Student Walter Petryk must have known when he donned a Hitler costume this past Tuesday morning that administrators at Leon M. Goldstein High School for the Sciences wouldn't be pleased. Probably for that precise reason, or because he had grown a mustache for the occasion, he did it anyway. Dean Paul Puglia removed Petryk from second period English: "Excuse me, führer, can I talk to you for a minute?" After convening in the hallway, Puglia asked the student, "Are you out of your mind, you idiot?" and told him, "Consider yourself my prisoner of war." Under interrogation, however, Petryk refused to remove the costume. Der Jugend's Jewish stepfather, Howard Bloom, editor of the New Paradigm book series and oft-censored author of The Lucifer Principle, defended the outfit as free expression. But fighting for free expression at school is one thing. Apparently, fighting for it (really fighting) on the New York subway is quite another--Petryk disguised himself as Charlie Chaplin during his morning commute.
"Hitler Youth H'Ween Shock," by David Andreatta and Patrick Gallahue, New York Post, November 1, 2006
I appreciated last week's Gadfly editorial ("Urban tragedy," Oct. 26). We are finding the same thing here in Pennsylvania with our corporate tax credit program. Catholic school closings have lessened over the past five years because, thanks to the scholarships, students can now remain enrolled in them. Sustaining the infrastructure of private schools that provide choice is just as important as creating new schools of choice. Good work identifying that!
Andrew T. LeFevre
Executive Director
REACH Alliance & REACH Foundation
"Makes no sense at all.... A truly dumb idea." A commentary on Mike Tyson's recent announcement that he wants to fight women? Nope. It's Koret Task Force member (and Stanford political science professor) Terry Moe's assessment of paying teachers based on tenure rather than merit. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Moe dismisses the idea that schools should "hire employees for life and pay them without regard for their performance." According to Moe, in a school, "like any organization, the key to effective performance lies in getting the incentives right... This is Management 101: elementary, fundamental, essential." So why don't more schools adopt these basic managerial practices? Moe says teachers unions present the biggest obstacle, although he optimistically claims that they "are surrounded by more incentive-pay brush fires than they can put out" (see here, here, here, and here). We think he's right. It's ridiculous to pay teachers of gym and physics the same wage, and to ignore teacher performance when calculating salaries and raises. The unions can't forever get away with denying the obvious.
"Management 101 for Our Public Schools," by Terry M. Moe, Wall Street Journal, October 31, 2006
Schools in Garfield, New Jersey, boast the latest in high-priced amenities, including a spanking new $40 million middle school. Odd for a blue-collar city with low school taxes, unless one knows that Garfield is in a so-called Abbott school district--one of 31 poor New Jersey districts that, by court order, have received $35 billion in state aid since 1997. Today, over half of all money each year allotted by Jersey to its 616 districts goes to those 31. The money seems to have helped in some places: 79.9 percent of Garfield's fourth graders, for example, reached the proficient level in language arts in 2005. But student achievement in other cities such as Camden has stagnated, and their schools are often mired in scandal. "Lots of money has been spent, and in some places, there is very little to show," said Lucille E. Davy, the state's education commissioner. New Jersey is right to base its school funding on need, but the Abbott formula is far too crude and, because it focuses on entire districts and not individual students, often ends up benefiting affluent kids in poor districts (at the expense of needy students in richer areas). But one can't expect much more from adequacy lawsuits, such as the one that generated the Abbott system. States take heed: To do need-based funding right, fund the child. And leave the courts out of it.
"In New Jersey, System to Help Poorest Schools Faces Criticism," by Winnie Hu, New York Times, October 30, 2006
Last week the Department of Education announced new rules that clear the way for public school districts to open single-sex schools and classrooms. Since then, a flood of criticisms from women's groups and some civil rights organizations has spewed forth.
The changes, they contend, portend the re-segregation of public schools and threaten to undermine the civil rights gains for women that so many have worked so hard to secure. Nancy Zirkin, vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, told Diana Jean Schemo of the New York Times, "Segregation is totally unacceptable in the context of race.... Why in the world in the context of gender would it be acceptable." (See story here.)
