As they flew back to Washington earlier this month after celebrating their joint education bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush and Senator Edward M. Kennedy held an extended conversation about the need to boost early childhood education, and that conversation may soon lead to legislation, according to reporter Anne Kornblut of The Boston Globe. Last week, First Lady Laura Bush appeared as a star witness on early childhood education at a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Kennedy chairs. Though many Democrats may not be thrilled about giving Bush another chance to claim bipartisanship, the President is expected to announce the details of a new proposal for early learning in the coming weeks. Improving early childhood education is expected to have payoffs for both regular education and special education; a report released by the National Research Council earlier this month urges the government to increase its emphasis on early childhood education as a way of reducing the number of minorities in special education, among other things. The report, "Minority Students In Special and Gifted Education," recommends that states adopt a screening and intervention strategy for children at risk of developing reading problems and that the federal government support this. The mixed quality of preschool experienced by children today was brought home by a study published by the Massachusetts Department of Education last week which found that 65 percent of preschools and day-care centers in the Bay State fail to provide effective programs to develop language and thinking skills in their students. For more, see "Bush, Kennedy work on preschool plan," by Anne Kornblut, The Boston Globe, January 22, 2002 (article must be purchased); "Minority Students In Special and Gifted Education," Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, M. Suzanne Donovan and Christopher T. Cross, Editors, National Research Council; and "Study: Many preschool programs fail," by Ed Hayward, Boston Herald, January 19, 2002 (article must be purchased).

In an earlier report and Gadfly editorial-available at http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=75#1062-the Manhattan Institute's Jay Greene explained that official high school graduation rates published by the federal government understate the problem of dropouts because they treat the General Education Development (GED) credential as the equivalent of a standard high school diploma. But is the GED a good substitute for the real thing? In an article in City Journal, Greene notes that earning a GED brings few of the benefits of earning a high school diploma-economists have found the life outcomes of GED-holders to be no better than those of high school dropouts-and proceeds to explore why that might be. One reason is that passing the GED requires very little academic knowledge; the average GED recipient passes the test after just 30 hours of class time and study. Preparing for the GED also requires none of the social discipline that sticking it out in high school demands. Greene argues that treating the GED as the equivalent of a high school diploma not only distorts our dropout statistics, it may even contribute to the problem; the existence of an easier route to a credential may actually encourage students to drop out. Greene cites a study by the Urban Institute's Duncan Chaplin that found that the easier a state makes it to get a GED, the higher the dropout rate. To eliminate this problem, Greene suggests that we make the GED harder and raise the minimum age for taking the test. "GEDs Aren't Worth the Paper They're Printed On," by Jay P. Greene, City Journal, Winter 2002.

Gary Miron and Christopher Nelson, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
December 2001

The National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, continues to churn out "occasional papers" of varying quality and significance. This one is #41 in the series and was prepared by Gary Miron and Christopher Nelson of Western Michigan University's Evaluation Center. It seeks to compile extant data on student achievement in charter schools-a worthy project if an inconclusive paper, due largely to the spottiness of available data. In 33 pages, they do a decent job of identifying "independent" studies of student achievement in charter schools in those states where such studies have been conducted in methodologically defensible ways (just 8 states and a total of 18 studies). The meta-analysis of those studies leads them to conclude that charters currently present a "mixed or very slightly positive picture" with respect to pupil achievement. Mostly, though, they lament the paucity of decent data and sound studies. They provide some interesting theories about why so little is known and end up with a strong-and nearly irrefutable-plea for more research to be done. This is a good paper to know about, if only to answer the many people who innocently ask "Well, are charter schools working?" Judged by the single criterion of student achievement gains, the answer seems to be "The news is slightly positive but basically inconclusive for the nation as a whole." (Some of the individual state studies are more conclusive about gains-or the absence thereof-associated with their charter schools.) You can view a PDF version or request an emailed copy at http://www.ncspe.org.

