Heated arguments about the most effective form of reading instruction continue to polarize the teaching community, but yet another review of the research has found beyond dispute that "teaching that makes the rules of phonics clear will ultimately be more successful than teaching that does not." So conclude five professors of psychology, linguistics and pediatrics in a cover story in this month's Scientific American, "How Should Reading Be Taught?" by Keith Rayner, Barbara Foorman, Charles Perfetti, David Pesetsky, and Mark Seidenberg, Scientific American, March 2002.
Two years ago, the Cincinnati Public Schools launched a teacher evaluation system in which teachers were measured against 17 standards, with the results to be linked to compensation and career advancement for individual teachers. Last week, the district announced that teachers who rated the highest under the evaluation system also produced the greatest gains in student achievement. The evaluation system rates teachers based on whether they meet standards like giving tests aligned with the district's standards and using content-specific instructional strategies. For the study, the district looked at individual student scores on achievement tests and compared student improvement rates to teachers' evaluation ratings, according to an article by reporter Jennifer Mrozowski in the Cincinnati Enquirer. "The study found the basic design of the teacher evaluation system is sound and worth continuing," said Jack Lewis, the district's director of research and evaluation. For details see "Study links teacher quality and student progress," by Jennifer Mrozowski, Cincinnati Enquirer, February 21, 2002.
If you spent last week on another planet and missed the press coverage of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Cleveland voucher program, you can catch up with the help of The Economist ("School Vouchers: A Supreme Opportunity," February 23, 2002.)
President Bush's commission on special education, charged with recommending areas of reform to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), held hearings in Houston this week. Some expected the hearings to be attended only by representatives of special education advocacy groups opposed to any changes in IDEA, which is soon up for reauthorization. Instead the panel heard from a range of witnesses -- including state education officials from Texas and New York, as well as some advocacy groups -- calling for the federal government to focus on accountability for results instead of compliance with procedural rules, according to a story in the San Antonio Express-News. An open letter to the President's commission, identifying key areas of IDEA that urgently need reforming, was released earlier this week by Lisa Graham Keegan (Education Leaders Council), William J. Bennett (former Secretary of Education, now at Empower America), and Chester E. Finn, Jr. (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation). While the House of Representatives is planning to take up the issue of special education this summer (after the President's commission issues its recommendations), the legislation is likely to be contentious and Hill staffers do not expect serious work on the bill until 2003, according to a report in Education Week.
"Experts want focus to be on results," by Sharon Hughes, San Antonio Express-News, February 26, 2002.
Open letter to the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education from Lisa Graham Keegan, William J. Bennett, and Chester E. Finn, Jr., available at http://www.educationleaders.org/issues/020222branstad.htm or call 202-261-2600.
"Forecast for IDEA restructuring: Not this year," by Lisa Fine, Education Week, February 20, 2002.
Final Report, David Myers, Paul Peterson, et al.
Mathematica Policy Research and the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance
February 2002
David Myers, Paul Peterson and colleagues at Mathematica Policy Research and the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance issued this lengthy study the day before the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Cleveland voucher case. It reviews three year's of evidence from a large, privately funded voucher program in New York City. The "bottom line" is interesting but ambiguous. Taken as a whole, low-income children who attended private schools with the assistance of these scholarships did not academically surpass the control-group children who remained in the public schools. However, when the results are separately analyzed for black youngsters (44 percent of those in the sample studied here), the researchers found statistically-significant academic achievement gains, amounting to about 9 additional points on combined reading-math tests for those who spent all three years in the private schools. The Hispanic youngsters in the program, however, showed no effect. This finding parallels those reported earlier from similar programs in Washington, D.C. and Dayton, Ohio: they make a measurable difference for African-American youngsters but not for others who are just as poor. Why? Nobody is sure, though theories abound. The New York report also reviews data on many other aspects of the school experience (e.g. parental satisfaction, discipline, homework). On almost all such indicators, the scholarship students in private schools fare better than their public-school counterparts. You can get your own copy in PDF form by surfing to http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/Press%20Releases/nycchoicerel.htm and following the directions.
Jerry P. Gollub, et al.
