Search

For many people committed to strong academic standards, the "advanced" high school courses offered through the College Board's Advanced Placement program and, increasingly, the Diploma Programme of the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) represent the curricular gold standard for secondary education. Admissions directors and professors at America's most competitive colleges have encouraged this view. Federal policymakers see in these courses the opportunity to give many more children access to first-rate curricula, and have poured a lot of money into them. Taken at face value, policies that induce more students to sign up for rigorous high school courses offer the best educational opportunities to more youngsters. Both AP and IB have been around for a long time; competitive universities use their student assessment data to make admissions or placement decisions; and the excellence of U.S. high schools are increasingly judged by the number of AP or IB courses they offer. Yet not everyone has climbed onto this education bandwagon. Some elite private and public high schools that gave AP its sheen are climbing off, even as more rural, minority, and inner-city students gain access to this program. These educators posit that AP courses are too rigid, confining, and single-minded, that they are a means to the ends of college admissions and credit rather than an opportunity for deep learning. At the same time, selective colleges and universities are showing some discomfort with the swelling population of students taking advanced coursework; they have been raising the minimum AP exam score that students must earn before the institutions will award them college credit. Some observers insist that the shift is prompted by college finances; others say it is an effort to increase institutional prestige in the ever more competitive admissions environment; still others contend that the shift in policy reflects a real apprehension that the AP course content and exam-scoring rubrics have been watered down in order to attract more and more diverse participants. This study is designed to determine whether these courses indeed represent a gold standard, and to assist policymakers as they gauge the worth of expanding AP and IB. Review of AP courses and exams include: Biology (Paul Gross); Calculus AB (Chester E. Finn, Jr., Martin A. Davis, Jr., and Sheila Byrd); English Literature & Composition (Sheila Byrd); and U.S. History (Sheldon Stern). IB courses and exams reviewed include: Biology SL (Paul Gross); Mathematics SL (Chester E. Finn, Jr., Martin A. Davis, Jr., and Sheila Byrd); Language A SL (Carol Jago); and World History (Lucien Ellington). ["Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate: Do They Deserve Gold Star Status?" was written with Lucien Ellington, Paul Gross, Carol Jago, and Sheldon Stern. A foreword was provided by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Martin A. Davis, Jr.]

Public school principals encounter a sizable gap between the autonomy they believe they need to be effective and the autonomy that they actually have in practice, especially when it comes to hiring, firing, and transferring teachers. That is a key finding of this report from the Fordham Institute and the American Institutes for Research, which is based on a series of interviews with a small sample of district and charter-school principals. Regrettably if understandably, many district principals have also come to accept this "autonomy gap" as a fact of life. They learn to work the system, not change the system. The final interview protocol is appended. (Contains 9 tables and 23 endnotes.) [Foreword by: Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli. Additional funding support for this study was provided by the William E. Simon Foundation.]

At the request of Ohio's top government and education leaders, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and National Alliance for Public Charter Schools have issued a report seeking to strengthen the state's charter school program. Among its 17 recommendations are calls for closing low-performing charter schools and holding sponsors more accountable for oversight of the growing charter movement while also helping more high-performance schools to open and succeed in Ohio. In return for sharply stepped-up accountability, restrictions on the formation of high-quality charters should be removed, and charter schools should receive more equitable funding. This report bases its findings on research and analysis of Ohio school performance data; a review of best practices in other states; input from experts in charter school finance, sponsorship, accountability and policy; and evaluation of dozens of policy options. The report seeks to help Ohio meet four broad goals, under which the 17 specific recommendations are placed: (1) Keep the accountability/autonomy promise by which charter schools are granted greater operational freedom than traditional public schools in exchange for meeting exacting results-based standards; (2) Strengthen Ohio's system of charter school sponsors to ensure that all are held to account for their performance in this vital role; (3) Fund charter schools fairly and address the overwhelming challenge that Ohio charters face in accessing suitable facilities; and (4) With new accountability systems in place, encourage more high-quality schools by removing caps and other restrictions. (Contains 5 tables and 5 figures.)

Two-thirds of schoolchildren in America attend class in states with mediocre (or worse) expectations for what their students should learn. That's just one of the findings of Fordham's The State of State Standards 2006, which evaluates state academic standards. The average state grade is a "C-minus"--the same as six years earlier, even though most states revised their standards since 2000. Two-thirds of the nation's K-12 students attend schools in states with C-, D-, or F-rated standard. The report makes links between strong state standards and gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). An example is that nearly ten states that improved students' reading proficiency in the NAEP had received at least a grade of C from Fordham for their English/language arts standards, and three of the five states demonstrating improved science outcomes also had some of the best sets of science standards in the nation. This publication includes separate standards report cards for each state. Three states stand out with perfect scores: California, Indiana, and Massachusetts. They are the focus of a separate essay, "It Takes a Vision: How Three States Created Great Academic Standards," by journalist and author Joanne Jacobs. The State of State Standards 2006 is the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's first comprehensive look at the quality of state academic standards since 2000, before Congress enacted No Child Left Behind.

Education policy leaders from across the political spectrum identified and evaluated four models that national standards and testing could take. These models are: (1) "The Whole Enchilada," the most direct and aggressive approach in which the federal government creates and enforces national standards and assessments, replacing the current 50 state-level sets of standards and tests; (2) "If You Build It, They Will Come," a voluntary version of the first model--The government would develop national standards, tests and accountability metrics, and provide incentives to states to opt into such a system. A variant would have a private group frame the standards. Either way, participation would be optional for states; (3) "Let's All Hold Hands," an approach in which states would be encouraged to join together to develop common standards and tests--The government might only provide incentives for collaboration; and (4) "Sunshine and Shame," the least ambitious model would render state standards and tests more transparent by making them easier to compare to one another and to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This paper outlines how each model might work out in practice, and it evaluates the likelihood that each would model: (1) end the "race to the bottom"; (2) result in rigorous standards instead of merely politically acceptable ones; (3) expand Washington's role in education; and (4) prove politically feasible. Appended are: (1) Contributors; and (2) Questions Asked of Contributors. (Contains 1 figure.) ["To Dream the Impossible Dream: Four Approaches to National Standards and Tests for America's Schools" was written with contributions from Eli Broad, Cynthia Brown, Michael Cohen, Robert Gordon, Frederick M. Hess, Gene Hickok, Sandy Kress, James Peyser, Diane Ravitch, Andrew Rotherham, Suzanne Tacheny, and Bob Wise.]

Education funding today is a mess, and a solution is needed that addresses its biggest problems: most disadvantaged students do not receive the funding they need; red tape and overhead waste time and money; and new types of education options, like charter schools, are starved for dollars. Unfortunately, until now, so-called solutions have consisted of nothing more than soothing slogans and gimmicks. But a broad, bipartisan coalition now urges a new method of funding the nation's public schools--one that finally ensures the students who need the most receive it, that empowers school leaders to make key decisions, and that opens the door to public school choice. It is a 100 percent solution to the most pressing problems in public school funding--and it is called Weighted Student Funding. This proposal's signatories call on policymakers to transform the school funding system in service of meeting the nation's high ambitions for student learning. Weighted Student Funding, the best hope for achieving equity and accommodating the nation's new diversity of options, is a system of school funding based on five principles and would be much fairer than the current system: (1) Funding should follow the child, on a per-student basis, to the public school that he/she attends; (2) Per-student funding should vary according to the child's need and other relevant circumstances; (3) It should arrive at the school as real dollars (i.e., not teaching positions, ratios, or staffing norms) that can be spent flexibly, with accountability systems focused more on results and less on inputs, programs, or activities; (4) These principles for allocating money to schools should apply to all levels (e.g., federal funds going to states, state funds going to districts, districts to schools); and (5) Funding systems should be simplified and made transparent. In recognizing that successfully moving to weighted student funding is challenging, this report considers a whole range of design challenges: what funds to include in the system; how to set the weights that determine the funding provided for each child; how to handle tricky issues such as restrictive teacher seniority rules and local tax funding; and how to ensure that students attending all kinds of public schools are fairly funded. The report also tackles a set of implementation challenges: how to identify and classify students; how to build the capacity of schools and systems to handle new responsibilities; how to build broad support for the new approach; and how to make the transition from where the nation is now to where it needs to go. (Contains 80 endnotes.) [This report was published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Additional funding for this project was provided by the Walton Family Foundation.]

This first-ever thorough report reviews academic standards in world history in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine whether we are setting the solid, challenging expectations for our schools and children that will equip the next generation with the skills and knowledge it will need. The report, written by renowned historian Walter Russell Mead, finds that only twelve states earned honors grades of A or B on this appraisal, while 33 received Ds or Fs. This poor result is especially frustrating in light of a recent National Geographic study which shows students demonstrate little interest in learning about the world, though a small but growing number are taking state and national exams in the subject. California, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia developed exceptional standards, worthy of emulation, but most states stumbled. This report provides state rankings, scores, grades, and national averages. [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Martin A. Davis, Jr.]

This report presents findings from a national examination of the organizations that sponsor, oversee and hold accountable U.S. charter schools. Its primary aim is to describe and characterize these crucial but little known organizations: What do they look like? How big are they? How do they go about their work? The results of this inquiry is a new typology of charter school authorizers. These are: (1) county/regional/intermediate education agencies; (2) higher education institutions; (3) independent chartering boards; (4) local education agencies; (5) municipal offices; (6) nonprofit organizations; and (7) state education agencies. The report profiles each of these types against the following five elements of successful charter authorizing practice: (1) data-driven decisionmaking and rigorous, objective selection and renewal processes; (2) sound working relations between authorizer and school; (3) skilled personnel; (4) adequate resources and autonomy; and (5) parent and community input. Additionally, this report provides fresh insights relevant to policy implications for the charter movement. From January 2003 to January 2005, the report says, the 184 authorizers who responded to the survey reported approving just over half of applications for charter schools. By contrast, they reported giving the go-ahead to about 68 percent of applications before 2003. The report notes a decline in the approval rate both in states that have caps on the total number of charters and in those that do not have such caps. Appended are: (1) Advisory Committee, Focus Group, and Interview Participants; (2) Comparison of Authorizer Types on Selected Topics, Including Open Ended Questions; and (3) Survey Items Included in Charter Authorizer Continuum. (Contains 16 tables and 7 figures.) [Foreword by Michael J. Petrilli and Chester E. Finn, Jr.]

This report is the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's first ever comprehensive analysis of education reform and results in the 50 states. For each of them, this report examines: (1) student achievement, with a focus on poor and minority students; (2) achievement trends since the early 1990s for these same students; and (3) reform efforts centering on curriculum, standards, and school choice. Specifically, this report appraises each state according to thirty indicators across three major categories: student achievement for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students; achievement trends for these same groups over the last 10-15 years; and the state's track record in implementing bold education reforms. It finds that just eight states can claim even moderate success over the past 15 years at boosting the percentage of their poor or minority students who are at or above proficient in reading, math or science. In addition, most states making significant achievement gains--including California, Delaware, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Texas--are national leaders in education reform, indicating that solid standards, tough accountability, and greater school choice can yield better classroom results. (Contains 12 figures and 4 figures.)

This report offers a comprehensive account of Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's sponsorship policies and practices, including a history of its sponsorship efforts, as well as individual profiles of all Fordham-sponsored schools in Ohio. Included in the profiles are in-depth descriptions of each school's educational program, school philosophy, and overall academic performance based on state achievement data. Appendices include: (1) Frequently Asked Questions; (2) Satisfaction Survey; (3) A School's Story; (4) Links and Resources; (5) Special Education Report, 2005-06 School Year; and (6) Study Methodology. (Contains 25 tables, 20 graphs, 33 footnotes, and 18 endnotes.)

These are critical times for Ohio's system of educating its young people. Initiatives to reform the public schools have been gaining momentum for some time. Elected officials, organized interest groups, think tanks, and civic leaders are tugging and pulling at the system, trying to move it this way or that. But where do the people of Ohio--the parents and taxpayers--truly stand on the education issues of the day? The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, sensing it was time to check with the public, asked the FDR Group--a national nonpartisan research company with expertise in surveys, focus groups, and program evaluation--to conduct a comprehensive and rigorous study of the attitudes of Ohioans. The study is based upon 1,001 telephone interviews with randomly selected Ohioans, including 278 parents of students in grades K-12. The sample is augmented so that the views of African Americans (202 were interviewed) and Dayton residents (201 were interviewed) could be reliably reported as well. The survey asks participants for their views on the state of the public schools, academic standards, charter schools, school vouchers, and teacher quality. It was found that 42 percent of Ohio residents believe that a high school diploma from their local public schools is "no guarantee that the typical student has learned the basics." Among African Americans, it is 54 percent. The vast majority of Ohioans (69 percent) believe that if their state decided to put more money into the public schools the money would "actually get lost along the way." Most (58 percent) believe that the taxpayers in their community are not getting their money?s worth from the public schools. Among African Americans, it's 72 percent.51 percent think that social promotion is the rule in Ohio today; just 27 percent believe that students are promoted "only when they learn what they are supposed to know. 49 percent of parents with kids in public district schools say they would exit the system and send their kids to a private school, if money were not an issue.

The mission of this review is to appraise the new draft NAEP science framework and to determine whether it is up to snuff. This is an evaluation of the September 30, 2005, draft document, Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (Framework), developed for the National Assessment Governing Board. The criteria is listed first and that is followed with an account of their application to the reviewing task. The review then expresses the quantitative outcome as a set of average scores for each of 21 criteria, then as the average summed score for all criteria (the "raw" score), and finally as a conversion to an average percentage score ("final score"). On the basis of the final score, a letter grade is assigned the Framework, using the familiar A through F scale. A series of short summary statements responds to questions on which NAGB seeks feedback. In closing, it seeks briefly to justify this response; that is, to convey appreciation of some qualities of the Framework and concerns about others, and to make some recommendations. Following the Foreword, (Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Michael J. Petrilli), and the Introduction, table of contents for this report is organized in the following manner: (1) Criteria; (2) Number and Letter Grade; (3) Responses to NAGB Questions; (4) Plaudits; (5) Concerns; and (6) Recommendations. Appended are: (A) Science Errors and Misleading Statements; and (B) Biographical Sketches of Author and Reviewers. [Written with assistance from Lawrence S. Lerner, Susan Haack, Martha Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz.]

This report contains the typology of charter schools that were sought, based on Carpenter's careful sorting of 1,182 charter schools, representing 87 percent of all those operating in 2001-2002 in the five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, and Texas) that then accounted for the lion's share of U.S. charter schools. Carpenter sorted the schools into 55 categories, then grouped those into ten larger categories. He shows how many schools are in each, then provides some fascinating average data about the kinds of kids they enroll, how big they are, how old they are, etc. This report is simply the "typology" report. The following is appended: Charter School Typology with Distribution by Instructional Sub-Types. (Contains 4 figures.) [Foreword for "Playing to Type? Mapping the Charter School Landscape" written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. This document was produced by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.]

In an effort to upgrade and "professionalize" the ancient craft of teaching, educators have begun doing what all respected professions try to do sooner or later: define standards for assessing whether or not aspiring candidates are capable of performing the work well enough to be certified for practice. In 2000, the largest established agency that accredits teacher education programs (the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, or NCATE), announced a revised set of standards for evaluating candidates' performances. Central to the focus of these NCATE standards are the "knowledge, skills, and dispositions" of teaching candidates. These standards are briefly discussed in this document.

"Miracle" is a word you would expect to hear from people familiar with the Assumption Catholic School story--but don?t wait for it. More likely you will hear a name: Mary Anne Stanton. In just more than five years, Stanton has led Assumption and 12 other Catholic schools from high-poverty Washington, D.C. neighborhoods into a consortium--the Center City Consortium--that has not only strengthened each school?s financial health, but has also greatly improved the academic performance of the children the schools are charged with educating. The 13 consortium schools have achieved remarkable growth in grades 2 through 8 proficiency rates on the standardized Terra Nova test from 2000 to 2005: reading growth of 60.6 percent, 78.1 percent growth in math, and 34.1 percent growth in language arts over those five years. More remarkable, those growth rates include test scores from 2004-05, when 300 high-poverty children from failing District of Columbia public schools entered consortium schools through the new D.C. voucher program. Despite the problems, Stanton and the diocese have reason to be confident. And this, perhaps, explains why the word "miracle" isn?t used to describe what is happening at Assumption. This miracle did not drop from the sky, nor did it come about through some supernatural display of power. Rather, the miracle came in the form of a 5?4 sandyheaded dynamo with a plan, and the will to make change happen.

This report presents the testimony of the president and program director of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Based in Washington, DC and in Dayton, the Institute is a nonprofit organization that supports research, publications, and action projects of national significance in elementary/secondary reform, as well as significant education reform projects in Dayton and vicinity. The Institute is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, which was approved as a charter (community) school sponsor by the Ohio Department of Education in August of 2004. The testimony discusses Ohio's community schools (a.k.a. charter schools), which face a developing paradox: the more they expand and the more students they serve, the more threatened they become. These threats are both external and internal. The external threats to these public schools of choice take several forms, beginning with ongoing and costly lawsuits in both state and federal courts, a relentless public relations attack that targets members of the House and Senate, and legislation aimed at curtailing charter schools and increasing their costs of operations. [Report also produced by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.]

Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave his first hint about his plans for reforming the New York City school system on Martin Luther King Day in January 2003. Mayor Bloomberg did not offer a single excuse for the disastrous state of the city's schools. Nor did he attribute that failure to poverty or racism. Breaking with 50 years of liberal political rhetoric about "insufficient funding" of public education, Bloomberg owned up to the fact that an operating budget of more than $12 billion (about $12,000 per student) ought to be sufficient to provide decent schools for the city's 1.1 million schoolchildren. This article includes the following sections: Taking Charge--Briefly; Whole Language Hoopla; Constructing School Failure; You Will be (Re)Educated; and Potemkin Village Reform. [Report also produced by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.]

Are charter school students in Dayton learning more than students in traditional district schools? You might be surprised to find that the answer is "yes," though there is still tremendous room for improvement on both sides. This analysis takes Ohio's 2004 School Report Card data from the state Department of Education and compares them with 2003 data to show changes in student achievement for Dayton's public schools, both district and charter. The results show that improving student achievement remains a challenge for both groups of schools, but charter students are now slightly outperforming district pupils in all subjects. [Report also produced by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.]

Textbook Adoption: The process, in place in twenty-one states, of reviewing textbooks according to state guidelines and then mandating specific books that schools must use, or lists of approved textbooks that schools must choose from. It consistently produces second-rate textbooks that replicate the same flaws and failings over and over again. Adoption states perform poorly on national tests, and the market incentives caused by the adoption process are so skewed that lively writing and top-flight scholarship are discouraged. Every individual analyst and expert panel that has studied American K-12 textbooks has concluded that they are sorely lacking and that the adoption process cries out for reform. [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Introduction by Diane Ravitch]

The High School diploma has lost its value because what it takes to earn one is disconnected from what it takes for graduates to compete successfully beyond high school--either in the classroom or in the workplace. Re-establishing the value of the diploma will require the creation of an inextricable link between high school exit expectations and the intellectual challenges that graduates invariably will face in credit-bearing college courses or in high-performance, high-growth jobs. This report presents the starting point for restoring the value of the American high school diploma by describing in specific terms the English and mathematics that graduates must have mastered by the time they leave high school if they expect to succeed in postsecondary education or in high-performance, high-growth jobs. The report also presents actual workplace tasks and postsecondary assignments that illustrate the practical application of the "must-have" competencies described in the benchmarks themselves. The American Diploma Project's college and workplace readiness benchmarks offer the solid foundation upon which states can raise academic expectations and build education systems that will enable students to reach these goals. Without clear academic expectations that have currency beyond 12th grade--as those described in this report do--states' efforts to improve high schools undoubtedly will fail. (Contains 17 endnotes.) [This report was prepared by The American Diploma Project (ADP) at Achieve, Inc.]

The purpose of this report is: (1) To point out the features of a number of manipulative supplemental resources for history and social studies teachers; and (2) to show how similarly manipulative professional development workshops propagate the distorted content and recommended teaching practices of such materials to teachers and their classrooms, thereby influencing what both teachers and students learn. Although this report can appraise only a limited number of materials and workshops, what is here is alarming enough to underline the need for more systematic examination of supplemental history and social science materials and for rethinking professional development in history and social science as it is now conceived. The following are appended: (1) Standards on Islamic History in World History I in the 2002 Massachusetts History and Social Science Curriculum Framework; (2) Summaries of Classroom Projects Prepared by Massachusetts Teachers at a Professional Development Institute on Islamic History; and (3) Outline of a Lesson on the Wampanoag Prepared by a teacher at a Professional Development Institute for Massachusetts Elementary Teachers.

When the charter school movement began in the early 1990's, one key set of players received little attention: the public entities that sponsor or authorize these unconventional schools. A charter is properly understood as a contract between two parties, the school operator and the authorizer. For the charter movement to succeed, both must do their jobs effectively. The operator must run a successful school that delivers the results it promised. The authorizer must see that this happens, providing various forms of oversight and assistance, renewing the charter if all goes well, and pulling the plug if it does not. The role of the authorizer, therefore, is pivotal to the charter movement's overall success. To address the question of how authorizer performs, the researchers explored how existing state policy environments were supporting effective schools and authorizers. They also examined authorizer practices to see whether quality oversight and accountability processes were in place, without choking the charter schools in red tape and paper. Data collected from nearly 900 individuals across 23 states and the District of Columbia reveals important findings across states, and detailed information on each state. Key issues across states include: (1) Most major authorizers are performing adequately, but red tape and "compliance creep" are concerns; (2) Many state policy environments are not supportive of charter schools and their associated authorizers; (3) Local school boards generally do not make good authorizers; (4) States with fewer authorizers, serving more schools each, appear to be doing a better job; (5) Quality authorizing costs money: authorizing fees appear to be a viable funding source; and (6) States with higher grades have more proactive authorizers when it comes to technical assistance and charter advocacy. Individual state reports are included. Two appendixes conclude the document: (1) Detailed State Tables; and (2) Primary State Contracts. (Contains 19tables.) [Published with support from the Walton Family Foundation.]

This report shows how the study of U.S. history can be enriched by blending geography into the curriculum. Because the fields of history and geography have not been melded together in terms of curricula, often history is not taught in relation to geography and geography has tended to be taught primarily as location/place information. The report summarizes the results of a project designed to address this problem through the development of a high school U.S. history curriculum framework that offers teachers the opportunity to teach a traditional U.S. history course enriched by a consistent injection of the geographical aspects of the interaction of people, events, and ideas. It notes that the elements of the framework serve as suggestions for lessons that are rich in content drawn from both disciplines. The report is divided into four sections: (1) "Foreword"; (2) "Why History and Geography Should Be Taught Together"; (3) "How to Use This Framework"; and (4) "U.S. History and Geography Curriculum Framework" (Period 1. Setting the Stage: Before 1492; Period 2. Discovery and Exploration: 1492 to 1607; Period 3. Colonial Period: 1607 to 1763; Period 4. Revolutionary America: 1763 to 1789; Period 5. Early Republic: 1789 to 1820; Period 6. Economic Growth and Expansion: 1820 to 1861; Period 7. The Union in Crisis: 1861 to 1877; Period 8. Emergence of Modern America: 1877 to 1890; Period 9. Rise of America as World Power and World War I: 1890 to 1920; Period 10. Time between the Wars: 1920 to 1939; Period 11. World War II and American Global Preeminence: 1939 to 1957; Period 12. Technological Advances, Vietnam, and Social Upheaval: 1957 to 1973; Period 13: Cold War Climax and New World Order: 1973 to Present). Related papers are appended. (BT)

