Dear Friends:

        As summer winds down and the kids are back to school again, it’s time to reflect on a summer’s worth of education events and news that could actually fill a book! From growing acceptance of school choice, to how districts and parents are coping in not-so-strange ways with the new requirements of federal law, to charter school growth and myriad assaults, it’s clear that the summer was a vacation only for those not concerned about the status quo. We do hope you had time to catch up on everything that’s most important in your lives this summer. Now as we get back to the most important public priority we all should have, it’s time to clear our heads and catch up on where education reform stands in CER’s Back to School Monthly Letter to Friends.

···················································

        To start with the most recent and, perhaps, most foreboding of what is yet to come this year, charter schools have gotten a bum rap publicly by a variety of research organizations and opponents.

        A Washington, DC-based think tank, the Brookings Institute, issued a report right after Labor Day concluding that while research shows charter schools students score lower than other public school students, the research is actually inconclusive. "With the data at hand, it is impossible to tell whether charter schools’ test scores reflect the quality of education at the schools," said the researchers. That’s cold comfort in the world of public policy given that news editors had a field day with just the opposite conclusion. A detailed review of the study finds several shortcomings in their study.

        First, Brookings had no way of assessing where the students of the 376 charters they studied started academically upon entering the charter. Other research has found that charter students start behind their peers. The Brookings study found that there are more Black and Hispanic students on average in charters than traditional schools. Thus rather than assess student growth from year to year, this report simply takes a snapshot in time of how one school’s students compare to others as a whole.

        Additional questions we’ve raised about the Brookings charter study include: Why did they average together test results from different grades? How is it possible to make judgments about how schools perform when a 10^th grader’s score is considered equal to that of an 8^th grader? Does it matter that charters serve more elementary and middle school age children than high school students? Why did researchers compare schools of vastly different compositions to one another? 

        Three states that the researchers studied just released data that show its charters serve significant numbers of low-income students. According to the Charter Friends Accountability report, in Massachusetts "of the 20 school districts with the biggest percentages of poor children, 11 are charter schools (charter schools are considered their own school district in Massachusetts). In the 2001-02 school year, about 25 percent of the state’s 979,000 public school children were considered low income. Twenty-seven of the state’s charter schools rank above that percentage, and 15 are below it." (For more information, visit www.doe.mass.edu/charter.)

        A Michigan think tank just released a study showing that charter school students do actually gain more in achievement than traditional public school students, even though the majority come in at vastly lower achievement levels. Using Michigan achievement data to track students on 4^th grade reading scores, the Mackinac Center found gains of 43 percent between 2000-2001, compared to only 10.1 percent for traditional public schools. (Go to www.mackinac.org/4581)

        A new study in Texas that looked at five years of data found that student performance is higher in charters but when researchers look at actual schools as a whole, they have lower-performance. In other words, students are making gains but as a whole, the group of students that attend charters is likely to have lower performance going in. (www.tcer.org)

        The Brookings authors did acknowledge that charters might appear lower achieving because there are more low achieving students attending them. Thus they recommend a grace period from hard and fast accountability timelines – a different accountability clock, they call it, so that charters are given a fair amount of time to produce learning. The authors recognize that new schools take time to produce results, particularly when poor children who’ve been failed by other schools are involved. (For more analysis, see NEW STUDY INCONCLUSIVE AT BEST -- Previous Research Counters Brookings Findings, September 3, 2002 and Detailed Analysis.)

###

        Other "bum raps" charters got the past few weeks…

•     The American Federation of Teachers played statistical games in a report that the school employees’ union issued in July during their national convention. The union argued — as if it could be objective — that charters do not hold up and that charters have strayed far from their intent. As several national education groups who know better pointed out: "There is no valid nationwide comparison of charter school achievement to public school achievement on which the AFT bases its claims… The AFT’s claims of a weak, ten-year charter school track record are groundless."

•     Meanwhile, Ohio was just one state where the Blob began a full scale attack against the whole of the state’s charter community. (Most groups mask their opposition, so you have to give the Ohio Blob credit!) Starting a "campaign" masquerading as a Coalition for Public Education, the group of School Board, PTA and even League of Women’s Voters leadership are waging a campaign against a bill that would actually provide more help for charters, particularly when it comes to accountability. But the group believes that any amount of charters is too many, so they’re on the move. The good news is that this assault is nothing new; from state to state over the years, you’ll see almost the identical game plan carried out by "coalitions" with appealing names. If they were really concerned with the quality of charters being authorized, they would lend a hand to keep charters from having to struggle with financial obstacles that can lead to their demise. (For more on shenanigans in Ohio, see WHAT OHIO'S COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION ISN'T TELLING YOU ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS, By Jeanne Allen, president, Center for Education Reform; Chester E. Finn Jr., president, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation; and Lisa Graham Keegan, CEO, Education Leaders Council.)

        Why are some groups so hell-bent on making sure charter schools fail? Here’s a small glimpse of the obstacles facing charter schools just in the last few months:

Vista Literacy Academy, Vista, CA: Started after having to spend significant time pressuring the city’s school board, this charter recently attempted to move into permanent space only to find various fire code issues. Upon setting up temporary structures, the school board decided it would call for a baseless investigation into the charter.

Indio Charter School, in Indio, CA has been thwarted in its fourth year of business from receiving the funding to which it is entitled. The excuse being used by state bureaucrats is that Indio only holds classes Monday through Thursday, not five days a week. They say twenty percent fewer days equates to a twenty percent reduction in funding. What they ignore is that the schools’ days are greatly extended, and that all told students are in school 20 percent longer than state law requires. They also ignore that last year the charter produced the highest Academic Performance Index scores of all 13 schools in the Indio district, as well as the highest SAT-9 reading scores.

Governors State University Charter School, Illinois — The Illinois State Board revoked one of this state’s most successful charter schools citing minor violations of their charter. The school boasted excellent academic results and heavy parental and community support, but all that seemed irrelevant to a school board bent on revocation.

Thurgood Marshall Academy in Washington DC was cited for "$3 million worth of asbestos issues" and thus had their per pupil charter school facilities allocation reduced, rather than be given — like other public schools — funds to fix the problem. Care to guess how much asbestos lurks in other school buildings that retain funding no matter what?

Jefferson Montessori Academy in Carlsbad, New Mexico was frozen out of participation at school board meetings, charged $1 per page for copies of public records and policies, and had their budget vote postponed, almost causing it not to open this fall. Each time the charter attempted to comply with the school board dictates, it was told it would have to make a "few more changes." These obstacles caused a rocky start to the school year.

Aurora Charter High School in San Carlos, CA had to finally sue the Sequoia school district (which obviously gives the trees a bad name) to get that district to live up to its obligation to provide facilities to the newly approved charter.

New Charter Laws – Sort of

        This summer saw the establishment of two new laws authorizing charter schools. The problem is, one of them doesn’t really allow for anything even close to a charter school.

        Tennessee lawmakers in July 2002 passed a measure that its hometown observers at "GoMemphis.com" say "leaves much to be desired." (You’ll recall CER’s earlier coverage of the bill, which supporters rejoiced in saying was weak!) The bill limits charters to children who are in schools deemed failing, and puts the burden on charter applicants to identify the regulations they would appreciate being waived. Since those applicants have to apply to school boards, it is not clear they’ll have much success getting any autonomy from existing rules. After all, most school boards really believe their rules matter. There is an appeal to the State Board of Education, but appeals always take time and money and most applicants don’t have the stomach for the kind of politics that these appeals take on. Local charter leaders sense that their bill isn’t the best, but given that at least the charter concept could be exercised around most of Memphis low-performing schools, it may stimulate some new schools.

