In an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal, Jay Greene warns voucher supporters that the teachers unions, the Harvard Civil Rights Project and others, are already sharpening their knives to attack vouchers on a different constitutional front-the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause-by arguing that vouchers increase segregation. But Greene's own research shows that private schools are actually less segregated than public schools because their attendance isn't constrained by politically drawn boundaries that reinforce segregated housing patterns. Private school parents are also more willing to try "racial mixing" because those schools usually maintain discipline and safety-two common concerns of wary parents-much better than public schools. "Choosing Integration," by Jay P. Greene, The Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2002 (subscribers only)
American Jews were strong supporters of equal educational opportunity for all children in the civil rights era, but the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee oppose school vouchers (and therefore the Supreme Court's recent Zelman verdict), equating support for this reform with rejection of public education. Rather than fight school choice, argue Seth Leibsohn and Checker Finn, Jewish leaders should embrace it as a civil right that would not only offer poor children a shot at a better education (and promote competition that would improve U.S. public schools) but also combat the problem of declining Jewish identity, as more Jewish parents could take advantage of the option to send their children to Jewish day schools. "Key to Continuity," by Seth Leibsohn and Chester E. Finn Jr., National Review Online, July 17, 2002.
It is generally agreed that the Supreme Court's decision in the Zelman case issued on June 27 approving the constitutionality of vouchers that would enable parents to receive tax funds to pay tuition to send their children to religious schools as well as to other private and public schools is a landmark change in American constitutional and educational history. It means, as Michael Heise and Checker Finn say, that many of the most divisive religious issues will now focus heavily on political actions at the state and local levels rather than on appeals to constitutional authority as long as the present 5-4 ruling of the Court majority is unchanged.
Since most members of the profession and public do not read the actual court cases, I believe it is most important to remember what constitutional and educational issues are at stake in Zelman. I remind us all of a few short passages from pertinent cases regarding the role of religion in American education. Remember that the first clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and now applies to state governments as well as to Congress.
Justice Souter's dissent from the Court's 5-4 decision approving vouchers quotes approvingly from the Everson case of 1947 in which the principle of the establishment doctrine was stated as follows:
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever they may adopt to teach or practice religion." Souter said that the Court has never overruled or repudiated Everson in so many words. But Souter did not quote the concluding sentence of Everson which states: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to 'erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"
In contrast, it is important to note that Chief Justice Rehnquist in his majority opinion in Zelman defends tax aid to parents because it is not a government program "that provides aid directly to religious schools," but is a program of "true private choice, in which government aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals." He cites three recent cases in which the Court has upheld "neutral government programs that provide indirectly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing."
Rehnquist has thus achieved what he has been working for at least since 1985 when he wrote a strong dissent in the Jaffree case in which he argued forcefully that Jefferson's phrase the "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history and furthermore that the Everson principle "should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." Even though the Zelman case did not explicitly renounce Everson, it has the rudiments of doing so indirectly by elevating the liberty of parental choice above the values of a common citizenship in our constitutional democracy.
Rehnquist did not mention the landmark decision that established the principle of parental rights in the field of education. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court ruled in 1925 that Oregon's law requiring all children to attend public schools was unconstitutional. Its famous ruling said: "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in the Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Those who favor state aid to religious schools like to quote those sentences, but often neglect to mention the reach of the authority of the state that preceded them. Listen carefully: "No question is raised concerning the power of the State reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils, to require that all children attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare."
I see no explicit mention in the Zelman majority decision of the values of teaching about the public good and the importance of education for democratic citizenship, aside from the liberty of parents to choose the kind of school they wish for their children and to receive public funds to make that possible. I wonder if those who welcome the decision enhancing their liberty of choice will also welcome the states' regulations and examination of their "studies plainly essential to good citizenship." If so, then they should welcome President Bush's emphasis upon accountability of all schools by means of national examinations to ascertain how well their students are doing in English and math. And would they welcome accountability and examination in civics and government as well as in reading, writing, and math?
How ironic that Jefferson's wall should be shattered by the liberty of parental choice just a week before we celebrated his Declaration of Independence with proper patriotic fervor. We should also be remembering that just four years after 1776 Jefferson began his life-long struggle to free democratic citizens from the shackles of religious establishments then in place in Virginia and in most of the American colonies and to create secular public school systems in the independent states whose primary task was to create good citizens rather than to promote one or any religious beliefs. The ideas and sentiments of the Declaration pervade his "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" which he introduced into the Virginia legislature in 1779. It set forth the rationale for public education as the wellspring of the public good. In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, he spoke of the study of the Constitution as the "text" of civic instruction" that should be common to all schools.
As voucher schools gain more and more students, it will be very important that they should follow the National Standards in Civics and Government which are being widely used in many states and localities. The Standards grew out of the scholarship involved in a volume called CIVITAS: A Framework for Civic Education. Both volumes strike an admirable balance between the civic values of Unum and Pluribus: between the obligations of citizenship (justice, equality, authority, participation, truthfulness, and patriotism) and the rights of citizenship (freedom of the individual, diversity, privacy, due process, property, and international human rights).
If voucher schools multiply rapidly and ignore "the studies essential to good citizenship," we are in danger of returning to some of the religious strife that marked the politics of the new American states before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted. Worse yet, the gains made for a common citizenship that have been achieved because of a strong system of public education during the past 150 years may be lost. We cannot afford either result.
R. Freeman Butts
William F. Rusell Professor Emeritus in the Foundations of Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
State accountability systems are shining a harsh spotlight on failing schools, and education officials in several states are striving to help those schools turn around. In Florida, principals from all 68 schools recently earning "F" grades in the state's accountability system were called to a meeting where they were connected with experts and specialists and encouraged to shop for the help they need. In Virginia, Governor Mark Warner last week announced a program to rescue the state's 34 worst public schools by deploying special teams of principals, teachers, and mentors to try to help them boost achievement over the next year.
But an article in Sunday's Los Angeles Times reveals the daunting task faced by those charged with repairing failed schools. Veteran journalist Richard Colvin describes what the SWAT team of state auditors saw when it arrived a year ago at Fremont High School in South-Central Los Angeles to develop a road map for improving that troubled school. The auditors encountered a dropout factory, Colvin writes, with dismal test scores, widespread illiteracy, overwhelming truancy, poor teacher training and morale, staff infighting and rudderless administration. Because nearly a third of Fremont freshmen read no better than third graders, and test scores show that about 70 percent of Fremont students don't understand what they read, teachers rely on oral reports, movies, picture books, and art projects rather than high-school level academic work involving books.
The school's new principal told auditors "I don't know exactly where we're going. Whatever it is you would have us do, our goal this year is to do it." The reform plan that was eventually developed by the state team required teachers to gear classes to state standards and prepare rigorous weekly lesson plans. Students were to be engaged in "purposeful activities" in reading and math. Teachers were to be trained in proven techniques and monitored by administrators. To Fremont teachers, Colvin comments, the remedies seemed ridiculously weak and little different from those tried before. When auditors returned in the spring, the school was still lagging behind state expectations in five of six major areas. The district announced plans to raise academic standards by moving to a "block schedule," but teachers balked and organized a student walkout in protest, which led the district to delay the implementation of the reform. At the end of the school year, state auditors found some signs of improvement in teaching practices at Fremont, but little reason to expect that the school would be able to produce higher test scores and avoid more serious state sanctions-if the state comes up with any effective ones, that is.
"'F' means first for help, funds," by Stephan Hegarty, St. Petersburg Times, July 12, 2002
"$3 million plan aimed at worst Virginia schools," by R.H. Melton, The Washington Post, July 11, 2002
"A school flails in a sea of chaos," by Richard Lee Colvin, Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2002
This fifty-page paper by Cynthia Prince, issues director at the American Association of School Administrators, contends that "offering financial incentives to teachers willing to take on more challenging assignments is essential if we are to staff every school with highly qualified teachers....Changing the way that teachers are paid is critical if we are to attract and hold teachers in the schools that serve students with the greatest needs....In short, incentives matter." She reviews a number of incentive-payment programs underway in various states and communities and draws nine lessons from them as to how such programs should be structured to maximize their chances of success. At the end of the paper is a useful bibliography (including websites) of literature-and specific programs-that bear on this issue. It's good to see the staid A.A.S.A. climbing on something so "radical" as incentive pay for teachers-perhaps that means it's no longer a radical idea-and this is a lucid discussion of how to do it. Especially tantalizing is her suggestion that incentive pay is more or less compelled by the No Child Left Behind requirement that every child have a "highly qualified" teacher, suggesting that NCLB is already having unintended (and in this case positive) effects. You can find the paper (in PDF format) on the web at http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/issues_dept/higher_pay.pdf or send for a copy from American Association of School Administrators, 1801 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209. The phone is (703) 875-0767 and the author's email address is [email protected].
Getting the incentives right in the high-stakes game of college admissions is always a challenge, but two recent changes-one in the SAT's disability policy, the other in the admissions system of the University of California-are raising eyebrows.
