PATHS

The No Child Left Behind Act has 7 more years to meet its incredibly ambitious goal of educating 100 percent of U.S. school children to no less than "proficient" in reading and math. The odds are good we won't hit that target, at least not in an honest way. Even as too many states lower the bar for proficiency and artificially inflate the number of students hitting the mark, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress lay bare a stark reality: among the poor, less than 20 percent of students (and often far less) are reaching that goal in either subject.

It's not that we don't know how to bring such children to proficient, at least one school at a time. In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Paul Tough took a close look at a handful of schools (run by KIPP, Achievement First, and Uncommon Schools) that are, in fact, educating large percentages of their poor students to proficient and beyond (see here). So why aren't more schools having the same success?

According to Tough, it's all a matter of determination, resolve and, perhaps, money. "We could," he writes, "...decide to create a different system, one that educates most...poor and minority students to high levels of achievement. It is not yet entirely clear what that system might look like...but what is clear is that it is within reach." In other words, we need to "just do it."

Tough has seen what is possible, and, like one marveling at a harvest moon on an autumn night, believes he can grab it. But is it really within reach?

The equation for getting low-income kids to learn isn't all that complicated, as Tough points out. The formula used at KIPP, Amistad, and kindred schools boils down to three practices, executed well:

Students are required to be in school longer--much longer--than their peers in traditional public schools.

Pupils are tested, and re-tested, to measure achievement. Lesson plans, teaching strategies, even whole curricula are adjusted based on how well, or poorly, students are learning what they should. Moreover, teachers are closely monitored and constantly working to improve their skills.

Students' behavior and values are aggressively shaped by school leaders and instructors.

What is complicated, however, is implementing these changes within today's rule-bound, bureaucratic system, with its collective bargaining constraints, bureaucratic regulations, and the inertia of 100-plus years of public education. It's no coincidence that all of Tough's profiled schools are charters, and as such have the freedom to do things differently and take control of their own destinies. In turn, this greater autonomy allows them to attract many top-notch, talented, and energetic teachers who are willing to work long hours for mediocre pay because they yearn for a results-oriented, break-the-rules environment. Replicating this atmosphere in the traditional system would be hard--maybe even impossible. But expanding charter schools--and getting more good ones--is no easy feat, either.

In the latest issue of Education Next (see here), Joe Williams records some of the barriers (many of them illegal) that districts erect to prevent innovative schools from entering or expanding in their districts. In New Hampshire, for example, the Franklin school district got rid of Franklin Career Academy by simply refusing to pay it the meager per student funding owed to the school ($3,340 required under the New Hampshire charter law). The sleight of hand was made possible because the state gives the money to the district to pass on to the school. The district said the funds were needed elsewhere, and simply refused to pay.

In Albany, New York, the local zoning board played the role of charter spoiler. Albany Preparatory Charter requested a variance on a piece of property it wanted to house its school, but charter opponents turned out en masse at public hearings and urged the zoning board to say no. Their arguments, Williams notes, were not only against Albany Prep, but against charters in general.

On the back of their flimsy arguments--alleging that the property was unsuitable for a school--the variance was denied. Funny, considering that for 70 years that exact property had served as Albany's Public School 3. (A state superior court intervened, ordering that the variance be granted.)

Were such stories anomalies, Tough might have reason to be confident that creating a system of schools to reach all poor children is "within reach." But they are not.

For the resistance to charter schools is not simply one district impeding the growth of one school; it's more often the combined forces of hostility toward charters by those in the education establishment and state charter laws that reflect this animosity.

Connecticut's Amistad Academy, for example, did what the professional educators said was impossible. Led by Dacia Toll and Doug McCurry, Amistad opened as a New Haven middle school with a class of students, many of whom were two or more years below grade level. By grade 8, these students were earning some of the best scores on the Connecticut Mastery Test.

Toll and McCurry wanted to replicate Amistad across the state, but laws limiting the number of charter schools and charter students have made it next to impossible to ramp up significantly in Connecticut. So they launched the Achievement First management organization and began opening new schools in New York City, which was more welcoming (though the state's cap on charters is an issue). "It's very frustrating," Toll told the Associated Press. "We would love to grow in Connecticut, but we can't be suicidal."

Similar tales emerge in many states. So even if you're Amistad, breaking a monopoly mindset takes years. (Ask Southwest Airlines, Sprint, or any of a number of once-upstart automakers.) In part because monopolies are so effective in limiting challengers. This is especially true in education. In addition to the examples above, there are caps on the number of charters that most states will allow (and these tend to be low--100 in all of New York, 60 in Illinois, and 50 in Tennessee); ten states don't even permit charters; and many charter laws are so poorly constructed that actually starting schools is near impossible (Virginia, for example, which has just 5 charters for a million-plus school-age children).

Tough finishes his essay with this challenge: We know what it takes to get poor children to succeed in school, so it's not too late for us to meet No Child Left Behind's lofty goal. "If in 2014," however, "only 20 or 30 or 40 percent of the country's poor and minority students are proficient, then we will need to accept that its failure was not an accident and was not inevitable, but was the outcome we chose."

What Tough doesn't fully acknowledge is that choosing a different outcome will require us to wrestle power from the education establishment, giving room to the KIPPs and Achievement Firsts and other stellar models to grow. On that front, the key resource needed is not money, but political will.

Parents around the world are getting more choice and more voice over their children's education, says the OECD.

In a new publication, Demand-Sensitive Schooling? Evidence and Issues, the OECD looks at evidence from 11 countries that shows moves to give parents more control over choice and decision making at schools.

The publication says a shift from supply-led education systems - operating to procedures set by authorities, schools and teachers - towards systems sensitive to demand from families is becoming more common.

It says in the 11 countries studied, the evidence shows movement towards creating and permitting greater parental choice, a trend towards greater diversity in the schools on offer and better information available to parents to make choices.

There is also a trend towards more autonomous schools and increased stakeholder, especially parental, participation in decision making.

The report highlights arguments in favour of choice, including: providing all families with the same degree of choice as privileged parents have exercised, implicitly or explicitly, and the role of choice as a vehicle for stimulating schooling improvement.

It also looks at some downsides of choice. These include the risk that better educated, middle-class parents are more likely to use opportunities for choice.

The report notes, "When choices exist, schools must then look beyond their own walls at what others - their potential 'competitors' - are doing; without some room for exit to be exercised, parents and students have no threat to back up voice."

The OECD says the more direct people's experience of schooling provision or the education system, the more satisfied they tend to be about it. For example, people involved in school governance are more satisfied than other parents; women (who are more likely to participate in school life) tend to be more satisfied than men.

Resources:

Demand-Sensitive Schooling? Evidence and Issues is available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,2340,en_2649_33723_37655499_1_1_1_1,00.html

Some on Capitol Hill are promising fast, bipartisan action on the No Child Left Behind Act in 2007. The White House is making similar noises. But is anybody prepared to tackle one of that law's most damaging unintended consequences? We refer, of course, to "the big squeeze"-the compression of the curriculum to little but reading, math, and sometimes science. Is this good for America's future? Is it really what Congress intended? What can be done to set it right? And most important-are reading, math, and science truly sufficient for a 21st century education?

On December 12, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute is hosting a probing symposium on how best to ensure that all young Americans receive a proper education during the K-12 years-and what that goal means for education policy and practice. Register now to reserve your space.

Confirmed participants include:

Dana Gioia, Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
Kati Haycock, Director, Education Trust
Diane Ravitch, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Chairman, Core Knowledge Foundation
Toni Cortese, Executive Vice President, American Federation of Teachers
Jay Mathews, Washington Post
Senior lawmakers are also expected.

We know you'll want to join this important discussion.

Where: The Hotel Washington
 
515 15th St NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 638-5900 (main)
1-800-424-9540 (reservations)
When: Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Time: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., with a reception to follow

To register, or for further information, contact Sarah Kim at 202-223-5452 or email rsvp@edexcellence.net.

** THIS CONFERENCE IS FREE. ATTENDEES ARE RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR THEIR TRAVEL COSTS. THE INSTITUTE HAS RESERVED A SMALL BLOCK OF ROOMS AT THE HOTEL WASHINGTON FOR OUT OF TOWN GUESTS. TO MAKE A RESERVATION AT THE SPECIAL CONFERENCE RATE, CONTACT THE HOTEL WASHINGTON AT 1-800-424-9540 (or visit www.hotelwashington.com) BEFORE NOVEMBER 30, 2006 AND INFORM THEM YOU ARE ATTENDING THE FORDHAM INSTITUTE BEYOND THE BASICS CONFERENCE. **

In case you missed it, I thought you would appreciate Andrew Coulson's Viewpoint that ran in the Republic highlighting key facts from the new Goldwater Institute survey, Arizona Public and Private Schools: A Statistical Analysis. The survey finds Arizona public schools are 1½ times as expensive to operate and maintain as private schools.

