FEE Proves My Point

June 3, 2013

High Standards Poker

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

The Foundation for Excellence in Education has recently been blasting out a series of emails denouncing “myths” about Common Core. Guess it’s not so inevitable after all!

Ironically, the email that just came over the transom proves the point I was making Friday. Then, I wrote that Common Core is bad for school choice where single-state movements for high standards were not because the drive to create common standards across many states implies a one-size-fits-all mentality that’s hostile to parental control. I wrote:

Consistently, CC advocates have used adjectives like “national” and “common” as if they were synonyms for “better.”

And sure enough, here comes FEE cheerleading for Common Core with an email under the subject heading:

Support for High Academic Standards Builds Across the Nation

You see the presupposition behind this? Support for national standards is identical with support for high standards; those who oppose nationalization are for low standards.

Remember, kids: Diversity is weakness!

As I wrote this week, there are two worldviews at war here – one that wants to see more diversity in education because children have unique needs, parents know best, and parents can be trusted more than experts and bureaucrats; and one that wants to see less diversity because there’s one best way, we know what it is, we can get the bureaucracy to do it and we won’t be corrupted.

5 Comments | National Standards | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Common Core Hurts School Choice

May 31, 2013

octopus

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

In his post yesterday, Jay mentioned that the imperatives behind Common Core are hostile to school choice:

Pushing it forward requires frightening reductions in parental control over education and expansions of federal power.  These are not the unnecessary by-products of a misguided Obama Administration over-reach.  Constraining parental choice and increasing federal power were entirely necessary to advance Common Core.  And they were perfectly foreseeable (we certainly foresaw these dangers here at JPGB).

But back in the day, Jay and I were both supporters of Jeb Bush’s A+ program, which combined standards and choice. So why is Common Core anti-choice where Florida’s standards were choice-friendly?

The answer lies in the imperative to expand standards. As Jay and I have both pointed out, the whole CC project is centrally built on the assumption that there is a positive relationship between the geographic scope of standards and their academic quality. Consistently, CC advocates have used adjectives like “national” and “common” as if they were synonyms for “better.”

Why would we expect standards to be better if they are set at a higher geographic level? The implicit educational worldview behind this is a technocratic scientific progressivism: there is one best way to educate children, and an elite class of technocrats can be trusted to know what it is and get the bureaucracy to carry it out successfully (and without corruption). Consequently, we should want more uniformity across schools. If parents have diverse opinions about what is best for their children and wish to choose diverse schools, we must not permit ourselves to think that this may be because 1) there is no “one best way” because every child is unique; 2) the technocrats’ knowledge of the one best way is fallible; 3) the technocrats’ ability to get the bureaucracy to do its will is severely limited; or 4) power corrupts, and the technocrats and the bureaucracy alike are not to be trusted with monopoly power. Diverse parental desires are to be interpreted as a sign that parents can’t be trusted.

By contrast, A+ did not seek to expand standards; it only sought to impose them on one school system. The implicit logic of A+ ran as follows: if the state is going to run a school system, it ought to set standards for what that system should be doing. However, we have no illusions that the standards we are setting for our own system represent the “one best way,” so parents ought to be free to choose whether our school or some other school is best for their child. With this logic, as Jay used to say, standards and choice are like chocolate and peanut butter – two great tastes that taste great together.

(Of course, it is a comparatively recent development that all the public schools in a state are effectively one school system. Over the past half century or so, America has dramatically shifted from having many thousands of local school systems to having just fifty state systems. And that has been a bad development because it has reduced choice and thereby reduced pressure for improvement. But that’s a discussion for another day; it doesn’t change the fact that the logic behind A+ was non-expansionary.)

Now, it is logically possible for a person to favor both CC and school choice. But the arguments in favor of CC that you have to construct in order to get to that result are the intellectual equivalent of a Rube Goldberg machine. It’s like that court case a few years ago over teaching intelligent design in public schools, where the expert called to testify in favor of ID said that you don’t need to believe in God to believe in ID. That is true, at the level of logical possibilities; you can construct an argument that simultaneously affirms ID and atheism. But there is no one who actually believes that, because the intellectual contortions necessary to get there are absurd. In fact, ID is intuitively theistic even though it does not logically require theism. That fact is not an argument against its truth (unless you begin by begging the question and assuming atheism is true) but it is relevant to the consideration of how students encounter ID in public schools.

In the same way, CC is intuitively anti-choice even though it does not logically require opposition to choice.

32 Comments | National Standards, vouchers | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Pioneers in the Journal on Common Core

May 28, 2013

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Jamie Glass and Charles Chieppo of the Pioneer Institute had a great piece in the Journal over the weekend on the deficiencies of Common Core.

The piece makes a fascinating contrast to Sol Stern and Joel Klein’s recent effort in the same pages. Where Stern and Klein are all gaseous rhetoric and vague generalities – nothing to see here, folks! – the Pioneers cite specifics:

Compared with Massachusetts’ former standards, Common Core’s English standards reduce by 60% the amount of classic literature, poetry and drama that students will read. For example, the Common Core ignores the novels of Charles Dickens, Edith Wharton and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.” It also delays the point at which Bay State students reach Algebra I—the gateway to higher math study—from eighth to ninth grade or later.

Stanford University Emeritus Mathematics Professor R. James Milgram—the only academic mathematician on Common Core’s validation committee—refused to sign off on the final draft, describing the standards as having “extremely serious failings” and reflecting “very low expectations.”

This deal is getting worse all the time!

7 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Scandal! Big Education Conference Subordinates Education to PROFIT!

May 22, 2013

money-greedy1

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Kudos to ALELR for this shocking expose – a major education conference is trying to destroy our schools by subordinating education to greedy profiteering BUSINESSES!

1 Comment | teacher union | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Three Things Not to Miss in Wolf’s Post

May 16, 2013

Tyson-Spinks SI cover

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Jay has already linked to Pat Wolf’s devastating knockout of the special ed smear campaign against Milwaukee vouchers. However, it’s such a long piece (there’s so much falsehood to debunk!) that I want to make sure the most important points don’t get overlooked:

  1. Pat catches the Department of Public Instruction lying about how many disabled students are in the voucher program. “Lying” is a strong word, but that is what happened here.
  2. USDOJ faults DPI for not requiring schools to report how many voucher students are disabled, so they can monitor discrimination against disabled students – but the reason is that state law gives them no power to do so, and regulations forbid them from doing so. The purpose of the regulation is to protect against schools using the information to discriminate against disabled students!
  3. “A statistical analysis that my research team conducted during our five-year evaluation of the program confirmed that no measure of student disadvantage – not disability status, not test scores, not income, not race – was statistically associated with whether or not an 8th grade voucher student was or was not admitted to a 9th grade voucher-receiving private school.  Our evidence is consistent with the expectation that private schools are admitting voucher students at random during that critical transition, as the law requires.”

Pat also points out, against the USDOJ’s claim that private schools in the voucher program are covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice reviewed and let stand Wisconsin court rulings finding that voucher schools are not government contractors, and students in the program are “parentally placed” not “government placed” in their schools, so the schools are not within reach of laws that apply to government services. In my (non-lawyer) opinion that does not make it a slam dunk that the voucher schools aren’t covered by ADA, because the ADA is such a badly crafted law. But it’s still worth remembering.

Update: This post has been modified because the original version didn’t state point #2 quite right. My apologies!

1 Comment | special ed, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Two New Studies on How School Choice Impacts Students in Vulnerable Demographic Categories

May 15, 2013

Race Card w watermark

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

At Brookings, Matthew Chingos looks at a huge swath of CCD data and finds no evidence that charter schools increase racial segregation. No surprise there, as readers of Win-Win already know. It’s been a while since I had occasion to trot out the old race card graphic – my sense is that the segregation talking point has had its day in the sun.

In Education Finance and Policy, Rajashri Chakrabarti looks at Florida school data and contributes the latest in a line of studies showing that schools act in self-interested ways, responding to structural incentives, when classifying students into special programs. Chakrabarti finds that schools threatened with vouchers due to low test scores increased the classification of students as Limited English Proficient, removing them from the pool of tested students; however, schools did not increase classification of students into special education, where they would become eligible for McKay vouchers. The obvious conclusion? All students should be eligible for vouchers – then there’s no system to game.

PS Sorry for the awkward headline – I couldn’t come up with anything snappier or any pop culture references. Uh . . . release the kraken!

2 Comments | charter schools, civic values, special ed, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

The Common Core Culture War Intensifies

May 14, 2013

psychic-octopus-culture-war

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

In today’s Journal, Sol Stern and Joel Klein attempt to sell conservatives on national standards by 1) misleading them about the federal government’s role, both in ramming the standards through and in continuing to shape them going forward, and 2) portraying the national standards as a patriotic way to patriotically patriotize our vulnerable young patriots, who are now at the mercy of the eeeeeeeeeeeevil progressives and their social justice agenda.

Now, what do you think the major Democratic party effort to support national standards thinks of that?

Paul the psychic octopus looks more right every month – national standards are built on an anti-school-choice, one-size-fits-all worldview and are therefore a one-way ticket to the worst kind of culture war.

Update: I wonder what Stern and Klein would say about Heather Mac Donald’s warning that the national “science” standards endorse an unscientific and anti-human environmental agenda?

8 Comments | National Standards | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Momma Ain’t Happy

May 9, 2013

If Momma Aint Happy(Guest post by Greg Forster)

My colleagues at the Friedman Foundation have released a big new survey of mothers of school-age kids. And let me tell you, momma ain’t happy:

  • 61% of school moms say education’s on the wrong track; just 32% say it’s on the right track.
  • Watch out, Common Core test consortia: 79% of school moms rate the federal government’s handling of education as fair or poor; only 17% said good or excellent.
  • 82% of school moms gave an A or B to their local private schools, compared to 43% for public schools. (Momma ain’t unhappy enough!)

The study also surveyed non-moms, so you can compare and contrast. Unsurprisingly, the differences aren’t large – because if momma ain’t happy…

Image

2 Comments | research reports, vouchers | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Pass the Popcorn: Why the World Needs Bond

May 8, 2013

Skyfall

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

After blogging pretty extensively about James Bond back when Quantum of Solace came out, I was disappointed not to get the chance to see Skyfall in the theaters. When I finally saw it on video, I was devastated not to have seen it in theaters.

I needed a lot of words to say everything I had to say about QOS and James Bond in general back in 2008, and those are still some of my favorite posts. I can say what needs to be said about Skyfall in a lot fewer words. And spoiler free to boot, so if you haven’t seen it, I’ve given you no excuse not to.

skyfall-bardem

This is the first ever deeply profound James Bond movie. I am not being in any way ironic. Several previous entries in the franchise have been deadly serious: From Russia with Love is the cold-hearted bastard of a movie that Casino Royale pretends to be but really isn’t; The Living Daylights has an intricate and deeply satisfying espionage plot (I proclaimed it one of the all-time greatest summer movies). But Skyfall has the soul of a Sophocles. Sam Mendes’s notorious American Beauty has many shortcomings, but in light of Skyfall I think I wasn’t wrong to like it in spite of its faults. Mendes has reached the level of maturity he lacked in 1999.

Skyfall is about why the 21st century needs James Bond. Here’s how I would summarize it:

  1. All your fancy modern technology and advanced civilization will not save you if you are not the right kind of person.
  2. If you have forgotten how to be the right kind of person, look to your elders and return to the place where you came from.
  3. Do not hesitate to use all your fancy modern technology to blow the place you came from to smithereens if that is what being the right kind of person requires.

The two great errors of our age are, on the one hand, to think that it doesn’t matter what kind of people we are (“dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good” – T.S. Eliot); and, on the other hand, to be so afraid we’ll stop being the right kind of people that we cling to the old and traditional even when it has stopped cultivating us in the right ways. To look both backward and forward – to carry the past into the future, not by preserving it, but by allowing it to form us into the right kind of people and then forming the future accordingly – that is the only hope.

skyfall-m

I feel a need to locate this movie alongside The Dark Knight and the Avengers. I wrote before that while The Dark Knight is a movie for all times and places, the Avengers is “the movie for our time.” Skyfall is somewhere in between. On one level it speaks to a universal reality, a problem all civilizations must face: the struggle between the past and the future, between integrity and responsibility. On another level it speaks directly to our own time, because the advance of modern technology has heightened this struggle in unique ways. You could have told a story like this in ancient times – come to think of it, Sophocles did! But you could not have told just this story until today.

Special Bonus: Yesterday a coworker asked for my advice on which Bond film to watch first. I sat down and typed out a complete list of all 23 Bond movies. Hate to see it lost to posterity, so here it is for your amusement:

START HERE

Casino Royale: Bond for the 21st century. The second best Bond ever made.

Goldfinger: The best ever, by all reckoning. It’s somewhat dated now (the pace of the story is slower, “lasers” are exotic and mysterious, etc.) but if you can look past that, this movie defined the franchise.

SAMPLER PLATTER – THE BEST OF EACH BOND

From Russia with Love: The second best of Sean Connery, after Goldfinger (which he would make next). A Cold War spy movie, more suspense and mystery than explosions and gadgets.

The Man with the Golden Gun: Roger Moore’s second film and his best work. The silliness of the 70s spoiled many of Moore’s movies, but not this one. Bond goes one on one with the world’s greatest assassin.

The Living Daylights: Tim Dalton’s first movie and his best work. They moved away from explosions, girls and gadgets to focus on a complex, highly satisfying espionage plot. Lots of people didn’t like it, but I think it’s fantastic.

GoldenEye: Pierce Brosnan’s first film and his best work. It’s the late 90s and summer blockbusters are starting to get campy, but if you take it in the right spirit, it’s a great time.

Skyfall: Daniel Craig’s second best, it’s actually a very profound movie about why the 21st century needs James Bond. But don’t watch it until you already love the Bond franchise.

SO YOU WANT TO BE A SNOB

Dr. No: This movie has not aged well at all – the pace and storytelling are a mess by our standards. Plus, shameless racism! But a lot of the key Bond elements are present and enjoyable in their embryonic forms.

You Only Live Twice: The formula is getting old, and they have to go further and further over the top to make an impression. Plus, shameless racism! But this movie introduced many of the most iconic Bond moments (e.g. villain’s lair in a volcano)

For Your Eyes Only: Serviceable espionage plot, pulls back from going over the top so it isn’t ruined by silliness.

A View to a Kill: Christopher Walken as a Bond villain. Nothing else to recommend it, but what else do you need?

Tomorrow Never Dies: Much, much better than it has any right to be. Clever dialogue and outstanding performances by very talented stars compensate for a dumb plot.

Quantum of Solace: Too clever by half. What would have been a great follow-up to Casino Royale is spoiled by an attempt to squeeze in other agendas and a really, really weak actor playing the villain.

FOR OBSCESSIVE COMPLETISTS ONLY

Diamonds are Forever: Same problems as You Only Live Twice, but without the iconic moments.

Live and Let Die: Introducing a new James Bond (Moore) for the silly 70s! Plus, the franchise’s absolute height of shameless racism!

The Spy Who Loved Me: Same story as Diamonds are Forever.

Octopussy: Yeesh, the silliness. But if you can roll with it, it’s not too bad as a Cold War thriller.

The World Is Not Enough: Same stupidity as Tomorrow Never Dies, but lousy dialogue and worse performances.

DO NOT WATCH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES (not even to save your loved ones’ lives)

Thunderball: At this point the studio has realized that people will go see Bond no matter how crappy the movie is, and made the movie accordingly.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: Dumb, lousy actor playing Bond, dumb, lousy Bond, dumb, dumb, dumb. Plus Telly Savalas pretends to be a villain!

Moonraker: Hey, Star Wars made millions, so now we have to send James Bond into space!

License to Kill: Holy smokes, they made a Bond movie worse than Thunderball!

Die Another Day: Holy smokes, they made a Bond movie worse than License to Kill!

7 Comments | Pass the Popcorn | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

ACLU Applauds as USDOJ Orders Wisconsin Public Schools to . . . Stop Blocking Kids from Using Vouchers?

May 3, 2013

Wile falling

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Well, this is interesting. Someone just sent me a hyperventilating press release from the ACLU bragging about how they got the USDOJ to issue a letter to Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction. The letter declares that the Milwaukee voucher program is a “public entity” under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is therefore subject to ADA prohibitions on discrimination. USDOJ orders Wisconsin to undertake several actions designed to allow USDOJ to determine whether such discrimination is taking place, and to deter it. You can read the letter here.

I doubt this will be a big deal. There is certainly some minor bad news for school choice here. Assuming this letter stands up to any challenges brought against it, private schools may lose a small degree of autonomy over admissions and services. Private schools ought to be free to say to some parents “we are not able to accommodate your needs”; I know some people think that’s bad, but not every school can be the right school for every child. The failure to realize this basic fact is at the very heart of our dysfunctional government school monopoly. Turning from admissions to services, one reason private schools are able to provide better services to disabled students is because they aren’t tied down to the rigid IDEA bureaucracy that public schools are required to use. This letter will not impose the IDEA monster on voucher schools, thankfully, but it could lead to steps in the wrong direction. The letter also orders Wisconsin to conduct ADA training for staff in voucher schools; that’s a hassle they don’t need, but not likely to impact education in a major way. Still, things like this are a good example of why ADA is a very badly crafted law – it basically empowers USDOJ to issue arbitrary orders based on ambiguous definitions (what exactly is a “reasonable accommodation”?).

On the other hand, I wonder if the ACLU has rushed to brag about something that, upon further reflection, it may live to regret. The USDOJ letter begins by listing the allegations made against Wisconsin public schools, which justify its investigation. The very first allegation is that “students with disabilities in the Milwaukee Public Schools are deterred by DPI and participating voucher schools from participating in the school choice program.” That’s “DPI” as in “Department of Public Instruction.”

So the U.S. Department of Justice is now officially investigating whether Milwaukee public schools are blocking students from using vouchers . . . thanks to the ACLU!

One thing the letter orders Wisconsin to do is conduct “public outreach about the school choice program to students with disabilities.” By all means – make sure they know their options!

Thanks, ACLU geniuses!

PS Do you think anyone at the ACLU asked themselves why public schools would seek to prevent students from using the voucher program, if (as we are constantly told by voucher opponents) the imperative to serve those students is a terrible drain on the public school system?

6 Comments | vouchers | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »