Making sense of mid-term elections is akin to making sense of the opening break in a pool game. Casual observers sometimes believe that if the person breaking puts several balls into the pockets, he has the inside track on winning. But experienced players know it's how the remaining balls set up that determines the victor.
The opening break last Tuesday was obviously a good one for Democrats, as voters snapped the 12-year Republican hold on both House and Senate and a bunch of governorships as well. Much crowing ensued among the Dems, while the White House dusted off the "bipartisanship" dictionary that it shelved soon after No Child Left Behind cleared the Congress in 2001.
Among education watchers, the speculation began even before the election about how a Democratic "revolution" would affect NCLB's pending re-authorization in 2007 (though few believe it will happen then). Education Week rightly notes that both Rep. George Miller, the next chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, incoming (and returning) chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, stand behind the principles of NCLB (after all, they helped to write it) and that its key components are safe in their hands (though much-needed improvements aren't likely to occur).
So far, so good for those of us, whatever our party affiliation, who want to keep NCLB's heart beating. But the law's supporters can't rest easy, because this billiard table doesn't set up so well for NCLB in the near future.
That same Education Week article notes there is a growing anti-NCLB coalition, headed by Sen. Christopher Dodd and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. Each will likely hold powerful education subcommittee seats and may try to rally others to defang the law.
It's these more critical voices that worry party strategists, writes Paul Basken in Tuesday's Bloomberg News. According to his squib, Democratic critics of NCLB are being encouraged by party strategists to tone down their rhetoric lest "they strengthen Republicans who want to kill the law altogether."
Who are these Republicans? They're people such as Rep. Mike Pence, who believes that his party is now in the minority because Bush abandoned the GOP values--limited government and low taxes--that were the foundation of the Reagan Revolution in 1980 and the Republican Revolution in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and company ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House.
"Returning Republicans to the Reagan roots," writes Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal (see here; subscription required), "is Mr. Pence's obsession." Which is why he defied W in 2001 and voted against funding for NCLB. "Why," Pence asked at the time, "are we federalizing schools and education?"
Pence is running for Minority Leader against John Boehner, who coauthored NCLB and has spent the past five years as one of its cheerleaders. Odds are that Boehner will win when the vote is taken tomorrow (let's hope the prognosticators are right). But even if he loses, Pence and like-minded Republicans are prepared to make a grab for power in Congress should Republicans regain control again in '08.
Nearly everyone agrees the Ds' victory last Tuesday was less an endorsement of that party's vision than a sign of widespread frustration with Bush. In other words, the old "Reagan Democrats" turned on the GOP and supported Dems such as James Webb in Virginia, Heath Shuler in North Carolina, and Jon Tester in Montana--people who hardly share the progressive notions of party leaders Pelosi, Kennedy, Miller, Dodd, and Woolsey.
If the party leadership forgets this fact (Pelosi promises that she won't, but don't bet on it), those same Reagan Democrats who contributed to the Ds' success last week may show them the door in '08, empowering the newly energized conservatives.
That could spell trouble for NCLB. (And for my colleague's "Washington Consensus.") Pence and his followers wouldn't just tinker around the law's edges. They would be more apt to shoot it through the head. While that's admittedly a long shot, they could weaken it into a shadow of its current self.
For the sake of those states that have embraced NCLB and built new systems that are beginning to show real achievement gains, let's hope that Pelosi and company don't lose their heads.
NEA President Reg Weaver must have been flying high without much oxygen when he lauded Southwest Airlines' no-merit-pay policy. "Southwest thrived by sharing ideas," he wrote, "building a strong, unified corporate culture, and--here's a radical notion--encouraging workers to help one another." What's radical is Weaver comparing the rule-bound, change-resistant public education monopoly to an innovative upstart born from deregulation. Sure, Southwest eschews merit pay, but it also pushes its employees to work harder and for less money than other airlines do. And, according to this case study, part of its success is due to the fact that its "unions are not interested in pushing their roles beyond the traditional collective bargaining and grievance functions they perform." Are you willing to take that deal, Mr. Weaver? In the meantime, let's get something straight: charter schools are the Southwests and Jet Blues (and, to be fair, the Independence Airs) of the education industry. Without deregulation and competition, having the Blob mimic Southwest's promising practices will amount to peanuts. Ooops. Pretzels.
"To boost students and teachers, steer clear of merit pay on the road to reform," by Reg Weaver, Christian Science Monitor, November 13, 2006
National Center for Education Statistics
November 2006
2005 was is the first time NCES conducted its Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) for science. The report is now out and, as in other subjects, poor and minority kids in these ten big cities don't do well. This study compares these cities' test results to national averages and urban scores in general. Some of the ten score higher than others, some lower; some score higher than cities-in-general, others don't. All urban results are below the national average, but the achievement gaps in TUDA cities are not significantly different from national achievement gaps. No trend data are yet available. Almost as alarming as those gaps, however, is the attempt at positive "spin" that the National Assessment Governing Board is putting on the results. For starters, check out the "slide show" here (which offers no real news). Then read the report's text and see if you encounter any mention at all of the fact that "proficient"--reached by far too few, especially poor and minority youngsters--is the level that everyone is supposed to reach. NAGB seems content with "basic"--at least for these kids. Have they, too, succumbed to the soft bigotry of low expectations? The text report can be accessed here.
