It's here and it's hot. In the top spot, you'll find Mike's ideas on how we should couple responsibility with accountability. Although the government can do very little to influence the raising of children in the privacy of our nation's homes, he argues, there is one thing it can do: be a bully pulpit for taking responsibility for our children. And maybe recruiting Bill Cosby as spokesman. Then, take a peek at how Catholic schools' recent renaissance may be too little too late, why Duncan's Chicago exit breeds hope for his Washington entrance, and why Bush may get the last laugh on education after all. Checker then reviews two new books--one by James Tooley, he of Third World private school research, and the other by Alex Standish on cleaning up geography curricula--and Amber takes a look at a new sensible overview of alternative teacher preparation. Don't forget the podcast, wherein Mike and Rick discuss the inauguration (of course), the stimulus plan, and accusations that charters cost more than traditional schools (they don't). Finally, Charles Miller, grandfather of Texas education reform, responds to Robin Lake's editorial on the partisanship of Bush's influence on charter schools. Baloney, quoth he! All this and more can be found right here.

Many conservative commentators blame the dismal state of the Republican Party on the talk-show crowd: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the other blowhards who play on people's fears for a living. I wouldn't argue that point, but the moment I viewed the GOP (and the conservative cause) as entering a tailspin was when the Wall Street Journal decided to give Karl Rove his own column. To be sure, Rove is a very good, if not necessarily "good," political mastermind. But a public intellectual? Not only are his op-eds predictable (and thus boring), they are full of spin.

Consider today's, "Bush Was Right When it Mattered Most," which makes the following bold (and false) statements about education:

Mr. Bush was right to pass No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requiring states to set up tough accountability systems that measure every child's progress at school. As a result, reading and math scores have risen more in the last five years since NCLB than in the prior 28 years.

I spot four errors (you might say lies) in those two sentences alone:

1. The law surely doesn't require states to set up "tough" accountability systems. Famously, it allows states to set meager standards and allows districts to make little more than cosmetic changes in failing schools.

2. NCLB definitely doesn't "measure every child's progress at school." Which is too bad; that would be a great improvement over the actual system, which doesn't look at student growth over time.??Certainly the next version will.

3. Reading and math scores have risen more in the past five years than in the previous 28? I'm curious what numbers he's thinking about here, because any look at the National Assessment of Educational Progress will indicate that the greatest gains in recent history were made just before the implementation of No Child Left Behind (from 1998-2002 or 2000-2003, depending on the test). Nobody really knows why, which brings us to the last point...

4. "As a result..." Nobody can claim that NCLB "resulted" in bigger test score gains (or smaller, or whatever) because there's no way to draw causal conclusions from the data we have available. I happen to think that the evidence points to gains under NCLB for low-achieving students, but I don't know whether those gains "resulted" from No Child Left Behind or something else.

It's time for the right to rebuild;??it doesn't help to have??Karl Rove hanging around on the pages of the Journal. Mr. Murdoch, are you listening?

Photograph by MatthewBradley on Flickr

Mike may be right about the many ways Karl Rove gets it wrong, but he avoids the really important question: is Rove correct in his main (education) point, that "Mr. Bush was right to pass No Child Left Behind"? I say yes - it's better that we have NCLB than a continuation of the ESEA circa 2000. NCLB, for all its flaws, has helped cement in place a culture of high expectations and accountability (even if sloppily done), something we should be grateful for - and something Bush got right.

My post from yesterday about President Obama's call for a "New Era of Responsibility" sought ideas from readers about how policymakers and schools could encourage parents to do their jobs better. (I offered some of my own ideas in today's Education Gadfly.) And Flypaper readers did not disappoint. Here are some comments I found particularly insightful.

Joanne Jacobs writes:

Poorly educated parents can't help their kids write a research essay or solve an algebra problem, but they should be able to set a time for homework or reading, enforce a bedtime, limit TV on school nights, teach manners and self-control to their children. Most can read aloud to young children or listen to them read.

I think most parents would pay attention to parenting advice from the school if it were offered in a clear manner. I envision a DVD sent home with examples of how to read aloud with a child, perhaps how to discuss a TV show with a child.

As more parents become "wired," schools should be able to improve communications dramatically. If Jayden is late for school, send a Tweet or text message to Mom's cell phone.

And Chris says:

Learning takes place inside and outside of schools. Creating a transparent set of expectations for all adults who come into contact with students raises the level of consciousness about who is responsible for doing what. Take a look at what the community of Kalamazoo Public Schools (Michigan) created to raise the awareness of responsibility: http://tinyurl.com/caa9kr

I like Joanne's ideas a lot; I suspect many parents (yes, including poor parents) are hungry for information, and would act upon it if presented in clear, compelling ways. And if United can send me an email or text message when my plane is late, surely a school could do the same for parents of tardy children. (No doubt some already do.)

And the Kalamazoo example is promising, though that appears to be more of an effort to get parents and the community involved in the governance of the school district. While important, it's somewhat different from what I'm concerned about here: helping parents do a better job parenting, which in my mind is separate from getting involved in advocacy.

Have more ideas? Keep ???em coming!

If the recent past is prologue, we have reason to be hopeful about Arne Duncan. As he prepared to leave his post as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools last week, Duncan proposed to close or consolidate 25 under-performing or under-enrolled schools. Several years ago, Mayor Daley gave Duncan permission to replace up to 70 schools with 100 new ones by 2010. To date, the city has closed 61 schools and opened 75 new ones. This latest crop would include six closures, five consolidations, five "phase outs," and nine turnarounds (i.e. keep students but replace staff). Renaissance 2010 was met with great hostility by the teachers' union when it was announced--and these new proposed closures and changes are getting a similarly cold reception. But the fact that Duncan didn't back down when the going got tough is a testament to his character--and the fact that Chicago enjoys relative labor peace is a testament to his diplomacy. It's also worthwhile to note that this isn't an 11th hour change of heart; Duncan was shuttering schools and taking a hard line way before Obama was even elected, let alone tapped him for his cabinet. Now let's hope Duncan successfully imports those traits into 400 Maryland Avenue.

"25 schools set for shakeup," by Maudlyne Ihejirika and Cheryl Jackson, Chicago Sun-Times, January 11, 2009

For an education watcher, the most striking parts of President Barack Obama's sober, yet stirring, inaugural address weren't the oblique references to our schools (which "fail too many" and will be "transformed" to "meet the demands of a new age"). Rather, it was his old-fashioned call for us to usher in "a new era of responsibility--a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly." That's because, in this Age of Accountability, too many of us in the education policy world have been loath to talk about "responsibility," particularly "parental responsibility." It's high time that we did. 

"A parent's willingness to nurture a child...decides our fate," Obama said this week. In his big education speech last May, and on the campaign trail, he was more explicit: "There is no program and no policy that can substitute for a parent who is involved in their child's education from day one. There is no substitute for a parent who will make sure their children are in school on time and help them with their homework after dinner and attend those parent-teacher conferences...And I have no doubt that we will still be talking about these problems in the next century if we do not have parents who are willing to turn off the TV once in awhile and put away the video games and read to their child."

It's hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with these sentiments, particularly coming from the most famous (and powerful) father in the world. Yet they challenge the most important unsaid assumption held by policy wonks of all persuasions: that many parents, especially poor parents, will be irresponsible in the raising of their children--and that there's not much that the government can do about it.

That assumption isn't entirely crazy. There are plenty of parents falling down on the job, and there are also lots of reasons to be cynical about past efforts to get the government--especially the federal government--involved in this territory. For instance, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has long required Title I schools to put in place "parental involvement plans"; but does anyone think that mandate is actually leading to greater parental engagement? In a land of liberty, how does society impact what happens inside the home? The truth is that it's bloody hard to do.

And then there are less defensible reasons that many of us avoid the parent issue, related to what President Obama might call "worn-out dogmas." On the left, it's considered uncouth to talk about "bad parents" (versus those that are merely "disadvantaged"), since it's akin to "blaming the victim" and dismissing "institutional racism" and the like. Meanwhile, the right--particularly the libertarian right--tends to see parents as mere "consumers" in the "education marketplace"--and beyond reproach or government interference in whatever choices and decisions they make for their kids, however foolish. And for reformers of all stripes, it's risky to discuss parental irresponsibility lest it appear that you believe that schools may thereby be let off the hook. President Obama might call that a "false choice."

So we all avoid talking about parents and instead debate how to compensate for their failures. On the one side are those who think that schools alone will have to do the job via benign paternalism (see David Whitman's recent book), and on the other are those who believe that schools plus social service agencies are the answer (see the Broader/Bolder manifesto).

But maybe it's time to challenge the assumption that there's nothing policymakers can do to encourage, cajole, or enable parents to play their own roles better. Perhaps we'll never reach "100 percent parental responsibility," just like we'll never reach "100 percent proficiency" in reading and math. But maybe, just maybe, we could do dramatically better than we are today in getting parents to show up for their job as their child's first and most important teacher. 

If KIPP schools can get ten thousand parents to sign contracts promising to be full partners in the learning process, why not launch a national effort to get 100 million parents to do the same? Call it a "responsibility covenant," and let pastors, rabbis, imams, community leaders, and others join the president--and teachers and principals--in asking parents to sign. Put Bill Cosby in charge.

Or why not hold "parent responsibility summits" that highlight innovative ways that schools and community groups are making parents feel like welcome partners in the learning process? Or ask for contributions of desks, lamps, and computers to create conducive learning-and-homework environments in poor homes? Or expand the Harlem Children's Zone's "Baby College" program (that instructs new parents on how to nurture their young children) to sites nationwide, and provide refreshers for parents of elementary, middle, and high school students, too? 