        Iowa, on the other hand, now has a law that may qualify it for federal money (despite the federal law’s intent) but that does little more than let existing public schools be called charters if existing school leaders (and unions) agree that this should occur. A law that authorizes only 10 conversions — and that was specifically introduced to bring about an influx of new money, albeit a small amount — is hardly a charter law, so while you’re likely to hear Iowa has a charter law, we’re still trying to determine if it even qualifies… or what the definition of "is" is, for that matter.

        California’s law is being eroded by false friends who want to curb problems but in so doing, have created processes that add layers of bureaucracy to the chartering process. The legislature has approved a bill that seriously impedes charter school autonomy and sets up more rules and hoops for would-be charters to jump through. The bill, AB 1994, restricts and removes by 2005 any charters that operate outside of the district in which they were approved, sets up a false sense of new chartering to county boards and the state board that can hear applications on appeal but only under convoluted circumstances, and basically continues to whittle away at charters as if they are some misdirected concept.

        The summer saw the conventions of both school employees’ unions. These were followed diligently by the Education Intelligence Agency, who in addition to reporting "live" from the conventions was reportedly wined and dined by delegates (Well, not exactly). Some of the following we owe to the EIA reports:

•     In June we reported extensively about the progress of AB 2160, a bill in California designed to give the unions greater control over classroom affairs, including textbook decisions and curriculum. While that bill was defeated, it is being re-introduced in bits and pieces in the legislature. Following their footsteps, the New Jersey affiliate of the same school employees’ union earmarked a half a million dollars to campaign to do the same thing in the Garden State.

•     The NEA is trying to shape the opinions of its members about the new ESEA, but an internal poll found that half of its members don’t even know what it stands for.

•     Membership in the NEA is flat, but 20 state affiliates have lost members, no doubt to alternative groups like the Mississippi Professional Educators or even to charter schools.

•     Delegates directed union leadership to continue to "provide ongoing strategic information to members and affiliates" about the right wing conspiracy to destroy public education. (We can only say "thank God!")

        Edison Schools troubles can be described as unfortunate, for reformers in general and for those who stand to benefit from better educational programming that seems to be at play still in a majority of Edison Schools. While their woes in Philadelphia — where the politics of race and class make the civil rights movement look like a practice run — caused the company to be picked apart, reduced investor confidence and caused even friends of reform to question their program and design, the Edison schools we’ve reviewed and talked to are still thriving and very much in demand.

        Witness Friendship-Edison schools in Washington, DC: four schools that serve about 3,000 of the poorest city residents. The two elementary schools this spring posted math and reading achievement scores higher than between 53 percent and 62 percent of children nationally. They also raised scores at a rate exceeded by only one other DC public school, beating out 105 others. Take a look at Edison in San Francisco where scores have consistently gone up, or the Chula Vista Edison school, where since in addition to surpassing its projected goals, all students, and especially Hispanics have grown by as much as 16 percent across all subjects and grades since 1998. Chicago’s Edison charter showed 15 percent gains in grades 3-5 to name just one accomplishment and Dayton, Ohio students met or exceeded goals the last two years.

        Mind you, Edison has had some clunkers as well, as have most school systems. But the issues being raised aren’t about education. As we know all too well, just the fact that Edison is a for-profit company makes people wiggle and worm and demand all sorts of information that they wouldn’t dream of wanting when it comes to the billions of dollars spent in traditional schools. That’s why we were amused by the Chicago Tribune’s comment that "Nobody ever complains about the likes of Crayola or Houghton Mifflin making money off of public education, but when it comes to a school management company, suddenly it’s held to a level of scrutiny and a standard that never would be applied to a public district."

        On top of that scrutiny, the Anyone-Working-With-Schools-Must-Be-A-School-System-Employee crowd has used Edison to raise questions about all such public-private partnerships, regardless of results. The point is that whether we’re talking about Edison or another company, there are indeed some tremendous achievement gains to point to in the world of public-private partnerships, but those successes are overlooked in favor of the opposition-driven swarm of bad press.

        We won’t solve this problem this month, and it is hard to say which calls that are being made about Edison’s fate will end up being true. But one thing that reformers need be reminded about is the fact that Edison has been a target of the unions and their allies since day one, and if you think this is anything other than pure, brass knuckles politics, you’ve lost your radar.

•     Detroit schools spend $1.5 million on professional PR firms to promote the district’s schools. Remember that next time someone in Detroit says the city’s 54, largely successful charters are siphoning money.

•     Los Angeles and San Diego school scores went up in elementary reading and math for the fourth year in a row, thanks to a higher focus on strong programs as well as the effects of rigorous state standards and consequences. But these standardized test scores are somewhat mitigated by the results of California’s achievement tests, which benchmark kids against the real standards, rather than against a national norm. Those tests revealed that proficiency is still a far off, albeit laudatory, goal. Only 30 percent of students demonstrated proficiency in mathematics, science and history, far from the 100 percent efficiency new federal law demands.

•     A very dynamic superintendent seems to have touched ground in Maryland’s Anne Arundel County, by the looks of a concentrated focus on reading and math basics in the worst schools and a possibility of expanding Open Court reading and Saxon math programs to all other county schools. Eric J. Smith is adding a challenging focus in high schools as well, by recommending that the International Baccalaureate program be brought into two high schools. Teachers will be held accountable for the success of their programs in each endeavor. Smith is responding to a long, continual cry from parents that the schools aren’t challenging enough, and with private school enrollment topped off in the county, Smith sensed a challenge and took it.

•     The Nation’s annual Spelling Bee is clearly the longest running reform-friendly educational activity this nation knows. Held each spring since 1925 the Spelling Bee pulls 250 kids from every state except Vermont and Utah (figure that one out!) and from several territories. But more to the point, the break down this year of finalists represented the complete picture of education: 167 were from public schools, 55 from private or parochial schools, 27 from home schools and this year for the first time, one charter school student. Of course now that we’ve said it, the Bee will no doubt be protested over or bothered in some manner! But our hats off to this very impartial and important event that extends an open arm to children to compete regardless of their educational background.

•     The education Blob in California is living up to its name, sticking together like glue to push a bill that would ensure they always have a seat at the table on the State Board of Education. The union, school boards association and state PTA are demanding four of the state board’s seats to be set-aside for people representing their interests. Obviously these groups don’t trust the will of the voters who choose the Governor to be responsible for assembling his own educational team at the state board level. The Blob already has enormous political influence over the choice of state superintendent, providing enormous sums of money and access to their membership base for this elected post every four years. Apparently, they want the state board, too.

•     We hate to say "I told you so" but given the recent news that the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test hasn’t produced higher dropout rates — as had been widely predicted by anti-testers — we just had to say it. The dropout rate for seniors who must pass MCAS to graduate actually went down slightly, and in reality, increasing numbers of students have begun passing the test, thanks in large part to increased pressure on students and schools to do whatever they can to master the content they are expected to know. More information on MCAS scores and how this high stakes test has actually yielded results can be found at www.edreform.com/standard.htm. (Speaking of high stakes, check out page 10 to find out what some school board associations think about it all).

        It’s a big election year and if you haven’t had enough of the yard signs and baby kissing yet, hang onto your hats.

        Education plays a huge role in campaigns and reformers need to weigh in. But how? What should you ask of your candidates? If you turn over your Monthly Letter, you’ll find a special education reform Candidate Survey we created to help you gauge the education reform pedigree of people seeking your vote. In October, CER will be publishing the results of the how people facing the top executive races in the nation responded to our survey. But we offer it to you to use in any race that may be important in your local area — from school board to city council to statehouse and more.

        Remember — unless you ask about it they won’t think it’s important!

•     In the afterglow of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ‘02 decision concerning the clear constitutionality of the Cleveland Scholarship Program (also known as vouchers), one thing is certain: The people support school choice in ever growing numbers.

        The polls are clear. In 1999, Public Agenda surveyed individuals as to "whether or not you favor or oppose…parents being given a voucher or certificate by the government to pay for all or part of tuition if they decide to send their child to a private or parochial school." Fifty-seven percent generally supported that proposition, while 68 and 65 percent respectively of African-Americans and Hispanics did.

        Knowing that the annual PDK/Gallup poll would use again the kind of negative questioning that elicits lower support numbers, CER again surveyed 1,200 adults on this question: 

"How much are you in favor of or against allowing poor parents to be given the tax dollars allotted for their child’s education and permitting them to use those dollars in the form of a scholarship to attend a private, public or parochial school of their choosing?

Sixty-three percent support it generally, and 71 and 63 percent respectively of African-Americans and Hispanics do.

        CER’s poll was written up in USA Today and Education Week, providing a sound counterweight to biased polls.

•     Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter said that vouchers face an uphill battle in most states thanks to middle-class, suburban opposition (something we think results from propaganda, not real opposition). Alter points out that liberal Democrats ought to worry that their outright opposition to vouchers over even targeted programs in inner cities may alienate support among majority voucher-friendly blacks and Hispanics. "Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'" he asked. "This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."

•     Perhaps the most interesting endorsement came from the Washington Post, whose editorial page argued that the fact districts are struggling to implement No Child Left Behind requirements, "[underscores] the need to keep a close watch on the ways in which the measure plays out. And they provide another argument for systems to be open to alternatives, such as charter schools or well-funded voucher trials that could provide additional avenues for students not well served by the current structure… Without sufficient options, the promise of an escape route for students in failing schools will be illusory, and the pressure on those schools to improve will be less."

•     In Florida this July, 200 students from several failing Miami-Dade County public schools decided to transfer to better schools, including about a third exercising the option to use vouchers. In total, roughly 575 students throughout Florida are using vouchers. Did someone say the sky was falling?

•     While many school leaders are allergic to reform, Buffalo seems to provide a refreshing contrast. County Executive Joel A. Giambra is calling for a summit this fall to explore the idea of vouchers, and the president of the city school board, Jack Coyle, said he would "welcome a public airing of the controversial issue." While New York State is fraught with political and union challenges on this issue, these gents get our thanks for helping to enlighten the public discourse.

•     "The failure to provide education to poor urban children perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty, dependence, criminality and alienation that continues for the remainder of their lives." Justice Clarence Thomas

        "Any objective observer familiar with the full history and context of the Ohio program would reasonably view it as one aspect of a broader undertaking to assist poor children in failed schools." Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Cleveland voucher case.

•     The National School Boards Association was contending with the eventual decision in June by issuing a press kit that was stellar for its lack of any educational content. It included: real stories on voucher failures and comments from parents of voucher students.

        The public’s demand for choice is crashing with the slow pace at which the new federal law delivers it…

 Fewer Children Left Behind

        Summer was no picnic for the hoards of administrators who were finally forced to contend with the requirement that (Egad!) they need to give children a place to go if they currently attend a failing school. Many school systems around the country apparently thought the requirement to allow children in failing schools some options was all a big joke. Administrators have known of this likely requirement since debate began on the No Child Left Behind Act more than a year ago. But because the accountability requirements of the 1994 Title 1 revisions were never enforced, they must have assumed that this new law would become a paper tiger, too.

        But it didn’t and try as they may, they haven’t been able to wiggle out of the need to rethink what it is they do for children in failing schools. The clearest requirement is that they need to offer those students options. But many waited until the last minute and stayed fixed to previous school assignments. As USA Today proffered: "Instead of complaining, superintendents should be working to ensure the success of this early test of public school choice."

•     Some districts are on track. Milwaukee was notified that a third of its schools were considered failing, and immediately set out to "redouble" efforts to improve but at the same time, sent out letters being very clear about the choices parents could make, including tutoring for students at schools with troubles two or more years in a row.

•     DeKalb County, Georgia officials had hundreds of seats to offer to the parents of 16,000 children, but rather than send a letter promptly upon learning of the schools deemed failing they created a brochure and asked principals to post it. Lack of information means that only a handful of families were participating as of the deadline.

•     The prestigious Maryland counties of Montgomery and Howard sent letters that all but denounced the idea of parents moving children, and then offered only one alternative to parents.

        Naturally, in cities where choice is more accepted and part of the standard way of life, there is less hostility. This new law isn’t easy to contend with, but consider the kids whose schools aren’t easy to live with let alone successful. As Education Department Under Secretary Eugene Hickok has offered, this is a paradigm shift and superintendents need to get used to having to think outside of the box.

        High stakes are for tomatoes, not students. Today, schools continue to be locked into a standards culture where accountability is measured by state and national testing. It is time to look at standards through a lens that focuses on concepts and connections rather than on topics and testing. To do this requires a paradigm shift — one that Dr. Seuss leads us toward in his unfinished work, Hooray for Diffendoofer Day! Begin at the end, think less is more, value life-long learning and you’ll be able to uncover powerful possibilities for curriculum design.

Can excellent work be coerced from principals, teachers, and students simply by withholding diplomas, slashing funds and publishing embarrassing statistics in the newspaper? As states and school districts work at structuring new accountability mechanisms and mandating changes in instruction, they will do well to remember that school people and their relationships to one another will make or break reform. How do teachers relate to each other? How do school professionals interact with parents and community? What are principal teacher relations like? The answers to such questions are central to determining WHETHER (emphasis added) schools can improve.

        The nonsense immediately preceding this page — together with the ongoing fighting and debating about standards and "how high" is high enough — made me reflect on something I’d read in Education Week recently. It was an essay about Horace Mann, considered by education people to be their hero but considered by many reformers to have ignited what would eventually become "the Achievement Gap."

        Horace Mann was a learned man that read Noah Webster’s Grammar and who prepared for Brown University by studying Greek, Latin and mathematics, according to Harvard University graduate student Peter H. Gibbon. He was valedictorian of his graduating class, studied law and lived at a time where scholarly pursuits were expected. So when he became Massachusetts Secretary of Education, we’d expect that he would, in turn, recommend that the masses follow a similar path. And indeed he did recommend that students read great books and that teachers know their subject matter.

        So what happened? Well, Mann stressed the social aspects of school over the educational benefits. According to Gibbons (and Diane Ravitch, writing in Left Back, before him), Mann said that public schools would serve to "produce efficient workers, promote health, eliminate poverty, cut crime," etc. True, that good education does just that by creating well-educated individuals whose reason and attitude toward life leads them more towards honest and excellent pursuits than to lesser-goods. But if character was intended to be the most important goal of public school, then it’s clear to see how education officials over the decades would find comfort in pursuing social concerns at the expense of academic rigor.

        The truth is that good schools do both well. Someone asked me the other day if I felt bad advocating for an experiment like charter schools where, if it failed, could set us back. My reply was that the experiment that already set us back involves school systems setting up schools that until recently, were accountable to no one and did not have to produce results to receive public support. That’s an experiment that needs to be ended; bring on good schools that combine scholarly pursuit with rigorous standards, with all the great social things that we recall and enjoy about this thing we call school. Whether it’s done in public, charter, private, home or virtual schools, it can and should be done for all children. If Mann saw the enormous gaps today, I think he’d agree.

···················································

        Next month, another look at what’s ailing math instruction, a problem that is, thankfully, now growing in recognition. And don’t forget to use your Candidate Survey! Remember the words of Tip O’Neill that All politics is local. If you vote your education views, we may just brighten the reform picture in most states yet!

        Happy Fall!

Jeanne Allen

MONTHLY LETTER MAILBOX: Register to receive the Monthly Letter by mail, send us your comments, questions or compliments about this or any other issue of the Monthly Letter, or let us know what's happening in your community and state for coverage in future Monthly Letters. We welcome your input!

CER Home Page CER Monthly Letter E-Mail CER CER Publications