Tonight on PBS, Frontline offers a program titled “Growing Up Online” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/) an attempt to provide greater understanding of today’s youth. A sociological exploration, if you will, into a generation that never knew corded telephones, typewriters, a library card catalog, or UHF television. A demographic that can’t recall a pre-Internet world. A group we hope is being built on the notion of working smarter, not harder; to innovate and not follow.
From some of the early reports on this special, we are seeing that some teachers are fretting the current generation of students because of their short attention spans and desire for instant gratification. Undoubtedly, we’ll eventually hear pinings for the good ole days, when students plucked quills from porcupines and hand-wrote everything on paper with chunks of wood still embedded in it.
Face it, we are living, working, and learning in a new frontier. It’s adapt or perish. We see that in industry, as businesses are forced to do more with less, to adopt green practices, and constantly innovate and build a better mousetrap. We see it in the media, where morning newspapers and traditional network news has been replaced with specialty cable stations and a plethora of web sites, blogs, and other “news outlets” that provide the information we want, as soon as we want it.
So shouldn’t we expect it in education as well? K-12 education is one of the last bastions of old-world thinking. Consider this, most of today’s high schools are just like the high schools we went to, or our parents, or our grandparents. The fact is, little has changed in secondary education over the past century. We still have rows of one-piece desks. We still have teachers lecturing 25 some-odd students for the full class time. We still have worksheets and multiple-choice tests on relatively arcane topics. And we still have anywhere from a third to a half of students dropping out before earning their diploma.
At the same time, we preach the need for education. We tell students that high-skill, high-wage jobs require both a high school diploma and some form of postsecondary education. We talk about the relevance of school and the need to achieve. And then, in far too many communities, we go back to rows of desks and a lecture on the French Revolution.
It shouldn’t be this way. Last summer, Eduflack wrote about the danger of “deskilling” today’s students. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/07/26/deskilling-our-students.aspx Perhaps Frontline can teach us a little about what we need to do to engage students, make school relevant, and upgrade the learning environment to meet the skills and expectations of todays skills … and not their great-grandparents.
What does all that mean? It means change. Change in how we teach. Change in what we teach. Change in how we measure it.
It means putting technology in the center of the learning process. If students resonate to information gleaned from MySpace, Facebook, You Tube, and the Internet in general, use it to the teachers’ advantage. We can expect far more from students using the Internet than the Dewey decimal system.
It means making school relevant. We are already seeing the successes of programs like Early College High Schools and other Gates grantees. If I want a high-skill, high-wage job, show me how my high school (or middle school) experience gets me there. Yes, some of our nation’s great educational thinkers believe K-12 is a time to cultivate a love for learning, and college or grad school is the time to focus on career. But if you talk to today’s eighth or ninth graders, it is all about the path to a good job. The courses they take, the extra-curriculars they participate in, the schools they choose. If our students are focused on relevance, shouldn’t we?
Ultimately, it means recognizing that the student is the primary customer in our K-12 system. And as we all know, the customer is always right. That means we teach in the environment where our students can get maximum benefit. Think about it for a second. Would we rather build up a teacher’s skills so they are teaching in a 21st century learning environment, or would we rather strip a student down so they are learning in a 19th or 20th century classroom? The choice should be simple. Our schools should be home to an ongoing evolution of effective learning and teaching. They shouldn’t be museums where we honor the good teaching of 1937 educators.
Some get this, and we see their impact in efforts such as one-to-one computing, online high schools, dual enrollment programs, high school internship programs, and the like. But these seem to be the exception, instead of the rule. If a public K-12 education is going to mean something in 10 or 20 years, such innovations need to be the norm. Deep down, we all know that, even if we don’t want to talk about it. The educational model of the past century is not going to cut it as we move further into this one.
Sure, this is all a little harsh. Yes, if we try to build of K-12 systems solely around the whims and wishes of the average teenager, we’ll run in circles and lose what hair we have left. But if we are to learn anything from programs such as “Growing Up Online,” it is that we need to effectively reach our audiences with language, tactics, and strategies they understand, appreciate, and embrace. We need to build that better educational mousetrap, if you will. And we need it now.
Year: 2008
Equal Opportunities for Success?
There seems to be virtual agreement that much more needs to be done to improve our nation’s public schools. Education is, and should be, the great equalizer. Under the current law of the land — NCLB — our nation is committed to providing access to a high-quality, effective education for all students. For those who can’t get such an education at their community school, the law provides for vouchers, supplemental services, school choice, charter schools, and even improved instruction through Reading First.
For months now, Eduflack has been waiting for the presidential candidates to jump into the rhetorical debate on the future of public education. Aside from a few quick phrases and taglines along the fringes, most have stayed away from the education issue. After last week’s NEA conference, it seems a few are starting to dip their toes into the water.
The latest is John Edwards. Seeking to promote his “two Americas” agenda, Edwards chose New Orleans to take his first stand on improving public education. The Politico has the story. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4957.html
His solution? Busing and housing vouchers. Sure, he offers a few additional ideas, but once his stump speech makes its way through the media filters (if the media even notices), it will be remembered for two issues — busing and housing vouchers. And that’s a shame.
In promoting these ideas, Edwards is saying that some communities in this country are beyond assistance. We need to bus kids away from struggling schools, hoping a change of scenery will boost student achievement. And we need to uproot families, telling them that opportunity can only come to those in some, not all, communities.
This is the wrong message at the wrong time. At the root of meaningful education reform is the belief that all schools can be improved if they have access to proven instruction and high-quality teachers. NCLB strengthens that belief, committing the nation to ensure that no child is left behind and all children have access to a high-quality, effective education.
Spending $100 million on a busing plan doesn’t solve the problem. Instead, we’re playing three-card monty, hoping that no one flips over the underlying problem. Shuffling kids around doesn’t improve educational quality. It may help a few kids improve, but it doesn’t fix the problem. Don’t believe me? Take a look at how well busing worked in the 1960s and 1970s. Many cities have just recently ended that failed social experiment. In 2007, we should all rally around the belief that all students should have a chance to succeed, not just those fortunate enough to gain a seat on the bus, a slot in a magnet school lottery, or a voucher for a new apartment.
Senator Edwards, if you really want to tear down the walls between the two Americas, offer an idea for getting effective teachers in some of the most struggling of classrooms. Provide the means to ensure that proven-effective instruction is taught with fidelity in every school, regardless of socioeconomic standing. Commit to holding all schools accountable, giving all students the resources and support they need to achieve.
Edwards has put a weak volley across the education reform net. Who’s up for returning it with a little umph?
“Just Walk Away, Renee …”
What’s the measure of a “good” teacher? It’s an age-old question whose answer has varied and changed over the years. For the past five years — under the No Child Left Behind era — we’ve answered it with the formula developed by Congressman George Miller and his colleagues as part of their HQT provisions. A highly qualified teacher was one who has a degree in the subject matter and who is certified.
Yesterday, a group of California parents took issue with how the U.S. Department of Education was interpreting the HQT provision, specifically how it approved the Golden State’s effort to categorize alternative cert teachers and emergency hires as HQTs. The case — Renee v. Spellings — is expected to have national implications on alternative teaching programs. (Or at least that’s what Stephen Sawchuck and Education Daily tell us.)
Eduflack doesn’t take issue with the intent of Renee and parents across the country who want to ensure that their children get the very best instructors, the very best curriculum, and the very best of opportunities. And I agree that, ideally, our best teachers should be in our most challenging teaching environments, working with the kids who need their experience, expertise, and knowledge the most.
But after five years, it is time to revise our definition of a good teacher. The language is stale. Highly qualified is fine … to an extent. But is a teacher with a bona fide diploma from a teachers college guaranteed to be a good teacher, while another from Teach for America or Troops to Teachers is not? Of course not. The pedagogy one gets from a TC only takes you so far. Success depends largely on the passion of the teacher, the pursuit of continued learning, the push to continue to improve practice, and one’s commitment to the classroom and the student. And many would say alternative routes engender those qualities far more frequently than traditional routes.
Regardless, we need a new benchmark for a “good” teacher. And that benchmark is based on one simple word — effectiveness. Our goal should be to have an effective teacher in every classroom. A teacher committed to boosting student achievement. A teacher that can be measured based on year-on-year gains in her classroom. A teacher who leaves his students better off at the end of the year than they were when they showed up the previous September. Good teachers should be effective teachers. And that effectiveness can be measured, studied, and replicated in other classes and schools.
The words we choose to define “good” teaching are telling of our objectives. “Highly qualified” measures the inputs. “Effectiveness” measures the outputs. And at the end of the day, we should be defining our teachers, our schools, and our kids on the outputs. All the qualifications in the world can’t guarantee success. Our focus is results. The end game is achievement.
Slowly, this concept is making its way into our discussions on NCLB and HQT. It was first offered by the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission, and was championed by its co-chair, Gov. Roy Barnes. We’ve now seen it mentioned in a number of NCLB reauthorization bills on Capitol Hill. But we have a long way to go.
Maybe the lawyers with Public Advocates can offer a settlement … all California teachers must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Now that would be a practice worth modeling in all 50 states.
Yesterday, a group of California parents took issue with how the U.S. Department of Education was interpreting the HQT provision, specifically how it approved the Golden State’s effort to categorize alternative cert teachers and emergency hires as HQTs. The case — Renee v. Spellings — is expected to have national implications on alternative teaching programs. (Or at least that’s what Stephen Sawchuck and Education Daily tell us.)
Eduflack doesn’t take issue with the intent of Renee and parents across the country who want to ensure that their children get the very best instructors, the very best curriculum, and the very best of opportunities. And I agree that, ideally, our best teachers should be in our most challenging teaching environments, working with the kids who need their experience, expertise, and knowledge the most.
But after five years, it is time to revise our definition of a good teacher. The language is stale. Highly qualified is fine … to an extent. But is a teacher with a bona fide diploma from a teachers college guaranteed to be a good teacher, while another from Teach for America or Troops to Teachers is not? Of course not. The pedagogy one gets from a TC only takes you so far. Success depends largely on the passion of the teacher, the pursuit of continued learning, the push to continue to improve practice, and one’s commitment to the classroom and the student. And many would say alternative routes engender those qualities far more frequently than traditional routes.
Regardless, we need a new benchmark for a “good” teacher. And that benchmark is based on one simple word — effectiveness. Our goal should be to have an effective teacher in every classroom. A teacher committed to boosting student achievement. A teacher that can be measured based on year-on-year gains in her classroom. A teacher who leaves his students better off at the end of the year than they were when they showed up the previous September. Good teachers should be effective teachers. And that effectiveness can be measured, studied, and replicated in other classes and schools.
The words we choose to define “good” teaching are telling of our objectives. “Highly qualified” measures the inputs. “Effectiveness” measures the outputs. And at the end of the day, we should be defining our teachers, our schools, and our kids on the outputs. All the qualifications in the world can’t guarantee success. Our focus is results. The end game is achievement.
Slowly, this concept is making its way into our discussions on NCLB and HQT. It was first offered by the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission, and was championed by its co-chair, Gov. Roy Barnes. We’ve now seen it mentioned in a number of NCLB reauthorization bills on Capitol Hill. But we have a long way to go.
Maybe the lawyers with Public Advocates can offer a settlement … all California teachers must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Now that would be a practice worth modeling in all 50 states.
Blame the Parents?
Who, exactly, is at fault for poorly performing schools? Based on what we read and hear and see in the media, there seems to be more than enough blame to go around. The feds are at fault for high-stakes testing. The state is at fault for inadequate funding. School districts are at fault for a host of reasons. And teachers are to blame for not teaching the right things or understanding the kids or lacking the qualification to lead the classroom.
It isn’t every day that we put the blame on another primary stakeholder in the learning process — the parents. For decades, we have seen moms and dads wash their hands of what happens behind the schoolhouse doors. They get their kids to school. It is up to everyone else to do the teaching and ensure the kids are learning, retaining, and applying.
That’s what makes today’s Washington Post poll so interesting. There are few that will come to the defense of DC Public Schools in general. Seven in 10 surveyed believe DC public schools are inadequate. Surprisingly, 76 percent say that parents are to blame. See the full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002386.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008012100219
Eduflack isn’t one who celebrates the blame game. But DC residents must be applauded for speaking truth. DCPS spends more dollars per student than most school districts in this country. They’ve implemented reform after reform, with few making a lasting impact. Teachers are run through a grinder, not knowing if they will even be paid month to month.
Over the weekend, DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced a new Saturday tutoring program to help struggling students catch up and succeed in the classroom. Of course, such programs are not mandatory. Saturday programs are optional, offering the potential for another great idea to be lost in the execution.
If we are truly going to improve schools like those in DCPS, we need and require increased parental participation. This means more than getting parents into the schools to complain to teachers and administrators about why their kids can’t do their homework or pass the test. True parental involvement has mothers, fathers, grandparents, and such involved in the learning process. They know what’s happening in the classroom. They ensure their kids are doing their homework. They identify learning experiences in the home or in the community. They take responsibility for their kids, and hold them accountable For maximizing their school hours.
Parents are our first teachers and our most consistent ones. Small kids will pattern their words and actions after what their parents do. We read because our parents do. We do our homework because our parents prioritize it. We bring home good grades because our parents encourage it. And if they don’t, we don’t care.
Many of the problems our schools face — rising drop-out rates, limited reading and math skills, truancy, etc. — can all be attributed, in part, to parent apathy. Eduflack has done a number of focus groups with eighth and ninth graders recently on dropping out. Student after student said they wouldn’t drop out because their parents won’t let them. THat’s parental involvement. It may come in the form of carrot or stick, but it makes a difference.
Parents are key to improving our schools, improving our community, and boosting student achievement. Thankfully, citizens in our nation’s capital now recognize that. Identification is the first step. The challenge now, is for DCPS to take this data and put it into action. If we ID parent apathy as a root of DCPS problems, what do we do to boost parental involvement? Once Chancellor Rhee answers that question, she may have a winning strategy for improving the schools, engaging the public and building support and interest for what is happening in each and every schoolhouse in the District.
“One of These Stories Doesn’t Belong … “
Any devoted student of Sesame Street knows the segment — “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong.” We used it to differentiate shapes or to separate the dogs from the cats. Who knew it would come in handy with regard to recent NCLB commentary in two of the top papers in the nation.
So let’s look at those three articles. First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB. Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system. And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34
Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others. Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB. Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses. And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.
The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB. How can we make assessment more meaningful? How do we cultivate and support effective teachers? How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life? How do we truly improve our K-12 system?
All good questions. All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders. And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.
Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition. He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests. We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction. And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.
Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here. Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation. Those teachers deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession. That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry. Accountability is the key to all.
Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools. Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness. The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.
One of these things clearly doesn’t belong. Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost. USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law. The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.
So let’s look at those three articles. First we have an editorial in the Aug. 7 Washington Post calling for reauthorization of NCLB, with a particular focus on Congressman George Miller’s recent comments of his push to improve NCLB. Second, we have an editorial in USA Today the day before, also calling for the reauthorization of NCLB and support for increased accountability in our public schools system. And finally, we have NEA President Reg’s Weaver’s response in USA Today, where he claims our students are worse off today than they were five years ago when NCLB was signed into law. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/opposing-view-k.html?csp=34
Obviously, Weaver’s sentiments are not like the others. Surprisingly, both USA Today and WaPo have written articles recently about some of the shortcomings of NCLB. Both entered into their commentaries with their eyes wide open, knowing the strengths and weaknesses. And both came away calling for a continuation of the law, recognizing the long-term benefit of increased accountability and a commitment to boosting student achievement across the board.
The past few months have provided all involved in education reform the opportunity to identify ways to strengthen NCLB. How can we make assessment more meaningful? How do we cultivate and support effective teachers? How do we ensure our kids are leaving school with the skills they need to succeed in life? How do we truly improve our K-12 system?
All good questions. All questions that deserve strong public debate and meaningful consideration by key stakeholders. And all questions that should be front and center when communicating on the needs of NCLB 2.0.
Yet, despite these needed discussions, Weaver decided to play the same ole record of opposition. He says school administrators are saying teaching science is a waste of time, which is laughable since science assessments will be introduced nationally next year, joining our reading and math tests. We’re giving subjects other than math and reading short shrift, he says, at a time when states and school districts are investing major energies into STEM education efforts and relevant high school instruction. And then the king of urban legends — our focus on student achievement doesn’t improve student learning.
Some rhetoric just gets stale before its time, and that is definitely the case here. Weaver represents nearly 3 million teachers across the nation. Those teachers deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve a singular focus on how they can help improve NCLB, improve the quality of teaching in the United States, and improve the professionalism of the profession. That only happens when you are committed to improve, and when you are committed to have that improvement measured, analyzed, and shared across the industry. Accountability is the key to all.
Instead of fretting and grousing about a law passed five years ago, NEA should be focused on improvements that benefit their teachers and benefit their schools. Weaver should be talking about how NEA would want to see teachers evaluated and how best to tie student achievement to teacher effectiveness. The rhetorical focus should be on what can and should happen, not on what did or did not happen.
One of these things clearly doesn’t belong. Weaver is trying to rehash the educational skirmishes of 2001 that NEA and its breathren lost. USA Today and WaPo are talking about moving forward and improving a well-intentioned law. The latter is the only way we can get to the sunny days of NCLB 2.0 Street.
Telling a Good Story
We’re all familiar with the phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads.” The thought behind it is if something horrible happens (particularly something horrible with great art), then it is front-page worthy. A tragedy makes great news. Scandal makes great copy. An official getting caught doing something wrong is a great news hook.
Over at This Week in Education, Alexander Russo has a list of the education-related news stories from the past month (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/thisweekineducation/upload/2007/05/big_stories_of_the_month/May%202007%20News%20%26%20TWIE%20Posts.doc) It should come as no surprise that this list is full of scandal, wrongdoing, and general negativity. NCLB reauthorization and Capitol Hill hearings figure prominently, as do schools closing, programs being abandoned, and teachers being fired. There are some exceptions, but pointing out the failings in our education system seems to be driving education coverage as a whole. And Eduflack is just as guilty.
Are there no “good” stories out there on education reform? I’ll be honest, I’ve been struggling for the last week to find some examples of reform done good anywhere. Maybe it is the end of the school year. Maybe folks have tired of education issues for now. Maybe the current NCLB struggles have sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. But I am desparate for a good story.
Why should we care? Don’t we have an obligation to seek the truth? With taxpayer dollars going into education reform, isn’t it a moral imperative that keep a watchful eye on the field and point out where we take a wrong step or where we may be headed down a rabbit hole we simply cannot emerge from?
At the end of the day, communications is good storytelling. You need a protagonist. You need a challenge he is trying to overcome. You need obstables that may prevent him from succeeding. And then you need SUCCESS. Take a look at any good children’s book or Disney movie, and you’ll see those steps are the key to telling any good story. Likewise, they are the key to effectively communicating education reform.
I’ll beat the dead horse. Let’s take Reading First as our example. The U.S. Department of Education can clamor about longitudinal research statistics and disagregated data until they are blue in the face. The most successful RF story is one President Bush told several years ago at a town hall meeting at NIH. He introduced a teacher from the South. Her class was struggling. Virtually no students were reading at grade level. School district was poor. Students weren’t necessarily getting the encouragement and support they needed from home. But this teacher was determined they would read. She implemented scientifically based reading instruction, knowing the research showed it would work with kids like hers. She provided one-to-one interventions when necessary. Over time, she started to see the results. Soon, all of her kids were reading. They had found a passion for learning. They had an opportunity to succeed in both school and life. The could achieve … thanks to Reading First and scientifically based reading.
Sure, it may be a little sappy. But personalization and storytelling make it compelling. And it talks about complex policy in a way the average American can understand. And it stays positive. There may be challenges. There may be obstacles. But our protagonist perseveres. That’s successful communication, and that’s a story many of us would want to read each morning with our coffee (or Diet Coke).
Teach our Children Well
Anyone involved in education knows that children look to model their behaviors after the adults in their lives. We watch what we say, what we do, and how we interact with others. Even the youngest of children can start parroting the behaviors of parents and authority figures. And I say that as a proud father of a one-year-old boy who will try to mimick and action or sound I make.
At the same time, those in education policy know the value of modeling “best practices.” We learn from what others do well. We benefit from their experiences, crafting our actions and words around what has worked, and what has not, for those in similar situations or those dealing with similar demographics or similar concerns. When enacting reforms, we inevitably talk about who has done the same thing and reaped the benefits.
But it is just baffling what DC education officials have done. For those who have missed it, The Washington Post led the charge in pulling the curtain back on this doozy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050802047.html?nav=emailpage The Mayor’s famed takeover of DCPS seems to be well rooted in the bustle of North Carolina.
No one is questioning the merits of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s strategic plan. They are a top school district. But what does it say to the teachers and students of DCPS when Mayor Fenty and his staff can’t do their own work? What message does it send when you are cribbing from the better prepared school system in the room?
I recognize the Mayor has issued his apologies. And I know that his staff has been run through the ringer by the media, by elected officials, by the education blob, and by just about anyone who seems to care about the fate of DCPS. They made a mistake. And their words and actions sent the wrong signal to those who are trusting them to do right.
But what does all this mean for DCPS? How does one effectively talk and write about the future of DCPS after an “issue” such as this? How does the Mayor effectively communicate his plan for the future of DCPS at this stage?
First, he needs to publicly embrace the notion that DCPS should be modeling their words and actions after a number of school districts. His error was limiting himself to Charlotte. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a good district. But it is not Washington, DC. There are size differences, budget differences, demographic differences, and vast political differences. What may work in Charlotte might not work in DC. So let’s not put all of our eggs in become Charlotte-Mecklenburg Version 2.0.
Instead, DC should be modeling and promoting the best practices of a multitude of school districts. Let’s assemble a Frankenstein of plans. Borrow the charter school successes of Los Angeles. The testing efforts of New York City. Career academies in Miami-Dade. Or the programs and accountability efforts found in any number of Broad Prize winners. Take the best from everyone, and do so intentionally and publicly.
Second, and more importantly, credit those who are doing well, those you are “borrowing” from. Not only does this help avoid issues like those raised in The Washington Post, but it gives DC and Mayor Fenty a little credibility. The takeover of DCPS is just the latest in a long line of “last ditch fixes” for the public schools in our nation’s capitol. The revolving door of superintendents, the constant shifting of final-say authority, charter schools, vouchers, magnets, and everything in between has turned DCPS into a glittering target for the latest silver bullets. DC residents (and those in the surrounding areas) are sick of it. At the end of the day, the District needs a strong investment in what is proven effective. And implementing those programs that have worked in other cities — cities with high poverty, struggling schools, and a desire to improve — is the best way to do that. Using those best practices, and publicly crediting those cities for “lending” those best practices for the improvement of the public schools in our nation’s capitol, is the best way for the Mayor to gain some gravitas on his schools ideas.
At the end of the day, though, words are much easier to use at the start of a reform that in the middle or end of it. Mayor Fenty can be bold about intentions, but he needs to quickly talk about results. Let’s hear about the impact charter schools have had in DC, particularly with regard to graduation rates. Let’s hear about the impact vouchers have had in improving opportunities for DC students. And let’s hear how the Mayor is going to implement the accountability measures so we know that DC, and U.S. taxpayer, dollars are being wisely spent on reform efforts proven effective in boosting student achievement in schools like Washington’s.
Mayor Fenty, feel free to crib away form those cities who have done well, just be sure to credit them. But at the end of the day, be sure we are also modeling their assessment and their impact. It is the end result, and not the process that matters. We’re watching your actions, and we are hoping you’ll give other cities something to model.
Reading First: Congressional Punching Bag?
Reading skills are non-negotiables when it comes to student achievement. If you can’t read at grade level by fourth grade, academic struggles start to expand exponentially. Kids start falling behind in math, social studies, science, and every subject in between. You can’t learn if you can’t read. And you certainly can’t succeed without reading.
Sure, we all know this. And Eduflack has written until he has been blue in the knuckles about the fact that Reading First works. Putting research-proven instruction in the classroom works. And successful implementation of SBRR boosts student achievement. No ifs, ands, or buts.
That’s why it is so disheartening to see members of Congress — our elected representatives — to continue to use Reading First as a PR punching bag. Need to make a rhetorical point? Attack RF. Need to gain PR attention? Attack RF. Want to secure some extra federal dollars for the folks back home? Attack RF.
In previous postings, I’ve commended Secretary Spellings for pointing out the error in Chairman Obey’s RF-slashing ways, reminding him of how much he would cost the good people of Wisconsin. Madame Secretary, it’s now time to step up and remind the good people of your home state of the same. The Texas Congressional delegation has come out swinging.
Late last week, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas got an amendment passed in the House that cuts nearly $50 million more from Reading First. Not huge money, no, but a symbolic stroke that sends the wrong message to her constituents in the greater Dallas Metroplex. In Dallas, reading must no longer be fundamental.
Johnson’s reasoning — she wanted level funding for the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education program. Read her press release (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/07192007a.html) and she is proud of the new funding she has secured, in an attempt to restore level funding for social skills training. But notice she never says what pot of money she is taking from? Don’t want to tell those kids or their parents in Dallas or DeSoto that you’ve just taken away money for that reading coach, huh?
I don’t doubt that it is important to teach kids that drugs are wrong. But isn’t it more important for kids to be able to read the brochures and websites promoting safe schools? Shouldn’t a child be able to read a label to know its drugs, and not candy? Of course.
As Congress looks to reauthorize NCLB, I’ve got a novel approach to NCLB PR and marketing. Let’s focus on the positive. Let’s talk about results. Let’s key in on replicable programs that can be implemented in schools and classrooms around the nation. It’s time to let Reading First stand on its achievement merits, and not on its administrative mis-steps.
It may very well be important to level fund safe schools. But what message do you send to schools, advocates, and the education community when you are doing it at the expense of a program that has already been slashed nearly 40 percent? And when you do it from a program that is proven effective?
There’s $63 billion currently in the proposed Education budget. How many of those dollars are earmarked for programs that are proven to work? How many of those dollars are going to programs that are essential building blocks for every child, in every school, in every community across the country? Reading First needs to stop being a rhetorical punching bag for the doubters and the critics. It is time for RF to hit back.
Grade the Parents!
