Comic Book Guy Can Read

Back from a two-week hiatus, will be catching up on various edu-related stories that occured in my absence.

Starting with the most significant, that of course being this NYTimes piece about schools using comic books as an instructional tool:

In Maryland, the State Education Department is expanding a new comics-based literacy curriculum, after a small pilot program yielded promising results. In New York City, a group of educators applied to open a new small high school that would be based around a comics theme and named after the creators of Superman; their application was rejected but they plan to try again next year. And the Comic Book Project, a program run out of Teachers College at Columbia University that has children create their own comic strips as an “alternative pathway to literacy,” is catching on. Six years after it started in one Queens elementary school, it has expanded to 860 schools across the country.

It all sounds good, but edu-eminence Diane Ravitch throws cold water on the idea, saying "If you’re going to use comics in the classroom at all, which I have serious doubts about, it should be only as a motivational tool. What teachers have to recognize is that this is only a first step."

This reflects two common assumptions about comic books, both which are wrong. First, that comic books are fundamentally unsophisticated as a medium. Second, that supporting a youthful enthusiasm for comic books reduces the likelihood of students moving to more serious, legitimate literary forms.

Comic books seem simple, but they're not. This mistake stems from confusing the form with the genre. The most popular American comic books have long been superhero stories, featuring lots of explosions, skin-tight costumes, and tales of good vs. evil. But the most popular forms of all media tend toward pop-culture, lowest-common demoninator fare; whether it's Transformers at the box office, American Idol on television, Chris Daughtry in music, or Harry Potter in the book store. Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter, but J.K. Rowling ain't Henry James. The fact that the number one movie of 2007 was Spider-Man 3 doesn't lead anyone to conclude that film as a medium is always and irredeemably low culture.

The comic book form is actually very complex. First you have all the challenges of story, pace, characterization, narration, and dialogue that are inherent to writing. Then you have a whole separate set of challenges related to creating visual art -- tone, perspective, color, mood, composition, etc. Then you have to figure out how to present a host of images in sequence, understanding the way readers will mentally fill in the transitions from one perspective, scene, and point of view to another. Finally (and most importantly) you have to understand how the words and pictures fit together, the manner and impact of readers rapidly switching back and forth between reading words and seeing pictures, two very different cognitive experiences. Comic books incorporate elements of writing, painting, illustration and film, but it's really the combination of forms that make them unique and complex. As Umberto Eco once said, "Comic books have a language of their own."

The mistaken idea that comic books are simple leads to the second, Ravitchian idea that introducing students to comic books is educationally dangerous. This is wrong. Reading comic books is reading, first of all, not watching TV or playing Halo 3 or listening to Chris Daughtry. I don't think there's some kind of substitution effect at work where students who read comic books will read fewer books; rather they'll read more of everything and not read less of everything else.

Case in point: I've been reading comic books regularly since I was nine years old and now I essentially read and write for a living. More broadly, when I think of the typical comic book reader, "illiterate" isn't the word that comes to mind. Sartorially and socially challenged, maybe, but as a rule comic readers tend to be much more intellectual and word-focused that the average Jane or Joe. Rather than continuing the ignoble tradition of Fredric Wertham, education scholars faced with the massive problem of illiteracy should support every promising avenue they can find.

Update: Sherman Dorn makes many good points about the generally shoddy, ahistorical nature of the education reporting in this piece here.

Paying and Evaluating Teachers

The Denver Post reports on Obama as the next great supporter of ProComp, Denver's highly praised pay-for-performance, or merit pay, program. This issue of teacher pay has become one of the big education debates among Democrats in the 2008 presidential campaign (both Clinton and Edwards are against merit pay but support differential pay–extra for teachers in high-need schools and teaching shortage subjects).

Merit pay is usually couched as a recruitment and retention issue–let's attract and keep good teachers by giving bonuses for performance– but the real question on merit pay is about teacher evaluation–if we're going to pay extra for the best performance, how do we fairly and accurately assess performance? Education Sector is hosting an event on this very question next Tuesday. Details here.

Ringing in the New Year

The student loan industry is likely hoping for a better start to 2008 than they experienced in 2007, when New York Attorney General Cuomo started off the year with an investigation into improper relationships between financial aid offices and loan companies.

Jonathan Vogel speculates over at Inside Higher Ed on what colleges and lenders can expect in 2008, as the fallout continues from Cuomo’s investigations.

New Year's Update

On vacation until Friday, thus the light, blackberry-based posting. Stay tuned for exciting features such as gratuitous Ohio State boosterism and why Diane Ravitch is wrong about comic books.

Best of 2007 (Colleague Edition)

Continuing in the "Best of" spirit of the times, here's the list of 2007's best songs from Daria Hall, Assistant Director for K-12 Policy at the Education Trust. Daria knows substantially more about NCLB implementation than I do, a fact I note in sympathy as much as in admiration. Daria is also trusted source of new music recommendations, so--as with NCLB policy--similarity between this and previous posts is generally a function of my availing myself of her expertise and not the other way around.

Keep the Car Running- Arcade Fire
Fans- Kings of Leon
Imitosis- Andrew Bird
Impossible Germany- Wilco
Paper Planes- M.I.A.
All the Old Showstoppers- New Pornographers
Breakin’ Up- Rilo Kiley
Gone, Gone, Gone (Done Moved On)- Robert Plant and Allison Krauss
Nude- Radiohead
I Feel It All- Feist
Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window- The Hold Steady (I’m Not There Soundtrack)
Stronger- Kanye West
Pagan Angel and a Borrowed Car- Iron & Wine
You Got Yr. Cherry Bomb- Spoon
Rehab- Amy Winehouse

The Testing Quandary

ES Co-Director Tom Toch answers a tough test question posed by the NYT's Freakonomics blog:

Should there be less standardized testing in the current school system, or more? Should all schools, including colleges, institute exit exams?

Other respondents include Fair Test's Monty Neill and Gaston Caperton, the President of the College Board (for some reason, he really likes the SAT...). Read all of the responses here.

It's (Not) So Easy

The Post ran a useful article a few days ago ("Calls Grow for a Broader Yardstick For Schools") about one of the more interesting challenges of NCLB reauthorization and education policy generally: expanding the scope of educational accountability beyond standardized test scores in reading and math to include many other important things--mastery of other subjects, more generalized abilities like critical thinking and analytic reasoning, "soft" skills like leadership and teamwork, graduation and success in college and the workforce, etc. etc. But it leaves the central question answered: if nearly everyone thinks this is a good idea, why aren't we doing it already ?

Mostly, I think, because this imperative bumps up against other imperatives, and nobody has figured how to adequately reconcile their inherent conflicts.

NCLB was designd to make the assessment of schools objective, universal, and unavoidable. In other words, all schools within a state are assessed according to the same standards and in the same way. There are very good reasons to put a premium on this. Without objectivity and universality, it's a short road back to the default judgment that most schools render upon themselves: "We're doing the best we can, given the students we have." Given how badly some schools and students are failing, that's just not good enough.

The way that NCLB achieves objectivity and universality, however, has significant shortcomings. It's a mechanistic process, based on rules intead of human judgment. The problem is that it's really hard to developing rules that (A) accurately assess something as complicated as a school and (B) people can understand.

For example, here's a by-no-means-exhaustive list of some of the important categories of information we might want to gather about a school and its students, along with the number of possible values for each:

Student Race/Ethnicity: 5 (White, Blank, Hispanic, Asian, Indian)
Student Gender: 2 (Male, Female)
Student LEP status: 2 (Yes, No)
Student Disability status: 2 (Yes, No)
Student Economic status: 2 (Low-income, Not Low-Income)
Student Gifted status: 2 (Yes, No)
Subjects: 5 (Math, Reading/LA, Social Studies, Science, Art/Music)
Proficiency Status: 4 (Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced)
Value-Added Growth: 3 (Below Expected, Expected, Above Expected)
Attainment (i.e. graduation, progression to next year in school): 2 (Yes, No)
Grades: 4 (Typical grade configuration)
Timeframe: 4 (Now, Short-Term, Medium-Term, Long-Term)

Keep in mind that this is, in many ways, a very conservative estimate of the number of possible variables. There are more than five significant racial/ethnic groups, more than five important academic subjects, more than four potential levels of academic proficiency or value-added growth to consider, far more than one category of disability, gifted status, etc. Heck, you could even argue about gender.

But even this highly simplified model produces 307,200 possible outcomes. Each of them tells us something different, and as such could theoretically merit a different response. This throws the decisions of NCLB's authors into a fairly sympathetic light. They knew that a 307,200-element accountability system wouldn’t fly, so they started narrowing things down.: Two subjects and five racial/ethnic categories. One category each for LEP, special ed, and economic status, but no combinations—in other words, we measure the performance of white children and low-income children, but not white low-income children. Gender and gifted status are out. One proficiency level, no value-added. Only seven of 12 grades, and multiple grades can be combined. Include one growth measure (safe harbor), but make it either/or so you don’t create extra variables. Each of the 16 distinct outcomes (two subjects X eight student categories, although very few schools will have all eight) has equal and overriding status as an indicator of school success. Miss one, miss all, it doesn’t matter—your identification as not making AYP is the same. Then, having rolled the entirety of a school’s success into the single binary AYP variable, put it on a four-level time scale: 0-1 years in a row, 2-3, 4-5, 6 or more. Each level corresponds to a collection of mandated and optional responses—None, In Need of Improvement, Corrective Action, Alternative Governance.

Even this relatively small level of complexity seems barely manageable. The testing industry is popping rivets trying to handle two academic subjects in seven grades. State Department of Educations struggle, some mightily, to gather all the required data and turn school ratings around on time. There are constant complaints about the expense and bureaucracy of compliance and time lost to preparing for and taking one test in two subjects per year.

And even with all the compromises and simplifications, most people still don't know how the NCLB system actually works. That diminishes the capacity of the law to act as a catalyst for change, since educators and policymakers can't constructively respond to signals they don't understand.

The article quotes Ed Trust's Amy Wilkins saying maybe this is okay: "Proponents of multiple measures say it will give a richer, fuller view of a school, but this isn't about a rich view of a school. It's about failures in fundamental gate-keeping subject areas." That view reflects Title I's origins in and continued focus on compensatory education for low-income children, and I agree this needs to remain the first priority. But like it or not, NCLB has come to be about all students and all schools, and that demands a richer view on some inescapable level.

Adding more information to the existing rules-based system will consume even more scarce resources and create even more hard-to-manage complexity. Not adding more information will leave us with an accountability system that reflects only a fraction of what we want for schools. That argues for a non-rules-based approach, one that relies more heavily on human judgment, since people are much better at making sense of vast amounts of information from disparate sources than rules. But that, in turn, threatens universality and objectivity. Perhaps one could mitigate this problem by aggregating many judgments through more robust market-focused systems, but then we're opening up a whole new can of worms...

Anyway, it's tricky. Anyone who thinks the shortcomings of the existing system are a result of obvious choices not made should think again.

Best of 2007 (Wife Edition)

In addition to being smart, beautiful, and possessing the most spouse-friendly hobby imaginable (cooking), my wife Maureen also has fine taste in music. She looks at blogging with suspicion, particularly having read this and last year's special music festival posts and noting that at least of half of the insightful critical opinions and observations, such as they are, were hers, not mine. I tried citing the timed-honored principle of spousal communal ownership of intellectual property, but she didn't buy it. So, here's Maureen's iPod "Best of 2007" playlist:

Arcade Fire, "(Antichrist Television Blues)"
The National, "Apartment Story"
Radiohead, "Bodysnatchers"
LCD Soundsystem, "North American Scum"
Band of Horses, "Is There A Ghost"
Wilco, "Impossible Germany"
Bloc Party, "Hunting for Witches"
Spoon, "You Got Yr. Cherry Bomb"
The White Stripes, "Icky Thump"
Ted Leo & the Pharmacists, "The Sons of Cain"
Rilo Kiley, "Silver Lining"
Iron & Wine, "Boy With a Coin"
The New Pornographers, "Myriad Harbour"
Stars, "Take Me to the Riot"
The Apples in Stereo, "Can You Feel It?"
White Rabbits, "While We Go Dancing"
Andrew Bird, "Fiery Crash"
Buffalo Tom, "You'll Never Catch Him"

I might have gone with different selections in some cases-- "Woman King " or "Jezebel" for the Iron & Wine song, for example -- but overall this is a fine way to spend 90 minutes driving to your parent's house for the holidays.

"Best of" lists are often a good way to identify your critical / genre weak spots; I bought The Hold Steady's "Boys and Girls in America" a year ago solely because it was on top of a lot of Ten Best lists from respectable sources. On first listen I was like "Not bad," on second, "Pretty good," on fifth, "Kind of great!" and so on and so forth. By the time I saw them at the 9:30 club last month I was three/fourths convinced they're authentic American geniuses; it was certainly one of the ten best concerts I've ever seen.

