There Is No End Zone

May 4, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

I hate to be a pest, but the war’s not over.

In this joyful moment when some people selfishly focus on trying to pull together as Americans and be glad the good guys won for once, thank goodness there’s Jimmy Carter to remind us of just how badly the world still sucks.

He chooses a moment when this kind of thing is going on to announce in today’s Washington Post:

Suspicions of Hamas stem from its charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. It’s just a matter of some words on a piece of paper.

Headline from Monday’s Guardian, one of the squishiest publications in the western world:

 Hamas Praises Osama bin Laden as Holy Warrior

Coming together as Americans doesn’t get easier when some Americans cling tenaciously to delusions so persistently destructive that they defy merely psychological explanations.

To paraphrase Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer: “Even the Guardian gets it. Why doesn’t Jimmy Carter?”

Or to paraphrase Jason Robards in Parenthood: “Defending America against its enemies is like Jimmy Carter’s ego. It never, never ends. It goes on forever – and it’s just as frightening. There is no end zone. You never cross the goal line, spike the ball and do your touchdown dance.”

You never get to live in a world where people aren’t trying to kill you. And apparently you also never get to live in an America where some Americans aren’t doing their best to drive us apart from each other by embracing our enemies.

HT

1 Comment | politics | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Verdict in the WSJ: “School Vouchers Work”

May 3, 2011

Wall Street Journal columnist, Jason Riley has a must-read piece in the WSJ today.  The piece features the work of my University of Arkansas colleague, Patrick Wolf, JPGB’s very own Greg Forster, as well as a reference to the competitive effects study that Ryan Marsh and I conducted in Milwaukee.  There are too many highlights, but here is a (big) taste:

‘Private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement,” said the White House in a statement on March 29. “The Administration strongly opposes expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and opening it to new students.” But less than three weeks later, President Obama signed a budget deal with Republicans that includes a renewal and expansion of the popular D.C. program, which finances tuition vouchers for low-income kids to attend private schools.

School reformers cheered the administration’s about-face though fully aware that it was motivated by political expediency rather than any acknowledgment that vouchers work.

When Mr. Obama first moved to phase out the D.C. voucher program in 2009, his Education Department was in possession of a federal study showing that voucher recipients, who number more than 3,300, made gains in reading scores and didn’t decline in math. The administration claims that the reading gains were not large enough to be significant. Yet even smaller positive effects were championed by the administration as justification for expanding Head Start….

The positive effects of the D.C. voucher program are not unique. A recent study of Milwaukee’s older and larger voucher program found that 94% of students who stayed in the program throughout high school graduated, versus just 75% of students in Milwaukee’s traditional public schools. And contrary to the claim that vouchers hurt public schools, the report found that students at Milwaukee public schools “are performing at somewhat higher levels as a result of competitive pressure from the school voucher program.” Thus can vouchers benefit even the children that don’t receive them.

Research gathered by Greg Forster of the Foundation for Educational Choice also calls into question the White House assertion that vouchers are ineffective. In a paper released in March, he says that “every empirical study ever conducted in Milwaukee, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Maine and Vermont finds that voucher programs in those places improved public schools.” Mr. Forster surveyed 10 empirical studies that use “random assignment, the gold standard of social science,” to assure that the groups being compared are as similar as possible. “Nine [of the 10] studies find that vouchers improve student outcomes, six that all students benefit and three that some benefit and some are not affected,” he writes. “One study finds no visible impact. None of these studies finds a negative impact.”

Such results might influence the thinking of an objective observer primarily interested in doing right by the nation’s poor children. But they are unlikely to sway a politician focused on getting re-elected with the help of teachers unions.

“I think Obama and Duncan really care about school reform,” says Terry Moe, who teaches at Stanford and is the author of a timely new book, “Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools.” “On the other hand they have to be sensitive to their Democratic coalition, which includes teachers unions. And one way they do that is by opposing school vouchers.”

The reality is that Mr. Obama’s opposition to school vouchers has to do with Democratic politics, not the available evidence on whether they improve outcomes for disadvantaged kids. They do—and he knows it.

5 Comments | vouchers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden

May 2, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Continuing the theme, this post by Jim Geraghty…

A key message has been beamed to every corner of the earth, sure to reach anyone who has ever committed terror against Americans, who seeks to do so again, or who is contemplating the act: No matter who you are, no matter how many followers you have, no matter how smart or careful you think you are, our guys can find you. It’s just a matter of time. If you kill our countrymen, they will look, and they will look, and they will look and they will never quit and we will never forget. You will die in prison at Gitmo or you will die quickly from a covert-ops team’s bullets. But one way or another, you will pay the price for harming our people.

Elsewhere, Salon groans that the war against Osama and his organization has cost $1.3 trillion. Think about what that says to aspiring terrorists. When we say, ‘we’ll pay any price to see them brought to justice or to bring justice to them,’ we mean it. That’s the kind of country we are.

…reminded me of this:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Emphasis added. Emphatically.

And I’ll throw this in as a bonus: “We dare not tempt them with weakness.”

Leave a Comment » | politics | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

The Bizarro World Prospect

April 18, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

The latest issue of The American Prospect was apparently published on Bizarro World.

Charter schools and teacher accountability have now replaced vouchers as the new cause célèbre.

So nobody’s interested in vouchers any more, huh?

Today, even school reformers who promote charter schools and accountability still believe vouchers are a good third option because they give parents another choice. Republican governors Rick Scott in Florida, Chris Christie in New Jersey, and Mitch Daniels in Indiana have all appeared with reform guru Michelle Rhee, the nation’s leading voice for charter schools and teacher evaluation programs, to consult them on school reform. They all plan to use vouchers as one of many aspects of reform in their states. Rhee’s new organization, Students First, cites the Florida voucher program as a notable example of expanding parental choice.

Uh…okay. Guess my dinner with Jay Mathews is still safe, then.

“It’s an old ideology they’ve been interested in for a long time,” says Cynthia Brown, Vice President for Education Policy at the Center for American Progress, “but they’ve lost a lot of steam. The notion of vouchers for all kids is almost dead.”

So I guess the dream of universal vouchers is dead, huh?

No matter, the infamous Scott Walker has put forth a proposal to dramatically expand Milwaukee’s program so that any child, not just low-income students, can get a voucher.

Uh…okay. As the Walker juggernaut – excuse me, the infamous Walker juggernaut – rolls over the last gasp of union hopes in the judicial election, I’d say this is a bad time to make big bets against universal vouchers.

Underwhelming studies of voucher programs have damaged their reputation, even among conservatives prone to liking them.

I’ll spare you the predictably mendacious, cherry-picking lit review that follows, in which the author goes over all the evidence on vouchers, except for the overwhelming majority of the evidence that supports vouchers. (For a complete research review, see here. For more on the use and abuse of evidence in voucher controversies, see here, here and here.)

Though vouchers are no longer a viable school reform strategy on their own, they did play a big part in shaping how we think about school reform. In short, rhetoric around reform is now discussed using a term that used to be synonymous with vouchers: “school choice.”

So vouchers failed, except for the fact that everyone wants to be them.

Still, the idea of choice itself as the mantra of reform is odd, and it’s disturbing that this is the aspect of the voucher-program idea that survived. Though it begins with progressive rhetoric about giving poor families the same choices wealthier ones have, the necessity for choice arises out of a situation in which public education is failing. The goal should be a system in which all schools are good schools, not creating a two-tiered system of good versus bad.

Yes, it’s very odd that school reformers focus on offering “choice” instead of on making schools successful – because in Bizarro World, monopolies always serve people best!

All the talk about choice rings especially hollow in D.C. No one in the city voted for or approved their new voucher program.

Yes, that’s right, nobody in D.C. approved the program. Except for, you know, the thousands of parents who put their kids into it.

If the left keeps this up, it’s going to wake up one morning and find out that it’s Bull Connor.

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

Tight-Loose Imperial Vendor Management

April 18, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Darth Vader, pioneer of tight-loose management practices:

He doesn’t tell you exactly where to bring the fleet out of light speed, he just insists that it be the correct point for pulling off a successful surprise attack on the rebel base. If you pick the wrong point, that’s your fault – and that’s what the assessment and accountability systems are there for.

You have failed me for the last time, Governor Walker!

But for some reason I have the feeling that when the new federal tight-loose approach to standards, curricula and assessments is implemented, it will look a whole lot more like this:

2 Comments | instructional reform, school accountability | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

The Tight-Loose Sales Force

April 18, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Continuing the series, I shamelessly rip off a line from an old Dilbert comic (which I can’t find online or I’d just post it).

“Welcome to the Tight-Loose Sales Force. We don’t ask you to do anything unethical, but we set the sales quotas so high that you basically have no choice. Any questions?”

3 Comments | instructional reform, school accountability | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Hemisphere Fallacy! Drink!

April 15, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Fordham hasn’t even released its new report explaining why all sensible people favor the creation of an unstoppable national juggernaut to safeguard the decentralization of America’s federal system of government, and we already have to drink up.

In the new Gadfly, Mike Petrilli writes:

Speaking for the anti-“tight” right, Greene argues that “dictating the ends with a national set of standards, curriculum, and assessments will necessarily dictate much of the means.” (And, to be fair, he did so in a witty and amusing blog post, in which he proposed a “drinking game” for readers of Fordham’s forthcoming ESEA proposal, due out next week.)

But it’s unclear why he finds the concept of “tight-loose” so preposterous. Consider this: Here are the most likely potential mandates that Congress might attach to federal Title I funding in the next ESEA:

  1. States must adopt rigorous academic standards (and cut scores) in English and math that imply readiness for college and career.
  2. States must test students annually in English and math.
  3. States must build assessments and data systems to allow for individual student growth to be tracked over time.
  4. States must develop standards and assessments in science and history, too.
  5. States must rate schools according to a prescriptive formula (i.e., AYP).
  6. States must intervene in schools that fail to make AYP for several years in a row, or in schools that are among the lowest-performing in the state.
  7. States must develop rigorous teacher evaluation systems and ensure a more equitable distribution of effective teachers.
  8. States must ensure that Title I schools receive comparable resources—including good teachers and real per-pupil dollars—as those received by non-Title I schools.

The way Greene argues it, Congress has to either choose “none of the above” or “all of the above.” But of course it doesn’t. We at Fordham would select items one through four off this a la carte menu, and leave the rest for states to decide. That, to us, would be “tight-loose” in action.

Hemisphere fallacy! Drink!

Mike continues:

Does Jay believe none of these should be required? And if so, isn’t he arguing for federal taxpayers to just leave the money on the stump? Why not make the principled conservative case and say that Title I and other federal funding streams should simply be eliminated?

And:

Let’s quit with all the over-the-top rhetoric. Give the list of eight mandates above a good look. Congress is likely to move ahead with the first few and will definitely reject the last few; the real debate is about the ones in the middle. In other words, we’ll be arguing over the precise definition of “tight-loose,” regardless of what the anti-“tight” right or the anti-“loose” left have to say about it.

I’m not Jay, but I think the answer to all this is obvious:

  • Mike is wrong to question Jay’s integrity by arguing that “principle” requires him to either support federal education mandates or support repeal of Title I;
  • Mike is wrong to imply that it’s unserious or “over the top” to debate the merits of anything other than the hemisphere-style middle ground that is likely to be the locus of congressional debate in the immediate term; and
  • Mike is self-contradictory to do both in the same post.

Oh, and by the way – “tight/loose”! Drink!

10 Comments | instructional reform, politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Three Down, Four to Go

April 14, 2011

Will Greg choose this one?

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program has officially been reauthorized! Combined with the new Colorado voucher program, and the new Arizona ESA program, Greg has 3 of his required 7 new programs/program expansions.

Stay tuned for further developments…

Leave a Comment » | vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Big Lunchlady Is Watching You

April 13, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Theorists like Amy Gutmann argue that parental freedom needs to be compromised in the name of democracy because parents can’t be trusted as the default authority over the education of children. Jay has frequently responded by pointing out that this logic, applied consistently, would produce not just government control of formal schooling but government control of every aspect of child-rearing. One example I’ve seen him use to devastating effect is to point out that we don’t establish government control over children’s meals in order to ensure kids are getting proper nutrition. Jay suggests that this inconsistency indicates that these theories of democracy are really invented post facto to justify social institutions whose real existential principle is to provide unions with a gravy train.

Well, Jay, you should be careful what you ask for.

The Chicago Tribune reports that some Chicago schools – a government spokesperson declines to say how many – forbid students to bring any food from home unless they have a medical excuse.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common. [ea]

The Tribune headline writer makes an amusing attempt to soften the obvious implications here – the headline says the school forbids only “some lunches” from home. The actual policy described in the article is that all food from home is banned unless you challenge the ban and have a special medical reason.

Most readers of JPGB probably won’t need to have the real agenda spelled out here. Kudos to the Trib writers, Monica Eng and Joel Hood, for spelling it out to the paper’s readers:

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

This lunchroom needs a better class of criminal.

It’s the same basic principle that has been driving the runaway overhiring of teachers for decades. It just involves the extension of the principle to a new sphere of social control.

HT Joe Carter at First Things

6 Comments | civic values, politics, school funding | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

YEEEEAAAAAHOOOOOO!

April 9, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

You’re all clear, kids!

Now let’s blow this thing and go home!

3 Comments | politics, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »