Collectively, we give a great deal of lip service to the idea of collaboration. We seem to know that we should engage other stakeholders in our reforms. We recognize the importance of different voices from different perspectives. But in the end, we tend to flock around our own. Teacher-focused reform. Policies driven in a decisionmaker vacuum. Even students who try to go down the change path all by their lonesome.
This week, Eduflack was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Team Pennsylvania Foundation. The groups brought hundreds of individuals to Harrisburg to discuss the importance of a statewide STEM education effort. The audience was a textbook definition of the collaboration we typically seek — representatives from P-12, higher education, business, NFPs, and government. High school students and 30-year veterans. All five regions of the state strongly represented. All gathered together to improve STEM education for the state.
The panel discussion, in particular, was an interesting one. We purposely heard from a variety of voices in STEM education field. Two newish educators collaborating to build a STEM high school in Pittsburgh (doors opening in 2009). A corporate representative who has demonstrated his commitment to STEM skills and STEM hires for years. The president of Saint Francis University, whose TEAMS effort could teach a lot of IHEs how to prepare teachers for the rigors of STEM. And two students currently participating in STEM apprenticeship programs with Lockheed Martin — both enrolled in community college, both excited about the career paths available to them.
This diverse panel gave the full audience a great deal to think about, helping them answer some key questions we all seem to dwell on. Why is STEM education so important? Who benefits from it? What is my role in adopting a STEM program? What do we do if we don’t have money to open a new school or start an apprenticeship program? How do we know we are successful? What’s the end game, both in terms of results and calendar.
Father Gabe Zies, the president of Saint Francis, was particularly powerful in discussing the final question. This is not a two-year effort, with a calendar dictated by the term of a grant from the NGA. Investment in STEM education is a long-term game. We don’t look for an end. Instead, we constantly look to improve and enhance. The effort will continue to evolve as our technology and our skill needs evolve. In essence, Father Gabe is saying that STEM is about meeting the challenges of tomorrow. It is about innovation, an innovation that never stops and should never waver. And that means an initiative that is perpetually adapting and changing to address those needs continually ensure our students, our teachers, and our schools are up to the challenges ahead of them.
There was universal agreement that STEM education is a shared responsibility with shared returns on investment. No audience can go it alone, and none should be forced to. Through collaboration, these Pennsylvania STEM advocates were confident they can build a strong, sustainable effort that strengthens both P-16 education and the workforce.
The group also heard from Pennsylvania Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, who kicked the forum off with an inspirational discussion of hope and opportunity. Channeling football great Vince Lombardi, Zahorchak cited a goal of perfection. He noted Lombardi consistently pushed all his players to achieve perfection. Whenever they were asked about it, they said they aren’t there yet, but they are a whole lot better today than they were before. And they would be better tomorrow.
Such sentiment is important in education reform, and it is often lost in the NCLB era. We seem to look for excuses as to why every child can’t succeed and how we need expand exceptions to the law or look for loopholes to get us out of the problem. In discussing STEM, Zahorchak recognizes what the end goal is — a fully STEM-literate society. High school diplomas that hold real value in the work world. Postsecondary academic pathways that were previously unavailable to many. Career opportunities that strengthen the family while strengthening the region and state’s overall economy. Opportunities for all, not just for those seeking to be rocket scientists or brain surgeons.
I don’t know about the other participants, but Coach Zahorchak, I’m ready to suit up and get down in a three-point stance. Perfection should be our end game. The panelists I spoke with clearly demonstrated we have the tools, the experience, and the passion to get there. Now we just need to harness all those tools, work together, and ensure that our strongest team is on the field.
After this week, I am certain Pennsylvania is up to the challenge, and has the opportunity to serve as a true model for STEM education in the coming years.
Year: 2008
ED’s Back in the Game
In the hit baseball movie “Major League,” the Indians’ supposed slugger — Pedro Serrano — has a problem. He “hit straight ball very much,” but he just can’t seem to hit a curveball. The problem comes to a climax in the bottom of the eighth inning of a one-game playoff to decide whether the Indians or Yankees win the division. The Tribe is down by two runs, Pedro is up with a runner on first.
