Exaggeration

The Post story on the Reading First study begins: "Students enrolled in a $6 billion federal reading program that is at the heart of the No Child Behind law..."

Wait. It's only a $6 billion program if you add up the total funding over six years (I think, I'm writing this on a plane). That's a completely non-standard way of reporting federal budget numbers. Nobody says the Pentagon has a $2.4 trillion budget. And reading first isn't "at the heart" of NCLB. The accountability provisions are.

Why exaggerate to sell the story? It's an interesting study -- play it straight.

Choices

Ezra Klein writes about the new, disappointing Reading First results, and concludes:

It would be good if we could really nail down what works in education. But my conclusion, increasingly, is that the best thing you could do for poor kids' educational prospects is increase their parents' economic prospects. That's not to say either exists in a vacuum, but nor does it look likely that we're going to find educational approaches powerful enough to counterbalance the pull of parents, community, peers, playground, etc, etc, etc. Education reform is a piece of the war on poverty, but it isn't, by itself, a winning strategy.

Elsewhere in the post Ezra describes this blog as "brilliant" so he's clearly a smart man of discerning intellectual taste. And there's nothing factually incorrect about this statement (except maybe "playground." What? Is that the monkeybars theory of educational inequality?) 

But nothing is, "by itself," a winning strategy in the war on poverty, right? To take a non-random example, the same is true of universal health care. So the fact that education won't solve all of our ills doesn't really say much about the value of education reform per se. 

Moving a child out of poverty might be better for them in the long run than improving their school. But it's also a much more expensive and inherently difficult long-run proposition. Tackling entrenched poverty in economically depressed areas, creating new jobs, repairing neglected infrastructures, families, and social institutions--these are huge undertakings. Newer, better schools, by contrast, can be established in a few years. We know this because people are in fact building such schools, today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle poverty, any more than saying we can build better health clinics or more affordable housing would mean that. Moreover, you could really help disadvantaged students by moving them out of poverty and giving them a better school. If poverty itself can be beaten, than surely education reform can happen too. 

So I'm just not sure who the other side of this debate about the all-encompassing power of education reform is supposed to be. The Prospect has published some persuasive arguments that education was over-valued during the 1990s as an economic curative by the likes of Robert Reich and many economists. But the value of education generally is distinct from the need for systemic educational improvement, particularly when some flaws in the public school system are so glaring. And it's not like Reich's overly narrow view of the needs of modern workers caused him to lead the war against the war on poverty. There are bad people in charge of that, and they've got plenty of other reasons to do so. 

It seems like some progressives see the possibilities of educational improvement as a barrier to more comprehensive reforms, a mirage that distracts from the real journey. Are any other sustained, large-scale efforts to improve the lives of poor children regarded this way?

Vouchers R.I.P.?

The Century Foundation's Greg Anrig, author of the recently-published The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, has good piece in this month's Washington Monthly declaring the decline and fall of school vouchers. Whether they're quite as dead as Greg suggests is probably a matter of legitimate debate, but his essential points are correct: like many bad conservative policy ideas, vouchers have foundered on errors of both concept and execution. Those who blithely say "give everyone a voucher and the free market will take care of the rest" are obviously not paying attention to what's actually happened when vouchers have been tried.

Beyond serious problems relating to church/state separation and the inherent value of public schools, vouchers just don't seem to work very well. Which shouldn't be surprising: voucher policies are built on the assumption of well-functioning markets, which require informed parents making smart choices on behalf of their students. But that means parents have to make judgments about relative school quality, which is actually a very tricky and complex thing to understand. Studies show that parents with vouchers are often satisfied with their choice, but on some level that's simply because they've been given one--anyone would be happier to go from being mandated (A) to having a choice between (A) and (B), particularly when (A) is often pretty bad to begin with.

Charter schools, as Anrig notes, address nearly all of the biggest problems with vouchers--they're public, not private, and they operate under additional accountability relationships beyond parental choice. That's why charter schools are so much more popular than vouchers, and while evidence on charter school performance remains mixed (I suspect this will change in the next couple of years), there's certain no reason to think vouchers are a better reform. As of now, in 2008, being an unreconstructed voucher supporter is tantamount to proclaiming one's lack of seriousness when it comes to education policy.

