It has often been noted that high-poverty schools tend to be staffed by less experienced teachers. In an online piece at WashingtonPost.com, the always-thoughtful Jay Mathews examines some of the reasons for this and some of the proposed solutions. In the end, he concludes that the key to keeping good teachers in high-poverty schools may be to put our best principals in our worst schools and persuade them to stay there. He suggests some ways to make this happen. "Teacher Experience Lags at Poorer Schools," by Jay Mathews, WashingtonPost.com, August 27, 2002.

The dropout rate for Massachusetts high school students in 2000-2001 stayed steady at 3.5 percent, possibly disappointing critics of the state's new high-stakes graduation exam (MCAS), who had predicted that making the test a graduation requirement would cause dropout rates to skyrocket. In Boston, the rate declined from 9.4 percent in 1999-2000 to 8.5 percent in 2000-2001. (That was the first year the test was taken by students who would have to pass it to graduate.) "State says MCAS produced no jump in dropout rate," by Michele Kurtz, The Boston Globe, August 27, 2002

The public school choice provision of the No Child Left Behind act isn't all that different from a federal choice program created two years ago, writes Alexander Russo in this month's Washington Monthly, and the lesson of that Clinton-era program is that providing viable transfer options for children in failing schools is far harder than it sounds. Expect the new program to be limited, Russo says, by lack of enthusiasm on the part of bureaucrats, who will have trouble finding space for children in non-failing schools, and by lack of interest on the part of parents. He considers three ways to improve options for kids in failing schools: work harder to find slots for them to transfer into and to let parents know about their right to transfer their kids; set up "mandatory choice" programs that force all parents to actively choose a school for their child; and increase the supply of better schools through measures like vouchers and charter schools. But he's not too hopeful. In the end, he concludes, we should just focus on fixing the schools these children already attend-as if that were an option that has been considered and rejected. "When School Choice Isn't" by Alexander Russo, The Washington Monthly, September 2002.

Committee for Economic Development
August 2002

In this 11-page brief, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) examines the No Child Left Behind act's (NCLB) key assessment and accountability provisions and issues surrounding their implementation. The report is a follow-up to a CED tract ("Measuring What Matters: Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning") that was released early last year-while NCLB was still being tossed around in Congress and standards and testing systems were more matters of state than federal policy. If NCLB is to improve student learning, the new report says, it must meet a trio of challenges (all pretty obvious yet critical): 1) test results must measure and report student achievement accurately; 2) educators must teach solid content, not just "teach to the test"; and 3) low-performing schools must be given extra assistance. Following an explanation of each challenge is a list of related issues to be monitored and questions that policymakers ought to ask when designing and reforming standards and accountability systems. Download this short, straightforward report in PDF form at www.ced.org/docs/report/report_education_update.pdf or order a copy for $15 plus $3 shipping from CED at 261 Madison Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10016.

Craig Jerald and Richard Ingersoll, Education Trust
August 2002

The Education Trust's Craig Jerald and the University of Pennsylvania's Richard Ingersoll teamed up to produce this fine, short (12-page), hard-hitting look at the problem of out-of-field teaching, based on recently issued federal data. It concludes that "The amount of out-of-field teaching in the nation and states remains unacceptably high, with classes in high-poverty and high-minority schools much more likely to be assigned to a teacher lacking minimal academic qualifications in the subject being taught&.[W]hile out-of-field teaching is far too pervasive at the high school level, the problem is even worse in middle schools, where very high rates of mis-assignment suggest a staggering disregard for whether teachers have the minimal academic foundation necessary to teach classes in core academic subject areas." Worse, the study finds "no progress" in solving this problem between 1993 and 2000. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that it's not mostly a consequence of teacher shortages. Rather, as Ingersoll has written elsewhere, "the solution to a big chunk of this problem is in the hands of state officials and local administrators-right now." The data are sobering. For example, in high-poverty/minority middle schools, about half of the core academic classes are taught by people who did not even earn an academic "minor" (much less a major) in those subjects. (This is also true of nearly two-fifths of low-poverty/minority middle schools.) Moreover, the numbers show wide variation by state. In Minnesota, fewer than 10 percent of core secondary classes are taught by teachers with neither majors nor minors in those fields; In Louisiana, Delaware, New Mexico and Tennessee, however, that's the case with more than 35% of secondary classes. Even in high-spending Connecticut and Alaska, it's nearly 30%. Small wonder a bunch of states are nervous about the new federal requirement that every teacher be "highly qualified" a few years hence! You can download your very own copy (in PDF format) at http://www.edtrust.org/main/documents/AllTalk.pdf.

Education Writers Association
June 2002

"Must an effective principal be a superhero?" asks this special report by the Education Writers Association. Until recently, principals mainly supervised teachers, managed the building, and dealt with parents. Today, they are also being asked to develop visions of learning, build school cultures, and develop instructional programs conducive to learning for all. Increasingly, they must be able to handle budgets, personnel, politics, and public relations for their schools, as more authority is devolved to them and they become more accountable for academic results. Does this add up to more than an ordinary human can reasonably manage? This report argues that the era of the effective principal as a "larger than life maverick" is over. Today, the authors write, "The truly effective principal is the first among equals, a team builder, a leader of leaders who encourages others to take responsibility for what happens in the school." As many as 40 percent of all principals are expected to retire in the next decade. Traditionally, principals have emerged through the teaching ranks, yet more teachers are turning their backs on administrative positions. Why take on the responsibilities of a 24/7 job for a small bump in pay? An added obstacle is the woeful preparation provided those who do seek to become school leaders. According to Harvard's Richard Elmore, who is quoted extensively in this report, "The content and institutional structure of existing training programs are fundamentally unsuited for the jobs we are asking [principals to take]." In Elmore's view, we are preparing a generation of "unqualified and credentialed" principals, when we need something drastically different. To check this report out for yourself go to www.ewa.org.

John Wenders, Idahoans for Tax Reform
August 2002

Idahoans for Tax Reform commissioned John Wenders, emeritus professor of economics at the University of Idaho, to examine that state's teacher pay in national context. It certainly makes for lively reading and may be worth your while for its deft unpacking of the non-market (and highly political) means by which public-school teaching salaries are presently set. Wenders also takes a few swats at the certification process. His bottom line: measured in ways that he thinks are most accurate, Idaho is doing a better job of compensating its teachers than one might gather from a simple examination of averages. (So is the nation.) Though one tends to expect such a conclusion from "tax reform" groups, Wenders's analysis is clear, plainspoken and perhaps worth a look. You can find this short (22-page) paper in PDF form at http://www.idtaxreform.com/PDFs/Teacher%20Comp%20Wenders.pdf.

Mary Soliday
September 2002

Mary Soliday is a professor of English at C.C.N.Y. and favors open admissions. She has delivered herself of a 220-page book that provides what might be termed a "progressive" view of remediation in higher education, namely that it's part of a selfish plot by colleges to meet their own needs for money, students, challenges to their admissions standards, etc. and is not, in her opinion, something done on behalf of students' needs. Besides being tendentious, the book is full of literary and pedagogical jargon. You probably want no part of it but, if you do, the ISBN is 0822941864, the University of Pittsburgh Press is culpable, and more information can be had at http://www.pitt.edu/~press/2002/Soliday.html.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
August 2002

The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) has released a new report on teacher retention based on data analyzed by the very busy Richard Ingersoll. NCTAF complains that the conventional wisdom holds that we don't have enough teachers, or enough good teachers, while the real problem is a staggering teacher turnover and attrition rate. The main reasons teachers give for leaving their jobs are poor working conditions (in high-poverty schools) and low salaries (in low-poverty schools). To tame attrition rates, NCTAF proposes a three-part strategy: 1) downsize and reorganize schools into smaller learning communities focused on achieving clear instructional objectives, 2) ensure that all teacher preparation programs meet high standards, and 3) establish mentoring programs and rewarding career paths for accomplished teachers. While reorganizing schools so that they better support teaching and learning is a no-brainer, downsizing schools is a peculiar recommendation, given that Ingersoll's data show that turnover is a bit higher in small public schools (16.4 percent) than in large ones (14.5 percent) and that it's much higher in small private schools (21.8 percent) than in large ones (13.5 percent). Advocating more teacher preparation has long been NCTAF's bread and butter, and we are pleased to see that the organization now favors "an end to the debate over 'alternative' vs. 'traditional' teacher preparation," stressing the importance of "ensuring that all teacher preparation programs-alternative and traditional-set and meet high standards." NCTAF argues that teachers hired through certain kinds of alternative certification programs leave teaching at higher rates, which may be true, but begs the question of what degree of teacher turnover might be acceptable, even desirable. It is notoriously difficult to identify effective teachers before they set foot in a classroom; if some of the turnover lamented in the report is made up of individuals who were not cut out for teaching, then this attrition is not a bad thing. And if outstanding individuals who make fine teachers want to spend only part of their working lives in the classroom, this may not be so bad either. Many private schools succeed with a core group of experienced teachers constantly mentoring a continuous stream of bright, energetic younger instructors. It may be necessary to dig deeper into the turnover statistics-19.7 percent a year for private school teachers, 12.9 percent a year for teachers in low-poverty public schools, and 15.7 percent a year for teachers in public schools overall-to determine which parts of the turnover are the real problem. This report is available at http://www.nctaf.org/whatsnew/index.html.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
August 2002

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently published this 37-pager on vouchers after the Zelman (Cleveland) decision. It's in two parts. The first part is a "joint statement by leading law professors" summarizing the Supreme Court's decision and explaining the next rounds of Constitutional debate on vouchers (primarily arising from state constitutional provisions). It's a balanced, nonpartisan effort-the authors include lawyers from both sides of the issue-and helpful in understanding the present state of constitutional play. The authors stress that the Supreme Court applied three criteria to the Cleveland program in determining whether it provided "true private choice" (as opposed to some sort of state aid to religious institutions): "The program was neutral toward religion; any monies flowing to religious schools flowed through the decisions of individuals rather than as direct payments from the state; and the program offered parents genuine secular options for their children's schooling." Perhaps the most interesting section of this first paper is its brief discussion of upcoming clashes between state constitutional restrictions ("Blaine amendments") and federal constitutional rights: "On the one hand is the commitment to treating religious persons, activities and organizations no worse than others that are similarly situated in terms of their access to government funds. On the other hand is a commitment to allowing the government some discretion in how it spends its resources to provide educational opportunities for children, and a commitment to states' rights-in this case, discretion for a state to separate church and state more strictly than the federal Constitution requires." The second part, "The Next Chapter in Educational Policy," is comprised of competing policy papers by Harvard's prolific Paul Peterson and Stanford's Martin Conroy. These do a good job of recapitulating pro-con arguments about the desirability of vouchers from the standpoint of education policy. Peterson urges citywide voucher pilot programs, arguing that a proper test of the idea is still needed; Carnoy contends that vouchers haven't yet proven their effectiveness. Overall, a worthy 37 pages. You can find a PDF version on the web at http://pewforum.org/issues/files/VoucherPackage.pdf.