A long essay in this week's New Republic reviewing Terry Moe's new book, Schools, Vouchers and the American Public, Diane Ravitch explains why liberals should be pro-choice. She traces the history of the modern voucher movement and summarizes survey research analyzed by Moe that shows that the public is deeply ambivalent about vouchers, liking public education but also believing that the current system is inequitable for many children. According to Ravitch, the voucher movement survives because Americans are accustomed to having many choices in their lives. While the public schools are, and will continue to be, a central institution of American life, Ravitch notes that the American tradition of education has always been decidedly pluralistic and included a range of religious options until these were challenged by two different movements in the mid-nineteenth century: the common school movement and the nativist movement. Today's debate over vouchers is merely the continuation of a long-running battle in American history about the role of non-public schools. See "The Right Thing," by Diane Ravitch, The New Republic, October 8, 2001. (Not available online.)
Committee on Educational Excellence and Testing Equity, National Research Council, 2001
Although the dropout rate has declined in recent decades, large numbers of kids - most of them Hispanic or black and nearly all of them poor - are still being left behind. The National Research Council's Committee on Educational Excellence and Testing Equity (CEETE) set out to determine what effect the standards movement has had on dropouts and would-be dropouts. Given the large variation among tests, policies and implementation practices among states and districts, CEETE concludes that "the precise relationship between graduation testing and dropping out of school is still in dispute," though they note that "it is clear that retention in grade is a strong predictor of dropping out." CEETE makes a strong case for disaggregating data on student progress leading up to and including exit tests so that at-risk populations can better be monitored. And, of course, they throw their support behind early intervention as the single most effective antidote to dropping out, which, they argue is "a process of gradual disengagement" rather than an "isolated event." Copies of the report, which are $18 each ($14.40 when ordered at http://www.nap.edu), are available from the National Academy Press at 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; 800-624-6242. The report can also be read for free at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076021/html/index.html
National Center for Education Statistics, August 2001
This new report from the National Center for Education Statistics grows out of a special 1996 NAEP study of high school seniors enrolled in advanced biology, chemistry or physics, a population comprising almost one-quarter of U.S. twelfth graders in 1995-96. There is, of course, a ubiquitous problem with 12th grade NAEP results, namely that a lot of students don't take these low-stakes tests too seriously. Still, this is an interesting study, particularly for a country that has learned from TIMSS that even our advanced students don't perform very well by world standards. Some of what we find here is predictable: that boys still do better than girls in chemistry and physics, for example, though not significantly so in biology; and that white and Asian students score higher than black and Hispanic youngsters even within this advanced-course-taking population. Other results are less predictable, such as the absence of any significant public-private school differences. This 83-page report, written by Christine O'Sullivan and Wendy Grigg, does not report student performance in relation to the National Assessment Governing Board's "achievement levels" so it's hard to get beyond relativistic statements about students' actual attainments. But (in the mode of NAEP reports of yesteryear) it supplies a number of interesting sample items and tells you how well students did on each of them, as well as on NCES's pet "scale scores." If you want a hard copy, ask for NCES 2001-451 from Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794 or phone (877) 433-7827. Faster may be to surf to http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001451 and print yourself a copy from the PDF version you'll find there.
The Center for Education Reform, 2001
The Center for Education Reform also recently released the executive summary of a report based on a charter-school survey it conducted during school year 2000-01. 346 schools responded (though no data are supplied by which to know how representative these are of the 2000 charter schools then operating). No author is named. Nor are there page numbers. But it's interesting, nonetheless. We learn, for example, that the schools' average size was 250 students and that two-thirds of them have waiting lists averaging 112 youngsters. We learn that 80% of them are start-up schools (the rest divide almost equally between public and private school conversions) and that they have a stunning array of curricular foci. (I was struck that nearly half claim to be using Direct Instruction and/or Core Knowledge.) Two-fifths of these schools got their charters from local school boards, the rest from other authorities. Have a look on the web at http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/report/exesumm.pdf. And while you're there you can get CER's helpful new compilation of charter data for the present (2001-2002) school year by going to http://www.edreform.com/press/2001/010917.html.
William J. Bennett, 2001
In this new book, former education secretary and best-selling author William J. Bennett addresses himself to the decline of the American family and its implications for our society. He is, of course, talking about what some might term the "traditional" nuclear family (adult male and adult female, married to each other and raising their own children) but that he would simply term "the family." Unlike most of Bennett's earlier works, this volume is not primarily about education, but it intersects in many ways - for example, the devastating effects of divorce upon many children whom the schools are trying to teach - and will be of interest to most people who care about the condition of our young. It will inspire some readers, infuriate others and inform many with its wealth of information and its steady tone of moral seriousness and intellectual rigor. 200 pages long, its ISBN is 0385499159 and its publisher is Doubleday.
This unique survey compares the views of parents with children in private, public and charter schools on the quality of their own schools as well as a range of education reform issues. Conducted in Dayton, Ohio, home to one of the nation's fastest growing charter school programs as well as a strong private voucher program, the data show that, while public school parents are generally less satisfied with their children's present schools, the overwhelming majority of parents and non-parents support bold reform in the public school system. The survey also shows strong support among all groups for publicly funded vouchers, higher academic standards and performance pay for teachers.
Policy Priority:
Topics:
This report traces an initiative that was launched a decade ago by business and government leaders seeking to spark a transformation of K-12 education in American. The New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) vowed to cast aside traditional ideas about schools and apply a no-nonsense, business-savvy approach to the design and deployment of "break-the-mold" schools. Ten years later, New American Schools (as the organization is now named) looks a lot more like a member of the education establishment. Mirel's fascinating report shows how this happened.
Policy Priority:
Topics:
It's the eve of Yom Kippur, when many people of the Jewish faith reflect on their transgressions, atone for their misdeeds, and try to get right with God and their fellow men. Not Bill Ayers. His new book - which I confess I cannot bring myself to purchase - seeks instead to justify the heinous acts of his youth. (It's named "Fugitive Days" and if you don't care where your money goes you can obtain it from your local bookstore or Beacon Press.)
There are four things to know about Bill Ayers. The first is that he's an ex-Weatherman who boasts that he planned and participated in numerous acts of domestic violence during the late 1960's and early 1970's that left people dead and buildings badly damaged. Then he went "underground" for a decade to avoid being apprehended by the FBI. (His now-wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a notorious Weatherperson in her own right, was on the "most wanted list" for years.)
Second, he's now a "distinguished" professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, described by the University as specializing in moral education and the "ethical and political dimensions" of teaching.
Third, his new book, though published as a "memoir," contains fabrications, distortions, boasts and cover-ups. The 56-year old university professor says it should be read as "one boy's story."
Finally, and most importantly, he is completely unrepentant. ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' he told The New York Times. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''
I ask you, what does it say about this country's view of teachers and the proper preparation of those to whom we will entrust our children that a major state university confers so solemn a responsibility on such a person? One might understand it in a pragmatic sort of way if he were teaching physics or chemistry (you need those for bomb-making, right?) or maybe fiction-writing. But moral education? The ethical dimensions of teaching? What, pray tell, does Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, know about morality or ethics?
Through an exceptionally unhappy coincidence, the Times' big feature on Ayers and his book appeared on Tuesday, September 11. Which meant people looked up from that morning's revelation that "He participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972" to see - well, to see modern Weathermen converting civilian planes into bombs and hurling them at New York and the Pentagon (and maybe taking aim at the Capitol as well).
About that time on the morning of the 11th, one imagines, Ayers strolled into his Chicago classroom to talk with tomorrow's 3rd grade teachers about morality and ethics. Or possibly to read them the passage from his book that says he still finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance.'' (One regrets that Ayers was too far from the World Trade Center to revel in that day's "poetry" and its awful consequences.)
His most notorious statement from those earlier "days of rage" was urging the young to "kill all the rich people [Ayers' father was C.E.O. of Chicago's main electric company and most assuredly one of 'the rich people'], break up their cars and apartments, bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's at." When, thirty years later, a reporter asked him if he meant it, Ayers waffled - and blamed the media. He told the Times interviewer that "Many things were said in a kind of a humor....They were taken literally mainly by the for-profit media to show how crazy we were."
Should a middle-aged adult be absolved of criminal behavior undertaken when he was in his mid-20's and hardly an innocent child? What about homicidal words uttered at the time? On the behavior side, we know that thousands of people are serving lifetime prison sentences for deaths they caused when relatively young. (Ayers was 27 when the Pentagon was hit the first time.) Our justice system generally regards adult responsibility as beginning at age 18 - when one can also join the military (which Ayers of course didn't) and vote. As for the angry words, in a land that celebrates free speech one can, of course, say practically anything without being held to account. But candidates for university posts generally have their writings (and sometimes their speeches) carefully scrutinized by faculty committees, deans and provosts. An elaborate dossier is ordinarily assembled and vetted before a professorial candidate is approved, particularly for a tenured post. (Mt. Holyoke College recently suspended Pulitzer-prize winning author-professor Joseph Ellis for lying about his past.) One wonders whether Ayers would have made it through the faculty screening process if he had voiced praise for the American role in Vietnam. One doubts that his present colleagues would have welcomed him if he had dropped bombs on an enemy of the United States. It seems, however, that there is no penalty for dropping them ON the United States. It certainly didn't interfere with this tenure decision!
What of redemption and forgiveness? Yom Kippur is a good day to reflect on such things. But it would seem that this process must begin with atonement. And that's what Bill Ayers has never done. Rather, he boasts of his youthful exploits - and praises those who do similar things today. (He terms the recent violent protests in Seattle and Genoa "signs of a wonderful activism.") We can only imagine what those third grade teachers emerge with from his classes. But we can reasonably doubt that anything they learn in the classroom of this unrepentant terrorist has much relationship to morality or ethics.
"No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen," by Dinitia Smith, The New York Times, September 11, 2001, (An abstract is free; the full text of the article must be purchased.)
"Forever Rad," interview with Hope Reeves, The New York Times Magazine, September 16, 2001, (Although an abstract is not available, the full text of the article may be purchased here.)
While small schools are increasingly seen by experts as a promising way to boost student achievement (see Smaller, Safer, Saner Successful Schools reviewed below), parents and teachers have other ideas. A survey by Public Agenda found that parents and teachers think smaller schools have many advantages, but they haven't thought much about that particular school reform strategy and would not put it at the top of their education agenda, preferring to focus on stronger discipline, reducing class size, or improving teacher salaries. For Public Agenda's analysis, surf to http://www.publicagenda.org/aboutpa/aboutpa3ll.htm
There is nothing new about the charges raised by a trio of recent publications on college athletics: that campus sports once fostered values like teamwork and perseverance, but now promote crass commercialism while contributing to a campus atmosphere of play and partying that distracts students from academic pursuits. Yet some of the details might shock you. The number of student hours and university dollars devoted to sports are astounding, and efforts to field strong athletic teams have led to a serious degradation of academic standards for athletes, who receive an admissions "bump" far greater than alumni kids and minority applicants. In a review article in this month's Commentary, Checker explains why these problems are serious, what it would take to clean up college sports' act, and why this isn't apt to happen. Read "The Cost of College Sports," by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Commentary, October 2001 (not yet available online)