New Voices for the Summer

Please welcome Michael Dobson, whose first Quick and Ed post appears below. Dobson, who just completed his first year of law school at George Washington University, will be interning with Education Sector this summer, researching legal issues around public school choice. As the D.C. weather continues to get hotter and muggier, look out for most posts from him and other summer ES interns.

The Greatest Good

As a first-day intern at Education Sector with minimal background experience in the field of education policy, yesterday’s Center for American Progress/Century Foundation forum on “The Future of School Integration” offered me an interesting glimpse into the current state of debate about school integration. Most of the panelists, including John Brittain (a veteran civil rights attorney), Susan Eaton (research director at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School whose recently published book served as the fulcrum for the panel discussion), Richard Kahlenberg (author and Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation), and Cynthia Brown (Director of Education Policy at the Center for American Progress), agreed that, while racial integration remains a important goal, the current legal climate requires a shift of focus and tactics away from race to emphasize the need for socioeconomic integration.

The dissenter from this consensus was Rick Hess, a resident scholar and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, who, in his accustomed role as devil’s advocate, argued that parents in middle-class schools will resist socio-economic integration efforts—not because they’re heartless racists or elitists, but simply because efforts to bring more low-income children into their schools conflict with what middle-class parents view as their interests in a zero-sum game.

The concerns Hess suggested these parents might have—that problems typically associated with majority low-income schools (disruptive behavior in the classroom, violence, negative peer influence, etc.) will simply travel with the kids, or that the presence of children whose previous, underperforming schools have not prepared them to perform at grade level will damage instruction for other children—are valid. And, for the most part, the other panelists failed to address what I conider the strongest argument against the concerns voiced by Mr. Hess: the utilitarian benefit of socioeconomic integration.

Studies suggest that children from low-income families perform better in majority middle-class schools than their counterparts in majority low-income schools, with no noticeable detriment to the middle-class students they are placed among. If socioeconomic integration produces the same results at scale, then the ultimate result of more socioeconomic integration programs would be a better educated workforce, a more robust economy, less intergenerational poverty, and an overall stronger America. Obviously, there’s no guarantee of such results, but the potential returns for the nation as a whole seem to outweigh the narrow concerns of self-interested parents— particularly since studies also suggest little negative impact to middle-class children from socioeconomic integration.

Regardless of appeals to utilitarian principles, however, many middle-class parents will still mount political opposition to socioeconomic integration plans for the reasons Hess mentioned. So what’s the solution? Well, as Mr. Hess himself pointed out, the first step is to not demonize those parents for feeling the way they do. Their concerns, from their perspective, are valid, and an approach dismissive of those concerns will only lead to acrimony. Their fears must be allayed, and as another panelist, Mr. Khalenberg, pointed out, the only way to do that is with assurances that a strict disciplinary scheme will be sewn into any integration strategy. Parents being asked to accept a socioeconomic integration plan have to know that their children’s education will not be undermined by repeat student offenders gifted with an unlimited number of chances.

Those parents also have to know that children coming from underperforming schools and dysfunctional homes will not simply be dropped into middle-class schools and left to their own devices. A support structure of counselors and engaged teachers and administrators should also be in place within schools to lend guidance and encouragement, which would not only benefit the children coming from low-income schools, but their middle-income classmates as well. Children from middle-income families would also reap the benefits of the greater influx of tax dollars coming into their schools behind their new classmates, money that could be used to refurbish facilities like gyms and libraries.

All of this takes a certain degree of political will to invest the necessary resources and engage in the oversight needed to make sure the job is done right. Undoubtedly many parents would still have doubts, and some might even still oppose the plans, but many would probably see the effort being expended and appreciate it enough to at least give it a chance.

