Someone once wrote, "You can't trust Alexander Russo to report on a school bake sale and give an accurate account of the price of brownies," so one hesitates to put much stock in this post. It is nonetheless peculiar that a gaggle of bloggers would criticize other bloggers for blogging, or that they would inveigh against time-wasting while sitting on a panel, discussing blogging. Certainly Flypaper's frequent posting is a benefit to our readers, who desire timely analysis and opinion on the day's education issues. And for those who would rather imbibe an occasional off-the-cuff observation or two, perhaps about baseball or Howard Stern, other outlets exist.

I appreciated Gadfly's recent coverage of Massachusetts ("Wishing for a Massachusetts miracle?"). About 18 months ago, the Massachusetts Board of Education raised the state graduation standard, but in a flexible way. The cut score needed to automatically graduate is now 240 on the 10th grade English and math tests (beginning with the class of 2010--this year's sophomores). If one scores below 240, but above 220, he can demonstrate his "competency" through the successful completion of an "educational proficiency plan." We didn't just raise the bar to 240, for several reasons. First, pretty much everyone agrees that 220 is not good enough for a high school graduate in any subject. As you move up the scale, however, there is less and less consensus: 240 is a pretty challenging standard, for example, especially for students with learning disabilities or English-language learners. Second, the consequential distinctions between passing and failing become harder to sustain at 240 than at 220. Is the difference between 238 and 240 meaningful, statistically or substantively? No, and while the difference between 218 and 220 is no greater, 218 is unambiguously failing--238 is not. Finally, in addition to raising the passing standard on English and math, we also added new tests in science and history to the graduation requirement (both with a 220 passing score, for now). The combined impact of all these changes felt significant. Making the 240 cut score a bright line between passing and failing seemed like more than the system could stand--for now.

Jim Peyser
Former Chairman, Massachusetts Board of Education
Partner, New Schools Venture Fund

The interim evaluation of Reading First has all sorts of people upset for all manner of reasons. It found that, on average, the federal program's impact on student achievement was not statistically detectable; moreover, at least half of the third graders in the sample were performing below grade-level after up to three years of funding into the program, as measured by Stanford 10  norms. However, the study also found that in some "late award" sites (i.e., those that received their Reading First grants later in the federal funding process), first- and second-graders' comprehension scores had improved significantly and educators at those same sites had spent significantly more instructional time teaching the five essential elements of reading.

Not exactly a hearty endorsement of Reading First. But neither is it the downright disparagement some have claimed. The study certainly offers no compelling reason to kill the program, as some on Capitol Hill appear eager to do. Like most complex evaluations--especially of large-scale federal programs--the findings are complicated and mixed. So allow me to highlight a few evaluation-related concerns and one "non-concern" that reinforce what my Dad (who was also my softball coach) often said to his team of 8-year-olds when we trailed in the late innings: "It ain't over til the fat lady sings."

First, this study suffers from a potential contamination factor. That is, it does not appear to document, much less measure, how the practices of Reading First schools may have bled over to the comparison schools. Others, referring to both the national and state evaluations, have reported on this and I am merely joining their choir (see here, here, and here). Institute of Education Sciences chief Russ Whitehurst himself said as much at a Washington conference this week (though he studiously avoided saying anything of the sort when releasing the study and talking with journalists). In a different, state-based Reading First evaluation that I helped conduct, we found evidence that our comparison schools/districts were adopting many of the practices of the Reading First grantees, including concentrating on the five essential components of reading, hiring building-level literacy coaches, adopting 90-minute literacy blocks,  and using the same core reading programs. (Not surprising since, as I understand it, the RF statute required participating RF districts to spread professional development based on scientifically-based reading research [SBRR] beyond their participating schools.) So, although contamination complicates any evaluation, this specific instance of contamination--when more schools adopt reading practices that are shown to enhance students' reading progress--is a good thing for kids.

Second, we must pay attention to the outcome assessment used to measure achievement. Reading First evaluators opted to use the Stanford 10 reading comprehension subtest, a reliable and valid measure. Most state evaluations of Reading First, however, have used the DIBELS to measure achievement. DIBELS is a series of short assessments intended to assess mastery of discrete reading skills. The federal evaluators apparently considered using DIBELS but didn't because its various sub-tests must be individually administered, and that wasn't "practical" given the sample size. I understand the data collection burden in administering DIBELS. But why did the evaluation team not choose to administer the battery at least to a sub-sample, especially given DIBELS's widespread use and the fact that Reading First has been widely viewed more as a skill builder than a comprehension enhancer? (Comprehension, it may be recalled, is but one of the five "essential elements.")

In fact, an informal examination of 24 other Reading First state evaluations found that fifteen used the DIBELS either as their sole performance measure or as one of multiple measures. Of those 24, only six used a comparison group in their design. And of those six, five reported that Reading First students outperformed their non-Reading First peers on at least one measure of the DIBELS at one or more grades.

I don't know if using DIBELS would have altered the national achievement findings. But I do know it would have been worthwhile to have added DIBELS as an additional measure or in a sub-sample of schools. Because it assesses a fuller variety of discrete reading skills, rather than focusing only on comprehension, DIBELS would have given us an additional window into achievement.

Now here's a "non-concern": Some seek to justify the null evaluation findings by decrying an implementation breakdown in the program itself. But Reading First is perhaps the best-implemented education program in federal history. Study after study (both national and state, such as those found here, here, and here) echo the same message: the program has been implemented with a high degree of fidelity to its statutory purpose. Yes, teachers spent more time focusing on the five essential elements of reading; yes, they used a textbook aligned to SBRR; yes, they received professional development based on the same. And this message comes not only from teacher and principal self-reporting, but also from classroom observational data. Questioning implementation is a red herring. (The danger, of course, in saying this is that program critics, lacking an implementation culprit, may try instead to discredit the National Reading Panel research upon which the Reading First program was based. I'd respond that a two-year evaluation of a program with a bleed-over issue ought not trump a body of research that comprises the most rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted on reading to date.)

Finally, let's be reminded that we're discussing an interim report based on two school-years of data. The next study will include another year of achievement data on reading comprehension as well as an assessment of decoding skills in first grade. We are only too aware that policymakers don't always wait for final evaluation reports before cutting (or, for that matter, increasing) programs. But given the substantial money, time, importance, interest, and promise (shall I go on?) surrounding Reading First, don't we owe it to students and teachers to withhold the final verdict until all the data are in?

Arnold Schwarzenegger revels in his role as an unconventional politician. How many other Hummer-driving, global warming-fighting Republican governors can you name? Yet his big promises, like those of so many elected officials, can evaporate when the heat rises. Observe how his "Year of Education" was scrapped as California realized it was in a fiscal crisis. But in implementing No Child Left Behind, Schwarzenegger appears to be countering convention yet again. Schools in most states are learning that NCLB's bark is much worse than its bite, so to speak--that the law's stated consequences are far tougher than the actual discipline it metes out and the change that it compels. But according to the AP, California's Gubernator is taking aggressive action to intervene in failing districts. Almost 100 Golden State districts are now subject to "corrective action" because of their low performance--more than twice the number in any other state--and California appears serious about tackling at least the worst of these. As the Wall Street Journal points out about NCLB, "the more-radical restructuring remedies put forth by the law have rarely been adopted...." But at the very time that NCLB is coming in for well deserved criticism for its toothlessness and Schwarzenegger is coming in for criticism for spinelessness, something might be happening in California that goes against both images.

"No Country for Strong Men," by Daniel Weintraub, Education Next, Summer 2008

"School districts start to face sanctions under landmark law," by Juliet Williams, Associated Press, May 10, 2008

"No Child Left Behind Lacks Bite," by Robert Tomsho, Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2008

The NAACP believes that Anne Arundel County, Maryland, is suspending too many black students. Thus, according to the Baltimore Sun, the district has begun "training staff in how to work with people of different backgrounds," which means educating educators about the "occasional confrontational behavior that some African-Americans learn in their neighborhoods and use at school." Carlesa Finney, the county's director of equity assurance (yes, it's a job), noted that assistant principals, psychologists, and other administrators undergo two days of such training. And, whaddya know, fewer black students are now being sent to principals' offices (the black-student suspension rate hasn't changed, though). Ignoring poor behavior is not the same as correcting it. The best schools are generally those that take a "no excuses" attitude to discipline, that reject as nonsense the idea that black students, for example, should be held to different standards of conduct. Anne Arundel has turned this successful strategy on its head and is embracing the opposite, and wrong, approach to maintaining order in its classrooms.

"Schools Address Black Students' Suspensions," by Liz Bowie, Baltimore Sun, May 11, 2008

It is generally agreed that academically able American high school graduates should attend college, regardless of their financial circumstances. That's a time-honored education goal in this country and a worthy one.

Recently, however, the terms have shifted such that now one is obliged, in polite ed-reform company, to agree that we should nudge most if not all high school graduates toward college, even if they haven't really mastered the academic material that is required of college freshmen. A high school diploma has somehow morphed into a university acceptance letter. An article in eSchool News, for example, reported, "Students are taught to believe that earning a high school diploma means they are prepared to enter college...."

Would that such teachings were true. And perhaps one day they will be. But not today. Last week, The Gadfly noted that thousands of high school graduates in Massachusetts, which is lauded for possessing some of the nation's toughest graduation requirements, must enroll in remedial classes at college because they can't do basic, college-level work. Many of them understandably drop out. Clearly, earning a high school diploma in the Bay State, which entails passing the well-regarded MCAS exam, does not correlate to college readiness (former Massachusetts Commissioner of Education and current Fordham Trustee David Driscoll says as much, below), nor do diplomas in the 49 other states and however many territories designate one prepared for a university education.

So, shall states make receipt of a high school diploma a process that truly reflects college readiness? No. While most state graduation requirements are woefully deflated and require significant pumping up, pegging high school graduation to college entrance requirements is, at least for the foreseeable future, an impossible leap.

The establishment of challenging goals is a sharp strategy, but the establishment of impossible goals is a dull one. Think of No Child Left Behind, which has decreed that come 2014, every American child--100 percent--will be proficient in math and reading. A dandy and harmless, albeit unachievable, national aspiration? Hardly; NCLB's proficiency fantasy has nasty consequences. As Fordham showed in The Proficiency Illusion, states have reacted to the 100 percent mandate by decreasing the difficulty of their state standards (if "proficiency" is simpler to achieve, more students will achieve it).

Similarly, if America devotes itself to unreasonably inclusive expectations about who should attend college, college admissions and classes will surely lose their rigor.

An article in this month's Atlantic by an anonymous professor is illustrative. The author teaches English classes and is constantly forced to fail majorities of his pupils because many of them simply "cannot write a coherent sentence." It is apparent that one of his students, whom the author calls Ms. L, "had never been on the Internet. She quite possibly had never sat in front of a computer." College is an inappropriate place for those who lack such basic skills. Most professors, dealt similar students, will likely just lower their standards, teach easy material, and deliver sought-after grades for shoddy work. Unfortunately, higher education already struggles to combat grade inflation, already struggles to teach its students relevant, quality material--it is best not to provide colleges additional incentives to degrade their curricula and classrooms.

The anonymous author writes: "Sending everyone under the sun to college is a noble initiative." But then, he notes, it is the professor who must deliver "the news to those unfit for college: that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate... That they are not ready for high school, some of them, much less for college."

And yet, high schools continue to do ill-equipped students the intense disservice of pretending that their meager academic successes, when they occur, are stuff over which college professors will swoon. Furthermore, high schools offer academically deficient pupils few alternatives. Walt Gardner wrote last month in the Sacramento Bee, "By requiring virtually all students to take courses specifically designed for the college-bound, we unavoidably set the stage for failure."

What is to be done? Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch editorial has it right. Keep academic standards high, encourage pupils to work toward college admission, but allow teenagers other routes for success (career and technical education), too. It is folly, though, to just move academically struggling students along into higher education, to place upon colleges the burden of making up for k-12's deficiencies.

