By now, most in national education policy circles realize we are transitioning from the era of AYP to the era of college/career ready. Instead of using middle school reading and math proficiency as our yardstick, we will soon be using the college- and career-ready common core standards to determine if states, districts, and schools are truly making progress toward student achievement.
Over at National Journal’s Education Experts Blog, they’ve been spending the week discussing EdSec Arne Duncan’s Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization. Lots of interesting opinion here, from Sandy Kress’ significant disappointment to Michael Lomax’ support to real concerns about the “5 percent rule” to a general feeling that lack of details is a good thing in planning legislative policy.
But this morning, your NJ ring leader Eliza Kligman broke a bit from protocol and posted an anonymous comment from a reader in South Carolina. (For those who don’t realize the participant list for the Education Experts Blog is a virtual who’s who. There are MANY in the chattering class who desperately want to be added to the list, but haven’t yet. And to focus on these experts, National Journal doesn’t allow readers to post comments to the blog. A general concept that usually means the kiss of death for a blog, but seems to work for National Journal.)
But I digress. This reader raised an important question with regard to the next generation of ESEA and our intent of getting every child in the United States “college ready.” In fact, the comment is a little more pointed, with the reader stating, “if everyone is highly technically trained or college educated who is going to check out my groceries, cut down the dead tree in my back yard, tow my car when it breaks down, or take my money when I buy gas at the convenience store? If you think the illegal alien problem is bad now, just wait until all of us middle class soon-to-be-elderly are told we have to pay highly skilled wages tot he guy who cuts our grass.”
While SC is mixing and matching a wide range of policy issues that shouldn’t be joined together (such as who is worthy of earning highly skilled wages and the immigration issue), he does start to touch on an interesting point. But Eduflack would ask a more important question — does being college ready mean that every student should actually attend college?
In today’s global economy, just about everyone who holds a full-time job likely needs the sort of knowledge and skills that would be deemed “college- and career-ready.” That guy fixing his car is most likely ASE certified and needs to be well versed in computers, math, and other subjects to successfully repair what are now four-wheeled computers with AC and a killer sound system. The guy cutting the tree now needs to know ecology and life sciences and hopefully some math to generate accurate invoices. And regardless of the job, we want everyone to be literate with some level of social skill. So the fear expressed by SC and many, many others is a bit of a straw man.
It opens the larger question, though. As a nation, though, we have set a national goal to have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by the year 2020. Why? Is it more important for someone to hold a diploma or a good-paying job? What is the measure of a successful nation? A strong economy? A robust workforce? Or the total worth of outstanding student loans?
I don’t mean to be negative here, but Eduflack has long believed we are selling students a bill of goods by telling them everyone should go to college. First off, when we say college, most mean four-year degrees (and that’s even how that national goal is being measured). But what about the knowledge and skills that are earned through community college programs and career and technical education programs? What about military service, where four years of Army training may be far more beneficial than a BA in the liberal arts? What about those whose passion is pursuing a trade, or the true entrepreneurs who are itching to open a business and pursue their passion? Are all of those pursuits worth less because they don’t come attached to a four-year degree?
When Eduflack got into this discussion a few years ago, it generated an ongoing offline debate with a liberal arts professor from a college in the Pacific Northwest. He regularly called me a complete idiot, saying I completely missed the point. The role of college, he would say, is not to prepare kids for career, it was to broaden their minds and open them up to new experiences.
The ESEA Blueprint is correct is seeking to ensure that all those who graduate from U.S. high schools are ready for either college or career. But we need to have a much deeper discussion of who should go to college, why they should pursue postsecondary education, and what the expected return on investment is for such a pursuit. In an era where an aspiring college student can drop more than $200,000 to earn a BA from a private liberal arts institution, ROI becomes an important topic — for lenders, potential employers, and the students themselves.
Year: 2010
Firing Teachers … or Improving Teaching?
In Rhode Island, they fired an entire high school of teachers because of poor student test scores and a perceived unwillingness to change. In Florida, the legislature is now moving forward with plans to eliminate job security for teachers, essentially putting them on year-to-year contracts. Center for American Progress researchers are writing about the need to fire bad teachers if we are to improve public education. And officials at The New Teacher Project and Education Trust are calling for an end to last hired, first fired and an collective wave bu-bye to poor teachers in California.
And earlier this year, riding the wave of Race to the Top and the U.S. Department of Education’s four education improvement pillars, even the American Federation of Teachers got into the discussion, advocating for greater adoption of teacher performance measures (albeit at a much less high-stakes way than CAP, TNTP, or EdTrust may call for).
Teacher quality is quickly become issue (and public enemy) number one in education reform debates. For decades now, we have said that teachers are the most important component to school success. You couldn’t work around the teachers if you wanted to bring about real change. One needs the buy-in from educators to adopt real reforms. All the curriculum, technology, and turnaround plans in the world will do no good if the teachers don’t embrace them and implement them with fidelity.
So as we continue to look at stagnant test scores (at least, according to yet another round of NAEP results), it is no surprise that those looking to make real changes to how K-12 education operates — and the results it generates — are focusing on teachers as either the catalyst or the roadblock to our potential success. Schools that improve point to teachers (both traditional veterans and the ever-popular TFAers) as a major reason for their success. Those who continue to struggle, those who fail to meet AYP now and will fail to meet AYP’s successor tomorrow often blame it on the status quo, with a capital S and a capital Q boldly displayed on the chest of a status quo teacher.
Eduflack often says that teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there. It is a job I don’t believe I am capable of doing well. And there are a number of people leading our classrooms that likely should not, whether it be for lack of knowledge or pedagogy, a failure to relate to the kids, or a missing passion or educate.
But should we really be looking to fire all of the teachers who can’t get test scores up on one, three, or even five years? Do we terminate the contracts of all teachers whose classes can’t make AYP for two years in a row? And what about those years when educators are simply teaching a class full of rocks in a given year, do they only go on double secret probation then?
I agree with CAP, TNTP, EdTrust, and many others that we need to do a much better job of those teachers who are struggling in the classroom. We need to gather data on why they are struggling, determining if it is a failure of the system, the school, or the teacher. We need to better understand the conditions and supports necessary for effective teaching, particularly with historically disadvantaged populations. And we need to put all of that data and observation to use for us NOW.
But rather than looking to swiftly dismiss “bad” teachers, shouldn’t we first try to improve teaching? Use the data to partner leader and laggard teachers to improve practice across the board. Provide improved PD and supports to struggling teachers. Put our best teachers in the schools and classes with the most need. Give all teachers the chance to demonstrate they have the skills, the relatability, and the passion necessary to succeed in the classroom. And then, when those teachers have been given all of the necessary pieces and still fail to clear the bar, do we look to clear the classroom and start new.
In professional sports, we often see the negative impact a succession of new coaches can have on a team and even on star players. It is tough to learn a new system and a new teacher again, again, and again. Those athletes who do the best usually come from systems that have stability and longevity. Why wouldn’t the same be true of students? Is it better to introduce a new cast of school characters year after year, signaling that students simply aren’t making the cut, or is better do invest in the team on the field, and improve the quality of play on the field?
Bracketology, through an Academic Performance Lens
This week marks the second greatest annual sporting experience — March Madness (Eduflack is still a purist and believes nothing can hold a candle to baseball’s Opening Day). Later this week, 65 of the supposed best Division One men’s basketball teams will square off to see which is the best (or the luckiest) basketball team of the year. And then, on my birthday this year, we will crown a national champion.
The top four seeds are the top teams we typically expect to see — Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse, with Kansas designated the number one number one. As in most years, we see lots of teams from the major conferences, and a good mix of mid-major programs that have done their institutions proud on the hardwoods.
The annual brackets often lead some to begin discussing athletics versus academics at Division One colleges and universities. Those who follow men’s college basketball (it is very different for women’s college basketball) are no fools. We realize that the majority of players, particularly those who start, will never earn that sheepskin from the IHE providing them with a free, four-year ride to a top college. Many play a year or two, then seek their fortunes in either the NBA. Those who can’t make the NBA cut will often head to overseas leagues, hoping it will provide them a pathway back to the NBA. And many will fail to take advantage of the opportunities that scholarship can provide, particularly in the face of the realities of how few college ballers actually make it to play professionally with LeBron, Kobe, and company.
For the fifth year in a row, the good folks over at Inside Higher Education offer up their “Academic Performance Tournament,” a similarly bracketed tourney that looks at how those teams playing for that “one shining moment” on April 5 would fair if they were judged based on the NCAA’s Academic Performance Rate (that looks at academic standing and simply staying enrolled in school) instead of just the number of points one can put up during a game. And the results are always fun to look at.
Sometimes, we do see the actual winner match up with the academic winner. It happened last year when the University of North Carolina won. But this year’s Academic Dance offers up some great upsets. Ohio U over Georgetown. Vermont over Syracuse (which has actually happened in the Tourney before). North Texas over Kansas State. Cornell over Temple. Montana over New Mexico. Siena over Purdue.
IHE offers its Final Four as Kansas, Duke, Texas, and BYU, with Kansas winning it all on April 5. Syracuse loses its first game. Number one seed Kentucky doesn’t make it into the round of 16. But IHE still sides with chalk, choosing the number one number one seed to win it all, a real possibility both academically and athletically.
The folks at IHE use the NCAA Graduation Success Rate to break ties. Eduflack wonders what the brackets would look like if we picked winners based solely on their ability to graduate the players they enroll as “student-athletes.” The results would likely be shocking.
UPDATE: ESPN is also reporting a new report provided by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, which focuses on the graduation gap between white and black players on the 65 teams found in the bracket. According to the Institute, 45 teams graduated 70 percent or more of their white players, but only 20 teams could hit the same mark for their black student-athletes. The study used graduation success rates, looking at six-year grad rates for freshmen.
Swingin’ for the ESEA Fences
In yesterday’s initial analysis of the US Department of Education’s ESEA reauthorization blueprint, I noted I was “whelmed” by the plan as a whole. (And for the record, I am a strong proponent of using the word whelmed. If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I certainly can be whelmed. It’s not like having to choose between North and South Dakota.) Since then, I’ve received a number of questions as to why, particularly since so many people seem to see this as a strong step forward in improving No Child Left Behind.
My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin’, knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered. When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape. Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered). The term “scientifically based research” was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike. And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were. These were all but twinkles in Sandy’s, Margaret’s BethAnn’s, and Reid’s eyes before the reauthorization process began.
But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET. Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. So what were once big ideas — Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards — are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days. We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now. We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.
The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB’s Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec Margaret Spellings’ Teacher Incentive Fund, and the teacher requirements included in RttT. Even in addressing the persistent problem with low-performing schools, this blueprint simply evolves from NCLB’s two-tiered evaluation with a new three-tiered system, as reported here by Greg Toppo. And while that extra tier may really help at addressing those 5,000 lowest-performing schools, it hardly wins hearts and minds.
To be fair, Eduflack realizes you don’t always need some new shiny toy or a jaw-dropping new idea to move forward solid legislation. In fact, in a perfect world, I would hope we’d never need such gimmicks. But with short attention spans and even shorter understanding curves, one often needs that hook, that big idea, to help gain attention and start winning over the necessary converts. When ESEA was reauthorized back in 2001 (and signed into law in early 2002), we not only gave it a new name (NCLB ), but we offered some new ideas and programs to show this was not your father’s version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Working from the existing blueprint, Eduflack sees a few potentials for both some smallball ideas as well as some bases-clearing longballs. What am I thinking?
* Immediately include strong pieces of congressional legislation in the plan. I’m thinking things like U.S. Sen. Patty Murray’s (WA) LEARN Act focused on K-12 reading instruction, Chairman George Miller’s (CA) plan for high school improvement, or even the recent legislation offered by U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI) and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (CO) establishing a federal definition for teacher professional development.
* Get personal on teacher quality. Teacher quality is now clearly a central point of the debate, with even Obama calling out the teacher education sector for not living up to expectations. So let’s get personal here. As part of your data system work, ensure that we are able to track teachers (both leaders and laggards) back to their originating program, be it a college of education or an alt cert program. Then be prepared to name names when it comes to those institutions that are not delivering the long-term results sought under the new law.
* Invest in parents. The day after Obama was elected, Eduflack opined that the EdSec should establish a family engagement office (at the assistant secretary level) so that the Administration could focus on the role of families in school improvement. To date, the Administration has talked a good game. But with the pending elimination of Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC) grants, there is a gaping hole for engaging families. NCLB tried to do this, with mixed results. Building off of the Obama campaign’s success in 2008 and recent activities around healthcare reform, one can build a strong, effective multi-touch effort to really involve parents and families in school turnaround and improvement efforts.
* Kill the bubble sheet. Under ESEA reauthorization, this administration has the power to do away with the dreaded “bubble sheet test.” Proudly proclaim that new assessments coming out of common core standards will be required to be smart computer-based exams. Bring testing into the 21st century while allowing for a more-comprehensive assessment than can be captured by guessing which one of five bubbles may be the most correct.
* Require online learning. I applaud the commitment to improving high schools and working to boost graduation rates. Let’s add a little 21st century relevancy here. Learning from states like Florida and Alabama, let’s require that, by 2020, every student in the United States must take at least one virtual course in order to graduate from high school. Not only does it introduce more relevant coursework into the classroom, it clearly promotes that learning happens beyond what happens between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. behind the traditional schoolhouse doors.
Those are just five ideas to get the discussion started. The legislative pieces could be endorsed by EdSec Duncan during Wednesday’s hearings. Teacher quality could be done this summer when NCATE’s anticipated report is released. A Family Engagement Office could be started immediately. And killing the bubble sheet and folding virtual education into state requirements can be done now as stimulus money is used to invest in a range of ed reform ideas. Regardless, we should be taking this opportunity to continue to move forward big, bold thoughts. Real ed improvement can’t be limited by those ideas moved during year one. Not to mix my sports metaphors, but this game goes at least four quarters. We need to maximize all opportunities.
Finally, an ESEA Blueprint from the Feds
After months of anticipation, we finally have the official blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act form the Obama Administration. The plan was teased in some news articles yesterday (Saturday) morning and was previewed during President Barack Obama’s weekly radio address on Saturday morning. The official plan, found here, was officially released on Saturday evening at 8 p.m.
At first glance, I found the plan to be whelming. On the whole, I thought it was entirely solid and relatively thoughtful. But as I read it (and it shows you what type of life Eduflack lives when he spends his Saturday night reading the Administration’s ESEA blueprint, but for what is was worth, I was also watching West Virginia University beat Georgetown), I was surprised by how little I was surprised with. As we used to write about two years ago, this was clearly NCLB 2.0. Much of the last iteration of ESEA remains intact. Some needed improvements are being made. And the priorities emphasized in Race to the Top are being codified, hopefully, into the new law.
The highlights? The plan is grouped under five key principles (not to be confused with ED’s four pillars). The principles include: college and career-ready students, great teachers and leaders, raise the bar and reward excellence, equity and opportunity, and promote innovation. These principles break into the following tasks:
- College and Career-Ready Students — Raising standards for all students, better assessments, a complete education (meaning a well-rounded curriculum beyond the common core standards)
- Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School — Effective teachers and principals, our best teachers and leaders where they are needed the most, and strengthening teacher and leadership preparation and recruitment.
- Equity and Opportunity for All Students — Rigorous and fair accountability for all students, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and greater equity.
- Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence — Fostering a Race to the Top, supporting effective school choice, and promoting a culture of college readiness and success.
- Promoting Innovation and Continuous Improvement — Fostering innovation and accelerating success, supporting recognizing and rewarding local innovations, and supporting student success.
See, nothing that exactly shakes the K-12 education earth. As I read the blueprint, I am seeing much of the original intent of NCLB, mixed in with the goals of RttT, a heavy, heavy influence of common core standards, and a strong dash of the principles advocated through the Schott Foundation’s recent Opportunity to Learn (OTL) campaign (primarily the equity planks). A little something here for everyone, but not enough that any one party is quite swooning at this point.
I’ll be honest, the timing of this release as Eduflack completely puzzled. This blueprint was released as if ED was trying to dump it so no one noticed it. In PR, the general rule is you never release something of importance over a weekend. And you certainly don’t do it at 8 p.m. on a Saturday night. Many of the leading reporters got an advance briefing of the blueprint (as evidenced by The Washington Post coverage here, which notes an expected 16 percent spending increase in the federal education budget), but it is clear from the early comments that this release was not maximizing the interest in the topic. We have 16 states coming over to ED this week to plead their case for RttT, with this blueprint now stepping on that significant reform story. Yes, Duncan is slated to speak before the Senate HELP Committee this Wednesday, but with all of Washington focused on healthcare reform, this blueprint is likely to go undernoticed in the coming days and weeks.
But from the look and feel of the blueprint, it is clear that neither Capitol Hill nor the media is in the intended target here. Since the beginning of the calendar year, we have been hearing how Assistant ED Secretary Carmel Martin was preparing an ESEA blueprint for legislators on the Hill. But this document, from its design to its word choices to its bulleted focus of key concepts, is designed to deliver talking points and marching orders to the education blob. This “blueprint” is designed to move the discussion at member organizations, forums about town, and cocktail parties and gab sessions. In that way, it isn’t so much a blueprint as it is framing document for debate.
A few things are crystal clear. One, EdSec Arne Duncan is going all in when it comes to common core standards. The execution of this blueprint requires the adoption of the proposed standards across the country. Anything short of 80 percent adoption within the year is going to severely hamstring much of what is proposed in this plan.
Two, those who were expecting accountability (and AYP) to be weakened are going to be severely disappointed. Yes, we no longer use the term AYP. But accountability remains alive and well in this document. Localities are not being granted the flexibility many had hoped they may receive. And while we are changing some of the rubrics (again, aligning them with those core standards) it is clear that continued improvement of student achievement remains the name of the game. Even more so when it now appears that states, districts, schools, and teachers will be judged by how good a job they do getting more kids to graduate from high school.
Three, the teachers unions have been put on notice. Obama’s remarks last week about the situation in Rhode Island were quite an intentional statement against the teaching status quo. This blueprint strengthens the call for closing low-performing schools, addressing teachers who aren’t making the cut, and holding school districts, administrators, and teachers far more accountable for student achievement than even NCLB did.
Four, rural education is not going to be happy. After seeking to improve its lot under NCLB, rural ed is almost an afterthought in this blueprint, inserted in a list of specialty audiences AFTER Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education interests. Hardly the sort of focus that Senate HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY) and House Education Committee Ranking Member John Kline (MN) are hoping to see. And Eduflack would quibble with what is labeled as “A New Approach,” as many of these bullet items do indeed read like the rhetoric surrounding NCLB intentions back in 2001 and 2002. But looking to bullet out the takeaways (and distinguish between new and continued approaches) is always useful to those who will be asked to opine on this blueprint now and in the future.
And what’s missing? No real discussion of anticipated plans of eliminating the current Title II (focused on teachers) and replacing it with new language aligned with the last year’s activities (though I suspect that’s what the effective teachers section is intended to address). No real emphasis on plans to eliminate traditional, guaranteed block grants and replace them with competitive grant programs a la RttT and i3, particularly at the school district level. And most importantly, no crosswalk of dollars with priorities. WaPo may be pointing to a major spending increase under the reauthorization, but it simply isn’t part of the plan that has
been shared with the at large chattering class. We’re being asked to buy into big ideas, with specific dollars, programs, and line items available on a need-to-know basis at a later date.
been shared with the at large chattering class. We’re being asked to buy into big ideas, with specific dollars, programs, and line items available on a need-to-know basis at a later date.
So what now? From early reports, AASA (which was a strong opponent to NCL
seems happy. Teachers unions are upset. And most simply didn’t realize this was dropped late last night (and announced proudly on Facebook for those who are Fans of the US Department of Education). While this gives both the House and Senate committees additional information to consider as they hold their ESEA hearings, it is clear that Chairman George Miller (CA) is moving forward with his own plans, and this blueprint may very well be tossed onto the pile with other recommendations coming in to Miller from across the sector.
seems happy. Teachers unions are upset. And most simply didn’t realize this was dropped late last night (and announced proudly on Facebook for those who are Fans of the US Department of Education). While this gives both the House and Senate committees additional information to consider as they hold their ESEA hearings, it is clear that Chairman George Miller (CA) is moving forward with his own plans, and this blueprint may very well be tossed onto the pile with other recommendations coming in to Miller from across the sector. Timing? Eduflack loves those cock-eyed optimists who are still talking about reauthorization by this summer. It ain’t happening. If the intent is to re-bucket ESEA around this proposed blueprint, we are looking at spring 2011 at the earliest, assuming we don’t have significant shifts in congressional makeup this November. But at least it gives us more to talk about than just RttT!
“Teacher Preparation: Who Needs It?”
Without question, teacher quality is one of THE hot topics in education reform these days. Logically, we recognize that teachers are the ones primarily responsible for boosting student achievement in the classroom. Programs like the US Department of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund have thus been designed to reward those teachers whose students demonstrate success. It is a simple equation, outcomes result in rewards.
But what about the inputs that result in that achievement? What do teachers need to know, be able to do, and experience before they ever become a teacher of record? Those are the sorts of questions that the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) is trying to tackle with a new series of policy briefings it launched today, titled “Teacher Preparation: Who Needs It?”
In today’s episode, AACTE offered up The Clinical Preparation of Teachers: A Policy Brief, a document that provides some of the history, the research, and the vision for how to best address clinical preparation. Chief among the recommendations — all prospective teachers, regardless of their pathway, need at least 450 hours of clinical training (or a full semester).
Full disclosure, Eduflack has worked with the folks over at AACTE for years. Regardless, today’s briefing offered some interesting recommendations for the federal government, state government, and those preparing the next generation of teachers, including:
For the feds:
- Revise the “Highly Qualified Teacher” definition within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to require that teachers must establish not only their content expertise, but their ability to teach it effectively, as measured by their actual performance in classrooms, following extended clinical experience;
- Invest in the development of a National Teacher Performance Assessment that would parallel the development and adoption of Common Core Standards;
- Maintain the Teacher Quality Partnership Grants, with a specific clinical preparation focus, in the Higher Education Opportunity Act while increasing funding for the program;
For states:
- Require a minimum of 450 hours, or one semester, of clinical experience during pre-service teacher preparation;
- Ensure that all teacher preparation routes, regardless of pathway, include the same clinical preparation requirements;
- Require a high-quality teacher performance assessment of all teacher candidates;
- Collaborate to agree upon common clinical experience requirements;
- Offer incentives to schools that act as clinical settings for teacher candidates;
- Support the expansion or replication of successful teacher residency programs;
And for providers of teacher preparation:
- Ensure school districts and universities work jointly to design and supervise strong clinical practice collaborations;
- Provide all teacher candidates substantial and appropriate clinical preparation prior to becoming “teacher of record” in their own classrooms;
- Train clinical teachers and other teacher mentors to help and support novice teachers;
- Require all clinical teachers to have at least three years of teaching experience; and
- Assist our nation’s public schools and teacher preparation programs to jointly adopt standards for newly redesigned clinically based teacher preparation programs.
As part of the formal presentation, the crowd heard from U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI), who is quickly becoming THE Senate voice on education in general and professional development in particular. In his remarks, Senator Reed praised President Obama for adding funds to the Teacher Quality Partnership program as part of last year’s economic stimulus package, but took issue with Obama eliminating the program as part of his budget recommendations last month. Reed urged all those in attendance to reach out to their Senators and Congressmen to ask that TQP be restored, as the program is essential to ensuring our colleges and universities are working toward developing the high-quality, effectiv
e teachers our schools need so badly.
With a greater and greater focus on effective, results-based instruction, the issue of teacher preparation isn’t going to go away. Even as part of its Quality Counts study, Education Week recently highlighted those states that are leaders and laggards when it comes to the clinical experience. Content may be king these days, but pedagogy is quickly gaining stature.
Investing in Proven Innovation
The hits keep coming from the good folks down on Maryland Avenue. Today, the U.S. Department of Education officially released its Investing in Innovation, or i3, grant RFP. For all of those districts looking to get a piece of nearly $650 million in i3 dollars, the clock starts … NOW. Full details on the grant process can be found here.
Many will recall that ED circulated a draft i3 RFP for public comment back in the fall. Today’s announcement very closely mirrors that which we say months ago. We are still looking at three categories of grants — development, validation, and scale-up. Development grants still come in with a max of $5 million per; validation with a max of $30 million per, and scale up with a max of $50 million per.
School district applicants still need to provide a 20 percent matching contribution from private sources (including those college/university partners). Bonus points remain for early childhood focus, college access and success focus, ELL focus, and rural schools focus (with rural schools worth two extra points and the others worth just one).
Most importantly, the evidence requirements remain the same as they have always been. What does this mean? In this case, innovation not only means the introduction of something new or different; it also means that you have to prove that that new or different approach is proven effective. The feds are seeking very real research to drive this innovation, even in the development grants.
Before the end of the month, our friends with the federal government will hold three information sessions for prospective applicants — in Baltimore, Denver, and Atlanta. Those districts looking to apply for i3 should file a notice of intent within 20 days of the RFP being posted on the Federal Register (still hasn’t gone up, as of 11 a.m. today) and applications are due within 60 days of Federal Register posting. ED is now saying they will award i3 grants in two phases.
Today’s official grant notice also offers some guidance on how many grants can be awarded. But in the words immortalized by Barbie (the Doll) back in the late 1990s, “math is hard!” For months now, Eduflack has been telling interested LEAs that we are likely only looking at 30 total winners. With a $650 million pool (now down to $643 million), you are looking at eight or nine winners in each of the three categories, assuming districts get close to the max. So $400 million for scale up (eight grants), $200 million for validation (10 grants), and $40-50 million or so for development grants (10 grants). Then the pot has run dry.
But ED seems to have a different view of things. Average grant awards are estimated at $3 million for development, $17.5 million for validation, and $30 million for scale up. (This despite the realization that virtually every state that applied for Race to the Top funds exceeded the budget range that was assigned to their state). Based on those ranges, ED estimates up to five scale up winners, and up to 100 winners each in both development and validation. Obviously, the budget doesn’t allow anything close to that.
Five scale up winners at $30 million knocks the total pool down to less than $500 million remaining. A hundred validation grants at $17.5 million per would put us at $1.75 billion, more than three times the remaining pool. And those up to 100 development grants at $3 million per adds another $300 million. So if we top out on the estimates (realizing they are all generous ranges) ED is saying i3 could be up to nearly $2.2 billion. I’m all for stretching the dollar, but that seems to be a little more than the $643 million currently available.
Why is this so important? LEAs need to realize that competition for these grants is going to be significantly difficult and cutthroat. With RttT, we had a sense for how many states would and can win. Virtually every state applies, and based on the funding ranges, we can expect close to 20 states to win. If we don’t spend the full RttT pool, then we will have fewer winners.
But with i3, we have the possibility of thousands of school districts and consortia applying for a piece of this money. Some districts have been hard at work on their projects for years, and a scale up grant seems like a slam dunk (Eduflack has long said Chicago Public Schools and its Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, would be a slam dunk for i3). Other districts have been focusing on their applications for months, even before the draft regulations came out. Still others have been looking to partner with other districts, local universities, or nationally recognized non-profits, to strengthen their applications. And then you have some who think that “innovation” in the title means it is supposed to fund technology programs. Regardless, all want a piece of this.
So instead of 25 or 40 percent of states winning a RttT grant, we are looking at the possibility that far fewer than 5 percent of i3 applicants will get a taste of that federal nectar. That means applications must be well written, on point, and based on research like few grant proposals have ever been based before (and unlike RttT, i3 applications can’t be more than 35-50 pages, depending on type). Competition is going to be fierce. The strength of both the research and the impact will be king.
And what does Eduflack expect to see? First, many districts will be dusting off ye olde research protocols to ensure their proposed models match that offered by IES these past five or so years. Second, rural schools are going to fair pretty well here, both because of the extra points and because of the realization that RttT doesn’t provide rurals the attention they may need. And at the end of the day, we still should expect no more than 35 total winners. Five scale up winners each coming in close the $50 million cap, 10 or so validation winners coming closer to the $30 million cap than the $17.5 million ED estimate, and another 10-12 development winners, most of which need more than the $3 million in expected seed money.
Good research and documentation is hard, and it doesn’t come cheap. For months, we’ve been hearing that RttT is all about quality, not quantity. The same needs to be true for i3. The focus should be on providing a select group of school districts with the money to truly ramp up and further test a specific intervention that is boosting student performance and closing the achievement gap. If we want these funds to have a real, true, and lasting impact, we need to spend wisely on the lowest-hanging fruit, investing in those ideas that have the greatest possible return on investment and using those results to inspire other districts to follow suit.
Happy Anniversary, Me!
We pause from our regular missives on education agitation to take a moment to celebrate Eduflack’s anniversary. It is hard for me to believe that we launched this blog three years ago. At the time, I anticipated readership in the zero mark (not even my mother or my wife were regular readers in the early days). I started Eduflack because I found the writing cathartic. As originally envisioned, this blog was going to focus on how well we are communicating on key education issues. As these pages have grown, we’ve also spent a lot of time talking about the policy and the research itself, trying to mix things up, pick fights, and spur some different thinking on the ideas on which we are so focused these days.
In that time, we’ve written close to 1,000 entries. And, unfortunately for Eduflack readers, my posts are far longer than your average bear blog posts. I’ll admit, I can be a little verbose, but I continue to try to provide content that is relevant to readers. I’ve learned over the years that I really do have readers. Sure, the blog statistics show me who is visiting and how that is increasing, but I am particularly surprised when I hear from real people that they read this site. I know how much content is out there on the Web, so I take it very seriously when people say they read this stuff. It puts the pressure on to continue to write, to continue to be relevant, and to continue to be of some sort of value. You’ve definitely raised the stakes for me, and push me to do better.
That’s one of the reasons why we added the @Eduflack Twitter feed. During a good week, I can turn out four or five essays on the education news of the day. But there is much, much more that I wish I could write about. So each day, I offer up 10-15 Tweets relaying those articles and studies that are catching my eye. And the good think about the @Eduflack Twitter feed is it is relatively opinion free. Just lots and lots of links to the issues and topics of importance to me and, hopefully, Eduflack readers.
As I reflect on the last three years, I have to both start and end with huge thanks to those readers and supporters out there. Everyone who reads it. Everyone who cites Eduflack or links back to it. Those who comment on posts. Those who send me story ideas or take issue with the story ideas I select. This blog has value because of the ongoing input I receive. Without such input I really am truly just writing for myself, and that does no one any good at this point.
But there are also a few important notes I would like to point out, based on some recent feedback, items that I believe are worth highlighting:
* Eduflack is not a journalist, and I sure hope I don’t try to portray myself as one. I have a great deal of respect for journalists and for the ethics that govern their profession. Real journalists are out there gathering the full story, interviewing parties on both side, and providing a balanced approach to a topic. That isn’t my job. At best, I am a commentator. If you are looking for the news, there a number of sites I can and have directed people to for the best in education information. I will link to many of those stories in my posts. But Eduflack is not a journalist, despite the number of media releases that end up in my inbox each day. I write opinion. The point of this blog is to provide my critique and my analysis of the education issues of the day.
* That also means that I have a day job. For the past dozen years, ever since I left Capitol Hill, I have spent most of my time as a consultant, working with a great number of organizations and individuals. As a general rule, I have always tried NOT to write about my clients. When I have, I have disclosed those relationships. But obviously, what I write about is what I am focused on during the day. The focus on RF came out of all the years I spent shepherding the National Reading Panel. A recent focus on high school graduation rates and the achievement gap sprung from my work with the National Governors Association and its Honor States initiative. So while I have always tried to disclose when I have a direct business interest in a post, it is safe to say I have an intellectual interest in everything I write.
* I am an amateur when it comes to research. Over the past 10-plus years, I have been fortunate to work with a great number of education researchers, particularly those who fall into the non-squishy variety. I have learned a great deal from them, and, from time to time, feel these wise individuals have provided me an informal graduate education in such research issues. But whether it be my analysis or virtually anyone else’s analysis of the data, it is always best to trust, but verify.
* I don’t shy away from criticism. I’m always surprised when folks want to engage in a lengthy debate on a topic with me, but take such debates and critiques offline and private. I enjoy the public debate. And I am more than willing to open up these pages to others who may want to take issue with a particular post or may have a different perspective. If you want to take dear ole Eduflack on, just drop me a line and we can make it happen.
I look forward to another interesting and thought provoking Eduflack year. We have RttT, common core standards, and i3 coming down the pike. ESEA reauthorization is waiting. And, perhaps more importantly, we are starting to move into a closer look at how these new federal actions are affecting our states and localities (particularly on the implementation side). Lots to write about, lots to commentate on, lots to stir up the pot with.
Thanks, all, for making the past three years so much fun! Here’s to another year (and hopefully more) of offering an intersection for education policy, research, and communications.
Taking the Pole Position on Race
Those Phase One Race to the Top finalists have now been announced. As we all know by now, the 16 jurisdictions that will now vie for the honor of being the first three or four states to win a RttT grant include: Colorado, Delaware, Washington DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
For Eduflack, the only real surprise here is Washington, DC (which is a pleasant surprise). The remaining 15 are all states that have been on most lists for some time. While a few may be surprised by Illinois, those doubters should read the proposal. It was one of the strongest in the pool. And while some may question South Carolina, the state has been touting it has the best application in the pool. So no major surprised there.
Now let’s take a look at some of the interesting facts. Back in the summer, the Gates Foundation provided $250,000 grants to 15 states to help with the development of their Race grants. Fourteen of those states submitted for Phase One (Texas was the holdout), and 10 of those 14 made the cut — Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. And of the remaining six finalists, four of them received later assistance from Gates, after NGA and CCSSO urgings. Only Delaware and South Carolina did the heavy lifting themselves.
The four Gates-funded states who didn’t make the cut? Arkansas, Arizona, Minnesota, and New Mexico. (Along with the Republic of Texas, of course.)
Only one of the 16 states — Colorado — is west of Mississippi. That seems a bit surprising, but the scoring rubric didn’t take geography into account. The South is particularly well represented, which some could see as a sign of the region’s willingness to embrace education reforms and others may see as the value of right to work states and weaker teachers’ unions/organizations.
And for you history buffs, eight of the original 13 colonies made the cut! Condolences to New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia.
According to the US Department of Education, each of these states scored at least 80 percent — or 400 points — on the reviewer scores. States will be coming to DC in a week and a half (without their consultants and outside proposal preparers) to orally defend their proposals. And states will either gain or lose points based on the interview and swimsuit competitions.
If academic achievement is the name of the game, it is a surprising mix of states. Looking at eighth grade NAEP reading performance (one of the best measures of actual student academic success), of the 16 finalists, only Massachusetts is in the Top 10 for eighth grade NAEP reading scores. And only four of the states — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado — rank in the top 20. Five of the finalists (Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, and DC) are in the bottom quartile.
While Eduflack has read his share of RttT applications, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the nuance and the details (though I will continue to pretend to be to amaze people at forums and cocktail parties). The finalists appear to be a strong mix of states with a good track record, states with a strong plan for the future, states that have made major legislative changes to qualify for RttT, and some states that really need the dollars. But don’t take my word for it. Check out what others are saying.
The US Department of Education’s formal announcement and supporting materials can be found here. Politics K-12 has great analysis here, while Eduwonk weighs in here, Andy Smarick here, with Tom Vander Ark here. Who else wants on the carousel of RttT fun?
Democratic Learning, With a Little D
As the battle lines continue to be drawn with regard to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), some continue to remind us that the discussion is more complex than it seems. K-12 isn’t just about student achievement on math and reading exams, they contend, and true education improvement is about more than just accountability.
One such voice is Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. Reflecting on his past experiences as both a classroom educator and the founding director of the Five Freedoms Project, Chaltain recently released a new book offering a bit of a different framework for classroom instruction. American Schools: The Art of Creating a Democratic Learning Community serves as that call to arms.
Often, we see these sorts of books chock full of ideas, but with little practice or real life to back it up. In American Schools, Chaltain offers up both the theory behind his reccs and specific practice where those ideas have already taken hold. The theory is based on five basics organizational points — reflect, connect, create, equip, and let come. He then offers some real classroom experiences in California, South Carolina, and New Hampshire where those common theoretical words are put to practice.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss looked at American Schools vis-a-vis survey data on the Pledge of Allegiance and how well we are preparing our students to be productive citizens. Such a discussion line becomes particularly interesting when we reflect on some of the proposed education budget “consolidations” being proposed this year, including specific programs focusing on civics and U.S. history.
At a time when closing the achievement gap and boosting student achievement across the board is the name of the game, is there room in the debate for a more holistic look at K-12 education and an emphasis on the qualitative measures of classroom education? Time will tell. As budgets continued to get stretched and we continue to demand more and more of our classroom educators and our school leaders, it becomes harder and harder to add teaching democracy skills to the list of performance measures we expect to see coming out of our public schools. But as we begin focusing on what it means to be “college and career ready,” perhaps it is a line of discussion we should be having as we talk about the knowledge and skills all students should possess to contribute to their community.
Regardless, some of the case studies, rubrics, and examples that Chaltain offers up in American Schools are worth a read (and may be worth showing to folks like U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander and Robert Byrd to remind then of the role civics and history can play in ESEA reauthorization).
And for those in Washington, DC looking to engage Chaltain on the concept, he’ll be over at Busboys and Poets at 14th and V Streets NW in the District tonight at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the democratic learning premise. Eduflack is sure Sam would be up for a good ole debate on the topic.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 