Siding with Zirkin are the National PTA, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women (NOW), and a host of others fretful that we are returning to a segregated society.
But for low-income parents who mostly create the demand for single-sex public schools and for educators who operate and support them, such schools present no challenge to civil rights. In fact, they are one of the keys to delivering what the civil rights movement promised: equal opportunity for all.
That's the opinion of William Lawson, who since 2002 has run the William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity middle school (WALIPP), a single-sex charter school in Houston. Lawson wanted a school that would cater to low-income black males, who, he argues, learn better in single-sex schools under the direction of black male teachers. "We think [our students] can learn better in an all male environment," he told the Houston Chronicle. And their soaring scores in math and reading suggest he's right. He's applied to convert his school from charter to traditional public.
Tom Carroll, chairman of the Brighter Choice Charter Schools in Albany, New York, has also seen first-hand the difference same-sex schools can make. Brighter Choice operates two schools-one for boys, one for girls-and their students have excelled in the classroom and on state exams (see here). And parents are responding. Roughly one-third of Albany's elementary students applied for the 50 single-sex slots available at his schools last year.
So impressed with Brighter Choice's success was Martin Luther King III that he spoke to the schools' leaders earlier this year. For King, Brighter Choices is an extension of the civil rights movement, not a threat to it.
Said King: "Like the American Civil Rights Movement, [Brighter Choice's] efforts to educate ... children ... is about liberation-liberation from prejudice, liberation from socially imposed limitations, and liberation of the dignity, capabilities, and potential for excellence that dwells in the heart of every human being."
Benjamin Wright, regional director of Victory Schools in Philadelphia, a private manager of public schools, would most likely agree with King.
In 2000, Wright was principal of the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School. Concerned about his students' abysmal test scores, he turned to single-sex education as a way to focus their attention and to allow teachers to target problems that plagued the majority of boys (poor English skills) and girls (poor math skills). He divided his troubled 343 students into boys' and girls' classes, and "turned the school upside down," he said. The boys in the school surged from just 10 percent meeting state reading requirements to 66 percent in two years. Girls' scores, too, climbed, though not as sharply.
Leonard Sax, executive director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Schools, has been in the vanguard of single-sex schools for more than a decade. Stories such as those told by Lawson, Carroll, and Wright aren't anomalies, he would argue. In fact, the evidence is mounting that single-sex schools work.
On his NASSPS website, Sax chronicles the growing number of studies that show the advantages, both academic and personal, that boys and girls reap when they attend single-gender schools. (Wealthy parents have known for years that single-sex education benefits their children, which is one reason why they dole out tens of thousands of dollars a year to send them to exclusive prep schools.) A review of research by Pamela Haag further strengthens Sax's conclusion (see here).
Still, Zirkin is unimpressed. Same-sex schools are "a gimmick," she tells CNN.com. "You don't know the impact on the other kids who are left behind."
But the children these schools are serving--mostly poor and minorities--have already been left behind. The bottom line, Sax explains, is that boys and girls learn differently. Recognizing this, and responding appropriately, only makes sense.
Single-sex schools aren't for everyone--Sax (as well as Lawson, Carroll, and Wright) will be the first to admit that. But for those who could potentially benefit, we owe it to them to give them this chance. It's a matter of basic civil rights.
DC College Access Program, DC Education Compact, DC Public Schools, DC State Education Office
October 2006
This study confirms that the District of Columbia's public schools (DCPS), despite multiple reform efforts (see here and here), are still failing most of their students, particularly when it comes to college preparedness. According to the report, only 9 percent of D.C. ninth-graders will complete college within five years of graduating high school (compared with 23 percent nationwide). As its title suggests, the report focuses on how to double this number for today's ninth-graders--the high school class of 2010. The authors offer a "10-Point Plan." One recommendation, for instance, calls on the city to "put systems in place to monitor student progress." The District would thereby fall in line with such cities as New York and Philadelphia, both now using data tools to determine, among other things, when and why students drop out. Another recommendation is for D.C. to expand student access to college-prep curricula such as AP and IB. The report's final recommendations mostly concern the leap from high school to college and identify the need for: better guidance counseling for both parents and students; increased access to financial aid; more college-level guidance on matters such as student loans; and improved district relationships with area colleges. All in all, it's a solid plan for beginning to address the major challenges facing those in D.C. who aspire to graduate college. Although one wonders why the authors pay so little attention to deeper, potentially more effective, systemic reforms such as replicating successful charter school models. Regardless, the path that DCPS ultimately takes will rely on soon-to-be-Mayor Adrian Fenty, who seems poised to make a grab for control of the district. He should take a look at this report.
