Reason Foundation - Staff > Lisa Snell

Obama's Race to the Top May Help Spur Much-Needed Education Reforms

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:29:00 EDT

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is once again “shopping” for government reform ideas (remember the California Performance Review?) to erase the massive deficit and improve California. In perfect timing with Schwarzenegger’s newfound ambition, the U.S. Department of Education is getting ready to hand out its $4.3 billion “Race to the Top” education reform funds.

The Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” program is using federal money to encourage states to better track student progress; recognize and reward good teachers; and close chronically low-performing schools, replacing them with higher-quality charter schools.

At first glance, California has been disqualified before the “Race to the Top” even starts. The state does not have the legal ability to link student achievement data to teachers and principals. In 2006, teachers' unions successfully lobbied for a law that “prohibits the state from linking student data to teacher data for the purpose of pay, promotion, sanction, or personnel evaluation.”

That’s right: California’s teachers cannot be judged by how well they teach.

But with all that federal money out there, Gov. Schwarzenegger recently called for a special legislative session to rework state law so California can get a slice of the “Race to the Top” funds.

"Right now, we can't tell over the course of time how an individual teacher or principal or school is doing," Schwarzenegger said. "They call it a firewall, and I say tear down that wall."

But the governor shouldn’t stop at tying test scores to teachers. Layoffs by seniority -- last hired, first fired -- have been part of the California Education Code for over three decades. Schwarzenegger should introduce legislation to adopt a seniority-neutral layoff policy that allows districts to layoff personnel based on effectiveness rather than years of service.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa experienced the negative consequences of the seniority laws first-hand. Villaraigosa took over 10 low-performing schools under a partnership with the Los Angeles Unified School District. But when layoffs and cutbacks had to be discussed, the mayor learned that all of his schools could be gutted: all of the principals and assistant principals and about 200 teachers would have to be replaced by more “senior” teachers from other schools that were not part of the reform efforts. The education establishment should realize it can’t afford to lose good teachers simply because they haven’t been on the job as long as less effective peers.

Gov. Schwarzenegger should also latch on to President Obama’s call for more charter schools. Last week on CNN, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, “I'm a fan of good charters. And the more we're creating options and new opportunities for parents, particularly in historically underserved communities, we think that's very, very important….You have to give these charter school operators real autonomy. These are, by definition, educated -- educated entrepreneurs, education entrepreneurs and innovators. You have to free them from the bureaucracy.”

As last week’s state test scored showed, many of the state’s poorest communities would greatly benefit if charter schools were allowed to compete with the failing public schools. Across California in 2009, 50 percent of children were proficient or above in English, up from 46 percent the year before. In Math, 46 percent of students were proficient, a gain of three points.

Yet, those already mediocre numbers are much lower for disadvantaged kids. Only 36 percent of economically-disadvantaged students scored proficient in English and 37 percent of economically-disadvantaged students were proficient in math.

This “achievement gap” is crushing the futures of many poor and minority students. Only 37 percent of the California’s African-American and Hispanic students are proficient or above in English - 31 points behind white students and 36 points behind Asian students. As the San Francisco Chronicle’s Jill Tucker recently wrote, “Based on the rate of improvement from 2003 to 2009, it would take up to 105 years to close the white/Hispanic achievement gap and at least 189 years to close the white/black gap, which has failed to narrow by even a point in English since 2003.”

To help these kids, Schwarzenegger needs to revamp many of the state’s worst schools. California uses a “similar schools ranking,” which compares schools based on how their student achievement scores measure up to 100 schools that are similar in size and makeup. Going forward, if a school is at the bottom of those “similar schools rankings” and has failed to meet adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind requirements for five years, the school should immediately be restructured. Charter schools should be allowed to bid to manage these schools, as President Obama and Secretary Duncan have previously suggested.

In California, charter schools are already successfully serving the most disadvantaged students. If you look at test scores in public schools where more than 70 percent of children qualify for the free lunch program, charter schools operate 12 of the state’s 15 top performing schools.

With Secretary Duncan traveling the country with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to promote “Race to the Top” and charter schools, Gov. Schwarzenegger has an opportunity to implement the type of bipartisan reforms that many thought he’d bring years ago. Getting California to evaluate its teachers, at least in part, on how much their students improve and replacing failing schools with charters are two reforms that can start to fix a public school system that continues to fail way too many kids.

Lisa Snell is director of education at Reason Foundation.

Lift Restrictions on School Outsourcing in California

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:49:00 EDT

Faced with a $24 billion budget deficit, California voters seem to finally be calling for an end to out of control state spending. And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is actually looking for opportunities to curb the deficit. Schwarzenegger recently proposed privatizing many of California’s prisons, selling unneeded state assets and property - including the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the State Fairgrounds, and said he’ll even consider a flat tax. But, it’s California so there are still calls for more spending, not less.

Last month, Californians rejected Proposition 1B, which would have provided $7.9 billion for education spending. And yet, a number of state legislators have proposed mandating that the money that would have gone to schools via 1B go to them anyway.

The state’s schools don’t need more money.

If California legislators are really serious about directing more scarce dollars to classrooms, they should help repeal California’s restrictive school outsourcing law.

In 2009, school districts across the nation are utilizing outsourcing to reduce costs. Troy Public Schools in Michigan is privatizing transportation services to save an estimated $2.5 million over the next three years. The Roanoke, Virginia, city school board voted to contract with a Pennsylvania-based bus company to provide transportation services at a cost reduction of approximately $250,000 annually. In Columbus, Ohio, the school district is contracting out food operations to bring the indebted department back to solvency. In Leominster, Massachusetts, they are in the process of selecting a private company to take over the school lunch program.

Outsourcing non-instructional support services, such as transportation, food or janitorial and maintenance services, is a management tool used by school boards nationwide, because it allows them to sharpen their focus on providing core educational services while simultaneously right-sizing the academic bureaucracy. In Anchorage, Alaska, school board members recently voted to extend an outsourcing contract for custodians that saved the district $1.7 million a year. Board member Colleen Hamblen pointed out that "$1.7 million will buy us a lot of teachers in this budget, in any budget."

A 2008 survey of Michigan's 552 public school districts by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy found that 42 percent of the districts were contracting out food, janitorial and/or busing services. The research also identified one Michigan district that estimates a three-year savings of between $14.7 million to $21.5 million from privatizing all three services. A 2007 survey found that 78 percent of Michigan’s school districts contracting out services reported cost savings from privatization, and nearly 90 percent reported that they were satisfied with their privatization experience.

California could redirect a significant amount of resources to the classroom through outsourcing. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the National Center on Education Statistics, and the California Department of Education, California schools spend about 28 percent of their budgets on non-instructional services such as, operation and maintenance, transportation, and food service. This amounts to more than $15 billion each year spent on non-instructional school-site services.

School districts in other states have realized cost savings between 20 and 40 percent from outsourcing these services. If 25 percent of the more than $15 billion in California’s non-instructional services were outsourced at a savings of 20 percent, California would save approximately $750 million a year.

While privatizing non-instructional school services will not solve the state’s budget crisis, it would empower local school leaders with maximum flexibility to manage their budgets. Unfortunately, a state law cripples the ability of local school officials to target spending cuts to non-instructional services and away from teachers and other instructional programs. The outsourcing law forbids the private firms from paying workers less than district counterparts and prohibits laying off or demoting any school employees as a result of the private contract. Limiting costs and controlling personnel decisions are crucial aspects of most outsourcing efforts so the state law is a huge roadblock to saving money.

In times of severe financial stress, like the budget mess California is in now, school leaders should have every option available to manage their resources and make sure money makes its way to kids in classrooms. Instead of mandating another $11 billion in education spending, legislators in Sacramento should free up district leaders to more effectively manage their resources through outsourcing.

Lisa Snell is director of education at Reason Foundation.

Are Charters a Drain on Traditional Public Schools?

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Los Angeles Times

LATimes Dust-Up Asks: Is it really a bad thing that charters put pressure on low-performing public schools? Lisa Snell and Ralph E. Shaffer finish their debate. To read Shaffer's response, go here.

Ralph, charter schools are the way to go. In a March speech on education policy, President Obama championed charter schools, praising their innovation and urging states to lift caps on their growth. Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have called for doubling the number of charter schools across the country. They want high-quality charter schools with proven track records to replace lower-performing schools.

Many urban school leaders in such places as Philadelphia, Newark and Oakland are embracing charters and developing specific plans to close low-performing schools and replicate high-quality charters. For example, the current issue of the Economist reports that, in Newark, 17 schools run by 12 charter-management groups teach almost 10% of the 48,000 children the city's school system and that these numbers will soon double. Similarly, Philadelphia schools chief Arlene Ackerman has called for replacing 45 low-performing schools with higher-quality charter schools. School leaders have called for an expansion of charter schools because the evidence demonstrates that these schools are improving outcomes for the most disadvantaged and lowest-performing students.

Charter schools should not be viewed as a fiscal drain on school districts. Instead, they should be viewed as high-quality public schools that offer parents more options and raise school districts' overall quality. Districts should embrace higher-performing charter schools and work to replicate and imitate these schools, which are adding value to their students' education.

Look at Los Angeles and Oakland, where charter schools have had a positive effect on public education. In Los Angeles, more than 70% of charter schools outperform their nearby district schools. Ten of Los Angeles' 12 recently recognized California Distinguished Schools are charter schools. Statewide, 12 of the 15 highest-performing public schools serving low-income students are charter schools. Similarly, in Oakland, the highest-performing schools are charters that have raised achievement for disadvantaged students.

In addition, these charter schools are improving performance for middle- and high school students where traditional public schools have often made the least progress. A recent study by the California Charter Schools Assn. found that the gains made in Oakland charters were most pronounced among middle- and high school students, and that these gains are increasing over time. Similarly, the March 2009 Rand Corp. study on charter schools in eight states found that charter students are more likely than traditional public school students to graduate high school and enroll in college.

The evidence that charters outperform district schools is coming in from across the nation. In New Orleans, where more than 55% of students are enrolled in charters, these schools continue to post faster achievement gains in reading and math for disadvantaged students. In Boston, a 2009 study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that Massachusetts charter schools are outperforming traditional public schools in both math and English.

In California, there is a strong demand from parents for more charter schools. In 2008, charter school enrollment in Los Angeles increased by 8,000 students, and many campuses have long waiting lists. The California Charter Schools Assn. reports that the number of charter schools would need to triple to accommodate all of the students currently on waiting lists in California.

Parents are desperate for more high-quality education options. Charter schools are not a fiscal drain on districts. They are public schools with impressive track records that should be viewed as a legitimate part of a high-performing public school system.

Lisa Snell is director of education at Reason Foundation. This article was first published as part of an LATimes.com Dust-Up “The Great Charter School Debate.”

Who Do Charters Educate?

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Los Angeles Times

LATimes Dust-Up Asks: Are they taking their fair share of special-ed and English-language learners? Ralph Shaffer and Lisa Snell debate. To read Shaffer's response, go here.

Ralph, the way in which you analyze student subgroups at the school level by comparing them with district averages for subgroups is misleading. You assume that all district-run schools in Oakland actually match the district's average demographics. This is not the case. There are many examples of district-run schools that are not racially integrated and have large populations of certain subgroups of students. Many schools have majority Latino or African American populations, or majority Asian or white populations. For example, at Hillcrest Elementary School, white students make up more than 65% of the enrollment; West Oakland Middle School is about 87% African American. The American Indian charter schools are actually more diverse than many of the district-run traditional schools.

Similarly, there are many examples of Oakland charter schools that serve higher percentages of English-language learners and economically disadvantaged students: Education for Change's enrollment is 67% English-learners, Monarch's is 68%, Lighthouse Community's is 75%, and the Dolores Huerta Learning Academy's is a whopping 99%. Ernestine Reems charter and the American Indian charter schools have almost 100% low-income students.

Special-ed is also difficult to evaluate at the school level. While some charters have below-the-district averages for special-ed students, so do many district-run schools. Other charter schools have higher percentages of special-ed students, such as Civicorps Elementary and North Oakland, both with 11%.

There is little evidence that charter schools are succeeding because they are educating higher-performing students. A March 2009 Rand Corp. study, "Charter Schools in Eight States: Effects on Achievement, Attainment, Integration, and Competition," examined charters in Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, San Diego and the states of Florida, Ohio and Texas. It found that charter schools do not "skim" the top students away from traditional public schools. In fact, in many locations, students transferring to charter schools have below-average test scores. In addition, the Rand study found that charter transfers had surprisingly little effect on racial distributions of students. Typically, students transferring to charter schools moved to schools with racial distributions similar to those of the traditional public schools from which they came.

This is also true in Oakland. According to the Oakland Unified School District's annual scorecard, overall charter enrollment in Oakland includes a higher percentage of both English-learners and Latino students. About 51% of the students enrolled in Oakland charter schools are Latino, and about 30% are English-learners; at district-run schools, about 34% of the students are Latino, and about 29% are English-learners. On average, English-learners in Oakland charters outperformed those in Oakland's traditional public schools, 679 to 644, on the state's Academic Performance Index in 2008.

This obsession with the minutia of student demographics at individual schools ignores the big picture of how charter schools have helped disadvantaged students.

The bottom line is that many urban school environments are not as racially integrated as some people might prefer. However, while racial integration may be one goal of public education, it should not overshadow actual achievement gains for disadvantaged children. Charter schools in Oakland outperformed that city's traditional public schools in a number of disadvantaged subgroup populations, including Asian, socio-economically disadvantaged, African American, English-learners and Latinos.

Lisa Snell is director of education at Reason Foundation. This article was first published as part of an LATimes.com Dust-Up “The Great Charter School Debate.”

Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:00:00 EDT

Much of our education funding is wasted on bureaucracy. The money never actually makes it into the classroom in the form of books, computers, supplies, or even salaries for better teachers. Weighted student formula changes that. Using weighted student formula’s decentralized system, education funds are attached to each student and the students can take that money directly to the public school of their choice.

At least 15 major school districts have moved to this system of backpack funding. Reason Foundation’s new Weighted Student Formula Yearbook examines how the budgeting system is being implemented in each of these places and, based on the real-world data, creates a series of “best practices” that other districts and states can follow to improve the quality of their schools.

Weighted Student Formula Yearbook (Full Study .pdf)
Weighted Student Formula Overview (.pdf)
Weighted Student Formula Best Practices (.pdf)

Weighted Student Formula Case Studies Excerpted from the Yearbook:

Baltimore Public Schools (.pdf)
Belmont Pilot Schools, Los Angeles Unified School District (.pdf)
Boston Pilot Schools (.pdf)
Chicago Public Schools—Renaissance 2010 Schools (.pdf)
Cincinnati Public Schools (.pdf)
Clark County School District (Las Vegas) (.pdf)
Denver Public Schools (.pdf)
Hartford Public Schools (.pdf)
State of Hawaii (.pdf)
Houston Independent School District (.pdf)
New York City Department of Education (.pdf)
Oakland Unified School District (.pdf)
Poudre School District (Fort Collins, Colorado) (.pdf)
Saint Paul Public Schools (Minnesota) (.pdf)
San Francisco Unified School District (.pdf)

Lisa Snell's Bio

Reason Foundation's Education Research and Commentary

The Inconsistencies In President Obama's Education Plans

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:18:00 EDT

President Barack Obama recently delivered his first major education speech, titled “What’s Possible for Our Children.” In the speech he used strong language that appealed to those seeking real education reforms. The president endorsed the expansion of innovative charter schools, performance pay for teachers, and the elimination of ineffective teachers.

Many news stories suggested that Obama was “taking on the unions” in his speech. Mr. Obama deserves some credit; he’s perhaps the only president, or major politician, to ever call for actually firing a school teacher in a major education speech. But at the same time, it is much easier to criticize current teaching practices after you have saved thousands of union jobs with billions of new dollars that will strengthen the status quo.

If you follow Obama’s spending patterns, and his legislation, the teachers’ unions have little to worry about because the reforms that he talks about don’t seem to have any actual force behind them.

The majority of federal education spending will continue to go to ineffective programs. And thanks to the stimulus package, local school districts are receiving loads of money to prop up district budgets, ensuring that incompetent teachers will never be laid off or terminated even during these tough economic times.

Obama’s education plan also champions expanding access to preschool. He calls for new grants to incentivize states to develop state-run preschool programs - despite the fact that 70 percent of four-year-olds are already enrolled in preschool and that states with long-running universal preschool programs continue to score below average on the National Assessment of Education Progress tests. If implemented universal pre-k programs will most likely crowd-out existing preschool options and move the system toward a lower-quality, government-run monopoly.

The president has also increased Pell grants and made expanding college access a priority without detailing what results the increased spending will deliver. Higher education costs continue to rise, in part because of subsidized tuition. Federal loans, Pell Grants, and other tuition assistance programs create more demand for college. As a result, costs rise. According to data from the College Board, college federal aid grew by 77 percent in inflation adjusted dollars between 1997 and 2007. Tuition prices rose almost 30 percent at private colleges and 41 percent at public colleges during that time. Despite the aid, only about half of U.S. college students graduate within six years.

The education system is looking at receiving billions in extra funding but is being asked to make very few concessions or reforms. Most of the reform policies that Obama mentions, from charter schools to performance pay, are completely missing from the actual legislative agenda.

Charter schools received almost no funding from the stimulus package and there was no requirement for states to remove destructive charter school caps in exchange for billions. Similarly, while he plans to fund a few teacher incentive pilot programs, President Obama missed the opportunity to tie the billions in new federal education dollars to outcomes that could result in serious personnel reform.

Mr. Obama has also remained silent about the children who have escaped Washington, DC,’s failing public schools and used vouchers to attend higher performing private schools. At the very moment, he was giving his speech on how to fix America’s schools, Senate Democrats voted to effectively kill the DC voucher program and prevent more poor kids from fleeing failing schools.

Obama’s staff has hinted they’ll try to preserve the voucher program, at least for the kids already in it.

"I don't think it makes sense to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said. "I think those kids need to stay in their school."

And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that “it wouldn't make sense to disrupt the education of those that are in that system, and I think we'll work with Congress to ensure that a disruption like that doesn't take place.”

We’ll see if the administration follows through. Right now the president’s education plan is rife with inconsistencies. He is willing to spend more on Pell Grants (vouchers) for adults to attend college, but opposes them for children. He calls for professionalizing the teaching profession, yet effectively gives the unions huge amounts of new money to preserve the current rigid staffing models. He says the education system is failing, but wants that failing education system expanded to include universal preschool.

President Obama often talks about challenging the status quo. Education offers him the chance to do just that. Unfortunately, right now it looks like we’re just throwing more money at that status quo.

Lisa Snell is director of education at Reason Foundation.

Huge Stimulus Plan Won't Change the Education System's Status Quo

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST

Get ready for the largest transfer of funds from the federal government to local schools in history.

Democrats in Congress are proposing a new infusion of federal cash for public schools through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the House version of the stimulus package released on January 15, Democrats suggest allocating $120 billion for K-12 education, almost $22 billion for higher education and close to $5 billion for early education. It includes a $79 billion block grant for states to help stabilize state and local education budgets, $26 billion in new money for existing Title I and special education programs, $1 billion for technology to provide "21st Century Schools," and a new $20 billion school construction program. All this money will be in addition to the approximately $60 billion a year in taxpayer money that the federal government already spends on education in the United States.

The stimulus package will spend more than double the current total federal education budget, bringing federal funding of education to well over $200 billion. Unfortunately, this huge expansion is unlikely to spur improvements in public education and will continue to encourage states and local districts to spend money with little regard to student outcomes.

In the last 30 years, the United States has doubled per-pupil spending in real dollars. We spend more money on education for K-12 than most other industrialized countries. According to the OECD's 2008 Education at a Glance, the United States ranks number one in all education spending and well above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average for K-12 education. Yet, outcomes for students at the end of their public education career have not kept pace with these large-scale investments. The average reading and math scores for 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the nation's benchmark for student achievement, are no better today than they were in 1971; SAT verbal scores show a decline (from 530 in 1972 to 504 today); and SAT math scores have been essentially flat (from 509 in 1972 to 515 today). U.S. graduation rates were 78 percent in 1972 and are 74 percent today; and U.S. 15-year-olds score below the international average on science and math literacy when compared with 30 OECD countries - American kids rank behind students from Poland, Hungary, and France to name a few.

The biggest chunk of this new education stimulus will be a block grant to cover operational costs for local school districts. The federal government will direct large amounts of aid to states struggling with huge budget deficits aggravated by the economic downturn. For example, New York Gov. David Paterson is counting on $6.4 billion in help for teacher salaries and other operating expenses over the next two years if the education block grant is part of the final economic stimulus package.

As a House Democratic leadership aide told Politico,"When the recession ends, you are still going to need teachers, firemen, policemen, and the question is do we step in now or pay more to rebuild later."

Public schools suffer from some of the same problems as the auto industry. In Detroit, the financial meltdown is partially caused by union contracts that make promises to employees that are impossible to fulfill and also remain economically viable. In schools, automatic pay raises and teacher tenure mean that school districts have very limited flexibility in hiring and firing and prohibit them from negotiating pay-cuts that reflect the country's current economic conditions.

School districts have also continued to hire more teachers as enrollments have declined. The National Center for Education Statistics puts the current average teacher-student ratio at 1 to 15. There is little evidence that class-size is correlated with student outcomes, yet districts continue to favor small class size as school reform.

This stimulus plan would also prolong the practice of generous defined-benefit retirement plans, which guarantee teachers specific retirement payments despite school districts ever-increasing unfunded pension liabilities.

School Construction

The stimulus package put forth by House Democrats proposes to spend $20 billion on school construction. But there is no indication new school construction cash will do anything to make the process more efficient or cost-effective. School construction projects are notoriously behind schedule, over budget and more expensive than other types of construction projects.

Dr. Jay Greene, an education researcher at the University of Arkansas, has noted that building schools costs much more than other types of construction. According to the 34th Annual Official Education Construction Report, the median new school built in 2007 cost $188 per square foot for elementary schools; $211 per square foot for middle schools; and $175 per square foot for high schools. By comparison, the median cost per square foot to build a three-story factory in 2007 ranged from $83 in Winston-Salem to $136 in New York City, with most major metro areas hovering around $100 per square foot.

These stimulus plans contain no incentives for schools to cut costs or reform the school construction bureaucracy by using innovative practices such as public-private partnerships to more efficiently build new schools.

Internet Access

President Barack Obama announced in a recent radio address that his administration would seek to expand broadband access in schools. The House stimulus package contains $1 billion for technology programs and $6 billion to bring broadband access to underserved communities that may include schools. Before moving into the White House, Mr. Obama said, "Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm president - because that's how we'll strengthen America's competitiveness in the world."

But that's close to being accomplished. The 2007 report "Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005" that in the fall of 2005 nearly 100 percent of public schools in the United States had access to the Internet. In 2005, 97 percent of public schools had high-speed broadband, with a ratio of 3.8 students per 1 computer with Internet access.

Billions have already been spent through the federal "E-Rate" program to give students Internet access. Like most large-scale government giveaways, the federal E-rate program, which collects $2.5 billion a year in telephone taxes to hook up schools and libraries to the Internet, has produced a huge amount of waste.

Puerto Rico has spent $101 million in federal grants to wire 1,500 public schools for Internet access. Yet the island-wide school district warehoused most of the equipment for more than three years, and only nine schools were actually connected to the Internet. The Chicago public schools have more than $5 million in E-rate computer equipment sitting in a warehouse. In San Francisco, school officials discovered that a $68 million project should have cost less than $18 million.

A huge new federal investment in broadband technology will likely do little to expand broadband access while opening up the potential for even more waste and incompetence. More money for Internet access is a duplicative funding stream to solve a non-problem.

Early Education

The House version of the education stimulus package includes $2.1 billion for Head Start, the federal preschool program for poor children, and $2 billion for additional child care grants. But how will students be helped or what will taxpayers get for the money?

Consider Oklahoma, a state that has spent millions implementing universal preschool. Oklahoma's fourth-grade NAEP reading score in 1998, when it adopted universal preschool, was 219-six points above the national average. Last year, it had dropped to 217-three points below the national average. Similarly, Oklahoma's fourth-grade NAEP math score was on par with the national average in 2000. Last year, it had dropped two points below. Since employing universal preschool, not only is Oklahoma doing worse compared with the nation, but also its own prior performance.

It's also important to note that 70 percent of 4-year-olds are already enrolled in preschool. States with government-run universal preschool programs also enroll about 70 percent of students, so it is not clear how many more kids the stimulus will result in enrolling.

Education Bailout Should Revolutionize Public Schools

The bottom line is that more than $147 billion in federal "education stimulus" will prolong the dysfunctional qualities of the United States education system. It is one of the most expensive and most mediocre K-12 systems in the world. Throwing more money at public schools without addressing the problems inherent in the system - lack of accountability and lack of competition - will simply drive up education costs with little to show for the money.

The best outcome would be to avoid a federal education bailout altogether. However, if an education stimulus is inevitable, it should at least demand some concessions from the education establishment before doling out $120 billion.

Here are a few suggestions:

Only give money to school districts whose labor unions agree to "flat contracts" that offer flexible employee practices such as firing for "just cause" and are willing to suspend seniority and tenure in exchange for merit-pay.
Only give money to school districts that will report transparent budget numbers at the "school level" so parents and taxpayers can see how much money a school spends on education in real dollars and not district averages. It is important to know how much money is siphoned off at district offices and for administrative costs - and how much money actually makes it into the classroom.
Prioritize money for, or give incentives to, districts that attach per-pupil funding to the backs of children, letting parents choose the public school (or dare I say charter or private school) that best suits their child.

If the government is going to give the money away anyway, it might as well empower parents and teachers rather than the status quo, which is failing miserably.

Obama Can Help Rhee Fix DC's Schools

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

One of the hot items for kids this Christmas is the "Imagine Teacher" game for Nintendo DS, where kids role play as teachers. The goal of the game is to build up the enrollment of a new school based on your performance as a teacher. As the game's description explains: "At the beginning your class only has a few kids because most of the kids in town are used to going to a school located in the next town over. It is your job to bring those students back to make your classroom and school the best place to learn."

The game's designers have taken a page from Michelle Rhee's playbook. The DC school chancellor's education philosophy stresses the value of teacher talent and results over tenure. As a recent Time magazine profile explained, Rhee has "a relentless focus on finding--and rewarding--strong teachers, purging incompetent ones and weakening the tenure system that keeps bad teachers in the classroom."

Ms. Rhee has proposed an innovative teacher contract to let DC's teachers choose between two pay scales. They could get massive raises, earning up to $130,000 a year, if they take merit pay and give up tenure for one year, which would make it easier for Rhee to fire bad teachers. Or they could keep tenure and earn much less money. To date, the local union has refused to let teachers vote on Rhee's proposal.

"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions," Rhee told The New York Times. "But has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults."

Michelle Rhee is not alone. In New York, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has revitalized the way teachers are hired by implementing an "open market" hiring system. New York ended "force placing" practices that required principals to hire available teachers even if they weren't qualified or a good fit for that school. Now principals have the authority to pick the teachers who are the best suited for their schools and needs.

There are a handful of urban school leaders across the country trying to improve our schools and revolutionize the teaching profession by making higher teacher quality the cornerstone of education reform in America. These leaders are urging a shift in labor practices to attract better teachers. They want to give teachers more pay, flexibility and fewer bureaucratic rules. They want teachers rewarded for the student outcomes they produce, not for holding advanced college degrees. The goal is to liberate teachers by exchanging today's prescriptive work rules and automatic tenure for more flexibility to innovate in their classrooms, higher salaries and advancement opportunities that are based on whether or not their students are actually learning and improving.

A December report from the Center for American Progress demonstrates why teacher quality is so crucial, especially for high-poverty students. The study found that students with a teacher in the top quartile of the talent pool achieve are getting the equivalent of an extra two or three months of instruction per year, compared with kids who have a teacher in the bottom 25 percent. They concluded that consistent exposure to high-quality teachers substantially lowers the barriers to academic success imposed by poverty and that teacher quality is much more important than oft-talked about reforms like class size.

President-elect Barack Obama should join the fight for good teachers. During the campaign he stressed merit pay for teachers. The current tenure system doesn't reward teachers based on results, just seniority and years in the classroom. It is time to stop rewarding poor teachers for time-served.

In the recent Time cover story, Rhee suggested the incoming Obama administration could make a big difference in her battle with the union over teacher quality, saying, "It would send a huge message if this administration actually took a side on where we are with union negotiations here."

Obama has called Rhee a "wonderful new superintendent." And he has the opportunity to help her change the direction of our failing public schools.

This Christmas kids are asking their parents to buy the "Imagine Teacher" video game. But parents shouldn't have to imagine the day when good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are fired. It's time for the education establishment to put the interests of students first.

Some Democrats Supporting School Vouchers

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Marion Barry, the famous (and notorious) former Washington mayor, still has the capacity to surprise jaded political junkies. Writing in The Washington Post in May, the liberal Democrat endorsed the D.C. school voucher program. "I know it may surprise some that I would support a school voucher program, but I am proud to do so," he announced.

But maybe that shouldn't have been a surprise. In the last three years, three-quarters of the legislative victories for school choice happened because of Democratic support.

In April 2006, Wisconsin's Democratic governor Jim Doyle signed a big expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program. In June 2006 Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, another Democrat, allowed the creation of a tax-credit scholarship program and signed two new voucher programs into law. In July 2007 yet another Democrat, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, signed a $16 million increase to the state's tax credit program. Fellow Dem Iowa Gov. Chet Culver increased the state's educational tax credit program by $2.5 million in May 2007.

This summer Louisiana passed a voucher program forNew Orleans students with a large bipartisan majority, 60 to42 in the state House and 25 to 12 in the Senate; it will use $10 million in state money to pay private school tuition for as many as 1,500 children. And on July 2, 2008, a third of Florida's Democratic caucus helped pass a $30 million expansion of the corporate tax credit program.

Overall, student enrollment in private school choice programs has increased by 84 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to the Alliance for School Choice's School Choice Yearbook 2007. This year the five states with the largest school choice programs are Democrat-dominated: Florida (39,000 students), Pennsylvania (38,000), Arizona (28,000), Wisconsin (19,000), and Ohio (14,000). Each of those programs continues to demonstrate solid year-toyear growth in student enrollment.

Preschool's Failures

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

This year governors have continued to expand state-run preschool programs. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, signed a program to fund preschool for every 4-year-old in Louisiana by 2013. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, signed Massachusetts' universal preschool program into law; another Democrat, Jennifer Granholm, boosted funding for Michigan's pre-K program by $10 million. Across the United States, current state spending on state-run preschool programs is close to $4 billion a year.

Tennessee's program is considered the gold standard. It meets nine out of 10 criteria for a high-quality program set by the National Institute for Early Education Research, including instructors with teaching credentials, small class size, and comprehensive early learning standards. Yet an interim study for the state Comptroller's Office, conducted by the Ohio-based Strategic Research Group, finds that the advantages of participating in the program disappear by the time students reach second grade. In every case, in every subject, there was no statistical difference between the children who attended preschool and those who did not. Nor was there any advantage for low- or middle-income children in particular.

This study adds to the growing evidence that students who participate in early education programs do not have lasting academic gains. In Oklahoma and Georgia, which both have decade-long universal preschool programs with high standards, students score below the national average on the National Assessment of Education Progress, the nation's benchmark for student achievement. In Oklahoma, where state-funded pre-kindergarten has been in place for 18 years-and offered universally for nearly a decade-students slipped below the national average on math and reading scores for both the fourth and eighth grades after the state began expanding its preschool program.

Lisa Snell is director of education at Reason Foundation.

Universal Preschool Hasn't Delivered Results

shikha.dalmia@reason.org (Shikha Dalmia) lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

San Francisco Chronicle

Early education advocates want you to believe that the case for universal preschool is so airtight that raising any questions about it is an act of heresy. But there is a strong and growing body of literature showing that preschool produces virtually no lasting benefits for the majority of kids.

Proponents of universal preschool claim that when kids attend quality preschools, they grow up to be smarter, richer and more law-abiding. But this is a fairy tale not based on research.

More kids who attend preschool enter kindergarten knowing their ABCs and counting their numbers than their stay-at-home peers, it is true. But these gains fade, as study after study has shown.

Consider Oklahoma and Georgia, two states that have spent billions implementing universal preschool. Georgia's fourth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading score in 1992, when it embraced universal preschool, was 212 - three points below the national average. Last year, after years of universal preschool, it was 219 - still one point below the national average. Its math score was three points below the average in 1992. Last year, it was 235 - four points below the national average.

And that's the good news.

Oklahoma's fourth-grade NAEP reading score in 1998, when it adopted universal preschool, was 219 - six points above the national average. Last year, it had dropped to 217 - three points below the national average. Similarly, its math score was at par with the national average in 2000. Last year, it had dropped two points below. Since employing universal preschool, not only is Oklahoma doing worse compared with the nation - but also its own prior performance.

The latest bit of bad news for universal preschool comes from Tennessee, which poured $250 million into expanding a state preschool program three years ago. A comprehensive study last month - commissioned by the government itself - concluded that, barring at-risk kids, there was "no statistically significant difference" between the educational performance of second-graders who attended preschool and those who did not. Activists cannot blame this on 'poor quality' preschool, given that the Tennessee program is regarded as the gold standard of preschool - meeting 9 of the 10 criteria for a high-quality program set by the National Institute for Early Education Research.

Meanwhile, research on Head Start, the federal preschool program for poor kids, also shows few gains. Studies show minor initial cognitive gains - but a near-complete fade out after kids begin elementary school. "By the second or third grade, there is no difference between the test scores of children who attended most preschool programs, including Head Start, and those who did not," Ron Haskins of the liberal Brookings Institution concluded.

Universal preschool activists brush away these uncomfortable findings and tout the results of boutique programs such as Michigan's 1962 Perry Preschool Program. The positive effect on high-school graduation rates, adult crime, earnings and welfare-dependence of Perry participants has given this program mythical status. But Perry had a grand total of 58 low-IQ kids in its treatment sample, all from extremely disadvantaged, minority backgrounds. Its results have little bearing for other kids.

In fact, University of Chicago Nobel Prize-winner James Heckman, who has extensively studied Perry, has cautioned against generalizing its findings to promote universal preschool. In a June 2005 interview with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, when asked whether public funding should go for universal programs or at-risk kids, Heckman responded: "It is foolish to try to substitute for what the middle-class and upper-middle-class parents are already doing."

Likewise, in the latest issue of Education Next, Craig Ramey, director of the Center on Health and Education at Georgetown University, a universal preschool supporter, chastises activists for using Perry to create "unrealistic expectations" about the benefits of pre-kindergarten schooling for regular kids.

What's more, a joint analysis that Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley professor, conducted with Stanford University researchers found extended preschool may actually emotionally harm mainstream kids. He found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada's C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.

All of this suggests that we are very far from having the degree of confidence needed to justify billions of dollars in taxpayer spending on universal preschool. Preschool advocates might want to will away such inconvenient facts. But politicians ought to look beyond the cherry-picked data advocates cite before foisting preschool on all American toddlers.

LAUSD Doesn't Need $7 Billion in Bonds

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The Los Angeles Unified School District is asking voters to approve a $7 billion school bond, the largest local school bond in the history of the United States. While it may not measure up to a $700 billion Wall Street bailout, this plan is similarly extravagant and just as imprudent.

The L.A. Unified board decided to place the $7 billion bond, Measure Q, on the November ballot instead of the more responsible $3.2 billion originally proposed. They pulled the $7 billion figure out of thin air, admitting they don't even know how all of the money will be spent.

Los Angeles taxpayers have already committed to $13.5 billion -- plus interest -- in school bonds since 1997. Combine that with matching funds from the state and taxpayers have put up $20 billion for the district's ongoing facilities construction program. LAUSD still has about $5.7 billion left to spend under those measures, but claims $60 billion is now needed to repair and build new schools.

Alarm bells should be sounding for taxpayers. The district's fiscal incompetence has been on display for the world to see. LAUSD's Roybal Learning Center made national headlines for opening recently. Formerly named the Belmont Learning Center, the school took nearly 20 years to build and is the most expensive high school construction project ever built in the U.S., costing taxpayers more than $400 million. Is that the kind of financial management voters should reward with an additional $7 billion?

Even the school district's own bond oversight committee has stopped short of fully endorsing the bonds. Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, who chairs the bond oversight committee, said, "The way this bond has been teed up borders on incompetence."

The district already has enough money to allow every student to attend a neighborhood school on a traditional two-semester schedule, which was supposed to be the main goal of the $20 billion LAUSD has spent over the last 10 years.

The question of why the school district needs more money is real and should be addressed. Los Angeles school officials are asking taxpayers for $7 billion even though fewer children are now attending Los Angeles schools. L.A. Unified has lost 57,000 students, nearly 8 percent of its total enrollment in the last decade.

According to reports, the district estimates its schools will have a 16 percent vacancy rate by 2012. It will have the capacity to seat 670,000 students, but only 560,000 are expected to enroll. In fact, in January 2008, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted to downsize its construction and remodeling program because of a lack of enrollment. The board of education voted to eliminate more than 1,000 seats at five new schools. The district has canceled plans for 19 new schools and additions to several campuses citing declining enrollment.

Even more troubling, the Daily News reports that a "review of salaries and staffing shows LAUSD's bureaucracy ballooned by nearly 20 percent from 2001 to 2007. Over the same period, 500 teaching positions were cut and enrollment dropped by 6 percent."

Los Angeles residents are facing tight fiscal pressures. Home values are falling. California has the sixth highest tax burden in the nation. And the state faces a $15 billion deficit. With declining enrollments and a history of construction boondoggles like Belmont Learning Center, taxpayers should be more than leery of giving LAUSD a $7 billion blank check that allocates billions to unnamed, yet-to-be-determined "future priorities."

Protect Our Kids from Preschool

shikha.dalmia@reason.org (Shikha Dalmia) lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The Wall Street Journal

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list. Democratic governors across the country -- including in Illinois, Arizona, Massachusetts and Virginia -- have made a major push to fund universal preschool in their states.

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.

"Advocates and supporters of universal preschool often use existing research for purely political purposes," says James Heckman, a University of Chicago Noble laureate in economics whose work Mr. Obama and preschool activists routinely cite. "But the solid evidence for the effectiveness of early interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged populations."

Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

Preschool activists at the Pew Charitable Trust and Pre-K Now -- two major organizations pushing universal preschool -- refuse to take this evidence seriously. The private preschool market, they insist, is just glorified day care. Not so with quality, government-funded preschools with credentialed teachers and standardized curriculum. But the results from Oklahoma and Georgia -- both of which implemented universal preschool a decade or more ago -- paint an equally dismal picture.

A 2006 analysis by Education Week found that Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia's universal preschool program has made virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores. And a study of Tennessee's preschool program released just this week by the nonpartisan Strategic Research Group found no statistical difference in the performance of preschool versus nonpreschool kids on any subject after the first grade.

What about Head Start, the 40-year-old, federal preschool program for low-income kids? Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly found that although Head Start kids post initial gains on IQ and other cognitive measures, in later years they become indistinguishable from non-Head Start kids.

Why don't preschool gains stick? Possibly because the K-12 system is too dysfunctional to maintain them. More likely, because early education in general is not so crucial to the long-term intellectual growth of children. Finland offers strong evidence for this view. Its kids consistently outperform their global peers in reading, math and science on international assessments even though they don't begin formal education until they are 7. Subsidized preschool is available for parents who opt for it, but only when their kids turn 6.

If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada's C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.

The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful.

Even so, the economic gains of these programs are grossly exaggerated. For instance, Prof. Heckman calculated that the Michigan program produced a 16-cent return on every dollar spent -- not even remotely close to the $10 return that Mr. Obama and his fellow advocates bandy about.

Our understanding of the effects of preschool is still very much in its infancy. But one inescapable conclusion from the existing research is that it is not for everyone. Kids with loving and attentive parents -- the vast majority -- might well be better off spending more time at home than away in their formative years. The last thing that public policy should do is spend vast new sums of taxpayer dollars to incentivize a premature separation between toddlers and parents.

Yet that is precisely what Mr. Obama would do. His "Zero-to-Five" plan would increase federal outlays for early education by $10 billion -- about 50% of total government spending on preschool -- and hand block grants to states to implement universal preschool. This will make the government the dominant source of funding in the early education marketplace, vastly outpacing private spending.

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

More Evidence that Universal Preschool Doesn't Offer Lasting Benefits

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

This summer, governors across the country have continued to expand universal preschool programs and state-run preschool. This week, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) signed into law a universal preschool program that will fund preschool for every four year old in Louisiana by 2013. Earlier, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed Massachusetts' universal preschool program into law, and Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) signed legislation that will boost funding for Michigan's pre-K program by $10 million.

In the United States current state spending on state-run preschool programs is close to $4 billion a year. In the 2008 report "Leadership Matters: Governors' Pre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2009," the universal preschool advocacy group "Pre-K Now" triumphantly reports that "for fiscal year 2009, 16 governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia acted boldly to protect and grow high-quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten programs. Their proposals total $261 million in increased funding for pre-K and would make early childhood programs available to 60,000 more children." And presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is proposing a $10 billion federal investment in early education.

The Pre-K Now report praises Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D), calling him "among the nation's leaders in high quality pre-K innovation and funding." They note that Gov. Bredesen's pre-K investments have increased by more than 200 percent since fiscal year 2006 and he's recommended another 31 percent funding increase for fiscal year 2009.

The Tennessee program is considered a gold-standard. It meets 9 out of 10 criteria for a high-quality program set by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER)--such as preschool teachers with teaching credentials, small class-size, and comprehensive early-learning standards.

Yet, despite this extremely high quality program, an interim study on the program's progress done for the Tennessee Comptroller's Office finds no lasting academic value for Tennessee students who participated in the public pre-kindergarten program.

Two groups of students participated in the study. The first consisted of pre-K students who were identified in assessment records and then individually matched to the second group - other students with the same demographics who did not attend preschool. As the study's authors note "this rigorous precision matching technique was employed to construct a random sample of non-pre-K students that matched the pre-K group as closely as possible in all possible respects given the data available for the analysis."

The report conducted by Ohio-based Strategic Research Group finds that the advantages of participating in Tennessee's public pre-kindergarten program disappear by the time students reach the second grade.

The study shows that children who attended pre-K performed better in reading, language and math in kindergarten and in the first grade than students who did not attend pre-school. However, by the second grade, there was no statistically significant difference between those who went to pre-K and those who did not.

The report measured student achievement using the results of standardized tests given in three academic years between 2004 and 2007. As the study authors conclude, "…although Pre-K students initially demonstrated an advantage on these assessments over peers who did not participate in pre-k, by the second grade there was no statistically significant difference in these groups."

In addition, the students who participated in pre-K did not outscore their peers in the third through fifth grade either. In every case, in every subject, there was no statistical difference between the children who attended preschool and those who did not. There was no advantage for low-income children or middle-income children.

This study adds to the growing evidence that students who participate in early education programs do not have lasting academic gains.

In Oklahoma and Georgia, which both have decade-long universal preschool programs with high quality standards, students score below the national average on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the nation's benchmark for student achievement. For example, Oklahoma, where state-funded pre-kindergarten has been in place for 18 years - and offered universally for nearly a decade, has slipped below the national average on math and reading scores for both the fourth and eighth grades since it began expanding government preschool.

Oklahoma scores fell from one point above the national average in fourth grade math in 1992 to two points behind in 2007. They also slipped behind in eighth grade math, from one point ahead before the pre-K program to five points behind the national average after pre-K was implemented. In reading eighth grade scores slipped from four points ahead in 1998 to one point behind. And Oklahoma's fourth grade reading scores plummeted during the 1990's at the very same time the state was aggressively expanding preschool access, increasing attendance, and building a system that the NIEER rates as a 9 out of 10 on quality.

If preschool advocates are selling large investments in state-run preschool programs as the silver bullet to raise student achievement in public schools and lower the dropout rate, mounting evidence finds little support for these optimistic claims. The failures of the nation's K-12 public schools erase any benefits that pre-kindergarten might offer. Soon after they leave kindergarten, students who attend state-run preschool programs are performing no better than those students who did not enroll. Universal preschool is an over-hyped solution to the difficult, important work of reforming the K-12 education system. By diverting scarce resources away from actually fixing the K-12 public school system, universal preschool isn't part of the solution to our education problems.

Public Says Post Office Is Doing a Better Job Than Public Schools

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

An August 2008 poll conducted by Education Next and Harvard University finds that Americans think less of their schools than of their police departments and post offices. When asked to grade the post office, 70 percent of respondents gave an "A" or "B." In contrast, only 20 percent of Americans said public schools deserve an "A" or a "B." Twenty-six percent of the country actually gave their public schools a grade of "D" or "F." And African-Americans are even more down on public schools, 31 percent gave public schools a "D" or an "F."

Similarly, a 2008 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll that found blacks in California are much less likely than whites, Asians, or Latinos to give a positive assessment of their local schools. In the PPIC poll, almost 50 percent of blacks viewed teacher quality as a "big problem" in their schools compared with 27 percent of whites.

These poll results are not surprising if you look at the performance of California's African-American children. California is failing its black children. California's 2008 standardized test scores, just released, show that 46 percent of students statewide scored proficient in English-language-arts and 43 percent scored proficient in math. Unfortunately, only 33 percent of African-Americans score proficient in English and only 28 percent score proficient in math. This problem is even more severe in urban areas like Los Angeles where only 29 percent of blacks scored proficient in English and 25 percent scored proficient in math.

As State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell released the 2008 statewide test scores on August 14, he said, "I am acutely concerned about our African-American students. African-American students as a whole scored in English-language arts just one point above Latino students, a subgroup that includes a significant number of English learners. This, coupled with an alarming dropout rate among African-Americans, indicates a crisis in the education of black children."

Yet there is one segment of public education where African-American children are not in crisis. They are succeeding in public charter schools. Watts Learning Center, a Los Angeles charter school made up entirely (100 percent) of economically-disadvantaged African-American students, beats statewide test score averages for all California students - for every grade. Watt's Learning Center's fifth-graders scored 52 percent proficient in science. The statewide average for all students was 46 percent. The school's fifth graders also scored 62 percent proficient in English, 14 points better than the state average of 48 percent. Watts scored 72 percent proficient in math, while the state average for all students was 21 percent lower, 51 percent.

Many other Los Angeles charter schools replicate Watts Learning Center's results with low-income African-American students at the middle school and high school levels. For example, disadvantaged African-American 10th-graders at Gertz-Ressler Academy High School, part of the Alliance for College Ready Public Schools, scored 69 percent proficient in science, 29 points higher than the statewide average of 40 percent for all students.

These cases of higher African-American student performance in charter schools are not cherry-picked. A 2008 analysis by the California Charter Schools Association showed that Los Angeles Unified School District's charter schools add value to the African-American academic experience. In 2006, charter schools in LA Unified earned higher Academic Performance Index (API) scores (which are based on California's standardized tests and the state sets 800 as the ideal benchmark for every California school) than traditional public schools. In fact, in elementary charter schools, African-Americans' median API scores were almost 100 points higher than the traditional district schools-scoring 750 versus 651. In middle schools, African-Americans scored 693 versus 625 in traditional schools. In high schools, African-American's median scores were 684 versus 602 in traditional schools. Charter schools in LAUSD also did a better job of closing the racial gap between black and white students with smaller score differences than traditional public schools.

The bottom line is that African-American students perform better in charter schools. A June 2008 report by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, "The Color of Success: Black Student Achievement in Public Charter Schools," confirms that higher academic performance by African-American students in charter schools is a national trend. As the report argues, "in numerous communities throughout the nation, these innovative, tuition-free public schools - which provide administrative flexibility to a school's staff and a rich learning environment with high expectations for its students - are making notable strides in advancing Black student achievement."

The report reviews several studies showing increases in black achievement in charter schools. For example, a national comparison of student achievement on fourth grade reading and math state tests conducted by Stanford University Professor Caroline Hoxby found that, on average, public charter schools serving a high percentage of black students have more students earning proficient scores than traditional public schools serving a similar student population. Similarly, a Florida Department of Education study shows public charter schools closing the achievement gap between black and white students at a faster rate than traditional public schools in key subjects and grade levels.

Every year in California thousands of African-American families are stuck on waiting lists for schools like Watts Learning Center. Every year more families endure heart-wrenching lotteries hoping that their child will be the one selected for the better-performing school. When the LA Unified school board was voting to give Green Dot public schools permission to operate Locke High School as a charter, African-American parents flooded the school board meetings to express their desire and demand for higher quality educational opportunities for their children. African-American parents want more high-quality charters to run low-performing public schools in their neighborhoods.

Superintendent O'Connell and other California policymakers need to pay attention to the attitudes of African-American parents. These parents have consistently rated their schools as lower-quality in opinion polls and are literally waiting in line for better educational opportunities for their children. It is a tragedy that less than 30 percent of the state's black children score proficient in reading and math. California policymakers need to create the conditions to let a thousand charters bloom. Perhaps then, African-Americans might rate public schools higher than they do the post office or the police department.

Failing Public Schools Wipe Out Any Preschools Gains

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

In Sen. Barack Obama's June 3rd victory speech, after wrapping up the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he told Americans that "we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education." Obama promises a preschool agenda that begins at birth. His early education plan includes a major role for the federal government in spreading universal preschool to all states. He calls for a total federal expenditure of $10 billion a year to promote early education. And a central component of his plan would offer grants as incentives to states to accelerate the trend toward "universal preschool for all."

At a 2008 Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, Obama talked about the payoffs of early education to disadvantaged children:

"What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That's why I've said that I'm going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters. Every dollar that we spend in early childhood education, we get $10 back in reduced dropout rates, and improved reading scores."

Obama is right about looking for ways to help poor, disadvantaged kids learn their numbers, colors, and letters in preschool and preparing them for elementary school, but he should re-examine his priority list. Yes, several studies that show preschoolers enrolled in universal preschool make modest gains in kindergarten and the early grades. For example, a 2007 study of five state preschool programs, by the National Institute for Early Education, found that children entering kindergarten who went through a universal preschool program made significant gains in early language, literacy, and math.

Unfortunately, these gains have not translated into lasting, higher academic achievement for the states who have invested heavily in universal preschool. The overlying problem: our broken, under-performing public school system can't maintain any gains that early education may provide. By the fourth grade all of the gains are washed away. So until we fix the public schools, universal preschool is a waste of precious education resources.

This is illustrated by the experiences of disadvantaged fourth graders in Oklahoma and Georgia, the two U.S. states that have had universal preschool for over a decade. Despite a fully implemented universal preschool system, students in Oklahoma and Georgia have not improved significantly on the National Assessment of Education Progress, the nation's report card for reading and math proficiency.

Oklahoma is considered the current U.S. leader on the universal preschool front. The state has received rave reviews for its program and is the model that many states aspire to become. Oklahoma enrolls more than 70 percent of four-year-olds in preschool and is considered a "high quality" program by the National Institute for Early Education at Rutgers University and national preschool advocacy groups such as Preschool Now. Oklahoma's program has strong curriculum, public school provision, and utilizes teachers with teaching credentials.

Yet, the picture is not so rosy when one considers overall academic achievement in Oklahoma. After a decade of universal preschool, Oklahoma has not made gains on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) fourth grade reading test.

The NAEP is the most objective test of academic performance for Oklahoma students because it serves as a quality benchmark for proficiency in reading and math. And it is a test against which all states can be evenly compared. The American Institutes for Research recently showed that the NAEP's definition of proficiency was also very similar to the standard used in international tests, giving the NAEP a "world class" standing. As long as the NAEP standard is employed, proficiency in the United States has roughly the same meaning as in Europe and Asia.

In reading, Oklahoma students remain below the national average and have actually lost ground since universal preschool was implemented. Today, Oklahoma students have lower reading scores than they did when universal preschool was enacted in 1998. In 1992, Oklahoma's fourth graders had an average scale score of 220, on a 0-to-500 scale, on the fourth grade reading test. By 2007, after years of universal preschool, that reading score had fallen slightly to 217.

In 1998, 19 percent of disadvantaged kids were proficient in reading on the NAEP. In 2007, after years off giving low-income children access to preschool, still only 19 percent were proficient in reading. For non-disadvantaged kids the news is worse. In 1998, 42 percent were proficient in reading, but in 2007 only 36 percent were.

In addition, the reading achievement gap between Hispanics and whites in Oklahoma is higher now than it was before universal preschool was enacted. In 1992, fourth grade Hispanic students had an average reading scale score of 207 (on a 0 to 500 scale). In 2007, that score had fallen to 198. The achievement gap between Hispanic and white students was 16 points 1992 and grew to 25 points in 2007.

Clearly any academic gains that preschool gives to low-income and minority students disappear once they enter our failing public schools. And Oklahoma isn't alone.

In Georgia, reading scores for fourth graders have remained flat despite a large investment, starting in 1995, in a universal preschool system that enrolls 60 percent of the state's kids.

Another telling indicator of the weakness of Georgia and Oklahoma's academic standards is revealed in the Summer 2008 issue of Education Next, which analyzes which states have "world class" standards and which do not. Scholars Paul E. Peterson and Frederick M. Hess compare how students do on each state's own assessment test versus how they perform on the national NAEP tests. By comparing the percentage of students deemed proficient on each, it is possible to determine whether states are setting expectations higher, lower, or equal to the NAEP standard. If the percentages are identical (or roughly so), then state proficiency standards can be fairly labeled as "world-class."

In Oklahoma, an impressive 90 percent of fourth graders were proficient on the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test. But a miserable 22 percent of Oklahoma's fourth graders were actually proficient on the NAEP. Similarly, Georgia declared 88 percent of its eighth graders proficient in reading, even though just 26 percent scored at or above the proficiency level on the NAEP. Georgia joined Oklahoma and Tennessee as the only three states to earn an "F" in comparison to the NAEP for their state standards.

To date, early education has not been a silver bullet for Georgia or Oklahoma. Clearly universal preschool isn't entirely to blame. For that, we need to focus on the public school system that is failing our kids. These states do not have "world class" schools or academic standards that can deliver the long-term gains Sen. Obama is looking for.

Obama has said, "It is a sense of urgency that we've got to restore if we're going to be able to remain competitive in this new global economy. We've got to improve early childhood education, because that's the area where we can probably most effectively achieve the achievement gap that exists right now."

Without high quality K-12 education, no amount of investment in early education can close the achievement gap or make the United States globally competitive. To his credit, Obama seems to recognize that the government doesn't have unlimited resources to tackle this challenge, stating, "If you're a progressive, you've got to be worried about how the federal government is spending its revenue, because we don't have enough money to spend on things like early childhood education that are so important."

To that end, he has signed Reason Foundation's "Oath of Presidential Transparency," promising the most transparent and fiscally accountable executive branch in history. He's also wisely argued in favor of merit pay for teachers and charter schools, telling Politico, "I've consistently said, we need to support charter schools. I think it is important to experiment, by looking at how we can reward excellence in the classroom."

Some of Obama's instincts on education issues, like that stance on charters, break from traditional Democratic Party positions and can seriously help reform our public schools. For the best results, and to truly help disadvantaged kids, Obama should shift from pushing universal preschool to calling for meaningful reforms in our K-12 public schools.

Will a Democrat Please Stand Up?

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Across the nation, Democrats are helping make 2008 a banner year for school choice, allowing parents to select the schools that are best-suited for their kids.

Nationwide, there are now 24 school choice programs in 15 states. In 2008 new choice programs have been enacted in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. And school choice is a increasingly becoming a bipartisan issue, with three quarters of legislative victories over the past two years resulting because of Democratic support.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry wrote, "I know it may surprise some that I would support a school voucher program, but I am proud to do so."

While Republicans may still be the lead sponsors of most school choice legislation, they are passing new programs with the help of their Democratic colleagues.

In 2006, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) signed a big expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) allowed the creation of a tax-credit scholarship program and signed two new voucher programs into law. In Iowa, a new tax-credit scholarship program gained overwhelming Democratic support and Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) signed it into law. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) signed a $10 million expansion of his state's tax-credit scholarship program which provides disadvantaged children with scholarships to private schools.

In Florida, in 2001, only one Democrat voted for the corporate tax credit program to provide scholarships to low-income children. By 2008, however, when the legislature passed a $30 million expansion of the "Step up for Students" corporate tax credit program for private school scholarships with the help of a third of the Democratic caucus. The program provides scholarships to 20,000 students with about 64 percent Black and Hispanic students. Apparently, the Democrats took note because 13 of 25 members of the state's black caucus and every member of the Hispanic caucus voted for the expansion. The program will now provide students with 5,000 new scholarships to private schools.

In Louisiana a voucher program for New Orleans passed with a large bipartisan majority, 60-42 in the Louisiana House. The New Orleans voucher program would use $10 million in state taxpayer money to pay private school tuition for as many as 1,500 New Orleans children. The legislation is sponsored by Representative Austin Badon, a New Orleans Democrat, in the House and the Senate version is sponsored by Senator Ann Duplessis, also a Democrat.

In New Jersey, the Senate Economic Growth Committee voted to pass S-1607, the Urban Enterprise Zone Jobs Scholarship Act. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Raymond Lesniak, and supported by Newark Mayor Corey Booker, would allow corporations to make tax-deductible contributions to scholarship organizations. The dollars would be used by children in Newark, Camden, Trenton, Elizabeth, Lakewood, Paterson, Orange and Jersey City to attend participating public or private schools of a student's choice.

In March 2008 a Maryland tax credit scholarship program passed the Maryland Senate. The program, which would provide school choice options to disadvantaged children, was sponsored by Democratic Senator Ed DeGrange and would allow corporations that donate up to $200,000 per year to school tuition organizations to receive a 75 percent state income tax credit for their contributions.

Perhaps Maryland State Senator Nathaniel McFadden (D-Baltimore) sums up the new Democratic attitude towards school choice best when he said in support of the Maryland school choice bill that that the Maryland legislature "helps all kinds of industries here with tax credits-big business, horse racing, biotech. . . . If you call the bill a sham, then I am shamming for children today."

Unfortunately, California Democrats are not "shamming" for California children. California Democrats have spurned any opportunity to offer disadvantaged children and their families more access to quality schools.

In April 2008, State Assembly Republicans introduced a package of education reform measures designed to empower California parents to take a greater role in their kids' education. The proposal included bills to allow disability scholarships for special needs children, tax credits for private and home schooling, pupil transfer and tax credits for students in failing schools, and a safe schools guarantee for all California children.

But not one of the bills got out of the Democratic-controlled committees. And not a single Democrat even offered an amendment or an alternative to the school choice proposals.

One of the bills, sponsored by Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), would have allowed students in failing public schools to attend a public or private school of their choice. You'd think getting kids out of failing schools would be something we could all agree on. The plan was to give a tax credit to parents who choose to leave failing schools for private schools.

But the California Teachers Association, American Civil Liberties Union, California School Boards Association, and Los Angeles Unified School District, all opposed the plan on the grounds that public schools would lose funding if the children - in failing schools - were allowed to leave those schools and participate in the tax credit program.

More than 900 of the state's schools can't even manage to score 600 on the state's academic achievement index--when the minimum standard for passing is 800.

The state also has 90 failing school districts, like Compton where less than 4 percent of eighth graders were proficient in math (6th and 7th grade standards) and less than 10 percent of 11th graders were proficient in language arts in 2007.

The state needs Democrats who are willing to stand up for kids stuck in California's lowest achieving schools. Let these kids leave their failing schools for one that offers them the hope and opportunity that comes with a quality education.

The teachers' union consistently gets solid support from Democrats in Sacramento. And the Democratic Party consistently fights for more money in schools. But who's looking out for the kids? It shouldn't be this hard to find a Democrat who will speak up for, and fight for, children stuck in failing public schools.

Closer Look at California's Proposed Education Cuts

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT

This week the California Teachers Association's (CTA) "Cuts Hurt" bus tour will roll through San Francisco and Sacramento, and the CTA's band - the "Angry Tired Teachers," will continue to sing their theme song, which tells the story of the impact of teacher layoffs and budget cuts on California students. The lyrics go something like this: "Ooooooh, Cuts hurt; Ooooooh, Cuts hurt. Take a lot of pain. Jobs getting lost. Future getting tossed. Oh what a cost. Cuts hurt."

While the band plays on and Democrats in Sacramento indignantly call for new taxes rather than teacher layoffs, school districts across the state are quietly rescinding pink slips and embracing more sensible budget cuts.

Most of the CTA bus campaign has focused on the 14,000 pink slips that were sent to teachers in March. This week, however, headlines across the state are beginning to contradict the CTA's main message. On May 11th the Sacramento Bee reported that "Schools ease layoff plan, Fewer Area Teachers to receive pink slips." On May 8th the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Teachers get break - layoffs to be rescinded." The list goes on: "Teacher Jobs Spared; "Mt. Diablo schools backtrack on layoffs"; "DSUSD teachers spared pink slips."

School districts across the state are finding cost-cutting measures that no longer include teacher layoffs. In San Bernardino, for example, the San Bernardino City Unified School District trustees voted 7-0 to rescind all teacher layoffs. School district officials will cut spending by $31.1 million without laying off the 155 teachers who received preliminary pink slips. The alternative budget plan includes leaving 29 vacant posts unfilled, reducing health benefit costs by using an alternate program, and considering an early retirement incentive plan.

The CTA and other like-minded groups try to maintain the appearance of large teacher layoffs in order to gain public support for tax increases to direct more funding toward education. The potential tax increase that has received the most attention, and that might receive bipartisan support as budget pressures increases in Sacramento, is an expansion of the sales tax to include services from downloading music and movie tickets to washing your car. The argument behind this tax is that it would be a painless way to fully fund California schools. Yet, California already ranks fourth in the nation for tax burdens per household.

The ploy to raise taxes and increase education funding is reminiscent of 2003. The National Education Association tells the story of the 2003 pink-slip saga in "Pink Slip Blues" under similar California budget conditions:

Alameda, California, school officials sent pink slips to every single teacher. Eventually, 624 out of 634 were rescinded. Educators and parent supporters packed school board meetings, wrote letters, made phone calls, marched in the streets, and showed up in person to lobby at the offices of their state legislators. By June, California's 21,000 notices had been whittled to 3,800 and the number was continuing to shrink.

While the CTA has remained focused on teacher layoffs it has failed to support reasonable plans to increase education funding in California and drive more dollars into the classroom. The CTA has not even acknowledged the Republican education budget proposal which would fund education next year at $57.7 billion. This is the funding level recommended by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, and it gives schools $2.1 billion more than the budget Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed in January. In addition, the Republican education budget incorporates several important education reforms that would free school districts from costly mandates imposed by Sacramento and give local schools more freedom and flexibility to meet their students' needs.

Proposition 98 spending for kindergarten through 12th grade education in the Governor's proposed budget for 2008-09 is $7.4 billion higher than it was five years ago - and average daily attendance during that same period has declined by 74,000 students.

At some point, no matter how difficult, districts will have to face the reality of changing demographics and shifting enrollments. Local school administrators have been able to scale back the number of layoffs by making other cuts, encouraging older teachers to retire, or dipping into reserve funds. Here's hoping historical trends continue and the great pink slip scare of 2008 is merely a rhetorical strategy to put pressure on state legislators to raise taxes to fund education without reducing spending.

Are Over 100,000 California Teachers Getting Pink Slips?

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The California Teachers Association is currently running a statewide advertising campaign claiming that the proposed education budget cuts will result in 107,000 teachers losing their jobs.

Similarly, if you've picked up any newspaper in California recently you have read about the thousands of teachers receiving pink slips from their school districts. Alarming articles with headlines like "Teachers on Edge, Pink Slips Loom," and "More than half of Canyon Vista and Oak Grove elementary staffs are not expected to return next year," give devastating accounts of the havoc that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts will wreak on local schools.

State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell sent out a widely cited press release estimating that more than 20,000 teachers and support staff have received layoff notices because of the proposed $4.8 billion (10 percent) cut to education spending. Historical evidence suggests that this pink-slip campaign, while undoubtedly disturbing to individual teachers, is largely a rhetorical ploy to create outrage and popular support for more education funding.

The chances of large numbers of teachers actually being laid off are slim. According to the San Diego Union Tribune's Chris Reed, in 2003, when it was announced that 30,000 teachers would be dismissed because of budget cuts less than 10 percent were actually let go.

According to the National Education Association, the average teacher's salary in California is $60,000 (the highest in the nation). If 107,000 teachers were dismissed this would generate more than $6.4 billion dollars in savings, not counting the massive additional savings from the reduced costs of benefits.

The bottom line is that the budget reduction to schools is greatly overstated in the media and education establishment press releases. School districts are not really losing $4.8 billion dollars from 2007-2008 until 2008-2009. The governor's proposed education funding for 2008-09 is actually only $1.1 billion less than his 2007-08 funding. He cuts education money from $57.6 billion to $56.5 billion - a 1.9 percent cut.

And it is important to note that, Proposition 98 spending for kindergarten through 12th-grade education in Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposal for 2008-09 is $7.4 billion higher than it was five years ago, while average daily attendance in the state's schools has declined by 74,000 students during that same period.

The governor's budget is the worst case scenario. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), under Elizabeth Hill, has a much more reasonable proposal in which schools would receive a flat year-to-year budget with no gains or reductions and more control over funding. Rather than an across the board reduction, Hill recommends cutting "poorly structured, duplicative or technically over budgeted" programs. She also recommends consolidating 50 categorical programs into four large block grants to give local administrators control over 80 percent of K-12 funding.

The LAO proposals would reduce the amount by which the complex Proposition 98 minimum-school-funding floor would have to be lowered by $3.2 billion.

Unfortunately, the education establishment is not willing to compromise and support the LAO's plan. They will not settle for flat funding in a year when the state faces a $16 billion dollar deficit and school enrollment continues a sharp decline.

The state's education establishment also uses a contemptible strategy to reduce local education budgets. Parents, students and lawmakers should ask: Why should 107,000 teachers be the first to go if there are budget cuts?

Education officials at state, county and local levels need to seriously look at reducing the number of professional educators who are not in classrooms. When revenues are tight, spending reductions need to be made outside of the classroom first.

Some California districts bucked the teacher pink slip hype and decided not to issue layoff notices to any permanent teachers. For example, Roger Buschmann, Los Angeles Unified's chief human resources officer, told the Los Angeles Times, "We gave it a lot of thought and decided, 'Why worry them unnecessarily?'"

On the other hand, Los Angeles Unified, which is projecting a $430 million deficit, notified about 3,000 administrators and senior management contract employees that they may not return next year. While it is doubtful that 3,000 central administrators would be let go in Los Angeles, this is the most sensible course of action to protect schools from losing teachers.

There are several other California districts that are proposing much more rationale cost-cutting strategies as an alternative to giving teachers pink slips. For example, in Corona-Norco Unified, where my own children go to school, the district opted to first eliminate a $16 million cost of living increase before laying-off teachers.

In Lake Elsinore Unified, the district instituted a pay raise freeze for all administrators and 10 percent cuts budget to all central office departments.

These districts reflect a nationwide trend to reduce central office costs first and direct more dollars to the classroom. In Washington, DC, Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee dismissed 98 workers at the central office saving $6 million to be invested in classrooms.

In Baltimore, schools chief Andres Alonso's 2008-2009 budget would cut $110 million from the central office, eliminating more than 300 central office jobs and redistributing $70 million to schools and using $40 million to help close a budget shortfall. He would reassign administrators as classroom teachers and principals to more effectively manage resources.

New York City has also paid for funding increases to individual schools by reducing centralized staff. There, a move to a school empowerment system, where principals control resources, has been in conjunction with a "right-sizing" of the central education office. Millions of dollars have been redirected to New York classrooms.

Chances are the great pink slip scare of 2008 will turn out to be more hype than substance. California has a real $16 billion deficit; there is no logical reason that it should be balanced on the backs of teachers.

"Instructionist" School Reform and School Choice

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

In a Winter 2008 City Journal essay, "School Choice Isn't Enough," the Manhattan Institute's Sol Stern, a well-known critic of progressive education, former editor of the radical left magazine Ramparts, and previously a strong supporter of school choice, says that school vouchers are a failed experiment and competition has not led to public school improvement.

He argues that the school choice movement needs "a realistic Plan B for the millions of urban students who will remain stuck in terrible public schools?" His suggestion is to focus on instructional reform as the best way to improve public schools for the urban poor. This is significant to the school choice fight because Stern is abandoning a central theme of the choice movement: "Competition lifts all boats."

Instead, Stern offers us a vision of centralized top-down content management as the next panacea for education reform. Stern insists that an "instructionist" approach, which focuses on content standards and accountability, is a better route to school reform.

Stern cites Massachusetts as an exemplary example for other states to follow. He credits "instructionists" that "pushed the state's board of education to mandate a rigorous curriculum for all grades, created demanding tests linked to the curriculum standards, and insisted that all high school graduates pass a comprehensive exit exam," with much of the student achievement success in Massachusetts.

Stern talks up the "Massachusetts miracle," where the state scored first in the nation in the latest 4th and 8th grade math and reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the nation's report card for student achievement and standardized benchmark for every state. The state's average scores on the NAEP have also improved at far higher rates than most other states. However, there is a more nuanced explanation for the uptick in student achievement in Massachusetts. We might ask, "Miracle for which students?"

To be sure, having the highest scores in the nation and highest gains on the NAEP, as Massachusetts does, is an admirable achievement. For a fuller picture of what is happening, however, Education Week's 2008 Quality Counts report for Massachusetts offers more context. Quality Counts notes Massachusetts ranks very low in terms of progress on the student achievement gap between low-income and higher income students. Massachusetts ranks 46th and 50th for the poverty gap—the difference in NAEP scores between students eligible for the free-lunch program and non-eligible students. In 4th grade NAEP reading scores, for example, Massachusetts has a 29.1 point gap compared with the national average of 26.8 points. In fact, the reading gap in Massachusetts has grown by almost 3 points between 2003 and 2007 on the NAEP. For 8th grade NAEP math scores, the state has a 31.4 gap compared to the 26 point national average.

In Massachusetts, middle class and wealthy children have clearly benefited from a focus on content and standards. However, it is less clear how this curricular focus has benefited the most disadvantaged students in the state, who are now being left even further behind.

Other data underscore Massachusetts' ongoing struggle with the most challenging students. According to Standard & Poor's, Boston's 2007 reading proficiency scores on state standardized tests show that white students in Boston scored 67 percent proficient while black students scored 35 percent proficient, Hispanic students scored 35 percent proficient, and economically disadvantaged students scored 37 percent proficient. Every disadvantaged group in Boston has a larger achievement gap in 2007 than in 2004. Across the state the gap is similar. Seventy-six percent of non-disadvantaged students are proficient in reading while 42 percent of economically disadvantaged students are proficient—a 34 point gap, two points larger than in 2004. For low-income and disadvantaged students, then, Massachusetts' instructional reforms have proven far less than miraculous.

A second important point about Stern's advocacy for instructional reform is that other states that have undertaken similar efforts have not seen a Massachusetts-style pay-off in test scores. If content-based curriculum were a panacea, California and Indiana should, like the Bay State, be showing much larger gains on the NAEP. The 2008 Quality Counts report gives Indiana and California an "A" on standards and accountability. Both these states have had a very intensive curriculum and standards-based approach, very similar to Massachusetts, over the last decade.

Yet this focus on strong content and accountability has not translated into large student achievement gains. Indiana has produced a respectable seven-point gain in 4th grade math on the NAEP between 2003 and 2007. However, reading scores have remained flat. And like Massachusetts, Indiana's poverty gap remains large with higher-income students being largely responsible for any gains.

Since Indiana ranks first in the nation in terms of content standards, we should expect to see a stronger effect on student achievement for disadvantaged students as well as advantaged ones. In urban cities in Indiana such as Indianapolis, the achievement gap has widened not narrowed in recent years. Beating the Odds, a May 2007 report by the Council of the Great City Schools, details how urban school districts have closed their achievement gaps in the past six years. In Indianapolis, the most disadvantaged students have lost ground since 2001. The achievement gap in reading on the I-Step for low-income 8th graders was 36 points in 2001; five years later it had grown to 45 points. About 75 percent of white students passed the English portion of the I-Step exam in 2006, compared with 48 percent of black students and 51 percent of Hispanic students.

In California, content standards and standards-based reform have had essentially no effect. California ranks near the bottom, 45th and 48th in 4th grade reading and math on the NAEP. The Quality Counts report ranks California 49th in terms of the "poverty gap" with a 30 point gap in 4th grade reading scores between low and high income students. The fact that California and Massachusetts rank similarly, 49th and 50th respectively, should give everyone pushing an "instructionist approach" pause, considering the demographic differences between the two states. Quality Counts ranks Massachusetts first on their "chance for success" index which includes variables like family income, parental education level, and parental employment. Massachusetts ranks 5th in the nation in terms of family income with 75 percent of parents earning more than 200 percent of the poverty level, while California ranks 39th. Massachusetts also ranks number one in the nation in terms of parent education with more than 60 percent of parents earning a college degree. In California only 38 percent of parents make it through college. The point of all this is that Massachusetts, a high income state, where 90 percent of parents are fluent in English, and 60 percent are college educated has just as large of an achievement gap as California which ranks 51st in terms of English fluency for parents, and 39th in terms of parent education. An "instructionist" approach has not closed the achievement gap in either state.

The bottom line is that content-based reform has not been a panacea in California or Indiana or even Massachusetts. Students with wealthier and higher-educated parents are thriving under a strong standards-based regiment. But content standards have had little impact on one of the most intractable of education dilemmas. It has not closed the achievement gap between lower and higher income students, where not even 50 percent of these students score proficient in reading or math.

That's the major reason why school reformers shouldn't place too many eggs in the "instructionist" basket. Families still need school choice. Public schools, especially in low-performing urban districts, still need competition, which gives students a right of exit to higher performing schools and gives public schools an incentive to improve in order to keep students enrolled.

Stern is too quick to dismiss the impact of school choice on urban school districts. Stern's best case for dismissing the effects of school choice on public schools is Milwaukee, where public schools face competition from vouchers and charter schools. Yet in Milwaukee, test scores have been slowly moving up in every grade since 2004. Reading proficiency for all students is up by seven points on state tests since 2004. It is up by six points for blacks, eight points for Hispanics, and up by seven points for economically disadvantaged students. In addition, the achievement gap has been shrinking. For example, Hispanics have closed the achievement gap in reading proficiency by 10 points with their white counterparts since 2004. While perhaps not revolutionary change, Milwaukee's data do not seem enough to throw in the towel on the entire school choice movement.

Stern is also overly dismissive of the impacts of robust public school choice programs where money is attached to the backs of children. He claims that in New York City the "Bloomberg administration and its supporters are pushing markets and competition in the public schools far beyond where the evidence leads." Considering that 2007 was the first year that any market reforms were implemented in New York City on a district-wide basis, it is yet to be determined what the future effects of these reforms might be.

In California, Oakland Unified has seen rapid improvements for disadvantaged students on multiple performance measures under its New York City-style school choice plan. In 2003-04, for instance, the city's high schools offered 17 advanced placement classes; last year, the district offered 91. About 800 high school students studied first-year physics last year -- nearly triple the number taking the course in 2003-04. Since 2003, the number of graduates qualified to enter the University of California and California State University systems has nearly doubled.

In 2006 Oakland had the highest student achievement gain of the 30 largest districts in California. Oakland has also shrunk the performance gap for low-income students in 4th grade reading who qualified for the free lunch program. They went from a 45 point gap to a 25 point gap between 2002 and 2006.

To date there have been very few school choice programs that have offered public schools real competition in terms of actually losing students or dollars. Yet as more districts have higher concentrations of students enrolling in various school-choice programs, we may yet get to test the important idea that "competition lifts all boats." Until then, it's wrong to bet on instructional reform becoming a cure-all for disadvantaged students left behind in terrible public schools.

The Success of Charter Schools

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:01:00 EST

Los Angeles Times

There is a data-driven reason for "charter mania" in Los Angeles. The Accelerated School, whom the authors vilify for teaching yoga, is a case in point. African American students at the Accelerated School outscore African American students in the Los Angeles Unified School District by 88 points on the Academic Performance Index; Latino students score 40 points higher; and English-language learners score 40 points higher. Green Dot Public Schools replicate these scores at every school for every subgroup of disadvantaged children. Charter schools in Los Angeles are hardly unorthodox. They do a better job of teaching low-income and minority children to read and do math.

LISA SNELL
Los Angeles

Frequently Asked Questions About Weighted Student Formula

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:05:00 EST

Indiana Policy Review

Lisa Snell, one of the nation's foremost experts on school reform, answers critical questions about how a weighted student formula could fundamentally reshape school finance and performance in Indiana. Lisa is director of education and child welfare studies at Reason Foundation and has met with Indiana state legislators and others to discuss weighted student formula reforms for Indiana public schools.

1. In a nutshell, what is "weighted student formula"?

The broad concept of weighted student funding (WSF) goes by several names including results-based budgeting, student-based budgeting, "backpacking" or fair-student funding.

It proposes a system of school funding based on five key principles:

Funding should follow the child, on a per-student basis, to the public school that he or she attends.
Per-student funding should vary according to the child's need and other relevant circumstances.
Funding should arrive at the school as real dollars—not as teaching positions, ratios, or staffing norms—that can be spent flexibly, with accountability systems focused more on results and less on inputs, programs, or activities.
Principles for allocating money to schools should apply to all levels of funding, including federal, state, and local dollars.
Funding systems should be as simple as possible and made transparent to administrators, teachers, parents, and citizens.

2. How is this different from funding schools based on enrollment in the current system?

In the current system in Indiana school corporations receive funds based on the number of children enrolled in a corporation and their individual characteristics which are weighted through either categorical programs for education programs or additional funding for student characteristics such as poverty or English learner status.

However, at the district level these resources are not allocated to schools based on individual student characteristics. Schools in Indianapolis, for example, are allocated resources for staffing positions based on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) salaries the district has calculated that an individual school is entitled to. So when you examine individual school budgets in Indiana you see money flowing to school positions and not children.

Salary averaging across schools means individual schools with similar student populations may receive vastly different real dollar amounts at the school level within a corporation.

New York City public schools are implementing weighted student formula district wide, encompassing 1.1 million students in 1,400 schools. New York City schools begin the transition to Fair Student Funding during their 2007-08 fiscal year. Here is an actual example of how funding would change for the Walter Crowley Intermediate School in Queens, New York, between the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 budget years.

Under the old approach, Walter Crowley would have received $4 million for instructional programs, $1.2 million for special needs students, and another $1.9 million for "consolidate programs," for a total budget of $7.1 million. Under the weighted, Fair Student Formula approach, Walter Crowley will receive $8.8 million. In short, funding students based on their individual characteristics and not based on a staffing model increases the school's budget by more than $1.6 million.

Since New York City public schools are phasing in the new funding approach, Walter Crowley will only receive a portion of the new formula. However, the new weighted student budgeting also creates transparency by showing what resources each of the 1,400 schools in New York City are entitled to based on the characteristics of their students, not based on a bureaucratic staffing model unrelated to the actual students in the classroom. These numbers simplify the budget process in a way that is transparent to parents and all education stakeholders.

3. Indiana has already experimented with charters schools, and their success has been lackluster. Why should we believe that weight student formula would be any better at improving student performance?

While charter schools have had positive impacts in Indiana, especially in Indianapolis, they are mostly operating on the margins of school reform. The weighted student formula is more robust because it generally includes every public school in a school district, education corporation, or geographic area. It changes the culture of the public school system.

Everyone becomes focused on student outcomes because families have legitimate choices within the public school system. If an assigned, or neighborhood, school is not meeting a child's needs, that child can move to another school within the district and take their funding with them.

Every school in a district becomes a school of choice and the funding system gives individuals, particularly school administrators, the autonomy to make local decisions. This autonomy is granted based on the contractual obligation that principals will meet state and district standards for student performance. It is a system-wide reform that allows parents the right of exit to the best performing schools and gives every school an incentive to change practices to attract and retain families from their communities.

4. How does this program handle children with special needs?

Weighted student formula provides extra resources to support special needs children, another "weight" in the weighted student formula. These resources arrive at the schools as "real dollars," giving principals flexibility to spend those resources in the manner that best supports the needs of those students. In New York City, before Fair Student Funding, special education students were funded based on classroom-support models such as Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) and self-contained special education classrooms. Now, schools receive funds in real dollars based on the daily number of periods of special education classroom support each student requires. Students who spend a greater percentage of their day receiving special education services are weighted accordingly and receive more money.

5. Can a weighted student formula be implemented within the current collective bargaining agreements? Wouldn't teachers be disadvantaged by this system?

Yes, weighted student formula has been implemented in most districts based on the current collective bargaining contracts. Most critics of weighted student formula fear that giving principals real dollars to spend will create a bias toward hiring less expensive and less experienced teachers. Critics argue that senior teachers with more years of experience will be at a disadvantage because they cost more to hire.

There are two ways that districts have implemented weighted student formula. In the first scenario, districts have given principals real dollars but they continue to charge schools for average district salaries. This is how weighted student formula has been implemented in most districts. Therefore, schools still have more equity because they receive funding for actual students but they are not charged the real costs of their staffing decisions. Therefore, schools with more senior staff continue to receive a hidden subsidy.

The second way weighted student formula is implemented is by charging schools for the actual teacher salaries. New York City, for example, is phasing in charging schools for the actual salaries of their teachers because it believes it will create more equity and it will lead to better use of resources as principals decide how to spend money to improve student achievement.

6. New York City seems to be the district that has been most aggressive with this program. How did they work through their existing collective bargaining agreement?

New York City revitalized the way it hired teachers by adopting an "open market" system. New York ended "bumping" and "force placing," practices that forced principals to hire teachers even if they weren't qualified or a good fit for the school. Now, through a new "open market hiring system," more than 3,000 experienced teachers applied for open jobs and were selected by principals for vacancies across the system.

The New York Department of Education worked with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) to actually change the contract to make it more supportive of a weighted student formula. The new contract:

Allows the Department of Education (DOE) to recruit and retain the high-quality teachers that New York City students need and increases teacher pay by 15 percent.
In exchange, the contract also gives the DOE the ability to create "Lead Teacher" positions, with a $10,000 salary differential, giving principals a powerful new tool to recruit experienced, talented teachers to high-need schools.

More recently, the DOE and UFT agreed to create a $15,000 housing incentive for experienced math, science, and special education teachers who come to the DOE and agree to teach for at least three years in high-needs schools. The agreement provides struggling students an additional 150 minutes every week in small-group instruction so they get the help they need to catch up during the school year.

Like New York City, several districts that have instituted weighted student formula have negotiated alternative contracts with the unions that keep in place most teacher protections but allow principals more flexibility. For example, both Boston pilot schools and the new Belmont autonomous zone schools in Los Angeles operate on a three page contract that is basically a memorandum of understanding negotiated between the district and the union.

7. Is this a reform that must be implemented statewide to work? What states have reformed their school finance system based on the weighted student formula concepts?

This reform can work on a statewide basis or through individual districts. To date, the majority of school districts using weighted student formula have done so without state legislation. This is a flexible reform that can work at the state level or on a district-by-district basis.

Nevada and Hawaii adopted weighted student formula through state legislation. Hawaii, with one centralized school district, passed this reform statewide in 2005. In 2007 Nevada passed state legislation that offers local schools and districts some financial incentive on a per-student basis to convert to empowerment schools. Several states including South Carolina and Delaware are considering proposals for weighted student formula and school empowerment.

8. Indiana is faced with significant demands on its budget. Wouldn't implementing a system-wide school finance reform simply put more pressure on state and local budgets?

This is a reform that works within existing budget frameworks. It is a reform that more equitably distributes money that is already available. Furthermore, because of savings from reducing the cost of the central office, this reform can free up more money for the local school level and individual classrooms. If categorical programs and other funding streams are collapsed into larger block funding streams it can reduce overall administration costs, directing more money to the school level. This financing mechanism allows policymakers to have a more transparent idea of how existing school resources are distributed.

9. What impact would a weighted student formula have on school efficiency? Wouldn't school administrators feel threatened by this approach to financing their schools?

Weighted student formula can be a threat to district-level administrators. As more money is directed to local schools, a by-product has been a reduction in the number of central-office staff. In New York City, the move to weighted student formula system has been in conjunction with a "rightsizing" of the central education office.

10. Like most state school finance systems, Indiana's school finance system is under legal and political pressure to move away from the property tax. How would a weighted student formula address concerns about equity in school finance?

Weighted student formula works best when all funding is equalized and not based on differences in local property tax allocation. Indiana has already made efforts to equalize funding across districts. Therefore, it already has a culture concerned with school equity and a more centralized funding system than most states. Weighted student formula is the next step to drive that student equity to the school level. Indiana has already done the hard part of aggregating school resources at the state level. It makes weighted student formula a reform that makes sense to continue toward the goal of individual student equity.

11. This seems like a program that works best in a big city school district where there are already lots of schools. What about suburban and rural districts which tend to be smaller?

This strategy also works in suburban and rural districts. If this is done at the state level, students could have access to schools in more than one school district even if they reside in a very small district. However, in extremely small districts with transportation limitations to other schools, school choice may be less important than school autonomy. In a geographically isolated school, weighted student formula still gives principals more control over resources and parents and teachers more input into how those resources are used to meet the needs of individual children.

12. Where does the leadership for implementing a weighted student formula come from? School boards? Administrators? Legislators? Citizens?

Strong state leaders or an individual superintendent can introduce the community to this concept. They can involve all stakeholders including, principals, parents, teachers and community leaders in a transparent process to decide on student weights and other implementation issues from school choice to professional development for principals. This really becomes a group discussion about equity and fairness in education funding that involves the entire community. Still, it takes leadership from individual legislators or school officials who believe in the concept of weighted student formula.

State legislators can be proactive by:

Visiting other school districts that have implemented weighted student formula. A trip to New York City and a review of the New York City Department of Education would offer the most comprehensive view of a large-scale weighted student formula program.
Reviewing existing examples of model legislation for weighted student formula and tailor it to meet Indiana's needs.
Reviewing existing resources in Indiana and proposing a system of weights that would work within the current constraints of state and federal categorical funding. While this proposal would be subject to change, it would give legislators and stakeholders a clear idea of how resources might be allocated under this new financing system.

School administrators and teachers can be proactive by:

Visiting or talking to staff, board members, and other constituents from districts that have already implemented weighted student formula.
Developing a preliminary weighted student formula implementation plan with the school board and holding open meetings to discuss the plan and receive feedback from the community.
Reviewing how current resources are aggregated at the district level and building a preliminary proposal for weighting students to give stakeholders an idea of how weighted student formula would work in practice at the school level.

Weighted Student Formula and School Empowerment

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

Indiana Policy Review

William G. Ouchi is the Sanford & Betty Sigoloff Professor in Corporate Renewal at The Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA. Drawing on the results of a landmark study of 223 schools in six cities funded in part by the National Science Foundation, Dr. Ouchi's book Making Schools Work shows that a school's educational performance may be most directly affected by how the school is managed. Now, he may be the nation's leading researcher and proponent of the concept.

Dr. Ouchi was interviewed by Reason Foundation's Director of Education Lisa Snell on September 15, 2007 in his office at UCLA, where he provides an update on his ongoing work on weighted student formula and school empowerment.

How is your current analysis of case studies of weighted student formula progressing?

We are analyzing the data, and it is really interesting. The way you organize a district is hugely important. We've looked at eight districts, all of which are implementing weighted student formula, school choice, and school autonomy: Boston, Chicago, Houston, New York City, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle and St. Paul.

There is extreme variability in the percentage of resources that principals are allowed to control under weighted student formula. The amount of resources the principal controls makes a difference.

I studied 66 schools in New York City in the year 2000, and I went through with each principal their budget to figure out how much they controlled and on the average it was 6.1 percent. Today, these data show that 85 percent of the budget was controlled by the New York City principals who were part of 42 schools in the autonomy zone in 2003 and 2004. As a result of the success of the experiment, New York has expanded this budget control to all 1,467 schools for 2007.

When you give principals freedom what do they do with their money?

What they should do is reduce the hiring of administrative staff at the school and increase the number of classroom teachers. And then use their freedom over curriculum, schedule, and staffing to further reduce total student load.

Autonomous schools have largely used their autonomy to drastically reduce total student load in high school and middle school classrooms. In New York City, student load is 88. In Boston, it's 76 (in the high school). In New York City, by contract, a teacher may be asked to teach 170 students, five classes of 34 in middle school or high school. In Boston the contract requires 140 and in Los Angeles 225.

The stand out here is New York City. In New York City, although the contractual max is 170, the actual district-wide average is 111, because there are a lot of magnet schools, special schools, and special-ed schools that have much smaller total student loads. In the 42 original autonomous schools in New York City the total student load fell from 111 to 88. That is a big deal.

In some cases the union can be an impediment but that's really not the issue, because New York City has one of the most powerful teachers unions in America. And Randi Weingarten is no pushover. But they have been able to find a way to work together. Clearly, this reducing total student load is in the interest of all teachers and all students. It is in the interest of everybody except for the central office bureaucrats.

How did New York get to smaller student loads and higher achievement?

Under the tutelage of Eric Nadelstern, who had been working with those populations his whole career, and followed the work by Ted and Nancy Sizer, who preached that no teacher should ever have a student load over 80. Eric figured out how to restructure schools. He said, "My gosh, if you could get there, think of all the things you could do that are good for the student."

So now the question is "How do I get below 80?" Through trial and error he figured out how to do it. So Eric has been personally training all these principals in New York City and it has made a huge difference.

About half of getting to 80 is less administrators and more teachers, but the other half is your creative use of curriculum and schedule. If you are a school that uses block scheduling it causes your average student load to rise by 17 students. If you are a school that uses combined courses you combine social studies and language into humanities and you combine math and science into integrated math/science curriculum, on average it reduces your average student load by three. But, if you use both block scheduling with combined courses on the average it reduces your total student load by 23.

What are the most important effects of weighted student formula?

Weighted student formula has a couple of different kinds of effects. It has a fairness effect and it has a governance effect.

The fairness effect is very difficult to implement because it involves income redistribution from the rich to the poor. That's never been easy to achieve in this country or in any other. However, it is not impossible to achieve if you have the political time, meaning several years, and the political will and enough political astuteness.

The governance effect is immediate and easy to achieve. The governance effect is that weighted student formula brings transparency to school finance. It makes it real simple for parents and the public to understand how much money is in the school and what it is supposed to be used for. Therefore, it brings parents and teachers into the argument over how a school spends its money. This is a really healthy thing.

If you are going to give schools money rather than positions you have to figure out how much money you are going to give to each school. When you think about that for more than five minutes, you come to the conclusion that there is no way to allocate money to schools except by allocating money to students. And letting the money follow the student to the school. Now you have got to figure out how much money you are going to allocate to each student, and that's known as weighted student formula.

Once you have done that, you have created autonomy with a financially transparent funding formula. If the next superintendent that comes along tries to take away the autonomy, they will have an immense fight on their hands with all the parents and all the teachers and they will lose that fight. So, if you are a fan of local school autonomy, competition, and transparency then you want to introduce autonomy with weighted student formula because a weighted student formula protects the autonomy.

If you were going to start to implement this, do you have a favorite governance level, should it be started through state legislation, superintendent driven, or started by a local mayor?

I am a fan of the superintendent as the change agent. I think a superintendent who wants to do this can do it with their school board. I also think we now have enough districts who are trying to find their way that we are going to see more successes. I think St. Paul is doing a really good job. Boston is also doing some things right.

Boston pilot schools are a joint venture with the BTU. So there is a lot of union input. The good news is the BTU agreed to a three page contract for those schools. So they do have a lot of flexibility.

Now, why haven't they had a bigger impact? I think one reason is that the other schools, the non-pilot schools, in Boston have been improving which narrows the gap--perhaps because they have been learning from those pilot schools.

I think the other one is that the pilot schools in Boston do not display with consistency what I consider to be the full blown New York model. But they have a lot of it. They are getting down to some good student load numbers with 86. But given the amount of money they have per student perhaps they ought to be down to 70.

The full blown New York model includes in addition to the things we've talked about, having advisories. The advisories are a very important element of the horizontal school. The advisories are typically 12 or 13 students who meet with a teacher for four years. They become very cohesive.

Another element is the teacher grade-level meeting. Teachers meet is another aspect of the horizontal school. The teachers meet usually once a week, it might be twice, or three times a week - all the grade level teachers. And they go through every student who needs special attention. And each teacher has something to contribute, sees some different angle on the student. And they discuss why the student's performance has been declining or why the student has become so superior that they now need additional challenges and then together they figure out a strategy, and then if they need to they engage the student's family and they implement it.

People say education should be personalized, that's what personalization is. That's the real thing.

Urban Schools Scores Rise When Parents, Principals Lead

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:35:00 EDT

Indianapolis Star

"Beating the Odds," a May 2007 report by the Council of the Great City Schools, details how urban school districts have closed their achievement gaps in the past six years.

Unfortunately, the report notes that in Indianapolis the most disadvantaged students have lost ground since 2001.

For example, the achievement gap in reading on the I-Step for low-income eighth graders was 36 points in 2001; by 2006 it had grown to 45 points.

Overall, achievement gaps in Indiana are large. About 75 percent of white students passed the English portion of the I-Step exam in 2006, compared with 48 percent of black students and 51 percent of Hispanic students.

Weighted Formula

Some urban districts are making progress closing the achievement gap with the help of a school financing mechanism known as "weighted student formula."

This approach distributes funding more equitably between schools and gives principals and parents more control over school resources.

School districts or state education departments use student characteristics to determine per-pupil funding levels and better match costs with actual student needs.

In each case, schools are given responsibility for managing their own budgets in key areas such as personnel, school maintenance, and learning materials.

In addition, the funding follows the child to each school and is based on the characteristics of the individual child.

Big Time Support

In his 2007 State of the City address, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg called for the weighted-student-formula plan for all city schools.

One week later, Jim Gibbons, governor of Nevada, echoed Bloomberg's proposal with his own plan. Oakland Unified has seen rapid improvements for disadvantaged students on multiple performance measures under its school empowerment plan.

In 2003-04, for instance, the city's high schools offered seventeen advanced placement classes; last year, the district offered ninety-one.

Oakland students also are taking high-level math and science courses more frequently. About 800 high school students studied first-year physics last year -- nearly triple the number taking the course in 2003-04.

Overall, Oakland had the highest gain of the 30 largest districts in California. Oakland high schools gained, on average, thirty points in one year on California's 2006 Academic Performance Index.

Shrinks Gap

Oakland has also shrunk the performance gap for low-income students in fourth grade reading who qualified for the free lunch program. They went from a 45 point gap to a 25 point gap; shrinking by 20 points between 2002 and 2006.

To test WSF, Indiana wouldn't need to do a statewide program. Instead, it could test the approach by offering school districts a financial incentive to pilot WSF within a school corporation.

This would be the best way to direct more of current resources to disadvantaged kids, give school principals autonomy, and let parents choose which public school is best for their child.

Preschool Reality Check in New Jersey

lisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:39:00 EDT

The Record, NJ

In New Jersey the promises made about the benefits of universal preschool in the Abbott districts have reached unparalleled heights. Recently, Record Columnist Mary Ellen Schoonmaker explained why preschool is "a new front in the nation's war on poverty."

Yet, in the United States preschool enrollment has increased from 16 to 70 percent since 1965. This massive growth in preschool attendance and time spent in the classroom has not resulted in increased student achievement, with U.S. test scores rising only very slightly since 1970 when standardized national testing of fourth-, eighth- and 12th- graders began on the National Assessment of Education Progress.

A vast majority of research on the benefits of preschool shows that disadvantaged children who attend preschool are more prepared for kindergarten than non-preschoolers. However, these early advantages often fade away as the children move through school.

New Jersey is no exception.

Despite the most recent report from the National Institute for Early Education Research that children who went through the Abbott preschool program do better in kindergarten, current academic achievement for third- and fourth-graders in the Abbott districts remains flat or declining. These findings are consistent with a large body of research that shows preschool helps disadvantaged children in the early grades, but that the advantages diminish as the children move through the public school system.

The data from New Jersey standardized tests and NAEP show that, to date, large investments in Abbott districts, and in preschool in particular, have had little effect on the overall performance of New Jersey students.

An analysis of test scores for each Abbott district at Greatschools.net examining results from the state's ASK language arts test between 2005 and 2006 show scores are flat or declining for third- and fourth-graders. In third grade, 20 of the 31 Abbott districts have lower proficiency rates in language arts in 2006 than in 2005.

This trend is worse in fourth grade -- with 28 of the 31 Abbott districts having lower proficiency rates on the fourth-grade language arts ASK test in 2006 than in 2005.

For example, in Passaic, 60 percent of fourth- graders were proficient in language arts in 2005, but only 51 percent were proficient in 2006. In Paterson, 61 percent of fourth-graders were proficient on fourth-grade language arts in 2005, and only 53 percent were proficient in 2006.

Similarly, the NAEP, considered the federal benchmark and nation's report card for student achievement, shows flat or declining scores for New Jersey students. In fact more New Jersey children score below basic (which means they cannot read) on the NAEP fourth-grade reading test in 2005 than in 2003 or 1992.

The percentage of fourth-grade students in New Jersey proficient or higher was 39 percent in 2003 and 37 percent in 2005. In 1992, 31 percent of all students scored below basic in New Jersey and by 2005 32 percent of all fourth graders scored below basic in reading.

However, the news is worse for low-income New Jersey children who qualify for the free- and reduced-lunch program. A higher percentage of the very children who should have seen some improvement from the various investments in the Abbott districts are scoring below basic.

In the case of disadvantaged students who qualify for the free lunch program, 52 percent scored below basic in 1992, 54 percent scored below basic in 2003, and 55 percent scored below basic in 2005 in fourth-grade reading.

Preschool advocates need a reality check. They are making huge promises about future long-term benefits for preschool and calling for ever larger public investments in early education. The history and uneven quality of kindergarten, Head Start, and the public schools call into question the claims that large-scale education for 3- and 4-year-olds will be the great equalizer.

This doesn't mean that preschool has no value, but it is hardly a stellar outcome from an $11,000-per-child investment or much of a surge in the "war on poverty."