This week's Gadfly is ready to be read. In the top slot, I write about why paying students (bribing them, really--let's call it what it is) to study and attend class is a terrible idea. Some say, "Why not try it out? Why not experiment?" I say, "Schools are not Petri dishes, and experiments have consequences." Like Frankenstein's monster, or Spam.??Elsewhere in the issue, Mike??notes that??we should quit resisting online education, and we comment on Florida's voucher setback, the Republicans' NCLB??discord, and the governor of Alaska, who, we're told, has completed the Iditarod--without using dogs or a sled. She jogged.

I must take issue with Mike Petrilli's comment--from his thoughtful editorial, "What if improving teacher quality isn't THE answer"--about those like me who advocate closing the "comparability loophole" in ESEA/NCLB Title I. He somewhat mischaracterizes what it is we support and then he calls us naïve.

Petrilli writes, for instance, that comparability advocates want "to ensure that each [district] schools' payrolls would be roughly the same." No. We want all schools' expenditures to be roughly the same. Payroll is a large chunk of expenditures, but not all of it.

But the big problem is that Petrilli believes teachers would, if comparability were law, be "compelled" to transfer to "rough schools." Yet we at the Center for American Progress, and many others who believe as we do, oppose the forced transfer of teachers for precisely the reasons Petrilli outlines. Instead we propose spending the new, fairly distributed money in high-needs schools on a differential salary structure with mentor and master teachers and bonuses for retaining effective teachers; on expanded learning time; and even on lower class sizes for beginning teachers, among other things.

We are not naïve about the challenges inherent in adopting a fairer system that distributes real dollars and not staff. But we're confident they can be addressed. Of course we know that money cannot be yanked out of the schools benefiting from richer budgets under the current fund distribution systems. Some sort of hold harmless for these schools, even accounting for inflation, will be needed. Even in tough economic times that is possible, especially given the history of growth in education budgets nationwide. Wealthier schools will simply need to live within the new budget structure when replacing their high-paid teachers who retire. With the huge retirement numbers that are forecast for the near future, this doesn't seem so difficult. Long-serving teachers with higher salaries have certainly traditionally jumped at the chance to transfer to less-challenging schools, but new dollars in challenging schools can provide new bonus incentives to retain the most effective and experienced teachers.

And besides, though we can't be sure, all the experts say the new generation of teachers (and there are going to be a lot of them) won't stay in teaching for long careers. So perhaps our current pattern of school budget inequities won't be as tough to tackle down the road. That seems to be what is happening in New York City now.

If you want to learn more about this issue, take a look at the Center for American Progress compilation of papers in our June 2008 publication Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education: How Local School District Funding Practices Hurt Disadvantaged Students and What Federal Policy Can Do About It.

Cynthia G. Brown
Director of Education Policy, Center for American Progress

In his latest editorial, "What to do about mediocre teachers?," Mike Petrilli writes that he cannot think of any national foundations that are experimenting with using technology to turn average K-12 faculty into effective teachers.

The Hewlett Foundation has been in this business or its close relation for the past seven years in the Open Education Resources area. For example: Hewlett was the original funder of the North American Council for Online Learning. In 2002, Hewlett funded (created) the Monterey Institute of Technology in Education in Monterey, California. At the same time in 2002, we also funded the Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative. We've done much work on this front since then, too. Mike Petrilli should take heart--he's not alone in his desire to see new, innovative teaching techniques for K-12 students.

Marshall Smith
Education Program Director, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Tave Zelman announced this week that she will become the senior vice president for education and children's programming at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting beginning Nov. 3. She had announced her resignation in May after Governor Ted Strickland attacked her performance and called for an overhaul of education policy in his February State of the State address.

Zelman and her influence on public education in the Buckeye State will be missed (as Fordham's president Chester E. Finn, Jr. noted here).  We wish her all the best on her future endeavors; this influential post at CPB seems like an excellent fit for Dr. Z. We also understand that today is her birthday-and hope that she has a happy one.

Zelman-who works for the Ohio State Board of Education, not for the governor-has been state school superintendent for 9½ years. She recently reflected on her tenure in a conversation with Gadfly Editor Mike Lafferty.

Q. Nobody likes to leave like the way you're leaving, but you had a pretty good run as superintendent.

A. We've worked hard, and we're proud of our accomplishments. I understand how the governor may want his own team. I wish him well.

Q. Have you discussed education with the governor?

A. We had discussions.... We've never had a conversation as I'm having with you here today to clearly articulate our visions-his vision or my vision-on education, but we both want the best in education for the children of Ohio.

