Educational Reforms get a failing grade: Neither the Right or Left Have a Cure?

Neither conservatives nor liberals have a cure for bad schools

Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune
April 15, 2010

In 1990, in one of the most innovative developments in modern American education, the Milwaukee public schools created a parental choice system. Some low-income parents got vouchers that could be used to send their children to private schools.

It was a richly promising idea. The new option would let disadvantaged kids escape wretched public schools. Competition would force public schools to improve or close. Students would learn more.

Twenty years have passed. Last week, researchers at the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas published their latest assessment of the results.

What did they find? Something unexpected: Kids in the program do no better than everyone else. "At this point," said professor Patrick J. Wolf, "the voucher students are showing average rates of achievement gain similar to their public school peers."

This is a surprise to anyone who originally supported the voucher idea — as I did. But it's entirely consistent with the record elsewhere.

In Washington, D.C., voucher kids improved a little in reading after three years, but not in math. A 2009 review of all the studies on voucher programs found few gains, "most of which are not statistically different from zero." This type of school choice, whatever its merits, has not accomplished what it was supposed to do.

In that, it resembles just about every idea offered by liberals, conservatives or anyone else in recent decades. Coming up with solutions for public education, it turns out, is easy. Coming up with solutions that actually work — well, that's another story.

The latest trend in education reform is charter schools — independent institutions that are publicly funded but free of the usual restrictions on hiring, firing, curriculum, instruction and so on. Today, there are some 4,700 charter schools enrolling 1.4 million kids.

Like vouchers, they are supposed to stimulate improvement by expanding options, fostering a rush to quality. Like vouchers, they have fallen way short of expectations.

In some places, there is evidence that students who win lotteries that let them go to charter schools do better than students who lose out. Stanford University economist Caroline Hoxby found evidence that in New York City, charter school kids progress more rapidly than their peers in public schools.

Page 1 of 2

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0415-chapman-20100415,0,7825146.column

Education reforms get a failing grade


Neither conservatives nor liberals have a cure for bad schools





Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune
April 15, 2010



But her study doesn't resolve why. Do the charter schools have better educational methods? Or do the kids just function better when surrounded by motivated kids (or kids with motivated parents)?

The answer is important. Better educational methods can be duplicated in other schools. But no one knows how to increase the supply of motivated families.
In any case, New York is not exactly the norm. A study last year by Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that overall, "charter students are not faring as well" as public school pupils.

These findings may be heartening to liberals who thought the school choice movement was a snare and a delusion. But the real world has also demolished liberal notions of how to improve educational outcomes.

More money for schools? Between 1960 and 2005, per-pupil spending in the United States quadrupled, adjusting for inflation. Yet student performance on reading and math tests stayed put.

Smaller classes? As Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth note in their book, "Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses," almost three-quarters of the studies conclude that class size doesn't affect student achievement.

Anyone who still puts stock in expanded resources has to contend with the dismal experience of the Kansas City public schools, which got a huge infusion of money when a federal judge essentially took them over in 1986.

Facilities were radically upgraded, classes shrank, new programs proliferated, teachers got raises, and every school became a magnet school. But students didn't learn any more than before. The schools got everything a supporter of old-fashioned public education could have asked for, and they couldn't educate kids any better.

What should we draw from these experiences? Not that nothing works, but that few if any remedies work consistently in different places with different populations. We shouldn't expect that broad, one-size-fits-all changes imposed by the federal government — such as those offered by the Obama administration — will pay off in student performance.

From the local school district to the federal Department of Education, humility, caution and open-mindedness are in order. Because right now, the main thing we know about improving schools is that we don't know very much.

Page 2 of 2

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman
schapman@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0415-chapman-20100415,0,7825146.column?page=2

fwd: re: How Public School Innovation Succeeded In Raising Achievement or,
Why urban public education is failing today; and should have succeeded!
The high cost of high mobility [2nd article below]

The Milwaukee Community Journal [MCJ]
Vol XXI Number 29 April 29, 1998
Wisconsin's Largest African American Newspaper

Editorial Opinion
page 2

Why urban public education is failing
by Leon Todd


Why are the MPS magnet/specialty schools so popular? Why do we have a
backlog of frustrated parents from suburbs and city, even African American
parents, who can.t get their children into a specialty schools of their
choice for lack of appropriate classroom space? What does the public
know that the educators don.t about successful schools? Why do specialty
curriculum focus schools succeed no matter where they are located and
inner city neighborhood schools chronically fail, particularly for
children of color within MPS? Why won.t the board create more successful
schools?

The number one reason for success of specialty curriculum focus schools,
known as magnet schools, is stability. Stability is the single most
important factor in the success of the magnet/specialty schools. The lack
of student school stability is the single most important factor in the
failure of the neighborhood school to provide children of color with a
quality education. These failing neighborhood schools are MPS schools
which may have a 30% to 70% turnover in every classroom year after year.
They lack stability. Our cities are filled with a hoard of nomadic urban
urchins wandering from school to school as they migrate from neighborhood
to neighborhood within the 'hood. The family, neighborhoods and schools
have become dysfunctional institutions for many children, particularly for
children of color. Abraham Maslow described a hierarchy of needs for
fulfilling human potential like academic and career success. He listed
human needs in a specific ascending order: physical needs, stability
needs, group/belonging needs, achievement/self esteem needs, and self
actualization or career needs, deliberately in that order. Maslow
identified that each need must be meet sequentially in a sequential order
before a subsequent need could be satisfied. In other words, the need for
stability must be meet prior to attempting to satisfy the child's need for
achievement, recognition, and self esteem. We in public education seem to
ignore this universally recognizable principle of Abraham Maslow when
setting goals for public education. We throw huge amounts of money for
categorical aids at achievement, recognition and self esteem and ignore
the child's primary critical need for stability, security and safety.
Stability is a critical primary need, no mater where a child lives, no
matter how often they move, no matter how rich or poor they are. And
parental/school stability, parental stability defined as familiarity with
a teacher, faculty, principal and physical facilities, not proximity,
leads to greater parental school involvement.

Number two reason is focus, school curriculum focus. The magnet schools
have curriculum focus or teaching method parents, teachers and students
can center around and agree upon. A certain style of instructional
methodology, like Montessori or Waldorf, focuses parents and students on
classroom techniques for learning. From focus follows commitment. The
parents are committed to the instructional methods before and during the
school career of the child. This commitment leads to greater levels of
parental involvement. The stable consistent elementary school focus, year
after year, leads to stability for the child and higher achievement scores
for the magnet specialty school. Focus leads to purpose and an
understanding of where the child is headed academically. It's no wonder
that substantially lower dollar expenditures at the Spanish immersion
school have had little impact on the success of the specialty school when
compared to the highly transient neighborhood school. It's no wonder that
greater and greater dollar resources have little impact in reversing the
failure at North Division or South Division High Schools, chronically
failing transient neighborhood schools.

Number three reason for specialty school success is a market/demand driven
model for urban education. Since free choice and market demand have
worked so well within public education, why not continue to let the market
place decide what schools we are going to have? Let.s take a business
model approach to market demand. Why do we suggest that public education
take a communist approach to a planned school society that the public does
not want? Let.s let the backlog, the market demand, determine what kind
of schools we have. Its worked so far for one third of the kids in MPS
whose parents have chosen specialty schools and it can work for all the
district.s kids. If parents or community want to choose a neighborhood
school, then the district should build a neighborhood school for that
community group.

Let.s do more of what works in MPS, what the market demands!