Regarding last week's Gadfly piece "Wishing for a Massachusetts miracle?": The rush to college readiness is muddying the original intent of the graduation requirement of the Massachusetts Ed Reform Law. The main intent was to make sure kids who receive a high school diploma have basic skills, and our "basic" level (called "needs improvement") accomplishes that goal. We have never denied that "needs improvement" is at about an eighth-grade level of academic performance. From my perspective, those who score "proficient" on MCAS are closer to being college ready. A great majority of students who score "proficient" do go on to higher education and do not need remediation. There are many, though, who score "proficient" and do need remediation. In these cases, I think, pupils have neglected to take challenging courses in grades 11 and 12. Before I left my position as Commissioner of Education, the state Board adopted a policy that essentially sets "proficient" as the goal, and principals must develop a plan for each kid to reach that level by graduation. Massachusetts will not deny a diploma to those students who just make the "needs improvement" mark, but in reality, scoring less than "proficient" is not good enough if one wishes to pursue higher education.

David P. Driscoll
Former Massachusetts Commissioner of Education
Trustee, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

The Economist aimed its reporting lens last week on charter schools in New York City and Chicago. In the Big Apple, demand for charter schools has overwhelmed supply, especially in Harlem: at the Harlem Success Academy Charter School lottery, 3,600 applied for 600 available spots. The city's schools chancellor, Joel Klein, has announced a plan which, according to The Economist, "would ‘charterise' the entire New York City system." In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley's Renaissance 2010 program promises to bring 100 new schools to the city's bleakest areas. "At the core of Ren 10," The Economist reports, "is the desire to welcome ‘education entrepreneurs'... Ren 10 lets them start schools and run them mostly as they choose." Chicago sets academic standards that new schools must meet, but it removes from the schools' governance much of the bureaucratic hassles that bedeck regular, district facilities--i.e., the city pushes autonomy with accountability. Both articles illustrate the deep craving that families in low-income neighborhoods have for such schools; unfortunately, both cities are struggling against legislators who want to regulate charter schools and cap their numbers. These policymakers ought to heed the demands of their constituents, not the demands of politics.

"Harlem parents are voting for charter schools with their feet," The Economist, May 8, 2008

"Red ties and boys' pride," The Economist, May 8, 2008

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters
Center for Civic Innovation, The Manhattan Institute
April 2008

Since the statewide introduction of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities in 2000, it has exploded in popularity. It currently serves nearly 18,500 students in over 800 Florida private schools, making McKay the country's largest voucher program. McKay vouchers are available to any Florida student who has been enrolled in public school for at least one year and currently has an IEP. Greene and Winters sought to examine whether the "exposure" to private schools willing to accept McKay vouchers would create positive effects for the eligible students who remained in the public school setting--i.e., whether McKay would foster constructive competition. Using longitudinal data from the Florida Department of Education, the researchers evaluated the impact on McKay-eligible students who remained in public schools of living near McKay private schools. (The longitudinal data allowed the researchers to control for student-level characteristics, such as eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches and type of disability.) Overall, they found that McKay-induced competition significantly raised the test scores of students still in the public school system. Although the report leaves much unanswered (for example: What effects do the vouchers have on the performance of the students who use them?), it does show how a targeted voucher program can have a positive impact on public education. Read it here.

Kevin Booker, Brian Gill, Ron Zimmer, Tim R. Sass
RAND Corporation
May 2008

Another study of charter schools, another call for cautious optimism. This RAND analysis examines three components of charter schooling in Chicago. First, it looks at whether Windy City charters "cream" the best and brightest from the potential pool of pupils and whether they exacerbate or ameliorate racial stratification in the district overall. The research team found no statistically significant evidence of either creaming or worsened stratification. Next, it appraises student achievement in grades three through eight, finding that, overall, charters had no significant effect on math scores and a slightly negative impact on reading scores. Broken down by race, charters had a positive impact on the math achievement of black students but negative impacts on Asian, Hispanic, and white students in both math and reading. The authors claim, however, that the effects are all quite small, and that "on average, charters are doing about as well as district-operated CPS schools in raising student achievement." Finally, analysts looked for the impact of charter high schools on graduation, college entry, and ACT scores. They started with a group of middle school charter pupils, then compared those who went on to traditional high schools to those who attended 7-12, 6-12, or k-12 charter schools. They found that students at the charter high schools could expect a half-point jump on their ACT score, a 7 percent increase in their chances of graduating, and an 11 percent increase in their odds of enrolling in college. The authors are careful to note, however, that these positive effects could somehow be attributable to "the unconventional grade configurations" of the expanded-grade charter schools and (of course) call for further research on the issue. Read the full report here.