Year: 2009

DCPS, Interstate Tests, and Such

Eduflack Uncategorized

Although Eduflack is spending the week with the larger family of 11 (including three children under the age of three) at an undisclosed location about 120 miles from our nation’s capital, that doesn’t keep me from thinking education thoughts.  Tops, this morning, is the data release coming from NAGB and NCES.  This morning, NAGB released its NAEP scores on music and the visual arts.  For those who say that all we, as a nation, are assessing is math and reading achievement, it is worth checking out.  The eighth grade data on the arts, including the information and school data related to student achievement in the arts is worth checking out.  The full The Nation’s Report Card: Arts 2008 can be found here.

But there are other issues rattling around the Eduflack mind:
DCPS and Michelle Rhee
A good chunk of yesterday’s Washington Post was dedicated to Michelle Rhee.  The reason — her second anniversary at the helm of District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS).  The full story can be found here.  The piece definitely depicted a softer tone and rhetoric for Rhee, refocusing on her commitment to the kids and academic achievement, and softening her stance on getting rid of “bad” teachers and principals and the infamous Time magazine cover story, with the chancellor “sweeping up” schools in our nation’s capital.
Most recognize the power of charter schools in DC.  As part of her charge, Rhee was expected to slow the exodus to charter schools and keep DC’s students in the traditional public schools.  That’s why she’s been looking to close persistently struggling schools, giving students a better chance of attending a better public school.  But since Rhee’s takeover of DCPS, the school district has lost nearly 10 percent of its total students (a 4,000 drop of 49,000 original students).  We don’t need disaggregated data charts to tell us that those students are moving into charter schools, particularly with the transformation of the city’s Catholic schools into public charters.  Education is one of those few businesses where losing 10 percent of your customers in two years doesn’t seem to cause any concern.
Anniversaries are nice, but the true measure of Rhee’s reign will be the student achievement data to be released this summer.  This would be the second achievement report for Rhee.  Last year, scores were up, and the Rhee administration took full credit.  Fact of the matter, former superintendent Cliff Janey deserves some of the credit, as his programs, put in place years before, bear some of the responsibility for improvement.  Rhee does get some credit, simply because teachers and students embraced what was new and demonstrated a new enthusiasm for learning in the first year.
Personally, I don’t have similar hopes for year two.  The closing of schools, the removal of principals, the fights between DCPS and the teachers union, and the lack of “newness” don’t bode well for 2008-09 student data.  Reformers need to be prepared for the fact that there may be a dip in DCPS student achievement.  We’ve seen it time and time again, where years two and three are the struggle, and the true measure of reform is seen in the out years — years four, five, and beyond — once the reforms have truly taken hold and can have a longitudinal impact on a wide number of students.  Here’s hoping Rhee bucks the trend, but we need to be prepared for the fact that DCPS scores may not demonstrate the steady rise so many presume is a given.
Duncan and Interstate Testing
Speaking before many of the nation’s governors last night at an education summit hosted by the Hunt Institute, EdSec Arne Duncan spoke on his plans to obligate $350 million to go toward the development of interstate reading and math assessments.  This is step two to the common standards movement announced by NGA and CCSSO at the beginning of the month, the first step toward national education standards.  Without question, these commons standards are likely becoming the fifth pillar of Duncan’s priorities.  He is throwing his rhetorical weight behind the plan, using the bully pulpit to maximum effect.  The big question that many ask is whether he will just implement the standards through his executive authority or actually codify them in Elementary and Secondary Education reauthorization.
For Eduflack, it is a very different question.  Right now, the focus is on interstate assessments in reading and math.  How are these assessments going to differ from our current NAEP assessments, other than filling in the gaps between fourth and eighth grade and eight and 12th grade?  Will these common standards align with NAEP, or will NAEP need to be realigned to meet these new interstate standards?
To his credit, Duncan is already moving the ball before the other team has set their defense.  We’ve gone from standards to immediate talk about testing and assessment.  If he quickly pivots from assessment over to accountability, we may have a real national standards ballgame.

Charter-ing the Race

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, CPS, Gates Foundation

There seems to be little question about it.  Charter schools are front and center when it comes to the federal government’s new approach to school improvement and student achievement.  EdSec Arne Duncan has been promoting charters as a core part of successful Race to the Top grants and as necessary components to comprehensive district turnarounds.  Duncan can even point to his use of the charter tool in Chicago as the justification for his new push.

The Gates Foundation has announced its plans to go in and do a “deep dive” in four school districts across the nation, focusing $125 million per district on improved professional development.  On the short list for the final four, an unnamed charter school district in the Los Angeles area.  Only the village idiot doesn’t realize that Green Dot is the intended target for these funds.
We’ve seen greater interest and appreciation for what KIPP has done, due in large part to Jay Mathews’ recent book on that charter system.  And the number of ED employees with ties to the NewSchool Venture Fund, one of the top thinkers on the effective development of high-quality charter schools (and part of New Leaders for New Schools’ model for teacher incentives under their TIF-funded EPIC program) continues to grow by the day.
So for those who thought charters may take a back seat under a new Democratic administration, they have been sadly mistaken.  The economic stimulus package called for states to raise their charter caps.  Other states are being pushed to actually maximize their current laws (like my home state of Virginia, which has a decent charter law, but just doesn’t allow any charters to actually get started under it, thus failing to live up to the promise).  And others still are being asked to establish flexible, growth-oriented charter laws that demonstrate the value-add charters can play to a school district on the rise or a school district in need of improvement.
But who is doing it well?  A decade ago, charters were tagged with a reputation of low quality and low results.  We had images of individuals running schools out of their homes and their basements, trying to take advantage of available funding or looking to thrust a particular political or religious point of view on a select group of students.  Many still subscribe to that stereotype, despite the hard work undertaken by groups like NACSA to ensure that states have strong charter establishment and accountability laws and by organizations like the Center for Education Reform for continually providing new data on how well our charter systems are doing.
CER actually has a new report out, this one called Race to the Top for Charter Schools: Which States Have What It Takes to Win, Rankings and Scorecard 2009.  In the study, CER provides some interesting data, grading our states on issues such as the number of charter operators, number of schools allowed, operations, and equity.  We see that three states earn As from CER — the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and California.  Four states earn Fs — Kansas, Virginia, Iowa, and Mississippi.  D seems to be the most popular grade when it comes to charter scores.
When you couple this data with recent CER data on charter school achievement and the costs involved (showing that charters are putting up equal or better performance when compared to their traditional public school peers for nearly half the per-pupil dollars), it gives you a strong sense for why Duncan and company are emphasizing the opportunity available under charters … and how much work we really have to do before we effectively integrate charters into the public school network.
Most states want to get their Race to the Top dollars and the chances that come with it.  In the process, hopefully they will recognize that good, effective charter networks are designed to supplement, not supplant, our traditional public school systems.  They aren’t the magic bullet for struggling schools, but they sure are a useful tool.  And that like most in school improvement, charters only work when we focus on quality, proven research, assessment, and accountability.

A True “Opportunity Equation”

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, Math, national standards, NGA, Science, STEM

In recent months, we have significantly raised the stakes when it comes to education improvement.  The economic stimulus bill makes clear that the success of our economy depends on the improvement of our schools.  The Data Quality Campaign (along with additional stimulus dollars) have focused on the need to improve data collection at the state level.  The recent release of NAEP long-term data pointed to the push for continued accountability.  And the most recent announcement of progress in the national standards movement — namely the National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School Officers push — have only increased the volume.

But what, exactly, are we improving?  A little more than a month ago, President Barack Obama spotlighted the need to redouble our commitment to science-technology-engineering-mathematics, or STEM, education.  Today, the Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education amplified the instructional content call even further.  In releasing The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy, Carnegie provided a useful blueprint for moving our rhetorical commitment to improvement and STEM education into actionable items, issuing a true call to action to policymakers and educators committed to improving our nation and our economy by strengthening our academic offerings.
Specifically, Opportunity Equation issued a clarion call on four key issues:
* The need for higher levels of mathematics and science learning for all American students
* Common standards in math and science that are fewer, clearer, and higher, couple with aligned assessments
* Improved teaching and professional learning, supported by better schools and system management
* New designs for schools and systems to deliver math and science learning more effectively
Surely we have seen reports like these before.  Many issue broad platitudes.  Others are chock full of process, with little in terms of outcome.  And others still simply preach in a vacuum, demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding about our schools, particularly those students that need STEM the most.  So what makes Carnegie’s report so different than those that have come before it?
First, Opportunity Equation clearly identifies those stakeholders most important to STEM education and assigns them specific responsibilities in the improvement effort.  Throughout its report, Carnegie lays out the action stems that the federal government, states, schools and school districts, colleges and universities, unions, businesses, nonprofit organization, and philanthropy must play.  School improvement is a team game, and Carnegie has drawn up specific plays so that every stakeholder — particularly teachers and schools — has a chance to get on the court at some point during the game.
Second, it combines the requisite inputs with the necessary outcomes.  Too often, reports like this are forced to either embrace the status quo, essentially serving as a consensus document designed to make all parties happy.  Such papers focus on inputs, talking about what is possible, but ignore the outcomes that are necessary to measure true improvement.  Carnegie makes clear that process is important.  But it makes clearer that the best intentions in the world are meaningless if we aren’t delivering measurable results on the back end.  Student results, data, measurement, and accountability are key components to the Carnegie plan.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Carnegie recognizes that STEM education is for all students, and that all students should be held to higher, clearer standards (with similar accountability).  For years now, Eduflack has heard many an educator and policymaker push back that STEM education isn’t for everyone.  Our future rocket scientists and brain surgeons may benefit from STEM, but it is unnecessary for the “average” student.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Every student benefits from STEM education, particularly if that student is interested in going on to postsecondary education or holding a job after finishing their schooling.  Carnegie puts this fact front and center.  Effective STEM instruction is not about cherry-picking.  It is about a rising tide lifting all boats, providing all students — particularly those who have been left behind or neglected in the past — with the skills and instruction they need to achieve in the 21st century global classroom and workplace.
Opportunity Equation also demonstrates a nimbleness that we rarely see in studies of this sort.  The report boasts a Who’s Who on its roster of Commission members.  Usually, such a roll call means this report was in the can for months, undergoing proofing and design and gut checks to make sure all were comfortable with the language.  But Carnegie has done two things here to dispel the pattern.  First, its four priorities align with the four policy pillars put forward by EdSec Arne Duncan and the US Department of Education.  Second, Opportunity Equation calls on stakeholders to endorse the NGA/CCSSO Common Standards effort, and effort that just went public a little more than a week ago.  Relevancy is always a good thing.
In Opportunity Equation, Carnegie Corporation has clearly informed audiences on what is necessary to improve math and science instruction in the United States, building a stronger pipeline for both the economy and the community.  As Eduflack has lectured far too often, that is merely step one of effective public engagement.  Now that the inform stage is completed, it now falls to Carnegie and its supporters to build commitment to the model laid out by Carnegie and then mobilize stakeholders around the specific actions called for in the report.  
Carnegie offers yet another GPS unit for guiding us through the complexities of school improvement toward a final destination of a STEM-literate society equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for academic and life success.  It is now up to the wide range of stakeholders (those identified by Carnegie) to actually plug the unit in and let it guide us.  Opportunity Equation provides those turn-by-turn directions to get us to the results we seek.  We just need to follow the guidance.

Lessons Learned from Ed in 08

Eduflack Chancellor Klein, Gates Foundation, national standards, NGA

Paraphrasing from Major League’s legendary Harry Doyle, in case you haven’t noticed, and judging by the attention we haven’t, Strong American Schools has managed to win a few ball games, at least according to SAS.

Two years ago, the Gates and Broad Foundations announced a $60 million initiative designed to make education a major focus of the 2008 presidential campaigns.  Launched under the dual banner of the parent Strong American Schools organization and its Ed in 08 campaign, SAS issued a simple goal — “Use the presidential race to highlight the crisis in American public schools.”
It did so by issuing three key “pillars:” 1) common education standards; 2) an effective teacher in every classroom; and 3) extended learning time for students.
Yesterday, SAS offered up its summary report on the success of its two-year effort tilting at educational windmills.  After both the Democratic and Republic primaries showed little interest in education issues, and then as the bottom fell out of the economy during the general election, SAS never quite got the traction and influence it sought.  Then again, neither did similar efforts to highlight the crisis in healthcare, the environment, and a host of other issues.
None of us are foolish enough to believe that the 2008 presidential campaign was decided (or even debated) on education issues.  Both sides offered up comprehensive education plans.  Eduflack summarized the two here last fall.  Good ideas across the P-16 education continuum.  Now President Obama is being held accountable for promises on preK, teacher quality, incentive pay, and affordable college.  He’s also raised the ante by throwing a spotlight on STEM education, charter schools, and increasing the number of college graduates by 2020.
So what impact did Ed in 08 have on the current state of educational affairs?  How has ARRA and the presidential budget been shaped by the tens of millions of dollars spent by Ed in 08?  Honestly, we still don’t know.  When we look at the SAS successes, they don’t crosswalk cleanly with current policy or promises such as common standards.
According to Strong American Schools, its accomplishments were many, including:
* Obama supported (and continues to support) all three of the campaign’s policy pillars.  John McCain supported two.
* Ed in 08 had “significant input” on the education efforts of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
* Changed the debate on performance pay
* Made education a bipartisan issue
* Produced more than 150 pages of research and policy materials
* Created an 86-page Policy Toolkit
* Commemorated the 25th anniversary of A Nation at Risk with a research update
* Published an examination of the cost of college remediation
* Created a network of 200 organizers and advisors across the country
* Received thousands of media hits
* Used the Internet and other new media tools to engage the public
These “wins” are a mixed bag.  Some are clearly process issues.  Some are stretches (did Ed in 08 change the debate on performance pay, or was that the result of a combination of programs such as Denver’s ProComp and Obama taking a tough stand on incentive pay early in the process?).  Some are just puzzling, such as education being a bipartisan issue (both sides have made education an issue for decades, they just do so from different perspectives).  
What is most interesting in the SAS summary report is the explanation of the obstacles, those challenges that prevented Ed in 08 from achieving its bold objectives.  These challenges include:
* Structure, as a not-for-profit, some activities were restricted, including claims that staff members could not take a position on any legislation, could not directly question candidates, nor could compare candidates’ platforms to SAS recommendations
* The media, and its failure to cover a sustained debate on education and its inability to “push policymakers to consider the failures of our current education system”
* The teachers unions, protecting “the interests of their members” even if it conflicted with reforms
As for structure, wasn’t it up to Broad and Gates to establish the most effective structure possible to achieve the goal?  If SAS was structurally prohibited from advocating for specific policies and holding candidates accountable, shouldn’t it have been built to allow for true advocacy?  Why build a ship that we can’t sail?
As for the media, did we really see the role of media, particularly that of the education media, to “push policymakers?”  If Ed in 08 can’t advocate an agenda, did we really expect reporters to do so?
And as for the unions, did we expect them to do anything other than protect their constituency, the group they are created to protect?
SAS should be given credit for better organizing new media and social networking outlets around education issues.  Their blogger summit in the spring of 2008 is but one example of this.  The drumbeat picked up by Richard Whitmire and others to keep the spotlight on education issues is another.  So there are successes.
More importantly, though, SAS has helped provide a blueprint that future advocacy efforts can learn from.  As part of its final report, SAS is handing the baton off to the Education Equality Project, looking to Joel Klein, Al Sharpton, and company to carry the torch on the issues of standards, teacher quality, and extended learning.  It could have also claimed credit for the current common standards movement, as Roy Romer’s clarion call for national standards and how to get there looks dangerously similar to what NGA, CCSSO, and other are engaging in right now.
So as groups like EEP, Broader and Bolder, Opportunity to Learn, Extended Day, and others look to build advocacy efforts around national education policy, reauthorization, and related issues, they should look closely at SAS.  What can they build on and improve?  What can they learn from and avoid?  What can they throw cold water on?  What can they aspire to?  What’s possible?  What’s a pipe dream?  
Personally, I think SAS was a good idea that was never fully realized.  It didn’t live up to the hype nor to the potential.  But that doesn’t it mean it couldn’t.  The model can work, with the right tweaks and the proper attention. Education advocacy is a must these days.  For all those looking to get in the game, let’s take a close look at Strong American Schools, learning from its forward steps and its missteps.  Rather than starting new each and every day, we need to build on those that come before us.  That’s the only way that real, lasting educational improvement can come.

From the Ed Trenches to the Real Ones

Eduflack higher ed, national standards, NCLB

It doesn’t happen every day, but we have some breaking education news on Capitol Hill today.  Rep. Buck McKeon of California has been named the new ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.  For those who haven’t worked on the Hill or drunk the Kool-Aid, this is a huge deal, particularly as we are dealing with troop expansions in Afghanistan, withdrawals in Iraq, and future commitments we can never foresee.  McKeon will now be working with Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri on issues of military personnel, armed services support, terrorism, and a host of other issues related to the protection of our nation and security around the globe.

So how does this affect our little ole education world?  Unfortunately, the move means that McKeon must now give up his position as the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  After all of his work on higher education issues, cleaning up in the aftermath No Child Left Behind, and the advocacy of greater accountability and quality in our public schools, McKeon will pass the top Republican education chair to a new voice, likely Tom Petri of Wisconsin or Mike Castle of Delaware.  The full story can be found here, courtesy of The Hill.  
Even though Eduflack only worked for the Dems on Capitol Hill, I’ve had a soft spot for McKeon since launching this blog a few years ago.  His staff was one of the first congressional staffs to ensure that I was getting information and updates regarding what was happening on the committee, and this was after he lost his gavel following the 2006 elections.  So I appreciated that he (or his staff) understood the need for continued communications to a wide range of stakeholders.
I also appreciated the stances he took, even on “unpopular” issues.  To this day, I still think the Miller/McKeon version of NCLB reauthorization may end up the law of the land.  Last year, I even advocated for McKeon as a potential EdSec candidate.  Congressman McKeon worked hard on education issues, doing what he believes was best for improving our schools and boosting student achievement across the learning continuum.  That commitment will likely transfer into a new commitment to our men and women in uniform.  That’s a win for the Armed Services Committee and for the nation.
So what does this mean for the House Education Committee?  Chairman Miller is still ruling the roost, and nothing is going to change that (and his staff has gotten even better and more sophisticated at sharing information and keeping the blogosphere apprised of Committee doings).  Clearly it is a signal that Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization is not on the immediate horizon.  But it also offers a little glimmer of what is possible.  If Congressman Castle can rise to the top slot, he and Chairman Miller could do a lot of good for our public schools, working on improvement efforts in a bipartisan fashion.  It may even be enough to make national standards and such a reality.  Now wouldn’t that be something.

Requiring Quality in Our PreK Programs

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, early childhood education, stimulus

What, exactly, is the future of the federal
investment in public education? 
For months now, we have tried to cobble together an answer to that
question, using presidential campaign rhetoric, economic stimulus package
priorities, and now Presidential budget decisions to help us see where we are
headed as a nation.   Since
assuming his position in late January, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has
provided us little more detail, sticking mostly to the talking points on
stimulus and education’s impact on the economy. 

But few seem to have a clear sense of what the
U.S. Department of Education has in store for the future, particularly the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  The general agreement is that
reauthorization could happen as early as this fall and as late as the summer of
2010, but it is indeed coming.  The
common logic is NCLB will stay relatively intact.  Along the way, we hear about efforts in Washington, DC to
construct more comprehensive reading legislation (to replace Reading First) and
a framework for national standards (expected to be delivered by Achieve to
Duncan in the coming weeks), but where, exactly, will our future priorities
lie?

Recently, Duncan and his lieutenants have been
focusing on four key policy pillars on which the new U.S. Department of
Education is constructed.  First,
implementation of college and career-ready standards and assessments.  Second, creation of comprehensive data
systems that track students throughout their education career and track
teachers back to schools of education to better understand which programs are
producing teachers that make a difference.  Third, recruitment, preparation, and reward of outstanding
teachers, paying more to teachers who work in tough schools.  And finally, turn around of chronically
underperforming schools.

What figured prominently during President Obama’s
campaign – but what seems to be missing from the core tenets – is early
childhood education.  Early and
often, Obama campaigned on the notion of a strong national commitment to early
childhood education.  Instead of
just focusing on access and an expansion of current programs, the President
seemed focused on committing to quality just as much as he committed to
quantity.  The talk was not
universal preK; the rhetoric was high-quality preK.

But what, precisely, is high-quality early
childhood education?  For decades
now, many have viewed the 800-pound gorilla in the ECE room – Head Start – as
being little more than glorified babysitting.  Instead of using the time to help disadvantaged or
low-income students get a jump start on their academic futures, Head Start just
focuses on the “social” aspects. 
We make our youngest learners more comfortable with existing in a
learning environment.  The
pre-reading and pre-math skills such learners needed simply come once they
officially entered kindergarten – and entered miles behind their academically better-off
peers.

In recent years, we have watched the universal
preK movement transform from the hare into the tortoise.  Supporters of universal preK have
watched new plans ground to a halt and have seen existing programs slowed or
scaled back, all because of a smaller pot of resources going education
needs.  Smaller state budgets,
caused by less-than-planned real estate taxes, have forced some tough decisions
when it comes to public education. 
And early childhood education was one of the first on the chopping
block.

Last month, the Pew Center of the States
released Leadership Matters: Governors’ Pre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2010.  Looking at recent education budgets
proposed by the current state chief executives, Pew found that our greatest
fears are likely not going to be realized (unless state legislatures have
anything to do with it).  Despite
our states’ economic struggles, 14 states are proposing increases in early
childhood education investment. 
Thirteen states are proposing to level fund programs.  And three states are looking to
establish preK efforts where there currently are none.  All told, our nation’s governors intend
to boost FY2010 investment in early childhood education by 4 percent over
2009’s commitments.

The Pew study only tells half the story,
though.  The other 50 percent still
has yet to be written.  Sixty
percent of our states are looking to start, continue, or strengthen their
investment in preK.  But what are
they investing in?  How do we
ensure that we are investing in high-quality early childhood education?  How do we measure return on investment
in preK?  How do we make sure our
youngest learners are gaining the academic building blocks needed to succeed
throughout their academic careers, overcoming some of the learning gaps that
have long dogged disadvantaged students and have long dug a deep scholastic
trench between the haves and have nots?

The doubting Thomases would say one cannot truly
quantify results in early childhood education.  But we know that to simply be incorrect.  When it comes to pre-reading, we know
the letter recognition and vocabulary skills three- and four-year olds can gain
to prepare them for the research-based K-4 reading instruction that will
transform them into proficient, confident readers.  We know the numeracy that all students need to know to
maximize the start of their K-12 experience.  And we know the core skills all students require to be ready
to learn when they pass through those kindergarten doors for the first time.

So what, then, does quality look like?  We can turn our gaze to two unlikely
places – Washington, DC and Texas – to provide us some real insight into
high-quality, effective preK instruction. 
In Washington, the AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation,
through the DC Partnership for Early Literacy, is working in some of our
nation’s capital’s lowest-income communities, yet posting significant gains on
student early reading achievement. 
Based on standardized, nationally normed assessments, AppleTree students
gained 21 percentile points in vocabulary proficiency, placing them higher than
the national norm and more than doubling the gains demonstrated by students in
DC Head Start classrooms.  Among
AppleTree’s lowest 50 percent of students, learners posted even more impressive
gains – 26 percentile points, nearly tripling typical Head Start results while
working with students from similar demographics.

In Texas, the Children’s Learning Institute,
through its Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), is now working with more than
61,000 young learners across 38 communities in the Lone State State.  There, students are achieving and
demonstrating progress in key literacy skills, including phonological
awareness, rapid letter naming, and vocabulary development.

These two programs are not merely the exceptions
to the rule.  They are worth
acknowledging for two reasons. 
First, they are demonstrating results.  Both AppleTree and TEEM help define what high-quality early
childhood education is, how we can measure it, and the sort of results we
should expect from effective preK. 
More importantly, though, both programs also demonstrate that our
youngest learners can benefit from the same policy pillars that Secretary
Duncan is putting in place for our K-12 systems.

In early childhood education, we also see that
standards and assessments are key, particularly if we expect to demonstrate and
measure the results that define quality. 
In ECE, we also see that data systems are key, providing educators and
policymakers the information necessary to bridge three-year-old programs to
four-year-old programs to kindergarten and beyond.  In ECE, we know that effective teachers are the key to a
quality program, and early childhood educators must be well trained, well
supported, and constantly encouraged to improve their practice and improve
their knowledgebase.  And in ECE,
we know that our most disadvantaged students – those from historically
underperforming neighborhoods – are the kids that most benefit and most need a
high-quality, academically focused preK experience.

Nationally, we believe that every child should
have access to a high-quality education. 
We believe that student achievement is king, and all learners should be
proficient and should be able to demonstrate that proficiency, both in the
classroom and on state and national assessments.  We believe that a strong public education is the gateway to
a strong future, both for the individual and society.  And we believe, or should, that we must hold our systems
accountable for the quality and effectiveness of the education they deliver.

Such belief systems should not be restricted to
our K-12 systems, or even more narrowly construed for grades 3-8 when we
measure AYP.  If we expect to
transform every child into a successful learner, we also need to implement the
quality, accountability, and teacher effectiveness into our preK systems.  As our states look to invest in the
future of early childhood education, as the Pew Center indicates, we need to
make sure this money is going toward good programs that demonstrate true
ROI.  We need to look at programs
like TEEM, AppleTree, and others to guide our decisions.  Demanding early childhood education is
no longer enough.  We should be
demanding quality – and results – for our youngest learners as well. 


Let’s leave the babysitting to teenagers seeking
some extra spending money.  Our
early childhood education programs should be focused on providing the academic
frameworks that empower even the most disadvantaged of students to achieve in a
school setting.



ARRA: Rise of the Charters

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, Gates Foundation, Green Dot, stimulus

Can one make lasting improvement working solely within the confines of the status quo?  That seems to be the question the US Department of Education, particularly EdSec Arne Duncan, is asking as additional details on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and our federal education policy come into crisper focus.

In recent weeks, the education community has “discovered” that ARRA included language requiring states to boost their charter school cap, essentially requiring the expansion of charter offerings if states want access to all of the new economic stimulus money.  Couple the details of ARRA with recent speeches by Duncan and hires of those with backgrounds that include organizations such as the NewSchool Venture Fund, and we are starting to see that the limits of the status quo simply will not hold.
Today, the EdSec went all in on the topic.  Addressing the media on how to turnaround our lowest performing schools, Duncan cited the value of “real autonomy for charters combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance standards.”  Among the stats used by ED this afternoon:
* 10 states currently do not have laws allowing charter schools;
* 26 states put artificial caps on the number of public charter schools (with President Obama calling on states to lift those caps);
* The Maine state legislature is debating a bill to establish a pilot program for its first charter schools (though this afternoon’s headlines looked like the legislature would reject the proposal and risk losing its education stimulus dollars); and
* Tennessee refuses to lift its charter enrollment restrictions while Indiana is considering a moratorium on new charter schools.
And that status quo question?  Duncan seemed to answer that this afternoon as well.  “I am advocating for using whatever models work for students, and particularly where improvements have stagnated for years,” Duncan said.  “We cannot continue to do that same thing and expect different results.  We cannot let another generation of children be deprived of their civil right to a quality education.”
While one has to question Duncan’s definition of insanity to be used as a justification for expanding our charter laws, he does have a point.  And all this talk is bound to generate a great of attention, particularly with the positive press generated by charters like KIPP and the Gates Foundation’s likely intention to provide a $125 million “deep dive” into a “network of charter schools” in the Los Angeles area (can we all say Green Dot?).  The real challenge, then, for Duncan, Obama, Gates, and others is to ensure that this is not an either-or situation.
In the early days of the charter debate, opponents of public charter schools fought the good fight, accusing school districts of looking to replace traditional public schools with these new charters.  Over time, we have witnessed that the best of our charter schools are in communities where they complement the traditional publics.  Strong charters, with strong accountability, offer greater opportunity.  They can raise quality.  They increase choice.  And, if held to high standards, they contribute to student achievement gains and can be a useful lever in turning around our lowest performing school districts.  They can also give families and students a choice in communities where previous choice was between one failing school and another.
Ultimately, the EdSec is right in seeking to include charter schools in our Race to the Top funds.  if we are to turn around persistently underperforming schools, we need to do something different.  We can’t simply pump more dollars into historically troubled schools and expect that student achievement will improve.  After all, we’ve tried that approach for decades now.  How has it worked so far?
But we also must recognize that charters are not the magical elixir that will aid any district in need.  We can point to plenty of school districts with liberal charter policies but poor student achievement (just look at our nation’s capital).  Charters work when they take a firm line with regard to structure, expectations, and accountability.  Such a line isn’t for everyone.  Too often, we make compromises, offering charter schools destined for many of the same failings their traditional publics are suffering through.  If the Race to the Top is going to work, we need new ideas and new approaches.  But we also need the research and accountability behind them to ensure success.  Otherwise, we will keep throwing good money after bad, doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome.  With the stakes as high as they are, that, my friends, really is insanity.
 
   
 

Tale of “The New Global Student”

Eduflack 21CS, Gates Foundation, Parents

At Eduflack, we spent A LOT of time talking about the education continuum.  How do we ensure that the educational pathways we are offering today’s students will lead to tomorrow’s jobs?  What do we do in middle school to bolster one’s chances of graduating from high school?  What do we do in high school to show more students they are capable of college-level work?  How do we ensure that virtually all students are equipped with the postsecondary learning necessary to secure a good job in our 21st century economy?

Along the way, we talk about a great number of issues, including dual enrollment, early college, 21st century skills, and STEM education.  We look at programs like IB and AP.  We even try to advocate for stronger measurements and greater accountability to ensure that our students are gaining the skills and knowledge they need to compete, regardless of their race, socioeconomic status, or Zip code.
During the past year, Eduflack has developed an online relationship with a voice bringing a vastly different opinion to the discussion on the P-16 continuum.  I’ve found her ideas interesting, but not nearly as fascinating as the personal narrative.  For those who don’t know Maya Frost, you have to first learn the family story.  Back in 2005, Maya and her husband decided it was time for a change.  Both were working good jobs, but they weren’t breaking six figures in combined income.  They seemed tired of the rat race and yearned for something a little different.  So they “decided to sell everything and move abroad.”  Nothing altogether strange about that.  From time to time, even Eduflack has considered just dropping all of this, moving the Grand Cayman Island, and opening up a gourmet cupcake shop for natives and tourists alike.
The catch here is that Maya had four teenage daughters at the time.  For most of us, that would be the roadblock to prevent the “dream.” What about school?  What about the SATs and getting ready for college?  How do you navigate college visits?  What about the prom?  All logical questions from naysayers like me.  But it didn’t stop the Frosts.  They picked up an moved to South America anyway, seeing it as a family adventure.  And the resultant story is a fascinating one.
This month, Three River Press released Maya’s book about the process — “The New Global Student: Skip the SAT, Save Thousands on Tuition, and Get a Truly International Education.”  The book is an incredible read, providing great stories, good guidance, and a different view on how we really prepare our kids for the future.  Maya has gone with the tagline “Good-bye Old School, Hello Bold School,” and when you read her story, you understand how appropriate the line is for her story and her recommendations.
But what about those poor four Frost girls, the ones ripped from their cozy American high schools and forced into a South American world of intrigue, new experiences, and the great unknown?  They have managed to get by.  The oldest graduated from college at 19 and has worked for the Gates Foundation and as a health educator.  At 22, she’s wrapping up her master’s in public health while working at a community health clinic in Harlem.  Daughter two has studied in numerous countries, earned her BA in the United States at the age of 20 and is working at two internships in the communications field (yeah!).  Daughter three used a number of learning opportunities, including private tutors and lessons, and will earn a dual major bachelor’s degree at the age of 19.  Daughter four never actually attended high school, but has used her learning experiences to earn a scholarship, a teaching assistantship, and two years of college credit at a NY IHE, and she is just 17 years old.
Few of us would ever have the, er, stomach to do the sort of thing that Maya and her family did.  But in reading The New Global Student, one can see how it is possible if one really wants to.  It doesn’t take a trust fund.  It doesn’t take a network of experts and tutors to guide you along the way.  It doesn’t require friends in high places to make sure you can “explain the situation” to American universities.  It just takes a little work, flexibility, exploration, and a whole lot of embracing of the unknown.  It also take an unbending positive attitude, of which Maya is a textbook definition.
Such options are hardly for anyone.  In fact, I would say it takes a very special family to be able to do what the Frosts did and do it as well as they did.  And I am thrilled it has been particularly successful for the four girls.  Whether it is the unworn path you truly seek or are justing looking for a new perspective on the silliness of helicopter parents, violin lessons for first graders, and hyper-competitiveness for slots in NYC preschools, The New Global Student is worth a read.  It provides an interesting perspective on what parents can do to provide their children learning opportunities, particularly beyond the confines of the walls of the traditional red brick schoolhouse.
 

How the ARRA Times Change

Eduflack AYP, NAEP, stimulus, Workforce

Just a few short months ago, educators with brimming with enthusiasm about the potential economic stimulus funding would offer.  We talked about those new programs that could be pursued.  We discussed how existing efforts could be broadened and expanded.  We dreamed about the possibilities of doing using the “startup” money found in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to do new things designed to spark innovation in the classroom and long-term academic improvement in the student.

Lately, reality has set in.  We’re seeing that most education stimulus moneys are likely going to pay for existing programs and existing teacher salaries, not to buy new books or acquire some new technology that could be the missing link between proficient and not.  And as the folks over at Politics K-12 have been reporting, some states are really struggling to get in those basic applications demonstrating how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (the $44 billion that is already at the mid-point of distribution to the states) is being spend by SEAs across the nation.  With state budgets on a steady decline, state decisionmakers are having difficulty determining which existing programs warrant the life preserver that is ARRA, particularly those efforts aimlessly floating through our K-12 systems.
Before the stimulus legislation was signed into law, states like Virginia got even more ambitious, developing websites before the ARRA money was even signed into law, soliciting proposals and applications from organizations and individuals across the state focused on how they could use stimulus dollars to boost the economy and make a difference for the state’s long-term prosperity.  Other states followed suit, and in education, many a school district was asked to develop their wish lists on how the money would be spent.
Now, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is sending the following to all those not-for-profits, corporations, and individuals who had ideas on how this new money could be used in innovative and new ways, adhering to both the letter and the intent of ARRA:

Thank you for your interest in funding available to Virginia through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Both transparency and accountability are core requirements of ARRA-and I am pleased to update you on the Commonwealth’s progress on projects and proposals related to the Recovery Act.

 

As you may know, my administration launched stimulus.virginia.gov earlier this year to gather project ideas from individuals, groups, and localities for potential funding through ARRA. Between February 10 and the March 6 submission deadline, more than 9,100 project proposals totaling $465.6 billion were suggested through the website. Since then, these proposals have been sorted and sent to the appropriate Cabinet Secretariat for evaluation.

 

Virginia‘s General Assembly incorporated ARRA program funding that is administered by agencies into the state budget and directed it to specific activities. The Recovery Act alsoincreased funding to existing federal programs rather than allowing states to fund projects from a large discretionary fund. As a result, what little discretionary ARRA funding that existed was used by the General Assembly to address Virginia‘s projected budget shortfall. While these decisions around ARRA and the state budget-which I signed into law on March 30-are continuing to ease the economic downturn in the Commonwealth, they also mean there is no discretionary funding available to dedicate to specific projects.

 

Currently, under each Cabinet Secretariat
, state agencies are working with their federal counterparts to implement ARRA funding for programs ranging from education to water quality, totransportation, to energy. These programs require that all project ideas meet specific criteria and be formally submitted through traditional federal funding processes. In most cases, these processes are now complete and work is ready to begin. Most of the projects that were funded via traditional federal measures were submitted as a project idea.

 

Although there are many other project ideas that could contribute to our economic recovery, a number of proposals we’ve received-including private business investment and tax reduction-fall outside the scope of ARRA funding provided to the Commonwealth.

 

I strongly encourage you to monitor the stimulus.virginia.gov website for information on projects being funded by the ARRA and to explore potential opportunities through the competitive grants process. Some projects submitted through stimulus.virginia.gov not selected for ARRA funds may be eligible to apply for a competitive grant directly from a federal agency.

 

Thank you again for your input. I always appreciate hearing from citizens of the Commonwealth and will take your thoughts and proposals into consideration as we work to get our economy back on track through ARRA. Please do not hesitate to contact me via my web form, and find out more about my initiatives on my web site at www.governor.virginia.gov.

 

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Kaine

Governo
r of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Please note that the bold for emphasis is not coming from Eduflack, it is coming from Governor Kaine himself.  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the economic stimulus package does not provide for any discretionary funding for specific projects.  That’s policy-speak for every dime of money is being plowed into existing programs already codified on the books.  In education, that means that the same programs that Virginians to a whopping 34 percent proficiency on the eighth grade NAEP are the same programs now gaining additional funding (and expected to propel us into the promise land of student success and opportunity).
It is hard to find fault with just Kaine here.  He is a lame-duck governor, with his term completed in six short months.  He was given a bad budget and had to do the best with what he could, both in original negotiations and in the veto session.  And it is a shame that a governor who entered office three and a half years ago with a strong plan for universal preK has been stymied every step of the way by a part-time Legislature that just didn’t agree, and then was hamstrung by the bottom falling out of his state’s budget, particularly those tax receipts that looked so rosy at the start of the term.
 
I recognize this is only Virginia, but these decisions are likely being made by states across the union.  New money is being pumped into the status quo.  New dollars are being thrown into ineffective programs.  All because it is easier to fund what which is on the books versus identify better ways to change horses and fund new discretionary efforts that could make a difference.
Or perhaps we’re just waiting for the Race to the Top and Innovation Funds to kick in, believing that $5 billion or so is the magic elixir to all that is ailing our public schools?

Improvement, Incentives, and EdSector

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, national standards, stimulus
Multi-day, online, interactive education events seem to be all the rage lately.  This week, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills kicked off a two-week cybersummit on 21st century skills.  Not to be outdone, the folks over at Education Sector are hosting a three-day online discussion on No Child Left Behind and incentives.
Never one to shy away from the issues, Education Sector is billing the event through the following frame:
“NCLB requires states to establish annual performance targets and hold schools accountable for improving student performance. Currently, great attention rests on motivating school improvement through negative incentives. But NCLB also requires that states establish rewards for schools demonstrating excellence, a part of the law that has been largely ignored. The Department of Education’s $5 billion in “Race to the Top” and innovation funds has reignited a discussion of the role of positive incentives in motivating and supporting school reform efforts. With this boost in funding, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has a chance to reward what he refers to as “islands of excellence” in school achievement and build on those proven success stories.” 
The EdSector forum is particularly interesting in light of this week’s announcement on the intent to establish common, or national, education standards (and the lack of an announcement of the measurement and accountability surrounding the latest push).  EdSector’s Andy Rotherham will host Sir Michael Barber of McKinsey & Company (the folks who recently brought us the economic impact of the achievement gap study), Sandy Kress (the godfather of modern accountability measures), and Dominic Brewer, professor at the University of Southern California.
Interested parties can participate in the discussion here.  EdSector is providing plenty of opportunity for those who want to be a part of the solution or those who want to just learn more about the issue to offer their comments, questions, and opinions, to this blue ribbon panel.  It’s worth checking out.