Liam Julian

I hope the College Board catches the flack??it deserves for its decision??to (starting in 2010)??show colleges only the SAT scores that the??students who earn them choose to reveal--i.e., if Johnny takes the test 10 times, Johnny gets to show State U. only his best score.??Currently, university admissions officers see both how many times a student took the SAT and how he scored on??each attempt.

The College Board's purported reason for the rules shift: Taking the pressure off test-takers. The real reason: Making more money. Unfortunately for poor kids, they??won't be able to pay to take the SAT multiple times. Suburban kids--the ones who already shell out thousands for private prep classes, and who go to schools where guidance counselors map out every step of the test-taking plan--will. You better believe that??starting in 2010, it's going to be assumed that??middle-class??high schoolers??take the SAT??every single time its offered.????

Furthermore, the College Board is watering down the SAT's integrity.??I know, I know--the organization tells us that an individual's scores will not??significantly increase after multiple retakes. Of course, common sense tells us??that claim is??baloney and will be proven as such come 2011. But assuming that??it is??true, doesn't it??render irrelevant??the College Board's ostensible concern about lowering test-taking pressure???(If a kid knows he won't??score better on his tenth attempt than on his first, why would the option of multiple retakes without consequences lessen his anxiety?)????

This change is just so wrong on so many levels. It's bad for poor kids and should...

Chad Adelman, Education Sector's new policy associate, digs into our high-achieving students study and thinks he's found a smoking gun. In particular, he has a beef with us looking at National Assessment of Educational Progress scores since 2000, instead of 2003:

But No Child wasn't signed into law until January 2002. The first NAEP tests measuring its true impacts could not have been until 2003, represented by the dotted line.

When we make this correction, the claims in the report do not seem to stand up as well. The lower tenth of performers made gains throughout the chart, but especially from 2000 to 2003, where they gained 13 points to their high achieving peers' six. Notably, this accounts for almost all the gain claimed in the Fordham report.

Chad, you're right, though using 2003 as the starting point--more than a year after the law's enactment--isn't perfect either. Tom Loveless, author of our NAEP study, discusses this issue at length (see pages 18-20):

Another important consideration concerning time intervals should also now be apparent from examining the NAEP data. Three grade-subject combinations exhibit a consistent pattern, a straightforward story of narrowing gaps during the NCLB era--mostly the result of sharp gains by low-achieving students from 2000 to 2002 or from 2000 to 2003. But whether these years belong in the NCLB era is debatable. The starting point matters. Using the NAEP test immediately before NCLB's passage as a baseline, as this study


In a long and mostly thoughtful letter to the editor of the New York Times , American Federation of Teachers President Edward McElroy takes issue with David Brooks's recent column about the dueling education policy statements ("Broader, Bolder " vs. "Sharpton Attacks "). He writes, reasonably, that

According to [Brooks], reformists "insist school reform alone can make a big difference." This verges on a Talmudic debate over the word "alone" when the real issues are what actually goes into that reform. The question of how teachers should grapple with the enormous social problems brought into the school every morning comes immediately to mind.

Further, he talks of how the reformists want to put the children first. Well, so do those who signed the E.P.I. statement, and so do teachers. What matters is whether what you try actually works for the children.

OK, we can debate whether there's any evidence that what the E.P.I. crowd wants actually "works," but I'm happy to concede that teachers (if not always their unions) want what's best for children. But he couldn't stop there. He goes on:

Blaming "ineffective teachers" and union contracts may be ideologically satisfying, but at the end of the day it does little to solve the problems facing our schools. If our problems did lie here, states without collective bargaining should not lie at the bottom of the educational achievement scale, and charter schools should by

Liam Julian

Good news out of Louisiana. Bad news out of Louisiana.

On Wednesday's NewsHour, John Merrow resumed his series on Michelle Rhee's efforts to revamp the D.C. Public Schools. This installment centers around Hart Middle School, a chronically-failing institution that landed on Rhee's radar as a candidate for dramatic restructuring. Merrow interviews teachers, students, and administrators from the school, all of whom resent the threat posed by Rhee's evident willingness to mix things up. We also hear from William Lockridge, a member of the D.C. Board of Education, who says that Rhee is misguided and hasn't "taken a thorough analysis of this school district." All of which adds up to an amazingly widespread and unyielding adherence to the status quo. At a school that has missed AYP five years running, everyone wants more of the same.

Merrow tells us that after the segment was taped, Rhee dismissed all the administrators at Hart and replaced them with a private management company. So far, Rhee has emerged surprisingly unscathed from such controversial adventures; the somehow ever-popular Marion Barry got a taste of Rhee's teflon when his plan to protest the latest round of school closings fizzled. If the resentment that comes through in the NewsHour segment is any indication, though, Rhee is nurturing a growing opposition. One worries about how long she can keep this all up.

Mike and Checker, who were at the Excellence in Education summit in Orlando yesterday, may have more to say about this. Apparently New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, speaking at the summit, discussed the possibility of his seeking the power to certify principals and teachers, currently the province of ed schools alone. Call him reckless or brash or whatever you will, but Klein has done more than any other district leader in recent memory to bust the monopoly that has stifled change and innovation in public schooling.

Speaking at lunch today, Secretary Spellings stated that it would be fine with her if NCLB were renamed the "Motherhood And Apple Pie" program. MAAP. Not bad.

What was bad, however, was her verbal embrace of the appalling Al Sharpton (along with Joel Klein, Roy Romer, Andy Rotherham, and sundry worthies), co-chair (with Klein) of the recently-announced "Education Equality Project".

More on Sharpton here and here.

E.J. Dionne's column in yesterday's Washington Post reminded me that I had failed to comment on Barack Obama's Father's Day sermon. As Dionne wrote,

The reason Obama's speech is important beyond all of the short-term political calculations and analysis is that it reflects a hard-won consensus that family structure matters.... When Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about "the weakness of the Negro family" in 1965, he was denounced for "blaming the victim." This was a misreading of what Moynihan was saying, and also of the purpose of his words. Moynihan's view was vindicated years later when many of the most important African-American advocates of equality came to see strengthening the black family as essential to the civil rights agenda.... It augurs well that Obama clearly stands with Moynihan.

Here's the relevant passage:

How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?

Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who

Liam Julian

About our new report, a concerned reader writes:

I couldn't help noticing that the cover of your report on the progress of high achieving students shows a student conducting a science experiment WITHOUT wearing safety glasses. This would be considered unacceptable by any responsible science teacher, and I was surprised to see it on your cover. Your report is otherwise excellent, but as a science teacher and scientist, my safety radar is always on.

It would be a fair point if the pupil in question were not a high-achieving student, which he most certainly is. High-achieving students are not those who slosh acidic amalgams, who pour with reckless motions, who generally irritate when they titrate. Those actions are the province of the low-achiever. Thankfully, as we show in our new report, students at the bottom of their science classes (those constantly huddled around the eyewash fountain) are making significant progress. One day, they, too, may shed their safety glasses.

Update: An acquaintance, who is employed at the National Institutes of Health, writes that perhaps our high-achiever is, in fact, merely "calibrating his glassware with deionized water."??Or maybe he's??mixing up a fresh batch of Tropical Punch Kool-Aid? Or brewing his own Belgian-style ale? The goggles-not-required possibilities really are endless....

That's how Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings just described* the decision by the House Appropriations Committee to defund the Reading First program. And she's right.

* Here at the Excellence in Education summit in Orlando.