Posts Tagged ‘ Education ’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A Second Chance for Obama

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The Republicans’ midterm triumph obviously is a demoralizing blow to President Obama, but it’s also a second chance. Unlike the scores of Democratic lawmakers who lost their seats, he has an opportunity to win back voters in the volatile center whose oscillations are keeping both parties on a short political leash.

How? By reclaiming the “postpartisan” reformer mantle that appealed so powerfully to these voters during his 2008 presidential campaign, and by crafting a more compelling plan to unleash U.S. economic dynamism.

Lest we forget, Obama ran as an outsider who promised to confront the dysfunctional political culture of Washington. While he’s redeemed other key campaign pledges, like ending torture, winding down the Iraq war, and passing comprehensive health care reform, he’s done little to change the way Washington works.

While independents overwhelmingly (by 15 points) backed Republicans, exit polls suggest they didn’t vote for the Tea Party’s radically libertarian philosophy, or for more political gridlock. In fact, they are defined in large part by their hostility to polarization and strident partisanship in Washington, and by their preference for performance over ideology.

Obama can begin to reestablish his standing with these voters by proposing structural fixes to our broken political system. And he can put the anti-government party on the spot by challenging Republicans to join him in reforming, rather than disabling, government.

Don’t mistake this for the familiar argument that Obama should “return to the center.” His challenge is not to reposition himself ideologically, it’s to break an ideological and partisan deadlock that’s paralyzing our government.  For example, Obama could press for the federal clean elections law championed by Sen. Dick Durban that would finance Congressional campaigns with small donations matched by public contributions.  He could try to work out a deal with Republicans to limit filibusters, which may now become a weapon in the hands of Senate Democrats (after all, he still has the veto). Or he could propose a lifetime ban on lobbying by ex-Members of Congress and their staffs.

And yes, fixing a broken political system entails working harder to find common ground with Republicans and restoring a civil tone in Washington, as Obama promised today in his post-election press conference today.  With Republicans firmly in control of the House of Representatives, he doesn’t have any choice but to search for consensus and compromise – not unless he wants to put his presidency on hold for the next two years.

The flip side, of course, is that House Republicans can no longer claim powerlessness as an excuse for indulging in a politics of pure obstructionism.  It’s doubtful they’ll be able to get away with serving up the usual ideological platitudes about limited government and fiscal probity. Now they’ll either have to share responsibility for governing with Obama, or come up with their own ideas for solving the nation’s urgent problems.

That could get ugly, at least at first. Fresh off their big victory, Republicans seem to be brimming with Tea Party hubris. Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner vowed this morning to make repealing “Obamacare” a top priority when the next Congress convenes in January.  It’s tempting to say “bring it on,” because this would be a monumental mistake, an ideological overreach akin to Newt Gingrich’s attempts to shut down the federal government after the 1994 midterm. It would embroil the country again in another deeply divisive cage-match over health care reform, even as independents are yelling “focus on the economy” at the top of their lungs.

By developing a new blueprint to spur economic innovation and entrepreneurship, Obama can seize the political initiative, force Republicans to react to him, and quite possibly highlight significant fissures in GOP ranks. On deficit reduction, tax cuts, education, and immigration reform, Obama faces a similar challenge: bring the debate down from the GOP’s ideological nebulae to the concrete policy choices facing the country.  He needs to keep pressure on the anti-government party to govern.

In the coming duel with House Republicans, Obama holds many high cards. He commands the bully pulpit, and with it, the opportunity to set the political agenda. He can use the veto to temper and force changes in GOP initiatives, as Bill Clinton did in vetoing welfare reform twice before getting a more progressive version. And if they won’t even come out to play, Obama can run against a “do-nothing” Congress just as Harry Truman did in 1948.

As many former presidents could attest, political life is full of second acts. President Obama’s is just beginning.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues | 2 Comments »

Gainful Employment: The Real Issue

Monday, October 25th, 2010
Michael Mandel


Michael Mandel is the chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute and the founder of Visible Economy LLC, a New York-based news and education company.

by Michael Mandel

Download the entire memo here

Sometimes a proposed piece of legislation or new rule can catalyze debate about a key issue. That seems to be the case for the ‘gainful employment’ rule currently being proposed by the Department of Education (DOE). The rule addresses a very real problem: The large amounts of debt being taken on by some students, mainly those attending for-profit colleges. However, if enacted in its current form, the new rule would require many institutions—for-profit, non-profit, and public alike—to follow complicated new procedures that could greatly limit their flexibility in offering new programs and potentially reduce the educational options open to students.

Are the benefits of the gainful employment rule worth the costs? DOE’s narrow cost-benefit analysis says they are, but its analysis fails to address a broader issue: How should higher education institutions be expected to deal with an uncertain and rapidly changing economic environment? In a world where tomorrow’s labor market may be very different than today’s, should colleges be encouraged to anticipate the changes, or should they stick to the steady teaching of accumulated knowledge and skills for existing jobs?

This policy brief will make one observation about today’s economy, and then draw three implications for policy. The observation is simple: Young educated workers face vastly more uncertainty in the labor market than recent generations of graduates. Young workers with a bachelor’s, associate degree, or other postsecondary education must deal with much higher unemployment rates, falling real wages, and a job landscape that keeps shifting.

The first implication: The increased uncertainty means that colleges have to take more responsibility for informing students about what their education dollar is buying them. In particular, the for-profit sector needs major reforms to deal with what a recent GAO report called “deceptive and questionable marketing practices.” With students facing a tougher time in the job market, for-profit institutions must move away from high-pressure sales tactics, increase transparency about potential outcomes, pay more attention to debt levels, and raise admissions standards. Non-profits and public institutions must bite the bullet as well by offering more information about estimated payback periods and making sure that their students don’t graduate with excess debt.

Download the entire memo here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, New Schools for the 21st Century, Policy Memo | 2 Comments »

Re-Learning After-School, Re-Imagining Education Reform

Wednesday, October 13th, 2010
Andie Thomalla


Andie Thomalla is a master's candidate at DePaul University, in the Education Policy Studies and Research department.

by Andie Thomalla

Recent belt-tightening (forced or otherwise) in education has resulted in major casualties to after-school programs around the nation. As funding priorities shift to privilege teacher prep and accountability, after-school programs have been among the first to get the funding axe.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, a federal framework to support programs that target under-served or at-risk populations, provide academic support to struggling students and create opportunities for exploring arts, sports, and music. They are emblematic of after-school programs everywhere—in what they do, what they don’t do, and how we understand after-school time at large. So a proposed budget increase of almost $100 million to the 21st CCLCs should come as good news, right?

Not necessarily, according to some in the broader education community. The proposed appropriations bill bundles 21st CCLC support with money to “expand learning time” by extending the school day, or year. A recent Education Week article notes the ambivalence among after-school providers, citing “fears that opening the program to extended-learning-time initiatives could come at the expense of high-quality after-school efforts.” The Afterschool Alliance, a national advocate for after-school programs, has taken up a standing opposition to the bill.

So, what’s going on here under the surface conflict of too many line items and too few dollars? Why wouldn’t the nation’s biggest after-school supporter want a huge network of after-school programs to receive more funding?

Even more buried than the defensive concern about diverted support, there is also a surfeit of competing ideas about what education could or should be—and not enough space, consideration, or funding to follow each of those ideas to any sort of fruition.

Current funding strategies are furthermore pushing after-school and other interventions (extended-day included) to fit themselves into the ever-more restrictive reform rhetoric of increased academic achievement. If programs can’t be shown to improve kids’ test scores, they’re passed over, slashed from the budget, and relegated to the “tried and failed” pile.

The expectations placed upon after-school programs in recent years (increasingly, say, with the advent and legacy of No Child Left Behind) have reflected this slow constriction of values. After-school hours are expected to be as academically enriching as the classroom hours from which children are directly coming—if not moreso, as after-school has increasingly been incorporated into NCLB’s “supplemental services” for remediation.

Once valued primarily as a safe space in the hours between school and home for kids in at-risk areas or circumstances, or as an outlet for the abundant energy and creativity that accompanies and overwhelms adolescence, after-school time has steadily been re-appropriated as school-time in a slightly different setting.

Research, however, has shown that after-school programs are perhaps not as up to this new task as their proponents (and funders) would like to imagine. Even among the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, research has shown the programs have “few impacts” on participating students’ academic performance. Reports from 2004 to the present, available through the Department of Education’s website, show that fewer than half of participating students’ grades improve, and less than one-third of students’ state assessment scores improve after spending time in a 21st CCLC.

Presumably, someone, somewhere is gearing up to use this data to add fuel to the competitive fire of education reform—and that might be what the Afterschool Alliance really fears. If these programs don’t work, toss them out, forget about ‘em, and bring on the extended day (or value-added teacher assessment, or private tutoring services, or those helper-monkeys they’re using at the Commonwealth Games)! But before we throw the babies out with the after-school bathwater, let’s look a little deeper. There is, in fact, research on the obvious flipside of the issue: what are after-school programs good at doing?

Robert Halpern of the Erikson Institute has spent significant time wrestling with this very question, in part by asking: why aren’t after-school programs good at academic enhancement?

Citing the heterogeneity of after-school programs, the lack of a cohesive professional “field” for providers, the mixed backgrounds of staff, and unstable or unsustainable relationships with the resources upon which they so heavily depend, Halpern argues that after-school programs are poorly equipped to take on academic remediation. In Halpern’s view, after-school programs are not extensions of schools, and shouldn’t be viewed as such. They should provide what schools can’t, not simply make up the difference.

Re-assessing after-school programs along these lines, as first and foremost spaces for acceptance, socialization, and exploration – a new spectrum of possibilities for after-school hours begins to emerge.

The strengths of after-school programming, in Halpern’s estimation, suggest to me the same rubric of what’s being variously defined as “deeper” or “student-centered” learning, or as “21st century skills”: self-guided learning, collaboration, problem-solving, and communication. The basics beyond the academic basics, if you will.

Furthermore, the development of many of these skills or competencies is in conflict with many of the institutional particularities of the modern school system (as Richard Halverson and Allan Collins suggest in their work on technology’s place in learning and education).

The debate over 21st century skills assessment is almost as hot as the debate over what exactly to call this skill set. But advances are being made, and indicators outside of test scores have also been tracked in after-school programs for as long as such programs have been assessed. In 2004, 21st CCLC after-school programs were shown to have some positive effects on student-adult interaction, parental outcomes, and feelings of safety and security among participating children.

The most recent 21st CCLC report, from 2007, shows the target goal of three-quarters of participating students “demonstrating improved homework completion and class participation,” has nearly been met. Other unexplored after-school indicators could include: increases in school attendance, elective or extracurricular participation patterns, creative output, community involvement, and perhaps eventually job placements and earnings.

After-school programs may be as necessary an experiment in improving American education as anything else—including the extended day, and value-added assessments (probably not those security monkeys, but who’s to say?). And we should be looking for ways to both support and improve that experiment by enriching the after-school field, creating professional development opportunities for staff, creating standards to which providers can reasonably be held accountable for their successes as much as their failures. We shouldn’t be blocking after-school support because we’re not sure if another solution is as valid—saying no to something that works because we’re not as sure about something else that could also work.

If education reform is really more of a series of parallel structures rather than a single declarative (to draw from my 8th grade grammar lessons)—if we have to try this, and this, and this, and this, to try to arrive at some answers, then after-school programming, 21st century skill development, and an extended school day or year all deserve both attention and funding. Otherwise we lose $100 million for after-school programs and an untold amount of intangible support for experimentation and innovation within a reform that will only, ultimately, be more than the sum of its parts.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Issues, New Schools for the 21st Century | 1 Comment »

Getting Serious About Education: Why Can We Measure Students But Not Teachers?

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010
Scott Andes


Scott M. Andes is a research analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

by Scott Andes

Last week, Michelle Rhee, chancellor of D.C. public schools, made national news by firing 241 — six percent — of the District’s teachers deemed underperformers. Rhee’s move came after negotiations in June with the Washington Teachers’ Union that created a merit-based bonus system that permits well-performing teachers to earn up to a 21 percent pay increase. The agreement also allows the District to fire those who did not meet minimum benchmarks. Teacher assessment scores will be based half on student improvement and half on in-class teacher evaluations.

While performance-related pay has been around since the 1700s and affects the pay scale of over 85 percent of private sector employees, the debate over merit pay for teachers is still highly contentious. On one hand, proponents argue merit pay will help cash-strapped schools retain good teachers and shed bad ones. They also argue that this will create a salary scale that is fairer than the system of seniority pay that currently exists in most school systems. On the other hand, opponents contend that merit pay may work for seamstresses, but teaching is too complicated to base quality on student performance on a standardized test.

The argument goes, evaluating teachers based solely on a set of student-achievement benchmarks will incentivize teachers to neglect the essential but non-tested responsibilities of educators.  As George Parker, current president of the Washington Teachers’ Union put it, “It [merit pay] takes the art of teaching and turns it into bean counting.” Yet numerous other professions that require complex skills and responsibilities have adopted merit pay with positive results. For example, the department of Homeland Security has recently implemented performance-related pay for security analysts, and few would equate scrutinizing terrorist threats with “bean counting”.

The real question for education policy makers is to what degree can metrics assess the added value of different teachers? Part of the answer to this question relates to the availability of good data. Teacher performance may vary significantly depending on a number of variables such as student household income or the percentage of students with English as a second language. Without significant aggregate databases recognizing and accounting for such variables when developing performance pay systems may be difficult or even impossible. Yet technological advancements in the longitudinal data systems being put in place in states and districts are increasingly allowing for a more granular understanding of where educators do and do not add value to the learning process. Although it’s probably true that the current level of data may not be enough to predict exactly what makes a good teacher, what’s important is to use the data, along with the ways of assessing teacher performance, we have to make a better incentive system for the nation’s educators.

Yet that hasn’t been the case. In 1950, for example, 97 percent of public school teachers were paid based on seniority and education attainment (because data did not exist to fairly reward teachers based on any other benchmarks). But by 2007, 96 percent were still being paid based on these payment schedules; regardless of the numerous studies that have actually found experience (after the first two years) and teaching certifications are two of the worst indicators of teacher performance.

The blatant disregard of the evidence is not accidental. Several players in education policy—particularly teachers’ unions—have described evidence-based pay as some sort of pedagogical chimera, sucking the lifeblood out of what it takes to be a good teacher. For example, Doug McAvory, general secretary to the National Association of Head Teachers, a teachers’ union in the UK, argues, “The extension of performance-related pay based on pupil progress will further demoralize and demotivate teachers.” Yet given that educators readily embrace handing out grades to seven year olds, the argument that performance metrics might “demoralize” underperforming adult professionals seems unpersuasive. Such arguments do little more than distract educators from the importance of using technology and advanced metrics to create better schools.

ITIF and others have emphasized the importance of an educated workforce to improving the innovative and global competitiveness of the United States, but U.S. students are falling behind when measured against their counterparts in other countries. For example, in 2007, only ten percent of U.S. fourth-graders and six percent of eighth-graders scored at or above the international benchmarks in mathematics. Yet as other nations, such as Finland, South Korea and Sweden, have embraced data-based pay in public schools, United States has resisted.

Educators and policy makers should keep in mind the simple syllogism that there is nothing better than a good teacher and nothing worse than a bad one. As a society, we should do what is necessary to get more of the former and fewer of the latter, whether that requires more money, monitoring or better metrics.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, New Schools for the 21st Century | No Comments »

Georgia On the Mind

Friday, July 16th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

As alert readers know by now, Robert Bentley won the Republican gubernatorial runoff in Alabama, with Terri Sewell winning the 7th district Democratic congressional nomination (tantamount to election), and Martha Roby turning back viral ad icon Rick Barber for the Republican nomination in the 2nd congressional district. My write-up of the results can be found here.

The next big primary state is Georgia, where voters go to the polls next Tuesday, July 20. There are competitive primaries for governor in both parties; and competitive Republican primaries for Congress in no fewer than six districts, with two Democratic congressional primaries that have drawn some attention. Georgia has a 50 percent nomination requirement, which means many contests will go to a runoff on August 10. This is also a state with a history of substantial early voting, though as of last week, mail-in and in-person ballots were down from prior elections, perhaps indicating a low turnout.

The Republican gubernatorial race (incumbent Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue is term-limited) has heated up in the last week, with a bunch of polls, sharp exchanges between candidates, and interventions by national figures. For most of the cycle, the front-runner has been State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, though he’s been considered vulnerable because of long-pending ethics investigations of alleged illegal contributions to his campaign by insurance companies. Three other candidates—former Secretary of State Karen Handel, former congressman Nathan Deal (who has some ethics issues of his own, which appeared to speed his departure from Congress), and state senator Eric Johnson—have been jockeying for a runoff position opposite Oxendine, though at least two polls now show the front-runner slipping into third place. Handel, whose campaign message closely resembles that of South Carolina gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley (a “conservative reformer” fighting the “corrupt good old boys”), has been the candidate on the move of late, and got priceless attention this week from a Facebook endorsement by Sarah Palin. Deal countered with an endorsement from Georgian Newt Gingrich. Both Oxendine and Deal have been pounding Handel for alleged heresy on abortion and gay rights. And meanwhile, Johnson has been heavily running television ads, and has moved up into the teens in at least one poll. In other words, just about anything could happen on Tuesday, though Handel looks almost sure to have a runoff spot.

In terms of issues, all the GOP candidates have been competing to show avid support for an Arizona-style illegal immigration crackdown (Deal’s made this a signature issue, while Handel has sported an endorsement from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer), and two candidates, Oxendine and Handel, have proposed abolition of the state’s income tax, reflecting the wild popularity of national “Fair Tax” proposals among Georgia Republicans. And all the candidates are hard-core conservatives on cultural issues, though Handel got into a fight with Georgia Right-to-Life by opposing its proposal to restrict IV fertilization procedures.

On the Democratic side, the big question all along has been whether former Gov. Roy Barnes, who lost to Perdue in a big upset eight years ago, can win the primary without a runoff, as most recent polls have suggested he will. Barnes’ most prominent challenger, Attorney General Thurbert Baker, got off to a very late start in television advertising, and is now trying to attract enough support from his fellow African-Americans to deny Barnes the win (African-Americans typically cast close to half the votes in Democratic primaries in Georgia). Baker got a significant boost earlier this week with an endorsement from President Bill Clinton (Baker was a big Human Rights Campaign supporter in 2008), and has been promoting legalization of electronic bingo as a way to raise money for K-12 education. But Barnes has strong African-American support of his own; just today he was endorsed by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. Other significant candidates who could soak up some votes include former Secretary of State David Poythress, who’s been running an under-the-radar web-focused campaign, and former state House Democratic leader Dubose Porter, whose wife, Carol, is the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor.

On the congressional front, the state’s two white (and Blue Doggy) Democratic House members, Jim Marshall and John Barrow, are as usual considered vulnerable in November. Marshall, whose district went solidly for John McCain, has drawn a strong opponent in state representative Scott Austin, who should win the GOP nomination easily on Tuesday. Barrow, whose district is marginally Democratic even in presidential years, has for the second time drawn a primary challenge from former state representative Regina Thomas, whom he beat 3-1 in 2008. Thomas got some help from in-district anger at Barrow’s vote against health care reform, but his massive financial advantage should get him over the line. Meanwhile, Tea Party-backed candidate Ray McKinney is favored over former fire chief Carl Smith for the right to oppose Barrow, though that race could easily go to a runoff.

There are big and active Republican primaries in the districts of African-American congressmen David Scott and Hank Johnson (who also faces former Dekalb County executive Vernon Jones, something of a party renegade, in the primary but isn’t expected to lose), who has had recent health problems, but Republicans would have to get very lucky to become competitive in either place.

An open seat in the north metro Atlanta 7th district has spawned a mammoth eight-candidate Republican primary to succeed John Linder, with every single candidate endorsing Linder’s “Fair Tax” proposal. Former state representative Clay Cox and former Linder chief of staff Rob Woodall are the favorite to make a runoff, though Christian Right figure Jody Hice also has some support.

And up in the North Georgia 9th district, until recently represented by gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal, the winner of last month’s special election, Tea Party favorite and former state representative Tom Graves, must face pretty much the same field of opponents in the primary, but is expected to win.

In non-Georgia political news, the big development was probably the implosion of the Colorado gubernatorial campaign of former congressman (and GOP front-runner) Scott McInnis, accused of plagiarizing portions of a think-tank paper for which he was grossly overpaid a few years ago. Colorado Republicans are in a quandary; the only other candidate on the primary ballot, Don Maes, has struggled to raise money, and has, ironically, also been cited for campaign finance violations. To hand-pick another viable candidate, party leaders would have to wait for the primary to occur and then beg the winner to step aside.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday

Photo credit: Airno’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Political Memo | No Comments »

Israeli Soldiers Duped on Facebook Into Revealing Base Location

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Last Friday, the Jerusalem Post reported that some 265 Israeli soldiers were lured into a cybersecurity trap, unwittingly revealing the location of a secret Israeli military base.

Soldiers who formerly served at the secret facility set up a Facebook group to serve as a mechanism to share stories and reflections about their time at the base. It was a “public, closed” group, which means the wider Facebook community could learn of the group’s existence, but applicants must request membership from the group’s organizer.

The location was exposed when a journalist requested membership, which was granted without vetting his (non-existent) military credentials.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, a soldier intimately involved in the army’s cyber operations said the group is one example of many serious security breaches by [Israeli Defense Force] soldiers in online social networks.

