A sneak preview of GOP contenders’ brag sheets on education

By

The year ahead will see no end of blather about the education records and policies of the major presidential contenders, but few assessments are likely to be as much of a curiosity as “The 2012 Republican Candidates (So Far)” in the next issue of the magazine Education Next.

Education Next calls itself a “scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to looking at hard facts about school reform.” With a few exceptions, its editorial board is dominated by voucherites and other conservatives – Paul Peterson, Chester Finn, Bill Evers, John Chubb, Terry Moe, Caroline Hoxby, and Jay Greene – and it has always squinted hard, if politely, to the right.

In this article, by Allison Sherry, the Washington bureau chief of the Denver Post, the squinting becomes more like a stare. It’s not scholarly and omits too much. Sometimes it’s just plain wrong. But its wrongness tells a lot about what you’re likely to hear from Republicans in the campaign next year – and not likely to hear.

The main theme of the piece is that while some of these candidates – Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, if he runs – have sometimes done policy flips in their careers, three of them –Perry, now governor of Texas, Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Pawlenty, ditto for Minnesota  – have impressive education records.

Education Next even provides a convenient set of bar graphs headed “Governors Have a Right to Brag.” Fourth and eighth graders in every state headed by one of the three governors, the piece says, correctly, scored higher than the national average in math and reading on NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Romney, it says “is widely credited for raising test scores.” He “proposed education reform measures that lifted the state cap on charter schools and gave principals more power to get rid of ineffective teachers.”

What is doesn’t tell you is that the kids in those states scored nearly as high, and in a couple of cases, higher, before these candidates became governors. Minnesota fourth graders got an average raw score of 225 in math in 2002 (pre-Pawlenty) and 223 in 2009. In 2002, their average was eight points higher than the national average; in 2009, it was three points higher. In reading, Minnesota fourth graders scored 225 in 2002 and 223 in 2009.

The same was true in eighth-grade reading in Texas, where the average score in 2002 was 262 in 2002 and 260 in 2009. And contrary to the implications of the piece, Texas’s reading score was lower than those in 32 other states and jurisdictions. Massachusetts, which had the nation’s highest scores under Romney in 2009, also ranked among the nation’s highest-scoring states in both reading and math before Romney.

In fact, the NAEP scores in the brag chart don’t mean as much as a lot of people seem to think. They’re not aligned with school curricula – and can’t be. The protocols for who gets tested and which English learners and special education students get left out of the testing program, moreover, vary widely. In Texas, 9 percent of all students were exempt from the 2009 reading test; nationally it was 5 percent; in California it was 3 percent.

Also, since the tests have no consequences for students, those picked to take them have no particular reason to make an effort to do well.  NAEP’s own technical reports warn about making state-to-state comparisons based on the tests, but NAEP’s press people blithely ignore those warnings in their handouts.

The piece in Education Next doesn’t allude to that caution either. Instead it lauds Perry and his education commissioner for “pulling up the quality of Texas tests…to a level respected among education reformers.” But the up-pulling seems to have produced little in gains.

The phrase “education reformers”, incidentally, should be read with a touch of caution. In the world of Education Next and other ed-policy conservatives, it’s a euphemism for people demanding “choice” – vouchers, charters, privatization –  “accountability” for teachers as measured by student achievement, and suspicion of, if not outright hostility toward, collective bargaining. It doesn’t mean centrists, much less people who oppose the use of standardized tests in evaluating teachers or individual students.

And, as always, there’s the phony sentimentality about the good old days in the little red schoolhouse.  Education Next quotes Michele Bachmann saying she entered politics “because I want to give my children the incredible educational experience I received from public schools as a student.”

But having been born in 1956, she finished high school less than a decade before publication of A Nation at Risk, which warned in no uncertain terms that America’s schools were going to hell. Maybe that would explain why Bachmann never learned that the American Revolution began not in New Hampshire but in Massachusetts or that the nation’s founding fathers didn’t work all that tirelessly to end slavery as she seems to believe. As Will Rogers was supposed to have said (but probably never did), “The schools were never as good as they used to be.”

And wouldn’t it have been useful for the piece to mention that Bachmann, a creationist, favors the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools? “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes,” she said in a campaign debate, “who believe in intelligent design.” That surely says more about a would-be president than a few test scores.

Peter Schrag is the former editorial page editor and columnist of the Sacramento Bee. He is the author of “Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future” and “California: America’s High Stakes Experiment.” His latest book is “Not Fit for Our Society: Immigration and Nativism in America” (University of California Press). He is a frequent contributor to the California Progress Report (californiaprogressreport.com) and is a member of the TOP-Ed advisory board.

12 Comments

  1. Good piece. It’s so refreshing to see someone with MSM credibility* take a hard look at Hoover’s advocacy commentaries. Nothing wrong with advocacy, but it’s way too often presented as “scholarly research” and reported that way – and that IS wrong.
     
    Regarding Massachusetts’ top achievement, it’s also highly relevant to point out that it’s a state with strong union protections — including for teachers. That blows up the “reformers’ ” message that teachers and their unions are the cause of low achievement. (In fact, just to remind: The non-union states where teachers can be fired at will are consistently the lowest academic achievers, and the converse is also true. That correlation doesn’t mean causation, but it conclusively disproves one of the “reformers’ ” primarily claims.)
    *How did the Sac Bee become such a vigorous mouthpiece for the current brand of ed “reform”?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. Peter:
    You’re a little deceptive yourself.  The central example you try to point to as a charade in the article is about Romney.  You quote the article saying Romney “is widely credited for raising test scores.”  Then you attempt to discredit that by pointing out that Massachusetts test scores were the highest before Romney arrived.  But the point is that test scores WENT UP under Romney’s reforms.  Who cares if they were already doing well, they got even better!
    As for the other Governor’s you seem to leave out information for one who is so critical of others for omitting details.  For example, 8th grade math.  All of the Governor’s demonstrated gains in this area, in some cases significant gains.
    Your critique of NAEP is unclear.  It is the most complete and comparable stats we have to evaluate students across states and it is widely used for doing just that.  You can nitpick at imperfections but do you have a better measurement?  I think this is just a lazy way to discredit positive results under Republican administrations.

    Finally, I didn’t know you were the arbitrator of who is considered a “centrist” but you might want to adjust your meter.  School choice, charter schools and various accountability measures for teachers as measured by student achievement are consistently embraced by the public in large numbers.  These are not radical ideas, especially when  so many of them are supported by the most liberal President in our history.
     

     

     

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  3. What it doesn’t tell you is that the kids in those states scored nearly as high, and in a couple of cases, higher, before these candidates became governors.

    EXACTLY. 

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  4. I usually like Peter Schrag but his partisanship here doesn’t have much point when you consider that the Repuplicans have no corner on education “blather.”  The sole Democratic contribution to saving our collapsing public schools is billions in pork for new national standards and tests (while it self-righteouslydecries the emphasis on testing).  What would Democrats do without Republicans?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  5. Caroline,
    Well it could also be that there is another factor driving both test scores and political support for unions.  I would suggest that wealth could be that factor.  As we’ve discussed before family (i.e. wealth) is a huge factor, ~ 50%, of school outcomes.  I’d suggest that wealth could also lead to generous labor policies.  And according to the US Census Bureau abstract for 2011 I see that Massachusetts has the third highest per capita income of all states.  Do you know if there are any non-union states that also have high per-capita income and have poor school outcomes?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  6. You could well be right, Paul — I always emphasize that there’s clear correlation here but that doesn’t mean causation.  Undoubtedly there are factors that correlate both with strong pro-labor policies and high academic achievement, and factors that correlate both with weak labor protections and low academic achievement.

    But the one thing that this correlation does show — conclusively, resoundingly, beyond a doubt — is that eliminating job security for teachers does not lead to or correlate with higher academic achievement. So that discussion shouldn’t even be taking place.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  7. …and I don’t know of any states like this, though I don’t know that there AREN’T any:

     non-union states that also have high per-capita income and have poor school outcomes…

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  8. True, the absence of unions is not the decisive factor for student achievement.  Just wondering if unions are a help or a hinderance given other factors are equal.
     

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  9. CapitolReader, it would be wise to learn the basics of punctuation before attempting any comment on education.
    If you want to talk about governors (plural) you don’t say governor’s (possessive).
     

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  10. Chuck – It’s typical of a person who has nothing cogent or credible to add to discredit everything someone says by pointing to an irrelevant flaw (such as a typo on the comments section of a blog).  I’m not surprised that you have no comments on the substance of my post.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  11. I used to like reading Peter Schrag’s pieces even as I frequently disagreed with them. They tended to be informative and balanced in their facts, yet have an opinion.
     
    Unfortunately, not this one. CapitolReader already said much of it, but it is even worse. Starts by a priori trying to undermine the credibility of the source, then cherry-picks the data, then nitpicks the assessment tool, and to complete it he mindlessly dumps on choice supporters just for the fun of it. And then he can’t resist picking on Michele Bachmann because of her “good old days” quote. Wow! Impressive!  (As an aside, makes me wonder why Peter forgot to dump on our moderator, John, who also mentioned those good old days recently).
     
    Incidentally, Texas’ NAEP exclusion rate, while still high, dropped during Perry’s tenure. But let’s not get trivial facts get between Peter and his desire.
     
    A hit piece par excellence. No wonder Ms. Grannan is salivating. Disappointing. Psalms 89:45

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.

10.1Assessments(37)
2010 elections(16)
2012 election(16)
A to G Curriculum(27)
Achievement Gap(38)
Adequacy suit(19)
Adult education(1)
Advocacy organizations(20)
Blog info(5)
CALPADS(32)
Career academies(20)
CELDT(2)
Character education(2)
Charters(82)
Common Core standards(71)
Community Colleges(66)
Data(25)
Did You Know(16)
Disabilities education(3)
Dropout prevention(11)
© Thoughts on Public Education 2014 | Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us