There’s no doubt there are leaders and laggards when it comes to our public schools. But how do we help those kids in struggling schools without condemning the teacher, the building, or even the school district? For the folks responsible for No Child Left Behind, the answer was SES, or supplemental educational services. The idea was brilliant in its simplicity — for students in struggling schools, make extra help and tutoring available to get them up to par. SES was intended to provide all students with a common base of instruction and support.
Of course, those of us in education reform know that the promise and the reality are often far, far away from each other. Exhibit 1, today’s Washington Post piece on how SES programs in Virginia and Maryland have done little to improve student achievement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html
For years, Eduflack has heard about the problems with SES tutoring. For much of the NCLB era, SES funding sat dormant, with many schools not sure how to spend the money. Originally, people said the tutoring funds would be spent to send poor kids to for-profit providers like Sylvan or Huntington or Kumon. Makes sense, right? If a family with means has a kid struggling to make the grade, they pick up the phone and book their kid in a tutoring program. Why shouldn’t a family without the financial ability be able to take the same advantages with SES?
The hitch, of course, is that many of the for-profit tutors have business models that set them up near those families of means. We see tutoring centers in the suburbs. We certainly don’t see them in our urban centers, where many of the struggling schools are located. So who provides the tutoring?
Unfortunately, in far too many of these struggling neighborhoods, the schools turned to classroom teachers to provide after-school tutoring (with extra pay funded through SES, of course.) Imagine the logic. Students are not getting the skills they need during school hours from their teachers, so we pay the SAME teachers extra money to teach the SAME kids after school? And then we wonder why SES funding isn’t demonstrating measurable improvements on student assessments? Only in America.
And the circle of life continues. We look to education reforms to change practice and fix that which is broken. SES is a well-intentioned reform with strong potential. But like so many other NCLB-era policies, it fails in the execution. With so much supplemental money available to boost struggling students, it’s a shame so many don’t get much more than a retread of the instruction that just doesn’t work in the first place.
Where does all of this take us? Under NCLB, we also give those struggling students the option of transferring to better schools that provide the academic means get students on track. We’ve all seen the numbers, and few families ever take advantage of the school choice provisions, fearing transportation costs and believing their neighborhood schools are doing the best they can.
Maybe this latest data will have more families take a second look at the options available to give their kids the educational helping hand they deserve.
Year: 2008
CBS on DCPS
The future of urban education? On this evening’s CBS News, Katie Couric and company threw the spotlight on Washington, DC Public Schools and DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee. The relative puff piece credited Rhee with shaking things up, getting rid of the dead wood, and taking the steps necessary to change the culture and performance of an urban school system that has been in perpetual decline.
Yes, many would — and have — questioned some of Rhee’s actions. The local AFT affiliate has had their issues, particularly with the notion of “firing” teachers. Parents have been frustrated by being cut out of the loop, particularly when it comes to school closings and the elimination of principals they love. But meaningful reform does not come without criticism. If everyone agreed with Rhee, then she was likely avoiding hard decisions and just rearranging the educational furniture.
But there was one thing about the CBS segment that bothers Eduflack. Rhee is shown teaching in an elementary school classroom. For those of us in the greater DC area, we read about Rhee and DCPS almost daily. (I personally think the Washington Post goes out of its way to find bad photos of the Chancellor.) But I have never read or heard anything about her teaching in the classroom. If she’s doing it, she needs a PR team to better promote it. If not, the footage just contributes to the larger criticism that many actions are just for “show.”
The larger issue was the classroom Rhee was teaching. Maybe it was the camera angle, but it appeared she was teaching to an virtually all white elementary class. Nothing wrong with that, no, but if Rhee is taking a serious stand talking about the change needed to improve DCPS’ performance, she should be showing it in the classrooms that are most affected. She should be in SE DC, and not Upper NW.
At the end of the day, though, we know this is all just the dress rehearsal. How much longer will friends and foes alike give Rhee (and Mayor Fenty) until they ask to see the test scores and demand to see improvements in achievement? Ultimately, it is all about the numbers.
Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama
Now that he is all but the official Democratic presidential nominee, it is time for Senator Barack Obama to start putting out some real ideas — real policies — that complement his vision for the future. For most Democrats, that means a clear education policy, one that goes from pre-natal to geriatric.
Unfortunately, Obama’s message of hope and opportunity doesn’t quite jive with the education (particularly K-12) mantras of hopelessness and obstacles. How do we restore hope for education reform in an industry that has been paralyzed by the fear of change?
More than a year ago, Eduflack offered some recommendations to the Democratic candidates running for president on how they can focus on education. Since then, we’ve seen Ed in 08 and others try to do the same. What’s funny is how wrong I was in March of 2007. I thought it was a gimme that the Democrats would focus on education, seeing it as a great equalizer and a bridge to a stronger economy and better jobs. How wrong I was! Even the talking snowman has gotten more media play than the party’s education ideas.
But let’s take a second to look back on Eduflack’s specific recommendations, knowing full well they are just as strong and pertinent today as they were a year ago:
1. We all must commit to improve our schools. We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo. That means having hard conversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions. Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow.
2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement. For every carrot, there is a stick. If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions. As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.
3. National standards level the playing field. Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards. Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools. For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country. That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.
4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions. Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn’t benefit from teacher improvement. HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones. Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally. We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines. But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge. Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers. Good teachers will thrive. Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.
5. Education reform is a shared responsibility. Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations. Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one. Improving our schools requires teamwork. Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform. Shared responsibility results in shared success.
I maintain that all of these are still cogent, winning issues for Obama. Case in point, Obama’s previous endorsement of teacher merit pay. It is a strong idea, and one that can have an immediate impact on teacher and instructional quality in the schools. It is an idea that resonates with most parents, and means something to local decisionmakers. And it is a concept that the unions — particularly the NEA — greatly oppose. We all recognize that Obama and the teachers unions are allies. But performance pay can be one of those flag-in-the-sand moments that demonstrates Obama’s independence and the priority of kids in his education policy.
But it all seems to loop back around to national standards. The National Governors Association and CCSSO have long been champions of a the concept. This week, the National Association of Secondary School Principals threw its collective weight behind the issue as well. And Obama endorser Roy Romer has been carrying the banner for it over at Ed in 08.
Imagine the rhetorical impact national standards could have coming out of Obama’s mouth. The opportunity that all U.S. students, regardless of their home state, are learning and achieving together. The belief that the nation is stronger academically, and can measure it, because of national standards. The elimination of have and have not states, knowing that a kid in Alabama is getting the same education as a kid in Connecticut. Imagine.
Senator Obama, it is quite easy for you to write off education policy as part of your stump speech this all. You’ll have the endorsement of the unions. Education has never been a strong policy concern of Senator McCain’s. And the anti-NCLB crowds will crow a vote for a Dem is a vote against NCLB.
But as you have all year, you have the opportunity to tell us what you stand for, and not just what you speak against. If your recent anti-NCLB remarks are coming from the heart, tell us what you will do to fix the law. If you are concerned about high-stakes testing, let Romer and company develop a national standard that lessens the stress on our student test takers. But please, please, please, do and stand for something.
We’ve spend far too much time in recent years talking about what’s wrong and what we’re opposed to. We need more people — particularly our leaders — telling us what they stand for in education reform.
A Display of RF Commitment
Sometimes, we just have to trust our gut. Despite the white noise around us. Despite what the nattering nabobs are saying. We just have to go with what we know, make a decision, stand behind it, and reap the benefits.
That seems to be the MO that the good educators down in Louisiana are following. Yesterday’s Shreveport Times reports that the Caddo School District have committed $1.6 million to continue funding their Reading First programs. And if the feds don’t make the funding available, they will find the money themselves in the district’s general fund. The full story can be found here — http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806050330.
Why? The good folks in Caddo know that RF works. They’ve seen it help their low-performing, high-poverty K-3 classrooms, and they don’t want to lose that help. They recognize that once you find something that works, and I mean really works, you do what is necessary to keep it in place.
The educators and decisionmakers down in Caddo deserve some credit. Despite all of the RF “sky is falling” chickens out their waiving around the IES RF interim study, Caddo knows a good thing when they see it. RF works in schools like theirs and with kids like theirs. It works, and you can’t take that away from them.
Over at Flypaper, Mike Petrilli praises the folks in Caddo for stepping up to the plate and agreeing to fund RF even if Congress won’t. And he’s absolutely right. It’s easy for a district to complain about a federal decision, and bemoan stripped funding and say “if only.” Caddo Interim Superintendent Wanda Gunn is acting, not talking. If the feds won’t do it, she’ll do it herself.
But the situation down in Shreveport also raises one important issue that ed reformers and RF advocates alike need to be mindful of. The Shreveport Times positions this as Caddo spending $1.6 million on “Reading First,” as if the federal funding law were an off-the-shelf basal reading curriculum that school districts can pick up at their next trip to the store. If only it were that easy.
RF provides clear guidelines about the sorts of reading programs that should be implemented in the low-income, low-performing schools most in need of assistance. It requires an educated, savvy superintendent, curriculum director, or reading teacher to take those guidelines, gain an understanding of scientifically based reading research, and make an educated decision on what is best for them, their schools, and their kids.
Despite the growing urban legend, there is no golden list of reading programs that guarantees both federal funding and student success. It falls to educators to make their way through the smoke, move beyond the mirrors, and really identify the most effective, research-based reading programs for their students. Programs that embody both the letter and the intent of the federal law.
It seems like the folks in Caddo have done that, and are putting their money where their mouths are. Here’s hoping other districts will do the same, continuing to build on the gains and successes of the past few years that can only be attributed to SBRR in the classroom.
Caffeinating NCLB
If we’re to believe the chattering class, the greatest problem in public education today is No Child Left Behind. It’s destroyed our schools, bankrupted our districts, frustrated our teachers, and destroyed the morale of our students. Those standards and high stakes testing, in particular, have been the death of us.
You hear it so much that you almost believe it. Then you get that slap upside the head, much like an overcaffeinated espresso, that reminds of you the truth. This week, that slap has come from Seattle, hardly the home of the George W. fan club. It seems the Seattle Times has thrown its editorial muscle behind NCLB (kudos to Ed Trust’s Equity Express for highlighting it.)
In a strongly worded editorial this week, the Seattle Times praises NCLB for “injecting rigor and accountability into a system that previously had little of both.” The editors also note that recent improvements to the law — including demonstrations of flexibility on AYP — will take years for us to see, and we need to be patient. The full article is here — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004444420_nclbed29.html.
It’s unusual to see such pieces these days, when NCLB has been left as a punchline to a national education joke. But as the Seattle Times and many others have noted, there is value to the law. Forget, for a moment, that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act isn’t going away. There are real positives in this law, and states, municipalities, and schools are seeing that.
The Times is absolutely correct. We are a better nation because of NCLB. A national commitment to academic rigor is a good thing. A national commitment to student achievement is a good thing. A national commitment to doing what works in getting kids to learn is a good thing. And a national belief that EVERY kid can succeed, given the right opportunities and circumstances, is indeed a good thing.
These were the sorts of messages we needed to hear three years ago, when we actually had the chance to reauthorize NCLB. As Spellings and ED now play out the clock, there are few sane policywonks that believe reauthorization will happen this year. Most don’t even believe it will happen in 2009.
That could be a very different story is editorials like those appearing in Seattle had been printed years ago, and with in greater numbers. ANd the responsibility, or the failed responsibility, for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Department of Education. The want us to drink the kool-aid, but they failed to market it to us as the end-all, be-all thirst quencher for our educational woes. They failed to build demand for NCLB, and instead tried to force it upon us, no questions asked. Thus, we are in the situation we’re in today.
The age-old story of opportunities lost and chances squandered. Hopefully, we will always have the intent of NCLB propelling our ed reform sails … even if it goes by a different name and has different champions. Rigor, accountability, achievement, success should have no party affiliation and should always remain in vogue.