National Academy of Science, Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools
February 2002
Diane Ravitch opined on this National Research Council "study" in last week's Gadfly but it's worth another comment, particularly amidst reports that elite private schools are dropping Advanced Placement courses so as to concentrate on idiosyncratic, teacher-built courses, and in light of last week's report that Harvard will henceforth award credit only to those who score "5" (the top mark) on A.P. exams. In this lengthy study (only the uncorrected, pre-publication version of which is presently available, and that for a stiff price), the National Academy of Science's Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools essentially tries to impose N.C.T.M. math and a similar view of science on two long-standing, external "gold standard" high school curriculum-and-assessment programs, the College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) program and the International Baccalaureate (IB). The gist of the critique is that these programs are too heavy on content coverage and skill development and too light on conceptual understandings. The authors don't see the AP and IB as external tests of important skills and knowledge but, rather, as teaching strategies that, they assert, should be "made consistent with findings from recent research on how people learn". In other words, it's not knowledge of the disciplines that should form the core of these programs, as it long has, but, rather, principles of cognitive psychology and pedagogy. Constructivist principles. AP and IB, in this view, are about the process of learning, not about what's been learned. Probably we should not be surprised, considering that the committee that prepared it was stuffed with educationists, including NCTM heavyweight John Dossey and veteran progressive-educator Jeannie Oakes. This report was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton Administration (jointly by the National Science Foundation and the Education Department's Office of Educational Research and Improvement.) It will be interesting to see whether its recommendations are taken seriously by the private organizations that sponsor the AP and IB programs, and by the Bush administration (whose National Science Foundation recently hired committee member Michael Martinez as a program officer). It seems unlikely that the "research" cited in this report meets the standards of scientific proof mandated in the recent No Child Left Behind act. If you'd like to read the pre-print, surf to http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10129.html for information about obtaining a copy.
Kalman Hettleman.
The Abell Foundation
February 2002
The Baltimore-based Abell Foundation has produced another excellent education report, this one written by Kalman Hettleman and addressing the problems of special education in that city's schools. It's especially timely as the President's Commission on Special Education (which you can read about at http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/) buckles down to its review of the federal IDEA program with an eye toward the possible reform of same. 50 pages long, Hettleman's report paints a devastating picture of a failed program and goes on to outline a comprehensive overhaul. Because it documents these problems in a real urban setting, it provides a valuable case study of special education in action (or perhaps inaction) and ought to capture the attention of policymakers and special educators alike. You can get a PDF version by surfing to www.abell.org and hunting there. You can also request a hard copy by phoning (410) 547-1300, faxing (410) 539-6579 or emailing [email protected].
Paul Shaker and Elizabeth Heilman
Policy Perspectives, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
January 2002
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) may mean well but it's irrevocably cast in the role of apologist for the nation's ed schools and what goes on in them. This sometimes means striking back at those who find fault with conventional teacher training and certification, with conventional ed-school style research, etc., and savaging those who engage in independent studies that arrive at "outside the ed school box" conclusions. A particularly nasty version of this retribution recently appeared in Policy Perspectives, an AACTE newsletter. There we find a piece called "Advocacy Versus Authority-Silencing the Education Professoriate", by Paul Shaker of California State University at Fresno and Elizabeth E. Heilman of Purdue University. It tries to find fault with numerous critical reports and studies, ranging from A Nation at Risk to the recent report of the National Reading Panel, from Diane Ravitch's book Left Back to CREDO's recent study of the Teach for America Program in Houston to the journal Education Next, and so forth. Its essential argument seems to be that the "critics" haven't a scholarly leg to stand on but are winning the policy fights because the ed school professoriate is too na??ve, quiet and inner-directed to hold its own. It never occurs to Shaker and Heilman that, to the extent that critics are making some headway, it might be due to their compelling evidence, stronger analysis and more cogent argumentation. If you want to see for yourself, you can go to www.edpolicy.org/perspectives/archives/free_issue.htm.
The problem is now well established. The question is whether any solutions are in sight.
To recap the challenge: Millions of young Muslims are receiving a bad education from the public and private schools of such lands as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, one that bears scant resemblance to a modern, liberal arts curriculum in science, geography and civics, much less "critical thinking." It doesn't teach youngsters about Newton, Einstein or Jefferson, the voyages of Captain Cook, the backdrop and aftermath of the French revolution, the glories of Aztec civilization or the literature of Dickens. Rather, it's an education in religious fundamentalism and little more, except for hatred of Christians, Jews and the United States.
Much of this occurs in Islamic religious schools that have an essentially medieval curriculum, leavened by doses of modern-style "jihad" against infidels. Because public education has more-or-less collapsed in some countries, and because the "madrasas" are inexpensive or free, this is the only kind of schooling to which millions of impoverished Muslim boys (and a few girls) have access.
In other lands, the curriculum of hatred is imparted directly by government schools. The royal family of Saudi Arabia, for example, seems to have given over that country's public education system to fundamentalist religious leaders.
So long as this situation persists, the western world must expect a ceaseless flood of young recruits for terrorism in the name of Islam.
The challenge, therefore, is clear: can the western world do anything to alter the kind of education being received by these millions of young people?
It surely won't be easy. The very idea will strike some as arrogant and imperialistic. (Fancy Indonesia seeking to influence what's taught in American or Belgian schools.) The tools and resources available to us are few and weak compared with the challenge of altering the educational arrangements of other countries.
But the threat is so great that we must surely begin to think purposefully about ways to nip it in the bud. I can think of seven possible strategies. None is ideal, none is cheap, none is certain to succeed. In combination, however, they might make a difference.
First, sizable chunks of conventional foreign aid to other countries could be focused on the creation and operation of different kinds of public schools, on training or retraining their teachers, on developing curricula for them, and so forth. Foreign aid is typically inter-governmental, whether the money originates in the U.S. federal budget or in joint ventures by various donor countries. It may also come from multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, etc. The U.S. government has considerable influence over much of this, and could have more if it were clever and persistent. But recipient governments must be willing to cooperate, for such aid normally passes through them or is expended with their oversight.
Second, the United States and other western lands could apply a "tough-love" approach to their other (non-education) foreign aid to Islamic countries, as well as to such international goodies as lower tariff barriers, acceptance into trade organizations, supportive votes at the U.N., technology transfers, etc., conditioning all such beneficent acts on recipient nations' commitment to do something about their children's education.
Third, there are many ways of encouraging non-government schools in other countries via private philanthropy, international groups, and commercial opportunism. What a terrific moment for major private donors (e.g. the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations) to foster the creation of "modern" schools that would operate for free or at minimal cost to their students. Economist James Tooley has found low-budget private schools that function successfully in third-world countries for just a few dollars per child per month. There is no reason that thousands more of these could not come into being. Moreover, the western world boasts privately operated schools (e.g. Edison's) that could be exported, albeit at greater per-pupil cost. (Maybe Chris Whittle would like to establish some model schools in Islamabad, Riyadh and Kuala Lumpur.) Many Islamic countries already have international-class private schools-often founded in colonial times-for their elites. With some financial assistance, perhaps these schools might be prevailed upon to expand or clone themselves for the education of non-elites.
Fourth, the western world could develop and export low-cost textbooks, teacher manuals and other instructional materials for schools in Islamic lands, written in Arabic or other vernacular languages but containing modern content. Whether commercial or philanthropic, these could meet one of the foremost needs of any struggling education system: for high-quality content suitable for teachers and students to use. The content is crucial: we read that Palestinian youngsters, for example, are routinely taught from anti-Semitic textbooks.
Fifth, schools are not the only means of transmitting education to children today. Let's also consider the "virtual" opportunities. Though necessarily limited by access to technology, lessons could be transmitted by radio through the Voice of America (or brand-new ventures created for this purpose) or over the Internet. Today's many makers of web-based learning for American children might-especially if paid to do this by government or philanthropy-turn their attention to the adaptation and translation of such lessons for youngsters in the Muslim world.
Sixth, even as we guard our borders, we might bring more students and teachers to study in our schools and universities. (Better to learn civics and algebra than how to fly large planes!) Developing different attitudes toward the west is not, after all, just a matter of cognition. It also involves attitudes and experiences.
Finally, we can send Americans abroad to teach, run schools, advise ministries of education and suchlike, through the Peace Corps expansion that President Bush has proposed and through other governmental and private volunteer programs.
Do you have additional ideas? Please send them to the Gadfly. The problem is clear. It's time to get serious about finding some solutions.
Just because the D.C. public schools are failing to provide special education services for many children doesn't mean the school district isn't spending pots of money on special ed. A pair of articles in this week's Washington Post shed unhappy light on where some of that money is going. In a column in Tuesday's paper, Marc Fisher paints a series of heartbreaking portraits of poor kids with disabilities who sit in classes they can't understand (if they attend school at all) while an incompetent bureaucracy loses their files or cannot find services for them (sign language instructors, for instance, who can be found in the Yellow Pages, it turns out). A special ed lawyer who represents children failed by the school system points out that hiring specialists to provide the services that these children need would be a lot cheaper than paying lawyers to appear at court hearings on private school placements. Because the District is unable to provide appropriate programs or services, it pays private school tuition for over 2000 children with disabilities (on top of the legal fees for placement hearings).
As an expose on the front page of Monday's Post reveals, the District's failure to meet the needs of disabled children is making some of the school system's former employees quite rich. Reporter Justin Blum managed to untangle the connections between three former employees (two of them disbarred lawyers who worked for years at school headquarters) and the assessment company, private schools, and law firm they help run. These companies charged the school district a total of $9.6 million for legal fees, diagnostic testing, and tuition connected with children who were not receiving adequate services in the public school system. Blum describes some outrageous bills submitted by the companies to the school district, bills that no doubt contributed to the cost overruns in special ed that led to a $62.5 million deficit for the D.C. public schools last year.
"D.C. Schools Failing Everyone but the Lawyers," by Marc Fisher, The Washington Post, February 19, 2002
"Lawyers Capitalize on D.C. School Gaps," by Justin Blum, The Washington Post, February 18, 2002