No Child Left Behind was recently highlighted by two conservative columnists, David Brooks and George Will. In the Times, Brooks tweaked NCLB by arguing that the future is in human capital - that is, the cultural, social, moral, cognitive, and aspirational aspects of each individual. Skills and knowledge, "the stuff measured by tests," are but one part of this. Therefore, he reasons, nothing is gained by pouring money into huge federal programs such as NCLB and treating students "as skill-acquiring cogs." Instead, the instructional emphasis must come at a personalized and local level through demanding teachers who help transform all aspects of students' lives. But trouble can brew when local entities assert their autonomy. George Will examines the growing NCLB tension between state and federal authorities which, in some instances, is pitting Republicans against each other. His case-in-point is Utah, the nation's most reliably red state, which has, nonetheless, rebelled against President Bush's NCLB legislation. Conservatives believe in high standards, Will says, but they also believe in the principles of federalism, which give states significant autonomy over their internal governance (education included). Both pundits raise significant questions. Answering them is the tricky part.
"Psst! 'Human Capital,'" by David Brooks, New York Times, November 13, 2005 (Times Select subscription required)
"In Utah, No Right Left Behind," by George Will, Washington Post, November 11, 2005
While gubernatorial races hogged election-day press coverage, a couple of local races in Michigan and California have raised eyebrows. In the Great Lakes State, 18-year-old Michael Sessions is making a case for "hands-on" learning. Why study civics? Just do it! He won the Hillsdale mayoral race, as a write-in candidate, by two votes. Sessions campaigned on a platform of stimulating Hillsdale's economic development. In a town with an unemployment rate hovering around 6 percent, and where more than 10 percent of the population lives in poverty, Sessions's foci hit home. Until he graduates from high school in May, though, he'll fulfill his mayoral duties after school. An equally interesting display of democracy occurred in California where Randy Hale, an inmate of the California Institution for Men in Chino, was elected to the Romoland school board. A political science professor at UC Riverside thinks Hale may have won "because he was at the top of the ballot." Remember that the next time you hear the National School Boards Association celebrating the genius of "local control." Hale's release is scheduled for February 15th. Until then, he'll have plenty of free time in which to craft a revolutionary plan for the revitalization of Romoland's district schools. First action item: School uniforms (orange, of course).
"High School Kid by Day, Mr. Mayor by Night," by P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2005
"Prisoner elected to Calif. school board," Fox News, November 10, 2005
In Penfield, N.Y., high-flying math whiz Jim Munch looked to be the poster child for constructivist math curriculum. He scored a 5 on the A.P. Calculus exam, and hopes to become a theoretical mathematician. Turns out, he succeeded in spite, not because of, his school's progressivist training. Munch's parents (one an engineer, the other an educator) instructed him by night as his school teachers pushed "fuzzy" math by day. (See here and here for more on the problems of this fad.) "Kids do not do better learning math themselves," young Munch said. "There's a reason we go to school, which is that there's someone smarter than us with something to teach us." A novel idea, that. Ardent constructivists, such as the folks who lead the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Penfield School District, don't think "old-fashioned" math skills (including learning basic items such as multiplication tables) are necessary for academic success. That simply doesn't compute.
"'Innovative' Math, but Can You Count?" by Samuel G. Freedman, New York Times, November 9, 2005
My friend, colleague, and boss Gaynor McCown died this week, leaving this earth far too soon at the age of 45. Gaynor started as Executive Director of The Teaching Commission during the same month that I started at the National Council on Teacher Quality. She set up a lunch so that we could meet and talk about how our two organizations could work together. I thought I was going to have lunch with a man - a misunderstanding I didn't hide very well when I saw this petite blonde waiting for me at the restaurant - but Gaynor reacted with grace and laughter. We immediately hit it off, discovering not only that we held very similar views about teacher quality issues, but also that we shared similar backgrounds. We had both gone to colleges in the same town at about the same time. After college, Gaynor did social justice work in Latin America and became life-long friends with a woman who had been my college roommate and bridesmaid but with whom I had completely lost touch. Gaynor made it clear she thought that was disgraceful and then made it her personal mission to make sure we reconnected.
