Faux Choice

Last summer I predicted that the No Child Left Behind Act would leave few choices for parents stuck with low-performing schools. In the Weekly Standard, Checker Finn discusses the bleak reality of public school choice:

In fact, No Child Left Behind authorizes the withholding only of a smidgen of administrative money from states and districts that do not fulfill its mandates. Nor do any rewards--save perhaps in Heaven--await those that conscientiously provide solid alternatives for their students.

What we're really seeing, once again, is how the public education establishment despises school choice, how little it will bestir itself to assist poor families to gain access to better schools, and the hardball tactics it deploys to keep lawmakers from adding more exit doors.

The lesson: Congress can paste whatever label it wishes on its shiny new statute, but when it entrusts a choice program to the same people who brought us 8,600 failed schools in the first place, it leaves millions of children behind.

My K12 Kid

While I was on vacation there was some debate about cyber charter schools versus homeschooling. I am one of the parents that Joanne Jacobs talked about. I am willing to try having my children learn at home with the help of an online charter school. I have more control over what they are learning, but I can also use a high-quality pre-packaged curriculum. I have more control over the curriculum than at the private school my son used to attend, but I do not have to take the time to actually plan each lesson.

Of course, I have no idea how well our family will do with the K12 program. I am very excited about the flexibility and the individualized attention that my son will receive. Michael and I plan to split up the teaching time.

I understand why homeschoolers like Daryl Cobranchi are wary of programs like K12. And I have no doubt that the public school establishment will keep trying to regulate homeschoolers. California’s recent attack is a case in point.

However, as long as the programs remain voluntary, I see them as similar to joining a homeowner’s association. (Which I would probably never join.) The parent accepts the restrictions as part of the package because they are benefiting from the public charter school. I think there is a clear distinction between a “virtual school" and a homeschool. Virtual implies that someone offsite is directing the learning process. It would be nice if the education establishment and the press would select language choices that uphold the integrity of that distinction. But as long as virtual schooling is one option among many schooling arrangements and homeschooling maintains its own identity as an option apart from virtual charter schools and free from their regulations; they can both peacefully coexist. The bottom line is that homeschoolers have to be ever vigilant against regulations that constrain their freedom.

In California, K12 has partnered with the California Virtual Academy. I found some of the enrollment requirements to be silly. Parents must file emergency release forms for medical treatment and emergency contact forms—even though the children are never leaving their own homes. And if the children are entering public school for the first time, they have to have a TB test within 12 months. In my son’s case, he had a TB test before he entered Kindergarten at his private school, but it was not within the 12-month window. And the children must also have a valid health assessment within twelve months. I’m happy to report that Jacob is healthy enough to participate in the K12 virtual school—he still has 20/20 vision and he can still hear.

F = Falsehood

In Florida administrators and teachers at one failing elementary school tell students that "F" grades are positive.

For Jeremy Hunter, the F-grade given to Mollie E. Ray Elementary this past spring does not mean the school is failing.

The 11-year-old fifth-grader said it stands for fantastic or fun. . . .

Clad in navy shirts with "F = Fantastic" printed on the back, Mollie Ray teachers said they plan to reinforce that message throughout the year as they work to improve test scores. The northwest Orlando school is among 10 statewide that received failing grades for the second time in four years.

Public School Crime Wave

In this is sad story of a Father who lied about his residence to get his daughters into a safer high school; public school officials have no mercy.

Levine, a second grade teacher at Wells Village School, is charged with giving false testimony to the Castleton Board of Civil Authority when questioned about his residency in November 2000. He faces four other charges of making false claims for enrolling his daughters in the Castleton public school. . . .

These charges carry a potential maximum fine of up to $36,000 and up to 32 years in jail. . . .

Levine said he had tried to set up a Castleton residence as a way of transferring his children out of Otter Valley. Even before the start of the school other students had begun to threaten his daughters, he said.

“I was doing this to protect my girls,” he said. “It was not done to get a free education.”
Levine said he had reason to be wary of the problems of harassment at OVUHS based on his son’s experience there. Levine said his son was expelled from the school in 1998 for bringing three knives to a “fun night.” He claimed his son had experienced almost daily harassment, name calling, and physical intimidation before the incident.