For some recent smart thoughts on these and other matters, see this from AEI's Rick Hess.

The same issue of the Monthly also has a "Ten Miles Square" piece from yrs. truly, describing one day in the life of a woman named Margie Yeager, who spent some time working here at Education Sector before going on to more worthwhile pursuits as an all-purpose problem solver in Michelle Rhee's current efforts to reform and improve the DC Public Schools. I'm not sure if it's going to be posted on-line, so you should play it safe and go buy several copies on the newstand for you and your friends.

Replacing Teachers in PG

The Post today reported on Prince George's County, Maryland schools that are going through “staff replacement” as a part of their school improvement efforts. Restructuring failing schools by replacing teachers and leaders can but doesn't always lead to big improvements. Two big things to keep in mind. First, it’s not a wholesale turnover of staff that can or should occur; you’ll need to recognize and hold on to your good teachers. And second, the restructuring is the beginning, not the end, of teacher improvement. You’ll have to work to support and improve teaching in these schools to bring and sustain positive change.

Also, a lesson learned from Hamilton County, TN that didn’t make it into the report we released recently: if you’re going to replace principals, be sure to do that before you involve them in the teacher replacement effort. In at least one of the Chattanooga schools, they replaced the teachers with the help of a principal who was subsequently replaced. So then they replaced the teachers again. No one would expect to make this costly (in so many ways) mistake but it can happen.

The Post article also quotes Deasy saying that the restructuring plans include additional measures, which might suggest that this is part of a more comprehensive plan for improving failing schools in PG. But the examples given include earlier start times at Largo High to allow more after-school professional development for teachers and a student discipline program at Oxon Hill Elementary. Ok, an hour earlier for high school students? I know we’re strapped for time, and that more time could help a lot of schools, but c’mon. There are better and more creative ways to extend time.

And Oxon Hill Elementary. Haven’t visited the school myself but I do know that it shares a zipcode with our brand spanking new city, National Harbor, MD. Yes, our “whole new city on the banks of the Potomac” has its own new name, even though it's technically in Oxon Hill, MD. On that note, I think Oxon Hill Elementary, one of the PG schools slated for restructuring, should rename itself National Harbor Elementary. Corporate volunteerism program in the bag. Seriously, though, I hope there are big plans to get business invested in these schools. At the very least, host the PG County teacher recruitment fair at the new Gaylord Conference Center instead of at PG County Community College. And get them to advertise for PG County Teaching Fellows, which trains, among others, career-changers to teach in PG public schools [disc: my mom did this after 25 years in the federal government. Aside from having to find very old college transcripts to prove she’d taken a college-level math class and then, unable to locate proof of this, having to take another college 101 math class, she enjoyed the program and became the epitome of the second-wind baby boomer who’s great in the classroom. I’m thinking there might be a lot of these types on the banks of the Potomac.]

A New Playbook

The Rockefeller Institute of Government is a respected in-house think tank of the New York State University system that specializes in state/federal collaborations in public policy. When a federalism free-for-all broke out in the wake of the federal No Child Left Behind Act's requirement that states set academic standards and hold their schools accountable for the results, the institute saw an opportunity.


It convened a day-long meeting of national experts on standards, testing, and accountabilty in Chicago with the support of the Spencer and Joyce foundations. The charge was to think outside the box, to brainstorm of new ways to strengthen standards, improve tests, and make accountability more meaningful.


To help frame the conversation, the institute's Allison Armour-Garb compiled an array of new ideas in a report titled "Intergovernmental Approaches for Strengthening K-12 Accountability Systems." Then the institute compiled the transcript of what was one of the livelier exchanges I've been a part on these issues. You can read Allison's paper, the transcript, and a summary of the session by the redoutbable Lynn Olson here.

More and Less

Sunday's Times front-pager about scarily dedicated students in Korea hell-bent on acceptance to Harvard, Princeton, and Yale provides fresh evidence of how the winner-take-all principle is particularly evident in higher education, especially coming on the heels of David Rockefeller's recent $100 million gift to Harvard's $35 billion endowment. There's a pretty good argument that large transfers of wealth from tremendously rich individuals to tremendously rich institutions that serve mostly rich students should be taxed by the government, not subsidized, but I imagine this won't change any time soon.

The article also shows the outsized power and value of globally-recognized brands. The fact that "going to U.S. universities has become like a huge fad in Korean society" is fundamentally similar to the mania for luxury brand names like Louis Vuitton. I think this is a problem, and I wonder if America's elite universities have really thought the implications through. Universities like Harvard are much less than luxury goods manufacturers, and much more, in important and problematic ways.

Less in the sense that they are, as currently constructed, severely limited in their ability to serve more students. They're not global concerns with the ability or inclination to do what a normal for-profit enterprise would do in similar circumstance: find ways to stamp the name on new products and services while carefully managing brand identity and the mix of exclusivity and surging demand. Universities are communities of scholars and students, bound to certain places and traditions and fragile in their own way.

More in the sense that universities serve much higher and more valuable purposes than handbag manufacturers. If Louis Vuitton mismanages the brand by diluting its value in a rush for short-term profits, or succumbs to shifting winds of fashion, then—so what? The shareholders lose money, people are stuck with ugly handbags that they paid too much for, and the world moves on.

If our great institutions of higher learning are damaged or distorted by the growing psychic weight of global demand and escalating wealth, by contrast, that would be a significant loss indeed. They say you can't be too rich or too thin, but I wonder if the time will come when Harvard and its peers decide that you can become too rich and too famous, that students, faculty, and society at large are better served by universities simply being good at what they are—no more, no less.

History Repeating Itself

Congress, the White House, presidential candidates, and student loan companies have all proposed ideas on how to ensure that recent problems in the credit markets don’t limit college-bound students’ access to federal loan money. Tight credit markets, in which investors are wary of buying any type of bundled debt, have made it difficult for student loan companies and banks to find new money to lend. While there haven’t been any instances to date of students being unable to get federal student loans, lawmakers are rightfully concerned about the possibility and are looking for ways to prevent it.

Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student loan company, has been pushing to allow the Treasury department to purchase bundled student loan debt. Student loan companies would then have access to cheap capital, giving them money to lend and making federal student loans more profitable. The problem with this solution is that we’ve already done it, and it worked well until the company responsible for using Treasury funds to ensure market liquidity—Sallie Mae—decided it could make more money by only going through the private markets.

When Sallie Mae privatized, part of the deal was that it would act as a “lender of last resort” for students who could not get access to federal student loans. The provision was part of Sallie Mae’s repayment for years of taxpayer support and access to cheap Treasury funds. Now that the time has come for Sallie Mae to act as a lender of last resort, it’s not in a position to do so and has come back to the government asking for more Treasury funds. That’s not how Sallie Mae’s privatization plan was supposed to work—the goal was to save the federal government money by transitioning Sallie Mae into a fully private company.

The federal student loan program has a history of providing incentives to student loan companies to ensure their continued participation in the loan program—that’s why loan companies get subsidies and loan guarantees, and why the federal government created Sallie Mae in the first place. But these incentives also have a history of going awry as market conditions change and loan companies use loopholes and lobbying to increase profits (note the 9.5 percent loan scandal).

The House has already passed a bill aimed at addressing potential problems in the student loan market, including increasing the federal limits on student loans by $2,000 and giving the Department of Education the authority to buy student loans in order to free up money to make new loans. This last provision includes the caveat that any loan purchases must not incur any cost to the federal government—a good and important goal. But, as history has taught us, student loan companies are good at figuring out how to get the best deal out of these types of changes to the student loan program. This means that clear responsibility for oversight of the program and legislative language that leaves few loopholes will be critically important to ensuring that, once credit markets recover, student loan companies aren't reaping all the profits while taxpayers are holding the bag.