“It’s a security failure and they made a big mistake,” the soldier told The Media Line. “There is a reason why this base is a secret and this will undoubtedly cause harm, allowing Israel’s enemies to get important information and use it to attack Israel.

“Not only did they set up a group,” he said, “they set up the group publicly, rather than by invitation only.”

…

“Beyond national security, it is also a safety issue,” the source continued. “In the past Hezbollah operatives would set up a profile pretending to be Israeli women and ask to be friends with soldiers or join soldiers’ groups on Facebook. Over time through the status updates Hezbollah learned a bit about the soldiers, where they lived and were able to connect the dots. In theory, they could eventually kidnap that person,” he explained.

What’s the proper policy response?  Should the IDF ban all its soldiers’ access to Facebook?  That’s usually the American military’s knee-jerk response. According to Danger Room’s Noah Shachtman, education is the key. Here’s what he said in a PPI policy memo on a proper response to open-network, military-centric cyber threats:

The armed forces find it much easier to ban something than to educate its troops about responsible use. MySpace and YouTube are inaccessible from Pentagon computers – even though the military makes extensive use of the sites. Thumb drives are mostly forbidden as well, even though battlefield units rely on them to swap data in lonely places where bandwidth is hard to find. In the name of information security, information flow has been restricted. Meanwhile, secret overhead surveillance feeds are routinely left unencrypted; with an off-the-shelf satellite dish and $26 software, militants can see through the Air Force’s eyes in the sky. It’s a problem the military has known about for more than a decade but never bothered to fix. According to the Wall Street Journal, “the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn’t know how to exploit it.”

Clearly, there needs to be a rather serious re-evaluation of military information assurance. The Pentagon needs to do a better job of figuring out theoretical risks from actual dangers; secret drone feeds can’t be left open while blogs are placed off-limits. Troops also need to be trained – and then trusted. The military routinely gives a 19-year-old private the power to kill everyone he sees. Surely, if that private can be taught to use an automatic rifle responsibly, he can be educated in computing without sharing secrets.

Militaries have give-and-take relationships with social networking sites. Yes, there are clearly vulnerabilities, but Facebook, Skype and Twitter are morale-boosters — they let troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere stay connected to their families.

The military’s heavy-handed — shut-it-down mentality — kills morale and troops will get around the blockages anyway. As a former DoD civilian employee, I can give you multiple internet-based email services that allow access to your officially-blocked Gmail address.

Education is the only solution, and the military needs to embrace.

Photo credit: US Army Korea- IMCOM’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Unstable Platform

Monday, July 12th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Seyward Darby has an amusing piece at the New Republic‘s site with some of the loonier provisions found in state Republican Party platform documents.

It’s all good clean fun, but does this craziness matter? No, suggests the CW; party platform committees these days, at any level, are a sandbox dominated by ideological activists, producing turgid documents that candidates feel free to ignore.

Fair enough, I guess, but what about those states where ideological activists have an unusually important role? How about, say, Iowa, whose caucuses often all but dictate one or the other party’s nominating process?

I strongly suggest a reading of the Iowa Republican Party Platform by anyone who accuses “liberals” or “the media” of exaggerating the extremism of today’s conservatives.

This 367-plank, 12,000-word document, adopted just last month at the Iowa State Republican Convention, is relentlessly kooky. Right up top, before the “statement of principles,” the platform features a long, ominous quote from Cicero about “traitors.” It’s not made clear whether said traitors are Democrats, RINOs, or Muslims, but treason sure seems to be a major preoccupation for Iowa Republicans.

Once you get to the “statement of principles,” it’s hard to miss principle number seven, which would have satisfied Ayn Rand even on one of her crankier days:

The individual works hard for what is his/hers. Therefore, the individual will determine with whom he/she will share it, not the government. No more legal plunder. Legal plunder is defined as using the law to take from one person what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong. It is plunder if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what that citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Given that principle, it’s not surprising that elsewhere the platform flatly calls for the abolition of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (along with minimum wage laws), and of the federal departments of Agriculture (!), Education and Energy. It also appears to oppose any anti-discrimination laws of any sort.

Beyond such basics, the Iowa GOP Platform is essentially a compilation of every right-wing consipracy theory-based preoccupation known to man. In a nod to Glenn Beck, the statement of principles mentions “Progressivism” along with “Collectivism, Socialism, Fascism, [and] Communism” as ideologies incompatible with the Founding Fathers’ design. There’s a birther plank. There’s a plank about the “NAFTA Superhighway.” There’s a plank about ACORN. There’s a plank about the “fairness doctrine.” There’s plank after plank after plank opposing the nefarious activities of the United Nations. There’s a plank calling for abolition of the Federal Reserve System. Needless to say, there are many, many planks spelling out total opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage in excrutiating detail, and attacking any limitation on campaign activities or use of tax dollars by religious organizations.

The very end of the platform holds that Republican candidates should be denied party funds if they don’t agree with at least 80% of the platform, as determined by questionnaires asking about every single crazy plank. This is something we should all be able to get behind; I’d love to see not only Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad, a notorious fence-straddler on many issues, but the entire 2012 GOP presidential field, have to check boxes next to solemn items like:

We oppose any effort to implement Islamic Shariah law in this country.

If all this madness is really out of the mainstream of Republican thinking, then perhaps the adults of the GOP should expend the minimum effort necessary to say so very explicitly.

Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapita.com’s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | 1 Comment »

School Reform or Edujobs?

Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

There’s a move afoot in Congress to cut one of President Obama’s most creative and cost-effective reforms – the Education Department’s $4.3 billion Race to the Top fund. Which GOP troglodyte is behind it? Actually, it’s a prominent liberal: Rep. David Obey (D-WI).

Obey, chairman of the mighty House Appropriations Committee, introduced a bill this week to cut $500 million from the fund. He also wants to skim $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, which helps districts set up pay-for-performance systems to reward excellent teachers, and to take $100 million from a pot of money set up to help finance charter schools.

These raids on signature Obama school improvement initiatives are intended to raise $10 billion to help fund the Keep Our Educators Working Act, otherwise known as the “edujobs” bill. It would send federal dollars to the states to prevent teacher layoffs. Pitting jobs against efforts to improve America’s lowest-performing schools is a profoundly bad idea.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has used the Race to the Top Fund brilliantly to leverage overdue changes in state laws that inhibit innovation in underperforming school districts. To compete for federal grants, states must remove arbitrary caps on charter schools, track students’ educational growth year by year, and include that information in teacher evaluation. The other funds operate on the same principle that the federal government should play a strategic role in education, using small investments to stimulate state and local innovations in teacher compensation and public school choice.

No one wants to see teachers lose their jobs in today’s dicey economy. But no one wants to see firefighters or police or, for that matter, construction workers, sales reps or bank tellers lose their jobs either. With unemployment stuck near 10 percent, Congress has a clear moral responsibility to extend unemployment and transitional health care benefits. But what’s the rationale for singling out teachers for a special measure of job protection?

What’s more, Obey and his liberal allies have not tied the extra money to changes in the way school districts conduct reductions in force. Most districts use the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method, in which teachers with the least seniority and lowest salaries are dismissed first. LIFO thus reinforces a tenure system that ties compensation to years on the job irrespective of job performance, and that deters more talented people from becoming teachers. It also means that the cost of overall spending on teacher salaries will rise faster than if reductions in force had been made across the experience spectrum.

If edujobs is bad policy, it’s worse politics. It practically begs conservatives to charge that Democrats put the interests of the adults in public education over the interests of the kids.

It happens, however, that that’s not true. Obey’s proposal has sparked strenuous objections both from the Education Department and from progressive school reformers in Congress. “If we are to meet the President’s goal of becoming global leaders in college graduates by 2020, we must rethink and reinvent our approach to education by moving forward with bold reforms,” Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) wrote in a letter to his colleagues. “Unfortunately, the proposed cuts represent a major step backward.”

Obey is a liberal lion who is retiring after a long career in Congress at the end of this term. Polis is only a freshman, but he’s right, and progressives ought to rally behind the president’s efforts to fix America’s broken schools.

Photo credit: House Committee on Education and Labor’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, New Schools for the 21st Century | 1 Comment »

“We Know the Kids Can Achieve”

Friday, June 18th, 2010
Jared Polis


Rep. Jared Polis represents Colorado’s Second Congressional District and is a member of the House Education and Labor Committee. He is a former chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education who founded and served as the superintendent of charter schools serving at-risk student populations.

by Jared Polis

The following is an excerpt from Rep. Jared Polis’s (D-CO) remarks at the PPI Capital Forum — Turnaround Schools: Rising to the Challenge:

Let me start by thanking the Progressive Policy Institute for their pioneering work, their work that led to the explosion of the charter school movement…as well as the support of PPI for education reform generally, which truly is a civil-rights issue. This is an issue of how does our society achieve equality, equality of opportunity, regardless of your race, your income bracket, your geography. The fact that you should have equality of free public education, regardless of your ZIP code, is the civil-rights issue and challenge for our current generation.

On the current blueprint for the administration: I’d give it an A-minus….If you’re asking me how to get it to an A, I would say, more of a focus on early childhood, as well as a focus on the continuum of early childhood all the way through higher education. And Colorado and other states are doing great things around access to higher education at the high-school level, moving to dual-enrollment options. I would love to see more of a federal emphasis on some of these programs that are successful on a state-by-state basis.

Two, I personally would like to see more explicit preservation and support for what had been done under No Child Left Behind with supplemental services and after-school programs, some of which have been proven effective, some of which haven’t been — but letting the data drive the process, in terms of making sure quality after-school programs are available in schools where the kids need it, be they provided by private providers or the school district itself.

…Personally, I would also like to see as much focus on career readiness as college readiness. I think that the plan gives short shrift to what we traditionally call vocational education in favor of college readiness, which, of course, is critical….But there is the reality that half of our kids or more will not necessarily be matriculating for a four-year university. Let’s look at what real, employable skills they can get from our public education system, even if those services are delivered by community colleges at our high school campuses or the kids are taking college courses while they’re there. Let’s look at that career-readiness piece at the same level as the college-readiness piece.

Kids really need to graduate and a diploma needs to mean both career and college readiness. They always put the career and college readiness piece in the verbiage, but really, everything below it is about college readiness, not career readiness. So that’s a personal issue that I would have….

Clearly, the turnaround area is one of the most topical and important areas. These provide a toolbox approach for capable and competent superintendents to take the reforms that they need at the schools that are persistently failing. Now, first of all, we need to acknowledge there is no excuse for a persistently failing school. People love to make excuses.

They say, well, they’re all – you know, none of them speak English or they’re all from poor communities or none of them have good home lives – and those are all very real challenges, and we all support a holistic approach to public policy. I think our health-care bill that the Congress recently passed will go a long way toward making sure that families from all economic background have the kinds of health care they need.

But again, we have seen models succeed with kids from diverse demographic backgrounds. We have seen schools in my district in Colorado, a charter school, Ricardo Flores Magon Academy, third-grade, 80 percent ESL, 90 percent free and reduced lunch, and yet, they reached 95 percent proficiency on the state test in reading and 100 percent proficiency in math. Again, you look at the demographics and you can say, why is this school succeeding, whereas another school that serves the exact same demographic – low-income, ESL, has almost, you know, the reverse, with only 10 to 15 percent of the kids proficient at grade level?

So no excuses. We know the kids can achieve. Let’s make sure that they have the opportunity to attend a school that allows them to fulfill their potential.

For a full transcript of the event, click here (PDF). For the video, click here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, New Schools for the 21st Century | 1 Comment »

The Turnaround Challenge: Improving Our Worst Schools

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The following is an excerpt from Will Marshall’s introductory remarks at the PPI Capital Forum – Turnaround Schools: Rising to the Challenge:

PPI has had a longstanding interest in school reform, going back to 1990, when we first started to agitate for this idea called charter schools even before the first school was opened in St. Paul, Minnesota. And throughout the years, we’ve worked on all kinds of reform issues. And we’re very happy today to talk about one that’s really heating up right now, this question of how you turn around low-performing schools in our cities and also in our rural communities.

Arne Duncan, our secretary of education, laid down a challenge last year with his Race to the Top fund. He challenged school leaders to turn around the 5,000 chronically underperforming schools in America and he’s made, I think, marvelous use of the bully pulpit of his job to leverage change around the country. It helps when you have $4 billion, too. That makes that bully pulpit all the more powerful. But really incredible changes in state legislatures and cities and contracts negotiated between school leaders and teachers’ unions, all before a whole lot of money has actually been spent, so it’s a heartening example of strong and bold political leadership.

And in the administration’s blueprint for reauthorizing ESEA, this turnaround challenge is embedded in that as well. Challenged states, states with lots of low-performing schools, are going to be required to turn around five percent of their lowest-performing schools, based on student achievement and growth and graduation rates, in order to qualify for grants from the federal government. So fortunately, in my view, we have a president and a secretary of education who are as serious as a heart attack about thoroughgoing school reform.

And we saw that in this case in Rhode Island, in Central Falls earlier this year, when the school authorities there, or the city, fired all the teachers in their local high school after they couldn’t come to an agreement about reforms there. And the president and the secretary of education, sort of, stood up for that, behind that decision. Now, they’ve since rehired the teachers because they’ve been able to work out a deal that will allow for reform to go forward there. But it was heartening to me that they didn’t flinch because this urgency is absolutely essential.

Closing the achievement gap in this country is proceeding at an agonizingly slow pace. It has been since the mid-’80s. And I think it’s really smart for our national leaders to target the worst-performing schools in the country. You know, of the bottom 5,000, 2,000 of those are responsible for 70 percent of all school dropouts, so it’s a good idea to focus on the ones that we really need to get on the triage table.

But obviously, there are some large and controversial questions about turnaround, which we want to explore today. I think there’s going to be ferocious political resistance if we start moving down this road. It’s going to make what’s gone before look like a picnic. You know, we’re talking about closing schools, the firing of many, and in some cases all, teachers in a school.

And obviously, there’s going to be blowback. Already, we’re seeing dissension on the Democratic side. This week, Rep. Judy Chu of California, a Democrat, came out with a report which is critical of the blueprint, calling it punitive. And then on the right, you have, on the conservative side, you have a lot of folks who believe it’s not punitive enough and who think that, really, the only remedy for failing schools is to close them down and reopen as charters, or maybe under private management.

So we’ve had high-profile defections from the reform camp, like Diane Ravitch, who we’ve worked with down the years. And in some respects, that’s puzzling to me, but so this question’s becoming increasingly fraught. Fortunately, we have a stellar group of folks here to talk about it today, to explore this issues….

First, let me just, you know, define the terms here because I think particularly for the non-experts, the laypeople, this whole turnaround issue’s sort of murky. What are we really talking about when we say turning around schools? Well, in the blueprint there are four models of intervention that school leaders must pursue to deal with low-performing schools, the bottom five percent. One is transformation, which entails firing principals and adopting research-based instruction and extended learning time – new governance models, structure.

The next is the redundantly named turnaround model, which entails the same things as transformation, except you can fire half of the school staff. The third model is the restart, to convert or to close down and reopen a school under a charter operator or another educational management organization. And the last and obviously most drastic is school closes and reopen – and sending kids to high-performing schools elsewhere in the district, if you can do that.

So our purpose here today is to explore the administration’s blueprint, to drill down on this question of what we know and don’t know about best practice and turnaround schools and to focus particularly on what turnaround means for Washington, D.C., which is why I’m so glad, thrilled to have Chancellor Michelle Rhee here today. Why focus on Washington? Well, one, we’re all here. This is where we work and play and I often think that Washington is an invisible city when it comes to the great national policy debates.

[…]

We want a beachhead for innovation, but we’ve still got a long way to go. We’re still on the margins of a big public school enterprise with 50 million students. And frankly, the quality in the charter sector’s been really uneven and the scale of effort is just not sufficient to what we need. So as an authorizer, I can say that our challenge is the same one that you face, Chancellor, which is to reduce the number of low-performing schools and increase the number of high-performing ones. And it’s a hell of a lot harder to do than it sounds.

And the stakes are absolutely enormous. I’m not going to go over the stats, which probably everybody in this room knows, about the achievement gap. One number just did leap out at me. It was in the Brookings Institution’s “State of Metro America” report, which said that 85 percent of black and Latino adults in the United States lack a bachelor’s degree – 85 percent. What does that tell you? That tells you that our public schools are not preparing lots of folks for success – not preparing them for college, which is increasingly a minimum passport to career success.

