Ninety-nine percent of the students at Holbrook Elementary School are eligible for the federal free-lunch program, and 77 percent have limited English proficiency. But that hasn't stopped the school in Hamtramck, Mich., from forging an impressive record of academic achievement.

"There are many factors that make Holbrook work--an enthusiastic teaching and support staff, a dynamic principal, strong parental involvement, ongoing professional development for staff, and a commitment to putting the needs of the students first," says David Hecker, president of the Michigan Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel (MFT&SRP).

In September, the Michigan federation presented Holbrook with its Red School House Award, which included a plaque and a check for $1,000 to buy books for the school library.

"This is the kind of school that could easily be overlooked," Hecker says. "But we wanted to highlight the great work done here under challenging circumstances."

Holbrook's success would not be possible without the funding it receives for its special programs, Hecker notes. The school relies heavily on state and federal monies, which it has used to hire social workers, bilingual aides and a literacy coordinator. Federal Title I funds have supported monthly workshops for parents on a variety of topics, including how to help children succeed at school, stress management and nutrition.

Unfortunately, the state Legislature recently cut the funding that keep these programs running because the Legislature and the governor are looking to trim the state education budget. "Legislators have cut the very programs that help make Holbrook a success, including summer school and literacy and adult education programs," says Bo Karpinsky, president of the Hamtramck Federation of Teachers.

The federation supports suspending the tax cuts passed by the Michigan Legislature last year in order to fully fund the state's education commitments. "When the Legislature implemented the tax cuts, it failed to anticipate the economic downturn," Hecker says. "Now the choice for the Legislature is to suspend the tax cuts that will only give an average family of four $28 anyway or abandon the very programs that allow schools like Holbrook to help those students most in need."

The AFT's latest report on standards-based reform efforts in the states, Making Standards Matter 2001, offers mixed reviews for the standards movement nationwide. On the positive side, the report shows a big increase in the number of states that have developed clear and specific standards in the core subject areas (English, math, science and social studies) over the last six years. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have such clear and specific standards--up from 13 six years ago. In addition, most states have begun to align their tests with their standards, and many are using test results for school and student accountability (27, for example, have high school exit exams aligned to their standards).

The report's biggest concerns relate to testing policies in the states. In too many states, tests that are not aligned to the standards or that are based on weak standards are driving reforms. In addition, high-quality curriculum that teachers can use to help all students meet the standards is lagging well behind. Only nine states meet three of five components that the AFT believes are essential for a well-developed curriculum in the core subjects. "All too often," the report says, "high-stakes decisions are being made before state educational systems have developed aligned assessments and curriculum to support instruction in the standards."

The report includes a set of recommendations to help states maintain the momentum behind standards-based education and address concerns about assessments and accountability. Among the recommendations, the report says, states should:

• Explain the standards they set and the performance levels required to meet them, including providing examples of standards and student work at various grade and performance levels so teachers, students, parents and the public all understand what's expected.
• Involve teachers in the development of curriculum aligned to the standards and develop data banks that include exemplary lessons and student work related to the standards.
• Phase in the "stakes" related to tests so districts have adequate time to implement curricula, professional development and intervention systems.
• Give students multiple opportunities to pass high-stakes exams and look for additional evidence from achievement indicators other than standardized tests in making important decisions about students.
• Provide high-quality early intervention to students identified at risk of failing to meet standards and provide adequate resources to ensure that students have access to extra assistance.
• Pay more attention to proper implementation: Tests should reflect the state's curriculum; teachers must understand the standards and how to help students meet them; and teachers must be provided standards-based professional development that emphasizes deep content knowledge, clear instructional strategies and the assessment tools necessary for determining student progress.

It's not enough just to have strong standards--although they are a vital foundation of coherent standards-based education, the report emphasizes. The assessment component has to be done right, as well. "Tests cannot and should not drive the system," it says. "Instead, they should assist in determining whether the system is working effectively." Tests should not be used to sort out winners and losers, the report continues, but rather to "ensure that all students have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed at the next level of schooling and to trigger assistance to those students who would otherwise fall through the cracks."

Making Standards Matter 2001 also warns that current federal proposals to increase the number of tests may simply result in "more, not better, testing and may thereby exacerbate the problems that the public and educators have identified with current state testing efforts."

A complete version of the new report, including state-by-state breakdowns, will be available Nov. 2 online at www.aft.org.

Two consumer watchdog groups have raised a ruckus about sign-up incentives that the Channel One Network is offering educators. The controversy revolves around the network's "Share It Program," which made its debut this year and was originally designed to offer teachers $500 awards for persuading their principals to sign up for the Channel One Network. Owned by Primedia, Channel One offers a 10-minute daily newscast that is currently shown in 12,000 schools nationwide. The program has garnered awards as well as critics, who charge that Channel One carries ads targeted to a captive audience of schoolchildren. However, the program was changed before the launch to offer $500 to schools that persuade a neighboring building to sign up for Channel One Network, says company spokesperson Sonya McNair. "Based on listening to our teachers, we decided to have the honorarium go to the school itself," McNair says. "We heard from a few people who felt it might present a conflict."

As originally designed, the program drew fire from the advocacy groups Commercial Alert and Obligation Inc., which fired off letters to attorneys general in all 50 states asking them to look into the incentives as a conflict of interest for public employees. Through the Share It Program, "Channel One is hiring public school employees to promote its controversial product," the groups stated in a letter to state officials. "It is not the proper role of public school employees to be a roving sales team for Channel One's efforts to commercialize the schools."

Schools that join the Channel One Network receive free equipment and installation. In return, they must agree to show Channel One News on 90 percent of in-session school days and ensure that students watch the broadcast in a classroom setting.

The peer review and intervention program in Toledo, Ohio, received national acclaim this year when it was selected as one of 15 finalists for the prestigious "Innovations in Government" competition, sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

A collaboration between the Toledo Federation of Teachers and the school district, the city's peer review program was the first program of its kind in the nation. Initiated in 1981, the Toledo plan was a groundbreaking effort to professionalize teaching by giving teachers a major say in developing and preserving quality educators in the classroom.

Two decades ago, this concept was nothing short of revolutionary and ultimately became a model for districts and locals nationwide, thanks in large part to support from the late Albert Shanker, then president of the AFT. Toledo provides a formula for professional development of beginning teachers and an evaluation system that detects and screens those who show little aptitude for the classroom. Additionally, experienced teachers who are severely deficient in performance are given intensive peer assistance to bring their work up to acceptable standards.

This intensive system of evaluation is aimed at those most in need of professional help--beginners in the field and experienced teachers in trouble.

For these individuals, such intervention delivers the very finest professional help available through peers who are themselves excellent teachers.

"The Toledo Plan reorders roles and responsibilities to ensure a quality teaching staff," says Francine Lawrence, president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers. "The peer review process allows teachers and administrators to collaborate to improve children's education."

As a finalist, the Toledo program is now eligible to apply for a $20,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. The five winners, to be selected this fall, will be eligible to apply for a $100,000 grant.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a voucher program in Cleveland (Ohio) and will hand down its decision next year. Already available, however, is an evaluation of Cleveland vouchers as a school-improvement tool. It shows that vouchers are not providing the academic advantages that supporters have promised and may even be splintering student populations along racial lines.

An ongoing study of the program, prepared by the Indiana Center for Evaluation at Indiana University and released in early September, compared voucher students with those who applied for but did not receive the vouchers, as well as with non-applicants. Although voucher students who began the program in kindergarten had higher scores than did non-applicants in one area of academic achievement (language), the study found no overall achievement advantage tied to vouchers.

"Student academic achievement, a factor watched closely by those on both sides of the voucher issue, presented no clear or consistent pattern that can be attributable to program participation," the study concludes. In fact, the findings showed that all students--public and private--made substantial and statistically significant academic gains between kindergarten and second grade.

The study does identify one disturbing trend: Student bodies in voucher schools are more likely to be disproportionately white--a pattern that increases over time. Students who entered the program in second grade were significantly less likely to be of minority status (41 percent) than students admitted in either kindergarten (67 percent) or first grade (74 percent). "If these data reflect a trend that continues for several years, the nature of students in the scholarship program may change substantially and become less similar to students in public schools," says the report.

The findings "add credence to the theory that voucher schools choose the students, rather than the other way around," says Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers and an AFT vice president.

The report is posted online at www.indiana. edu/~iuice/ (click on the "Reports" page).