Students from neighboring districts badly want in to the Copley-Fairlawn City Schools, so they're sneaking in. In response, the district is offering cash rewards for anyone who rats out the illegals. Yeesh.

In the Weekly Standard, Liam reviews Anthony Kronman's Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, which, he reports, picks up where William Buckley left off in God and Man at Yale--lamenting what has gone wrong in higher education, in Kronman's case that academic specialization in the humanities has brushed aside "the meaning-of-life questions that are so basic and important."

Universities today may avoid the existential questions, but never let that be said about Flypaper, where the solemn search for truth (in education policy) is alive and well.

Yes, Liam, I do disagree with your interpretation of my post. I'm not claiming to be "post-partisan" or even looking for a "hallowed middle ground." In calling for a much more hands-off approach to public education, where school districts are freer to experiment with all kinds of pedagogical ideas and take risks that will put a lot of people off, I'm taking a pretty definite, and definitely not conciliatory stance.

And to clarify further, I'm simply suggesting that we draw a distinction between pedagogical debates and policy debates. For a while we've debated the pedagogical merits and hazards of paying kids to do x. We haven't neared a consensus, nor have those closer to the actual programs, judging from the press coverage.

Therefore, I argue, our pedagogical arguments having been aired, let's not press policymakers to enshrine either side's preferred course of action in an inflexible, all-or-nothing public policy. Let's let the idea play out in the classrooms and see whether or not it works.

Here's more on paying students for performance, this time in Baltimore.

We've already sparred over this topic on the blog, and I tend to agree with Liam and most other opponents of this strategy that a) learning is deeply rewarding for its own sake and is degraded when treated as an article of commerce, and b) paying kids to learn may, in fact, give them an incentive not to learn. Economist Tyler Cowen talked about this second point in a recent interview:

[Take the example of] trying to get my stepdaughter to do the dishes more often. The normal model of the family is children contribute something, but once you start paying them to do the dishes they treat it like a marketplace. It's like, "Yeah, I can do the dishes, get the money, or not do the dishes, not get the money. Eh, it's not worth it." The sense of obligation goes away. It's just like a set of contracts, you're not a parent anymore, you're ceding authority.

On the other hand, the Petrillians have a point in saying that, for kids who show little hope of ever passing remedial math and reading classes, how could trying this hurt?

I think the lesson here is that when a debate like this over the wisdom of a particular pedagogical approach reaches a stalemate, it's time to let schools and districts experiment. The greatest innovations in every sector come not from heated, theory-driven arguments...

We appreciate Eduwonk Andy's nice plug of our Catholic schools report, and agree with him that public funding should come in return for some "substantial reciprocal obligations on the part of parochial schools," which he says "they have thus far resisted." We suspect he means the release of test score data, which Scott Hamilton addresses in our report's introduction:

In an increasingly competitive environment for schools, and with the imperfect but rich array of school information about public schools now available, the dearth of student achievement data and other information about Catholic schools represents either archaic (possibly even smug or defensive) secrecy or a grievous failure to observe how the education world has changed since the days when parishioners could simply be admonished to send their children to a Catholic school. In the era of No Child Left Behind, Catholic schools must make a commitment to measure their performance and make the results (and much more) available to one and all. Arguably, they should provide more such information than their public school counterparts.

I'm not so sure that parochial schools would resist this, however, if real money were on the table. At least when I played a bit part in implementing the District of Columbia's federally-funded school voucher program, it became clear to me that the Catholic schools were desperate enough for the dollars that they would have done virtually anything, including making all of their test score data public. It was the secular independent...

It's too bad that Lucky Liam is spending a few days being a bon vivant in Montreal because it would have been fun to see his reaction to this story out of California. The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday on a school that would have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind were it not for the fancy footwork of its principal:

One hundred students were categorized as black when they took the test last spring. But if the school had fewer than 100 students in that group, their low scores wouldn't count. So Principal Jim Wong reviewed the files of all the students classified as African American on the test, he said, and found that four of them had indicated no race or mixed race on their enrollment paperwork. Wong sent his staff to talk to the four families to ask permission to put the kids in a different racial group.

"You get a kid that's half black, half white. What are you going to put him down as?" Wong said. "If one kid makes the difference and I can go white, that gets me out of trouble."

"Go white"? No doubt Liam would say something witty like, "When you divvy up the American people by race, eventually you divvy up individual Americans by race." And he would have explained, as he did in a National Review Online piece, that he is one of the only education analysts in the country...

The Associated Press reports:

A Coffee County High School substitute teacher has been arrested in what police say appears to be a scheme to bilk money from students promised a trip to Disney World.

Police charged 39-year-old Christy Wise with theft by conversion after they say she collected more than $7,400 from students for their senior trip but never booked the reservations.

Nearly 50 students toting suitcases and bags lined up outside Coffee County High on Friday waiting to start their vacation, but the bus never came and Wise never showed up. Police believe Wise never had any intentions of scheduling the trip.

I can't comment with much authority on the legal details of the case, but if you're into ed policy surely it's worth knowing that "a federal judge has dismissed the last of four claims in Connecticut's challenge to the federal No Child Left Behind law."

In the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn picks up where Kathryn Jean Lopez left off , arguing that McCain could win African American votes from Obama (or Clinton) if he would take "this (school choice) campaign into the heart of our cities--and gave a little straight talk about the scandal that their public-school systems represent in this great land of opportunity."

He's surely correct that McCain doesn't share Obama's problem, that he "cannot offend the teachers unions that are arguably the most powerful constituents" in the Democratic party. If he were to take this opening, the question is whether it would be seen as a sincere effort to help the inner cities and their children--as the efforts of mayors Cory Booker and Adrian Fenty are seen--or rather as an attack on public schools. Given that editorial boards are rarely this supportive of school choice , one wonders.

P.S. McGurn also mentions Fordham's Catholic schools report , which we may or may not have mentioned on this blog before ....