• Tag Archives education
  • Chicago’s Solution to Its Failing School System: Stop Grading Schools on Performance

    In 1987, U.S. Education Secretary Bill Bennett famously traveled to Chicago, where he ruffled feathers by telling a closed-room group that the Windy City’s school system was “the worst in the nation.”

    Local parents and educators bristled at the charge, which resulted in an awkward New York Times story. But decades of data would subsequently prove that Mr. Bennett was basically correct: Chicago’s schools were a total mess.

    The city’s own accountability report card would later demonstrate that huge majorities of students in the city’s worst schools—75 percent in elementary and 95 percent in high school—failed to meet the state standards.

    Things hardly improved during the pandemic, even though the Chicago Public School (CPS) system was spending roughly $28,000 per student (partly thanks to federal bailout cash).

    “Just 30% of Black students meet or exceed reading standards in the third grade, and the number falls to 14% for 11th graders, according to data from the Illinois State Board of Education,” The Chicago Tribune pointed out last year.

    Chicago schools clearly aren’t getting the job done, but political leaders in the city have discovered a solution to the problem: stop grading schools.

    “I personally don’t give a lot of attention to grades,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said during a recent interview. “How do you grade a system, when the system has not fulfilled its basic obligation of providing an equitable system that speaks to the needs [of students].”

    Mr. Johnson went on to explain a better way to evaluate Chicago’s school system.

    “My responsibility is not simply to just grade the system, but to fund the system,” he said. “That’s how I’m ultimately going to grade whether or not our public school system is working: based upon the investments that we make to the people who rely on it.”

    This isn’t mere idle chatter.

    Earlier this year, the Chicago Board of Education scrapped its school rating policy, which was designed to rate schools on a range of performance goals, including how students performed on state tests.

    WBEZ, an NPR-affiliated Chicago radio station, reported that Chicago’s system had been criticized for “relying too heavily on test scores and unfairly branding schools,” adding that the “new accountability policy veers away from any rating.”

    One can see why leaders in Chicago favor grading schools by the amount of money they receive versus the academic performance of students.

    Data from the Illinois State Board of Education show that not one student in the 22 schools analyzed in a widely read report can read at grade level. In 18 of those schools, there wasn’t a single student who demonstrated proficiency in math or reading. (Despite this, some of these schools were given the rating “commendable.”)

    Again, this is the state of Illinois’ own data.

    If you grade these schools by funding, it’s a different story, of course. Per-student funding at Chicago Public Schools is now approaching $30,000 ($29,400, according to WBEZ). That is nearly double the national average ($14,347), according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Just like that—simply by grading schools by the funding they receive instead of their actual performance—CPS goes from one of the worst school districts in the United States to one of the best.

    We all know this is no way to judge schools, of course. Accountability matters, and it’s hard to think of a worse solution than simply sending more and more money to failing systems and demanding less accountability for how that money is spent.

    Indeed, it’s this paradigm that has brought us the failed, bureaucratic education system America sees today.

    More than 30 years ago, John Hood, the author and president of the John W. Pope Foundation, explained why the government was wholly unsuited to teach America’s students, and predicted U.S. schools would continue to decline despite steadily increasing government spending:

    “When every call for fundamental change in American education is rebutted not by arguments about student achievement but by arguments focusing on race, class, social mixing, and other social concerns, it is difficult to imagine real progress.

    “When teachers spend much of their day filling out forms, teaching quasi-academic subjects mandated from above, and boosting student self-esteem (as contrasted with serf-respect, which is earned rather than worked up), learning is difficult if not impossible.”

    Mr. Hood had gleaned the same truth the famous educator John Taylor Gatto (1935–2018) had learned.

    Mr. Gatto, the Teacher of the Year in New York State in 1991 and author of “Dumbing Us Down,” understood it wasn’t “bad teachers” or a lack of funds responsible for America’s failing schools. It was the system itself, which was built on coercion, bureaucracy, and obedience instead of actual learning, discovery, and collaboration with families.

    “Independent study, community service, adventures and experience, large doses of privacy and solitude, a thousand different apprenticeships—the one-day variety or longer—these are all powerful, cheap, and effective ways to start a real reform of schooling. But no large-scale reform is ever going to work to repair our damaged children and our damaged society until we force open the idea of ‘school’ to include family as the main engine of education,” he wrote.

    “If we use schooling to break children away from parents—and make no mistake, that has been the central function of schools since John Cotton announced it as the purpose of the Bay Colony schools in 1650 and Horace Mann announced it as the purpose of Massachusetts schools in 1850—we’re going to continue to have the horror show we have right now.”

    Mr. Gatto wrote these words more than 30 years ago. And though I wouldn’t have described U.S. schools as a “horror show” in 1992 (I was only 13), I certainly would today.

    Despite an objective decline in U.S. schools, which has resulted in a mass exodus of students, politicians seek to continue pumping more and more money into struggling schools.

    This wouldn’t have surprised Mr. Gatto, who observed years ago that the primary purpose of schools in modern America was no longer education (if it ever was).

    “We must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands,” he wrote.

    Years ago I would have brushed off Mr. Gatto’s words as fanciful hyperbole. I don’t today.

    Moreover, I think it’s become abundantly clear that the greatest obstacle to educational reform is the government itself—and politicians who want to grade schools by how much money they receive from taxpayers instead of whether students are actually learning.

    This article originally appeared on The Epoch Times.


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Toronto’s Largest School Board to Drop Auditions, Aptitude Requirements for Specialized Programs in the Name of Equity

    “The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”

    Thus begins Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s famous short story Harrison Bergeron. The satire story paints the picture of a dystopian future where absolute equality has been achieved thanks to various handicapping devices that force all the smart, good-looking, and talented people down to the same intellect, looks, and skills as everyone else. The rationale, of course, is that it wouldn’t be fair to let them get ahead because of their privilege while others are left behind.

    The story has enduring appeal because it asks a question that strikes at the heart of our culture, namely, how much are we willing to sacrifice excellence in the name of equality? Should those who are endowed with more privilege or talent be allowed to reach their potential, even if it means others have fewer opportunities, or should those who are less gifted be given an equal chance at success, even if it means holding the gifted back?

    The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) seems to have chosen the latter approach. In May, the board’s Trustees voted to approve the Student Interest Programs Policy, which will change the way students are admitted into specialized arts, athletics, and STEM programs. Currently, admission into most of these programs is based on various “assessments of ability” such as auditions, portfolios, and report card marks. But starting in September 2023, these assessments will be scrapped and replaced with a random selection from students who express interest in the programs. In short, equality will take precedence over excellence.

    “It is our responsibility to take action to improve access for all students where we identify systemic barriers,” said Alexander Brown, Chair of the TDSB. “This new policy will ensure a greater number of students have access to these high quality programs and schools while reducing barriers that have long-prevented many students from even applying.”

    Unsurprisingly, the move was first proposed by the board’s Enhancing Equity Task Force.

    “The idea that your child entered one of these programs because of his talent, which he had the privilege of cultivating, I don’t think is appropriate in a public school system,” said Trustee Robin Pilkey. “We need to make sure people have access to all programs.”

    To paraphrase, “it wouldn’t be fair to let them get ahead because of their privilege.” Sound familiar?

    Many students, teachers, and parents who are involved with the specialized programs are concerned that this change will lower the quality of the programs. A small protest was held in mid-May, and hundreds of students walked out of class to attend.

    “It’s going to water down the program and it’s just going to blend into nothingness,” said Essien Udokang, a parent whose son is in an arts program.

    He’s also concerned that the new policy will leave behind talented kids from underprivileged backgrounds who would otherwise have a chance to prove themselves.

    “Folks like me, who can afford it, we’ll just put our kids in private school or pay thousands of dollars a month for private lessons instead of wasting their time in a program like this. If there are students who have capability and through lottery don’t get picked…I think those will be the most hard done by. Because they will have talent that could have been cultivated through a high quality of teaching, instruction and opportunity, but now they would have just been randomly selected out of the process. But they can’t pay for private lessons.”

    The whole debate over these programs hits close to home for me. I attended one of these specialized arts schools from grade 4 to 8, and another one from grade 9 to 12. For nine years, these programs were my life, and they helped me get through the otherwise tedious system that is government schooling.

    Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that removing audition requirements will be absolutely devastating for these programs. We had nearly professional-level productions at my high school and some fairly high-profile gigs. But without auditions, that all changes.

    Kids who have less aptitude will get into these programs while kids with more aptitude will be left out. The efforts of the teachers, many of whom are specialists in their respective fields, will be wasted on those who simply don’t have the capabilities to really succeed. Meanwhile, many of those who do have the capabilities to succeed will be stuck in “normal school,” where it will be much harder to cultivate their skills.

    The result is that teachers in these programs will be forced to teach to the lowest common denominator. The gifted kids that manage to make it in will get bored and won’t come close to reaching their potential.

    In some ways, this story reminds me of a scene from The Incredibles. In the scene, Bob and Helen get into an argument over whether to let their speedster son Dash compete in sports.

    Helen: I can’t believe you don’t want to go to your own son’s graduation.

    Bob: It’s not a graduation. He is moving from the fourth grade to the fifth grade.

    Helen: It’s a ceremony.

    Bob: It’s psychotic. They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional then they…

    Helen: This is not about you Bob. This is about Dash.

    Bob: You want to do something for Dash? Then let him actually compete. Let him go out for sports!

    Helen: I will not be made the enemy here. You know why we can’t do that.

    Bob: Because he’d be great!

    Helen: This is NOT ABOUT YOU!

    Dash clearly has outstanding abilities. And Bob’s right, he would be great if he were allowed to compete. Now, we may not have super heroes in our world, but we do have many kids who, like Dash, are genuinely exceptional.

    The question we need to ask ourselves, then, is how should we deal with the Dashes of the world? Do we tell them to hide the parts of them that are “incredible” because flexing their ability would be unfair to others? Do we give them a random chance at a specialized program, one that likely won’t push them because the coaches will have to constantly attend to the slower kids? Or do we set up programs that cater to those with exceptional abilities so that their talents can be fostered and their skills developed?

    The answer seems obvious to me.

    There’s a reason why admission to medical school is reserved for the top students. It’s the same reason why the best ballet schools only accept the best dancers, and why the best hockey teams only accept the best hockey players. Simply put, they recognize that admission based on merit is the only way to foster excellence. Filling our top institutions with amateurs is a recipe for society-wide mediocrity.

    The only way to achieve excellence as a society is to allow the best to rise to the top of their respective fields, regardless of whatever good fortune may have helped them get there. And if that means tolerating a certain degree of inequality along the way, then maybe that’s worth it.

    After all, the alternative is a dystopian nightmare.

    This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.


    Patrick Carroll

    Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • No, Fidel Castro Didn’t Improve Health Care or Education in Cuba

    On CBS’s 60 Minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders recently praised the achievements of communist Cuba. An interviewer asked him about his 1985 comments that Cubans supported communist dictator Fidel Castro because he “educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.” In response, Sanders defended those comments, by stating that when “Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program.”

    But Castro did not give Cubans literacy. Cuba already had one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America by 1950, nearly a decade before Castro took power, according to United Nations data (statistics from UNESCO). In 2016, the Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler debunked a politician’s claim that Castro’s rule significantly improved Cuban healthcare and education.

    In today’s Cuba, children are taught by poorly paid teachers in dilapidated schools. Cuba has made less educational progress than most Latin American countries over the last 60 years.

    According to UNESCO, Cuba had about the same literacy rate as Costa Rica and Chile in 1950 (close to 80 percent). And it has almost the same literacy rate as they do today (close to 100 percent).

    Meanwhile, Latin American countries that were largely illiterate in 1950—such as Peru, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic—are largely literate today, closing much of the gap with Cuba. El Salvador had a less than 40 percent literacy rate in 1950, but has an 88 percent literacy rate today. Brazil and Peru had a less than 50 percent literacy rate in 1950, but today, Peru has a 94.5 percent literacy rate, and Brazil a 92.6 percent literacy rate. The Dominican Republic’s rate rose from a little over 40 percent to 91.8 percent. While Cuba made substantial progress in reducing illiteracy in Castro’s first years in power, its educational system has stagnated since, even as much of Latin America improved.

    Contrary to Sanders’ claim that Castro “gave” Cubans healthcare, they already had access to healthcare before he seized power. Doctors frequently provided free healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it. As the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler noted:

    As for health care and education, Cuba was already near the top of the heap before the revolution. Cuba’s low infant mortality rate is often lauded, but it already led the region on this key measure in 1953-1958, according to data collected by Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a Cuba specialist and professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh.

    Cuba led virtually all countries in Latin America in life expectancy in 1959, before Castro’s communists seized power. But by 2012, right after Castro stepped down as Communist Party leader, Chileans and Costa Ricans lived slightly longer than Cubans. Back in 1960, Chileans had a life span seven years shorter than Cubans, and Costa Ricans lived more than two years less than Cubans on average. In 1960, Mexicans lived seven years shorter than Cubans; by 2012, the gap had shrunk to just two years.

    (Today, life spans are virtually the same in Cuba as more prosperous Chile and Costa Rica—if you accept the rosy official statistics put out by Cuba’s communist government, which many people do not. Cuba has been credibly accused of hiding infant deaths, and exaggerating the life spans of its citizens. If these accusations are true, Cubans die sooner than Chileans or Costa Ricans).

    Cuba has made less progress in health care and life expectancy than most of Latin America in recent years, due to its decrepit health care system. “Hospitals in the island’s capital are literally falling apart.” Sometimes, patients ”have to bring everything with them, because the hospital provides nothing. Pillows, sheets, medicine: everything.”

    As The Washington Post’s Kessler noted:

    Reporters have also documented that Cuban hospitals are ill-equipped. A 2004 series on Cuba’s health-care system in Canada’s National Post said pharmacies stock very little and antibiotics are available only on the black market. “One of the myths Canadians harbor about Cuba is that its people may be poor and living under a repressive government, but they have access to quality health and education facilities,” the Post said. “It’s a portrait encouraged by the government, but the reality is sharply different.”

    Under communism, Cuba has also fallen behind on more general measures of human development. As the progressive economist Brad DeLong pointed out:

    Cuba in 1957—was a developed country. Cuba in 1957 had lower infant mortality than France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had doctors and nurses: as many doctors and nurses per capita as the Netherlands, and more than Britain or Finland. Cuba in 1957 had as many vehicles per capita as Uruguay, Italy, or Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had 45 TVs per 1000 people—fifth highest in the world …Today? Today the UN puts Cuba’s HDI [Human Development indicators] in the range of … Mexico. (And Carmelo Mesa-Lago thinks the UN’s calculations are seriously flawed: that Cuba’s right HDI peers today are places like China, Tunisia, Iran, and South Africa.) Thus I don’t understand lefties who talk about the achievements of the Cuban Revolution: ‘…to have better health care, housing, education.’

    As Michael Giere notes, Cuba was prosperous before Castro’s communists seized power:

    A United Nations (UNESCO) report in 1957 noted that the Cuban economy included proportionally more workers who were unionized than in the U.S. The report also stated that average wages for an eight hour day were higher in Cuba than in “Belgium, Denmark, France, and Germany.”…PBS explained in a 2004 retrospective, that

    “Havana [prior to Castro] was a glittering and dynamic city. Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. The literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. Many private clinics and hospitals provided services for the poor. Cuba’s income distribution compared favorably with that of other Latin American societies. A thriving middle class held the promise of prosperity and social mobility.”

    But after Castro took over, the prosperity came to an end:

    Castro’s destruction of Cuba cannot be over dramatized. He looted, murdered, and destroyed the nation from the ground up. Just one factoid explains it all; Cubans once enjoyed one of the highest consumption of proteins in the Americas, yet in 1962 Castro had to introduce ration cards (meat, 2 ounces daily), as food consumption per person crashed to levels not seen since the 1800s.

    Hunger became so widespread that a visiting Swedish doctor, Hans Rosling, had to warn Cuba’s dictator in 1992 about widespread protein deficiency among Cubans. Roughly 40,000 Cubans had been reported to have been experiencing “visual blurring and severe numbness in their legs.” Rosling investigated at the invitation of the Cuban embassy in Sweden, and with the approval of Castro himself. Rosling travelled to the heart of the outbreak, in the western province of Pinar del Río. It turned out that those stricken with the disorder all suffered from protein deficiency. The government was rationing meat, and adults had sacrificed their portion to nourish children, pregnant women and the elderly. Dr. Rosling told Fidel Castro about this.

    During this period of widespread hunger, Bernie Sanders was peddling the myth that hunger was non-existent in Cuba. In 1989, he published a newspaper column claiming that Fidel Castro’s Cuba had “no hunger, is educating all of its children and is providing high quality, free health care.”

    This article was reprinted with permission from Liberty Unyielding.


    Hans Bader

    Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.