As the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce and the City Council debate the newly proposed ”business licenses,” I have been waiting for someone–anyone–to refer to it as a tax (I’m looking at you, tea partyers).   In Newspeak language, as articulated by the Chamber’s manager of economic development, Chung Tan, the “license” is being established so businesses in Fayetteville can be promoted and “helped.”  Tan was quoted in last Thursday’s NWArkTimes:

“A big portion of our economic development is helping existing businesses… so if we don’t know who they are, or where they are, it’s very difficult to help them.”

Hmm.  So, the stated idea here is to require businesses in Fayetteville to pay for a license so that they can be “helped” by the city.

Council members Brenda Thiel and Matthew Petty have expressed reservations about the license being applied to small part-time businesses that are run out of people’s homes.  I’d say good for them, but truth is they’re simply looking out for their own interests.  At some level, they simply want to make sure that their own small home businesses are exempted from the “help.”

Here’s an idea: Why not make the licenses voluntary?  If the stated purpose of the license fee is to promote and help local businesses, then why not give businesses the option of deciding whether or not they would like the Chamber of Commerce’s help?  No?

The truth is that the license is a tax, and the license will further be used as a tool to help enforce sales tax collections.  Maybe that’s an idea that people could get behind, maybe not.  But a little honesty about the true nature and purpose of the so-called license would be a good place to start the discussion.

Education scholar Diane Ravitch has been making headlines (including a mention on Max Brantley’s blog) with a new book in which she reverses what had been long-held beliefs in favor of competition and choice in education. Now she says that schools should be like families:

“There should not be an education marketplace, there should not be competition,” Ravitch says. “Schools operate fundamentally — or should operate — like families. The fundamental principle by which education proceeds is collaboration. Teachers are supposed to share what works; schools are supposed to get together and talk about what’s [been successful] for them. They’re not supposed to hide their trade secrets and have a survival of the fittest competition with the school down the block.”

But without competition — in the sense of there being a wide variety of different schools (charter schools, private schools, etc.) — there’s less room for experimentation and diversity, and hence less possibility that different schools will find out what works.

Moreover, one of the strongest rationales for educational competition is that “what works” isn’t the same for different children — some children need more of a focus on the academic basics, some are more interested in the arts, some are more interested in a science and math-based curriculum, some want more structure while some thrive with less direct guidance, some do well in a large school that has lots of different clubs and activities while others get lost in the crowd.  No one school can be everything to every child.

The NPR story linked above also has an excerpt from Ravitch’s book, in which she describes how she came to oppose the No Child Left Behind Act:

My support for NCLB remained strong until November 30, 2006. I can pinpoint the date exactly because that was the day I realized that NCLB was a failure. I went to a conference at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. — a well-respected conservative think tank — to hear a dozen or so scholars present their analyses of NCLB’s remedies. . . .

Choice was not working, they all agreed. The scholars presented persuasive evidence that only a tiny percentage of eligible students were asking to transfer to better schools. . . .

As I listened to the day’s discussion, it became clear that NCLB’s remedies were not working. Students were offered the choice to go to another school, and they weren’t accepting the offer.

So the whole point here is that very few students took the opportunity to choose a different public school farther from their home. “Choice” was not working, because there wasn’t enough of it.

But Ravitch immediately flips the rationale for opposing choice:

I began to question ideas that I once embraced, such as choice and accountability, that were central to NCLB. As time went by, my doubts multiplied. I came to realize that the sanctions embedded in NCLB were, in fact, not only ineffective but certain to contribute to the privatization of large chunks of public education.

As excerpted by NPR, Ravitch’s book doesn’t seem to make sense. She criticizes NCLB’s choice provisions both for having no effect (because so few students avail themselves of choice) and for privatizing “large chunks of public education.”

The Department of Education announced the finalists for the first round of the Race to the Top competition this morning, and Arkansas is not among those listed.  Here is the Department of Ed announcement and the Ed Week blog post.

Sixteen of the initial 41 applicants were named as finalists. That so few of the applications made it to the final stage is telling. The Obama administration may really be serious about education reform. The Department of Ed will be posting score sheets and reviewers comments here. The winners for round one will be announced in April.

Here in Arkansas we are holding out hope for round two.  Applications for round two are due in June.

UPDATE: So maybe the administration isn’t so serious about education reform.

Others around the web are expressing displeasure with the list of finalists. There is this from Flypaper

The list includes Kentucky, a state with no charter law and New York, which brashly rejected reform legislation–including a critical cap lift provision–in advance of the deadline. It includes Colorado, which backed off of important reforms related to teachers, and Ohio, whose proposal was weak in a number of areas.

And this from Eduwonk

First reaction*: With the obvious caveat that not all these states get money in the first round, still sort of an “uh oh.”   Some states with good apps here but OH and NY is not a great sign…and IL and CO were arguably bubble states at best and not sure what SC means given how out of step they are with parts of the administration’s agenda.   Hard to argue the political fix is in if SC is here though…And surprised that IN didn’t pop more, they had an interesting approach to this.

And this from Jay Greene

The Race to the Top finalist states were announced today.  15 states are in the hunt for some portion of $2.3 billion, which is less than one-half of a percent of annual K-12 education spending.  It is rounding error.

The contest may shape state and local education policy debates where something might actually happen, but no one should be fooled into thinking that this money is going to have any significant, direct effect.

And this from Ed Week’s Politics K-12 Blog

We’ll have more analysis on the winners—and losers—later, but our first take on the list of finalists is that many of them are Southern, right-to-work states. New York is a surprise because many argue its student-teacher data law is weak, and its attempt to loosen restrictions on charters failed. Kentucky made the list, but has no charter law. Also, Colorado is the only Western state to make the cut.

Mid-Riffs contributor Stuart Buck has a book coming out in May.  The book titled “Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation” investigates the origins of the pejorative ”acting white” slur. You can pre-order the book here at Amazon, and you can find Stuart’s author pages here and here .

Monday’s Atlanta Journal Constitution had a good op-ed about the book. Stuart’s thesis is summed up in the following excerpt from that piece.

“The analogy I would draw is treatment for cancer,” said Buck, speaking by phone from Arkansas. “Segregation is like a cancer that we had to get rid of, but the treatment that saved our lives had unintended side effects.”

While black students often attended segregated schools that lacked the resources of white facilities, Buck says the schools served as the connective tissue in a community that historically valued education.

“In segregated schools, black children had consistently seen other blacks succeeding in the academic world,’’ he says. “The authority figures and role models — teachers and principals — were all black. And the best students in the schools were black as well.”

While black parents welcomed integration, they had hoped for a merger of black and white schools. Instead, they witnessed the destruction of black schools and the erasure of the culture, community and closeness that the schools had created. Their children marched off to white schools where they experienced hostility and were tracked into lower-level classes. In his research, Buck found many examples of new facilities that had housed black schools being abandoned because white parents weren’t willing to send their kids to black schools.

“They did not want to send white schoolchildren into black schools, to be taught by black teachers and disciplined by black principals,” he says.

*******

Once reassigned to desegregated schools, black students “were sitting in a classroom with mostly other black students in what they believed to be the ‘dumb’ class, watching as the white students headed to the ‘smart’ class down the hall,” writes Buck.

Dispirited, black students began to associate achievement with white students and ostracize peers who joined the white kids in the “smart” classes.

Stuart also did a radio interview on Monday. You can listen here. The book should be a good read. I encourage you all to check it out.

The CBS News show 48 Hours Mystery will have Johnny Depp as a guest this Saturday and the topic will be the West Memphis Three case.  Depp, like many people around the world, believes that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jesse Miskelley are not guilty of the crimes they were convicted of.

I can’t imagine how they could possibly try and summarize this case into an hour-long show.  The story has been developing since 1993, and two documentary films and a great book by Arkansas author Mara Leveritt have been devoted to the complexities of this story.  I urge Arkansans to watch the 48 hours episode, which will air Saturday night at 9 pm.

*UPDATE: Here’s the full episode. I actually think they did a pretty good job of condensing the important elements into a one hour show.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Also, Arkansans should be aware that the prosecutor in the video (the one sporting the moustache who says that on a scale of 1 to 10, the integrity of his case is an 11) is John Fogleman, a current candidate for the Arkansas State Supreme Court.  He’s going to have a hard time, as he should, overcoming supporters of the West Memphis Three.  Mara Leveritt sufficiently makes the case against Fogelman’s candidacy here.

On the matter of grade-inflating high schools and the Arkansas lottery scholarships, the state legislature is poised to take a step in the wrong direction.  At issue are eligibility requirements that, under current law, require students who attend identified grade-inflating high schools to jump through additional hoops in order to receive scholarships.

Currently, in order to qualify for a scholarship, high school students must complete the Smart Core curriculum and either obtain a 2.5 GPA in high school or score a 19 or better on the ACT.  Students from grade-inflating schools, however, must have both a 2.5 GPA and get an ACT score of 19 or score at a proficient level or better on the state’s End-of-Course exams to qualify for a scholarship.

Concerned members of  the state leg, such as State Sen. Joyce Elliot, are on the right track by insisting that the requirements amount to “blatantly unequal treatment” and that in effect the policy amounts to punishing students for the actions of adults.

The leg’s planned move is to delay the additional requirements by a year.  Under that scheme, any high school student with a 2.5 GPA will qualify for a scholarship.

Lame.

Removing the additional requirements isn’t the answer. I agree that punishing students for what is ultimately a failing of the adults running their schools is a mistake.  But removing additional measures of achievement and ability is not the answer.  If anything, they should make the tougher requirements proposed for students of  grade-inflating schools apply to everyone.

Using GPA as a sole indicator of eligibility is problematic.  Making it possible for every student in Arkansas to get a scholarship with a 2.5 GPA is only going to lead to more grade inflation in Arkansas’ high schools.  Teachers will be put in the uncomfortable position of having their grading decisions mean a great deal more than they already do, and the pressure to inflate grades will be even higher.  Just look at the situation in Georgia, where scholarships are based on GPA.  Grade inflation there is rampant, and USA Today reports that 40% of college freshman lose their scholarships after the first year.

Another problem with basing scholarships on GPA is that it gives students an incentive to take less challenging courses.  This is especially problematic when one considers that future scholarship renewals will be based upon college GPA.  Again, Georgia provides an example.  A study by Thomas Dee and Linda Jackson found that:

“students whose major course of study is in engineering,  computing, or the natural sciences are 21 to 51% more likely to lose their HOPE Scholarships than students in other disciplines. These results suggest that the eligibility standards used in Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship program may have some important and unintended consequences. In particular, such standards appear horizontally inequitable in that they financially punish those HOPE Scholars whose chosen course of study provides fewer opportunities to earn high grades. This differential may also be noteworthy since it could constitute a strong incentive that influences the course and major selection of subsequent college students. Such a change in the incentives facing college students could be particularly relevant to policy given the recent evidence on the growing importance of science and math skills for the distribution of wages.”

In other words, students will have an immediate financial incentive, in both high school and college, to take easier classes.  In Arkansas, students with a C- average while in college will lose their money, while students with a C+ won’t.  Bad news , unless maybe you think the world needs more communications and marketing majors.

The bottom line is that, at a minimum, all students who receive Arkansas lottery scholarships should have at least a 2.5 GPA, AND be able  to score at least proficient on End-of-Course exams, AND score a measly 19 on the ACT.  Such a policy might actually curb grade inflation while diminishing the incentivisation of mediocrity.

UPDATE: The bill that passed the House and Senate yesterday removes the extra requirements for grade-inflating schools. Only Reps. Burris and Hobbs voted against removing the restrictions. To my knowledge, no one in the legislature suggested making the requirements universal.

As a lifelong Arkansan it is almost a foregone conclusion that I am not all that fond of the state to our southwest.  And I just discovered another reason to dislike Texas.  Wingnuts on the Texas Board of Education are working to single-handedly rewrite history. Don McLeroy, the same board member who attempted to remove science from the science books, and his band of imperialist “Christians” want the Texas social studies guidelines rewritten to portray America “as a nation intended to be emphatically Christian.” The New York Times had a great article on Sunday detailing the battle.

Why, exactly, should the rest of us care? Well because Texas’..

… $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually — which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State.

McLeroy contends that “textbooks are mostly the product of the liberal establishment, and they’re written with the idea that our religion and our liberty are in conflict.” He may have a point there, but he goes too far when he attempts to force his particular brand of religion on other people’s children.

While it is true that a Judeo-Christian world view certainly influenced the founders’ thinking and that at the time of the nation’s founding, religion was more a part of civic life than it is today, it is also true that the authors of the constitution took great pains to protect individual liberty and choice. They did not set in place a system to ensure people remained Christian. They created a system of government which they thought would ensure that people remain free.

Religion is not at odds with liberty; McLeroy’s authoritarian nature is.

I made a trip down to Little Rock with Jay Greene today, and for lunch we met up with Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times and Warwick Sabin of the Oxford American. As you would expect, this meeting of the minds lead to some pretty spirited discussion of education and politics in Arkansas. I found the conversation quite enjoyable, and it appears both Jay and Max did as well.

The four of us found much common ground over some excellent burgers at the Copper Grill. We seemed to agree that there are some glaring inequities in education opportunity, and that schools need more flexibility to recruit and retain the best and brightest teachers (rockstar teachers as Jay puts it). We also agreed that high standards are a must and that rewarding students for their achievement shows promise.

I hope that this initial conversation leads to some more lively discussions in the future. Next time you guys are up in Fayetteville, drinks are on me.

On Monday, the Northwest Arkansas Times ran an op-ed from a local tea-partyer, James Laubler, that went on at length about the Fayetteville School Board’s plan to use a combination of reallocation and refinancing  to pay for improvements to the current high school.

Laubler made a couple of reasonable points.  It is reasonable to wonder if the Board can make good on their promise of budget cuts (which have yet to be spelled out) and whether or not expected future revenues will hold true.  But it isn’t accurate to say that the board has decided to “circumvent the voters.”  The Board has a budget that they are free to work with, and they are free to allocate the approved budget as they see fit.  Unlike the situation with the proposed millage that was defeated, the overall size of the district’s budget is not being grown under the current plan.  If anything, the Board should be commended for coming up with a fiscally responsible way to improve the current high school.

Laubler even seems to take issue with the very idea that the federal government is subsidizing the rate at which the district will have to pay back any stimulus money it receives, but one can hardly blame the Board for making sure that Fayetteville takes advantage of what’s being offered.  If Laubler has an issue with the provisions of the stimulus money, then he should take that up with federal lawmakers.  From our local perspective, it would be ridiculous to not take advantage of the opportunity.

The real problem with Lauber’s rant, though, was that his arguments dissolved into outlandish melodrama.  He said the Board must be “socialists, communists, or bought politicians with no moral compass,” and he reminds us all that “this is not a socialist or communist nation.”  He says there is a movement in this country to take back “our country from these types,”  followed up with threatening language that he “wouldn’t want to be the one to ultimately challenge these patriots.”  He closes with more threatening innuendo, as he references the American Revolution and tells the Board not to “anger us the way the last king did.”

Ugh.

Ultimately, and with sweet irony, the tactics employed by those who rely on  this type of  grandstanding are the architects of their own undoing.  While there are some segments of our population who may be moved by such demagoguery, most Americans prefer common sense and reasonable discussion.   They respect the opinions of reasonable people, and reject those who aren’t.

If anything, Lauber’s letter assured sensible Fayettevillians that the Board’s plans are sensible.  There’s not many who want to be on the side of the local McCarthyite.

Apparently, political ineptitude runs throughout the “tea party” movement.  Recent events at their national convention were downright embarrassing.

On the national front, the UCLA Civil Rights Project released a report today that claims to show that charter schools are more segregated than traditional public schools. The report finds:

…that charter schools, particularly those in the western United States are havens for white re-segregation from public schools; requirements for providing essential equity data to the federal government go unmet across the nation; and magnet schools are overlooked, in spite of showing greater levels of integration and academic achievement than charters.

It looks like, based on a quick pass through the report, their main finding is based on demographic comparisons  between charter schools and traditional public schools at the state level. This method of comparison likely leads to inaccurate conclusions due to the fact that charter schools are overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon. The correct comparison is between charters and the demographics of their immediate geographic area. We have discussed this topic as it relates to Little Rock at length here.

The Economist’s take on this report is concise, to-the-point, and spot on.

In plain English, there are a lot of black kids in charter schools. This is because charter schools tend to get set up in neighbourhoods where the public schools are terrible, such as south-eastern Washington DC or the rougher parts of New Orleans. These neighbourhoods are disproportionately African-American. Charter schools are popular with poor black parents because their other choices are so awful. There are very few charter schools in rich white suburbs with nice public schools, because there is no call for them.

The important question about charter schools is: do they give kids a better education than they would otherwise have received? The answer is yes. Nothing else matters.

You can find information specific to Arkansas from the Civil Rights Project report here.

ADDITION: I had some additional thoughts that I wanted to add to this post, so , here goes.

First, to drive home the inappropriate nature of the report’s method of comparison, I would like to make an reductio ad absurdum argument. In any given state it is necessarily true that some traditional schools will have a higher percentage of black students than the state average and some will be lower . Take for example the West Memphis and the Little Rock here in Arkansas. Both have a very high percentage of black students compared to the state average, 80% and 68% respectively compared to the state average of 21%.  Would the authors of this report advocate regulating these districts, or perhaps, dictating where people live within the state so as to equalize the demographic makeup of all schools.  And, what happens when they realize that Arkansas is whiter than Mississippi and blacker than Oklahoma?

Second, I find it curious that opponents of choice see black kids choosing charter schools and blame the charters.  While it seems more likely to me that this represents a population of students being severely underserved by their traditional public schools who are making a choice to leave. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about those traditional districts that are failing to meet their student’s needs?

A little closer to home, Cynthia Howell of the Dem Gaz has an article today providing blow by blow coverage of the latest from the North Little Rock School District desegregation hearings. Some of the more interesting discussion focused on discipline.  Here are a couple of excerpts.

John Walker quizzed Bobby Acklin, assistant superintendent for desegregation,and Francical Jackson, director of student affairs, about why black students, particularly boys, are disciplined at greater rates than their white classmates and how students and parents are to know that the district will pay for field trips for students from poor families if those messages aren’t in writing.

**********

The district’s enrollment for the past several years has been 59 percent black. In 2006-07, 83 percent of 3,709 suspensions in the district were to black students. And 91 percent of the 1,079 out-of-school suspensions were given to black students.

**********

Jackson said she has not found racial bias in the discipline recommendations from schools but, in response to Walker, she said she has not prepared any written analyses on that matter.

She said that black students “misbehave more often than whites,” and that playful roughhousing among black students can be misinterpreted by district employees as fighting.

Walker noted that the district at times assigns students with behavior problems to privately operated day treatment programs at a cost of $232,000 per semester. He questioned whether Jackson had determined whether those students, most of whom are black, perform better upon their return to the North Little Rock schools.

“The culture in North Little Rock is to not put anything in writing and you don’t do anything to remediate students,” Walker told Jackson at one point.

“We may not have it in writing but we are making progress,” Jackson responded, noting that the district has increased the number of alternative education services for students who are not succeeding in the regular classrooms.