Editor's Notes: The PPI "21st Century Schools Project Update" is a bi-weekly email newsletter published by PPI's 21st Century Schools Project. To sign up for a free subscription, click here. (Check the box next to "Education.") Original links are included though some may have expired.
In 2004, Biting Your Nose to Spite Your Face (Guest Essay by Leo Casey)
News and Commentary
1. Weapons of D(d)emocratic Destruction
2. Two Years of NCLB
3. Crying Wolf
4. NAEP Urban Scores Revisited
5. Targeting Educators
Departments:
6. Charter Schooling News
7. Quick Clicks
8. 21st Century Schools Project Announcements:
SAVE THE DATE: PPI-NAS-NEKIA Research Conference March 11, 2004
2004 will be a political year with plenty of debate. That's good; vigorous national debates are as much a hallmark of a free society as is voting. Yet these debates have consequences that extend past the time elections or issues are settled. Words uttered and positions taken in the heat of political passion matter.
NCLB will obviously be a contentious topic. To be sure, overall we support NCLB, but reasonable people can disagree about the goals and provisions of the law. However, we have been dismayed at the willingness of many NCLB opponents to align themselves with political actors, positions, and rhetoric with which they have little else in common. That some ultra-conservative politicians and states rights zealots oppose NCLB is not a good reason for progressives to make common cause with them. To rail against federal mandates, federal intrusion, and federal activity in education is to fundamentally misread the history of the second half of the last century and to put at risk the authority and credibility of the federal government to intervene on behalf of the disadvantaged in education and other policy areas.
In the essay below, Leo Casey, a critic of parts of NCLB, lays out a compelling argument for why NCLB opponents should rethink some of their rhetoric and tactics. Casey points out that the federal government has been a force for social progress on a variety of issues (including, not insignificantly, education) and cautions NCLB foes to be mindful of history, precedent, and unintended consequences. We think the thoughts expressed in this essay, which originally appeared as part of a larger debate on a psuedo-listserve called EDDRA, are wise counsel.
Leo Casey writes on education and politics and works for the United Federation of Teachers in New York City. The views he expresses here are his own.
Education and American Federalism
by Leo Casey
When it comes to discussions of the federal role in education there is often an ahistorical approach and a political naiveti concerning issues of American federalism -- the balance of power between national and state governments. Among opponents of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the discussion concerning the role of federalism in education is often given over to pro-state power political positions, without a proper understanding of the significance and the consequences of such a stance. This approach and naiveti is not unique to education, but is a broader phenomenon with serious consequences in a number of fields. Yet it has the same negative influence in education that it does in other fields.
Little note is generally taken, for example, that perhaps the most far reaching and lasting jurisprudence that has issued from the Rehnquist Court has been in the area of federalism. The Court has consistently struck down federal legislation in every area from violence against women to the prohibition of guns from school campuses, from environmental legislation to civil rights. It has done so in the name of the protection of the constitutional rights and prerogatives of states.
But if you think that this is truly a question of abstract principle, just recall that the decision in Bush v. Gore completely rode roughshod over all of those precedents, overturning a state court decision in an area where the states are given express constitutional authority -- the running of elections. The pro-state jurisprudence reflects the fact that the most progressive legislation from the New Deal onward came predominantly from the federal government, and the privileging of state power vis-`-vis federal power provides a mean to strike at that legislation.
Perhaps nowhere is this particular significance of the federalism question more apparent than in the field of civil rights for African-Americans. While the struggles of African-Americans themselves have played a primary role in advancing their cause, it has always been the federal government that has been the primary vehicle for institutionalizing the fruits of that struggle. The Civil War Amendments ended slavery and accorded African Americans full citizenship rights and equality before the law. The long battle to end de jure, Jim Crow segregation relied upon the federal government's enforcement of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and the federal government's passage of the civil rights and voting rights legislation. And the opponents of freedom, equality and full civil rights for African Americans have fought under the banner of the constitutional powers of the states, from the pre-Civil War doctrine of nullification to the calls for state sovereignty that marked the end of Reconstruction, to the battle cry of "state rights," which defined white supremacists during the era of Civil Rights.
