Kevin Williamson on Homeschooling

October 3, 2012

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

If you subscribe to National Review, don’t miss Kevin Williamson’s fantastic piece in the new issue on home schooling. Here are three little tastes of a long article in which every paragraph is good:

In the public imagination, homeschooling has a distinctly conservative and Evangelical odor about it, but it was not always so. The modern homeschooling movement really has its roots in 1960s countercultural tendencies; along with A Love Supreme, it may represent the only worthwhile cultural product of that era. The movement’s urtext is Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing, by A. S. Neill, which sold millions of copies in the 1960s and 1970s…

[Dana Goldstein, writing against home schooling in Slate] went on to argue that the children of high-achieving parents amount to public goods because of peer effects…She does not extend that analysis to its logical conclusion: that conscientious, educated liberals should enroll their children in the very worst public schools they can find in order to maximize the public good…

Teachers’ unions have money on the line, and ideologues do not want any young skull beyond their curricular reach. A political class that does not trust people with a Big Gulp is not going to trust them with the minds of children.

If you don’t subscribe – shame on you!


Walter Mead Russell on the Plight of the Black Middle Class

August 30, 2012

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Every now and then you read something that just sits with you for a long time. My mental processor has been working on this provocative piece from Walter Mead Russell for weeks now.

Go read it. I’ll be here when you get back. Plenty of edu-implications here, and some obvious crucial points that WMR omitted, but tell me what you think in the comments section. I’m still trying to decide how I would try to tackle this if I were a billionaire philanthropist.


Double Standards on Special Ed Placements v. Vouchers

July 25, 2012

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

In today’s Examiner, AEI’s Michael McShane (an official JPGB super best friend) wants to know why none of the people fighting to kill the DC voucher program seem to have any objections to DC’s high rate of outplacement for special education students. Could it be because there are a lot more rich white special ed parents? McShane is here to chew gum and kick the cans of edu-hypocrites, and he’s all out of gum.

McShane doesn’t make the mistakes others have made in characterizing DC’s high rate of outplacement. Still, the stats are eye-popping, and will no doubt have many readers asking questions. McShane really doesn’t have the opportunity in a short piece like this to provide the necessary background. Thankfully, Jay wrote this a while back to bring people up to speed.


Reform School, The Final Clip

July 5, 2012

In this one, being the meanie that I am, I support federal programs, like Title I, to help educate students who cost more:

If you’ve missed the previous 6 clips, you can find all of them here.


DC’s Frog Vouchers Becoming Princely

June 19, 2012

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

We interrupt this discussion of Prince lyrics to bring you an important announcement about another kind of prince!

You may have seen the news that a bipartisan coalition of voucher champions in Congress have once again saved the D.C. voucher program. What you may not have heard is the amazing news buried in the story:

The 1,615-student cap on enrollment will now be lifted and as many children as meet the income threshold will be able to apply.

Wow! The D.C. program has long been one of the biggest frogs of the voucher universe. What would it be like if it became a prince?

No opinion about who is the “princess” in this story is expressed or implied. But Boehner did tear up on TV that one time. Just saying.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Prince lyrics.


The 100 Year Reich

June 11, 2012

Russian courts have affirmed the decision of the Moscow municipal government to ban gay pride parades for the next 100 years.  Something tells me that like the 1,000 Year Reich proclaimed by the Nazis and the New Scientific Man unveiled by the Soviets, this 100 year ban will crumble well before its stated expiration date.

Meanwhile, it is Gay Pride Week in Israel with thousands marching in the 14th Annual Gay Pride parade in Tel Aviv on Friday.

Photo by: Hadar Cohen

According to the AP coverage:

Gays serve openly in Israel’s military. The parliament and Supreme Court have granted gays a variety of family rights, such as inheritance and survivor’s benefits.

Earlier this year, Tel Aviv was picked by readers of the travel website Gaycities as the top gay destination, ahead of Amsterdam and San Francisco.

 So, which country do the UN and the leftist intelligentsia repeatedly condemn as a violator of human rights?

Swedish Education Irony Alert!

April 4, 2012

Meet the two coolest things ever made in Sweden.

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

In the new issue of NR, the invaluable Kevin Williamson profiles Massachussetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. He writes that in a book they co-wrote, Warren and her daughter “offer an array of policy prescriptions ranging from the mild (decoupling public-school assignments from geography) to the Swedish (subsidizing stay-at-home parents)…”

Oops! It’s actually “decoupling public-school assignments from geography” that’s the Swedish idea here. Sweden has had a national system of universal school vouchers since 1993. They’ve even developed economically sustainable for-profit school companies. It’s so successful that about a year ago the Social Democratic Party, which I’m tempted to describe as Sweden’s socialist party but will instead describe as its more socialist party, decided not to try to kick the for-profit schools out of the system.

Williamson does have a number of good words for Warren, including this nugget, which ed reformers will particularly enjoy reading:

Warren taught public school briefly and then quit rather than go through the obligatory, despair-inducing credentialing rigmarole (a fact that speaks better of her than almost anything else you’ll learn).


Head Start, A Case Study in the Unreliability of Government Research

March 13, 2012

The Department of Health and Human Resources is up to its old tricks of delaying research whose results are likely to undermine their darling program, Head Start.  A group of five U.S. Senators sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last week demanding an explanation for why the latest round of results of the congressionally-mandated study have not been released four years after data collection was complete and one year after the report was scheduled to be released.

In 2010 I told you about how the Department of Health and Human Services delayed the release of the previous round of disappointing research results about the lasting effects of Head Start.  When the extremely high quality study, involving a random-assignment design on a representative sample of all Head Start programs nationwide, was finally released three years after the data collection was complete, it found that students randomly assigned to Head Start performed no better on cognitive measures by the end of kindergarten and first grade.

Despite these null results, HHS issued a statement that in typical Orwellian fashion declared the program a huge success.  Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Carmen Nazario was quoted in the statement concluding that “Head Start has been changing lives for the better since its inception.” And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was quoted declaring that “research clearly shows that Head Start positively impacts the school readiness of low-income children”

If the government’s proclivity to delay the release of politically undesirable results and to manipulate — actually, completely distort — the findings is not enough to engender skepticism among reporters, researchers, and policymakers, I have no idea what will.  But I continue to see reporters, researchers, and policymakers invoke government research as authoritative without the least bit of critical scrutiny.

This uncritical acceptance of government press releases as gospel by reporters is particularly disgraceful.  I understand that reporters are miserably paid and stretched beyond their limit as staffs are reduced, but the heart of a reporter’s responsibility is to challenge the powerful.  And there is no one more powerful than the government.  They are so powerful that they can delay the release of research and declare that up is down when the results do come out.


Here’s Why Victory Looks Like This

March 7, 2012

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Jay points to the way Democrats and progressives are now saying all the same things we’ve been saying for a decade, but acting like they thought of them, and remarks that this is What Victory Looks Like.

He’s right, and here’s why. To large extent, you have to let people “steal” your ideas in order to get victory. It’s not just a price we need to be willing to pay if necessary. It’s always necessary.

Major reform of a cultural system has to start with ideas and practices germinating outside the core institutions of that system. If major reform were welcome inside the core institutions, it wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. The incubators of reform can’t be seen as fringe groups – this is why organized libertarianism has had much less influence than its intellectual seriousness and devotion of financial resources might lead you to expect. But the reform incubators are never going to be inside the core, either. You need something that’s a happy medium between credibility and independence.

Now, for a long time in America, the Democratic party and the progressive ideological movement have been the “core” institutions governing education. When you ask the American people whom they trust to do the right thing about education, they overwhelmingly say Democrats and progressives. That makes them the core.

The key to victory is to get the core groups to adopt the ideas that incubated in institutions outside the core. The greatest challenge is that the core groups want to defend their “core” turf against outsiders. They want to keep control of the core, and they can’t do that if they admit that outsiders have superior ideas. The solution is to get the core groups to co-opt (i.e. steal) the ideas and pretend they thought of them.

So you’re never going to get (very many) Democrats and progressives saying, “Why, yes, as a matter of fact the conservatives were right about education all along!” Admitting that would require them to sacrifice their status as the cultural core institutions of American education. Instead they’re going to say, “What American schools need are good, liberal, progressive ideas like choice, competition, and accountability.”

That’s what victory looks like.


What Victory Looks Like

March 7, 2012

Working on education reform can be very discouraging.  As student achievement continues to stagnate, as spending steadily climbs higher, and as policy changes only in fits and starts, reformers may be tempted to throw their hands up and declare progress impossible.  But there is progress.  It can’t be seen from day to day and it certainly hasn’t produced the outcomes we want, but there is progress.

You really notice the strides that have been made when you step back and think abut what the education reform discussion used to be like a decade ago and what it looks like today.  A decade ago when people like Greg, Matt, and I were talking about the benefits of school choice and the need to address the perverse incentives of lifetime employment tenure for ineffective teachers and salary schedules that reward endurance more than performance, we were treated like dangerous extremists.

Now the issues of choice, tenure, merit pay, testing, and accountability are a normal part of the discussion.  And most interestingly, these are parts of the normal discussion among Democrats — a party that had traditionally been too fearful of the teacher unions to treat discussion of these issues as acceptable.

Matt recently noted this remarkable development of a bipartisan consensus around reform issues.  And both Greg and I have touched on this in the past. But I was reminded of just how far the discussion has come, especially among Democrats, while watching this entire show of Morning Joe on MSNBC focused on education reform.  It featured a panel, almost all of whom were Democrats, and almost all of whom agreed about the same essential issues of education reform that Matt, Greg, and I could barely utter in polite company a decade ago.

To be sure, there is much to do before we make real progress in education.  But at least we are having a productive discussion about ideas that may bear fruit.  That’s progress.

One striking thing about the discussion on Morning Joe and among other groups of Democrats is that none of them acknowledge the change that has occurred in the last decade.  None of them acknowledge that the people who raised the same issues a decade earlier were branded (often by people like them) as right-wing radicals.  They all just act as if they had discovered these education reform ideas all on their own.

At first this annoyed me, but Greg reminded me that victory requires not caring about who takes credit.  If the Democrats for Education Reform-types want to believe that they invented ed reform, who cares as long as it helps produce progress.  And those DFER folks are making huge strides, at least in getting us to talk and think about useful reforms.  And frankly, that progress could only be achieved by having them talk about it, not us.

That’s what victory looks like — someone else who is more likely to be effective taking your ideas forward even if they do so without acknowledging you.