The Center for Education Reform this week released the latest edition of its ranking of the "strength" of the nation's 40 charter school laws. Arizona retains the top ranking this year as Minnesota moves into second place. New charter laws in Tennessee and Iowa garner a C-minus and F respectively. For more information, surf to www.edreform.com/charter_schools/laws/rankingintro.htm

Checker Finn begins "Reforming Education: The Hard Part Lies Ahead," (The Education Gadfly, January 9, 2003) by observing, "&[B]y and large we haven't yet caused many people or institutions to alter their ways." Later, he applies this reasoning - not much has changed - to an assessment of the voucher movement:

"The evidence," he writes, "suggests that helping disadvantaged black children switch from bad public schools to decent private schools yields a rise in their achievement. But it doesn't seem to do much for poor white and Latino youngsters. In any case, there aren't enough private schools to go around and it's uneconomic to build more unless the vouchers are amply funded. Education's private sector has not shown a lot of entrepreneurial energy, either. Moreover, if one thinks the politics of other school reforms are daunting, gaze upon the voucher battlefield. The unions and their allies will fight this one to the death - and few political leaders have the guts to defy them."

This gloomy account ignores evidence from Milwaukee, home of the nation's oldest and largest voucher program.

Audrey Amrein and David Berliner
Arizona State University
December 2002

In last week's Gadfly, Jay Greene reported on the failings of a much-publicized study of high-stakes testing by Arizona State University's Audrey Amrein and David Berliner. [http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=6#412] It turns out this dynamic duo has done TWO related studies. The second one, published electronically by the Education Policy Studies Laboratory (and also paid for by teacher unions), reviews data from 16 states with high-stakes graduation exams, and, as you might expect, purports to find all sorts of dire things happening in them: more high school dropouts, more teacher dropouts, etc. This is a cooked-to-order "study" that isn't really worth your time but if you're a glutton for punishment - or just trying to monitor the efforts of the anti-testing crowd and their fellow-traveling Panglosses - you can find it online at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/pub/H-S%20Analysis%20final.pdf.

Boston University School of Education
November 2002

Boston University's School of Education is reviving and remaking its 125-year-old education journal under the editorship of Richard Silberman. It seeks to play a role in education policy debates akin to the roles played by Foreign Policy, The Public Interest and The American Scholar in their respective fields - somewhere between an academic journal and a popular magazine. This debut issue is 117 pages long, not at all glamorous to look at, but has some pretty good stuff in it: a meditation on teaching by Thomas Cottle, a thoughtful commencement address by former education dean Edwin J. Delattre, a discussion of the tension between teacher creativity and accountability, an explanation of why Department of Defense schools do relatively well academically and what local systems might learn from them, a couple of perceptive book reviews, and more. There doesn't appear to be a website but you can request a subscription by writing Journal of Education, Boston University School of Education, 605 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215.

Education Week, January 2003

This bulky annual data compilation cum policy analysis from Education Week is getting better. If you can find a shelf large enough for its 182 oversized (and un-foldable) pages, you'll want to retain and refer back to it from time to time. As everybody knows, this year's issue focuses on teachers, in particular on the "teacher gap" (the concentration of less able, less prepared and less experienced teachers in schools serving poor kids vs. the relatively stronger teaching workforce in middle class schools) and on state policies that may boost the supply of "highly qualified" teachers, which are supposed to be the only kind left in U.S. classrooms three years hence. (Besides state-level data, this year the editors surveyed 30 large school districts.) It's somewhat circumscribed in its policy imagination, given that it reports on what exists in American public education today rather than thinking anew about what might be done differently. You will not, therefore, find much discussion of (say) giving school principals sweeping authority over the employment and compensation of their teachers - nor will you find much effort to learn from innovations in charter and private schools. Despite those limitations, this report tallies an impressive array of efforts to solve a tangle of teacher-related problems. Mostly, though, it illustrates how far most states still have to go to get within striking distance of real solutions, and how intractable are a host of local problems (e.g. the sluggish, bureaucratic maze of teacher hiring and placement in urban school systems) that are almost immune to state-level policy manipulation.
Though the press hasn't said much on the topic, this edition of Quality Counts also updates sundry indicators of state policy, practice and performance that bear on achievement, standards and accountability, school climate, resources, etc. For the most part, it deploys the best available data to be found on these topics, including some from less conventional sources than before. Here, too, there's progress to be glimpsed but vast distances yet to be traversed. For example, this year just 19 states have in place the kinds of testing regime that No Child Left Behind will require of every state. Though nearly all states issue "school report cards," fewer than half "disaggregate" their achievement results according to the various demographic categories mandated in NCLB. Just 24 states publish the pass rates of their teacher-training programs (though all must report those rates to the federal government) and, across the 35 states that claim to identify low-performing teacher preparation programs, a grand total of just 59 such programs have as yet been fingered for this dubious distinction. And so on and on. The publication, in other words, is considerably superior to the performance that it reports. You probably already have a copy but, in case not, you can get one by surfing to http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc03/

Sherman Dorn
Education Policy Analysis Archive
January 2003

In this 30-page study, "published" by Arizona State's "Education Policy Analysis Archive," Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida's College of Education tries to use 20th Century history to predict the effects of high-stakes tests that must be passed to earn high-school diplomas. You may not be surprised to learn that the author thinks they will cause graduation rates to decline, dropouts to rise, and confusion to persist over the "social meaning of diplomas." Aaargh. See for yourself, if you must, at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n1/.

Tom Corcoran and Jolley Bruce Christman
Consortium for Policy Research in Education
November 2002

In this report, Corcoran and Christman examine the impact of the Annenberg Challenge in Philadelphia - and the Children Achieving reform it funded - nearly eight years after it first began. This enormous reform effort began in 1995, when Walter Annenberg awarded $50 million to Philadelphia (which was matched with $100 million in funds raised elsewhere) and then-superintendent David Hornbeck created an ambitious plan to turn around Philadelphia's abysmal public schools. The report reads like a case study in the problems associated with changing a vast and bureaucratic system. The reform began with promise - and the right ideals - as Philadelphia implemented standards, testing, and accountability and then decentralized decision-making to give schools flexibility in meeting these standards. Test scores improved modestly, but the visions of great change never materialized. Ultimately the reform efforts unraveled from both the bottom - where schools were ill-prepared for additional responsibility and teachers were given little time to adapt to the new standards - and the top - where politics and battles over funding disillusioned the community and ultimately led to Hornbeck's resignation. Perhaps the most universal lessons are that implementation is paramount, massive school reform is incredibly unpredictable, and continually cultivating support from teachers and the community is imperative. This report provides a conclusion to the unfinished stories told in previous reports, including a chapter from Fordham's own Can Philanthropy Fix our Schools: Appraising Walter Annenberg's $500 Million Gift to Public Education, in 2000 (see http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=41) and CPRE's Children Achieving: Philadelphia's Education Reform, A Second-year Evaluation, in 1998. The current report, along with CPRE's previous efforts, can be found by surfing to http://www.cpre.org/Research/Research_Project_Children_Achieving.htm.

WestEd, 2003

The California-based regional lab named WestEd was commissioned by the Los Angeles Alliance for Student Achievement to help rethink the structure and governance of public education in America's second largest city. The result is a surprisingly hard-hitting report on the many ways that LAUSD's current structure and governance interfere with needed improvements in the city's schools and an impressively bold set of recommendations for birthing a "new charter system" in Los Angeles. WestEd would do this via the California charter school law, both to create needed educational capacity and to demonstrate how public education can be delivered in very different ways. The report is coy about how large such a charter network should be - news reports mention 50,000 youngsters and 100 schools - but it's otherwise comprehensive and well thought out. Will California's fiscal crisis allow something this ambitious to be undertaken in the next few years? We should hope so. There's an original and promising model for urban-education reform visible in these pages. Perhaps less promising - albeit sensible enough - is the section of the report that lays out a quintet of policy and governance changes for the larger LAUSD system itself. You can download a copy (it's 52 pages long) at http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/LA-Alliance-Report.pdf.

Frustration with the books used in public schools to teach children how to read is nothing new. An article in The New Yorker recounts how an attack on primers in the 1955 best-seller Why Johnny Can't Read ultimately led to publication of The Cat in the Hat and other classics by Dr. Seuss. Not only were primers "horrible, stupid, emasculated, pointless, tasteless little readers," charged Rudolf Flesch, the author of the 1955 attack, they were based on a flawed pedagogy: the idea that children learn words by memorizing them rather than sounding them out. After reading Flesch's book, an editor at Houghton Mifflin contacted Dr. Seuss and challenged him to write a story using only words that first-graders could recognize or sound out. The result was The Cat in the Hat, which eventually sold over 7.2 million copies and transformed the nature of children's books because it stood for the idea that reading ought to be taught by phonics, and language skills ought to be taught using illustrated storybooks rather than primers. "Cat People: What Dr. Seuss really taught us," by Louis Menand, The New Yorker, December 23 & 30, 2002

As 2003 opens, hollow public treasuries will make it tougher than ever to revitalize American K-12 education - not because more money will improve our schools but because the most painful parts of the reform process lie ahead and, without dollars to cushion the discomfort, politicians will be loath to ask people to endure it.

The education renewal efforts of the past decade were easy compared with the miseries of the next few years. We've passed the laws, designed the necessary changes and put measuring sticks in place, but by and large we haven't yet caused many people or institutions to alter their ways.

That's why, as we approach the twentieth anniversary of "A Nation at Risk", America's overall education performance remains woeful. Test scores are mostly flat. Graduation rates are actually sagging. Racial gaps are still wide. "Failing school" lists contain thousands of entries. Dozens of countries outstrip us on international gauges of student achievement, and some now also boast higher college-going rates.

We surely haven't been idle or chintzy. We've spent billions on reforms of every sort. We've shrunk classes, hired more teachers, installed computers, built new schools, stiffened graduation requirements, added kindergartens, replaced textbooks, devised tests, written manifestos, conducted studies, held summits, set standards, created charter schools, experimented with vouchers, out-sourced school management, "in-serviced" teachers, hired nontraditional superintendents, and on and on. Dozens of governors have pledged to turn around their states' education systems. George W. Bush persuaded Congress to enact the boldest federal education law in history. Business leaders beyond counting have signed up for commissions, task forces and roundtables, all pledged to fix the schools.

Some progress can be glimpsed. A few states, such as Texas and North Carolina, can display slowly rising scores, as can a handful of local school systems (e.g. Charlotte, Houston, Chicago.) There are promising signs in Massachusetts. Where gains are being made, the formula seems to include strong, sustained political leadership over many years with a regime of tests that carry palpable consequences for children and schools alike. But even these "poster states" and districts have yet to turn any big corners. Most of their gains amount to modest upticks in basic skills among low-income youngsters - much needed, yes, but far from an education renaissance. Nobody would claim that all - even most - of the kids in those jurisdictions are learning what they should. And the policy changes that they've made require constant vigilance against relentless attacks from testing opponents, educators who feel that results-based accountability cramps their style, middle class parents convinced that their kids are getting short-changed, civil rights groups alleging that "high stakes" tests discourage minority youngsters, and state and local officials asserting that Uncle Sam must pay for any changes he seeks.

Reforming education is like stretching a Godzilla-size rubber band. If you don't keep tugging hard, it reverts to its former shape. The crusading governor leaves office or the dynamic superintendent gets fired. The elastic snaps back. Few changes remain. This has partly to do with public education's feisty and obdurate interest groups. (Note that teacher unions are relatively weak in Texas and North Carolina, both "right to work" states.) It has partly to do with the education profession's view that children are more like wild flowers to be left to blossom than rose bushes in need of cultivation. And it has much to do with parents, who generally believe that someone else's little darling must study harder and somebody else's school needs to be transformed.

For a nation that has long placed education reform atop its list of urgent priorities, it's striking how superficial most of the reforming has been so far. Yes, nearly every state has written academic standards and installed a testing program. But most states find it exceedingly difficult to enforce their standards by "holding back" the children who don't meet them, denying diplomas to those who fail the exit tests, ridding schools of ineffective teachers, firing inept principals and closing bad schools.

Washington has now inserted itself big time into "standards-based" reform with the mammoth "No Child Left Behind" act - its first anniversary was the occasion of much White House hoopla this week-that sets myriad rules and timelines for test-giving, progress-measuring and intervening. But even as we observe hundreds of conscientious educators and local officials gearing up to give NCLB implementation their very best shot (five states had their accountability plans okayed yesterday) we see too many states and districts balking at - or simply ignoring - some of its key provisions, protesting its rigid schedules, even softening their previous achievement standards to boost the odds that more kids will attain them. This past autumn's sorry experience with making districts provide educational alternatives for youngsters stuck in failing schools hints at the trouble ahead. Certainly the vexed history of federal education interventions says Uncle Sam will find it hard to effect changes in places that don't want to change. (NCLB will likely be a valuable boost for those that do want to change and some that are wavering.) Washington has remarkably little clout. It doesn't contribute much of the money-and is reluctant to withhold even those small sums. Beyond jawboning and sun-lighting, there's not a lot the feds can do if Vermont, Kansas or Louisiana (or St. Louis, Birmingham or Cleveland) doesn't behave as it's supposed to or goes through the motions but fails to deliver the desired results.

Standards-based reform is not the only kind that hasn't yet borne much fruit. There's also the education marketplace with its boldly different theory of change: competition and choice, via charter schools, outsourced management, home-schooling, vouchers and a dozen other ways of putting the consumer in charge of key decisions and making schools vie for pupils and revenues. It's a swell theory and it got a needed boost in June when the Supreme Court okayed Cleveland's voucher program. But here, too, the hard parts still lie ahead. The U.S. now boasts nearly 3000 charter schools but too many are doing a punk job of educating children and more than a few face acute management, governance and fiscal problems. Such faltering, in turn, emboldens enemies of choice to crack down on the charters' freedoms, curb their numbers and generally allow the rubber band to snap back. Hence realizing the promise of charter schools may turn out to be as hard as remaking the public school "system".

Private management firms are also having a rough go of it. School systems keep changing their minds about "outsourcing", they insist on contractual conditions that block vital changes in the schools they do entrust to private managers (e.g. no replacing of teachers), and the firms themselves display mixed academic results even as their reddish balance sheets spook investors. This, too, is an idea with immense potential but far from having proven itself.

What about vouchers, then? The evidence suggests that helping disadvantaged black children switch from bad public schools to decent private schools yields a rise in their achievement. But it doesn't seem to do much for poor white and Latino youngsters. In any case, there aren't enough private schools to go around and it's uneconomic to build more unless the vouchers are amply funded. Education's private sector has not shown a lot of entrepreneurial energy, either. Moreover, if one thinks the politics of other school reforms are daunting, gaze upon the voucher battlefield. The unions and their allies will fight this one to the death - and few political leaders have the guts to defy them.

Results-based accountability and school choice aren't the only education reforms that stick in establishment craws. Try paying teachers according to the subjects they teach or their effectiveness in the classroom. Try bringing into that classroom instructors who didn't pass through colleges of education. (That's why most states' "alternate certification" schemes are tiny - and the ed schools are doing their utmost to seize control of them, too.) Try introducing modern technology (e.g. distance-learning and "virtual education") instead of spending the money on salaries. Try lengthening the school year or day. Watch the rubber band snap back.

Though it seemed hard at the time, what we've done so far under the reform banner was a cakewalk compared with the next steps. We've made many moves that allow for change to occur, yet naught will come of this until millions of individuals actually alter their behavior, until thousands of institutions amend their ingrained practices, until the alternatives win the freedom to be truly different - and those in charge pay as much attention to their effectiveness as to their existence.

What's a governor to do? Faced with ballooning health care costs, shrinking budgets and escalating college tuitions, what chance is there to pay for the summer schools that might get more kids up to speed, for bonuses for great teachers or technical assistance for charter schools? The logical way to fund such improvements is to close bad schools, put those that remain onto year-round schedules, lay off bad teachers and make the sports program pay for itself. But who needs such misery?

What's a president to do? In recent days, newspapers have printed innumerable lists of urgent issues awaiting the 108th Congress but I've yet to see any that mention education. You won't lose money betting that enforcement of No Child Left Behind in reluctant states and clueless districts will be the job of the Education Department while celebrations of NCLB's success will continue to be held at the White House. As for other initiatives, instead of pricey and contentious moves to reshape special education, build merit and accountability into college student aid, press for full-bore voucher demonstrations or assault the teacher unions, the President's team is apt to focus on appealing, low-cost, low-conflict initiatives such as better teaching of math and civics. We need those, too, of course. But they won't transform our schools.

There's simply not much payoff in a democracy from hassling people to do things they don't want to do and defying powerful interest groups on behalf of nebulous future gains. Particularly as election campaigns rev up and candidates and political parties vie for the "education reformer" crown, don't expect public officials and wannabees to inflict more pain on parents, students or teachers, especially when the budget won't allow them to offset the discomfort with new education goodies. Hence as the school-reform lifting gets heavier, we may not see much leadership coming from the usual places. Tax cuts and prescription drugs are so much more appealing.

Welcome to education reform circa 2003.