Expect light or no posting from us here the next few days, as Education Sector moves to our new office. We'll be back posting after the 4th of July holiday. New address and phone number:
1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 850
Washington, DC 20036
(202/552-2840)
(It's actually west--not east--of our old location, but I like the song anyway...)
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Snakes, and Snails, and Puppy Dog tails
Who knew this would spark so much sound and fury? Certainly not me.
Of course, not everyone likes my arguments about why we shouldn't be panicking about a so-called "boy crisis." This John Leo blog post provides a pretty good example of some of the less positive feedback I've been getting. I have to admit, I was at a loss when I first read it because, aside from calling my report "basically an op-ed piece," Leo doesn't say word one about the actual substance of the report: he doesn't challenge the data I cite or explain why he thinks we should ignore it or interpret it differently than I did.
His biggest complaint seems to be that...I'm a feminist who doesn't want people to talk about the boys crisis because it distracts attention from girls? I'm still not really sure.
I know I shouldn't be surprised that some people think I'm writing that the boy crisis is overhyped because of some gender politics agenda, or that I want people to focus on girls' problems, or that I hate boys--or something. But it still seems strange to me.
I started looking the this issue because the some of the articles I was reading about the boy crisis earlier this year seemed to rely heavily on individual anecdotes, "expert" quotes that didn't seem to be backed up with evidence, and a few provocative pieces of evidence about how boys were doing relative to girls--most notably the now near-universally known fact that girls make up 56 percent of undergraduate college enrollment. After all, if boys are in trouble, we should be using data--not anecdote--to figure out how to deal with the problem. I was particularly perplexed because the arguments these articles and experts put forward for why boys weren't doing well in school seemed to be all over the place, too, and even contradicting each other.
So I started looking at the data: NAEP data; college enrollment figures; statistics on disabilities, drug use, disciplinary problems--wherever I could find national sample data or statistics from reputable sources. But I found evidence that, contrary to the articles I'd been reading, boys and young men were actually improving on a lot of measures. Sure, there are areas where there are problems--particularly high school--and areas where girls are doing better than boys. But the evidence doesn't suggest that boys--certainly not all boys--are on some kind of train that's speeding rapidly overdown* a cliff. And ignoring this fact doesn't help us to think or talk reasonably about how to improve education--for boys or girls.
*My colleague Kevin Carey points out that, while speeding over a cliff is a common phrase, speeding down one really doesn't make much sense. On a purely anecdotal note, one guy who certainly has better verbal skills than this gal.
Of course, not everyone likes my arguments about why we shouldn't be panicking about a so-called "boy crisis." This John Leo blog post provides a pretty good example of some of the less positive feedback I've been getting. I have to admit, I was at a loss when I first read it because, aside from calling my report "basically an op-ed piece," Leo doesn't say word one about the actual substance of the report: he doesn't challenge the data I cite or explain why he thinks we should ignore it or interpret it differently than I did.
His biggest complaint seems to be that...I'm a feminist who doesn't want people to talk about the boys crisis because it distracts attention from girls? I'm still not really sure.
I know I shouldn't be surprised that some people think I'm writing that the boy crisis is overhyped because of some gender politics agenda, or that I want people to focus on girls' problems, or that I hate boys--or something. But it still seems strange to me.
I started looking the this issue because the some of the articles I was reading about the boy crisis earlier this year seemed to rely heavily on individual anecdotes, "expert" quotes that didn't seem to be backed up with evidence, and a few provocative pieces of evidence about how boys were doing relative to girls--most notably the now near-universally known fact that girls make up 56 percent of undergraduate college enrollment. After all, if boys are in trouble, we should be using data--not anecdote--to figure out how to deal with the problem. I was particularly perplexed because the arguments these articles and experts put forward for why boys weren't doing well in school seemed to be all over the place, too, and even contradicting each other.
So I started looking at the data: NAEP data; college enrollment figures; statistics on disabilities, drug use, disciplinary problems--wherever I could find national sample data or statistics from reputable sources. But I found evidence that, contrary to the articles I'd been reading, boys and young men were actually improving on a lot of measures. Sure, there are areas where there are problems--particularly high school--and areas where girls are doing better than boys. But the evidence doesn't suggest that boys--certainly not all boys--are on some kind of train that's speeding rapidly over
*My colleague Kevin Carey points out that, while speeding over a cliff is a common phrase, speeding down one really doesn't make much sense. On a purely anecdotal note, one guy who certainly has better verbal skills than this gal.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
More Munchkin Love
A new CED report makes the economic case for greater public investment in universal preschool, looks at how much different policy alternatives here would cost, and also discusses some interesting alternative funding mechanisms. Some of this will not be new to early childhood geeks, but the analysis around policy and funding alternatives is worth checking out.
Charter Operators Pulling a Wal-Mart?
If true, this is troubling. NYC charter school teacher Nichole Byrne Lau says she was fired for trying to organize teachers at her school. The school's chief executive says she was fired for making racist comments to students. It's not clear yet--and may never be--who's telling the truth here, but either way this situation is FUGLY. Charter schools that behave in illegal and wrong ways to quash employee efforts to unionize deserve to be dealt with harshly by their authorizers and the state. After all, charter teachers have a right to unionize if they want to, there are some highly successful unionized charter schools, and when charter operators act like Wal-Mart towards employee efforts to unionize, it only gives amunition to charter foes.
Joe Williams has more here.
UPDATE I: Edwize and NCLBlog also have more, and it's pretty fiery. I couldn't agree with them more that if the school fired Lau just for trying to organize, it should be dealt with seriously. Joe suggests it should be closed. I think firing the individuals who thought this was acceptable (including eliminating board members) and continuing to monitor labor rights in the school might be adequate. But first the school's authorizer needs to make a serious effort to ferret out what actually went on here. Not having been in the school I'm not going to judge based solely on media coverage. And the fact that some schools are or may be acting badly here is not a case for requiring all charter schools in the state to unionizeas Ed and Leo seem to think**.
UPDATE II: This Steve Gilliard post on the subject, to which Lindsay linked, is atrocious. To whit:
What the devil does Gilliard mean there? NEST+m is not a charter school, but an elite NYC traditional public school that wanted to keep Ross Global Academy Charter School (aka the "minority kids" to which Gilliard refers) out of excess space in NEST+m's underutilized facility. So is Gilliard accidentally aiming his anti-charter barbs at a "good" traditional public school? Or does he think NEST+m's students should have been protected from those pesky minority students--which would indeed be a novel position for a so-called progressive.
More significantly: Yes, some charter schools play games. And that's bad. But that's what authorizers and public accountability are for, to catch when charter schools are playing games and make them stop or shut them down. And that's why the authorizer should crack down--hard--on Williamsburg Charter High School if they did fire Lau for trying to organize.
UPDATE III: From an NYC-based reader who's worked with Williamsburg Charter School High School students (but is an independent observer as far as the school is concerned):
This gets back to one of the knottiest issues in charter schooling, and school accountability more generally: What do you do with a school that has problems but is still the best alternative available for some of the students it serves? Obviously, long term the solution is to build LOTS MORE HIGH QUALITY ALTERNATIVES (hint to NY state legislators: that would be one reason it's GOOD to raise the charter school cap--then the threat to close down schools that don't respect labor laws will be a much more real one). In the short term, these balances are a little difficult--but it's not an excuse for not holding charter schools accountable for both student performance and following the rules.
**UPDATE IV (Really, this would be getting ridiculous if it weren't such an important subject): Ed at NCLBlog elaborates further on his position towards charters and unions, which I appreciate because I did misunderstand him the first time I read his post, and I probably read Leo's comments at the end of his post as a policy prescription they weren't intended to be. Thanks for straightening me out on that. In general I would be in favor of making it easier for charter school teachers to unionize, although I do think it's important that individual charter schools remain separate bargaining units.
Joe Williams has more here.
UPDATE I: Edwize and NCLBlog also have more, and it's pretty fiery. I couldn't agree with them more that if the school fired Lau just for trying to organize, it should be dealt with seriously. Joe suggests it should be closed. I think firing the individuals who thought this was acceptable (including eliminating board members) and continuing to monitor labor rights in the school might be adequate. But first the school's authorizer needs to make a serious effort to ferret out what actually went on here. Not having been in the school I'm not going to judge based solely on media coverage. And the fact that some schools are or may be acting badly here is not a case for requiring all charter schools in the state to unionize
UPDATE II: This Steve Gilliard post on the subject, to which Lindsay linked, is atrocious. To whit:
Charter schools sound like a great idea, until you hear about the games the schools play. Nest+m finally didn't have to share their school with the minority kids, but it cost them their principal. Which is the new deal many of these schools cut: you get your way, but you lose the principal.
