December 2011 Archives

It's disturbing to learn that public schools persist in promoting religion despite landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 and 1963. The latest reminder comes from Jefferson, S.C., where the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Chesterfield County school district for the continuing promotion of religion in several of its schools ("Battling Anew Over the Place of Religion in Public Schools," The New York Times, Dec. 28). Specifically, a preacher at a school assembly was permitted to describe how Jesus Christ saved him from drugs. But as the Times reported, similar violations of the separation of church and state have also taken place in Pensacola, Fla. and Sumner County, Tenn.

Although the examples cited are blatant, even school policies that are carefully designed to be impartial pose a hidden threat. Take the situation in New York City, home of the nation's largest school district. According to The New York Times, at least 60 schools have doubled as "rent-free houses of worship" in their off hours ("Separation of Church and School," Jun. 11). The churches involved pay the custodians' fee to use the school not only on Sunday mornings and evenings, but also on some Wednesday and Friday nights. The practice arose after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in Good News Club v. Milford Central School that school districts can allow religious groups to use their facilities during non-instructional hours as long as other community groups are also allowed to do so.

I realize that what is taking place in New York City is not the same as what is taking place in Jefferson, but both situations are a reminder that eternal vigilance is necessary to prevent the erosion of the wall between church and school. The issue has arisen most recently in connection with the start of religious charter schools. Consider the example of the Ben Gamla Charter School, which was founded in 2007 in Hollywood, Fla. by Jewish parents. Despite its teaching of Hebrew, its serving of kosher food and its Orthodox rabbi principal, defenders argue that there is no violation of government establishment of religion because the school's emphasis is on culture.

It will be interesting to see if the claim prevails in the face of what are sure to be legal challenges. I say that because the number of religious charter schools continues to grow rapidly. Already, Ben Gamla's network of charter schools in South Florida enrolls about 1,600 students, with more planned. Let's not forget that once a legal precedent is established, it serves as a wedge to weaken the wall between church and state.

That's where the existence of the Blaine amendments will undoubtedly come into play. Although James Blaine, speaker of the House of Representatives, failed in his attempt in 1875 to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate to amend the U.S. Constitution stipulating that no public money shall go to schools "under the control of any religious sect," 37 states incorporated similar language in their constitutions. State courts have weakened the amendments over the years, but Blaine-like amendments remain in the constitutions of about 17 states, creating an obstacle to unfettered expansion of religious charter schools.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Bridgeport Education Reform Fund in all likelihood will mean nothing to most people. But ignoring the fund is a mistake because it is a model that figures to play an increasingly prominent role in the funding of schools in the years ahead in this country. Although the present venue is the largest city in Connecticut, whose schools were taken over by the state in July after the superintendent was fired, the strategy has the potential to spread to other underperforming school districts.

What is troubling is that the $400,000 in the fund has come from wealthy donors who remain anonymous. According to The Wall Street Journal, the probable benefactors are officials from the ZOOM Foundation, which is backed by hedge fund manager Steve Mandel ("Schools Look to Donors," Dec. 23). Because no one knows for certain at this date who the principals are, their agenda remains hidden. In business, opaqueness is common, but it is anathema in education - at least in public schools - because there are almost always strings attached.

Once a precedent of this kind is set, it tends to be repeated. The trouble is that public schools are supposed to be supported by taxes. When they become dependent instead on the infusion of private funding, control inevitably shifts to a handful of powerful insiders, creating a plutocracy, which is the very antithesis of a democracy. I've already written about the outsize influence that the Gates-Broad-Walton triumvirate exerts on public schools. But these are just the biggest players. What is sure to follow is money from smaller sources.

I receive many e-mails from readers who argue that they have lost patience with efforts to turn around public schools, and therefore welcome efforts from non-educators. They will no doubt applaud the Bridgeport Education Reform Fund. But I see it as an attempt by billionaires to impose their will on one of the most important democratic institutions. To date, the mainstream media have treated philanthropies with great deference. I think they do a grave disservice to the public in this regard.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The news that New York State will lengthen its math and language arts tests for elementary and middle school students to three hours beginning this April is another reminder that common sense is woefully lacking in the accountability movement. According to John King Jr., the state's education commissioner, the change is part of the effort to "fine-tune tests of student performance" ("State Tests Extended to About Three Hours," The New York Times, Dec. 19).

I'd be very interested in knowing exactly what King means by that statement, and how he justifies his decision. When I taught English in the Los Angeles Unified School District to students in grades ten, eleven and twelve, final exams were two hours long. That was more than enough time to sample what students had learned. I can't imagine subjecting children in elementary school to tests lasting any longer. Yet that is exactly what New York State intends to do. Even more astounding is that at three hours, New York's tests will still be shorter than those administered in many other states, where they sometimes take four-and-a-half hours.

Testing is an indispensable part of the educational process. But it has taken on a life of its own that threatens to dominate everything else. Already some districts lose up to nearly two weeks of instructional time. I don't know of any other country where so much time, energy and money are devoted to testing. Yet reformers ignore what America's most successful competitors are doing in the smug belief that they know what is best. The irony is that these are the same reformers who insist that educational decisions be evidence-based.

Perhaps recognizing that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill in October that would have extended California's testing. He correctly pointed out in his veto message that doing so would further lessen the likelihood of learning for its own sake. Instead, Brown suggested the use of panels of inspectors to visit and assess schools. England has long used this approach known as Ofsted. Inspectors not only spend time in classrooms but also observe students between classes.

Massachusetts is working on a program to assess children as soon as they enter kindergarten in order to determine how prepared they are for school ("State aims to test kindergartners," Boston Globe, Oct. 2). But unlike New York, teachers will observe and question children during classroom activities to make their evaluation. They will not be administering standardized tests. Moreover, the data collected will be used strictly for diagnostic purposes.

The growth of testing has all the characteristics of the formation of a bubble. Once it pops, which all bubbles eventually do, the full damage will become apparent. The trouble, however, is that by then it will be too late to remedy matters.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 6:59 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Long plagued by an acute inferiority complex, community colleges are on the threshold of a new era that has the potential to remake their image. Yet at the same time, it's important to acknowledge that the transformation carries with it certain risks. I was reminded of this after reading Rahm Emanuel's op-ed in The Wall Street Journal ("Chicago's Plan to Match Education With Jobs," Dec. 19). He argues that community colleges need to be regarded as the "first choice for high-skill job training," rather as a "last ditch effort for remedial education." The only way to upgrade the reputation of community colleges is to guarantee that the diplomas they issue have "economic value."

I can certainly understand why "economic value" is a concern in today's protracted recession, but I question if Emanuel understands the full mission of community colleges. They have long existed to provide the general education that is considered a prerequisite for personal growth and participation in a free society, and that satisfies the requirements for transfer to four-year institutions. Consider the latter. The recession has seen a marked increase in the percentage of high school graduates who have decided to spend the first two years pursuing a baccalaureate degree at community colleges before transferring in order to save on tuition. According to the American Association of Community Colleges, about 8 million students enrolled in for-credit courses there in the fall of 2010. This is an increase of more than 20 percent over fall 2007 levels.

But what I find most shortsighted about Emanuel's prescription is that it completely ignores the largely unpredictable nature of the domestic economy. Although today there may indeed be a pressing need for welders, for example, will the same need exist five years from now? If not, community colleges run the risk of shortchanging their students. Even within seemingly recession-proof fields, change is inevitable. This is where the critical thinking skills of a general education are indispensable. There is always a lag between change in the workplace and the development of curriculums and standards. As a result, students are unavoidably caught in the middle.

I also find it strange that Emanuel says nothing about the erosion of vocational education in high schools across the country. Wouldn't giving vocational education at that level the respect it deserves be worthwhile? Our competitors abroad have always recognized that not all students want tertiary education. As a result, they've treated vocational education as worthy alternatives. But we persist in the fiction that everyone is college material. No wonder that community colleges will become the next venue for the debate.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's tempting to conclude that the success of schools on military bases in narrowing the achievement gap between black and white students has relevance to public schools. At least that's what reformers will likely maintain after reading Michael Winerip's informative column ("Military Children Stay a Step Ahead of Public School Students," The New York Times, Dec. 12).

After all, it's hard not to be impressed by the latest results from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. In reading, for example, there was an 11-point gap between black and white fourth graders at the military base schools. This compares with a 26-point gap between the two racial groups in public schools. Even more impressive was that black fourth graders at the military base schools scored higher in reading than public school students as a whole.

Yet there are several factors that militate against extrapolation. First, the standardized tests that are mandated by No Child Left Behind are not used at military base schools for the same purpose. Instead of judging the effectiveness of teachers, the tests are used strictly for diagnostic purposes. Second, the average class for kindergarten through third grade there has 18 students. This compares with 24 students in New York City. Third, military parents are provided health care for their children and housing. The availability means that students do not attend classes with ailments afflicting many of their counterparts in public schools. Finally, the military puts a premium on education, providing parents with time off from work to participate in their children's schools.

None of these factors applies to public schools. As a result, they'll never be able to match the success of schools on military bases. Moreover, the military is not a democracy. Its culture allows it to implement changes rapidly and efficiently. For example, when racial integration became the law of the land in the 1950s, the military achieved the goal without the controversy and turmoil that characterized civilian society. It is a color-blind culture.

It's always worthwhile examining schools anywhere that are effective in order to see what can be learned. But as the same time, it's important to bear in mind the unique circumstances that account for their reputation.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Americans love rankings. They serve as a quick and easy way of determining who or what is better than others in the same category. I understand their appeal, but I wonder if rankings do more harm than good because they fail to take into account vital nuances.

Consider rankings of hospitals and schools. In a column in The New York Times, Peter B. Bach, M.D. wrote that "researchers at Dartmouth College publish rankings of hospitals and states based not on how successful they are at preventing deaths of patients who are very ill, but on how much they spend on those they fail to save" ("When Care Is Worth It, Even if End Is Death," Dec. 13).

If you think about it, schools are ranked in similar ways. We constantly read reports that the U.S. spends more money per student than any other country in the world (with the exception of Luxembourg) and yet has appallingly high dropout rates. But we rarely read anything about the success of schools that prevent dropouts even though these same schools are composed of students from the most chaotic backgrounds.

Instead, we are told that throwing more money at failing schools won't matter. These schools are beyond repair and should be shuttered or converted to charter schools or some other educational entity. Would we make the same argument about hospitals? And what about doctors who attend to patients who are very ill when they are admitted? Should these doctors be penalized when they can't save the lives of these patients?

Public schools are not Lourdes and teachers are not miracle workers. They don't always succeed. But reformers hold them to a standard much higher than hospitals and doctors. Pathologies are not limited to the health care industry. They also affect the educational sector in the background of students. In both cases, practitioners are forced to perform triage. It's something to think about the next time public schools are painted with a broad brush of failure.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As readers of this column know, I've long supported parental choice of schools. But at the same time I've always cautioned about its limitations. Now comes the latest caveat that free-market reformers don't want you to know. It's important to bear it in mind because 13 states enacted school choice legislation this year, and 28 more states have legislation pending.

The setting is the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second largest. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, Leslee Komaiko, the mother of a first grader at a charter school in the mammoth system, explains how the process of parental choice actually works ("L.A. Unified's grade-school game," Dec. 14). What she wrote is cause for pause.

I say that because I read her piece three times and still can't believe how byzantine and frustrating the process is. For starters, buying or renting a residence - the customary way of establishing the right to attend a neighborhood school - is no assurance. How come? The LAUSD has rules that defy common sense. If the choice is a charter or magnet school, the process is even more bizarre because it involves amassing points.

It's here that I thought I was reading a satire. To enhance the chances of acceptance, the best way to get points is to move into a residence in a part of the city with an execrable school that is overcrowded, lacks books and desks, and is "predominantly Hispanic, black, Asian or other." But that's just the beginning. Parents must submit their application to their desired magnet or charter school the winter before their child starts kindergarten. Paradoxically, rejection from kindergarten enhances the chances of acceptance the following year. In other words, failure is cause for celebration.

If this were not enough to deter all but the most determined parents, the LAUSD also issues permits without transportation, child-care permits, and intra-district and inter-district parent employment-related transfer permits. Other cities have similar dizzying systems for parental choice, including San Francisco and New York. But don't ask me to explain how these work because I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer. However, you get the picture.

Here's the point: parents have the right to select any school they believe best meets the interests and needs of their children. But the devil is always in the details. If truth-in-advertising laws were applied to school choice, I think more parents would be reluctant to expend the time, energy and money in the hope of getting a quality education for their children. Instead, parents might be willing to push for improving existing traditional schools in their neighborhoods. But don't try telling that to reformers.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In dusting the shelves of my home library recently, I came across a paperback published in 1961 that has uncanny relevance to the debate today about mass testing (The Schools, Anchor Books). Martin Mayer was a reporter and editor who spent 30 months visiting about 150 schools from as far east as Helsinki to as far west as San Francisco. In the process, he interviewed more than 1,500 teachers. His provocative and insightful comments are a reminder that so much of what we consider new today has in fact been around for a long while.

