Izumi and Clemens: Emulate Canadian K-12, not health care

February 23, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Sounds like a good idea to me. After all, the Canadians were the first ones nerdy enough to wed Ayn Rand inspired lyrics to epic drum solos. Oh, plus they spend much less than we do per pupil, get much better results, don’t have a central national education bureaucracy, and have lots of parental choice. Izumi and Clemens could have added that the Canadians get these superior education results despite a national per capita income that would land them among the least wealthy American states, roughly equal to that of Alabama on a PPP basis.

Beauty, eh?


Indiana Might Be the Next Florida

February 21, 2010

Matt has written numerous times on the remarkable progress that has been made in Florida, see for example here.  Forces are gathering in Indiana that suggests they may be next to try to full court press of Florida reforms.  The governor, the state superintendent, the Indianapolis newspaper,  and a bipartisan coalition of state legislators on the education committee seem poised to pursue some significant reforms.

First up on their agenda is passage of a bill to end the social promotion of 3rd graders who are unable to read at a basic level.  Patricia Levesque and I each have op-eds in the Indy Star on this topic , with a favorable introduction from the editor.

Check it out.


Getting Lost

February 20, 2010

My theory from last week still seems to be holding up with the new episode, The Substitute.

Smokey is all dead people and seeks the destruction of the world (and all life), while Jacob is associated with life and particularly babies.

In The Substitute we learned that Jacob is searching for his replacement and that there are six candidates for that job, each of which is represented by one of The Numbers.  Smokey’s game is to get all 6 off the Island and to kill Jacob and then he will succeed at destroying the world.  We’ve been told in the past that The Numbers are related to the destruction of the world and now we are starting to learn how.

Smokey was close to getting them all off with the freighter.  He managed to get Jack, Hurley, baby Kwon (I’ll bet it’s the baby, not Sun or Jin who is the candidate), and Sayid off in the helicopter.  He tricked Locke to leave by posing as Christian (remember, Smokey is all dead people we see on the Island) in the cabin and by the wheel to convince Locke to move the Island and be transported off the Island.  If Sawyer hadn’t jumped from the helicopter we would have had all six off the Island, could have killed Jacob through Ben, and would have destroyed the world. 

Interestingly, sacrifice and suffering are essential to keeping the 6 on the Island.  That is, life requires sacrifice and suffering.  Sawyer sacrificed to stay.  And we see in the flash sideways that everyone’s suffering is getting resolved.  Locke comes to terms with his disability.  He has good relations with his dad, who is coming to his wedding.  He’s getting married to Helen.  Hurley has good luck in the parallel world.  Kate is innocent.  We can see what the world would be for them if they were never drawn to Island and it looks pretty good.  But their personal happiness is associated with global destruction.

And when Jacob visited each of the 6, he ensured the suffering that would draw them to the Island.  He brought Locke back from death so that he would be disabled, futiley go to Australia for a walkabout, and end up on flight.  He gave Sawyer a pen so that he would write his ledge to kill the man responsible for his parents’ deaths.  That quest drew Sawyer to Australia and onto the flight.  Kate was saved from being caught for shoplifting by Jacob.  If she had been caught at that young age, maybe she would not have been always on the run and ultimately a murderer.

Even though Smokey represents death his appeals are seductive, especially to people suffering.  Sawyer’s current gloom is precisely what makes him vulnerable to Smokey’s attempts to get him off the Island.

Over the rest of this last season, each of the six will die or leave the Island.  But baby Kwon will save the day because she is really the candidate, not Sun or Jin.  And she and baby Aaron (who now appears to be on the Island with Claire) will somehow become the Adam and Eve in the cave.


Fordham Foundation on K-12 Economic Segregation

February 18, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Fordham has a new study on what they call “private public schools” aka schools that serve hardly any low-income children. Personally I prefer the term Economic Segregation Academies.

Yes kids, calm down, they have data for specific metro areas available online.  So much for the common school myth.


Notre Dame Leaders to Duncan and Durbin: Killing DC Opportunity Scholarships “Unconscionable”

February 17, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

We and others have been making the case that killing the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, despite the highest possible quality evidence showing academic gains for students, was going to raise objections from more than just those of us on the right of center side of the spectrum. Americans believe in equality of opportunity, and no one should be more upset about the actions of Congress to kill DC Opportunity Scholarships than those with a sincere commitment to the interests of the disadvantaged.

Today we have yet more evidence of the revulsion concerning the shameful actions of the Congress in slowly killing the DC opportunity Scholarship Program. Leaders from the University of Notre Dame released a letter sent to Secretary Arne Duncan and Senator Durbin today. They don’t pull their punches: 

Dear Senator Durbin and Secretary Duncan,

Warmest greetings from the University of Notre Dame.  We hope this letter finds both of you well, and that the new year has been filled with grace and blessings for you and your families.

We write today because we are all deeply disappointed by the turn of events that has led to the imminent demise of the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), and we are gravely concerned about the effects that the unprecedented gestures that have jeopardized this program will have on some of the most at-risk children in our nation’s capital.   

For the past decade, the University of Notre Dame, through its Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE), has served as the nation’s largest provider of teachers and principals for inner-city Catholic schools.  Since 1993, we have prepared more than 1,000 teachers and hundreds of principals to work in some of the poorest Catholic schools in the nation.  That experience, along with the research that we have sponsored through our Center for Research on Educational Opportunity, leads us to an unqualified conclusion: the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program provides an educational lifeline to at-risk children, standing unequivocally as one of the greatest signs of hope for K-12 educational reform.  To allow its demise, to effectively force more than 1,700 poor children from what is probably the only good school they’ve ever attended, strikes us as an unconscionable affront to the ideal of equal opportunity for all.

Three decades of research tell us that Catholic schools are often the best providers of educational opportunity to poor and minority children.  Students who attend Catholic schools are 42 percent more likely to graduate from high school and are two and a half times more likely to graduate from college than their peers in public schools.  Recent scholarship on high school graduation rates in Milwaukee confirms that programs like the OSP can, over time, create remarkable opportunities for at-risk children.  And after only three years, the research commissioned by the Department of Education is clear and strong with regard to the success of the OSP, as you both well know.  This program empowers parents to become more involved in their children’s education.  Parents of OSP students argue that their children are doing better in school, and they report that these scholarships have given their families an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.  If this program ends, these parents will be forced to send their children back to a school system that is ranked among the worst in the nation, into schools they fought desperately to leave just a few years ago. 

At Notre Dame, we have recently witnessed the painful but logical outcomes of your failure to save the OSP.  For the past three years, the University of Notre Dame has worked in close partnership with Holy Redeemer School, a preK-8 Catholic school community located just a few blocks from Senator Durbin’s office on the Hill.  In fact, Senator Durbin visited the school and expressed his deeply favorable impression.  We too have witnessed the transformative capacity of Holy Redeemer, a place where parents report feeling a sincere sense of ownership in their children’s education for the first time in their lives.  Indeed, over the past three years strong leadership, excellent academics, low teacher turnover, and committed parents have all contributed to truly outstanding gains in student achievement.  The children at Holy Redeemer were, unlike so many of their peers, on the path to college. 

So we were deeply saddened to learn that the impending termination of the OSP has put the school in an untenable situation, leading the pastor to conclude that the school must be closed.  Families are presently being notified that their children will have to find a new school next year.  The end of the OSP represents more than the demise of a relatively small federal program; it spells the end of more than a half-century of quality Catholic education for some of the most at-risk African American children in the District.  That this program is being allowed to end is both unnecessary and unjust.  

We—and many others in the Notre Dame community—are wholeheartedly committed to protecting the educational opportunity of these children.  We encourage you to reconsider protecting the OSP and the children it serves from this grave and historic injustice.  You are joined by Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education, by the faculty and students on Notre Dame’s campus, by tens of thousands of Notre Dame alumni nationwide, and by millions of Catholic school families across the country in a steadfast commitment to ensure that these children continue to receive the educational opportunity that is their birthright.

Please know of our deepest appreciation for your consideration of this request.  We hope and pray that we can work together with you to save this program

 

Yours, in Notre Dame,

Rev. John I. Jenkins, CSC 

President, University of Notre Dame                          

Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, CSC

President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame                            

Rev. Timothy R. Scully, CSC

Director, Institute for Educational Initiatives

University of Notre Dame                           


Yes, Vouchers Make the World Safe for Charters

February 17, 2010

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Yes, vouchers really do make the world safe for charters.

One of the follow-ups to that rockin’ IPI event in Chicago was a special-feature debate over vouchers in the Chicago Tribune.

The anti-voucher guy can’t even be bothered to rise to the usual level of non-thoughtfulness. Apparently he thinks it’s somehow a problem if taxpayer dollars even indirectly support a religious institution. Well, next time someone sets fire to a church, I guess we’d better let it burn down. Sending the fire department would be an indirect taxpayer subsidy to religion! And don’t call the cops if somebody spray-paints swastikas all over the synagogue.

But you know what’s really interesting? He gets the final word, and here’s how he chooses to end:

Is there a compromise approach? Sure. Let’s continue to expand charter school programs and try out the most innovative ideas from private schools. But let’s not give up on public education.

Vouchers make the world safe for charters.

And since vouchers are by far the best-proven way to improve public schools, it’s only a matter of time before people realize that vouchers aren’t “giving up on public education,” they’re the only serious hope for saving it.


Golf Hecklers of the Arizona Left

February 16, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

JPGB readers will of course remember the great American film Happy Gilmore in which Adam Sandler plays a hockey player who joins the pro golf tour in order to save his Grandma’s house. Happy’s nemesis, Shooter McGavin, employs a heckler to get under Happy’s dome while golfing.

Happy, easily frustrated, loses his cool and gets beat up by Bob Barker.

So taking a page from the Shooter McGavin playbook, the left has given me a stalker of my own. David Safier, a retired teacher and blogger, has taken to spending his time playing the role of “Jeering Fan” to my Happy Gilmore. Safier blogs at Blog for Arizona, a multi-author blog of the Tucson left.

Some time ago, Safier claimed that I had simply manufactured a $9,700 per student revenue figure for the Arizona public school system. Making the assumption that Safier was open to evidence, I produced links to the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Financial Report and the Arizona’s legislature’s research arm documenting the figure.

Chuck Essigs of the Arizona School Business Officials, not someone inclined to often agree with me on education policy, nevertheless had the intellectual honesty to admit that the full spending per pupil figure is around $9,500.  Sadly, the response from Safier essentially amounted to putting his hands over his ears and muttering talking points from his teacher union pals. Something about lunch money for Twinkies getting into the revenue report. No word yet on how this nefarious twinkie money made it into the expenditure report.

The Tasty Magic * of the Arizona Left- We spend $6,000 per pupil-Nothing to see here-Move along

Slowly but surely BfA references morphed from “friend of the blog” to “right wing propagandist” and such. Ah well, no good deed goes unpunished.  A little tour of the Arizona left wing echo chamber proved educational if not satisfying.

Safier has now blogged up a series about Florida, but can’t get even the most basic facts straight.  For instance, Safier tries to claim that the improvement in Florida’s 4th grade reading scores began in 1994, before the reforms. If one visits the NAEP website, however, one learns that Florida’s reading scores were 208, 205 and 207 in 1992, 1994 and 1998.  On a 500 scale point test, the technical term for that is “as flat as the highway between Dallas and Fort Worth.” Mere bouncing around with very low scores.

After 1998, however, scores increase to 214 in 2002, 218 in 2003, 219 in 2005 and 224 in 2007.  A rough rule of thumb is that 10 points approximately equals a grade level worth of learning on NAEP exams. So during the 1992-98 period, scores dropped by a point.  Between 1998 and 2007, they increased by 18 points.

So, the average Florida 4th grader is merely reading at a level almost two grade levels higher than Florida 4th graders were in 1998. Also, Florida’s minority students began outscoring multiple statewide averages back in the early aughts. Nothing to see here! Move along!

In the imaginarium of Safier, the Florida reforms are advancing at the behest of a vast right wing conspiracy foisted upon an unsuspecting Arizona at the behest of the evil Dr. Ladner.

Grade your schools or I'll blast you with my "laser"

The truth is that other states have adopted Florida reforms, still others are considering adopting Florida reforms. The vast majority of people, regardless of ideology, want to see public school improvement.  Sadly, some are so emotionally wedded to the idea that such improvement is only possible if we spend $30,000 a child that they make themselves look silly.  Hopefully this crowd will eventually put on their big boy pants and join the adult conversation.

Until then, I guess they can continue to heckle from their self-imposed exile on the sidelines. In the end, Happy wins the tournament, gets the girl and saves Grandma’s house. The heckler gets stood up by Shooter McGavin at the Red Lobster.


Lunch With Max and Warwick

February 15, 2010

I had lunch today with Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times and Warwick Sabin of the Oxford American (and formerly of the Arkansas Times) as well as my colleague, Josh McGee.  I have to say that I really enjoyed it. 

Max can be harsh and opinionated but I have a soft spot for harsh and opinionated folks, sometimes being one myself.  And at least with Max you always know where he stands. 

I also think all four of us agreed much more than we disagreed.  We agreed in deploring the lack of quality opportunities in education, particularly for disadvantaged students.  We agreed that some people working in our schools need to find a different profession.  We agreed that we should figure out ways to get rock star teachers with high pay.  We agreed that schools ought to have high standards and offer rewards to students for meeting those standards. 

We disagreed about expanding choice and competition in education.  Max and Warwick seem to view education as a zero-sum game where some schools can do better only by taking away kids from other schools, which are made worse as a result.  I think there’s a good amount of evidence to support the view that schools rise to the challenge and improve when they are faced with greater competition from an expanded set of choices.

I also agreed with them in admitting that I have lost my enthusiasm for merit pay.  I still think there are some positive effects from merit pay, or as I put it in a report that Max links to on his blog: “The evidence that is available, however, provides some grounds for moderate optimism about merit pay.”  I just don’t think the moderate benefits are worth the enormous energy that the policy consumes as well as the potential for cheating or other undesired effects.  As, I told Max, Warwick, and Josh at lunch, the most effective form of merit pay is getting rid of bad teachers.  That would make a much bigger difference than the potential to earn a 1% or 2%  bonus.

I don’t know why I’ve been so slow to learn this lesson, but it is generally a good idea to sit down with people with whom you’ve had public disagreements because you may discover that your disagreements are less than everyone thought.  Yes, they are still there and still important, but we can also make progress by focusing on the ideas we share.


Greg in PJM Keeps ‘Em Honest With Choice

February 14, 2010

Greg has a great post today on Pajama’s Media about how school choice is the secret sauce that keeps all other reforms honest.  Think of it as a love letter to education reform. : )

Here’s a highlight:

… the biggest political winner in education by far in the past year has been charter schools. I’ll admit I was skeptical at first, but the Obama administration’s pro-charter rhetoric has been more than just talk. Charter caps are being lifted because the administration really does support charters.

Why? I think it’s mainly because a critical mass of their political base on the left has embraced the principle that parents should be put in charge through choice, and I think that has happened precisely because they want a reform that will keep the system honest. More and more people on the left are sick and tired of the empty promises they’ve been peddled for decades: that this time, throwing another huge chunk of money at the blob will fix the schools — and this time, we really, really, really mean it, cross our hearts and hope to die.

The social justice folks on the left just don’t buy it anymore. They now see that the blob has been pulling the wool over their eyes for generations. You can imagine how they’re feeling about that right now. And woe betide you if the wrath of the social justice folks falls upon you; they’re not known for being gentle with those whom they perceive as enemies of social justice.

Case in point: Did you know that the same team of scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, scruple-at-nothing propagandists who produced An Inconvenient Truth has now made a hard-hitting documentary bashing teachers’ unions and advocating charter schools? And it was the very first film picked up for distribution at the Sundance Film Festival?

… The recent surge in the political fortunes of charter schools has been fueled by the less dramatic but steadily growing success of private school choice: school vouchers and similar policies that allow students to attend private schools using public funds. There are now 24 private school choice programs serving 190,000 students nationwide, up from just five programs in 1996. And private school choice is continuing to gain ground every year with the creation of new programs and expansion of existing programs, even in tough years like 2009.

As my friend Jay Greene likes to put it, vouchers make the world safe for charters. That is, it’s because of the more modest success of vouchers that charters have exploded. As long as vouchers are on the march and are thus a credible threat, triangulating legislators who need the blob’s support can embrace charters without paying too high a price for doing so. If the blob cuts off its support for legislators who back charters, it won’t have anyone on its side when vouchers are on the agenda. Because vouchers are out there, the blob has no choice but to suck it up and pretend to be OK with charters.

The next question, though, is whether charters alone are going to be sufficient to keep the system honest. Charters have ridden to success with the help of a lot of new supporters, but those supporters are a demanding constituency. The social justice folks expect results.


Coulson on Brookings Report

February 14, 2010

Over on the Cato blog, Andrew Coulson has a thoughtful post on the recent Brookings report on school choice which I  helped craft.  For the most part I agree with what Andrew has to say.  I agree that there is considerable international and historical evidence that could have been included in the Brookings report but was not.  I also agree that certain compromises on school choice can be counter-productive, particularly over the long run.

The disagreement I have with Andrew is that he is treating the Brookings report as if it were a piece of scholarship rather than the political document that it really is.  I do not say this to disparage the report, which I helped craft and endorse.  We self-consciously viewed our task in writing the report as trying to present policy options on school choice that would be viable in the current political climate and potentially attractive to the Obama administration.

Once you understand that, it is easier to understand why we would leave out most international evidence — it is generally considered irrelevant or unpersuasive by most current policy elites.  They may well be mistaken in dismissing this set of evidence, as Andrew argues, but that is their view so we didn’t waste their time or ours by reviewing that evidence.

It is also easier to understand why we didn’t advocate unregulated education markets.  That simply isn’t going to happen in the current political climate, so we didn’t bother with it.  Instead we advocated for a variety of compromises on expanding choice and competition within a regulated framework.

Of course, then we are left vulnerable to Andrew’s point that these compromises may be counterproductive, particularly in the long run.  My only response to that is that incrementalism is our only feasible strategy for getting the kind of choice and competition we really need.  While we must always be vigilent about the dangers of certain compromises, I think we have no choice but to try to build on incremental reforms.