What the devil does Gilliard mean there? NEST+m is not a charter school, but an elite NYC traditional public school that wanted to keep Ross Global Academy Charter School (aka the "minority kids" to which Gilliard refers) out of excess space in NEST+m's underutilized facility. So is Gilliard accidentally aiming his anti-charter barbs at a "good" traditional public school? Or does he think NEST+m's students should have been protected from those pesky minority students--which would indeed be a novel position for a so-called progressive.
More significantly: Yes, some charter schools play games. And that's bad. But that's what authorizers and public accountability are for, to catch when charter schools are playing games and make them stop or shut them down. And that's why the authorizer should crack down--hard--on Williamsburg Charter High School if they did fire Lau for trying to organize.
UPDATE III: From an NYC-based reader who's worked with Williamsburg Charter School High School students (but is an independent observer as far as the school is concerned):
From what I have seen and heard from students, it seems like a good school that is providing students with a unique, positive experience, especially considering that their high school options are limited in the Williamsburg, Brooklyn community. It would be a loss for the students and their parents if the school were closed because of bad actions by the CEO. I just hope that as this unfolds people remember that there is more at stake than just the interests of the adults involved and the political implications for charter schools, that there are students and parents whose lives will be greatly impacted by any decisions. If the school is closed, parents will be scrambling to find good alternative high schools for these students.
This gets back to one of the knottiest issues in charter schooling, and school accountability more generally: What do you do with a school that has problems but is still the best alternative available for some of the students it serves? Obviously, long term the solution is to build LOTS MORE HIGH QUALITY ALTERNATIVES (hint to NY state legislators: that would be one reason it's GOOD to raise the charter school cap--then the threat to close down schools that don't respect labor laws will be a much more real one). In the short term, these balances are a little difficult--but it's not an excuse for not holding charter schools accountable for both student performance and following the rules.
**UPDATE IV (Really, this would be getting ridiculous if it weren't such an important subject): Ed at NCLBlog elaborates further on his position towards charters and unions, which I appreciate because I did misunderstand him the first time I read his post, and I probably read Leo's comments at the end of his post as a policy prescription they weren't intended to be. Thanks for straightening me out on that. In general I would be in favor of making it easier for charter school teachers to unionize, although I do think it's important that individual charter schools remain separate bargaining units.
Fluff wins!
Yesterday marked the end of the Fluffergate saga, a heated battle over whether to serve Fluffernutters in Massachusetts schools.
The Fluffernutter, a popular New England sandwich made of peanut butter and Fluff marshmallow creme, became a topic of contention earlier this month, when Massachusetts state Senator Jarrett Barrios learned that his third-grade son was being served Fluffernutter sandwiches at school and proposed legislation to limit the serving of Fluffernutters statewide. State Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein vowed to "fight to the death for Fluff" and began a campaign to designate the Fluffernutter, which originated in Massachusetts, the "official sandwich of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Impassioned Fluff fans called anti-Fluff politicians "anti-Massachusetts" and "almost anti-American," and the head of Fluff's parent company argued that obesity could not be legislated and begged to be allowed to make Fluff in peace. Yesterday Barrios, who admitted that he "loves Fluff as much as the next legislator," announced he would abandon the proposed amendment, saying that it had gotten to the point where his original goal, which was "to have a discussion about what is a healthy and nutritious meal for kids in school," was overshadowed.
Fluff is produced by family-owned Durkee-Mower Inc., which churns out 30,000 pounds of Fluff a day and 1.7 million pounds a year. Evidently, the company's motto—"First you spread, spread, spread your bread with peanut butter; add Marshmallow Fluff and have a Fluffernutter"—has been effective; Fluff is now distributed across North America and Europe and rivals Skippy's most popular peanut butter product as the best-selling item in the sandwich-spread sections of New England supermarkets. October 8th has even been designated as National Fluffernutter Day. "There are many who say you haven't really lived until you've taken a bite out of one of these distinctly American treats!" said Durkee-Mower Inc. president Don Durkee.
From a dietary standpoint, it seems clear that Fluff has no nutritional value whatsoever. However, it's also unclear whether it deserves to be singled out from other junk foods. The creme, made of only four ingredients—corn syrup, sugar syrup, vanilla flavoring and egg whites—is 50 percent sugar, prompting Barrios to state, "I'm not sure we should be even calling it a food." On the other hand, Fluff has no preservatives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, or colorings and is gluten-free and kosher.One school food service director pointed out that the Fluffernutter appeases finicky eaters, boosts students' daily calorie intake, and encourages them to eat peanut butter, a good source of protein and vitamin E. A Fluffernutter sandwich on wheat bread packs about 328 calories, about the same as PB&J, and some lawmakers argued that jelly was no better than Fluff on sandwiches.
In seriousness, the Fluffernutter debate is entertaining but silly—a bunch of Fluff, if you will. An informal poll by Barrios' staff found that only one in 14 Massachusetts schools even serve Fluffernutters, so PB&J is probably a greater threat to Massachusetts children's health. Barrios can take solace in the fact that the school district in Cambridge, his home district, has decided to remove Fluff from its menu this September. The failed amendment, however, does bring up a few important questions for education policymakers: What role should schools play in the fight against skyrocketing rates of childhood obesity and diabetes? Can nutrition in schools be legislated? And is the Fluffernutter ultimately a force for good or for evil in American society?
--By Laura Boyce
The Fluffernutter, a popular New England sandwich made of peanut butter and Fluff marshmallow creme, became a topic of contention earlier this month, when Massachusetts state Senator Jarrett Barrios learned that his third-grade son was being served Fluffernutter sandwiches at school and proposed legislation to limit the serving of Fluffernutters statewide. State Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein vowed to "fight to the death for Fluff" and began a campaign to designate the Fluffernutter, which originated in Massachusetts, the "official sandwich of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Impassioned Fluff fans called anti-Fluff politicians "anti-Massachusetts" and "almost anti-American," and the head of Fluff's parent company argued that obesity could not be legislated and begged to be allowed to make Fluff in peace. Yesterday Barrios, who admitted that he "loves Fluff as much as the next legislator," announced he would abandon the proposed amendment, saying that it had gotten to the point where his original goal, which was "to have a discussion about what is a healthy and nutritious meal for kids in school," was overshadowed.
Fluff is produced by family-owned Durkee-Mower Inc., which churns out 30,000 pounds of Fluff a day and 1.7 million pounds a year. Evidently, the company's motto—"First you spread, spread, spread your bread with peanut butter; add Marshmallow Fluff and have a Fluffernutter"—has been effective; Fluff is now distributed across North America and Europe and rivals Skippy's most popular peanut butter product as the best-selling item in the sandwich-spread sections of New England supermarkets. October 8th has even been designated as National Fluffernutter Day. "There are many who say you haven't really lived until you've taken a bite out of one of these distinctly American treats!" said Durkee-Mower Inc. president Don Durkee.
From a dietary standpoint, it seems clear that Fluff has no nutritional value whatsoever. However, it's also unclear whether it deserves to be singled out from other junk foods. The creme, made of only four ingredients—corn syrup, sugar syrup, vanilla flavoring and egg whites—is 50 percent sugar, prompting Barrios to state, "I'm not sure we should be even calling it a food." On the other hand, Fluff has no preservatives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, or colorings and is gluten-free and kosher.One school food service director pointed out that the Fluffernutter appeases finicky eaters, boosts students' daily calorie intake, and encourages them to eat peanut butter, a good source of protein and vitamin E. A Fluffernutter sandwich on wheat bread packs about 328 calories, about the same as PB&J, and some lawmakers argued that jelly was no better than Fluff on sandwiches.
In seriousness, the Fluffernutter debate is entertaining but silly—a bunch of Fluff, if you will. An informal poll by Barrios' staff found that only one in 14 Massachusetts schools even serve Fluffernutters, so PB&J is probably a greater threat to Massachusetts children's health. Barrios can take solace in the fact that the school district in Cambridge, his home district, has decided to remove Fluff from its menu this September. The failed amendment, however, does bring up a few important questions for education policymakers: What role should schools play in the fight against skyrocketing rates of childhood obesity and diabetes? Can nutrition in schools be legislated? And is the Fluffernutter ultimately a force for good or for evil in American society?
--By Laura Boyce
More Sad News
Eric Rofes passed away on Monday. Rofes, 51, is best known as an activist for gay and lesbian rights, HIV/AIDS awareness, and gay men's health. He played a critical role in building organizations that responded to the HIV/AIDS crisis in San Francisco and elsewhere in the 1980s, and has written influential books on the AIDS epidemic, gay culture, and the effect of the former on the latter.
Rofes was also a lifelong educator. In the 1970s he was fired from public school teaching for being an "out" gay man, his activism continued his work as an educator in a different context, and in the 1990s he earned a Ph.D. and became a professor of education. His in addition to work on race, gender, sexuality and social justice in education, he also researched and wrote extensively on charter schools. His 2004 book, The Emancipatory Promise of Charter Schools, co-edited with Lisa Stulberg, presents a Progressive argument for supporting increased public school choice and charter schools. I was fortunate to meet Dr. Rofes when he and Dr. Stulberg spoke about their book at the Progressive Policy Institute last year, and was very sad to learn of his death. Charter schools--and Progressive supporters of bold, outside the box thinking about how to realize social justice in public education--have lost an important ally. His family and friends will be in my prayers.
Rofes was also a lifelong educator. In the 1970s he was fired from public school teaching for being an "out" gay man, his activism continued his work as an educator in a different context, and in the 1990s he earned a Ph.D. and became a professor of education. His in addition to work on race, gender, sexuality and social justice in education, he also researched and wrote extensively on charter schools. His 2004 book, The Emancipatory Promise of Charter Schools, co-edited with Lisa Stulberg, presents a Progressive argument for supporting increased public school choice and charter schools. I was fortunate to meet Dr. Rofes when he and Dr. Stulberg spoke about their book at the Progressive Policy Institute last year, and was very sad to learn of his death. Charter schools--and Progressive supporters of bold, outside the box thinking about how to realize social justice in public education--have lost an important ally. His family and friends will be in my prayers.
Spellings Commission Pulls no Punches
A draft report from Sec. Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher Education was released yesterday. Most of what I have to say about it is here, at the always timely and informative InsideHigherEd.com. One point to add: over the course of the months in which the commission has been meeting, the chairman, Charles Miller, has leveled a number of sharp critiques at the American higher education system. While the report runs to 27 pages, it's actually quite succinct in laying out all of those criticisms along with evidence to support them.
Yet while both Miller and the report have been heavily criticized by various members of the higher education establishment, virtually none of the criticisms actually address, or refute, the charges he's made. Instead, everyone has complained about issues of "tone," calling the report "mean-spirited," "hostile," "confrontational," etc. etc. Despite the fact that the stakes of this debate are enormously high, both for the millions of students attending college and society at large, people seem most concerned that a frank discussion of the issues is somehow...impolite.
As they say in law, if you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you've got the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound the table. The chorus of table-pounding from the defenders of the higher education status quo is very telling.
Yet while both Miller and the report have been heavily criticized by various members of the higher education establishment, virtually none of the criticisms actually address, or refute, the charges he's made. Instead, everyone has complained about issues of "tone," calling the report "mean-spirited," "hostile," "confrontational," etc. etc. Despite the fact that the stakes of this debate are enormously high, both for the millions of students attending college and society at large, people seem most concerned that a frank discussion of the issues is somehow...impolite.
As they say in law, if you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you've got the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound the table. The chorus of table-pounding from the defenders of the higher education status quo is very telling.
Terrible Sleater-Kinney Breakup News
Sleater-Kinney, arguably the greatest rock and roll band in the entire world, announced that they're breaking up. They'll be playing the 9:30 club here in DC in August and then a final show at Lollapalooza in Chicago. On the off chance that there's any significant crossover between Quick+ED readership and S-K fandom, I'll be at both shows.
No education angle here, just bad news.
No education angle here, just bad news.
Monday, June 26, 2006
More on children and media: Vin Rouge d’Hollywood
It appears that the television-refrigerator analogies of the post below have struck a chord with one American Psycho fan, and I want to applaud the sentiment of his response post. While I can’t claim to be an American Psycho fan myself, I agree with Yglesias' argument that too many movies with artistic or social value get dismissed on the basis of violent content.
This said, when it comes to children's programming, I still believe we can draw a distinction between the value of educational shows like Blue's Clues and
Children and media: time to restock the fridge?
We constantly blame electronic media for negatively impacting children: violent video games cause school shootings, Myspace facilitates stalking, and television leads to childhood obesity. Considering the average American spends over 4 hours a day watching TV, the effects of media warrant serious attention. But what sort of attention? Since the first congressional hearings on television violence in 1952, legislators have engaged in free-speech-versus-censorship tug-of-wars focused on restricting what we don’t want children watching. Meanwhile, too little has been said about what we do want them watching.
Technologies and Policies to Give Parents Control Over Children’s Media Content."
Panelists avoided government censorship but continued to focus on censorship at the level of individual households, talking instead about tools like TV ratings and v-chips.
Even if we perfect such technologies, Americans will probably continue to spend a great deal of time consuming media; if we don’t want kids watching the likes of American Psycho and the Playboy Channel, we need to provide alternatives. It’s like junk food. If parents want their child to stop eating junk food, do they empty refrigerator and let their children starve? Hopefully not. They stock the shelves with milk and apples. We will continue to use media, so let’s start stocking the channels with beneficial programs.
--By Carolynn Molleur-Hinteregger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)