Critics of international education comparisons often complain that they are misleading because the variation in student performance is so great in the U.S. "The achievement of American schools is a lot more variable than is student achievement from elsewhere," asserted Berliner and Biddle in The Manufactured Crisis. A new study by three RAND researchers says that's not so. In an examination of eighth grade math scores on the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), the researchers find that the standard deviation (or spread) of the US sample was near the middle of the pack of the seven countries they analyzed. Student scores in Hong Kong and Japan show much greater variation than in the US; American scores vary about the same amount as those of students in England and New Zealand. For more, see "Predicting Variations in Mathematics Performance in Four Countries Using TIMSS," by Daniel Koretz, Daniel McCaffrey, and Thomas Sullivan, Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 9 no. 34, September 14, 2001, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n34/

Center for Urban Research and Policy Studies, University of Chicago
August 2001

Lawrence B. Joseph, a social scientist at the University of Chicago and program director of the Chicago Assembly, edited this collection of essays from the Chicago Assembly - a regional improvement organization that holds two-day seminars leading to policy recommendations and a background book. This is the book emerging from an Assembly session held nearly four years ago. 368 pages long, it contains seven essays, commentaries on them, and the 35-page "report" issued by the Assembly. The latter seems perfectly sound and sensible as it works through the rationale, problems and solutions of standards, tests and accountability arrangements with particular reference to the Chicago metropolitan area and makes solid if general recommendations. Some of the supporting essays are first-rate, particularly for those wanting to know more about the convoluted Chicago school-reform story. I was especially taken with Alfred Hess's piece unpacking the "conundrums" of statewide standards-based reform in Illinois and by Charles Payne's analysis of "building-level obstacles to urban school reform." There is a lot here for watchers of standards-based reform in America, much of it in the form of a Chicago/Illinois case study. The ISBN is 0-962675563. The publisher is the University of Chicago's Center for Urban Research and Policy Studies but the distributor - probably a better starting point - is the University of Illinois Press. The most direct path I can find is via the internet at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f01/joseph.html 

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania
August 2001

With the 1995 inception of an initiative called Children Achieving, Philadelphia became one of the first urban districts to implement systemic school reform. Superintendent David Hornbeck's sweeping reform plan - carried out in conjunction with the Annenberg Challenge in that city - sought to boost student achievement through standards-based instruction; school-level autonomy; and increased collaboration between parents, educators, and school officials. Evaluations of Children Achieving have been conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and its partner Research for Action (RFA) since 1996. In "Contradictions and Control in Systemic Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia Schools," (available online at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/children03.pdf) author Ellen Foley considers the role played by the district's central office in Children Achieving. What she found was a "gradual, but consistent, retreat" from the concept of school-level autonomy, attributable to the central office staff's struggle with "the competing demands of accountability, decentralization, and equity," as well as the alienation of key district partners - including parents, the teachers union, state officials and business leaders--put off by the central office's overbearing behavior. Foley concludes that, while Children Achieving - effectively dismantled in August 2000 with Hornbeck's departure--"fell far short of the vision of re-energized learning communities that motivated its architects," it did have notable success in raising test scores and framing the city's school reform debate around standards and accountability. (For a slightly more critical look at Philadelphia's Children Achieving initiative, see "Grant Brings High Hopes, Modest Gains to Philadelphia School Reform," by Carol Innerst in Can Philanthropy Fix Our Schools? , published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in April 2000. It can be found at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=41)

A second paper, "Clients, Consumers, or Collaborators? Parents and their Roles in School Reform During Children Achieving, 1995-2000" (available online at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/children04.pdf), finds that, while many Philadelphia schools established structures and processes to heighten parent participation, few actually engaged parents meaningfully, especially in racially isolated and low-income schools. As the report explains, teachers and principals jealously guard their authority and power - despite much rhetoric about building stronger bridges between home and school - and frequently underestimate the time and resources necessary to cultivate parent participation. Two notable exceptions - both involving parents from poor and minority neighborhoods - are profiled to illustrate how parents and educators can forge true working partnerships with the help of intermediary groups. To learn more about Philadelphia's successes and failures in its systemic reform experiment, view these studies online or order free copies from CPRE at 215-573-0700 x233 or [email protected]. (See http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/Publications.htm for links to additional papers.)

Joe Nathan and Karen Febey, Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota
2001

Drawing on a host of existing studies along with some original research, Joe Nathan and Karen Febey of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute offer up the latest hurrah for small schools. Their report summarizes the benefits of smaller learning environments - reportedly including higher achievement and graduation rates; fewer disciplinary problems; better teacher retention; and more satisfied students, parents and teachers. It also shows how schools that share facilities with other organizations - museums, libraries, centers for the elderly, and businesses - expand students' learning opportunities, offer higher quality services and use tax dollars more efficiently. Case studies of twenty-two public schools - including charter schools - in twelve states in urban, suburban and rural settings illustrate the benefits of thinking creatively about school structure and management. Skeptics say that building many small schools is more expensive than one larger school. Nathan and Febey contend, however, that innovative shared facilities are actually more cost-effective than traditional schools. You can find it at http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/saneschools.pdf or request a copy from the Center For School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455; phone 612-626-1834.

Mass Insight Education
Fall 2001

The useful Boston-based outfit named Mass Insight Education has issued this concise guide to helping secondary schools catch up academically. It focuses on preparing Bay State high school students to pass the state's MCAS test, which is required for graduation beginning with the class of 2003. The report distinguishes among various categories of students in need of help. It seems that Massachusetts pupils are doing a lot better in English than in math, which is especially interesting considering that NAEP and SAT data show national trends moving upward in math but not English. Not surprisingly, the most acute needs are among special ed and urban students. To address those needs, the report suggests a number of actions, most of them sound but obvious (e.g. more time, different pedagogies, better-trained staff, better tracking). As other states get closer to making their tests actually count for high-school graduation, they are apt to find this kind of analysis helpful. If you would like to see it, I suggest turning to the web: http://www.massinsight.com/meri/pdf_files/A%20New%20Commitment.pdf

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
May 2001

It's become a mantra for education reporters: during the next decade, American schools will need to hire over two million new teachers to cope with rising enrollments, staff retirements, and the exodus of younger teachers from the classroom. Policymakers therefore need good information about effective ways to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. To assist them, the federally funded North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) surveyed superintendents in seven Midwestern states to identify which programs had been adopted with what degree of success. On the recruitment side, urban and suburban districts report success with manipulating salary schedules to better compensate teachers whose skills are in high demand, as well as partnering with higher ed institutions to give students and graduates on-the-ground training in the classroom. Rural schools have found recruiting within the community to be effective. To retain instructors, urban and suburban school districts are establishing and beefing up support programs for new teachers, with one-on-one mentoring and mandatory program participation the hallmarks of the most successful initiatives. Other strategies include involving teachers more in decision making, implementing team-teaching, and allowing common planning time for teachers. Based on the survey, authors Debra Hare and James Heap compiled a list of mostly common-sense - and mostly inside-the-box - recommendations for state and local policymakers. The most noteworthy: "respond to the market if possible" and "implement policies that result in more small learning environments in the district." But don't expect to find here any bold proposals for alternative certification or the like. For a free copy of the report - and its copious state-level data - contact Gina Burkhardt, Executive Director, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563; phone 630-649-6500 or 800-356-2735; fax 630-649-6700; email [email protected]. The report is also online at http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/strategy

Ohio Department of Education
September 2001

The Ohio Department of Education has issued this appraisal of 21 reading programs widely used in the elementary schools of the Buckeye State. It was prepared by David Pearson of Michigan State University and Steven Stahl of the University of Georgia. They looked to see how well each program meets eight criteria that research says are important for effective literacy programs. These include five aspects of early reading (phonemic awareness, word recognition and phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension), two operational concerns (meeting individual needs, professional development for teachers) and "evidence of effectiveness." This last is a bit shaky, as the evaluators relied on program vendors to supply the evidence - and they comment that "few programs...met the 'gold standard' for evaluation," i.e. an experimental study by independent analysts. Most of the 85-page report consists of a few pages per program, summarizing the reviewers' conclusions and ratings. These are done on a scale from - in effect - zero to 3, with 3 representing "strong evidence" of a program's success in addressing the particular criterion. Few programs display lots of 3's - and some with high ratings are new to me. (Among them are also several that I'm acquainted with, including Open Court and Success for All.) I don't believe that any two reading experts would agree on these sorts of ratings, and some of what I see in this evaluation - e.g. high marks for Reading Recovery - gives me pause. But have a look. At the very least, it's apt to show you some reading programs that you probably DON'T want to use. You could phone (614) 466-0224 but I think your fastest path is via the web: http://www.ohiorc.org/articles/consumer_guide.pdf

The school choice movement is gaining in complexity as lawmakers increasingly opt for tax credits instead of vouchers as a way to help citizens, poor and otherwise, pay private school tuition for their children.

Six states-Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida-already have laws that give taxpayers a credit for some education expenditures when they pay their taxes, though not all cover private school tuition. These tax credit plans come in two basic flavors. In some states (Illinois, for instance), individual taxpayers receive a credit against their tax liabilities for at least some of the private school tuition they pay for their children. In other states (Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida), individuals or corporations can receive tax credits for donating to special funds that award private school tuition scholarships to low-income children.

Here's a quick look at how tax credits work in a few states:

1) Tax credits for tuition payments:

a) Minnesota was the first state to offer tax credits for education-related spending. The credit was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983. Today families can get a credit of up to $2,500 a year for almost any education-related expense except private school tuition. (Private school tuition is, however, tax-deductible.)
b) In Illinois, nearly 134,000 families have taken advantage of the state's tuition tax credit, a break aimed at helping people send their children to private school by allowing families to subtract up to $500 from their tax bill for private school tuition expenses.

2) Tax credits for donations to scholarship funds:

a) Arizona's 1997 tax credit law-recently upheld by the state Supreme Court-allows individuals to make contributions of up to $500 to scholarship organizations and receive a 100% tax credit. The scholarship groups collect donations and award scholarships.
b) In Florida, corporations receive full credit against their tax liabilities for donations as large as $5 million to scholarship funds. (Total donations statewide under the program cannot exceed $50 million.)
c) Earlier this year, Pennsylvania made it possible for corporations to get a tax break in return for donating up to $100,000 to scholarship organizations that assist low and moderate income families. Corporations receive a tax credit of 75% of the amount of their donation, 90% if the company agrees to make the donation for two consecutive years. Once $20 million has been raised statewide, however, the tax credit will not be available for any additional donations.

Which kinds of tax credit plans are likely to raise the most money for scholarships, funds based on corporate contributions (Florida, Pennsylvania) or those based on individual contributions (Arizona)? Corporations have deeper pockets and are capable of making much larger donations, but pressure from teachers' unions and other organizations may discourage them from supporting private education. Individuals don't have to worry about the PR implications of supporting school choice, but few can write such big checks, and they may also be less likely to know about a tax credit law.

Tax credits are seen as superior to vouchers in some political and policy circles. Bret Schundler, the Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey and one of the standard-bearers for school choice, is now pushing for tax credits instead of vouchers. The Cato Institute has published a series of reports on tax credits, including one, The Arizona Scholarship Tax Credit: Giving Parents Choices, Saving Taxpayers Money, released just this week. (A summary appears below.)

Part of what makes tax credit plans appealing is their indirectness; it's difficult for opponents to complain about money being "drained" from public schools or to charge the government with violating the separation of church and state if people's taxes are simply being lowered. In contrast to a voucher plan, the government is not sending money to a private school, but simply taking in less revenue. Tax credits ordinarily involve less government involvement with private schools than voucher programs do, and therefore less tampering with those elements that make private schools successful.

Yet many voucher supporters are deeply suspicious of tax credit plans. Tax credits for families paying private school tuition (as in Illinois) benefit families who pay taxes and can afford private school tuition, but may not help poorer families. Tax credit laws can be difficult to understand. If credited donations remain capped (as in Florida, which only allows $50 million a year in donations), only a fraction of eligible kids might be able to receive scholarships to attend private schools.

But tax credits might be the best we can do after the dismal election-day performances of voucher ballot measures in California and Michigan. And the speed at which so many states are now passing (or considering) tax credit laws is heartening, more so, certainly, than the pace of voucher progress today. -Matthew Clavel

"School-Choice Alternatives," by Dan Lips, National Review Online, September 6, 2001,

"Extra Credit," The Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2001, (available only to subscribers)

WAY TO GO, MR. PRESIDENT! THAT WAS A HELLUVA SPEECH. WE'RE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY!

It's been more than a little upsetting to watch the education community respond to last Tuesday's terrible attack on the United States. The prize for greediest, most self-promoting and solipsistic response goes to an outfit called the Public Education Network. Within 24 hours of the tragedy, they issued a statement that, after a few pieties, proclaimed that "access to a high-quality public education is the bedrock of our democracy" and urged that "as important calls for rethinking our commitment to our national defense and the war terrorism are made, the Public Education Network asks policymakers and citizens to remember the important role that public education plays...." Translation: "We're so selfish that we think our stuff is more important than the security of a nation within which our stuff is possible." Maybe they'd like to spend a little time experiencing "public education" under the Taliban.

Far more widespread have been well-meaning efforts to help schools, teachers and parents respond appropriately to children during this traumatic time. Many educators are struggling with how best to do this, and all of us welcome well-formulated advice about how to deal with kids' fears and anxieties. When something awful happens, it's normal for a child to wonder whether it could happen to him-and to be fearful until the grownups in his life offer comfort and reassurance. So it's great to advise grownups on handling the emotional and psychological parts of all this. And for the many children directly impacted by last Tuesday's tragedy-through loss of friends, relatives, neighbors, etc.-how the grownups respond to their emotional needs is doubly important.

But trouble arises when we turn to the political and moral dimensions of these events for the millions of children not immediately affected by them. The attacks created an important "teachable moment" and raised urgent questions in kids' minds about why they occurred. So what lessons should educators (and parents, etc.) impart?

No doubt some are doing a fine job. But not all. The worst-lesson prize goes to the Maryland teacher, one of whose 12 year old pupils offered this account to The Washington Post: "Why do some people hate America? Why did they do it? They wanted to bomb our symbols. That's what my mom said. Because we're bossy. That's what my teacher said. She said it's because we have all the weapons and we think we can boss other countries around. They're jealous of us."

America, in this rendering, has only itself to blame for the other guys' aggression. I'm reminded of the depths of the Cold War when the unilateral-disarmers produced "nuclear winter" curricula for U.S. classrooms that said, in effect, that America is responsible for the world's parlous state and if we would only renounce our militaristic ways everyone would be a lot safer.

Need I add that history shows just the opposite to have been the truth?

Not all the dubious instructional advice that has flooded the airwaves and websites in recent days takes the form of "blaming America." Much more widespread is simple disregard for patriotism and democratic institutions, non-judgmentalism toward those who would destroy them, and failure to teach about the heroism and courage of those who defend them.

Article after article and website after website counsels teachers to promote tolerance, peace, understanding, empathy, diversity and multiculturalism. Here, for example, are some excerpts from a broadside by the National Association of School Psychologists. (If you'd like to see the whole miserable thing, surf to http://www.nasponline.org/NEAT/crisis_0911.html)

"A natural reaction to horrific acts of violence like the recent terrorist attacks on the United States is the desire to lash out and punish the perpetrators.... While anger is a normal response felt by many, we must ensure that we do not compound an already great tragedy....Most importantly, adults must model tolerance and compassion in their words and behavior. They should also encourage children to explore their feelings about prejudice and hate....Violence and hate are never solutions to anger....All people deserve to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity....Vengeance and justice are not necessarily the same....We need to work for peace in our communities and around the world. The best way that we can stand up for our country at this point is to unite behind the principals (sic) that make us strong...Tolerance is a lifelong endeavor...Avoid stereotyping people or countries that might be home to the terrorists....Address the issue of blame factually....Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters....Discuss how it would feel to be blamed unfairly by association....Emphasize positive, familiar images of diverse ethnic groups....Read books with your children that address prejudice, tolerance, and hate."

Some of that is fine, but nowhere in this or many similar efforts do we find the suggestion that teachers should also read books with their pupils that address patriotism, freedom and democracy, that deal in a realistic way with the presence of evil, danger and anti-Americanism in the world, or that hail the heroism of those who have defended our land against foreign aggressors-including those who perished last week.

If you look hard, you can find some worthy exceptions. On September 14, for example, the U.S. Department of Education launched a mostly-swell website that includes (in the Department's own advice for educators and other grownups) the suggestion that "adults...can explain that we were attacked because of our commitment to protecting the freedom, opportunity and safety of people throughout the world. They can point out the bravery and goodness of those who have already done so much to help the victims, and reinforce that our country will prevail....Remind your students about the value of living in a country that respects individual liberty and the rule of law. Talk about the principles that led to the independence of our country....Engage in patriotic activities...."

Bravo. But even the Education Department's website (http://www.ed.gov/inits/september11/index.html) refers people to the school psychologists and some of the other purveyors of relativistic foolishness.

It would be nice to insulate our children from ideological differences among adults. But that isn't going to happen. So let's guard against those who would use these "teachable moments" to channel dubious lessons into the minds of kids. And pause a moment to ask whether our schools are doing what they should to ensure that today's students become tomorrow's patriots.

The New York City Board of Education has figured out how to privatize schools without seeming to. Last spring, parents at five troubled public schools voted down the Edison Project, and it appeared that nonpublic managers were not welcome in the school system. That turns out to be untrue. This fall, the system turned over a new school to Bard College, which is now operating Bard High School Early College.

This program gives Bard President Leon Botstein a chance to try out his ideas about what to do with the traditional four years of high school. Botstein has written several articles on the subject, and now the Board of Education has given him his own public school. The four-year program will allow its students to collect a two-year college degree when they graduate, to prove Botstein's belief that eleventh grade students are ready for college studies. Bard College will have considerable control of admissions, staffing, curriculum, and other key decisions.

The Bard program is one of many examples of quiet privatization; it joins the dozens of schools managed by New Visions for Public Education, the Center for Collaborative Education, the Consortium for Public Education, and other nonprofit organizations, which, like Bard have gained unusual control over school curriculum and staffing.

This manner of privatization seems to be far less controversial than the for-profit operation of Edison, or than the creation of charter schools, which continues to limp along at a snail's pace.

"Getting an Early Jump on College," by Karen Arenson, The New York Times, September 6, 2001, (An abstract is free; the full text of the article must be purchased.)