There seems to be a little battle brewing in Connecticut over report cards in Manchester School District. What makes this fight a little different from the norm is that these report cards are intended for parents, not for students. A member of the school board, Republican Steven Edwards, is calling for report cards for parents, evaluating them on everything from their children’s homework to appropriate dress to breakfast.
The local PTA, along with the school district itself, is opposed to the idea, believing that any issues can just be resolved if parents had more face time with teachers. When asked what she would think if parent report cards were put in place, the president of the PTA (according to Fox News) said: “I’d be ticked … They’re telling you what to do with your kid.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306003,00.html)
What’s so wrong with that? Why shouldn’t the schools instruct parents on what they can do to increase the effectiveness of classroom time? And more importantly, what message are we sending with such strong opposition to looking at the parent’s role in student achievement?
In 2007, we assess virtually everyone. Students take tests to judge their abilities and competencies. They are compared to other students in the district, state, nation, and world. They take multiple assessments each academic year, and we take those numbers seriously.
Likewise, we use that student data and other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers. In our necessary push for qualified, effective teachers, we regularly judge our teachers. Fairly or unfairly, our teachers are measured by the performance of their students. Parents use that report card to help select teachers or schools for their kids, and some school districts use that report card to determine performance bonuses.
And we keep moving up the chain. We assemble report cards on our schools and school districts, measuring them again other schools and districts. Each year, we get national report cards on how our states measure up compared to our neighbors, our peers, and such.
Education is all about report cards. They measure achievement. They measure progress to date. They are a constant in the process that we expect, depend on, and use as a tool for improvement.
So it only seems natural that report cards could and should be extended to parents. We know that parents are just as important an influence, if not more so, on their kids’ academic achievement as teachers. A parent is a child’s first teacher, and is often one of the last. And like it or not, children model their behaviors after their parents and do what they say.
In the perfect world, parents and teachers should be working together, and assessed together. It shouldn’t be an adversarial relationship, nor should it be a once a year meeting for 20 minutes. Parents should want to be engaged in what is happening in the classroom and should monitor closely. And the schools should be able to help parents improve the learning time at home, making sure that all students have the support and encouragement they need to maximize their time behind the schoolhouse doors. Such a dynamic is the quickest, easiest path to opportunity for all students.
Parental influence should lend itself to some sort of accountability. But the status quo will continue to fight the concept. And that’s a real shame. As long as the measurement tool is fair, and not subjective, parents should embrace a report card. We boast when we coach our child’s sports team. We proudly display our student’s honor roll bumper sticker. We should equally embrace a great report card showing we are a key influencer in our kid’s school success.
We tell our kids grades matter. We tell them they have to work hard for high marks. Maybe we need to lead by example, and let them see us working hard for the gold star on the parent’s report card. Just imagine all those kids who can ride around on their bikes, with bumper stickers declaring, “My Mom is on the Parent’s Honor Roll.”
The local PTA, along with the school district itself, is opposed to the idea, believing that any issues can just be resolved if parents had more face time with teachers. When asked what she would think if parent report cards were put in place, the president of the PTA (according to Fox News) said: “I’d be ticked … They’re telling you what to do with your kid.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306003,00.html)
What’s so wrong with that? Why shouldn’t the schools instruct parents on what they can do to increase the effectiveness of classroom time? And more importantly, what message are we sending with such strong opposition to looking at the parent’s role in student achievement?
In 2007, we assess virtually everyone. Students take tests to judge their abilities and competencies. They are compared to other students in the district, state, nation, and world. They take multiple assessments each academic year, and we take those numbers seriously.
Likewise, we use that student data and other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers. In our necessary push for qualified, effective teachers, we regularly judge our teachers. Fairly or unfairly, our teachers are measured by the performance of their students. Parents use that report card to help select teachers or schools for their kids, and some school districts use that report card to determine performance bonuses.
And we keep moving up the chain. We assemble report cards on our schools and school districts, measuring them again other schools and districts. Each year, we get national report cards on how our states measure up compared to our neighbors, our peers, and such.
Education is all about report cards. They measure achievement. They measure progress to date. They are a constant in the process that we expect, depend on, and use as a tool for improvement.
So it only seems natural that report cards could and should be extended to parents. We know that parents are just as important an influence, if not more so, on their kids’ academic achievement as teachers. A parent is a child’s first teacher, and is often one of the last. And like it or not, children model their behaviors after their parents and do what they say.