Q. So you never actually sat down with him for a conversation in which he said, "Susan, what are your ideas and here are mine?"

A. In our first conversation, he questioned me about my stance, my belief, on the No Child Left Behind Act, which I've always believed was an important piece of civil-rights legislation, particularly for poor-and-minority children. I still do believe in the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Now, is it over-prescriptive and technical? Yes, of course. But it certainly (has) the right goals.

Q. After the State of the State message, did you make any overtures to the governor? Did you say, "Look, what's your beef? Let's sit down and talk about this." 

A. The State of the State announcement was a surprise. The fact that I didn't really know about what he was saying until a few hours before he said it...that was a good signal that the partnership did not develop as I had hoped it would.... My board president and my board were certainly not happy with the proposed diminished roles of the state superintendent and state board. But, I soon understood that I really needed to work out a compromise with my board president (and) that I would certainly step down.

Q. Was there a deal that the governor's idea of an education czar would disappear if you would disappear?

A. I was hoping that would be the case.

Q. What would you say you accomplished as superintendent, besides raising expectations and building capacity?

A. Ohio has accomplished a lot, particularly if you look at our national data; if you look at the data from Education Week (the Quality Counts issue) and the Education Trust both on achievement-gap issues and in terms of funding and equity.... When you look at the national data, we are up there as one of the states making progress in absolute performance of our students, particularly in math. We can show that we have closed achievement gaps. So that is a good thing. The second thing is that we have made progress in school funding, particularly on measures of equity.... (And) we were the first state in the country to say we need some benchmarks of what we are doing in relation to other countries.... (Also) as state superintendent, I never just advocated high expectations. If you go back and analyze my budgets...I put together budgets...that advocated for building the capacity of the profession and the capacity for districts and schools to implement these high standards in lots of different ways.

Q. You mentioned more money. What, in particular, has that gone for?

A. I think southeast Ohio has benefited a lot...Is it enough? Probably not....We found 45 schools that were schools of promise-high-poverty, high-performing schools. We have some really good examples-examples of elementary schools that really broke down grade structures, where teachers developed methods of flexible grouping, where teachers...developed their own forms of data analysis. We are getting incredible results for kids where teachers and principals opened the schoolhouse door and did a good job of linking health and human services to schools; where teachers really worked with us and developed some community-engagement and family-involvement strategies. Teachers have used our websites and worked with parents and students together-working on literary skills and math skills. So we have some great examples of some terrific education in southeast Ohio. Of course, we have some very bad examples as well.

Q. Where has money had the least impact?

A. I think that we haven't done a good job on how the money can be used effectively and efficiently.... America spends the most for the education of our children and the reality is that other countries are getting better outcomes and spending less. In America, for example, we advocate for reduced class size, but...you see that in certain countries the class size is much larger, but teachers have more time to work on lesson-plan development....They also organize the schools in more flexible ways so that they do more grouping. So I just think there are things that we should be doing to benchmark ourselves against a variety of different practices, and to go deeper into our work and (on) how to better organize our schools.... We have to reconstruct and change our mental model about what we want high-quality instruction and teaching and learning to look like in our schools. One thing I do love about the governor's vision is that he talks about creating learning environments, and what I like about that is that it takes us away from our traditional mental model of school.... I've always said that when we have standards, what we really...(are) advocating is for our children to have the skills and the abilities they need to live and create a better humanity than they found.

Q. What's the role for charters in the next decade?

A. I think that charters can be the R&D for the educational system and should be used to test ideas...and be able to (break the mold).... I feel that choice should be given to poor parents and they should have the same option that rich and middle-class people do. However, I don't support vouchers or charters at the expense of killing public education.... I believe in the notion of the common school.... The beauty of going to the common school was that it was a melting pot for people from different ways of life.... They had access to high-quality instruction to live the American dream. I think that is a very important fundamental tenet.

Q. There are set rules on how to close a poor-performing charter school. Why shouldn't we apply those rules to district schools?

A. I've always advocated for a level playing field. And what is good for the goose is always good for the gander. I think we have a moral responsibility to put our children in systems in which they are going to grow and thrive. And it is true of teachers, also. No teacher wants to work in a dysfunctional system.

Q. What if a school grades an "F" three years in a row?

A. Here is the real issue. The school that grades "F" three years in a row, (you need to) go into that school and diagnose the problems. Are good teaching and learning going on? If not, why not? Why are the teachers not able to improve the quality? What about the educational leadership of that school? Are the resources being applied appropriately? Is there a coherent reading curriculum grade-to-grade? Do the teachers understand what the expectations are? What are the standards? Do the teachers know how to engage parents? What we've done is to develop a set of diagnostic tools which would (be used in) schools (including charters)...needing it most.... People will be able to get better support and technical assistance. Just don't restructure a school if it gets an "F." What does that mean? It's the same thing in terms of students failing a test or subject. It is important for us to figure out why and to come with a diagnosis, and, with that diagnosis, come up with a prescription.... I think the same thing is true for districts. If they are not performing well, we need to figure out why not.

Q. Do we need a state high-school graduation test?

A. I've never been a fan of the OGT. I hope that the vision for a high-school assessment in the future would be a subject-matter (test). I personally like that because I think it says that Algebra II in Morgan County is the same as Algebra II in Chagrin Falls or Upper Arlington or Bexley or Columbus. For me, this has always been about curriculum equity, ensuring that there is an alignment between what we expect, how we teach, how we assess, and making sure that all children have access to high-quality curriculum and instruction.

Q. Do you ever see charters receiving the same funding as public-district schools?

A. I think that there is some very interesting work being done, nationally, around weighted-student funding.... What I think is so important about that is that it ensures that the money for different kids is...going to the kids needing it the most. So, I'm a really strong advocate for weighted-student funding. The money follows the child. And I also think it would allow for better devolution of the funding...from the state to the central office to the school level and empower principals to have more resources while managing their schools.

Q. Can you look at anything since charters have been operating in this state and say, "This is an improvement?"

A. One is you have some really good and innovative charters that (show promise) for different types of kids who don't want to go to a traditional high-school setting. That's a good example of kids having the ability to learn within the community, having community mentors, having important internships.... It has implications for how we may want to structure high schools. I do believe that our urbans have done incredibly well over my tenure. I think that there are many reasons for that, but one is they face competition from charters.

Q. Are charters going to be around in 10 years?

A. I think, nationally, charters will be around because I think we are moving into this notion (of) individualization, customization of education. I think public schools working in collaboration-partnerships with charter schools-can, perhaps, better meet the needs of more diverse learners. I'm optimistic that these partnerships can lead to some very interesting experimentation with good research, planning, and evaluation.

Q. How has your relationship with the state board changed over your nine years?

A. I don't have a contract. I serve at the pleasure of the board. Governors run every four years. I run every month. You are only as good as your last board meeting. I have great respect for my board-I love my board because it is so diverse. It is like a mini-legislature.... We've always had some very open, honest, and interesting debates, and I think we are better able to make recommendations to the legislature and to the governor because of the diversity.

Q. You plan to write a book about your experience as superintendent, but what are your other plans?

A. I don't know. Actually within the past several weeks, I've turned down two jobs. I love being the state superintendent of public instruction. I love my job, I've learned a lot. I am really trying to figure out what's my next large challenge. I'm certainly looking for a job that will take what I've learned here and...apply it and improve the educational lot of poor children in our country.

It is indeed disappointing that Floridians will not have the opportunity to vote this November for educational choice in their state. Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court, a body renowned for its opposition to vouchers and charter schools, removed from ballots Amendments 7 and 9, which would have excised from the Florida Constitution its prohibition on providing state money to religious institutions (a prohibition which is a relic of anti-Catholic Blaine amendments) and would have made public schools the primary way, but not the only way, that Florida's pupils can receive educations (an important distinction). The justices haven't yet released their full opinion, but they basically found that both amendments were outside the purview of the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which proposed them. We were guardedly hopeful that Floridians would be able to vote on these proposals, and we're sad to learn that the state's Supreme Court is determined to not let that happen.

"Tax swap, vouchers off Nov. ballot," by Alex Leary and Ron Matus, St. Petersburg Times, September 4, 2008

"Fla. High Court Strikes Levy, Voucher, School Measures from Ballot," by Lloyd Dunkelberger, The Ledger (Lakeland), September 4, 2008

We've learned much, much over the past week about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (is she really the reason compasses point North?). But Gadfly was left wondering: What have been her stands on education? Thanks to the crack reporters at Education Week, he now knows. Just this past April, Palin worked with the state legislature and teachers' union to overhaul Alaska's education funding system to send more dollars to rural districts. The new scheme will also raise from $26,900 this year to $73,840 in 2011 per-pupil spending on the state's studentswith special educational needs. Palin supports performance pay for school staffs; in Alaska, everyone who works at a school--the principal, teachers, custodians, office workers, etc.--can receive bonuses if that school's pupils make academic progress. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the leader of the largest state in the union also supports school choice and homeschooling. Gadfly was unimpressed with Palin's once-expressed suggestion that creationism be taught (or at least discussed) in K-12 science classes alongside evolution, but he was mollified by learning she hasn't pushed that idea or moved to include creationism in the state science standards. Lastly but least surprisingly, as governor, Palin wanted more flexibility for her state to meet No Child Left Behind mandates. And she once saved the lives of several 8-year-olds by strangling a charging polar bear with her toes.

