Vouchers/Freedman Revisited

MO’s Sager apparently misunderstood this post about Sam Freedman’s recent piece on Catholic schools. Perhaps it wasn’t clear. The point is not that Freedman got into the voucher issue, he didn’t and it’s somewhat irrelevant to his larger point. Rather, the issue is that the problems of Catholic schools again point to a problem with vouchers as a large-scale urban reform — the number of available seats for kids under these programs.

About Edu Commentary’s “ideological” opposition to vouchers, Sager didn’t think so not long ago, though Edu Commentary freely confesses that issues of program efficacy aside, a big concern with a lot of voucher proposals is that they sever the link between democratic accountability and decisonmaking and publicly funded education. That’s ideology, sure, and a debatable concern. But it’s not a trivial issue in terms of thinking about how to deliver education in a democratic society. Of course, there are ways to square that circle and provide parents with more options while protecting the public interest — charters schools are one, but not the only, option — but most voucher proponents don’t seem very serious about having that conversation. Perhaps that’s ideology, too.

Update: Sager responds here. Unfortunately he snipped — and seemingly stopped reading — before the line about “That’s ideology, sure…”. He also lays out a case for vouchers to help Catholic schools though such a plan would run afoul of Zelman.

NCLB News Heard On The Hill

From a connected senior Democrat who reports that the NEA is buying up some top political talent in its fight against No Child Left Behind. This person also reports that:

The NEA ads are changing. They are now using terms like “accountability.” Obviously their approach will be to say that they are for accountability but NCLB rigid requirements are stupid. They have moved away from saying we should repeal NCLB and are acting like they just want to “improve” the law. It will be harder to for supporters to show how NEA’s “improvements” are actually attempts to destroy the law.

Guest Blogger: Michael Goldstein On AP

Yikes! High school juniors are being waylaid in hallways across the nation – by eager guidance counselors and principals. Their quest? Get more kids to take Advanced Placement (AP) courses, particularly low-income and minority students.

In the suburbs, “B-average” kids, particularly minorities, are being cajoled to join the academic heavyweights in more rigorous classes; in inner-city schools, like the one I run, AP courses are being offered for the first time, again disproportionately affecting black and Hispanics.

But this harmful trend must be stopped! So argues Patrick Welsh, a suburban AP English teacher in USA Today (he’s also the resident teacher mouthpiece at The Washington Post). This is a disaster, he says, AP is being watered down.

“It’s better for a child to have a great teacher in a regular course than a poor teacher in an AP course,” Welsh writes. C’mon, great rhetoric but that’s not the issue. Most of us would take a great teacher in ANY course over a poor one in our favorite subject. The real question is whether it is better for a kid to have a decent teacher in, say, a regular English 12 course where he can definitely coast, or a more rigorous AP English course where he’ll struggle, complain, get frustrated, perhaps study all weekend and pull a C- on a test, write twice as many essays, and read three times as many books.

Welsh’s answer is: stick with the easy course kid and stay out of the way of the really promising students. Kids coaxed into AP probably don’t have the skills and motivation to succeed. And they’ll fail in higher numbers. This is all bad.

He’s right that they’ll likely fail at a higher level but wrong that this slippage is inevitable. First, teachers will definitely need to work a lot harder to motivate the “marginal” kids – and many don’t want to do that, it’s easier to blame the kids than question anything we’re doing. Second, to combat the low skills too many students currently have, schools must provide – and require – a ton of extra effort among the coaxed-in AP kids, so they can legitimately keep up with the “A” students. Our school, for example, does precisely that. Our seniors do more than 100 hours of required after-school tutoring each year on top of their classes and the homework. And teachers work nights, weekends, and vacations towards the noble goal of getting inner-city kids – who have the talent but start high school with very low skills – to succeed.

Besides, is trying and failing bad as Welsh contends? In fact, the College Board has data showing that even students who score a 1 or 2 on the AP test (too low to earn college credit) are more likely to succeed in college than kids who don’t take AP at all. Welsh argues that the AP courses themselves are becoming watered down, possibly hurting the “A” students in the process. That’s a legitimate point and most teachers teach to the middle. But this problem is not inevitable. Rather than stop trying to do as much as we can for disadvantaged kids, let’s hold schools accountable for their use of the AP label by publishing their AP test scores, and comparing and benchmarking by race and income to national averages. A little transparency can go a long way.

Finally, Welsh contends: “Any reasonably bright kid could get a 3 on the English literature test without taking the course.” Later he adds: “70% of African-American students who took the AP test last May in English literature received scores of 1 or 2.” Does Mr. Welsh think all those kids aren’t reasonably bright? Hopefully not. He’s just rhetorically trapped. He likes to indulge in the College-Board-as-evil-corporate-behemoth attack, feathering the bottom line with $82 AP fees. To undermine the College Board, he must show that their claim that AP equals “college-level mastery” is false. Most Americans could not score a “3” on the AP English exam, and a “3” probably correlates fairly well to the ability to pass a typical university Writing Course – not at Princeton, Yale, Stanford or Duke, perhaps, but at most colleges.

Schools need to get beyond the hype,” Welsh writes, “and their quest for a better public image, especially one that suggests that the needs of minority students are being met when they are not.” Amen to that. Thankfully, the drive for more challenging standards, and – and the AP dust-up is just the latest front in that effort – says to kids, parents, teachers, and administrators: “Stop whining, a lot more kids can succeed at the hard stuff if we all work our asses off on their behalf, so let’s get going.”

Michael Goldstein is founder of the MATCH Public Charter School in Boston, MA.

Want more on this issue? Jenny D weighs-in here along with her readers.

Harbinger

Look for more of this to come. Third graf from the bottom lays it out in pretty stark terms and the political consequences are obvious. Boardbuzz, for God’s sake, do something!

The Left And Today’s Education Debate

Important essay by Leo Casey ostensibly responding to the vocal criticism of Bill Gates from left-leaning education activists but actually making a larger point. It’s must-reading for those interested in the through-the-looking glass world of edupolitics. Casey is a big wheel at the UFT in NYC though this essay is his own. Too long for Edu Commentary to do it justice here, and Casey criticizes Gates and NCLB, too, so read the whole thing. Nonetheless, a couple of excerpts:

Bill Gates is not the issue. What should concern those of us on the American left is not that Gates has made some negative comments about American high schools, but that in so doing, he has outflanked “the left,” especially the “educational left,” from the left.

…That graduation rate for students of color is a national scandal, pure and simple. And the achievement gap which underlies that differentiation in graduation rates is a national scandal, pure and simple.

And yet an American left which once championed the cause of ending racial segregation in American public schools, of doing away with separate and unequal schools, is largely silent and inactive on these issues. Instead, it is Bill Gates who is speaking out, and who is giving his philanthropic money to efforts to remake and reform American high schools. So we attack Bill Gates? Denounce him as the “hit man” on public high schools?

Yes, we should be shouting “shame,” but on ourselves, not on him. The world’s richest man is more of an advocate for educational equity than we are, and that is our problem, not his.

…Will the epitaph of the American “educational left” be that we saw the world through the eyes of the well-to-do suburbs?

Junkies, for more in the same vein click here, here, here, and here. It’s an important conversation that is getting going in fits and starts.