Over at ISTE Connects, they are continuing the countdown on the Top 10 education technology issues facing the eduworld in 2010. In the latest installment, ISTE’s Hilary Goldmann focuses on the issue of assessment, noting that “we’re looking for better, richer, and more diverse assessment measures. Assessments that provide early feedback in the learning process, not just high-stakes bubble tests in a few content areas that don’t really evaluate the skills students will need. We can do better than this, and we must.”
If one puts an ear to the eduground, one hears multiple discussions on the topic of assessments. Many states are waiting to develop new tools until after the common core standards have been finalized and adopted. Others are working at improving their current measures, with the true leaders adopting new online or computer assisted assessments to provide educators and policymakers alike with a broader and more comprehensive set of data points. And then there are a few voices in the wilderness advocating for the elimination of assessment entirely, believing it is unfair to measure students or teachers on the results of an exam or a collection of tests.
Of course, we are assessing all of our students now. Under NCLB, every state in the union (even you Texas) is working to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP. Each state sets their own learning standards and each year we evaluate how many students are proficient (according to those standards) compared to the previous year. Those states that show year-on-year gains quickly become our case studies. Those that flatline on proficiency or, heaven forbid, slip, are put on our lists.
In the pursuit of making the AYP success list, many states have been accused of lowering standards in order to show continued gains on the assessments. And some started at a low threshold for proficiency to begin with just so they could have high marks right out of the box a few years ago. As a result, we have a mis-mash of state learning standards.
Don’t believe it? Take a look at some of data released by Gary Phillips of the American Institutes for Research last week at the Quality Counts event. Phillips took a look at state test scores, state academic standards, and comparable international benchmarks. We shouldn’t be surprised to see that those states with the highest AYP scores are those with some of the lowest standards. And those states with the highest standards (and some of the lower proficiency numbers) are the states mostly closely aligned with the international learning standards set forth by TIMSS, PISA, and PIRLS. (And just as interesting, how a state does on eighth grade NAEP seems to align pretty well with how it does in international comparisons.)
So which becomes more important when it comes to student proficiency? Is the emphasis on how many students score high enough on the scale or is it making sure that students are working on a scale that ensures they are academically competitive with their peers, regardless of country?
Common core standards is intended to fix some of this, supposedly giving all 50 states (and DC) one common standard to work toward and, presumably, one common assessment to measure it. But it begs two important issues, one of which Goldmann highlights, the other illuminated by Phillips and others.
First, can one single exam adequately assess the teaching and learning in a classroom, or do we need multi-variable assessments that look at both formative and summative assessment? It it a single state-administered exam, or is it a state exam influenced and shaped by ongoing tests and temperature-taking in the classroom at all points along the learning process?
And second, and perhaps most importantly, how do those assessments stack up outside of our fine union? How do they match up to PISA and PIRLS? Are the offering multiple-choice, constructed-response, extended tasks and project queries? Are they offering on-demand and curriculum embedded tests and tasks? Do they assess both knowledge (recall and analysis) and assessments of performance (demonstration of ability to apply knowledge in practice)? Do they effectively measure whether all students have both the skills and knowledge to succeed outside of a classroom environment?
Ultimately, we are putting an awful lot on the shoulders of “assessment” when we talk about school improvement, student achievement, and the narrowing of the achievement gap. But if we don’t have the right yardstick, we’ll never know exactly how far we’ve come and how far we still need to go. By taking a hard look at the data, as scientists like Phillips have, and building better mousetraps, both in terms of content and the shift away from those bubble sheets, are essential steps forward.
accountability
Turning This Race Into a Relay
A year ago, many words and many more column inches were committed to ensure that any and all realized that education funding coming through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was a one-time deal. States were originally discouraged from using State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars to pay teachers’ salaries, out of fear that that account will disappear as quickly as it appeared, thus leaving states looking for new funding to pay for essential educational services in two short years.
We may forget it now, but new competitive grant programs — Race to the Top and i3 chief among them — were part of the original ARRA funding. We allocated $650 million to fund efforts to invest through innovation in our local school districts. And we originally set aside $4.35 billion (now down to $4 billion, as $350 million has been pulled out specifically for data systems) to provide a select group of states big dollars to fund big changes in standards, teacher quality, school turnaround, and charters.
Today, the terms and conditions associated with RttT appeared to change. This morning, President Obama announced his intention to seek an additional $1.35 billion in funding for the next generation of Race to the Top. The preview story can be found in The Washington Post here, and Michele McNeil has the after-announcement reporting over at EdWeek here.
Both pre- and post-coverage leaves us with some sketchy details. Apparently, the intent is to provide additional Race funding for states, while also making dollars available to some school districts. The LEA component makes sense, particularly if states like California and New York are unable to put forward a truly competitive RttT application. This way, districts like Long Beach Unified and NYC can be rewarded for both their past efforts and future plans (fulfilling the RttT mission), while providing a path for future school districts to follow.
The state dollars become more interesting. Is the intent to expand programs in worthy states, answering the call from states like Colorado who believe their alloted range of available dollars is too small to manage their ambitious plans? Or is the intent to add another three or four states to the Race, expanding the total number of states and giving some the chance to revise their laws and their applications after the first two batches are released? Eduflack has to believe the intent is the latter. In fact, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the terms of a Phase 3 Race grant reduced the need to demonstrate “past achievement” and instead provided smaller total grants to those states who have made real changes to be Race compliant and forward thinking.
We’ve heard a lot about Race being the single-largest discretionary program in the history of the U.S. Department of Education. Now, the President will request this additional $1.35 billion in his February budget. And with that request, we should expect to soon see an annual budget line item for Race, with dollars either adding states or expanding programs along the way. Next year, Race will likely be added to ESEA reauthorization (as Reading First was to NCLB , making the policy (and the dollars) part of the federal code for the next five to eight years. And then we’ve gone from a one-time booster shot for innovation toward an annual vaccination against the status quo and the fear of change.
Don’t believe Eduflack? Just take a look at the words of House Education Chairman George Miller, who told EdWeek, “By continuing Race to the Top, the federal government shows it can be a partner in reform and work to uphold the integrity of the program so that these resources are used as intended and help leverage change.” This isn’t an in-and-out engagement as originally believed. We are launching educational nation-building.
And while we anticipate the details and the specifics of this extension (along with waiting with baited breath to see the 30 or so RttT apps that will arrive at Maryland Avenue today, and the 10-12 states that will win this first Race by September), one thing remains certain. As the lifespan of RttT is extended, there will be a far greater emphasis on demonstrating success and tracking return on investment. The mission will not be accomplished just because the money was distributed and we all feel better about ourselves as a result. SEAs and LEAs will need to demonstrate, by preponderance of the evidence, that RttT boosted learning, increased student achievement, closed the achievement gap, and improved the quality and effectiveness of teaching, particularly in historically disadvantaged communities.
By many calculations, Reading First (the previously largest discretionary program in ED history) failed at truly documenting the cause/effect of RF dollars and student test scores. We now need to learn from what worked and didn’t with regard to RF assessment and accountability and build a better mousetrap for Race. Four years from now, we don’t want to be left having spent $6 billion on RttT reforms, but no irrefutable way to measure the true effectiveness of the program. Ultimately, when it comes to RttT assessment, it must be trust … but verify.
The Weingarten Doctrine
For those who remember the early days, Eduflack was founded nearly three years ago to comment on how successfully (or unsuccessfully) we were communicating education and education reform ideas. At the time, NCLB was a hot topic in many circles, Ed in 08 was committed to raise the profile of education issues in national campaigns, and changes in organizational leadership and new constructs of advocacy groups threatened to move education back onto the front pages.
But as a recent Brookings study has demonstrated, education stories simply aren’t capturing the hearts and minds of the media, let alone the residents of Main Street USA. So Eduflack evolved with the times. Rather than critique the scraps of media, I spend most of my time talking about the issues that merit discussion. But we long for the good old days and our original mission.
This is particularly true of speeches. As a former speechwriter (for members of Congress, members of presidential Administrations, and executives at Fortune 500 companies and leading non-profits), I greatly appreciate the written word. I particularly appreciate capturing a speaker’s voice, gaining an audience’s attention, and delivering a real ask that results in a change of thinking or a change in behavior. Unfortunately, such speeches are few and far between in education. Yes, we occasionally get the Gingrich/Sharpton engagements brought by our friends over at the Education Equality Project, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. EdSec Arne Duncan delivers a good speech, but pretty much sticks to the stump speech these days (with the true exception being the speech at the NEA last June). President Obama can deliver a powerful ed reform speech, as he did at the National Academies of Science last spring on the topic of STEM, but those are rarities. And if we spend time at many of the forums and discussions in DC and around the country, those “discussions” could be scripted and blocked out weeks ahead of time, with transcripts (including questions and answers) released before they are delivered. For the most part, education rhetoric has grown stale, with us saying the same things to the same audiences with limited impact. After all, what truly unique discussion can we have on topics like ARRA spending guidelines or RttT guidance.
But last week was one of those true exceptions. Last Tuesday, before a packed house at the National Press Club, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten unveiled “a serious and comprehensive reform plan to ensure great teaching, taking on systems that have been ingrained in public education for more than a century.” The full speech can be viewed here.
Over the last week, the field has seen some terrific analysis and critique of Weingarten’s remarks. Eduflack is not going to add to the chorus. Instead, we want to take a look at the “Weingarten Doctrine” as a communications vehicle, effective or not.
MESSENGER: From her days leading the UFT, Weingarten has cultivated a reputation as a reformer, one not set on defending the status quo. While she may not be the most eloquent of public speakers, she is passionate about her issues and a true believer. Since arriving in DC a year ago to take over the national union, she has laid relatively low. She hasn’t made headlines and she hasn’t truly rocked the boat. That changed on Tuesday. Channeling both the late AFTer Al Shanker and the Randi of her early UFT days, Weingarten was a truly effective messenger on a topic (teacher quality and effectiveness) that has been longing for a strong voice from one of the two teachers’ unions.
MESSAGE: When we wait long enough for a strong voice on an important issue, our expectations get higher and higher. Even with those sky-high expectations, Weingarten was able to deliver. She didn’t seek an expected middle ground on the issue. She didn’t try to defend the way things have always been. She didn’t run interference for the status quo. At a time when many think that teachers’ unions are the biggest obstacle to meaningful school improvement, Weingarten made clear that AFT is prepared to lead on the issue.
AUDIENCE: The AFT speech was delivered to a collection of the education blob, as membership organizations, advocacy groups, and those who influence (or pretend they influence) education decisionmakers. By delivering this speech to this audience, Weingarten sought to reposition the AFT in the current ed improvement debate. Most in attendance remember the days when the AFT fought the status quo. This speech informed those stakeholders that the AFT of old is re-entering the game.
VENUE: To reach those stakeholders, AFT hosted the speech at the National Press Club. This was probably the least visionary of AFT’s decisions. This speech was to gain media attention, regardless of where it was held. And while the NPC is a convenient venue for the DC chattering class, it provides a generic setting for a groundbreaking speech. With school reform, we often forget the true customer — the student. The backdrop of this speech would have been far more effective at a public school in the DC area. And extra points could have been awarded for going out on a limb and talking about the new AFT at a charter school (a market that AFT covets for future membership). Yes, you run the risk of using kids as props, but it is a powerful visual nonetheless.
POSITIONING: AFT was able to position the speech well with the media and key stakeholders alike. The day before, AFT provided embargoed copies of the speech to select reporters, providing strong media coverage the morning of the speech. Those pieces drove additional coverage that day, particularly within the ed blogger community. So in a media environment that can be difficult to wrangle, AFT did a strong job of maximizing a speech, and a vision speech at that (since there was no news or results to really talk about). Moreover, the AFT strategy seemed to box NEA out of the story, with the nation’s largest teachers’ union offering a “no comment” in the advance stories, assuring limited focus in the day-of coverage.
POLICY IMPACT: Without question, Weingarten’s speech made clear to the Obama Administration (and Duncan specifically) that Weingarten is ready, willing, and able to be part of the solution. She all but endorsed the EdSec’s four pillars of ed reform, expanding his tent and grading the road ahead just a little bit. It should be no surprise that the speech was delivered as the AFT (and the NEA) officially communicated to their states and localities that the unions were supporting Race to the Top in general, allowing the local unions to sign onto RttT application MOUs and have an impact on state ed improvement efforts in the coming years.
PRACTICAL IMPACT: Here we begin to see the unexpected consequences of rhetoric. Immediately following the speech, the new superintendent of Houston ISD in Texas sought to use Weingarten’s words to alter the dynamic of his negotiations with the local union on measuring teacher effectiveness. And Eduflack would be shocked if Michelle Rhee isn’t plotting the same thing in DC, using the speech to end her long stalemate with the Washington Teachers Union and seeking to do away with teacher tenure in our nation’s capital by moving Weingarten’s words into quick practice. Those carefully crafted words could come b
ack to haunt some in the teachers’ unions.
ack to haunt some in the teachers’ unions.
THE LONG TERM: Ultimately, speeches are rhetorical devices. They are not hard-and-fast policy, nor are they promises we are often held to. Weingarten’s remarks, in particular, lay out a vision for where we as a nation can go with regard to teacher quality and school effectiveness. Addressing issues such as professional teaching standards, standards for assessing teacher practice, implementation benchmarks, and classroom supports, Weingarten has offered a blueprint for how teachers and teaching fit in the current school improvement environment. But moving those words into the “Weingarten Doctrine” requires buy-in from federal, state, and local policymakers, from school leaders and practitioners, from business and community leaders, and from parents and teachers. This is no small feat. Delivering the speech is easy. Moving the rhetoric to practice is hard. Weingarten has planted the flag, now she needs to protect it and have others rally around it.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: And that leaves us with the “what nexts?” How with NEA respond? Will ED and the policy community see this as a starting point for negotiation or simply meet AFT as is and adopt these reccs as their own policies? How will the rank-and-file teachers react to this shift in policy? How will school districts beyond Houston seek to use this to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements and contracts? Does this end the debate on linking student achievement to teacher evaluation, or does it simply turn up the volume? Is this the prelude or the climax to the teacher quality discussion?
Regardless, Weingarten (and her speechwriters) deserve kudos for a well-executed “event.” The remarks moved AFT to the front of the discussion. It positioned the union as part of the solution, as an organization committed to school improvement. And it captured the attention of the chattering class, if even for only a news cycle or two. Will it change the future of ed reform, no. But it gives us some hope regarding the rhetoric, news, and ideas that may be possible in the near future.
How Valuable Are the Race Fire Drills?
In recent months, we have seen state departments of education and state legislatures scurry to make themselves eligible and better positioned to win a federal Race to the Top grant. From knocking down the firewalls between student performance data and teachers to smoothing the path for charter school expansion to adopting common core standards to just demonstrating a hospitable environment for education reform and change, states have been doing anything and everything to gain a better position for the Race.
Earlier this week, Michigan announced sweeping reforms to put them in line with the federal requirements. California is currently debating similar positions (with what seems like growing concerns). And we seem genuine changes in reform culture in states like Indiana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and many others along the way. (Every state, that is, except for the Republic of Texas, which as of yesterday still hasn’t committed to even pursuing RttT, despite the $250K it received from the Gates Foundation to prepare its application.)
But one has to ask, is it another tale of too little, too late? In November, the U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive scorecard of how RttT applications would be scored, breaking down allotments so specifically that it included everything but throwing out the low score from the Ukrainian judges. Every state is working off the same 500-point scale, building a workplan that aligns as closely with Arne Duncan’s four pillars as humanly (or bureaucratically) possible. We’re working toward extra points for STEM and for charter schools and for demonstrating a general culture of reform. And we’re growing more and more mindful of how those points break down, recognizing, for instance, that STEM and charters are worth virtually the same score as turning around low-performing schools.
Often overlooked in the discussion, though, is the fact that 52 percent of a state’s RttT application is supposed to be based on past accomplishment and achievement. So for all of those states who just recently removed the caps and changed the charter laws, will they only earn half-credit for their plans for the future, or do we recognize them for the intent of their efforts? What about those states, like California, New York, and Wisconsin, that are just now taking down those data firewalls? Are they out of luck when it comes to evaluating their past performance? And will ED reviewers really dock Texas 80 points (nearly 15 percent of the total score) for not signing onto common standards, when Texas’ state standards may already be closely aligned with where the NGA/CCSSO effort is ultimately headed? Is the 52/48 split a hard-and-fast rule, or is it meant as a guiding suggestion to states to shape how they write they apps, with ED officials hoping to see equal focus on what states have done in these areas and what they are planning to do in the future?
If we believe the former, we are looking at a very, very select group of states that are qualified to win RttT in the end. How many states come to the table with real, tangible, and longitudinal successes on all four of the pillars of Race? How many can really talk about their strong work in effective data systems? How many have really invested in meaningful teacher quality efforts, including state-led teacher incentive pay programs? How many are doing what their legislatures and SEAs have now committed them to do in the future (and more importantly, how many can prove it)?
If the projections are true, 80 percent of states will be submitting their Phase One applications later this month. If we are lucky, we’ll have more than four states actually win in Phase One. (that, my friends, is where Eduflack is setting the Phase One over/under) What will happen to those states that either are not called for oral defenses in March or fail to wow their dissertation panels? Do those states go back to the drawing board, and try to turn around a winning app in 30-60 days, or do they lick their wounds, move on, and say they never really wanted the grants in the first place?
Only time will tell. Regardless, Race has been effective for the enormous influence it has had on changing state laws and policies without doling out a single dollar to support the changes. We have already changed the culture of public education in the last 12 years, at least in terms of regulation and legislation. If a state fails to win the Race, they are unlikely to go back and reinstitute the firewalls, re-restrict charters, or pull out of the common core standards movement. Maybe that was the intent all along …
Jockeying for Race’s Post Position
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education released the list of all states that have indicated that they will file Phase One applications under Race to the Top. Each of these states hopes to submit a comprehensive application that highlights both their successes to date and their plans for the future on areas such as academic standards, assessments, data systems, teacher and principal quality, school turnaround, charter schools, and STEM, to name the highlights. And they each hope to be awarded a “big cash prize” before we get too deep into the spring of 2010 and before the merriment of commencement commences.
What states are planning on having their state departments of education work around the holiday clock to complete these RttT applications? ED has received letters of Phase One intent from the following:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Of the 15 states receiving significant help from the Gates Foundation to prepare their applications, 13 are planning on Phase One apps. Not surprisingly, Texas is not on the early intent list (as the Republic of Texas is likely trying to figure out how to make up points for the big dings it will take over its resistance to common core standards. Surprisingly, North Carolina has NOT indicated its intent to submit in Phase One, despite the Tar Heel State’s reputation for being a true leader in education reforms over the past three decades.
Other surprises? Eduflack finds it interesting that both New Jersey and Virginia are intending to file for Phase One, meaning that both states will submit their apps before their new governors of different political parties than the currents take office in January. It is particularly surprising since Eduflack heard that the Garden State had originally issued an RFP to hire consultants to assist with its application, and then returned all proposals, unopened, after the November gubernatorial election. That likely means that Jon Corzine’s team is putting together a comprehensive plan that Chris Christie’s team (which will bring a SLIGHTLY different perspective to education reform) may have to live with.
While the official RttT scoring makes clear that past accomplishments are worth more points than plans for the future, we see a number of states that have made major changes in recent months (firewalls, charter caps, etc.) just to be compliant with Race requirements. States like California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin will have to demonstrate — in just a few short weeks — that recent legislative action is the culmination of a commitment to school improvement, and not simply fast action to win some quick money.
And who is missing from the list, besides North Carolina? Rhode Island is not there, probably indicating that State Supe Deborah Gist is working to do it right (with regard to detailing her aggressive reform agenda in a few hundred pages of prose). But otherwise, the early app list reads like a list of those most likely to win and those most hopeful to win a major prize.
In recent interviews RttT Czar Joanne Weiss has indicated that a number of states will be rejected in Phase One. What is yet to be told is if those states will be given a second bite of the apple in Phase Two. The numbers don’t lie. Most states will be requesting the max, except for those states like Colorado which will be asking for more than their assigned category allows for. That means that we are likely looking at a dozen state winners, max, assuming that only half of the Group A states (California, Florida, New York, Texas) win an award (and we all know that Florida has already all but locked up one of those spots).
For those states looking to jump in first, is it a strategic decision, as they hope to get at the money before much has been doled out? It is a tactical decision to just get the app off their plates before the new budget season starts up? Or is it an act of desperation, with states needing the money to keep their forward progress? Time will tell. Clearly, there are likely to be more disappointed faces in this early applicant pool than there will be excited winners. And just think of the added stress to those states waiting to submit in the spring.
UPDATE — Late Wednesday evening, Eduflack heard from Glenn Kleiman, the Executive Director of the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation and Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at North Carolina State University’s College of Education. Professor Kleiman said “NC has planned to submit all along and we have the proposal well underway. The USED letters of intent were optional, and don’t tell anyone whether or not a state will actually apply.” For the record, Eduflack never doubted that North Carolina would apply, the issue is whether the state would apply in Phase One. Professor Kleiman hasn’t answered that directly, but I suspect that such a response suggests that Phase One is indeed in the cards for Carolina. So where is the harm of North Carolina filing a two-paragraph letter announcing its intent (particularly when everyone knows they are applying)?
Cart Awaiting a Horse
A little more this week from Eduflack guest blogger, Dr. John Jensen …
Several decades ago when differences between right and left brain thinking were first explored, a story was told to illustrate.
During World War II, many harbors in Hawaii were blocked by sunken warships, one important channel in particular. After the war, engineers puzzled over how to move them out of way. As they found themselves stumped, someone said, I know a captain who has a reputation as a good problem solver. Lets invite him in.
They brought the captain to an overlook where, standing among the important brass, he could see the masts of vessels protruding from the water. As he stared at them, someone nearby heard him muttering, Mother Mother the garden. The image that came to him was of his mother breaking large clumps of sod into smaller ones, which suggested his solution: Don’t try to move the ships. Break them into pieces and leave them there–a solution that worked.
Which is to say that if we find ourselves stumped over education, could we consider a different viewpoint?
The title above hints at a shift. Recently I happened across two reports, one on the ongoing work on national standards, and the other on the international education conference in Helsinki earlier this fall. The reports presented exactly opposite views on how to get quality education. The Finns hosting the conference, as is widely acknowledged, get the best educational results in the world. Two features of their system stood out for me. They 1) insist that teachers know their subject matter, and 2) they allow them great latitude in designing what they personally will teach.
How unusual! Find someone who knows and ask him to do what he knows. What an innovative model! One wonders what would happen to the entire American economy if such an insight were widely accepted instead of having the state micro-manage everything from the top down. The US model in contrast 1) presumes that teachers dont know their subject matter. Once accepting that as inevitable, the second step follows: 2) spoon-feed them every detail they must teach.
Its clear that the Finn model works and, as best we can tell, the US model doesn’t. The conclusion is obvious. Do the US model more intensively! Bring into education more people who know even less about teaching, and specify in even more detail what they must teach. Exert more control of the process with less confidence in and freedom for teachers to teach what they know.
I sympathize with policy-makers who dont know what to do with their big hammer, the billions they’re anxious to spend. They don’t know what, among their myriad of options, to spend it on that will make the most difference. A possible corner is at least to define what students need to know in the subjects most commonly taught.
Sensible as it may sound, even this has its holdouts. Alaska and Texas want no part of it. Texas, I assume, is independent enough to believe that their own people know better what their children should learn, but Alaska (my home state) is a different matter. The knowledge useful for living in many of its remote communities and even larger cities can diverge greatly from what one needs to know in the continental US; climate, weather, geology, environment, wildlife, fish, transportation, Native heritage, and energy, for instance. The concerns of a Boston or St. Louis are far off the mark, hinting further that a varied and changing world could soon make the current knowledge disseminated today
in any city moot even there.
But let’s say the macro-plan has its way and we could standardize what students need to know, what then?
To me this is the cart waiting for a horse, a cart we wouldn’t need if we just had a horse. What curriculum do you want to tow along? Ask the Finns, who say that the curriculum is what a teacher who knows the subject is ready to teach. But even settling that, we still need the horse:How do we get students to learn what is either in the teachers mind or, lacking confidence in their mind, in the national standards?
How? That we even have to ask the question is my concern. If we have any doubt about how to do this, then its premature to define standards nationally or require particular knowledge in teachers. The horse is what moves everything else–to know that you can teach students whatever you want to teach them each, always, and every time. Do this with a lot of learning (a good start is whatever the teacher wants to teach.”). After much of that, look around and inquire, Is there anything essential we haven’t covered? Let teachers teach what they want to for eleven and a half years and spend the last semester on lacunae. These are likely to appear much less significant once you already have a child saturated with usable knowledge, but if something is both missing and important, cover it then.
First, though, do the big chunks, the stuff good teachers already know. Stay out of the way while they do it and dont micro-manage.
(John Jensen is a licensed clinical psychologist and author of The Silver Bullet Easy Learning System: How to Change Classrooms Fast and Energize Students for Success (Xlibris, 2008), which he will send free as an e-book to anyone requesting it. He can be reached at jjensen@gci.net. This post represents the opinions of Dr. Jensen only.)
The Race Officially Begins … Now
At 9 p.m. this evening, the starting gun for the Race to the Top officially started. While many states are already laps into their applications (and many may even be running in the right direction), the U.S. Department of Education officially released the RFP, along with some interesting insights as to how applications will be scored moments ago.
So what are we looking at? We’ve essentially whittled 80 pages of a draft RFP into an “easy-to-read” 14-page summary. The four pillars of the Duncan regime remain the same (standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround). To win, states must have no barriers to linking student achievement data to teachers and principals for the purpose of evaluation. The timetable is as projected back in the early fall, with Phase One applications due in mid-January (to be awarded in April 2010) and Phase Two apps due June 1 (to be awarded September 2010). But we’ve added two bidders’ conferences scheduled for next month in Denver and DC. So there are some new factoids here.
In addition to the four pillars, RttT lays out six additional priorities:
* Comprehensive approach to education reform (an absolute priority)
* Emphasis on STEM (a comprehensive preference priority)
* Innovations for improving early learning outcomes
* Expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems
* P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment
* School-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning
Of these priorities, only STEM is worth extra points on the scoring, offering an all-or-nothing 15-point bonus to those states with both a clear record and clear plan for STEM education. (That 15 points represents 3 percent of the total score.) The others are general value-adds or reflected in other larger scoring buckets.
So what does that overall scorecard look like? What’s the rubric on which states will be evaluated?
States are working toward a max of 500 points (including STEM emphasis). “State success factors” represent 125 points, or 25 percent of the total score. These factors include how well the state’s reform agenda is articulated, whether the state has infrastructure to implement the agenda, and its ability to demonstrate success in raising student achievement and closing the achievement gap. “Standards and assessment” is good for 70 points, or 14 percent, essentially measured by adopting common core standards and developing the assessments to measure against those standards. “Data systems to support instruction” is worth 47 points (9 percent) and is focused on the longitudinal data systems all are talking about.
“Great teachers and leaders” are worth 138 points, or a whopping 28 percent, and while it continues to focus on teacher quality and effectiveness, this time around it has a far greater emphasis on principal quality and effectiveness. “Turning around the lowest-achieving schools” is worth only 50 points, or 10 percent of the total. “General” collects the remaining 55 points (11 percent), with most points coming from ensuring conditions for high-performing charter schools “and other innovative schools.”
As these 500 points are broken down, ED is giving slight emphasis to what states have already done (52 percent of the score), or their “Accomplishments” versus 48 percent of the score coming for “Plans” for the future. So that’s an interesting wrinkle for those who are trying to build a new reform city on their old education hill.
In announcing the RFP, ED says it reviewed the nearly 1,200 responses (1,161, actually) that were submitted to the draft, and made changes reflecting the ideas put forward by those concerned citizens and groups. But despite a 12-page document prepared by ED on the “major changes” that have been made to the RFP, the final looks remarkably similar to the original draft that sparked so much interested many months ago. Yes, there are some changes, including the highlight that states should use multiple measures to evaluate teachers and principals. School district buy-in also plays a larger role in the final than it did in the draft. But while some of the definitions have changed, the overall goals, tenor, and vision remains whole. It seems ED has clarified some of the gray areas from the first go-around, but hasn’t quite changed those issues that many found objectionable or fraught with potential problems. Based on many of the comments Eduflack has read, there are going to be a significant number of disappointed organizations out there, even among the traditional ed reform circles.
So what do we make of all of this? First off, it is clear that those with the dreaded teacher firewalls are going to have a hard time meeting the point threshold. So California, Nevada, New York, and possibly Wisconsin may have some problems. Signing on the dotted line for core standards is also a must, so Texas and South Carolina may be on the outside looking in as well. But it seems ED has softened its overall approach to “my way or the highway,” making firewalls and common standards the only true non-negotiables for winning a grant.
Eduflack is most interested by the emphasis on accomplishments, though. We’ve heard a great deal about what states are doing right now to better position themselves for Race. The thought seems to be that a new coat of paint on the ole education system would provide more curb appeal and give the impression that a state is “reform minded.” But with the final scoring, ED is making clear that Race states are those with both a strong track record on improvement and innovation and a desire to ratchet up current work to the next level. This is not a start-up enterprise, with states needing to demonstrate a proven and ongoing investment in the four pillars prior to the RttT announcement.
And what does this mean for the total number of winning states? We’ve heard everything from four or five total winners to upwards of 40 states getting a taste of the winner’s circle. Based on the summary and documents circulating this evening, Eduflack suspects it will be somewhere in between. In Phase One, we’re likely to see four or five winners, stacked mostly by those states in the Gates Foundation’s Top 15 list. Phase Two will probably see another dozen or so, giving us 20 or so total winners. Interestingly, there will be time for Phase Two applicants to see who wins Phase One and make some final changes to their apps before submitting in June. (And we should also note that ED cites $4 billion available for RttT, with the remaining $350 million going to support the development of assessments aligned with core standards, funding that is being discussed at ED-sponsored public forums this month.)
Regardless, the 500-point scorecard is going to have many states (particularly those Gates-incentivized states that have been feverishly writing their apps believing the draft RFP would be final are going to be scurrying the next two months to revise and extend their remarks. Teacher and principal quality is priority one, with strong explanation of state success factors a very close second. The two represent more than half of the total score. Standards, assessments, and data systems clock in for nearly another 25 percent. School turnarounds are worth only 10 percent, with charter school conditions worth almost the same amount as overall commitment to turnaround efforts. And those states that are already invested in STEM (like Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) need to take advantage of the 15 percent bump their track record provides.
How many points will it take to win the Race? That’s to be determined. We still don’t know what curve states will be scored on. But at least
we are now clear on distance, terrain, and other Race conditions. The gun has officially sounded …
we are now clear on distance, terrain, and other Race conditions. The gun has officially sounded …
Race-ing to Teacher Quality
Last week, Eduflack opined over at Education Week on the need to differentiate between incentivizing good teachers and incentivizing good teaching. Essentially, we need to make sure that any incentives are not just given as a thank you to teachers, but are used to identify, catalog, and share the best practices that have made their teaching so effective. The full piece can be found here.
In response, there was an interesting comment from Stephanie Hirsh, the executive director of the National Staff Development Council. Hirsh wrote: “I suggest distinguishing between, individual, team, and school incentives, with a focus on the strategies that have the greatest impact on student learning and whole school success. Let’s incentivize teachers from contributing to collaborative initiatives that lead to improvement both within and outside their classrooms: participating in school improvement decision making and processes; mentoring their less experienced colleagues; acquiring knowledge and skills that prepare them to be learning team facilitators and then serving in this position; and acquiring knowledge and skills that prepare to serve as instructional coaches and then serving the school in that role.”
These are interesting concepts, particularly as the latest State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) education guidance continues to focus on the current federal definition of a highly qualified teacher, setting aside (for now) the opportunity to more accurately define what an effective teacher is and what high-quality teacher professional development may be (and more importantly what data points are needed to prove all of the above). While we’d like to believe that plans are in the works to revisit HQT and the federal definition of effective teaching in the future, namely in ESEA reauthorization, it was clearly a missed opportunity to move the ball forward now.
But the ideas of how to best define effective teachers is not something everyone is waiting on. Yesterday, Education Trust and the New Teacher Project released two new reports on how to increase teacher effectiveness efforts, particularly in state RttT applications. EdTrust’s Fighting for Quality and Equity, Too and TNTP’s How Bold is “Bold”? provide some interesting food for thought on how to measure teacher effectiveness, as well as how to train, recruit, and retain those teachers that measure up against the rubric.
The EdTrust report, in particular, offers nine steps for states to consider as they pursue the Holy Grail of teacher effectiveness under expected RttT funds, including:
* Produce better information on teacher effectiveness
* Require clear teacher reports on teacher quality and equity
* Place information on teacher effectiveness in the hands of those who need it
* Require teacher evaluations to focus on effectiveness
* Write explicit policies that expect equitable access to effective teachers
* Eliminate state policies that sustain the status quo in local districts
* Produce incentives for effective teachers to work in high-needs schools
* Make certain that high-poverty districts and schools have what they need to attract and retain effective teachers
* Pump up the supply of talented teachers
Of course, the four-billion-dollar question is what, exactly, will states be asked to do with their Race applications? Current chattering says that the final RttT RFP will be released by the U.S. Department of Education tomorrow. When it comes out, there will be a robust discussion of what the final means for the ultimate awards. If the RFP remains largely unchanged from the draft shared this summer, then we are back to the thinking that seven to 10 states are slated to win Race grants, putting more resources and higher expectations on those states. If the RFP is significantly changed, as many believe it will be, then we are likely looking at a weaker RFP that will be targeted 30-35 grant winners, spreading the wealth around but limiting the federal resources going to a great number of priorities.
Assuming the latter for a second, will any state have the federal Race funds to actually adopt what EdTrust is calling for? Let’s say 30 states win. The average grant is $145 million. Divide that by the expected four-year RttT period, and the average state gets $36.3 million a year. Half of that goes to the LEAs for turnaround schools and teacher quality, meaning that approximately $9 million a year would be available to school districts in a Race state to invest in meaningful teacher quality efforts. Is that anywhere close to enough to address the nine pillars that EdTrust offers up? Is that enough to address just three? And if it isn’t enough to deal with teacher quality in a meaningful, systemic, and long-term way, is it worth throwing the money at the issue in the first place?
New Governors in the Race
Undoubtedly, much of the next few days will be spent dissecting yesterday’s off-year elections and their greater meaning for healthcare reform, the 2010 congressional races, and the 2012 presidential campaigns. What does it mean for Republicans to take back the Virginia governor’s seat? How painful will the Democrats’ gubernatorial loss in New Jersey be? Why was the NYC mayor’s race closer than most expected? These are all questions that will (and already have) been raised in the past 12 hours.
But Eduflack has a far more specific question to ask. How do changes in executives in the Old Dominion and the Garden State impact Race to the Top? It is no secret that both New Jersey and Virginia and busily working on their RttT applications, most likely planning on submitting their prose to the U.S. Department of Education as part of Phase I submissions in early January 2010. Most likely, the respective state departments of education have already invested hundreds of staff hours to prepare their applications, even while we wait on the final RttT RFP to be released by ED later this month. And they have carefully negotiated the support of the governor’s office, the chief state school officer, the state board of education, and the teachers’ unions to put as unified a plan forward as humanly possible.
So what happens when the governorship changes party, and thus shifts priority? Clearly, Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell has a very different approach to school improvement than current Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, particularly with regard to charter schools. New Jersey’s recent victor, Chris Christie, differs with NJ Gov. Jon Corzine in just about every policy way. McDonnell and Christie will be bringing in new secretaries of education and will be working to get their own people on state boards and in other positions of authority. And neither is going to have the NEA or the AFT on their call list over the next few months.
When it comes to RttT, does Corzine’s education team sit down with Christie’s transition team to make sure the new governor is on board when it comes to the state application? How about Kaine and McDonnell? Both incoming Republican governors will be wholly responsible for implementing the Race plans (as they are four-year grants slated to begin soon after both men take office). As such, will they be given any input into the grant’s final development, or will they be forced to live with whatever plan is put forward by their predecessors?
We’d like to believe that Kaine/McDonnell and Corzine/Christie can work together on formulating their Race applications, or at least agree on the broad strokes. But the cynic in me knows that that will never happen, and that’s a cryin’ shame. I’m guessing that Race isn’t high on the list of either outgoing governor’s to-do list, leaving it to the folks in his respective SEA. And neither will be looking to do his successor any favors. So both Virginia and New Jersey will move full steam ahead with their apps, doing what they intended and doing what aligns with the last four years of policy in their respective states, and not the next four years. Of all the issues on the table, McDonnell and Christie likely won’t raise Race as a major transition issue (though they should, when one considers the financial implications of meeting grant requirements that move well beyond the dollars coming from ED).
That being the case, is ED already starting to think about how they will deal with proposed changes to Race priorities after applications have been submitted or even approved? Beyond these two states, what happens if new governors have new ideas for how Race money can be spent after the 2010 elections? What happens if state legislatures have major changes in demographics next year? What happens if more governors win the right to appoint their own state boards of education?
In my home state of Virginia, for instance, charter schools remain a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. On paper, the Old Dominion has one of the best charter school laws in the nation, with no caps, no restrictions, and basically unfettered opportunity to create such alternatives across the state. In practice, though, charter opponents just choose not to enforce the spirit of the law. Only a handful of charters exist across the state, with state and local officials finding ways to stymie their growth and establishment.
Race makes clear that charter schools are a key component to the federal plan for school improvement and turnaround. ED officials expect significant dollars to go to the cultivation of a strong public charter school network. And Virginia Gov.-elect McDonnell has made charters a centerpiece of his K-12 education agenda. So if the Kaine team chooses to overlook charters in their Race app (other than emphasizing the openness of the current state law and how it meets RttT provisions), does McDonnell and his incoming team have the opportunity to make adjustments to throw a greater spotlight on charter development in Virginia? Will the incoming governors have to honor the spirit of the state’s Race application or the letter?
Based on the timetables, McDonnell and Christie will likely be given no opportunity to impact their state’s Race applications. Those are in process now, and few have the heart (after tough elections in both states) to open things back up and start over, particularly with a team that has just put them out of a job. But both incoming governors will be responsible for distributing Race money to school districts across the state, and both will be responsible for determining how the state spends their dollars on the standards, assessments, and accountability called for in the grant.
Both New Jersey and Virginia made marked shifts in their executive leadership last evening, both overall and with regard to public education (particularly K-12). What’s left to be seen is how the rhetoric of the last year will translate into the policies of 2010, and whether either wants to start one of their first fights on the topic of education and the spending of federal ed dollars. If they do, charters are likely to be the first battlefield, with teacher incentives (and a showdown with the teachers’ unions who fought so hard to defeat them this fall) coming quickly on its heels. Let the fireworks begin!
In Search of 21st Century Joe Clarks
When I’m flipping through the cable stations late at night, unable to sleep because something or another has my mind going a thousand miles an hour, there are a number of movies for which I will always stop and watch. Braveheart, Thank You For Smoking, the original All the King’s Men, Bull Durham, Tin Cup, Roadhouse, 10 Things I Hate About You, and She’s All That tops among them.
The remote also cools down when I stumble across Lean on Me, which I happened to catch again late last night. We all know the movie I’m talking about, the 1989 film starred Morgan Freeman and told the story of Joe Clark and his transformation of Eastside High School in Paterson, NJ. The story has become urban legend by now. About 30 percent of Eastside’s students were passing the state proficiency exam. New Jersey had just passed a law stating that any school with less than a 75 percent passage rate faced state takeover. So in a move of desperation, Paterson turned over its most troubled school to “Crazy” Joe Clark, giving him seven months to more than double the passage rate and avoid state control.
In the biopic, Clark is dogged, even possessed, in enacting his version of school improvement. Focusing on discipline, accountability, self-respect, and responsibility, he quickly brings a new culture to the school. That culture brings about a change in attitudes and actions from the students. (He actually appeared on the cover of Time magazine with a baseball bat, not unlike DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee and her broom.) In the 11th hour, facing possible jail time and certain termination because of personality clashes and violation of the fire codes, the movie Joe Clark reveals that the school surpassed the 75 percent proficiency mark. Takeover averted. Possibly the state’s worst public school transformed in a matter of months into a performer. From dropout factory to postsecondary pipeline.
If only it were that simple. But why, you may ask, is Eduflack writing about a movie from the late 1980s that has almost been forgotten in recent years? President Obama and EdSec Duncan’s visit to Wisconsin on Wednesday has really got me thinking. By now, we’ve all heard the chattering that the visit is being used to advocate for mayoral takeover of urban school districts in crisis, calling for changes at the top of the systemic education pyramid to bring about real change at the foundations. In recent months, we’ve heard the detailing of successful takeovers in Chicago, New York, and Boston, along with promising takeovers in cities like Washington, DC. With the success of charter schools in Milwaukee (and to a lesser degree, of vouchers), it only makes sense that the city will be the next test for mayoral takeover.
Yes, we can point to mayors who have been tremendously successful in using their bully pulpit to bring about a new world of thinking in the public schools. But the story of Joe Clark and Eastside High should make us remember that there is only so much that can be done at the top of the foodchain. A mayor’s support for a superintendent only goes so far in school transformation. It ultimately takes the support and efforts of the teachers and the principals to bring about the sort of lasting change sought by Duncan and funded through RttT, i3, and other new programs. And we are rarely talking about principals and building leaders these days.
So it begs the question, where are the next generation Joe Clarks? What school districts are empowering their principals to “take no prisoners” and do whatever it takes to fix a broken school, restore order, and deliver improved student achievement? Where are the breeding grounds for such school leaders, where they develop the instructional leadership, the vision, the executive management, and the passion to take on the schools that need it the most? How do we embolden incoming cadres of principals, ensuring they see their jobs as more than building managers and more than the middle ground between the superintendent and the teachers? And how do we give the right people the authority to shake things up and truly toss out what wasn’t working, even when facing strong defenders of the failed status quo?
Year after year, we hear about the modern-day Eastside High Schools, the dropout factories, the persistent contributors to the achievement gap, the schools where too many students are written off before they even arrive for their first day of school. As we focus on how to move forward with lasting school improvement, it seems we need a whole mess of Joe Clarks to implement a new way of thinking, a new way of teaching, a new way of motivating, and new way of achieving. Without it, all the fresh paint and duct tape in the free world can’t truly heal the schools that need help the most.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 