Flying Blind

Richard Vedder makes a good point about the information deficit in higher education. He thinks the president of Ohio University--where he teaches--should be fired. But in making his case, he's got a problem:

Yet the President has his supporters. And, frankly, some of the critical information that would be useful in evaluating the state of the university under his leadership is simply unavailable. Do students graduate knowing more than when they entered? Are graduates of the university leading fulfilling lives five years after attending the school? Do new graduates feel their education was a good investment? And has the answers regarding any of these questions changed materially over the years the current president has run the institution? Honestly, I don't know the answers to these questions. Nor do the Trustees who hire the leaders of our institutions --they operate with far less information than is desirable. That is another reason why the Spellings Commission calls for more assessment and transparency in university operations is important.

Most people in higher education seem to have deep misgivings about the Spellings Commission and its call for more assessment, transparency, and accountability for the nation's colleges and universities. These are not illegitimate concerns; accountability done badly is worse than none at all.

But these conversations hardly ever fully account for the true costs of the information deficit Vedder describes. Without solid information, we're left with opinions, personal relationships, institutional power, and ideology. This is true not just of evaluating presidents but a whole host of other decisions in higher education, everything from where students choose to enroll to how professors are hired and trained to how universities are organized and funded. Each of these processes would benefit from more information about institutional quality, but none of them have it, and they're worse as a result.

DC Plagiarism "Scandal" Part III : The Conclusion (I Hope)

On the third day, the Post proved that the editorial / news firewall is alive and well, running a lead editorial condemning recently-elected Maryland Senator Ben Cardin for putting a "hold" on the "all-important restructuring of the District's public schools" because of an unrelated dispute with the District. They concluded:

The House, recognizing the true state of emergency at the District's schools, quickly approved the bill transferring authority to the mayor. But until the law is enacted, the schools are in a kind of limbo. Mr. Fenty is constrained in what he can do. Each day of delay forestalls the start of any improvement. Mr. Cardin says he doesn't intend to imperil congressional approval of the schools takeover. Actions, though, speak louder than words.

So true! The only way Senator Cardin could have done more damage to the school takeover plan yesterday is if he'd run a headline in a major American newspaper criticizing the mayor and the plan for an essentially bogus reason, something like, let's see, "Fenty Regrets Copied Proposal: School Takeover May Be In Doubt."

Unfortunately, this will all fit neatly into the pre-written Fenty meta-narrative. Plagiarism is generally a youthful offense, after all, the refuge of striving students in over their heads. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that in another month or so, as the "first six months of the Fenty administration" retrospectives start to roll in, you'll read something like this:

"After a landslide victory where he won every precinct in the city, Mayor Fenty remains popular with District residents, who praise his energy and can-do spirit. But observers are increasingly questioning whether the youthful mayor, in his rush to implement a broad-reaching agenda, has overextended himself. In May, the mayor was embarrassed by revelations that many parts of his much-touted school reform plan were copied wholesale from a similar plan in Charlotte, North Carolina. Said one long-time District activist, who asked to remain anonymous, 'This scandal is a sign of things to come.'"

This is complete nonsense, but that won't stop it from becoming conventional wisdom. That's why politicians pay consultants huge amounts of money to build the frame of reference through which they're seen--one it's established, there's not a lot you can do to change it, and it affects the way people see not just the politicians themselves, but everything around them.

Excellent Questions About Preschool

Richard Colvin asks some good questions in response to recent reports about poor quality in Boston's preschool program.

The first is about bachelor's degree requirements and the relative value of bachelor's degrees compared to specific training and experience in early education. It's really tempting to think that if we just required all preschool teachers to have bachelor's degrees (or bachelor's degrees with early childhood certification), we could ensure high quality. But two of the biggest and best studies of state preschool implementation, the SWEEP and Multi-state studies, didn't find bachelor's degrees were a reliable predictor of, teacher behaviors known to support students' early learning, and children's outcomes. This shouldn't be shocking when we consider that virtually all K-12 teachers have a bachelor's degree and no one believes that this makes all K-12 teachers highly-effective. As in K-12, teacher quality is probably the most important program factor for determining preschool quality and impacts, and it's clear that many public and private preschool programs do not have sufficiently high-quality teachers right now. But the bachelor's degree, and even certification, is just too blunt an instrument.

Second, Richard asks if states are jeopardizing quality by expanding their preschool programs too fast. This is a reasonable concern, and I think it's worth a broader discussion. Some of the problems with Head Start quality have their roots in the effort to expand the program very rapidly in its early years to build political support (which the program was successful in gaining). It would be a shame for states to replicate that error in their preschool programs.

Reality Rears Its Ugly Head

Cato's Andrew Coulson, in the process of arguing that I'm wrong to assert that tax credits are a form of public funding, makes the critical mistake of conflating legal opinions on education tax credit programs with the realities of tax credits' practical impacts. I know libertarians sometimes have difficulties with "reality," so I'll explain: Yes, tax credits are appealing to many people because courts have ruled that giving parents or corporations a tax credit for money spent to send a child to a religious school can't be construed as public support for religion. But the critical distinction there is really more about accounting than reality. In terms of practical impact, giving individuals a tax credit for a specific behavior or expenditure is virtually indistinguishable from writing them a check to pay them for the same activity. It has the same impact on both government and individual budgets, and, as libertarians well know, tax credits for specific behaviors can have the same distorting impact on individual incentives. And it's impacts, more than accounting or legal details, that are critical to the public policy question here. If Coulson feels so strongly that I'm wrong about this, he should first trot down to his own organization's fiscal policy shop and explain to them why they're wrong to criticize ethanol tax credits as....a government subsidy.

Btw, I don't know if the Cato education men have a crush on me or think I'm a fool: This is the third time this week they've gone after something I've written. While I'm flattered by the attention, I'm sorry, guys, that I can't actually respond to everything you write about me. There are three of you but only one of me, and I've got actually, you know, work, to do.

The DC Plagiarism "Scandal," Day Two

And on the second day, the Post made the Fenty school reform plan plagiarism "scandal" front-page news again. The story basically consists of the requisite statements of regret from the administration, quotes from the mayor's political and ideological opponents taking easy--if nonsensical--shots at the mayor and the plan, and various others insightfully observing that it's never good to have your reform plan subject to scandal stories in the Post.

Which just goes to show how completely self-contained the news cycle is in cases like this. Once the first story runs, you have a problem, which then becomes the subject of the second story, and so on. Whether the original story was legit or not doesn't matter; the fallout from the story becomes the story itself. (A separate profile of the "whistleblower" is here.)

Here are some questions that haven't been asked or answered in two days and thousands of words of coverage: What, exactly, are the policies that were copied? Are they good policies? Would DCPS students be better off if they were adopted? The Post makes much of the fact that Charlotte-Mecklenburg, source of the copied ideas, is bigger and different in composition than DCPS, calling into question whether its ideas are readily transferrable. Good question -- but what's the answer? Here, from yesterday's story, are the only actual published details of the copied ideas:

In Fenty's document, with "DRAFT" stamped on each page, strategies to create reading and math classes for middle school students, recruit teachers and use "secret shoppers" to judge how parents are treated by school employees come directly from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg plan.

Intensive reading and math instruction in middle school, enhanced teacher recruitment, more focus on customer service to parents--while those wild, crazy notions might work in an urban / suburban district of 130,000 student in North Carolina, they obviously have no place whatsoever in an urban district of 57,000 students in DC. In fact, it's well-known within the research community that there's a point between 57,000 and 130,000--I believe the exact number is 94,583--where hiring better teachers and providing better math and reading instruction to at-risk students simply doesn't work anymore. You can look it up.

The Post has always been tough on DCPS, both in its news coverage and on the editorial page, and rightly so. But you can bet that all the problems the paper has covered and condemned--crumbling schools, high drop-out rates, sub-standard teaching, and more--aren't getting the full attention of the mayor and his staff today.

Best Practice?

The Post went above the fold this morning with a story detailing how Mayor Fenty's reform plan for DC Public Schools contains numerous passages copied verbatim from the strategic plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system.

This is front-page news?

Seriously, as far as I'm concerned Mayor Fenty can rename the entire school district after Charlotte-Mecklenburg if that would help the kids in DC's many low-performing schools. Charlotte-Mecklenburg was a finalist for the 2004 Broad Prize for urban education. It also had the highest test scores among all the large urban districts surveyed in the 2005 National Assessement of Education Progress Trial Urban District Assessment. Do we want the mayor to sit around for a couple of years re-inventing various wheels, or do we want him to move quickly and adopt practices that have worked elsewhere? This story is so busy amalgamating the elements of two standard-issue news stories--the plagiarism scandal and the urban school scandal--that it manages to miss all the important issues at play.

The Cost of Being a Teacher

Neil McCluskey at the Cato Institute takes issue with a comment I made on Washington Journal over the weekend, to the effect that when we force more and more college students to borrow larger and larger sums of money, we're limiting the ability of recent graduates to enter socially beneficial but relatively low-paying professions, like teaching. That's why Education Sector recently proposed a program to tie loan repayments to a percentage of person's income.

McCluskey overstates and oversimplifies what I said, characterizing my comment as "there’s no way on his salary a new teacher could comfortably afford to make his monthly debt payments." He proceeds to "refute" this notion by showing that a new teacher with an average debt load living in Indianapolis could manage to get by without declaring bankruptcy or eating Ramen noodles three meals a day. I can attest to the truth of this, since I myself moved to Indianapolis directly after grad school, and took a public sector job that paid less than what new Indy teachers make today (it was probably about the same in inflation-adjusted terms).

I didn't starve or miss any loan payments. But that's not the point. There's no single bright-line dollar amount where a loan becomes affordable or not. Every person has a unique set of resources, priorities, and concerns that add up to a decision about what field to enter. But on a macro basis, it is entirely predictable that as debt burdens rise, a larger number of new college graduates will choose not to enter relatively low-paying professions. That just Econ 101, which someone from Cato of all places should understand.

So not only is the overall pool of potential teachers reduced, but if there's any relationship between price and quality in higher education (admittedly, this is a very debatable point), we're losing a disproportionate number of students graduating with unusually high debt loads from more expensive and thus "better" colleges.

AFTBlog's Ed makes some of the same points here, while expressing surprise that we agree. C'mon, Ed, we agree on lots of things -- tax policy, most labor issues writ large. We just don't blog about them, because what's fun about that?

Can New Teachers Afford Their Student Loans?

AFT's Ed Muir calls bullsh*t on the dopey back-of-the-envelope calculations Cato's Neal McCluskey offered Monday to try to show that starting teachers are rolling in cash. I'll add that neither McCluskey or Ed took into account of a big financial drain on many young-ish teachers: tuition payments for the masters degrees many states require them to get to maintain their certification.

I'm also not sure that starting teachers are the best place to focus in thinking about this issue. When my sister started her first teaching job out of college, she made more than I or most of our liberal-artsy friends did in our first jobs. But over time, those of us who didn't go into teaching have gotten promotions and increases in responsibilities that raised our salaries more rapidly than hers has grown. $34k to teach in Indianapolis may look good to a kid right out of school but the picture is a lot less appealing 10 years down the road when he wants to start a family and his salary has grown less than those of his classmates who pursued other career options.

Narrowing Curricula -- Or Not?

The Post ran an article over the weekend about how elementary schools have been cutting back on instructional time in science to meet NCLB demands in reading and math, and how this might, possibly, come back to bite them when NCLB starts holding them accountable for science. A logical enough starting point, but the story is mostly based on local anecdote and the obviously-not-neutral views of people like the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association. The only real hard data is this:

Between the 1999-2000 academic year and 2003-04, the most recent date available, the average time spent weekly on science instruction in elementary schools dipped from 2.6 hours to 2.3, according to the U.S. Education Department.

But of course, the majority of that time period was pre-NCLB, so that doesn't tell us much. Then, near the back of the piece, the author notes:

National science performance has not declined in the elementary grades under the No Child act, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only ongoing national effort to test public school students. The percentage of students rated proficient or better in fourth-grade science increased from 24 percent to 27 percent in Maryland from 2000 to 2005, perhaps a reflection of more rigorous instruction across the curriculum. In Virginia, proficiency rose from 32 to 40 percent in the same span.

To which AFTie Beth wonders, after criticizing curriculum narrowing as "shockingly shortsighted,":

But what to make of the fact that NAEP science scores rose at exactly the same time that schools were supposedly decreasing time allotted for science instruction? Maybe the increased focus on language arts has increased students’ comprehension so much that they’re doing better on the comprehension-dependent science questions. Or maybe we can conclude that we don’t have to add science to AYP in order to see scores rise. Or maybe two years of test data is not enough from which to draw major conclusions?

Or maybe--just maybe--when the premise of an article is one thing, and the data suggest the opposite, the premise might be, you know, wrong. Maybe curriculum narrowing is happening, and maybe it's bad for science learning, I don't know for sure. But nobody else--at least, nobody involved in the Post article--seems to know either.

Really Bad Children's TV from Hamas

Matt pointed me to this clip (thanks also to Dave Weigel and Andrew Sullivan) from a Palestinian "children's" TV show that uses a Mickey-Mouse-like character to indoctrinate children in Islamist extremism. Creepy stuff. But what I couldn't get over watching the clip was how developmentally inappropriate and, frankly, boring the show is. I can't imagine any child I know sitting through this crap. (Based on the color scheme, Mickey-Mouse kock-off, and the age of the little girl co-host, I assume this is targeted at preschool age kids, the same age that Sesame Street is intended for.)

Sure, there's a Mickey Mouse-like figure and a little girl, but they're not doing anything to actually engage or interest the kids. The show's structured like a bad adult talk show (down to the call-ins, which I think would confuse a lot of preschoolers). And, if the English traslation is any guide, the vocabulary and syntax hasn't been adjusted to children's development and comprehension level. Even the songs are dirge-like and incredibly dull. Contrast to good children's programming. In short, this isn't just scary indoctrination, it's terrible children's TV and, as a result, probably not as effective as indoctrination as if it were more developmentally appropriate.

Seems like there's some work to be done on the "hearts and minds" front by offering more appropriate and engaging, non-indoctrinating children's entertainment content to parents in the Middle East. USAID has already funded an Arabic-language Sesame Street, Alam Simsim, in Egypt. More of that might be beneficial. Or perhaps President Bush, having endorsed Baby Einstein in the 2007 SOTU, could persuade the Walt Disney Company to ship a few tons of Baby Einstein CDs and DVDs to the Middle East. The company's developmental claims are wack, but damned if the kids don't eat that stuff up. If the young mothers I know are any judge, we'd at least have some mothers there grateful for something to entertain their children better than this garbage.

UPDATE: I missed the fact that there is a Palestinian Sesame Street, as well, Hikayat Simsim. You can see the full list of international Sesame Street programs, including programs in Israel and Jordan, here.

Marginalizing Education Research

Got a press release from the Great Lakes Center for Education for Education & Practice today that reads like the headline from some alternate-universe edition of the The Onion where all they write about is education policy:

May 7, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONFLICTING STUDIES ABOUT SCHOOL REFORM ARE INCONCLUSIVE

Policy makers urged not to use RAND and Harvard studies as basis for decision making about school restructuring

Researchers often complain about the disconnect between their findings and real-world policy. Some blame academese and the esoteric nature of university-based research. Others find fault with politicians and policy types who are uninterested / unwilling / unable to dig into complex findings and parse fine distinctions. There's plenty of truth in both arguments. But part of the problem is that researchers tend to assume that their standards for whether research is good enough to add to the canon of knowledge should also apply to whether research is good enough to be used to make policy. As a result, the author of the report concludes, in language that is basically pre-written into the last paragraphs of every study ever written, "Further analysis and research is needed before drawing any definitive conclusions."

It's important for researchers to be judicious and accurate in describing the limitations of their findings, and I'm not arguing that this should change. But education policymakers don't have the luxury of waiting until every possible data element has been gathered and argument addressed. The public schools will be open tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that. They'll be governed by policies that exist, and will continue to exist until someone changes them. Not changing them is not a neutral or low-stakes act; it's the same as endorsing their continuation.

In that environment, policymakers have to make judgments--to change or not to change--based on incomplete information. The alternative is deciding based on no information at all and deferring what your spouse or barber or best friend or 3rd grade teacher or biggest campaign donor tells you. Of course, some studies are so bad that they should be roundly ignored, but I don't believe that's the case with the RAND and Harvard studies in question here.

So when representatives of academia (or non-profits closely associated with academia) come along and say "Don't listen to what we have to say," the response from policymakers is predictable: "Sure."

Choice and Accountability: Better Together Yet Again

Not surprisingly, Cato's Adam Schaeffer and I drew quite different lessons from Jay Mathews' article today about schools that push parents away. Adam says school choice is needed to even the power relationship and force schools to take parents seriously. That's true. But Jay's article also suggested to me the importance of a government role in ensuring school transparency and protecting parent rights. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act requires public schools inform parents about the qualifications of their children's teachers, and the testing it requires provides parents with information about how well the school is educating their child. These regulations help empower parents. Private schools, on the other hand, often aren't subject to public disclosure or accountability and can quash parent dissent by expelling kids whose parents demand information challenge school decisions. Choice and public accountability must go hand in hand to empower parents, rather than being at odds.

Arabic Schools and Social Conflict Over Education

Fascinating NYT article about NYC DoE's efforts to open an Arabic immersion school in Brooklyn and the opposition it's facing. I'm not sufficiently familiar with all the context to know whether or not there are legitimate issues here, but the level of racist venom some right wing opponents are spewing about the school is absolutely disgusting. And it's really rich when the same people pushing military adventurism in the Middle East also vehemently oppose efforts to equip kids with the language skills and knowledge our country needs to engage with the region.

There's another lesson here: People who support choice and diversity in delivery of publicly-funded education need to come to terms with the reality that real choice includes some schools that not everyone will like. The most radical and evangelistic school choice supporters like to argue that choice will reduce social conflict around education because people who want schools to serve different social purposes can send their kids to different schools. But this ignores the fact that the mere existence of certain types of schools is offensive to some people, all the more so if those schools get public funding (and, yes, vouchers or tax expenditures in the form of tax credits are public funding). To the extent that greater choice leads to a greater diversity of educational options, we're going to be seeing more controversy and conflict over these issues--at least in the near term--not less.

This story also put me in mind of Star International Academy, a Detroit-area charter school, founded by Lebanese-born Muslim Nawal Hamadeh. The curriculum includes Arabic and multi-cutural content. While the school serves many Muslim, Arab, and immigrant students, who are concentrated in its community, it's also diverse, with about 8 percent African-American or Hispanic students, and has strong academic performance considering that 90% of its students qualify for free and reduced price lunch. Hamadeh Educational Associates, which runs SIA and two sister schools, was identified in 2006 as a promising charter school network by the Charter School Growth Fund, and given advice and support to expand its model.

Educational Television

Still pretty tired my Schwarzenegger experience and subsequent red-eye flight back from LA Friday night, I walked over to C-SPAN headquarters Saturday morning to appear on Washington Journal and talk about Education Sector's recently-published slate of education policy ideas for presidential candidates. There's a link to the video here. One thing I learned when watching the program afterward: when you're staring into a television camera, you can't break eye contact for even a moment, or you look distracted and shifty. All in all it was fun; the host and call-in guests asked some good questions, and I got a free coffee mug to take home.

Then I hopped in the car with my lovely wife and drove up to Philadelphia to see Arcade Fire at Tower Theater, which is so vastly superior to D.A.R. Constitution Hall as a venue that even the three-hour drive and expense of staying in a hotel made missing their DC date seem like a wash, at worst. The concert was fantastic, and we spent this morning at the Barnes Foundation art school / museum. Edu-connection: the foundation's original program and charter, which has been subject to bitter court battles in recent years as the foundation has tried to break Barnes' will and move the museum to downtown Philadelphia, was heavily influenced by John Dewey.