April 23, 2008
Essay Question: Are We Beating Back the Tide?
"'Nation at Risk': The best thing or the worst thing for education?" asks Gregg Toppo in USA Today. Good question, and an interesting article. Toppo reports on some of the policy developments that came in the wake of that report's denouncement of a "rising tide of mediocrity" in education - things like a rise in federal education spending, and what Paul Houston of the American Association of School Administrators denounces as "a cottage industry of national reports by people saying how bad things are." But what about the kids? What's happened to them in the 25 years since "A Nation at Risk" raised the alarm? (A look in on the topic 10 years ago - 15 years after the initial report - offered continued cause for concern.)
So, in a nod to the rigors of AP and the rhetoric of Reagan, we ask:
Are our children better educated now than they were 25 years ago? In your answer, discuss issues such as assessment, accountability, access, choice, funding, teacher quality, curriculum, standards, or other education efforts and issues and their relative relevance to the question.
August 16, 2007
National Standards: A Hopeless Cause
In yesterday’s Washington Times, Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, declared that it’s high time America had national science standards. “With the No Child Left Behind Act up for renewal,” he wrote, “an essential next step is clear….Revise NCLB to set voluntary nationwide education standards.” But is having national standards really the clear next step toward educational excellence? Not if history or current events has anything to say about it.
Consider recent history. Anyone remember the voluntary national standards debacle of the mid-1990s? You know, when the standards went nowhere politically but created a huge, nationwide controversy? What happened there?
It turns out, Americans are extremely diverse, and not just in terms of ethnicity, religion, or race. We also hold very strong and divergent opinions concerning both what to teach and how to teach our children, even in subjects such as mathematics that nationalizers insist should be the same everywhere and for all people. The result in the mid-1990s was that no one could agree on common standards, and none were implemented.
But what if we could somehow forge a consensus around powerful, rigorous standards that really would challenge our students and schools? Then wouldn’t improvement be guaranteed?
Here’s where current events – in particular, implementation of NCLB – are instructive.
NCLB supporters loudly promise excellence, just as national standards champions would were their policies enacted. But something has fallen apart between NCLB’s promise and reality: It seems that the only way the law is going to accomplish its 100 percent proficiency goal is by states making “proficient” synonymous with, well, “there’s no way that’s proficient!” As the Institute of Education Sciences recently found, not only have most states set their proficiency levels below the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s proficiency threshold, many have actually set them below NAEP’s basic level!
Ah, but isn’t keeping states from weaseling out of real accountability exactly why we need national standards?
In theory, yes, but even if we pass rigorous national standards, they would have to be enforced, and enforcement is something Washington has never done effectively. When push has come to shove, no administration has ever been willing to really “get tough” with the state leaders, education bureaucrats, teacher unions, and other powerful interests who don’t want to be held to high – and difficult to attain – standards.
Heck, the Bush administration is about as dedicated to NCLB as any group can be, but even Secretary Spellings dodges real enforcement of the law. States have been sabotaging NCLB’s school choice, persistently dangerous schools, and other accountability provisions since day one, and yet Spellings declared in a Newshour report just this Tuesday that she chooses “to believe that the people in states are working hard to improve education for their kids. Have we made progress? Have we raised the level of intensity, and the level of rigor, and the level of anxiety for grownups to respond to kids? You bet we have.”
Lest you think this is just a Republican trying to defend her president’s signature domestic accomplishment, recall that NCLB’s predecessor, the Improving America’s Schools Act, was overseen by a Democrat and totally ignored by numerous states. A paralyzing fear of special interests is truly bipartisan. Indeed, the entire forty-plus year history of federal involvement in education has been defined by abundant federal cash, lots of lofty promises, and almost nothing by way of accountability or educational success.
Now, if we were somehow able to enact and enforce rigorous national standards there would still be huge problems – such standards would only make our competition and innovation problems even worse, for instance – but those aren’t issues we even need to address right now. Why? Because as both history and current events make clear, rigorous national standards, at least through Washington, will never, ever, come to be.
Neal McCluskey is a policy analyst with Cato's Center for Educational Freedom. Prior to arriving at Cato, McCluskey served in the U.S. Army, taught high school English, and was a freelance reporter covering municipal government and education in suburban New Jersey. Mr. McCluskey is the author of Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education.
July 23, 2007
May 14-18: Robert Enlow vs. Jay Mathews on Vouchers (UPDATED, May 18, 4:43 p.m.)
Jay Mathews touched a nerve last month when he declared that he was "tired of the voucher issue" that enables politicians to "raise money on that issue forever, while in the meantime not doing much for schools." In the real world, he said, vouchers are "too risky, and too inconvenient." To which Robert Enlow responded, "Give me a break." So, picking up where they left off...
Jay Mathews is an education reporter and online columnist with the Washington Post. Robert Enlow is Executive Director of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.
Posted by Featured Guest at 09:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)July 10, 2007
Education in Terms of Social Justice
Place yourself back in First Grade. Given the chance to choose any of the following options for your personal schooling, select the education you would like to receive for the greatest chance of success later in life:
A. Washington, District of Columbia inner city public schools
B. Los Angeles, California inner city public schools
C. Chicago, Illinois inner city public schools
D. none of the above
Was your answer D? According to John Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness,” if those schools are not suitable for you in theory, then they are not suitable for low-income children in practice.
Every child in the inner city public schools has very limited opportunity. What you see is what you get. Think about this multiple choice question from your perspective. You can’t go back and change the place or the time you were born, and because of your environment and your family’s economic and social status, you had absolutely no control over the educational opportunities available to you. This is what Rawls referred to as the “lottery” – economic, social, educational opportunity is a matter of chance; a very small number of people win the lottery, and an unbelievably large number of people lose. While many contest Rawls’ philosophy, it is hugely influential in left-of-center thinking.
For a moment, put yourself behind this “veil of ignorance” in which you cannot determine the school you attend. Without knowing the odds or whether you might end up a Rockefeller or in the slums, you (and everyone else) would work a little harder to make sure that if you end up on the bottom rung, that ladder is not greased down by neglected school districts, underpaid teachers and minimalist resources.
This approach to looking at the most underprivileged school districts is non-partisan and unaffiliated with any political powerhouse – it is fact. Politicians and administrators are unable to reflect positively on such situations as:
low income children are six times more likely to drop out of school (NCES)
low-income children master basic reading skills under half the average rate
low-income children have higher rates of illiteracy
students learning from D teachers learn 50% less than from A teachers
We are called to a two-fold action: expand school choice options for all parents and completely overhaul the resource development and compensation system for teachers.
The status-quo has divorced teacher compensation, promotion and retention from any recognition of merit. We now have the ability to judge and recognize teacher performance fairly, on a value-added basis. Schools have an enormous potential to improve if they will truly treat talented teachers as professionals rather than factory workers.
Likewise, our limited experiments with parental choice mechanisms have shown an ability to improve education for both those choosing to leave, and those choosing to stay.
Answer one final multiple choice question.
Place yourself back in Twelfth Grade. Given the chance to choose any of the following options for your personal schooling, select the education you would like to receive for the greatest chance of success later in life:
A. Ivy League
B. Any Top University
C. The Perfect Match, Post-Secondary School for Your Learning Abilities and Future Goals
D. any of the above is fine
Was your answer D?
Here is the ultimate question.
What needs to happen to reform our educational system such that any child who began with the first multiple choice question would be able to have the final multiple choice question?
Answer: by putting student interests first. Until we do so, the lottery will remained fixed against disadvantaged children.
Matthew Ladner is Vice President of Research at the Goldwater Institute
Call for Your Voice to Be Heard
Edspresso wants you to voice your thoughts, ideas, concerns and responses to education reform news that is important to you and to so many others. With an ever-increasing blaudience above 40,000 per month, we are moving in the direction of a blogging community called to action and informed about grassroots movements throughout the United States. Join us in making Edspresso the forum for education reform education that translates into action in your school communities, districts and states.
May 09, 2007
Brewing Up the Next Debate
Things really got percolating with Jay Mathews' denouncement of 'the politics of vouchers' last month. So he and Robert Enlow of the Friedman Foundation will be donning the gloves next week to formally duke out the issue. Tune in ring-side May 14 - 19.
Posted by Edspresso at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)April 13, 2007
April 9-13: Nancy Creech vs. Ken De Rosa on Whole Language (UPDATED 13 April, 10:38 a.m.)
Whole language has invited some degree of controversy in recent years. Does this approach to literacy successfully teach children to read?
Whole language teacher Nancy Creech lives in Oxford, Michigan. Ken De Rosa lives in Philadelphia and blogs at D-Ed Reckoning.
Posted by Featured Guest at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (94) | TrackBacks (0)March 22, 2007
Next debate on the way
For a variety of reasons, it seems whole language is a hot topic right this minute. Of course, a lot of it is due to the ongoing Reading First scandal. Also, for one parent's personal experiences with whole language, Rory Hester of Parentalcation recently vented his feelings (hat tip: this week's Carnival of Education at Education Wonks).
Fortunately, we here at Edspresso were primed and ready in advance for these events. Due to an unbelievable stroke of luck prescient abilities known only to us at the Alliance, last month I set up a debate for the month of April on the subject of whole language. April 9-13, whole language teacher Nancy Creech of Oxford, Michigan will debate blogger Ken De Rosa of D-Ed Reckoning. Thanks in advance to both Nancy and Ken for their willingness to participate!
UPDATE: I just got an e-mail from Nancy--she now lives elsewhere in Oxford, not Eastpointe.
February 11, 2007
February 5-9: Dianne Piché vs. Mike Petrilli vs. Joel Packer on No Child Left Behind
Now five years old, the landmark federal law is up for reauthorization. Is it working? What needs to change? This three-way exchange features:
- Dianne Piché, Executive Director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights
- Mike Petrilli, Vice President for National Programs and Policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
- Joel Packer, ESEA policy manager for the National Education Association
February 02, 2007
The next debate is on its way
First off, many many thanks go out to Joseph Olchefske and Roger Clegg for a terrific debate last month. We got a good deal of feedback, and it was unanimously positive.
Now our next debate is lined up and ready to go. And it will be rather different than anything we've ever done before. More below the fold.
Continue reading "The next debate is on its way" »
Posted by Ryan Boots at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)January 12, 2007
January 8-12: Roger Clegg vs. Joseph Olchefske on Race-Based School Assignments
In December, the Supreme Court heard arguments on public school choice plans in Washington and Kentucky that take the race of the student in question when assigning schools. Does the practice further the interests of integration as laid out in Brown v. Board of Education, or is it unconstitutional? And if the Supreme Court strikes down the programs, would it set back progress made by Brown?
Roger Clegg is President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Joseph Olchefske is a Managing Director at the American Institutes for Research.
Continue reading "January 8-12: Roger Clegg vs. Joseph Olchefske on Race-Based School Assignments" »
Posted by Featured Guest at 05:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)January 03, 2007
Next debate on the way
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding race-based admissions cases in school districts in Louisville and Seattle. On January 8-12, Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, will debate the case opposite Joseph Olchefske, managing director at the American Institutes for Research.
December 01, 2006
November 27 - December 1: Maisie McAdoo vs. Eric Osberg on Weighted Student Funding
Few topics are more hotly debated in education reform than how schools are funded. The Fordham Foundation recently proposed what it calls “Fund the Child”, or Weighted Student Funding. But are there better ways to fund education—and respond to equity issues?
Maisie McAdoo is senior research associate for the United Federation of Teachers, New York City's teacher union. (The views expressed are her own.) Eric Osberg is Vice President and Treasurer of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Posted by Featured Guest at 03:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)August 25, 2006
August 21-25: David Ritchey vs. Kevin Carey on Teacher Certification
All who wish to teach must receive some form of credentialing or certification before they can begin their careers. Is the practice helping to improve student achievement?
David Ritchey is Executive Director of the Association of Teacher Educators. Kevin Carey is Research and Policy Manager for Education Sector.
Continue reading "August 21-25: David Ritchey vs. Kevin Carey on Teacher Certification" »
Posted by Featured Guest at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (3)August 10, 2006
August 7-11: Dana Rapp vs. Richard Phelps on Standardized Testing
Standardized testing is now more widespread than ever, due in large part to requirements under No Child Left Behind. Does the practice truly deliver an accurate measurement of student performance, or does it do more harm than good?
Dana Rapp, Ph. D. lives in Readsboro, Vermont with his partner and three children. He is a professor of Educational Studies at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams. Dana has published numerous articles about high-stakes, leadership, testing and teacher activism. He is co-author of the book, with Patrick Slattery, Ethics and the Foundations of Education: Teaching Convictions in a Postmodern World. Richard P. Phelps is author of Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing, editor/co-author of Defending Standardized Testing and the forthcoming The Anti-Testing Fallacies, and member of Third Education Group.
Continue reading "August 7-11: Dana Rapp vs. Richard Phelps on Standardized Testing" »
Posted by Featured Guest at 02:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)June 28, 2006
UPDATED 6/28--A Deeper Look at the Graduation Rate Debate (Dan Losen vs. Joydeep Roy, with comments by Larry Mishel)
Of all the debates we've done so far, this one has been the most spontaneous.
Posted by Featured Guest at 01:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)May 12, 2006
May 8-12: Tim Mooney vs. Chris Correa on the 65% Solution
A number of states are presently considering the so-called "65 percent solution": legislation requiring that 65% of every school district's operational budget be spent in the classroom. According to George Will, a proponent of the idea, only four states--Utah, Tennessee, New York, Maine--spend at least 65% of their budgets in classrooms. Supporters say they only want to make sure that money is being spent efficiently. Critics say the plan disregards other services needed by students, including counselors, librarians, and transportation.
Tim Mooney is a Republican political consultant and one of the organizers behind First Class Education. Chris Correa is a blogger and doctoral student in education and psychology at the University of Michigan.
Continue reading "May 8-12: Tim Mooney vs. Chris Correa on the 65% Solution" »
Posted by Featured Guest at 05:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)May 05, 2006
May 1-5: Susanna Cooper vs. Joanne Jacobs on Universal Preschool
On June 6, Californians will head to the polls to vote on Proposition 82, the Preschool for All initiative. If approved, it would provide three hours of voluntary daily preschool for every 4-year-old in the state. Is this a good move for California?
Susanna Cooper is the director of communications for Preschool California, one of the organizations pushing for approval of Proposition 82. Former syndicated columnist Joanne Jacobs is a freelance writer, blogger and author of the new book Our School: The Inspiring Story of Two Teachers, One Big Idea and the School That Beat the Odds.
Continue reading "May 1-5: Susanna Cooper vs. Joanne Jacobs on Universal Preschool" »
Posted by Ryan Boots at 08:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (7)April 28, 2006
April 24-28: Michael J. Petrilli vs. Neal McCluskey on National Standards
As No Child Left Behind is currently constituted, each state establishes its own standards by which schools are measured. But should some sort of nationwide standards be established?
Michael J. Petrilli is Vice President for National Programs and Policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and co-author, with Frederick M. Hess, of No Child Left Behind: A Primer (available here). Neal McCluskey is a policy analyst with Cato's Center for Educational Freedom.
Continue reading "April 24-28: Michael J. Petrilli vs. Neal McCluskey on National Standards" »
Posted by Ryan Boots at 04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