Gaynor McCown epitomized graciousness. She knew all along that relationships are the most important thing about life. She knew absolutely everyone. Everyone loved her from the instant they met her, drawn in by her self-effacing humor and that charming Southern accent still so prominent after years of living in Manhattan. Any time I needed a door opened for NCTQ, Gaynor knew whom to call and was always happy to provide an entree. Without her personal support and eagerness to help, I know that our organization would not be thriving today. She was determined to help us succeed, having decided from the start that NCTQ should carry on the teacher quality work of The Teaching Commission when it closed its doors as scheduled. Inspired by Gaynor's gentle, but determined soul, our daunting challenge feels a little lighter.
Godspeed, Gaynor.
- Kate Walsh
Kate Walsh is president of the National Council on Teacher Quality. Gaynor McCown chaired NCTQ's board.
Parents who contend that schools are failing their special needs children will now have to do more than make the claim in order to get the additional services they desire. They'll have to prove their case. The Supreme Court's decision on Monday that parents, and not school districts, bear the burden of proof when contesting the goals and instructional methods spelled out in their children's individualized education plan(s) (IEP) could greatly reduce the number of cases that go to court for resolution. Districts see an opportunity to save big bucks. In the District of Columbia, the amount spent on IEP appeals jumped from $499,000 in 2001 to $2.9 million in 2005. "This will help us pare down the amount of money spent on special education and allow us to use that money to give students a world-class education in the D.C. school system," says the D.C. school board president. We'll see about that. Others worry that the children of parents unable to afford costly litigation will suffer most. Gadfly wonders: why not leave the school systems in charge of the services they provide (which the ruling does) but also offer parents scholarship money so, if they disagree with their district's special education approach, they can move their children to another school?
"In Special-Ed Case, Court Backs Montgomery Schools," by Charles Lane and Lori Aratani, Washington Post, November 15, 2005
"D.C. Schools See Opportunity to Pare Back," by Lori Aratani and V. Dion Haynes, Washington Post, November 15, 2005
"Parents Carry Burden of Proof in School Cases, Court Rules," by Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, November 15, 2005
Greg Forster
The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation
October 2005
School choice starts with legislation, but it doesn't end there. Each choice program's success depends upon implementation, which is handled by school districts and state or local authorities who can aid the program with simple enlistment procedures or stifle it with convoluted participation policies. This Friedman Foundation study assesses how easy it is for students to participate in each of the nation's fourteen K-12 school-choice programs (choice, here, meaning vouchers, tax-funded scholarships, and tax credits and deductions - charter schools are conspicuously absent). Ratings are based on an analysis of eligibility criteria and application processes. The study also examines each program's history, noting the number of eligible students who participate year-to-year. The results? As one might expect, it's easy for parents and students to participate in some choice programs and hard to take part in others. Milwaukee's voucher system, for example, is rated "excellent." The city sets no application deadline, and students are admitted on a rolling basis. Interested parents can access application forms online or pick them up from participating schools. Finally, students need not reapply each year. On the other hand, Florida's A+ voucher program, rated "poor," is faulted for its procedural burdens. Participation is limited to students in schools whose schools have received an "F" grade (based on test scores) twice in four years. After the state announces school grades, parents of eligible students have two weeks to complete the web-only application process. The report finds that short window especially restraining. Author Greg Forster terms it "a major procedural burden," and writes that parents "do not even know whether they are eligible until school grades come out, at which point the two-week clock begins ticking." Perhaps that's why Milwaukee's voucher participation has skyrocketed over the past five years, and Florida's has not. Interested readers will be rewarded by this simple yet informative report. Find it here.
National Association of Secondary School Principals2005
National Association of State Boards of EducationOctober 2005
There are plenty of sound materials for teaching young children to read, but not many for instructing adolescents to do the same. Alas, these two new publications, aimed specifically at the problem of adolescent literacy, don't much help. Creating a Culture of Literacy is more of the same, tired whole-language rhetoric (successful literacy programs use "motivation," "self-directed learning," and "effective instructional principles embedded in content" to raise achievement). And despite its frequent invocation of the word "data," the report is seriously lacking in numbers to back up its claims. Of the five school-success profiles it offers, just one (J.E.B. Stuart High School in Virginia) references specific data to support its assertion that the adopted reading literacy curriculum had a positive impact. The study cites that school's overall improvement on the Virginia Standards of Learning Tests - passing rates in Reading and Literature jumped from 64 to 94 percent between 1998 and 2004. But these gains are suspect because most schools in Virginia have shown similar gains on state tests. Reading at Risk values phonics-based reading instruction, but its primary focus is influencing state leaders by encouraging them to set high literacy goals, paying for teacher training, and requiring districts to adopt only research-based literacy strategies, not discussing what does and doesn't work in the classroom. The report does reference both the Just Read, Florida! and the Alabama Reading Initiative programs, but details of these programs' successes with adolescents are lacking. Still, for those interested in influencing state leaders to set a sound policy course on secondary-school reading, this one is worth perusing.
Philanthropy magazine
by Joanne Jacobs
October 2005
Those who dispute the "Great Man" theory of history may have to reconsider their position. Philanthropy magazine's essay on the late John Walton's influence on school choice leaves little room for doubting that a single person can change the world. The tribute, ably and eloquently penned by Joanne Jacobs, includes a parade of examples showing how Walton and his family's foundation catapulted school choice from a good idea shared by a few people to a nationwide movement. Consider just two of these. Walton (and Ted Forstmann) underwrote scholarships for 40,000 American students through the Children's Scholarship Fund. When CSF was launched, more than 1.2 million people applied. "That was the beginning of a national debate," says Gisele Huff, because the overwhelming interest made it "impossible to ignore the desperation of parents whose children were in low-quality public schools." Another example: the quarter-million dollars that the Walton foundation provided to each of more than 500 charter schools. Says NewSchools Venture Fund head Kim Smith, "I don't know if we'd have a charter school movement without John Walton." Indeed. Walton also backed and helped to build a network of state and local advocacy organizations, including the Black Alliance for Educational Options and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options. But Jacobs does more than capture the dollars and cents side of Walton's impact on education; she also evokes his persona and character. "Before the tenth anniversary gala for the Center for Education Reform," she writes, "...Walton asked whether he needed to rent a tuxedo." Seems he didn't want to because whenever he wore one, "people treated him differently." He was "Just John," says Jacobs, to everyone who met him - including me. I had the pleasure of talking briefly with him at an event in San Diego. Though surrounded by dozens, when I called out, "Mr. Walton, can I take your photo for Philanthropy magazine?" he stopped and replied, "Sure, but just call me John." Fortunately for us all, Walton's "just" being John was more than enough. And because of him, today there are hundreds of thousands of school children receiving a better education.
We seek to make information about school choice more accessible. Toward that end, we now have an Excel spreadsheet that lists charter school information for Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. It contains the schools' contact information, latest student counts, financial data, and academic ratings. We plan to update it quarterly and eventually expand it to other cities in Ohio, but if you see information you know is incorrect, we welcome the feedback.
There has been a lot of talk lately about value-added assessment in Ohio (including a high profile conference by Battelle for Kids last month). The day is nearing when the Buckeye State goes "value-added." A pilot run is set for next school year and full-scale implementation is set for 2007-08. Naturally, plenty of questions still surround this new assessment model and what it will mean for students, schools, and district accountability. In an effort to help shed light on this, Gadfly has decided to explore some of the most asked questions about value-added assessment.
What does value-added assessment really mean?
It's a method of analyzing individual student test scores over time. The statistics used in value-added assessment virtually eliminate non-school factors that affect student achievement, providing a reasonably accurate indication of how effective schools are at "adding value" to the academic performance of their students. It does not, however, focus on whether or not students have reached proficiency on state standards. Some schools may measure high on growth indicators but low on achievement indicators (say, a high school with lots of students who start out far behind but make great progress over time, yet still are not up to standards). Under No Child Left Behind, and Ohio's current accountability system, such schools are punished. One may wonder whether that's fair. (But one may also wonder whether it's fair to praise a school for adding value if its students are still not performing satisfactorily in relation to absolute standards.)
How will value-added assessment be factored into the state's accountability system?
It's supposed to supplement the state's current accountability system (which is aligned with the federal No Child Left Behind law), but the Ohio Accountability Task Force is still working to determine how best to accomplish this goal. The questions they are dealing with include such issues as how much growth is enough and how much progress is enough? How can we focus on growth while still ensuring that all children ultimately reach proficiency in reading and math standards by 2014 (which NCLB requires)? And, what does value-added assessment mean for accountability and charter schools, especially for schools that serve drop-outs? Will value-added measures be used to provide financial awards to schools and teachers, as is the case in some other states?
As this unfolds in the coming months, Gadfly will provide our readers with updates. In the meantime, if you'd like more information, check out these websites: