In Ed Advocacy, It’s All About the States

How do you raise awareness about educational improvement in the United States?  That is the big question this week over on the National Journal’s Education Experts blog.  Riffing off of some of the education reform activities at the recent political conventions, the folks over at NJ are actually hypothesizing that there is no disagreement on our need to improve.  

Those seeking change and improvement know that is far from the case.  Those forces seeking to defend the status quo, those looking to protect a system that fails millions of kids (particularly kids who are black or brown or poor), will resort to almost anything to stand against those seeking to bring a better public education to all kids.
Dear ol’ Eduflack weighs in on the discussion, focusing on the importance of state-led advocacy, as opposed to national advocacy, to bring the real change we need while respecting our nation’s history of local control in the schools.

At the end of the day, lasting education reform is not going to happen at the national level. As a country, we have too much pride in local control and community involvement in public education. Instead, those changes we seek and need will come because of advocacy at the state level, where the voices of diverse communities can come together and demand common change. One where those diverse voices can leverage their power to demand real change from their governor and legislature, change where the haves and have-nots in the state have access to the same excellent public schools, regardless of race, family income, or zip code.

In Connecticut, we are just now, after nearly a decade of work, starting to see the policy results of such a state-based advocacy approach. The real challenge now is not letting up on the gas, and continuing to speed toward the reforms we need. It means finding common ground with groups we have previously sparred with, and partnering with individuals we have once stood against. It means continue to do what is right, even if that means facing the vitriol and assaults from those who currently benefit from a failed status quo.

Happy reading!

Chicago on Strike!

This morning, 25,000 Chicago Public Schools teachers headed to the picket lines, as the Chicago Teachers Union declared a strike after failing to reach a deal on a new collective bargaining agreement with leaders of the nation’s third-largest public school district.

According to media reports, CPS negotiators have offered 20 proposals to union officials.  Agreement seemed to be reached on a 16-percent pay raise for teachers, while disagreement remained over teachers’ share of health care costs and an evaluation system that would include measures of teacher effectiveness.
CPS is now enacting contingency plans for district operations.  The city’s 118 public charter schools, though, will remain open, with teachers and students continuing the learning process that only began a week or so ago.
Today’s actions has dear ol’ Eduflack reflecting on March of 1990, when public school teachers in the State of West Virginia went on a statewide strike (80 percent of counties participated).  For two weeks, edu-Mom walked the picket lines with virtually all of her fellow teachers.  Then, the strike was over pay, with Mountaineer teachers being paid among the lowest salaries in the nation for public school educators.  Following legislative and legal interventions, the strike ended after two weeks.  Then-Gov. Gaston Caperton agreed to boost teacher pay, moving West Virginia into the center of the pack for teacher salaries.  The move transformed Caperton into the “education governor” and moved West Virginia away from competing with Mississippi for the worst teacher pay in the nation.
What was particularly interesting about that West Virginia strike was the enormous support that teachers had from citizens across the state, particularly in that first week.  Visiting my mother and her colleagues on the picket lines, I saw parents and non-parents honk in support, drop off food and drinks for the picketing teachers, and generally check in to see how the teachers were doing.  It energized the teachers on the lines, and showed the media and the politicians that there was strong public will for this exercise of their labor rights.
As the West Virginia strike headed in double-digit days, though, that public support started to wane.  Parents didn’t know what to do with their kids, and couldn’t afford to continue to take days off of work or pay for babysitters.  Public will started to shift, as local school districts filed lawsuits to get teachers back in the classroom.  After 12 days,  teachers returned to work with a pledge from the governor and legislature for better pay and better respect.
Then, it was a simple narrative.  West Virginia teachers wanted to be paid fairly.  In a state with a strong union history and a respect for public education, the strike made sense.  Pay our teachers better than 48th or 49th in the country.  After all, we all understand what it means to be underpaid and under-respected.
The Chicago experience, though, is a little more complicated.  Currently, Chicago has an unemployment rate of 10.5 percent.  According to CBS Chicago and other sources, the average Chicago school teacher is making more than $70,000 per year, while the average Chicago worker is making slightly more than $30,000 per annum.  So a 16-percent raise seems more than reasonable, and seems to be a pay increase both sides have already agreed to.
If the strike is over a teacher’s share of health care benefits, most American workers are seeing their personal health insurance costs increase.  Gone are the days when healthcare is covered 100-percent by the employer.  As costs rise, workers across the nation fortunate enough to have coverage are paying more for it.
And if the strike is over evaluation, it becomes more and more challenging to secure a 16-percent raise in tough economic times, and then say one doesn’t believe in greater accountability for those educators serving in the system and demanding those raises.
Yes, it is a complicated narrative that CTU is trying to sell.  If the media reports are correct, this is no longer about salaries and paying teachers fairly.  Instead, it is whether teachers should be treated like other professionals, bearing additional healthcare costs and being held to a greater level of accountability than in years past.  That is a narrative that is going to be very difficult to sell to Chicago families, many of whom are experiencing unemployment, reduced benefits, frozen pay, and other financial challenges.
Of course, the strike isn’t just about the salaries and benefits being negotiated as part of the a new CBA.  No, the CTU is using this strike to speak out against the needed reforms being pushed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his administration.  Since becoming mayor, Emanuel has embarked on a bold reform agenda.  He extended the school day (ridiculously, Chicago had one of the shortest school days in the nation).  He established specific efforts to drive improvement in schools across the city.  He sought to reward teachers willing to hold themselves to greater levels of accountability than the CBA called for.  And he did all that facing a sizable budget deficit in a district with needs growing by the day.
Last night, Mayor Emanuel said, “The kids of Chicago belong in the classroom.”  He is absolutely correct.  While some defenders of the status quo may take issue with the sentiment or see it as some sort of punchline to a reformer joke, the ones most hurt by this strike are the kids.  The kids are losing out on instructional days.  The kids are now being shuttled around as part of “contingency plans.”  After just returning to school, the kids are being denied their rights to a public education.
As Emanuel continued, “This is totally unnecessary.  It’s avoidable and our kids don’t deserve this … This is a strike of choice.”
The mayor is correct.  Here’s hoping that both sides figure out how to choose to end this strike quickly, and get our kids back in the classroom.
UPDATE: To further complicate the narrative here, CTU has now released a one-pager articulating what they are looking for from Chicago Public Schools.  The challenge?  Can one really address “educate the whole child,” “address inequities in our system,” “teach all children,” “partner with parents,” and “fully fund education” as part of a collective bargaining agreement intended to focus on salary, benefits, and working conditions of the adults in the system?
  

“We’ve Done Things Wrong …”

“I know we’ve done things wrong both as a union movement as well as a teachers’ union …

I know sometimes my members get really upset at me when I say this, but you have to look at yourselves and say, ‘How can you change?  How can you do things better?  And what we’ve done as a movement as a movement, we focused, we fixated on fairness.  We thought, like, when they talk about justice and teachers unions, we would say, ‘That’s the boss’s job to fire somebody.  That’s not our job.”
– AFT President Randi Weingarten at the Democratic National Convention (courtesy of Huffington Post), reminding us with this acknowledgement that AFT can continue to be a major lever for real reform in public education.

We Should All Be Ed Reformers!

We should all agree that every child deserves a world-class education.  We should all agree (based on NAEP data and a plethora of information from groups like Education Trust) that there are serious achievement gaps we, as a nation, must overcome.  We should all agree that every classroom should be led by an exemplary teacher, and that teacher should be supported to continue her successes.  And we all should agree that we must constantly improve our public schools, ensuring they are adapting to the times and the needs of our kids and communities.  

We should all be education reformers. 
Over at the ConnCAN blog, Eduflack has a new blog post on making this point.  After clarifying the record on attacks made by many of those looking to prevent reforms and protect a failed system, I note:
At the end of the day, every single Connecticut resident should be a champion for education reform, one who demands real, meaningful school improvement. While we may disagree on the best path to achieve that improvement, we all should agree that reform is needed. And for those who stand in the way of reform, those who defend the status quo, we must ask: Who benefits from protecting a system of haves and have-nots, a system where educational quality is dictated by one’s race, family income, or zip code?
It is all the rage to question the motives of those who are looking to reform the schools, and it is even more en vogue to answer those questions with vitriol lacking in even the basest of facts.  Why not ask the motives behind protecting a system where fourth graders struggle to read at grade level, more than a third of Black and Latino students drop out of high school, and the majority of students who do get to college require remedial courses?

Education: GOP Convention Edition 2012

Last week, the Republican National Convention met in Tampa, Florida to nominate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) as its presidential ticket for this November.  While education was a not a major focus of the convention, there were some real gems offered up.

No, Eduflack is not talking about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s “stand” on teacher tenure and collective bargaining.  I’m talking about the remarks delivered by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Condi Rice.
From Jeb:
We say that every child in America has an equal opportunity, but tell that to a kid whose classroom learning is not respected.  Tell that to a parent stuck at a school where there is no leadership.  Tell that to a young, talented teacher who just got laid off because she didn’t have tenure.  The sad truth is that equality of opportunity doesn’t exist in many of our schools.  We give some kids a chance, but not all.  That failure is the great moral and economic issue of our time and it is hurting all of America.

I believe we can meet this challenge.  We need to set high standards for students and teachers, and provide students and their parents the choices they deserve.

The first step is a simple one.  We must stop prejudging children based on their race, ethnicity, or household income.  We must stop excusing failure in our schools and state removing — start rewarding improvement and success.  We must have high academic standards that are benchmarked to the best of the world.  You see, all kids can learn.  Governor Romney believes it, and the data proves it.
And from Condi:
We have been successful because Americans have known that one’s status of birth is not a permanent condition.  Americans have believed that you might not be able to control your circumstances but you can control your response to your circumstances.

And your greatest ally in controlling your response to your circumstances has been a quality education.  But today, today when I can look at your zip code and I can tell whether you’re going to get a good education, can I honestly say it does not matter where you came from, it matters where you are going?  The crisis in K-12 education is a threat to the very fabric of who we are.

My mom was a teacher.  I respect the profession.  We need great teachers, not poor ones and not mediocre ones.  We have to have high standards for our kids, because self-esteem comes from achievement not from lax standards and false praise.

And we need to give parents greater choice, particularly poor parents whose kids, very often minorities, are trapped in failing neighborhood schools.  This is the civil rights issue of our day.
Some pretty powerful words from those who know what they are talking about.  Just take a look at Bush’s record in Florida, particularly his efforts to boost reading proficiency in our youngest students.  And Rice is now back at her perch at Stanford University, most likely the top higher education institution in the United States.
This week, it will be the Democrats’ turn in Charlotte.  Who will step up and out-education Jeb Bush?

A Commissioner’s Network in CT

In May, the Connecticut General Assembly officially established a “Commissioner’s Network” to turn around the state’s lowest-performing schools.  Modeled after turnaround efforts in places like New York City, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Michigan, the Commissioner’s Network was created to identify those schools in most need of turnaround and reconstitute them under the oversight of the Connecticut Commissioner of Education.

The Nutmeg State hasn’t wasted any time getting this up and running.  The Commissioner’s Network was signed into law at the end of May.  Last week, the Connecticut State Board of Education accepted the first four schools into the new network (the law allows for up to 25 schools at any given time).

The Commissioner’s Network is no longer an abstract concept. It is now a very real action, impacting actual students, teachers, and communities across the state. And it is doing so by adopting significant turnaround efforts that reject the status quo and engender hope in those school communities most in need.

These turnaround plans introduce much-needed steps to improve student outcomes. For example, all schools have extended learning time for both teachers and students, and have introduced new ways to hire, retain, and assign staff. In Bridgeport, the Curiale School will require that any teacher hired or retained must earn high performance evaluations. In Hartford, Jumoke at Milner will increase the school year by 34 instructional days, including longer days and Saturday academies. Norwich’s Stanton Elementary is hiring “resident teachers” who will support master teachers in each grade level. And at New Haven’s High School in the Community, outdated school models based on seat time will be replaced with a competency-based instruction, meaning that students will advance once they have mastered content and skills.

It is refreshing to see such out-of-the-box thinking, particularly from a state known as “The Land of Steady Habits.”  But let there be no mistake.  The hard work begins now.  Establishing these reconstituted Commissioner’s Network schools is but the first step.  Now, educators and administrators in these four schools, as well as those that will follow, have to make good on the promise and do whatever is necessary to break the cycles of failure and get all kids learning.

From AYP to a 15% Solution?

Despite the national pastime of griping about No Child Left Behind and its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability measures, there hasn’t been nearly the attention placed on the NCLB waivers being granted by the U.S. Department of Education.

Perhaps it is because such issues are incredibly complex and can be really confusing.  Perhaps it is because it is deep in the weeds, interesting to only the wonkiest of wonks.  Or perhaps we just figure accountability is accountability is accountability and we’ll just keep doing what we are doing until we get our hand slapped.
This week, National Journal and its Experts Blog decides to step into the scrum and offer a week-long discussion on the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to NCLB waivers.
A post from dear ol’ Eduflack is up there now.  I keyed in on the provisions that focus on the bottom 15 percent of schools, noting that Connecticut opted instead to follow a continuum model based on absolute performance.  Why is that so important?  As I wrote:

Our nation’s performance struggles, though, do not reside solely in those bottom 15 percent of schools. That is why Connecticut is following an absolute performance model, and not the 15-percent path. In Connecticut, virtually all of our public schools have room for improvement. Low-income students. Latino students. African-American students. ELL students. White students. Virtually all of our disaggregated groups, even those in our wealthiest communities, show a need for improvement.

As a nation, we do not want to give the impression that we do not need to worry about 85 percent of our schools. It portrays the achievement gap issue or the student performance issue as one that only impacts our lowest performing 15 percent of schools, making it a niche issue and not one that should concern each and every parent, teacher, community leader, and policymaker across the state. We must all accept that 85 percent of our schools are not doing great, and that most schools can and should improve.

Equally important, Eduflack notes:
When nearly 40 percent of students can’t read at grade level by fourth grade, it isn’t a 15 percent issue. When a third of students drop out of high school, it isn’t a 15 percent issue. When 70 percent of Connecticut’s public high school graduates require remedial education in college, it isn’t a 15 percent issue.
  
Definitely an interesting topic that isn’t garnering the attention it deserves.  Happy reading!

Testing Problem … or Cheating Problem?

For the past decade, opponents of the accountability movement had crowed about the problems with testing and establishing student achievement-based metrics to determine the success, or lack there of, of our public schools.

When we learn of testing scandals such as those down in Atlanta, the finger is immediately pointed at the test itself.  Forget those educators who may have organized the erasure parties.  When we learn of cheating scandals such as those in NY, when high-performing students were paid to take the SAT for classmates, we again pointed at the test.  Oh, those poor students who re being overly stressed by being asked to take an SAT or ACT test to get into college.
The anti-testing forces have made their points clear.  Testing is bad.  Cheating proves it (as, it seems, does poor performance).  We can’t use tests to determine the effectiveness of a school, a teacher, or even a student.  We need to view each child holistically.  We need to let our students think and explore and do what they want to do and chase after rainbows and unicorns.
So how, exactly, does the latest from the Chicago Tribune fit into that anti-testing narrative?  For those who have missed it, John Keilman has a great piece on the impact of technology on cheating in the classroom.  
His lead?

Heloise Pechan’s heart rose when she read the essay one of her students, a seemingly uninterested high school sophomore, had turned in for a class assignment on “To Kill a Mockingbird.” The paper was clear, logical and well written — a sign, she thought, that she had gotten through to the boy.

Her elation passed quickly. What came next was suspicion.

Pechan, then substitute teaching at a McHenry County high school, went to Google, typed the paper’s first sentence (“Kind and understanding, strict but fair, Atticus Finch embodies everything that a father should be”) and there it was: The entire essay had been lifted from an online paper mill.

This piece actually provides a thoughtful reflection of the pros and cons of classroom technology, from the cheating that can come of it to the protections and checks it provides to ensure such cheating doesn’t happen.  
But it raises a very interesting question.  Do we have a testing problem, or do we really have a cheating problem?  After all, an essay on “To Kill a Mockingbird” is the perfect holistic evaluation, letting a student explore a topic in the way he or she wants, using critical thinking, reasoning, argument, and all of the other skills the anti-accountability movement has been preaching.  Yet we hear story after story about how paper mills, Wikipedia, and a host of other online sources have corrupted the five-paragraph essay.
At the same time, when we look at those states that have moved to online adaptive technology for their student assessments, we don’t hear a peep about alleged cheating or data fudging.  
Whether we like it or not, educational accountability is not heading for the exit.  Instead of attacking testing, we should be working to ensure that the assessments that are administered are of the highest quality, effectively measure the knowledge and skills of the students, and are used to tailor and improve instruction in the classroom.

Triggering Parents

No matter where you go in the education reform discussions, it is impossible to avoid some sort of discussion on parents and families.  Earlier this year, as Connecticut was working its way through a comprehensive reform law, we had teachers blaming parents for kids coming to school ill-prepared to learn and incapable of showing educators the respect needed in the classroom.

There was even the head of a local teachers union who declared that teaching would be much easier if it weren’t for the kids and parents involved.  Now who could disagree with that?
In return, parents voiced frustration with teachers.  Groups like the Connecticut Parents Union demanded greater oversight and accountability for teachers, calling for overhaul of tenure laws and seeking to revisit a previous legislative fight to bring a “parent trigger” to the state.
Of course, the Parents Union was talking about a law like that adopted in California (and enacted by more than a dozen other states).  The “Parent Trigger” is the ultimate form of family engagement.  When a majority of parents or guardians in a given school agree that their children’s school is in need of turnaround, they can vote to reconstitute the school and bring about the sort of school improvement so many parents think.
No surprise, then, that the coalition of the status quo is opposed to such actions.  While we want parents to make sure their kids do their homework and bring their books to school, we certainly don’t want them meddling in how a school operates, what it teaches, or what is expected of educators. 
As the power of the “Parent Trigger” continues to grow, and as more and more parents seek this sort of power, it only makes sense that that coalition is going to try and discredit the effort.  They resort to name calling (with Diane Ravitch and others taking to the Internet to call it the “parent tricker.”  Get it?)  And then going even further to suggest that the who “Parent Trigger” movement was some sinister corporate plot to fool parents and turn all of our schools into Wal-Marts and One-Hour Martinizers.
Fortunately, there are some that are seeking to set the record straight.  There are some that are speaking up to educate and inform about the real origins of the Parent Trigger and the real power of meaningful parental engagement.
Over at redefinED, former California State Sen. Gloria Romero has a terrific piece on the Parent Trigger in California.  Why is this piece so important?  Senator Romero is the actual author of the California Parent Trigger law.  Speaking directly to Ravitch and her followers about efforts to disparage the origins of the law and the people who advocated for it, Romero writes:

Diane, I’m a product of public education, from kindergarten through Ph.D. I believe in the power of education. I understood the dreams of my mother, and the recognition that it is education that lifts us out of poverty and is the gate of entry to the American Dream. I never forgot where I came from, including that I was “counseled” in high school not to attend college. Too many kids like me from “the other side of town” experienced and continue to experience the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Hollywood makes nice movies about standing and delivering on behalf of kids, who are caught simply by virtue of zip code in chronically failing schools. But even then, generation after generation of children are sent back to those same schools with the same bureaucrats running them, simply to fail yet again. I proudly represented East Los Angeles. Garfield High School was in my district – that iconic school that Hollywood later immortalized in ”Stand and Deliver,” starring Eddie Olmos as Jaime Escalante. (I knew him too, and know great teachers matter.) But once the movie left the theaters, the demand for change dissipated. I wanted to revive it. We need to revive it.

Remember, my generation learned lessons not only from the non-violent boycott of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but also from the by-any-means-necessary view of Malcolm X. Therefore, I also believe in the urgency of now, the power of the boycott (yes, I knew Cesar Chavez too), and the courage it takes to declare that we shall overcome by any means necessary. I know firsthand that separate is not equal. I have personally experienced what it means for kids like me when teachers and principals don’t believe in us, and tell us that our educational futures do not include a path to college.

So we may never agree on the law itself. But I ask you to be honest about its origins. And about the hard work and integrity of the people, mostly women of color, who understood what this meant for our children and our communities. Please do not disrespect me, a Latina from the Eastside, by falsifying the idea of the bill, and how I took an idea, shaped it into legislation, and gave life to it by forming a coalition that took on the number one political force in California – and succeeded!

In our quest to improve public schools for all, we must, at some point, move beyond the name calling and the ascription of personal motives and focus on the quality of the idea itself.  If one doesn’t like Parent Trigger, offer an alternative path for parents to get substantively involved in the direction of their local public schools.  But insinuating that parents are easily tricked and there are shadowy figures manipulating state senators, the clergy, the civil rights community and so many others who brought the California law to existence does no one any good.

Little House on Ed Reform

After putting the edu-kids to bed last night, I was looking forward to spending a couple of hours watching the Home Run Derby, observing as some of MLB’s best sluggers looked to knock pitch after pitch over the wall at Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City.

Instead, I came downstairs to find the edu-wife driving the remote control.  She had no interest in watching the Derby.  No, she was getting ready to settle in for a rerun of Little House on the Prairie.
The episode of choice was episode 16 of season seven.  The title?  Goodbye, Mrs. Wilder.  Season seven first broadcast in 1980 and 1981.  By this time, Laura was all grown up, now teaching in the Minnesota schoolhouse where she grew up.
Now Eduflack is not one who is typically going to get into a 30-year rerun of Little House.  But this particular episode was fascinating, showing us that the more things change in education, the more things stay the same.
Laura was being chastised by Mrs. Oleson because the school just wasn’t performing up to academic levels (or at least the levels some school board members expected).  Mrs. Oleson was desperate to win a state grant to improve the school (mostly through construction).  Teaching kids (and testing kids) on the three Rs wasn’t nearly enough.  They needed well-rounded children out there on the prairie, and Mrs. Oleson wanted to add French and art appreciation to the mix.  And since she held a teaching certificate, she knew she was correct and she convinced the school board to go along with her.  Laura disagreed, Mrs. Oleson accused her of not wanting to work that hard, so that “veteran” teacher Harriet Oleson took over the classroom to show that young know-it-all how it is supposed to be done.
We had some profiteering going on, as Mrs. Oleson insisted that all students wear school uniforms, and those uniforms could only be purchased at her mercantile.  We have parents threatening to pull their kids out of school because art appreciation amounts to pornography.  We have drill-and-kill in French.  And we have students complaining that the veteran teacher just doesn’t relate to them and doesn’t make learning “fun.”
Ultimately, the state saves the day, noting that the “new,” more balanced curriculum didn’t quite serve the students.  What farmers and wives of farmers needed to know French (outside of Louisiana)?  Who really needed to appreciate art?  And why do it at the expense of the “bushels and pecks” learning they needed to survive?
So it was back to basics.  French and art dropped from the curriculum.  The new, young teacher (think Laura Ingalls-Wilder as the precursor for today’s TFA teacher) taking back control of her classroom, refocusing the class on discipline and on reading, writing, and ‘arithmetic, and getting results on day one.  School again focused specifically on outcomes and how all kids would graduate career ready.  Balance restored to the prairie.
Not bad ed reform story telling for 30 years ago, let alone for the late 1800s.  Yep, the more things change, the more they stay the same.