Edwards on Education

I haven't seen this get much attention, but it seems that on Friday John Edwards unveiled a major set of education reform proposals. We have an integrated approach here, starting with an ambitious preschool plan (something Hillary Clinton's also done) through a K-12 reform, and on to his "College for Everyone" initiative.

On K-12, I think he pulls the nice political trick of loudly denouncing No Child Left Behind ("George Bush's No Child Left Behind law is not working") while actually proposing further reforms that are fairly consistent with the spirit of the law, aimed at improving a flawed-but-worthy effort rather than backsliding away from the concept of accountability.

Comments

Every proposal except for the college proposal benefits the teachers unions much more than it does the students. More jobs for teaching pre-kindergarten, higher pay no matter if the kids learn or not, no testing to cover up the incredible failures of the urban, inner city schools, and no accountability for anyone getting the bigger pay checks.

Of course, how does Mr. Edwards propose to keep an all voluntary military open when everyone gets four years at directional state getting a degree in something that leads nowhere.

Posted by superdestroyer | September 24, 2007 7:20 PM

It's not the concept of accountability that cripples No Child Left Behind, it's the one-size fits all mentality that mandates that all the children in this country be squeezed into educational boxes which they may or may not fit. As George Will likes to point out, one half of all American children are below average intelligence and always will be. Not every child has the same ability to perform on a standardized test, and it's ludicrous to think that every kid can, particularly when you factor in the legion kids in this country who are intellectually disabled, cognitively disabled or emotionally disturbed. (Despite what's generally assumed, the large majority of those kids' scores are placed in the regular pool for state educational testing.)

This isn't a one-size fits all world. It's unfortunate that this argument has been co-opted by race "realists", but I think that's the only responsible view to take about education. Not everyone is equipped to succeed equally.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 7:45 PM

Bravo, Freddie.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 24, 2007 7:56 PM

Whatever happened to old fashioned Democratic populist slogans like "Jobs for Everyone"? That Edwards is running as a supposed populist on the slogan "College for Everyone" shows the triumph of elitism among Democrats.

This plan will do a lot more for the income of college teachers than for the well-being of the minority of students who don't already attempt college. Edwards is just proposing a formula for getting naive young people to waste years pursuing college educations that won't do anything for them when they could be working, bringing home some money, and getting job experience.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 24, 2007 8:02 PM

I'm not that sure I'm wild about the "College for Everyone" idea either. It's a worthy goal, I suppose, but isn't the problem that there are too many people going to college right now, hence the astoundingly high (and rising) prices for a college education? It's supply and demand, folks, and the demand is incredibly high right now.

Universal Preschool is something I could get behind, and I tend to think that higher pay leads to being able to recruit better teachers. But having garbagemen and realtors with college degrees makes no sense and is a really poor distribution of resources. I tend to think that people who are talented enough and want to go on to a career where higher education is needed should be able to get some college, even if they can't afford it, but I'm not sure I like universal college becoming one of The Big Liberal Ideas.

Posted by Lev | September 24, 2007 8:07 PM

So many people in the media are without a clue about how many kids there are out there who are not college material by the longest stretch of the imagination. In Los Angeles County, the nation's largest, only 16% of ninth-graders, public and private, wind up scoring 1000 or higher on the SAT (Math + Verbal, but not Writing), which, for us old-timers, is the equivalent of 890 on the SAT before late 1995. Okay, you could argue that 1000 is a pretty steep hurdle, so let's double the percentage of LA County kids who are college material: 32%. So, that means 68% in LA are mostly likely to just waste their time in college unless they can find some vocational training disguised as an academic education.

Granted, LA County is dumber than the national average, but LA represents the future of America. We ought to start getting used to it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 24, 2007 8:07 PM

The real problem is the death of low skilled jobs in this country that provide a living wage. I personally would chalk that up to globalization and crushing unions, but then I should know that questioning globalization or praising unions in the old blogosphere is asking for it.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 8:19 PM

I agree with Freddie's comments in this thread, especially the one just above.

There is certainly much that can still be done to encourage college education. I am strongly in favor of increasing Pell Grants and other forms of aid to students. At the same time, it is necessary to realize as a society that many people simply aren't cut out for it. These people deserve an opportunity to get decent jobs where they can work with dignity, earn good wages and benefits, and raise families. Right now, our society seems to be close to giving up on non-college graduates. That has to stop. It's not right that some hard-working people are forever mired in poverty simply because they failed to win the IQ sweepstakes.

Posted by Josh G. | September 24, 2007 8:41 PM

Just for the 'benefits the teachers' unions commenter -- I'm really tired of seeing teachers' unions demonized. My mother is a Special Education teacher and a member of the NEA. She is a member of her union first of all because she believes in unions, but second of all because it provides real benefits. She cannot strike. That's against the law. Her union provides collective bargaining and legal assistance in lawsuits. Considering her area of schooling, she needs that assistance. Parents sometimes choose to challenge the individualized education plans that special education professionals seek to assign their children. In order to server her students best, my mother needs to have the ability to defend herself in court. Because my mother chose to seek a career where a Master's degree doesn't grant a commensurate salary (my salary is quickly approaching hers with no degree not even into my second year as a web developer) she does not have the funds to defend herself. Her union will defend her.

If you support unions, the neutered entities that are the teachers' unions should not bother you. You should support them. They are politically involved because that is what their members have demanded. They collect dues to support their important activities. Unlike many union shops, teachers generally have two choices of union -- the AFT and the NEA. Both are fine unions (though the NEA is more supportive of Democrats) and both are worthy of the same respect as any member of the AFL-CIO or any other union for that matter.

My folks were computer programmers in the 1980s. My family had more money and things were a little easier. They both chose to go into teaching for their own reasons in the 90s. I felt that sacrifice myself (I was only 11 when my Dad started teaching college). In the intervening years I've seen them accept a standard of living that really is unacceptable for how hard they work. My mother spends almost every waking moment thinking about her students. She spends money out of her own pocket to provide the majority of the enrichment opportunities in her classroom. She plans her lessons and individualized education programs in her own time -- often to the late hours of the night.

My father grades papers constantly. He's in an administrative position now, but up until this semester he would often have a stack of hundreds of student compositions to read and grade. His comments were good enough that I never got a grade lower than an 'A' on any paper in college. He gave his students the same consideration. I know that because I never needed his help in college to achieve those grades. Growing up, I always knew someone would be up no matter what hour I came home because my father would invariably be there at night grading papers.

Both of them have taught summer school more years than they haven't. Still, they make far less money than other professionals with over 10 years experience. If teachers are not due representation, no one is.

So please, lay off the teachers' unions. It may be popular in the Washington circles, but it is not RIGHT.

Posted by James Hare | September 24, 2007 8:58 PM

As George Will likes to point out, one half of all American children are below average intelligence and always will be.

Will's statement is meaningless, of course (not unusual for him). It has all the depth and acuity of 'Wherever you go, there you are!'. The point is to raise the get busy raising the baseline, which is essentially a function of culture, in the broadest sense - culture being something I thought conservatives were supposed to have a deep appreciation of. I guess culture is valuable so long as it's..er...stagnant or something. Any other explanation of the differences between IQs in different cultures has to be racial, which Occam's Razor would suggest are crap.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 24, 2007 9:08 PM

As George Will likes to point out, one half of all American children are below average intelligence and always will be.

Will's statement is meaningless, of course (not unusual for him). It has all the depth and acuity of 'Wherever you go, there you are!'. The point is to get busy raising the baseline, which is essentially a function of culture, in the broadest sense - culture being something I thought conservatives were supposed to have a deep appreciation of. I guess culture is valuable so long as it's..er...stagnant or something. Any other explanation of the differences between IQs in different cultures has to be racial, which Occam's Razor would suggest are crap.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 24, 2007 9:09 PM

sorry

Posted by jonnybutter | September 24, 2007 9:13 PM

Another "education president"? How many is that?

Posted by kafka | September 24, 2007 10:20 PM

James, I think it's important to distinguish among teachers, teachers unions as service organizations, and teachers' unions as a political interest group. I have nothing but admiration for teachers, and I'm sure unions provide valuable services to their members, but neither of those points have any bearing on whether teachers' unions as a lobbying force have a positive or negative effect on the education system.

Most large cities have a centralized, monopolistic school system that is not accountable to parents. Millions of children are getting subpar educations. Given the magnitude of the crisis, you would think that experimenting with different approaches would be the order of the day. Yet teachers unions have opposed almost all efforts to experiment with different ways of delivering education. Not just school vouchers, but charter schools, tuition scholarship programs, merit pay, increased testing, alternative certification, and others. Some of these may very well be lousy ideas that wouldn't work. But most of them were or are worth trying, yet they've consistently poured resources into any effort try even modest experiments.

For example, here in Missouri the legislature considered a modest scholarship tax credit program that would direct scholarships to about 10,000 poor kids (all the kids had to be from families making less than twice the poverty level) who are currently trapped in the horrible KC and St. Louis public schools. The teacher's union not opposed the legislation but they made defeating it a top priority. I personally talked to more than one urban Democratic legislator who thought the legislation would be good for the kids in his or her district but didn't vote for it out of fear that the union would retaliate by running a primary challenge.

I'm having trouble thinking of a charitable explanation for that kind of fierce opposition to a tiny program that would almost exclusively benefit the most disadvantaged kids in Missouri. Maybe the program wouldn't work, but it could hardly do worse than the schools they're in now.

I'm sure your mother wants nothing but the best for kids, and she's probably not aware that the union she supports with her dues is engaging in this kind of mean-spirited politicking. But the children in failing schools matter, and so I'm going to criticize any institution that spends resources actively opposing even experimenting with policies that could lead to better educational opportunities--especially for the poorest kids in society.

Posted by Tim Lee | September 24, 2007 10:31 PM

Wow, what a bunch of reactionaries!

We need education. A lot of it.
We need it for 3 reasons:
1. the economy of the future depends on education.
2. democracy depends on education.
3. personal fulfillment depends on education.

For you pragmatists, think of the economy. If our workforce is not properly educated, the economy won't go forward. Employers are complaining. with good reason.

For you who, like me, don't like what we are seeing our government do, we depend on a democratic nation acting responsibly. Democracy depends on the good judgment and education of the people. Issues aren't getting easier. Take, for example, global warming. The decision on what our nation should will be made be elected officials. If people are not sufficiently educated to learn to separate science from pseudoscience, the wrong officials (largely republican) will be elected.

Finally, education is part of the "pursuit of happiness" (fulfillment).

In short, education is an extremely high priority. Although it gets lots of money and attention, it has huge problems. We are not doing a good job. Our educational models are frozen in the late-nineteenth, early 20th-century molds. Pointing fingers at poor students and saying they are ineducable is sticking your head in the ground. If you don't support education for the sake of others, you should support it for selfish reasons.

Posted by jk | September 24, 2007 11:53 PM

We need education. A lot of it.

I agree, of course. What I disagree with is the notion that all students can achieve similar levels of proficiency, or that trying to force them to do so is in anyone's best interest. That doesn't mean you don't have testing or chart improvement. But when you do test, don't ask several million children to reach the same levels. It's unrealistic and gets in the way of the actual job of education.

Posted by Freddie | September 25, 2007 12:09 AM

Freddie,

Where does "on size fits all" come from? From the modest idea that everyone should be literate and mathematically competent? I think your creating a straw man, one that can be used to say simply "it doesn't pay to try to teach these people!" This may not be the message you mean to convey, but its the one many will want to hear.

We do need a flexible education system. for example, it's not clear to me that for many people 18 is the right time for college. So, going to school at 18 can be an expensive waste. But that doesn't mean that the same person at 30 might not be ready to soak up an education. In fact, one of the areas where the US education system is relatively strong is in having flexible college entry points. But I digress.

Although one size doesn't fit all, its critical that we condemn with low expectations and low opportunities.

Posted by jk | September 25, 2007 1:42 AM

correction:

I wrote:

Although one size doesn't fit all, its critical that we condemn with low expectations and low opportunities.

when I meant:

Although one size doesn't fit all, its critical that we NOT condemn with low expectations and low opportunities.

Posted by jk | September 25, 2007 1:45 AM

A far more pressing issue is getting students to graduate from high school. In LA public high schools, 9th grade classes are typically twice the size of 12th grade classes because half the students drop out.

Bizarrely, the LA school board has responded to this problem by making it harder to graduate: this year's 9th grade class will be the first to be required to pass not just Algebra I and Geometry to graduate, but now they also must pass Algebra II. At at least one school, the entering 9th graders weren't told about this new requirement to graduate on the grounds that it would likely make many give up and dropout right away.

They are also going to require an extra year of foreign language to graduate, which won't bother the Latinos all that much since Spanish is just about all they teach in LA anymore, but will just hammer the graduation chances of African-Americans, who really dislike learning Spanish.

The idea behind these changes is to make sure that LAUSD graduates are qualified to attend the elite University of California system. Yet, by law, the UC system is reserved for the top 1/8th of California high school students. The California State University system is aimed at the top 1/3rd, and the Community College system is open to everybody else.

But, then, who cares about the other 7/8ths? If we stopped succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations, everybody could be part of the top 1/8th!

In general, education policy makers, like the school board, the state legislature, Senator Kennedy, and President Bush give the strong impression that they are unable to understand simple cause and effect reasoning about issues of selection in education and instead rely upon wishful thinking and sentimentalism to make up laws.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 25, 2007 1:51 AM

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning in the Steve Sailer's final paragraph. Seems to me that there is a mix of good and bad intentions in "no child left behind". The california school board I can't judge, but, from his description, sounds like bad medicine.

I don't know much about California ed. I'm from the east, and from what I've seen the gem of our educational system is our collegiate system. This includes the Community Colleges and junior colleges. Since the K-12 system isn't working very well, and the community college system is nicely tailored to educate people when they are ready, it seems that a good approach is to let them get to the community colleges with minimal barriers. The selectivity of other parts of the collegiate system is less critical if the community college system can pull its weight.

I think this is in line with what Steve Sailer is saying, but I'm not sure.

Posted by jk | September 25, 2007 7:00 AM

It's the money!

Schools with large numbers of students who do not pass the tests invariably have children with greater needs and a lower budget than schools that have large numbers of children who pass the tests.

First, build the facilities that all schools need in districts that don't have them--gyms, playgrounds, playing fields, music and art rooms, auditoriums, libraries. Then equalize operational funding to match that of the wealthiest districts. Then, change the districts so that no school has a concentration of poor kids, say no more than 30% on free or reduced lunch in any school.

Then you can test all you want. There won't be any "failing schools." Some children will still do poorly on tests and those children should have opportunities to succeed in other areas, which gets to the point about decent jobs for those with a high school education or GED. But those that tend to do poorly on the tests won't all be concentrated in one school, hence the school won't be deemed "failing" and we'll all realize that the frame that NCLB has put around this debate is ludicrous.

Posted by ally's gift | September 25, 2007 9:04 AM

its critical that we NOT condemn with low expectations and low opportunities.

And common sense (as opposed to conventional wisdom) would tell you that expectations matter most of all.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 25, 2007 9:16 AM

ally's gift

Everything you propose has been tried and it has all failed. Kansas City tried building elaborate schools in the inner city and performance did not improve. Busing was tried and as a failure.

One of the things that NCLB has demonsotrate that poor children, black children, and Hispanic children who attend the schools in the suburbs that everyone assume are good still underperform versus their white and aisan classmates. The underperformance is still there even when correcting for family income and education.

Posted by superdestroyer | September 25, 2007 9:52 AM

Busing has only been tried on a large scale within districts. Poor kids stayed in poor districts. Not familiar with Kansas City and you don't provide a link. I'm talking about Wake Forest, North Carolina and Edmonton, Alberta, CA. I know I saw an article in the education section of either the Washington Post or the NY Times, close to a year ago, about their having tried socioeconomic integration and it going very well, but all I can find now is an article about how certain districts are thinking of trying it here: http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=153&action=print

Anyway, the point is that NCLB is flawed in the way that it uses statistics. Schools don't take tests, students take test. Therefore, schools can't fail a test, only students can fail a test. Statistically, more poor children fail tests than middle class children. If you rate schools on the percentage of children who pass tests, than schools with higher percentages of poor children will be deemed "failing schools" and those with higher percentages of middle and upper middle-class children will be deemed "good schools." There's no magic in testing the kids to death.

The focus should be on providing an education. Give every district enough money to have the stuff that the so called "best" schools have. Then mix up the kids so there isn't concentrated poverty in any one school. Some children, probably many of those that are poor, will still fail tests, but the school won't be deemed "failing" because the percentage of kids in the school that pass will still be quite high. Then maybe we can concentrate on what would best serve those children that failed the test.

And while we're at it, we should eliminate poverty with universal health care, a basic income guarantee, a trade policy that encourages job creation at home, stronger labor protections, and public investment in bringing our aging infrastructure into the 21st Century in energy, transportation, waste management, etc.

Contrary to what you say, socioeconomic integration of public schools (a small piece of what I advocate) is only being tried on a very small scale and the results are not all in yet but are encouraging (I wish I could find that article).

Posted by ally's gift | September 25, 2007 11:05 AM

Superdestoyer.

I think you're wrong.

One of the better examples in currently occurring in NY City. Smaller schools, higher standards, novel ideas, effective use of technology and MONEY appear to be having remarkable results.

Posted by jk | September 25, 2007 11:40 AM

One advantage of being an old fart is remembering stuff. The Johnson Administration commissioned a huge study of American schooling called the Coleman report to prove that we needed to spend lots more money. But the 1965 analysis showed that spending, class size, etc. ranked way down the list of factors influencing achievement. Family background mattered far more.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 25, 2007 11:53 AM

"One advantage of being an old fart is remembering stuff."

One advantage of not being an old fart is not being weighed down by the kind of slimy racist attitudes that make Steve Sailer such a repellent human being.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 11:56 AM

According to Steve Sailor, the solution is to get everyone an elite background. Now that's good social policy.

There are some things you control and some things you don't. Simply saying "we shouldn't do anything because some of the major factors are out of our control" is silly. In a sense, its intuitive and obvious that family background is profoundly important. Many of us are arguing for the importance of education. But its obvious, or should be, that schools are only a portion of eduction. Education begins and must be supported in the home. As a society we should encourage and support good educational environments in the home. But the area that society controls is the schools. And no one -- no one -- denies that good schools are important. If we create excellent schools will everyone succeed? Of course not. But we have a long way to go before that proposition is seriously tested.

Posted by jk | September 25, 2007 1:36 PM

But there are several things we can do to improve the schools. We can control the health and housing of poor children. The single biggest problem facing the urban public schools is illness (including malnutrition). The children cannot learn when they are ill and they frquently are. Dental disease is both rampant and untreated and leads to chronic respitory infections, inability to concentrate and prolonged absences.

Lack of affordable housing (housing that the people can afford, not what some bureaucrat thinks is affordable) leads to eviction and the inability to even get to school.

Until we get these problems fixed, no teacher, unionized or not, in a charter school or not, is going to make a difference. This is all a given in Edwards's campaign. It is also antithetical to Sailer's racist bilge, but if you are serious about educating our citizens, you have to start with good health and shelter.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 25, 2007 2:38 PM

Trying to force middle class people to bus their children into the poor neighborhoods is a losing proposition from the start. The middle class will either move, home school, or find private schools. Using children for social engineering has destroyed many cities in the U.S. because it forced the middle class to flee. That idea has been tried and has failed.

A reference on the Kansas City Schoolshttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

Also, I believe that Newark gets more money per students than any other public school system in New Jersey and that spending has failed to raise scores.

Of course, you skipped over the real method of meeting the NCLB goals, stop promoting students to fourth grade who cannot read at the third grade level. If you stopped promoting students who cannot perform, the school will immediately be in compliance. Of course, many of those students would drop out and there would be fewer jobs for the teachers and fewer members for the teachers unions, so such a solution (schools for those who want to learn) will never happen.

Posted by superdestroyer | September 25, 2007 3:16 PM

SuperDestroyer, wrong again.

The New York City schools have implemented a reading and math competence promotion policy. When students fail, as many do, there is a massive summer program to try to avoid the repeat year. But there is on social promotion. My impression is that it has worked.

Your fantasy (dream?) about drop-outs, unemployment, and teacher union enrollment drops are shown to be incorrect.

As I think i mentioned above, NY City spends a lot of money. A lot more than Newark, I believe. Money probably is a component of their recent success. No one is saying that money is a cure-all. But money is a sina qua non. Without spending an adequate amount there is little hope for improvement.

One other thought about money and education. Overall, the US collegiate eduction system is considered a success while the k-12 education system is a relative failure. Spending per year per student is abut double for college education compared with k-12 education. Makes you wonder...

Posted by jk | September 25, 2007 3:36 PM

Here's a radical thought: until we figure out the proper alchemy to convert most illegitimate, poor children into law-abiding high school graduates, what say we discourage poor, single women from having more kids? How about cash incentives for not having kids (or not having more kids). Even if it took $5k or $10k per year, it would be a fantastic investment.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 3:37 PM

JK,

One of the causes of the limited success of colleges is that less than 50% of the entering freshmen ever finish. The colleges do not waste much time with students who do not want to learn.

K-12 put more effort into students who do not want to learn than into students who want to learn. Why? Because it benefits the teachers unions to maximize the number of students attending no matter how much the least desirable students terrorize the other students.

When the schools are willing to fail students who are not learning, then the schools will imoprove. It does not take much money to improve education for students who want to learn when those students do not have to endure the bad students.

Edwards plan is definitely a plan that benefits the teachers first, the bad students second, and leaves the good students way behind.

Posted by superdestroyer | September 25, 2007 5:46 PM

Superdestroyer says-
Of course, many of those students would drop out and there would be fewer jobs for the teachers and fewer members for the teachers unions, so such a solution (schools for those who want to learn) will never happen.

And later adds...
When the schools are willing to fail students who are not learning, then the schools will imoprove.

I guess this all depends on what we mean by improve. If you mean that the schools will have great success rates for everyone they do not force out, you are probably correct. However, I will note that most of America seems to think that it is also important that K-12 schools actually educate as many people as possible, especially their kids. This happens to be enshrined in NCLB, which punishes schools for drop-out rates as well.

Also, you talk about teachers unions as though teaching was some cushy job and they have to make sure there is a big demand for teachers, when the truth is pretty much every school in the country spends every summer scrabbling for teachers. If anything, the demand is already too high.

Funny thing is, I tend to agree that part of the answer in education is more student-level accountability. Oklahoma is just starting down that path by requiring passing exam scores on the big End-of-Instruction tests in multiple classes. However, I figure it is only a matter of time before residents realize that this requirement affects their kids, not just those "other" hooligans and the program is either scrapped or the tests are watered down to be meaningless. However, I can guaruntee the driving force won't be Unions. It will be mommas and poppas coping to the fact that their over-enabled little darlings really do have to work to learn.

Posted by socratic_me | September 25, 2007 8:36 PM

Re: Employers are complaining. with good reason.

A lot of that complaining is self-serving propaganda by employers hoping to up the quotas of cheap foreign H1B visa serfs. Bill Gates for example had the nerve to whine about the lack of qualified IT people right in the middle of the big IT slump a few years ago when the Microsoft HR department servers were probably jammed from all the resumes from experienced IT personnel desperate to find jobs. Same thing at the lower end of the employment ladder: they don't want to pay American wages so they try to find an excuse to bring in foreigners who will work for peanuts.

Posted by JonF | September 25, 2007 9:50 PM