Year: 2011

Pencils, Bubble Sheets, and Erasures

Eduflack 21CS, accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, DCPS, Online Education

After yet another investigation into alleged cheating on DC Public Schools’ student achievement tests, DCPS officials yesterday announced that they were tossing out the standardized test scores for three classrooms.  If one reads between the lines, it appears that the current action was based on allegations that someone altered the beloved bubble tests after the students took the exam.

This follows on the heels of similar allegations in Atlanta last year, which forced the resignation of long-time Atlanta Public Schools Superintendent Beverly Hall.  And, of course, this isn’t the first time that DCPS has investigated alleged altering of the bubble sheets on its exams.  The same charges were levied just a few years ago.
For the past few years, we have heard EdSec Arne Duncan rail against the dreaded “bubble test.”  And while the good EdSec may be taking issue with such exams for a very different reason, he is correct.  The days of No.2 pencils and scanned bubble sheets should be over. 
With a growing chorus of opposition to bubble tests, with allegations of cheating on said tests on the rise, and with those pencil-and-scan sheet exams viewed as a general enemy to the educational process, it begs some essential questions.  Why aren’t we testing through other means?  In our 21st century learning environment, why do we still use 19th century testing approaches?  Can we build a better testing mousetrap?
Those first two questions are typically answered with the usual responses.  Change is more difficult than the status quo.  We fear the new.  If it isn’t truly broken, why try to fix it?  It costs too much, either in dollars or in stakeholder chits.  We don’t know enough yet (maybe we can form a committee to explore).  It just isn’t a high enough priority.
As for the last question, though, we have already built a better mousetrap.  A few states have begun using online adaptive testing, demonstrating promising practice (on its way to best practice).  The gold standard, at this point, is Oregon’s OAKS Online, or the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.  Following on its heels are similar online adaptive assessment systems in Hawaii and Delaware.  And with a $176 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (led by the State of Washington) is looking to develop a similar assessment framework to measure the K-12 Common Core State Standards.
Why these new systems?  To the point, they seem to assess student achievement and learning faster and better than ye olde bubble sheets, at a lower cost to the states.  From a practical point of view, they hopefully bring testing up to speed with instruction and learning.  If we are serious about a 21st century education for all, it only makes sense that we would couple that with 21st century assessment.  And that just isn’t done with a stick of wood and some graphite.
So in looking at alleged issues in DC, Atlanta, and elsewhere, the last questions we should be asking is how to avoid erasures on tests or the best way to detect systematic changes on bubble sheets.  Instead, we should be asking why we aren’t using a more effective testing system in the first place, a system that better aligns with both where we are headed on instruction and how today’s — and tomorrow’s — students actually learn?
* Full disclosure — Eduflack does work related to the assessment efforts in Oregon, Hawaii, and Delaware.         

A Few Good State Ed Chiefs

Eduflack CCSSO

On Tuesday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced that Paul Pastorek would be stepping down as the Pelican State’s education commissioner, taking a corporate job with EADS North America.  The announcement was a big blow for Louisiana, which has done some interesting things under Pastorek, and could be an even bigger blow for the start-up Chiefs for Change, which has now lost two of its founding members.  Guess they needed to be clearer that the “change” wasn’t from the education chief job itself.

The other departing chief, of course, is Eric Smith, who will vacate the top position in Florida in a month.  And as the St. Petersburg Times details, there doesn’t seem to be a wish list of candidates for the Sunshine State yet.  Some are so desperate for names, that the Times even asked dear ol’ Eduflack to opine on who could make Florida Gov. Scott’s short list.
Undoubtedly, other states may soon be adding their names to the search list.  Louisiana or Florida could fill their jobs with a sitting state supe in another jurisdiction.  The new crop of governors, approaching six months in office, may have new ideas about where they want to go in education.  And some state supes may look to jump for a corporate job, a potential federal job, or even to get mixed up in a presidential campaign or two.
The challenge in identifying a good state education chief is knowing what to look for.  There is no textbook model to follow.  Some states go the practitioner route.  Some go the political route.  Some go the policy route.  And some others may look for that darkhorse business/lawyer/attack dog type.  It all depends on the governor’s style, the governor’s interest in the issue, and the role of education in a given state.
So after much reflection and careful consideration (essentially a few moments on a too-long redeye flight back from Los Angeles), I have humbly decided to make myself available for governors in need.  Why not Eduflack for state superintendent?  I offer the following:
* Political acumen — Having served as a senior aide to members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, and as an advisor to multiple presidential administrations and countless governors, I know how the game is played.  I know how to build relationships with the legislature and with the governor’s office.  I know how to bring value to the administration and avoid “stepping in it.”  And, most importantly, I know how to give the governor the credit, while I do the dirty work.  I even pledge to join both CCSSO and Chiefs for Change.  Added bonus, I’m already an elected official in a state with hundreds of years experience turning out terrific public servants.  And you already get to call me “the Honorable.”
* Experience with multiple camps — I’ve successfully worked with both the “status quo” and the “ed reform” crowds.  I have friends on both teams.  I can play well with the unions, while advocating for meaningful reforms.  I can focus on innovations, without turning over the keys to both sides.  I can be an honest broker, one who understands all the players in the game and maximizes their involvement in future state education activities.  Depending on how you look at it, I can either get buy-in from all, or have the trust of none.
* Content knowledge — While I have never personally been a classroom teacher, I do know a thing or two about content.  Reading instruction.  STEM.  Ed tech.  Educator quality.  High school reform.  I have real experience working in all those areas, with specific experience in developing and delivering state-level K-12 education programs.  And for those concerned with the teacher thing, I have worked as an elementary basketball coach.  That has to be worth something, right?
* The power nexus — Perhaps most importantly, I naturally work from that all important education power nexus, where research, policy, and communications meet.  I know more about education research than the average bear.  I certainly know how to translate that research and related practice into meaningful policies (and to know the difference when squishy or meaningless policies are offered in its stead).  And if I don’t know how to successfully communicate it all to key stakeholders, I certainly have a lot of explaining to do regarding the past dozen or so years of my life. 
There you have it.  Eduflack as your next chief state school officer.  Think about it, is it really any worse than some of the other names that may be floated around?  I look good on paper and give a great press conference.  I’m new and fresh (I’ll try to watch the language, though), without too much of a track record (save for this troublesome blog).  I’m not afraid to speak my mind, but I can also toe the company line.  I just might be on to something …
 

Spectacular Science

Eduflack Science

I’ll admit it, I’m a science fair nerd.  Twenty years ago, Eduflack was the West Virginia State Science Fair Grand Prize Winner.  After doing a year-long experiment on the topic of verbal conditioning (whether we are moved by someone saying something is good or bad) and its impact on age groups (young kids, high schoolers, senior citizens), I was actually recognized as having the best science fair project in the entire Mountain State.

The reward?  I represented West Virginia at the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) down in Orlando, FL.  While I didn’t win, place, or show in the Behavioral Sciences category at ISEF, I did bring home a specialty award (and some cash for college) from a research group taken by my approach.
Why do I share all this?  This morning, I am flying out to Los Angeles for this year’s ISEF.  Two decades after I brought my display and research study down to Orlando, I now get to be a judge at the ISEF.  And I couldn’t be more excited!
I competed in science fairs for four years in high school.  Three of those years, I competed at the state science fair (once in New Mexico, twice in West Virginia).  Science fairs helped me with my writing, my presentation skills, inquiry and reflection.  It served as my introduction to “research,” a core component to my professional days today (albeit in a different field.)  And I actually enjoyed it (except for putting together those actual displays).
I keep hearing how science fairs are going the way of the dodo, that it doesn’t fit in our standards/assessment-focused world and requires too much time from both the student and teacher.  But I refuse to believe it. 
So I’m really looking forward to setting foot in the exhibit hall today and feeling the excitement, nervousness, and general energy offered by the students gathered.  There are few experiences quite like ISEF, and I’m just tickled I get to revisit one of those high school highlights.

So You Say You Want a National Curriculum?

Eduflack assessment, national standards

In case you missed it, about two weeks ago the Pearson Foundation announced that it was receiving funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to create a national K-12 curriculum.  Gates ponied up $3 million to have Pearson develop 24 courses, 11 in math and 13 in English-Language Arts.  At the announcement, both foundations positioned it as the next logical step in the adoption of Common Core State Standards.

The announcement seemed to go over with a bit of a thud.  First, it met some people’s fears that a Common Core would undoubtedly lead to a common curriculum.  And for the growing chorus that believes in local control and local decisionmaking, having bureaucrats in Washington (or even with a non-partisan foundation) determine what fifth grade math needed to look like on the third Tuesday of March just reeked of the nationalism folks have pushed back on for decades (or even since the creation of public education in the United States itself).
Others were concerned by the implications of Gates and Pearson Foundations working together.  After all, was the Pearson Foundation simply developing curriculum, on Gates’ dime, that the parent company, Pearson, would then turn around and sell?  After all, who better to “align” with a common curriculum than the company perceived to develop the curriculum itself?  Isn’t it logical that Pearson’s textbooks and PD and turnaround services and testing would then get the seal of approval from the Gates/Pearson Foundation partnership?
While the head of the Pearson Foundation told EdWeek “no firm exclusivity agreement” was in place with Pearson, it hardly takes a Ph.D. to realize that Pearson, and not McGraw-Hill or Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, would have the inside track to the Pearson Foundation’s new course sequence. 
   
If the Shanker Institute was the serve from the left, we now, most certainly, have the return from the right.  Over the weekend, the K12 Innovation Manifesto was released.  Citing concerns with national assessment consortia, national curriculum guidelines, national curriculum models, and national curriculum materials, the group objects to “transferring power to Washington, DC.”  Specifically, the latest group to weigh in on the nationalization of American education highlights:
* There is no constitutional or statutory basis for national standards, national assessments, or national curricula
* There is no consistent evidence that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement
* The national standards on which the administration is planning to base a national curriculum are inadequate
* There is no body of evidence for a “best” design for curriculum sequences in any subject
* There is no evidence to justify a single high school curriculum for all students
This latest manifesto is led by Bill Evers, the former assistant secretary for policy in President George W. Bush’s Education Department.  Signatories include names like Doug Carnine, John Chubb, Will Fitzhugh, Jay Greene, Charles Miller, Grover Norquist, John Silber, Sandra Stotsky, Bob Sweet, Abigail Thernstrom, and Richard Vedder. (So it is safe to say we won’t be seeing this on HuffPo any time soon.)
This could shape up to a little more than just some East Coast/West Coast dueling education manifestos.  The Al Shanker Institute is very much offering the music that Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) loves to hear.  Meanwhile, Evers and the K12 Innovation crew are singing from House Education Committee John Kline’s (MN) hymnal.  So this could very well be one of the first meaningful ESEA reauthorization fights shaping up. 
After all, it has everything we need.  Ideology.  Dollars.  For-profits.  Big brother.  Local control.  Good data.  Squishy data.  And a soapbox that virtually anyone can stand on.  I smell a series of DC-based education blob forums in our future …
  

Some Chamber Education

Eduflack accountability, early childhood education, ESEA, NCLB, Spellings

For the past two years, the education community has been all abuzz about the role of reform organizations in the process.  What are TFA and NLNS saying?  What are Gates and Broad trying to do?  What about that DFER and 50CAN expansion?  We hang on every word, analyze every check, and scrutinize every action.  Good or bad (depending on your perspective), these reform groups have become our own education reality TV programming.