"VP Choice Backed School Funding Overhaul," by Sean Cavanagh and Alyson Klein, Education Week, August 29, 2008

AKRON, Ohio - Voters will decide Nov. 4 if leasing the city sewage system to a private contractor and using the money to finance college and technical-school scholarships for Akron public high-school grads is a good idea (see here).

Wits have dubbed the idea "stools for schools," according to the Associated Press's Thomas J. Sheeran. But Mayor Don Plusquellic said he's giving the city the straight poop when he estimates Akron, eventually, could realize $200 million from the idea (see here). The mayor believes the money could help arrest a "brain drain" of educated Akron residents from the city, which has suffered from the decline of the rubber industry and other manufacturing sectors.

The plan is a spinoff from programs such as one in Kalamazoo, Mich. (see here). The idea is to provide scholarships to students in the city to attend the University of Akron or an Akron trade or technical school with the idea they would remain in the community to work.

Participating schools would have to be in Akron and be approved by the city, Akron Service Director Rick Merolla told The Gadfly. Akron's city website indicates that district-school and parochial-school graduates would be eligible to participate (see here). Graduates of Akron school-district-sponsored charter high schools would be eligible. The city has one of those. He also said charters sponsored by non-profit groups might be eligible but graduates of so-called "for-profit" charters would not. So students at schools like Life Skills Center apparently wouldn't be covered. It's also unclear how students attending e-schools would be treated.

Excluding some charters is unfair and may be illegal, said the head of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools. "This somewhat mystifies me. There really is no such thing as a private charter school. There are district-run charter schools and there are charter schools that are run by non-profit boards," said William Sims, executive director for the group. "To discriminate among public schools, I would suggest, is unconstitutional. They are sometimes managed by for-profit or non-profit management companies but they are ultimately accountable to a non-profit board."

Graduates would have until they're 25 to take advantage of the program. Members of the military would have even longer, according to the Akron Beacon Journal (see here).

Dr. Suzannah Herrmann will join the Thomas B. Fordham Institute as Director for Ohio Programs and Policy on Sept. 8.

Herrmann, a Vermont native, has a bachelor's and a master's degree from the University of Vermont. Her Ph.D. is from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She comes to Fordham from the American Institutes for Research, where she evaluated national programs funded by the U.S. Department of Education. These studies have included the National Longitudinal Evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform, Enhanced Reading Opportunities Project, Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study, and the Adult ESL Literacy Impact Study. Prior to joining AIR, she worked as a consultant with RMC Research Corp. on early and family literacy projects. She has served as a project coordinator of the Carolina Family Literacy Studies, a series of research studies on North Carolina family literacy programs as part of the National Center for Early Development and Learning at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. She was also a fellow of Putting Children First, a summer fellowship in child-and-family policy offered by the Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University, through funding from the William T. Grant Foundation.

Herrmann will be based in Fordham's Columbus office.

As far as Gadfly knows and as of this writing, not one major orator at the Republican convention has uttered the phrase "No Child Left Behind" or any anagram thereof (e.g., flinched in the bold). First lady Laura Bush on Tuesday touted her husband's education-policy achievements, but even she neglected to identify by name what is arguably his biggest domestic accomplishment. This is unsurprising: NCLB is unpopular and elections are not won by candidates associated with unpopular things. But perhaps Republicans are also avoiding the law because they don't want to exacerbate the related rift in their party's ranks. The conservative wing of the GOP remains adamantly hostile to NCLB. But even some who worked closely with the law are attempting to distance themselves from it; Eugene Hickok, who served in the Bush Education Department as deputy secretary, bluntly called NCLB "a damaged brand." So, where does the Republican presidential nominee plant his flag? We found out yesterday, after John McCain's campaign told Education Week that the senator will "champion assessments and accountability, and he will be able to persuade the more conservative wing of his party... to support those policies." This issue isn't going away, and after the election is decided one way or the other, it will be interesting to watch the GOP deal with its internal NCLB-strife.

