accountability

Reconnecting McDowell County, WV

Eduflack accountability, AFT, Parents, Students, Workforce

Readers of Eduflack know I often speak of my roots and connections to West Virginia.  I am a proud graduate of Jefferson County High School in Shenandoah Junction, WV (Go, Cougars!)  But I am particularly privileged to have served on the staff of one of the greatest U.S. Senators in our nation’s history, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd.  

Working for Senator Byrd, I was able to see much of what makes West Virginia and the nation great.  I had the ability to travel the Mountain State’s 55 counties, from its beautiful ranges to its research universities, its large cities to its company towns, its river rapids to its coal mines.  Yes, West Virginia has much to be proud of.  But it is also a state with communities ravaged by poverty, poor health, and struggling schools.
Which is I was so taken by an announcement made last week by the American Federation of Teachers.  On Friday, the AFT officially launched “Reconnecting McDowell County,” a “comprehensive, long-term effort to make educational improvements in McDowell County the route to a brighter economic future.”
Reconnecting McDowell County has an impressive list of partners, including WV Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, the WV Congressional Delegation, Benedum Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of West Virginia, College Board, Safe the Children, WV AFL-CIO, and the West Virginia State Police, just to name a few.  
The effort’s Covenant of Commitment is a particularly interesting read.  The effort is focused on six key issues: 1) education; 2) services for students and their families; 3) transportation, technology, and other issues; 4) housing; 5) jobs and economic development; and 6) the McDowell Community.  In the Covenant, the partners note:
We understand that there are no simple solutions — no easy answers or quick fixes.  Together, we are striving to meet these challenges, but we know we won’t accomplish that in a day, a month, or even a year.  We will find ways to measure our progress, and we believe that the changes we propose and implement must be judged by rigorous standards of accountability.  We accept that this will be a long-term endeavor, and we commit to stay engaged until we have achieved our goals of building the support systems the students need and helping the residents of McDowell County to take charge of their desire for a better life ahead.
Yes, I realize that McDowell County is not alone its history, its current challenges, or its desire to change.  Across the nation, we have counties, cities, and communities that face similar struggles.  What makes this interesting is that Reconnecting McDowell is committed to demonstrating the demographics do not equal destiny.  Old industrial towns, even old coal towns, can be reborn in the 21st century.  We can rebuild currently struggling schools around a new culture of improving instruction, greater accountability, and rising student performance.  And we can work together to put all of the conditions — from housing and health to education and jobs — in place for achievement and success.
We should all keep an eye on Reconnecting McDowell, looking at its metrics and watching its progress.  And we should be asking why we aren’t launching similar efforts in other states, in other counties, and in other communities across the nation.  The principles laid forward by Reconnecting McDowell are universal.  

Saving American Education

Eduflack accountability, assessment, high-stakes testing, teachers

So how do we “save American education?”  As a nation we obviously spend a great deal of time diagnosing the problems, while offering a few targeted solutions.  But what does comprehensive treatment of the problem really look like. 

That’s actually the question that Jay Mathews of The Washington Post recently posed to Mark Tucker, the head of the National Center for Education and the Economy.  And Tucker’s answers may surprise some.  His top five solutions?
1) Make admissions to teacher training programs more competitive
2) Raise teacher compensation significantly
3) Allow larger class sizes
4) End annual standardized testing
5) Spend more money on students who need more help getting to high standards
It is an interesting collection of recommendations, which Tucker and NCEE offer based on observing what other countries have done to improve their educational offerings.  But it begs an important question — are these reforms that the federal government should be leading, or reforms that need to be driven by the states?  Can the United States of America really follow the lead of Singapore, a nation no larger than Kentucky?
Yes, it is important we focus on educator effectiveness.  That starts with getting the best individuals into our teacher training programs and continues with ensuring schools are able to recruit, retain, and support those truly excellent educators.  And yes, we should pay those teachers better, but only after we have developed teacher evaluation systems focused on student achievement measures.
And you will get no disagreement from Eduflack on the need to spend more money on the students who need the most help.  The time has clearly come to overhaul our school finance systems to ensure that scarce tax dollars are going where they are needed the most.  We shouldn’t be funding schools based simply on an historical perspective, doing what we do because it worked a few decades ago.  We need to fund our schools in real time, recognizing that all schools — be they traditional public, magnet, technical, or charter — are treated fairly and equitably when it comes to funding formulas and per-pupil expenditures.
But eliminate testing?  While I like Tucker’s idea of three national exams that identify student performance at the end of elementary school, 10th grade, and 12th grade, do we really believe that is enough?  Is one test between kindergarten and high school really sufficient, particularly when we know a third of our elementary school students are reading below grade level and the real trouble spot for our schools is the middle school years?  
Instead of cutting back on the number of tests, we should first look to use our testing data more effectively.  Empower teachers with formative and summative assessment data to tailor their instructional approaches to meet student needs.  Let the data guide what happens in the classroom.  We need to change the mindset that the test is the end product.  It needs to be the starting line, providing educators with a strong diagnosis for how to proceed with the work at hand for a given school year.
That’s how we can save American education.  Data-driven decision making.  Evidence-based instruction.  By better understanding and applying the research, we have the power to focus on effective teachers, getting the resources where they are most needed, and actually improving student achievement.  Without it, we will just continue to feel our way in the dark.