As part of a legal settlement, the College Board has agreed to stop "flagging" the scores of disabled students who take the SAT under special conditions or with special accommodations, Tamar Lewin reports in The New York Times. Most of those who receive such accommodations have attention deficit problems or learning disabilities like dyslexia. Their special arrangements can include extra time, a separate, quiet room to work in, and the use of a computer. One high school guidance counselor predicts that, once these scores stopped being flagged as "Scores Obtained Under Special Conditions," it will "open the floodgates to families that think they can beat the system by buying a [disability] diagnosis and getting their kid extra time." A college admissions dean observes that "the kids who are going to get most hurt are the kids who do have real disabilities." There is already evidence that accommodations are more often given to affluent youngsters; a study also found that private school students are four times as likely as public school students to receive such favored test-taking treatment. As the Times article notes, great uncertainty surrounds how much extra time on a test fairly compensates for the labored reading of someone with dyslexia or the challenges faced by a student with attention deficit disorder. Perhaps the extra time should be offered to any student who might benefit from it.
The new admissions system at the University of California is not about helping students with disabilities, but all students who have faced "life challenges." According to Daniel Golden of The Wall Street Journal, though, U.C.'s campuses seem to care more about life challenges for students from some groups than others (which, Golden notes, would be a violation of a 1996 state referendum that barred the use of preferences for racial and ethnic groups). The universities have already rejected using poverty as a measure of disadvantage because that would actually reduce the numbers of black and Hispanic students on campus. Instead, they are assigning students points for various types of disadvantage, and working hard to coach minority students in how to present their hardships. Many students who are not black or Hispanic are finding that the challenges they've faced in life are not great enough to earn them a spot in the state's top public campuses, no matter how high their grades and test scores may be.
"Abuse is feared as SAT test changes disability policy," by Tamar Lewin, The New York Times, July 15, 2002
"Barriers students faced count in university admissions process," by Daniel Golden, The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2002 (subscribers only)
Supporters and opponents of Edison Schools frequently butt heads over whether Edison-run schools are performing better than similar schools in the same districts. An article in The New York Times explores how the two sides can examine the same student achievement data and come to opposite conclusions, making several points along the way that are relevant to any effort to evaluate school effectiveness. "Complex calculations on academics," by Jacques Steinberg and Diana Henriques, The New York Times, July 16, 2002.
Readers with a stomach for more commentary from the Gadfly's Checker Finn may want to peruse "An Open Letter to Lawrence H. Summers," which reflects upon Summers' first year as president of Harvard. In this piece from the summer 2002 issue of Policy Review, alumnus Finn urges Summers to welcome ROTC back to campus, curb grade inflation, and resist pressures to balkanize the campus along racial and ethnic lines. See http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/finn.html.
National Center for Education Statistics
June 21, 2002
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) recently released the results of its 2001 geography assessment in grades 4, 8 and 12. These are national data only-geography isn't tested at the state level-and the only previous results they can be compared with come from 1994. The good news is that 4th and 8th grade scores are up during that seven-year period. (12th grade is essentially unchanged.) The bad news is that all the gains occurred at the lower levels of performance; there was no change in the proportion of youngsters scoring at/above the "proficient" level-and those scores remain very weak: 21 percent in grade 4, 30 percent in grade 8, 25 percent in grade 12. This means, for example, that, while three-quarters of 8th graders know that Florida is a peninsula, just 22 percent were able to give two reasons why tropical deforestation has been occurring. (60 percent gave at least one reason-in response to a question asking for two.) In other words, in a pattern consistent with NAEP results for many years across many subjects, U.S. kids aren't doing badly at the rudimentary levels but their performance tails off as the content (or mode of response) grows more sophisticated. This 180-page report contains many breakouts by gender, race, region, etc. and a lot more sample questions. You can find it on the web at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/geography/results/. Or order a hard copy by phoning 877-433-7827 and asking for report # NCES 2002-484.
Southern Regional Education Board
2002
This short (20 page) report from the Southern Regional Education Board contends that states need to get more serious about providing high-quality summer-school programs if they want to end social promotion and lower their grade retention rates. Included here are a bit of data, some examples of strong programs, and 7 sensible (if fairly obvious) recommendations for state policy makers. The essential point is that this is a domain of education where states should assert themselves rather than leaving it almost entirely to local decision-making. You can obtain a PDF version by surfing to http://www.sreb.org/programs/srr/pubs/Summer_School.pdf.