Why?

Coulson explains, "Part of the reason for this huge cost disparity is that independent schools focus much more heavily on teaching. Teachers make up 72 percent of on-site staff in Arizona's independent education sector, but less than half of on-site staff in the public sector..." To read Andrew's full analysis on administrative bloat, teacher salaries and other costs, see http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1126coulson1126.html.

In an unprecedented move two weeks ago, the ACLU, the People for the American Way and the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest filed the first- ever legal challenge to a school choice program for children with disabilities. There are four such programs nationwide that have flourished without legal challenge. Opponents are also challenging a similar scholarship program for children in foster care.

The Arizona Supreme Court, in its 1999 Kotterman v. Killian decision upholding a school choice program from a nearly identical legal attack, declared Arizona's Blaine Amendment (a basis for that suit and the new one) a "clear manifestation of religious bigotry," and said that school choice programs that allow parents to choose among a wide array of schools, including religious schools, are constitutional.

Oddly enough, this new lawsuit only challenges those scholarship programs that empower parents to choose a private education. For decades, Arizona has funded private school tuition for children with disabilities whose needs cannot be met by public schools. But under the "old" voucher program, education bureaucrats decide when private placement is appropriate. This lawsuit is not about opposition to vouchers, but rather opposition to shifting power from government to parents.

The lawsuit asks Arizona's Supreme Court to accept original jurisdiction over the case, bypassing the trial court and thereby preventing parents and children from developing a fact record in support of the programs. The Justices will decide on January 4 whether to hear the case or require that it proceed along a traditional legal track. Let's hope they decide that scholarship families deserve their day in court.

Tim Keller is the executive director of the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter which represents five scholarship eligible families who will file a motion to intervene in the pending Supreme Court case to defend the programs from this latest legal attack. Mr. Keller is an occasional writer for the Goldwater Institute.

There seems to be little difference in teacher effectiveness among certified teachers, the uncertified and those who enter the profession under the new “alternative” (often midcareer) certification schemes, according to a major study of nearly 52,000 teachers in New York City.
 
    These results are a heavy blow to decades of conventional wisdom promulgated by the education establishment.
 
    The findings, published as a Working Paper of the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggest that the emphasis on hiring “fully certified” teachers could be drastically cut back with little harm. (The federal No Child Left Behind Act and most state laws require hiring only licensed teachers, or teachers in or from approved “alternative” programs).
 
    According to the authors (Thomas J. Kane of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Jonah Rockoff of Columbia Business School and Douglas O. Staiger of Dartmouth College, working under the sponsorship of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University), teachers in each of the three groups show roughly the same range of differences in ability. The differences, they say, “suggest that districts should use performance on the job rather than initial certification status to improve teacher effectiveness.”
 
    “Performance on the job” ought to mean more than the principal’s opinion after sitting in on a couple of classes. It would be a revolution indeed if performance became a requirement for keeping a job as a teacher. The researchers used the best measure of effectiveness, “value added” - the gain in test scores of the same group of students from year to year.
 
    There seemed to be no difference in effectiveness among teachers quitting in their first five years either. Districts cannot hope that the “lemons” will quit and the capable will stay.
 
    How important is effectiveness? “The impact of assigning a student to a bottom-quarter teacher rather than a top-quarter teacher is . . . more than 10 times the impact of being assigned to a teacher with a particular kind of certification,” said the authors.
 
    The No Child Left Behind Act must be renewed by Congress next year. If this paper forces more attention to be paid to actual teacher performance and less to credentialing, it will have done a real service indeed.
 

The death last week of Milton Friedman, "the grandmaster of free-market economic theory," as The New York Times accurately labeled him, ended a great life. But there was another Milton Friedman many obituary writers overlooked, or mentioned only in passing, that may offer him an even greater legacy than his economic theories about limited government.
In the last 10 of his 94 years, Mr. Friedman and his wife, Rose, dedicated themselves to school choice. They viewed it as a companion to economic freedom. Through the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, they enthusiastically promoted school choice as a means of liberating the poor from failing government schools. Failing schools produced failing students, they reasoned, depriving children of the tools they would need to attain economic independence. Mr. Friedman first proposed school vouchers in 1955, but it wasn't until 1996 that he and Rose started their foundation to take advantage of the growing interest in school choice.

 
 
Mr. Friedman was interested in helping the poor by giving them a choice of schools that would offer them the best opportunity to escape poverty's cycle. He noted a 1999 National Opinion Poll conducted for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in which 60 percent of minorities supported vouchers, and a whopping 87 percent of black parents ages 26 to 35 and 66.4 percent of black people ages 18 to 25 favored them.

The main opponents of school choice are the teachers unions and white, liberal politicians who receive their campaign contributions. They mostly send their children and grandchildren to private schools, while condemning minority children to poorly performing government schools.

The poor are helped to escape poverty when they get a good education. Failure to give them what has been called "the last civil right" practically ensures they will remain poor.

The Friedman Foundation's Web site answers virtually every objection to school choice. First, it really is a choice. Universal vouchers would allow all parents to direct funds set aside by the government for education to the school they believe will best serve their child, whether the school is public or private, religious or secular.

Only those who could demonstrate economic need would be eligible for the vouchers, except for parents whose children attend public schools identified as failing. All such parents would be offered vouchers.

Won't school choice hurt public schools by depriving them of needed funds? No, said Mr. Friedman. "Public schools pay attention when school choice is on the table." He cited Florida as an example, noting that after a school choice program began, "schools identified as failing are already publicizing their efforts to improve by hiring more teachers, increasing funds for after-school tutoring and lowering class sizes."

In Florida, Cleveland and Milwaukee, public schools have received more aid from the state and federal government for their public schools since voucher programs were implemented.

School choice benefits students, who ought to be the focus of education. Research shows that before receiving a voucher, the majority of participating students score well below the national average on standardized tests. Statisticians and educational researchers from Harvard and the University of Houston conducted a re-analysis of the raw data compiled in an earlier study of the Milwaukee school choice program. They found that choice students benefit academically from the program, showing significant gains in both reading and mathematics by their fourth year of participation. And, according to John F. Witte, Troy D. Sterr and Christopher A. Thorn, who conducted the initial Milwaukee study, "the parents of 'choice' kids are virtually unanimous in their opinion of the program: they love it."

If school choice becomes the norm in America, it will be Milton Friedman's real legacy, and every poor child who is liberated from a failed government school will owe him a lasting debt of gratitude.

Cal Thomas' syndicated column appears Wednesdays in The Sun. His e-mail is calthomas@tribune.com.

Advocates for school district consolidation are gearing up to press their issue in the next legislative session. But there’s a bigger question: Do we still need school districts at all?

It makes intuitive sense that we have “too many” school districts, with more than 200 in the state, 54 in Maricopa County alone. Many believe administrative costs could be reduced with fewer school districts. But there is scant evidence that larger school districts are more efficient.

Until recently, school districts were granted a monopoly right to provide government-funded education services within their boundaries. Now, with open enrollment, districts openly compete with each other for students. In this environment, districts are no longer necessary to ensure that all students have access to a public school.

Some may argue that districts are necessary to build new schools in growth areas. But in 1998, the state took over responsibility for building schools under the court mandated Students First program.

Still doubt we could get along without school districts? Charter schools predominate among the top public schools in the state and they’re not members of any district.

Is radical system overhaul truly possible? You never know. Not long ago, school choice itself seemed unfamiliar and a little crazy. Maybe it’s time to think the unthinkable. Free the schools!

Tom Patterson is Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, a retired emergency room physician, and a former state senator. A longer version of this piece appeared in the East Valley Tribune.

A new study published in the winter issue of Education Next finds virtually no difference in the average impact on student achievement between traditionally certified teachers in New York City and those who entered teaching without certification, through Teach for America (TFA) or through the city’s Teaching Fellows programs -- a finding that could have significant impact on the debate over the reauthorization of NCLB and the law’s “highly qualified” teachers provision.

The study shows that students in grades 4 through 8 learn much more -- as much as a full year more -- from high performing teachers compared with low performing teachers, but that there is, on average, little difference among teachers entering New York City schools through different certification routes.

Students assigned to TFA teachers learned slightly more (2 percent of a standard deviation) in math than similar students assigned to traditionally certified teachers. Students whose teachers came from the Teaching Fellows program learned slightly less (1 percent of a standard deviation) in reading than similar students with traditionally certified teachers, but this difference faded as the teachers gained experience. Both these differences were small compared with the differences in effectiveness among teachers with the same certification status.

The authors recommend that school districts pay less attention to teacher credentials and more attention to monitoring teachers’ performance during the first two years of teaching so that effective teachers are retained while ineffective ones are not.

