accountability

Can Gates Remake K-12 Education?

Eduflack accountability, Gates Foundation

Yesterday, Nick Anderson offered up a front-page story in The Washington Post on the influence and impact the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is having on education reform in the United States.  For many, this was not new news (particularly since Libby Quaid and the Associated Press did a similar story about two years ago), but the size and scope was bound to attract attention.  When we start to see the number of grants awarded, the total dollars doled out, and the influential individuals who have moved from Gates into either government or practitioner roles, and you start to see the possibility of the Gates Foundation and education improvement.

But Eduflack is struck by the same thinking that has dogged him for years.  Anderson’s well-written piece portrays the current K-12 public education environment and how the Gates Foundation needs to work within the confines of that system.  It continues to be about refurbishing existing homes, not about tearing down and building new.  And if anything was clear from the Anderson article, it is that Gates is in a position to do it its way, and not simply as we have always done.

So it had Eduflack going back into the archives to look at some past writing.  In March of 2009, I opined on this topic as well, riffing off another WaPo piece, that time from Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, on how Bill Gates could repair our schools.  Rather than reinvent the wheel, let’s look at how smart Eduflack appeared nearly a year and a half ago:

“So who says Gates has to play by the rules and the confines of the current system?  After all, this is a man who released a box full of mosquitoes as an international conference so all could feel the possible threat of malaria.  This is a man who built a global corporate giant out of his garage by refusing to abide by mores and by never hearing the word no.  This is a man who is investing significant wealth into American public education, despite so many people telling him it was a lost cause and he was throwing his money into a pit that will never yield a return.

To date, the Gates Foundation is thinking about the right issues.  School structure.  Teacher training and support.  Rigor and relevance of instruction.  Connections between K-12 and the workforce.  Pay structures that reward success.  Student assessments and standards.  Return on educational investment.  The Foundation has tried to implement these issues in a number of ways, trying pilot projects across the nation, looking for promising practice, and hoping to find real solutions that can be adopted at scale across the United States.
The latter is the most important point for reformers.  How do we adopt proven solutions at scale?  To date, we are tinkering around the edges.  We can point to achievement gap solutions in Ohio, early college successes in the JFF network, and virtual options in Texas, for instance.  These issues have come, in large part, from working within the system, as Gates seeks to supplement existing efforts and provide the funding to do more within the current system, essentially layering potential solutions on top of systems that may well be broken at their core.
More than a year ago, Eduflack reflected on this same issue.  How can Gates get more bang for its buck?  How can it move from tinkering to dropping a brand-new engine into our public schools?  How does it move from supplementing what is broken to supplanting?  How does it use its power, vision, and checkbook to literally build that better mousetrap.
In recent months, Bill Gates has laid out his vision for what our schools need to improve.  That vision is reflected in Hiatt’s piece this morning.  Flexibility in structure, evidenced by a greater need for charter schools.  Flexibility in human capital, evidenced by new formulas for training, hiring, and rewarding teachers.  Strong standards by which all students are measured, ensuring all students are embracing both the relevance and rigor of 21st century education.  And an unwavering commitment to success, whereby dropout factories are a thing of the past and dropping out is viable option for no student and no family.
So it has me back to my original thinking.  Forget about supporting existing school districts and trying to layer new programs on top of old, failed efforts.  Now is the time for Gates to be bold and different.  Now is the time for the Gates Foundation to chart a different course.  Now is the time for Gates to reject the status quo, and chart a completely new path for K-12 education in the United States.
It is a simple one.  Gates needs to get in the business of empire building.  Instead of investing in urban school districts and trying to overcome decades of problems that have become ingrained on the schools’ DNA, Gates needs to begin building alternative school districts.  That’s right.  Forget charter schools, we need charter districts.  If the current model is broken, as Gates claims, the answer is not to fix.  The true answer is to create a better one.  Move into an urban center and set up a K-12 charter district.  Determine the most effective, research-proven curriculum.  Train, hire, and support the best teachers.  Reward those teachers properly.  Apply strong standards to every student, accepting no excuses and demanding proficiency and success from all.  Better align our elementary, middle, and secondary school programs.  Engage students early on, so they see the relevance of their academic pursuits.  Offer internships and externships so all students see the career opportunities before them.  Build the buildings, implement the learning structures, acquire the technology and learning materials, and do what is necessary to get us to success.  No boundaries to prevent us from doing what is necessary.  No excuses to fall back on.  
These new school districts can build on the successes of Gates programs to date.  They can take the best of Early College High Schools, of the Ohio High School Transformation Initiative, and of Green Dot Schools.  They can also build on the efforts of KIPP and Teach for America and even from school districts like NYC that are truly thinking outside the box.  They can borrow and steal from the very best in school reform, community engagement, corporate innovation, and some of the news ways of thinking coming from small, nimble not-for-profits.
Then take this new system and provide families the choice.  Those who wish to remain in the traditional school district that has served their family for generations can do so.  Those who are seeking new options, those who are seeking new opportunities, those seeking more choice can opt for the Gates route.  It is about providing options and choice.  If implemented properly, such choices not only offer a strong Gates model, but the competition forces traditional school districts to act differently, improve, and meet the demands of their current customers — the families.  If done well, the rising Gates tide would lift all schools — traditional publics, charters, and privates alike.
I know what many are thinking — what an absolutely ridiculous idea.  Funders don’t do such a thing.  They provide resources to support the current infrastructure. They fund new projects and new ideas.  They supplement, they don’t compete.  Yes, that may have been the way we have traditionally worked, but does it need to be that way?  Do philanthropies need to simply serve as advisors, consultants, and checkbooks, or can they get more active?
When Bill Gates built Microsoft, his mature business model was not to simply advise IBM on the operating software they needed.  He determined the status quo — both in terms of hardware and software — weren’t cutting it.  He tried working as part of that system, and it just didn’t work.  So he turned the industry on its head, positioning software as the driver in the technology industry.  Microsoft became Microsoft because he offered consumers a choice, and he offered them a better one.  After a while, it was no choice at all.  If one wanted to succeed in business, one had to use Microsoft products.
So why can’t we do the same in education?  Why can’t Gates use its investment to build a better school district?  Take all of those great minds that have been assembled at the foundation, and do it differently and do it better.  From the top down and the bottom up, build a school structure that is both student and teacher focused, geared toward real results, and not beholden to the status quo or the ways we used to do it simply because that is how we used to do it.
Could this path be a complete failure?  Absolutely.  The Foundation could get into the middle of it and find that curriculum selection, teacher training, and CBAs are far more difficult than they ever envisioned.  They could discover that managing buildings or dealing with operational issues is not what they want to do.  They could realize that human capital management is simply too difficult a nut to crack, particularly if they are not in charge of the pre-service education that delivers the teachers to their door.  They could even find that the first or second generation of this experiment is a failure, and they have to keep changing and adapting on the fly to meet goals and deliver on their promises to the community.  And, shudder, they could even find themselves lapsing into models and behaviors far too similar to the school districts they are trying to change and offer an alternative to.
Or it could just work.  Gates could pick a four or five cities, invest significantly in those cities and demonstrate how district-wide change can happen at the city, school, classroom, and student level.  They could identify those best practices that can indeed be replicated at scale in districts throughout the nation.  They can find a way to build better pathways and make real opportunities available to more students in need.  They can truly build a better learning environment, particularly for those who have been dealt a bad hand for far too long.
Let’s face it.  If anyone can do it, Gates can do it.  And at this point of the game, not trying is far worse than the risk of failure.  If the EdSec is going to stake a number of school districts with the funds to Race to the Top, why can’t Gates do the same?  We let ED fund internal improvements designed to improve current districts.  Gates funds the construction of new school districts focused on 21st century needs and expectations.  And we see who provides a better education, and a better ROI.  Let the best model win.”

Doesn’t seem so foolish after all, now does it?

Calculating College Degree ROI

Eduflack accountability, higher ed

With the economy still lagging, jobs in short supply (particularly for recent college grads), and some private schools charging upwards of $50,000 a year to attain an undergraduate college degree, is it all worth it?  Is six figures of debt for that ol’ sheepskin a worthwhile investment, particularly in the current job market?

These are some of the questions that were recently addressed by Bloomberg Businessweek in its June 28-July 4, 2010 edition.  Using data from PayScale, Businessweek set out to calculate the true return on investment for a postsecondary education. And the results were particularly interesting.  (As an aside, it is important to note that Businessweek has really started to step up its coverage of education, both K-12 and postsec, issues.)

First off, Businessweek looked at those schools posting the best ROI.  Not surprising, they are all private institutions.  Tops was MIT, where $189,300 in costs (tuition and fees) to attain the degree nets nearly $1.7 million ROI.  For Businessweek’s purposes, ROI is defined as additional wages earned over a lifetime when compared to a typical high school graduate.  So if you are debating between settling for that high school diploma or enrolling in MIT, siding with MIT will net you $1.7 million more in your wallet in the long term.

Following MIT was CalTech ($1.64M ROI), Harvard ($1.63M), Harvey Mudd ($1.63M), Dartmouth ($1.59M), Stanford ($1.57M), Princeton ($1.52M), Yale ($1.39M), Notre Dame ($1.38M), and UPenn ($1.36M).  Boy, Eduflack is really glad that the Eduwife holds that bachelor’s and master’s from Stanford and that doctorate from UPenn.  I’m just waiting to live that lifestyle to which I could become accustomed.

Perhaps more interesting was the comparisons of types of colleges, looking at their 30-year net return on investment.  Ivies scored highest, at $1.4MROI.  Private colleges offered an ROI of $559,200, with public colleges coming in at $322,500.

And if you truly want to look at a college education as an investment, a college degree ROI offers a 9 percent return.  Compare that with 11.1 percent return investing in the S&P 500, a 4 percent return investing in 30-year Treasuries, and (despite the TV  commercials) a 2.6 percent return investing in gold.

So why is this so important?  First, there is clearly value in obtaining a college degree.  But we’ve always known that.  For years, the College Board has offered that one holding a college degree will earn $1 million more in a lifetime than one with just a high school diploma.  (Though researchers like Mark Schneider have countered that the true ROI is closer to $275,000, when you calculate the cost of attaining that college degree and the lost years of wage earning to go to college).  So yes, a college degree can be worth the time and expense.

But what Businessweek (and Payscale) clearly demonstrate is the type of college chosen is just as important as whether one goes to college.  No surprise, Ivies offer the greatest ROI.  Looking at public colleges in particular, one has to wonder what happens to ROI when you remove the so-called Public Ivies like the University of Virginia, Michigan, Berkeley, and such.  What is the ROI for attending an open-enrollment public institution?  Are there institutions out there that provide little, or no, ROI? 

Of course, all of this is just looking at the ROI for graduating from these institutions of higher education.  What about the ROI for those who complete three years of college?  Or for those who drop out after the first year?  Is there a value to encouraging all to attend college, even if they are emotionally or academically unprepared for the challenge, knowing that they may drop out that first year?  Yes, there is more to college than ROI, and some will argue the lessons learned in even one year of college are worth it, but that is a harder and harder argument to make as student loans come due and that dream job is nowhere to be found in daylight.

These Businessweek numbers raise a lot of questions that the higher education community must begin to address.  We’re all familiar with colleges who market themselves by talking about how low their acceptance rate is and how high their average SAT scores are.  Imagine those marketing efforts if IHEs are able to talk about the ROI for graduates, the percentage of recent graduates who are employed, the average salary for such grads, and other such measures?  It could truly revolutionize the process of choosing a college, while finally refocusing colleges and universities on truly serving the customer — the student.

A Texas-Sized Workaround?

Eduflack accountability, RTT, stimulus, teachers

How do you solve a problem like Rick Perry?

As we all know, last year Congress made $787 billion available to the states, in the name of economic stimulus, to help unstick many of the funding streams that states were stuck on.  Chief among these streams is K-12 education, as states were handed buckets of cash to jumpstart education spending, fill funding gaps, and ensure that school budgets did not face measureable cuts in the name of the economic downturn.

Most states put the money to use as intended (though Eduflack still offers that the original intent of ARRA was NOT to spend stimulus dollars on one or two years’ of teachers’ salaries, but I’ve clearly lost that argument).  But a few, including Texas, didn’t quite do as they were told.  Just as Texas refused to apply for a Race to the Top grant citing its independence and general superiority to every other state in the union, the state’s governor, Rick Perry, chose to violate the strings attached to those original stimulus checks.

When dollars were electronically transferred to the states in 2009, each state had to pledge that, when it came to K-12 education, the money was to boost education funding.  States were not to take the federal handout and then cut the state’s own contribution to education, essentially playing a short-term funding shell game. The worry, of course, is if the states cut their share this year, and there is no federal support in the following year, that cut will never be regained. 

Of course, Texas got $3 billion last year under the stimulus specifically designated for education.  And Perry critics have been quick to note that the Republic of Texas cut the state’s share of education funding, using those federal dollars to make up the difference.  So instead of the intended increased investment in public education, Texas held flat, with a real risk that future budgets will decrease, following the state contribution trend.

As expected, Congress is hot under the collar about Texas not following the rules (including the never shy Texas Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett).  So the U.S. House of Representatives figured out a workaround for their Perry problem.  In the supplemental appropriations bill passed by the House last week (the one including new funding for edujobs), Democratic congressmen decided to bypass Governor Perry and offer education dollars directly to Texas school districts (including Doggett’s home city of Austin).  

The plan is simple.  Texas school districts are eligible to receive more than $800 million to help pay for teachers’ salaries.  But there is one catch.  Those Independent School Districts seeking such federal assistance need to have the Good Governor certify that the state won’t cut education funding (or at least won’t cut it more than anything else in the upcoming Texas budget).  Get the assurance, get the money.  Fail to get it, and you can blame your governor for potential teacher layoffs.  The full story can be found here in the Houston Chronicle’s Texas on the Potomac blog.

Congress definitely deserves points for creativity.  But isn’t such an action just a little bit punitive?  Are we slapping Perry’s hand because he didn’t want to play ball on RttT or because he doesn’t want to ride the wave that is common core standards?  Are we angered that Texas continues to maintain its K-12 superiority?  Are we troubled that the usually effective federal funding carrot wouldn’t work with this Texas mustang?

If the name of the game is indeed student achievement and boosting student academic performance, we can’t lose sight of that.  If Congress is going to make edujobs money a federal requirement, like Title I and IDEA, then they just need to do that.  But playing games like this (with a Governor who seems to enjoy a good game of chicken) is just bad politics.  Lasting school improvement comes when the feds are supporting state and local efforts.  It doesn’t come when the feds look to drive a wedge between the LEA and the SEA, making the school district choose between the governor and Congress like a bad TV divorce.

We should be looking for ways to bring Texas into the national ed reform fold, not offering reasons for the Lone Star State to snub DC and hurt its school districts in the process.  Threats and ultimatums aren’t quite the way to get Texas to go along.  Thousands of good teachers are likely to pay the price, by not getting that federal edujobs money, but tens of thousands of Texas students will truly pay as state- and district-led improvement efforts are slowed or diverted to make up for the lack of federal cash.  

This quick little workaround in a quick little supplemental spending bill could have lasting impact.
 

Gutting School Improvement to Keep the Lights On

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, charter schools, RTT, stimulus, teachers

Short-term pain relief or long-term improvement?  That seems to be the choice that is currently facing Congress, as the House debates how to fund “edujobs,” the federal relief necessary to supposedly save hundreds of thousands of teachers’ jobs in this difficult economy.

Earlier this month, Eduflack wrote on the edu-jobs issue and how Congress could get creative in finding the $23 billion needed to protect classroom jobs.  Since then, the edu-jobs issue has gone nowhere.  The U.S. Senate, in particular, seems to lack the fortitude to vote for additional spending, even it was to save the jobs of K-12 teachers.  So edujobs has just been left hanging, with no resolution in sight.
Until this week.  In the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Chairman David Obey has offered plans to move $10 billion in edujobs dollars.  The full text of Congress’ spending plans can be found here, on the House Rules Committee website.  But since the release of the report language, it begged the question — where is Congress finding the money to offset the dollars being spent on edujobs?
It is a question that Alyson Klein over at EdWeek and its Politics K-12 blog has refused to let go of.  Now, Klein has the answers for us.  It seems that, to ease the short-term pain of school districts struggling to meet payroll, that Congress is ready to sacrifice some of its commitment to wholesale school improvement efforts.
According to Klein, much of the money needed to offset the spending for edujobs comes from cuts to existing school improvement efforts.  Chairman Obey and company are planning on pulling $500 million from Race to the Top, $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, and another $100 million from innovation and improvement (which she reads as charter school moneys) to help fund the $800 million in budget offsets Democrats have promised.  
In response, Rep. John Kline (MN), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee referred to the move as exploitation, and said Dems were taking the first chance to “discard education reform.”    
So it begs an important question — is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain?  Is one year of supporting teachers’ salaries worth slashing one-eighth of the RttT pool?  Is it worth eliminating the $200 million increase that the stimulus bill originally gave to TIF?  And is it worth slashing charter dollars after we demanded that states change their charter laws and promote the establishment of more charter schools?
RttT, TIF, and innovation dollars are all long-term investments.  Cutting $500 million from Race, for instance, likely means at least three or four states that won’t be able to participate in the Phase Two program.  Those mid-sized states that could have taken a Race and done some real good with it over the next few years will now lose out.  All to cover salaries for the coming school year (and one coming year only).
What makes such a move dangerous is that this is stopgap; it isn’t a solution.  What happens next year when we need another $10 or $15 billion to help with teachers’ salaries?  And more importantly, what happens with plans to add new phases to RttT or i3?  Once these cuts to education reform efforts are made, it becomes near impossible to restore them.  Supporting teacher pay becomes a long-term obligation, with little opportunity in the near term to add new programs or expand competitive grant programs. 
Without question, it is important that our school districts figure out ways to pay their workforces, both this year and the years to come.  But should that maintenance mean sacrificing real efforts to improve our schools and their outcomes?  Do we really want to get into a position where we are choosing between paying teachers and improving student test scores?  And do we really want the federal government to become more and more responsible for paying salaries in our localities?
 