It gets so intense that we almost forget about those groups that were pushing “reform” before reform was cool.  But many of those organizations have not yet ridden off into the sunset.  Today’s exhibit A — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
For years, the Chamber has been promoting college and career readiness through its Institute for a Competitive Workforce (which, interestingly, is now championing early childhood education).  Its Leaders and Laggards analysis, particularly 2007’s on school effectiveness, has a been a useful tool.  The Chamber even has former EdSec Margaret Spellings as a senior advisor and president of its U.S. Forum for Policy Innovation. 
But this little history lesson isn’t the focus of Eduflack’s attention.  Instead, I was drawn in by the Chamber’s advertising in this week’s Roll Call newspaper, the back page of the newspaper, no less.
The full-page ad offers the header, “Congress, Don’t Fail on Education Reform.”  Building off of the photo of a confused kindergartner, the Chamber offers some chronological stats.  For 2021, “By the time he reaches the ninth grade, he could be part of the 70% of middle school students who score below grade level in reading and math.”  For 2025, “If he makes it to high school, he may be one of the 1.3 million American students who drop out of high school.  And for 2027, “If he gets to college, he may be among the 40% of students who will be required to enroll in remedial courses.”
The call to action has three components to it.  “Congress, act now to: Hold our nation’s schools accountable; Promote effective teachers; and Provide choices to parents.”
Yes, we’ve heard these statistics before (and often from Spellings and company when they ran Maryland Avenue).  The call to action could be from either the NCLB era or from EdSec Duncan’s own ESEA blueprint.  So let’s go a little deeper into the rhetoric.
The ad closes with two additional sentences of text.  “Now is not the time to retreat from our national commitment to the success of every child.  If we don’t address our broken education system today, then our kids and our nation will pay the price.”
A little old school, a little new school (or a little Texas, a little Chicago, if you prefer).  The first sentence, a clear defense of NCLB and its role in putting us on the path to success.  The latter, borrowed from President Obama and his call for change.  Which leads to the confusion.  So now is not the time to retreat from our broken education system?  If not now, when?  And if not now, why not?
In many ways, the Chamber’s latest advertising campaign is but a microcosm of our current struggles in school improvement.  We need to build on the successes of the past, while casting aside the reforms that didn’t work.  We need to display a sense of urgency for change, but need to do so in a way tips a hat to those doing well.  And we need to do it all in an environment where the average person, even the average congressman, believes the average school district and average school building is doing just fine.
As always, the devil is in the details.  Whose version of accountability should Congress follow?  Which definition of effective teachers?  And what “choices” do we want to provide to parents?  Where Congress (and governors and state legislators) turn for answers is the next great education policy battleground.  Will anyone besides the “reformy” groups step forward and offer some substantive, even if unpopular, policy reccs to address such issues?  Only time will tell …
 

Downright Uncivil!

Eduflack Achievement gap, assessment, civics, NAEP

The new NAEP scores are here!  The new NAEP scores are here!  This morning, the National Assessment Governing Board released the Civics 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4, 8, and 12.  While trying to put a good spin on the data (civics knowledge for fourth graders is creeping up), the overall results were disappointing.  For the age group that such an assessment is most important — 12th graders — scores have slipped since 2006.

When it comes to civics knowledge, only 27 percent of 4th graders scored proficient or better.  For eighth graders, only 22 percent scored proficient or better.  And just 24 percent of 12th graders hit that magic proficient level.  So less than a quarter of all students surveyed are able to demonstrate a proficient knowledge of civics, at least as the NAEP measures it.
What does that mean?  According to the information provided by the U.S. Department of Education, a proficient fourth grader is able to identify a purpose of the U.S. Constitution.  An eighth grader should recognize a role performed by the Supreme Court.  And those 12th graders should be able to define the term “melting pot” and argue if it applies to the United States.  To put it in further perspective, an advanced eighth grader should name two actions citizens can take to encourage Congress to pass a law, while an advanced 12th grader should be able to compare the citizenship requirements of the U.S. to other countries.
Clearly, we are not getting enough Schoolhouse Rock into our K-12 institutions.  Or maybe ED needs to rotate out Conjunction Junction from its hold music and start playing some of the civics segments from the legendary series.
Seriously though, the new NAEP scores offer up a few lessons that our policymakers and practitioners must consider:
* Is it adequate to measure civics education just once every four years, particularly when most states don’t have civics or social studies state assessments? 
* If it is adequate, then do we consider civics a priority?  At the end of the day, does it matter if a junior high student knows how a bill becomes a law?
* As the Common Core State Standards Initiative comes on line in the states, will its strict emphasis on English/language arts and math further marginalize civics education in the United States?
* Will we treat social studies as a core academic subject (as we do English, math and, usually, science) under the new ESEA?
No one questions the importance of English or math in getting our students college and career ready.  But at the end of the day, civics education helps make students “life ready.”  Without a “proficient” knowledge of history and government and related social sciences, how do we expect today’s students to participate in tomorrow’s representative democracy?  How do we boost voter participation rates, particularly of knowledgeable voters?  How do we develop a more participatory citizenry?
Then again, sometimes a trend line is just a trend line.  It’s not like we need to ride between Lexington and Concord (Massachusetts, of course) shouting about NAEP scores, do we?

Thank You, Teachers!

Eduflack teachers

Today is National Teacher Appreciation Day.  If you are on Facebook, you can see a number of people “thanking” their favorite teacher.  Even EdSec Arne Duncan has gotten into the act, offering up a
national message on YouTube in recognition of the day and of teachers across
the country

Maybe it is just me, but I find it incredibly difficult to single out one teacher worthy of thanks.  I think of Mr. Wolf, my second grade teacher.  Or Mr. Ertmer, who taught me both econ and world history and also got me to DC for the first time through Close Up.  Or Ms. Walker (now Mrs. Sowers), my AP English teacher and student government advisor.  Or even Dr. Prosser, the first college professor who actually took an interest in me and gave me my only A+ while I was in college.

Those who read Eduflack know that I’m often up on my high horse about the importance of parental/family engagement in the education process.  We simply cannot improve student achievement without a stronger commitment from the home front.  Parents are our first teacher, and they are often our most important.  
So in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Day, I need to recognize Mrs. Riccards, my mother and a damned good high school English teacher in her own right.  I was never privileged to have my mom as a teacher (that would have been too grand a punishment for such a terrific woman).  But to this day, both in my personal and my professional lives, I reflect on the lessons she taught me and her experiences in the classroom.
My mother joined the teaching profession as a mid-career.  When my youngest sister hit school age, my mom went back to school to get her teaching certificate.  She student taught at St. Catherine’s Indian School in Santa Fe, NM.  Then she began her career as a 10th grade English teacher.  She started at Pecos High School in Pecos, NM, one of the roughest rural communities I’ve ever seen.  Then she taught at Jefferson High School in Shenandoah Junction, WV; Gardner High School in Gardner, MA; and “Hospitality High” and McKinley High School in Washington, DC.  (She moved around as my father moved up the higher education administration ladder.)
She walked the picket lines in West Virginia for two weeks, striking with every NEA teacher across the state for better pay and working conditions (they succeeded).  She was a tough teacher, always pushing her students and demanding hard work.  While many would try, no one could get her to compromise her standards, not even for star athletes, relentless parents, or administrators who didn’t want the hassle.  As a result, her students learned and achieved.  She probably had the greatest impact on all of the “basic” students she taught over the years, kids that many people had given up on, but she wouldn’t.  She pushed them, and they responded.  They learned the five-paragraph essay.  They learned American literature.  And they learned responsibility and to set high expectations for themselves.
And me?  My mom was the first to point out I have a tendency to write in the passive voice.  At an early age, she made clear she and my dad wouldn’t pay for grades.  “You don’t earn them for me, they are for you,” she would say.  She has always been proud of me, encouraging and pushing me.  But she is also quick to tell me when I am being too hard on teachers, when my expectations of school improvement are out of line, or to tell me that for profits have no real business in K-12 education (even when I was working for an education for-profit!).  
She and my dad were my first teachers, and to this day, they haven’t asked to be excused from those positions.  Every time I talk with my mom, I learn something new or get a new perspective on my job, my school board service, and my family.  It is the never-ending lesson, in a good way.
So in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Day (and this weekend’s Mother’s Day), I offer a big thank you to a truly terrific teacher, Mrs. Riccards (or Ma, or Grandma at this point).  Know you are both loved and appreciated by generations of students who are better off for having crossed your path (no matter how tough you may have been in that classroom).

Chiefs, Change, Cheers?

Eduflack accountability, CCSSO, ESEA, Michelle Rhee

Nearly a decade ago, a new organization of chief state school officers was charting new ground.  The Education Leaders Council (ELC) was THE hip group to belong to.  NCLB was the freshly minted law of the land.  Chiefs, influencers, and vendors wanted to be part of the ELC posse, seeing the group as the drivers of NCLB in key states.  And many were believing ELC would overtake the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) as the state supe organization of choice, becoming the state ed policy voice in the country.  Five short years later, ELC was no longer.

Late last year, five up-and-coming, reform-minded chief state school officers announced the launch of “Chiefs for Change,” a group designed to push state-level policy issues from the state supe level.  The founding members were Florida’s Eric Smith, Indiana’s Tony Bennett, Louisiana’s Paul Pastorek, Rhode Island’s Deborah Gist, and Virginia’s Gerard Robinson.  Since establishing the group, Smith has announced he is stepping down from his post as Florida’s top education voice.
Last week, five new members were named to the state ed policy reform cabal.  The new five are Maine’s Stephen Bowen, New Jersey’s Chris Cerf, New Mexico’s Hanna Skandera, Oklahoma’s Janet Barresi, and Tennessee’s Kevin Huffman.
Chiefs for Change is promising to be very much a policy-driving organization, far more so than CCSSO.  Its nine and a half members (including Smith) are committed to finding a common voice on issues like teacher evaluation and testing.  They clearly will offer some rhetorical hand grenades when it comes to ESEA reauthorization.  So where will they come down on the issues?
While many are quick to say the group is non-partisan (or at least bi-partisan), take a look at the roster.  Of the 10 members, nine represent states helmed by Republican governors, and one (RI) now represents an independent governor.  One can also find deep roots to both the Jeb Bush family tree of ed reformers, as well as to the formal “Education Reform” community.  And there are a number of states represented who now have ties to Michelle Rhee and her relatively new “StudentsFirst” organization.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  It is still too early to tell.  Twenty percent of the nation’s chief state school officers have decided to join together to offer a louder, more coordinated voice on education policy.  Those chiefs sing from the same hymnal on many of the key policy issues of the day.  Some states (Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, Indiana) are now seen as major ed reform states.  Others (Virginia, New Jersey, Maine) can best be called defenders of the status quo, at least historically.  All (except for Indiana and Louisiana) are working with governors in the first halves of their terms, meaning they may have real time to bring real change. 
What’s left to be seen is HOW Chiefs for Change plans to operate.  In deconstructing ELC, one of its challenges is it tried to out-CCSSO CCSSO, building a similar model, similar management structure, and similar expectations.  Instead of being a nimble rump group focused on change, it almost tried to build CCSSO 2.0.  And we clearly didn’t need a newer version of the established organization.
So the question before Chiefs is how it functions.  If it throws aside process in favor of results, it has potential.  If it is designed to serve as an advocacy soapbox for reform-minded supes, it brings promise.  And if it is willing to take provocative stances on complex and controversial policy issues, it could signal progress.
At this point, Chiefs for Change doesn’t need to look to recruit new members or scope out locations for its 2012 annual conference.  It has critical mass, and it has some forward-looking chiefs who know how to use 21st century communications tools to replace those by-gone days of three-day conferences.  Instead, Chiefs for Change needs its nail its version of 95 Theses to the schoolhouse door.  And it needs to do so now, before ESEA is rewritten.  
We all recognize that the states are where ed policy action is happening.  The feds have played their hand, and are now looking for some additional dollars to buy back into the game.  Statehouses now have the power, and state chiefs are holding all the cards.  If we are going to see real movement in the area of school improvement, we need a real call to action at the state level.  Chiefs for Change could be that vehicle, if it learns from the past and engages for the future.

A Product of Public Schools

Eduflack Uncategorized

Earlier this week, the New York Times’ Michael Winerip offered a piece looking at the nation’s leading education reformers and where they themselves went to school.  It should come as no surprise to those in the education space that many of the names closely associated with either the ed reform community or politicians with a keen eye toward education are products of a non-public school education.  In a suspenseful follow-up, we may also learn that many ed reformers — particularly those in urban settings — are sending their kids to private schools.

So Eduflack wants to set the record straight.  I am not, nor have I ever been, a student at a private institution of learning.  In fact, I attended six public schools in four different states during my K-12 run, including: Cottage Street Elementary School (Sharon, MA); Linden Avenue School (Glen Ridge, NJ); Ridgewood Avenue School (Glen Ridge, NJ); Capshaw Junior High (Santa Fe, NM); Santa Fe HIgh School (Santa Fe, NM); and Jefferson High School (Shenandoah Junction, WV). 
For good measure, I even slummed it at a little public university called the University of Virginia.
And yes, my kids will be attending public schools, with the edu-son starting kindergarten in September.  I even went old school, choosing my current residence because of the quality of the public schools.  Go figure.
So what does this mean?  I have no idea, just as I have no idea what to take from the NYT piece.  Am I more or less qualified to talk ed reform because I went to several mediocre public schools?  Does that diploma from a consolidated county high school in West Virginia give me some added gravitas?  Or should we just be looking at the substance of ideas to the school improvement debate?  Anyone?    

The CR Ain’t All Bad …

Eduflack early childhood education, NCLB, Obama, Parents, RTT

Last week, Eduflack detailed the long and distinguished list of “losers” in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution and the ongoing budget fight between the White House and Congress.  All those billions that both sides had to cut needed to come from somewhere and, unfortunately, education was unable to avoid the knife.

Fortunately, President Obama made it easy for those looking to nip and tuck from the ED budget.  In the previous two budget cycles, Obama offered up lists of programs to either be eliminated or consolidated in the ED budget.  Those programs eliminated were often cited for a lack of efficacy.  Those consolidated into a potential competitive grant program were victims of a new world order when competition is king, and the dollars for a competitive process needed to come from somewhere.  So if the President wasn’t going to protect specific education programs in his own budget, it made them easy pickin’s for an opposition Congress.
But it seems there was a bit of good edu-news in the CR after all.  Yes, we saw increased in Race to the Top ($700 million), Investing in Innovation ($150 million), and Promise Neighborhoods ($20 million more).  But there was also some interesting policy language inserted into the CR.
While campaigning in 2008, Obama often spoke of the importance of early childhood education.  Good ECE and good parenting were the cornerstone to his child development plans.  But that rhetoric never seemed to translate into real policies.  Parental engagement continues to lag, despite both authority and funding under NCLB.  And although ECE offered real promise in 2008, the realities of state budget cuts have stymied expansion plans, with ED and HHS relatively unsure of who should actually take control of moving strong, evidence-based ECE into practice.  At least until last week, say the experts.
Buried in the wording regarding the additional $700 million for RttT is language that adds a new priority to ED’s prized RttT.  ED, along with early childhood education advocates, are touting the addition of “Improving Early Childhood Care and Education” as a RttT priority and something Race dollars can now fund.  (Always the skeptic, Eduflack must admit that I’m still not completely sure how this differs from the original Priority 3: Invitational Priority — Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes, but I must just be hung up on the language of the language.)
This is potentially a major step forward for ECE in two ways.  First, it opens up new funding streams.  While it doesn’t provide specific, dedicated ED funds for ECE, it does confirm that RttT dollars can be spent on early childhood education.  ECE can now be a fundable component of those grants seeking a piece of the $700 million in extra pie.  And one could even make the case of adding ECE efforts to the current RttT winners’ effort.
More importantly, though, the language addition signals a general commitment — from both the Administration and the Congress — that early childhood education is a key component of the educational continuum.  We turn around low-performing schools, in part, by better preparing kids for school in the first place.  We address the dropout and remediation problems by ensuring that kindergartners are not starting the formal learning process a year or two behind some of their classmates.  We make a difference by providing instructional building blocks early and often, finally declaring that ECE, if done correctly, is more than just babysitting on the cream and the clear.
While there is still much work to be done to build up our national commitment to high-quality early childhood education, the new RttT language is definitely a start.  Add some significant dedicated funding, and we might really have something here.
  
UPDATE: So sometimes a priority just isn’t a priority.  Per my confusion about Priority 3: Invitational Priority versus this new priority in the CR.  As it has been explained to me, the Priority 3 is the “absolute, competitive and invitational priorities” in the original RttT applications.  The new priority, on improving early childhood care and education, added a new priority to the RttT authorization statute.  So early childhood now joins 1) maintenance of effort; 2) achieving equity in teacher distribution; 3) improving collection and use of data; 4) standards and assessment; and 5) supporting struggling schools.