To be sure, "responsibility" isn't just for parents. All of us in the education enterprise have to "take responsibility" for our piece of the puzzle. (Even we think tankers and other researchers, who have a duty to wield data responsibly, not to be blinded by ideology but to be willing to change our minds depending on the facts.) Educators have a duty to get good results in student achievement, but also to do it responsibly, without "shortcuts" (another Obama term) and without violating, again in Obama's words, the "values upon which our success depends: honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism." Read that list again and ponder the stories of schools narrowing the curriculum, getting rid of everything but reading and math, squeezing out history and civics, forcing children to suffer through weeks of test prep--and telling weak students to stay home on test day. A "New Era of Responsibility" would put an end to all of that.

"Accountability" remains an important concept in American education reform, and Obama himself uses it frequently. Adults that fall short, particularly those employed by the education system, should be held accountable. But that term connotes blame and recrimination. "Responsibility," meanwhile, connotes honor and an appreciation for our duties to one another. Obama has urged us to grow up, to "set aside childish things." Perhaps it's time for school reform to grow up too, moving from accountability alone to a new partnership of accountability and responsibility. These twin ideas--or consider them two parents if you like--might be exactly what we need in order to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." Are you ready?

In last week's short review of "National Assessment of Adult Literacy: Indirect County and State Estimates of the Percentage of Adults at the Lowest Literacy Level for 1992 and 2003," Gadfly has discovered a rather small typo. In the first sentence of the same, the review refers to the 1999 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). The survey was in fact administered in 1992, as the title of the report indicates.

Will President Bush get a last education laugh? That's what Richard Whitmire, president of the National Education Writers Association and founder of the Why Boys Fail blog, predicts. Eight years ago, Bush took his Texas-style accountability system to Washington, surprising legislators when he unveiled what became No Child Left Behind two days into his first term. And although the damaged NCLB brand has been criticized heavily from almost all sides, Whitmire sees education reform as Bush's lasting legacy. Why? "The notion that Obama would gut a law exposing the maleducation of millions of black children is a fantasy," he explains. Sure, they'll change the name, and maybe they'll really fix the law's flaws (and may we offer a few suggestions?), but accountability is here to stay. We concur.

"Bush leaves gift of education reform behind," by Richard Whitmire, Politico, January 15, 2009

To the editor: 

I found last week's editorial ("Did Bush hurt the charter movement by trying to help it?," January 15, 2009) largely inaccurate and petty in its attempt to attract attention by Bush bashing. The last paragraph in particular, wherein the author says that the new President, Secretary, and Department of Education's support for charters will grant it "bipartisan" support, is hypocritical. Are we to think that if Bush and his team supported charters, it's partisan, but if Obama and company do, it's not? Like it or not, No Child Left Behind was as bipartisan as any education legislation ever passed. That, in fact, is why it has some of its flaws. The editorial was partisan. 

Bush came from a background of bipartisanship. The Texas accountability system passed into law during Democrat Ann Richards's term was first implemented by Governor Bush in his first term as governor in 1995. The Texas charter law advocated by Bush was also passed in 1995 with Democratic majorities in both state houses. Choice and charters were seen as an element of that accountability system as charters would be a direct consequence of poor traditional public school performance and a way out for families stuck in those situations. 

For the next few years in Texas, Bush continued to have bipartisan support for his educational initiatives--from the business community, the Democrats, and state educational leaders. Bush helped us form a Charter School Resource Center, which provided management consulting services for charters, and a Charter School Financial Foundation, which supplied working capital loans to charters from funds raised in the private sector. Bush also advocated widely for successful charters such as KIPP schools, using his bully pulpit to garner public and bipartisan support for charters. 

To say that Bush's support of charters made them a partisan issue could only be accurate if Democrats took their position on charters based on politics rather than merit. To say that because Obama supports charters the issue is now bipartisan is simply ridiculous.

Charles Miller
Chairman
Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education

After much poking and prodding, supporters of Catholic schools may finally be springing into action. As we (amongst others) pointed out last year, these schools are essential options for low-income and minority students in urban areas, but have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Over 2,000 Catholic schools have closed since 1990, most of those in the last eight years. It is music to our ears to hear that some dioceses and their communities across the country are rising to the challenge. "It was taken for granted for a long time that Catholic schools would always be there," explains Dr. Karen M. Ristau, president of the National Catholic Education Association. "People are beginning to realize that this is a false assumption." Out: cries of poverty, declining enrollment, and pessimism. In: community involvement, better financial management, and a renewed energy to solve the mounting problems stacked up against these educational jewels. Most notably, these efforts have focused on redefining the governance arrangements of parish schools; instead of putting the administrative burden solely on the shoulders of an overworked priest or nun, dioceses are enlisting parents, alumni, and community members to play a larger role. But shrinkage continues to occur on many fronts and these initiatives are largely small and local. We're cheered by this news, but these efforts may be too little, too late.

"For Catholic Schools, Crisis and Catharsis," By Paul Vitello and Winnie Hu, The New York Times, January 17, 2009