has added new restrictions on funding that was previously given to charters as block grants and is now forcing charters to track their own funding - a task that was previously handled by the district office. Given that charter schools are typically afforded a smaller operating budget than traditional public schools, these seemingly small changes can prove an immense obstacle to fledgling charters. And, since charter schools were started as an alternative to traditional schools, free from the regulation that stifles innovation, these regulations are making some schools wonder what they gain from their charter status. That worry is causing a few charter schools to consider going backwards - that is, reverting back to district school status, an ominous trend.

"Facing more rules, school may give up its charter," by Bill Lindlehof, Sacramento Bee, July 7, 2003

It's a fairly typical slow-news-day article about American students' appalling lack of civic and historical knowledge. (The article opens with a Mississippi state senator quizzing local high school seniors on the three unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. When he prompts them with, "Among these are life, and?&." one student responded, "Death?") But in the midst of the article, in plain view, is an example of the cause of this ignorance. Several history teachers are quoted on their struggle to make the subject "relevant." One remarks, "I'm much less concerned about a test at any given point as I am making sure the kids I work with have the opportunity to extend those skills through their lifetime." Another says, "I always tell my students: If I see you in the grocery store five years from now, I will not measure my success on can you tell me Hamilton's financial plan, but can you tell me if you voted? If you answer yes, then I've succeeded as a teacher." Ah yes, we wouldn't want knowledge to get in the way of education. Keep watching: This fall, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation will unveil four projects on civics and history education that aim to show why they've all but disappeared, and what can be done about it.

"Don't know much about history," by Ben Feller, Associated Press, July 3, 2003

The driving premise behind this Annenberg funded report is this: Districts need help in meeting the student achievement goals now being established by state and federal policies. This study emerged out of the Annenberg Institute's National Task Force on the Future of Urban Districts, which is seeking to help create "smart districts," which "incorporate some of the functions of a traditional district, eliminate others, and involve a much wider spectrum of community members, organizations, and agencies than is typically the case now." According to "Reforming Relationships," school districts realize they need the help on a range of public, quasi-public, private for-profit, and nonprofit organizations, which are lumped together as reform support organizations (RSOs). The study focuses on five partnerships between districts and RSOs in Flint, Michigan; Durham; Kansas City; Hamilton County (Chattanooga) Tennessee, and Cleveland. These case studies show how both community based organizations and national foundations partner with urban school districts to affect real change. Outside organizations can play an important role in getting reforms started, but according to the authors, sustained reform "is primarily a local endeavor that involves district persistence, local capacity, and adequate resources." It also requires a superintendent who can provide the vision and fortitude to stay the course despite resistance. There is much to study in this report; check it out for yourself by surfing to http://www.schoolcommunities.org/images/RR.pdf.

Education Writers Association
April 2003

No subject is more wrapped in mystery than your average school district's budget. This brief introduction to the legal history and issues surrounding school finances serves as an excellent initiation into those mysteries. The report starts out with an overview of the terminology and basic knowledge necessary to even begin the process of slogging through budgets, as well as an overview of important cases and the current school financing battles. But the bulk of the report is devoted to an in-depth, case-by-case examination of some of the most radical, controversial, and arguably beneficial movements in education spending. Complete with a list of topics to address in one's own district, this report is a valuable resource for everyone interested in school finance whether or not they are, as the title implies, reporters. The guide is free on the web for EWA members; everyone else can order it for $12 at https://www.ewa.org/cgi-bin/formengine.cgi?form=orderform.

International Reading Association
2003

In 1999, the International Reading Association convened the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation to conduct a national survey of programs that prepare elementary reading teachers, and to study the effectiveness of the graduates of such programs. A blue-ribbon panel narrowed the field to eight institutions that had "outstanding credentials" for preparing reading teachers. The study finds, rather unsurprisingly, that teachers who spend time in quality reading education programs are more successful in teaching kids to read than those who don't. What is interesting is the study's examination of the effectiveness of beginning teachers in the field, whereas most studies on this subject focus solely on the quality of teaching and learning within the university/college setting. The report, though, begs the question: What precisely does an "outstanding" teacher preparation program look like and why don't we have more of them? Visit http://www.reading.org/pdf/commission_summary.pdf to view the executive summary; to order the full report, go to http://www.reading.org/.

Mass Insight Education
2003

The latest report from Mass Insight Education (MIE) unveils a detailed plan to attack the state's troublingly low math achievement scores. MIE blames the state's math crisis upon the lack of teacher competency and "chronic shortage" of proficient math teachers. Citing the high rate of failure among 10th graders taking the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam as proof of the state's failing math instruction, MIE proposes four solutions: the implementation of rigorous standards for teacher training, tougher rules for teacher certification, managerial and teacher development, and increasing federal and local funding for these programs. The authors maintain that the proper introduction of these "key levers" will produce an ample supply of talented math teachers, thus raising student math achievement. Although the study makes a legitimate argument and provides sufficient evidence of low math achievement among students, they cite only rough and broad estimates of teacher incompetence. MIE utilizes statewide evidence of a general lack of teacher certification in math, higher mathematical education, and failure of standardized math teacher tests in an attempt to draw a direct correlation between teacher incompetence and low student performance. A more interesting analysis would compare a math teacher's education, certification, and standardized test scores with their students' math MCAS performance to see if there is a direct correlation between teacher quality and student achievement in math. For more information about this report, please see http://www.massinsight.com/meri/pdf_files/RaisingMathAchievement.pdf.