Hilary Pennington
Center for American Progress
October 2006
Students in China spend nearly 30 percent more time in school than their American peers. That's a bit shocking. But so, too, is the finding that, twenty-three years after A Nation at Risk, "the only recommendation that has not been implemented in any systematic way is the proposal for increasing learning time by extending the school day and/or year." This report examines high schools that require an extended learning day (rather than offer it as a voluntary elective), evaluates the success of these schools, and analyzes how such reforms could be accomplished on a larger scale. While more time in class is no "silver bullet" for raising student achievement, the author correctly notes, successful extended learning schools have some things in common. They supplement the added hours with a culture focused on preparation for life after high school, place high expectations upon their students, and offer a solid core curriculum. For example, University Park Campus School (UPCS) in Worcester, Massachusetts, a 7th-12th grade public high school recognized as one of the nation's best, requires all entering seventh graders to attend a month-long academy that force feeds them the institution's culture of academic achievement. Budget issues in Worcester forced the school to cut back its extended learning periods, so UPCS now uses extended learning at critical points--when students enter seventh grade, and when they're nearing graduation in eleventh and twelfth--instead of throughout a student's stay. The older students often spend their extended hours in internships or structured independent study. Nearly all the school's students--the majority of them low-income, minority, and immigrants--pass the state MCAS test on the first try, and all graduates have attended college. That type of success doesn't come about just from longer school days. It's the overwhelming achievement culture, of which extended learning may be a part, that breeds the success. Extra time can be wasted, too. The report profiles other successful schools, and how they're using extended learning to boost student achievement. Find it here.
Bryan Hassel, Charter School Leadership Council
February 2005
The short answer to the implied question in this report's title is: not enough but much of what we know is brighter than the New York Times wants you to think. Bryan Hassel of Public Impact looked at 38 studies of charter school achievement that meet certain criteria for timeliness, analytic seriousness, and scope. His report finds that the studies are all over the map, both in their usefulness and their findings. Some have serious methodological shortcomings (especially in looking at aggregated school performance rather than disaggregated student performance). About half, including the infamous AFT study from last August are less-useful snapshots rather than appraisals of performance over time. Of the 21 that do look at data over time, 12 find charters outpacing public school achievement gains generally or for specific at-risk populations, five call it a draw, and three say charters are behind. A murky picture, though on balance encouraging, and we should take to heart Hassel's call for more and better data and analysis of charter school performance. You can find the full report at http://www.charterschoolleadershipcouncil.org/PDF/Paper.pdf.
The Fordham Report 2006: How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children? appraises each state according to thirty indicators across three major categories: student achievement for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students; achievement trends for these same groups over the last 10-15 years; and the state's track record in implementing bold education reforms. It finds that just eight states can claim even moderate success over the past 15 years at boosting the percentage of their poor or minority students who are at or above proficient in reading, math or science. In addition, most states making significant achievement gains--including California, Delaware, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Texas--are national leaders in education reform, indicating that solid standards, tough accountability, and greater school choice can yield better classroom results.
Policy Priority:
Topics:
During the past few years, scores of impoverished inner-city schools have shut their doors. On the surface, that could be a blessing. After all, one of the major problems with American education is that bad schools seem to live forever.
But, alas, I'm not writing about those schools--the persistently failing public schools that, under No Child Left Behind, are supposed to be "restructured" out of existence, or at least subjected to an extreme makeover. No, the ones leaving children standing outside their locked doors are generally places of deep learning, community institutions that have effectively served the children of the poor for generations. They are Catholic parochial schools--and their closure is nothing but a tragedy.
The trend is unmistakable. The Archdiocese of Detroit closed 21 schools last year (and more are likely to shut next year). The New York and Brooklyn archdioceses shut down 36 schools over the past two years. In 2005, the Chicago archdiocese ended operations in 18 schools. And the tally in Boston? Twenty-one schools over four years. The longer-term trends are even bleaker: Several big cities, such as Chicago, serve less than a third of the students today than they did 40 years ago.
The closures have little to do with the quality of education that these schools provide. Two decades of studies have shown them to be effective, especially for poor and minority children. Rather, broader demographic trends are to blame. Simply put, the schools' pipeline of affordable teachers has run dry. Once upon a time, most Catholic-school instructors were members of religious orders, requiring little or no cash compensation; now there are more nuns over age 90 than under 50 in the U.S., and only five percent of the schools' teachers come from religious orders. Lay teachers must be paid a decent wage, pushing Catholic-school tuitions out of reach for many poor families.
Meanwhile, in some of the same poor neighborhoods where effective Catholic schools are getting the axe, failing public schools remain open, seemingly resistant to reform.
Wasn't the "accountability movement" supposed to change that? Since the late 1990s, there's been a bipartisan consensus that persistently underperforming public schools should be transformed or shuttered. In the 2000 presidential debate, even Al Gore said that, if they don't respond to extra resources and reform efforts, failing schools should be closed.
That sentiment made its way into President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, which gives failing schools five years to get better and make "adequate yearly progress." But if they don't, they are supposed to face severe consequences. NCLB requires school districts to implement one of five "alternative governance" arrangements: 1) reopen the school as a charter school; 2) replace all or most of the staff; 3) contract with a private management company to run the school; 4) turn the school over to the state; or 5) implement "any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement."
Which of those five options do you think most school districts are choosing? If you guessed #5, give yourself a gold star. This has become known simply as "the loophole," because its abuse is so rampant. The Center on Education Policy has studied the "restructuring" of failing schools in California and Michigan and found that most districts are electing this last option and then "intervening" with nicey-nice reforms, such as sending an "instructional coach" to the school or tweaking its curriculum. For schools that have been failing since their fifth graders were in kindergarten, these punishments hardly match the crime; these lukewarm reactions run contrary to the spirit of NCLB.
Why aren't federal enforcers doing more to address this scandal? To be fair, it's hard enough for Washington to coerce states and school districts to do something simple and straightforward (such as testing all their new teachers before allowing them into the classroom). Getting them to do something complex and unpopular (such as shutting schools, dismissing their teaching staffs, and reopening them under new management) is next to impossible.
One might at least expect Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to use her megaphone to push the system to do the right thing. Instead, she has chosen to whisper. In "non-regulatory guidance" released this summer with zero fanfare, the Education Department urged states and districts to foreswear the loophole and instead enact "fundamental reforms" such as "dissolving" failing schools or closing and reopening them. The guidance also made clear that teacher union contracts can't be used to exempt schools from the restructuring provisions.
This is a good start, but it's going to take far greater attention--and some actual threats of withholding funds--to get states and districts to implement NCLB's tough-love approach. The secretary might think that law is "99.9 percent pure--like Ivory Soap," as she cheekily claimed last month, but if thousands of failing schools are allowed to exist in perpetuity, the act's credibility is going to sink like a stone.
Spellings even has a ready-made answer to critics who say that failing public schools can't be closed because there's nowhere else for their pupils to go: the hundreds of Catholic schools that would be more than happy to serve them--if only they don't close their own doors first. In fact, the president's $100 million "Opportunity Scholarships for Kids" proposal could simultaneously provide options to students trapped in failing public schools, at least in a handful of communities, while also throwing a lifeline to valuable Catholic schools. That's been a powerful combination in D.C., where the federally-funded Washington Scholarship Fund has provided second chances to 2,000 District of Columbia schoolchildren--and to the parochial schools that now serve many of them.
The dire situation of urban Catholic schools invites divine intervention. But in the meantime, a little federal intervention--in the form of school vouchers--just might have to do.
This article originally appeared, in slightly altered form, in National Review Online.