James Catterall and Richard Chapleau, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
December 2001

In yet another "occasional paper" (#42) from the Teachers College center on education privatization, UCLA professor James Catterall and Richard Chapleau of Chapman University analyze voting patterns in the celebrated California voucher referendum of November 2000. Everybody knows that the measure was thrashed. The authors here try to examine who voted for and against it and why. Note, though, that their analysis is limited to Los Angeles County (about 28 percent of the state population), where Proposition 38 had even less support than statewide (26.9 percent of those voting versus 29.4 percent). Los Angeles also has distinctive demographics and its own raft of education problems (and reform initiatives). The authors do not try to make it representative of California as a whole. Neither should readers of this paper. The (highly technical) analysis also suffers from a number of data limitations and analytic problems. The findings, therefore, should probably just be seen as suggestive. Still, some of them are interesting, if rather predictable. It appears that relatively wealthier voters were more apt to favor vouchers and lower income voters were likelier to oppose them. Republicans were also more pro-voucher than Democrats. Those with children already in private schools were more pro-voucher than those with kids in public schools. Nobody, it seems, had much information about what vouchers are. So people were voting-as no doubt they usually do-more on the basis of ideology or perceived self-interest than cool, rational analysis of information. Note, too, that better-informed people (at least in their own view) were also slightly likelier to favor vouchers. Readers of this study might also want to acquaint themselves with Terry Moe's excellent book-titled Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public-on the complex attitudes that Americans have with respect to school choice. To locate the Moe book, surf to http://www.brook.edu/press/books/schools_vouchers.htm. To see the NCSPE paper, surf to http://www.ncspe.org, where you can view a PDF or request an emailed copy.

Jay P. Greene, Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute
January 2002

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jay P. Greene has just released the second edition of his state-by-state "freedom index." It ranks the states according to their levels of "education freedom" as measured by the availability of four kinds of education choices for families: charter schools, subsidized private schools, home-schooling and public-school choice. He then relates the extent of a state's educational freedom to its student achievement (as measured on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, using states' 8th grade math scores in 2000). While Greene does not prove (or claim to prove) that more educational freedom boosts academic achievement, he shows a "strong observable relationship" between them. He also examines the strength of a state's accountability system (using publicly available data) and relates it to academic achievement in a way that controls for prior test scores. As for education freedom itself, Greene finds that Arizona has the most (2.94 on his index), followed by New Jersey, Delaware, Florida and Minnesota. Hawaii has the least (0.88), with Utah, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Maryland just ahead of it. Vermont and Ohio are smack in the middle. You can obtain this 14-page report from the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_24.htm.

Neal McCluskey, Center for Education Reform
January 2002

For historians of education, 1991 will stand out as the year the world of education was turned upside down. As is often the case with revolutions, it is only through the perspective of time that we can really appreciate just how dramatic these happenings really were. In 1991, computer programmers at the University of Minnesota came up with the Internet protocol "gopher," and thus were born the ubiquitous Internet and World Wide Web that are now part of our daily lives. That same year, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the country's first charter school law. A decade later, we can see that these seemingly disconnected events have spawned an educational movement that has the power to deliver high quality instructional services to all learners regardless of time, place, and personal background. Education is no longer synonymous with the neighborhood school. In his short report "Beyond Brick and Mortar," Neal McCluskey, a policy analyst for the Center for Education Reform, tracks this history and what it means for today's students, parents, and the education establishment. He notes that there are now 30 "cyber charter schools" operating in 12 states. Those who have benefited most from these on-line schools are home-schoolers and children unable to attend traditional schools because of physical or emotional disabilities. Those who feel most threatened by them are the people who run school districts made up of buildings, buses, teachers and administrators. They see these cyber charters as taking their pupils and their money, and they don't much like it. Hence they've been struggling to scuttle cyber charters through legislative and legal action. In the spring of 2001, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) filed a lawsuit challenging the requirement that districts release funds for their students to enroll in cyber charters. In May a judged ruled against the PSBA, and the Keystone State has seen a boom in its cyber charter population. Meanwhile a related case is heating up in Ohio. While the outcome of the larger battle cannot be foretold with confidence, it is clear that change is underway. For more information, see http://edreform.com/press/2002/cyber_charters.htm, or order a hard copy of the report for $3 by calling CER at 202-822-9000 or visiting http://www.edreform.com/pubs/index.html.

