The Wonder Woman Movie That Will Never Be

IGN Comics: Wonder Woman. What was your take on the movie?

Joss Whedon: My take on the movie was simply the story of somebody who saw the world with fresh eyes. Somebody who saw that the Gods were still keeping us down, even though they might have changed their names or become companies. And the world is horribly out of balance and not as good as it should be. It was sort of her journey to understanding what makes us the way we are, because she wants desperately to help and be a hero. It was basically her journey towards becoming a human being, without which no heroism is truly worthy. So it was about the ability to stand up and do the best you can, and to learn about the strength that comes out of weakness, which is what I often write about... but I'm not going to be writing about that anymore. I don't honestly know what turned the studio off. They never told me, so I can't say what you can expect to see should they make the movie, because I don't know what they're looking for.

That's just sad. They're going to make some kind of weak Fantastic Four-like movie instead of this?

What's that? What does this have to do with education? Hey, you can learn a lot from Joss Whedon.

The Myth of the 1,000-page No Child Left Behind Act

I've been reading the posts in Bridging Differences, the new Diane Ravitch / Deborah Meier blog over at Ed Week. It's interesting so far, but Meier makes one minor point that's worth debunking, just because it gets said a lot and is completely wrong:

The Senate passed the latest version of Title I (NCLB)—all thousand unread pages—without considering the side effects of their grandiose ideas.

I bought my copy of NCLB in 2002, in the store on the first floor of the Government Printing Office headquarters on North Capitol Street, here in Washington, DC. It's 669 pages long, front to back. Other editions might be longer because of page and font size or what have you. In any case, it's long.

But here's the thing: the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001," as it's officially called, reauthorized the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That includes nearly every federal K-12 law outside of special education and vocational education (which are covered under separate Acts) passed by Congress since ESEA was originally enacted over forty years ago, in 1965.

Meier refers to ESEA Title I, the biggest and most important federal K-12 program serving low-income students. But ESEA has nine other Titles. They authorize a wide array of programs, from big initiatives focused on teacher quality and school technology to little programs like "Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners," which is designed to "develop innovative culturally based educational programs, cultural exchanges and internships and apprentice programs to assist Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and children and families of Massachusetts linked by history and tradition, to learn about their shared culture and tradition."

That would be Title V, Part D, Subpart 12. Page 420 in my copy. In other words, the vast majority of NCLB's 1,000 or 669 or whatever pages aren't devoted to new law; they're devoted to reprinting old laws, many of which were enacted a long time ago.

Title I, Part A--which is what most people mean when they refer to "NCLB"--runs 91 pages. The really controversial testing and accountability provisions are only a subset of that.

If you take Meier's assertion at face value, you'd think that in a fit of hubris, Congress invented some kind of absurdly mammoth and complex education law out of whole cloth in 2001. NCLB detractors often cite the law's length as prima facie evidence against it.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize NCLB, but size really isn't one of them.

Bogusness Questioned

Over at This Week In Education, John Krupa, an education reporter from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, questions my recent criticism of the Wall Street Journal's alleged trend story($) about how more parents are supposedly uprooting their entire lives so their kids can attend private school. Here's John's take, in its entirety:

I agree we need to be mindful of turning isolated anecdotes into trend stories. But it's not obvious to me that the Journal reporter committed this sin after reading her story. I feel like she did her homework. She cites examples of 10 families — attending three separate schools in three separate states — who moved to put a child into a private school. She gets anecdotal confirmation that the phenomenon is happening from admissions officers, principals and school consultants (I'll acknowledge all are biased to answer affirmatively). She gets anecdotal confirmation this is happening from the president of the National Association of Independent Schools (Again, I acknowledge the potential for bias). Ideally, the story should present data to back up the sources' anecdotal claims, but frankly, I don't think anyone is collecting this information. And there should have been a public-school voice saying that the story's premise is bunk. But I think the reporter gathered ample evidence to write what she did: "A small but growing number of parents .... are dramatically altering their families' lives to pursue the perfect private school for their children.

I'm not persuaded.

First, the article says that the 10 families in question simply "moved to the area," in order to attend the private schools in question. That's not necessarily the same thing as "dramatically alterning their families' lives." People move so their children can attend certain schools, public and private, all the time. That can mean significant sacrificies in terms of housing prices, longer commutes, etc. What makes the article interesting is that the anecdote family went waaay beyond this typical behavior, quitting their jobs, selling their house, and moving to the other side of the country without any certain means of employment or financial support once they arrived. The article only provides one other example of anything similar, and even that family was much less radical.

Moreover, the article provides even less evidence for its key assertion, which is that the phenomenon is small but growing. It's one thing to say that a few parents are doing something that seems kind of extreme. It's a big country, after all, people are always doing strange things. It's something else entirely to say that such extreme parenting is becoming more common. That's the difference beween News of the Weird and real news.

John notes that the President of the National Association of Independent Schools says he "hears about it all the time." But issues of potential bias aside, that's not at all the same thing as saying "I'm hearing about this more often." The only person in the entire article who speaks to that issue is the admissions director of a private school in California, who says "It's been a little more frequent in the last two or three years."

If all you've got is one killer anecdote, no data, and someone who thinks such instances are "a little more frequent," you don't have a trend, and shouldn't say you do.

Uniting Differences

In the latest entry in an extended back-and-forth between Edwize and The Quick & The Ed on teacher policy, Leo Casey holds forth on the limitations of standardized testing. Some of it is quite thoughtful, particularly in distinguishing the union position--pro-standards, pro-standardized testing in limited contexts--from the absolutist anti-standards & testing people here.

But it seems like a strange response to my original question, which Leo helpfully includes right at the top of his post. Namely:

How good does student assessment information--from standardized tests or any other source--have to be before it would be appropriate for use in determining teacher salaries?

Note the words "or any other source." I think their meaning is clear--I don't think that standardized tests are the only measure of student learning. In fact, I think it would be wrong to base teacher salaries solely on growth in student standardized test scores, or even solely based on any measure or combination of measures of growth in student achievement. (I'd note that the Aspen Commission seems to feel the same way; they recommended that "Student achievement can count for no less than 50 percent of the determination of [Highly Qualified Effective Teacher] status.") Teachers do lots of important things, like help other teachers. All of them should be considered in any high-stakes definition of "merit."

So if it's true, as Leo says, that:

standardized achievement tests can provide useful data to be considered as one piece of evidence, weighed together with performance assessments, classroom performance and teacher observations, in making important decisions on a student’s promotion or graduation

Why don't the same principles hold for making important decisions on a teacher's promotion, or how much they get paid? Why can't we combine standardized test data with information from the other, more complex qualitative assessments that Leo describes, as well as principal evaluations, peer evaluations, etc., and come up with a responsible way to assess teacher effectiveness--and thus determine an element of teacher pay?

The answer, I think, is that such assessments, if done fairly, would reveal something that everyone already knows: there are huge differences in effectiveness among classroom teachers, even teachers with very similar credentials, experience, etc. And that seems "divisive," to use a word often employed by teachers unions opposing merit pay.

The distinction is important--there are many very legitimate technical concerns about merit pay plans, including the limitations of standardized tests. But this isn't one of them. It's a principled objection, one that seems to rest on the conviction that labor unity requires a certain level of uniformity, that making differences in effectiveness clear, obvious, and meaningful would undermine a larger cause. If that's the real argument here--and I think it is--then Leo should acknowledge it and defend it.

Also, I'd note that in conceding that "There is no reason, as least in principle, why a standardized test could not provide reasonably accurate measures of basic reading comprehension, basic computational skills or the ability to recall and use discrete pieces of information," Leo seems to be suggesting that we really could use those test scores appropriately as part of determining the performance of elementary school teachers, since they're more focused on teaching basic, testable skills.

Finally, Leo asserts that "Carey, Finn and Hess know, without doubt, a large number of ‘hard nosed,’ no nonsense politicians and elected officials of the center to right." I won't speak for Finn and Hess, but all the politicians I know and have worked for have been of the left. This isn't just a Republican thing. Ted Kennedy had kind words for the Aspen Commission report that makes Leo so unhappy--I wonder why that is?

Immigrant Tuition Debates in Maryland

Immigrants and immigrant rights advocates in Maryland are meeting in Annapolis today to rally Senators and Delegates in support of a measure that would grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrant students who have graduated from a Maryland high school. Critics of the measure, House Bill 6, argue that offering these kids in-state rates would take away slots from documented residents and citizens, and that it would serve as an incentive for more illegal immigrants to move to Maryland. Gov O'Malley supports the bill. As he should.

Granting in-state tuition rates to these students is in Maryland’s best interest, financially and otherwise. Most of these kids have been in Maryland for most of their lives and have attended Maryland elementary and secondary schools. The state's already invested resources in the education of these kids. It makes no sense to pay for their K-12 schooling with state resources and then make it prohibitively hard for them to go to college in MD. And, no, this isn't a hand-out- it's hard enough to pay in-state tuition, which runs $8K to be a Terrapin. UMD's out-of-state tuition--at more than $22K-- is a definite deal-breaker for these kids, who are ineligible for government-funded financial aid and have few legal options for work. Sure, higher ed is competitive these days. But the smartest thing for Maryland to do is to let these Maryland-educated kids compete for a chance to advance their own futures and eventually work, live and contribute to our state.

The education of undocumented immigrants is a hot issue across the country, and extends beyond just in-state tuition debates. Take a look at Education Sector's solution, one of eight ideas included in our ed policy guidebook for pres candidates, "Eight for 2008".

Q&E Post-Oscar Special

Every year, I sit down to watch the Oscars, and every year I come to my senses four hours later swearing not to do it again. Do they really need separate awards for sound editing and sound design? Couldn't they relegate one of those to the minor league awards that Maggie Gyllenhaal gave out last last week, and promote something cooler, like best CGI? Sort of like the English Premiere League does? Also, the best movie of 2006, Children of Men, wasn't even nominated.

But hopefully seeing Ryan Gosling lose for Best Actor will cause a few more people to Netflix Half Nelson, a very, very good movie about a troubled middle school teacher and one of his students that grossed about $79.95 at the domestic box office last year. In addition to being worthy in its own right, Half Nelson also raises an interesting question: why are movies about schools and education so generally terrible?

To be clear, many worthwhile movies have been partially or mostly set in schools, but they're nearly always comedies and satires--Heathers, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Election--and none of them are really about schools and education. As a rule, the more the focus turns to education, the worse the movie--see for example Dangerous Minds, Take the Lead, the worst moments of Dead Poets Society, etc. etc.

Those movies all fail in the same way. The filmakers take a real, important thing--the lasting inspiration that great teachers can create with their students--and over-dramatize it to the point of deadening cliche. By not focusing on this, Half Nelson actually makes education much more real and thus compelling.

All Deliberate Speed?

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board that school segregations is unconstitutional. The NAACP asked that desegregation should proceed "forthwith," but in 1955, the Court instead required states to desegregate with "all deliberate speed." In 1957, the governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, used the national guard to block black students from entiring Little Rock High School, causing President Eisenhower to call in the 101st Airborne. From there, desegregation in Little Rock was supervised by the federal courts, until such a time that the courts decided the job was done. Which finally happened.

Last week.

Seriously, this is all deliberate speed? And Little Rock isn't the last holdout, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice department is still litigating desegration, two generations later and counting.