Month: January 2009

Shovel-Ready or Funding-Worthy?

Eduflack STEM, technology, Workforce

Is it too early in the year to already assemble a list of overused words?  How about words we misuse in order to get attention?  I don’t know about you, but Eduflack is already sick-to-death of the term “shovel-ready.”  Across the nation, companies, organizations, elected officials, and individuals are seeking to take full advantage of the pending economic stimulus package.  “Shovel-ready” has become the term de jour.  The thinking is simple.  If there is a trillion dollars to be spent on infrastructure projects, we want to make sure “our project” is ready to go from the start, able to take the money now and make an immediate impact.  Our projects are shovel ready.  Heck, we may even offer a couple of jobs to hold those shovels.  We can break ground right now and start spending the federal dollars today.

When the dust settles on the economic stimulus package this month or the next (probably next), public education is likely to get its share of funding.  School construction will come first.  Technology and Internet access will be there too.  Instructional materials will get their due, and specific special education efforts may get their portion of the education pie as well.
Just check out today’s USA Today, where Greg Toppo looks at school districts looking to get their piece of federal stimulus relief — www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-12-school-stimulus_N.htm  
But as we look at an infusion of addition federal spending on K-12 education — whether it be on bricks-and-mortar infrastructure (school construction), instructional infrastructure (books and materials), or human infrastructure (teachers and teacher development) — should we be prioritizing programs that are simply shovel-ready?  Should we look to fund those initiatives that are ready to accept our checks today, like a bad infomercial, or should we make sure that those potentially hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on efforts that are worthy of such funding?
As we all line up to tap the overflowing funding keg that is the federal economic stimulus package, we should set some clear measures for funding.  How many students will be affected?  What is the expected impact?  What is the return on investment?  What is the research base to demonstrate funding-worthiness?
Yes, we will be spending significant dollars on school construction.  In doing so, we should make sure the dollars are getting into the communities that need the funding the most.  Are we building new schools in our crumbling inner cities or in those districts with the best lobbyists or the most federal juice?  But school construction is what it is.
The bigger issue is how we spend the rest of the available funds.  Investments in instructional and human K-12 infrastructure must focus on ROI.  That means we won’t necessarily see the economic impact this month or this year.  But we need to look for long-term ROI.  How do we increase student achievement and graduation numbers?  How do we ensure that all students have the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st century workforce?  How do we provide teachers the pre-service and in-service instruction they need to deliver the high-impact instruction we expect of all our classrooms?
Take STEM education, for instance.  There are real, tangible, on-the-ground STEM efforts out there that are both shovel-ready and funding-worthy.  There are STEM schools that can be constructed in cities and districts immediately.  There are K-12 programs, particularly in the secondary grades, that need the books, technology, and learning tools today to maximize opportunities  And there are teachers who need both the PD and the financial incentive (such as differential pay) to stand as effective instructors in STEM classrooms.  STEM efforts are shovel-ready.  But they are also funding-worthy.  We know that STEM programs have direct impact on the economy.  They prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow.  They prep teachers for the teaching opportunities of today.  And they serve as the strongest linkages we have between effective K-12 education and stronger, more robust economic opportunities.
There’s nothing wrong with those looking to take advantage of the economic stimulus package, even those who are preparing to make the pending federal legislation their personal post-Christmas Christmas trees, hanging their individual funding needs upon its branches.  That is the American way.  
And our schools are truly suffering.  The majority of states have cut or will soon cut K-12 budgets.  Some states are asking teachers to take pay cuts or benefit reductions.  And just last week, schools in Detroit were asking for public donations of toilet paper and other basics just to keep their doors open.  Times are tough, and the stimulus package is likely to give a needed financial boost to K-12 systems throughout the nation.  Again, look at Toppo’s piece.  School districts are doing whatever it takes to keep funding for public education as level as possible, even if that means lining up behind the banks and the auto companies.
We just need to remember that the stimulus is not intended as a bailout.  It is meant to serve as an investment in our nation.  It is meant to create jobs and strengthen economic opportunity, both now and in the future.  For our school systems, that means it shouldn’t go to the first program in line or the first idea that offers to create a job or make us feel better about ourselves.  We need to focus on the investment side of the equation, ensuring that these new federal dollars are going into efforts that will make a difference — both in the short and long term — and can demonstrate real ROI.  If K-12 dollars are in short supply, shouldn’t we make sure that new dollars are being spent on worthy efforts?  Let’s eliminate shovel-ready from our vocabulary (at least of K-12 vocabulary).  It’s time to practice saying “funding worthy.”

What’s Got Educommunicators Thinking

Eduflack Uncategorized

Wonder what the marketing communications professionals in the education sector are thinking about?  Their concerns?  Their hopes?  Their desires?  If so, check out the latest survey from Educommunicators, a new online community established just for those marcomm pros.

For those who don’t know, I started Educommunicators last fall because I saw a gap in the field.  The number of PR pros, marketers, public affairs agents, PIOs, freelancers, and reporters covering the education industry continues to grow.  But none of the traditional PR and communications groups (PRSA and IABC) seem to acknowledge the sector as a major player, particularly in this economy.  Some groups (NSPRA and EWA in particular) do a great job serving a segment of the educommunicator community, but few were looking at the sector as a whole.  Thus, Educommunicators.
In late fall, we officially launched this little social experiment, utilizing a Facebook Group, a LinkedIn Group, a website (www.educommunicators.com), and a blog (http://blog.educommunicators.com).  In December, we announced the organization’s first Board of Advisors (see www.educommunicators.com for the list), a great group of dedicated communicators representing multiple sectors of the field.  Today, we are announcing the results of our 2008 survey.  This data is going to be used to help shape the Educommunicators community in 2009, ensuring this nascent group brings value and holds the interest of its growing list of members.
Eduflack is most taken by one particular statistic — the hunger for best practices.  Doesn’t matter if we are a school administrator, a governor, a teacher, or an eduflack, we all want to know what works.  We all want to see what is working in environments like ours, with stakeholders like ours.  We want to learn from those like us, modeling promising practice (and avoiding that which does not work).
The full data can be found on the Educommunicators blog.  Expected action items will follow on the blog and the Educommunicator groups later this week.

Learnin’ the Language

Eduflack Achievement gap, early childhood education, ELL

Imagine entering your educational pipeline, not understanding a single word uttered by the teacher in front of the classroom.  Listening to classmates having conversations that you can’t participate in.  Attending a school district where dozens of languages can be heard in the hallways of a particular school.  In a growing number of school districts across the nation, these imaginary situations are all too real.

English Language Learners (ELL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs have never been more important than they are today.  Our student populations is rapidly shifting, and those students entering the schools speaking only Spanish or Hmong or Chinese are increasing.  According to Education Week, our public schools are now looking at educating 5.1 million English-language learners.  How do we ensure that those 5.1 million individuals, along with every other student, are getting the high-quality education we expect?
EdWeek takes a look at that question in this year’s Quality Counts.  The 2009 focus — ELL.  In addition to its regular state-by-state look at education achievement, the staff at EdWeek takes a look at a range of issues facing the ELL community, including “current research, specialized teacher preparation, screening and assessment of English-learners, and ways in which state funding resources and priorities affect programs for English-learners.”
The full Quality Counts report can be found here — www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2009/01/08/index.html.  What are the highlights?
* There is a significant math achievement gap between ELLs and all public school students.  On NAEP, for instance, 34.8 percent of 4th and 8th graders scores proficient or higher, while only 9.6 percent of ELLs hit the magic number. 
* The achievement gap is just as significant in reading, where those scoring proficient or better on reading was 30.4 percent nationally, but just 5.6 percent among ELLs.
* There is no national standard for dealing with ELLs.  According to EdWeek, only 1.4 percent of ELLs in Connecticut failed to make progress toward English-language proficiency.  In Maine, that number was nearly 45 percent.
* Thirty-three states set standards for ELL teachers.  But only three of them — Arizona, Florida, and New York — require prospective teachers to demonstrate competency on those standards.
What does all of this mean?
* We have a long way to go, as a nation, on ELL.  In New York City alone, the number of ELL students is expected to increase by more than 20 percent this year.  We need strong policies tied to real outcomes to deal with the increases in the ELL population.
* We need better data and research on English-language learning.  The breadth and depth of research related to ELLs, including how they transition literacy skills in their primary language to English, is lacking.  if the population is increasing, and our spending on the population is increasing (presumably), we need a better sense for what we do, how we do it, and how we ensure return on investment.
* And while we’re on the subject of data, we need more bilingual researchers involved in the mix.  If we are going to study ELLs with Spanish as a first language, we should have researchers who are fluent in Spanish and English involved in the process.  And it doesn’t hurt to have researchers who understand the social and cultural parameters that are facing today’s ELL communities.
* Like everything else, effective ELL instruction begins with effective teachers.  We should be looking at those states that have standards for ELL teachers, particularly those where teachers must demonstrate competency in those standards, and use that to model effective ELL teaching. 
* Whether we want to believe it or not, virtually every teacher is now becoming an ELL teacher.  Regardless of the subject or grade taught, if you have ELL students in the class, you are an ELL teacher.  It doesn’t matter if you are a designated ELL or ELA teacher.  Every educator must learn how to bridge the learning gaps for ELLs and ensure that student proficiency in math, science, and even the arts continues to move forward and English-language skills are developed.
* The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition is in desperate need of the spotlight.  OELA has long been a red-headed stepchild over at ED, failing to get the full attention it deserves in the K-12 debate.  Now that early childhood education is likely to get greater focus at ED and K-12 will continue to be priority number one, we need to do a better job to integrate OELA into both and ensure that ELLs are a factor in policy and funding for both preK and K-12.
Nationally, we talk about closing the achievement gap, boosting high school graduation rates, and getting increasing the number of first-generation college goers.  ELLs are a common instructional link to all three.  We can’t deny the population is growing.  So we must look for real, practical solutions to improving ELL instruction.  It’s time to talk the talk, in multiple languages.
 

Giving Voice to Those Who Cannot Yet Read?

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, early childhood education, Reading First, SBRR

After more than six years of work, the National Early Literacy Panel has finally released its findings.  Commissioned by the National Institute for Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy, NELP was originally charged “to conduct a synthesis of the scientific research on the development of early literacy skills in children ages zero to five.”

The thought here was that NELP would build on the work of the National Reading Panel, which focused on kids in elementary school (those in kindergarten through fourth grade).  At the time it was launched, NELP was a hot topic.  Everyone was eager to jump on the Early Reading First bandwagon.  NRP’s findings were the law of the land.  The world would build a continuum on literacy skills connecting the early years of NELP to the latter years of adolescent literacy (as put forward by the Alliance for Excellent Education a few years go) with the good work of the NRP.
Six and a half or seven years is a long time to wait for the findings, particularly for what is a meta-analysis of existing third-party research.  So what did NELP find?
* The best early predictors of literacy include alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, rapid naming skills, writing, and short-term memory for words said aloud
* Instruction on the best predictors may be especially helpful for children at risk for developing reading difficulties
* To a lesser degree, students also benefit from concepts about print, print knowledge, reading readiness, oral language, and visual processing
* More complex oral language skills “also appear to be important”
Nothing groundbreaking here, I’m afraid.
Like the NRP, NELP also highlighted the limitations the Panel faced and provided direction for future research efforts.  Unlike its big brother, though, NELP is not likely to cause much of a ripple in the education improvement pool.  (And I know it doesn’t need to be disclosed yet again, but Eduflack served as a senior advisor to NRP, helping guide the Panel through its entire life and afterlife.)
Why is NELP different from NRP?  First, NRP took a hard stand on key issues.  The Panel purposely avoided publishing another “consensus” document along the lines of the National Research Council study that came out when NRP began its work.  The result?  A lot of attention — both good and bad — for its findings.  We knew exactly where NRP stood on issues, and loved them or hated them for it.  
Second, NRP took complex issues and related them back to the end user.  There was a reason we pushed so hard for a video report to accompany the telephone book-thick Report of the Subgroups.  Teachers, TA providers, and practitioners needed to see the Panel’s findings in real practice.  Seeing the reccs at use in classes like theirs and with kids like theirs made the NRP real and practical.
Third, NRP was audacious in its findings.  Teaching Children to Read essentially told the education community that reading instruction in the United States was broken, but we knew how to fix it.  The Panel (or at least all but one of them) boldly went out with real solutions to fix the teaching of reading, keeping the report viable long enough for policy and funding, in the name of Reading First, to catch up with the recommendations.  
I want to see those three characteristics in NELP and its Developing Early Literacy report, but it just isn’t there for me.  As I read it, the report is a consensus document, proven by the nearly seven years it took to produce the end product (for the record, the NRP study was conducted and released in on a two-year calendar).  The study, its executive summary, and even its press release seem to be written by researchers, for researchers, with little link back to the educators and caregivers needed to implement the findings.  And finally, the report is beige at best, blending in with dozens upon dozens of other education studies hoping to catch the attention of a well-meaning policy crowd.  The report is nice, but it isn’t the end all-be all, nor is it the solution so many of us are looking for.  it is a report that contributes to the discussion, providing some fresh perspective on what early childhood educators have known for some time.  It is nothing more, nothing less.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t hope for NELP (and similar reports) and the impact it can have on early learners.  Just yesterday, NIEER released its report on its recommendations to the Obama Administration on early childhood education.  PreK Now has been calling for an early childhood ed czar in the White House, with the group serving as the most consistent drumbeat for improving early childhood education.  So we have both means and opportunity.
Means and opportunity for what, you may ask?  The opportunity to move early childhood education toward the top of the list when it comes to education improvement initiatives.  How?  Through five easy steps:
* Step One: Identify clear policy initiatives.  PreK Now and NIEER have already gotten the ball rolling on this.  Obama campaigned on dramatically increasing funding for early childhood education.  The policy initiatives are coming.  Those leading this fight need to streamline our thinking, focusing on the top three issues (TBD) and keeping the collective focus on those issues only.
* Step Two: Identify a leader.  Libby Doggett is right.  We need an early childhood education czar.  We need someone in the White House who can harness the power of what is happening in ED, HHS, Labor, and everywhere else in the Administration to ensure that preK dollars are wisely spent and all programs are pointed toward core goals and real ROI.
* Step Three: Build a coalition.  PreK Now and NIEER are ready for this.  NCFL is probably game as well.  Bring aboard the teachers (through both AFT and NEA), the content leaders (IRA), and the policy hounds (NGA, NCSL, CCSSO, and National Head Start Association), and you have a real network to identify the national clarion call for early childhood ed reform.
* Step Four: Focus on the research and the results that come from it.  NELP provides some core research findings to get us started, as does some other work offered by the research community at large.  But at the end of the day, we need to know how to effectively measure any improvements that are put forward.  That means core academic standards for our preK programs which means a greater emphasis on instructional matters in early childhood programs, including Head Start.
* Step Five: A bold idea to stir the pot.  Call for Head Start to be moved from HHS over to ED.  Early childhood education is the gateway to K-12 success.  If every student is reading at grade level by the end of fourth grade (a task that nearly 40% are unable to master today), we must start instruction earlier than we are now.  NELP provides some of the necessary instructional building blocks for literacy.  Let’s take it even further, ensuring that preK is about both the social and academic preparations all students need to achieve.
Five easy steps doesn’t mean the work itself is easy.  But if early childhood education is going to get its due (and if the NELP findings are going to get any legs and be put to practical use) this is the roadmap we should be unfolding.  Now is the time for those leaders and that coalition to come together, embrace a select group of policy initiatives focused on ROI, and then push, push, push to get buy-in and adoption with fidelity, and then we may be onto something here.
At its best, NELP is one of many tools that show us what is possible and what intellectual resources we have to work with.  Now is th
e time to take that potential and move it into real actions and real improvements.  That isn’t going to come from a meta-analysis.  It comes from real policy, real advocacy, and real leadership.
  

Tapping 21st Century Skills

Eduflack High School, STEM, technology, Workforce

We’re still into the first week of the new year, and it looks like 21st century skills is quickly becoming my white whale for 2009, supplanting my doggedness on Reading First and SBRR last year.  Eduflack was prepared the let the issue sit after some of yesterday’s back and forth.  I had my say, and I acknowledge the learned opinions of those who disagree with me on said say.  But then the Christian Science Monitor has to go and tickle my interest again this morning.

CSM’s Stacy Teicher Khadaroo looks at how teachers are making the necessary adjustments to prepare their students for the challenges and opportunities of what is before them.  The full story can be found at: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What”>www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What really got me, though, was the graph that accompanied the article, looking at the issue of what “creativity” means to superintendents and the business community.  The crux of this is, according to CSM, that “creativity is key for a 21st century workforce.”  What’s startling about the data is how our school leaders and our business leaders see the issue of creativity so differently.  Asked to rank issues on a scale of one to 10, what came in as number one for the business community (problem identification or articulation) ranked ninth with superintendents.  The supes’ top concern (problem solving) only scored in the top eight with our business minds.
Why is this significant?  Like it or not, our schools are preparing our future workers.  These numbers demonstrate there is a real disconnect between the learning priorities set by our schools and the expected outcomes of our employers.  It is no wonder so many business leaders I speak with say that a potential hire with only a high school diploma simply doesn’t have the skill sets needed to thrive in today’s challenging economy.  They’re looking for different things than many K-12s are prioritizing.
Let me be clear.  I am not suggesting that our business leaders should hijack the decisionmaking process in K-12, nor should our public schools be transformed into glorified trade schools serving merely as a pipeline into the workforce.  What I am suggesting is the need for greater collaboration in all areas of the learning process.  School districts need a better understanding of the skills and knowledgebase that local employers are seeking and need to better understand how to offer that within the confines of their current curriculum and state performance measures.  They need to look at innovations that open up new content and that offer the tried-and-true in ways that better engage and better inspire today’s students.  
Businesses need to move beyond simply sponsoring the sports teams and placing ads in the yearbook and become true learning partners.  How can they offer internships to students, opening their eyes to potential careers?  How can they offer externships to teachers, helping them see how their instruction links back to the opportunities that will be available to their students?  How can they help more students see the relevance of school, supporting teachers as they try to boost student achievement and avoid growing drop-out numbers?
It is trite and overused, but sometimes it really does take a village to raise a child.  It definitely takes a wide range of stakeholders to effectively educate them.  And until key stakeholders like superintendents and the business community share a common view on needs and priorities, we will continue to struggle between good intentions and missed opportunities.
   

Wahoowah, But What Is “Value?”

Eduflack higher ed, Workforce

In today’s economic climate, there is growing worry about cost.  This is particularly true in higher education, where we have witnessed cost increases that far exceed the explosions seen in other industries (even healthcare).  We tell every student they need a postsecondary education to succeed in the new world economy, but we usually fail to address the cost issue, figuring new loans will simply take care of the problem.  Students are looking for real value and real savings.

Today, USA Today offers up its Best Value Colleges for 2009 under the headline of “Getting the most bang for your college buck.”  
Eduflack”>www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-07-best-value-colleges_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Eduflack is incredibly proud his alma mater — the University of Virginia — is the top public institution in the nation.  He was surprised, though, to see eduwife’s Stanford University listed in the top 10 for private institutions.
Why?  A Stanford education doesn’t come cheap.  Four years out at the Farm will run you north of $150K or so these days.  Same is true for most of the institutions on the top 10 privates list, universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and CalTech.  Even the top private — Swarthmore College — come with a nearly $49,000 a year price tag (while providing an average grant of $30K).  So how does that make it a “best value,” particularly if you are paying sticker price?
Princeton Review’s Ben Zelevansky defines best value as “a list of schools that provide the best balance of a strong education and a reasonable rate of attendance.  The bottom-line cost for families is our concern here.”
He may be right.  But it is hard to swallow that a “best value” college education is pricier a starter house in many of the communities a graduate may soon enter into.  Even at my proud alma mater, I recognize that U.Va. costs more than your average public university.  Quality costs.  Virginia has taken major steps to expand its access and its financial aid — including its AccessUVA program — but it is hardly a great find in the bargain bin.
I recognize that “best value” does not mean the lowest cost, nor is it intended to.  The selection criteria include academics, costs, and financial aid.  Perhaps, though, we also need to look at return on investment to determine “best value.”  How many of these students go on to graduate or professional schools?  How many are gainfully employed within three months of graduation?  How many are employed in the field in which they studied?  How many are giving back to their alma mater — financial or otherwise — demonstrating they value the impact their school had on their lives?
Best Value Colleges for 2009 is a great start, but families across the country need to dig deeper into the data and really understand how their postsecondary dollars are being spent and whether they have a chance of receiving the return they are seeking. Value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.  More data sharpens that eye.  

Take Me Home, 21st Century Teachers

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, STEM, Students, technology

Twenty-first century skills seems to be the topic of the day again today.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, Mike Petrilli takes a vastly different point of view from dear ole Eduflack, boiling down the issue of 21st century skills to making our kids tech savvy (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/01/the-conceit-of-21st-century-skills/#comments).  I agree with Petrilli.  Today’s students don’t need any help at all figuring out how technology works.  My two-and-a-half year old son is already more skilled on the iPhone than the eduwife, knowing perfectly well how to turn it on, get it out of sleep mode, and flip through the pages to get to his favorite game (the one with the rabbit eating the carrots and dodging the cans, for those in the real know).

And Robert Pondiscio over at Core Knowledge blog comments on my earlier posting about the real dangers of sacrificing content in the name of 21st century skills. Again, I agree with Pondiscio’s premise and point.  But one can teach the finer points of the War of 1812 beyond the chalkboard and mimeographed pages.  Content still remains king, but we also need to take a careful look at delivery.
We’re seeing the shift in our assessments, as bubble sheets are giving way to computer-based exams.  We’re able to use technology to determine student reading levels.  And states like Florida and Alabama are now requiring virtual education as part of their curriculum, with the latter now requiring virtual education as part of graduation requirements.  That, my friends, is 21st century skills, gaining the content knowledge we’ve prized for decades through new channels and new technologies.  Imagine the difference of studying the Civil War from a classroom in Minnesota, using a tattered grade reader and a chalkboard, versus learning it in a virtual environment with students who live around the block from the very battle sites you are studying, where you can access Brady photographs and clips from Ken Burns’ Civil War series.  That learning 21st century skills.  It’s all in the delivery.
This week’s Education Week has another interesting take on 21st century skills.  Stephen Sawchuk has a piece on how teachers in my former home state of West Virginia are adapting their practice to better meet our 21st century world.  And Sawchuk has one paragraph that helps sum it up:

Business leaders and policymakers more and more say those higher-order, critical-thinking, communication, technological, and analytical skills are the ones crucial for students to master as they enter a service-oriented, entrepreneurial, and global workplace.

I appreciate the sentiments recently offered by Petrilli, Pondiscio, WaPo’s Jay Mathews, and Andy Rotherham.  This is a real discussion that those committed to education improvement should be having.  How do we continue to adapt and improve classroom curriculum to ensure rigorous, relevant courses that hold a student’s interest?  How do we ensure the core content areas we all know are important –the reading, literature, math, science, and social sciences — remain in the curriculum and are effectively consumed by our students.  Current student performance scores show that the old way of delivering such content isn’t working with every student.  If we are going to close achievement gaps, boost performance numbers, and improve graduation rates, perhaps we need to rethink how we are delivering the content.  Some may call that a semantic matter of packaging, but I see it as a core part of 21st century skills.  21CS is about how we deliver content, not what we are delivering.

What’s Wrong with 21st Century Skills?

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM, Students, Workforce

Recently, there seems to be growing momentum against the notion of 21st century skills in our K-12 classrooms.  Some find the term just to be a little too trite for their tastes.  Others believe it moves away from the classically liberal arts education, like literature and history, that K-12 was designed for more than a century ago.  And still others think that it is code for turning our high schools into trade schools.

So Eduflack asks the question, what’s wrong with 21st century skills?  We hear time and again that other nations are eating our collective school lunches when it comes to international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.  We worry about how our kids stack up when it comes to math and science and such, worrying that more jobs may either be eliminated or relocated.  We wonder what jobs will be out there when they do graduate, and whether they will be competitive enough to secure those jobs.
In last year’s Quality Counts, EdWeek gave my home state of Virginia an “F” when it came to college preparedness of our students.  In my previous work with the Virginia Department of Education, I heard time and again from businesses in the Commonwealth that today’s high school graduates simply don’t have the skills necessary to fill today’s jobs, let alone tomorrow’s jobs.  Nationally, our high school drop-out rate is still about one-third, meaning one in three students never gains that diploma in the first place.  And for those who get through high school and do move on to postsecondary education, more than half of them need remedial English or math courses when arriving at their higher education institution of choice.
So, again, what is wrong with 21st century skills for our 21st century schools?  Better yet, what is wrong with defining what 21st century skills really are, at least as they relate to today’s K-12 students?
Reading, math, and science are all 21st century skills.  The ability to use technology is a 21st century skill.  Soft skills like problem solving and teamwork and critical thinking and such are 21st century skills as well.  The problem we have is that when we talk about 21st century skills, too many people think we are talking about skills newly discovered in the 21st century.  That just isn’t the case.  Yes, we are talking about core skills that have been around since Plato.  But that doesn’t mean the skills aren’t as relevant today as they were a millennia or two ago.  It just means we need to starting thinking about them and teaching them in new or different ways that make them more relevant in our 21st century world.
In recent weeks, I’ve talked with a good friend who is a former urban superintendent about the future of classroom instruction.  One of his top concerns is the belief that we are “un-plugging” our students once they enter schools.  Here at Eduflack, we’ve used the term “de-skilling.”  For many, this boils down to the issue of technology in the classroom.  When you have students living on computers and MP3s and instant messaging and cell phones, and you have a world and an economy that are equally reliant on the same, where is the logic of putting away all that technology between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.  and teaching reading, math, science, and social studies through 19th century delivery mechanisms?  
Concern on the issue is redoubled when we consider the changing face of the American classroom teacher.  Across the nation, school districts have been experiencing significant retirements and a new face on the teaching workforce.  Incoming teachers, particularly in our urban districts, have been brought up on computers and cell phones.  They’ve likely never used a card catalog, and many of them do not take a daily newspaper.  But that doesn’t mean they are informationally deprived.  They simply get their data through other sources, through 21st century sources aligned with their interests, their skills, and the world in which they live.
I am no shrinking violet when it comes to the advocacy for STEM education and the need to ensure every student is STEM literate.  For me, this isn’t just an issue for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world.  Even that student looking to work on the manufacturing line next to his father is going to need STEM skills in our new economy.  Every student benefits from STEM literacy, regardless of their future education, career, or life path.  That includes providing them the soft and the content skills that we define as 21st century skills.  More importantly, it requires a new way to deliver the content that, for decades, has been deemed essential learning.
What does all this mean?  Ultimately, when we talk about 21st century skills, we aren’t talking about new sets of content and new academic areas of study.  Sure, topics such as engineering still have yet to really be defined in a K-12 environment (and we clearly don’t have a praxis for secondary school engineering teachers), but we are still talking about core academics like reading, writing, math, science, and the social sciences.  At its heart, 21st century skills is about a new delivery system.  It is about moving beyond the chalkboard to the interactive white board.  It is about moving from the card catalog to the World Wide Web.  And it is about moving from rows and rows of single desks into groups of interactive, collaborative students progressing beyond rote memorizations into critical thinking and higher-level learning.  
Ultimately, it is about delivering our core education in a 21st century world through 21st century means.  An education more relevant and interesting for students.  An education more engaging and empowering for teachers  An education more applicable and valued in the economy.  If 21st century skills is a code, then it is simply code for skills that are relevant and outcome-based for all those involved in the learning process.  That is the sort of progress we should be investing in.

Yes We Can … Or Will We?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, early childhood education, High School, NCLB, Obama

How committed are we, as a nation, to improving public education?  A decade or two ago, education ranked as a top issue in the minds of the American voter.  Yet this time around, education was an also-ran, a second-tier issue at best.  In survey after survey, we hear that America’s schools in general need improving, but not mine.  The common thought is that Rome might be burning, but my own neighborhood school is doing just fine, largely because I know the principal, I know some of the teachers, and my kid goes there.  And I wouldn’t send my child to a bad school, at least not intentionally.

We know from student performance data, though, that many of our schools are not doing just fine.  Students in all grades are still struggling to master basic reading and math skills.  A third or so of all ninth graders won’t complete high school four years later.  And only a third of those same original ninth graders will end up earning some sort of postsecondary degree.  We promise our children a world-class education, but we are still delivering as if it is class in a 19th century world.  This shouldn’t be a fight about status quo or not.  We all should agree there is room for improvement in our early childhood education and K-12 systems.
Over at USA Today this morning, the editorial writers riff off of will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” to spotlight the dire educational situation for African-American boys.  The graduation gap between black and white males is staggering.  Sixteen percent in Texas, 18 percent in Georgia, 21 percent in California, 22 percent in Florida, 26 percent in Pennsylvania, 30 percent in Ohio, 36 percent in New York, and a whopping 42 percent in Illinois.  In most of the states analyzed by USA Today, less than half of African-American males graduate from high school, and the number usually hovers in the 30-percents.
The full editorial can be found here: <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/index.html#entry-60921352
USA”>blogs.usatoday.com/oped/index.html#entry-60921352
USA Today uses the will.i.am song as its lead-in because it was a popular motivator in the 2008 elections, driving generations and demographics of voters to the polls (and to volunteerism) for the first time ever.  The video created for the song (and the Obama campaign) was viewed on YouTube nearly 15 million times, serving as a rallying cry for a significant portion of the American populace that felt their voice had been ignored in the past, and now was their time to stand up, speak clearly, and bring about real change in their community and their nation.
Step one was accomplished.  The “Yes We Can” president was elected.  Now comes the hard work.  Moving from “yes we can” to “yes we will.”  Current economic times make it difficult to say yes to a host of new education initiatives, programs, and efforts designed to make good on what millions of Americans committed to.  But it also provides a real opportunity for those committed to change to come together, set some common goals, and build community commitment to long-term improvement. 
Case in point, the Forum for Education & Democracy.  Until today, the Forum was known mostly as a convener, bringing together leading stakeholder voices to focus on “equitable access to quality schools for all American families.”  Today, though, the Forum launches down a new path of advocacy, looking to transform Obama’s mantra of “Yes We Can” into real school improvement.
Launching a national advocacy campaign, the Forum has begun a petition drive calling on the Obama administration to focus on four key commitments when it comes to school improvement:
* Every child deserves a 21st century education
* Every community deserves an equal chance
* Every child deserves a well-supported teacher
* Every child deserves high-quality health care
The national online petition is complemented by a new website — www.willwereally.com — and a new YouTube video featuring the ideas and, more importantly, some of the students, who can be affected by a new national commitment to public school improvement.  The video in particular (found on the home page) is worth checking out.
I’ll admit, there is a lot of wiggle room in the four key issues the Forum is putting out there through its Will We Really effort.  As a community, we still haven’t defined what a 21st century education is, nor have we come to consensus that 21st century skills should be the focus of our K-12 system.  We all agree that every community deserves an equal chance, until that means taking resources from my community to help another.  And we all believe every child deserves a well-supported teacher, until that discussion turns to boosting pay for good teachers and the new taxes that come along with it.  Like most in education reform, the real devil is in the details.  How do we capture these mission statements into actionable policy?
That is a question that will be left to EdSec in-waiting Arne Duncan and his presumably able team of leaders over at ED.  It is a question that will be left to our governors, state departments of education, mayors, and superintendents.  It is a question that will be left to the influencers — the Forum for Education & Democracy included — who are lining up to recommend new programs, new policies, and new ideas for a new administration.  And it is a question for the hopefully millions of parents, students, and Americans that will sign onto the Will We Really petition and remind decisionmakers of our national commitment to these fundamental principles.
For Eduflack, the answers are found in a few places.  First and foremost is the research.  How do we better collect, analyze, and apply data on our students and their achievement?  That data determines what is lacking in classroom instruction today and how to deliver a 21st century education.  That data helps us see what supports today’s teachers need, and how educators can learn from and lean on one another.
The second is ROI, or return on investment.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  We cannot change simply for change’s sake.  We must bring forward meaningful improvements that boost student achievement, get better teachers in the classroom (and keep them there), and convince every student that dropping out is never a viable alternative to earning that high school diploma.  We must start early, recognizing that high-quality early childhood ed programs ensure that disadvantaged youth have that equal chance to achieve.  And we must invest in instructional programs that get students performing at grade level and exceeding expectations.  Like it or not, we’re still talking about ensuring that no child is left behind.  Will We Really is just looking more at the whole child, and not just the quantitative performance measures of NCLB.
The achievement gap highlighted in USA Today should be a national embarrassment.  In 2009, graduation rates between African-American and white males should be nearing equity, not approaching 30 or 40 percent.  And we haven’t even looked at the gender gap issues.  Does anyone really want to see the numbers as to how black males measure up to white females?  Of course not.  
We’ve moved far beyond the issue of whether we can or not.  It is now an issue of whether we will.  Can we rediscover education as a national priority?  Can we clearly see the linkages between a high-quality K-12 education and economic opportunities?  Can we acknowledge we have no choice if we want to remain an educational and economic leader?

Become a Teacher in Six Easy Lessons?

Eduflack AFT, NEA, Teacher Education

Most of us don’t bother to read the countless spam emails that enter our inboxes.  We view them like we do commercials, hoping to avoid as many as possible on our way to the content we want.  Not Eduflack.  I like commercials because they provide me insight into what key audiences and the public at large are thinking.  And I will check out some of the bulk emails I receive (I’m not foolish enough to click on any of the links, but I’ll look at the email content) to get a sense for where the industry, particularly the education industry, thinks money can be made.

My attention was really captured this weekend by an email with a compelling subject line — “Want More Vacation Days?  Become a School Teacher.”  The subject matter was what you would expect, a company called Eclipse Media Online looking to hook me up with the ideal online degree program to get me in the classroom quickly and racking up those vacation days.  I was promised I could “Get [my] Teaching Degree Online!  In My Spare Time From Home!”
Such claims are nothing new.  We’ve heard them from online institutions and diploma mills on daytime and overnight television for decades now.  What was so disturbing, though, was how the job of K-12 classroom teacher in 2009 was described.  A summary can’t do it justice.  Let me give you the full text:

Teachers play an important role in fostering the intellectual and social development of children during their formative years. The education that teachers impart plays a key role in determining the future prospects of their students. Whether in preschools or high schools or in private or public schools, teachers provide the tools and the environment for their students to develop into responsible adults.

Teachers act as facilitators or coaches, using classroom presentations or individual instruction to help students learn and apply concepts in subjects such as science, mathematics, or English. They plan, evaluate, and assign lessons; prepare, administer, and grade tests; listen to oral presentations; and maintain classroom discipline. Teachers observe and evaluate a student’s performance and potential and increasingly are asked to use new assessment methods. For example, teachers may examine a portfolio of a student’s artwork or writing in order to judge the student’s overall progress. They then can provide additional assistance in areas in which a student needs help. Teachers also grade papers, prepare report cards, and meet with parents and school staff to discuss a student’s academic progress or personal problems.

Many teachers use a “hands-on” approach that uses “props” or “manipulatives”to help children understand abstract concepts, solve problems, and develop critical thought processes. For example, they teach the concepts of numbers or of addition and subtraction by playing board games. As the children get older, teachers use more sophisticated materials, such as science apparatus, cameras, or computers. They also encourage collaboration in solving problems by having students work in groups to discuss and solve problems together. To be prepared for success later in life, students must be able to interact with others, adapt to new technology, and think through problems logically.

Honestly, I don’t know what part of this email I should find most offensive.  Teaching as a gateway to increased vacation days?  Teaching responsibilities defined as playing board games and reviewing artwork portfolios?  Instructional materials described as “props” or “manipulatives,” like teaching is no different than selling a time share to young people?  Or the fact that some people are going to get this email, click through, write their tuition checks, and believe they are on the path to becoming high-paid, highly vacationed, effective teachers, all from the privacy of their bedrooms and the comfort of their well-worn bunny slippers.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  There is are few jobs as difficult as teaching, particularly in today’s high-stakes, high-expectation, high-criticism environment.  As the son of two educators (my mother a retired high school English teacher, my father a political scientist by trade and college president by path), I like to believe there is a little more to the profession than these sorts of emails put forward.  I see nothing about the countless hours my mother put in at night, on weekends, and during the summer grading, preparing, and planning.  I see nothing about the supplies she purchased or the emotional, intellectual, and sometimes financial support she provided her students.  I see nothing about breaking up fights or having to deal with parents who couldn’t accept that their kids simply failed to do the work.  I see nothing about the constantly changing PD expectations, the certification procedures, and the graduate degree requirements.  I see nothing about the notion that you are expected to work for 200 straight days, with no vacation or sick time intended to be taken during the school year.  And I see nothing about the second jobs and seasonal employment so many of my mother’s colleagues had to take to pay the bills or to actually use a few of those well-earned vacation days.
I know, I know, I shouldn’t get so worked up about a spam email that was never really intended for me in the first place.  But I know that teachers — and their training, recruitment, and retention — is a major issue for states and school districts today, and is going to be a major policy concern for the federal government and the U.S. Department of Education in the coming years.  Having worked for an online college of education, I know it isn’t as simple as the marketing campaign makes it seem (no matter what those institutions on the other end of the email want to believe).  And I know if we are really going to focus on student achievement and school improvement, it is all about putting good, well-trained effective educators in front of a classroom, and not merely a warm body who responded to an email campaign at the right time.
Teaching is hard.  Effective teaching is both an art and a science.  It requires the right person, the right motivation, the right training, and the right ongoing development and support.  The AFT and NEA have invested a great deal of intellectual and financial capital into promoting teacher professionalism, the nobility of the profession, the real challenges of good teaching, and the believe that not everyone is cut out to lead a classroom.  If we have individuals choosing teaching as a profession to increase their vacation time, we have far more important issues in public education that we recognize.  What’s truly scary is that folks are getting rich marketing “teaching” as a career path anyone with a computer and an interest in board games can and should pursue.