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.
1.) We're All Gamblers Now
2.) Good IDEAs Moving Forward
3.) No Child Left Behind Implementation: New GAO Report, Trouble in California, Calculating Graduation Rates, and a Refreshing Look at NCLB
4.) Charter Schools: Good News and Bad
5.) DC Voucher Debate: Whose Home Rule?
6.) Other Side of the Pond
7.) A book party and YOU'RE invited! RSVP NOW: High Schools on a Human Scale, Reception and Book Signing May 29
Circulation Notice:
Because of the Memorial Day holiday, the Bulletin
will take a brief break and will resume circulation June 3.
Quote to Note:
"My commitment to education should not be questioned. I will do whatever it takes to keep children in school," North Carolina Governor Mike Easley after crashing one of NASCAR star Jeff Gordon's race cars into the wall during a fundraiser to benefit Communities in Schools in North Carolina.
(www.governor.state.nc.us/News/PressReleases/
PressRelease.asp?YR=2003&MN=05-May&FN=09%
2Dupdated+statement+about+today%27s+accident
+at+lowe%27s+motor+speedway%2Exml)
Recent revelations about values guru Bill Bennett's gambling habits raised several questions. Superficially, many people wondered how a man as intelligent as Bennett could lose so much money playing slot machines, video poker, and games like blackjack where, whether incrementally or substantially, the odds always favor the house and even the luckiest gambler loses money over time. Perhaps this inadvertently proves that we do need better mathematics instruction in our schools.
More seriously the episode raises questions about whether gambling is indeed a vice, and if so, why does government have such a big stake in it? The cursory answer is, sure gambling is a vice! That's why the ironic revelations about Bennett got so much press. There was no chapter on honor among gamblers in "The Book of Virtues." Yet, before too many stones get thrown, it's worth pointing out that public schools have developed quite a gambling habit, too.
Many states are quickly becoming dependent on slot machines and casino gambling, especially during tight fiscal times. Bennett's hangouts in Las Vegas and Atlantic City are not the only destinations for legalized gambling these days -- try Mississippi, Illinois, Louisiana, Delaware, and West Virginia, just to name a few. In addition, under various revenue sharing schemes casinos are sprouting up on Native American lands across the country. Further, according to the National Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, 40 states have lotteries raking in more than $13 billion in profits from more than $42 billion in sales in 2002. The lottery is arguably more pernicious than casino gambling because in addition to being government sponsored and promoted it is more readily available in most communities. Increases in education funding are usually a big selling point for initiatives to legalize gambling or lotteries, and to justify raising state revenue from these enterprises.
Despite ritualistic protestations about the evils of gambling, or "gaming" as it is now called, for the most part we have grown comfortable with and even quite dependent on these funding streams. State fiscal issues aside, this is hardly surprising. Gambling is, for better or worse, interwoven with the fabric of our society. Just think about how many everyday expressions are derived from horse racing or poker playing, never mind the ubiquitous office pools for the Super Bowl and Final Four.
Clever and seemingly painless ways to raise revenue are always in demand because Americans have not come to terms with the conflict between our love of government spending and dislike of taxes. Nonetheless, at some point we will have to confront the question of just how much of a stake government should have in gambling, because painless as it may seem this funding has costs. Increasing demands for revenue coupled with the creep of brick and mortar casinos and lotteries and the rapid spread of Internet gambling will bring the issue to a head.
The famous gambler Nick the Greek pointed out that, "the house doesn't beat the player. It just gives him the opportunity to beat himself." That nicely encapsulates the more libertarian view. It's a legitimate one. But it is one thing for casino owners in Atlantic City or elsewhere to lure suckers into losing bets and an entirely different situation when states are enticing citizens to habitually make wagers with a negative expectation. Should government be providing the opportunity through lotteries or just ensuring that casinos give citizens a "fair" shake and treat them like other businesses?
On the other hand, three-card Monte legend Canada Bill Jones famously said that letting a sucker keep his money is the moral vice. The casino owners in Atlantic City who staked Bennett with generous lines of credit clearly agree with Jones, but implicitly so do state government officials every time someone scratches a lottery ticket or some accountant pulls ping pong balls out of a hopper in state numbers games.
Legalized gambling is here to stay, just like the illegal gambling that preceded it. As a matter of public policy, instead of denial and haphazard policymaking we need to put overwrought discussions of morality aside, take a clear-eyed look at gambling, and make some hard decisions. Otherwise, in the long run we may all be the sucker.
"The Bookie of Virtue,"
Joshua Green, Washington Monthly (June 2003):
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/
2003/0306.green.html
"Virtues, Values and Vegas,"
James McManus, New York Times (05/06/03):
www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06MCMA.html
"Could Bill Bennett Really Break Even Playing Slots?"
Brendan I. Koerner, Slate.com (05/06/03):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082638/
On April 29, the House of Representatives passed HR 1350, its IDEA reauthorization bill, which incorporates key reform proposals from the PPI-Fordham Foundation special education volume, Rethinking Special Education for a New Century. The bill increases focus on prevention and remediation by allowing school districts to use up to 15 percent of IDEA funds for pre-referral services for struggling students. It also replaces the problematic "IQ-achievement discrepancy" criterion for diagnosing students with specific learning disabilities, with a new definition based on whether or not student achievement improves in response to intervention. And it tries to address the troubling problem of minority over-identification by requiring better reporting and interventions in extreme cases.
H.R. 1350 also takes steps to foster innovation in special education delivery and accountability, a tacit acknowledgment, similar to the one in the PPI-Fordham volume, that educators and policymakers don't have a clear idea on the most efficacious ways to achieve IDEA's goals. No one wants to go back to the pre-IDEA world where many children with special needs were neglected by or barred outright from public schools, but the status quo isn't working for a lot of students with special needs, either, and it's possible to both protect student rights and catalyze new ideas.
The bill passed the House 251-171, somewhat along party lines (although a substantial number of centrist Democrats voted in favor of it). However, debate over HR 1350 has been surprisingly and encouragingly short on acrimony, considering the current climate in Washington, D.C., and recent history on special education. The key issues of contention are funding and provisions to limit litigation costs and abuses. While there's widespread agreement on the need for greater federal resources for special education, there are substantial differences about how to spend the money and how much to spend. Funding is what accounted for the relatively close vote. The Bulletin is all for greater spending on special education but does not favor holding important reforms hostage to budget battles. This is especially important in an environment where reforms are increasingly likely to come undone the longer the bill remains in limbo, because of emotional pressure from advocates who fear any change to IDEA despite the glaring shortcomings of the law and the consequences for too many students.
Specifically on the funding issue, the bill does make progress to help school districts through a provision added by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) to allow and encourage states and school districts to set up risk pools for high-cost placements. A Senate bill recently introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), S. 890, would further strengthen this idea by providing federal grants to states to create high-cost/low-incidence pools.
HR 1350 is also notable for what it does not include -- special education vouchers. Efforts by Reps. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) to add voucher-like amendments both failed by substantial margins. PPI has serious reservations about conservative efforts to attach vouchers to special education. A forthcoming PPI paper shows that, in addition to introducing additional perverse incentives to special education and distracting from more pressing reform issues, Florida's special education voucher program seems to be less a special education program than an ordinary choice scheme. As the Bulletin has argued in the past, let's have a forthright debate over school choice but not do harm to already troubled special education programs in the process.
"House Backs Vast Changes in Education For the Disabled,"
Diana Jean Schemo, New York Times (04/30/03):
www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/education/01EDUC.html
"Rewrite of Special Ed. Law Passes House,"
Lisa Goldstein, Education Week (05/07/03):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=34idea.h22
Text of HR 1350 and S. 890
Can be found on the Library of Congress' "Thomas" website:
http://thomas.loc.gov
"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):
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=181&contentID=3344
In Los Angeles they anxiously await the release of new films, in New York plays and books, and in Washington we get worked up about new reports from the General Accounting Office. Last week's release of the GAO's study on the costs of implementing NCLB's testing requirements was eagerly anticipated by partisans on all sides of the debate. In fact, Republicans on the House education committee were so eager they issued a press release seemingly before reading the entire report.
The GAO, no political slouches they, decided not to offer up a single figure for what it will cost states, even on average, to implement NCLB's testing requirements. Instead they offered three estimates depending on the quality of the tests states use: $1.9 billion, $3.9 billion, or $5.3 billion from FY 2002-2008. House Republicans obviously seized on the first number because it's lower than the $2.34 billion Congress is slated to give the states for assessments during the same period. But wait a minute! Astute Bulletin readers can see that the latter two figures are both MORE than the anticipated Congressional funding.
It's precisely this sort of monkey math that has the federal budget in such a mess, and in this case there are educational consequences at the state level. The last thing that NCLB supporters should want is states low-balling on test quality. It is not good for students and could spark the very backlash that NCLB opponents go to bed each night hoping for.
Moreover, the GAO figures do not fully account for the challenges states are facing designing assessments for English language learners and for special education students who need alternative assessments. Granted, as Education Undersecretary Eugene Hickcok's letter to the GAO (included in the study) points out, some assessment development is work states would have been doing regardless of NCLB. Nonetheless, at a time when the states are facing serious fiscal shortfalls (according to the National Council of State Legislators, 19 states are facing FY2004 revenue shortfalls that are more than 10 percent of their general operating budget) there is a clear federal role here to ensure that states have sufficient funding to get the assessment piece of NCLB right.
Questions about how to include children with disabilities in state assessment and accountability programs, as required by No Child Left Behind and reinforced in the recent House-passed IDEA reauthorization bill, are admittedly tricky, but not an excuse for double standards or not holding educators accountable for special needs students. The Massachusetts House of Representatives recently voted to exempt special education students from the requirement that they pass the state's MCAS assessment to graduate, generating understandable outcry from disability rights groups concerned exemptions will perpetuate low expectations for disabled students. Because of the broad range of students served in special education, neither blanket inclusions nor exclusion from accountability schemes makes a lot of sense.
High school exit exams are not required by No Child Left Behind but are a lightening rod for controversy nonetheless. California, which has in place an exit exam (CAHSEE) scheduled to become a graduation requirement in 2004, recently released an independent evaluation of the exam. The report found that CAHSEE meets technical standards for a high-stakes exit exam and that the impending CAHSEE requirement has spurred schools and districts to raise standards and direct additional resources, attention, and remediation to students at risk of failing. But, the study also found that one in five California students subject to the exam in 2004 is still likely to fail, because these students received much of their education before high standards were put in place and are inadequately prepared. This transition presents a conundrum for policymakers, and the report analyzes several alternatives to address it.
No Child Left Behind does require states to include graduation rates in "adequate yearly progress" calculations for high schools. A recent report from the Urban Institute's Chris Swanson and Duncan Chaplin demonstrates that even calculating graduation rates is anything but straightforward. Different ways of figuring graduation rates can produce widely divergent results, and there is often insufficient data to accurately measure enrollment or dropouts. No Child Left Behind prescribed a method for calculating graduation rates for AYP, but gave states the option of offering an alternative method. Most state accountability plans submitted so far have used alternative methods and the jury is out as to which ones pass muster with the federal Department of Education.
Also on NCLB, a recent lecture by long-time education advocate Hayes Mizell about NCLB implementation is worth reading. In contrast to conspiracy theorists who see the law as an attempt to destroy public education, Mizell argues NCLB is necessary to address long-standing inequities in public schooling. Rather than evading or merely complying with the law, Mizell challenges educators to see it as a chance for creativity and opportunity to leverage real improvement and reform.
"Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies,"
General Accounting Office (May 2003):
www.gao.gov/new.items/d03389.pdf
House Republican Press Release on GAO Study:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/05may/
nclbgaorpt050803.htm
"Asking The Wrong Test Questions,"
Andrew J. Rotherham, Washington Post Op-Ed (05/29/01):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=900023&contentID=3401
"NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity,"
Remarks of Hayes Mizell (04/25/03):
www.middleweb.com/HMnclb.html
"California Report Tallies Cost of 'Exit Exam',"
Greg Winter, New York Times (05/02/03):
www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/education/02EXAM.html?
ex=1052887349&ei=1&en=cacf7be0932e699d
Independent Evaluation of California High School Exit Exam:
www.cde.ca.gov/statetests/cahsee/eval/eval.html
"Special Ed. Advocates Slam MCAS Exemption,"
Kevin Rothstein, Boston Herald (05/08/03):
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/
local_regional/mcas05082003.htm
"High Standards for Every Student,"
Boston Herald Editorial (05/08/03):
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/
opinion/edt05082003.htm
"Counting High School Graduation Rates When Graduates Count: Measuring Graduation Rates Under the High Stakes of NCLB,"
Christopher Swanson and Duncan Chaplin, The Urban Institute (02/25/03:
www.urban.org/Template.cfm?Section=ByAuthor
&NavMenuID=63&template=/TaggedContent/
ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=8299
Charter schools are yet again under attack by opponents using the cover of state budget crises. In Massachusetts, critics of charter schools are seeking a moratorium, blaming the 1.5 percent of state education spending that goes to charter schools for the current budget woes facing state education programs and school district budgets. Yet even as they seek to limit spending on charter schools, opponents have persuaded the Massachusetts House Ways and Means Committee to adopt budget provisions extending reimbursements for traditional public schools that lose students to charters. Even in Minnesota, the first state to pass a charter school law and one where a recent poll from the Center for School Change found strong public support for charter schools, charters are feeling the crunch. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) leaders in the Senate proposed a moratorium on new charter schools to generate savings in an education finance bill. While the moratorium was voted down, Minnesota's charter schools may yet find their facilities funding cut.
But there is also good news: in Illinois, new state legislation has doubled the cap on the number of charter schools permitted in the city of Chicago from 15 to 30.
A new study of Central Michigan University-authorized charter schools from Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services (the second such study commissioned by CMU in its efforts to hold its schools to high standards) also offers encouraging, though mixed, news. While achievement varies greatly across CMU's charter schools, one in three are outperforming their local school districts, and many have demonstrated consistent improvement on standard tests. It's also worth noting that CMU's charter schools are serving more economically disadvantaged students than the average school in the state and doing so with fewer financial resources.
The American Academy for Liberal Education's Charter Accreditation program, which recognizes outstanding charter schools providing a liberal education, last week recognized two schools, Black River Public School chartered by Grand Valley State University in Michigan and the Classical Academy in Colorado Springs, CO. These schools join 5 others previously accredited by AALE. Accreditation is an emerging strategy for charter schools to demonstrate their quality, appeal to parents, and improve their competitiveness in the education market. (Full disclosure alert! 21st Century Schools Project Director Andrew Rotherham is a member of AALE's Charter Accreditation Advisory Board.)
"Senate DFLers Seek Charter School Limit,"
Anthony Lonetree, Minneapolis Star Tribune (05/30/03):
www.startribune.com/stories/1592/3855328.html
"Ambushing the Charters,"
Scott Lehigh, Boston Globe (04/30/03):
www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/120/oped/
Ambushing_the_charters+.shtml
"Illinois Governor Signs Bill for New Chicago Charters,"
Mary Ann Zehr, Education Week (04/30/03):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=33caps.h22
Central Michigan University Charter Schools Report
Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services (04/24/03):
www.ses.standardandpoors.com/
ses_press_release_CMU_April_2003_v_5_pm.html
AALE Charter School Accreditation Program:
http://aale.org/charters/
Christmas came early for the White House and congressional Republicans when Washington, D.C., Mayor Tony Williams announced that, like DC School Board Chair Peggy Cooper Cafritz, he is on board with administration proposals for a school voucher pilot in Washington. In addition, City Council member Kevin Chavous sent signals that he was there, too. DC Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton attacked Williams for selling out "home-rule" of the city, a charge that rings increasingly hollow as more and more of DC's elected officials signal their willingness to give vouchers a try. On the plus side, the threat of vouchers has turned Norton into a strong charter school advocate.
This isn't the first time city officials have decided that something new, anything new, just might be the thing that fixes Washington's lousy public schools. But the past 10 years in the DC schools are a history of "big ideas" -- new tests, new curriculum, new leadership, hiring new teachers, firing uncertified teachers, more funding -- that as yet have failed to resuscitate the troubled system. Unless more thought and long-range planning and commitment go into expanding choice in DC, the Bulletin predicts that in a decade we'll be right back where we are now, betting on the next big idea. Meanwhile another generation of DC youngsters will have been doomed to limited opportunities in life.
Washington's public schools are broken, and hardly any of the public figures involved in this debate on any side would seriously consider sending their own children to more than a handful of them. It's the quintessential debate about other people's children. But most of the people involved in this debate wouldn't send their kids to most of the schools that poor DC parents will be able to afford under a voucher program either. On a technical level that means that any choice plan must be linked to real accountability. Vouchers do not change what happens in classrooms, only how we pay for education. On a larger level it means that it will take a lot more than just choice to substantially change the educational landscape in DC.
"Mayor Endorses Vouchers in DC,"
Craig Timberg and Justin Blum, Washington Post (05/02/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A2864-2003May1.html
"Vouching for Vouchers,"
Washington Post Editorial (05/03/03):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A8027-2003May2.html
"DC Voucher Dust-up,"
21st Century Schools Project Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 7 (04/01/03):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=900001&contentID=251443
"Education Modernisation and School Choice,"
Andrew Rotherham, Education Forum Briefing Papers No. 9 (April 2003):
www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/
policy/briefing_no._9.pdf
"The Norton Anthology,"
Washington City Paper (05/9-15/03):
www.washingtoncitypaper.com/lips/lips.html
The No Child Left Behind framework of intervention in inverse proportion to success is not unique to the United States. Other Western Democracies face the same challenges and are taking similar steps. British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently announced new plans to help low-performing schools in London improve or close them and provide students with better opportunities. This effort is the latest in Blair's New Labour synthesis to invest more and demand more from British schools. You can learn more about this specific initiative at the link below, and the larger agenda by checking out Minister of State for School Standards David Miliband's recent presentation to a PPI luncheon.
"Blair Builds for Better London Schools,"
BBC News (05/12/03):
www.washingtoncitypaper.com/lips/lips.html
Education Reform in England,
David Miliband Presentation to Progressive Policy Institute (11/21/02):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=136&contentID=25107777
The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project and The Washington Monthly invite you to join us Thursday, May 29, for a reception and book signing with writer Tom Toch for his new book, High Schools On a Human Scale, which makes the case for transforming the current large, anonymous American High School through small schools and reports on the burgeoning small schools movement, including profiles of four very different and exciting small high schools around the country.
Space is limited. Please RSVP to: education@dlcppi.org
High Schools on a Human Scale, Reception and Book Signing
Tom Toch, author
Thursday, May 29, 2003. 6:30 -- 8 p.m.
Progressive Policy Institute
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 400
Washington, DC, 20003
(Eastern Market Metro)
Light refreshments will be served.
Copies of High Schools on a Human Scale will be available at the reception for purchase and signing. While the Bulletin encourages you to come to the signing and purchase a book, you can read more about it online at:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080703245X/
qid=1051214085/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-4140235-9550257
The 21st Century Schools Project Bulletin is written by Sara Mead and Renee Rybak and edited by Andrew Rotherham. For more information visit:
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
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 issue 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.
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.