Nor is civil rights for African-Americans the only area in which the federal government has been the avenue for progress in American society. Virtually every important civil liberties case in the 20th century has been against state and local government, and brought about through the federal government judiciary. New Deal economic regulation of corporate power and establishment of the workers' right to organize, environmental legislation, abortion rights and other civil rights for women and disabled people, and so on: the federal government has been in the lead.
This is not to say that the federal government's record is unblemished, that there are not cases -- such as Korematsu v. US [upholding Japanese-American internment], Bowers v. Hardwick [upholding anti-gay sodomy laws], or the early 20th century cases striking down child labor and eight hour day laws -- in which the federal government was a force for reaction. But the weight of the pendulum clearly rests on the side of the federal government as the primary force for progress.
And so it has also been in the field of education: when the national government has intervened, it has generally been a force for progress -- ending de jure segregation, instituting Head Start, Title I, subsidized school lunches and other programs for children in poverty, the GI bill, the rights of children with disabilities, and so on. My view is that the regressive parts of NCLB are the exception rather than the rule. And, it is worth pointing out that even here there is nothing the federal government did under NCLB that most state governments were not already well on their way to doing on their own.
Specifically, what I see as the negative effects of NCLB are often as much a function of how state and local educational authorities interpret and implement the law as of the law itself or federal government regulations. Giving all power to the state and local governments will not mean a turn to sensible, contextually sensitive accountability models, which are much more expensive and require much more work on the part of the state and local supervising agencies.
In the same vein, while the Bush administration's violation of its promise to adequately fund the efforts of schools to reach NCLB standards is wrong and must be opposed, who seriously thinks that state and local governments are prepared to step into the gap and provide the funds themselves? Significant equity problems have existed in all fifty states -- something that NCLB opponents cannot afford to ignore.
It will be most unfortunate if, in the wake of NCLB, educational progressives myopically and ahistorically wave the banner or join with those waving the banner of states' rights or local control against the federal government. In time they may well find themselves to have been their own worst enemy.
It is no great secret that No Child Left Behind is much more popular among the public than interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA) claim. This publication has repeatedly made that point. We reached that conclusion by analyzing public opinion data and spending time out around the country talking with real people and educators. Multiple polls show that as Americans learn more about the law and its specifics support grows.
As it turns out, according to a report in today's USA Today based on memos and data obtained by the paper, the NEA knew pretty much the same thing, too. It also knew that attacking the law and only arguing for more money was a losing political strategy.
From a purely educational standpoint the USA Today story is pretty unflattering stuff. Though certainly not flawless, NCLB is supported by civil rights organizations precisely because it is an important step forward for poor and minority students. It's not an indictment of public education to highlight and try to address the appalling equity problems that diminish the life chances of poor and minority students. But that policy argument is pretty well trod ground at this point.
What's new about the USA Today account is the political implication. The NEA has been urging, prodding, cajoling, and demanding that Democratic elected officials and presidential candidates attack or oppose NCLB and make funding a leading reason for doing so. Yet their polling clearly shows this posture to be at odds with public opinion. With friends like that, who needs Republicans?
This is no small matter because it relates directly to President Bush's ability to use No Child Left Behind as a fig leaf of compassion and moderation. Whether he is successful is largely a function of whether or not Democrats hand him an easy issue through outright opposition to the law. USA Today aptly characterized such a strategy as a "trap." Besides, with opportunities to critique President Bush's domestic policy record so plentiful, why tear down the singular progressive government action on his watch?
A lot of press coverage about "resistance" to NCLB -- resistance in no small part ginned up by the NEA -- has failed to look beyond the basic interest group model to accurately gauge support for the law. This is an old story. Organized groups opposed to general interest legislation are usually mobilized and vocal, while the benefits are generally diffuse and beneficiaries disorganized. But too often reporters have not demanded evidence beyond anecdotes or learned enough about the law themselves to ask the tough questions and probe whether NCLB opponents or proponents are selling them a bill of goods. When a powerful interest group is pretty obviously seeking to reframe a major issue this is no small matter either.