Ruth Curran Neild and Robert Belfanz
Project U-Turn
November 2006
Turning it Around: A Collective Effort to Understand and Resolve Philadelphia's Dropout Crisis
Project U-Turn
November 2006
Philadelphia has a dropout crisis. Project U-Turn's dual reports on this topic offer some important insights that could help policymakers tackle the problem more effectively. Their main virtue is the use of cohort data, which track a particular group of students over time instead of simply looking at a one-year snapshot. By doing this, the authors show not only that 40 percent of students leave Philadelphia high schools without graduating, but also which youngsters are at greatest risk. They argue that "about half of the dropouts in the city's public schools can be identified in the 8th grade" depending on whether students attend school 80 percent of the time and whether they fail either English or math. Factor in predictors for at-risk ninth-graders--attending school less than 70 percent of the time, earning fewer than two credits, not being promoted to tenth grade--and you've identified 80 percent of the dropouts. Other places, such as New York, have undertaken similar data-gathering projects (see here). Now the challenge is turning insight into action; the report's City-Wide Action Agenda is a good start. Read the reports here.
Sara Mead
Education Sector
October 2006
This concise report on charter schools in Michigan brings welcome clarity to the confusing history and status of chartering in the Great Lakes State. It is another in the excellent series, previously published by the Progressive Policy Institute, examining how charters are faring across the nation. With some 230 schools enrolling almost 100,000 students, and a political climate that even James Carville would find challenging, Michigan's charter landscape is vast and varied. Mead explains how tiny Bay Mills Community College--a tribally controlled school on the Upper Peninsula--busted the state's cap on charters to become a major authorizer; how and why Detroit blew a chance to receive 200 million private dollars to build 15 charters; and how Education Management Organizations have created strong schools while undermining public trust. Of the charters themselves, Mead notes that their efforts to improve student achievement, while exceptional in a few instances, have been modest in general. Compared to nearby district schools, charters do marginally better. But compared to traditional public schools statewide, charters have considerable ground to make up. Mead's recommendations for improving Michigan's charters are sound (with specific suggestions to address the state's charter school cap and its funding problems), if sometimes predictable ("improve quality in mediocre charter schools," "close low-performing schools," "improve ... data collection," etc.). Important reading, both for Michiganders and for all charter mavens. Read it here.
Stacy Childress, Richard Elmore, and Allen Grossman
Harvard Business Review
November 2006
This study, carried out by the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP), a partnership between Harvard's business and education schools, examined 15 urban districts in hopes of identifying management practices that are most effective in raising student achievement. It begins by noting that districts are not businesses and should not be run like businesses (unclear, though, why all the recommendations sound like material straight out of Management 101). Contrary to reformers who stress devolving power to individual schools, these authors argue that a strong central office is necessary. Look at charter schools, they implore, victimized by their own autonomy and in need of central organizations (authorizers, charter management organizations, networks, etc.) that construct "accountability systems, share best practices, and recruit and retain teachers." Recommendations follow for districts to get their acts together. On balance, there's little new here. The trick isn't identifying an effective framework; it's implementing it. And the major problem in these districts isn't lack of know-how, but politics. If you persist in wanting to read the report, you can find it here (but you'll need a credit card--this is Harvard, after all).
Chelsea Clinton showed up at a polling station on West 20th Street in Manhattan to find that her name wasn't on the voter rolls. Republican Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio could not vote because the addresses on his ID and registration didn't match (Chabot went on to win his race, but it was close). But no such problems were found at a certain Arlington (VA) polling location, where turnout was close to 100 percent, and things went off without a hitch. Last Monday, Taylor Elementary School held its student council elections. A small room, equipped with four laptops (yup, electronic ballots) served as polling station. Candidates were present, too, and enthusiastic about partaking in the democratic process. Nine-year-old Alisha Hiskey, who ran for vice president, couldn't contain herself: "Is it fun? Is it fun?" she asked her peers who emerged from the voting booths. Most nodded that yes, in fact, it was, although Megan Koch, 10, found the new computer system a bit disconcerting. "I have a sibling in first grade," she said, "and I think she's going to be more used to the computer. It will come more naturally." We know, Megan--it's tough to keep up with the youngsters.
"Young V. Voters Go High Tech, Show Very High Tolerance," by Tara Bahrampour, Washington Post, November 7, 2006
The muddle coming from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) is troubling. Brief history: After establishing Reform "fuzzy" Math education (i.e., estimate this, guess at that) as the standard in many American schools, NCTM seemed to have realized the error of its ways when it called for a return to math basics in its publication Curriculum Focal Points (see here). But the group has yet to come clean about its past mistakes; among other things, its executives have written letters to newspapers protesting coverage that portrayed Focal Points as a repudiation of NCTM's earlier stand. While officials waffle, kids are losing out. Some students are enrolling in private math tutoring, not because they have difficulty understanding numbers, but simply because their classroom math education is so shoddy (see here). NCTM should retire its fuzzy rhetoric and let states and districts know, once and for all, that its past tenets were flawed--and be proud of its new Focal Points, which really add up.
"Down for the Count?," by Melana Zyla Vickers, Weekly Standard, November 6, 2006 (subscription required)
Left-leaning folks who rail against vouchers better start stretching, because justifying their uncompromising stance is going to take added verbal gymnastics. Already this crew is hard-pressed to explain its opposition to lifting low-income and minority students out of failing urban schools, improving public schools through competition, and trying to level the educational landscape. But now, liberal voucher opponents will also have to find a way to oppose diversity. A recent report from the Friedman Foundation (see here) found that in 2003, private voucher schools in Milwaukee were 13 percent more racially diverse than their public school counterparts; in Cleveland, they were 18 percent more diverse. The numbers aren't really shocking; most urban public schools are racially monolithic because the neighborhoods they serve are highly segregated. But the Friedman report shines a light on the statistics, and it will be tough for voucher-despising liberals, for whom diversity is often the Holy Grail of public policy, to ignore them.
"Vouchers in Black and White," Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2006 (subscription required)