Random Musings on Education/Policy

Why Do Failing Schools Fail?

Having taught for five years at high-poverty Brooklyn public schools -- schools where far less than half of the students could read and do math at grade level -- I've spent a lot of time pondering the dynamics of failing schools. I now teach at a much more successful school, where more than 90% of the students are meeting or exceeding standards (according to state tests). So I feel I'm in a good position to consider the question: what is the difference between a good school and a bad school? Why do students at some schools fail while others excel?

At my new school, the successful school, we ran out of funds to finish the floor of the new science lab. The parents conducted a phone and email campaign to the City Council, ultimately pressuring the local representative to take action. The new science lab is now completed, and it's beautiful.

At my new school, the PTA provides "gift certificates" to the teachers, which they can use to buy classroom supplies. During the book fair, teachers fill out wish list cards for their classrooms, and parents buy the desired books. When budget cuts forced the school to cut back after school activities, the PTA raised enough money through donations and bake sales to restore the full after school program. But it's not just a matter of money -- far from it. At this school, parents call me when they have a question about the homework. Every single family shows up at parent-teacher night (at my old school, I'd be surprised to get half). Parents volunteer in the school, helping out in the classrooms and monitoring the lunch room and playground.

At this school, there are no fights. Children never curse in front of (much less at) teachers. If a student is repeatedly late or absent, the attendance office calls his or her home. Persistent cases are automatically referred to the guidance counselor. My students do the work that they're assigned, and very rarely openly disobey a teacher.

Are the teachers at my new school more qualified than at the old schools? Are they more competent, or harder working? On balance, no. Is the budget higher? No -- quite the opposite; schools with poorer students get federal funds which this school doesn't qualify for. Is the curriculum different? Nope. The curriculum is actually identical.

The truth is that the main differences between the miserably failing schools and the shining successful one are the students, the parents and the school leadership. But mostly the first two.

I know this is an unpleasant truth for most people to face. It flies in the face of our liberal values and our egalitarian impulses. We want to believe that all children possess equal potential to succeed, regardless of race or socio-economic status. We want to believe that education is the door to opportunity and equality, open to all. We want to believe that unacceptable educational outcomes can be rectified through public policy reform. But I fear that the problem is far more complex than the public discourse (right now) will allow.

Education policy reform can not make parents more involved. It can not grant them the time, the knowledge nor the skills needed to be active in their child's school. Public policy can't provide parents sufficient education to assist their children with academic work. It can't make them read to their preschool-aged children, or teach them the alphabet, or count with them, or talk to them in standard English, or help grow their vocabularies. Public policy can't even compel parents to get their children to school on time and it certainly can't force them to discipline their kids when it's needed.

The sad truth is that a child's academic success is largely determined before he ever enters school, and his progress from there is affected by a thousand factors and influences which are well beyond the classroom teacher's or the school's control. Teaching poor children is simply harder than teaching their wealthier peers. Poverty presents real and unique educational challenges. Take any failing disaster of a public school in the worst area of the Bronx and switch it with a top-notch, elite private school on the Upper West Side. Swap their students, but leave everything else exactly the same -- same administration, same teachers, same facilities, same budget, same curriculum. You will soon see a drastic improvement in the shitty public school's performance, and a corresponding shameful drop in educational outcomes at the "better" school. In fact, it's quite possible that the good school will serve the poor students even worse than the bad school did, because the faculty will surely be unprepared for the issues and challenges specific to teaching a poor, urban population of students.

It's time we stopped pretending that the difference between failing schools and successful schools is located primarily the schools themselves. Poorly performing schools are not failing to do some mysterious "thing" which succesful schools are doing right. In reality, schools which serve at-risk and underprivileged students will not be improved by trying to make them more similar to suburban or private schools. They need to be so much more than that. They must reach above and beyond what we traditionally think of as a school's purview. They must be given the tools and the freedom to compensate for the numerous, significant, and fateful lacks in their students' lives.

Reconciling a lack of political courage

I had intended, today, to write about the lame jobs bill that was passed earlier in the week. But with the health care summit off to such a thrilling and freaking confusing start, today's time is best used on that subject.

For the past 13 months we've been told that the magic number is 60. The democrats needs 60 votes in the senate to prevent the republicans from filibustering any new health care plan to death. And that the dream of a health care overhaul went up in smoke when Scott Brown charmed his way into Teddy Kennedy's seat.

What many don't know is that there is a way to avoid the filibuster, and it's called Reconciliation. It only requires 51 votes, itt was introduced in 1974, and its whole purpose is to prevent the minority party from paralyzing the budgeting process. In the 36 years since Reconciliation was introduced, it's been used 22 times - 16 by republicans. Including three tax cuts under President Bush that first destroyed the surplus, then increased the deficit.

So why haven't the democrats used reconciliation to pass real, meaningful health care reform? Jon Stewart answers that question on The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Summit's Eve
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Vancouverage 2010

I have MSNBC on as I'm typing this, and Howard Dean is the guest. It should be noted that any sort of democratic momentum from 2006 through 2008 looks like, in retrospect, it was Dean's doing. His take on the Reconciliation process is simple:

"Reconciliation is nothing new - Bush did it five times with controversial items. What people want is action, and they want strength. And if you don't agree with them, that's not so important. What's really important is that you get something done."

There's more from Dr. Dean:

"I think there were two major mistakes made early on. The first was not to go through reconciliation - you had to do that. The idea that we were going to get all 60 votes when one of them was Joe Liberman, who really just can't stand the democratic party, was never gonna happen. They should have figured that out earlier.

"And the second was to let congress write the bill. That was the wrong lesson to learn. The mistake that Bill Clinton made was to write the entire bill with no congressional input and then give it to them. The antidote is not to let congress write the whole bill - legislative bodies aren't good at that... that's not what their job is. They needed a bill to work from. They needed the president to say 'These are the four things that have to be in this bill,' and they would have been in the bill."

Dean ends with the point that even though he's not in love with the senate bill, it's at least some progress because it does cover uninsured people. And more importantly, it's a win against the interests of the health care lobby (and, btw, lobbying the federal government is, like porn and booze, a recession-proof industry that grew by 5% in 2009).

It's not a big enough win, but at least it's something. After 13 months of nothing, I'll take it.

Some reading on why health care reform is needed:

Administrative Costs of Medicare vs. Private Insurers

Administrative Costs of Medicare vs. Private Insurers II: The Quickening

And here's a really good, easily understandable flash presentation:

What is Single Payer?

EDIT: Here's one of the first stories of the day from the mainstream media on the health care conference, and it's not good for the republicans. You know they're going big with the lies when even the AP and freaking Bretbart are calling them on it.

The War on Fat

According to the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, better than six in ten American adults are overweight. Better than one in four are "obese." By 2015, trends say that will be three out of four overweight and two out of five obese.

If this doesn't include you - if you're not reading this while shoving a Twinkie down your throat - it surely includes people you know and care about. And even if it doesn't, it includes your money. Because the obesity epidemic is costing us big.

And by "big" I mean obesity-related illnesses (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) cost Americans nearly $150 billion annually. That's ten times the cost of the new jobs bill Harry Reid is so proud of (an issue I'll be tackling tomorrow). That's one fifth of a TARP. It's about one quarter of our annual defense budget.

Fatties are officially bending the cost curve, to borrow the political jargon of the day. Problem is, they're bending it in the wrong direction.

It's with that in mind that Michelle Obama started her "Let's Move" program, which is aimed at fighting childhood obesity. And even better, New York's commissioner of health, Dr. Richard Daines, today talked about Governor Patterson's proposed soda tax on the always excellent Brian Lehrer show.

Listen here.

Some highlights:

• More than 10 million New Yorkers are overweight or obese
• The tax aims for three goals: reducing sugared beverage consumption, reducing long-term health-care costs, and bringing in $450 million dollars in new revenue to be spent on health care
• drinks that have more than 10 calories of added sugar per 8 ounces would be taxed 1 cent per ounce

This is both significant and sensible. Significant because giving people an economic incentive to take more personal responsibility for their health has worked before - look at how much smoking has decreased in America as cigarette taxes have gone up.

Sensible because this is both a long and short-term solution. Long term it has potential to slow or halt the obesity epidemic. Short term it puts money in the state's coffers for other health-related programs while only taking a chunk out of an industry (sugared drinks) that runs at a 20% profit and can afford to rejigger their business model.

It doesn't get much better than that.

Now, people will argue (and presumably, vote) against this because the word "tax" provokes a Pavlovian response from most of the populace. And there is a certain percentage of Friedman disciples who will argue against it because they're inhuman sociopaths.

But the reality is we don't live in some fantasy land where people make the right choices all the time. Or even most of the time. We live in a reality where sixty percent of adults allow themselves to become overweight. We live in a reality where kdis and teenagers get as much as 10% of their daily calories from sugared drinks.

In this instance, it's the state's job to step in and protect the populace from those who are irresponsible.

And there's no question that the obese and overweight are being irresponsible. But they're not just gambling with their health or the health of their kids. They're gambling with your money and mine.

Tax 'em. Tax 'em like they're smokers. Just because they can't show some common sense doesn't mean that we can't.

EDIT: It's come to my attention that this may have come off with too snarky and mean-spirited. Which wasn't really my intention (ok maybe a little bit).

Anyway, the point isn't to make fat people feel bad for being fat. Especially since studies have shown that even people of normal weight are at greater risk of developing expensive/deadly diseases down the road if they consume an overabundance of sugar and/or corn syrup.

So no, the point isn't to be a dick. The point is to add some short-term consequences to an action that already has a ton of long-term consequences.

And as a reader pointed out, taxing nutrition-less drinks is just one part of it. Following Finland's model of subsidizing produce instead of, say, corn, wheat and dairy, is another worthwhile step. One that's maybe even more important.

But probably more farfetched as well, since anyone who proposes cutting corn subsidies is guaranteed to lose Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and a few others out there. Maybe Evan Bayh was right - this shit's broken.

Go Ahead, Make Me

On the heels of my rant yesterday, we have this missive from the White House:

Gibbs: We Didn't Include The Public Option Because It Doesn't Have The Votes

And it brings to mind this old one-liner from then-newly elected Franklin Roosevelt to leaders of the progressive movement:

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Adam Green, of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, has taken that ethos to heart:

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners," Green said. "Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. ... That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner."

So basically, this is just a reminder. A reminder that Obama, like Roosevelt before him, like your local congressperson regardless of party, or your local school board member, is focused primarily on one plank in his platform: Re-election.

Change doesn't happen from the top-down. It happens from the ground up. Make Obama's re-election incumbent upon his delivering a public option, and then we'll start seeing change we can believe in. Until then, he's just another politician.

I want every toy I see

Remember when you were six and your parents brought you to Toys 'R Us or Kay-Bee's? Remember running to the GI Joe aisle and picking out your favorite... then picking out one more... then two more after that... and eventually returning to your folks with a double-armful of crap that you absolutely had to have?

If you say "no," you're lying. But that's immaterial.

What is material is the fact that most of America has never gotten out of that six year old mindset.

This latest poll from Rasmussen adds a measure of clarity to otherwise muddy waters. A plurality of republicans want tax cuts no matter what it means for the national deficit. A plurality of democrats want tax hikes to balance the budget.

Republicans want to cut spending. But not on Social Security, Medicare or national defense. The three of which combine for about 75% of our national budget now, and will scrape 90% in a decade.

Democrats don't want to cut spending. But they believe a balanced budget is essential to good governance.

Everyone hates "big government." But don't touch our favorite programs - our biggest government! For all the crying and hand wringing over TARP and the stimulus package, combined they'll just about equal one payment on the interest of our health care debt by 2025. Let's just keep our heads buried in the sand for a while longer, shall we?

Because we want what we want with no regard for what's going to happen a year from now, let alone fifteen. We want what we want with no regard for reality. We are all the six year old kid running through the toy store.

And yes, President Obama, we know this is largely George Bush's fault. We knew this a long time before we elected you, and as a matter of fact we hired you to fix this mess. It was the highlight of your job application. "He talks to us like adults!" we all marveled, especially after the Reverend Wright speech in Philadelphia. George Bush was the spendthrift parent who would ring up massive credit card bills and buy his kid everything in the store. You were the level head who would make us go back and return the items we had picked out.

You were the parent who would risk disappointing his kids because it was the right thing to do. You wouldn't govern by polls or ideology. You'd cut what needed to be cut and tax what needed to be taxed.

So when I see a story like this - White House Health Care Plan Revealed Today - coming a full 13 months after you took office, it's hard to give you a mulligan. Yes, it's a shame that you're surrounded by ineffectual dweebs in the senate and self-absorbed half-wits in the house, but you're a pragmatist and a leader, remember? Herding this group of followers should be right in your wheelhouse.

It is time, if I may borrow a phrase from Red State America, to git 'r done. The tough choices need to be made now, even at the risk of some seats in congress. And enough nonsense about needing bipartisanship. After the last eight years, we all know that the president can pretty much do whatever he wants and nobody's going to be able to call him on it. Follow that Bush doctrine of executive power if you must.

Either way, you've let us run around with our armful of toys long enough. Be the adult now.

Fun With Analogies

When Clinton was Captain of the Ship of State, it was smooth sailing. Even though, near the end of his stewardship, he pointed that sucker right at an iceberg. However, in an act of foresight if not courage, he left detailed instructions on how to avoid said iceberg.

Captain Bush burned those instructions, called for "full speed ahead," and hit the iceberg squarely, resulting in a giant gash in the ship. Rather than repair the damage, Bush then led his friends to the stateroom and began stealing the silverware.

Obama became captain on a platform of repairing the damage and getting the thieves out of the stateroom, but so far all he's managed to do is get about half the people on board to start bailing - using teacups. While the other half tell them they're doing it wrong.

Obama's second concern is more frustrating and far less likely to melt away: the impression that his Administration—and he personally—is anti-business.

At least on this day, business and the economy topped Obama's agenda. Twenty steps from the Oval Office, GE's (GE) Jeff Immelt, Honeywell's (HON) David Cote, and several other CEOs huddled with White House officials to provide industry input on climate change.

All things being equal, I'm more concerned with the gash in the ship than "industry input on climate change." Hey, Captain Barry... fix the damn gash in the damn ship.

Fun party... who's the host?

Sarah Palin was the guest of honor at a Tea Party convention in Nashville this weekend. Six hundred people showed up, paying $500 a head to listen to Sarah America call for a new revolution here in the States.

Totally ignoring the legality or her call to arms, I think it's important to first address just what the Tea Party is, who's running it, and who it's aiming to help. According to the head of the Staten Island Tea Party, Lorraine Scanni, this rant from Rick Santelli on CNBC was the Party's genesis:



So nominally the Tea Party is for "smaller government" and eliminating "interference" in the lives of Joe six-pack.

But thus far, at least, people like Scanni are unable to elucidate the "how" of that. When asked by the always excellent Brian Lehrer why Santelli's rant was so inspiring, she wasn't able to give a coherent answer. When asked what role the government would play were the Tea Party to come to power - the caller who posed the question mentioned things like negotiation of overseas trading rights, interstate commerce, regulations on things like food and drugs - Scanni replied only "elimination of taxes and an increase national defense."

Those two things don't go together, for what it's worth. If you want a fleet of billion dollar, state of the art fighter jets, you have to pay for it somehow.

Asked about where the Tea Party stands on the health care debate, Scanni's response was "we want Tort Reform." Which is fine, since a lot of folks like the idea of Tort Reform... except that Tort Reform is just another kind of "big government" interference.

When asked about the bank bailout, which is the Tea Party's least favorite thing ever, both Scanni and fellow guest Glenn Reynolds said "too big to fail is too big to exist! The trusts need to be broken up." A sentiment I'm right on board with.

But... and this is the "but" I just can't wrap my head around... BUT strong governmental anti-trust legislation means bigger government. Means interference with the natural cycles of economics and commerce. Means everything the Tea Party is nominally against in their mission statement. They were against it before they were for it.

So, for the time being, it's hard to take the Tea Party at all seriously from an ideological standpoint. They just seem like a bunch of angry folks whose only shared value is that anger. Certainly, the fact that Palin's claim to fame is running the biggest welfare state in US history didn't bother them much, but the idea of trusts really gets them going. As does the idea of a government enacting regulations to break the trusts.

Ideologically they're pretty much play-dough, and in the next six months, people like Scanni and Reynolds will become marginalized and we'll start seeing new, polished leaders who come from the Karl Rove mold. The Tea Party's not a particularly big movement yet, but they have traction and generate headlines. Any half decent politician's eyes should light up at the reality of that, and any half decent politician will be able to shape the Tea Party's anger and focus it.

Against what, I don't know. Funny part is, neither are they.