In the perfect world, parents and teachers should be working together, and assessed together. It shouldn’t be an adversarial relationship, nor should it be a once a year meeting for 20 minutes. Parents should want to be engaged in what is happening in the classroom and should monitor closely. And the schools should be able to help parents improve the learning time at home, making sure that all students have the support and encouragement they need to maximize their time behind the schoolhouse doors. Such a dynamic is the quickest, easiest path to opportunity for all students.
Parental influence should lend itself to some sort of accountability. But the status quo will continue to fight the concept. And that’s a real shame. As long as the measurement tool is fair, and not subjective, parents should embrace a report card. We boast when we coach our child’s sports team. We proudly display our student’s honor roll bumper sticker. We should equally embrace a great report card showing we are a key influencer in our kid’s school success.
We tell our kids grades matter. We tell them they have to work hard for high marks. Maybe we need to lead by example, and let them see us working hard for the gold star on the parent’s report card. Just imagine all those kids who can ride around on their bikes, with bumper stickers declaring, “My Mom is on the Parent’s Honor Roll.”
Excuse me, but what?
There’s no way to soften it. I was saddened to see Gerald Bracey’s piece in today’s Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202004.html Those who have read Bracey in the past recognize that he has been opposed to most reforms in recent years. He’s a particularly vocal opponent of NCLB and all that it stands for. And he has long stood again many of the accountability and assessment reforms that so many districts and states are now embracing.
So I shouldn’t be surprised when I see a Bracey piece that attempts to malign a significant number of organizations and institutions, including NAEP, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in particular. In Bracey’s attempt to protect the status quo of lagging test scores, lacking student achievement, and absent accountability, he has assumed a stance that may work at a faculty senate mixer, but clearly does not fly in today’s education improvement-focused society.
Why?
First, the ultimate target for his vitriol is NAEP. NAEP (along with TIMSS and PISA) is one of the few measures we, as a nation, have to truly understand how our students measure up against like-minded students. School districts and states are able to use this strong assessment tool to ensure that instruction in Alabama stands up to instruction in New Jersey or Wisconsin or Arizona or Oregon. It provides a common benchmark, a benchmark that helps educators, policymakers, and parents know that their kids are gaining the academic skills needed to succeed, both in college and in career.
If not NAEP, then what? Bracey is good at tearing down, but he has offered no alternative solutions. If you are seeking, rhetorically, to take away a valuable tool like NAEP, you better offer a better option. One of the reasons our schools are in the predicament they are now in is because we have torn down well-intended and effective solutions out of personal politics, without building a better mousetrap. But we need NAEP, particularly this 21st century global economy.
Second, Bracey almost seeks to say that everyone else is under par, so why should we aspire to improve? Ask virtually any person on any street in the United States about education. Our goal is to be the best in the world. The smartest kids. The best colleges. The top scores. Our goal is not be in the “great majority” or to coming close. We aspire to be the top. As a nation, we have the resources, the knowhow, and the motivation to exceed expectations in the classroom. The rhetoric shouldn’t be about how we measure up to Sweden or Singapore or India, but rather how they measure up to us. By believing we aren’t that bad, in comparison, Bracey has already given up. Why reform if we don’t seek to truly improve?
Third, he mistakes our nation’s desire to succeed and to ensure that ALL students are prepared for good jobs as some sort of fear tactic. There is often a fine line between fear and truth, particularly for those who fear change. Those seeking to improve our schools are speaking truth. When Bracey began his career as an educator, high school graduates and even dropouts could move onto careers that would allow them to support a family, buy a home, and lead a happy life. But times have changed. We now know that some form of postsecondary education is necessary to get one of those good 21st century jobs. The truth is that we all bear some responsibility for ensuring our high schools serve as the gateway to those jobs, providing both a relevant and a rigorous curriculum. And we need tools like NAEP to ensure that those high school students have the academic tools to move to postsecondary education and thrive in whatever career they choose.
Instead of the negative, common-denominator, defeatist rhetoric coming from Mr. Bracey, we need more of the bold words and bold actions necessary to truly improve the system. We need to know what our presidential candidates will do to strengthen our schools. We need to know how our states measure up against other states in terms of educational effectiveness. We need to know how our students measure up against students across the country and around the world. We need information (and advocates for it) to inspire us and drive us to action.
Education reform is ultimately about improving student achievement. We don’t do that by calling for the abandonment of key assessment tools, by settling for second best, or by making ascribing false motives to our opponents. We do it by continuing to talk about the need for reform — for us, for our children, for our community, and for our nation. And we do it by empowering every interested individual and organization to take specific actions that will make a specific difference. That’s how you break through the white noise. That’s how you stop talking around a problem and start enacting the solution.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 