Flypaper

CATO's Neal McLuskey and Eduwonk Andy Rotherham are strange bedfellows, but they both have the same burning question on their minds: Why would national standards and tests be any better than state standards and tests? McLuskey writes:

Why would the teachers unions, public-school administrators associations, and education bureaucrats--with their huge presences in and around DC, their outsized political power compared to parents, and their overwhelming interest in low standards and high funding--have any less sway over the feds than they have over other levels of government?

I understand, as a blogger, that I should provide a glib, snarky response. But in all fairness, it's a good question and a fair concern. In fact, it's such a good question that we dedicated an entire Fordham report--two years ago--to answering it. Andy should know; he contributed to it. (OK, that was a bit snarky.)

In To Dream the Impossible Dream: Four Approaches to National Standards and Tests for America's Schools, we surveyed twelve smart people and asked them to answer this question and others that pertain to the nuts and bolts of...

George Will, the nation's most widely syndicated columnist, weighs in today on Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism. And yes, he does think "paternalistic" is an apt descriptor for these "no excuses" schools (unlike Jay Mathews, Richard Whitmire, and others):

Paternalism is the restriction of freedom for the good of the person restricted. [The American Indian Public Charter School] (AIPCS) acts in loco parentis because [principal Ben] Chavis, who is cool toward parental involvement, wants an enveloping school culture that combats the culture of poverty and the streets.

He and other practitioners of the new paternalism--once upon a time, schooling was understood as democracy's permissible, indeed obligatory, paternalism--are proving that cultural pessimists are mistaken: We know how to close the achievement gap that often separates minorities from whites before kindergarten and widens through high school. A growing cohort of people possess the pedagogic skills to make "no excuses" schools flourish.

Unfortunately, powerful factions fiercely oppose the flourishing. Among them are education schools with their romantic progressivism--teachers should be mere "enablers" of group learning; self-esteem is a prerequisite for accomplishment, not a consequence thereof. Other opponents are the teachers

...

With the most glorious moments of the 2008 Summer Olympics for Team USA now mostly behind us, commentators are finally turning their attention to the slightly less sexy, but surely more significant Education Olympics. Mitchell Landsberg at the Los Angeles Times's education blog weighed in yesterday.

Gadfly Studios

The Americans didn't win a medal on the penultimate day of the 2008 Education Olympics, leaving them just one more chance for a top-three finish. A special guest joins us, sort of, to size up their chances. Full coverage at edolympics.net.

Since the blog has taken a more serious turn as of late, I proffer you this:

"Ga. Schools superintendent to appear on ???5th grader'"

We discovered last week that not only is Debbie Phelps the principal of Windsor Mill Middle School in Maryland, but that Windsor Mill didn't make AYP last year. And only recently home from Beijing, school starts on Monday for Principal Phelps. We trust that the experience of spawning the most celebrated swimmer in history will assist her in making the transition to principal of six-hundred hormone-crazed tweens. Perhaps her recent crowning as Johnson's Baby Mom of the Olympic Games by Johnson & Johnson and subsequent TV ad (comes out on Sunday) will inspire her. It seems appropriate since the campaign, which will donate to a group of global charities in Debbie Phelps' name, chose her because "Debbie represents every mother that has helped her child to succeed." We hope that success reaches into her middle school classrooms....

Perusing last week's Education Week, I came across this article summarizing a qualitative study conducted by Public Agenda on school leadership. The study, funded by the Wallace Foundation, essentially found principals landing in one of two camps--they were either "copers" or "transformers." The copers, as the name implies, were barely keeping up with the day-to-day demands of running a school; they were in put-out-the-fire mode 24/7. But frankly, the "transformer" group was hardly that transformative. We're told they

talked about specific changes they were making now or planned to make in the near future. This year, introduce the new reading curriculum. Next year, get a teaching coach for math. Some had scanned their teacher rosters and pinpointed the teachers they wanted to move out. Maybe it couldn't be done in one fell swoop, but they had their plans.

Since when is simply having a plan, any plan, transformative? And is introducing a reading curriculum, or getting a math coach a transformative plan? (Ridding bad teachers, maybe...) But seriously, are our expectations for principals really that low? It is it too much to expect that...

Liam Julian

The New York City program that pays students for good scores on AP exams yielded "mixed results," according to the New York Times. Education Trust President Kati Haycock, commenting on the program's philosophy,??gets the article's last words:

"Frankly, rich kids get paid for high grades all the time and for high test scores by their parents," Ms. Haycock added. "So this isn't so different."

Yes it is. Rich kids, as Haycock notes,??are paid by their parents, each of whom has obviously made a personal decision that handing out money for grades or test scores is a fine idea for his particular family situation. (Lots of rich kids, it must be written, are not paid for grades--not because their parents can't swing it but because their parents??find it, for one reason or another, an unhealthful practice.) We should resist the flawed idea that because some parents have the means to do for their children X and do it, X is somehow a right to which all students are entitled and one the government should provide. (This caveat does not apply to vouchers, through which government relinquishes authority and does not assume it.)...

Earlier this month I argued that the Democratic Party was no longer a fully-owned subsidiary of the NEA and the AFT. But it looks like I was wrong.* See the Monday night prime-time lineup at their convention, to include teachers union presidents Reg Weaver and Randi Weingarten. It seems the labor bosses are still in charge, after all.

* HT to Campaign K-12.

The usually sensible Washington Post editorial board sizes up the presidential candidates' education platforms in today's lead editorial, part of its "Ideas Primary" series, but shoots and misses. It's not that its descriptions of Obama's and McCain's platforms were inaccurate; by and large, its analysis was fair. Obama wants more money and a litany of new programs; McCain seeks more parental choice, including online options, and more alternate routes to the classroom for teachers. I also have no complaint with the Post's call for national standards and tests--of course "it is madness that there are 50 different definitions of what constitutes proficiency in math and reading or of what a high school graduate should know."

Where the Post goes wrong is with its call for "something bolder."

Would either [candidate] be willing to embrace the dramatic changes needed to shake up a system that fails far too many children?.... There's a crisis in urban education. To significantly improve achievement levels among poor and minority children, scripted and predictable responses won't do.

The Post hasn't learned lesson number one of the No Child Left Behind era: what's sorely lacking in Washington isn't ambition,...

Pages