Our own Diane Ravitch has edited the third in her series of these thick but valuable volumes, this one based on a May 2000 Brookings conference devoted to academic standards in the U.S. Weighing in at 414 pages, this is indispensable for any serious follower of (or participant in) standards-based education reform. It consists of 7 main papers (one by yours truly and Fordham research director Marci Kanstoroom on "State Academic Standards") with commentaries on each. Other authors and topics include John Bishop and associates on end-of-course and minimum competency exams; Julian Betts and Bob Costrell on the interplay of incentives and equity in a standards regime; David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan on indirect evidence of state reform efforts; and Mark Reckase on the controversies triggered by the standards set by the National Assessment Governing Board. For information or copies, contact Brookings Institution Press, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20036; phone (202) 797-6258 or (800) 275-1447; e-mail [email protected]; or surf to www.brookings.edu.

On May 23, 2001, the New York Times ran three major stories demonstrating cognitive dissonance about educational approaches. On the front page, we learned about Ms. Moffett, a first-year teacher assigned to a low-performing school who is extremely frustrated because she is required to follow lesson plans instead of doing what she wants, which is to demonstrate her creativity. Her mentor teacher advises her to adhere to the instructions that come with the "Success for All" reading program, but Ms. Moffett clearly feels cheated, and the story line implies that it's unjust to bar this novice teacher from "doing her own thing" with students.

The nearby column by Richard Rothstein, the newspaper's regular commentator on education, warns that homework increases the gap between students from middle-class and low-income homes, because advantaged parents can help their children. Rothstein warns that it is "unconscionable for educators to exacerbate inequality by assigning homework" unless government first supplies afterschool study centers.

To complicate matters, a news story on the same day contradicts both Ms. Moffett's yearning to be creative and Mr. Rothstein's dire warnings about the deleterious impact of homework done at home. Kate Zernike writes about the stunning success of public schools in Mount Vernon, New York, where fourth-grade reading scores soared between 1999 and 2001. Mount Vernon, she points out, is "a poor cousin" in a county that includes elite schools like those of Scarsdale (where many students, abetted by their parents, recently boycotted the state tests). Sixty percent of Mount Vernon's students are poor and few thought that the town's schools would ever improve, yet the district boasted three of the state's most improved schools in the state and some of its elementary schools more than doubled the proportion of fourth-graders passing the state test. The pass rate for the district as a whole jumped from 35% in 1999 to 77% in 2001.

What happened? According to Zernike, "the schools gave teachers clearer goals and firmer instruction on how to reach them." The district budgeted more professional development time and planned "districtwide lessons, right down to the work students in each grade would take home that weekend." It raised expectations and developed a standard curriculum that spelled out clearly what should be taught in each grade. Students are expected to read and write at home every night, and their parent must sign a form attesting that they have done so.

The lesson from Mount Vernon, which saw huge improvements among disadvantaged students: Improved instruction; higher expectations; consistency of instruction; well-planned lessons delivered by well-prepared teachers; consistent homework assignments; a focus on reading and writing; clarity about what is to be taught and learned.

Perhaps the New York City could send its new teachers to Mount Vernon to learn that professionalism doesn't mean giving free rein to one's idiosyncratic impulses; it means setting goals and identifying which practices are most effective, which are grounded in research, and how to do them successfully. -Diane Ravitch

"In 2 Years, Mt. Vernon Test Scores Turn Around," by Kate Zernike, New York Times, May 23, 2001

"Lessons: How to Ease the Burden of Homework for Families," by Richard Rothstein, New York Times, May 23, 2001

"Teaching by the Book, No Asides Allowed," by Abby Goodnough, New York Times, May 23, 2001

Crack education journalist Jay Matthews reacted to anti-testing articles in a thoughtful column appearing only in the electronic version of the Washington Post. He wonders why parents of schoolchildren in Scarsdale didn't ask their principals and teachers why they let state-mandated tests scare them into test prep activities that reduce time for inspired teaching when the test would surely have been a cinch for their kids. He observes that ending the state testing system could mean returning "to the days of baby-sitter schools, when low-income kids were kept as comfortable as possible until being handed a meaningless high school diploma and dumped on the job market."

"Trying to Clear Up the Confusion," by Jay Mathews, Washington Post online

Fans of "direct instruction," and those who would like to learn more about it, will want to examine this new report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. It was catalyzed by three facts: (a) Direct Instruction, properly done, is a teaching method (and curriculum) that is known to be effective, particularly with younger children and especially in reading. (b) Direct Instruction is nonetheless shunned by most of the public education establishment, notably including teacher preparation programs. (c) Despite that, Wisconsin has elements of what might be termed a D.I. insurgency or, at least, underground movement, i.e. some schools are actually using it. So scholars Mark Schug, Sara Tarver and Richard Western went off to investigate how Direct Instruction works "on the ground." The result is interesting and heartening. D.I. indeed works?though its implementation is a challenge for many teachers, meaning that their training would have to be recast in order for it to be used extensively. Yet its use could minimize the extent and cost of remediation and some special education. This one is worth your while. Contact the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc. at P.O. Box 487, Thiensville, WI 53092. Phone (262) 241-0514. Fax (262) 241-0774. E-mail [email protected]. Or surf to http://www.wpri.org.

by Emanuel Tobier (Manhattan Institute, May 2001)

 By Howard Fuller, PhD and Kaleem Caire.

This report, co-authored by the original founder and current head of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, presents a strong argument suggesting that school choice opponents deliberately mislead the public about features of the nation's preeminent school choice program in Milwaukee, WI, as well as school choice issues generally. The many examples presented, in great detail, are convincing as well as appalling. Some of the deceptions spread should be familiar: voucher programs "cream" the best students away from public schools; participating private schools get to handpick the students they will serve (even NBC's Tom Brokaw perpetuated this one on the Nightly News, despite the fact that the Wisconsin law clearly prohibits it); voucher programs are meant to destroy public education; and voucher programs do not improve the academic achievement of voucher students. (If you have any doubt that these accusations aren't true, please visit www.schoolchoiceinfo.org or email me at [email protected].) The report also examines how school choice opponents disingenuously equate school choice with the "Balkanization" of society and racial segregation. Fortunately we have Milwaukee-based leaders of the school choice movement ready to fight for the truth...and for the kids. You can read this report online at http://www.schoolchoiceinfo.org/, or call (414) 765-0691 to order a copy.

As I write, the House of Representatives has just completed floor action on the education bill and the Senate is expected to return to it soon. The Senate has a bunch more amendments to consider, some of them important, some of them even germane. The House (under White House pressure and facing Democratic defections) rebuffed all efforts to make major changes in the committee-drafted bill, which is to say it kept the testing provision, deep-sixed all voucher attempts and sidestepped "Straight A's". With the Senate-House conference still in the future, the final shape of this measure is remains somewhat cloudy.

Several points are worth noting, however, starting with the fact that this is an immense piece of legislation, more than 900 pages long. Tucked into it are hundreds of provisions dealing with everything imaginable, from "impact aid" to school technology to Indian education to sundry teacher issues. Numerous pork-barrel projects and narrow-interest programs are protected. All sorts of weird provisions can be spotted. Their implications will roll on for years to come. Yet the number of people who have actually read the full text of both Senate and House bills can probably be counted on one's fingers. Few lawmakers voting on these provisions are on that list. Lamentably, most who have focused on this bill at all-mainly Beltway insiders-are paying attention only to specific items of direct interest to them or their group. How these features will interact with each other is anybody's guess.

If, for example, you're interested in charter schools you would naturally gravitate to the 15-20 pages that address this topic directly, assisting these schools with start up and capital costs, albeit with more rules and wrinkles. What you probably won't notice-because it's nowhere spelled out-is the ominous intersection between charter schools' freedom (and the prized diversity of state charter arrangements) and the bill's new accountability provisions for all public schools. Will a charter school serving low income children in Michigan, for example, one that's accountable for its performance to Central Michigan University and has a five year plan with clear achievement goals, suddenly find itself also subject to ESEA's new "adequate yearly progress" formula as enforced by a local school system that regards the charter school itself as an unwanted rival? The charter folks awoke late to this possibility-and an amendment (Carper-Gregg) to be offered in the Senate seeks to address it, albeit at the cost of complicating the bill even further. But this is just one illustration of how the unseen interactions tucked into this vast measure may cause grief down the road.

What on earth is "adequate yearly progress," anyway? Here we come to perhaps the single knottiest but, arguably, most important feature of the entire bill-and one that's only now getting public scrutiny, including a thoughtful piece by June Kronholz in the Wall Street Journal of May 21. "Adequate yearly progress (AYP)" means the specific achievement gains and gap-narrowings that a school, district or state must make each year to avoid sanctions (and qualify for rewards) under the new Title I accountability system. Far more than standards, tests and consequences, all of which garnered lots of attention, "AYP" is how Washington gains traction on the nation's schools. All those test scores will make no difference until they're placed alongside a gauge that says how much achievement-boosting or gap-closing a school or state is expected to deliver each year en route to leaving no child (or demographic group) behind.

If you want to confuse yourself, read the Senate and House AYP provisions. Consider what lies ahead in conference. And read a recent policy brief from the Education Trust showing how, accordingly to their analysis, this provision is (a) intricate beyond anyone's capacity to explain to parents and teachers, (b) susceptible, at least under certain circumstances, to masking failure by poor and minority kids behind the gains of more fortunate youngsters, and (c) not demanding enough regarding the rate at which these gaps must be closed (10-12 years, depending on which bill you examine).

Note, though, that the blurring, softening and complexifying of the bill's AYP provisions can be traced in no small part to the interventions of governors, including prominent Republicans, who told President Bush that the new federal standards must not be unrealistic. They also made the hard-to-dispute point that, if every state must close its gap in the same period of time yet each state is free to set its own achievement standards, then jurisdictions with high standards will face a tougher job than those with low standards, thus creating "perverse incentives" for the states themselves.

Complexity beyond all imagining, complexity far beyond the politics and posturing that the press has dwelt on, that's the real tale of ESEA. Last week a former Education Department official said he doubts the new law can ever be successfully implemented. It's so very convoluted, he noted, and those who will be tasked with operationalizing it (mainly mid-level types at the federal and state/local levels) lack the perspective, the judgment and the clout to make it work. -Chester E. Finn, Jr.

For a copy of the Education Trust's analysis of the accountability formula, send an e-mail to [email protected].

The American Federation of Teacher's magazine, American Educator, offers several gems in its most recent issue. Kay Hymowitz asks what it means for kids when parents have foresworn their traditional role and turned themselves into advocates, friends, and providers of entertainment for their children. Walter McDougall explains why an understanding of geography is fundamental to true education. There is a collection of tributes to pathbreaking reading expert Jeanne Chall, gathered from colleagues, students and friends. Dennis Denenberg laments the replacement of real-life heroes by cartoon heroes and suggests ways of bringing real heroes to life for kids. Finally E.B. White biographer Scott Elledge tells the story behind Charlotte's Web and explains what makes the book great. If you'd like a copy of one article or the whole magazine, send a fax to the American Educator (attn: Yomica) at 202-879-4534.

Achieve Policy Brief

Achieve, Inc., the organization formed by governors and CEO's to track and promote standards-based reform in American K-12 education, recently published a short "policy brief" dealing with the vexing issue of how high to set the bar for high-school graduation. In particular, this 7-pager grapples with whether a state should "set the bar high and risk a backlash when large numbers of students fail to reach it" or "set it relatively low and risk allowing students to continue to graduate without attaining the necessary knowledge and skills." The brief, unfortunately, does a better job of framing the problem than offering solutions. But it gives a few examples of how states have tackled the issue; urges higher education and employers to become more intimately involved with bar-setting (by creating, for example, a "unified system" of high school exit and college entrance); and sketches some "promising practices". Contact Achieve, Inc. at 400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 351, Washington DC 20001; phone (202) 624-1460; fax (202) 624-1468; or surf to www.achieve.org.

Center on Education Policy

The Center on Education Policy is the small outfit led by veteran Democratic House education staffer Jack Jennings. Last month, it published a 40-page report (prepared by staff member Nancy Kober) on achievement gaps between black and Hispanic students on the one hand, whites and Asians on the other. The topic is important and timely, especially considering that current White House and Congressional ESEA action centers on ways of narrowing these gaps. The C.E.P. report offers plainly stated data, much of it drawn from such oft-trod sources as NAEP and SAT scores. (Less familiar is evidence of an achievement gap at the time of entry into school.) This report offers no grand insights as to what causes these gaps-it summons the usual mix of school, home and societal factors-nor does it break new ground in advancing gap-closing strategies. The central thrust is that "testing and accountability" aren't sufficient. Instead, the report argues, policymakers need to "be bold in providing the full range of strategies, supports, and resources required to raise achievement among Black and Hispanic children....". But of course the report does not begin to offer a "full range" of strategies. Everything it recommends is centralized, top-down and system-driven. There's not a glimmer of market-style or parent-driven reform, of monopoly busting. It's another of those reports-we seem to be awash in them-that does a good job of framing the problem and then delivers the "same old" advice about solving it. If you'd like to see for yourself, the Center on Education Policy is located at 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 619, Washington DC 20036. Phone (202) 822-8065; fax (202) 822-6008; e-mail [email protected] or surf to www.ctredpol.org.