That’s a huge problem. Nothing is more important, I think, in our country right now than solving it and getting school reform right. Obviously, it’s critical to our ability to compete and win globally. But even more, it’s critical to our ability to reverse the really disconcerting tendencies towards inequality, economic inequality, that have opened up in the last decade or so, and to redeem this country’s central political promise, which is equal opportunity.

For a full transcript of the event, click here (PDF). For the video, click here.

Photo credit: WzrdsRule

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, New Schools for the 21st Century | No Comments »

Texas Textbook Massacre: Can the Courts Do Anything?

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
Michelle Kobler


Michelle Kobler is an immigration clinic student-attorney and a law student in her final year at The George Washington University Law School. Prior to attending law school, Kobler was the Washington Program outreach manager and special advisor to the president at Third Way.

by Michelle Kobler

Two weeks ago, the Texas School Board voted to ratify, 9-5, drastic textbook changes in their state primary education curriculum after a month of “open commentary” from the public. The changes revisit basic understandings of American history, social studies and economic thought in unprecedented ways.

In a purported attempt to neutralize the pervasive “liberal bias” supposedly present in public education, the Texas School Board approved the insertion and inflation of conservative ideals, values and historical icons (Jefferson Davis, Phyllis Schlafly, Joe McCarthy) in textbooks. The modifications also seek to downplay the intentional separation of church and state by emphasizing the Judeo-Christian faith of the nation’s founders.

At the time the changes were originally proposed, the 15-member Texas School Board boasted 10 Republicans, 7 of which were far-right conservatives. These conservatives undertook a concerted campaign to rewrite the textbook curriculum late last year. Ironically, as Jeremy Binckes notes, three board members who voted for the changes don’t even use the Texas public school system, opting instead for private or home schooling.

What’s most disconcerting about these alterations is the impact they may have on the national education system. As one of the nation’s largest purchasers of public textbooks, Texas’ revisions could alter the content of textbooks distributed nationwide.

What recourse do progressives have to beat back the encroaching, fanatic know-nothingism of the fringe right? Unfortunately, judicial mechanisms may prove unhelpful. Most courts have historically recognized the right of local education boards to create a standard curriculum of its own accord. These local boards are also granted broad discretion in adopting uniform textbooks for their respective public schools. Anyone seeking to judicially contest Texas’s revisions must make the case that the modifications infringe their constitutional rights. This isn’t an easy task.

In 1980, Indiana students brought a case in the 7th Circuit claiming that the removal of books from the school library and ensuing changes to the English curriculum violated their First Amendment protections of “freedom of speech” and the corresponding “freedom to hear.” The court dismissed these claims as failing to meet the constitutional threshold, and reminded the plaintiffs that the Constitution does not permit courts to interfere with the discretion of local authorities unless some really overt indoctrination is happening.

Two years later, the Supreme Court took up the issue of teachers banning books from school libraries. In a 5-4 vote, the majority concluded that banning of books did violate a student’s First Amendment rights. Justice Brennan warned school officials they could not remove books in an effort to restrict general access to political or social ideas that they disagreed with. However, in the same opinion, Justice Brennan also recognized that local boards have “absolute discretion in matters of curriculum.”

The Texas School Board’s amendments walk a fine line between these distinctions. Will their absolute authority over curriculum legally outweigh their obvious intent to revise history on the basis of their political views?

The jury’s still out. Consequently, states and progressives seeking to protect themselves from Texas’ influence will have to use other means. The New York Times reports that California legislators have drafted a bill requiring their state school boards ensure their own textbooks don’t show remnants of the Texas changes. In the same article, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous expressed an intention to fend off the Texas changes — although he doesn’t mention how.

As for Texas, the past month of public commentary has revealed the community’s outrage and concern. Despite their final ratification vote, there are early indications that progressives can take back the Texas School Board of Education from the hard right voting bloc. The former head of the textbook revision movement, Don McLeroy, lost his re-election bid to a more moderate Republican, and is no longer part of the school board. Fellow revisionist enthusiast, Cynthia Dunbar, is not seeking re-election. Absent any clear judicial recourse, Texan progressives will have to further capitalize on the backlash generated by the national spotlight and continue their efforts to overturn the instituted reforms.

Photo credit: Wohnai’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, New Schools for the 21st Century | 1 Comment »

Education Week: What, Exactly, Does School ‘Turnaround’ Mean?

Thursday, May 27th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka


Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

Education Week‘s Lesli Maxwell covers the PPI Capital Forum on turnaround schools:

That, to me, was the key question raised, but not really answered, at an edu-salon convened yesterday by the Progressive Policy Institute.

And the question didn’t come from any skeptic on whether or not turning low-performing schools around is an achievable goal. It came from Justin Cohen, who as the president of the School Turnaround Group at Mass Insight Education and Research Institute, is working closely with educators in a half-dozen states on this very difficult endeavor.

With $3.5 billion in stimulus-funded Title I School Improvement Grants flowing to the states and local districts to fix chronically low-performing schools, U.S.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his team at the Education Department have focused heavily on how you turn schools around, and are requiring one of four ways to do it. Their four endorsed school-improvement models are also part of the Obama administration’s blueprint for renewing ESEA. (Those models, of course, have been gaining more detractors lately, especially inside the halls of Congress.)

Read the entire article.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in PPI in the News | Comments Off

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »