NCTAF News Digest:

A Weekly Digest of News Articles & Reports

Thursday March 27, 2008

In this Issue:

--NCLB Watch

--Education Beats Incarceration, Special Commentary from NCTAF President Tom Carroll

--Study Finds Record Education Earmarks

--Study: American Public Concerned Over State of Science Education
--Senate Backs Bill to Keep Students in School Until 17

--Size Alone Makes Small Classes Better for Children

--Opinion: Congress Should Listen to Bill Gates - Education is the Answer

Greetings,

This is the NCTAF News Digest, a timely news service provided to our partner states, commissioners, and the education policy community. This Digest is for the personal educational use of the recipient. At publication time, all links were active. Some publications may require free registration. You may wish to bookmark links for future reference.

Education Beats Incarceration

-Education Week; March 25, 2008

We’re No. 1! We lead the world in prison incarcerations. If only we were No. 1 in education. The sobering news from a new report by the Pew Center on the States is that one of every 100 Americans is behind bars. Of greater concern is that one in nine black men ages 20 to 34 is in jail. If only they had spent more time in school. The Pew study, “One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008,” found that the United States has the largest per-capita prison population in the world, followed by Russia. The highest-scoring European countries in international education comparisons are among those with the lowest prison populations. The study links growing U.S. incarceration rates to a wave of policy choices that send more lawbreakers to prison, along with increased use of prison stays for those who break probation rules. Compounding this trend, more public schools are choosing to use law enforcement to deal with disruptive school behavior. A recent report from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, “Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” found that a growing number of schools are pushing young people out of classrooms and into the juvenile-justice and criminal-justice systems; African-American students, who make up less than 20 percent of the overall youth population, account for one-third of suspensions, and they are more likely to be referred by their schools to the juvenile-justice system. States and local jurisdictions want to be tough on crime. But there are better choices. “For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn’t been a clear and convincing return for public safety,” says Adam Gelb, the director of Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project. He suggests that “more and more states are beginning to rethink their reliance on prisons for lower-level offenders and finding strategies that are tough on crime without being so tough on taxpayers.”The average annual state expenditure on a prisoner is $23,876, in contrast to $8,701 per year on a K-12 student. The average in-state college tuition is $10,674 a year.

States and localities that are attempting to control crime by spending more on prisons would be better off spending more on schools. Texas, California, and Florida, for example, hold the highest state prison populations, while at the same time they fall below the national average on providing opportunities for educational success, according to the Quality Counts 2008 report. (Quality Counts, Jan. 10, 2008.) In the Johns Hopkins University-based study “Locating the Dropout Crisis,” these states also rank among the leaders in their number of high schools considered to be “dropout factories”—schools where graduation is not the norm, attended by almost half of the nation’s African-American students and nearly 40 percent of its Latino students.In study after study, we have seen that education investments that improve school performance and increase graduation rates can reduce rates of incarceration, increase economic competitiveness, and lower health-care costs. The Economic Policy Institute found that payoffs for education investments are dramatic and long-term. Children in poverty who receive high-quality early education have significantly fewer arrests than peers without this opportunity. The Committee for Economic Development found that investing $4,800 per child in preschool can reduce teenage arrests by 40 percent. High school completion increases the payoff. The Coalition for Juvenile Justice reports that high school dropouts are three times more likely to be arrested. The Alliance for Excellent Education has found that almost $2.8 billion in additional annual earnings would enter the economy if we increased high school graduation rates. Community college and higher education investments produce even greater returns. Yet the Pew study found that the rate of prison cost increases is six times greater than the rate of cost increases in higher education. Education also lowers health-care costs. The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that if the 1.2 million students who drop out each year earned high school diplomas instead, states could save $17 billion in health-care costs over the graduates’ lifetimes.

To read the full article, click here.

Study Finds Record Education Earmarks
-The New York Times; March 24, 2008

Congress set aside a record $2.3 billion in pet projects for colleges and universities last year for research on subjects like berries and reducing odors from swine and poultry, according to an analysis by The Chronicle of Higher Education to be published on Monday. Despite recent calls in Congress for a moratorium on the home state projects, known as earmarks, the sum was $300 million more than the last time The Chronicle conducted its survey, in 2003, when the total was $2.01 billion. When the publication first analyzed earmarks in 1990, legislators set aside $270 million for colleges and universities. Congress approved 2,306 earmarks last year for higher education, compared with 223 in 1990, The Chronicle said. The earmarks included several centers honoring legislators. Among these were a $1.9 million grant to help create the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. Mr. Rangel, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sponsored the earmark. The largest single earmark for higher education went to the University of South Alabama, which received $30 million for an engineering and science center. Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, inserted the earmark into legislation. Mississippi State University got the most money over all, $43 million for more than 30 projects. The University of Mississippi received $37 million from 27 earmarks. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, was responsible for most of those, according to The Chronicle’s analysis. While such pork-barrel projects range far beyond academia, they are particularly controversial in higher education because they bypass the normal route for financing peer-reviewed scientific research. Typically, research proposals submitted to government entities like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are selected after intensive reviews by scientific panels and are based on broad national priorities. Critics say that universities, by lobbying home-state legislators, can get more money with less scrutiny.

When it comes to earmarks, said James D. Savage, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, “those taxpayer dollars are allocated strictly on the basis of the power and access of the legislators involved.”But many lawmakers defend the practice, saying it enables them to support important local institutions and to encourage research that stimulates economic development or to addresses other public needs in their states. “If the federal government is going to explore particular research initiatives,” said Adam Telle, a spokesman for Mr. Cochran, “why shouldn’t small portions of that research be done in Mississippi, a place where it can both serve the national interest and also generate real opportunity where little may have existed before?” All three presidential candidates — Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, and his prospective Democratic rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — have said they would support a moratorium on earmarks. But the Senate rejected the idea on March 13, falling 31 votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle.

Mr. McCain, who has criticized earmarks as wasteful, did not introduce any last year. Mr. Obama obtained 10 earmarks worth a total of $19 million, according to the analysis, and Mrs. Clinton was responsible for 21 earmarks worth $70 million, the sixth-highest total in the Senate.

For the full article, click here.

Study: American Public Concerned Over State of Science Education

-The Journal; March 2008

Think of the old Bazooka Joe one-liner: "The food is terrible, and the portions are too small." Grasp that, and you'll have an inkling of attitudes toward science education in the United States, where 44 percent of U.S. adults grade the quality of science education in this country at a "C" level or lower, and 79 percent say there isn't enough attention being given to it. This according to a new survey released by the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, "The State of Science in America," the aim of which was to gauge attitudes of "average" Americans toward science and science education. The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive in late 2007, polled more than 1,300 Americans aged 18 or older and found that U.S. adults aren't particularly well informed about science (with, for example, 96 percent being unable to name a single living scientist) but that they do consider science critical and think that the current level of science education isn't adequate.

"This study is unique in that it's one of the first to define the concerns of average Americans about the state of science education," said Walter Massey, former head of the National Science Foundation, president emeritus of Morehouse College, and trustee of the Museum of Science and Industry, in a statement released to coincide with the survey. "Americans are truly worried about how our deteriorating science education will affect the country's future. And while it used to be only on the minds of leading scientists and educators, it's now clear that the public has their own concerns and even better, ideas on how improvements should be made in their schools and communities."Among the findings, only 12 percent gave science education a grade of "A," and 87 percent said more funding should be devoted to science education. The vast majority also agreed that science education could be improved through more hands-on classroom activities (97 percent), more teacher professional development (94 percent), and more parental involvement (94 percent).

Seventy percent of respondents also said that the United States is not the current world leader in science, and 65 percent said the United States will not be the world leader in science in the next 20 years. But almost all (96 percent) said that it is important for the United States to be a leader in science education

For the full article, click here.

See additional information from NCTAF:

Induction of Science and Mathematics Teachers Into Professional Learning Communities

Senate Backs Bill to Keep Students in School Until 17

-Washington Post; March 22, 2008

Maryland high school students would have to stay in school until they turn 17, a year later than current law requires, under a bill that won preliminary approval yesterday in the state Senate. Lawmakers representing struggling school districts in Prince George's County and the city of Baltimore have pushed the General Assembly for five years to raise the compulsory attendance age to reduce rising dropout rates. The effort has been stymied by estimates that keeping more students in school would cost millions of dollars. Under the legislation, which passed a preliminary test on a 28 to 16 vote yesterday, the attendance age would rise in the 2010-2011 school year. An amendment would allow it to go up only if the governor set aside at least $45 million a year in the state budget to compensate school districts. Students who are home-schooled, ill, in the military or considered by school officials to be disruptive or violent would be exempt from the bill. Its lead sponsor, Catherine E. Pugh (D-Baltimore), said current policy treats students too much like adults by letting them leave school at 16. She noted that current law allows students to quit without permission from their parents. Their options are then limited largely to low-paying jobs when they enter the workforce, Pugh said. A requirement that they stay in school longer would actually save money by keeping more of them off the street and out of jail, she said. Senators debated whether keeping teenagers in school longer should be a priority in a year when the state's economy is slowing and its budget is being cut. Some suggested that the state would be more effective at stimulating a student's interest in learning by intervening with more resources at a much younger age.

Sen. Ulysses Currie (D-Prince George's) called the decision on whether to raise the mandatory attendance age a "tough issue," given the high dropout rate. But he said teenagers are "getting smarter today than they were" and may have "maxed out with what is taught in school" by the time they are 16. Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles) said the legislature should devote more resources to general equivalency diploma programs for students who quit school but take classes toward a high school diploma. "I have concern we're spending money on kids that want to get out of school," said Sen. J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-Somerset).

Almost 10,300 Maryland students dropped out of public schools last year, with Baltimore in the lead, according to a legislative analysis. Prince George's followed, losing 1,838 students, or 6.2 percent of the total, and Montgomery was next, with 1,342 dropouts or 5.2 percent of its student body.

For the full article, click here.

Size Alone Makes Small Classes Better for Kids

-USA Today; March 24, 2008

NEW YORK — Breaking up large classes into several smaller ones helps students, but the improvements in many cases come in spite of what teachers do, new research suggests.New findings from four nations, including the USA, tell a curious story. Small classes work for children, but that's less because of how teachers teach than because of what students feel they can do: Get more face time with their teacher, for instance, or work in small groups with classmates. "Small classes are more engaging places for students because they're able to have a more personal connection with teachers, simply by virtue of the fact that there are fewer kids in the classroom competing for that teacher's attention," says Adam Gamoran of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who analyzed the findings. The data, from the USA, England, Hong Kong and Switzerland, were presented Monday at the first day of the American Educational Research Association's annual meeting, the world's largest gathering of education researchers.The findings are consistent with what researchers already know, Gamoran says. "There is not good evidence that teachers modify their instruction in response to changes in class size. Some teachers are taking advantage of small classes and others are not. There's a lot of variability."Though two of the four studies were inconclusive, some point to promising trends. In one study, researchers closely watched students' behaviors in 10-second intervals throughout class periods and found that in smaller classes in both elementary and high school, students stayed more focused and misbehaved less. They also had more direct interactions with teachers and worked more in small groups rather than by themselves.

But overall, Gamoran says, teachers didn't necessarily take advantage of the smaller classes, often teaching as if in front of a larger group. In one study, researchers found that few teachers took the opportunity to incorporate motivational activities or demonstrate to students what they wanted them to do as they introduced a lesson. "It's not like you reduce classes so teachers do something different and achievement is higher," he says. "That neat little package doesn't exist." One of the teams, led by Ronald Ehrenberg of Cornell University, notes that the potential benefits of class-size reduction "may be greater than what we observe" if only a few teachers change their teaching to accommodate the smaller group.

For more than two decades, class-size reduction has been a key improvement strategy in several states, most notably in California, which since 1996 has spent billions of dollars to ensure that students get small classes in primary grades. Smaller classes also have been endorsed by teachers unions, but recent findings have cast doubts on the idea, in California and elsewhere. This month, researchers at Northwestern University released data from a long-term class-size reduction effort in Tennessee showing that smaller classes improve achievement overall, but they seem to benefit high-achieving students more than low achievers. Because low-income students are more likely to be low achievers, researchers say, the effort is doing little to reduce the stubborn "achievement gap" that it intended to eradicate.

For the full article click here.

Opinion: Congress Should Listen to Bill Gates - Education is the Answer

-AOL News; March 24, 2008

On March 12, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, testified before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science and Technology, urging Congress to increase funding in math and science education and
basic scientific research. After reading about it, I took a quick look at some recent education headlines from around the to see what Bill Gates was talking about.

• In California, Governor Schwarzenegger is threatening a massive cut in state education funding to help close a budget gap.
• In Florida, some Republican state legislators are still stuck in the Middle Ages, proposing bills that attempt to sneak creationism into the classroom curriculum.
• This November in Texas the State Board of Education will vote on a plan to include creationism and intelligent design in the states science curriculum. Seven of the 15 board members don't believe in evolution, and amazingly, there are three "swing votes" on the panel.

Meanwhile, the grand Bush Administration education policy is wrapped up entirely in the No Child Left Behind Act, which doesn't seem to be working very well. The most common criticism of NCLB is that by punishing schools which fail to meet performance standards, teachers are focusing more on the tests rather than comprehensive learning, and schools are emphasizing reading and math to the exclusion of other subjects. Another effect of NCLB is that many states are inflating their high school graduation rates to hide what is in reality a dismal dropout rate. According to NCLB, by the year 2014 child proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics must reach 100%. (I haven't read the bill myself, and frankly, I don't believe there can be a law with such an absurd requirement, but knowing what horrible legislation has emerged from Congress and the White House the past seven years, maybe this is true. In any case, as an abstract goal, sure, striving for 100% proficiency would be nice.) In New Jersey and Connecticut, two wealthy states with relatively good education systems, about one quarter and one third of the schools, respectively, did not make adequate progress toward this goal.

The State of Utah has already rejected NCLB, and according to MSNBC.com, about 14 other states are moving in that direction. As one Republican State Senator in Minnesota said, "We've had five years of the No Child Left Behind regime, and I think it's safe to call it a failure now. We're giving it an F and trying to take back our schools."  OK, Bill Gates is right. We are in trouble. Education is arguably the most important factor in improving the welfare of a nations' citizens (in particular, I would like to see a vast improvement in education so that in the future, we may fewer ignorant political leaders than we do today - good luck to that!). I don't necessarily believe that increased federal funding by itself will lead to improved education in the US, but I know that we'd be much better off had we spent $600 billion on education for the past five years rather than on a pointless war in Iraq.

For the full article, click here