Mr. Weaver, Tear Down the NEA Wall
After putting their money on Hillary Clinton early on in the process, it seems the national teachers unions are quickly regrouping, endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency. The NEA (which never officially married Clinton, but clearly had bought a ring, announced that Reg Weaver is recommending the Assembly endorse Obama at next month’s convention. (Thanks to Flypaper for pointing out Mike Antonucci’s post on this).
Of course, the AFT had previously endorsed Clinton, has announced it “will engage in a process to prepare to make an endorsement for this fall’s general election.” Anyone who has been around the political block knows that the AFT endorsement of Obama isn’t that far behind. Hopefully, they’ll take the time to talk to McCain’s education team first, though.
Back in the winter, Eduflack asked what, specifically, AFT was supporting when it endorsed Hillary. And the question is even more valid regarding today’s endorsement (or proposed endorsement) of Obama. Is Reg Weaver endorsing Obama’s support for merit pay for teachers? His support for Teach For America style programs? Backing of charter schools? Or is he endorsing the recent rhetoric attacking high-stakes testing and NCLB? (I’ll put my money on the latter.)
I join with Obama in supporting merit pay for teachers and supporting charter schools, particularly in our inner cities. And I was impressed when he went into the NEA and supported incentive pay, particularly when the union has been so strongly against it. So does an endorsement of Obama mean the NEA is changing course on performance pay for teachers?
Unfortunately, we may never know. If yesterday’s post-primary statement from Weaver is any indication, this isn’t about Obama. It’s about the NEA supporting the Democrats. And that’s a cryin’ shame. Now is the perfect time for NEA to get both candidates to put their education platform together, and let the brothers and sisters of the NEA weigh and measure both.
If we’ve learned anything from the Democratic primary, it is that hope trumps fear. The positive far outweighs the negative. And the high ground is far more adventageous than the mud pits. Unfortunately, Weaver seems to have missed that point. In calling on his nearly 3 million members to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee, Weaver says:
“You can go down any list of what public school employees believe they need to truly help every child be successful, and you’ll see that Senator Obama supports that list and that Senator McCain not only opposes it, but has probably already voted against it.”
It’s unfortunate that the NEA can’t support Obama without attacking John McCain. The NEA has effectively sat itself on the bench for the past eight years on federal education policy, deciding it was easier to shout into the wind than to look for some middle ground with the current Administraton. If the Bush Administration wasn’t going to use the NEA’s ball, then the NEA just wasn’t going to play. And it looks like they are drawing the same line again this year.
I’m all for effective rhetoric, and during campaign times, I’ve been accused of being a little vitriolic. (For the record, I worked, successfully, on behalf for Democratic candidates, and have a keener than keen appreciation for the value of an NEA or AFT endorsement.) But when the NEA says that McCain has already voted against everything a child needs to be successful, they do the union, its members, and the students they teach a great disservice.
The NEA endorsement will go to the Democrat. We all know that. But let’s make it about the hopes, policies, and positions he stands for. It is an endorsement, and shouldn’t be an endorsement by rejection of the other guy.
No one has ever accused John McCain of being an opponent of education. If anything, now is the time for McCain to start formulating a real plan on federal education policy and demonstrate his commitment to reform and school improvement. He may not get the union endorsement, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get the votes of teachers.
Mr. Weaver, how about letting McCain speak to the collected membership and make an educated choice?
Swingin’ at an RF Pitch
I know, I know, I promised my Quiotic quest over the IES Reading First implementation study was headed for the bench for a little bit. But after watching so many swing and miss at this RF pitch, Eduflack just has to offer plaudits when someone else makes solid contact and raises some great issues on this study.
Kudos go to Kathleen Kennedy Manzo over at Education Week. Manzo is one of the original RF reporters (along with Greg Toppo), having covered it from the early stages to today. It’s meant that she’s likely been flooded with information, data, research, opinion, and spin over these past six or so years. It’s meant a continuous learning process. And it’s meant having to sort through it all, avoiding the pitches in the dirt and waiting for the good pitch to hit.
Hit it she did. In this week’s Education Week, Manzo’s got a great piece on the IES study. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/04/39read.h27.html?tmp=1914927477 She explores many of the quality issues that have been raised to date. More importantly, though, she gets Russ Whitehurst to state that no conclusions should be made based on the interim report. Instead, we need to wait for the final.
I, for one, am hoping that means there’s a whole lot of fixing coming in the final report. Of course, I’ve been disappointed before. Regardless, EdWeek and Manzo deserve credit for taking a complicated and growing issue, and reporting on it so that the average educator or the average policymaker understands the issues and knows the tough questions to ask.
Gold stars all around.
Is This the Ed of Our RF Study Quest?
For more than a week now, Eduflack has been a bit of a one-trick pony. Through the ole reform goggles, I’ve been unable to turn away from the issue of Reading First and IES’ interim study of this important law. It may have been a bit much for some, but it was something that just had to be done. Today, nearly 40 percent of fourth graders are still unable to read at grade level or better. We spend billions each year on textbooks and classroom libraries and SES programs. We are expecting nearly half of today’s teachers to retire in the next decade. So if not now, when?
With all of these factors, it only stands to reason that we should do anything and everything we can to ensure our schools — and our kids — are getting reading instruction that works. They need effective learning. How can anyone say that a student with no or poor reading skills has a real chance to succeed in society? They can’t. Reading is the building block for success in K-12, higher ed, career, and life.
For that reason, Eduflack has put the IES interim study under the microscope. We’ve heard from experts such as Reid Lyon, Tim Shanahan, and Richard Allington. We’ve scrutinized the methodology. We’ve pined for what could have been. Now we eagerly await for the next study that Dr. Shanahan has promised is on the way.
We close this chapter of the debate with questions, not with statements of fact. If the last week has taught me anything, it is that we know far less than we should. If these questions are keeping me up at night, they must be keeping others up as well. So I offer these so that the media, policymakers, educators, and influencers can ask them as well, knowing that together we may get some real answers.
* The Reading First law set aside $150 million for research and assessment over the last six years. By most reports, IES spent approximately $30 million. Where is the remainder of this money? What is it going toward? Are we measuring the effectiveness of this reallocation?
* What is the real intent of the IES study? Personally, I think we should be studying ROI for Reading First spending. Six years and billions of dollars later, where is student reading achievement? This study seems to be more process over outcomes.
* How can we measure RF versus non-RF schools or classrooms? Are we suggesting that non-RF schools are not using scientifically based reading in their classes? Of course not. Both buckets are using the same textbooks and have access to the same professional development and the same supplemental materials. The only real difference between RF and non-RF is from whose account the check is being cut.
* Forget how IES has interpreted it, what does the federal law say should be part of this assessment? RF has gotten into some trouble when it comes to the law’s intent (and letter) and its implementation. The law seems pretty clear and comprehensive to me. (Just check out section 1205)
* Why has IES taken a different path? And is there time to get us on the right path?
We need to follow the money here. Had IES spent the full $150 million and gotten a study like this back, advocates and nay-sayers would be screaming from the mountaintops about mismanagement and poor decisions. Yes, we have a bad study. But the nation was given the money to do a great study. Some would even say a $150 million national assessment study would be a researcher’s dream. So why wasn’t that dream fulfilled, particularly after Congress wrote the check to make it a reality? We’ve created a problem that never should have arisen.
A big check. Clear congressional intent. Opportunity to make a lasting, meaningful impact on both education and education research. It all was there. Today, we’re left holding a flawed study, and we still have no clear idea that RF — or more importantly, SBRR — works.
Yes, there is a value to doing an impact study like IES’. Such studies are valuable for the internal agency and for the structure of its future funding opportunities. But we also have a clear need for a study that tells us whether the program is working or not.
We need to get our kids reading. We need them reading at grade level. And we need to identify what works and get it in every classroom across the nation. Whatever it takes. Until we have answers to these questions, though, we may never have a national study that gives us the data — and the guidance — we need to make every child a reader.
I yield the floor and will hold my tongue until more data (and opinion, of course) is presented.
Under the Hood of the IES Reading Study
I know, I know, Eduflack is like a dog with an unbelievably potent bone on this whole IES interim study on Reading First. I can’t help it. Maybe its because I’m a contrarian. Maybe I hate to see folks pile on to something that deserves a good defense. And maybe I’m just practicing insanity, believing that if I keep focusing on the benefits again and again, someone may hear it and change their thinking and their practice.
I come here today not to prosthelatize on RF. Instead, I want to serve as a conduit for needed information. If we’ve learned anything from the back-and-forth on the IES study, it is that there are some real questions with regard to the methodology and the project design. Rather than just trust the salesman that the engine under the study hood is legit, I’ve brought in an expert mechanic of my own.
Today, we hear from the University of Illinois-Chicago’s Tim Shanahan. If you’ve heard of the IES study, you know Tim. A leader on the National Reading Panel, Dr. Shanahan has served on a number of similarly influential groups on reading instruction. He is also the former reading czar of Chicago Public Schools and recently completed his tenure as president of the International Reading Association.
I met Tim a decade ago, when I began my service to the NRP. Immediately, I found that he was one of those rare breeds who knew the research cold, but could explain it to anyone’s grandma so she understood it … thoroughly and completely. Even more, he had the patience and the perseverance to teach this old dog about research methodology and scientific approaches, giving me the foundational understandings I have put to use virtually every day since.
Put simply, there are few researchers I trust more than Dr. Tim Shanahan. He is as straight a shooter as they come. And for our purposes today, Tim was an advisor to the IES study, so he knows of what he speaks. So we asked some questions, he provided far better answers.
EDUFLACK: What does the IES study really say? How strong are the findings?
SHANAHAN: THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RF AND NON-RF SCHOOLS WERE PRETTY MODEST (ABOUT 50 MINUTES OF INSTRUCTIONAL DIFFERENCE PER YEAR IN AMOUNT OF INSTRUCTION), MEANING THAT RF KIDS PROBABLY RECEIVED FEWER THAN 30 HOURS OF ADDITIONAL READING INSTRUCTION EACH YEAR DUE TO THE INTERVENTION. CLEARLY A MODEST INTERVENTION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SIMILARITIES IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND ASSESSMENTS.Q: How valid are the findings, knowing there may be contamination across groups (that both the RF and non-RF groups may have been doing the same things in the classroom)?
A: MOST SCHOOLS EMPLOY SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL CORE PROGRAM. WHEN READING FIRST EMPHASIZED THE ADOPTION OF PROGRAMS WITH CERTAIN DESIGNS ALL MAJOR PUBLISHERS CHANGED THEIR DESIGNS TO MATCH THE REQUIREMENTS.
READING FIRST SCHOOLS ALL BOUGHT NEW PROGRAMS IN YEAR 1; ALMOST ALL OTHER TITLE I SCHOOLS ADOPT NEW CORE PROGRAMS EVERY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. THAT MEANS IN YEAR 1, 100% OF THE RF SCHOOLS GOT A NEW PROGRAM, AND 25% OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS DID. IN YEAR 2, THAT NUMBER WENT TO 50%, IN YEAR THREE 75%. ALL RF SCHOOLS HIRED COACHES IN YEAR 1, SO DID MORE THAN 80% OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS. ETC.
THIS ISN’T A CASE OF SPOT CONTAMINATION, IT WAS INTENTIONAL AND PERVASIVE (IN FACT, IT WAS PART OF THE RF LAW ITSELF—20% OF THE STATE MONEY, THAT MEANS $1 BILLION TOTAL WAS DEVOTED TO GETTING NON-READING FIRST SCHOOLS TO ADOPT THESE REFORMS).
Q: Given that contamination, are there contamination rates that can be tolerated in the design? For example, let’s say 15 percent of the RF and comparison groups received identical programs/PD. Is this level of contamination tolerable? What if there is a 30 percent overlap – is this level tolerable? Are there ways to estimate the degree to which percent contamination will indicate a need to increase sample size?
A: THE PERCENTAGES OF OVERLAP WERE 75-100% DEPENDING ON THE VARIABLE. THE ONLY ONE WHERE WE HAVE ANY KIND OF IDEA ABOUT WHAT IS TOLERABLE IS WITH TIME.FROM PAST RESEARCH, ONE SUSPECTS THAT 100 HOURS OF ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF GENERATING A LEARNING DIFFERENCE, A 50-60 HOUR DIFFERENCE WOULD STILL HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF RESULTING IN A DIFFERENCE. AT 25-30 HOURS A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN LEARNING MIGHT BE OBTAINED, BUT IT IS MUCH LESS LIKELY (ESPECIALLY IF THE CURRICULA WERE THE SAME).
A: IT [THE IES STUDY] NOT ONLY DID NOT TRY TO AVOID CONTAMINATION, IT COULDN’T POSSIBLY DO IT SINCE THE SOURCES OF THE CONTAMINATION WERE SO PERVASIVE. FIRST, THE FEDERAL POLICY EXPLICITLY CALLED FOR SUCH CONTAMINATION TO BE PUSHED. SECOND, STATES AND LOCAL DISTRICTS MADE THEIR OWN CHOICES (AND THEY FELT ENTICED OR PRESSURED TO MATCH RF).
FOR EXAMPLE, SYRACUSE, NY RECEIVED READING FIRST MONEY FOR SOME SCHOOLS, BUT MANDATED THAT ALL OF ITS SCHOOLS ADOPT THE SAME POLICIES AND PROGRAMS. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RF AND NON-RF SCHOOLS IN SYRACUSE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IN FUNDING STREAM—HOW THE CHANGES WERE PAID FOR, AS THE NON-RF SCHOOLS ATTENDED THE SAME MEETINGS AND TRAININGS, ADOPTED THE SAME BOOKS AND ASSESSMENTS, RECEIVED THE SAME COACHING, PUT IN PLACE THE SAME POLICIES, ETC.
Q: Did the evaluation design describe practices in the comparison groups?
A: YES, THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDIES SHOW THE SIMILARITIES IN PRACTICES AND HOW, OVER TIME, THE PRACTICES THAT WERE SIMILAR AT THE BEGINNING BECAME INCREASINGLY SIMILAR EACH YEAR. THAT WILL BE CLEARER IN THE NEXT STUDY OUTQ: Did the evaluation design account in any way for contamination, crossover, compensatory rivalry, etc.?
A: NO. THE FEDERAL LAW CALLED FOR THE EVALUATION OF READING FIRST IN TERMS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL, BUT DID NOT CALL FOR A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF READING FIRST UPON THE ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.EVEN THOUGH I HAD PERSONALLY MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THE PROBLEM FROM THE VERY FIRST STUDY DESIGN MEETING, THE METHODOLOGISTS THOUGHT THEY COULD HANDLE MY PROBLEM SIMPLY BY ACCOUNTING FOR THE RF ROLLOUT EACH YEAR. THEIR ASSUMPTION WAS THAT RF WOULD IMPLEMENT SOME CHANGES IN YEAR 1, OTHERS IN YEAR 2, AND STILL OTHERS IN YEAR 3 AND THAT THIS PATTERN OF IMPLEMENTATION WOULD ALLOW THEM TO EXAMINE A CONTINUING LAG BETWEEN THE RF AND NON-RF SCHOOLS.
I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE THINKING THAT AND THEY NEVER ASKED DIRECTLY ABOUT THAT. LAST YEAR, I FIGURED OUT WHAT THEY WERE THINKING AND I HAD TO EXPLAIN SEVERAL TIMES THAT RF PUT ALL OF ITS REFORMS IN PLACE DURING YEAR 1, WITH NOTHING NEW IN YEARS 2 AND 3, SO IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TEST THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION, ETC. USING THEIR APPROACH. I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET THIS FIXED IF I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE ASSUMING THAT KIND OF DESIGN (OR IF THEY HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY).
Q: Can we assume that the RF group is just like the comparison group except for exposure to RF funding?
A: READ THE IMPLEMENTATION PART OF THE REPORT (AND THERE IS ANOTHER STUDY COMING LATER THAT WILL MAKE THIS CLEARER) AND YOU’LL SEE THE DEGREE OF SIMILARITY IN THE KEY FACTORS BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF SCHOOLS. I RAISED THIS AS A THEORETICAL PROBLEM ORIGINALLY, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CONTAMINATION WAS A BIG PROBLEM (IT CANNOT TELL US WHETHER THE CONTAMINATION CAME FROM THE $1 BILLION FEDERAL EXPENDITURE ON THIS, BECAUSE THE STATES AND LOCAL DISTRICTS OFTEN SIMPLY ADOPTED THE SAME IDEAS.AS ONE ILLINOIS DISTRICT TOLD ME, “IF THIS IS THE RIGHT STUFF TO DO, THEN WE ARE GOING TO DO IT WITH EVERYONE.”
That’s a lot to chew on, but it is a worthwhile meal. Even for the most simple-minded of laypeople (like Eduflack), it is clear that the IES study had no real control group. We had RF schools and non-RF schools, both pools of which were doing similar things with similar materials. How can we compare the two groups as haves and have nots when the only measure of separation is the bucket of money that was paying for the approach?
Dr. Whitehurst, I’ll yield the pulpit to you if you’d like to respond.
“What Happened?”
When Eduflack first started off on Capitol Hill, I was fortunate enough to have a mentor who invested the time in teaching me the finer points of being an “on-the-record” spokesman. I was working for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (WV) at the time, 22 years old and incredibly wet behind the ears. Byrd’s spokesperson on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Marsha Berry, took me under her wing. She walked me through the Senate Press Gallery, introducing me to the gaggle of reporters. She gave me a great deal of advice and coaching.
One piece of advice she left me was a simple one that I have followed every since. “Never, ever lie,” Marsha said. Lie to a reporter once, and you’ve lost his trust. Lose his trust, and you can’t do the job.
She was absolutely right, and I have done my best to ensure that I always told reporters the truth. I went on to serve as spokesman for other senators and congressmen. I did it for government panels and government agencies. For non-profits and corporations. I even did it on the campaign trail. And while I’d sometimes joke about plausible deniability (usually around questions of campaign fundraising), my goal was always to provide needed information to reporters. Sure, I’d spin it in a favorable way. But the information was always accurate (or as accurate as it could be), and I trusted what I said.
I have always known I was fortunate when it came to who I worked for. Be it Byrd, Senator Bill Bradley (NJ), or Congressman John Olver (MA), I worked for honorable men who I trusted and who I was proud to work for. Yes, I regularly jousted with them on particular policy issues, asking if voting against X policy was good for the upcoming campaign, but I knew I worked for good men who were ultimately doing what they knew was best. And I thought that’s what most spokespeople did. Particularly if you worked for the President of the United States.
By now, most of us have heard of Scott McClennan’s new memoir, “What Happened.” The former Bush press secretary takes a very aggressive stance against his former boss. And, essentially, McClennan says he regularly stood up behind the podium and lied to reporters on a host of issues. Of course, it was his higher-ups’ fault that he lied. He just followed orders.
Eduflack just can’t buy that. Sure, I have never walked in McClennan’s shoes. I’ve only done the job on Capitol Hill. But I’ve done it long enough to know that a good press secretary (or communications director, whatever your preferred title may be) takes the time to look under the hood and understand the issues. He moves beyond the talking points to learn. He asks questions. He anticipates even more questions. And he is prepared to deal with any issue that is thrown his way. He becomes an expert on all issues, and rarely takes any one person’s word on a controversial topic.
Saying you lied and just followed orders is a cop out. It’s lazy work, and it is one of the reasons folks think PR is so easy. A good spokesman knows all the facts. He relays those facts as effectively as possible. He speaks truth, even under tough circumstances. He truly sees himself as an extension of his boss, sharing information to as broad an audience as possible.
I know, I know, what does all of this have to do with education reform? A great deal, actually. When educators are selling their education reforms, be it to the media or the community, they need to be trustworthy. They can’t stretch the data or make guesses about impact. They need to know the facts, and stick to them. And they can never, ever lie. If you do, your reform is history. No educator, no policymaker, no reporter will take you seriously if you are caught telling an untruth about efficacy or impact.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 