That is why this is bad news from a small 'd' democratic perspective too. In Federalist 10, James Madison warned of the challenges posed by factions in a popular regime. He concluded that factions could be restrained by controlling their causes or effects. The cause being liberty, he argued for tempering effects instead. A free press and informed debate, along with constitutional safeguards, are key bulwarks to check interests that are, in Madison's characterization, "adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Whether or not opposition to NCLB rises to that standard, don't poor and minority students deserve a more honest debate about the law in the first place?
"Democrats Attack School Reforms at Political Peril,"
USA Today Editorial (01/14/03):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/
2004-01-13-our-view_x.htm
"Reforms Rightly Criticized,"
Reg Weaver, NEA Rebuttal to USA Today Editorial (01/14/03):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/
2004-01-13-oppose_x.htm
Last week's second anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act's passage brought a predictable mix of celebration, criticism, and commentary. The Bush administration launched a celebratory tour touting the law's "accomplishments." And critics like the CATO institute, NEA, and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean denounced the law with equal fervor.
As a New Dem Daily noted, both responses are ill considered. Given the administration's inconsistent and incomplete implementation strategy and underfunding, their PR campaign is eerily reminiscent of other premature declarations of "mission accomplished." Last week Senate HELP Committee Democrats and Congressman George Miller authored a letter to Secretary of Education Rod Paige that criticized the administration's NCLB implementation efforts and is a pretty good crib sheet of the administration's NCLB shortcomings.
Some critics cite the handful of school districts turning down NCLB funding and a lawsuit in Pennsylvania as evidence the law is flawed. Again, this view is ahistorical and also highlights the unfortunate tendency in the media to draw large inferences from isolated (and calculated, see item 1) events. Besides, were the closings of school districts, creation of private school voucher programs, and litigation during "Massive Resistance" evidence of the folly of school desegregation?
In Pennsylvania, the Reading school district is suing the state's Department of Education claiming the law is an unfunded mandate. But, as a recent Doyle Report article notes, much of the Reading case has more to do with state implementation problems than NCLB itself. Moreover, to the extent that there are real funding inequities impacting disadvantaged children under Pennsylvania's school finance scheme (and we think there is plenty of evidence of that), NCLB brings these issues into clearer focus and can help force state officials to address them. If NCLB proves to be a boon for state-level school finance adequacy litigation (as we think it will) that is ultimately a positive development for low-income and minority students and a pretty good reason to support the law. Likewise districts that can afford to turn down Title I funds are generally more affluent ones that receive little funding because they have few poor kids but benefit from diffuse funding formulas. Though not an ideal outcome, the positive consequence here is a small and unintended improvement in the targeting of Title I dollars.
Further, as Michael Kirst argues, it is far too early to really judge a law as complex as NCLB. Kirst's essay on early ESEA struggles, published in the Fordham Foundation's education newsletter, is well worth reading. And besides, just because the Bush administration has failed to implement the law effectively doesn't obviate the importance of the law itself. We'd like to see more effort from the Department of Education to make NCLB work by more fully engaging the Department's resources, particularly its non-political career staff, in the implementation effort. Conversely, we'd also like to see more tough questions directed at the law's opponents. If not NCLB, then what? Two years in there are still no satisfactory answers.
"An Educational Mission that Must Not Fail,"
New Dem Daily (01/07/04):
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131
&subid=192&contentid=252307
"NCLB and NEA: United At Last,"
David DeSchryver, the Doyle Report (12/24/03):
http://www.thedoylereport.com/spotlight/feature#4010
"Some School Districts Challenge Bush's Signature Education Law,"
Sam Dillon, New York Times (01/02/04):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/education/02RESI.html
"To Glimpse NCLB's Future, Look to the Past,"
Michael Kirst, The Education Gadfly (01/08/04):
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/gadfly/index.cfm
Letter to Secretary of Education Rod Paige on Anniversary of No Child Left Behind:
http://reed.senate.gov/press108th/Education/
NCLB_letter_01-08-04.htm
A recent People for the American Way (PFAW) report attacks the Bush administration for awarding education grants to conservative-learning and pro-voucher groups. The report's hysterical tone garnered a little media attention, but was largely off the mark. PFAW seems to argue that the mere fact groups support vouchers or have conservative leanings should bar them from receiving federal funds. Though we certainly disagree with groups like BAEO, Education Leaders Council, and the Center for Education Reform on key issues, the PFAW stance is a ludicrous example of ideological litmus testing. Every administration uses the Secretary of Education's discretionary fund to make grants to likeminded organizations. Moreover, some of the groups that PFAW impugns, like the National Council on Teacher Quality and the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, could only be considered "conservative" in the screwed-up world of education politics (again, see item 1). (Full disclosure: PPI's Andrew Rotherham sits on the board of NCTQ).
The real question, but one that apparently had too much nuance for PFAW, is what exactly the federal government is buying with taxpayer money? Given the wildly inconsistent implementation of NCLB and the staggering amounts of misinformation at the state and local level, it's good to ask how dollars specifically earmarked for this purpose have actually been used.
"Funding a Movement,"
People for the American Way (11/21/03):
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12856c
"Critics Say Education Department is Favoring Political Right,"
Michael Dobbs, Washington Post (01/02/04):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A48083-2004Jan1.html
Just before Christmas, the National Assessment Governing Board released the results of the 2003 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which looked at 4th and 8th grade math and reading NAEP performance in 10 large urban school districts. Accounting for demographic differences in student population, the urban districts fared no worse than suburban ones. This would be good news, except what it really means is that there is a substantial achievement gap pretty much across the board.
NAGB chairman Darvin Winnick noted in a public statement that, "the perception that students in urban public schools do less well than others and have poor academic performance is not supported by the NAEP results." This led the Fordham Foundation's Checker Finn to chastise Winnick for implying that Americans should be content with poor performance by minority kids. Winnick's wording could have been better, but we don't think this is what he meant. Consider a major complaint of NCLB critics: it's not fair to identify as low-performing schools that are "good" overall just because subgroups of poor and minority students do poorly. TUDA's demonstration that suburban schools are doing as poorly by their poor and minority students as widely reviled large urban districts explains just why NCLB's accountability for subgroups is crucial. Moreover, as the Education Trust and others quickly noted, the variation in performance across cities, which is not merely a function of demographics, shows different policies do matter. And though the results are disheartening, the participating districts certainly deserve credit for joining in this voluntary effort and accepting the incumbent public scrutiny.
NAEP Urban District Assessment Release and links to results:
http://www.nagb.org
The Education Gadfly, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (12/18/03):
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/gadfly/
issue.cfm?id=127#1590
Ed Trust Press Release:
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/
districts+matter.htm
The National Rifle Association has been in the news lately because its legislative arm has compiled a list of individuals and organizations that support various gun control and gun safety initiatives. The NRA believes gun owners should know what groups and prominent individuals oppose the NRA agenda. Critics say the roster, available online, is a blacklist. The Bulletin was surprised to find, among the various celebrities and corporations that support gun safety measures, numerous education organizations identified as anti-gun (including the American Federation of Teachers, American Association of School Administrators, Council of Great City Schools, National Education Association, National Association of Elementary School Principals, and National Association of Secondary School Principals). Are these groups poised to trump hunting rights or confiscate firearms? Hardly. Rather, it appears that their primary transgression, in the eyes of the NRA, is that they support common sense measures to keep guns away from schools and children. We have a much shorter list of organizations to be leery of on this issue: The NRA.
National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15
Colorado: Legislators are now considering two bills that would ease the appeals process for charter applicants and possibly create another authorizing entity in the state. These proposals in part respond to concerns raised when the Steamboat Springs School Board refused to authorize a second charter school despite considerable parent demand and a direct order from the State Board of Education. One proposed bill would allow the State Board of Education to authorize charters if local districts refuse. The second, sponsored by Democratic State Representative Terrance Carroll, would create a separate, 11-member charter board alternative for applicants from school districts hostile to charters.
Minnesota:The Department of Education approved 20 new charter applications in 2003, setting a new record. Minnesota's more than 100 charter schools are expected to enroll some 15,000 students in the 2003-04 school year, and enrollment is expected to double over the next few years. Charter leaders believe this burst of growth results from recent legislation allowing nonprofit organizations to authorize charters, increased technical and philanthropic support, and greater parent and teacher comfort with charter schools. These measures have attracted a number of savvy new players to expand the base of new charter schools in the state, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation.
Washington: Last spring, the State Senate passed a charter school law, but the legislative session ended before a House vote. Similar legislation is slated for the 2004 legislative year. An op-ed by Jan Maher argues that public charter "opportunity schools" are really efforts to privatize education. The fact that this tired and frankly ridiculous argument even gets traction demonstrates why charter proponents must make clear delineations between charters and other school choice options.
Dual Outrages: The Wisconsin Education Association Council recently launched a campaign against pro-charter state legislators, sending pamphlets to voters in their districts claiming that charter schools in Milwaukee and Racine are to blame for property tax hikes elsewhere in the state. The irony is that the state actually spends less on students in the Milwaukee and Racine charters than it would if they were enrolled in those district's traditional schools. Most of the targeted seat are closely contested, and charter supporters fear that the attacks could undermine support for education reform issues among Republican leaders in the Legislature.
Just before the Christmas holiday, the board of the Philadelphia Performing Arts Charter School canceled all holiday activities, rescinded Christmas bonuses, and changed the school locks, allegedly in response to its teachers' vote to unionize. Pennsylvania's charter law allows teachers collective bargaining rights, but teachers in only one other charter school have organized. Like many, we have questions about the efficacy of much of what goes on in the name of teacher unionism right now, but this is no excuse to trample workers rights. Charter schools, which more often than not are on the receiving end of abuses of power, should be particularly sensitive on this score. Besides, Green Dot Public Schools and other charters show that teachers unions and public charter schools are not predestined to be natural enemies.
Resources: The Philanthropy Roundtable has published "Jumpstarting the Charter School Movement: A Guide for Donors," to help philanthropists draw on the experience of many of the movement's most active followers in order to strategically support a strong charter school movement in their communities and nationwide. It can be downloaded for free at:
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/guidebooks.html
Charter School Conference: The University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law and the California Charter Schools Association are hosting a National Conference on Charter Schools: Trends and Policy Issues on March 27-28, 2004 in Sacramento. The conference will address the role of law in education reform, with a particular focus on how it affects charter schools. For registration and information contact Barbara Thomas at: bthomas2@pacific.edu, or browse: www.edlaw.org.
"Change the Charter School Law,"
The Denver Post (12/21/03):
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/
0,1413,36~73~1839604,00.html
"Bills Would Bypass Districts to Create Charter Schools,"
Monte Whaley, The Denver Post (01/04/04):
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/
0,1413,36~53~1869478,00.html
"Charter Schools Mark a Record,"
John Welsh, Pioneer Press (12/29/03):
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/
news/local/7587282.htm
"Don't Privatize Public Schools,"
Jan Maher, Seattle-Post Intelligence (01/08/04):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/155673_school08.html
"Charter Schools' Supporters Cry Foul Over State Teacher Union Mailings,"
Alan Borsuk, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (01/06/04):
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan04/198008.asp
"After Union Vote, School Changes Locks,"
Martha Woodall, The Philadelphia Inquirer (01/8/04):
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7657204.htm
"Charter School Group Lauded by Magazine,"
The San Jose Mercury News (12/23/03):
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/7555602.htm
Education Research
A Washington Post Op-Ed by John Reed and Catherine Snow discusses education research. If you're interested in this issue, don't miss the upcoming PPI-NAS-NEKIA education research conference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A54820-2004Jan4.html
Studying Religion
In Education Week, PPI's Andrew Rotherham and theology professor Donna Frietas discuss the need for students in today's society to learn more about the diversity of world religions:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=16freitas.h23
Social Capitalist Awards
Aspire Public Schools, a non-profit organization that manages a number of charter schools in California; NewSchools Venture Fund (full disclosure: a 21st Century Schools Project supporter); and New Leaders for New Schools are among recipients of Fast Company magazine's "Social Capitalist Awards," which recognize innovative groups that tackle social problems with business strategies:
http://www.fastcompany.com/social/
Quality Counts in Special Education
A key issue facing Congress in 2004 is finishing the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Those issues, along with the challenge of including children with special needs into state accountability systems, are featured in Education Week's 2004 Quality Counts, which this year focuses on special education:
http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc04/
article.cfm?slug=17exec.h23
PPI's special education work can be found at:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900030
Improving Low Performing Schools in Virginia
Education Week takes a look at Governor Mark Warner's PASS initiative to help struggling schools in Virginia:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=16Lowside.h23
Teacher Quality and NCLB
Two recent Education Trust reports argue that the data states are reporting under NCLB on teacher qualifications and high school graduation rates are incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading. Ed Trust also faults the Federal Government because with no disincentive to be accurate and fair in reporting, the states have erected a bulwark that shields school systems from blame:
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/
tell+the+truth.htm
"Reconsidering the Impact of High Stakes Testing" (EPAA 2004):
This study by ETS's Henry Braun, compares changes in grades 4 and 8 math NAEP scores from 1992 to 2000 for states with "high-stakes" versus "low-stakes" testing and accountability regimes:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n1/
"An Exploration of the Pay Levels Needed to Attract Students with Mathematics, Science and Technology Skills to a Career in K-12 Teaching" EPAA (December 2003)
This study by Anthony Milanowski uses surveys of undergraduates to look at the amount of salary increases necessary to attract math and science teachers; the correlation with personality and work values, and what makes teaching less attractive to math and science students. While a very limited preliminary survey, it's worth reading for those interested in this issue:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n50/
Paraprofessionals
A new American Federation of Teachers study looks at state efforts to help teachers aides upgrade their skills to meet new requirements in No Child Left Behind. The study concludes that only a few states are taking sufficient steps:
http://www.aft.org/psrp/certification/Midtermreport/
Index.html
The View On Mars
Not an explicitly education oriented item, although it's very much about learning. If you have not taken a minute to visit NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory's website and seen the raw feeds of the pictures coming back from Mars, you should. The images are spectacular, as is the work that went into the mission. American science at its finest:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html
SAVE THE DATE:
On March 11, 2004, the Progressive Policy Institute, National Academy of Sciences, and National Education Knowledge Industry Association will co-host a conference in Washington, D.C., examining "Scientifically Based Research" in education. This conference will examine progress in this area over the last two years and former Urban League President Hugh Price will deliver a keynote address and panels of practitioners, policymakers, and national leaders will examine this issue.
For more information on the education research conference PPI and NEKIA co-hosted with the Education Quality Institute in 2002, click here:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=900023&contentID=250346
Thanks and best wishes to Justin Stone, a graduate student at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education who has just finished a between semesters internship at the 21st Century Schools Project. We have no doubt you'll be hearing more from Justin in the near future.
The 21st Century Schools Project Bulletin is written by Sara Mead and Renee Rybak and edited by Andrew Rotherham. The Bulletin is published every other week. For more information about us visit:
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
Do you receive PPI's education Bulletin forwarded by a friend, colleague, or tormenter? Or do you forward this newsletter to your colleagues and friends with praise, horror, or just lukewarm indifference? Regardless, it is easy to sign up like thousands of others before you and receive this newsletter directly. Just go to our website at this URL, type in your e-mail address and click on "Education" (if you like, you can also sign up to receive periodic updates from PPI in other issue areas as well):
www.ppionline.org/cobrand/newsletter_subscribe.cfm
Alternatively you can e-mail the 21st Century Schools Project at education@dlcppi.org and ask to be signed up and we'll take care of the rest.
Do you like reading the Bulletin to start your morning, relaxing with a 21st Century Schools Project paper or report after a long day, or do you just have some extra cash? You can help support our work by contributing online. Small contributions welcome, large ones graciously accepted! Contributions to PPI are tax-deductible. Click to https://secure.ga3.org/05/support to support the 21st Century Schools Project's work on education reform.
In addition, purchasing books from Amazon.com that are linked to in this newsletter also helps support our work on education policy.