Fire This Time

Last week the Post reported the following:

A technology manager for District schools who stuck schoolchildren with his tabs for thousands of dollars worth of lavish restaurant meals, nightclub jaunts and a visit to a strip club was charged yesterday with filing fraudulent expense reimbursement requests.

The story ran in the Metro section, below the fold. That's because municipal corruption in DC is like lake effect snow in Cleveland--the fact of it isn't news, only the magnitude. Compared to the property tax office, teachers union, and charter school board officials who stole hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, this guy is the equivalent of a small flurry.

I note this in light of the ongoing efforts of DC mayor Adrien Fenty and schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to get legislation through the City Council that would allow Rhee to fire central office employees "without cause," which in gov-speak means "if she thinks they're doing a bad job." Fenty and Rhee are getting a fair amount of pushback from the council and the civil service and teachers unions, but it looks like the plan will go through.

To be clear, even the current sclerotic civil service system can manage to fire convicted felons. Similarly, "Work hard or I'm going to fire your a--" is not, in and of itself, a comprehensive management strategy. It's equally important to identify and support high-performing--or even normal-performing--employees, to create a constructive, collaborative work environment that attracts talent.

That said, incompetence and corruption are two sides of the same coin, flowing from a generalized organizational culture of indifference--or even opposition--to things like excellence, accountability, and service to the public. That's what Fenty and Rhee are after, I think, and given the catastrophic failure of the system they're trying to change, they deserve a great deal of latitude in how they try to get there.

"School Choice on Steroids"

NPR’s Larry Abramson takes a trip to Mapleton school district outside of Denver, Colorado, where they are “trying to offer school choice on steroids.” But (unlike in baseball) this isn’t magic. Test scores are still low, and the idea of school choice hasn’t fully permeated the mindset of students and parents in Mapleton.

Despite offering everything from a hands-on, project-based school modeled after New Tech High in Napa, California to an International Baccalaureate school complete with uniforms, many parents still base their choice decisions on convenience. Many of the school improvements promised by choice theorists depend on parents choosing schools with the best academics. But reality shows that parents and students make decisions based on a host of other factors—where their friends go, how close the school is to home or work, and some very important, if not academic, criteria, like school safety.

The research and advocacy around school choice often focuses on building the supply of schools and reducing barriers to choice for parents and students, but not much has focused on what is needed to build a knowledgeable consumer base. There is a bit of a “build it and they will come” attitude about school choice reform. But without a culture of informed choice, school choice reforms might either see little to no impact, or might see choice (somewhat like the higher education market) shifting priorities to things like sports or fancy facilities and away from the quality of teaching and learning in schools.

Listen to the segment here. And if you want more NPR segments on school choice, check out these two pieces—one on Green Dot Public Schools’ takeover of Locke High School in Los Angeles, and the other profiling Green Dot’s founder, Steve Barr.

The Post Fails Math

One of the ways you know a particular story has really embedded itself in the public consciousness is when it becomes a genre. As in the "People who think public education should teach X blame NCLB for reduced attention, resources, etc. for X" story, of which roughly 632,000 have been published in major media outlets in the last five years. Today's version in the Post focuses on music education, and contains a significant error. It says:

Despite research showing that students who study music have better attendance, achievement and lifetime earnings, music classes are struggling to survive. Supporters of such classes place some of the blame on the federal No Child Left Behind law....As instructional time in math, language arts and other subjects students must achieve proficiency in has risen, time devoted to other subjects has declined. Time spent on arts and music in 2007 is about half what it was before No Child Left Behind became law in 2002, according to a report recently released by the nonprofit Center on Education Policy.

The sentence I've italicized above is not even close to being right.

You can read the Center on Education Policy report referred to in the article here. It only shows detailed data for changes in instructional time for elementary schools. According to the report, the districts surveyed devoted 110 minutes per week to art and music in 2007. Districts that reduced time for art music reported an average reduction of 57 minutes. 110 minutes is not "about half" of 167 minutes, it's 65.8%, a hair below two-thirds.

Much more importantly, only 16 percent of districts reported reducing time for art and music at all.

Needless to say, this is a hugely important distinction. The plain meaning of the sentence printed in the Post is that NCLB has caused a 50% reduction in the total time spent teaching art and music. The report suggests that the actual number is closer to five percent (.34 X .16). In other words, the story is wrong by as much as an order of magnitude.

This seems like a classic symptom of the objectivity / accuracy value imbalance in the media -- newspapers will go to great lengths to make sure that a political reporter's spouse's friend's cousin's college roomate didn't buy lemonade from a stand in front of the candidate's neighbor's house, yet they make math mistakes like this all the time.

A More Selective Pool of Teachers

ETS released a new research report on teacher quality last week showing that the teacher pool seems to be improving, at least on academic measures. The researchers compared the 1994-1997 and 2002-2005 Praxis test takers and found that the SAT scores and GPAs of teacher candidates have increased from one cohort to the next. Why? They credit a combination of policies, both federal and state, including alternative pathways to teaching, higher standards (and standards in general) for academic qualifications, and tougher admissions and licensing requirements. The research suggests that it's a more selective process now–minimum passing scores have been raised and, as a result, Praxis passing rates are down. And the proportion of test takers with prior teaching experience has risen, suggesting a change in the traditional undergraduate education degree route to teaching.

Less rosy are the results for elementary, special education and physical education candidates. Except for special education, where there appears to be some decline, these teacher candidates have better grades and scores too. But they still lag far behind their subject-matter-certified peers for secondary education. And the typical teacher, demographically, isn't much different than a decade ago. There are still disproportionately low numbers of African American and Latino teacher candidates (with the K-12 school population now less than 60 percent white, it's a little startling to still see the teacher pool hovering near 90 percent white). And the male-female ratio hasn't budged at all- still holding at only a quarter male).

The research can't say anything about the classroom effectiveness of these teachers. That's a whole other can of worms. But the direction overall- toward a more selective and perhaps respected pool of teachers- seems positive. The next question for researchers, then, is whether there is some state or federal policy that matters most for this change, or if it is some strange combination of policies that make the difference for teacher quality.

Clemens, Cheater

Since today seems to be non-education-related blog post day, let's just roll with that a little longer and discuss the fact that Roger Clemens apparently began using steroids in 1998.

If true, Clemens deserves all the scorn currently being heaped on Barry Bonds. They both did exactly the same thing, at exactly the same time in their careers, for exactly the same reason, with exactly the same result. The prima facie evidence of steroid abuse, in terms of freakishly prolonged greatness, was just as strong. Instead of natural decline in their mid-to-late 30s, each began to rack up additional MVPs and Cy Youngs. Instead of merely being the best position player and pitcher of their generation, they cheated their way into becoming among the greats of all time. Clemens' 354 career wins is, in the context of the modern five man rotation, nearly as impressive as Bonds' all-time homerun record. If Clemens goes to the Hall of Fame and Bonds doesn't, that's racism pure and simple. And Dan Duquette, the Boston Red Sox general manager who infamously said that Clemens was in the "“twilight of his career" before letting him go to the Blue Jays, is owed a lot of apologies right about now.

NCLB Face-Off

The CATO Institute’s Andrew Coulson and I face-off at the Reason Foundation’s Reason Roundtable over whether NCLB should be scrapped or mended.

Coulson argues that NCLB is a federal intrusion on states’ rights and blocks the way for more meaningful, market-based education reforms. I argue that NCLB is critical to getting the kind of information on school performance we need in a market-based system, and that it can help build the supply of quality schools—a first step to any true, equitable school choice market.

Check it out here, and better yet, weigh in with your own comments.

Wyclef for President

I went to the annual RIAA holiday party last night at Ibiza, headlined by Wyclef Jean. Whatever Wyclef gets paid for shows like these, he's worth it, particularly when the job is to engage a crowd full of rythmically challenged Hill staffers and DC types. At one point he invited all the women in the audience to come on stage and dance, and then just let them stay there for the rest of the show. Why don't all concerts work this way?

Getting to the show took me through the new New York Avenue Metro stop and involved walking past the new headquarters of the ATF. Except its not really the ATF, it's the ATFE, as in "Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives." Apparently they added the "E" during the whole Homeland Security reorganization, but decided to stick with that magical ATF brand so as not to confuse people. The building itself was obviously constructed with an acute awarness of the "E" problem; the actual structure is set back a good 50 yards from the street behind large barriers semi-concealed by landscaping etc. One suspects this the future of governmental architecture in the nation's capital, which is understandable but also a shame.

The Laws of Men

In the past few months I've seen numerous citations of Campbell's Law:

"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decisionmaking, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

Given current debates about high-stakes testing, NCLB, higher ed accountability, etc. the relevance to education policy is pretty obvious. David Berliner wrote a whole book flowing from this premise.

Campbell was a social scientist who, in declaring an eponymous, universal statute of sorts, joined a long tradition. The trick is to notice some interesting and fundamental relationship between important things, and explain it in a way that's memorable and easy to understand. Sometimes the observation is explicitly framed as a law, e.g. Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

In other cases the observation is so inextricably tied with the observer that the effect is roughly the same, as with Acton on power and corruption or Santayana on remembrance and repitition of history. Getting your name attached to one these things is one road to minor immortality, albeit a particularly reductive kind.

The form is usually pretty similar: As X, Y. Or in slightly different form: As X, not Y. The historical examples people are trying to emulate, I suspect, are the ageless mathematicians and philosophers--Pythagoras, Archimedes, et al. Newton seemed to exlain the entire universe in three short laws of motion. That's why these laws are so popular. The world is a complicated place, more so all the time, and people are always hungry to accumulate a set of inviolable principles with which to make sense of things.

But here's the thing: just because someone makes an observation and calls it a law doesn't mean it's always true. I've heard people refer to Campbell's Law as if it were etched into the marble facade of the Supreme Court of Social Science, right up there with "correlation doesn't imply causation." It's not, nor are all the rest. Lots of people become powerful while avoiding corruption and make new history while remaining ignorant of the old. Heck, even Newton was eventually overtaken by quantum physics.

It'd be comforting if we could ascertain the world with nothing more than a few nostrums and easily remembered laws, but that's not the world we live in.

In Defense of College Rankings

I've spent a fair amount of time over the last year having various conversations and arguments about college rankings, and one of the problems with the discussion is a tendency to intermingle critiques of rankings per se and critiques of specific rankings, e.g. those produced by U.S. News. For example, people often say things like "Rankings are reductive, overly-simplistic and create perverse incentives for colleges to engage in an arms race for money, status, and student." While the first critiques--reductiveness and over-simplification--apply to all rankings, the perversity of the incentives is wholly a function of what you happen to base your rankings on. If you rank colleges based on good measures, then the incentives could be constructive.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with universities trying to climb the rankings ladder if the ladder leads to the right place. An 2006 Education Sector report explaining how to build such a construct is here.

As a rule, generalized anti-rankings arguments are a lot weaker than those levelled at specific rankings like U.S. News, because the arguments tend to stem from a broader aversion to accountability, competition, and public scrutiny. To read more on this topic, see this paper, "In Defense of College Rankings," which I presented last month at the Association for the Study of Higher Education annual conference.

Also, for a lively ongoing discussion of college rankings, check out Morse Code, a blog written by Bob Morse, the U.S. News rankings guru. Even though U.S. News has an obvious interest in this debate, the blog is actually quite thoughtful and non-propagandizing.

Winerip on Poverty, Etc.

Micheal Winerip covers a new ETS report in the Times today, exploring the relationship between out-of-school factors like single parenthood, TV watching, reading at home, etc. and student achievement. The report--which I have no quarrel with, Education Sector co-director Andy Rotherham was a reviewer--finds, to the surprise of no one, that these things make a difference, in the way that one would expect they would.

Therefore, what?

Because this is the question that matters. Those of us who work on education policy for a living have endured listened to a seemingly endless series of arguments around these issues in recent years, where one side says "of course schools are important" and the other side says "of course poverty (or whatever other non-school issue interests them) is important," as if these are debatable questions. So let's state, unequivocally and for the record, that educational outcomes are significantly influenced by things that happen both in school and out of school. Anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot, and anyone who implies that someone else believes otherwise is arguing in bad faith.

Therefore, what?

If you're not willing to answer this question concretely, you really doesn't deserve a seat at the table. Winerip is clearly not up to the challenge. He says "What’s interesting about the report...is how much we know, how often government policy and parental behavior does not reflect that knowledge, and how stacked the odds are against so many children." This--"reflects"--is typical; variants include "recognizes," "acknowledges," "takes into account," etc.

But what would government policy that "reflects" knowledge of the ETS report look like? Winerip appears to have no interest in answering this question, and that makes the statement itself essentially meaningless, since it's clearly written in the context of a policy debate.

NCLB, by contrast, reflects an identifiable perspective and set of resulting policy conclusions that goes something like this: Poverty (I'll use this as a proxy for all outside factors, since it's the issue that comes up the most) matters, but estimates of how much it matters are often overstated, because they don't fully account for two things:

1) The extent to which impoverished students get fewer educational resources like money, highly effective teachers, challenging curricula, etc. This underestimation is not function of dishonest or sloppy research, it's a function of the fact many of these things are hard to fully quantify.

2) The extent to which overall educational quality is sub-optimal, a problem that disproportionately affects low-income, low-achieving students, since they're more sensitive than higher-income, higher-achieving students to differences in educational quality even if those differences are evenly distributed (which of course they're not).

NCLB supporters believe, therefore, that poverty-based barriers to achievement are surmountable, provided that we (A) give poor students more educational resources instead of less, and (B) define "surmountable" in terms of fixed goals, not relative performance. In other words, nobody believes (Richard Rothstein's frequent assertions to the contrary) that schools can, by themselves, make the achievement of poor children indistinguishable from non-poor children, in the sense that they would be equal in all ways. Rather, people believe schools, properly resourced and run, can do enough to help poor children learn essential knowledge and skills. Therefore, it's reasonable to hold schools accountable for that goal. Ergo, NCLB.

The logic is certainly debatable--in the sense that reasonable people can debate it in good faith--and the supporting data is far from conclusive. But it's backed up by significant real-world evidence of the efficacy of schools in general and of some high-poverty schools in particular. And the policy implications are right there on the table, which is what matters most in the end.

On the other hand, Winerip and those like him who have devoted years of their lives to mounting counter-arguments against the current accountability regime are unified in their resolute unwillingness to explain what actual policy conclusions we are meant to draw from their ideas. Again I ask: If not this, what? The NEA and AFT have at least produced some fairly detailed outlines of principles for a different federal law. But when God and the devil are in the details, that's not good enough.

While NCLB in totality is lengthy, the parts that generate most of the controversy are actually pretty short and written in plain English. If you don't like them, fine--serious people can disagree. But if you're not willing to say how they should be different and take responsibility for that position, then you're not, in this debate, a serious person.

Update: Side Effects May Vary, which seems to come at these issues from a libertarian / voucher perspective, complains that post above "seems to imply that there is simply no solution that does not involve the state." So let me clarify: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you don't like the current law, be specific about what you want instead. The author says children are "languishing in a cruel trap guarded jealously by social planners like Carey and his ilk who venerate the contraption while condemning those of us who wish to extricate their unwilling subjects." Sure, okay. "Extricate"? What does that mean? Universal vouchers? I can't tell. Enlighten us.

Race and IQ

Malcolm Gladwell’s latest piece forays into the IQ-race debate most recently scandalized by the declaration by James Watson, co-winner of the 1953 Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, that Watson is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because of Africans’ general lack of intelligence. Gladwell’s article reviews a new book by James Flynn that shows Watson’s comments are almost certainly wrong.

Gladwell starts with a discussion of the Flynn effect, which has documented a steady but gradual rise in IQ scores over time. In order to compensate for the observed 3-point rise every decade, the main measurement instrument, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, has been updated four times to ensure that a score of 100 still equals the absolute average of peers. Without a process called “norming,” the average rises over time. And a score of 70 on the fourth version of the WISC would be much higher on the original version. This matters especially when considering arbitrary cutoff scores for admission to special education or gifted programs. The article cites a study on the 1991 introduction of the WISC III that found that the revision doubled the number of American children labeled mentally retarded if all states followed strict IQ score cutoffs and adopted the new test.

Flynn has also compiled a host of studies showing the effects of culture on IQ. Studies of mixed marriages offer Gladwell a compelling point,

If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father.

He also talks about one popular study that looked at births by American GI fathers and German mothers after WWII. African-American GIs sired children who scored almost identically to those of Caucasian fathers.

In a recent Manhattan Institute debate between Flynn and Charles Murray, author the The Bell Curve, Flynn pointed out that black-white IQ score gaps expand as children age. As infants, they score almost identically; the margin increases to 4.5 points by age 4, and then an additional .6 of a point every year until age 24. Murray may ascribe this widening gap as manifestation that genes matter more in the long run, but a more credible argument posits that cultural differences and the availability of stimulating cognitive environments make the difference.

Evidence supports this latter hypothesis. Flynn began dissecting the “model minority” hypothesis for Asian-Americans—that they were naturally smarter and thus became successful—by looking at data from a widely circulated 1975 study. It turned out that research relied on an intelligence test that hadn’t been updated in 20 years, meaning they were taking an easier version and biasing their scores upward. Flynn actually found they scored lower and achieved success despite the disparity. Even more interesting, their children, apparently absorbing a much more enriching childhood, scored 3% higher than average, reversing the prior numbers. This means that effort and the availability of enriching educational opportunities dictate future success. More importantly, as opposed to IQ, these are things educational policymakers can actually address.

The last point to glean from this topic is on the subject of immigration. In the 1920s and 30s, immigrants from Southern Italy scored more than one standard deviation below Americans and Western Europeans on IQ tests. Their scores, in the 70s and 80s, were comparable to those of blacks and Hispanics and fueled discussion about supposed inferiority of Italian genetics. Their scores have risen, and they are no longer the source of isolationist fervor, but maybe the debates of today should be injected with the lessons of the past.

--Guestblogger Chad Aldeman

Undeserved Publicity for Harvard

The Wall Street Journal is flashing the headline "Harvard Cuts Undergrad Prices" at the top of its Web site at the moment, along with an article that begins:

Harvard University sweetened its financial aid for middle class and upper middle-class families, responding to criticism that elite colleges have become unaffordable for ordinary Americans.

That's almost right, except the correct word would be unaccessible not unaffordable. It's good that an unimaginably wealthy institution like Harvard is only going to be charging rich people full freight. But that doesn't mean all that much when your student body is made up primarily of rich people. In the University's prepared statement, President Faust says "This is a huge investment for Harvard." Is it? Compared to what? How much does this increase the university's annual need-based aid expenditures? Will it increase the percentage of student eligible for such aid, and if so by how much? How much more aid will students receive, in percentage terms, compared to what they're getting now?

Harvard's statement concludes by noting that "With the new initiative fully in place this coming year, more than 90 percent of American families will be eligible to benefit from Harvard's exceptionally generous financial aid." I'm sure that's true, but it's also essentially meaningless, since only a tiny minority of that 90 percent attend high schools like these, identified just last week by the WSJ as those that offer the best odds of getting graduates into school like Harvard, often in exchange for tuition in excess of $25,000 per year.

Harvard has been getting a ton of great publicity over the last five years by cannily staying one step ahead of the curve in announcing new programs to cut tuition for it's small number of low- and middle-income students. But it until it actually does something to admit more of those students--not just help them once they arrive--it won't deserve headlines like these.

UPDATE: I see walking into work this morning that this is making the front page of all the big newspapers. Sigh. Some have reported, per above, the actual cost of the change, $22 million. That is (A) less than 0.4% (four-tenths of one percent) of what Harvard earned on its endowment last year, and (B) a small price to pay for this kind of publicity.

According to InsideHigherEd, "because Harvard officials said that they hoped the plan would attract new, less wealthy applicants, the share of undergraduates eligible could grow over time." Similarly, the New York Times reports that "Harvard’s dean of admissions and financial aid, William R. Fitzsimmons, said [previous changes targeted to families earning less than $60,000 per year] had increased the number of low-income students by 33 percent in three years."

Both of these statements are premised on the idea that the economic makeup of Harvard's student body is essentially a function of the economic makeup of the student who apply. That's nonsense. Harvard, like all selective colleges, decides who to admit. It rejects 90% of applicants, so it could easily put together a freshman class of smart, well-qualified students who better represent the economic diversity of the nation if wanted to. It just doesn't want to, because a lot of the admissions spots are reserved for athletes, legacies, children of the rich, famous, and powerful, and students who come through the quasi-aristocracy of east coast private schools.

The makeup of the overall applicant pool, moreover, isn't outside of the university's control. What if Harvard took $10 million and used it to create an office of people who'se only job was to identify and recruit the best and brightest low- and moderate-income students from across the nation, with a specific goal of substantially increasing the number of slots for such students and thus decreasing the number set aside for the children of wealthy donors? THAT would be front-page news.