Year: 2009

Racing to the Top?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

Back in March, everyone held high hopes for the billions of dollars moving from the feds to the states through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF).  Since the release of the economic stimulus package, EdSec Arne Duncan has focused on the need for innovation and improvement, improvement and innovation.  So much so that you’d think that SFSF was actually funding innovation and improvement.

Unfortunately, a recent GAO study has found that SFSF funds are not exactly going to the sort of innovation and new programs we originally dreamed about a few months ago.  Short-term stimulus dollars are going to plug existing holes and, in most places, are going to fund teachers and other long-term, non-discretionary school expenses. 
So it is no wonder that attention has no turned to the Race to the Top (RTT) Fund and all of the new dollars that will be directed to the states to improve student achievement and break the chains of the status quo in public education.  RTT is seen as the latest in big dollar federal education programs, the latest sugar daddy in a long and distinguished line.
The current talk is that the draft RTT RFP will be released by the end of the month (july 31), followed by a short public comment/review period.  By fall, states will be busily assembling their RTT applications, with most seeking the big dollars to turnaround low-performing schools and introduce their struggling school districts to the ideas of innovation and improvement.  If the plan holds, RTT dollars will be delivered by those ED armored trucks by the end of January 2010.
Obviously, the SEAs are going to be asked to address ED’s four pillars of policy: 1) standards and assessment; 2) data systems; 3) teacher quality; and 4) school turnaround.  The RFP is likely to look like those states addressed with Reading First nearly a decade ago the supposed proposals they were asked to provide on SFSF earlier this year.  States will pledge to improve student performance and close the achievement gaps.  They’ll promise to track their progress.  They’ll prioritize the lowest performers and the historically disadvantaged.  And they will have plans, boy will they have plans.
But how can ED make sure that the SEAs are truly going to focus on outcomes, and not simply to inputs?  How do we move from plans to results?  How do we hold SEAs accountable for their promises, ensuring that RTT dollars are actually resulting in student achievement and gap closures?  How do we guarantee that RTT leads to return on investment, with state and local actions charting a course for scalable improvements and innovations that chart the course for the wholesale turnaround that Duncan is looking for?
And how do we do so on the current timetable?  Offering a few weeks during the summer for public comment and review is likely to stretch beyond the planned timeline, extending into the fall.  If past experiences are any guide, the execution of RTT will take longer than expected.  States won’t get the funds until the spring of 2010, after spending for the FY2010-2011 budgets have already been determined.  That means that fast-tracked RTT funds won’t make their way until our schools until the 2011-12 school year.  Two more school years may pass before our local decisionmakers have real dollars in their hands to implement the improvements and innovations Duncan and other officials at ED are calling for now.  Two more years of status quo and mediocrity.  Two more years of our most struggling schools and students muddling through a system that has failed them to date.
So how do we rectify the two?  How do we serve as responsible stewards of new funding while demanding real results from the get-go?  How do we get new dollars into the field as fast as possible, while avoiding the implementation problems of the past?  How do we use RTT to bring about real, meaningful change instead of just continuing the status quo?
There is a great deal riding on RTT.  For many out there, we are looking for this new funding program to bridge the gap between innovative rhetoric and status quo action.  For many, RTT serves as the blueprint for charter schools, alternative certification, improved teacher quality, and data systems.  It will move us from the bare minimums of the adequate in AYP to the higher expectations of student achievement for all.  It is a way for districts in need to break the pattern that has resulted in decades of struggles, providing them the opportunity to do what is new and what will actually change school outcomes for the better.  
Is that what we will see at the end of the month?  Is that what we will see in the final RFP after key stakeholders get to weigh in and have their say?  Currently, Duncan is riding the wave as the reigning Mr. Congeniality in education.  At some point, he will have to take a hard stand that results in some stakeholders disliking him or getting frustrated with the policy borne of the rhetoric.  The big question is whether he will frustrate the reformers or the status quoers.  Will RTT result in the innovation we’re all talking about, or will it support the same old-same old that SFSF is propping up?  The end of the month will be a telling road marker.  Using the bully pulpit is easy.  Moving that vision into policy and funding programs is hard.  

“Against the Grain”

Eduflack Uncategorized

Chalk it up to a long week after a working holiday weekend.  Credit a lazy Friday that officially starts with a 7 a.m. meeting.  Or just attribute it to a general sense that we are lapsing into a general sense of status quoness, as too many seem to be looking for the shortest path to simply check the boxes, rather than engage in meaningful efforts to make long-term improvements.  Eduflack is a little punchy this AM.

Not to be confused with my ringtone (Elvis’ A Little Less Conversation), I’ve got my personal theme song running through my head.  Thanks to the great country philosopher Garth Brooks for etching these lyrics into my education advocacy soul.  So I share with everyone, in the hopes that some will be unable to get the song (Against the Grain) out of their heads (for those that even know it, as it is one of the least promoted, but best Garth songs out there).
“Against the Grain”

Folks call me a maverick 
Guess I ain’t too diplomatic 
I just never been the kind to go along 
Just avoidin’ confrontation 
For the sake of conformation 
And I’ll admit I tend to sing a different song 
But sometimes you just can’t be afraid 
To wear a different hat 
If Columbus had complied 
This old world might still be flat 
Nothin’ ventured, nothin’ gained 
Sometimes you’ve got to go against the grain 
Well, I have been accused 
Of makin’ my own rules 
There must be rebel blood 
Just a-runnin’ through my veins 
But I ain’t no hypocrite 
What you see is what you get 
And that’s the only way I know 
To play the game 
Old Noah took much ridicule 
For building his great ark 
But after forty days and forty nights 
He was lookin’ pretty smart 
Sometimes it’s best to brave the wind and rain 
By havin’ strength to go against the grain 
Well, there’s more folks than a few 
Who share my point of view 
But they’re worried 
If they’re gonna sink or swiim 
They’d like to buck the system 
But the deck is stacked against ’em 
And they’re a little scared 
To go out on a limb 
But if you’re gonna make a difference 
If you’re gonna leave your mark
You can’t follow like a bunch of sheep 
You got to listen to your heart 
Go bustin’ in like old John Wayne 
Sometimes you got to go against the grain 
Nothin’ ventured, nothin’ gained 
Sometimes you’ve got to go against the grain

Happy Friday!
 

Community Investment in Education

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Gates Foundation, IES, national standards

For years now, those in the education community have noted that education R&D just doesn’t get the love that R&D in other industries — particularly healthcare — receive.  Yes, we throw a few pennies (in the global sense) at the issue through the Institute of Education Sciences and a few private sector interests, but investment in true education R&D is a pittance.  It should come as no surprise, though, as attention to real, measurable, scientific education research is a relatively new issue (and we still haven’t figured out how to adequately focus on the D side of education R&D).

All of the talk and action around healthcare reform has Eduflack thinking.  The Obama Administration is looking to offer a major shift in how we deliver healthcare in this nation, seeking to improve quality and access in one shift action.  Like it or hate it, healthcare is moving.  Stakeholders are seeing the need for change.  We’ve outlined the action steps for improvement and, supposedly, innovation.  And we are moving toward it.  To help such a monumental effort continue to move forward, the Administration has gained the rhetorical support from major entities such as the pharmaceutical industry and the nation’s hospitals.  More importantly, they’ve gotten these stakeholders to ante in, with the pharmaceutical industry offering $80 billion and hospitals throwing in $155 billion toward the effort.  The thought is real reform cannot happen by government fiat alone. 
Why doesn’t such thinking carry over into public education?  When we look at national reforms in education — changes designed to boost student achievement, access, and quality — we look solely to the federal government for the dollars.  Look to implement core standards in the 50 states, our SEAs will turn to the feds for the money to follow through.  Call for an injection of innovation in the classroom, recognizing that following the status quo path all these many decades hasn’t gotten us very far, we provide an address where the federal government can send the check.  Demand change, reform, improvement, or any of the above, and we look to the U.S. Treasury to make it all happen.
Yes, the US Department of Education is seeking a $5 billion commitment from the philanthropic community to match the $5 billion the feds are willing to invest in education innovation.  Yes, groups like the Gates Foundation are now looking to throw in $500 million to dive deep into teacher quality in a select group of school districts.  But in the grand scheme of things, are these significant investments to education improvement — on par with those PhRMA and the hospitals are providing to healthcare reform — or are they simply nibbles around the edges of the major issues at hand.
Ultimately, it falls on folks like the EdSec and other to utilize the bully pulpit to draw attention and commitment to the issue of education improvement.  In recent years, we’ve done a damned fine job informing virtually every stakeholder audience of the problems in K-12 (or even P-16) education.  We’ve even started building commitment for some of the changes that are needed to improve the quality and impact of education delivery in the United States.  But we are still struggling to mobilize those audiences around those specific changes.
Why?  We are still struggling to show those audiences what specifically they can do to deliver on those changes.  What action steps can I take to improve the system?  What do I prioritize?  What do I do?  What do I fund?  To what do I hold my members accountable?
After much trial and error, we’ve learned these issues in healthcare, which is why we are now getting rhetorical and checkbook buy-in from the pharmaceutical industry and the hospital industry to move reform.  But we still haven’t learned this in education.  We are still looking for the ultimate Sugar Daddy — the federal government — to let us know what to do, how to do it, and then provide the dollars for it.
If we expect plans to improve public education to truly take hold and have the impact we all seek, we need to call on all stakeholders to play a specific role in the development, implementation, and funding of it.  If the past eight years has taught us anything, it is that the feds can’t do it alone.  We need the help of teachers, administrations, higher education, business leaders, community organizations, families, and students.  We need their support.  We need their advocacy.  And we need their financial support.  Each stakeholder may not play a starring role, but they play a role in improving our public schools.  Now’s the time for all to step up and make that role their own.  
It doesn’t matter if they’ve received a golden-gilded invitation to the game or if they are crashing the gates.  You can’t complain about the final outcome if you aren’t ready to step up to the plate.  The feds can get the ball rolling, but it is going to fall to all of those stakeholder audiences to sustain, build on, and cultivate additional improvements.  
  

Some Main Street USA Reality

Eduflack Arne Duncan, AYP, stimulus

Sometimes, our national education policy debates become very “Beltway-centric.”  They are discussions among federal policy leaders and national education voices, between influencers and devil’s advocates, between those who have power and those who seek it once again.  Too often, we focus on in the inputs and who is seated around the table, often forgetting those we are affecting and those who will be asked to carry out the very policies being put into place in Washington.

Eduflack was reminded of that last evening.  I had the privilege of sitting down with members of a town council and a local school board up in New England.  Like far too many communities, they are struggling with both the economic and the educational challenges of 2009.  A town with a rich history, they’ve seen home values dramatically decline (by more than a third in two years), they’ve struggled to meet AYP (particularly in math), and they are finding it hard to communicate their community value to those who are looking for new communities to live in, despite their proximity to a major city and their strong quality of life.  They want to make sure there are real job opportunities for their kids in the future, but they aren’t sure how to ensure it.
It is a diverse community, growing more diverse by the year.  As a result, the schools are forced to deal with growing demands of ELLs, both as students and as parents.  The school district has implemented an ambitious school improvement plan, seeking to address struggles in math and ELA proficiency with lower student-teacher ratios, full community involvement in the schools, and a community-wide commitment to improvement and innovation.  They have a clear vision of where they want to do; they now just need the roadmap to get there.
Their challenge is this great nexus between economic and educational factors.  Too often, we believe education operates in a vacuum.  We do things because they make sense on paper (or worse, because others tell us it looks good on paper) without realizing how it fits into the larger picture.  In communities like this, we see the ongoing continuum generated by the economy/schools intersection.  School improvement requires additional dollars, money beyond the stimulus and Title I dollars offered by the federal government.  That money comes from local government, which relies on property taxes to get there.  Housing values decline.  Housing sales slide.  And the community has fewer dollars to do all of the things it does — police, fire, transportation, social services, and yes, education.  So in a downturn, we are looking to reinvest in the schools, making them stronger so new families want to relocate in the community because it is a district on the rise, yet we struggle to find the dollars to execute.
Fortunately, in many towns like the one I visited yesterday, they have a real story to tell, offering a rich history with a clear plan of where they want to go.  They have a loyal local business community, dedicated municipality officials, and schools committed to doing what it takes to improve.  Are they happy with their AYP or their standing on state exams?  No.  Are they throwing up their hands, saying that a community with their challenges is a lost cause?  Of course not.  They are acting.  They are looking to innovate, within the confines of their human and fiscal realities.  They realize the status quo won’t cut it, and are looking for new ways to teach, new ways to learn, and new ways to share their story with those in the community and those who may join the community.  They see this as a joint effort, with school and town working with local business, local churches, and local families and community leaders to move forward.
A few months ago, there were some guffaws around EdSec Duncan’s planned “listening tour.”  They grew a little louder when we learned that the EdSec was actually doing the listening on these visits.  He wasn’t going into communities to tell them what he was doing or to explain what they needed to do to fit his goals.  He was listening to their experiences.  He listened to stories of the fiscal troubles in communities like Detroit, where the schools are now facing bankruptcy.  He was, supposedly, greatly impacted hearing the tales of learning and school improvement in our Native American community.  Hopefully, he is hearing stories like those I heard last evening, understanding how federal action is but a small part of actual turnaround and improvement.  He is realizing the collective responsibility, from the feds down to the localities, we all have in real innovation.  And he is appreciating that his goal of turning around the 1,000 lowest performing schools starts with those actual schools, and does not come with a trickle-down of federal policy, dollars, and well wishes.  It comes through empowerment, support, and investment beyond the annual checks.
I walked away last evening feeling better about the possibilities.  In recent weeks, the details about federal education “improvement and innovation” had me feeling that there was little truly new and innovative happening.  Aside from a renewed interest in charter schools, we were dealing with retreads of ideas of the past, talking about issues like mayoral control and inputs-based changes, hopin’, wishin’, and prayin’ that those inputs would result in improved outcomes.  History tells us they rarely do.
So it was refreshing to hear directly from a local community that was taking the future into their own hands, committed to a turnaround plan built specifically for their community, supported by those in the locality, and addressing their real needs (and not the needs of a program officer in Washington).  They understand the stakes have never been higher, and they are prepared to ante into the game and do what is necessary to improve education — and the lives — of the students of both today and tomorrow.
No, what I heard is not unique to this community.  It is a tale that can be told of communities across the nation, where education improvement and innovation is underway, and has been before the influx of stimulus dollars was made available.  It is told of those cities and towns that realize the schools are the heart and soul of the community, and require real attention and commitment.  And hopefully, it is a tale that the EdSec and his staff are hearing as part of their listening tour, helping them see how they can help encourage and enhance current efforts, and not get in the way of real innovation.
 

Sunshine on Core Standards

Eduflack accountability, ACT, College Board, national standards, NGA

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about the core standards movement and how “public” the development of these national standards will truly be.  Those who see such standards as a needed pathway to lead us to real, tangible improvement and focus on quality believe the process is just underway.  Those who see monsters under the bed and hear things that go bump in the night are certain that the deck is already stacked, the standards are already written, and we’re merely going through the motions.  

If core standards are like most education “movements” in Washington, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Yesterday, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers announced a new website for information on all things related to core standards — www.corestandards.org.  The new site provides a few pieces of interesting information, including a tentative development schedule and those involved with its development.
Currently, the Common Core Standards Initiative (as dubbed by NGA and CCSSO) is sticking by its story that college- and career-ready standards will be completed by the end of the month, by July 2009.  Such an aggressive timeline may lend a little credibility to the notion that these standards are already in the can, pulled mainly from work already done by Achieve, College Board, ACT, and others.  More interestingly, the Initiative is also promising grade-by-grade standards work will be completed by the end of the calendar year, or by December 2009.
In looking at the members of both the Work Groups and the Feedback Groups, one thing is clear.  Grade-by-grade standards will be limited to English-Language Arts and mathematics.  By the end of the year, we will not have grade-by-grade standards for science, social studies, foreign languages, arts, or any of the other subjects that our K-12 students are currently engaging in.  How do we know?  Both the Work Groups and the Feedback Groups are divided into two camps — mathematics and ELA.  Eduflack can’t imagine that the math groups will be working on science standards, or the ELA groups will be working on social studies expectations.  So for now, our core standards are designed to model our current AYP efforts.
That isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  Moving AYP beyond grades three through eight into a full K-12 education continuum is an important thing.  But if we are going to truly get buy-in for the core standards (and more importantly, get states to adopt them and the common assessments that will need to be developed with them), we need to hit all of the key subject areas.  In Eduflack’s home state of Virginia, for instance, we can’t have core standards for math and reading, but then offer the state’s SOL for social studies.  It just doesn’t make sense for the long term.  The minds behind the Core Standards Initiative understand that, but we are still waiting for the explanations and the timetables that will align with all of the other academic subjects our students learn.
It seems most of the heavy lifting will be done by the Work Groups.  So who is on these groups?  A run-through of the rosters (available on the website) shows teams consisting primarily of staff from Achieve, College Board, and ACT.  Student Achievement Partners made the cut, and America’s Choice has a few slots in there (which may also speak to why outgoing Arkansas Schools Chief Ken James is headed to America’s Choice), and there is an academic or two added to each for good measure.
The feedback groups represent a strong list of academics and researchers who know the literature and the research base behind the subject matter.  The ELA Feedback Group, for instance, has two members of the National Reading Panel, as well as the chair of NRC’s reading research effort. 
Folks are going to read into this announcement what they want to.  Some will continue to question the sunshine put on the process and whether the “education blob,” particularly the content-area organizations, will have a real role in the development of the proposed standards.  Others will question whether their is a particular political slant to the approach.  And still others will beat the drum that classroom educators, the ones who will ultimately need to teach to these standards, are not represented at all.
Regardless, it is a first step.  The second step is seeing the work product that will be released at the end of the month.  But soon, we’ll be expecting to hear how the Initiative is going to address subject areas beyond math and reading.  Soon, we’ll want to hear how these standards will be incorporated into current and future curriculum.  And real soon, we’ll need to start discussing how one assesses student proficiency of these standards.  A long to-do list, particularly in light of potential ESEA reauthorization this fall.  Time will tell ….

Innovation, Ed Tech, and ISTE

Eduflack 21CS, STEM, technology
In most education circles these days, the focus is on school improvement, common standards, and, most importantly, innovation.  Doing things the way they have always been done (albeit with additional dollars) is simply not on the current agenda.  From the EdSec all the way down to building leaders, we are looking for new ideas, new approaches, and new solutions to break the hold of the status quo and bring lasting improvement to our schools.
When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law, much was said about the proposed investment in education technology.  Some tallies put the investment in technology at $900 million, particularly when one factors in the dollars going to the creation of new state data systems.  Those dollar signs had many people immediately dreaming of new computer labs, smart boards, and other pieces of hardware to strengthen the learning environment.
But those who have been around the block a time or two on ed tech realize that simply putting more computers in the schools does not necessarily yield the student performance gains we’re all seeking from our new education investments.  It isn’t the technology as much as what we do with the technology that matters.  Its the outcomes that are important, not the inputs.  
That point is being driven home this week at the International Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) in Washington, DC.  This is the 30th anniversary for both ISTE (an organization for which Eduflack advises) and NECC.  Many of those outliers in the ed tech field would say that the glory days of education technology are behind us, enjoyed in the late 1990s when we invested in broadband and one-to-one computing.  But if NECC turnout and energy is any indication, the true glory days for education technology have yet to come.
In recent months, we’ve heard how education conferences are in a downward spiral.  Shrinking budgets have resulted in school districts slashing conference budgets and eliminating out-of-district travel.  Yet NECC’s attendance this year is UP compared to last year.  More than 12,000 educators are gathered in our nation’s capital to explore ed tech topics.  And many of those educators are here on their own dime, realizing that the conference may be one of the strongest content-based professional development opportunities available to them.  For those who can’t get over to NECC, you can check out a wealth of resources at www.isteconnects.org.  
As part of this year’s NECC, Eduflack sat down with ISTE CEO Don Knezek to talk about some of the policy issues the education technology sector is facing, including:
Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT)
Established nearly eight years ago by Congress, EETT is a Title II-funded program designed to “improve student achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary grades.”  Much of EETT funding has gone to professional development programs and public-private partnerships designed to enhance the use of technology in the classroom.  It sounds like a terrific program, and one that closely aligns with federal priorities around school improvement and innovation.
Unfortunately, EETT has never been fully funded.  The program was intended to be a $1 billion a year effort, a vision never realized.  This year, the President’s budget allocates EETT at only $100 million, a figure that is also being offered by appropriations leaders on Capitol Hill.
“The battle for the dollar amount of EETT is not over,” Knezek said.  While he is concerned about current EETT funding, Knezek said ISTE members and educators across the country will work to get Congress to act and raise the funding for this necessary program.  (ISTE is actually sending 500 educators to the Hill this week as part of its Storming the Hill effort, and EETT is likely a hot topic for these concerned educators.)  “I’m disappointed with the [President’s] recommendation, but I hope it doesn’t represent a backing off of technology as a priority.”
Common Standards and 21st Century Skills
Citing technology’s role in “enriching accountability systems,” Knezek conceded that we are “pretty far away from addressing 21st century skills and technology” in the current common standards debate.  “It will be a long time before they get to a set of standards that address 21st century skills,” he said, ” but if they develop common standards that address change in the disciplines, yes we will see it.”
Specifically, Knezek sees a pressing demand to redefine current academic disciplines (all subjects, not just math and science) so they are framed in a 21st century environment.  If we can do that successfully, we’ll be in a position to integrate technology and 21st century skills into a national academic standards framework.
Knezek also raised some interesting questions for policymakers, decisionmakers,and influencers as we move forward.
* How does the education technology field show enough leadership for change?
* How do we demonstrate the key role technology plays in improving learning and student engagement?
* How do we successfully promote appreciate for co-learning, where both teachers and students benefit from the use of new technologies?
* What do students need to achieve to demonstrate 21st century skills?
* How do we really incorporate technology in STEM education?
It is hard to imagine we are in a position where we need to identify the relevance and impact of education technology on school improvement, but that is really where we are.  Groups like ISTE are now fighting to demonstrate that they are part of the improvement and innovation solution.  Ultimately, success may come if we move from discussions of hardware to discussions of its applicability.  How are we using new technologies to improve instruction?  To improve teacher training and support?  To better track students?  To better target interventions?  To generate real student achievement gains?  And when we do, how do we know we’ve done it?  Those are the sorts of questions we need answered for ed-tech to move from a third or fifth priority in minds of most superintendents to a first or second priority.
“We are clearly changing the structure of where are going for instruction and instructional experiences,” Knezek said.  If he is right, then those who are most able to adapt to the constant changes in standards, demands, and expectations will be those making the most difference.  Unfortunately, the best and brightest are not necessarily those who survive.  Like most fields, evolution is the name of the game when it comes to education technology in the 21st century.

The Effectiveness of IB

Eduflack accountability, AP, AYP, High School, Math, national standards, NCLB, Science

Each year, we see the high school “rankings,” finding that those schools with a high preponderance of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB ) programs tend to do the best.  The greater the penetration of such programs and priorities, the higher a high school ranks.  Over the years, though, the education community has begun to ask the question about true results or the true impact of these programs. 

A decade ago, many a high school student collected AP courses like baseball cards, knowing that AP today meant college credit tomorrow.  The eduwife actually entered Stanford University as a sophomore because of all of the AP classes she took (and the fives she secured on the exams), allowing her to spend her fourth year out at the Farm gaining her master’s degree.
But times have changed.  Many colleges are now saying that even a five on an AP course is not the same as successfully completing the college course.  We’ve shifted from awarding college credit to simply allowing students to waive out of core requirements.  
The situation has always been even more murky with IB.  IB was never intended to provide college credits in a way AP does.  Designed decades ago, the program was created to ensure that students received a rigorous, comprehensive, and relevant high school learning experience.  By maximizing the time in high school through the IB curriculum, young people would become better students, better scholars, and better citizens.  
So how does all that translate when it comes to postsecondary education?  Many a college admissions officer knows that an IB graduate means a strong college candidate.  They are prepared for postsecondary work.  They are motivated.  They’ve been challenged.  They are inquisitive.  And they are able to do more than fill out bubble sheets or choose from a list of five answers.  They are scholars and learners, not merely the processors of information.
In past years, Eduflack has had the privilege of working with IB on a number of issues.  Being me, I would always ask about the research.  How do we know IB is working?  IB would say that the proof is in their alumni network.  One knows IB works when you see the complete IB graduate.  It is not just what they know, but how they apply it.  Those who complete an IB program usually move on to college.  And the IB high school instructional model has been so successful in teaching and motivating students that it has resulted in the development of both elementary and middle grades IB programs.
IB has never been about longitudinal research models.  They know the program works.  Their scholars know it works.  Their teachers, who undergo rigorous training and ongoing support, know it works.  And the schools that adopt it know it works.  They don’t need a medical-style research model to prove what they already know.  No, IB isn’t for everyone.  But those who do adopt it are better for it.  And despite the urban legends, IB isn’t just for the rich schools in the suburbs or for the uber-motivated.  IB works for all students who are motivated enough to seek a high-quality, rigorous educational program that provides the content and the skills to perform well after the IB program is completed.
But this is an era of research and of doing what is proven effective.  One’s word or one’s track record isn’t enough.  We need third party data to prove our effectiveness.  And now, IB has some of that as well.  In recent days, IB announced the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) findings of its International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project.  What did EPIC find?  
* IB is “highly aligned” with the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards
* The IB Diploma’s key cognitive strategies — critical thinking skills, intellectual inquisitiveness, and interpretation — were found to be fully aligned with the expectations of university faculty
* IB math (algebra, trigonometry, and statistical standards) were completely aligned with KSUS
* IB science (chemistry, biology, and environmental science) were completely aligned with KSUS
Alignment is important.  But the data on results is even more compelling.  As part of the EPIC announcement, IB revealed that more than 80 percent of those completing the IB high school program graduate from college within six years, a rate leaps, bounds, and high jumps above the national average for high school students.  IBers are college graduates.  And there are few, if any programs, we can make that statement about with higher certainty.
IB has been one of the best-kept secrets in school improvement and innovation.  We don’t talk about it, but IB’s year-on-year growth in the United States over the last year has been the stuff on which folks write Harvard case studies.  Those teachers who have gone through the training are true believers.  Those students who secure the Diploma are real-life success stories.  And those districts who make the investment quickly realize that the cost is worth it, gaining both quantitative and qualitative return on investment almost from the get-go.
Perhaps IB’s greatest challenge is how it fits into the current environment of improvement, reform, and innovation.  IB succeeded in the NCLB years, in part, because of the misperceptions of who it was targeting.  Since many didn’t see its applicability for those students who were being left behind (despite some tremendous case studies of how IB programs have turned around schools and really helped students from historically disadvantaged groups), the program was left to operate on its own.  It connected enough with AYP and with state assessments that it was a viable alternative for those wishing to pursue it.  But it simply wasn’t seen as a solution for that bottom quartile of students, particularly with NCLB’s focus on the elementary grades.
Today, IB is at a crossroads.  As a nation, we have set hard goals for improving high school graduation rate and college attainment numbers.  The EPIC data demonstrates that IB could be one of those solutions custom-made for rising to the occasion.  The IB training and development model is one that can be used as we look to new ways to improving instruction and preparation for all teachers.  The real challenge, though, is how IB fits into the new call for common standards.  How will the IB framework align with the high school standards currently being pursued?  How do IB assessments dovetail with the assessments that will come out of common standards?  How does IB demonstrate value-add, and not add-on?
Only time will tell if IB is up to the challenge.  It has the opportunity.  It has the track record.  It can display its strengths.  Now is the time for International Baccalaureate to show it is an exemplar of best practice, and not merely a niche program.  It has the pieces.  IB just has to bring them all together for a compelling story that solves the problem so many school decisionmakers are facing.

Bolder, Broader Accountability?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, NAEP, national standards, NCLB

The announcement last month about common standards and the work undertaken by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers seems to have captured the attention of most in the education community.  For those entering their first rodeo, they are worried about how these new standards will be applied and are worried about how they will be applied next year, even before the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Those who have done this dance enough times know that the work is only just beginning.  The current common standard focus on high school exit expectations will have be walked back to first grade or kindergarten, providing common standards for the full K-12 effort.  With those standards, we’ll also have to build the assessments that go with it, how we measure both what is being taught and what is being learned in the classroom.
One of the top concerns about common standards is that the current framework seems focused exclusively on reading and math skills, much as NCLB’s AYP provisions were.  We assume that science will be added.  We hope to fold in social studies and other academic subjects.  And the recent release of the arts NAEP last week gives us hope that there is a chance that we will truly gage student proficiency on all of the issues and topics addressed during the school year.
Adding to this discussion is a new report out today from A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.  BBA’s approach is a simple one.  School improvement cannot be measured by test scores alone.  There are additional quantitative measures, as well as a number of qualitative pieces, that should be factored into current efforts to improve the schools and support our students.  (Full disclosure, my company has been providing counsel to BBA and its leadership on these issues.)
The full BBA Accountability Report can be found here.  But I’ll recap the highlights:
When it comes to accountability, BBA calls on the federal government to:
* Collect state-level data — from an expanded NAEP or from other national surveys — on a broad range of academic subjects, as well as on the arts, student work habits, physical health and fitness, mental health, citizenship habits, and other appropriate behaviors that will enable students to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
* Improve the disaggregation of NAEP and other survey data, where appropriate, to include immigrant generation, parent education, and national origin.
* Maintain NAEP’s low-stakes character to preserve its validity as an indicator of relative state performance, barring its use as an individual-level test for accountability purposes
* Require states to develop accountability systems that rely upon scores on states’ own academic tests and other key educational, health, and behavioral indicators, along with approved inspection systems to evaluate school quality.
And for BBA, it falls to the states to:
* Improve the quality of state assessment, particularly in reading and math, so that assessment results can plan an appropriate role in school evaluation.
* provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that contributions to satisfactory student performance in academic subject areas, as well as in the arts, citizenship, physical fitness and mental and physical health, work, and other behavioral skills that will enable them to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
Provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that appropriate resources and practices, likely to produce satisfactory student achievement, are being followed and promoted.
* Intervene for the purpose of improving schools and district performance where it is unsatisfactory.
There are few that are going to feel lukewarm or ambivalent about BBA and its recommendations.  EIther you’ve drunk the Kool-aid or you are a true nay-sayer/doomsdayer.
True believers are going to embrace this as the fix to what is perceived as a severely flawed accountability system in NCLB, a model that only looks at reading and math, a model that only looks at grades 3-8, a model that fails to account for other academic subjects, other social developments, and other factors that impact the potential and success of the student and the school.  The broader, more comprehensive approach to assessment gets us closer to the multiple measures many states were pursuing before AYP became a primary word in their vocabulary.
Others will absolutely hate the approach.  They will fear that BBA is looking to weaken current accountability models, and are claiming that adequate assessment of math and reading proficiency should no longer be a priority.  It “softens” our current measurement efforts.  It places the qualitative over the quantitative.  And it turns back the accountability clock to when it was every state for itself, with each jurisdiction offering up some version of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  it seeks to deal a setback to one of the real successes of the NCLB era.  And the idea of an “inspectorate” that will parachute in to evaluate our schools will win few friends in the “reform” movement.
Will these recommendations become the centerpiece of ESEA reauthorization, either this year or sometime in the next decade?  Probably not.  But by throwing a spotlight on accountability at this stage of the game, BBA begins a very important debate when it comes to reauthorization.  How do we effectively measure school improvement?  What are the inputs and the outcomes we should be focused on?  How do we define success?  How do we measure success?  How do we capture the full picture, knowing that curricular changes alone cannot get us to the intended destination?  How do we take issues like 21st century skills and STEM and figure out how to effectively layer them into the common standards and the assessments that will come along with those standards?  How do we ensure that all parties, from the classroom up and the feds down, are actually being held accountable for student learning and student achievement?  All are important debates we must have now, if a reauthorized ESEA is indeed an improvement over the current.
Debate is a good thing.  Discussion is a good thing.  Even disagreement is a good thing when it comes to school improvement.  We need choices and different ideas.  We need devil’s advocates and loyal soldiers.  We need to seriously consider our choices (as well as weigh what has worked and what has not in the past) if we are to put real, lasting, meaningful improvement in place.  So if BBA is lighting the match to start some of these debates, we are better for it.
And for those who think that these accountability recommendations won’t hold any water with the Obama Administration and EdSec Arne Duncan, take a look at the following video clips.  Both candidate Obama’s and President Obama’s rhetoric seem far more like that of a true believer than a nay sayer.  This may have more legs to it than it originally appears.
  