Pedro Reyes and Joy C. Phillips, University of Texas at Austin
August 2001

A lot is going on in Houston by way of school reform and there's plenty of interest in whether various initiatives are succeeding. A number of reform efforts are loosely clustered in the Houston Annenberg Challenge, which has been underway since 1997 with substantial ($60 million) five-year funding from Annenberg and local matchers. 88 schools are being directly supported in Houston and five smaller nearby districts. A number of other ventures (e.g. professional development, institutes for teachers) are also being underwritten by the Annenberg Challenge, and some of these have already grown into larger initiatives with support from elsewhere. To its credit, the Houston Annenberg program invited a research team led by the University of Texas's Pedro Reyes to conduct a "formative" evaluation. This report-dated August 2001, issued in December-is called the "year two summary report" but in fact it reviews the Houston Annenberg program through its 4th year (2000-2001). The researchers claim to have found laudable progress, both the soft kind (e.g. teacher satisfaction and parent involvement) and measurable test-score growth by Annenberg-funded schools. The press release says "Our Year Two research finds that Annenberg-funded schools have made progress-in the case of Beacon schools quite considerable progress-raising achievement levels for their students" and "Minority student are making even bigger gains." ("Beacon" schools are one of three subsets of participating schools.) The problem is this: the Annenberg schools were hand-picked and, in the case of the praised "Beacon" schools-11 such, in 5 districts, that entered the program first and were concluding their 4th year when this study was done-they were picked "because they have already demonstrated the capacity to engage in school reform." One might even say they were cherry-picked. This report contains reasonably strong achievement data emanating from the Beacon schools, but it also shows that, for the most part, they were doing better than the Houston average when they entered the program-and were still doing better, by about the same margins, 3 years later. For example, in middle school math, the Beacon Annenberg schools (the reader is not told how many of these there are, nor how many are in Houston proper) surpassed the HISD average on the statewide TAAS test by 8 points in 1997 and 7 points in 2001. The Beacon schools made greater gains than HISD in high school reading-but the other two categories of Annenberg high schools slipped in reading between 1997 and 2001 (as did HISD as a whole). As for gap-closing, two of the three Annenberg school categories made worthy gains for minority and poor kids (relative to white and middle-class youngsters) but here we're given no comparison data for the district as a whole. In general, it's really difficult to know for sure what to make of the Annenberg schools' progress. The schools were hand-picked. They were doing relatively better than the citywide average when they entered the program. There's no real control group other than the district as a whole. And much else was happening in Houston during this period of time, so we can scarcely tell what was caused by Annenberg and what may have been shaped by other influences. My beef isn't with the program. It's with this approach to program evaluation. I do not doubt that the adults involved in the Houston Annenberg Challenge have positive vibes. But is the program the cause of their students learning more? This study doesn't really shed much light on that. If you'd like to see it, surf to http://www.utexas.edu/projects/annenberg/index.html. Hard copies may be ordered by contacting The Houston Annenberg Challenge, First City Tower, 1001 Fannin, Suite 2210, Houston, TX 77002-6709; 713-658-1881.

A careful reader of The New York Times would by now be very confused about the state of reading research. In the past few weeks, three different writers in the newspaper have offered differing interpretations of the issue. Only one of them, in my view, is correct.

If you read the articles from Washington by reporter Diana Jean Schemo, you would conclude that the teaching of phonics is an untried and risky approach that excludes good literature and is under heavy fire by leading reading researchers. In January 2002, Schemo wrote two articles - one about the $900 million reading program in the recently enacted federal education legislation (January 9, 2002) - and the other about Reid Lyon, the Bush administration's key reading expert (January 19, 2002). Both Schemo articles insist that there is a sharp dichotomy between "drilling children in phonics" and the "whole language" method, which she defines as synonymous with teaching good literature. Schemo presents Lyon, chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as the Dr. Strangelove of reading instruction, a man whose critics call him "Dr. Lyin'." She clearly prefers the critics who are skeptical of the value of phonics and who claim that the NICHD research is wrong. 

Richard Rothstein, the newspaper's regular weekly columnist on education, who ordinarily uses words carefully, defines whole language as "exposure to literature," in contrast to phonics, which (he says) consists only of "the mechanics of reading." Like Schemo, Rothstein implies a dichotomy between phonics (no literature) and whole language (literature).

A third voice on The New York Times, editorial writer Brent Staples, shows a deep familiarity with the research literature on reading methods. In his January 5 article, "How the Clip 'N Snip's Owner Changed Special Education," Staples points out that "The task of teaching reading is undermined by the common but mistaken belief that children are somehow neurologically 'wired' to read. This view led to the 'whole language' fad of the 1970s, in which children were allowed to wander through books, improvising individual approaches to reading." Staples points out that some children learn to read through this method, but it is a disaster for about four in ten children. Nearly half of them fall behind in the early grades, "never catch up and eventually drop out."

These children are "casualties of bad instruction," many of whom are stigmatized as having a learning disability. The NICHD research shows that they need careful instruction to learn the alphabet, the connection between letters and sounds, and the sounds of syllables - in other words, phonics.

The careful reader of The New York Times, in other words, wishes that Brent Staples would sit down with Diana Jean Schemo and Richard Rothstein and explain the findings of NICHD research and of the National Research Council's 1998 report, "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children," while pointing out that there is no necessary conflict between learning to read with phonics as beginning readers and then reading good literature. You can't read good literature if you can't read. Staples might mention that there is now a broad consensus around the NICHD research and that it has been endorsed by every major education organization (which are joined in the Learning First Alliance).

What is most annoying about the Times coverage is not only that it misleads and confuses its readers about reading research, but that it fails to report on the outstanding progress that has been made in the pedagogy of reading.

"Education Bill Urges New Emphasis on Phonics as Method for Teaching Reading," by Diana Jean Schemo, The New York Times, January 9, 2002 (abstract only; the full article may be purchased)

"Now, the Pressure Begins for Bush's Reading Expert," by Diana Jean Schemo, The New York Times, January 19, 2002

"Created: Bigger U.S. Role; Evolving: What the Role Is," by Richard Rothstein, The New York Times, January 16, 2002 (abstract only; the full article may be purchased)

"How the Clip 'N Snip's Owner Changed Special Education," by Brent Staples, The New York Times, January 5, 2002  (abstract only; the full article may be purchased)

"Years of vouchers and competition-based reforms mean it's no longer a novelty to see MPS [Milwaukee Public Schools] promoting schools the way Procter & Gamble sells Tide," writes Sam Schulhofer-Wohl in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but "the public school system's promotional efforts are reaching newly feverish heights this winter" with free chili dinners at MPS open houses, radio ads, and MPS's weekly TV show promoted on paper placemats at McDonald's. A $60,000 marketing campaign last winter brought an estimated 850 to 1200 students into MPS; this time around, the district is spending $95,000 and taking advantage of thousands of dollars worth of donated TV and radio airtime and billboard space. The district is also seeing positive results from its policy of requiring students to pass proficiency tests before leaving eighth grade, reports the newspaper's Alan Borsuk. The percentage of ninth-graders who graduated to tenth grade at the end of the year last June increased significantly, with grade point averages and attendance for ninth graders also increasing. For more see "MPS marketing gets an 'E' for everywhere," by Sam Schulhofer-Wohl, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 18, 2002, and "More MPS  students go on to 10^th grade," by Alan Borsuk, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 17, 2002.

Until this year, virtually all school districts in California participated in the state's class size reduction program, with the state footing most of the cost. This year, a number of school districts have indicated that they will be dropping the program, which caps class size at 20 in grades one through three, because of money shortages.  Districts found themselves shouldering more of the program's costs as teachers advanced up the pay scale faster than state funding increased, and the state's faltering budget will give districts less discretionary funding to cover the difference this year. Faced with the choice of raising class sizes or eliminating art, music and science teachers for elementary schools, some districts (and parents) are opting for larger classes. For details see "Class Size Reform Eroding," by Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times, January 21, 2002.