The study, by economists Thomas J. Kane of Harvard University, Jonah E. Rockoff of Columbia Business School, and Douglas O. Staiger of Dartmouth College, peer-reviewed for publication in Education Next, answers the question of whether certification ensures highly effective teachers in the classroom.

In their study, the researchers used the New York City Department of Education’s (NYCDOE) detailed database of information on student achievement, which links individual students and teachers by classroom. Uncertified and alternatively certified (AC) teachers are more likely to work in urban areas with low-income and low-achieving students. Because New York City is a major employer of uncertified and AC teachers, its data were an exceptional resource for the study. The primary alternative certification program is the NYC Teaching Fellow program. Between 1999 and 2005, more than 50,000 new teachers were hired in New York schools; more than 50 percent were uncertified or AC teachers.

Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger looked at NYCDOE’s math and reading data for grades 3 through 8 from 1998 to 2005, comparing the impact of uncertified teachers, AC teachers from the city’s Teaching Fellows program, Teach for America (TFA) participants, and traditionally certified teachers. The NYC DOE data include identification numbers for students’ math and reading teachers, enabling a student to be matched to his or her teacher. Student data include test scores, race and ethnicity, eligibility for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program, status as an English as a second language or special education student, and attendance record, allowing the researchers to take these characteristics into account when evaluating a teacher’s contribution to student learning.

Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger also investigated how teaching effectiveness improves with experience among these groups. They found that uncertified and AC teachers learn somewhat more from experience in their initial years. Teaching fellows showed more improvement in both math and reading instruction after the first two years than did traditionally certified teachers. After two years on the job, a teaching fellow’s students would score 3 percent of a standard deviation higher on average in math and reading than the traditionally certified teacher’s students. Uncertified math teachers’ gains from experience also outpaced those of traditionally certified teachers. Given the same initial effectiveness as a traditionally certified teacher, an uncertified third-year teacher’s students would score 3 percent of a standard deviation higher on average in math.

The researchers suggest that states need to develop the infrastructure for assessing the performance of novice teachers during their first few years on the job. The greatest potential for school districts to improve student achievement lies in retaining those teachers who are most effective during their first years of teaching, not in regulating minimum qualifications for new teachers.

Although alternative certification programs have often been criticized for high turnover, Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger found that teaching fellows actually have slightly lower attrition rates in the first two years than traditionally certified teachers and that after five years the attrition rates are, in fact, about the same -- approximately 50 percent for both groups. Teachers who were initially uncertified are only slightly less likely to stick around -- about 45 percent are still teaching in their fifth year.

Not surprisingly the authors found higher attrition among TFA corps members (reflecting their minimum commitment of two years). Because the payoff to teaching experience was rather modest, however, they estimate that the negative impact of higher turnover on student achievement (i.e., hiring more inexperienced teachers) was sufficiently small that, at least in math, it was completely offset by the positive impact of TFA corps members during their employment.

The authors write, “By shifting the focus away from ‘qualifications,’ we are not proposing to open the floodgates into teaching. Instead, we simply want to move the dam further downstream from the time of initial recruitment, and postpone assessments of teacher’s effectiveness for a year or two until districts have much more useful information about which teachers are performing well and which are performing poorly. Only by shifting the focus away from ‘qualifications’ and toward assessing teachers’ performance in their initial years can we hope to live up to the aspirations of the No Child Left Behind Act.”

Read “Photo Finish: Which Teachers Are Better? Certification Status Isn’t Going to Tell Us” in the new issue of Education Next, now online at www.EducationNext.org.

Thomas J. Kane is professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Jonah E. Rockoff is an assistant professor of economics and finance at Columbia Business School. Douglas O. Staiger is professor of economics at Dartmouth College.

Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to looking at hard facts about school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

In ancient Greece, Socrates tested his students through conversations. Answers were not scored as right or wrong. They just led to more dialogue. Many intellectual elites in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. cared more about finding the path to higher knowledge than producing a correct response. To them, accuracy was for shopkeepers.

Today, educators often hold up the Socratic method as the best kind of teaching.

So how did we go from that ideal to an educational model shaped -- and perhaps even ruled -- by standardized, normed, charted, graphed, regressed, calibrated and validated testing?

Critics say standardized testing has robbed schools of the creative clash of intellects that make Plato's dialogues still absorbing. "There is a growing technology of testing that permits us now to do in nanoseconds things that we shouldn't be doing at all," said educational psychologist Gerald Bracey, research columnist for the Phi Delta Kappan education journal.

Historians call the rise of testing an inevitable outgrowth of expanding technology. As goods and services are delivered with greater speed and in higher quantity and quality, education has been forced to pick up the pace.

Standardized exams have many sources. In imperial China in the seventh century, government job applicants had to write essays about Confucian philosophy and compose poetry. In Europe, the invention of the printing press and modern paper manufacturing fueled the growth of written exams.

By 1845 in the United States, public education advocate Horace Mann was calling for standardized essay testing. Spelling tests, geography tests and math tests blossomed in schools, although they were rarely standardized.

At the outset of the 20th century, educators began to experiment with tests that took shortcuts around the old essay methods. French psychologist Alfred Binet developed an intelligence test in 1905. Frederick Kelly of the University of Kansas designed a multiple-choice test in 1914. Scanning machines followed. Many Americans accepted these tests as efficient tools to help build a society based on merit, not birth or race or wealth.

Still, modern testing had a clumsy start as psychologists experimented with exams to help employers, schools and others rate applicants. In one early case, testing expert H.H. Goddard identified as "feeble-minded" 83 percent of Jews, 80 percent of Hungarians, 79 percent of Italians and 87 percent of Russians among a small group of immigrants assessed at Ellis Island.

"Consider a group of frightened men and women who speak no English and who have just endured an oceanic voyage in steerage," Harvard University science historian Stephen Jay Gould wrote of the Goddard study. "Most are poor and have never gone to school; many have never held a pencil or pen in their hand." Yet Goddard's interviewers expected them to sit down with a pencil and "reproduce on paper a figure shown to them a moment ago, but now withdrawn from their sight."

Eventually, testing experts focused on standardizing the measure of learning, not of innate intelligence.

The College Entrance Examination Board, founded in 1900, played a huge role. Now called the College Board, it "created the best, most consistent and most influential standards that American education has ever known," New York University educational historian Diane Ravitch wrote in March in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The board's early exams were written and graded by teachers and professors and had no multiple-choice questions. These essay exams, Ravitch wrote, led "everyone who went to high school, whether they were the children of doctors or farmers or factory workers ... to study mathematics, science, English literature, composition, history and a foreign language, usually Latin."

Many educators who value depth and rigor lament what followed. In 1926, the multiple-choice SAT was introduced as a much faster way of testing college applicants. On Dec. 7, 1941, several members of the board, during a previously scheduled lunch, decided that the outbreak of world war would require faster decisions and less leisurely testing. They eventually canceled the board's old exam format. The SAT ruled.

Essay questions, however, made a comeback in 1955 when Advanced Placement exams began.

The launch of Sputnik, the Soviet space satellite, in 1957 fueled a space race and increased pressure on U.S. schools to show improvement. But rating schools through tests did not advance much until the mid-1970s, when the College Board revealed that average SAT scores had been falling since 1963. Then, in 1983, a national commission declared in the report "A Nation at Risk" that public school standards were too low. Over the next two decades, testing took off.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, several governors argued that they had to test all their students to raise school standards and improve their economies. Among them were Democrats Bill Clinton of Arkansas and Richard Riley of South Carolina, who would soon become president and U.S. education secretary, respectively. (Later in the 1990s, Republican Gov. George H.W. Bush of Texas also was a big proponent of testing.)

Some educators said a better way to improve schools was to spend more on teacher training, salaries and smaller classes. They dwelled on educational inputs; the politicians, on outputs.

The politicians prevailed. In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board. It established new standards for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test that has been given to a sampling of students since 1970. In 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind law. For the first time, it required annual testing of all public school children in certain grades and required states to use results to help rate schools.

The National Education Association and other teacher organizations argue that it is unfair to rate schools through such tests when teachers lack adequate training and pay. In a 2004 essay for the Hoover Digest, Ravitch wrote that the advocates of inputs and the champions of outputs "are in constant tension, with first one and then the other gaining brief advantage."

"How this conflict is resolved," she wrote, "will determine the future of American education."

Walk into a classroom full of freshman high school students this semester and picture this: Almost a third of those students will drop out before graduation day. According to the Manhattan Institute, the public high school graduation rate for the class of 2003 was 70 percent. And the graduation rate was far lower for minority students; just 55 percent of African American and 53 percent of Hispanic students completed high school.

That so many students fail to earn a diploma imposes social costs on our country. It also levies a serious personal price on individual students. Census statistics show that high school dropouts earn about $200,000 less than high school graduates during their working lives. And there’s no way to quantify the entire costs of a lifetime without a high school education. 

In October, the National Education Association released its plan to solve the school dropout crisis. It recommends the same tired policies the organization throws at every problem in education: increase taxpayer spending on education and expand government’s control over Americans’ lives.

The NEA plan would create new programs (“high school graduation centers for students 19-21 years old”), expand public education to include universal preschool and full-day kindergarten, and add $10 billion to federal education spending.

The NEA’s most shocking recommendation is to make high school graduation or equivalency compulsory for everyone below the age of 21. All states already have compulsory attendance laws that require children to enroll in school up to the age of 16, 17, or 18, depending on the state. Extending that age to 21 would sentence millions of Americans to spend three or more years in a public school system that already proved inadequate.

Imagine how this might sound to a person who dropped out of high school at age 18. That student has been forced to attend public schools that he was (in most cases) assigned to by the government since he was seven. Whether or not he had access to high quality instruction and a safe learning environment was largely outside of his control. After nearly a dozen years, he decided there is little point to remaining in school. But the NEA wants to keep them in the system’s grip.

Rather than making it illegal not to finish high school, policymakers ought to consider strategies to encourage children to finish school by meeting their individual needs.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently published an important report studying the dropout problem from the students’ perspective. Former students point to several common reasons for dropping out. For example, 47 percent said classes weren’t interesting, and 45 percent said they started high school poorly prepared by their early schooling. Many students cited personal reasons, from needing to earn money to needing to care for a family member.

The survey also studied what might have kept students in school. Common responses included improving teaching and curricula to make school more relevant, enhancing the connection between school and work, improving teacher quality, and creating school environments that focus on academics. Fully 57 percent of dropouts said their schools didn’t do enough to make students feel safe. Seven in ten favored increased supervision, and 62 percent supported more classroom discipline.

The Gates Foundation report proposes a number of strategies to address these problems, but the most promising is to provide different schools for different students. “Instead of the usual ‘one-size-fits all’ schools,” the report explains, “districts should develop options for students, including a curriculum that connects what they are learning in the classroom with real life experiences and with work, smaller learning communities with more individualized instruction, and alternative schools that offer specialized programs to students at-risk of dropping out.”

The dropout problem won’t be solved by any one policy-and certainly not by the NEA’s tired big government plan. Policymakers should start by looking at the students’ perspective and students’ individual needs. Meeting those needs begins providing more options that will ensure more students access to a safe and quality school that best meets their unique needs.

###
Dan Lips is education analyst at the Heritage Foundation, www.Heritage.org.

Fixing Failing Schools: Is the NCLB Toolkit Working?

Thursday, November 30, 2006, 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Please register for this event online at www.aei.org/event1351

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has fundamentally reshaped debates about American schooling by mandating that students in each district school make “adequate yearly progress.” Schools and districts that fail to improve are subjected to a five-year “cascade” of remedies and sanctions. These detailed prescriptions are intended to force low-performing schools and districts to improve and provide new options for their students.

On November 30, 2006, AEI director of education policy Frederick M. Hess and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation president Chester E. Finn Jr. present the very first comprehensive five-year assessment of the implementation of all NCLB “remedy” provisions, an assessment conducted by a wide-ranging group of renowned education scholars and analysts. Though NCLB as a whole has attracted extensive analysis and even more opinion, complete and rigorous examinations of its remedy provisions have been sparse—especially when compared to the attention lavished upon the law’s testing and reporting sections.

Please join us on November 30 as AEI hosts a conference during which original research about NCLB remedies will be presented and discussed.

8:15 a.m.
Registration and Breakfast

9:00
Introduction:
FREDERICK M. HESS, AEI

9:10
Panel I: The Big Picture—National Implementation and Capacity

Presenters:
MICHAEL CASSERLY, Council of the Great City Schools
JEFFREY R. HENIG, Columbia University Teachers College
PAUL MANNA, College of William and Mary
MICHAEL J. PETRILLI, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

Discussant:
CHESTER E. FINN JR., Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

10:40
Break

10:45
Panel II: The NCLB Remedies in the States

Presenters:
JULIAN BETTS, University of California, San Diego
PATRICK MCGUINN, Drew University
ALEX MEDLER, Colorado Children’s Campaign

Discussant:
JOHN WINN, Florida Commissioner of Education

12:05 p.m.
Luncheon

12:55
Panel III: The NCLB Remedies in the Districts

Presenters:
STEPHEN K. CLEMENTS, University of Kentucky
JAY P. GREENE, University of Arkansas
JANE HANNAWAY, Urban Institute
DAVID PLANK, Michigan State University

Discussant:
STEPHEN JONES, Norfolk (Virginia) Public Schools

2:30
Break

2:35
Panel IV: Reconstituting Districts and Schools

Presenters:
BRYAN C. HASSEL, Public Impact
JOE WILLIAMS, Education Sector

Discussants:
ALAN BERSIN, California Secretary of Education
MORGAN BROWN, U.S. Department of Education

3:50
Break

3:55
Panel V: Lessons Learned

Discussants:
KATI HAYCOCK, The Education Trust
DIANE RAVITCH, Brookings Institution
MARSHALL (MIKE) SMITH, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

5:00
Adjournment and Reception

Shortly after the event occurs, a video webcast will be available on the AEI website at www.aei.org/eventvideos.

For more information, please contact Rosemary Kendrick at rkendrick@aei.org.
For media inquiries, please contact Veronique Rodman at vrodman@aei.org.

ELECTION 2006

AFTER-WORDS. The more things change, the more they stay the same. That should be the motto for education reform advocates after last week's elections shifted power in both the House and Senate. The change in political climate may be dramatic, but support for education reform nationwide is unlikely to be affected. At the federal level, debates are always a bit more partisan than at the state level, though the parties now look more alike than ever. At the heart of Washington's focus will be the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. Despite the typical anti-accountability whining that has been emanating from the education establishment for years, NCLB is likely to stay intact, with efforts by the leadership to add more funding, and consequently, garner more political favor with the K Street lobbies. Less clear is the fate of the District's scholarship program for poor kids, or continued credit enhancement funds for charter school facilities. Time will tell, and more will be said by many.

OVER TO THE STATES. In several states at the forefront of the education reform movement, the gubernatorial outcomes and their influence will largely depend on state legislators and public demand for change. New York Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer campaigned for the ever popular (but non-achievement related) teacher pay increase and smaller class sizes, but as CER's Voter's Guide noted, Spitzer has offered his support for charter schools and may be willing to fight to lift the cap if it doesn't happen in Albany's lame duck session. Spitzer is a close ally of reformer and NYC schools chancellor Joel Klein. In Massachusetts, Governor-elect Deval Patrick warmed to the establishment and was predicted to recommend some rollback of the state's well-regarded accountability system, and many have expressed concern over the future of charter schools. Florida's Charlie Crist plans to advance the state's robust choice and accountability programs, not roll them back to pre-accountability days. And Ohio's Ted Strickland, a Congressman about to take the reins as that state's chief executive, inherits a charter school movement in flux and a choice program that the unions are itching to abolish.

MORE FROM THE STATES. The good news is that Congress, not Governors alone, can influence reform friendly initiatives. Education reform was born amidst democratic leadership in Minnesota, flourished in the states with Bill Clinton as president, and remains a top priority for grassroots reformers who have shaped state legislatures the nation over. That is why individual state legislatures and local elections are even more important in predicting the future of reform. Here is a look at some results from across the country that could have a major impact:

Ohio: It's important to note that the Ohio legislature still has a Speaker who supports quality learning opportunities for children. Speaker Jon Husted has fought since he first entered the legislature for policies that put children first.

Pennsylvania: With a number of long-time education reform leaders in the state ousted in the primaries, Pennsylvania will be full of new blood this legislative session. Reform advocates will have to work hard to educate new legislators on the importance of school choice and charter schools, especially in light of challenges to Philadelphia reform efforts (see related story below). Re-elected Governor Edward Rendell has been quiet on charter schools and accountability.

Washington, DC: Mayor-elect Adrian Fenty is ready to take over the failing public school system, literally. Like Bloomberg in New York and Villaraigosa in California, Fenty wants to take control of the district's schools in a move that he has called, "critical to the future of the city." Less clear is how Fenty will act in the face of proposed renewal of the DC choice program.

South Carolina: The race is still too close to call, but Republican Karen Floyd's bid for South Carolina state superintendent is already a victory for reformers. Floyd currently trails Democrat Jim Rex by just 247 votes, with a mandatory recount in progress. With her strong support of tax credits for private school tuition, Floyd's success in the race for superintendent defied the conventional wisdom that South Carolinians don't like tax credits. As CER president Jeanne Allen noted in Education Week, "[Ms. Floyd] wouldn't have gotten 50 percent of the vote if that's the case." When all the votes are tallied, even if Karen Floyd loses, advocates in the Palmetto State can take solace in the re-election of choice-proponent and reformer Governor Mark Sanford.

Colorado: Things have never been easy for reformers in The Centennial State. While Colorado boasts some of the strongest charter schools in the country, getting charter school or school choice legislation passed has been a tooth-and-nail dogfight. Last week's elections will not ease the fight. Congressman Bob Beauprez was a strong proponent of charter schools, and their expansion would have helped in the fight for reform, but Democrat Bill Ritter edged out Beauprez in the Governor's race. Ritter has no clear stance on charter schools or choice. Looks like the struggle continues.

Florida: Thanks to the dogged work of Governor Jeb Bush, Florida has been a beacon of hope for the education reform community. That is likely to continue under the leadership of Charlie Crist. With a new charter school authorizer, the Florida Schools of Excellence Commission, and a pro-reform Governor like Crist, The Sunshine State is likely to continue as a premier state for choice and accountability in education.

A VIEW FROM THE BLOB. Ecstatic, relieved, gratified… those are some of the adjectives being used to describe the feelings of the Blob, whose discomfort since the federal government has been led by Republicans has been widely recognized. Their comfort level just went up, however, as the party their political dollars overwhelmingly support took over Congress and many state legislatures. Patting themselves on the back, the largest union, The National Education Association, called last week's elections, "A victory for children and public education." The NEA has spent the last week applauding victories by candidates who, nearly across the board, are against charter schools, choice, and accountability. "The Bush administration has pledged to continue pushing the fundamentally flawed No Child Left Behind Act, which is underfunded by about $40 billion and up for reauthorization next year."
 

Sweeping victories in the midterm elections have put Democrats in charge of the 110th Congress. After twelve years out of power, what will Democrats seek to accomplish in federal education policy?

Sweeping victories in the midterm elections have put Democrats in charge of the 110th Congress.  After twelve years out of power, what will Democrats seek to accomplish in federal education policy? 

One common theme in their recommendations has been to increase spending on both K-12 and postsecondary education.  The Democratic Party’s 2004 National Platform criticized President Bush for “breaking his word” on No Child Left Behind and “providing schools $27 billion less than he promised, literally leaving millions of children behind.”  The platform also criticized the Bush administration for not providing enough federal funding for higher education and student loans, charging that “President Bush tried to charge more for student loans and eliminate Pell Grants for 84,000 students.” 

Actually, federal education spending has grown dramatically over the past six years under President Bush and the Republican Congress.  But more importantly, whether it’s Republicans or Democrats increasing federal funding, more federal dollars have not improved American education in recent decades. 

Consider K-12 education spending.  Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent.  According to the department, annual spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent between 2001 and 2006.  In 2007, the department will spend 59 percent more on special education programs than it did in 2001. 

Unfortunately, there’s little reason to believe even these dramatic funding increases will lead to improvements in student learning in American schools.  Since the early 1970s, inflation-adjusted federal spending per pupil has doubled.  Over that period, student performance has not markedly improved, according to the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is designed to measure historical trends. 

Under a Republican-controlled Congress, federal spending on higher education has increased almost as dramatically as K-12 spending over the past six years.  For example, annual Department of Education spending on federal Pell Grants grew from $8.7 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006, nearly 50 percent growth.  The federal government spends considerably more on higher education today than it did during the Clinton administration.  According to the College Board, federal funding for higher education in 2004-2005 totaled $90 billion, a real increase of 103 percent over ten years. 

An increasing number of students receive federal subsidies for higher education.  For example, 5.3 million students received federal Pell Grants in 2005, an increase of 44 percent over ten years.  In all, in 2006 more than 10 million Americans will receive various federal subsidies for higher education. 

Unfortunately, as with K-12 spending, there’s little evidence that federal spending on higher education is achieving its objective.  Quite simply, college tuition is becoming more expensive each year.  According to the College Board, the total cost of tuition and fees at four-year private and public colleges increased by 5.9 percent and 7.1 percent, respectively, during the 2005-06 school year. 

According to economist Richard Vedder, college tuition costs increased by 295 percent between 1982 and 2003, a growth rate higher than health care costs (195 percent), housing (84 percent), and all items (83 percent).  In his book, Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much, Dr. Vedder argues that increased federal spending on higher education has contributed to rising tuition costs.  In other words, federal subsidies are not making higher education more affordable because colleges and universities simply consume this additional source of revenue.

These are important lessons that policymakers and taxpayers should keep in mind during the 110th Congress.  Calls for more funding for public schools and subsidies for college tuition may be popular on the campaign trail, but simply increasing federal funding for education is not the answer.  If it were, we should have seen better results by now. 

##

Dan Lips is education analyst at the Heritage Foundation, www.Heritage.org.  

As a parent, I’m often subject to my children’s favorite refrain: “You’re not the boss of me!” That reflects the nearly universal sentiment that nobody likes to be told what to do.

A pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court will test our commitment to the principle of non- coercion. At issue in Washington Education Association is whether non-union members can be forced to subsidize union politics. The Washington Supreme Court said yes.

Washington requires teachers who are not members of the teacher’s union to pay dues anyway, since they are beneficiaries of collective bargaining agreements and other work. But, in an effort to protect those who disagree with the union, state law requires unions to get permission from non-member teachers before using their dues for political purposes. That simple step protects freedom of speech – in this case, the freedom to be silent or to support views different from the education establishment.

Political spending by the education lobby isn’t chump change. Last year, the National Education Association (NEA) spent some $25 million on lobbying and political activities. But if a teacher disagrees with the NEA’s positions on the issues, why should he be forced to support them? After all, the NEA isn’t the boss of teachers, or at least it shouldn’t be.

Benjamin Barr is a constitutional policy analyst with the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Studies.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is raising positive expectations for special education students and focusing attention on the educational needs of poor and minority youth. However, to date, NCLB is significantly behind schedule in meeting its own goals for student performance, teacher quality, academic standards and other key school improvement measures. There also is no tangible evidence to date that the law has made any headway in closing the achievement gap between the nation's wealthier, predominantly white students and those from poor and minority backgrounds.

These and other findings will be presented on November 13th and 14th at "NCLB And Its Alternatives: Examining America's Commitment to Closing Achievement Gaps," a Symposium convened by The Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College and keynoted by Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker.

"NCLB was created ostensibly to build on the Title I legislation enacted in the 1960s that sought to safeguard the equity vision of Brown versus Board of Education," said Michael A. Rebell, Executive Director of The Campaign for Educational Equity.  -'In fact, though its aims are good ones, aspects of the law are undermining that vision. It's clear from these new findings that we need to shift NCLB's focus from unrealistic and ill-defined goals such as -'one hundred percent proficiency' to issues of how to provide all students with meaningful educational opportunities, so that we can ground the law in what kids really need to learn." 

Speakers and discussants include: Richard Rothstein, Ronald Ferguson, Diane Ravitch, Richard Elmore, Frederick Hess, Edmund Gordon, Michael Nettles, Amy Stuart Wells, Arlene Ackerman, Eugene Garcia and Michael Rebell.

Among the findings to be presented at the Symposium:

The U.S. Department of Education has "looked the other way as many states have claimed compliance with NCLB while requiring only low skill levels to pass standardized tests."

NCLB calls for all students nationwide to be proficient in reading and math by 2014 -- yet researchers conclude that "the notion of proficient student achievement is so poorly defined and varies so much from state to state that it has become a meaningless concept."

The percentage of students who were reported to be proficient or above on the state reading/English language arts assessments in Grade 4 ranged from 35% in Missouri to 89% in Mississippi.  For Grade 8, the range was 30% in South Carolina to 88% in North Carolina. The percentage of students who were reported to be proficient or above on the state mathematics assessments in Grade 4 ranged from 39% in Maine and Wyoming to 92% in North Carolina.  For Grade 8, the range was 16% in Missouri to 87% in Tennessee. Those ranges say more about the varying degree of rigor that states bring to their standards than it does about superior performance by states with more impressive numbers, according to researchers presenting at the symposium.

NCLB does not define "proficiency," but suggests that states use the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for guidance. However universal proficiency according to NAEP standards is almost surely an unattainable target. Witness: On the 2001 international reading test, the highest scorer was Sweden -- yet two-thirds of Swedish students were not reading proficiently, as NAEP defines it. Symposium researchers conclude that even "-'first in the world,' a widely ridiculed U.S. education goal from the 1990s that was supplanted by NCLB in 2002, is actually much modest than NCLB's goal of -'proficiency for all.'"

In 2006, the American Federation of Teachers identified only 11 states with both strong content standards and assessments whose items closely matched the standards.  In a study by Achieve, a national network established to ensure equal opportunity and access to post-secondary education, only one out of 15 participating states demonstrated high quality standards and high quality tests that were well aligned with the standards.

In 2005, 44 states had at least 3 years of state assessment data for students with disabilities and 42 reported an upward trend in the percentage of students with disabilities who are benefiting from being instructed in more challenging grade level subject matter and making impressive gains.  However, in a study where implementation of NCLB accountability reforms were tracked in two districts in CA, MD, TX and NY across the school years 2001/02 -- 2004/05,  the results of the research illustrated how difficult it is to establish state, district or school-based performance of students with disabilities.

NCLB initially promised that all students would be taught by "high quality teachers"(HQTs) by 2006. However, presenters at the symposium conclude that "there is little evidence that the specific components of [NCLB's] HQT requirements are important for student learning. The presenters conclude that even using those requirements, the 100 percent goal is unattainable, and that "while many States are on the road to having a substantial majority of HQ teachers in all schools, that road will take several more years."

As of May 2006, only two states had established an acceptable definition of "high quality teacher" under NCLB and were using that definition to determine the status of teachers of core subjects.

As of May 2006, despite the legal requirements of NCLB, no states had in place a plan to ensure that poor or minority children were not being taught by inexperienced, unqualified or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than other states.

As of May 2006, only 13 states were fully compliant with NCLB in terms of providing parents and the public with accurate reports on the number and percentage of classes in core academic subjects taught by high quality teachers, and in notifying parents of students in Title I schools when their children had been assigned to, or taught for four or more consecutive weeks by, a non high quality teacher.
The findings are contained in nine papers that researchers will present over the two days of the Symposium. On November 15th, The Campaign for Educational Equity will convene its national advisory board with the goal of producing policy recommendations based on the new research.

"NCLB and Its Alternatives: Examining America's Commitment to Closing Achievement Gaps" is sponsored by the Laurie M. Tisch Foundation. It is being held at Teachers College's Cowin Conference Center on Monday and Tuesday, November 13th and 14th. A full agenda of the symposium is available at http://www.tc.edu/symposium/.  Summaries and copies of the full reports being presented will also be available starting November 13th on the same site.

For seven years, Tom Vander Ark has shaped educational giving for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, helping it pour billions of dollars into trying to help America’s high schools and making the foundation the biggest and most widely watched force in education philanthropy.

Next month, Mr. Vander Ark, executive director for education at the foundation, plans to step down.

As Michael S. McPherson, president of the Spencer Foundation in Chicago, said, “Everybody who cares about education will care about the choice of Tom’s successor.”

Of $12.7 billion that the foundation has committed since 1999, $1.6 billion has gone to education, to try to ensure that high school graduates are ready for college. An additional $1.8 billion has been for scholarships.

Grants are scattered from the foundation’s base in Seattle to large urban school systems in New York and Chicago and to tribal schools in California and Washington. They are paying for creating 1,100 schools and trying to improve 700 others.

The results have been mixed. Some Gates schools have showed gains. Others have not. The foundation and Mr. Vander Ark have been applauded for focus and willingness to innovate, but criticized as moving too quickly and not paying enough attention to results, especially at first.

Jay P. Greene, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a professor at the University of Arkansas who has received Gates money, praised Mr. Vander Ark’s focus but said the foundation “was slow to commission rigorous evaluations of their efforts.”

Nancy Hoffman, a vice president at Jobs for the Future in Boston, an intermediary organization that the foundation has used, said that at first Mr. Vander Ark “was what I’d call a school reform romantic — free schools from the constraints imposed by districts and states, let teachers provide a rich curriculum and an intimate environment, and achievement will improve.”

But, Ms. Hoffman said, as he learned that some schools could produce good results but that many could not, the foundation tightened controls.

“The portfolio of schools funded in the last few years looks considerably different than those from the early years,” she said. “Much more prescription about how to set up the school, what curriculum to use, what protocols for teachers and leaders.”

Mr. Vander Ark and others say the strategy has evolved as the foundation learned from mistakes. It has broadened its focus beyond schools to school districts and to state and local policy; expanded the types of schools it is working with, including charter schools; and added significant analysis of results.

Critics and fans agree that Mr. Vander Ark and the foundation have changed the education landscape.

“Gates has so much money to spend that they have the power to set the agenda,” said Diane Ravitch, a professor at New York University.

As Gates gave grants for small schools, Professor Ravitch said, “almost every district lined up to seek their money and to split up their high schools into small schools.”

The question now is whether the strategy will change. The foundation, which has $32 billion in assets, is facing change itself. In June, it announced that Warren E. Buffett would add about $31 billion of his assets to the foundation, for noneducational programs. The foundation also named a president for its United States programs, now Mr. Vander Ark’s boss, and announced that by 2008, Bill Gates would focus more on the foundation.

Mr. Vander Ark said these changes had little effect on his decision to leave. “We have accomplished a good deal here, and I’d like to go attack the problems in a different way,” he said in an interview.

One possibility, he added, will be to help states increase their capacity for improving low-performing schools. Another is to help states improve their accountability systems.

The chief executive of the foundation, Patty Stonesifer, said that the foundation remained “very committed” to seeing that all high school graduates were ready for college.

“We think we have got years ahead of us before we see our role ending,” Ms. Stonesifer said.

Clint Bolick is a senior fellow with the Goldwater Institute. He is a recipient of the 2006 Bradley Prize.

Fordham study finds half of states miss the bus on vital education reforms

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation finds that just eight states can claim even moderate success over the past 15 years at boosting the percentage of their poor or minority students who are at or above proficient in reading, math or science.

The study also finds that most states making significant achievement gains--including California, Delaware, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Texas--are national leaders in education reform, indicating that solid standards, tough accountability, and greater school choice can yield better classroom results.

"Many state officials have claimed credit for gains in student achievement," said Chester E. Finn, Jr., the Foundation's president. "But this study casts doubt on many such claims. In reality, no state has made the kind of progress that's required to close America's vexing achievement gaps and help all children prepare for life in the 21st Century. Nor are most states making the bold reforms most likely to change this reality. Real leaders will study these data, then focus on what needs doing, not what's been done."

The Fordham Report 2006: How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children? appraises each state according to thirty indicators across three major categories: student achievement for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students; achievement trends for these same groups over the last 10-15 years; and the state's track record in implementing bold education reforms. (Click here for more information on the indicators and methodology http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/TFR06Methodology.pdf.) A table listing states' performance in all three categories is at http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=388#TFR06fullstategrades. Rankings for each category are available at the links below.

Key Findings

Student Achievement

Student Achievement grades are based primarily on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), specifically the reading, mathematics, and science proficiency of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students. The average state grade is D; three states flunked, and none earned better than D+. State student achievement grades in rank order can be found at: http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=388#TFR06achieve.

"Some will say that NAEP's 'proficient' level is a high bar and that our grading scale is unrealistic," said Michael J. Petrilli, Fordham's vice president for national programs and policy and a former official at the U.S. Department of Education. "However, when the same scale is applied to white students, the national average is a not-so-shabby B. The problem isn't our grading scale, but America's shameful achievement gaps."

Achievement Trends

Looking at student achievement over time reveals some brighter spots. Thirty-one states have made at least "minimal" progress among poor or minority students. Thirteen, however, have posted no gains for these students over the last decade or so. With both low current scores and no progress to speak of, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin are among the worst offenders. To see how all states fared on this analysis of achievement trends, see http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=388#TFR06achievetrend.

Education Reform

States receive somewhat higher marks for their school reform efforts: the national average is C-minus. Arizona, New Mexico, and California lead the nation in reform, measured by nine indicators in three categories: curricular content, standards-based reform, and school choice. Yet half the states received D's or F's--a disturbing sign that their policymakers still aren't taking the bold actions needed to raise achievement and close achievement gaps. Grades and rankings for all fifty states are found at http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=388#TFR06edreform.

The Reform/Achievement Nexus

A majority of the states with high marks on Fordham's education reform measure also show some gains in achievement among poor and minority students. And five of the eight states making the greatest NAEP gains also rank among the top ten jurisdictions for education reform. A table that matches state performance on student achievement with education reforms is available at: http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=388#tfr06edreformachieve.

"While this doesn't constitute definitive proof," said Finn, "it does imply that tough-minded education reforms tend to get results. Strong curricular content, real accountability, and expanded parental choice can help raise the achievement of our neediest students. Isn't it time for all states to get on this bus? Isn't it time for voters to choose leaders who will deliver?"

Nationally and in our home state of Ohio, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation strives to close America's vexing achievement gaps by raising standards, strengthening accountability, and expanding high-quality education options for parents and families. For more information about the Foundation's work, visit http://www.edexcellence.net.

Report Finds U.S. Higher Education in Need of Change
Secretary Responds With Action Plan for More Accessible, Affordable, Accountable System

To help keep America competitive and provide students with more affordable access to college, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced on Sept. 26 her plans to strengthen the U.S. higher education system, based on the recommendations in the final report of her Commission on the Future of Higher Education.

"We know higher education is the key to our children's future and the American dream, yet it is becoming more unaffordable and less attainable," said Secretary Spellings. "To remain competitive in the 21st-century global economy, we must act now ... and work together to find the right solutions."

Secretary Spellings created the 19-member commission in September 2005 to examine America's postsecondary education system and develop recommendations that would make it more accessible, affordable and accountable. Following a yearlong examination, which involved a series of public meetings held across the country, the commission's report revealed:

While about 34 percent of white adults have obtained bachelor's degrees by ages 25-29, the same is true for just 17 percent of black adults and 11 percent of Hispanic adults in the same age cohort.

From 1995 to 2005, average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities rose 51 percent after adjusting for inflation; for private institutions, the increase was 36 percent.

The percentage of college graduates deemed proficient in prose literacy (the ability to understand narrative texts such as newspaper articles) declined from 40 to 31 percent between 1992 and 2003.

The U.S. position among major industrialized countries has fallen to 12th place with regard to higher education attainment.

In response, Secretary Spellings' plan calls for increasing rigor in high schools to better prepare students for college; increasing need-based financial aid; and providing matching funds to colleges, universities and states that collect and publicly report student learning outcomes. (For strategies on accomplishing these plans, see actions listed in excerpted speech below.)

Additionally, this spring, the secretary will convene a summit with representatives from the higher education and business communities as well as groups of students, parents and policymakers to address these issues and build partnerships that would help more Americans achieve a college education.

For a full copy of the report, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, visit http://www.ed.gov.

Top

Meeting a Critical Need
Foreign Languages, Academic Rigor Help Prepare Virginia Students for Global Marketplace

  
  
 Edna Karr High School 
 
 
 
 
 Grade Span: 9-12
Locale: Suburb
Total Students: 2,000
Race/Ethnicity Enrollment: 46% white, 25% black, 18% Hispanic, 8% Asian, 2% multiracial, 1% American Indian
Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible: 34%
English Language Learners: 17%
Special Education Students: 13%
Percentage Proficient: In English, 88%; in math, 79% (based on 9th- through 12th-graders assessed on the 2006 state exam).
Interesting Fact: The Chinese language teacher at West Potomac leads a foreign language course for students across the state through a distance learning program.
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
In Dan Fitzgerald's ideal world, every American student would begin learning a foreign language as early as kindergarten and by high school would be fluent and primed to learn another one.

"Look at our students from Ghana. Almost all of them speak English and two ... maybe five other languages. We have Bosnian students who already speak German and English and are interested in learning French," said Fitzgerald, chair of the foreign language department at West Potomac High School in Alexandria, Va.

An idea not far-fetched, Fitzgerald's utopia is starting to become a reality for many schools across the nation with the support of a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. In September, through its Foreign Language Assistance Program, the Department began awarding to states and school districts nationwide the first of 131 grants for fiscal year 2006 totaling more than $22 million. The funds are for teaching Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Russian and other languages Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings considers "essential not only for trade in the global economy, but also to our national security."

The program is part of President George W. Bush's National Security Language Initiative, for which the departments of Education, State and Defense along with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have joined forces to increase the number of Americans learning critical foreign languages through new and expanded programs from kindergarten through college and into the workforce. The shortage of capacity in these critical languages is so severe, for instance, that less than half of the 1 percent of U.S. students taking a foreign language in grades K-12 study Chinese, although it is the most widely spoken language in the world.

To boost that rate, a $188,511 grant was awarded to Fairfax County Public Schools—of which West Potomac will be one of seven to benefit initially from the federal funds—to help more than 1,500 students learn Chinese and Arabic. Bolstered by partnerships with academia and the state, the grant will help to improve instruction in the primary grades and help secondary schools lacking these languages offer virtual courses.

Charged with a vital role in this effort is West Potomac's Chinese language teacher, Yunian Zhang. A native of Shanghai, China, who moved to the United States in 1990 following a career as a theater professor, Zhang has been teaching Chinese at the beginning to intermediate levels for the past eight years. This fall, in collaboration with the Virginia Department of Education, he began leading a virtual Chinese class for schools not only in the district but across the state, particularly for those that have been unable to find a qualified teacher or have too few students to justify hiring one. The class is one of a variety of college-level and foreign language courses available through the Virtual Advanced Placement School, the state's distance learning Web site. Launched as a level-one course—more advanced classes will be added later—it covers a total of 165 lessons enhanced through PowerPoint slides and five-minute training videos that Zhang prepares.

For the first year, enrollment in the pilot program has been limited to 28 students statewide. Zhang believes interest will grow as students increasingly realize both the prestigious and practical benefits of learning Chinese: "Eventually you want to have that language on your [application] if you want to go to a good university. ... Taking Chinese in high school shows you have challenged yourself and have the potential to learn any kind of language in the world. And if you are building some proficiency, you really can make a difference in your career because there'll be more choices for you—and probably more pay."

The Chinese class at West Potomac, which in 1996 was one of the first in the county, is part of an academically rigorous curriculum designed to graduate students ready to compete in the global marketplace. The school's robust foreign language program, which also offers Spanish, French, German and Latin, enrolls more than half of the student population and has created opportunities for trips abroad, including a visit to China that Zhang sponsors during spring break.

Located in a suburb of Washington, D.C., between George Washington's Mount Vernon mansion and downtown Alexandria, West Potomac is one of the most diverse schools in northern Virginia. It's a bird's-eye view of American society: culturally, students come from 67 countries and speak 41 different languages; economically, local residences range from multi-million dollar homes to housing projects; and academically, English language learners and students with disabilities account for one in three students.

And, in the midst of this broad diversity, all 2,000 students are held to high standards. "We're pushing really hard to get our kids to take the biggest challenges they can," said Principal Rima Vesilind.

That means encouraging more students to take rigorous course work that would prepare them to succeed in college. This year, an additional 69 juniors and seniors enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, bringing the total enrollment to 566 students. The school's AP network offers an extensive selection of college-level classes in biology, calculus, computer science, foreign languages, physics, psychology, statistics and world history, among others.

In addition, as part of the college preparation plan, last spring West Potomac kicked off an SAT-prep program that faculty members have credited partly with a 56-point gain on last year's test score average of 1540 (on a 2400-point scale), the largest jump in the district's recorded history. Provided at no cost to students, the 15-week program required participants to attend Saturday morning sessions and complete daily online drills that involve grammar checks, math probes and other activities that "really strengthen a kid's academic prowess," said Barbara Conner, who helped to initiate the program.

Conner is a specialist in the school's College and Career Center, which helps students identify potential careers, write resumes, find internships and navigate the college application process. To help introduce upperclassmen to the college experience, she arranges one-on-one sessions at the school with college representatives from all over the country to discuss, for example, life as a freshman, unique trends in majors, scholarship opportunities and new developments on campuses. This year, at least 80 deans of admissions or their staff members are expected to visit. Such efforts help explain the college matriculation rate at West Potomac: 90 percent of the Class of 2006 went on to pursue higher education.

The school is also home to one of the district's five professional technical centers, which offers advanced career-oriented electives in 12 subject areas, including Chinese, criminal justice, early childhood education, medical health technologies and television production. As the newest facility, the West Potomac Academy has instructional labs with technologies used by professionals in the field; for instance, aspiring dentists can perform X-rays and construct mouth guards.

The increasing demand to graduate students who are technologically savvy, foreign language proficient, and academically advanced is an indicator of the changing times, perceives Conner: "Gone is the sleepy little world of the red schoolhouse with the bell. We are now preparing students to be successful in a global world."

— By Nicole Ashby

Top

Spellings Introduces Higher Education Plan

On Sept. 26, Secretary Spellings introduced her action plan for higher education at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. An excerpt from her speech follows.

  
  
 Safety 
 
 
 
 
 Following several recent incidents of violence in schools, Secretary Spellings and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales convened a conference on school safety at the request of President Bush, on Oct. 10, near Washington, D.C. They were joined by experts in the fields of threat assessment, law, crisis counseling and intervention as well as elected officials, teachers, school administrators, students and parents for a discussion on how to prevent future acts of violence in schools. For a transcript and online video of the conference, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov
/infocus/education/.
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
... A lot of people will tell you things are going just fine. But when 90-percent of the fastest-growing jobs require postsecondary education, are we satisfied with 'just fine'? ...

Is it 'fine' that college tuition has outpaced inflation, family income, even doubling the cost of health care? Is it 'fine' that only half of our students graduate on time? Is it 'fine' that students often graduate so saddled with debt that they can't buy a home or start a family? ...

I'm not the first to grapple with these issues. States, local leaders, the business community and many in higher education are already hard-at-work tackling challenges from affordability to measuring student learning. ...

First: How do we make college more accessible? ...

A million kids drop out [of high school] every single year. And those who do graduate often aren't prepared for college. As a result, colleges, students and taxpayers spend over a billion dollars a year on remedial classes after graduation. Ultimately, we pay the bill twice, because students don't get what they need in high school. ...

... Action One under my plan is to build on [President Bush's plan for increasing academic rigor in high schools] by expanding the effective principles of No Child Left Behind and holding high schools accountable for results. And we will continue efforts to align high school standards with college work by increasing access to college-prep classes such as Advanced Placement.

Next, how do we make college more affordable? ...

... At the federal level, [the financial aid system is] a maze of 60 Web sites, dozens of toll-free numbers, and 17 different programs ... the main federal student aid form is longer and more complicated than the federal tax form! ...

... Action Two under my plan is for my Department to streamline the process, cut the application time in half, and notify students of their aid eligibility earlier than spring of their senior year to help families plan. ...

... Money's important. But we're going to keep chasing our tail on price until we realize that a good deal of the solution comes down to information. Like any other investment or enterprise, meaningful data is critical to better manage the system. ...

Which brings me to my final point: How are we going to make college more accountable for results? ...

We live in the 'Information Age.' If you want to buy a new car, you go online and compare a full range of models, makes and pricing options. ... The same transparency and ease should be the case when students and families shop for colleges, especially when one year of college can cost a lot more than a car!

... Action Three under my plan will work to pull together privacy-protected student-level data similar to data already collected for K-12 students to create a higher education information system. ...

Information will not only help with decision-making, it will also hold schools accountable for quality. ... Action Four under my plan will provide matching funds to colleges, universities and states that collect and publicly report student learning outcomes.

Right now, accreditation is the system we use to put a stamp of approval on higher education quality. It's largely focused on inputs, more on how many books are in a college library, than whether students can actually understand them. ...

... Action Five under my plan will convene members of the accrediting community this November to move toward measures that place more emphasis on learning. ...

This is the beginning of a process of long overdue reform. And let me be clear: at the end of it we neither envision, nor want, a national system of higher education. On the contrary, one of the greatest assets of our system is its diversity—something we must protect and preserve.

Our aim is simply to make sure the countless opportunities a college education provides is a reality for every American who chooses to pursue it. ...

For the full speech, visit http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2006/09/09262006.html.

Top

Around the Country

Pennsylvania—The first Microsoft School of the Future, born out of a partnership between the School District of Philadelphia and Microsoft Corporation, opened its doors this fall. A high-tech building erected in the working class neighborhood of West Philadelphia, the public high school features digital lockers, an interactive learning center where some library holdings are electronic, and specially designed software for students' laptops that monitors how quickly they are learning. About 170 students, mostly African-American and from low-income families, were chosen by lottery to make up the freshman class; enrollment is expected to grow to 750 by 2010.

Texas—The Brownsville Independent School District has experienced a sudden surge of interest in dual enrollment, which gives students both high school and college credit for completing college-level work. The increase in participation, which jumped from 2,000 students in 2005 to 3,587 this year, is partly credited to a fee reduction for nonresidents of the state. Due to a policy change at the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, the fee for students regardless of their resident status is just $5, which the district pays. Previously, the charge for students living outside of Texas was more than $1,400 per course.

Top

Calendar

November 12-18
Geography Awareness Week, initiated in 1987 by the National Geographic Society. This year, the observance has been launched as a multi-year campaign to highlight the diversity of peoples, places and natural wonders around the globe, starting with Africa. For events and K-12 resources, visit http://www.mywonderfulworld.org.

November 16
White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Conference, Charlotte, N.C., sponsored by a consortium of federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education. Part of a series of regional conferences being held around the country, this meeting for grassroots leaders will provide information about federal grant opportunities. To register, visit http://www.fbci.gov or call (202) 456-6718.

December 5
International Volunteer Day, established in 1985 by the United Nations General Assembly. The day provides an opportunity for individuals and organizations to spotlight their contributions toward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women. For promotional materials and event ideas, visit http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org.

Top

Q & A Glossary

  
  
 academically rigorous course:
a challenging program of study that provides high school students with the knowledge and skills necessary for college readiness. 
 
 
 
  
  
 
What academically rigorous courses are available for high school students?

Research has shown that students who take academically rigorous courses in high school are more likely to graduate from college in five years or fewer.

Most widely known among them is the Advanced Placement program, a set of 37 college-level courses that allows high school students to earn credit or advanced standing at most of the nation's colleges and universities on the basis of their AP exam grades. Many of these institutions grant up to a full year of college credit (sophomore standing) to students who earn a sufficient number of qualifying AP grades. For more information, visit http://www.collegeboard.com, or call 1-888-225-5427.

Becoming more widespread, the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme is a two-year, college-prep curriculum that leads to an advanced high school diploma and the potential for college credit based on final exam scores. Taught in English, French, and/or Spanish in 124 countries worldwide, the program covers six interdisciplinary subject groups in the areas of literature, foreign language, social science, experimental science, mathematics and the arts, and has three core requirements. For more information, visit http://www.ibo.org.

Another option for academic rigor, the dual enrollment program allows students to enroll in courses that count for both high school and college credit. Different from AP and IB programs, dual enrollment programs are shaped by state policies and thus differ considerably from state to state. Also, unlike other credit-based programs, they do not require students to pass end-of-course exams to earn credit, but they may require students to gain admission to the postsecondary institution in order to participate. For more information, contact your state department of education by visiting http://www.ed.gov/about/contacts/state/.

Top

News Show Discusses Foreign Language Study

  
  
 Next Broadcast 
 
 
 
 
 "Succeeding in the Global Economy"
November 21
8-9 p.m. EDT 
 
 
 
  
  
 
The importance of critical languages to U.S. diplomacy, security and the economy, and the ways in which the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies are working to dramatically increase student learning of these languages through the National Security Language Initiative, will be the focus of the November edition of Education News Parents Can Use, the Department's monthly television program.

The National Security Language Initiative is designed to increase the number of Americans learning critical-need foreign languages—such as Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Korean and Russian—through new and expanded programs from kindergarten through college and into the workforce. November's show will explore the efforts under way in America's schools and communities to ensure that students graduate with the ability to communicate in these critical languages. Panelists and guests will discuss how the initiative will provide students with the language skills necessary to engage foreign governments and peoples, especially in critical regions; to encourage reform and promote understanding; to convey respect for other cultures; and to help others learn more about America and its citizens.

Each month, Education News Parents Can Use showcases: schools and school districts from across the country; conversations with school officials, parents and education experts; and advice and free resources for parents and educators.

To learn about viewing options, including webcasts, visit http://www.ed.gov/news/av/video/edtv/, or call toll-free 1-800-USA-LEARN.

Top

Funding Education Beyond High School

The U.S. Department of Education recently released a comprehensive guide to federal student aid for students and their families looking to fund a college education.

Published by the Department's Office of Federal Student Aid, Funding Education Beyond High School provides an overview of the process for applying for federal student aid as well as detailed steps for taking action during each phase. With illustrative charts, the 41-page guide addresses such topics as:

Basic eligibility requirements

Three types of federal student aid—grants, work-study and loans—and other student aid resources

Completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) for new and renewal applicants

Grace period and payment schedule for repaying loans

Options for postponement: deferment and forbearance

Loan consolidation and cancellation

The guide concludes with a glossary clarifying financial aid terminology and a complete list of state higher education agencies.

Last year, federal student aid helped approximately 10 million students meet the cost of higher education. For a copy of the 2006-07 guide, which is recommended for current college students, visit http://www.edpubs.org or call 1-877-4ED-PUBS, with identification number EN0648P, while supplies last. (The 2007-08 version, suggested for high school students, will be available in December.) For the online version or to reach the Federal Student Aid Information Center, visit http://www.studentaid.ed.gov or call 1-800-4-FED-AID.

Top

Credits

U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.
Washington, DC 20202

The Achiever is a monthly publication for parents and community leaders from the Office of Communications and Outreach, U.S. Department of Education (ED). Margaret Spellings, secretary.

Comments? Contact Nicole Ashby, editor, at 202-205-0676 (fax), or at education@custhelp.com.

Address changes and subscriptions? Contact 1-877-4ED-PUBS, or edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

Information on ED programs, resources and events? Contact 1-800-USA-LEARN, or education@custhelp.com.

The Achiever contains news and information about and from public and private organizations for the reader's information. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any products or services offered or views expressed. This publication also contains hyperlinks and URLs created and maintained by outside organizations and provided for the reader's convenience. The Department is not responsible for the accuracy of this information.