Home2009(Page 16)

Year: 2009

Flagship University Vs. Local College

Eduflack higher ed, Students

Across the nation, states have established flagship public universities to attract the nation’s best and brightest.  These institutions bring in the top faculty, establish academic centers of excellence, secure significant federal dollars in R&D, and recruit the top students in the nation.  All of this is done to ensure they can effectively compete with both the top public and private institutions, demonstrating a statewide commitment to education, innovation, and results.

These flagship institutions usually work in partnership with a network of public universities to ensure that the academic needs of the state are effectively met.  Regional demands, areas of specialty, and the downright luck of the draw ultimately determine which students end up where.  These variations allow institutions to build diverse student populations, diverse in terms of race, socioeconomic status, geography, interests, and backgrounds.
No university can serve every student.  There is a reason why the admission process is competitive, particularly for these flagship publics.  That’s what make them so desirable.  That’s what puts them at the top of the college rankings.  That’s what ensures the success of their graduates.  That’s what makes them truly competitive, impactful institutions.
And then legislators have to step in and try to screw it up.  Case in point — Virginia legislators and their most recent assault on Eduflack’s alma mater, the University of Virginia.  U.Va. is one of those flagship public universities, regularly rated the top public university in the nation.  Currently, 33 percent of U.Va.’s students come from out of state (a number not out of line with other leading public universities).  These out-of-state students often turn down offers from top private institutions — including the Ivies — to attend Mr. Jefferson’s University.  And they pay handsomely for it, with tuition far exceeding the cost of actually educating them (some estimating that they pay double the actual cost of the education received, to help subsidize the cost of educating in-state students).
Apparently, some believe the enrollment of out-of-staters is unfair to Virginia residents who do not get into U.Va., and must instead settle for Virginia Tech, James Madison, George Mason, and other Virginia state universities.  So much so that legislators are now seeking to halve the number of out-of-state students at institutions like U.Va. to make more spots available to in-state students.  Fellow U.Va./Cavalier Daily alum and WaPo reporter Anita Kumar has the full story this morning — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302641.html?hpid=topnews  
I can understand the frustration students have not getting into their first choice college.  You work hard (or mostly hard) for four years of high school.  You get stellar grades.  You do well on the SAT or ACT.  You believe the world should be your oyster.  You believe you are entitled to go to the college of your choice, particularly if it is an in-state school.
And it is logical for an uninformed state legislator to see the reasoning in that logic, and call for the state to slash the number of out-of-state students and offer more slots to in-state student.  Logical, that is, until you really get in under the hood of how institutions like U.Va. operate.  
Currently, the University of Virginia receives less than eight percent of its operating expenses from the state.  That means those legislators are providing fewer than eight cents on the education dollar to provide a University of Virginia education.  The rest of the funds are provided through tuition (a disproportionate amount coming from those “despised” out-of-state students), donations from alumni (a great number of whom were once those out-of-state students), and other funding sources.  
I’ll admit it, I was one of those dreaded out-of-state students at Mr. Jefferson’s University.  As a graduate of the public schools in West Virginia, i found U.Va. to be the ideal college for me the first moment I set foot on grounds, offering opportunities I simply couldn’t find in my home state.  I ultimately chose it over Princeton University, buying into everything about the academical village.  I watched as costs rose from 113% of my actual education my first year to well over 150% by fourth year.  These were during the harshest of SCHEV battles, and it made me appreciate what I was getting even more.  So this is personal for Eduflack.
If legislators want to deny out-of-state students, that is definitely their prerogative.  But they need to be prepared for the impact.  Slashing out-of-state students means a significant cut in operating costs, particularly if it is not offset by real increases in in-state tuition (and yes, if you want to keep academic standards and faculty, and the state can’t increase its support, the only choice is tuition increases.  Gone will be the times where you can just jack up out-of-state rates to make up the difference).  Alums like me will likely choose to reduce their contributions to the College Fund and other operating funds, believing that students like them are no longer being served by the institution.  And yes, U.Va. will quickly drop in the national rankings, due to lower SAT scores, lower budgets, and lower recognition from peer institutions.  Don’t believe me?  Just take a look at how the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill fell in the rankings after it capped out-of-state enrollments.
Personally, I would love to see U.Va. President John Casteen counter with an offer to refuse the 7-plus percent of funding coming in from the state, ridding the institution of many of the oversight and red tape that comes from the Commonwealth.  Of course, U.Va. would still remain a public flagship, but it would also exert its independence and leadership in higher education.  It would definitely be a Jeffersonian thing to do.
But I am also concerned with the larger implications of targeting U.Va.  The University is an easy target, based on its elitist perceptions, it prominent image, and its sizable budgets.  But it is far from being the largest public university in Virginia.  It may be flagship, but it relatively modest when it comes to institutional size, both by in-state and out-of-state comparisons.  Yes, it had a clear target on its back during those SCHEV years and its battles with Governor Wilder, and it remains a target today, particularly as it is in the middle of a highly ambitious $3 billion capital campaign.
These legislative “considerations” create the impression that public education at Virginia Tech or George Mason or William & Mary or VCU is somehow lacking by comparison.  Stating that a student couldn’t get in to U.Va. and had to “settle” for another public university is a slap at the number of fine public institutions in Virginia.  We should be recognizing the uniqueness of our institutions and identifying regional centers of excellence that allow each of our major universities to shine.  Not every Virginian needs to spend four years in C-Ville to succeed.  And in many cases, better educations and better opportunities can be found across the network of Virginia higher education.
More importantly, though, such legislative interventions put us down a dangerously slippery slope.  With U.Va., the issue is that some students in Northern Virginia  — home to some of the nation’s top high schools and competitive students —  don’t gain admission into the University.  Parents and kids alike believe that is unfair, and blame lack of admittance on those out-of-state students.  Even if those out-of-state students have higher grades, higher test s
cores, and stronger resumes, they are taking slots from over-achievers in NoVa.
What happens when U.Va. reduces its out-of-state pool, and we turn our attention to the disproportionate number of in-state students coming from Northern Virginia.  Do we need special intercessions to increase enrollment of students from Southwest Virginia or Norfolk or Richmond?  Will NoVa students simply become the next generation of those dreaded out-of-state students?  It isn’t as silly as it may sound.
But I greatly digress.  The greatness of public flagship universities is the diversity of its students.  Such diversity prepares students for life after college, challenging them to work harder and do better.  And that diversity includes students from other states and other nations.  If we are to sustain truly excellent higher education in Virginia, we should be raising standards and asking more of our students.  The question shouldn’t be how to reduce the out-of-state student pool, it should be how do we raise in-state student achievement and performance so our residents are outperforming those kids from New Jersey and Pennsylvania that  we seem so fearful of.  We should be doing better, not changing the game to make our standards look better than those next to us.

A Responsible “No, Thanks?”

Eduflack Achievement gap, NCLB, NGA, stimulus

For quite some time, we have heard how the federal economic stimulus package was essential to stabilizing our nation’s economy… and our nation’s schools.  Nearly $800 billion in new funding, with almost 10 percent of that designated for K-12 and higher education needs, is now being readied for implementation.  In our K-12 schools in particular, we’ve heard how such funds are absolutely necessary.  Without federal assistance, and without it fast, we run the real risk of teacher layoffs, school closings, and academic years put in jeopardy.

Eduflack has already opined on the need to get the proper systems in place to ensure that these federal economic stimulants are being dispersed efficiently and are spent wisely.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/02/20/how-do-we-disperse-ed-stimulus-dollars.aspx  But recent days have posed a question that few anticipated when the House and Senate were negotiating priorities and spending levels.  What happens if a governor says no to his or her share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
Who would say no to such a sizable check, particularly one that doesn’t have ponderous new regulations and oversights attached to it?  Well, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been publicly discussing saying “no, thanks” to the feds.  Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is apparently considering the same thing.  And there are likely a handful of others (presumably all Republican governors) who will offer the same thinking, saying it is irresponsible for them to participate in what they view as an excessive, irresponsible federal funding program.
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard such debate.  Several governors originally decided to opt out of Goals 2000 money, resisting federal involvement in what they believed should be local decisionmaking in public education. Similar discussions surfaced at the start of the NCLB era, with states resisting what they perceived as increased federal oversight and significant unfunded mandates.  Such threats were empty, though, as states eventually all lined up to receive their earned share of what was previously the largest federal investment in K-12 education.  The largest, that is, until now.
Do Louisiana’s public schools — particularly those in the Recovery District — not benefit from increased Title I and special education funding?  Does Minnesota not gain from increased funding for teacher incentive programs and added dollars for colleges and universities?  Does either state (or any of the remaining 48, for that matter) not gain from ARRA funding, securing the dollars (for education and beyond) needed to fill the gaps caused by shrinking property values and depleted state coffers?
If Governor Jindal refuses ARRA money in Louisiana, it won’t save the taxpayers in the Pelican State a dime.  Their federal income taxes will not be reduced a penny because they are not participating in ARRA.  Their legislature can’t simply turn to alternative funding sources with a different sense of priorities or reduced accountability to fill the funding gaps.  We’ve passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act because we had nowhere else to turn.  This was our last, best chance to stabilize our social structures, particularly our public schools.
At this stage of the economic game, it is irresponsible for some governors to flippantly say “I’ll pass” when it comes to their state’s share of the stimulus package, particularly with regard to K-12 education.  Their schools need it.  They need dollars to fund teachers, keeping quality educators in the classroom and providing them the ongoing PD and support they need to do their jobs effectively.  They need money for instructional materials and technology to keep students on task as they acquire the skills they need to achieve.  They need funding for data systems and accountability measures, so we can improve instruction and monitor student progress.  They need coin to improve their school buildings and increase access to the Internet.  And they need the checks to meet our obligations when it comes to Title I, special education, and innovations necessary to continue to improve both access and quality of public education.
I recognize that individuals are already using stimulus funding to position themselves for upcoming elections, whether it be re-election in two or four years or a step up the ladder (yes, even for president) in 2012.  But sometimes responsible governance requires doing the responsible thing, and not necessarily the popular thing.  And sometimes it means setting aside partisanship to do what is best for the populace.  That doesn’t mean turning one’s back on stimulus money, it means ensuring that the money you receive is being spent wisely, aligned with both state needs and state priorities.  it means proving the critics wrong and showing such funding can be used responsibly and with focus on real impact and return on investment.
A smart governor can, will, and must use these stimulus dollars to improve public education in their communities.  Smart governors don’t say no when they are offered a strong helping hand (and a large check) at a time of real need.  And a really smart governor steps up an offers to take Louisiana or Minnesota’s share if they take a pass.  Our schools are hurting.  The money’s been approved.  If some states don’t want their share, there have to be others that are willing to “sacrifice” and put additional funds to use.  I’m sure Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour wouldn’t mind Louisiana’s share.  Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would clearly benefit from Minnesota’s share.  And California’s Governator would gladly take both states’ cuts to apply to the Golden State’s budget.
   

How Do We Disperse Ed Stimulus Dollars?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, NCLB, NGA, Reading First, stimulus

By now, we’ve all hear the numbers.  Under the state stabilization fund, $53.4 billion for our governors.  For Title I, $10 billion.  Special education gets $12.2 billion.  The School Improvement Fund, $3 billion.  Head Start comes in a cool billion dollars.  With $250 million for state data systems and $200 million more for the Teacher Incentive Fund.  And then there are the subcategories.

There is no getting around it.  This is a massive injection of new cash into our nation’s public education system.  With a sweep of the pen this week, President Obama has more than doubled federal investment in K-12 education, providing our nation’s governors and their chief state school officers with enormous power as to how these new piggy banks will be broken into and what new local buckets will receive the shiny gold coins.
But it begs an enormously important question.  How will the funds be dispersed?  The buzz around the education community is that money will be distributed quickly, with initial chunks going out to the states before the end of the summer.  At the same time, we know that the U.S. Department of Education has yet to staff up, at least in terms of an undersecretary, deputy secretary, and virtually all of its assistant secretaries.
Some of this money will simply be spent using existing funding formulae.  The federal government and the states already have clear systems for dispersing and allocating Title I and special education (IDEA) funds.  Those systems will hold when it comes to getting the $12.2 billion in sped money and $10 billion in additional Title I funds out to the districts it is meant to stimulate.
But what of the state stabilization fund?  Does it require a new structure and a new relationship between the federal government and the states?  Does it require specific rubrics for tracking how funds are spent, ensuring they are not supplanting existing federal dollars and are delivering return on investment when it comes to both stabilizing the financial situation of our schools and boosting student achievement?  Do we even have a mechanism for the feds to cut these stabilization fund checks to the states in quick order?
One assumes that each governor will need to appoint an individual (or an office) in the state to serve as the point person for negotiation with the U.S. Department of Education on the stabilization fund.  Most think this point person will be the chief state school officer.  But in some states, we know that is likely not going to be the case.  Such a point person could reside in the governor’s office, the state board of education, or even the economic development office.  It could even be an outside consultant or group.  There is no one-size-fits-all implementation model here, at least not one evident in the new federal funding structure.  So how does it happen, and how does it happen so quickly?
In recent years, the closest model we have to implementing such an effort was the establishment of the Reading First funding program, as the previous Administration looked to quickly disperse $1 billion a year in new reading dollars.  Moving at lightening speed, it still took nearly a year to establish those state relationships, gain documents from the states on how the funds would be spent, and then write the checks and get them out there.  That was a billion dollars, and the funding was staggered as states tried to get their plans in order (some took well more than a year to get approved work plans in there, some moved more quickly).
And we saw how successful the implementation of that program was.  Moving too quickly, we opened the system up to abuse and the perception of mis-spending and mis-directed priorities.  Originally, ED promised swat teams prepared to go into those school districts receiving RF money, ready to evaluate if the money was being spent as intended and prepared to pull the funding if it was not.  Maybe we’ll follow through on the promise with state stabilization funding squads.
Now we are talking about a scope more than 50 times in size, on an implementation far faster than RF ever envisioned.  Maybe the RF model — and its means for dispersing funds to the states — is they system on which to build this new effort.  What is clear is there is a lot of work ahead for both ED and the states to make sure this economic stimulus money.  Everyone is waiting see the guidelines for new federal spending and how the money flow will be managed and monitored.  We need to move quickly, yes.  But we also need to move smartly.  
The stimulus package makes a major statement with regard to future investment in K-12 education and public school improvement.  It restructures the role of localities, the states, and the federal government in the process.  And it sets clear priorities for the pathways we must take if we are to make lasting improvement and invest this money as intended.  
Eduflack is a results guy, no question about it.  Process always takes a backseat for me, particularly when we have outcomes in the driver’s seat.  But this stimulus package — and the state stabilization fund — cry out for a clear, comprehensive, closely monitored process that ensures swift action, efficient spending, and documentable return on investment.  How do we make sure money is getting to the schools and students who need it the most?  How do we make sure we are using money to supplement existing programs, and not merely replacing existing state funding commitments?  How do we make sure we are having a true impact, beyond the dollar tally?
As more and more details on federal stimulus funding become available, we need to ensure we are getting such details on the process.  Now is not the time to follow a “trust us” philosophy.  We’ve all seen where that has gotten us before.

The Measure of a Successful Graduate

Eduflack AFT, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, national standards, NGA

This has been an interesting week for national education standards and firm performance measures.  We celebrated President’s Day on Monday with AFT President Randi Weingarten making the case for national standards on the opinion pages of The Washington Post — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021501257.html.  She makes a compelling case, a case that Eduflack and other have been making for quite some time.

It also flows nicely from the report issued by NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve at the end of 2008, focusing on the need for the United States to pay closer attention to international benchmarking, a push to effectively capture the right data so we know how our students are performing when compared to their academic colleagues in other industrialized nations.
Yesterday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland raised the ante a bit more, calling for an overhaul of the state’s Ohio Graduation Test, citing concerns that nearly one in 10 Ohio high school seniors fail to pass the OGT (after multiple attempts at success).  The full story can be found from Denise Smith Amos at the Cincinnati Enquirer — news.cincinnati.com/article/20090217/NEWS0102/902170316/1055/NEWS.  
It should be no surprise that some in Ohio are already wondering if changes to the OGT mean increasing standards and expecting more from our students (as is Strickland’s stated objective).  Typically when we talk about improving student assessment measures, it means one of two things.  The first is the fear we will ask for more from our students (as is happening in Ohio).  The all-to-often reality is it usually means a weakening of the standards, dropping expectations to ensure that more students are hitting the magic number and schools are reaching their AYP benchmarks.
But the Ohio experience raises a very interesting question.  Can our states provide an effective “graduation test,” one that is expected to measure the full value of a high school education, in the 10th grade?  Obviously, we aren’t testing students on the math and science concepts that are traditional in 11th and 12th grade classes (including Algebra II, Trig, Chemistry II, Physics, or even advanced life sciences).  In some locales, it means not measuring world or U.S. history.  In each and every school, a 10th grade “graduation test” only serves as half of an effective measure.
Yes, Eduflack understands the need to provide students a second chance to pass this important test.  Yes, I realize the stakes are high, particularly when you say a student can’t earn a diploma without demonstrating sufficient performance on a single test.  But can a test taken in the middle of one’s 10th grade year effectively measure the comprehensive learning acquired during the secondary school experience?  Can a graduation test taken two years early truly help postsecondary institutions and employers know the full skills and abilities of the students exiting our K-12 systems?
The answer is clearly no and no.  We tell every student that they need a high school diploma.  We tell them that dropping out is never a viable option.  More states are even shifting to an 18-year-old age requirement for students to drop out.  But how do we expect students to take their full high school experience seriously if we tell them in the spring of their 10th grade year (not even the mid-way point of the high school experience) whether they have passed or failed high school?  History tells us that “failure” tag is not one that inspires students to buckle down and do what it takes to pass on the second or third try.  Quite the opposite, it provides students an excuse to give up, whether then remain in the classroom or not.
Critics will obviously say that there is no effective way to administer a comprehensive exam and effectively evaluate students at the end of 12th grade; we simply don’t have the time to do it right.  It won’t be fair to students that they be denied their diploma because they failed an exam a week or a month prior to graduation, they say.  Students won’t have multiple opportunities to take the exam, working to fix what may have gone wrong.  Teachers won’t have the opportunity to provide the necessary interventions to fill the gaps.
That’s where concepts such as national standards come in.  Yes, we should know what every 10th grader (as well as other students) should know and be capable of doing at the end of an academic year.  Those standards are core to a successful K-12 learning experience.  If students are meeting standards at the end of 8th grade and 10th grade, they should be prepared to meet the challenges of a true graduation exam in 12th grade.  If they are off the mark come 10th grade, educators have two years to intervene and empower students with those educational building blocks they need to succeed.
Yes, Governor Strickland, the OGT is not rigorous enough.  Kudos for trying to do something about it.  Part of the problem is the nature of standardized testing.  Part of that is the reality that we cannot effectively measure high school performance less than halfway through the experience.  A truly rigorous graduation test requires measuring courses and content gathered in 11th and 12th grade.  A true exit exam, offered near the conclusion of 12th grade, may seem as the highest of the high-stakes test.  But it is the only way to truly measure whether our graduates have the skills and abilities holders of a high school diploma should have.  It is the only way to demonstrate to our postsecondary institutions and our local businesses and industries that K-12 graduates are capable of doing what we expect of each and every graduate.
National standards give us the regular, ongoing benchmarks to ensure we are hitting the academic marks we need to hit throughout the K-12 process.  Effective data systems — such as those being built in some states and those advocated for by the Obama administration through the economic stimulus process — provide us the information and the research necessary to ensure our kids are hitting those marks, while providing teachers the guidance on necessary interventions and needed steps to bring all students up to proficiency.  And meaningful, rigorous graduation exams, administered at the close of the high school experience, are the final measure to ensure the impact and effectiveness of that K-12 education.
This is not an either-or-maybe scenario.  We need the national standards, the data systems, the exit exams — and the policymakers, administrators, and teachers who know what to do with it all — if we are to regain our competitive edge and restore real value to a high school diploma.
If we are to deliver real return on investment for our school improvement efforts, we must take assessment and data seriously.  We can’t wait this out and assume it will get better on its own.  We need to get serious now about teaching, measuring, and evaluating the effectiveness of public education.  

Cutting Off Our Thumbs …

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, ELL, Students

We all recognize that state departments of education are hurting.  Even once they receive a significant financial booster shot from the federal stimulus to help pay for core instructional needs, states are still looking for places to trim, cut, or generally push back on.  Usually, we think that such cuts should first be directed at those areas considered expendable, the sort of luxuries our schools want, but just can’t afford during these belt-tightening times.

Who ever would have thought that such expendable programs would be English Language Learning efforts in the state of Arizona.  Unbelievable, but true.  Over in the Grand Canyon State, the state superintendent has recommended that the Arizona Legislature remove $30 million in ELL funding from the state budget, a nearly three-quarters cut in what was intended.
The full story can be found in the Arizona Republic — <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/13/20090213horne0213.html.
Eduflack”>www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/13/20090213horne0213.html.
Eduflack is not going to quibble with State Supe Tom Horne that Arizona is making great strides in ELL instruction.  I want to believe that Arizona school districts are doubling fluency rates under current efforts, and more and more students are becoming English language proficient.  I even want to believe Horne when Arizona will see “a dramatic increase in the percentage of students becoming proficient in English quickly.”
But our actions often speak far louder than our rhetoric.  Last year, Arizona provided its K-12 schools $40 million to implement new ELL provisions, state standards that many say require at least $275 million to staff and equip with fidelity.  So as the districts start to demonstrate improvement, even very early in the process, our response is to cut funding because clearly the program has already demonstrated effectiveness and accomplished its intended goals?  Foolishness.
Like it or not, the ESL population in states like Arizona will continue to grow.  School districts will continue to face increased needs to deal with non-English speakers, integrate them into the schools quickly, and ensure they are gaining core instruction in math, science, and even literacy in their native language as they are trying to learn English.  This is not a luxury or a value add.  This is a non-negotiable, particularly in states like Arizona, Texas, and others in the Southwest.
Instead, Arizona is now looking at establishing new ways to determine English language proficiency of its students.  This is akin to states that have dramatically lowered their state academic standards in math and reading to meet AYP requirements.  Changing the standard doesn’t get more kids proficient, it just gets them to pass a test.  And those kids who aren’t proficient are the ones that will struggle in school, may ultimately drop out, and will be unable to attain and retain good jobs that will pay the rent and support a family.
Let’s hope the Arizona Legislature takes a close look at its citizens, and its taxpayers, and realizes that Superintendent Horne’s request is a lose-lose-lose position.  It is a loser for the schools, who will be forced to deal with a growing problem with fewer dollars.  It is a loser for the students, many of whom have come to the United States for that better education and opportunity in the first place.  And it is a loser for the state, as they sacrifice a significant portion of the next generation of taxpayer and worker, the very engines that will drive the Arizona economy in the decades to come.

Advocating for Meaningful STEM Education

Eduflack Math, NGA, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

Earlier this week, www.ednews.org ran a Commentary from Eduflack on how to advocate for meaningful STEM education, particularly at the state level.  The article was originally found here — ednews.org/articles/33615/1/Advocating-STEM-Education-As-a-Gateway-To-Economic-Opportunity/Page1.html.  Thanks also to Fritz Edelstein and the Fritzwire for spotlighting the piece.

I’ve received a lot of response from folks on the piece, so I thought I would repost the original EdNews piece here, crediting EdNews as the publisher.

Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway To Economic Opportunity

By Patrick R. Riccards

Effectively integrating Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education and its impact on the economic opportunity into the culture is more important today than anyone ever anticipated.Our nation’s recent economic struggles, coupled with concerns about career readiness and 21st century jobs, have refocused our attention on infrastructure – both physical and human.At the heart of rebuilding our nation’s intellectual infrastructure is a STEM-literate society, and students equipped with the STEM skills needed to succeed both in school and career.

But implementing a STEM education effort isn’t as easy as it seems.To some, STEM is a retread of education programs offered decades ago or a recast of vocational education.To others, it is something for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, not for every student.To overcome these obstacles, states and school districts are forced to move into a mode of advocacy and social marketing, effectively linking K-12 education and economy and demonstrating the urgency for improvement to both.

Education improvement no longer happens in a vacuum.Call it communications, advocacy, PR, or social marketing, it all comes down to effective public engagement.For education reform efforts across the nation, ultimate success is more than just educating key constituencies about their cause and goals.True success requires specific action – implementing improvements in partnership with educators and other stakeholders to boost student success, close the achievement gap, and ultimately prepare every student for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century workforce. Such actions require us to move from informing the public to building commitment for a solution, and, finally to mobilizing around specific actions.

Making stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for STEM education is one thing.It is quite another to move the public to the more sophisticated level of informed opinion necessary to reach consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action of investing in a K-12 STEM agenda.But this is how great education reforms move from simply good ideas to great successes.

Before we can get audiences to adopt STEM education efforts and embrace the portfolio of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them aware of the issues at hand.The informing stage makes people aware of the issue, developing a true sense of urgency for change.

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.Unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that can be done to fix these problems. Those states that are poised to become leaders in STEM education must convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential employers, 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.

Ultimately, we do this by showing the enormous need for reforms in “schools like mine, in classes like mine, with kids like mine.” By focusing on past successes and proven-effective methods, educators can demonstrate the critical role STEM plays in our schools, economy, and community, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand the serious risks they face simply accepting the status quo. Thanks to groups like the National Governors Association (and a number of forward-thinking states) and the National Math and Science Initiative, such efforts are well underway.


Next, we shift into phase two — building commitment.Once parents, educators, and policymakers recognize the problem, they are ready to commit to a meaningful solution.Transforming a general need for improvement into a public call to arms for STEM education requires understanding that these solutions are the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

Inevitably, some people will reject proposed reforms. Some will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that come from choosing a specific plan of action. Opponents will try to poke holes in specific reforms. 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.

After moving beyond initial resistance, stakeholders begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.Decisionmakers need to feel that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.Successful advocacy clarifies the pros and cons of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation.In Colorado, for instance, STEM leaders are working with business leaders and the P-20 Council to explore opportunities and make specific choices to meet the state’s educational and economic needs.

With that, we are finally ready to move to phase three — mobilizing for action.Changing attitudes and informing the debate is not enough. STEM 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 – ideally actions that are easy and feasible – that supporters can take to help reach overall goals.

If history tells us anything, we know the public may agree that reform efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt specific recommendations.This is
temporary, though.Given time, incentives, and opportunities to consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, stakeholders can reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of the importance of improving education opportunity for all.Now is the best time to make sure that there is a role for everyone to play in education improvement, giving stakeholders the tools and information needed to move themselves and others from awareness to action.

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. That is why too many groups, causes, and reforms struggle to develop true public engagement efforts that affect real outcomes.That’s where the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action model comes into play, offering education leaders one of the most effective methods to implement meaningful education solutions. Applying this model to STEM efforts is critical and will offer long-term impacts on strengthening our schools, our community, and our economy.

(Patrick R. Riccards is CEO of Exemplar Strategic Communications, an education consultancy, and author of Eduflack, an education reform blog.)

Published February 9, 2009

“Pink Friday”

Eduflack PD, Workforce

With all of the talk about the federal economic stimulus package and its specific education provisions, there seems to be a common belief that education funds (particularly those block grants and discretionary moneys going directly to the state) have little impact on employment (or unemployment) across the nation.  For those not involved in K-12 education on a day-to-day basis, we just can’t see that school districts would look to lay off teachers in the middle of an academic year.  After all, who has the vision of a classroom full of students, lacking a certified educator at the front of the room?

Unfortunately, it is an all-to-real reality.  As states and districts face massive budget crises, personnel cuts are often the first thing to consider.  After all, human resources make up more than 80 percent of our school operating costs.  Between salaries, health benefits, and retirement costs, keeping a teacher in the classroom costs far more than the meager wages many of them take home every week.  So cutting a teacher here or trimming another educator there can mean real savings for a school district in a financial pinch.
Case in point, California.  By now, we’ve all heard about California’s dire financial situation.  Virtually every program is faces the budgetary guillotine.  State workers are being told to take unpaid leave.  The state legislature even recently considered a California-wide ban on the purchase of all instructional materials (textbooks, software, etc.) for two years in the hopes of saving upwards of half a billion dollars a year (the ban was defeated at the end of the legislative session in November, but is likely to be revisited with the new legislature this year).
Last year, during better economic times, California’s public schools issued initial pink slips to 10,000 public school teachers, with nearly 5,000 of them ultimately losing their jobs.  This year, with financial realities in the Golden State far worse than they were in the previous (the latest is an $11 billion shortfall for K-16 education), we have to expect the number of notifications and the number of layoffs  to rise dramatically.
Fortunately, some are looking to throw a spotlight on this issue, reminding California residents that the fate of their school teachers is at risk.  Using the power of the Internet, Stand Up for Our Schools has launched Pink Friday 2009, a collection of online tools, blogs, and discussion forums focused on March 13 — the deadline for California school districts to issue preliminary pink slips to educators.  Check them out at www.pinkfriday09.org/  
Even if you aren’t a California resident, Pink Friday is an endeavor worth a quick look.  It reminds us that the economic stimulus package is about more than tax cuts, school construction, and even $300 million in “green” golf carts.  It’s also about ensuring that our school districts have the funds to provide a high-quality education to all students.  And that starts with teachers.  We may not want to believe that educators will get caught in the middle of these budget fights, and that teacher layoffs could become a reality in far too many states and districts, but it is a grim truth.  Shrinking state coffers mean layoffs of public sector employees, and that includes teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals (even those in our beloved neighborhood schools).  
By this afternoon, we should know the full details of the economic stimulus package, including how much money is available to support teachers in the classroom and to provide school districts the needed financial resources to maintain their budgets and ensure that high-quality education and good teaching continues (particularly in those communities with the most at risk), even during such economic times.  Without such an investment in teachers, do we really think the next generation of students will be up to the rigors and challenges of the next economic crisis?  
This is not just an issue for current teachers working in today’s classrooms.  This is a topic that everyone — every state and local policymaker, every business leader, every parent, and every taxpayer — should pay close attention to.  When it comes to investing in our schools, priority number one has to be the teacher.  Without effective instruction, state-of-the-art buildings, the latest technology, and the greatest of instructional strategies will have minimal impact.

Running Schools as Businesses?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Workforce

We often hear “if only we ran our schools like businesses …”  Over at USA Today this morning, they ran a snapshot of data collected as part of Deloitte’s 2008 Education in Business survey of 300 business executives and 300 educators.  The results should be surprising.  Among business executives, 82 percent say the U.S. education system would become more efficient and effective if it ran like a business. Among educators, that number drops to 56 percent (though still a solid majority).

Eduflack has done more than his fair share of focus groups and polling of American industry and knows all too well that corporate executives do not believe that today’s high school graduates are adequately prepared for the jobs that are to become available.  There has long been a disconnect between K-12 and our economic engines, and that shows in surveys like this.
But what exactly does it mean to run our schools like businesses?  Will our school districts be more effective if they are run like the banking, mortgage, or auto manufacturing industries?  Are we looking for a business model like Nordstrom’s, Macy’s, or Target?  Are we offering lessons from Ruth’s Chris or McDonald’s?  Are we learning from all the businesses chronicled in “Good to Great” or just those that haven’t enacted massive layoffs or declared bankruptcy?
The simply answer is that we simply cannot run our public schools like businesses.  Our public schools cannot refuse service to customers (students) they don’t wish to serve.  Our schools don’t invest in the research and development that most industries require.  We can’t choose not to locate our schools in certain communities because of low incomes or low return on investment.  We can’t hire and fire employees at will, nor can we reward those for a job well done or penalize those for one poorly done.  We can’t tap financial reserves or lines of credit when our budgets dry up (unless we are talking about bonds for construction or capital projects).  We can’t compete for customers, with local schools doing whatever it takes to win over parents and students for their business.  We can’t match supply with demand, requiring us to bus some kids great distances to their schools.  And we can’t even ensure return on investment, as schools are focused on inputs and processes, over outcomes and results.
Running schools as businesses is one of those great “straw men” issues that we often through out there as a substitute for talking about reforms or targeted improvement.  There are well run businesses and poorly run businesses.  Same goes for schools.  There are good CEOs and good superintendents.  There are union and non-union workforces in both.  There are competitors (for the schools, they would include charters and private education alternatives).  
At the same time, though, there are few businesses that are committed, let alone required, to serve each and every customer in the region (even those who may be difficult to serve).  There are few businesses that have their products and services closely regulated by the local, state, and federal levels.  There are few businesses that put their resources where they are least needed (like high-performing schools), while keeping their best employees away from the areas that need good help most (like our urban centers).
Can our schools learn from business best practices?  Absolutely.  We can invest more meaningful R&D.  We can provide teachers the ongoing training and professional development needed to adjust to the changes in the profession.  We can adjust our product (instruction) to meet the changes in our community and in our marketplace.  We can focus on ROI, measuring that all students are getting the education products they are promises.  And we can even offer satisfaction guarantees, where students or future employers can seek additional education or training if we find our graduates lack the skills one associates with the degree earned.
At the end of the day, there is no magic bullet for running American businesses and there certainly is no such solution for running our public schools.  Education can learn a lot from business, both good and bad.  But more efficient and effective?  We still don’t have universal agreement on what efficient and effective means in public education.  We can’t agree on how we measure student achievement or whether such performance is the measure of a school or a teacher.  And if our economy is any indication, our confidence in the efficiency and effectiveness of American business seems to be at an all-time low.
School improvement shouldn’t be about adopting a new “business” model or acting more business-like.  Like good businesses, our schools need to solve the problem.  Successful schools understand their customers, have a handle on their resources, know what their problems are, and identify and implement targeted, proven reforms to solve the problem.  Instead of stockholders, they answer to families and the local community.  Instead of stock prices, they measure themselves based on student learning and achievement.  And like any forward-looking profitable business, they are never satisfied with the status quo.
  
 

Golden Reading Results in the Golden State

Eduflack Arne Duncan, PD, Reading First, SBRR

For the past few weeks, Eduflack has been heartened to hear that the Obama Administration and EdSec Duncan are behind a continued federal commitment to reading instruction.  Yes, we all know that there were severe implementation problems with Reading First, and that such problems have led many a RF critic to demand the defunding of the program and the dismantling of our promise to do what works when it comes to reading, empowering every child with the gift of literacy.

Anyone who has read this blog for more than a week or two knows about my commitment to scientifically based reading.  A few weeks ago, I laid out a basic plan for how the Obama Administration can use the best of Reading First, while learning from its failures, to build a better federal reading effort.  You can see the full thought here — blog.eduflack.com/2009/01/27/whats-next-for-federal-reading.aspx  
I’ve spent much of the past three years or so talking about the need to save RF.  Many times, I’m asked why.  Look at the IG investigation, I’m told.  Look at the IES study.  Look at the fights scientifically based reading research has caused.  Why would we want to save this?  For one simple reason.  It works.  And our kids are too important not to invest in what is proven effective and not to ensure that our teachers are using the very best instructional methods and have access to the most effective PD (rather than the hot flavor of the month or what a salesman is selling on that particular day).
Last fall, the U.S. Department of Education released a study that showed the effectiveness of Reading First.  Contrary to the IES study, this Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) study demonstrated real results of evidence-based reading in RF and non-RF classrooms alike.  We’ve talked about the data in Idaho and Ohio and other states that have benefited from an influx of federal reading money and a commitment to proven-effective instruction and professional development.  Now we have even more to talk about.
For those doubting Thomases out there, take a look at the latest research out of the great state of California.  Released more than a month ago, the California Reading First Year 6 Evaluation Report hasn’t gotten much attention (particularly here in our nation’s capital).  But it is worthy of the spotlight.
This is not just a water droplet in the great pool that is education improvement.  This study looks at data involving 157,951 students; 16,442 teachers, coaches, and administrators, 850 schools, and 110 school districts across California.  What did the good researchers out on the West Coast find?  Among the conclusions:  
1) Reading First has had a significant impact on student achievement in California.
2) The Reading First effect is meaningful.
3) Reading growth remains significant.
4) The Reading First effect generalizes across student performance levels.
5) Reading First significantly impacts grades 4 and 5 performance.
6) The Reading First effect generalizes to English learners.
7) Implementation of Reading First principles remains adequate but could be higher.
8) Principal participation and teacher program evaluations are strong predictors of achievement.
9) The Reading First program has led to the development of a sustainable, well-integrated structure and process of providing reading/language arts instruction in California.
10) Most special education teachers use their district’s adopted reading/language arts curriculum.
11) Schools have not yet begun to implement Response-to-Intervention (RtI)
The full report can be found here: www.eddata.com/resources/publications/RF_Evaluation_2007-2008.pdf       

</div><div><br></div><div>So”>

So why is this important, other than the obvious that with so much RF money spent in California that it is good to see it has been put to good use and has provided?  It provides us with some valuable lessons as we consider how to build the next generation of federal reading instruction efforts.
First, evidence-based instruction works.  It has had an impact across California on virtually all student demographics, including special education and ELLs.  And despite the findings of IES, it is effective with the later elementary grades (as evidenced by its impact on California fourth and fifth graders).
Second, we have clear room for implementation improvement.  California achieved these results while acknowledging that fidelity to the principles could be better.  One can only imagine the true, measured impact if every one of those 850 schools had adopted RF completely and with absolute fidelity.
Third, educators are the key to effectiveness.  Principal and teacher involvement is a predictor of achievement.  There was a reason that up to 25 percent of RF money was intended for professional development.  It was to ensure those involved teachers put the full power of the research to use in their classrooms.  When they do, the results follow.
Fourth, RtI — seen by many an education profiteer as the next great profit center — still has not taken hold in California.  And if it hasn’t taken hold in Cali, it will be slow to truly go to scale across the nation.
Finally, we need federally supported reading instruction based on the core principles of proven research and effective, content-based professional development.  OPEPD showed us that the heart of RF was having a lasting, positive impact on our schools, whether they receive RF money or not.  Data from states like Ohio and now California show the power that evidence-based reading can have on student achievement.  Now is the time to build on those successes, documenting best practice, continuing to train teachers, and getting our classrooms the instructional materials and resources they need to teach reading effectively.
Yes, Reading First is dead (and deservedly so because of its implementation problems, perceptions of programmatic favoritism, and the opportunity for profiteers to sell snake oil under the guise of research).  But now is the time to open up that last will and testament, see what the law has left for policymakers (federal and state), teachers, and students, and use that inheritance to build a better, stronger, more effective program for our nation’s classrooms.  Our work is not done until every child is reading at grade level.  And we still have a long way to go before we get there.  Thankfully, California and others are leaving us the trail markers to help us get to our ultimate destination.

Getting to the Heart of DCPS, Part II

Eduflack AFT, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

A friend and colleague raises a very interesting, cogent, and all-around dead-on point regarding DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post (written about previously today).  How can a commentary piece like this be successful if there isn’t an “ask” involved?  There was no sale, there was no request for one’s vote, so wasn’t it a wasted opportunity?

In the general sense, I would agree with her every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  So it really has me thinking that I’ve let Rhee off easy this morning (in part because I think I see the larger end-game than is reflected in her 700 words).  Successful communications — whether it be a meeting, a speech, a commentary, or a conversation — requires maximizing opportunity.  When you are given access to the opinion pages of one of the top daily newspapers in the country, you need to take advantage of that.  Given the forum, if you fail to ask for something, it is a missed opportunity, no?  Isn’t that Sales 101?
Not necessarily.  That’s why I raise the question of intended audience.  We can only truly gage the effectiveness of a commentary like Rhee’s if we understand who she is trying to reach, first and foremost.  From the tone, the content, and the context, it is fair to say Rhee was not speaking to DCPS teachers, the parents of DCPS students, or even the regular reader of The Washington Post.  She wasn’t looking for votes for her alternative pay structure, nor was she looking for PTAs to rally behind her efforts in the name of DC’s students.  No, I would argue that her intent was much more primal than we would think.
Rhee had two goals here.  One, she remind key decisionmakers of her relevance and of the innovation behind her proposed teacher pay plan.  Thus, her only intent was to inform.  She wasn’t looking to sell or get buy-in.  She already has that buy-in from federal lawmakers, DC officials, and leaders at key education organizations.  She just needed to goose them a little to remind them of what she was doing and demonstrate that it fits with the new world order that took over federal education January 20.  She needed to show that in a golden federal education age that will spotlight Teach for America, New Leaders for New Schools, KIPP, ProComp, and others, she was still at the top of the reform class.
Second, she needed to reassure her potential funders.  It is no secret that Rhee has lined up significant corporate and philanthropic support for her plans at DCPS.  These donors are ready, willing, and able to support the sort of innovation she is advocating for and has been talking about since her arrival in DC almost two years ago.  This audience would be her soft spot today.  She needs to keep these donors on the line, even though this transformation is taking far longer than originally intended.  Today’s piece — and its intended crosswalk with upcoming federal education policy — was likely intended to remind those funders that this plan will work, DC will be at the forefront, and this is a model that others will follow (and one that will ultimately be embodied in national priorities coming out of a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, along with a realignment of Title II).
If you look at it that way, the only ask or the only sale that Rhee is seeking is one of patience.  She needs her supporters to continue to trust her while she goes to the mattresses with Randi Weingarten and the AFT.  Today’s piece tried to position DC’s reforms on the side of angels, fighting the union to do what is best for teachers.  But if we were expecting Rhee to ask for help or support from rank-and-file teachers, principals, parents, CBOs, or the community at large, we were looking in the wrong place.
This was a strategically placed commentary designed to serve a specific purpose.  That purpose was not to amplify the drumbeat for public support nor was it drive new stakeholders to specific actions to help reform DC’s ailing public schools.  And that’s the cryin’ shame here.  
We all know Rhee isn’t in the business to make friends or to build consensus.  I appreciate (and applaud that).  But she needs a broader tent and a larger group of allies if she is going to succeed, particularly when it comes to implementing what is a complex and controversial idea (assuming she gets it passed the AFT).  While her piece in today’s WaPo serves a very specific purpose, it uses a water cannon to deliver what required a delicate pin prick.  And unless the Post is going to give her a weekly column, that does constitute a wasted opportunity of sorts.  Too many people will read today’s commentary not knowing its intended audience or purpose, triggering far more questions and concerns from those audiences on the periphery.