All season, the slugger had been praying to his voodoo god — Joboo — to help him hit the curve. Nothing works. Finally, with two strikes, Pedro steps out of the batters box, and speaks to Joboo for a final time. “I go to you, I stick up for you,” Pedro says. “If you no help me now, then [forget] you Joboo. I do it myself.” He then goes on to tie the game with a rocket home run, and the Indians win in the bottom of the ninth. All because of Pedro.
Anyone who knows Eduflack knows he is a die-hard baseball fan (Go, Mets!) and an education reform advocate. The two share a great number of characteristics. We usually swing for the fences, and we often fail. And we are considered an all-start if we can manage to succeed a third of the time.
These commonalities were even more clear yesterday, when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced her proposed regulations to strengthen NCLB. Essentially, Spellings has assumed the role of Pedro Serrano (which is not so bad since he goes on to become U.S. President David Palmer on “24”). For years, the field has been throwing a number of NCLB curveballs at Spellings. She’s fouled many off. She’s swung and missed on quite a few. And up until her last at bat, she hasn’t made good contact on any pitch that wasn’t straight and easy down the plate.
Yes, she’s embraced NCLB. She’s defended the law. She’s believed in it. But she left it to others to improve. The Miller/McKeon draft was a deep fly ball that landed foul. Kennedy’s revision of NCLB still hasn’t made it into the game. And there’s Spellings insisting the NCLB was going to win it come the end of the game.
She started making contact earlier this spring, when she announced her flexibility measures in Minnesota. This week, she finally parked one of those curveballs over the leftfield wall. Just as everyone had written NCLB off as dead, just as we had declared that the status quo would win at the end, Spellings has tied up the game and left NCLB in a position to win in the final inning.
Some of her proposed regulations look remarkably similar to ideas floated by Buck McKeon and others. That’s a good thing. She’s learned from both her friends and opponents, and has demonstrated she is listening. Her performance yesterday focused on the issues we wanted to hear. Flexibility on AYP. Strengthening school restructuring. Establishing the NGA’s universal high school graduation rate. Strengthening parental engagement. All individuals hits. Combined, they can win the game.
Of course, Spellings is now playing in a hostile park. She’s not only facing tough critics from legislators and the education blob, she’s also hearing it from the crowd as many hope for a swing and a miss. But she’s now showing she has the potential to knock in the winning run.
How? She needs to build public support for these administrative changes. She needs to demonstrate a commitment to improving the law, not just protect it. She needs to show that she is collaborating, both with her friends and enemies, to make the law better. And she needs to communicate, communicate, communicate with any and all who may be involved in the implementation.
“Major League” is but a movie. Spellings is playing in real life. And this isn’t just a one-game playoff. These changes are for her legacy and for the domestic policy legacy of this Administration. But that doesn’t mean she can’t have that Hollywood ending, and leave ED with a new, stronger NCLB.
AT&T Makes the Call
Late last week, telecommunications giant AT&T announced it was investing $100 million into solutions to our nation’s high school dropout problem. The funding is to be directed into four key areas — school grants, job shadowing programs, research, and dropout-prevention summits. Education Week has the full story at http://www.edweek.org/ew/2008/04/17/34att.h27.html.
Of course, AT&T isn’t the first to dial into this conference call. The Gates Foundation (through Microsoft money) first placed the call years ago. Since then, it has been joined by groups such as the Dell Foundation, State Farm Insurance, and Boeing. All have signaled the importance of a rigorous and relevant high school experience. All have put their money in to solve the problem, as they see it, and offer improvements to a long-neglected secondary education system.
What AT&T is proposing to fund isn’t breaking new ground. Gates has become the king of school grants. Local company after local company have long offered shadowing programs in partnership with their local high schools. States like Arkansas and Indiana have conducted successful dropout-prevention summits over the last year. And anyone who is anyone is funding “research.”
But this announcement is indeed significant. Why? It is all about the end game and all about the outcomes. Some folks don’t like to hear it, but today’s high schools are necessary prep zones for tomorrow’s workforce. We hear Gates and others talk about relevant and rigorous curriculum. What does that mean? It means high school courses relate to student interests and future career paths. It means that high schools are equipping students with the skills –critical thinking, reading, computational, teamwork, etc. — to succeed in the postsecondary environment of their choice and in a meaningful career.
At the end of the day, this is all about the workforce. Does anyone truly think you can get a good job without a high school diploma? In an industry like telecommunications, can AT&T put a high school dropout to work without having to significantly invest in worker training and education?
Like many employers, AT&T is looking down the road, anticipating what happens as Baby Boomers prepare for retirement over the next decade. At the same time, they’ve watched their industry evolve, with even blue-collar jobs requiring more knowledge, more know-how, and more skills. They know the sorts of employees they need in the coming years. And they know that high school dropouts can’t fill the need.
Let Eduflack be clear, this is not a criticism. In fact, I wish more companies would think and act with the same interest that AT&T does. Over the years, we have seen significant movement happen in K-12 education, and much of it is driven when the business community joins forces with K-12. Public-private partnerships have been invaluable. And the recent philanthropic investment from corporate charities provide resources that simply cannot be offered from other entities.
Business knows what it needs from our future workforce. They know the costs of recruitment and training. They know the skills they are seeking. And they see that they just aren’t getting what they know they need.
In most circles, we talk about the need of corporate America to adapt. They adapt to the global economy. The adapt to the eco-economy. They adapt to population shifts and increased regulations and higher costs and greater competition. They adapt because they need to. It is the only way to succeed … or just to survive.
Those lessons of adaptation can also be adopted by our high schools. In most communities, our high schools still operate under the model that worked 50 or even 100 years ago. Then, a third of students dropped out and found a job or joined the military. A third graduated high school and moved into the workforce. And a third graduated and pursued a postsecondary education.
Today, we now those numbers can’t hold. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 90 percent of new jobs will require postsecondary education. That means a high school diploma. And that means a high school experience that is both relevant and interesting to all students, not just those looking to go to college.
So kudos to AT&T and those who have come before it for investing in their futures by investing in our high schools. They clearly are putting their money where their mouths are. Now it is up to our school districts and high schools (particularly those now tagged as dropout factories) to answer that phone call and take meaningful action. And don’t worry, AT&T is picking up the charges.
The Future of Urban Education?
Here in our nation’s capital, many are abuzz about our visit from Pope Benedict XVI. It isn’t often that a U.S. city gets a visit from his Holiness. And this is this Pope’s first visit to the United States.
With so many U.S. Catholics descending on Washington, DC and New York City as part of the visit, it is no wonder that talk about Catholic issues has been on the rise. What is particularly interesting is that much of that talk has focused on the future of Catholic schools here in the good ole U.S. of A.
For years, Catholic schools were seen as a beacon of hope in urban public districts that folks had long given up on. Parents, regardless of their own religious affiliation, would save their pennies to send their kids to Catholic schools. Here in DC, when the voucher program was adopted five or so years ago, DC Catholic schools were the ones who felt the brunt of new enrollments (and who accepted new students for the cost of the voucher, regardless of what the sticker price of the education may have been).
Recognizing this, the Fordham Foundation has released a new study on the future of America’s urban Catholic schools. If you haven’t seen it already, it is worth a look — http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/.cfm?id=383. And as usual, Mike Petrilli’s discussion of the report and the general topic in The Washington Post and other media has been an interesting one.
The interesting sidecar to that report is what is going on here with Catholic schools in Washington. Due to vouchers and other actors, DC’s Catholic schools have been asked to educate more and more students with fewer and fewer resources. The number of Catholic students enrolling in the schools is dwindling, and DC parishioners are being asked to shoulder the costs of providing a Catholic education to a growing number of non-Catholics.
As a result, the DC Archdiocese is working to transform many of its Catholic schools into public charter schools. If the plan works, the schools would receive appropriate funding from the District and the schools would remain open and could continue to serve a growing population seeking its services. Teachers and classroom rules would remain the same. Yes, it means that the traditional religious instruction provided by those schools would need to be removed. And we would have to hope that such a removal would not affect the overall impact of instruction. Simply put, it is a bold move by the Archdiocese, as it seeks to provide high-quality, effective education to all those who want it.
It does beg the question as to the true future of urban education. If DC is successful, it could serve as a model for inner-city Catholic schools across the nation. Running a school system is expensive, and it is a lot to ask parishioners to pay an increasing tab for students who may never join the Church and may never become members of the Catholic community. But does Catholic school lose something when you remove the Catholic?
The Fordham folks are correct in noting urban Catholic schools are doing a lot of good when it comes to education. As a nation, we want to support school success in all of its forms, knowing we can learn from all forms and all offerings. But Eduflack has to ask, is the future of urban education one of Catholic education or charter school education?
We just may have to wait to see how DC turns out to know for sure. If we can figure out a way to keep Catholic school instruction, discipline, and outcomes, but deliver it in a public or public charter shell, we may just have a winning combination for communities in need.
And those seeking Catholic education can always turn to CCD like so many of us.
Returning from Sabattical
I’ll admit it. I’m getting tired of writing about NCLB and its many offshoots. For the past two weeks, I’ve taken time off from writing Eduflack, looking for some new issues and some new directions to head. Eduflack celebrated its one-year birthday earlier this year. That anniversary was a time of reflection.
So the challenge to me is fresh and interesting content, particularly education improvements beyond the confines of NCLB. We’ll start up again on Monday, hoping to continue to make a real contribution to the ed reform discussion.
Scanning for Success
You can often hear the most interesting things on talk radio, particularly at the height of campaign season. This afternoon, Eduflack was surfing the AM stations and came across and interesting tale from primary season in Indiana. As he is barnstorming for his wife in the Hoosier State, former President Bill Clinton spoke on education. More importantly, he spoke on scientifically based education.
In what I’m guessing was a detour from the approved stump speech, Clinton told the audience that there were now machines out there that could scan the brains of everyone in the audience. With those scans, he continued, we could get every person (except those with diagnosed learning disabilities) to learn and achieve. If we can do it, why aren’t we getting our children to learn?
If I didn’t know any better, the Clinton campaign is now advocating for scientifically based education research. For those in the trenches of the reading wars, we’ve long heard the impact of such scans and brain patterns on learning. Just take a look at the work from folks like Sally Shaywitz, Guinevere Eden, and many others, and you can see the power of the scan. It is just amazing to see how brain activity changes as students are stimulated with scientifically based instruction.
For many, learning is just as much art as it is science. And that’s unfortunate. In the past decade alone, we have seen significant quantitative research on effective instruction. We know what works. We know what we can prove (and we know what we can’t). Scientifically based education is about getting what is proven effective into the classroom. It’s about ensuring that every child can indeed succeed in the classroom.
Bill Clinton is right. We can scan the brain, and use the technology to improve instruction and classroom success. The research is clear. Scientifically based education research works. Maybe those steadfast opponents of scientifically based research need a quick run in the old scanner themselves.
Eight-Dollar Words
Secretary Spellings’ big national NCLB policy announcement came yesterday in Minnesota. And the closely guarded secret was exactly what Alexander Russo and others thought it would be — greater flexibility in determining student achievement and AYP.
We all know it was an important step, and one that was a long time in coming. The Commonwealth of Virginia is aggressively looking at pulling out of NCLB over the issue, willing to refuse its federal education dollars because of issues involving AYP and ELL students (among others). For years now, the states have been clamoring for additional flexibility, noting unique demographic and data circumstances in their states.
Such flexibility is not an excuse for avoiding federal requirements, rather it is a recognition that some states have to take different paths to reach proficiency and to get every student achieving. While we’re all heading to the same ultimate goal, it may take some longer and it may require more work and more innovation from others.
The U.S. Department of Education should be commended for finally offering this lifeline to those states trying to do the right thing when it comes to AYP. And we likely have groups like CCSSO for helping push it forward. Now, the spotlight will be placed on which 10 states will gain this newly found flexibility (and from the speakers list yesterday, it seems Minnesota and South Dakota are likely to be in the pool. And Spellings also singled out Maryland, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Massachusetts. Here’s hoping that Eduflack’s home state of Virginia makes the cut as well.
But in all of the excitement of a major education policy announcement, I can’t help but notice the need by some to secure a triple-word score on the announcement. For years now, the talk has been on flexibility. Yet if we look at all of the headlines from the “official” documents coming out of the Minnesota announcement, we’ve decided to rebrand flexibility as a “differentiated accountability pilot.”
If the goal is to win over the research professors in our schools of education and public policy, then the rebrand is genius. But if our intent is to demonstrate that ED is listening, and has answered the call for greater flexibility, we are falling a little flat.
Over the past few years, one of the greatest criticisms of this Department of Education (and this Administration) is that it is inflexible. It is their way or the highway. And that has been particularly true of NCLB. It is enforced the way those on the seventh floor intend it to, and there is little (if any) room for interpretation or flexibility. That is why you have seen so many states (along with ed organizations like AASA, NEA, and the others) grouse about the law and its implementation for the last seven years.
We blunt that criticism by showing we are flexible. We scream from the rooftops of our ability to recognize and adapt to the needs of our constituencies. At this stage of the game, we should become virtual Gumbies of public policy, doing whatever it takes to reauthorize the law and recommit to boosting achievement in all students. These last 10 months are all about legacy, after all.
Instead, we fly such flexibility under the banner of “differentiated accountability pilot.” After reaching for our latest copy of Webster, we may figure out that ED is demonstrating flexibility. Or we may just move on, seeing it as just the latest in policyspeak and education gobbledygook. Worse, we may think there is something unknown and hidden in such a complicated term, fearing there is an enforcement shoe to drop that we don’t see or don’t understand.
Don’t get me wrong. A differentiated accountability pilot is a good step, particularly if ED selects the right states — those who need the flexibility the most and those who can demonstrate that, with a little help, improved achievement is just around the corner. But we should look to use common-sense words to describe complex issues.
We don’t need eight-dollar words when a 50-cent one will do. The name of the game here is flexibility. Hopefully, educators and policymakers will overlook our Scrabble-speak and recognize the opportunity and possibility behind the actions. After all, this is what they’ve been calling for for years.
The Standard Approach
It’s a standards-based world, and we’re all just living in it. We all are looking for improvement in our schools. We want to see real results. To get there, we need strong standards by which to measure the results. As Yogi Berra said, if you don’t know where you’re going, you’re never going to get there.
Whether they be state, national, or international, standards are necessary to school improvement. We need yardsticks to know how our kids and our classrooms are doing. And we need to know how we compare to schools, both across the state and around the globe.
Personally, Eduflack would like to see a common national education standard. Yes, local control of schools is an important part of both our history and our future. But with a constantly evolving population, one that is more and more transient, it is just as important to ensure a quality education for all. From our urban centers to our rural heartlands, from New England to Appalachia to the Badlands to the Pacific Northwest, all children should succeed. A fifth grader is a fifth grader, wherever she is studying. A high school graduate is a high school graduate, wherever he receives his diploma. National standards ensure that equality, putting equally strong instruction and curriculum in classrooms across the country.
So why don’t we have such standards yet? Some still question why standards are needed. Others can’t see how to develop and implement them effectively. And still others see it as infringing on the rights of educators across the country.
The urban legend tells us that teachers are opposed to such standards, believing they stifle creativity and true instruction in the classroom. We hear that teaching is more art than science, and standards simply reduce us to teaching to the test. To some, teachers are one of the greatest obstacles to adopting meaningful education standards.
That’s the fiction, but let’s take a look at the facts. Good teachers actually embrace standards, seeing them as goals on which to focus. They ensure that curriculum and data collection and training and learning materials are being chosen wisely. They work to leave no child behind. And they empower teachers to strengthen the necessary linkages between meaningful standards, classroom content, and student performance.
Case in point is the latest issue of American Educator from the American Federation of Teachers.
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2008/index.htm
American Educator has focused its spring 2008 edition on the need for clear, content-specific state education standards. Offering perspectives from both educators and researchers, it is an interesting read. It reminds us of the AFT’s commitment to standards, while helping us erase the fiction that has blamed teachers for blocking standards.
If our goal is national standards, then meaningful state standards are a necessary step. Today, we can look at standards like those developed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and say, “that state gets it.” Imagine if we had such strong standards in all 50 states. Imagine if those states then all got together, and agreed to a common national standard. And imagine if AFT was a part of such a discussion. It’s enough to instill just a little bit of glee in the heart of an ed reformer.
It’s a Matter of Principal!
We all know education gets coverage in the media. Typically, though, we read, watch, or hear about problems in the schools — budget shortfalls, disappointing test scores, and such. And those stories are usually found in the back of the metro section or as an afterthought on the evening news. After all the debate on education and its impact on the community and the future, education doesn’t drive the news. It tends to just come along for the ride.
Every once and a while, though, education media can surprise you. Over the last year, we’ve seen cover stories in Time and Newsweek. Today, USA Today give prominence to NASSP’s Principal of the Year.
No, it is not unusual for USA Today to cover education issues. They tend to do a terrific job at it, and have a great team of education reporters. What makes a profile of Louisville, Georgia’s Jefferson County High School Principal Molly Howard — NASSP and MetLife’s 2008 Principal of the Year — so special? Maybe it is the fact that USA Today gave Principal Howard more than a half page … in the Money section.
Check out the full interview here – http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-03-16-principal-advice_N.htm.
Publishing this interview in the Money section is important to note. We often talk about how business can influence education reform. Performance pay. Management systems. Return on investment. We seek to improve our schools by laying business principles on our educational frameworks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But there seems to be common belief that business lessons can improve education delivery.
Today’s profile of Howard — in USA Today’s Executive Suite interview series — demonstrates that the business world can also learn a thing or two from educational leaders. By talking about leadership, data, relationships, listening, and understanding, Howard focuses on the same issues successful business leaders care about. And she does it through an education lens, demonstrating the universality of such observations.
Further, it demonstrates that leaders are leaders, regardless of their chosen industry sector. Principals are the CEOs of their building, overseeing facilities, HR, sales, data collection, marketing, and customer service. They are both building managers and instructional leaders. And those like Howard demonstrate that true leadership traits are universal.
The Gift of Educational Giving?
Even after all these years, everyone wants to get their products or ideas on Oprah. Authors, community activists, actors, and the wannabes want to hear their names (and hopefully some praise) come out of the Queen of Television’s mouth. And those in the education community are no different.
For those who have missed it, Sunday nights for the past month have been home for Oprah Winfrey’s Big Give. The premise is simple. They send a pack of volunteers to raise money or make a difference for an individual, a family, or a community. Each week, the weakest philanthropist is sent home, with the remaining givers moving on to the next fundraising event.
Tonight, Oprah sent two teams to Houston to raise money for two low-income elementary schools. Aided by sports phenoms Andre Agassi and Tony Hawk, the amateur philanthropists had a great impact on the two schools — and the two school communities — they were tasked with serving.
Among all the hoopla of tennis events and skateboarding and Santa Claus and new playgrounds, there was a lost PR opportunity for the education sector. In the middle of the program, there was a visit from former President George H.W. Bush. And a throwaway line thanking his son for giving curriculum to the school.
It is presumed that a tip of the hat should go to Neil Bush and Ignite! Learning. We have to assume that Ignite! stepped up and provided one of these Houston schools with their computer-based curriculum. After all, no other Bush children are in the curriculum business (unless you count the current president).
It isn’t unusual for a company to participate in such an act. Typically, it is so it can get prime “advertising” space, having its name plastered across the screen or coming out of the mouths of the program’s host. It’s a marketing tactic, designed to build name recognition and demonstrate the company is committed to the community.
But it is unusual to make a donation on a national television program, and not demand such recognition. Maybe the applause for Ignite! was left on the cutting room floor. Or maybe Bush and his company just wanted to give a little to a Houston school that can’t afford its software. Regardless, Ignite! should get a little credit for its giving. And maybe, just maybe, it is part of a larger corporate commitment to getting its learning platform into the schools that need it, even if they can’t pay for it today.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 