Nov

embe

r 20

02

Vol.

VII

I •

No.

9

ontrary to many people’s glumassumption, urban school systemsare not all education disaster zones.

Nor are they all alike. Some, in fact, are farmore effective than others at educating chil-dren—and we’re beginning to understandwhy that is and what might enable otherurban school systems to turn themselvesaround. A smashing new study recentlyreleased by the Council of the Great CitySchools (CGCS) provides a major boost tothat understanding. At a time when the U.S.is seeking to “leave no child behind,” thestudy is very welcome indeed.

We’ve known for ages that good schoolsoccasionally flourish within even the mostdecrepit school systems. The “effectiveschools” research of the 1970s and 1980scontributed much to that knowledge. Ithelped us describe the usual characteristics ofeffective schools. It helped us to spot themhither and yon. The great frustration was thatnobody knew quite how to replicate them.They were more like wild flowers, turning upon their own, than a crop to be cultivated.

We’ve also known for some time that,while many efforts at systemic urban schoolreform get nowhere—see Frederick Hess’sSpinning Wheels for one perceptive analy-sis—others lead to real change and measur-able gains. (See Don McAdams’s Fighting toSave Our Urban Schools and Winning! for anaccount of Houston’s successful effort to

turn itself around.) However, like the“effective schools” research, those explana-tions have been situation-specific and hardto generalize.

CGCS set out to find more easily gener-alized, and replicable, explanations for whysome urban systems make greater progressthan others. Assisted by the ManpowerDevelopment Research Corporation withfunding from the Ford Foundation and theU.S. Department ofEducation, CGCS soughtdistricts that, in executivedirector Mike Casserly’swords, “had improved inboth reading and math inover half of their grades,had done so at rates fasterthan their respectivestates, and had simultane-ously narrowed theirracially identifiableachievement gaps.”

They settled on foursuch systems—Charlotte-Mecklenberg, Houston,Sacramento and the“Chancellor’s District”within New York City—and studied them todetermine “what districtscan do to boost perform-ance citywide rather thanwaiting for the turn-around of individualschools.” They also examined some(unnamed) comparison districts of similarsize and demographics.

What distinguished the higher-performingschool systems? The analysts identified a half-dozen “preconditions for reform,” and nine“strategies for success,” and stressed that all ofthese things must happen together. This is nomenu from which to pick and choose one ortwo favorite or politically convenient items.

The preconditions for reform turn out to be these:

• A new school board not attached to the sta-tus quo that pursues reform with a singularfocus on raising student achievement.

• A shared vision of reform—and a super-intendent willing to be held accountablefor results.

• An ability to identify instructional prob-lems that could be solved systemwide.

• The capacity to sell the school system’sreform vision to the larger community.

• A central office imbued with a sense ofcustomer service and able to operateeffectively and scandal-free.

• A willingness to use new funds toimprove instruction rather than for other

programs, across-the-boardraises, etc.

With those conditions inplace, the higher-performingschool systems deployedthese strategies:

• Develop instructionalcohesion by aligning thesystem’s curriculum withstate standards.

• Create accountability sys-tems that exceed staterequirements and hold dis-trict personnel and school-level leaders personallyresponsible for producingresults.

• Focus attention on thelowest performing schools.

• Centralize and standardizecurricula and instructionacross the system, especially

in reading and math.

• Centralize professional development andfocus it on helping teachers meet statestandards.

• Drive reforms into the classroom by con-centrating on building-level implementa-tion and classroom-level instructionalimprovement.

• Base decisions on data, not hopes orhunches. Use data to analyze problems,monitor progress, and refine strategies.

• Target initial reforms at the elementarylevel to stop the flow of students intohigher grades who lack basic skills.

• Provide struggling middle and highschool students with intensive instructionin basic reading and math.

C

Teachers, principals, and

school administrators were

also given the opportunity

to celebrate successes along

the way—and those who

were not committed to

seeing the mission through

were asked to leave.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★

New Hope for Urban Schools By Terry Ryan

Continued on page 7, See... “New Hope for Urban Schools”

2 EducationMatters ~ November 2002

Talking LettersDear AAE,

I hope this message is on topic and will be of interest to the other subscribers and may be included in your newsletter.

My mother has been teaching preschool and kindergarten for

about twenty years with her partner at their school on Signal

Mountain, Tennessee. They have used the same phonics program

for that time. They also used it as they taught at a previousschool before starting their own. Now that they are retiring, they

did not want their phonics program to go with them. They have

had great success with it. The phonics program is called Talking

Letters. They have just put the program on video, cards, work-

book, and poster.

The program mainly revolves around teaching the children to

associate the sound of a letter to its shape, without actually learn-

ing the letters “real name.” Each of the letters has a story name.

For instance, the letter “t” is called little man. His father gave him

a watch which he holds to his ear and it goes t-t-t. On the card the

letter “t” is on one side with little man superimposed in the shape,

and on the reverse side is the story and some suggested words.

The stories are often embellished to make the story more fun. All

the letters know each other and the stories are intermingled and

related. “o” is donut boy, when he comes out of the hot oil he says,

“o-o-o” (as in otter or olive). All the stories are very cute, and the

video is to be used to reinforce what the parent teaches. The video

is Mrs. Caughman actually teaching the stories. It is very engaging.

The testimonies on the Web page are mainly from parents

who have had their kids taught using this system. They are quite

excited to be offering it outside their school now (and a little

nervous). Please take a look at it on their site www.talking-let-

ters.com and if you would like to talk to her about it, please call

or write. Their number is 866-352-4971.

Thank you,

Jay Caughman

Better Than VirtualClassroomsDear AAE,

The following is a success story about what is work-ing in our school.Although Parks As Classrooms programs existthroughout the United States, a very unique relation-ship has developed between our school (Pi Beta PhiElementary School) and the Great Smokey MountainsNational Park in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Our particularprogram focuses on “teaching” the teacher how to usethis incredible resource instead of just participating inranger-led field trips. This intimate relationship givesour students numerous real-life experiences with cultur-al and natural resources as well as provides our teacherswith a 500,000-acre classroom.

With information and guidance from the GSMNPEducation Division, our teachers have led our studentsto monitor air and water quality, conduct biologicalinventories, learn about the management of invasiveplants and animals, and assisted with the observation ofhistoric structures, just to name a few. Because ourteachers and our principal have not been afraid to“leave the building,” our students are learning how tobe real community and world leaders.—Mike Miller8th Grade Science TeacherTownsend, TN

Decodable Reading—the Missing LinkDear AAE,

Decodable reading practice is the single ingredientthat is most lacking in reading programs today—including Open Court, which many people don’t real-ize has been changed since being bought out by a largepublisher. Open Court is the best we’ve got, but it isstill only fifty percent decodable. And all this is so easi-ly remedied by just supplying that one “missing link!”—Dolores HiskesLivermore, CA

Editor’s note—Dolores Hiskes is the author and publisherof Phonics Pathways and other educational products. For more information, call 925-449-6983, and for a freenewsletter, visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dorbooks.

Fines for Foul LanguageDear AAE,

After reading the “Best Seat in the House” fundraising

idea in a previous Education Matters, I thought I’d share one

I use on a small scale. By the way, I have my principal’s OK

for this.

At the beginning of the school year, I tell my students

what is acceptable speech in my class and what is not. Any

time I catch a student using trash talk, profanity, or any

other unacceptable language, I charge them 25 cents per

word. The money goes into a special container, and in the

spring it is donated to the Dollars for Scholars fund. Even

students who are not in my class have been “tagged” if they

come into my classroom, and my students know the rule

applies to them at all times, even in the halls outside of

class time. Sometimes all it takes is a reminder that they are

“funding a senior scholarship all by themselves,” and the

language improves.

—Sandy Ritsema

Ackley, Iowa

EducationMatters ~ November 2002 3

he public schoolestablishmentcontends that

vouchers would helponly a few students, andthat we must focus onmeasures that wouldhelp all students. Mybelief is that a competi-tive education industry isthe best way to help all

students. I also believe that the school choicemovement is adopting some dubious strate-gies, if the goal is a universal voucher that canbe used at any school, public or private. Atthe risk of raising criticism from supporters ofschool choice, let me explain why I think so.

First, I believe that for a long time tocome, most children will be educated inpublic schools. This may not be true in allstates, but enacting voucher legislation;raising the capital; planning and construct-ing new schools; employingteachers, support staff, andadministrators; persuadingparents and students toenroll; and doing all the otherthings necessary to educatetens of millions of studentswill be a huge task.

These developments willrequire more than a few years.An enormous amount of ven-ture capital is available today,but it is not going to be invest-ed in launching tens of thou-sands of new schools in a few years. This isonly one reason why the rhetoric about “fail-ing” public schools plays into the hands ofthe die-hard supporters of the extant publiceducation system, who frighten anyone theycan by conjuring up the demise of publicschools if voucher plans are enacted.

The constant drumbeat about “failingpublic schools” is counterproductive, at leastwith some audiences. First, the phraseantagonizes large numbers of public schoolemployees. It also antagonizes many citizenswho have fond memories of their publicschools and do not like to see them referredto as “failures.” My high school senior classgraduated about 800 seniors. Their reunionsevoke fond memories—never once have Iheard anyone in my class refer to the school(St. Paul Central) as a failure. Finally, the ref-erence to failing public schools often seemsto be unfair because it ignores the socialforces that have a negative impact on studentconduct and educational achievement.

Nonetheless, my basic concern about thephrase is that it misstates, or at least obscures,the basic argument for a competitive educa-

tion industry. This argument doesn’t dependon whether public schools are “failing,” and itis not in the least affected by their “success,” ifthat is how you wish to characterize their per-formance. I was a youngster in the heyday ofthe Model T. The Model T was not a failure;on the contrary, it was a huge success. No onewould argue that carmakers should continueto make Model T’s because they were success-ful for a long period of time. The reason theyaren’t made any more is that they were part ofa system in which improvement was manda-tory to avoid going out of business.

You might dismiss this point as hairsplit-ting over tactical matters, but I believe theissues are much more serious. Today, the sup-porters of school choice appear determined tofind benefits (real, alleged, or nonexistent) inevery project labeled “school choice”; mean-while, the public school lobby is busily tryingto publicize the deficiencies (real, alleged, ornonexistent) in the same school choice proj-

ects. The idea that the truth willemerge from this process isabsurd. One side or the otherwill prevail politically, but theoutcomes of existing schoolchoice projects are irrelevant tothe substantive argument for acompetitive education industry.

Bear in mind that there aremany versions of school choice,with different rationales andconsequences. For example, theargument that school choice isnecessary to protect religious

freedom justifies vouchers for freedom ofreligion but not for free market reasons.

One of the astonishing facts about the con-temporary school choice movement is its fail-ure to understand the argument for a compet-itive education industry. Milton Friedman, theleading proponent of school choice, argued,as early as 1956, that free markets providebetter services at a lower cost than govern-ment provision of the services. He also sug-gested that our political system cannot absorbthe growing conflict over public education;far from being a unifying force, public schoolsare one of the most divisive social institutionsthat we have. Unfortunately, very few schoolchoice proponents can articulate the condi-tions that are essential for market competi-tion. I leave these conditions to a later col-umn; in the meantime, I hope that the sup-porters of school choice reconsider their strat-egy and tactics. The measures required toachieve a competitive education industryrequire support from various groups whooppose it; for example, some of these groupsare sympathetic to reducing the power of theteacher unions, albeit not for the purpose ofpromoting a competitive education industry.

It is essential to gain the support of thesegroups, not for “school choice” per se, butfor the intermediate measures that are neces-sary to achieve it. We are not likely to elicittheir support by labeling public schools as“failures.” Indeed, school choice strategy hasblundered repeatedly by its failure to offertangible incentives to public school teachersto support school choice legislation.

Dr. Myron Lieberman is chairman ofEducation Policy Institute, Senior ResearchScholar, Social Philosophy and Policy Center,Bowling Green State University, BowlingGreen, Ohio. He is the author or co-author offifteen books and scores of articles on educa-tional policy and teacher bargaining; his mostrecent were Handbook on SchoolBoard/Union Relations, Teachers EvaluatingTeachers: Peer Review and the NewUnionism (Transaction Publishers, 1998), andThe Teacher Unions (The Free Press, 1997).The Education Policy Institute’s web-site can befound at www.educationpolicy.org.

T

Dr. Myron Lieberman

Looking at School Choice in a New Light By Dr. Myron Lieberman

The constant

drumbeat about

“failing public schools”

is counterproductive.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 10 Things CharacterEducation ProgramsShould Not Do1) Do NOT keep parents in the

dark—they are your number oneallies.

2) Do NOT keep the District Office,the Superintendent, or the Board ofEducation in the dark.

3) The program should NOT “belong”to a few enthusiasts or zealots.

4) Do NOT rely on posters, or slo-gans, quick and glitzy charactereducation gimmicks alone.

5) Do NOT count on extrinsicrewards to cultivate virtues.

6) Avoid the “Do as I say, not as I do”mentality.

7) Do NOT reduce character educa-tion to acquiring “the right views.”

8) Do NOT be deceived into believinga “character education course” willrelieve you of your responsibilitiesof educating for character whetheryou teach math, English, science,art, or French.

9) Do NOT neglect the million and oneopportunities to celebrate, model,communicate, and teach virtue inthe hallways, the cafeteria, the play-ing field, and the faculty room.

10) Character education is NOT some-thing that we DO to students.

Source—Center for Advancement ofEthics and Character, Boston UniversitySchool of Education, 617-353-3262.

Newsflash—ReligiousKids Behave Better

You may not be surprised to hear thatreligious teenagers get into less trouble thantheir nonreligious peers. But religion as afactor in adolescents’ lives hasn’t been stud-ied much before, says Christian Smith, PhD,professor of sociology at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.

His study analyzes data from a survey ofmore than 2,400 high school seniors whoidentified themselves as Baptist, Protestant(other than Baptist), Catholic, Jewish,Mormon, other, or not religious. The stu-dents were categorized by how often theyattend religious services, how importantreligion is to them, and how long they’dparticipated in a church youth group.

“One of the most interesting observa-tions is that the religious correlation doesn’tseem to kick in until it reaches the level ofthe most religious kids,” Smith says.

The findings show that the most reli-gious 12th graders are:

• Less likely to skip school• Less likely to be suspended or expelled• More likely to have strict parents• Less likely to smoke, or more likely to

start smoking later than other kids• More likely to never have been drunk

and more likely to wait longer than othersto get drunk for the first time

• Less likely to use, sell, or be offered drugs(although 39 percent of even the mostfrequent attenders of religious servicesreported using some kind of drug)

• Less likely to participate in crimes,including shoplifting

The results also show that religious kidsvolunteer more and participate more in sportsand student government. The study is part ofthe four-year National Study of Youth andReligion, looking at how religion and spiritu-ality shape and influence teenagers.

Source—Lisa Habib, WebMD Inc.

Bush AdministrationPromotes Single-SexSchools

The U.S. Department of Education ispreparing to make more money availableand relaxing federal rules to allow formore single-sex public schools.

Following the lead of the YoungWomen’s Leadership Public CharterSchool of Chicago, eleven new single-sexschools have sprung up in the past twoyears. Each of the schools has a reportedwaiting list of applicants.

Academic results are mixed at the vari-ous schools, but the parents, students, andteachers are big fans. The initial researchindicates the schools are more orderly andthat students (especially at the all-girlsschools) are showing significant perform-ance gains in math and science.

However, the idea of single-sex schoolsis drawing criticism from predictablesources. Eleanor Smeal, president of theFeminist Majority Foundation, joins a listof other opponents that includes NancyZirkin, deputy director of the LeadershipConference on Civil Rights. The ACLU,National PTA, and the NationalEducation Association have also joined inopposition.

Bar None: Pro-Life LawStudents Fight forAccess

Law students at Washington Universityin St. Louis are learning the hard waythat when it comes to defending academ-ic freedom, conservatives need not apply.A group on campus called Law StudentsPro-Life has asked the Student BarAssociation (SBA) for official recognitiontwice and been denied. Now the group isseeking to appeal the decision, and itmay receive help from an unlikelysource—the ACLU. Even liberals at theAmerican Civil Liberties Union publiclyacknowledged that the SBA ought to rec-ognize the right of its fellow students toorganize whether it agrees with theirbeliefs. The stakes are high. Should theSBA rebuff the pro-lifers again, they willbe barred from meeting on campus prop-erty or applying for university funds.

Source—Washington Update, FamilyResearch Council, Washington, D.C.

Direct InstructionProves Its Worth

The Pacific Research Institute’s Center forEducation Reform released a report indicat-ing that many high-poverty high-achievingschools use direct instruction teaching meth-ods, which are largely based on scripted les-son plans. Criticism has been leveled at thesemethods for being too stifling for teachers.And the idea of a heavily regimented curricu-lum will not always square with the aspira-tions that bright professionals need. Yet directinstruction bears good fruit if properly used.It takes additional hours of training andrequires a commitment to students’ needs.Ronni Ephraim, assistant superintendent ofthe Los Angeles Unified School District,relates that direct instruction, while stronglyresisted initially, is apparently well acceptedafter teachers see its benefit to students. SaysEphraim, “In our early years, we wouldreceive many, many, many letters of concernfrom teachers. But commitment follows con-fidence, and now that they feel more confi-dent using the program, and they are seeinghow well students are doing, we’re not get-ting those kinds of letters anymore.”

Source—Teacher Quality Bulletin, a pub-lication of National Council on TeacherQuality, www.nctq.org. The report, They HaveOvercome: High-Poverty, High-PerformingSchools in California, by Pacific ResearchInstitute may be found at www.pacificre-search.org/pub/sab/educat/they_have_over-come.pdf.

A School That HelpsLearning Disabled Kids

While most special education expertsbelieve that including learning disabledchildren in regular classrooms is ideal, trytelling that to parents whose kids attend theLab School in Washington, D.C.

Each year, 400 applicants vie for fortyspots at this privately operated school,where all 310 students suffer from moder-ate to severe learning disabilities. Usingmany imaginative, hands-on activities, theinnovative school teaches coping strategiesthat allow most kids to return to regularschools after three to four years, and 90percent of its students eventually go to col-lege. A typical teacher in the school mayhave three assistants for a class of elevenkids, and tuition is $18,000 a year. But for80 percent of the school’s students, tuitionis covered by a combination of district,state, and federal money—thanks to IDEA.

EducationMatters ~ November 20024

Signs of the TimesSigns of the Times

EducationMatters ~ November 2002 5

Last year, the District of Columbia schoolsystem paid the Lab School $4.3 million forWashington youngsters enrolled there. IfD.C. ever succeeds in fixing its severelytroubled special education program, manyof these students would be obliged to returnto regular public schools and receive theirspecial education services there.

For now, though, the lucky few enjoy aworld-class education, while many more ofthe District’s disabled kids simply do with-out. A ten-page portrait of the Lab School,considered one of the best in the land forlearning-disabled kids, and its colorful anddemanding principal Sally Smith, appearsin “Stepping Out of the Mainstream,” byStacy Weiner, Teacher Magazine, October2002. You may review the article atwww.teachermagazine.org/tmstory.cfm?slug=02lab.h14.

Source—The Education Gadfly, a publica-tion of Thomas B. Fordham Foundation,www.edexcellence.net/gadfly.

Democrats RedefinePublic Education

The Democratic Party and its nationalcandidates are generally opposed to theidea of school choice and the use of pub-licly funded school vouchers. Notableexceptions at the local level are strongschool choice supporters John Norquist,mayor of Milwaukee, and John Gardner,Milwaukee school board member.

In a recent report, Gardner calls for aredefinition of public education to includemultiple providers, both public and private.The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)has issued a similar call for redefining pub-lic education.

“We should rid ourselves of the rigidnotion that public schools are defined bywho owns and operates them,” stated theDLC. “In the 21st century, a public schoolshould be any school that is of the people(accountable to public authorities for itsresults), by the people (paid for by thepublic), and for the people (open to thepublic and geared toward public purposes).

“The school system of the future shouldbe a network of accountable schools of allshapes, sizes, and styles with their owndecision-making authority—each of whichcompetes against the others for its stu-dents.”

Source—School Reform News, March2002, a publication of The Heartland Institute,www.heartland.org.

Dueling Polls on SchoolChoice

In the aftermath of the U.S. SupremeCourt’s June 2002 decision concerning theconstitutionality of the ClevelandScholarship Program (also known as vouch-ers), one thing is certain: The public’s sup-port for school choice is growing, especiallyif you ask certain questions.

In 1999, Public Agenda surveyed individu-als as to “whether or not you favor oroppose…parents being given a voucher orcertificate by the government to pay for all orpart of tuition if they decide to send theirchild to a private or parochial school.” Fifty-seven percent generally supported that propo-sition, while 68 and 65 percent, respectively,of African-Americans and Hispanics did.

Anticipating that the annual PDK/Galluppoll might again use the kind of questioningthat could naturally elicit lower support num-bers, the Center for Education Reform (CER)surveyed 1,200 adults on the following ques-tion: “How much are you in favor of oragainst allowing poor parents to be given thetax dollars allotted for their child’s educationand permitting them to use those dollars inthe form of a scholarship to attend a private,public, or parochial school of their choosing?”

Using this language figures jumped signif-icantly. Sixty-three percent supported it gen-erally, as did 71 and 63 percent, respectively,of African-American and Hispanics.

Pay-for-PerformanceUpdate

New incentive packages for teachers arepopping up around the country.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, incentiveprograms are bringing badly needed experi-enced teachers into high-risk schools. Thelocal teachers union is not thrilled. “If asystem says all we’re going to do is give atest, and based on that, determine if youdeserve or not deserve pay, I think that isvery degrading for me as a professional,”says NEA representative Dennis Van Roekel.

Cincinnati had hammered out a meritplan with union cooperation, and brieflyseemed to serve as an example for the restof the nation. But union politics helpedderail the effort.

In Kentucky, however, merit pay and dif-ferentials for teaching hard-to-staff subjectswere implemented, and in Minnesota, fourdistricts, including Minneapolis, now have

pay-for-performance plans, thanks in nosmall part to the efforts of State EducationCommissioner Christine Jax.

Source—Teacher Quality Bulletin, abiweekly e-mail newsletter brought to you bythe National Council on Teacher Quality,(www.ntcq.org).

Uncredentialed Teacherof the Year

The friction between teacher certificationand teacher qualification continues to pro-duce heat in education policy. The latestincident comes from Portsmouth, NewHampshire, where automotive teacherPatrick Venezia lost his job for failing toenroll in a master’s degree program, asrequired by district teacher contract.Venezia was making $30,000. His replace-ment, who holds a master’s degree in spe-cial education, will make $50,000.

“As far as I know, there’s no master’s pro-gram for auto technology,” Venezia told theManchester Union Leader. “So why should Ispend the taxpayers’ money getting a degreein something I’m not even going to teach?”

Good question. PortsmouthSuperintendent of Schools Lyonel Tracy wentto the Association of Portsmouth Teachers tosee if the contract stipulation could be modi-fied. “They took no interest,” he said. Theschool board voted 7-1 to fire Venezia.

Not all school districts are so inflexibleand shortsighted. Back in 1995, the princi-pal at John Kelley School in Thermal,California, hired as a full-time teacher some-one who was merely inquiring about a sub-stitute teaching job. The candidate had adoctorate and was fluent in Spanish, butlacked a California teaching credential. Heapplied for and received an emergency cre-dential, and for the next two years taughtmath and science full-time while working onhis credential after school. In 1997, nowteaching social studies, language arts and PE,he was selected as Teacher of the Year by theCoachella Valley Unified School District. Hedidn’t receive his credential until 1998.

This teacher went on to be honored atthe White House, the NEA RepresentativeAssembly, and dozens of other venues asthe 2002 National Teacher of the Year:Chauncey Veatch.

Source—Communiqué, a publication ofThe Education Intelligence Agency, which con-ducts public education research, analysis, andinvestigations. The Agency may be contactedat 916-422-4373, or EducationIntel@aol.com.

EducationMatters ~ November 20026

new study findsthat wherelabor unions are

stronger, taxes are high-er, but real earnings arenot necessarily higher.

The study by thePublic Service ResearchFoundation examinedstate-by-state data on

earnings from the Bureau of Labor Statisticsadjusted for the cost of living and averagestate and local taxes.

It concludes that in 2000, average weeklyearnings in the twenty-four states withabove-average levels of unionism were $548compared to an average of $551 for stateswith below-average levels of unionism.

“This study does not show that wherethere is less unionism earnings are higher.What it shows is that there is little, if any,correlation between high levels of unionismand higher earnings,” said David Denholm,the president of the Public Service ResearchFoundation.

The study found some extreme examplesof differences between adjusted earnings andlevels of unionism. Virginia had the highestlevel of adjusted earnings but ranked 47th inthe level of unionism, while Hawaii had thelowest level of adjusted earnings and rankedsecond in the level of unionism.

New York, the state with the highest levelof unionism, ranked ninth in unadjustedearnings but 33rd in adjusted earnings.North Carolina, the state with the lowestlevel of unionism, ranked 29th in unadjust-ed earnings but 13th in adjusted earnings.

“The real surprise in this study was theextent to which union strength correlated tohigher taxes,” said Denholm. “The averagelevel of unionism in states with above-aver-age levels of state and local taxes is 14.6 per-cent, while it is only 10.2 percent in the lowtax states. But, when you lookat ten states with the highestlevel of taxes, the level ofunionism is 16.2 percent com-pared to 10.2 percent in thelow tax states,” Denholm said.

To confirm the influence ofunionism on taxes, the studyalso examined the grades forvotes on taxing and spendinglegislation given to each state’sU.S. Senate delegation by theNational Taxpayers Union. Inthe states with high levels ofunionism, the average grade was a D, whilein the states with low unionism it was a C+.In the ten states with the best NTU grades,the average level of unionism was only 6.8percent, while in the ten states with thelowest NTU grades the average level ofunionism was 19.4 percent.

“Clearly, unionism is more of a politicalthan an economic influence. There is verylittle reason to believe that unions raisewages and every reason to believe thatunion political influence results in highertaxes,” Denholm concluded.

The study was done using a state-by-state cost of living index from the AmericanFederation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, and aver-age levels of state and local taxes from theTax Foundation.

The study also notes that, according tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics,American manufacturing work-ers who are not represented bya union enjoy higher earningsthan their union counterparts.It also notes that significantlyhigher levels of unionism andhigher average earnings in pub-lic employment tend to putupward pressure on the unionwage differential. When thepublic sector is excluded fromthe calculations, the differentialis only 13.7 percent.

David Denholm is president of the PublicService Research Foundation. The Foundation isa nonprofit organization that studies public sec-tor unionism and union influence on public poli-cy. The study “Does Unionism Mean HigherEarnings or Higher Taxes?” may be reviewed inits entirety at http://www.psrf.org/issues/taxes.jsp.

Study Finds Unionism Means Higher Taxes,Not Necessarily Higher Earnings

By David Denholm

“Clearly, unionism

is more of a

political than an

economic influence.”

★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★

A

David Denholm

Paul Revere ElementarySchool, a pre-K–8 school onChicago’s southeast side, the

spring 2002 Iowa Test of Basic Skills(ITBS) in eighth-grade reading and mathshowed such dramatic increases over theprevious year that the Chicago Board ofEducation requested an audit.

The audit, which required a one-hourretest of the eighth-graders in readingand math, confirmed that the original testscores were accurate. In Cynthia Pates’eighth-grade class, students scoring at orabove national norms increased by 47.1percentage points in reading and 76.7percentage points in math. “This is thefirst year in my five years at Paul Revere

that students actually asked for morework,” says Pates.

“Reading and Math Renaissance clearlymade an impact on our test scores and ourentire school culture,” says PrincipalShelby Taylor. “The targeted instructionplus time on appropriate practice was key.”

Paul Revere Elementary implementedReading Renaissance fully and pilotedMath Renaissance during the 2001–2002academic year, thanks to funding fromthe Comer Foundation.

The Renaissance programs helped cre-ate a culture of success at Paul Revere.“We really began to focus on academics,”says Taylor. The school’s Reading

Renaissance program became a communi-ty effort, he adds. Parents were trained asreading tutors, using the Duolog Readingmethod to tutor children both in schooland at home. Regular Family ReadingNights featured Celebrity Readers—among them, Illinois CongressmanBobbie Rush.

The entire community celebrated theschool’s success in late June, with a partyattended by almost 2,000.

Source—School Improvement News, apublication of Renaissance Learning, Inc.Reproduced with permission of the publisher.For more information, contact Sheila Wenz, 1-800-200-4848.

At

Scores Too Good! Chicago Board of EducationDemands Audit of Inner-City School

Retest confirms outstanding results

EducationMatters ~ November 2002 7

everal months ago, the Departmentof Education released the most recentbatch of scores on the NAEP history

exam, and the results for 12th graders wereabysmal. Once you learn a little about theNational Council for Social Studies (NCSS),the 26,000-member organization of teachersof history, geography, politicalscience, economics, sociology,and psychology, you may notbe surprised that historyscores are so bad.

In the May 6th issue of TheWeekly Standard, KayHymowitz of the ManhattanInstitute took a look at whatthe NCSS had to say about cit-izenship over the past decade.Last year, after the tragicSeptember 11th attacks, theNCSS magazine warned thatthe attacks would provide theexcuse Americans wanted toindulge their reflexive racismand revenge-oriented ideology.

But the deep cynicism of the NCSS aboutAmerica is nothing new. For the most part,the NCSS aims to “de-exceptionalize” bothAmerica and the Western world as a whole

(“we’re just another country and anothergroup of people”) and to help studentsthink of themselves not as Americans but asmembers of the global community. The cur-riculum standards that the NCSS promul-gated for social studies in 1994 include alist of performance expectations that cover

culture, economics, technolo-gy, “continuity and change,”and personal identity, but noAmerican history, no majordocuments, and only a smat-tering of references to govern-ment at all, writes Hymowitz.

Many states have embracedthe NCSS idea that you don’tneed to know any Americanhistory to be an effective citi-zen, and use the NCSS curric-ular guidelines as the modelfor their state social studiesstandards. NCSS theoreticiansreject the notion of America’sFounders that self-governingcitizens must learn their coun-

try’s Constitution and political history well,for only those who understand their coun-try would love it, and only those who loveit would be willing to undertake the work

and sacrifice to sustain it, Hymowitz writes(“Anti-Social Studies,” by Kay Hymowitz,The Weekly Standard, May 6, 2002).

According to an article in the WashingtonPost, advisers to President Bush are develop-ing a package of policies to boost civics edu-cation in the United States in the aftermathof the September 11th attacks. The ideasthey’re considering include federal incentivesto states to adopt civics education classes inpublic schools, expansion of “service learn-ing” classes that give credit for communityvolunteer work, drafting of a civics curricu-lum, and the use of the presidential bullypulpit. From the 1920s to the 1960s, at leasthalf of American high school students tookcivics classes, but by 1994, that number hadfallen to 10 percent, as civics education wasreplaced by government classes that do notdeal with citizen involvement.

Anyone looking for resources that can beused to teach history and geography ingrades K-6 should take a look at a fine newseries of books developed by the CoreKnowledge Foundation to supplement orsupplant ordinary textbooks. At the first-grade level, teachers (or parents) canchoose from slim, colorful books onMesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Three WorldReligions, Mexico Today, Early Civilizationsof the Americas, Early Explorers andSettlers, From Colonies to Independence,and Exploring the West; at the fourth-gradelevel, the offerings, which are equallyengaging but even more packed with con-tent, include Using Maps, WorldMountains, Europe in the Middle Ages, TheSpread of Islam, African Kingdoms,Dynasties of China, The AmericanRevolution, The United States Constitution,Early Presidents: Washington throughJackson, and American Reformers. Thereare other selections for all grades from K-6.For more information, contact E.D. Hirschat edh9k@aol.com.

Source—The Education Gadfly, news andanalysis from the Thomas B. FordhamFoundation, www.edexcellence.net.

Many states have

embraced the NCSS

idea that you don’t

need to know any

American history to be

an effective citizen.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Why Many Social Studies Teachers Don’t TeachHistory and What to Do about It

S

New Hope for Urban SchoolsContinued from page 1

It’s not a complete formula for urbanschool reform, to be sure. Casserly notes,for example, that even these relatively suc-cessful districts have so far accomplishedlittle by way of reforming their highschools. And he’s well aware of all thethings that can go wrong, beginning withthe turmoil produced by revolving doors inthe superintendent’s office and abrupt shiftson the school board. Doing all these thingswell demands time, sustained focus, andstable leadership.

It’s also about hard work. In the higher-performing systems, administrators andteachers reported that their jobs becamemuch more demanding and stressful thanin the past. They worried that the strainwould take the joy out of being educatorsand working with children. District leadersdealt with this anxiety by improving facili-ties and materials, while providing profes-sional development that emphasized theimportance of the mission of educatingyoung people. Teachers, principals, andschool administrators were also given theopportunity to celebrate successes along

the way—and those who were not commit-ted to seeing the mission through wereasked to leave.

Not everyone will welcome thisapproach, with its emphasis on centraliza-tion, uniformity, and command-and-con-trol. It’s not the only approach to educationreform that America should be trying. Butit’s exceedingly hopeful, nonetheless. Thecase studies reported in “Foundations forSuccess” suggest that effective reform canbe initiated, managed, and driven from thetop in an urban school system as long asthe conditions are right, the full set ofreform strategies is pursued simultaneously,and leaders stay the course. This is a signif-icant message of hope for those strugglingacross the land to improve urban educa-tion. It also suggests that the systemic curesassumed by No Child Left Behind are notpipe dreams.

Terry Ryan is program director at theThomas B. Fordham Foundation. The ThomasB. Fordham Foundation can be found atwww.fordhamfoundation.org on the Web.

Source—”Foundations for Success: CaseStudies of How Urban School Systems ImproveStudent Achievement,” Council of the GreatCity Schools, September 2002,www.cgcs.org/reports/Foundations.html.

–Quote of the month–“What have we got, an educational

Taliban here? Are they gonna requireburqas soon?”—California TeachersAssociation President Wayne Johnson,reacting to a Southern California middleschool’s dress code for teachers: slacks andties or polo shirts for men, and no barelegs, pierced tongues, jeans or sneakers.

(Associated Press, May 12)

Gary BecknerManaging Editor

Pieterke BecknerAssociate Editor

Diane MeyerEditorial Assistant

Kelley AutryResearch

Ron LawNewsletter Design & Layout

★★ Advisory Board ★★

Leta Rains Andrews • Tracey BaileyPatricia Ann Baltz • Gene Bedley

Polly Broussard • Eric BuehrerDr. Kevin Ryan • Guy Rice Doud

Thomas A. Fleming • Valerie Anderson HillDr. Lewis Hodge • Dr. William Kilpatrick

EducationMatters is published by the Association of American Educators. For moreinformation, contact AAE, 25201 Paseo deAlicia, Suite 104, Laguna Hills, CA 92653

(949) 595-7979 (800) 704-7799

Fax (949) 595-7970

E-mail: info@aaeteachers.orgWebsite: aaeteachers.org

©2002 by Association of American Educators

The Politics ofthe PTABy Charlene K. Haar

he Parent-Teacher Association(PTA) is one of our nation’s largestand most respected organizations,

and is often viewed as a key player in edu-cation policy. Mainstream coverage of thePTA treats the organization as a beneficentgroup of parents dedicated solely to better-ing our nation’s school. In this ground-breaking new book, Charlene K. Haar criti-cally assesses the PTA and shows that thecommon perceptions of the organizationare deeply misguided. Surveying the organi-zation’s history, Haar demonstrates its long-standing tendency to involve itself in issuesof little relevance to education. In morerecent years, Haar contends, when the PTA

has addressed important educational issues,its positions have merely echoed the viewsof the powerful teacher unions: theAmerican Federation of Teachers and theNational Education Association. Because itreflects the views of these interest groups,the modern PTA rarely speaks with a trulyindependent voice, thusdepriving parents of apotentially constructiveforce for reform in publiceducation.

Haar makes a case thatthe PTA’s domination bythe teacher unions haseroded its commitment topromoting the education-al achievement and well-being of children. Inremaining neutral onteacher strikes, for exam-ple, the PTA has aban-doned the interests ofstudents and their par-ents. Abandoned also isthe PTA’s role as an inde-

pendent analyst of education policy.Instead, the PTA has directed the energiesof local and state PTA activists into lobby-ing for more federal programs—programsthat often undermine parental authority.Rank-and-file members of the PTA inadver-tently support the national organization’sactivist social agenda by paying member-

ship dues and engaging inextensive fundraising activi-ties. Unable to stand up tothe teacher unions or torepresent parent interests,the PTA seems destined forirrelevance, as its base in theschools is being increasinglychallenged by local parentorganizations that choose notto be affiliated with theNational PTA.

For more information contact Social Philosophy andPolicy Center, Bowling GreenState University, BowlingGreen, OH 43403-0188, orcall 1-419-372-2536.

T

ased on a telephone survey of 634college students nationwide,Americans for Victory over

Terrorism, chaired by ACTA NationalCouncil member William J. Bennett,reported this month that college studentsare remarkably ignorant about world fig-ures and profoundly ambivalent aboutwhat America is fighting for.

College students lack knowledge of U.S.history and government and—like manyof their professors—reject any notion thatthe U.S. represents values and ideals supe-rior to other forms of government.

Here are some of the results:

Students were more likely to identifyYasser Arafat correctly than any othermajor player (including our own Cabinet)in the war on terrorism.

American students intensely and over-whelmingly disagree with the statementthat Western culture is superior to Arabculture. Only 16 percent believe Westernculture is superior to Arab culture, and 79percent do not.

When asked whether theybelieved the values of the UnitedStates are superior to the valuesof other nations, a full 71 per-cent disagreed, with 34 percentstrongly disagreeing.

While President Bush receivesvery high marks for his handling ofthe presidency (70 percent), amajority of college students believethe policies of the United States areat least somewhat responsible forthe September 11 terrorist attacks.

While 79 percent believe the U.S. hasthe right to overthrow Saddam Hussein,58 percent report they would evade thedraft if called on to fight.

The full survey can be accessed atwww.avot.org.

“In short, students whohave not been taught theprinciples on which thisnation is founded are unwill-ing to fight to defend it,” saysBennett.

Source—Inside Academe ispublished quarterly by theAmerican Council of Trusteesand Alumni, Washington, D.C.Web-site: www.goacta.org.Reprinted with permission.

58 percent report

they would evade

the draft if called

on to fight.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★

What Are We Fighting For?American Students Don’t Know

A Report to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni by William Bennett

B