Edu Commentary

This article in Education Next about “multiple intelligence” along with another journal article are reigniting that debate. Jay Mathews gives you the landscape in today’s Washington Post.

A new study (pdf) by Duke’s Helen Ladd and University of Connecticut Professor Robert Bifulco about charter school achievement in North Carolina is worth reading. Ladd and Bifulco find that, overall, charter school students there lag and make smaller gains than they would in traditional public schools. This study is much more methodologically sophisticated than the recent AFT study, both because of the data available and the skills of the researchers.

Couple of takeaways:

1) Something is amiss in NC and hopefully further research will tease out what. Ladd and Bifulco cite student mobility as one factor.

2) This shows how state specific charter schooling policies are. The findings stand in contrast to results from other states and other studies. Something to keep in mind.

3) Calculus of education politics: Well done study = very little press, hatchet job = front page of New York Times…oh well.

Also, North Carolina’s public schools have been improving (pdf) over the past decade as the state has pursued a standards-based focus. That improvement could be enhancing this effect…still not good news for charters though.

Also, Part II: Harvard econ whiz Caroline Hoxby has new charter data coming out, apparently this week and apparently much more robust than the AFT data.

Also, Part III: CSM’s Mendez takes a long look at the choice debate.

In Governing Alan Greenblatt takes a look at state level politics and policy around No Child Left Behind. Also, No Child Left Behind data from NYC. Punchline: Sky not falling there either.

But, no matter! Surely it must be falling somewhere…Thank goodness the New York Times will not rest until we know where! The result: Big Sunday NYT story on the conflict between state and federal school rating systems.

Sorry Republicans, the NYT bias is not a liberal one. A liberal bias might mean, for instance, clearly pointing out that previous state accountability systems (including North Carolina’s, which is featured in the story) didn’t hold schools explicitly accountable for the progress of poor and minority students and explaining why the new law does so. Instead, this article only gets at that indirectly and in a confusing way while focusing a lot on overall averages at various schools and disabled students. Readers left baffled? Probably.

Best line of the story:

When she met with four other Hinsdale South mothers to discuss the problem, she wondered aloud whether colleges would now look down on Hinsdale South applicants. And a friend, Donna Siefer, voiced another worry: How would real estate agents finesse the bad news to potential home buyers? That rang bells for Diane Bolos, president of a Hinsdale South fund-raising group.



“Yeah, did Congress consider what labeling a school would do to property values?” Mrs. Bolos asked.

There was a time when Timesmen would be outraged by such naked self-interest at the expense of the disadvantaged. Comforting the afflicted? Whatever…

Update: MO has more and channels Hirschman cum Chubb and Moe…NCLB foes, beware…

Elsewhere, Wash Post takes another look at the DC voucher program. Gadfly and DC Education Blog both point out that most analysis at this point is pretty subjective.

Neall Pierce weighs in on the charter flap here. And AP dissects an emotional education controversy here.

Mr. Sun, a hilarious blog you should be reading if you’re not, makes a foray into education reform.

Federal education officials are threatening to withhold $7 million in federal education aid if Texas officials don’t get off the dime and release information about how Texas schools did under No Child Left Behind.

A lot going on in this story, worth reading.

PR note: Texas officials said: “…state officials say the money the federal government may withhold won’t affect programs at the school or district level.”

In other words, “we’re flush, this is no big deal…” Probably not a very good talking point…it sure doesn’t help anyone trying to get more funding for state education agencies!

A couple of readers have written to ask why Edu Commentary has not written about this horror in Russia. The answer is, what more is there to say? It’s awful. Especially because the custom there is that the first day of school is a big celebration with lots of parents and visitors. Besides, the Eduwife lived and taught in this part of the world for several years, and trained teachers there after that, so it’s her bailiwick anyway.

Update — Context from the Eduwife: It’s probably hard for most Americans to understand the excitement of the first bell ceremony the Beslan school was celebrating when their school came under attack. It’s different than most first days here. More than likely, parents and community members, jammed into the tight quarters, must have strained to see as their children filing forward with the ringing of the traditional bell. The heat of the auditorium would have been stifling, but no one in the community would want to miss the girls in their enormous white bows and black and white dresses and boys in their finest. The air would have filled with joy and opportunity.

Couple of thoughts on the Bush speech last night as it relates to education. First, the effort to enroll more eligible kids in health care is great. Why didn’t Clinton think of that? Oh wait, he did! Considering the Bush track record on implementation, Edu Commentary’s not optimistic about this effort getting far with this crowd.

Also, here’s Bush on high schools, “As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation.” Regardless of what one thinks about exit exams, this seems like an ill-considered idea for several reasons.

First, No Child Left Behind is causing the creation of more tests and modifications of others. The testing industry is about stretched to capacity. Is it really wise, then, in the midst of NCLB implementation, to start adding another — very complicated — layer? In addition, NCLB rightly focuses on consequences for adults, not for students (on the contrary it has specific benefits/rights for students). Why risk splintering the NCLB coalition further over an issue that many states are addressing one way or another on their own? And, that leads to the third concern, this is guaranteed to enrage state legislators and it’s unclear what the benefits will be.

Edu Commentary doesn’t minimize the importance of high school reform, but on that front there are bigger (and politically smarter) fish to fry than this.

NY Daily News’ Williams reports that Joel Klein is calling out the colleges and universities around Gotham. He’s challenging them to takeover failing schools. What’s the over-under on the number of schools that take him up on this (take the under…)?

The new Education Next is out. Among other highlights, VA Governor Warner discusses teacher quality, Rick Hess tackles education technology, Nathan Glazer reviews the controversial Samuel Huntington book “Who Are We”, former education ace now homeland security star Siobhan Gorman does an education cameo looking at the inherent conflicts in supplemental services, Diane Ravitch reviews the new Kathy Boudin book (as in book about Kathy…), and two looks at Brown.

Interesting column from CA that pretty much dovetails with what a lot of D’s and R’s out there have been privately saying…via Educationnews.org.

And, another interesting one on the Wash Post op-ed page about cheating by Lawrence Hinman.

As you consider President Bush’s pitch for another four years last night, take a minute to think the mess he has made of the golden opportunity he was already handed on education.

Also, during the speech there was wild applause for the “ending the soft bigotry of low-expectations” line but markedly less when Bush claimed credit for (mostly Democrat-led) funding increases for No Child Left Behind. Is it safe to infer from this that the Republican party is OK with ending the soft bigotry so long as it does not cost too much? They ought to just put that in the platform. Sadly, it’s probably where most voters are…

A school, or in this case a set of schools, that does a good job with low-income students? That can’t be! A letter in today’s Washington Post about the recent Jay Mathews profile of KIPP starts the debunking.

…The fact that KIPP parents choose this school and agree to help enforce its rules sets them apart from the parents of most poor and minority students.

KIPP counters that its students had the same parents when they were performing poorly in regular schools, but they are the same in name only. Once the parents decide to enroll their children in KIPP academies, they no longer play the same role in their children’s lives. In that sense, they are different parents.



The key to KIPP’s success is parents who care. Unfortunately, too many inner-city students lack this fundamental right.



Righto! When low-income parents were given a chance to become more empowered with regard to their children’s education it made them “different”, and presumably more positive, parents. Is such empowerment either (a) impossible on any scale or (b) undesirable? On the contrary, aren’t both pretty good liberal goals?

Didn’t President Bush promise to lead and deliver results? In the NYT, Samuel Freedman shows the human side of one initiative that hasn’t seen much leadership (and even fewer results…).

Also, AP helpfully points out that the administration is not the only institution in Washington that cannot execute…DCPS are off to another good start! Silver lining though, kudos to acting superintendent Rice for a refreshingly no B.S. attitude. More Hess than Cuban!

DC Education Blog has more on new sup’t Janey.

Update: Local Wash Post coverage on the DC debacle here.