Reauthorization Timetable?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB

It is always a fun game to ask those “in the know” when they expect the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to be reauthorized.  In 2007, we saw several draft bills that some thought were indications that reauth would happen before the elections.  Those drafts quickly stalled, and we started talking 2009, 2010, 2011, and beyond.

Recent reports had been tagging ESEA – and yes, most are now referring to it as ESEA and not NCLB – reauthorization for as late as 2011.  The thinking has been that 2009 is slated for healthcare reform, 2010 has a student loan priority, so ESEA must be coming along in 2011.
The reauthorization waters have only been muddied further with discussions on economic stimulus, Races to the Top, common standards, and such.  Some will even go as far as to say that common standards is the priority, and the push for national standards will simply be put into place through EdSec caveat, without the need to codify under ESEA.  After all, EdSec Arne Duncan has made it pretty clear that he is relatively content with NCLB, needing just some minor tweaks to funding priorities and programmatic emphasis.
But Eduflack is starting to hear a different story with regard to reauthorization.  It is a major priority for the EdSec and his senior staff.  So much so that the current plan is to make ESEA reauthorization a Capitol Hill priority this fall, with hopes of signing the new law into the official record in the early part of 2010.  So we are facing a possibility of 2009 reauthorization after all.  The game is back on.
If the schedule holds, many are going to be caught by surprise with the accelerated schedule.  The education chattering class is thinking reauthorization is months away, and is putting their attention on other issues and other priorities.  If the new ESEA process is really just months away, the education blob has a great deal of thinking to do.  Summer school is in session, and those who want their voices heard during reauthorization better be ready to advocate loudly and clearly when the new school year starts this fall.  Otherwise, they could be left behind for another five to eight years. 
(And as for the new name, today’s WaPo made clear that NCLB moniker has been put to bed.  Earlier this year, Eduwonk held a rebranding contest, receiving more than 700 entries.  Check out the best of the best here.  If only naming were our biggest concern.)
    

Reading First, Last, and Forever

Eduflack AYP, IES, NAEP, Reading First, SBRR, stimulus

Sometimes, it is just tiring being Eduflack, particularly when it comes to the area of reading instruction.  Time and again, I’ve pledged that I’ve written my last post on Reading First.  Between the IES study and Congress’ dismissal, RF has been written off for dead more times than a cat on her ninth life.  It seems the final nail in the coffin has been hammered time and again over the last year or two.

But then along come a series of actions that just make you see that while the Reading First brand may be dead and buried, its impact and its infrastructure are not going anywhere.  The bright spot is Understanding Reading First, a new white paper from MDRC.  The piece is worth a quick read.  No, there is no groundbreaking data or unread news in the document.  But it is a strong summation of RF, its foundations, and some of the results.
And read in the current context, it also shows that scientifically based reading research may indeed have a longer shelf life than any of us, including those stalwart supporters, ever thought was possible.  Thanks to the economic stimulus money in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, states and school districts are now discovering they can use their newfound education riches to extend RF-based programs for another year or two.  In fact, some could say the spending on reading coaches, scientifically based instructional materials, and professional development for reading teachers is exactly what ARRA is intended for.
Then we have the data, including the state research that has come from bellwether states like California, Texas, Ohio, and others demonstrating the positive impact that RF has had on student achievement.  Couple that with last fall’s RF study from the US Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) and there is more than enough strong data to show that the original IES study was flawed and one has to look at its nil finding with skeptical eyes.
Now we can mix in the K-12 reading instruction bill that has been circulating around town, which I am still trying to brand “Yes, We Can Read.”  Thanks to key education groups and key congressional leaders, we are actually working on a literacy bill that will build on RF’s elementary school focus and offer a reading continuum from preschool through high school graduation.  Even more important, the draft language being circulated around Washington, DC reflects a strong crosswalk with the SBRR language in the original Reading First.  An expansion here, some rewording there, but the intent and the embrace of the research is still there.
Hopefully, Understanding Reading First will get more attention and play than those that came before it, particularly the OPEPD study.  There is a growing pool of research demonstrating that RF worked, particularly when you factor in the positive impact it has had on schools and classrooms that didn’t receive specific dollars for Reading First programs.  Across the nation, all schools adopted scientifically based reading instruction and materials.  All teachers were trained in the research methods.  And virtually all kids benefited from it.  And for those who don’t want to listen to the state data, the NAEP results, or the results of other such assessments, MDRC reminds us of that once again.