Month: October 2007

Advocacy from the Urban Superintendent

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB, PR

The common thinking is that the urban superintendent is the last line of defense for the status quo.  AASA has stood hard and long against the reforms in NCLB.  Urban superintendents, it seems, are leading the charge against classroom measurement and AYP and other such improvements to education delivery and measurement.

We forget, though, that the educational leaders in our urban centers are also the early adopters of reforms like Teach for America and KIPP and New Leaders for New Schools.  And we ignore that these superintendents are the ones with the highest stakes, and the ones most willing to try new reforms if they can deliver maximum impact.

And then we get slapped upside the head with a call for national standards.

For those who missed it, Eduflack is referring to an analysis in today’s Washington Post, written by Jay Matthews.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001503.html  Based on interviews and public statements of Washington, DC-areas superintendents, Matthews paints a clear picture of a cadre of superintendents focused on reforms, improvements, and the bottom line.

It’s no secret that these leaders have voiced a real frustration with NCLB and many of its requirements.  And these frustrations have been translated — by many, including Eduflack — as opposition to the law.  But a closer look of the rhetoric paints a very different picture.

Just look at Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale.  Past statements maligning NCLB testing requirements have been interpreted as opposition to testing itself.  Yes, Dale has real issues with a series of state tests that don’t relate or integrate with one another, yet are governed by a single federal enforcement filter.  His solution — let the feds develop the tests, and empower the states (and LEAs, I suppose) to enact the specific interventions necessary to turn our low-performing schools around and offer virtually every kid the keys to success.

And Dale isn’t alone.  He seems to be joined in the call for national standards by the supes from Montgomery County, MD; Arlington County, VA; and others.

There’s no question that the voice of the superintendent has been almost non-existent when it comes to NCLB 2.0.  Again, we assume a defense for the status quo and opposition to reforms or attempts to build a better mousetrap.  We may assume, but we also need to verify. 

Failed reforms are littered with the remains of assumptions and generalizations.  If we’re looking to improve our struggling schools, we need to include the very superintendents who manage those schools.  They know the problems.  They know the reforms that have been tried and failed (or succeeded).  And they know that, just sometimes, we need a little bold thinking that no one is expecting. 

Now if only Dale and company can rally their fellow superintendents (and the organization that is supposed to represent their interests) to stand behind national standards, we may just have a reform that could make a lasting difference in every LEA and SEA across the nation.


Not in “My” School

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, PR

Over the past few years, we’ve heard a great deal about the school choice provisions for families in failing schools.  When it was passed into law, the critics painted a picture of a nation of students, fleeing their neighborhood schools (and the poor academic conditions they might house) and running for the nearest suburban school with shiny new desks, just out-of-the-wrap textbooks, and higher per-pupil costs.  We stood by and waited for the great migration, as those schools that missed academic goals for two straight years would see all of their students flee.

According to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602368.html), that scenario hasn’t exactly played out.    In fact, it doesn’t even seem to be a consideration.  Of the 5.4 million students eligible under federal law to switch from a failing school, only 1.2 percent have made the move.  That leaves 98.8 percent who have chosen to stay put.

Why?  Why, when given a chance, are parents not willing to give up on a failing school in their community?  Why, when given a chance, are kids not choosing to attend a school that is better, or at least better on paper?  Why aren’t poor-performing schools forced to close, as all of their students move to higher-performing ones?

Some will say that there aren’t enough slots in those higher-performing schools, and families don’t have the choices we seem to think they do.  While that may be true for a handful of students, is that really what is keeping more than nine of 10 students in their community school, regardless of its performance?

Of course not.  Students stay in their schools because we don’t want to believe our neighborhood school is failing.  Despite the AYP numbers, we trust our schools.  We have faith in our principal.  We like our teachers.  Our child is happy at the school.  The numbers must be wrong.  Other schools in the area may be failing, but not mine.  I just know it.

Back in 1990, the nation voiced loud displeasure for the job Congress was doing.  Some minor scandals, coupled with an ever-growing budget deficit and the sense of a “do nothing” Congress had voters calling for them all to be thrown out.  Much like today’s poll numbers, we were clamoring for the whole Congress to be voted out of office prior to the November election.  They were all corrupt bums.  We needed a new class.  So Election Day came and … virtually every incumbent was re-elected.  The pollsters went back to see if they had messed up their previous interviews.  What they found was startling.  Across the nation, we still wanted to throw those bums out.  Everyone, that was, but our congressman.  They’re all bad, except for my guy.

And that’s what we’re seeing with our schools.  We recognize our nation’s schools need help.  And we know it is hard to find a single school that couldn’t benefit from a more effective curriculum, better student measures, or more effective teachers.  But we’re not ready to give up on our own school.  Those other schools may need to be overhauled or closed altogether, but not mine.  Mine has hope.  Mine has potential.  It’s my school, after all, and I’m going to protect it.

That’s not a bad sentiment to have.  The next task becomes transferring that defense of school into a school-based effort to improve.  Take that school pride, and transform it into reforms that can make a difference.  Really give those parents a school (and school outcomes) to be proud of.

The ability to transfer from a low-performing school is a lovely rhetorical tool.  It puts all schools on notice, and provides parents and families the power to decide the academic futures of their children.  It provides some hope into what was once a hopeless situation.  But it is not a panacea for low-performing schools.

At the end of the day, the goal should be to fix struggling schools, not abandon them.  The objective should be to have students both happy and achieving in their neighborhood schools.  If the threat of transfer gets us closer to that goal, terrific. 

Numbers don’t lie.  We know which schools are performing, and which are struggling.  The challenge is taking the data and fixing the latter, intellectually rebuilding schools so all kids, parents, and neighborhoods really have something to be proud of.       

In the NAEP Scrum

Eduflack Math, NAEP, NCLB, SBRR

It’s been almost a week now, and the dust following the release of the latest NAEP scores is just finally starting to settle.  The story varies widely, depending on who you listen to and who you respect on such issues.  This year’s reading and math NAEP scores demonstrate we have greatly improved instruction over the past few years.  Or they show that we have actually taken a step backward.  Progress or regress, it seems.

What is clear is that both math and reading scores have ticked upward, with math performance rising more than reading.  What is even clearer, though, is that we still have much work to do.  The education community is quibbling over the “meaning” of the small rise in reading scores and its implications for the future.  It’s like listening to a faculty senate meeting, focusing on the personal periphery rather than the ultimate outcomes and impact.

But there is a lesson to be found in the stacks of disaggregated data and he said/she said debates.  Set aside all of the rhetoric.  Put away all of the interpretation.  Forget all of the hidden meanings.  What’s left?  A national commitment to boosting student achievement.

For some, the scores were badges of success.  For others, they were indicators of inadequacy.  But for all, the NAEP scores were the tool for determining whether we have demonstrably improved student achievement.  For once, the education industry was focused on outcomes, and not just on the inputs.  We were talking results (or lack there of) and how to further improve those results.

Without question, there is MUCH work that still needs to be done to improve student proficiency in reading and math.  The experts will spend the next few weeks determining the significance of these gains, comparing them to previous gains.  But these scores do send a message to all willing to listen.  Improvement is possible, but it requires significantly more work, attention, and resources.  And that’s a far harder lesson to learn.