The next issue is scheduled for the week of July 12. To subscribe (it's free), click here. 

IN THIS ISSUE

George Bush's Gifts to College Grads--Low-Paying Jobs and High Loan Rates
Know a recent grad who can't find a job and is facing high student loan payments? More . . .

ED's High-Priced PR Machine Criticizes Those Who Want Full Funding of NCLB
President Bush's budgets have fallen short of the money to fund his signature education law, but the U.S. Department of Education has found plenty of money to promote it. More . . .

Tax $ + Philanthropy + NCLB = A Statue of George Bush?
Hamilton High gets a statue of George Bush. More . . .

TFA Report Raises Real Issues--But They're Not the Ones Making Headlines
Teach for America is a Band-Aid that can help schools that are hurting, but exaggerating the program's effectiveness may take education reform in the wrong direction. More . . .

Getting the D.C. Voucher Story Right
When the Los Angeles Times says one thing and the Washington Post says another, where do you turn to break the tie? The Washington Times, of course. More . . .

AFTerthoughts
CNN host's extracurricular work contradicts on-air statements about outsourcing. More . . .

George Bush's Gifts to College Grads--Low-Paying Jobs and High Loan Rates 

This month's college grads may get a one-two punch as a result of Bush administration policies--low-paying jobs and higher student loan payments.

Despite the rosy scenario being painted by the administration in the months leading up to the November election, the jobs picture for graduates is not pretty (unless they're planning to move to Alaska, the only state in which job growth has kept up with population growth). In "Jobs That Aren't," a commentary in the Washington Times, columnist Paul Craig Roberts identifies a "scary situation" lurking beneath the aggregate job-growth numbers reported by the administration. "American job growth is concentrated in low-paid domestic services, such as restaurants and bars, temporary help, and healthcare and social assistance." Meanwhile, notes Roberts, millions of jobs in high-paying sectors have been lost since January 2001. But Bush continues to fail to take commonsense steps to create jobs for college graduates, such as ending subsidies for moving jobs overseas and offering tax credits for companies that hire new employees.

Instead, knowing that grads are facing a difficult job market, Bush could be adding insult to injury if he signs into law a proposal making its way through Congress that would add $5,500 to average student-loan costs. The bill is described in more detail here. Sen. John Kerry has announced his opposition to it. Informed critics argue that it would benefit lenders, not taxpayers or students. Worse still, the Republican-backed bill adds no real money to the Pell Grant program, meaning low- and middle-income students will continue to struggle to pay for college.

In light of these disappointing actions by Bush, here are three suggestions for grads who are looking for a gift: Ask for this job creation plan, express your opinion about student loans and add this site to the list of favorites on your parents' computer.

ED's High-Priced PR Machine Criticizes Those Who Want Full Funding of NCLB

Last month, Education Week's Michelle Davis reported that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) had recruited a PR Dream Team to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB)--"an eight-person, half-million-dollar team of political appointees." This PR initiative is not to be confused with ED's $700,000 contract with Ketchum, the PR firm that held the HHS contract for the phony TV news spots about Medicare and which we discussed in the last issue of AFT's Closer Look. People for the American Way has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out more about the contract.

Part of the Dream Team's work, Davis wrote, is to produce "No Child Left Behind Extra Credit" e-mails. There is no question that informing the public about NCLB is a legitimate government function. But some of the content in these e-mails appears to serve merely as a platform for politicizing education policy and maligning administration critics.

A recent "Extra Credit," for example, consisted of nothing but excerpts from a wacky editorial from the Vero Beach (Fla.) Press Journal, in which the editors railed against teacher unions that call for full funding of NCLB. This raises more than a few questions. Why does the Bush-Cheney attack machine go after those who want NCLB to be fully funded? Is it a legitimate function of government to recycle editorials that do little more than criticize organizations that have endorsed someone else for the presidency? And, most important, shouldn't the $500,000 ED is spending on PR be used instead to narrow the gap between the amount Congress has authorized for NCLB and the amount in the budgets President Bush signed? Half a million dollars wouldn't eliminate that gap, but it certainly would begin to undo the harm caused by President Bush's inadequate education budgets.

Instead, by circulating this editorial and similar items, ED's political appointees are promoting ideas and language that, coming directly from a federal agency, is inappropriate--though ED's top political appointee crossed the line months ago when he described a teachers union as a terrorist organization.

ED's Web site now features the editorial, including its reference to "fellow travelers at the American Federation of Teachers." Such language might lead some to charge that the NCLB PR Dream Team is using the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. But we're sure that they simply were unaware of the etymology and connotations of "fellow travelers" or the steadfast anti-totalitarianism stance of the AFT and its independent research arm, the Albert Shanker Institute.

Tax $ + Philanthropy + NCLB = A Statue of George Bush?

And while we're on the subject of ED's unusual approach to promoting NCLB, why did Education Secretary Rod Paige travel to Hamilton High School in Ohio, which isn't a Title I school, to unveil a statue commemorating President Bush's signing of the No Child Left Behind Act? Why does ED continue to focus on Hamilton High, a school that doesn't have to meet NCLB's adequate yearly progress requirements? For that matter, couldn't the president have gently suggested a better use for the local philanthropists' money ($360,000 for a series of NCLB-related statues)--perhaps spending the cash to help struggling students? As it stands, taxpayers likely have gotten stuck with the bill for Secretary Paige's visit to a school largely unaffected by NCLB . . . where he unveiled a statue of the president . . . in a photo op promoted on ED's Web site . . . during an election year . . . in a swing state.

TFA Report Raises Real Issues--But They're Not the Ones Making the Headlines

Last week, a much-heralded report by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. found that elementary school students in low-income communities score slightly higher on math tests when the students are taught by teachers recruited through Teach for America (TFA). That result is promising. (No TFA effect was found for reading scores.) 

But the study, titled "The Effects of Teach for America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation," doesn't address an important aspect of TFA--recruitment, not preparation, is the program's strong point. Clearly, low-income communities are struggling to recruit enough good teachers. As a result, far too many teachers in the study's control group--that is, the non-TFA teachers in these communities--lack student teaching experience, relevant coursework and proper certification.

Those who follow the issues closely know that the AFT has long supported alternative pathways to teacher certification and has recognized the value of Teach for America (TFA), which provides some training for its recruits before sending them into classrooms. And nothing in Mathematica's report suggests that our support is misplaced. Indeed, Mathematica answered the question it posed: Given who teaches in high-poverty, high-minority schools, does the presence of TFA teachers do more good than harm to those students? But the study doesn't address larger, more critical questions: How can we recruit experienced, effective teachers to schools in low-income communities, support the teachers already in those schools, and improve conditions to create a better working and learning environment?

AFT's study of these issues has shed light on a few possible answers.  For instance, we've identified the characteristics of routes to alternative certification that can foster high-quality teaching. We've tracked research that shows positive effects for certified teachers, experienced teachers and teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. And we have developed an innovative approach for improving teacher quality and raising student achievement. Outlined in "Building a Profession," our approach is a comprehensive, effective plan that would strengthen teacher preparation, make licensing exams more rigorous and eliminate the sink-or-swim attitude that limits the effectiveness of new teachers.

None of this is easy, and no single measure can meet the challenge of improving education in low-income communities, but Mathematica's report provides the welcome news that Teach for America can be part of the solution.

Getting the D.C. Voucher Story Right

Residents of Washington, D.C., are guinea pigs in the first federally funded school voucher experiment, which means local education reporters are covering a story with significant national and political implications. And even though this may be the first time reporters have seen a voucher program up close, some are realizing that this one hasn't gotten off to the cleanest of starts. Recently, the Washington Post's Justin Blum broke the story about the shortage of applicants for D.C.'s voucher program, and the Washington Times' George Archibald wrote an excellent follow-up story that fleshed out Blum's initial report. But what's the deal with the Associated Press coverage, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times and other papers and described the situation as if there were a surprisingly high demand for vouchers? A tip of the hat to the voucher proponent who got AP to buy that story. (It could be the author of this letter to the editor.)

No matter how good the spin, the low number of applicants was not a victory for voucher proponents. Sally Sachar, president and CEO of the Washington Scholarship Fund, which is overseeing the D.C. voucher program, said it would award just 1,200 school vouchers, even though Congress approved 1,700, because the program didn't receive enough applications from students. Sachar blamed the low number on "the very tight timeline of this launch" and the lack of applications from elementary school children. Despite voucher supporters' rhetoric about children who need to escape failing schools, not all 1,200 vouchers will go to students currently attending public schools. Some will go to children entering kindergarten, and 200 will go to children whose families already pay for them to attend private schools--think of it as a subsidy.

Archibald also cited an anonymous source, a "leading proponent of the voucher experiment," who made it clear that the lack of applicants is troubling the program's backers. "It looks like there's no demand for it," says the source, who then explains that the lack of applicants will make it difficult to evaluate the program. Without enough rejected applicants for the early grades, adds Archibald's unnamed voucher proponent, evaluators "can't really do a study this year."

This shortage of applicants probably won't trouble many voucher advocates, including ED officials who already have conveniently dismissed the importance of attracting a high number of applicants, even as they acknowledge it as the "gold standard" for evaluation.

AFTerthoughts

CNN host Lou Dobbs has been an outspoken critic of companies that send jobs overseas. His show's Web site lists hundreds of companies that are "Exporting America." He deserves credit for criticizing businesses that reward the shoddy work of poorly paid overseas workers instead of the high-quality work of Americans. But the Columbia Journalism Review recently reported that Dobbs takes a different stand in his investment newsletter, for which some subscribers pay nearly $400. In Dobbs' newsletter, he has sung the praises of eight of the very companies that appear on his CNN outsourcing list, describing them as good investments and good corporate citizens. In this battle of Dobbs v. Dobbs, the winner should be the CNN host who opposes outsourcing.

If you have a comment or suggestion for AFT's Closer Look, let us know.                   

AFT's Closer Look is a publication of the public affairs department of the American Federation of Teachers, 202/879-4458, 555 New Jersey Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001.