Levine said he had asked about using tuition credit to allow his girls transfer to another school, but was told by school officials it was not an option for seventh graders. He said he also asked for assurance that his daughters would not have the same harassment problems he said his son had, but got no answer.

Parking Permit

Via Reason Express

No Free Parking

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that schools' legitimate interest in a drug-free campus meant it was OK to require students to take urine tests if they wanted to participate in extracurricular activities. The alternative, Justice Antonin Scalia implied, was "druggies who are orderly in class."

One school district is already pushing the limits of the decision. The Kimberly district in Wisconsin now says that, by applying for a parking permit, a student is agreeing to random drug testing. High school principal Mike Reitveld explains, "Parking is a privilege." Translated, that means if you don't want to pee in a cup, you must ride the bus for four years.

Parents have started to figure out what de facto drug testing as a condition of a normal high school experience means. "There's a lot of kids on medication for depression and anxiety, panic disorder, whatever, and I don't think it's the school's business," one said.

But that would just make them druggies who are orderly in class, wouldn't it?

Propaganda Mills

This article about anti-tobacco curriculum in Maine schools, is similar to the anti-tobacco effort funded by Proposition 10 tobacco tax money in California.

"One of the best things that happened in our district last year was about a half-dozen high school kids — all smokers —went to meet with fifth-graders," said the 32-year-old Pittston resident. "They talked to them about smoking, they told horror stories about what the cigarettes had done to them, how hard it is to quit. The fifth-graders really took it to heart. With tobacco, you have to start early. A recent study said kids are exposed to their first opportunity to smoke in fifth grade. These are 8- and 9-year-olds and they're being handed a cigarette."

The other two top priorities of the new curriculum will be getting students to increase their physical activity and eat healthier foods."

My "new" local elementary school, looks like a prison rather than a school: gates locked at all times, no playground equipment, and signs literally every 5 feet around the school pronouncing it a "Tobacco Free School." I'm relieved, because as a potential school customer, I would be more concerned about my son's first-grade teacher offering him a cigarette than teaching him to read. Please. Do we really need a couple thousand dollars in signage at our local school to convince us that our children will not be exposed to tobacco while sitting in the school buildings.

School Voucher Hypocrisy

What I find most interesting about the court challenge to school vouchers in Florida is that the voucher opponents have chosen to challenge the small Opportunity Scholarship Program (part of Jeb Bush's A+ education plan) but have remained silent about the much larger McKay scholarships for special-education students. Of course, McKay is not running for Governor. If the Blaine Amendment is upheld in Florida, it would have grave consequences for special education students as well. The McKay scholarship program has more than 8,000 students receiving school vouchers to go to more than 400 different Florida private schools. Many of these schools are religious. If the Florida Blaine Amendment were found to be constitutional, the special education students would also be barred from using school vouchers for religious schools.

The NEA, People for the American Way, PTA, AFT, and all the others who fight against school vouchers, do not have the courage to stick with their anti-voucher principles when it comes to special-education students. No one is willing to acknowledge the attack on families where children have disabilities, even if those families are benefiting from the voucher programs they rail against under different circumstances. We would do well to remind the media and all the stakeholders, that in Florida, the choices of more than 8,000 special education students are also at risk.

State constitutions in 47 states still restrict state legislatures from approving voucher money for "sectarian" private schools under a provision known as the Blaine Amendment. After the Blaine Amendment -- which sought to prevent public money from falling into the hands of private Catholic schools -- failed in Congress in 1875, many states simply amended their own constitutions to adopt the language.

Acton Institute provides a detailed history of Blaine Amendments.

Profits Matter

I've often compared Edison and Nobel Learning Communities, citing Nobel's tighter focus on their business model as an advantage over Edison schools. Apparently, being the only education management organization that actually makes a profit has paid off for Nobel's CEO Jack Clegg.

Nobel Learning Communities Inc. said Tuesday it agreed to be acquired by a management-led group in a buyout offer worth about $110 million, including the assumption of debt. The Media, Pa.-based provider of education and school management services said the group will pay $7.75 a share in cash, and stock options will be converted into the right to receive a cash payment equal to their price.

The deal represents a 32 percent premium to its closing price Monday of $5.85 on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The shares ended Tuesday at $7.25, up 24 percent.

The buyout group is led by senior management members, as well as Gryphon Partners II LP and Cadigan Investment Partners. The company will continue to operate under its current name and operating structure. The company runs 149 schools in 15 states including private preschools, elementary, middle and high schools, charter schools and schools for learning challenged children.



The company earned $1 million, or 14 cents a share, on revenue of $40.7 million in the third quarter ended March 31.

Dare-winism

Reason's Senior Editor Jacob Sullum analyses DARE's strategy for staying in the majority of the nation's schools by constantly claiming the program is revising its curriculum:

Suppose you buy a mosquito trap and find, after using it for a few months, that there are just as many mosquitoes in your yard as before, if not more. You complain to the manufacturer, which says it now has a new model that works much better. You try it, but it’s no more effective than the first one. Then you read in Consumer Reports that the company never tested the trap and has no evidence that it works. Livid, you call the manufacturer again, and you’re told the bad reviews apply to products it no longer makes. It is now developing a new mosquito trap that no one has tested yet.

This is essentially the strategy that DARE, the country’s leading drug education program, has successfully used to stay in business for nearly two decades. One study after another has found that students who complete DARE (a.k.a. Drug Abuse Resistance Education) are just as likely to use drugs as students who don’t. Yet DARE claims it is constantly revising its curriculum, so any research indicating that it doesn’t work is immediately outdated. And with a few exceptions, school districts--four-fifths of which use the program--always seem willing to give DARE another chance.

Florida school choice ruling

A Florida judge struck down the state's voucher law today. The Blaine Amendment to the state's constitution was the reason the judge struck down the law. The Blaine Amendment prevents direct or indirect state aid from going to private and religious schools.

Florida's voucher law allows students in "failing" schools--as defined by the state--to take vouchers to attend other schools. According to Kevin Teasley from Greater Education Opportunities, parents of 338 children notified the state saying they intended to use vouchers this school year. Now, these children will have to go back to state identified "failing" schools if their parents can't afford to move or pay private school tuition.

The decision will be appealed.

The Volokh Conspiracy has an extensive analysis of why Blaine Amendments probably violate the federal constitution:

Generally, state courts and legislatures may interpret state constitutions in a more rights-protective way than the federal constitution. Many state courts have did this to various rights provisions in their state constitutions, such as those governing free speech, search and seizure, and right to bear arms. There's no inherent conflict between the federal constitution imposing various constraints on both the federal and state governments, and a state constitution imposing still more constraints on the state government. That's part of the virtues of our federal system -- a state's citizens may enact protections against their state government beyond what the federal constitution provides.

But a state may not secure supposed constitutional rights that themselves violate the rights of others. For instance, a state constitution cannot provide more protection of the right to free speech by giving one race extra speech rights beyond what another race has -- this might not violate the federal Free Speech Clause (since it gives more protection than the federal clause offers), but it does violate the Equal Protection Clause, which generally prohibits states from treating people differently based on race.

That's why I think that state constitutional provisions (and state statutory provisions) that require the exclusion of religious schools from evenhanded choice programs do violate the federal constitution. It's not that there's anything wrong in principle with state citizens having extra protection against their state legislature -- but this "protection" cannot take forms that are themselves unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Read the whole thing.

Angry Parent Syndrome

The Education Intelligence Agency writes that APS is becoming an epidemic in our public schools "for some reason" according to some members of the education establishment:

The disorder is "angry parent syndrome," described by the coiner of the phrase, Charlotte, North Carolina, attorney James G. Middlebrooks, as "a chronic condition involving widespread disenchantment with public education." Middlebrooks presented a workshop on the condition at the annual conference of the National School Boards Association last spring, and since then has been making the rounds of NSBA's state affiliates.

"Public education is viewed as just another commodity," Middlebrooks told On Board, the publication of the New York State School Boards Association. "People have a consumer mentality and have learned to get what they want by pounding on the table." He told school board members to place a priority on anger management and to guard their own safety. On Board reports Middlebrooks saying that "some parents seem out of touch with objective reality, and no amount of placating will ever satisfy them."

Adam Smith on school choice

Joanne Jacobs originally blogged this quote from Adam Smith via Dave Kirkpatrick at Schoolreformers.com:

Forcing students to attend any school independent of the merit or reputation of the teachers tends to diminish the necessity of that merit or reputation.

If the teacher who is to instruct each student should not be voluntarily chosen by the students but appointed; and if in case of neglect, inability, or bad usage, the student should not be allowed to change him for another without leave first asked and obtained, such a regulation would not only tend very much to extinguish all emulation among the different tutors but to diminish very much in all of them the necessity of diligence and of attention to their respective pupils.

Joanne noted that Smith would not have approved of tenure.

My Reason Foundation colleague Lynne Kiesling who writes at The Knowledge Problem adds that:

Smith experienced what he considered to be the worst of incentives when he attended Oxford University, where the faculty droned on and on and on, and didn't seem to care whether the students were getting anything out of their lectures. Smith advocated a teacher remuneration system whereby the students paid teachers directly; in fact, this system was in place when he was chair of logic and then of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. Talk about the incentives to exchange value for value.

Truth in Advertising

At least 19 schools dubbed the nation's finest by the federal government over the past five years are also on this year's state lists of failing schools, USA TODAY has found.

At least seven were simultaneously the nation's "best" and "worst" in the 2000-01 school year; three won the exemplary title in May, just one month before the federal deadline to report failing schools.

Barriers to Entry

Joanne Jacobs comments on the National Research Council's plan to certify math and science PhDs through two-year fellowships to teach high school math and science courses. She finds the two-year training excessive. I agree that this seems like an unnecessary requirement and a barrier to attracting candidates for the program.

It also follows the popular education trend of placing unnecessary burdens on what would otherwise be innovative education programs. Using math PhDs to teach high school math is an obvious innovation--sticking potential teachers with yearlong training requirements is not.

Similarly, the implementation of the private tutoring choice component of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is supposed to let parents stuck in a failing school use a tutoring “voucher” to get extra help for their kids, is burdened with large barriers to entry which prevent most private tutors from participating. Many districts are requiring 30-page applications and RFPs with impossible criteria that restrict all but the most-established companies. For example, some RFPs require “evidence” on the order of Rand-type studies with randomized experiments to prove that the tutoring process works. So, the local tutor that serves the Korean population in downtown Fullerton, CA will never qualify as a choice for those families. Instead look for short lists that include the school district, Sylvan Learning, and perhaps a Kaplan or Kumon Learning Center. The implementation goes against the spirit of the law, which was supposed to let the parent choose the tutor. As usual, many school districts have chosen to substitute bureaucratic validation for parental judgment.

Cease and Desist

Virginia Edwards, the editor of Education Week, sent me a letter asking me to stop using the name "Education Weak." She claims that people might get confused over the two names. I have added a disclaimer to the site that states that there is no affiliation.

Double Standard

I do not have any knowledge about whether the "high-performing" Spiral Tech Charter deserved to be closed or not. But I find this sentence from the Miami-Herald coverage of the closure laughable:

"Charters are now being held to the same level of accountability as [public] schools," said Carlo Rodriguez, district director for Division of Schools of Choice.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

I have had a somewhat strained relationship with the Corona-Norco Unified school district in Riverside County, California. I have written critically about my local failing school, El Cerrito Elementary. This year the school district shut down El Cerrito Elementary. My family's brand new "neighborhood school" was built in the last nine months and is located in a newer middle class tract of little (actually, big) pink houses. My husband and I have grown tired of the hour and a half round trip drive to take our kids to the downtown Riverside private school and the private school only goes until the first grade anyway. So, I lost my mind for a brief time and actually thought, I will check into the new public school. My mistake.

I still have a hard time believing this actually happened. The new school, Orange Elementary, has five different year-round tracks or schedules for the students. Some of the tracks started in early July, and some of the tracks are starting later in August. I wanted to find out from the district or the school which track my son Jacob could be enrolled in. I wanted to make sure he would not miss the first month of first grade.

Anyway, I called the school district and asked about the availability of enrollment in the different tracks. They said, "We do not give out that information. Only the school principal can tell you the school's enrollment availability." So, I went down to the office of Orange Elementary. I explained to the woman at the front desk that my son had been in private school, that I was considering enrolling him in their school, and that I wanted to make sure he would be able to start in August. The woman looked at me, blinked, and then said in her Stepford Wives’ voice, "I'm sorry but school enrollment availability is confidential. We do not give out information about scheduling until your child is actually enrolled in our school." I asked to talk with the principal. The Stepford Wive asked me if my child was enrolled in the school. She told me I had to go through the “central registration” process, and then bring back proof of enrollment, and then I could find out scheduling information and talk with the principal. The truth is that if I never enroll my child in this public school, they could care less. The schools are overcrowded and they have a monopoly on the service.

On this same day when I picked Jake and Kate up at The Growing Place, a parent was asking the owner about how the Kindergarten teacher planned to teach her son reading. Teddy, the owner said, “Please come into my office and let me show you our phonics program and explain our approach to reading.” The difference between the two schools and how they treat parents couldn’t be more striking. I really hope that someday, somehow, Orange Elementary, and others like it, face real competition from schools that understand customer service.

Needless to say, I have come to my senses. “I actually considered turning my child over to these people.”

Boston Commons

Figures from the Massachusetts department of education show that state charter schools are enrolling large numbers of low-income students.

Of the 20 school districts with the biggest percentages of poor children, 11 are charter schools, according to 2002 figures from the DOE. (Though smaller than most school systems, the state's 42 charter schools are counted as school districts.) In some cases, the numbers show the charter schools have higher percentages of low-income children than their home school system.

Despite serving low-income children, today's Boston Globe charged charter schools with a familiar accusation: "According to 2000-01 state figures, only eight of the 40 charter schools operating that year had the same or more special-education students than the school systems in which they're located."

Considering the percentage of special education students that are over-identified and mislabeled as special education, perhaps a lower special-education count in charter schools should be celebrated. Maybe charter schools actually teach students to read rather than labeling them as special education. They also have a higher rate of students who used to be labeled as special-education, who were able to move out of a disability category, after they made substantial progress.

Monopoly Buster?

Is it just me or am I the only one that finds it ironic that the lead federal prosecutor in the Microsoft antitrust case will now be running New York city schools. You think Joel Klein will turn his monopoly busting, merger-preventing tactics on the New york city schools. Don't count on it.

Reading Failure in Chicago

The problem may be more acute in Chicago but it is representative of special education nationwide.

Special education students in Chicago are concentrated in some of the poorest, lowest-performing public high schools, putting increased burdens on already-stressed schools, a series of reports released today say.

In 11 neighborhood schools, all on academic probation, as many as 38 percent of the students were in special education in 2000, while as few as 3 percent were in special education at some selective-enrollment and charter schools.

Two reasons these poor schools have such a high rate of special-education classification.

1. Special education covers instructional failure. As Schools CEO Arne Duncan explains to the Chicago Sun-Times, "The real answer lies in reducing the number of special education students by improving reading instruction in elementary schools. That population is dominated by learning-disabled students who are slow readers."

2. Reading failure by low-income kids draws in funds from special education and Title I. These Chicago kids offer more proof to the “twofer” funding notion. As long as these kids draw in more money from two large federal programs for reading failure--where is the incentive to fix the problem?

This special education population in Chicago has grown from around 11 percent classified as special education in 1993 to close to 38 percent in some Chicago schools today. Incentives matter. If you make slow readers disabled and then reward schools for that reading failure, it shouldn't be surprising that this population continues to grow.

What I can’t understand is how these schools continually say that these extra special education kids represent a strain on resources. Every labeled kid brings in extra resources over and above that kids per-pupil allotment. The “overburdened” schools admit that they are not serving these kids with extra resources and that they have special-education teacher shortages. So if the money is not paying special-ed teachers or buying more resources—where is it going? Most articles about special education read the same: more special education students continue to burden public schools that lack resources. I’d really like to know where the extra Title I and special education money is going. It defies logic.