I've never understood how public money can legally be funneled to private schools in this country. But that is exactly what is happening with increasing frequency. Although the trend is most apparent in preschool, it is also taking place in K-12 ("Private Preschools See More Public Funds as Classes Grow," The New York Times, Jun. 14).

The best explanation I can come up with is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002. The high court held that vouchers are constitutional as long as they meet five criteria. The most important is that aid goes directly to parents and not to schools. Since then, 19 states and Washington, D.C. have put into place either voucher systems or scholarship programs. For example, Alabama allows families to enroll their children in private schools through tax-credits. Arizona goes beyond tax-credit scholarships to include education savings accounts.

Some states are facing legal challenges because of clauses in their constitutions that prohibit the financing of religious institutions with public money. But I think the fight is doomed to failure. There is a well orchestrated movement underway to abolish public schools. Although voters so far have rejected vouchers or their variants in 27 referendums across the country, I see the pushback losing its vigor with time. Public opinion is being beautifully manipulated by sophisticated forces intent on achieving their ultimate objective. Occasional victories will occur, but they will be aberrations.

The real question is whether the U.S. will be better if public schools become anachronisms. I don't doubt that some public schools deserve to be shuttered because they have consistently failed to deliver even a basic education. But there are about 98,000 public schools enrolling some 48.2 million students. They all can't be bad. But in the mind of too many, public schools are seen as a monolith. The media play up the scandals, leaving voters with the impression that public schools are hopeless.

I keep coming back to the remarks made by Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore's former minister of Education ("We All Have a Lot to Learn," Newsweek, Jan. 9, 2006). Although Singapore's students rank high on tests of international competition, he said: "We both have meritocracies. Yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well - like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition ... These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America."

These are the reasons why I believe that public schools remain one of the great strengths of the nation.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Despite the importance of a diploma, there are students who do not go to school. More than 40 states regard their truancy as a "status offense," which carries with it various penalties. Three advocacy groups representing seven students in Texas recently filed a complaint with the Justice Department charging that their clients' constitutional rights were violated by the state ("Texas Students Sue Over Truancy Punishment," The Wall Street Journal, Jun. 13).

Before jumping to conclusions about the validity of the lawsuit, I'd like to know the reasons for the truancy, not only in the case of the seven students but for others as well. I say that because sometimes students run afoul of truancy laws due to circumstances beyond their control. For example, students from poor homes may miss school because they have to take care of their younger siblings or assist ailing parents. They deserve special consideration and assistance.

For other truants, I see no justification for such treatment, nor do I favor forcing them to attend school and punishing them if they don't. That's because the U.S. attempts to educate young people for more years than any other country. If students still don't appreciate the value of the education provided them even after counseling, why do we force them to attend? K-12 education is a right, but every right carries with it responsibilities.

So for these truant students, I say allow them to try working without a high school diploma. I think they would soon see the error of their ways. Hitting them with stiff fees, long hours of community service and sometimes incarceration are totally counterproductive. Let's always keep the school door open for them, but at the same time don't shield them from reality. All actions have consequences. That alone may be the greatest lesson they will ever learn.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The need to prepare students for college or career has become a mantra, but I maintain that empirical evidence reveals nuances given short shrift.

According to a new report, Harvard University, long considered the most prestigious of this country's institutions of higher learning, is attracting fewer undergraduates for its humanities division because the value of a degree in the field is questionable in today's job market ("Humanities Fall From Favor," The Wall Street Journal, Jun. 6). Humanities majors there have fallen from 36 percent in 1954 to 20 percent in 2012.

Harvard is not alone. Across the country, 7 percent of college graduates majored in the humanities in 2010, compared with 14 percent in 1966. The unemployment rate broken down by majors is most likely responsible. For example, nationwide it was 9.8 percent for English majors, compared with 5.8 percent for chemistry majors.

The usual rebuttal offered in defense of the humanities is that they were never supposed to be a career-service major. They were intended primarily to prepare students to think critically. This ability is said to be the best possible assurance of finding and keeping a well-paying job. There is much truth to these claims. However, the cost of a bachelor's degree now is prohibitive for all but the most affluent families. As a result, neither parents nor students can be faulted for seeking a pecuniary pay-off after graduation. Let's not forget that student debt cannot be discharged during bankruptcy.

If these anxieties eat at students at even the most selective colleges, they most certainly are on the minds of students in high school. This is particularly the case for boys. "They want better jobs than their fathers have, but their attitudes toward school and work are misaligned with the opportunities and requirements in today's labor market" ("Bridging the male education gap," Los Angeles Times, Jun. 11).

That's why I've long urged that vocational education be accorded far greater respect. Instead, we counsel students to get a well-rounded, four-year education because college graduates earn more over a lifetime than high school graduates. However, this is a generalization that says nothing about the major, nor does it take into account the interests and aptitudes of students. I'd like to see the average annual income of humanities majors compared with that of plumbers, electricians and auto mechanics. I bet the results would be startling. What's wrong with apprenticeships and certificate programs that provide students with a well-paying career and personal satisfaction?

The accusation that placing students in vocational programs is racist because a larger percentage of poor students of color happen to be enrolled is ironic. I say that since these students often stand a better chance of finding and holding highly desirable jobs than students in academic programs who happen to be white. I suggest looking to Germany as a model. Its dual system of company and school training motivates students by demonstrating how their studies will pay off.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Few things are more frustrating to teachers than trying to individualize instruction for students who bring unique needs and interests to class. But now there's hope in the form of what is known as adaptive learning technologies ("A Is For Adaptive," Time, Jun. 17).

Given a question on a computer, a student selects an answer. In milliseconds, algorithms take into account whether the answer is correct, how long it takes the student to respond, and how the answer compares with the answers of hundreds of thousands of other students. The more data collected, the better the algorithm becomes in determining the next question. As a result, instruction can be differentiated in ways that teachers only used to be able to dream about.

I see great potential here, but at the same time I have some serious reservations. Not all subjects lend themselves to algorithms. Consider essays in English classes. I find it hard to believe that technology can ever replace a teacher. I know that programs already exist that purport to read an essay and score it as well as human beings ("Facing a Robo-Grader? Just Keep Obfuscating Mellifluously," The New York Times, Apr. 22, 2012). But automated readers can be gamed with a little ingenuity. Facts and ideas don't have to be true as long as they fit into a well-structured, recognizable format. Padding an essay with lots of nonsensical sentences can fool the program. In short, form trumps content.

Perhaps with time, tech wizards will be able to solve this problem. If so, it would be a boon for teachers. But until then, I think small classes populated by students with similar aptitudes and abilities are the best way of maximizing learning. This is hardly a perfect strategy, but it has worked remarkably well when implemented properly.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Two competing education bills to revise No Child Left Behind are guaranteed to trigger fierce debate. The first is by Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate education committee, and the second is by Senator Lamar Alexander, the ranking Republican on the Senate education committee.

Although details about both bills are sketchy, I think either of the two is an improvement over No Child Left Behind. I realize that's not saying very much. But compromise is the way most bills ultimately become law. Let's not forget that No Child Left Behind has been up for reauthorization since 2007. We can't continue to rail at the existing law but take no action because no bill is perfect.

Harkin's version, which is 1,150-pages long, is titled the Strengthening America's Schools Act ("Bill to Alter Bush-Era Education Law Gives States More Room," The New York Times, Jun. 5). What I find most appealing about his bill is that it allows states to use portfolios or projects instead of standardized tests. Moreover, it gives states more freedom to determine the steps they can take to turnaround underperforming schools.

Alexander's version, which was introduced just two days after Harkin's, comes in at fewer than 230 pages, and gives states more flexibility than Harkin's ("G.O.P. Bill on Schools Would Set Fewer Rules," The New York Times, Jun. 7). It also does not prescribe what should be included in a state's annual goals. (I intend to weigh in again on both once more details are available.)

I admit it's impossible to ever design a testing system that will please all sides. That's why testing is called the third rail of education reform. But assessment in one form or another is an indispensable part of instruction. Otherwise, how do teachers know if students are learning?
Predictably, the competing bills have already touched off criticism for being either too easy or too tough. I expect to see more polarization of opinion.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I don't doubt that every subject presents unique instructional challenges. But I still always assumed that science, technology, engineering and math were the hardest to teach. However, based on test scores, teaching reading is even harder ("In Raising Scores, 1 2 3 Is Easier Than A B C," The New York Times, May 30). For example, from 2009 to 2011, six large public urban school districts raised math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, while only one did so in reading.

I'm not at all surprised. So much of a student's reading ability is the result of factors in the home. According to psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley, the number of words toddlers hear is dependent on the socioeconomic background of their parents. They found that pre-schoolers from professional families are typically exposed to 2,150 words. This compares with 1,250 words for pre-schoolers from working class families and 620 words for pre-schoolers from families on welfare. Education Department data confirm that the disparity does not materially improve over time.

Critics of public schools argue that the persistent deficits prove that teachers are not doing their job. But the truth is that the ability of even the best teachers to overcome the deficits is more limited in reading than in math because the latter is culturally neutral. Teachers in schools with large numbers of students from different countries have to adjust their lessons to take into account cultural, social and historical references. Moreover, so much of language acquisition is the direct result of exposure to the language in question. If students don't hear standard English spoken at home or in the neighborhood, school lessons are not reinforced.

When I was growing up in suburbia, my father would put me on his lap after dinner and read parts of the newspaper to me. Occasionally, he would stop in mid-sentence to ask me to continue. My parents also frequently had guests over for dinner. I remember hearing words for the first time that were central to understanding the ongoing discussion. When I asked my parents the next day what the particular words meant, their answer was to look them up in the dictionary. I doubt that children in the inner cities have that invaluable dinner table experience as a motivation. Furthermore, I question whether they have a house filled with books, magazines and newspapers, as I did.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The end of the spring semester and the start of summer school are reminders of how much campus atmosphere affects student learning. We tend to forget this fact in our obsession with teacher quality as the greatest in-school factor.

The most obvious concern is the lack of air-conditioning ("Schools Are Not Cool," The New York Times, June 2). Classrooms can become ovens during the spring and summer, making it almost impossible for even the best teachers to get and hold their students' attention. I was quite fortunate during the 28 years I taught in the same high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District because my classroom was a bungalow on a hill facing due west. As a result, my classroom almost always had an ocean breeze. But most of my colleagues taught in buildings that were designed without regard for the comfort of students and teachers.

Equally distressing is the physical condition of the school plant. I'm referring now to leaking roofs, rampant litter, fetid bathrooms and widespread graffiti. When students are surrounded by such, it sends the unmistakable message that education is not valued. It's analogous to the broken windows theory that James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling first wrote about in a 1982 article in The Atlantic. They found that unattended problems are an invitation to vandalism. I remember vividly how quickly restrooms deteriorated at my school after the district cut back on janitorial services, until it was almost impossible to use the facilities without gagging.

We are all affected by our surroundings, either consciously or otherwise. But for students who are repeatedly told how important education is for their future, the disconnect with reality breeds cynicism. For example, there are at least 35,442 unresolved calls for service and repairs in the LAUSD because of the loss over the past five years of about 500 custodians and plant managers, as well as about 650 carpenters, electricians and plumbers ("L.A. schools falling apart, literally," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 12). I'm not saying that learning cannot take place under such conditions, but if the goal is to maximize learning we need to address the appalling physical state of many schools.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The claim that knowledge is power is misleading. It's what students do with the knowledge that's important. I thought of that distinction once again during this graduation season. Whether young people are seeking summer employment or a lifelong career, they will need to show that they can add value ("How to Get a Job," The New York Times, May 29).

This reality brings me to the implications for instruction. I realize that performance does not take place in a vacuum. It is the result of knowledge that is learned. But the acquisition of knowledge comes in various levels, as readers of Bloom's Taxonomy know. Despite lofty rhetoric, so much instruction involves straight recall or perhaps a step or two above. As a result, there is little transfer to real-life situations. Wouldn't it help students more if they were given a problem to solve and then graded on the basis of their performance?

That's why I believe that teaching to the test is eminently defensible, provided that the test measures high-level cognitive outcomes. For example, if teachers want their students to be able to state an opinion about a given topic and then support it with evidence, it behooves them to give students copious practice doing precisely that. Does such pedagogy constitute teaching to the test? Absolutely. But I maintain that it is commendable.

When I graduated from Penn, every interview for a job as a writer I went on required me to write in the presence of the interviewer. No one was particularly impressed by my degree, grades or honors. All they were interested in was my ability, which they correctly assessed by my performance. I acknowledge that to get an interview today, young people have to have a diploma, certificate or degree, which serve as a union card. Nevertheless, I believe that my experience still is valid.

Of course, many employers have unrealistic expectations. They want employees who possess precisely the knowledge and skills that their situation demands. They don't want to have to train anyone. But schools do not exist solely for job placement. On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to seek employees who can express themselves clearly in writing and in speech. Unfortunately, many schools are falling short in this regard.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Reformers who have never taught have no idea how exhausted teachers and students are as the school year winds down. Nevertheless, they argue that lengthening the time that students spend with their teachers would increase learning. I say their proposal is counterproductive to their objective.

Class time varies greatly across the country. Thirty states require 180 or more students-teacher contact days. But not all states define a school day the same way. Missouri says it is four hours, while Texas requires seven hours, which include lunch and recess. Moreover, quality is far more important than quantity. Massachusetts and Minnesota perform exceptionally well, even though they require less time in class than lower performing Louisiana and Nebraska.

Nevertheless, whenever enlightened school officials raise doubts about the connection between class time and student learning, they face a skeptical audience ("Minnesota requires fewer classroom hours than other states. Does it matter?" Pioneer Press, May 25). My recommendation is that any additional time should be devoted to staff development. Teachers in this country have so little opportunity to confer with their colleagues. Other countries take great pains to allow teachers to meet to share their successes and failures.

Yet when it comes to adopting what works in high-performing nations, the U.S. refuses to treat teachers as true professionals. Finland is continuously cited as a model. One of the reasons for its impressive performance is the respect accorded teachers. This includes providing them with constant support so that they can do their job as they were trained to do.

Which brings me back to the end of the school year here. I seriously doubt that anything substantive can happen by extending the school day and school year. In economics, the law of diminishing returns says that beyond a certain point, additional inputs will not produce proportionate outcomes. I maintain that the same holds true in education.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Originally embraced as a way of empowering parents, California's Parent Trigger Law has been hijacked by an organization more interested in advancing its own interests. The non-profit Parent Revolution, which calls itself a grassroots operation, was instrumental in getting the law passed in 2010. Ever since, the law and the organization have been controversial. I'll confine my remarks to California, but similar legislation has been enacted in Texas and Mississippi and is under consideration in at least three other states.

The latest evidence comes from Weigand Avenue Elementary School in the Watts section of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Unlike what took place at McKinley Elementary School in Compton and at Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, a principal who won praise from the district's superintendent for turning around a troubled school is being ousted after 53 percent of parents signed a petition calling for her removal. Her sin was being inaccessible and rude ("Popular principal's dismissal leaves a South L.A. school divided," Los Angeles Times, May 25). In a show of support, 21 of 22 teachers requested transfers to other schools.

I first expressed caution about the Parent Trigger Law on Nov, 17, 2010 ("No Bull's Eye for Parent Trigger Law"). Since then, my view has hardened because of the way Parent Revolution operates. Its methods are at the very least unconventional. Desert Trails Elementary School is the best example. The charter petition organized by Parent Revolution was so confusing to parents that many wanted to rescind their signatures but were prevented by the court. Now the group is being accused of offering to pay parents to promote the movement nationwide ("Parent trigger leader alleges organizers promised parents pay," San Bernardino Sun, May 24).

I realize that promises and money are part of every campaign in a democracy. But there is a line that Parent Revolution has crossed in its aggressive tactics. Rather than being a resource for disaffected parents, it is a provocateur. The Walton Family Foundation alone has poured more than $6.3 million into Parent Revolution, leading me to doubt the organization's independence ("Public Schools, Private Agendas: Parent Revolution," Truth-Out, Apr. 11). If the intent of the Parent Trigger Law is to help parents get a better education for their children, it needs to be rewritten to provide safeguards against what has taken place in California. As it now stands, the law is doing more harm than good.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:17 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend