Month: June 2010

Social Media Failure in Our School Districts

Eduflack Arne Duncan, teachers, technology

By now, we’ve all heard the concerns about social media in the K-12 setting.  The fears of teachers revealing their personal lives of Facebook.  The worry of what can be accessed and posted on YouTube, revealing the good, bad, and ugly of the 21st century classroom.  Even ongoing tweets about both policy and practice in the classroom or the central office.  The concern has grown so significant that many school districts have policies banning the use of social media, even erecting firewalls to ban access to sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter with LEA computers or through LEA-based Internet connections.

Last month, Eduflack wrote on edreformer.com about current disintermediation efforts.  The concept is a simple one.  Rather than work exclusively through the traditional media, hoping they can offer a complete and balanced story, more and more folks are doing the storytelling themselves.  Using blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and the like, they cut out the media “middle man” and get the story directly to those stakeholders who need it most.  The Obama Administration has been particularly adept at the practice, using the powers of the Internet and social media to build lasting dialogues on the issues of the day.

This is a practice also pursued by the good folks over at the U.S. Department of Education, where, among other things, they have their own usedgov YouTube channel.  To date, there are 139 videos up there.  Some are of events that EdSec Arne Duncan and his staff participate in.  Others are specific efforts to deliver the ED message directly to key stakeholder audiences.

About three weeks ago, ED offered up a video from Duncan for school principals.  In the five-minute piece, Duncan lays out the Administration’s education priorities, funding commitments for programs like Title I and IDEA, and plans for improving the federal commitment to public education (particularly through ESEA).  It is just Duncan in front of a blue curtain and US flag and the ED learning tree seal, but it is effective.  A good video, with both good intent and a good message.  And it also gives a strong pat on the back to those school leaders who are fighting the good fight each and every school day.

By now, we all know that ED has been investing resources to ensure that school principals are part of the ESEA reauthorization discussion and have bought into school improvement efforts like i3.  We’ve seen teacher quality expanded to include principals.  And we’ve seen school leaders better involved in discussions than we seen in years past.  According to the Digest of Education Statistics 2008, there were 98,793 K-12 public schools in the United States.  We assume most of these schools have principals leading them.  So figuring out how to engage these nearly 100,000 school leaders on issues of policy and improvement is a good thing.

Yet as of this morning, there have only been 143 views of the video.  In three weeks, only 143 people have watched the piece (and I assume some of them are like Eduflack, not principals, the intended audience).  Nearly 100,000 school leaders, yet only 143 visits.  Why?

One primary reason, it appears, is our school districts’ fear of social media.  ED is using YouTube to distribute the video.  Most school districts ban YouTube, fearing access to unauthorized materials and a general waste of instructional time.  So even if ED puts all of the promotional efforts at its disposal behind the release of this video (and others like it) the intended audiences simply can’t access it.  Classroom teachers can’t get to the usedgov YouTube channel  Principals can’t peruse it.  Even superintendents and central office personnel can’t get in.  (Eduflack first heard about this video from educators in Houston who wanted to view the video, but were denied.  Since then, it seems the ban is a pretty standard practice.)

We ask our schools to prepare students for the rigors and opportunties of a 21st century world, yet we are asking them to teach with access to only the most basic of 19th century tools?  We continue to ask a technologically adept student population (for the most part) to unplug when they get to the schoolhouse doors, and forget how to access an unending wealth of information?  We ask teachers to improve the quality and result of their teaching, yet deny them the ability to supplement instruction through shared technologies and content that are FREE to all?  

Years ago, when the Edu-mom used to teach 10th grade English, she would roll out an old videotape of the Simpsons to help teach Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven.  It was nothing special, just Bart Simpson reciting the poem, word for word, with the requisite Homer and company as backdrop.  But it helped make the poem more relevant for the students.  It took it beyond the printed words in the textbook and brought it to life.  (And the Simpsons then subsequently did the same with Hamlet, the Iliad, and other classics that should be covered in an English class in a way that even the most disinterested student would pay attention.)

ED should be complimented for offering up information distribution channels like YouTube and delivering information directly to the stakeholder audiences who need it the most.  (Though it is important to note that ED’s own firewalls prevent most employees from accessing sites like Facebook or many education policy blogs.)  The real failure here is on the school districts.  Despite the fears of accessing unauthorized materials or wasting classroom time and resources on social media, these uniform bans are only handicapping educators and shortchanging students.

We should be encouraging intellectual exploration and finding new ways to engage new technologies and medias to make learning more interactive, more relevant, and more effective.  We should be expanding educators’ access to the resources they need, not restricting them.  If we are really focused on 21st century learning, we need to find ways to embrace and maximize 21st century tools.  Now’s the time to embrace, not run away in fear.

         

Around the Edu-Horn, June 15, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

IN, WGU launch an online university in Hoosier State —http://tinyurl.com/2cgh3rn


RT @BuffaloReformED New York Charter Schools Attract Few Hispanics – http://nyti.ms/cFVR22

RT @TeacherBeat Improvements, Challenges in Chicago’s Teacher Evaluation System: http://bit.ly/cTBX3o

At-risk schools in Memphis to get longer school year —http://tinyurl.com/2dwjjwv

Is higher ed the pathway to careers?http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/15/jobs


Around the Edu-Horn, June 14, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

Nashville, Tenn., to open district’s first virtual high school http://sbne.ws/r/4VlM (from ASCD)

RT @smarick check out Michele McNeil’s great article on Rd 2 RTT apps: buy-in, side deals, and more: http://bit.ly/8XfoWp

Newsweek’s top high schools list is out — http://tinyurl.com/2doxmrc (And Falls Church’s GMHS is #44!)

GED to result in HS diploma in WV? http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201006090999

Feds focusing on for-profit colleges — http://tinyurl.com/2fglfgf (kudos @hechingerrerport)

A Work-Around for Edu-Jobs?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, stimulus, teachers, Workforce

Edu-jobs.  For the past month or so, we have been hearing how our K-12 public school systems need $23 billion in emergency funding from the federal government in order to keep teachers across the nation in jobs this fall.  EdSec Arne Duncan has made passioned pleas on Capitol Hill for such funding.  The teachers unions have stood behind Duncan’s request in a way far stronger than they have ever supported the EdSec.  And House leaders like Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Appropriations Chairman David Obey (WI) have echoed the calls and urged their fellow leaders on the Hill to ask, “what about the teachers?”

To date, though, Congress has resisted.  Many senators, wary of spending more and more money, have refused to move the issue forward.  They even cite the absence of edu-jobs from President Obama’s request for emergency funding from Congress.  Despite the best of intentions, right now, it seems like efforts to fund edu-jobs aren’t going anywhere.

It all has Eduflack thinking.  In February of 2009, the U.S. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion spending bill designed to help states and localities IMMEDIATELY deal with the budget shortfalls and shrinking coffers just about everyone was facing.  By spring, we saw roadside signs erected declaring that this public works project or these jobs were funded courtesy of ARRA.  Our K-12 schools got a big chunk of that money as well, with ARRA funding Race to the Top, i3, and big boosts to Title I and IDEA funding just for starters.

We’ve also heard how a great deal of the education ARRA funds went back to the school districts to pay for salaries.  Despite the initial guidance that stimulus dollars were meant to be one-time injections, and were not designed to pay for long-term obligations (like teachers’ salaries) that would have to be funded well after all the ARRA money was spent, we still used the stimulus for teachers’ salaries.  Just last month, one of President Obama’s leading economic advisors declared ARRA had saved 400,000 educator jobs across the country (while saying that one out of every 15 teachers could now be laid off without the additional $23 billion). 

Curiosity has gotten the better of Eduflack.  We committed $787 billion to economic stimulus that was needed as soon as possible.  The funds were made available in February of 2009.  It is now June 2010.  The nearly $800 billion is all supposed to be spent by September of this year.  According to the Recovery website, of that $787 billion that was so desperately needed, $406 billion has actually been paid out.  There is still $381 billion still sitting in the kitty.

In California, the state seen as having the most dire current economic position (and the most difficulty paying teachers), only $8.8 billion of the nearly $22 billion promised to the Golden State has been dispersed.  In New York, they’ve gotten $2.5 billion of their $12 billion.  Illinois has taken in $3.7 billion of its $8.1 billion.  Georgia’s taken in $2 billion of its $5.4 billion.  Oregon’s taken in just $809 million of its $2.5 billion.  And even the cash-strapped Ohio has only tapped $1.7 billion of its available $7.6 billion.

So it begs the question, why don’t we just reallocate some of the committed $787 billion in stimulus money to pay for the $23 billion in edu-jobs?  The money was designed to help states and localities save jobs.  Check.  Funds have already been used to save teachers’ jobs (those 400K that Christina Romer touts).  Check.  There is plenty of money that still hasn’t been spent.  Check.  And we need to spend this soon.  Seems like a win-win for all involved.  And one could even win over the reformer crowd (which has been concerned that edu-jobs funding will simply perpetuate the notion of last hired, first fired and prize tenure over effective teaching).  Tie the dollars to the priorities in ARRA, using RttT language to ensure that new edu-jobs spending is aligned with teacher and principal quality provisions being moved through Race.

A simplistic idea?  Perhaps.  But new federal funding for teachers’ jobs isn’t going anywhere.  If the goal is to protect those educators and avoid laying off the “one in 15,” then why not ask Congress to reallocate the funding they’ve already spent?  At this point, it is just like asking if we can use our allowance to buy baseball cards instead of bubble gum.  The money’s already left Congress’ wallet. 

Around the Edu-Horn, June 10, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @njleftbehind NJ’s “Telenovela”: Patrick Riccards over at @Eduflack reviews the “telenovela” in Jersey over #RttThttp://bit.ly/a8MKiy


Minority students’ achievement is shown in list of nation’s top schools http://sbne.ws/r/4U0R (from ASCD)

The continued campaign for CA state supe —http://tinyurl.com/358sddu

EdWeek’s Diploma Counts 2010 is out —http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2010/06/10/index.html


Around the Edu-Horn, June 9, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

Experts differ on causes of racial segregation in New Orleans schools http://sbne.ws/r/4Trd (from ASCD)

RT @PoliticsK12: Blog: White House’s Go-To Senator Introduces Turnaround Bill: http://bit.ly/cdGQ3c

Concerns about TAKS gains? http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/09/35mct_taks.h29.html

RT @EdPolicyatNAF CA lawmakers voted to raise kindergarten age, which will reduce the state’s K pop by 100,000. http://bit.ly/aruVFI

RT @njleftbehind Schundler: “The Incredible Shrinking Ed. Comm.”: http://bit.ly/biZFhH

“The Incredibly Shrinking Education Commissioner”

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NEA, RTT, teachers

We all assume that governors and their appointed education commissioners (or state superintendents or secretaries of education) will generally get along.  When the top ed job is appointed (as opposed to many states that actually elect the educator-in-chief), the gov and the ed commish tend to hail from the same party.  We assume they share the same general philosophy.  And we most certainly expect that the commish serves at the pleasure of the governor, and is on the same page agenda wise (at least publicly).

But then we have those great political states like New Jersey, the state dear ol’ Eduflack is mostly likely to call home.  After reading the political soap opera that is education policy and politics in the Garden State, a state known for bare-knuckle politics, we are now seeing the best and worst of it on the education front. 

For those who haven’t been turning into the telenovela, here’s what you missed.  Gov. Chris Christie was elected last November despite the incredible vitriol and massive campaign attacks waged by the New Jersey Education Association.  NJEA expected Christie would then play ball with them, as they are a powerful labor union in a state that generally appreciates powerful labor unions, but he refused (and who can blame him, after the attacks he suffered during the campaign).  On Christie’s first day of office, New Jersey submitted a Phase One Race to the Top app, based largely on the wishes of NJEA.  The application didn’t make the cut, and NJ was not a Phase One finalist.  Christie appoints Bret Schundler, champion of charter schools, as the state education commissioner.  Schundler reworks the state’s RttT app, based on reviewer feedbak, and cuts a deal with NJEA to make the state’s recommended teacher quality provisions (particularly on seniority and incentive pay) palatable to the union so they sign on.  Folks are shocked the Christie Administration and NJEA reach detente.  Then, before the app is submitted, Christie swoops in, says he agreed to no such deal with NJEA, and changes the RttT application to reflect his preferences and reject NJEA’s needs with regard to teacher quality measures.  The RttT app was then submitted to the feds last week in Christie’s image, the NJEA (and Schundler) be damned.  With me so far?

Immediately following Christie’s charge up RttT Hill, some presumed that Schundler’s days would be numbered.  After all, how could a Christie lieutenant strike a deal with Public Enemy Number One?  The Newark Star-Ledger editorial board now says that Schundler’s “credibility is in jeopardy.”   The folks over at NJ Left Behind wonder  if Christie and Schundler are playing “good cop-bad cop” with the teachers’ union in the name of progress? 

Back in January, Eduflack was so bold as to suggest that New Jersey should have pulled its Phase One application.  Christie should have demonstrated his strength on Day One, declared that the hard work of his predecessor did not reflect his educational priorities as the state’s new governor, and spend the next few months crafting an application in his own image.  Instead, the app went forward.  New Jersey came in 18th place, and the rework has been in process for the past few months.

So where does New Jersey go from here?  Some seem to think the current application is damaged goods, that the loss of union support will be too great for Joysey to overcome.  Those critics forget, though, that US EdSec Arne Duncan has been preaching that strong reform is more important that kumbaya universal buy-in.  So do ed reformers in New Jersey now need to pick sides, choosing Camp Christie or Camp Bret?

Hardly.  Christie made a shrewd political move.  He knows it is still a long shot that New Jersey will win a RttT grant.  (Particularly with Duncan saying there may only be another 10 or so winners).  If NJ wins, Christie wants to do so on his own terms.  Winning Race means having to take on new responsibilities in reporting and accountability.  It also likely means having to pony in additional dollars from the state coffers to make good on the promises to the feds.  If Christie is going to do that, in what is a disastrous financial climate in his state, he needs to do it on his terms.  His house, his rules, if you will.  He won the election, so folks can do it his way or no way at all.  With so many strings attached to the funding, and the US Department of Education talking about withdrawing funding if they find the application is not being followed to the letter, it is only natural for Christie to seek to pull as many of the strings involved here as possible.

And as for Schundler?  He deserves major points for reaching out and trying to actually work with NJEA.  Yes, his credibility with the union may be a little damaged in the short term.  He now needs to demonstrate he can deliver on the specific deals he may cut.  (And that requires a team at the State Department of Ed cast in his image, which is in process.)  But he’s shown a willingness to deal and has demonstrated a bit on an independent streak from the good governor.  Whether that was intended or not, it can now be used to help move specific state efforts on other school improvement efforts.

Now is the time for both leaders to put a bold, yet simple, plan for education improvement forward.  Communities across the state have turned back efforts to raise taxes to provide additional dollars for the schools.  Now is the time for the state to step forward and issue three challeges, challenges focused on outcomes and students.  For instance, scrap efforts to award high school diplomas to anyone who is 18 and with a pulse and ensure that a NJ high school diploma means more than an attendance certificate.  Figure out what is working in places like Newark and replicating those programs and initiatives in other struggling urban centers.  Implement a real strategic plan for charter school expansion across the state.  Even figure out the best practices that can be learned from the Abbott Schools, and apply them in other schools (without the promise of big dollars).  

Address a couple of those issues, offer some measurements to know the state is making progress, and remind parents, business leaders, and even teachers’ unions of what you are doing and why you are doing it, and you could have some real progress.  Christie provides the global vision, Schundler leads the troops on the ground.  All get to declare victory.
 

Around the Edu-Horn, June 8, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

Check out my take on DC teachers’ contract over at National Journal ed experts blog — http://tinyurl.com/2aum7bz Thanks @ekspectacular

Teachers union looks to sue CPS over class size — http://tinyurl.com/2f5ozy3

OH OKs common core standards — http://tinyurl.com/35wlcl6

RT @sgermeraad USA Today: Edujobs makes no effort to keep best teachers working http://bit.ly/dam4Hl #education

Investigating DCPS’ philanthropic support — http://tinyurl.com/2eqwska

RT @Larryferlazzo Interview With Ed Secretary Duncan On Parent Involvement http://bit.ly/crHpsj

Private Dollars and Public Education

Eduflack accountability, AFT, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

For years now, we have heard how school districts simply don’t have the necessary funds to operate as we expect.  Just in recent weeks, we’ve had education advocates lobby for $23 billion in federal funding to help pay teacher salaries, asking for outside assistance to avoid major cuts to their payrolls and their educator forces.  And while this $23 billion for edujobs has gotten stymied in Congress, it hasn’t been because folks feel it is inappropriate for anyone other than the school district to pay for teacher salaries.

So why the double standard when it comes to the District of Columbia Public Schools and Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s plans for financial incentives and pay raises for teachers who excel in the classroom?  Over in today’s Washington Post, Bill Turque offers up another strong piece on the evolution of teaching in our nation’s capital, this time focusing on efforts by the DC Office of Campaign Finance to investigate charges that the philanthropic support behind the new teacher pay pact somehow violates the law.

Let’s pause to take a look at the basic facts.  Rhee has pushed for nearly three years to enact her vision to boost student acheivement and teacher quality in DC Schools, offering up a new approach to scrap traditional teacher tenure and reward educators based on performance.  To accomplish this, she secured $64.5 million from private foundations, including Broad, Walton, Robertson, and Arnold.  Knowing the politics of our little city by the swamp, these generour philanthropic donors included language in their agreements that they could pull back the $64.5 million if Rhee is no longer with DCPS.  The Cliff Notes version here — these foundations are investing in Rhee and her vision of teacher quality.  If Rhee isn’t here to shepherd the project, the donors reserve the right to re-evaluate their financial commitment to the District.

Accusers say this is a violation of the law, and that such wiggle langauge does nothing more than protect Rhee in the event of a change in mayoral leadership.  The Chancellor, the allegations go, personally benefits because she agreed to such “leadership clauses.”

Over on WaPo’s editorial pages, the newspaper rightfully questions why such an investigation is even being pursued.  As WaPo notes, Rhee raised millions from credible philanthropic organizations, all with a significant track record in public education and school improvement. 

It all makes Eduflack wonder, if Rhee had gone to these foundations, hat in hand, because she needed $60 million to avoid laying off hundreds of teachers, would there be the same outrage?  If the Chancellor were coming forward and saying she can’t make due with her available resources and needs real help to shore up her basic operating budget, would there be the same concern?  Or is this simply an issue of using a little inginuity to break the status quo, and the status quoers being upset about it?

From the cheap seats, it seems that Rhee is using philanthropic support exactly as it is intended.  DCPS operations continue to get funded through the traditional mixes of federal, state, and local funding (though a little less traditional in DC’s case).  Rather than cut those core services and programs, Rhee has secured outside funding to implement an innovative (or not so innovative, depending on your perspective) program intended to boost student achievement and teacher quality.  If it works, terrific.  If it doesn’t, it is largely the outside funders who fail to gain return on their investment.

In return, those philanthropic causes want to see some conditions on their contributions.  They aren’t handing over tens of millions of dollars blind.  They want oversight and assurances.  They want guarantees.  And they want some stability in management to make sure years aren’t wasted or programmatic goals don’t change mid-stream.  All seems perfectly reasonable.

Without question, there are a significant number of individuals — inside DC, in the eduaction community, etc. — who simply don’t like DCPS’s new teacher pact.  They will play whatever cards they can to try and delay and derail the deal, particularly knowing that this year’s campaign for DC mayor could result in new leadership, both for the city and for DCPS.  But this investigation seems silly, even for DC politics.

It does raise a very important point, though.  We are at a time when more private sector and philanthropic money is going into public K-12 education than ever before.  From the Gates Foundation to the matches sought by the pending federal Investing in Innovation grants, public/private partnerships and third-party financial support is becoming more and more the norm these days.  Yet much of these deals seem to still happen behind closed doors.  We learn of private support, but we often don’t know the dollar figures involved or the conditions attached, as we do with the current DCPS deal.

It seems we need some additional sunshine on the process.  A common database where philanthropic donations over a certain threshold are reported and cataloged.  A place where we can see who is giving money (and for what and with what conditions) and who is receiving it.  A clearinghouse where we can both see the inputs of such public/private school improvement efforts, as well as the documented outcomes of such investments.  A way to see what is working and replicate it, using these philanthropic supports to guide systemic reforms later on.

I recognize that folks are tired of reporting and accountability, but if we are to truly learn from these sorts of public/private investments, a little sunshine and accountability can be an enormous help.  And it may even maximize such outside investments, allowing us to see real, long-term results.