“The Incredibly Shrinking Education Commissioner”

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NEA, RTT, teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private Dollars and Public Education

Eduflack accountability, AFT, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Education a National Job?

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, NCLB

Following yesterday’s election results in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Arkansas, and elsewhere, there is a great deal of buzz about what the latest collections of primary votes in an off-year election year truly mean.  The talking heads immediately keyed in on the “power” of President Obama’s support, the strength of the Tea Party movement, and other such harbingers of what is to come.

Such talk also has direct impact on current education improvement efforts.  Last fall’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia have had real edu-implications.  Just look at New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie has sought to revolutionize school finance efforts, freeze teacher pay, expand charter schools, single-handedly take down the New Jersey Education Association, one of the strongest state teachers’ unions in the nation.  As his reward?  The NJ legislature provides lukewarm, at best, support for his Phase II Race to the Top application, an application that seems to be strongly in line with what the feds are expecting.  This after they gave the strongest of endorsements to a Phase One plan that was a major loser. 
If yesterday’s elections told us anything, it is that the anti-government sentiment found in many a Tea Party statement has real strength.  Yesterday, the movement may have very well elected a U.S. Senator in Kentucky.  And growing frustration with support for federal policies and efforts may very well have brought down the sitting Senator from Arkansas (we will see after the runoff), and may have contributed to the demise of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania in his new-found political party.
So why does this matter?  Those of us who worked on the Hill at the time clearly remember the “revolution” of 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America brought down the decades-long rule that Democrats had enjoyed in Congress.  At the time, Gingrich promised a much smaller government, less intrusion, and more freedoms.  And one of the centerpieces of that agenda was the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.  The thinking here is that education is a local matter.  With the feds contributing less than a dime for every dollar spent in K-12, the thinking goes, it is far easier exclude the federal intrusion and let local school boards decide what is taught, what is measured, and what is paid for.
Today we are seeing much of the same rhetoric, particularly coming through the anti-government Tea Party movement.  Today, Education Daily (sorry folks, no link to share) has an interesting piece on how several state Republican parties, influenced by Tea Party supporters, are now advocating for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in their official policy platforms.  Cloaking themselves in the 10th Amendment, Republican parties in states like Maine, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Oregon have either officially adopted or are expected to sign on to calls to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
Is this backlash against eight years of No Child Left Behind?  Is it frustration that so many states worry that they will be excluded from the riches found in Race or i3?  Is it worry of strengthened accountability under ESEA reauthorization?  Or is it legitimate concern that public education is a local responsibility?  More importantly, is it something we need to worry about?
We all well know that the U.S. Department of Education is going nowhere.  Its role is too important, and its scope to large for us to pull back now.  But these political rumblings within local Republican parties can have real influence on topics such as reauthorization, particularly when Republicans pick up seats in both the Senate and House this fall.  Republican leaders on the Senate HELP Committee or the House Education and Labor Committee don’t want to anger their core constituencies back home, and those constituencies are only gaining more attention and strength by the month.
For reauthorization, that likely means greater scrutiny of plans, particularly when it comes to expanding Race, replacing AYP, adopting Common Core Standards, and all of the other goodies found in ED’s official ESEA blueprint.  If you couldn’t get some of these reforms through in 2007 and 2008, when Dems and GOPers were looking to deal on reauthorization, and you couldn’t get it through in 2009 and 2010 when Dems have the strongest majorities we’ve seen in quite a while, do we really see expansion of the federal education role in 2011 and 2012, when we could have razor-thin majorities and stronger anti-government sentiment?
  

High Standards By What Measure?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment

Since the introduction of AYP measures more than eight years ago, we have heard many a tale of states accused of “cooking the books” in order to look strong under the latest school evaluation tools.  The most common tale is that of states that continually drop their state standards, hoping to demonstrate the sort of continuous student gains the federal law was seeking.  Instead of improving instruction, states simply lowered expectations.  Each year, more students on the fringes would hit proficient.  But what, exactly, did proficient mean?

Now that the U.S. Department of Education has taken up reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, issued a rallying cry for common core standards, and encouraged a strengthening of such standards through Race to the Top, the subject has taken on even greater importance.  And now Education Next has offered up some startling statistics startling statistics regarding where states — including those seen as the leading reformers — really stand when it comes to good, hard standards.
According to Paul Peterson and Carlos Xabel Lastra-Anadon, we see that only two states — Massachusetts and Missouri — are at the top of the class when it comes to the strength of their state standards.  Meanwhile, Tennessee is at the very bottom of the list, with Nebraska, Alabama, and Michigan nipping closely at the Volunteer State’s heels.
To get at the true “strength” of each state’s standards, the study compared state standards with NAEP standards.  So it should be no surprise that Massachusetts, historically the top-performing NAEP state, is at the top of the pack.  What is so disturbing, though, is how few states can truly match up with the NAEP standards.  In eighth grade, only seven states scores above a C for reading standards.  And only 13 managed to score above the mid-mark for math.
This very topic was also the subject of testimony testimony heard by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee last week.  Dr. Gary Phillips, VP and Chief Scientist at American institutes for Research and former head of the National Center for Education Statistics, went right into the lion’s den to tell the HELP Committee, including Tennessee’s Senator Lamar Alexander, that we have real problems when it comes to state standards, particularly in Tennessee.  It should be noted that Senator Alexander, the former U.S. Education Secretary, graciously accepted the fact that Tennessee has struggled, in the past, with establishing high standards.  But the Volunteer State is now committed to fixing the problem.  
In his remarks, Phillips pointed out:

The most significant thing wrong with NCLB is a lack of transparency. The severe consequences of failing to meet AYP had the unintended consequence of encouraging states to lower, rather than raise, their own standards. The law inadvertently encouraged the states to dumb down their performance standards to get high rates of proficiency. The fact that states dumb down their performance standards can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 in this document. The “percent proficient” in these tables represent what was reported by NCLB in Grades 4 and 8 in mathematics in 2007. In my remaining remarks I will use Grade 8 to illustrate my points. In Grade 8 we see that Tennessee is the highest achieving state in the nation while Massachusetts is one of the lowest. If parents were looking to raise a family in a state with an excellent track record of success based on NCLB data, they should move their family to Tennessee. However, there is something wrong with this picture. We know that NAEP reports exactly the opposite with Massachusetts the highest achieving state and Tennessee being one of the lowest achieving states. 

Phillips notes that we not only have that ever-present achievement gap looming over us, but if we look at NAEP and international benchmarks like TIMSS and PISA, we have an even more ominous expectation gap hovering.  In his analysis, Phillips noted that there is almost two standard deviations of difference between Massachusetts and Tennessee.  So what does that mean for the average layman, the average parent, or the average policymaker?  It is pretty simple, and pretty scary.  if we look at what the average eighth grader in Tennessee is expected to know and be able to do, at least with regard to reading and math, that is what the average sixth grader in Massachusetts is doing.  Yes, two standard deviations means almost the equivalent of two grade levels.
So why is that so important?  To use a bad phrase, you do the math.  If there are essentially two grade levels of difference between standards in one state versus the other, what happens when the clock runs out?  Those things to be learned and measured in 11th and 12th grade are never gained.  States graduate kids who are at a disadvantage for college, in theory knowing less and being able to do less than fellow students from other states.  And at a time when we are saying a college education is the name of the game, having students from a majority of states starting college behind — at least when it comes to proficiency in math and reading — is hardly the starting point we want for that non-negotiable of postsecondary education.
Obviously, this is why the common core standards are so important.  If every state is measured by the same yardstick, it becomes much harder to cook those books.  Yes, we will still have states looking to exempt certain student populations (like ELLs and special education) from the final calculations.  But hopefully that bar is the same for every student to clear.  It means a proficient student in Massachusetts is the same as a proficient student in Alabama is the same as a proficient student in Arizona.  That high school diploma has common meaning.  And those entering college are, hopefully, starting with the same core toolbox of skills and knowledge.
As the rewrite of ESEA begins, this is a issue to which Congress and the Administration have to give very clear, strong, and specific attention.  How do we strengthen standards across the board?  How do we ensure continued accountability for those standards, as we have under AYP?  And most importantly, how do we ensure that students are both learning and able to utilize the very skills we expect everyone to have at fourth grade, eighth grade, or upon high school graduation?
Lots of questions, yes.  But from reading Education Next, hearing Gary Phillips, and following the many others that are now keying in on this issue of meaningful standards, it is a topic we are now taking seriously.
  
(Full disclosure, Eduflack works with the good folks over at AIR.)

Profits, Pell Grants, and College Degrees

Eduflack accountability, higher ed

Do for-profit businesses have a legitimate role in ensuring more Americans secure that college degree that is quickly becoming a non-negotiable in today’s economy?  With commercials for the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University on what seems like a constant loop on television, it is a question few ask.  We seem to assume, in today’s day and age, that for-profit institutions of higher education are a permanent part of the landscape, quickly becoming no different than distinguishing between public and private colleges.

Discussions of academic quality, growth, and such was left to the regional accreditation bodies.  Yes, we’ve targeted the diploma mills who exchanged checks for diplomas.  But if a for-profit could convince a team higher ed officials (most from traditional NFPs) that they had a legitimate plan, they were in business.  Some focused on a particular state or geographic region.  Others, like Phoenix, went national.  And some have focused exclusively on online education (though, interestingly, it can be more difficult to get accreditation from the online authorizing body than from a regional accreditor).

Yesterday, though, Bob Shireman — U.S. deputy undersecretary for education — changed the game.  As reported here by Inside Higher Education, Shireman took issue with growing enrollments at for-profits, increased profit margins at such institutions, and a flawed regulatory process that doesn’t necessarily protect the rights and needs of the student.  He even went so far as to suggest that higher education could be headed the way of Wall Street, with some gaming the system.

Shireman’s comments have been a long time coming.  A champion of affordable education for low-income students and a strident opponent of unnecessary college loan debt, Shireman has long been a leading advocate for the consumer — the adults or young adults who are seeking to better their lives with postsecondary degrees.  And he knows better than most that the approval systems for college approval — at the federal, regional, and state level — are seldom focused on academic quality or return on investment.  Instead, they are often the playground of lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants.  (And that is true for for-profit and not-for-profit institutions alike.)

Over the past year, Shireman and company fought hard to increase funding for Pell grants and make college generally more affordable for all.  Those outside of the system expect that these additional dollars are likely going to State U and local community colleges.  But Shireman pointed out a funny thing has happened between intent and execution.  Corinthian Colleges’ revenue from Pell grants has increased 38 percent in the first three quarters of the fiscal year.  DeVry has seen their share jump 42 percent.  Similar gains have been posted by ITT, Strayer, and others.

His remarks touched on the three legs of the higher ed stool — the feds, the states, and the regional accreditors — to work together to ensure quality and efficiency.  But after spending some time in the for-profit higher ed field years ago, Eduflack would like to add one more box to check on the ol’ forms.  That box is ROI.

With Pell grant dollars increasing even in difficult budget times, we should all be committed to ensuring that these precious dollars are actually yielding return on investment.  If the objective is to break down financial barriers and get more kids into college, then the ultimate goal should be to ensure that those kids are actually leaving school with a degree in hand.  The experience of higher ed is important, but leaving school halfway through is a lost opportunity for both the student and the Pell grant system. 

We shouldn’t have an issue with Corinthian and DeVry and the rest if they are enrolling more students and more students are thus earning an accredited college degree.  We should, though, take major issue with colleges and universities who are reaping huge financial benefits from the system, but aren’t actually educating the customers they are serving.  And at the end of the day, that education is measured by degree completion.

This is not just an issue for for-profits, it should be true for any institution operating in the postsecondary space.  Doesn’t matter if you are a NFP research university, state college, community college, private liberal arts school, or a career college, a degree is a degree.  Students enroll in college to earn a degree.  They earn a degree to secure a job.  When they secure a job, they can then pay off those student loans and generally contribute to the economy and society.  And so is the circle of college life, as those loans are repaid and the money given to the next generation of students.

Last month the American Enterprise Institute released a new report showing that just over half of Hispanic students earn a bachelor’s degree six years after enrollment.  That means nearly half of all Hispanic students who go on to college spend their money, family funds, scholarships, grants, and loans on an education that never offers the ultimate ROI.  They may finish up with some great stories, good friends, and wealth of experiences, but what does it mean without the degree?

If Shireman and company really want to change the way higher education does business and ensure that the interests of the customer — the student — are truly addressed, they would find a way for at least one of the stool’s three legs to factor in graduation rates as part of their evaluation and approval process.  Those schools that take Pell grants should make sure that Pell students are graduating with degrees.  If they aren’t, why not?  And if they aren’t, should we really allow them to increase their profit from these federal grants, if they are failing to live up to the expectation that such grants (and loans) are intended to help students earn college degrees?
 

RttT Part Two: This Time, We’re Serious

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, RTT

Now that the dust is settling on the recent Race to the Top Phase One announcement (go Tennessee and Delaware!), the remaining states in the union are starting to get serious about their Phase Two apps.  In the last day or so, we’ve now seen that Kansas has decided to opt out  of the Phase Two process, while Phase One finalist Colorado is making additional legislative changes  to look more appealing to judges. 

When the two winners were announced last month, Eduflack (and others) wondered how much help the two winning applications could provide to those seeking Phase Two dollars.  With unique demographics, political situations, and hungers for school reform, there are few states that could just do a “search and replace” with apps from either the First State or the Volunteer State and expect to win the day.

While a great deal has been written about the Phase One apps, particularly, the two winners, the folks over at The New Teacher Project (a org that is in both of the winning apps, I believe) has provided a solid analysis of what the applications can really tell us.  The full analysis can be found here .

Among the most interesting of TNTP’s findings are its seven lessons learned:
* Reform must reach statewide and beyond the four-year grant period (so we must have a continuity plan after the federal dollars dry up)
* Implementation must be certain (no contingencies allowed; it is all or nothing)
* Plans must be clear (this was particularly clear in the Minnesota critique)
* Local advantages are key (the cookie-cutter reform effect doesn’t work)
* Points can be won and lost in unexpected places (with insufficient progress on data systems and lack of a STEM plan singled out)
* On Teachers and Leaders, bold policies are rewarded (but it doesn’t carry the day, as TNTP notes with both Louisiana’s and Rhode Island’s particularly strong and bold teacher plans)
* Borrow concepts, do not cut and paste (with Eduflack still waiting to see if there were perceived Phase One content similarities between applications prepared by the same consulting companies) 

The TNTP analysis also offered a few cautions for judges and the U.S. Department of Education when it comes to Phase Two reviews.  Based on its analysis of the Phase One finalists, TNTP voices real concern over four issues: 1) lack of differentiation of scoring; 2) inflated scores; 3) deviation from scoring guidance; and 4) excessive influence of outliers.

When EdSec Arne Duncan announced the Phase One winners, he made clear that RttT was going to be an exclusive club for a select number of states.  That’s why states like Kansas have already opted out of the second running, and while other states are likely considering the same.  And it has to have many states, particularly those who didn’t make the finalist cut first time around, wondering if it is worth the time and effort to comprehensively overhaul their plans for this go-around.

Whether one was a finalist in Round One or not, each and every state preparing a Phase Two app needs to ask itself a few key questions.  Are we committed to real, substantive, and long-term change and improvement?  Are we prepared to pay for such improvement, both now and in the out years?  Do we have the relationships, partnerships, and promises to truly change the tires on a racecar going 195 miles an hour?  Do we have the legislative support for what will likely require more changes?  Do we have the intestinal fortitude to follow through on our plans?  Are we willing to be truly bold?  Are we willing to stand behind what is right, even if it may be unpopular?  Are we able to continue these plans, even if we have a change in governor, state legislature leadership, or with the state board?  Are we able to demonstrate our plan has been effective, and to measure that effectiveness based on student test scores?  Are we truly ready to lead, without the cover of other states doing the exact same things?

If a state can answer yes to all of the above, without hesitating, it is likely on the right track.  If not …