Original links are included though some may have expired.

In This Bulletin:

1.) Good and Bad IDEAs
2.) No Child Left Behind Implementation
3.) Lots of Charter School News
4.) D.C. Voucher Dust-Up
5.) Michigan's Full Court Press
6.) Bilingual Education
7.) Federal Budget Update
8.) In Memoriam
9.) Last Chance to Register for April 9 NCLB Conference!

1.) Good and Bad IDEAs

IDEA Reauthorization got off the ground last week when Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee introduced their blueprint for reauthorizing Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Overall HR 1350, introduced by Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Castle, is a decent starting point, and not only in relative terms. Promising ideas include: allowing school districts to use 15 percent of funding for pre-referral services so that struggling children can get help before they end up in special education, replacing the "IQ discrepancy" standard for diagnosing specific learning disabilities, encouraging states and districts to set up high-cost/low-incidence pools, and steps to streamline paperwork in the IEP and limit litigation abuses without dismantling due process protections. There is also a 10-state pilot project allowing regulatory waivers for states that agree to clean up their own regulatory processes and ensure accountability for student rights. Pilot programs are always controversial, but considering the dearth of successful models in special education some innovation in a context of protecting student rights is a good way to move forward. The Bulletin can't help but wonder, however, why large school districts, consortia of districts, or perhaps Educational Service Agencies couldn't participate instead of just 10 states, which seems needlessly arbitrary.

H.R. 1350 would also increase funding for special education over six years, although not as much as is needed and not through the mandatory full funding mechanism supported by advocates. After watching what has happened to No Child Left Behind funding, it is going to take more than just authorizations. The old adage: "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" comes to mind.

The bill's sponsors wisely decided to take a pass on the most controversial reform proposals and allow them to be addressed separately in amendments or companion bills, leaving plenty of opportunity for bad ideas and a good glance at education schisms among the House majority. For example, a House bill introduced the following day by Rep. DeMint [R-SC] would add a special education voucher program mirroring Florida's McKay program to IDEA. The contradiction here is amazing: on the one hand DeMint signed onto a bill that contains sensible provisions to reform IDEA and curb abuses and problems. Then the very next day he, and others, introduced a bill that would likely exacerbate these very problems. It's worth noting that DeMint and Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Boehner are the only co-sponsors of the base IDEA bill to have signed onto the voucher bill.

With perfect timing, three Washington, D.C.-based think tanks released reports on the McKay program. The least interesting comes from the Heritage Foundation. Nearly half the 1124-word report consists of parent testimonials and a quote from Education Secretary Paige; the remainder is a brief description of the McKay program and a call for the Bush Administration to support DeMint's McKay legislation. A CATO Institute report, which duplicates much of their earlier McKay report from last summer, is more informative, although it glosses over thorny implementation issues with blanket assumptions about the efficacy of private choice.

The most interesting (albeit not much more convincing) report comes from the People for the American Way Foundation and Disability Rights & Education Defense Fund. This extensive description of the McKay program and some of its seamier aspects is sensationalistic but also makes some interesting observations. What is most striking is that while special education vouchers are being touted as a way to reduce litigation it looks like the result might just be different kinds of legal action. PFAW would have a stronger case, however, if they could bring themselves to support some sort of reform beyond only more money and better implementation of the current IDEA.

On the larger issue of special education vouchers, the Bulletin remains skeptical. It seems like a sure-fire recipe to exacerbate the overidentification problem Republicans claim to be concerned about and destined, at best, to replace one set of problems with another. IDEA needs to be more choice friendly, but it does not follow that turning it into a voucher program makes much sense.

In other special education news, the Department of Education last week released proposed rules (link below) for including in accountability systems students with the most severe cognitive disabilities, for whom regular state assessments are inappropriate. The comment period ends on May 19.

Further Reading:

"Special Education May Get Overhaul,"
CNN.com (03/19/03):
www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/
03/19/special.education.ap/index.html

"House Republicans Unveil IDEA Overhaul,"
Lisa Fine Goldstein, Education Week (03/26/03):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28idea.h22

Education and the Workforce Committee Press Release and Summary on HR 1350:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/
press108/03mar/idea031903.htm

The Castle Bill (HR 1350) and DeMint Bill (HR 1373) can both be obtained at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/

"Florida McKay Scholarship Program Provides Model for Federal Legislation,"
Krista Kafer, Heritage Foundation (03/25/03):
www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm234.cfm

"Lessons from Florida: School Choice Gives Increased Opportunities to Children with Special Needs,"
David Salisbury, Cato Institute (03/20/03):
www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-081es.html

"Jeopardizing a Legacy: IDEA and Florida's Special Education Vouchers,"
People for the American Way Foundation and Disability Rights & Education Defense Fund (03/06/03):
www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9063

"Agency Documents Clarify Special Ed. Leeway,"
Lynn Olson, Education Week (03/26/03):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28esea.h22

Proposed Rules on Accountability for Children with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities U.S. Department of Education (03/24/03):
www.ed.gov/PressReleases/03-2003/03242003a.html

"When It's Your Own Child: A Report on Special Education from the Families Who Use It,"
Public Agenda (2002):
www.publicagenda.org/specials/specialed/specialed.htm

"Reinventing Special Education for a New Century,"
Andrew J. Rotherham, Chester E. Finn, Jr, and Charles Hokanson, Jr., eds.,
Progressive Policy Institute and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (03/09/01):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=181&contentID=3344

"Students Poorly Served by Special Education Programs,"
Andrew Rotherham, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Op-Ed (11/01/01):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=181&contentID=3888

2.) No Child Left Behind Implementation

As schools, districts, and state officials increasingly bump up against the realities of moving from rhetoric to reality on No Child Left Behind, there is a growing effort to weaken the law. There is little doubt that the law will need nips and tucks as things move along, but many "improvement" proposals are merely attempts to eviscerate the law altogether. Unfortunately, too many reporters seem poorly versed in what the law does and does not require. The result is some atrocious reporting about implementation and the law itself, which threatens to become an enormous problem as accountability requirements come fully online. If reporters can't explain why an overall good school can still need improvement for a particular group of students, the whole effort to increase transparency and equity for poor students could unravel.

An excellent San Francisco Chronicle column by Ranking Education Committee Democrat George Miller, a key player in shaping and enacting No Child Left Behind, and Russlyn Ali, Director of Education Trust-West, takes on the myths circulating about No Child Left Behind.

On April 9, Congressman Miller will speak at the luncheon session of PPI-NCEE-Fordham's No Child Left Behind Implementation conference and engage in discussion with Eugene Hickok, Undersecretary of Education and acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Both are excellent speakers and committed to the goals of No Child Left Behind; for more information and to register, see item 9 below.

Further Reading:

"Leave Education Myths, Not California's Children Behind,"
George Miller and Russlyn Ali, San Francisco Chronicle (03/18/03):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/18/ED58562.DTL

"A Pervasive Dismay on a Bush School Law,"
Michael Winerip, New York Times (03/19/03):
www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/education/19EDUC.html

3.) Lots of Charter School News

A recent statewide poll from the Center for School Change at the Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota shows that most Minnesotans, nearly 75 percent statewide, support some form of public school choice and particularly approve of charter schooling. This isn't surprising considering the educational landscape in Minnesota, but it is a healthy validation that the state's innovation with public school choice and charter schools has not caused the sky to fall.

Nationwide the new National Charter School Alliance has opened its doors and announced its first CEO this week. Alliance CEO Marc Dean Millot is the former president and founder of the Education Entrepreneurs Fund and COO of New American Schools. He also brings a strong policy and social science background to the Alliance, including a 13-year stint at RAND. The Alliance has also put together a diverse board of directors that includes elected officials, leading charter school advocates, and policymakers, including PPI's own Andrew Rotherham. The Alliance will build on the work of the Charter Friends National Network and serve as a "middle tier" organization representing and linking interests of Washington-based charter supporters and state-level charter associations, charter school operators, and the movement's grassroots base. This new organization is uniquely positioned to forge consensus and rally diverse support for public charter schooling and has outlined three primary goals: increasing advocacy for charters on federal policy issues, acting as a credible voice for charter schools nationally, and working to strengthen the charter school movement in the states.

In other personnel moves the National Alliance of Charter School Authorizers this week also announced its new Executive Director, Mark Cannon, who comes to them from the Deputy Secretary's shop at the U.S. Department of Education after a diverse 15-year career in education policy.

Meanwhile Innovative Schools Development Corporation (ISDC) is literally helping to build the charter movement. A non-profit started last year by the Rodel Charitable Foundation-Delaware to support Delaware's public charter schools, ISDC recently announced its first loan guarantee of $1.76 million to enable Newark Charter School to obtain an $8.5 million loan to build a new school facility. The Loan Guarantee program provides a complete financial guarantee for the amount of equity normally required by lenders, allowing Delaware charter schools to obtain financing for start up, development, and other school costs that have been a major obstacle, especially since charters are excluded from state school facilities aid programs. ISDC's Loan Guaranty Program is the first privately funded program of its kind in the nation, and will also benefit Delaware's philanthropic community by providing management services to oversee philanthropic investment in education reform.

Despite all the good news on charters lately, events in Maryland show how much remains to be done. While both the Maryland House and Senate have passed charter bills, Governor Ehrlich has indicated he will veto either as they currently stand, because they are too weak. Both bills are weak, allowing only school districts to authorize charters (although there is a state appeal process) and unduly restricting charter autonomy. However, the Ehrlich Administration seems more interested in grandstanding politically on the issue to bash schools, teachers unions, and Democratic legislators than working with them to achieve an acceptable compromise to move charters forward. That's unfortunate and not in the best interest of public charter schooling or Maryland students, who would benefit from more public options.

Also last week, the U.S. Department of Education released new draft guidance on charter schools and the No Child Left Behind Act. The guidance addresses questions about Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), qualified teacher requirements, and how charter schools that operate as LEAs fit into NCLB accountability provisions. For the most part, the Department has done a good job bringing some clarity on NCLB for charters, but there are still a few areas of concern. Read it yourself below.

Further Reading:

Center for School Change:
www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/school-change/

Introducing the National Charter School Alliance:
www.charterfriends.org/CSweek/intro.htm

National Alliance of Charter School Authorizers:
www.charterauthorizers.org/site/nacsa/

Rodel Charitable Foundation-Delaware:
www.delcf.org/About_2_3_13.htm


"Assembly Guts Ehrlich Plan on Charter Schools,"
Jo Becker, Washington Post (03/25/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A21333-2003Mar24.html

Maryland General Assembly:
http://mlis.state.md.us/

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools: Non-Regulatory Guidance U.S. Department of Education (03/25/03):
www.ed.gov/PressReleases/03-2003/03252003.html

4.) D.C. Voucher Dust-Up

DC School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz has kicked up quite a stir with an op-ed in Saturday's Washington Post acceding to a pilot school voucher program for the city. It's unclear what exactly changed Cafritz's mind, since barely a month ago she was laying down Shermanesque lines about vouchers for the city. It may well be that she thinks vouchers are coming anyway, so the city needs a seat at the table.

But her reasoning is curious. Cafritz now supports vouchers so long as they can only be used for schools in the city and participating Catholic schools meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. The Bulletin agrees that choice needs to be linked to accountability, but thinks it should extend to any school accepting public tuition monies, along with requirements about open admissions and other key features of public education. Cafritz's seemingly arbitrary decision that choice should be limited to schools in D.C. is also puzzling, because the salient issue is accountability, not geography.

Cafritz seems attracted by the success of some Catholic schools in other cities and proposes initiatives to attract "academically sound networks of Catholic schools" to Washington. Catholic schools do accomplish a great deal, often in the face of great adversity, but it's possible this is driven by something other than Catholicism itself and similar conditions can be created in secular public schools too.

To be sure, the Bulletin is highly skeptical of a federal D.C. voucher pilot to begin with. Too many conservatives touting the idea seem less concerned about D.C. schoolchildren than making a political point and, in any event, it seems a pretty token reform for a school system as troubled as this one. Cafritz does clearly state that D.C. needs much more far-reaching changes. Nonetheless, stumbling toward vouchers just because they seem inevitable, rather than really thinking through a plan to improve and modernize public schooling in Washington, seems a big mistake and a continuation of flawed approaches that have characterized education in D.C. for too long.

Further Reading:

"Making the Most of Vouchers,"
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, Washington Post Op-Ed (03/29/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A44924-2003Mar28.html

"Cafritz is Criticized for Voucher Support,"
Eugene L. Meyer, Washington Post (03/31/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A54872-2003Mar30.html

"Mrs. Cafritz on Vouchers,"
Washington Post Editorial (04/01/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A63443-2003Mar31.html

"Putting Vouchers in Perspective,"
Andrew Rotherham, Progressive Policy Institute (07/02/02):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=134&contentID=250627

5.) Michigan's Full Court Press

The University of Michigan may not have participated in basketball's March Madness, but they're still getting plenty of attention as the Supreme Court hears arguments in the Grutter and Gratz cases addressing racial preferences and affirmative action at the school. Not coincidentally, last Friday the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights released a report outlining race neutral alternatives to enhance diversity in higher education: greater preparation and outreach efforts targeting disadvantaged students, guaranteed admission for the top x percent of high school seniors, and economically based affirmative action. The Administration argues that while diversity is a worthwhile goal, it can be attained through race neutral approaches, making Michigan's racially based affirmative action policies unacceptable. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University took issue with the Administration's report, saying it misrepresents research evidence about race-neutral alternatives currently in place, which the Civil Rights Project argues have not maintained minority representation, particularly at selective schools.

The Century Foundation also weighed in Monday with a report by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose looking at admissions to selective schools in terms of both racial and economic diversity and equity. Current college admissions systems don't do a particularly good job on either count: black and Hispanic students make up only 12 percent of enrollment at selective colleges and universities (as they have pretty much since the 1970's), and the entire bottom half of the income distribution comprises only nine percent of students at those schools. The report estimates how things might change under a variety of different approaches to admissions.

Not surprisingly (at least to those who follow this issue) economically based preferences come out looking the most promising. And in Monday's Washington Post, Rick Kahlenberg, a fellow at the Century Foundation and author of the book All Together Now, makes a pretty compelling case for economic preferences on broader grounds. The Bulletin agrees strongly with Kahlenberg that debates about equity, diversity and education in this country too often give short shrift to economic disadvantage. PPI's Will Marshall argued that as far back as 1995. The Century Foundation deserves credit for attacking a tough issue, laying bare some uncomfortable truths, and offering a way forward. The next few weeks will see more heat than light on this complex issue, but once the dust settles on the Supreme Court case perhaps a more serious discussion will emerge.

Further Reading:

"Affirmation Action: There's a Third Way,"
Richard Kahlenberg, Washington Post Op-Ed (03/31/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A55392-2003Mar30.html

"Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education: Innovative Approaches to Diversity,"
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (03/28/03):
www.ed.gov/PressReleases/03-2003/03282003.html

Harvard Civil Rights Project:
www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu

"Socioeconomic Status, Race, Ethnicity and Selective College Admissions,"
Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose, The Century Foundation (03/31/03):
www.equaleducation.org

"From Preferences to Empowerment,"
Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute (08/03/95):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=2047
&knlgAreaID=115&subsecid=172

6.) Bilingual Education

In a fascinating Journal of American History article, Oxford historian Gareth Davies examines the expansion of bilingual education, particularly during the Nixon administration. On one level the article is an interesting look at a controversial program and the politics surrounding its infancy, which are not as cut and dry as many accounts claim. On another it is a fascinating examination of the evolution of liberalism in the post-Great Society period and how one aspect of education policy nests in that larger story.

The Bulletin thanks the Journal of American History for making this article available online for our readers.

Further Reading:

"The Great Society After Johnson: The Case of Bilingual Education,"
Gareth Davies, Journal of American History (March 2002):
www.indiana.edu/~jah/issues/articles/884_davies.pdf

7.) Federal Budget Update

By the end of last week, both the House and Senate had passed budget resolutions for 2004 fiscal year spending. The most controversial issue was tax cuts because President Bush is attempting to pass a very rare wartime tax cut despite growing deficits. On this, the House and Senate resolutions differ greatly, with the House including all of a proposed $726 billion tax cut and the Senate cutting that amount by more than half. Budget resolutions are nonbonding and in many ways matter a lot less for education funding than they once did, because appropriators increasingly do what they please. Nontheless, budget resolutions retain their symbolic value as a statement about each party's priorities.

Further Reading:

"Senate Budget Halves Tax Cuts,"
Helen Dewar, Washington Post (03/27/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A34688-2003Mar26.html

"Congress Works Our Fiscal Spending Blueprint,"
Erik W. Robelen, Education Week (03/26/03):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28budget.h22

Education Department's Budget Website:
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/budget.html

8.) In Memoriam

Washington and public life are populated with plenty of smart people, but true brilliance is rare. Senator Patrick Moynihan was brilliant. Among other things he changed how we think about race and social policy, probably the defining cleavage of our time. He packed several lives into his one and American life is better for his efforts.

Moynihan had his faults and made mistakes, yet the sheer force of his intellect, commitment to public service, and tenacity ranks him among the elite of American statesman. As the testimonials below make clear, it is unlikely we'll see another like him for a long while, and that is our loss.

Further Reading:

"Mentor Moynihan was One of a Kind,
" Chester E. Finn, Jr., Baltimore Sun (03/28/03):
www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.moynihan.28
mar28,0,453279.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines

"Daniel Patrick Moynihan, RIP,"
New Dem Daily (03/27/03):
www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131
&subid=192&contentid=251431

"Daniel Patrick Moynihan, RIP,"
Mickey Kaus (03/27/03) -- NOTE: scroll down in page:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080628/

"A Beautiful Mind,"
George Will, Washington Post (03/27/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A34665-2003Mar26.html

9.) Last Chance to Register for April 9 NCLB Conference!

On April 9, 2003, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the National Center on Education and the Economy will co-host a day-long conference in Washington, D.C. bringing together leading educators and policymakers to explore ways to help local, state, and federal education officials meet the expectations of the No Child Left Behind Act. This event is supported by a grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

The conference will address the challenges involved in creating strong accountability systems, fixing failing schools, public school choice, and teacher quality. On each of these topics, national journalists will lead discussions with panels of key legislators, researchers, and state and federal officials involved in writing and implementing the law. There will also be a lunchtime discussion featuring Rep. George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and Eugene Hickok, Undersecretary of Education and acting Assistant Secretary of Education for Elementary and Secondary Education.

Also on the agenda, among others, are former presidential advisor Sandy Kress; J.B. Buxton, senior education advisor to North Carolina Gov. Michael Easley; James Peyser, chair of the Massachusetts State Board of Education; Judith Rizzo, former deputy chancellor of the New York City public schools; researcher Tom Kane from UCLA; Frederick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute; and staff from key congressional offices and committees. Many panelists are also drafting essays to be released at the conference.

What:
Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act Conference

When:
Wednesday, April 9, 2003; 8:30 AM -- 4:00 PM

Where:
Cafritz Center, George Washington University
800 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC Registration Required. Register for the conference electronically at: http://www.ncee.org/ncee/policyforums/index.jsp?setProtocol=true

Circulation Notice:

Do you receive PPI's education Bulletin forwarded by a friend or colleague? Or do you forward this newsletter to your colleagues and friends with praise or shock? Either way, it's easy for you or others to sign up and receive this newsletter directly without the hassle of forwarding. 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 updates from PPI in other issue areas as well):

http://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.

Support Our Work:

Do you like reading the Bulletin? Want to make sure it continues to be available? Then click https://secure.ga3.org/05/support to support the 21st Century Schools Project's work on education reform.