The Strangest of Bedfellows on Ed Reform

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, RTT

This morning’s New York Times Opinion page headline says it all — “How to Rescue Education Reform.”  No, this isn’t the first time we have tried to diagnose the ed reform movement nor is this the first (or last) effort to talk through how ed reform can drive the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

What makes the NYT piece so interesting is who shares the byline.  The most recent piece on how to rescue education reform is co-authored by AEI Education Policy Director Rick Hess and Stanford University Professor Linda Darling-Hammond.  While not exactly the Burns and Allen we’d expect to see on education reform, Hess and Darling-Hammond offer an interesting and refreshing perspective on public education’s needs.  The fact that it comes from two individuals who most would believe couldn’t agree that the ed world is round or that it rotates around the sun makes the reccs even more interesting.
And what, exactly, do the dynamic duo offer up?  After agreeing that the federal government “should not micromanage schools, but should focus on the four functions it alone can perform,” Darling-Hammond and Hess point to these four functions:
* Encouraging transparency for school performance and spending, noting that “Without transparency, it’s tough for parents, voters and taxpayers to hold schools and public officials accountable.”
* Ensuring that basic constitutional protections — such as civil rights and special education — are respected.
* Supporting basic research, particularly that which “asks fundamental questions.”
* Providing “voluntary, competitive federal grants that support innovation while providing political cover for school boards, union leaders and others to throw off anachronistic routines.”
On the latter, it is important to note that the authors don’t necessarily see Race to the Top as that innovation, noting that RttT “tried to do some of this, but it ended up demanding that winning states hire consultants to comply with a 19-point federal agenda, rather than truly innovate.”
And what shouldn’t the federal government do?  According to the newest Batman and Robin of education, the feds shouldn’t focus on making schools and teachers improve.  Too much is simply lost in translation as we take it from the Feds down to the schools and districts that need to put it to use.  “The federal government can make states, localities and schools do things — but not necessarily do them well,” Hess and Darling-Hammond write.
So what say you, education community?  Are Linda and Rick onto something?  Have we been over thinking and over planning ESEA reauthorization?  Do we need to focus on a few core principles and not try to be everything for everyone?  Or can we not get beyond the shock of this partnership and thus fail to see the merits of the argument?

Applauding Public School Successes and Progress

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, AYP, NAEP

In education reform, it is often easy to focus on the negative.  A third of all kids are not reading proficient in third grade.  No coincidence, the high school dropout rate is also about a third.  We have stagnant test scores, even as state standards were reduced.  We are slipping in international comparisons.  And even the U.S. Secretary of Education says four in five public schools in our nation are likely not making adequate yearly progress.

But today I am here to praise some of our public schools, not bury them.  In schools across the nation, educators are recognizing there are serious problems and there are real, productive solutions for addressing those problems.  And in those schools and those communities that are fortunate enough to have superintendents, principals, teachers, and other educators enacting those solutions, the kids are reaping the benefits.
Today’s case in point is up in the Nutmeg State.  Yes, Connecticut has the largest achievement gaps in the nation.  But we are seeing pockets of success and progress in elementary, middle, and even a few high schools across the state. 
Today, ConnCAN (or the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now) released its annual report cards on the state’s public schools.  For the last six years, ConnCAN has provided a simple, yet effective, report card for grading every school and every school district in the state.  Using state test scores, ConnCAN ranks all public schools on how they are doing with regard to four measures — 1) overall performance, 2) student subgroup performance (low-income, African-American, and Hispanic), 3) performance gains, and 4) achievement gap.  Each school receives both a ranking (relative performance) and a letter grade (absolute performance).  The complete set of 2011 ConnCAN report cards can be found here.

In addition to scoring more than 1,000 schools this way, ConnCAN also provides a list of Top 10 schools (elementary, middle and high school) based on many of the above measures.  And to top it off, the not-for-profit offers up a list of 2011 Success Story Schools.  Each of these Success Stories are at least 75 percent low-income and/or minority.  And in each of these schools, at least one subgroup (low-income, African-American, or Hispanic) outperforms the overall average for the state at that school level (elementary, middle, or high school). 
While the staff of ConnCAN deserves real credit for undertaking this effort each year, the intent of this missive is not a self-congratulatory pat on the back.  No, the purpose is to put the spotlight and the plaudits where they belong — on those schools that are making real progress, particularly when it comes to addressing the achievement gaps.
So here’s to the Worthington Hooker School in New Haven, where 86 percent of low-income students are at or above goal.  To Jefferson Elementary in Norwalk, where 67.5 percent of African-American students are at or above goal.  To the Mead School in Ansonia and the Ralph M.T. Johnson School in Bethel, both of which have more than 80 percent of their Hispanic students at or above goal.  And to the AnnieFisher STEM Magnet School and Breakthrough 2, both in Hartford, and Fair Haven School in New Haven, all three of which posted improvement in excess of 20 percentage points from last year.
These — and all of the others on ConnCAN’s 2011 Top 10 and Success Story Schools Lists — are examples of what is possible.  They signal that change, while difficult, can happen.  They show that all students — regardless of race, family income, or zip code — can have access to great schools.  And they demonstrate the power and impact truly great educators can have on the achievement of our young people.
These schools also teach us there is no one solution, no one magic bullet, and no one enchanted elixir for improving our schools.  It takes hard work.  It demands commitment.  It requires a true student focus.  And it calls for learning from and modeling after schools like those recognized by ConnCAN on this year’s lists.
So congratulations to those public schools on ConnCAN’s Top 10 and Success Story Schools Lists and to other public schools posting similar progress in other states across the country.  Kudos to those administrators, teachers, and staff who are making it happen.  And applause to those students and their families who are making clear that terms like dropout factories and achievement gaps can become nothing more than urban legend.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack not only works with ConnCAN, but he also runs the organization.)


Healthy Foods, Successful Students

Eduflack accountability, Students

For those who believe we have survived the economic downturn of 2008 and have righted the ship, today’s New York Times offers a very different perspective.  Sam Dillon reports on the increase in the number of students now receiving free lunches from our public schools, noting a whopping 17-percent increase in the numbers over the last five years.  According to the NYT, thanks to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, 21 million kids received free school lunches last year through a program that was once seen as a safety net for the poorest of the poor.

What’s even more startling is that “Eleven states, including Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and Tennessee had four-year increases of 25 percent or more, huge shifts in a vast program long characterized by incremental growth.”
This seems to be the part of public education that we often don’t talk about, or don’t talk about enough.  We acknowledge that poverty is a problem in achieving a high-quality education, but usually align such a discussion with per-pupil expenditures, the presence of white boards, and the general accumulation of “stuff” in our schools.  Schools with “stuff” succeed, those without it struggle.  But all the “stuff” doesn’t do you a lick of good if students are coming to school hungry and leaving even hungrier.
Fortunately, this is a topic that some are looking to bring front and center.  Earlier this month, the Virginia School Boards Association (of which Eduflack is a member) announced its Healthy Foods Initiative.  Led by new VSBA President Joan Wodiska, school districts across the state are beginning to work together to address the childhood hunger issue in the state.  Wodiska’s video announcing the new initiative can be found here.  VSBA is also in the process of creating a Healthy School Meals Database, highlighting some of the best practices that are being used to address the issue.  This includes the work that Eduflack’s own Falls Church City School Board undertook to tackle this problem (which earned the city’s schools the prestigious NSBA Magna Award for its school meal efforts).
While I realize that Virginia is not alone in addressing this issue, the push now coming from VSBA is an important step.  While we all recognize that student achievement is the ultimate goal, we must realize that many factors — effective teachers, research-based instructional materials, proper assessments, meaningful accountability, and, yes, healthy meals — all contribute to a student’s ability to succeed.  
The statistics reported by Dillon and The New York Times are important.  Of greater importance, though, is what we do with them.  Do we act, or do we make excuses?  Fortunately, places like the Old Dominion are choosing the former.

“Then Raise Taxes!”

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap

There is no question we are asking our states, school districts, and schools to do far more with fewer resources.  The boom years for public education are over, perhaps best emphasized by the end of the multi-billion-dollar Reading First program years ago.  The economic downturn of 2008 and 2009, now coupled with the end of ARRA money for the states means school districts are already pinching the skinniest of pennies.

Regardless of whether I am wearing my ed reformer hat, my school board chairman hat, my pundit hat, or my parent hat, I hate hearing the “do more with less mantra.”  At the end of the day, this is not an issue of doing more.  This is an issue of doing better, pure and simple.  Throughout public education, we must do better with the resources we have, ensuring that those precious dollars are being spent on kids, instruction, and results.  We must demonstrate real return on our education investment, shown through the success of our students.  No ifs, ands, or buts.
That’s why it is so disheartening to continue to see those who defend the status quo crow that it is all about the dollars, that our schools would do more if they only had increased funding.  That the answer, as Diane Ravitch recently put it during a visit to Hartford, CT, is “then raise taxes!”
There is no question that poverty and performance in our public schools are closely linked.  One only needs to look at the achievement gap between wealthy and low-income students to see that reality.  But we also know there is no data that proves increasing the per-pupil expenditure results in improved student learning, student test scores, and student success. 
If it were only a matter of dollars, then cities like Washington, DC would have public schools that were all the envy of the wealthiest of suburbs.  If it were only a matter of funding, New Jersey’s Abbott Schools in Newark, Trenton, and Camden would be our nation’s top performers.  If it were all about the benjamins, the recent influx of NCLB dollars would have turned student test scores on its head, with our previously lowest-performing schools outperforming the world.
Don’t get me wrong, money helps.  It helps a great deal.  But it isn’t just about gross dollars, it is about how those gold coins are spent.  It is also about what one is teaching.  It is about who is teaching.  It is about how families are engaged in the learning process.  It is about empowering students and parents.  Yes, it is as much about how we spend the money as the money itself.
Organizations like Education Trust can provide detailed lists of schools in low-income communities, with low per-pupil expenditures who are succeeding against the odds.  In cities across the nation, we see charter schools (and let there be no mistake, charters are also public schools) that are posting top student performance numbers, despite spending only one-half or two-thirds of what is being spent in a low-performing traditional public school in the same city.  Not only can we do better with less, we have true exemplars that are already doing it.
Yes, it would be fabulous if we were able to wave a magic wand and inject billions of additional dollars into our public schools.  It would be terrific if resources weren’t an issue and poverty weren’t a concern that every educator and community leader needed to worry about.  And it would be great if every child could ride a unicorn to school.
Like it or not, we are now in the new normal.  We must do better with the resources we have.  We must ensure all kids have strong, effective teachers leading their classrooms, and those teachers are adequately supported.  We must ensure all students have access to great public schools, regardless of their zip code.  And we must ensure that all of those in the learning process — be they teachers, administrators, students, parents, or even those dreaded reformers — are focused on the true outcomes of public education, and not just on the inputs.
  

Some Nutmeg on the NAEP

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, NAEP, National Journal

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education released the latest round of NAEP scores, offering the most recent snapshot on how our nation’s students are doing when it comes to reading and math.  The results were downright depressing, with the majority of kids still failing to post proficient scores and the achievement gaps growing in far too many areas.

National Journal is running its weekly blog on those very same NAEP results.  You can check out Eduflack’s post on the scores, their impact in Connecticut in particular, and how if these latest scores don’t signify an urgent call, I don’t know what will.
We often think of Connecticut, the Nutmeg State, as the land of plentiful budgets and bountiful student success.  But the numbers tell a vastly different picture.  While Connecticut is indeed in the top 10 when it comes to per-pupil expenditure, it is tops when it comes to achievement gaps.  From my National Journal post:
For those looking to strap on the pom-poms for number one rankings, Connecticut did score first in seven of the 16 disaggregated categories. Of course, that’s a first place for largest gaps. And we’re in the top 10 for every single one of those 16.

As always, this week’s debate is worth checking out, as are the actual reports, breakdowns and official government statements on the 2011 Nation’s Report Cards on reading and math, as released by the National Assessment Governing Board.

The Hidden Costs of Community Colleges

Eduflack accountability, higher ed

There is little question that higher education is a worthwhile investment.  We regularly hear about the earning power of that college degree, and how those with a college education out-earn those with just a high school diploma by up to a million dollars over a lifetime.  And we can’t miss the regular drumbeat of how some form of postsecondary education is necessary in our 21st century economy, and that just a high school diploma will no longer cut it in our knowledge economy.

We also realize that college is an expensive endeavor.  With some private colleges charging more than $50,000 a year and too many students needing five or six years to complete an undergraduate degree, that worthwhile investment doesn’t necessarily come cheap.  It is no wonder that more and more are turning to community colleges as a a cost-effective path to higher education, whether it be to secure an associate’s degree as a path to a job or to earn a year or two of lower-cost credits before transferring to a four-year institution.  And in some states, we are even seeing community colleges beginning to offer bachelor’s degrees.
In all of this, we often don’t think of the cost of drop-outs in our community colleges.  We worry about those high school drop-out factories, and the third of students who fail to earn a high school diploma.  We fret about the growing number of students who fail to earn their bachelor’s degree, hoping their is a sheepskin effect and that even a year or three of college is of benefit, both intellectually and economically.  But what about community college?
A new study from the American Institutes for Research’s Mark Schneider offers a
startling picture of community college drop-outs, The Hidden Costs of Community Colleges.  Using data collected by the U.S. Department of Education and submitted by our institutions of higher education themselves, Schneider finds:
* Nearly $4 billion was spent by federal, state, and local governments over the last five years on first-year community college students who did not return for a second year of college.
* In 2008-09 (the last year of available data), nearly $1 billion was spent by government on first-year community college students who did not return for year two.  That is 35 percent higher than it was just five years earlier.
* About a fifth of full-time community college students do not return for their second years of college.
Of course, we also realize that these “drop out” numbers are imprecise.  Using federal IPEDS data is tricky business.  It is the best, worst, and only source of such higher education data.  So while we know when a student does not return for a second year at his or her selected community college, we don’t know where they went.  Did they transfer to another school?  Did they join the military?  Did they depart on missionary work?  Or did they just drop out?
Regardless, the data is still startling.  Why?  Tax dollars — particularly at the state and local level — are in short supply.  We are asking our educational institutions to do more and more with fewer resources.  And we face changing demands and increased requirements in the process.
That community college drop-out cost reflects $3 billion in state and locally appropriated money — read taxpayer dollars — that fails to deliver maximum return on investment.  It includes $240 million in direct grants from the state to the student, another investment that falls short.  And it includes $660 million in federal aid to students, at a time when Pell Grants are under direct assault.
And the costs don’t include the dollars spent by families and students for that first year of community college.  Nor does it include those students who are, or rather were, part-time community college students.  Nor does it include direct federal support or capital investments in those institutions, two other taxpayer-funded supports for the community college experience.
What is the grand takeaway from all of this?  Put simply, we need greater focus on our outcomes.  With taxpayer dollars at a premium and postsecondary degrees almost a non-negotiable in today’s economy, we need to be doing anything and everything to keep kids in school and increase the number earning their degrees.  
If we are serious about honoring President Obama’s promise that the United States will have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world, we must first focus on those who are already in the higher ed pipeline.  What do we do about the 20 percent of first-year community college students who never return for year two?  And how do we better spend that $1 billion a year in taxpayer funds to accomplish it?
(Full disclosure: Eduflack has advised AIR and Dr. Schneider over the years.)

Ed Reform Power Rests with the States

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, NCLB

Now that the dust has settled and we’ve been able to take the weekend to reflect on the lessons learned from last week’s U.S. Senate mark-up of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, what are the major takeaways and lessons learned?

That is the big question asked by the National Journal on its Education Experts Blog.  Check out my full post here.  For those looking for a little taste …
We will continue to look to our nation’s capital for bold rhetoric on education reform and for targeted funding for pilot efforts and the incubation of new ideas. But last week’s hearings (as well as much of the last decade) has made clear that real reform needs to come from state capitols, not from Washington, DC. States (and by extension, localities) are the captains of our educational fates.  

As always, the National Journal Blog is worth checking out, and the posts will just keep coming.

The Perfect, The Good, or The Unacceptable?

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, NCLB

All week, we have seen the kabuki theater that is the Senate HELP Committee debate the latest version of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  From Sen. Harkin (IA) negotiating against himself by weakening teacher accountability provisions before the markup even began to the reams of amendments intended by Sen. Paul (KY) to Sen. Sanders (VT) intending to place scarlet letters on the chests of any educator who didn’t experience four or six years of a traditional education school experience, it was theater to say the least.

This week, Eduflack debuts over at the National Journal’s Education Experts Blog.  The topic?  Harkin’s ESEA draft.  Check out my thoughts on how this is no longer a “perfect being the enemy of the good” deal, particularly when the proposed accountability provisions serve as a significant step back.