"Republicans may waver over NCLB," by Alyson Klein, Education Week, September 3, 2008

Michelle Rhee, the still-newish, no-nonsense, hard-charging, and usually savvy schools chancellor of Washington, D.C., has succumbed to a dubious idea. Last month, she announced that, beginning in October, middle-school pupils who turn in their homework, make it to class, and maintain good grades will, for their diligence, be able to garner monthly paychecks of up to $100. She believes such promises of cash will motivate 12-year-olds to study.

She's not alone. Harvard professor Roland Fryer, who will manage D.C.'s program, is peddling this pay-kids-to-do-what-they-should approach in several cities, and deep-pocketed private foundations are willing to bankroll it. But is it a good idea?

Yes, in a world in which schools are charged only with increasing their students' test scores and nothing else; in which attaining that end justifies any means; and in which unintended consequences can be blithely ignored. But we do not occupy such a world.

The problems begin with Rhee's reasoning, an example of which is this: "When you have a job, your attendance is tracked, whether or not you're doing what you're supposed to be doing is tracked, and based on that you keep your job and you get a paycheck." Schools, she insinuated, should be much the same.

This view--and Rhee isn't the only one to voice it--is illogical because schools are not analogous to employers and pupils are not analogous to workers. A school, unlike an employer, does not reap the services of its students--it provides services to them. If it provides a lousy service, as many public schools do, that is resolved by fixing the management, staff, curriculum, etc. Even the best schools struggle with the recalcitrant youngster seemingly bent on doing anything but study, of course. But this rogue requires strict discipline, not bribes. David Whitman's fine new book, Sweating the Small Stuff, illumines the wonders such discipline can work.

Rhee's jobs analogy also overlooks the fact that K-12 education is compulsory. It is expected that students will complete assignments and work hard; it is legally demanded that they come to school. When these obligatory activities are rewarded with cash, what was once mundane becomes exceptional. Standards of right behavior take a prima facie tumble. The student who shunned class is paid to be there, which makes a mockery of the rules, and the pupil who already came to school on time now receives money for it and learns the false lesson that punctuality and conscientiousness are extraordinary and noteworthy.

Last year, after New York City announced a (Fryer-inspired) plan to reward its own decorous students with cash, psychology professor Barry Schwartz described in the New York Times how paying pupils for good schoolwork may render them even less interested in academics than they already are.

"If that happens," Schwartz wrote, "the incentive system will make the learning problem worse in the long run, even if it improves achievement in the short run--unless we're prepared to follow these children through life, giving them a pat on the head, or an M&M or a check every time they learn something new."

Paying kids may not help in the short run, either. Jonah Rockoff, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University, recently told the Wall Street Journal, "There's a lot of buzz about pay-for-performance [for students], but we still only have a small amount of studies on these programs, and a lot of them don't come from the U.S." And Fryer has himself said that "the jury is still out" about whether cash incentives cause middling pupils to improve.

Fryer is an economist, by the way, who is conducting in public schools an experiment without fretting overmuch about the unintended consequences his innovation may induce. Similarly untroubled are the education types and philanthropoids that he's wooed. So mesmerized are they by visions of increasing test scores that they've forgotten that schools must also teach students about personal responsibility, delaying gratification (which is quite important), planning for the future, and learning's intrinsic value. Perhaps they've also forgotten, or choose to neglect, the "incentive" effects of promoting and graduating and admitting to college only those young people who have met certain academic standards and prerequisites.

All such lessons are undermined by paying kids for grades. Consider this analogy: One does not instill responsibility in one's vegetable-averse child by paying the youngster $100 a month to swallow his broccoli. Such a parenting strategy is likely to produce a rules-shirking monster--and one who will learn nothing important and enduring about nutrition, behavior, obedience, personal responsibility, or authority. Similar monsters are birthed through an educating strategy that pays pupils to do that which is legitimately expected of them.

Which does not even begin to address the logistical flaws in Rhee's plan. For example, if test scores don't rise, or don't rise enough, does D.C. increase the payouts? And what if only the District's better-off kids wind up getting paid? Does Rhee then limit the program to the just the poorest of the poor, and does she define down the standards for receiving dollars? What if an investigative reporter for the Washington Post reveals that some middle-schoolers habitually trade their good-grades cash for candy, Camel Ultra Lights, wine coolers, or sexual favors? Etc.

K-12 education must welcome promising innovations and responsible experiments, but schools are not Petri dishes. Experimentation has consequences for those experimented upon, and in the case of paying students for right behavior those consequences far outweigh whatever benefits might be accrued.