=================================================================
The Maslow Hierarchy of Needs
=================================================================
Who is Abraham Maslow? -Part I Description Below
Abraham Maslow
Five Level Motivational Development
MPS Must Start With Level One Below Not With Level Four or Five
=================================================================
(Maslow Level Number 5)
School-to-Work (STW)
Self-Realization
Self-Actualization
Becoming What You're Capable of Becoming
===============================
(Maslow Level Number 4)
(Academic) Achievement (High Standards)
Recognition, Self-Esteem
Responsibility, Independence,
Respect, Appreciation, Prestige,
Attention, Importance, Ego, Identity
(Inappropriate Focus of Traditional Public Schooling)
=======================================
***************************************
(Maslow's Urban Education Family Values Gap Below Level 3 & Level 2)
To Increase Academic Achievement Above
Public Schooling Needs To Address
Family Values Level 2 & Level 3 Below
Not Level 5 STW First or Level 4 standards. It Just Won't Work
******************************************
==========================================
(Maslow Level Number 3 Family Values)
Family or Institutional (School) Identity & Integrity (School Focus)
Belonging, Family or School Orientation, Affection, Love, Approval,
Family & Group (School) Acceptance, Friendship, Caring
Nurturing -Parent & Parenting Skills Empowerment
==============================================
(Maslow Level Number 2 Family Values)
(School) Stability, Security, Safety, Structure, Order, Creed, (Marriage)
Dependency, Protection, Law, Tenure, Insurance, Pension, (Religion)
Direct Systematic Phonics, Character Based Education and Values
======================================================
******************************************************
(Maslow's Urban Education Family Values Gap Above Level 2 & Level 3)
To Increase Academic Achievement Above -Level 4
Public Schooling Needs To Address
Family Values Above At Levels 2 & Levels 3 First
Not Level 5 STW First or Level 4 standards. It Just Won't Work
***********************************************************
===========================================================
(Maslow Level Number 1 Base Motivational Needs)
Physiological Needs, Survival Needs: Hunger, Thirst, Warmth, Rest
Shelter, Clothing, Clean Air & Water, Toxin Free Environment
(lead level in city drinking water), Nutrition, (Reproduction)
(Chapter I/Title I: Free Federal Lunch Program, Social Worker Services,
etc.)
(Motto: A hungry child can't learn, Level Number 1 first.)
==================================================================
Maslow -Part I Explanation
Chart above depicts the five sequential levels of human need satisfaction
as theorized by Abraham Maslow. Most middle class individuals will
exhibit needs at the higher levels of the hierarchy, Levels 4 & 5. This
assumes that basic needs -physiological, stability-safety-security,
caring-nurturing (L1, L2, & L3) have been satisfied by the traditional
institutions of family, neighborhood or community. In most urban
situations family, neighborhood or community fail to satify the childs
basic Level 1, 2, & 3 needs. Maslow contended that a person.s higher
level needs (like achievement) can only be reached as lower order needs
continue to be satisfied. Higher order needs like achievement and self
esteem only then develop. A person can only be motivated to satisfy each
higher level need sequentially. In a society where family values of
stability, caring and nurturing do not exist for most urban poverty class
children of color within the context of family or neighborhood, especially
when poverty class is reinforced by concentrations of race, color or
ethnicity, public schooling is the only universal institution touching all
children.s lives that can provide the structure to satisfy these
protective factors of family values at Level 1, Level 2 & Level 3. To the
extent that factors or elements embodied by Maslow level one, two and
three are inoperable, missing, countermanded or thwarted in a child.s
life, risk factors will be present for a child developing risky behaviors
and risk factors will be present against a child developing positive
productive behaviors like high GPA, school attendance and positive self
confidence. To the extent that environmental factors embodied by Maslow
level one, two and three are present, protective factors will present for
a developing positive productive school behaviors at level four such as
academic achievement and self confidence.
==================================================================
We have to start with level 1, then level 2, then level 3, then level 4
achievement and high standards and finally level 5 school-to-work (stw).
Just working at the top is throwing good money after bad. We must start
with the lead poisoning level in city drinking water first and then
student school stability next, only then will academic standards and
school-to-work work effectively to raise student achievement. Look at
what student school stability did for magnet specialty and Chapter 220
student achievement and their work force skills.

by Leon Todd 414-444-9490

-----------------------------

HIGHLY MOBILE STUDENTS: EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Carol Asher
Clearinghouse on Urban Education, New York, N.Y.

While America has long been a nation "on the move," today two types of
student mobility stand out: 1) inner-city mobility, which is prompted
largely by fluctuations in the job market; and 2) intra-city mobility,
which may be caused by upward mobility, on the one hand, or poverty and
homelessness, on the other. In fact, because of high rents, poor
housing, and economic hardship, urban schools whose populations change
as much as 100 percent a year are an increasing phenomenon
(Schuler, 1990).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Mobility and Achievement
---------------------------------------------------------------

Although moving once or twice during the public school years may not be
harmful, most research shows that high mobility lowers student
achievement-- particularly when the students are from low-income,
less-educated families (Sewell, 1982; Straits, 1987). Students who
attend the same school for their whole career are most likely to
graduate, whereas the most mobile of the school populations--migrant
students--has the highest rates of school failure and dropout (Lunon,
1986; B. Tobias, personal communication, June 1991).

Just as high poverty rates in a school depress achievement even for
nonpoor students, schools with high mobility rates don't succeed even
with students whose residence is stable. Schools with high dropout rates
are more likely to be situated in unstable school districts, and to be
in high-growth states (Neuman, 1987).

Of course, the depression of achievement associated with mobility may be
compounded by other related factors: poverty, limited English fluency,
poor housing, etc. For example, an analysis of student mobility found
that children living with one parent move twice as frequently as
children living with two parents, and that children in one-parent
families also had lower achievement than those in two-parent families
(Sewell, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Burden of Student Mobility on Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
High student mobility puts enormous stress on schools. Services
developed for one population--for example, limited English proficient
students--may suddenly become unnecessary, as many of its users move in
the middle of the semester. Furthermore, even attempts to monitor school
performance become meaningless if the student population tested one year
has largely changed by the next. In urban schools already burdened by
bureaucracy, mobility increases record-keeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Schools for Mobile Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suggestions for interventions with highly mobile students are derived
from the effective schooling research (Neuman, 1988). High expectations,
an emphasis on excellence, small classroom size, personal contact, and
opportunities for students to exhibit competence, initiative, and
responsibility are considered critical (Druin, 1986). The issue of high
expectations is especially important here, since there is evidence that
when students enter classrooms in mid- semester, teachers tend to
prejudge them unfavorably (Neuman, 1988; Sewell, 1982). Among the
suggestions for facilitating the acclimation of new students are these:

-parent education programs and handbooks that acquaint new parents
with the effects of moving on their children, and with the
-procedures and customs of the new school.
-reception committees and tour guides.
-classroom buddies for the new students.
-inservice training for teachers in schools with highly mobile
students.

New students should be watched for distress signals--aggression,
withdrawal, over talkativeness, etc.--since the experience of moving can
be similar to death and mourning for a young child (Neuman, 1988).

Most schools assume that, as with poverty, there is little or nothing
they can do about student mobility itself. However, a pilot study in
Rochester suggests that schools can lower mobility rates by sending
letters home that describe the negative effects of mobility on grades
and graduation rates and helping parents solve landlord disputes or find
new housing nearby (Schuler, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Record-Keeping
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the biggest administrative, and therefore pedagogical, problems
with mobile students stems from lack of prompt transfer of records.
Students may be given inappropriate placement, and even held back, while
their receiving school waits three to five months for their records (
Neuman, 1988; Sewell, 1982). These record-keeping problems have been
most obvious with migrant students. However, record-keeping problems
have long occurred with many students less clearly designated as
"transient." Voluntary desegregation is well known for creating havoc
with district record-keeping (A. Wells, 1991, personal communication).

More recently, homeless students have created a new surge in record
transfers, and districts have often been financially penalized for
students who were counted absent when they were already enrolled in a
different district. Finally, although record-keeping has not been
discussed in relationship to school choice, this new form of student
mobility may create its own record-keeping nightmare--especially since
schools will have little reason on the surface to cooperate with
competing schools by providing rapid record transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Models and Pilots in Student Record-Keeping
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 1968, the Migrant Student Transfer System (MSTS) was instituted as
part of Title I/Chapter 1. The MSTS is an electronically-based record
system in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, with both health and academic
information on migrant secondary students. Unfortunately, in part
because only some schools have computer terminals and so much
communication is still done by mail, the MSTS is currently
underutilized. A study in 1989 reported that only ten states kept data
for 70 percent or more of their migrant students (Villarreal, 1989).

Under a Ford Foundation grant, a paper system called a passport was
recently piloted for Puerto Rican students moving between the island and
either New York City or districts in the state of Connecticut. Like the
MSTS, the passport contains both health and academic information.
However, unlike the MSTS, passports were created to enable the students
themselves to take charge of their own academic careers. Students carry
their passports with them when they move from the island to the
mainland, or vice versa, ensuring rapid enrollment in the appropriate
class. Of course, the system requires cooperation between the school
systems, which must both advertise the existence of passports to
students and fill them out, and there have been some problems getting
both ends equally involved (E. Davila, June 1991, personal
communication).

Finally, prompted by the drive for national educational statistics of
all kinds, an electronic nationwide record transfer system for all
students is currently being piloted by the National Center for Education
Statistics and the Council of Chief State School Officers. While Florida
already has a state-wide electronic record-keeping system, and states
such as Texas, California, and Wyoming are considering such systems, the
lack of a uniform, national record- keeping system has made collecting
good school data difficult.

Although not geared directly to the needs of highly mobile students, the
proposed national system should solve the problem of rapid record
transfer. It would also increase reliability and consistency in the
interpretation of student records. Finally, because all data would be
on-line, it would decrease costs to districts of transferring records
(B. Clements, June 1991, personal communication; R. Valdivieso, June
1991, personal communication).

Two possible problems arise in the new search for a more efficient
record- keeping system for mobile and other students. The first is
student privacy: as material becomes more accessible, it may also be
more difficult to ensure confidentiality. The second is school
accountability: record-keeping that aids in making schools more
accountable to the communities they serve may not always coincide with
records that serve a national purpose. Thus, as schools join in a
national system, they will have to be careful to ensure that they are
also keeping data for their own purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
References
---------------------------------------------------------------
Druin, G. (1986, September). Effective schooling and at-risk students:
What the research shows. Portland, OR: Northwest Educational
Laboratories.

Lunon, J.K. (1986). Migrant student record transfer system: What is it
and who uses it? ERIC Digest: CRESS. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State
University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Neuman, J. (1988). What should we do about the highly mobile student? A
research brief. Mount Vernon, WA: Educational Service District 189.

Schuler, D. (1990, Fall). Effects of family mobility on student
achievement. ERS Spectrum, 8 (4), 17-24.

Sewell, C. (1982, October). The impact of pupil mobility on assessment
of achievement and its implications for program planning. Brooklyn, NY:
Community School District 17.

Straits, B.C. (1987, January). Residence migration and school progress.
Sociology of Education, 60 (1), 34-43.

Villarreal, G.C. (1989, August). Migrant education, interstate secondary
credit accrual and acceptance manual: Practical guidelines for school
personnel serving migrant secondary students. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
State Department of Education.

------------–

The high cost of high mobility

By ERIC A. HANUSHEK

Last Updated: May 4, 2002

America is a mobile society. In fact, that has been one of its strengths; the American labor market adjusts more quickly than virtually any other labor market in the world.

But mobility has its costs. Family moves, whether for new job opportunities, improved housing or adjustment to divorce, lead to frequent changes of schools. These school changes take their toll on some children.

Moreover, the negative effects of moving are not only experienced by the children who move; all students in high-mobility schools, including non-movers, tend to be affected. Teachers must continually adjust to movements in and out of their classrooms, and these adjustments detract from learning.

Also, the impact of high mobility is not evenly dispersed across the population, instead falling more heavily on disadvantaged children. Disadvantaged children - who are likely to come to school less well prepared than advantaged children - also move more frequently. These moves are unlikely to lead to any improvements in their schools.

Higher-income parents can exercise more choice to take schools into account when they move because of their ability to choose from a wider variety of housing opportunities. But restricted housing choices plus the concentration of high-mobility families leave lower-income children worse off.

Improving the education of disadvantaged children has been and should be an important policy goal. But the issue of school mobility highlights some of the facets that make policy development difficult. First, public schools should do more to take mobility into account.

The highest mobility rates occur in large central cities, where poor children are likely to go to school. But, while decrying the problems of high mobility, many large systems have not aligned curricula and programs across schools to lessen the disruption of moving. Second, many people argue that improving schooling for poor kids requires more fundamental change, such as school choice, on the grounds that individual schools can develop innovative programs and that these programs can be one of the gains of more parental options.

The two policy options are not necessarily in conflict. Improved school choice mechanisms - ones that separate school attendance from the specifics of residential location - might stabilize schooling for some low-income children. If parents could maintain the same schools for their children even if forced by other circumstances to move, the achievement of low-income students (both moving and non-moving) might improve.

It is difficult to determine, however, whether this effect is sufficient to overcome forces that tend to increase the costs of family moves. As is often the case, developing the best policy outcomes involves trade-offs and experience.

Eric A. Hanushek is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a member of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education.

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on May 5, 2002.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/may02/40613.asp