In particular, Mayer reminds us that determining learning depends in large part on the theory we believe in. "From the point of view of the laboratory psychologist, it is convenient to define learning as 'behavior.' The psychologist needs a measurable result. That the definition is essentially a fiction is clear from the large group of phenomena which must be classified as 'latent learning' - that is, learning which does not show itself in behavior." In other words, students often know more than they can express.

This truism fails to satisfy reformers who demand empirical evidence of learning. I can understand their position. Taxpayers are entitled to know if their dollars are being well spent. In the minds of the overwhelming majority, the only way to know for certain is the production of palpable outcomes. Claiming that not all learning can be demonstrated behaviorally is seen as an excuse. Readers of The Wall Street Journal's editorials and op-eds are familiar with this position.

But I wonder if students are being well served by this belief. B.F. Skinner liked to point to a cartoon showing a rat leaning against the puzzle- lever in his cage and telling another rat: "Boy, do we have this guy conditioned. Every time I press the bar down he drops a pellet in." In short, the design of a test restricts the range of possible results. Whenever I took a standardized test requiring a selected response, rather than a created response, I never felt that my score reflected my true ability because I was hemmed in by the construction of the item. Is that an excuse or an explanation?

Of course, instruments that rely heavily on created responses by students will be far more costly to design, far more expensive to assess and far more subjective than the tests currently in use. But I think they're worthwhile considering in light of what is on the line.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So much of the nation's attention has been focused on literacy, numeracy and science since No Child Left Behind became law that history has been lost in the shuffle. A new book by David Feith titled Teaching America (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011) calls the situation a "crisis" ("Boot Camp For Citizens," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 9). I'm troubled by the neglect of the subject as much as Feith is, but I hasten to point out that fears about students' knowledge of history are not new.

In the 1830's, Horace Mann, secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, decried the historical preparation of students. Then in 1896, the Harvard Board of Overseers complained that based on examples of freshman writing "there was no conceivable justification for using the revenues of Harvard College to instruct undergraduates who were unprepared for college work." In 1943, The New York Times surveyed several thousand students who were entering college about their knowledge of history. The Times warned about the possibility of catastrophe because of their poor preparation.

Not that colleges are doing any better today. In 2003, the House Education and Workforce Committee found that many students from marquee-name schools couldn't name the President. And in 2006, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute assessed 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities about American history and constitutionalism. The average senior received a grade of 54 percent. More disturbing, many schools demonstrated negative learning, meaning that seniors performed worse than freshmen.

The most recent fix on what students know about history came in June when results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress were published. They revealed that students are less proficient in American history than in any other subject ("U.S. Students Remain Poor at History, Tests Show," The New York Times, Jun. 14). Specifically, 20 percent of fourth graders, 17 percent of eighth graders and 12 percent of 12th graders demonstrated proficiency on the exam.

In the hands of talented teachers, history can be made to come alive. But I suspect that if the subject were added to the list of those already tested under No Child Left Behind, the effect would be counterproductive. Pressured to demonstrate adequate yearly progress, most teachers would probably resort to the use of worksheets in order to cram as many facts as possible into the heads of their students. If so, test scores would undoubtedly rise, but interest would certainly plummet. Once again, we would be able to chalk up a Pyrrhic victory.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The demand seems so reasonable: Evaluate teachers on the basis of how much their students have learned. After all, if schools exist to educate, then what's wrong with asking for evidence that they are successful? It's a fair question. The problem is agreeing on what kind of evidence to accept.

At last count, 23 states and the District of Columbia assess teachers in part by their students' standardized tests ("Nearly Half of States Link Teacher Evaluations to Tests," The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 26). Fourteen more states permit districts to use the data to fire ineffective teachers, according to a report issued by the National Council on Teacher Quality. California is a notable exception. Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson recently said that the standardized tests currently in use were never intended to evaluate teachers. As a result, any inferences made are invalid.

Although California is out of step with today's trend, it was once in the forefront of evaluating teachers (("LAUSD faces suit linking teacher ratings to student performance," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1). In 1971, the Stull Act was passed requiring all state school districts to tie teacher and principal evaluations to student performance. I had been teaching about seven years when I was "stulled," as teachers referred to the process. This required the completion of a form that listed a sample of instructional objectives, ways to measure achievement of these, and plans to grow professionally. Tenured teachers were evaluated by administrators every other year at least twice.

It's important to note that standardized tests were not used as the basis for compliance with the Stull Act. Teachers relied on evidence about their effectiveness from a variety of sources, including tests they prepared, student projects etc. The view widely held then was that standardized tests were to be used almost exclusively for diagnostic purposes. As a result, school districts in California ignored the law's most basic provisions. But a new lawsuit filed by a group of parents attempts to force the Los Angeles Unified School District to comply with the Stull Act's basic provision ("Teachers and test scores," editorial, Nov. 17).

