What’s Next in Education: Common Ground or Battle Ground?

By Paul Peterson 02/08/2010 0 Comments

Are the right and the left coming together on education policy? President Obama’s budget address is encouraging, if ambiguous.  Looking elsewhere, one also finds mixed signals. Consider the two reports that came out last week, one on charter school segregation by a UCLA group headed by Professor Gary Orfield, the other a Brookings report headed by Grover Whitehurst, the widely respected former head of the Institute of Education Sciences.

If one wants to look for the most solid erection of barriers along traditional battle lines, one needs to search no further than the Orfield report.  Orfield has never seen a school choice program he likes. Suspicious of parents, he thinks either the courts or the federal government, or both, should force children to attend the school he and his elitist friends want them to attend. Orfield’s ideas made some sense 40 years ago when he began writing about persistent segregation in the South. But the scholar remains stuck in the past.  His latest attack report calls charter schools segregated, when in fact no one ever forces anyone to attend them.  Instead, charters are freely chosen–mainly by disadvantaged families of African American background in urban areas.  For parents to choose schools they find better and safer is something Orfield cannot tolerate.

A much more hopeful signal about where the country might be going is provided by the latest Brookings report on choice and competition in education, signed by a group of scholars of various political persuasions and pulled together by Grover Whitehurst. (Truth in advertising: I am a signer of this report.)  This report also supports desegregation but it recognizes that desegregation is best achieved through a fully developed system of choice and competition that includes charter schools, school vouchers, and a well developed system of choice among traditional public schools.  A sophisticated mechanism for informing parents of the schools in their community is recommended.

Brookings has often been the place where left and right have found common ground. Let’s hope the Brookings report, not Orfield’s, is pointing the way to the future.

Yes, We Have No Bananas

In a recent Education Next article, “Golden Handcuffs,” we talked about winners and losers in teacher pension systems, and about the huge costs these systems impose on mobile teachers due to the back-loading of benefits.  Consider one example.  In Missouri, a 25-year old entrant into the teaching profession receives net pension wealth equal to 33% of her cumulative earnings if she teaches until age 55, but her net pension wealth will be equal to only one percent of her earnings if she leaves at age 35. Yet in both cases, her employer contributed 12.5 percent of earnings into the pension fund each year.

In a letter to the editor written in response to our article, Beth Almeida of the National Institute on Retirement Security takes us to task for describing this phenomenon as “redistribution,” noting that such a practice is illegal.   We are not lawyers, so we’ll take her word on that.   And since we don’t want to get pension and teacher union officials in trouble, we have a modest proposal, inspired by Professor Alfred Kahn, President Carter’s anti-inflation czar.   In the late 1970’s Professor Kahn was taken to task by his boss and his political advisors for talking about a “recession.”  So in public discussions Kahn started talking about a “banana” instead, at one point warning:  “We’re in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years.”

It is in the spirit of Professor Kahn that we offer Figure 1, which illustrates the bananas for our two Missouri teachers.  The teacher who stays on the job for 30 years, until age 55, receives far more in net pension benefits than has been contributed on her behalf — a positive banana.   By contrast, a teacher who puts in ten years, leaving at age 35, receives far less than has been contributed — a negative banana.

For the Ed Next article, we summed up the positive and negative bananas across all teachers entering at age 25 in Missouri. We estimate that 46 percent of their pension wealth gets banana-ed from those leaving teaching early (average age 37) to those leaving later (average age 54). In the article we note that the size of the average banana ranges from a high of 61 percent of an entering cohort’s pension wealth in Massachusetts to a low of 36 percent in California.

In our writings about teacher pensions over the last few years, we’ve identified a lot of bananas.   It has also become clear that bananas are an important issue in reforming these systems.   We think it’s important to start this policy discussion.  Just make sure you avoid the “r” word and choose a popular fruit or vegetable instead.

NB: We respond to some of Almeida’s other arguments here.

CosPod_Banana

Behind the Headline: In Montgomery County, the teachers union and its toxic influence

By Education Next 02/08/2010 0 Comments

On Top of the News
In Montgomery County, the teachers union and its toxic influence
02/05/10 | The Washington Post

Behind the Headline
The Union Label on the Ballot Box
Summer 2006 | Education Next

The Washington Post editorial board complains about the teachers union in Montgomery County, Maryland, where candidates for school board and county council who seek the endorsement of the union are strongly encouraged to contribute $6000 to a PAC run by the union. The union uses this money to help its favored candidates get elected; in effect, the union is hiring its own bosses on the school board and county council. In Summer 2006, Ed Next published an article by Terry Moe that looked at teacher union power in school board elections.

HT: Eduwonk

A True Shot Across The Bow

By George Mitchell 02/05/2010 1 Comment

Here’s a story that bears watching:
State starts process to withhold millions in MPS funds

The lead paragraph clearly captures the potential significance:

“Wisconsin’s superintendent of public instruction took the first step Thursday toward withholding up to $175 million in federal funds from Milwaukee Public Schools because of the district’s failure to meet yearly academic progress targets required under law.”

Is there a precedent for this in other states?

As the story makes clear, several steps in this process still must play out.

Behind the Headline: Judge rejects Seattle’s high school math program

By Education Next 02/05/2010 Comments Off

On Top of the News
Judge rejects Seattle’s high school math program
02/04/10 | Seattle Post Intelligencer

Behind the Headline
An A-Maze-ing Approach To Math
Spring 2005 | Education Next

A judge has ruled that the Seattle school district’s adoption of a “discovery math” program was arbitrary and capricious, noting that the state board of education had declared the curriculum “mathematically unsound.” In the Spring 2005 issue of Ed Next, Barry Garelick looked at the politics and the math behind discovery math.

HT: Joanne Jacobs

New Article: High School 2.0

By Education Next 02/04/2010 0 Comments

The School of the Future is a public high school in Philadelphia that opened its doors in September 2006. It was designed (with assistance from Microsoft) to feature technology and a learner-driven curriculum, but while Microsoft helped launch the school, it did not pay for it. “The company deliberately tried to work within the resource and bureaucratic limits of the existing system, determined to create something that was scalable and replicable in other big school districts,” explains Dale Mezzacappa in “High School 2.0,” which appears in the Spring 2010 issue of Education Next.

In its first three years, the school was plagued by leadership turnover, hiring difficulties, and wavering support for its mission from the school district, Mezzacappa reports. Now in its fourth year of operation, the school is having trouble attracting students; built for 750, enrollment is below 500 today.  “At this point,” one teacher says, “the School of the Future exists only in the minds of a few educators. We’re fighting against a leviathan.”

The experiment has been a learning experience for Microsoft. “We’ve learned that we have to prepare for a very long journey,” says Mary Cullinane, who has directed the project for Microsoft.

NB: The Ed Next article was adapted from a paper prepared for a conference hosted by AEI and Microsoft in May 2009. The conference papers will appear in a book published by Harvard Education Press.

New Article: Finding Time for Tennis and Thoreau

By Education Next 02/03/2010 0 Comments

Brett Ellen Keeler, a junior tennis player from Austin, Texas, describes what it’s like to attend a virtual high school while traveling two weeks out of every month to compete in tennis tournaments in “Finding Time for Tennis and Thoreau.”

For more in this vein, check out our video, “Tennis Players Choose Virtual Schooling.”

School Turnarounds: Felicitous or Futile?

By Education Next 02/03/2010 0 Comments

Should failing schools be fixed or closed?

In Winter 2009, Ed Next published “The Big U-Turn: How to bring schools from the brink of doom to stellar success,” by Bryan Hassel and Emily Ayscue Hassel. Then in Winter 2010, we published “The Turnaround Fallacy: Stop trying to fix failing schools. Close them and start fresh,” by Andy Smarick.

Last week, Ed Next and the Fordham Institute brought the authors together for a debate: “School Turnarounds: Exciting and Felicitous or Expensive and Futile?

Andres Alonso (CEO of the Baltimore City Public Schools) and Emily Lawson (Founder and CEO of DC Prep, a network of charter schools) also spoke at the event.

You can view the event in its entirety here.

TurnaroundEventVidLink

Milwaukee Vouchers: 18% Graduation Edge Over Public Schools

By George Mitchell 02/02/2010 2 Comments

Two years ago, presidential aspirant Barack Obama said during a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interview:  “If there was any argument for vouchers, it was ‘Let’s see if the experiment works.’  And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”

As President, his acquiescence to the death of the D.C. Scholarship Program — despite well-documented, positive findings from Patrick Wolf’s team — is a reminder that actions speak louder than words.

So perhaps it’s naïve to put too much stock in these words from last week’s State of the Union address:  “The idea here is simple. Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform that raises student achievement.”

Yet, hope springs eternal.  As with other policies where the President now is reconsidering his approach, perhaps he and Education Secretary Arne Duncan will take a second look at the power of parent choice.

New data from Milwaukee gives them a chance to do that.  It provides yet another piece of evidence suggesting that urban students benefit when afforded more educational options.  It comes from University of Minnesota Sociology Professor John Robert Warren, an acknowledged national expert on high school graduation rates.

After studying six years of data from Milwaukee, Warren concludes, in a new study reported here, “Students in the Milwaukee choice program are more likely to graduate from high school than” students in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS).   This despite the fact that eligibility for Milwaukee vouchers is limited to students from low-income families while “students in MPS schools come from a much broader range of social and economic backgrounds.”

Professor Warren’s report, available here, says that Milwaukee students using vouchers were 18 per cent more likely to graduate than MPS students.  He estimates that 3,352 additional Milwaukee students would have received diplomas between 2003 and 2008 if public school graduation rates had matched those of low-income students using educational vouchers.

As for causation, Warren notes that a separate longitudinal evaluation of the Milwaukee program, being directed by Pat Wolf, will address that issue.

Food for Thought?

By Mark Bauerlein 02/01/2010 0 Comments

As administrators struggle to engage wayward teenagers (they’re all wayward) and make learning meaningful after hours, one can imagine a school turning an unused plot of grass on the grounds into a working garden.  Some students could cultivate crops while others head to football and band practice. They could even run it as a business, opening a market on Saturdays and picking up a bit of logistics and finance to go with the botany. Getting a few credits for the work wouldn’t interfere with calculus and U.S. history, either, and it might improve attitudes toward school in general.

That isn’t what happened at Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School in Berkeley, CA, though. When famed chef Alice Waters of Chez Panisse offered to plant a garden in a barren lot next to the school, she envisioned a lot more than a little extra-curricular agri-business for the kids. She wanted the whole curriculum.  As Waters explained to the Los Angeles Times last year, “Now we need a curriculum that’s about ecology and about gastronomy so that we can make sure that children are making the right kinds of decisions for themselves, and for the planet.”

Today MLK Jr. Middle School has a one-acre organic garden and kitchen that serve as a working classroom, and it’s not just an add-on initiative.  Part of the Chez Panisse Foundation, the project has a catchy title, The Edible Classroom, and the home page forthrightly declares the ambition: “Classroom teachers and Edible Schoolyard educators integrate food systems concepts into the core curriculum.” Students work the garden and staff the kitchen and learn other subjects along the way. Another page on the Web site gives an example:

“After months of hard work, we are proud to unveil our new Rainwater Catchment System, with a 6,000 gallon capacity. For every inch of rain, we harvest and store 200 gallons of water, and limit the contamination of our Codornices Creek Watershed and the San Francisco Bay. This hands-on, educational tool is illustrating issues of stormwater runoff, pollution, erosion, and providing a real world application of core mathematical concepts.”

In the kitchen, students “experience culture, history, language, ecology, and mathematics through the preparation of food.” Edible Schoolyard offers lesson plans for teachers—the math one is called “Making Mathematics Delicious,” and 6th-graders studying early humans can make “Neolithic Fruit Salad” using Stone Age tools.

Caitlin Flanagan profiles the initiative in The Atlantic magazine this month, and she, too, recounts the whole-curriculum approach. “In English class students composed recipes,” she says, “in math they measured the garden beds, and in history they ground corn as a way of studying pre-Columbian civilizations.”

It sounds so nice, so inspiring, and who would be bilious enough to argue against teaching young people to love the earth? And who doesn’t appreciate the accomplishment of Alice Waters (even the French honor her)? As Flanagan notes, Waters has received non-stop accolades for her school support—a 1998 Excellent in Education Award from her state’s senator, Barbara Boxer, an Education Heroes Award from the U.S. Dept of Ed, and an exhibit sponsored by the Smithsonian on the National Mall devoted to Edible Schoolyard.

For all the admiration, though, in education only outcomes count. Flanagan again:

“According to the 2009 Federal Accountability Requirements, statewide, more than 39 percent of Latinos are proficient in English and 44 percent in math, but at the King school, those numbers are a dismal 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively. Where do Berkeley’s African American and Hispanic middle-schoolers do well? At a gardenless charter school called Cal Prep, where 92 percent of the students are black or Latino, where the focus is on academic achievement, and where test scores have been rising steadily.”

That explains the title of The Atlantic piece, “Cultivating Failure.” Waters has the momentum of her extraordinary prestige and educational faddishness behind her, and California schools now boast 3,849 gardens. Once again, however, we come to the hard question. How do we know that a garden-based instruction in math and reading works better than the old-fashioned way? On the List of Publications page of www.edibleschoolyard.org appear eight volumes, but not one of them mentions any data on effectiveness, instead providing mostly statements of philosophy and “principles.” To cite an example about as far from Chez Panisse as one can go, “Where’s the BEEF?”

Posts by Authors

  • Bryan Hassel
  • Chester E. Finn, Jr.
  • Education Next
  • Emily Ayscue Hassel
  • Eric Hanushek
  • Frederick Hess
  • George Mitchell
  • Herbert Walberg
  • James Guthrie
  • Jay P. Greene
  • John Chubb
  • Joshua Dunn
  • Marci Kanstoroom
  • Mark Bauerlein
  • Martha Derthick
  • Martin West
  • Michael Petrilli
  • Michael Podgursky
  • Paul Hill
  • Paul Peterson
  • Peter Meyer
  • William Howell
  • Williamson Evers
  • Blogs

  • Organizations

    Sponsored Results
    About the Blog

    The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.

    Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

    The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.


    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform