Month: March 2009

Moving the Accountability Ball Forward

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, AYP, high-stakes testing, national standards, NCLB

Many educators have seen recent discussions about topics such as multiple assessment measures and the problems of teaching to a “bubble test” as early indicators that the high-stakes world of No Child Left Behind accountability are coming to an end.  We hear talk about the “whole child” and skewed test scores and such, hoping that we will find qualitative measures by which to evaluate our schools and our students.

But it all begs the question — why are we so afraid of accountability?  Why is it that only folks like NYC Schools Chancellor seem to be relatively lone voices in being unapologetic for testing and for endorsing the notion with teachers teaching to an assessment that measures student progress?  Why do we believe having hard data on where students stand up, even against the state academic levels, to be a bad thing or a necessary evil?  And how do we move the discussion from a fear of assessment to improving the utility of our accountability measures?
The spring edition of the American Federation of Teachers’ American Educator takes a look at the issue, including pieces by Richard Rothstein and company about how we need to look at the issue of accountability beyond just the core quantitative numbers.  The articles are well worth the read.
What was most interesting is Rothstein’s call to “enhance” accountability by combining student assessments with “careful school inspections.”  Currently, we look at assessment as a measure of basic academic knowledge, coupled by critical thinking and problem solving skills in more advanced assessment models.  Rothstein seeks to expand the tick list, adding evaluations of items such as arts and literature appreciation, employment preparation, work ethic, physical health, and emotional health.  These, he posits, are a collection of our ultimate expectations for public education, and thus should be part of the assessment process.  Again, how do we measure the whole child?
Rothstein does offer some interesting specific on how to improve student assessments.  Namely:
* Assess representative samples of students at the state level and on a regular schedule, not only in math and reading, but in other academic subject areas — science, history, other social studies, writing, foreign language — as well as in the arts, citizenship, social skills and health behavior.
* Gather better demographic data.
* Report NAEP scores on scales, not achievement levels.
* Use age-level, not grade-level, sampling.
* Supplement in-school samples with out-of-school samples.
The latter four all fit within the general push to apply multiple measures to our assessment efforts, all in the hopes of providing a more “comprehensive” view of what is happening in the schools, using data for informative processes, and not necessarily for punitive or even intervention purposes.  I’ll admit, when I hear many of the ideas put forward by folks like Rothstein, I usually see them as attempts to weaken our accountability and assessment systems.  Age-level sampling, for instance, weakens the notion of grade-level proficiency.  We know what it takes to successfully complete the fourth grade, not what it takes to move from 10 years old to 11 years old. So let’s park that for a later discussion on the softer sides of accountability.
I’m particularly taken with the notion of expanding the slate of course subjects for which we assess student ability.  Just as we look at student achievement on reading and math, we should be evaluating students (and by extension, teaching) in other subjects.  The visual arts, for instance, are identified as a core subject under NCLB.  Can anyone tell us, though, how we assess student achievement in the visual arts?  Is there a good state arts exam we can point to as an exemplar?
if we are to expand the scope of student performance, though, don’t we need to start with national standards?  Can we effectively evaluate student achievement without clear, uniform learning standards?  Don’t we need a real understanding for what students are supposed to know as part of eighth grade life sciences or 10th grade U.S. government?  If we are to move comprehensively look at student achievement across all academic subjects, don’t we need to set expectations for proficiency now?  And if we do so, doesn’t it make sense to set a uniform expectation for all students?
AFT’s discussion should be seen as a positive development for those advocates of student assessment and accountability.  We are not talking about turning back the clock on nearly a decade’s worth of investment in strong student assessment models.  We’re not giving time of day to ridiculous drivel such as those offered by resident curmudgeon Joanne Yatvin that the feds should “lose the words ‘achievement’ and ‘rigor,’ which have no connection to the inquisitiveness, determination, creative thinking and perseverance students need.”  (And kudos to Joanne Jacobs to calling Ms. Yatvin to task for wasting space with this relic of an idea from a failed educational era.)  If anything, we need to restore real meaning to words like achievement and rigor, using them for more than just a punchline for whine parties hosted by the status quoers. 
No, American Educator demonstrates that assessment is here to stay.  It is no longer a matter of will we or won’t we.  The challenge before us now is how do we strengthen the system.  How do enhance assessments so they provide a more complete picture of student achievement?  How do we use data to improve instruction and hold all in the learning process accountable?  How do we ensure that every child is equipped with the skills and knowledgebase to move forward academically?  How do we hold our schools, teachers, and students more accountable, laying out clear standards, clear expectations, and clear rewards for measuring up?
We are definitely approaching a new day when it comes to student assessment.  We have the opportunity to strengthen our systems, ensuring that data is not just punitive and information is used to improve instruction and measure the true abilities of our children.  If the Obama Administration is serious about our need to innovate in the classroom, we all must recognize that innovation only works with hard, research-based measures to evaluate its effectiveness.  Innovation without assessment has no impact.  Great innovation can only go to scale if we assess its impact, measure its value, and assess its outcomes.

Eduflack Unveils New EdNews Column

Eduflack PR, stimulus

Admit it.  Sometimes you just wish you could get a little more Eduflack.  The blog postings and Tweets just aren’t enough for you.  You want some additional insight and analysis from Eduflack on some of the top education issues.

As always, I am happy to oblige.  I am very fortunate to announce that, starting today, I will be a regular columnist with Education News.  If you aren’t reading Education News, you better start.  EdNews is “the Internet’s #1 Source for Education News and Information.”  Founder Jimmy Kilpatrick does a terrific job bringing you the top education headlines, international stories, columns, and interviews each and every day.  That’s right, even when most education sites go dark for the weekends (figuring if the schoolhouse doors are closed, there is no education news), Jimmy and the folks at EdNews put out a email news distribution and a comprehensive daily web page seven days a week, no exceptions.
I’m honored to be a part of the Education News family and plan to write twice a month for its Commentary section.  Today, Eduflack looks at the economic stimulus dollars and the intent of ensuring this new money is going to instructional improvements.  My full piece can be found here.  I urge you to check it out, leave your comments, and let me know what you think.
Read Eduflack.  Read EdNews.  Read often.
    

“Because I’m the Mayor, That’s Why!”

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, AYP, Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, DCPS, Fenty, Michelle Rhee

One of the billion-dollar questions in education improvement these days is whether change is better served through mayoral control or strong superintendents.  To many, traditional superintendent/school board structures are merely the last line of defense for the status quo, with supes looking to protect the same old structures and programs, because that’s the way we’ve always done it.

Mayors, on the other hand, have a bully pulpit unlike any superintendent.  They can force through real change, rallying key stakeholders (like the business community and philanthropy) that may otherwise back away from the same-old, same-old.  They can push through the new, even if it may face resistance from those defenders of the status quo.  They can put new leadership in place, layer in the necessary oversight, and do what is needed.
So it seems obvious that, at least for struggling urban school districts, mayoral takeover is the way to go.  But as Eduflack wrote last month, such moves aren’t necessarily slam dunks.  For every New York City success (and I realize that there are many who doubt the NYC DOE miracle), there is a Detroit.  Even recent research out of the Brown Center found no real school improvement impact coming from mayoral takeovers.
Apparently, the Wall Street Journal sees things a little differently.  Late last week, under the banner headline, “For More Mayors, School Takeovers Are a No-Brainer,” reporters John Hechinger and Suzanne Sataline describe how “more U.S. cities are considering scrapping a longstanding tradition in American education, the elected school board, and opting to let mayors rule over the classroom.”
For its case studies, WSJ offers up for mayors and their education successes.  In Boston, where Mayor Tom Menino took over the schools in 1992, they credit the takeover with major achievement gains in national math tests and the opening of charter schools.  In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley took over in 1995 and is credited with improvements on state test scores.  NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2002 takeover is credited with raising high school graduation rates by 11 percentage points.  And in DC, the new kid on the block, Mayor Adrian Fenty’s 2007 takeover is also credited with raising graduation rates in a majority of high schools.
I learned long ago, courtesy of my friends up at Gotham Schools, to be careful when defending the improvements in NYC.  For the record, I believe that Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein have done a great deal when it comes to improving NYC schools.  We’ve seen the data and heard it retold by folks like the Broad Foundation.  Student achievement gains may not be exploding, but they are moving forward.  And such progress is a significant achievement in a system as large and entrenched as NYC.  Yes, I recognize that some teachers and parents have taken issue with the approaches Bloomberg and Klein have taken.  But at the end of the day, I continue to appreciate Klein’s unapologetic approach, particularly when he says there is nothing wrong with teachers teaching to a test if such a test is a fair measure of student performance.
Eduflack is really scratching his head, though, when it comes to branding DC as a successful mayoral takeover model.  If anything, Fenty and DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee have earned significant incompletes at this point.  Yes, Fenty has given Rhee the power.  But she still is fighting to implement a new staffing structure and is now preparing for what could be a bloody showdown with Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers over tenure and teacher incentives.  And while Rhee declared victory over the summer for first-year student achievement gains, the real win only comes when such gains are demonstrated year-on-year-on-year over the next three years or not.
But how can DC claim victory when it comes to raising high school graduation rates?  Most education researchers will tell you that student dropouts occur primarily between eighth and ninth and ninth and 10th grades.  The common belief is if you can get a student into the 11th grade, you probably can get them to stick around.  So how, exactly, does Fenty take credit for raising high school graduation rates in a majority of high schools when he only has one year of data (2007-08) to look at?  If more kids graduated during the first year of his mayoral control, is that due to mayoral leadership or to efforts put in place by the former superintendent and current high school teachers three or four years ago?  Most would say 2008 graduation rates are due to 2005 activities, those interventions taken years before Fenty took over.
I recognize we want to see Washington, DC’s schools succeed.  Even though DCPS is the smallest of the four school districts spotlighted, it carries a cache that Boston and even Chicago does not.  It is our nation’s capital, and a school district long seen as a disaster that simply cannot be fixed.  We embraced Rhee’s year one student achievement gains last summer as proof of success, even through we knew, in our heart of hearts, that a lion’s share of the success probably belonged to Cliff Janey and the previous regime.  We want and need DC to succeed, so we grab onto whatever we can.  We cannot afford for DC to become another Detroit, at least when it comes to mayoral control and school success.
WSJ does the field a disservice, though, by declaring such victory in Washington, DC.  Yes, we can look at places like Boston, Chicago, and NYC and look at five or more years of progress and results.  Any ed researcher worth her salt will tell you we need that much data to truly know whether a reform has been successful or not.  A year’s worth of data is meaningless.  We need some year-on-year information, a longitudinal view, to truly measure.
I’m the first to stand up and say we need to do whatever it takes to improve opportunity and success in public schools in our urban centers.  We have too much at stake, and too far to go, to pussyfoot around or nibble around the edges when it comes to real reforms and measurable improvements.  If it takes a mayor to take those steps, all the better.  It provides us a strong leader who can be held accountable for such efforts.  Let’s model best practices where there is evidence of real success.  If that comes as a result mayoral control, terrific.  
But we have to remember that for every mayoral success, we have equal parts failure or lack of impact.  Now is certainly not the time to declare premature victory or to misrepresent data that is, or is not, even there.  Although year’s worth of information is interesting, it is a far cry from a school improvement victory.  DC still has many miles to go before it is ready to even think about declaring a major win as a result of mayoral takeover of the schools.
  

Pay Attention! Eduflack For Your iPod?

Eduflack Marketing, PR

Eduflack has gotten some requests for the PowerPoint deck I used at ASCD for my presentation on effective communications.  Clearly, those folks don’t know me as well as they think they do.  As a general rule, I never use PowerPoint.  Personally, I believe it stifles discussion, engagement, and the pursuit of valuable ideas.  If I want someone to read to me, I’ll ask my wife to do it.  And if someone wants me to read to them, I’m happy to do it if asked nicely (unless you are one of my two toddlers, then you don’t need to ask at all).  But no, Eduflack doesn’t use PowerPoint.  Maybe I just like to speak on the fly, interested in what may come out of my mouth next, but I find I am more effective when I am speaking with a group rather than to a group.

That’s why I provided handouts that were made available after the session (and posted earlier on Eduflack) and why I’ve made a list of examples of websites, blogs, and such that are getting it right.  (Though I can see the value of showing some of those examples live during such presentations.)
For those who are just dying to hear what exactly I had to say, the good folks over at ASCD taped my session and are making it available as a CD, MP3, or iPod download.  You can buy my lecture here individually, and you can likely get it from ASCD as part of a larger audio package after the conference.  Or if you are really eager, you can always just buy me a Diet Coke (no coffee for me, never had a cup in my 36 years and don’t expect to start now!) and I can give you the highlights in person.
This could be the start of a new trend.  Maybe I’ll just start transferring those intolerably long blog postings of my into podcasts.  Rather than listen to Springsteen or Aerosmith while working out, folks can listen to me talk about effective education communications.  Oooh, I’m getting shivers.
 

Resources for School Districts Entering Cyberspace

Eduflack Marketing, PR, technology

Over the weekend at the ASCD Conference down in Orlando, Eduflack was asked to identify some examples of school districts or superintendents who were up on the blogosphere and doing a decent job at it.  Follow-up questions also included sources for information and other sites that were useful.  So following are just a few examples to give those educators some ideas:

Superintendents Blogs

School District Blogs (a few good examples of districts collecting and inventorying blogs across the schools)
Over in St. Johns School District in Florida, they were doing some interesting things with the blog and podcasts.  But the site has been dormant for a bit now.  And, ultimately, such sites are only as strong as the frequency of their materials.
A Few Others to Consider
School board members and trustees are also getting into the blogging act.  One of the best is Texas’ Mike Falick.  Fred Deutsch out in South Dakota was also doing a strong one, but it seems to have gone dormant.  
Some teachers have teamed up with their students to take full advantage of blog opportunities.  Check out Mr. Hancock’s class blog in British Columbia and Nebraska’s South Titan Government Blog.   
Another important aspect of the blogosphere to consider — how others are viewing your school district.  What’s the external view of what’s happening in the schools?  Two great examples of this.  For the NYC Department of Education and all things Joel Klein, you have a foil in Gotham Schools.  For Texas’ Dallas ISD, you have the Dallas Morning News’ Kent Fischer’s Dallas ISD Blog.  Both are written by professional journalists (for Gotham, it is a collection of such), and the quality and insight shows.
  
Twitter
School districts seem to be slow to enter the world of tweeting, if for no other reason than their primary audiences (teachers) are likely a little occupied during business hours to keep track of all of the tweets.  But we are seeing some education organizations putting Tweets to good use.  Some good Twitter examples are ASCD (ASCD and WholeChildAdv accounts), ABCTE (abcte), and ECS (BruceatECS).  Education Week has been particularly adept at sharing information on all of their latest blogs and new articles from their Tweet perch at educationweek.  And then there is Eduflack (eduflack).
For those looking for additional online resources, let me link you back to some previous discussions that were hosted over on the Educommunicators blog (http://blog.educommunicators.com):
Such lists are continually growing and evolving.  The policy blogs, for instance, do not include those blogs coming directly from teachers.  There is a whole industry of teacher-led blogs providing valuable and interesting information on classroom developments.  So if you have other suggestions of blogs, Tweets, and listserves that should be added to the collection, please let me know or shoot a comment to this post so we can continue to broaden the net.

Engagin’ at ASCD

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, PR, technology

This morning, Eduflack led a nearly full session at the ASCD 2009 Conference down in Orlando.  The topic?  It should be no surprise that I spoke on effective communications in education.  If the initial evaluations are any indication, the session seemed to be a hit.  There was a real hunger from participants to learn more about successful communications, particularly how educators (especially school districts) could use blogs, Twitter, and social networking to enhance their activities.

Our focus this AM was simple.  The need for effective message.  The need to clearly identify primary and secondary audiences.  Ensure the message aligns with those audiences.  And deliver the message multiple times through multiple channels (media, events, publications, Internet, etc.)
Those who know me know there is a simple theory at the heart of all of the communications activities I advocate for and engage in.  I do not believe that simply informing audiences of good ideas is enough.  I believe in public engagement, the research-based, roll-up-your sleeves Dan Yankelovich sort that moves us from informing audiences to building commitment for a solution to mobilizing those audiences to action.  Successful communication is about using information to change public thinking and public behavior.  That’s the only way we bring about real, lasting improvement.
I made the audience two promises, promises I will fulfill here on Eduflack.  The first is to provide a detailing telling of the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilization model, which follows and which friends and colleagues have heard far too many times coming out of my mouth.  The second is best examples of where to get information and who is doing blogs and such well.  The former follows, the latter will be provided Monday.
So without further ado, here is the idea paper I provided to scores of ASCD members this morning.  This think piece was written with the notion that, in today’s ARRA era, education improvement must be tied to economic impact:

 

Effectively integrating public education and its
impact on the economic opportunity into the culture requires an integrated
marketing and communications effort that embodies the most effective elements
of advocacy and social marketing. 
Success is defined by more than just educating key constituencies about
education efforts and their goals. 
True success requires stakeholders to take specific action – to
implement effective education efforts in partnership with educators and the
business community to directly improve education and job opportunities for all
students.  Such actions require us
to move from informing the public to
building commitment for a solution,
and, finally to mobilizing around
specific actions. 

 

There is a great difference between making
stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for more math or science education
to the more sophisticated level of informed public opinion necessary to reach
consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action
of adopting an education platform and integrating the educational and community
needs on such a platform.

 

The Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action
process can be broken down to understand the steps necessary to move through
this process.  Using a seven-stage
model developed by Daniel Yankelovich of the Public Agenda Foundation, we can
analyze the process of engaging a target audience and moving them from
uninformed bystander to an action-oriented group, a group ready to
enthusiastically adopt public education solutions.  These stages are:

·     
Becoming
aware of the issues

·     
Developing a
sense of urgency

·     
Looking for
answers

·     
Managing and
persevering through resistance

·     
Weighing
choices

·     
Intellectual
acceptance

·     
Full
acceptance

 

In applying these seven stages to our key
audiences, we must recognize that each stakeholder group may be at a different
point along this continuum. Understanding this is critical to designing and
implementing the appropriate tactics to move them to action.  Many a plan has failed because it was
based on the assumption that one size fits all audiences. 

 

INFORM: The
first two stages occur in the Informing phase.

 

Before we
can get audiences to adopt public education reforms and embrace the portfolio
of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them
aware of the issues at hand. 

 

Quantitative
research, coupled with stakeholder reaction and interest in education,
demonstrates the concerns our audiences have for workforce preparedness and
opportunity.  This data is even
further enhanced by a number of respected business and education organizations.    All audiences are looking
for solutions – solutions that can both be easily implemented and have maximum
impact on improving educational and economic opportunity.

 

While
many decisionmakers recognize that there are problems in meeting the coming
workforce demands, many do not agree on what those problems may be or what
actions might successfully address them. 
And, unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that
can be done to fix these problems. 
High school dropout rates and postsecondary education preparedness
issues only complicated the discussion. 
Those that are poised to become leaders in true education improvement must
first convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential
employers in the state, state and local policymakers, and the public at large
that there are solutions that will work, and solutions their communities can
get behind and support.

 

Stage One: People
Become Aware of an Issue

 

In general, the public recognizes that meaningful
employment in the 21st century requires a basic understanding of reading,
math, and a collection of “soft” skills, often referred to as 21st
century skills. Better-educated consumers are now placing greater scrutiny on
the relevance of secondary and postsecondary education on employment
opportunities.  At this first
stage, states should develop messages and materials with clear, concrete
examples spelling out the problems. 
We do not need to worry about promoting our solutions just yet.  Our goal for this stage should be to
steer the debate on the skills needed for 21st century jobs.  This can be done through media
relations, special events, and the successful use of advocates.

 

Stage Two: People
Develop a Sense of Urgency

 

When a problem has existed for a long period of
time, people stop seeing it as a problem and start seeing it as a
situation.  For years, the public
has been flooded by news coverage that there is little, if anything, they can
do to keep jobs in their community or to gain the skills needed to hold onto a
job.  Many see job loss or employer
departure as a fact of life.   
We need to instill a greater sense of innovation and optimism among
stakeholders.  This increased
pressure on decision-makers can encourage the adoption of new approaches and
programs, such as those highlighted in education improvement efforts. 

 

Leaders like ASCD provide stakeholders a proven
solution to the problems associated with rigorous, relevant education and
preparation for well-paying careers. 
With the research and support, most “reforms” are not yet another new
initiative looking to turn our schools into test tubes, using classrooms to
test virtually any available idea while leaving many mandates unfulfilled.  Ultimately, leaders need to transform
the general perception that our schools have not adapted for the 21st
century, and thus are unable to prepare students for the rigors of both
postsecondary education and meaningful careers.  This effort needs to replace such cynicism with hope.

 

We can create this sense of urgency by showing the
enormous need for solutions in the communities gaining the greatest
scrutiny.  By focusing on past
successes and proven-effective methods, we can demonstrate the critical role of
a strong education, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand
the serious risks they face not using proven, comprehensive practice to improve
educational and economic opportunities. 
The most effective strategy here is to explain the negative implications
of maintaining the status quo in the context of the concern about economic
vitality of the nation, particularly among the public, policymakers, and the
business community.

 

BUILD
COMMITMENT: The middle stages help build commitment.

 

Once
individuals believe in your interpretation of the problem, they are ready to
commit to your solutions. Transforming a general education mission into a
public call to arms will require all involved parties to demonstrate to a
variety of audiences, in dramatic and memorable ways, that these solutions are
the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

 

Stage Three: People
Look for Answers

 

Once people feel that an issue is urgent they
begin to demand solutions.  If we
have been successful in defining the issue in our terms, it will be easier for
us to state solutions convincingly. 
In this stage, people will demand action from policymakers and education
and business leaders.  This is a
good time to organize meetings to introduce specific actions that our audiences
can take to help us reach our goal. 

 

Stage Four: Manage
and Persevere through Resistance

 

Inevitably, some people will reject your
solutions.  This leads to the most
difficult stage of the process. 
Some audiences will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that
come from choosing a specific plan of action and opponents will try to poke
holes in our ideas.  This
resistance may be heightened by the following factors:

 

Misunderstanding:  Some people will (intentionally or otherwise) misinterpret or
outright misconstrue your goals. 
They may question the purpose and motivations of both you and your
partners. 

 

Narrow
Thinking: Many
in our target audiences will miss the big picture and misunderstand the main
elements of the problem.  They may
determine that the problems in many communities are a symptom of the times, and
that employers may just improve themselves over time.  Here we need to expand stakeholders’ vision and demonstrate
that both the issue and the solution are not what they initially perceived.

 

Wishful
Thinking: Others
may fall into the clutches of those peddling miracle cures or silver bullets
aimed at solving an institution’s problems by simply adopting the next easy
quick fix, ignoring the research, strong partnerships, and impact on economic
development that must accompany such a change.  Here we need to inject a note of reality and point out the
logical consequences (and costs) of this line of reasoning.

 

Resistance
to Change: People
are sometimes eager to project the problem onto others. There will be some who
are content with the current state of K-12 education or the employment
situation, believing their local community is doing the best it can and does
not need change.  We can counter
this by pointing to overall benefits that come from relevant education, reduced
drop-out rates, an improved college-ready rate, and clearer paths to
employment.

 

The best way to avoid this resistance is to ensure
that everyone is involved in the process and that all of their concerns have
been heard.

 

Stage Five: People
Weigh Choices

 

After moving beyond initial resistance to tackling
the challenge of improving educational and economic opportunities in their
community, people will begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a
variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.  At this stage, stakeholders should feel
that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.  As leaders in this process – with a
special awareness of how decisions are made – we can clarify the pros and cons
of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation. 

 

MOBILIZE
FOR ACTION: The final stages help mobilize our audiences for
action.

 

Changing
attitudes and informing the debate is not enough.  Just as a politician who has convinced 60 percent of the
public to support his/her issues, but who has not succeeded in convincing them
to go to the polls on Election Day, will lose the election, advocates for
improving school and school district management cannot accomplish their goals
unless supporters move from passive acquiescence to active engagement.  Public education succeeds when
policymakers and community leaders are actively supporting its solutions.  Once our target audiences are engaged
because they believe in the merits of our position, they will need to know what
we want them to do to help accomplish these goals.  So it is important that our communications and organizing
efforts include specific actions that supporters can take to help us reach our
goals.  In addition, we will also
need to make it easy and feasible for them to take these actions.

 

Stage Six: Intellectual
Acceptance

 

In this stage, many people will agree that
education improvement efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but
may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt recommendations.  We must recognize that this is a temporary
stage and that, with patience and continued effort, they will get there. It is
important not to expect too much, too soon.  The process of moving from awareness to action takes time. 

 

Stage Seven: Full
Acceptance

 

Given time, incentives, and opportunities to
consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, our audiences
should reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of
the importance of improving educational and economic opportunities.  Now is the best time to make sure that
there is a role for everyone to play in the effective adoption of education
solutions that directly impact educational and economic opportunities, giving
stakeholders the tools and information they need to persuasively move
themselves and others from awareness to action. 

 

Of course, different target audiences will reach
these stages at different times and go through them at different rates. We may
need to tailor the same event or materials to perform different functions
depending on where in these stages specific members of our audience stand. 

 

Education is an industry as driven by emotion as
it is by fact.  As a result, too
often, stakeholders decide that inaction is the best action, out of fear of
taking a wrong step or alienating a specific group.  For that reason, the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action
model is one of the most effective methods for leaders to educate key audiences
on the need for public education improvement and the long-term impact such
efforts have on strengthening the schools, the community, the economy, and the
nation as a whole.

 

“Maximizing” the Stimulus Bill

Eduflack stimulus

For the past month now, Eduflack has spent the majority of his day dealing with questions about the American Recovery and Reinvention Act and what it means for “me.”  Everyone is looking for answers, seeking to learn how it affects their institution, where there are opportunities to sell into it, and generally how the funds are to be used (or how they are intended to be used).  I, for one, am giddy with anticipation when that $30 billion or so of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money hits the states in early April, along with the $13 billion in Title I and the $12.2 billion special education money.

I’ll admit, I’m a little wary of more than $50 billion going out to the schools with nary a hint of requirements or oversight.  I like that the remaining $14 billion or so in SFSF money won’t go out until the states submit some sort of plan (which we assume ED will actually read and approve).  And, of course, we assume that the LEAs will have to submit something to the states to get at all of this money in the first place.  If we are going to hold educators accountable for how the money is spent, we need some sort of measure of intentions to see if they are followed through.
But I’m far more interested in how the Incentive Fund and the Race to the Top will be handled.  What will the RFP look like?  How much opportunity will there really be for non-profits and non-LEAs?  How do we measure effective funding of innovation when we have no real data to know if such innovation is effective yet (or at least not the kind we need)?
ED has been a little slow in delivering the guidance and regs around all of this new education money.  Typically, they are a week or so off in promises of delivering new documents and new information to guide local decisionmaking.  All of the info is being posted on a special ED Recovery Act subwebsite — www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html.  (The site bears the hideous Recovery.gov logo, which looks more like a promo for a local recycling effort than it does for the largest federal government short-tem infusion of cash into state and local government in history.)
As part of the process, ED has been soliciting questions that they intend to answer.  We haven’t seen the answers yet, other than what the good folks at Politics K-12 have assembled (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/) … until now.
Yesterday, the Education Commission of the States and Teach for America (don’t ask me about the coupling, I don’t quite get it on this issue either) offered up a two-page “idea paper” on ARRA and how states can “maximize” the education opportunities available under the economic stimulus effort.  The think piece can be found here: <a href="http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/79/90/7990.pdf.
No”>www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/79/90/7990.pdf.
No great insights here.  But for those who are either too intimidated or lazy to go through the full portfolio of documents over at ED (or for those who want to give the impression they know what they are talking about without worrying about technical issues or details) it is a good, quick read to get the lay of the land.  Hopefully, though, the LEA plans for how to spend this money will be a little richer, a little more detailed, and a whole lot more substantive.

Improving Teacher Training Efforts Inside or Outside the Norm?

Eduflack Achievement gap, higher ed, HQT, PD, Teacher Education

A few weeks ago on Twitter (eduflack, for those looking to follow), I posed what I thought was an interesting question.  Does reform and improvement of our teacher preparation programs need to be led inside or outside the norm?  Or in simpler terms, can we look to our schools of education to make the necessary changes, or does it require new thinking from alternative certification programs and innovation-minded groups or individuals to lead the sort of sea change we need to boost the quality and outcomes of all teachers in the classroom?

The question led to my call for a Flexner-style Commission to study the current state of teacher education.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/03/09/the-future-of-teacher-ed.aspx  The premise is simple.  We need someone to go in and evaluate the good, the bad, and the downright ugly when it comes to teacher preparation.  What are best practices?  How is what’s proven effective making its way into the classroom?  Who is doing it right?  Who is doing it wrong?  What voices will lead the transformation moving forward, and what calls will try to defend a status quo that is clearly broken.
That latter point is one that bears repeating.  There are real problems in the across-the-board quality of teacher preparation in the United States.  Some alternative routes are mom-and-pop shops that do a quick dash and dump into the school districts with nary a concern for the coursework or clinical training necessary to prepare a student for the challenges of leading a classroom.  Some online programs seek to simply offer quick and cheap degrees to meet district staffing needs, with little concern for the quality of the instruction or the real-life preparedness of the students they only meet virtually and through their bank accounts.  Too many traditional teacher ed programs have watered down their programs to serve the lowest common denominator, seeking to simply provide warm bodies to hard-to-staff schools that have lost sight of much the pedagogical training and ongoing support aspiring and new teachers need to adjust to life in a classroom.  And programs on both sides of the fence simply are putting underprepared educators in the most challenging of classrooms, figuring any teacher, no matter how poorly prepared, is better than no teacher at all.
Clearly, the current model is broken, or at least in need of some serious triage.  At the same time, we have a growing body of evidence regarding the instruction, training, support, and ongoing professional development that teacher educators should impart on the next generation of the molders of student minds.
Recently, Mathematica completed an evaluation on alternative teacher pathways for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).  The study found that new teachers from alternative routes were essentially no worse that teachers from traditional routes, at least in those schools they studied (a finding that the alt cert community, and likely IES, was hoping for).  The study itself went over like a lead balloon, with few noticing it or reporting on it.  Rightfully so.  It should not be news that Eduflack has some major issues with the methodology Mathematica used to reach its conclusions and with the narrow eye with which they looked at the results.  
A recent research critique completed by NYU’s Sean Corcoran and Columbia’s Jennifer Jennings pulls back the curtain on all that was wrong with the Mathematica approach, methodology, and interpretation of the results.  Their full tome can be found at EPIC (University of Colorado, Boulder) and EPRU’s (Arizona State University) joint website at: epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-evaluation-of-teachers.  
Corcoran and Jennings’ work echoes similar critiques that have already been posted by a range of folks, including the Center for Teacher Quality’s Barnett Berry on his blog — teachingquality.typepad.com.  
What did they find?
* None of the teacher studied had the teacher prep generally required of new teachers nationally (because Mathematica only looked at a handful of hard-to-staff schools that would gladly take any warm or lukewarm body willing to sit at the big desk.
* There is a clear difference in the impact of a teacher from a high-coursework prep program and a low-coursework prep program.  Even among alt cert providers themselves, the high courseworkers were most able to do the job.
* Teachers coming from low-coursework alternative programs actually decreased study achievement.  Yes, the data showed that kids in the classroom of ill-trained, ill-prepared teachers actually saw their student performance decline, while teachers from traditional routes either held the line or posted some very, very, very modest gains.
So what do we do with all of this information?  How do we use it to build a better teacher education mousetrap?  Some of the answers can be found with Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond, who looked at both the Mathematica research and data on effective teacher prep in places like North Carolina and New York City to help identify the necessary qualities of effective teacher training programs.  Her research can be found here: edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub_docs/mathematica_policy_brief.pdf.  
Darling-Hammond’s work offers the clearest view on how the confluence of research on teacher preparation can be moved into policy that aligns with current federal priorities to more effectively train, support, demand, and reward good teaching in the schools.  It reminds us of the checklist that should go into evaluating teacher prep programs.  Among her toplines:
* Prospective teachers must learn specific practices and apply them in clinical experiences;
* Prospects need sufficient coursework in content areas (such as math and reading) and the methods of teaching them (so both the content and the pedagogy); and
* Teachers-in-training need to be well-aware of the local district curriculum and how their pre-service education prepares them to meet expectations and achieve expected outcomes;
We also know that those prospects most like to succeed in the classroom are certified in the specific areas they teach, have higher-than-average scores on the teacher licensing test, and graduate from a competitive college.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack works with the good folks at EPIC, including on the announcement of the Corcoran/Jennings piece and has counseled Darling-Hammond, off and on, for a decade now.  Yes, fans, you’ve heard that right, this champion of evidence base and the need for reform has worked with LDH since her days as head of NCTAF.  And despite the urban legend, she is far more of the reformer and innovator than most in the field and that virtually anyone gives her credit for, if you can stand my brief editorial.)
None of this is rocket science.  But delivering it seems to be the challenge, particularly in our urban centers where we are hungry for anyone, and I mean just about anyone, to lead a classroom in an underperforming, hard-to-staff classroom.
What do we do with all of this?  First, the Highly Qualified Teacher provisions in NCLB are correct.  Teachers should be trained in the content matter they are to teach and need to be certified in that subject matter.  There is no replacement for several years of rich, content-based coursework in the subject matter itself.  Those advocates for including Effective in the HQT provisions (including Eduflack) are right as well.  We need
to measure a teacher, in part, by how effective they are.  And the straightest path to measuring that effectiveness is student performance (even the Mathematica study tells us that).  And then there is that which we know instinctually — effective teachers require clinical training and time in the classroom before they are tossed in the deep end.  They need mentors and in-school supports that can help them work through the problems and apply their training to real classrooms.  And they need ongoing, content-based, embedded professional development for the rest of their careers, so they are continually improving an constantly adapting to the changing challenges and opportunities of the modern day classroom and student.
It is just pure common sense.  But as we know from far too many life experiences, some folks just don’t have (or use) the common sense they are born with.  Do our ed schools, in the collective sense, need improvement?  You betcha.  Are alternative pathways the solution for struggling schools?  No, there is no data to make that leap.  Do we know what it takes to train an effective teacher?  Of course we do.  Are we applying it universally in our teacher preparation programs, traditional or alternative?  Not even close.
At some point, the war between traditional and alt cert needs to come to an end.  There will always be a need and a demand for niche programs that can fill specific needs in certain schools or communities.  That’s where good alt cert programs can play their part.  But if we are going to truly reform and improve the quality and results of public education in the United States, change, at scale, can only begin with our schools of education.  We need to do this across the board, ensuring that the new teachers going into our urban centers and so-called dropout factories receive the same level of high-quality content and pedagogical learning and training as those entering our well-funded suburban K-12 schools.  Good teacher training is good teacher training.  Period.  We shouldn’t have different levels, particularly when it comes to those poor and minority students with whom we are trying to close the achievement gap.  
“Good enough for …” should never be a phrase uttered when identifying and hiring teachers in hard-to-staff schools.  Every student deserves the best prepared, the best trained, and the best equipped teachers.  The last thing they need is to settle for a teacher deemed “good enough” for their struggling school or declining community.  That sort of bigotry has gotten us into the achievement problems we still can’t pull out of.
    

Reading Between, Through, and All Around the Lines

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, high-stakes testing, national standards, Obama, stimulus, teachers

It is always interesting how people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.  We all latch onto particular issues or ideas, believing that was the intent of a speech, a news story, or a television program.  Some would say that the measure of a truly good advocacy speech is the speaker allows all audiences to find a little something in the text that rallies them to action, an idea or phrase that makes them believe the speaker understands their concerns and is doing something to solve the problem.

Case in point — President Obama’s lauded education speech delivered yesterday at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.  USA Today led with the headline that Obama called for longer school days and longer school years.  The Washington Post saw it as a critique of our current state of schools, a rebuke that called for rewarding good teachers, getting rid of bad teachers, and putting more money into the system.  Education Week saw the call for teacher standards and tougher academic requirements.  The U.S. House of Representatives’ top education Republican, Buck McKeon, saw it as an indictment of the education establishment and status quo.  The U.S. Senate’s top Republican, Lamar Alexander, saw it as a call to arms for merit pay.  NEA’s president saw it as rewarding teachers who were successful with children, but according to the Politics K-12 blog didn’t see anything in the speech about merit pay.  The charter school folks were thrilled with what they saw as an endorsement of expansion of charter schools.  Higher ed officials saw their concerns returning to the forefront.  Even voucher advocates had to have a good feeling for a while, until the U.S. Senate ended the DC voucher program late last night.  
The full text of the speech can be found here, so you can come to your own conclusions — <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-the-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce/.
Personally,”>www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-the-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce/.
Personally, Eduflack saw the speech as laying out two very important trains of thought for future activity, particularly the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (which some still hope will happen later this year).  First, it made clear that the status quo will not stand, and we need real solutions from a wide variety of sources if we are to truly improve our schools.  More importantly, though, it was the start of a clarion call for national standards.  With its focus on student achievement, school improvement, measuring teacher effectiveness, and ensuring our schools are preparing all students for the opportunities of the 21st century, the next logical step is national standards (that, and going along with NGA and CCSSO’s ideas on international benchmarking).
This was an important moment because it amplified the federal voice on education policy.  For months now, we have clearly heard EdSec Arne Duncan and his plans for the future.  The president’s address raised the ante, demonstrating that school improvement is a top priority, even in this economy.  And doing it before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce signaled that this is not an issue that will be solved by the education establishment alone.
With all good policy addresses, the devil is in the details.  There were a number of good lines, a lot of good promises, and heaps of great rhetoric in the speech.  We expect no less from President Obama.  The real challenge, though, is how that rhetoric is transformed into policies and initiatives.  How will the Secretary’s Innovation Fund take shape?  How will we measure success in the Race to the Top fund?  What specific new programs will we put in place to close the achievement gap?  How will we hold our SEAs more accountable for all of the economic stimulus funds headed into the states?  How will we use the Teacher Incentive Fund to truly reward and incentivize good instruction?  How will we address college costs in more ways than simply making more dollars available to aspiring students?  How will we measure student achievement, particularly if we are to move beyond one “bubble test?”  And yes, Eduflack fans, how are we to equip all students with proven instruction, particularly in the subject of reading?
For now, the folks down on Maryland Avenue are still busily working on the guidance and regs that are to accompany the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, determining the RFP process for the Race to the Top and trying to figure out how to disperse 40 some odd billion dollars to states without a system in place to cut some checks.  And then they need to focus on staffing, actually getting senior leadership in place to administer our existing federal education infrastructure.
Currently, the EdSec is riding a wave of popularity from the stimulus money and a current national focus on public education.  That wave can soon top off, though, if it isn’t backed up by new ideas, new policies, and new initiatives that move us from idea to action.  We need specifics to rally behind, specifics that call key stakeholders to action and can be put into place in ways that demonstrate real results out of the box.  Good speeches come and go.  Strong programs that improve the way our schools operate and our children learn last forever (or at least until the next administration).
Otherwise, it is just empty rhetoric at a time when we need real action.  The stimulus money was a start, but as every ED official reminds us, that is just a temporary, one-time thing.  It is time for ED to put its long-term policy stake in the ground, moving from words to action.

“Charter”-ing the Course

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, stimulus

We all know that huge sums of federal dollars will soon be flowing into states and school districts throughout the nation.  Courtesy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, billions upon billions of dollars will move into the field in the next month or so, or so says EdSec Arne Duncan and the officials holding the purse strings.

Along the way, we’ve also heard the EdSec speak of the value and virtues of charter schools.  He used the effectively in Chicago, and has said (as has the President) that charters are a part of the fabric of our 21st century public schools.
Just yesterday, Eduflack was asked an interesting question.  Of all of the dollars moving to schools in need through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and boosts in Title I and IDEA funds, how much of that, if any, can be spent on charter schools?  In cities like Washington, DC, cities that are facing significant cuts to charter schools that have been proven effective in boosting student achievement, can these new dollars be used to prevent detrimental cuts to successful charters?
This is one of those questions that I still don’t have a perfect answer to.  After reviewing the most recent guidance from ED on the stimulus funds, listening in on conference calls with ED officials, and generally talking the talk, the answer, at least in terms of the letter of the law, still isn’t clear.  The intent, though, is crystal.  These funds are designed to prevent cuts from public education, particularly cuts that can have a negative impact on student achievement and school performance.  The money is intended to guarantee that successful reforms and school improvements move forward, and no ground is lost to ensure that every child receives a high-quality education.  Doesn’t that include charters?
Like it or not, charter schools are part of that public education patchwork.  In city after city, they are supplementing current education offerings.  Yes, in other cities they have supplanted failing schools, as families turn to new models to provide their children a new chance and a new opportunity.  And charter schools aren’t going anywhere.  If anything, they have gained in terms of both acceptance and popularity, particularly in communities with struggling schools and at-risk students.
Eduflack has previously reported on the research demonstrating how charter schools are able to deliver comparable student achievement results to their traditional public school colleagues, while doing so at roughly half the per-student-dollar cost.  The true success of charter schools has, is, and always will be measured based on student performance.  How do they stand up against traditional public schools?  How do they start demonstrating stronger-than-average gains?  How do we hold states, school districts, and school operators accountable for how they spend their money and for the quality of the instruction they provide?  All are measures that will decide whether charters are a title wave or a ripple in the education reform ocean.
To help answer some of those questions, the Center for Education Reform just announced their 2009 Accountability Report on Charter Schools.  Chock full of both facts and advocacy, the CER report provides an interesting glimpse into the quality of state charter laws and the funding charters are receiving in those states.  The full report can be found at edreform.com/accountability/.    
And what do we see?  Six states earn an A when it comes to its state charter laws.  Six states also receive a D or F when it comes to charter laws (including Eduflack’s home state of Virginia).  And 10 states still have no charter laws at all.  On average, charters are funded at about 65 percent the rate of traditional public schools, with only Missouri coming close to near-equal funding.  (I must say, the state-by-state map is particularly useful.)
CER’s study doesn’t answer our questions about how charters are going to fit into the new world order of ARRA funding, but it does provide some important information on how charters fit into the landscape.  It speaks to the need for strong state charter laws, tough accountability provisions, strong data collection efforts, and adequate levels of funding.  With those pieces, charters can deliver the results so many are seeking from our schools, particularly those in the inner city.
If the economic stimulus money is indeed intended to invest in those efforts that improve school quality and boost student achievement, charter schools really can’t be ignored.  And CER provides an initial roadmap to help State Education Agencies about how to do it with an eye on effectiveness, impact, and results.  As we look to improve public education in the United States, can we really afford not to cast a gaze at effective charters that are demonstrating and documenting real results?  
UPDATE: For those seeking additional information on how charter schools are or can be affected by the economic stimulus package, check out the resources that the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools have assembled — http://www.publiccharters.org/node/619