This study reviewed and rated state academic standards for U.S. history. The researcher set three broad criteria for the review (1) comprehensive historical content; (2) sequential development; and (3) balance. The most recent standards bearing on U.S. history, even if termed "social studies," were reviewed. An essential element was that state history standards must acknowledge the key issues and events that comprise the whole U.S. story, including both inspiring and terrible events. Overall, state standards for U.S. history are not adequate. Eleven states earned honors ratings, and six of these did an "outstanding" job with U.S. history. Seven states got "Cs," but 31 states had not done even a minimally satisfactory job. No clear trends are evident. Neighboring states can score at opposite ends of the scale. A few general conclusions can be drawn about what makes a good set of standards. They have a biographical dimension, with a clear chronology and coherent sequence beginning in the early grades. They revisit topics covered in early grades in a more thorough and sophisticated way in later grades. They acknowledge the European origins of the United States while recognizing the contributions of non-Western people. History standards should discuss the origins and development of democratic ideas and institutions and give political history equal status with social and cultural history. They should be comprehensive and balanced, free of overt or covert ideological agendas. The weakest standards are shackled by "social studies" assumptions that pretend that chronology doesn't matter. An evaluation is presented for the standards of each state. An appendix contains six summary tables that list the states alphabetically and by state rank. (SLD)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires states and school districts to act aggressively to turn around failing schools. NCLB lists 31 different interventions of varying degrees of severity that are available to state and local policymakers when faced with schools whose students fail to make sufficient academic progress and sets forth a sequence by which various of those interventions are to be put into practice. Yet NCLB's accountability systems and intervention tactics are not brand new. As of August 2002, 38 states already had some form of accountability system for schools, and since 1989 at least 30 jurisdictions across 22 states have sought to intervene in failing schools. Such well-intended efforts begin with a paradox. Much is known about how effective schools work, but it is far less clear how to move an ineffective school from failure to success. This report describes twenty different kinds of interventions into failing schools, seventeen of which have already been tried. It provides examples of where they have been attempted. These range from simple identification of failing schools, to technical assistance for school staff, to longer school days or years, to replacement of the principal, to closing down the school or having the state take over the entire district. While the milder interventions have often been tried, examples of the more intrusive reforms are rare. The report examines three interventions in detail: the Schools Under Registration Review process in New York, comprehensive school reform in Memphis, Tennessee, and school reconstitution in Prince George's County, Maryland. In each of those cases, roughly half or fewer of the schools that were subject to the intervention showed real improvement when gauged in terms of pupil achievement. Several lessons can be drawn from America's previous experience with state and district-level interventions into failing schools: (1) Many decision-makers are more inclined to accept failing schools than to intervene; (2) Some turnaround efforts have improved some schools, but success is not the norm; (3) No particular intervention appears more successful than any other; (4) Interventions are uneven in their implementation and difficult to sustain; (5) It is nearly impossible to determine which interventions offer the most bang for the buck because they are attempted in very different situations; and (6) School leadership is a common thread in most successful turnarounds. Policymakers faced with failing schools should not be paralyzed by the number of intervention strategies that may lie at their disposal. Rather, they should know that the specific strategy they select is less important than the right mix of people, energy, and timing. They should also resist passing quick judgment: it may be several years before even a successful intervention shows results. No Child Left Behind may expect too much too fast. Because even the strongest interventions specified in No Child Left Behind are not likely to turn some schools around, policymakers need to consider other options for children in such places. Two appendixes are included: (1) Interventions Mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; and (2) The Intervention Experience. (Contains 160 endnotes and 2 tables.)

This paper examines why charter schools are largely confined to urban areas. It explores why three states--Colorado, New Jersey, and Connecticut--with high proportions of charter schools in the suburbs have had greater success in introducing charter schools than Illinois, even though all four states have approximately the same laws governing these schools. Nationally, the second biggest barrier to charter-school approval--after facilities and funding--is state or local opposition. The greater number of suburban charter schools in the three states described here are due to a supportive state administration and the availability of an alternative approval process above the local school district. Such support is crucial for suburban charter approval since parent groups in the suburbs are not as organized as those in the cities; thus suburban groups must rely heavily on state support. Furthermore, smaller suburban districts cannot easily absorb the financial impact of charter schools. States such as Colorado, with rapidly growing suburbs, can more readily adjust to the loss of students to charter schools. If a local district views charter schools as unwanted competition, and the district is empowered to make decisions on charter applications, then that district will not have many such schools. (Contains 29 references.) (RJM)

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the beginning of its modern era in 1997. The Foundation has not made a habit of issuing regular reports on its work, but this opportunity provides the occasion to review what the Fordham Foundation has done. It recaps the major priorities and activities in the national arena and in the Dayton, Ohio, area from 1997 through 2001. The principles of the Fordham Foundation draw it toward two prominent education reform strategies: standards-based reform and market-style reform. In spite of the size limitations of the Foundation, since 1997, it has invested nearly $6 million in national and Dayton programs and publications. The report is organized into two sections. The national section reviews some of the Foundations efforts to wage the war of ideas, with emphasis on three issues (teacher quality, state standards and accountability, and federal K-12 policy) that have consumed much of the Foundations attention. The Dayton section focuses on the five main pillars of work in that city: (1) creating high-quality educational choices for needy children; (2) creating effective charter schools; (3) reforming the public school system; (4) assisting the community to understand what is and is not working in education; and (5) strengthening civil society more generally. (SLD)