Which side is right?

It's necessary to bear in mind that all tests are not created equal. If test scores are to be used to evaluate teachers, there must be compelling evidence to support the validity of their interpretation. Contrary to popular belief, no evidence exists in this regard. In fact, the standardized tests in wide use today are instructionally insensitive, making them inappropriate for evaluating the effectiveness of classroom teachers.

A standardized test can be instructionally insensitive in at least six ways, according to W. James Popham, professor emeritus at the UCLA Graduate School of Education. First, it can be inadequately aligned with the curriculum, leaving even students who were well taught at a distinct disadvantage. Second, it can be too easy, so that poorly taught students still are able to do well. Third, it can be too hard, so that even the best instruction is overlooked. Fourth, it can contain ambiguous items, leading to confusion. Fifth, it can consist of an inordinate number of items that largely measure socioeconomic status rather than inspired instruction. Finally, it can rely overwhelmingly on innate verbal and/or quantitative abilities, thereby measuring what students bring to class instead of what they learned in class.

Standardized tests have their place. They can be used as Finland does to determine if there are systemic weaknesses that should be addressed. They can also be used as one of multiple measures in evaluating teachers. Instead, standardized tests have become the predominant barometer to judge teachers. Tennessee, for example, makes such test scores count half of a teacher's evaluation. This is a mistake, with consequences not yet fully understood by the public.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Education marketeers argue that closing persistently underperforming schools is necessary in order to provide students with the education they are entitled to. The strategy has great intuitive appeal to taxpayers who are fed up with efforts to turn these schools around. But this approach promises far more than it can deliver for reasons that are poorly understood.

Chicago, home of the nation's third largest school district, stands out as the best example. Even before No Child Left Behind became law in 2002, the Windy City had a long history of school closings. It's particularly important to bear this fact in mind because 21 schools have recently been identified for closing or restructuring ("Plan to Close or Restructure 21 Schools Draws Quick Reaction, Most of It Negative," The New York Times, Dec. 3).

A year after Education Secretary William Bennett charged in 1987 that the Chicago school system was the worst in the nation, the state Legislature mandated that the central administration cede responsibility to elected local school councils. These councils hired principals and were granted limited budget authority. The councils worked well in about one-third of schools, satisfactorily in a third and poorly in another third ("Can Our Schools Run on Duncan?" In These Times, Aug. 23, 2010). In 1995, however, the Legislature gave Chicago's mayor direct responsibility for the schools. Mayor Richard Daley promptly moved power back to the central administration.

Daley first appointed superintendents who were called CEOs, in the belief that schools should be run like businesses. Then in 2001, he named Arne Duncan the CEO of Chicago schools. His appointment led to the implementation of Renaissance 2010, which resulted in the closing of poorly performing schools. For a detailed account, I recommend School Reform in Chicago (Harvard Education Press, 2004) edited by Alexander Russo.

But studies by SRI International and the Chicago Consortium on School Research concluded that Renaissance 2010 schools only occasionally outperformed demographically similar schools. Despite the evidence, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is determined to push forward with school closings in line with legislation signed in August by Gov. Pat Quinn. Already more than 400 persons have voiced their opposition to the closing of the schools, which are located on the South and West Sides of Chicago (" 'Teach -in' preps parents, union members for fight to stop school closings," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 4).

The District of Columbia also shuttered many neighborhood schools because of poor performance during the regime of Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee. Parents were given three options: transfer to another traditional school, choose a charter school or receive a voucher to attend a private school. The trouble was that there weren't always enough openings in schools in the best neighborhoods. Even if there were, not all parents had available transportation. As a result, students were shuffled from one school to another, creating resentment by parents ("Why School Choice Fails," The New York Times, Dec. 4).

New York City has closed more than 90 schools since 2002 when Mayor Michael Bloomberg was given control of the system. The buildings were turned into small themed schools and charters, which in many cases performed better than their predecessors. But it's hard to know if their improvement was the result of the transfer of the most difficult students to large high schools elsewhere in the city. What is known is the anger of parents. When the Panel for Educational Policy voted in late January to close 10 high schools and open a new charter school on the Upper West Side, a crowd of nearly 2,000 screamed their disapproval ("Panel Votes to Close 10 City High Schools," The New York Times, Feb. 1).

I expect to see more failing schools closed across the country as the educational marketplace movement accelerates. But don't count on widespread parental support. The reactions to date indicate that parents would much prefer to see their neighborhood schools improved.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

When Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City told attendees at an M.I.T. conference on Dec. 1 that if he had it in his power he would slash the number of teachers in half and double the salaries of the remainder, his remarks went viral ("Bloomberg: If I Had My Way I'd Dump Half of NYC's Teachers," CBS New York, Dec. 1).

Bloomberg acknowledged that his strategy would result in much larger class size, but he refused to back down. "The best thing you can do is put the best teacher you can possibly find and afford in front of the classroom and if you have to have fewer because there's only a certain number of dollars to go around, I'm in favor of that." I thought at first that the mayor's comments were meant to be taken in the same way as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." But then I realized he was dead serious because he obviously believes in Social Darwinism.

Bloomberg, of course, has never taught in a public school, and is totally insulated from the realities of the lives of New Yorkers, whose children are fleeing to private and religious schools. But even if he did not exist in a world of his own, he would likely still take the same position. I say this because I think he truly feels that those who remain at the bottom in society have only themselves to blame. If they worked harder, they wouldn't be where they are. So it's the next logical step to assert that students who have innate intelligence and personal motivation can shine even in classes jammed to the gunnels. The best teachers will assure that happens. As Bloomberg said: "Everybody I know in my generation went to classes of 40 or more. And education by some people's argument was as good then as it is today. Whether it's better or worse, I don't know. But I got through it." So if he could, then why can't everyone else?

This kind of thinking is reflected in a column by George Monbiot of The Guardian. Although he was not referring specifically to education, his comments are germane: "The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves - that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive - are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren't responsible" ("The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen," Nov. 7). Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, agrees, saying that the success of financial high-fliers is more due to luck than anything else.

But should luck also be allowed to determine the education that Bloomberg deems acceptable for students? What about students who are not born into affluent homes and do not have parents deeply involved in their education? Can the best teachers who make the cut Bloomberg wants to impose overcome the deficits these students bring to class? I don't doubt that some students can do so because they learn in spite of - not because of - the teacher and their own backgrounds. But these students are exceptions. I guess Bloomberg's answer would be that's how Social Darwinism works.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If there's one thing everyone agrees on in the education of children, it's the importance of parental involvement. Until recently, the issue has largely focused on parents monitoring homework, attending open house, and responding to requests for a conference. But lately another aspect has come to the fore.

In the face of severe budget cuts, parents have stepped forward to provide generous donations to the school their children attend. Their largess has resulted in the addition of art and music classes, instructional aides and extended library hours. The problem has been that not all schools have been the fortunate recipient. As a result, the U.S. Department of Education has become involved.

To understand why, it's necessary to recall that since the late 1970s courts have repeatedly ruled that resources must be equitably distributed between rich and poor districts. When parents are permitted to give their own money to one particular school, the effect is to create a two-tier system of education between the affluent and the impoverished. Their contributions only exacerbate the already inequitable distribution of state and local funds. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Education, more than 40 percent of low-income schools are shortchanged (Office of Communications and Outreach, Nov. 30).

This disparity is on display in California in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, where PTA donations have amounted to more than $2,100 per student at Point Dume Marine Science Elementary School in Malibu, compared with only $96 per student at McKinley Elementary School in Santa Monica. To comply with past court rulings, the school board is considering centralizing fundraising. Donations would be placed in a districtwide non-profit, which would then distribute the money evenly among all schools ("Public schools, private donations," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 27).

A similar concern prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to sue California over the use of fees for textbooks or for taking required tests or courses ("Public Schools Face Lawsuits Over Fees," The New York Times, Sept. 10, 2010). The ACLU correctly argues that charging for instructional materials as well as for art, music and sports programs violates Article IX of the California Constitution: the state shall provide a free education to its children.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the issue is limited to California. In Kansas, parents in affluent districts wanted to place a property-tax increase dedicated to school funding on the ballot. But Kansas is one of a handful of states that limits how much money local school districts can raise from property taxes in order to ensure a rough parity in spending across the state ("Tax Complaint: Too Low," The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 14).

It's understandable why parents have become involved at this time. But the quality of education that students receive should not depend on Zip Code. I don't doubt there are some schools that still provide a solid education in spite of budget shortfalls. However, they are exceptions. Just as the gap between the ultra rich and everyone else is widening, so too will the achievement of schools unless court rulings are followed.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:36 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend