accountability

Real Improvement or Student “Creaming” in DC?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, AYP, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

What exactly is happening with K-12 transformation in our nation’s capital?  Last week, DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced that reading and math scores in the District improved for the second year in a row, with nearly half of DC’s elementary students scoring proficiency or better on the standardized test.  Two years ago, just more than a third of such students were posting such scores, allowing one to clearly proclaim that the past two years have resulted in test scores on the rise.

Buried under the test scores lede was that fewer DC schools made adequate yearly progress, or AYP, this year.  Just 27 percent of DCPS schools made AYP, compared with 31 percent last year.  And that is after Rhee closed 15 of the poorest-performing schools in the first place.
So how do scores go up, but AYP declines?  Rhee herself provided us insight into how DCPS can improve yet do a poorer overall job.  By teaching testing strategies, targeting “low-hanging” fruit students who could make one-year gains, and conducting that dreaded “teaching to the test,” DC schools were able to focus on the immediate gains.  And before one gets too critical of Eduflack’s choice of words, look at Rhee’s own word choice here.  “Low-hanging fruit” is her description for DCPS’ new targeted approach to learning.
Let me be very clear here.  I want to see DCPS and Michelle Rhee succeed.  For too many years, for too many generations of students, DCPS has failed the people of Washington, DC.  The hearty embrace of the status quo has not worked in DC.  Increasing per-pupil expenditures, yet spending on failed programs, has not worked.  Focusing on the inputs, while trying to divert attention from the outcomes, has not worked.  Denying students most in need access to the schools, teachers, materials, instruction, and attention they need has not worked.
Without question, DCPS needed a revolution.  It needed a new way of thinking, a new way of acting, and new way of measuring success.  It needed a way to harness all of its educational experiments — charters, vouchers, TFA, NLNS, and everything in between — to determine what works and what doesn’t.  And it needed a new sheriff who was beholden to no one but the students she was trying to serve.
In donning the badge, the new DCPS sheriff has been granted powers and authority that previous superintendents simply have not received.  She’s acted quickly, shutting down failing schools, removing failing principals, and seeking to do the same to struggling teachers.  She added a new “return on investment” approach to public education, calling everyone’s attention to the bottom line — results.  And she has done so successfully.
But in cherry picking that “low-hanging fruit,” Rhee has forgotten her responsibility to all of the students of the District.  Increasing test scores is important, yes, but at what cost?  Do we sacrifice real learning to hit the magic number on one test administered each winter?  Do we sacrifice the majority of students to focus raising scores for the one quartile most likely to show improvement based on statistical models?  Is the school day for learning or test prep?  Does an increased score for some on the DC-CAS substitute for improved high school graduation rates and for the acquisition of the knowledge and skills all DC students will need to succeed?  What about those teachers who are not teaching the “chosen group” of students who get the added push to improve?  Are they to be held responsible because they drew a classroom that didn’t make the cut for the added resources and attention?  Instead of making a high-quality public education a right for every DC student, have we really reached the point where it is acceptable to leave significant segments of the student population behind because it is too hard to improve their scores on the standardized tests?
Yes, all of this may be a bit of an overreaction.  DCPS should be proud that it has raised scores for the second year in a row (personally, I expected a small slippage in the numbers this year, the result of year two weariness and the ongoing battle between Rhee and the teachers union).  But we should be troubled that fewer schools are hitting AYP, particularly after already closing the worst of the bunch.  In a city of haves and have nots, we run a real danger of building a class system in the public schools, where some students are on the path to potential, and others are simply just running out the clock.
Such problems are compounded with Mayor Fenty’s decision to cut funding for the independent assessor who was to evaluate the success of Fenty and Rhee’s transformation of DCPS.  With so many changes, reforms, and innovations underway, with so many dollars being spent and additional dollars potentially coming in, with scores rising yet few knowing exactly what to attribute the increases to, an independent assessment is exactly what the DC Public Schools needs.  We need an impartial third party to come in and determine what is working and what isn’t.  We need a review of policies and procedures.  And we need a true vetting of the data to ensuring that such gains are real and sustaining, and aren’t simply a spinning of the numbers or a fancy card trick that can’t be replicated or sustained with all of DC’s young people.
For the sake of all of the students in all of DC’s 128 schools, let’s give Rhee the benefit of the doubt.  Student proficiency in reading and math is increasing.  The achievement gap is narrowing.  The reforms are taking hold and having effect.  And even those efforts targeting “low-hanging fruit” are nothing more than phase one of an effort to do the same for all students, better preparing all for the rigors of more rigorous and comprehensive assessments down the road.  These are the first steps in a true revolution to improve the quality, access, and impact of education for all DC students.  Now we just need to make sure they continue to move onward and upward for years three, four, five, and beyond.
Yes, let’s trust Rhee.  But let’s do so with independent reviewers scrutinizing what’s happening under the DCPS hood.  Trust … but verify, if you will.

Good, Bad, and Promising

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, AYP, early childhood education, NAEP

In many ways, yesterday reflected the good, the bad, and the promising with regard to educational improvement and student achievement data.  On the positive front, in New Jersey, a NIEER-led study found that students who participated in high-quality early childhood education programs outperformed those who were not exposed to similar preK efforts.  On the negative, Maryland’s Abell Foundation found the state’s secondary mathematics curriculum to be lacking.  And then we have the new NAEP data, which shows a narrowing of the achievement gap, particularly in the lower grades.  

Individually, the data tell very specific stories.  Collectively, though, there is much room for interpretation.  Those with rose-colored glasses will see that student achievement is on the rise, we are making improvements, and continued and increased investment in key areas will only help continue the trend.  The cynics will note the data show we are starting strong, but between both Maryland and NAEP, we are failing to truly kick into gear as we head to the finish line when it comes to K-12 improvement.
In my discussions with some experts on the range of data yesterday, Eduflack heard a very interesting observation with regard to the Jersey data, but which is applicable to all.  Many are trumpeting the NIEER study as proof positive that preK is the solution to all of our struggles.  But this expert observed that New Jersey does not have a P-6 problem, it has a K-12 problem.  PreK may be helping students start off on the right foot, but something happens during their journey to take them off track.  By the time middle school sets in, the gains and advances are long forgotten. And by the time many of those students become high schoolers (if they choose to remain in secondary school) they are risk becoming nothing but a statistic of what could have been.
The NAEP data seems to tell a similar tale.  Over the last decade, we have collectively invested significantly in closing the achievement gap in the lower grades.  Setting fourth grade reading and math as our goal, we have worked hard to lift all boats, recognizing that improved instruction, teacher quality, assessments, and accountability would help all students.  Increased dollars for Title I schools and classrooms at risk were expected to give an even larger boost to those students from historically disadvantaged groups, thus starting to close the dreaded achievement gap.
So what does the data tell us?  We are starting to make real inroads in closing the elementary school achievement gap, with both fourth grade math and reading proficiency gaps closing by five points nationally.  (Though the 26-point gap in math and 27-point gap in firth grade reading are still very disturbing.)
But what happens when we move four years forward to eighth grade?  By the end of middle school, those gaps remain large.  The eighth grade math gap stands at 31, closing only two points in nearly two decades.  The reading gap is slightly better — only 26 points — but it has only closed three points in 15 years.
Why is this important?  We like to believe that providing strong building blocks early in the educational process will result in a lifetime of benefits.  Yet when we look at these new NAEP numbers, we see that the math achievement gap grows over a student’s career, while the reading achievement gap remains flat.  We may be starting strong, but at the halfway point of the race, we’re starting to lose a step or two.  And if the long-term NAEP data released earlier this year is any indication, by the time we get to the end of our K-12 experience, the gap has widened and our historically disadvantaged students are huffin’ and puffin’ as others cross the finish line.
Then there is the trickle-down effect.  The math achievement gap in 8th grade has direct impact on science achievement for all students.  The reading gap affects history and other social science classes.  Even if we aren’t measuring student performance (at least not through AYP), reading and math performance has a direct impact on total student learning.  Those students who are struggling to read in eighth grade are likely struggling in all of their subjects.  Those students who have difficulty with may are likely having the same issues in the sciences and other subjects that are seen as “must knows” for success in today’s economy.
What are our takeaways?  First, the gains in the elementary grades lend credibility to the ongoing push for greater accountability in school improvement.  We’ve focused our efforts on the early grades, and we are starting to see the impact.  Test scores are rising, achievement gap is closing.  That’s a good thing. 
But the real challenge is how we continue the trend.  How do we extend elementary school progress into the middle and secondary grades?  How do we replicate (and measure) student performance in math and reading in other core academic subjects?  As we identify the interventions that are working for our younger learners, how do we replicate and accelerate such interventions in the later grades? 
Yes, our questions continue to mount.  We talk a great game about innovation and school improvement, but we are still scoring an incomplete when it comes to our final scores.  We are starting to ID what works … and what doesn’t.  We are prioritizing student performance, data collection, assessment, and accountability.  We are talking about moving away from the status quo “solutions” that have had little impact and are focusing the improvements and innovations that are proven effective (including the increased investment in teacher quality). 
We should celebrate the progress that is made in the early grades and the impact that high-quality preK is having on student performance in those early grades.  But if we are going to truly, really, meaningfully address that K-12 problem, we need to broaden our view beyond elementary school.  Success is ultimately measured at the finish line.  That means high school diplomas, 17-year-old NAEP, and the knowledge and skills displayed by high school graduates.  Anything short of that is simply missed opportunity, unmet expectations, and what could have been.

Racing to the Top?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

Back in March, everyone held high hopes for the billions of dollars moving from the feds to the states through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF).  Since the release of the economic stimulus package, EdSec Arne Duncan has focused on the need for innovation and improvement, improvement and innovation.  So much so that you’d think that SFSF was actually funding innovation and improvement.

Unfortunately, a recent GAO study has found that SFSF funds are not exactly going to the sort of innovation and new programs we originally dreamed about a few months ago.  Short-term stimulus dollars are going to plug existing holes and, in most places, are going to fund teachers and other long-term, non-discretionary school expenses. 
So it is no wonder that attention has no turned to the Race to the Top (RTT) Fund and all of the new dollars that will be directed to the states to improve student achievement and break the chains of the status quo in public education.  RTT is seen as the latest in big dollar federal education programs, the latest sugar daddy in a long and distinguished line.
The current talk is that the draft RTT RFP will be released by the end of the month (july 31), followed by a short public comment/review period.  By fall, states will be busily assembling their RTT applications, with most seeking the big dollars to turnaround low-performing schools and introduce their struggling school districts to the ideas of innovation and improvement.  If the plan holds, RTT dollars will be delivered by those ED armored trucks by the end of January 2010.
Obviously, the SEAs are going to be asked to address ED’s four pillars of policy: 1) standards and assessment; 2) data systems; 3) teacher quality; and 4) school turnaround.  The RFP is likely to look like those states addressed with Reading First nearly a decade ago the supposed proposals they were asked to provide on SFSF earlier this year.  States will pledge to improve student performance and close the achievement gaps.  They’ll promise to track their progress.  They’ll prioritize the lowest performers and the historically disadvantaged.  And they will have plans, boy will they have plans.
But how can ED make sure that the SEAs are truly going to focus on outcomes, and not simply to inputs?  How do we move from plans to results?  How do we hold SEAs accountable for their promises, ensuring that RTT dollars are actually resulting in student achievement and gap closures?  How do we guarantee that RTT leads to return on investment, with state and local actions charting a course for scalable improvements and innovations that chart the course for the wholesale turnaround that Duncan is looking for?
And how do we do so on the current timetable?  Offering a few weeks during the summer for public comment and review is likely to stretch beyond the planned timeline, extending into the fall.  If past experiences are any guide, the execution of RTT will take longer than expected.  States won’t get the funds until the spring of 2010, after spending for the FY2010-2011 budgets have already been determined.  That means that fast-tracked RTT funds won’t make their way until our schools until the 2011-12 school year.  Two more school years may pass before our local decisionmakers have real dollars in their hands to implement the improvements and innovations Duncan and other officials at ED are calling for now.  Two more years of status quo and mediocrity.  Two more years of our most struggling schools and students muddling through a system that has failed them to date.
So how do we rectify the two?  How do we serve as responsible stewards of new funding while demanding real results from the get-go?  How do we get new dollars into the field as fast as possible, while avoiding the implementation problems of the past?  How do we use RTT to bring about real, meaningful change instead of just continuing the status quo?
There is a great deal riding on RTT.  For many out there, we are looking for this new funding program to bridge the gap between innovative rhetoric and status quo action.  For many, RTT serves as the blueprint for charter schools, alternative certification, improved teacher quality, and data systems.  It will move us from the bare minimums of the adequate in AYP to the higher expectations of student achievement for all.  It is a way for districts in need to break the pattern that has resulted in decades of struggles, providing them the opportunity to do what is new and what will actually change school outcomes for the better.  
Is that what we will see at the end of the month?  Is that what we will see in the final RFP after key stakeholders get to weigh in and have their say?  Currently, Duncan is riding the wave as the reigning Mr. Congeniality in education.  At some point, he will have to take a hard stand that results in some stakeholders disliking him or getting frustrated with the policy borne of the rhetoric.  The big question is whether he will frustrate the reformers or the status quoers.  Will RTT result in the innovation we’re all talking about, or will it support the same old-same old that SFSF is propping up?  The end of the month will be a telling road marker.  Using the bully pulpit is easy.  Moving that vision into policy and funding programs is hard.  

Sunshine on Core Standards

Eduflack accountability, ACT, College Board, national standards, NGA

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about the core standards movement and how “public” the development of these national standards will truly be.  Those who see such standards as a needed pathway to lead us to real, tangible improvement and focus on quality believe the process is just underway.  Those who see monsters under the bed and hear things that go bump in the night are certain that the deck is already stacked, the standards are already written, and we’re merely going through the motions.  

If core standards are like most education “movements” in Washington, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Yesterday, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers announced a new website for information on all things related to core standards — www.corestandards.org.  The new site provides a few pieces of interesting information, including a tentative development schedule and those involved with its development.
Currently, the Common Core Standards Initiative (as dubbed by NGA and CCSSO) is sticking by its story that college- and career-ready standards will be completed by the end of the month, by July 2009.  Such an aggressive timeline may lend a little credibility to the notion that these standards are already in the can, pulled mainly from work already done by Achieve, College Board, ACT, and others.  More interestingly, the Initiative is also promising grade-by-grade standards work will be completed by the end of the calendar year, or by December 2009.
In looking at the members of both the Work Groups and the Feedback Groups, one thing is clear.  Grade-by-grade standards will be limited to English-Language Arts and mathematics.  By the end of the year, we will not have grade-by-grade standards for science, social studies, foreign languages, arts, or any of the other subjects that our K-12 students are currently engaging in.  How do we know?  Both the Work Groups and the Feedback Groups are divided into two camps — mathematics and ELA.  Eduflack can’t imagine that the math groups will be working on science standards, or the ELA groups will be working on social studies expectations.  So for now, our core standards are designed to model our current AYP efforts.
That isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  Moving AYP beyond grades three through eight into a full K-12 education continuum is an important thing.  But if we are going to truly get buy-in for the core standards (and more importantly, get states to adopt them and the common assessments that will need to be developed with them), we need to hit all of the key subject areas.  In Eduflack’s home state of Virginia, for instance, we can’t have core standards for math and reading, but then offer the state’s SOL for social studies.  It just doesn’t make sense for the long term.  The minds behind the Core Standards Initiative understand that, but we are still waiting for the explanations and the timetables that will align with all of the other academic subjects our students learn.
It seems most of the heavy lifting will be done by the Work Groups.  So who is on these groups?  A run-through of the rosters (available on the website) shows teams consisting primarily of staff from Achieve, College Board, and ACT.  Student Achievement Partners made the cut, and America’s Choice has a few slots in there (which may also speak to why outgoing Arkansas Schools Chief Ken James is headed to America’s Choice), and there is an academic or two added to each for good measure.
The feedback groups represent a strong list of academics and researchers who know the literature and the research base behind the subject matter.  The ELA Feedback Group, for instance, has two members of the National Reading Panel, as well as the chair of NRC’s reading research effort. 
Folks are going to read into this announcement what they want to.  Some will continue to question the sunshine put on the process and whether the “education blob,” particularly the content-area organizations, will have a real role in the development of the proposed standards.  Others will question whether their is a particular political slant to the approach.  And still others will beat the drum that classroom educators, the ones who will ultimately need to teach to these standards, are not represented at all.
Regardless, it is a first step.  The second step is seeing the work product that will be released at the end of the month.  But soon, we’ll be expecting to hear how the Initiative is going to address subject areas beyond math and reading.  Soon, we’ll want to hear how these standards will be incorporated into current and future curriculum.  And real soon, we’ll need to start discussing how one assesses student proficiency of these standards.  A long to-do list, particularly in light of potential ESEA reauthorization this fall.  Time will tell ….

The Effectiveness of IB

Eduflack accountability, AP, AYP, High School, Math, national standards, NCLB, Science

Each year, we see the high school “rankings,” finding that those schools with a high preponderance of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB ) programs tend to do the best.  The greater the penetration of such programs and priorities, the higher a high school ranks.  Over the years, though, the education community has begun to ask the question about true results or the true impact of these programs. 

A decade ago, many a high school student collected AP courses like baseball cards, knowing that AP today meant college credit tomorrow.  The eduwife actually entered Stanford University as a sophomore because of all of the AP classes she took (and the fives she secured on the exams), allowing her to spend her fourth year out at the Farm gaining her master’s degree.
But times have changed.  Many colleges are now saying that even a five on an AP course is not the same as successfully completing the college course.  We’ve shifted from awarding college credit to simply allowing students to waive out of core requirements.  
The situation has always been even more murky with IB.  IB was never intended to provide college credits in a way AP does.  Designed decades ago, the program was created to ensure that students received a rigorous, comprehensive, and relevant high school learning experience.  By maximizing the time in high school through the IB curriculum, young people would become better students, better scholars, and better citizens.  
So how does all that translate when it comes to postsecondary education?  Many a college admissions officer knows that an IB graduate means a strong college candidate.  They are prepared for postsecondary work.  They are motivated.  They’ve been challenged.  They are inquisitive.  And they are able to do more than fill out bubble sheets or choose from a list of five answers.  They are scholars and learners, not merely the processors of information.
In past years, Eduflack has had the privilege of working with IB on a number of issues.  Being me, I would always ask about the research.  How do we know IB is working?  IB would say that the proof is in their alumni network.  One knows IB works when you see the complete IB graduate.  It is not just what they know, but how they apply it.  Those who complete an IB program usually move on to college.  And the IB high school instructional model has been so successful in teaching and motivating students that it has resulted in the development of both elementary and middle grades IB programs.
IB has never been about longitudinal research models.  They know the program works.  Their scholars know it works.  Their teachers, who undergo rigorous training and ongoing support, know it works.  And the schools that adopt it know it works.  They don’t need a medical-style research model to prove what they already know.  No, IB isn’t for everyone.  But those who do adopt it are better for it.  And despite the urban legends, IB isn’t just for the rich schools in the suburbs or for the uber-motivated.  IB works for all students who are motivated enough to seek a high-quality, rigorous educational program that provides the content and the skills to perform well after the IB program is completed.
But this is an era of research and of doing what is proven effective.  One’s word or one’s track record isn’t enough.  We need third party data to prove our effectiveness.  And now, IB has some of that as well.  In recent days, IB announced the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) findings of its International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project.  What did EPIC find?  
* IB is “highly aligned” with the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards
* The IB Diploma’s key cognitive strategies — critical thinking skills, intellectual inquisitiveness, and interpretation — were found to be fully aligned with the expectations of university faculty
* IB math (algebra, trigonometry, and statistical standards) were completely aligned with KSUS
* IB science (chemistry, biology, and environmental science) were completely aligned with KSUS
Alignment is important.  But the data on results is even more compelling.  As part of the EPIC announcement, IB revealed that more than 80 percent of those completing the IB high school program graduate from college within six years, a rate leaps, bounds, and high jumps above the national average for high school students.  IBers are college graduates.  And there are few, if any programs, we can make that statement about with higher certainty.
IB has been one of the best-kept secrets in school improvement and innovation.  We don’t talk about it, but IB’s year-on-year growth in the United States over the last year has been the stuff on which folks write Harvard case studies.  Those teachers who have gone through the training are true believers.  Those students who secure the Diploma are real-life success stories.  And those districts who make the investment quickly realize that the cost is worth it, gaining both quantitative and qualitative return on investment almost from the get-go.
Perhaps IB’s greatest challenge is how it fits into the current environment of improvement, reform, and innovation.  IB succeeded in the NCLB years, in part, because of the misperceptions of who it was targeting.  Since many didn’t see its applicability for those students who were being left behind (despite some tremendous case studies of how IB programs have turned around schools and really helped students from historically disadvantaged groups), the program was left to operate on its own.  It connected enough with AYP and with state assessments that it was a viable alternative for those wishing to pursue it.  But it simply wasn’t seen as a solution for that bottom quartile of students, particularly with NCLB’s focus on the elementary grades.
Today, IB is at a crossroads.  As a nation, we have set hard goals for improving high school graduation rate and college attainment numbers.  The EPIC data demonstrates that IB could be one of those solutions custom-made for rising to the occasion.  The IB training and development model is one that can be used as we look to new ways to improving instruction and preparation for all teachers.  The real challenge, though, is how IB fits into the new call for common standards.  How will the IB framework align with the high school standards currently being pursued?  How do IB assessments dovetail with the assessments that will come out of common standards?  How does IB demonstrate value-add, and not add-on?
Only time will tell if IB is up to the challenge.  It has the opportunity.  It has the track record.  It can display its strengths.  Now is the time for International Baccalaureate to show it is an exemplar of best practice, and not merely a niche program.  It has the pieces.  IB just has to bring them all together for a compelling story that solves the problem so many school decisionmakers are facing.

Bolder, Broader Accountability?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, NAEP, national standards, NCLB

The announcement last month about common standards and the work undertaken by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers seems to have captured the attention of most in the education community.  For those entering their first rodeo, they are worried about how these new standards will be applied and are worried about how they will be applied next year, even before the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Those who have done this dance enough times know that the work is only just beginning.  The current common standard focus on high school exit expectations will have be walked back to first grade or kindergarten, providing common standards for the full K-12 effort.  With those standards, we’ll also have to build the assessments that go with it, how we measure both what is being taught and what is being learned in the classroom.
One of the top concerns about common standards is that the current framework seems focused exclusively on reading and math skills, much as NCLB’s AYP provisions were.  We assume that science will be added.  We hope to fold in social studies and other academic subjects.  And the recent release of the arts NAEP last week gives us hope that there is a chance that we will truly gage student proficiency on all of the issues and topics addressed during the school year.
Adding to this discussion is a new report out today from A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.  BBA’s approach is a simple one.  School improvement cannot be measured by test scores alone.  There are additional quantitative measures, as well as a number of qualitative pieces, that should be factored into current efforts to improve the schools and support our students.  (Full disclosure, my company has been providing counsel to BBA and its leadership on these issues.)
The full BBA Accountability Report can be found here.  But I’ll recap the highlights:
When it comes to accountability, BBA calls on the federal government to:
* Collect state-level data — from an expanded NAEP or from other national surveys — on a broad range of academic subjects, as well as on the arts, student work habits, physical health and fitness, mental health, citizenship habits, and other appropriate behaviors that will enable students to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
* Improve the disaggregation of NAEP and other survey data, where appropriate, to include immigrant generation, parent education, and national origin.
* Maintain NAEP’s low-stakes character to preserve its validity as an indicator of relative state performance, barring its use as an individual-level test for accountability purposes
* Require states to develop accountability systems that rely upon scores on states’ own academic tests and other key educational, health, and behavioral indicators, along with approved inspection systems to evaluate school quality.
And for BBA, it falls to the states to:
* Improve the quality of state assessment, particularly in reading and math, so that assessment results can plan an appropriate role in school evaluation.
* provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that contributions to satisfactory student performance in academic subject areas, as well as in the arts, citizenship, physical fitness and mental and physical health, work, and other behavioral skills that will enable them to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
Provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that appropriate resources and practices, likely to produce satisfactory student achievement, are being followed and promoted.
* Intervene for the purpose of improving schools and district performance where it is unsatisfactory.
There are few that are going to feel lukewarm or ambivalent about BBA and its recommendations.  EIther you’ve drunk the Kool-aid or you are a true nay-sayer/doomsdayer.
True believers are going to embrace this as the fix to what is perceived as a severely flawed accountability system in NCLB, a model that only looks at reading and math, a model that only looks at grades 3-8, a model that fails to account for other academic subjects, other social developments, and other factors that impact the potential and success of the student and the school.  The broader, more comprehensive approach to assessment gets us closer to the multiple measures many states were pursuing before AYP became a primary word in their vocabulary.
Others will absolutely hate the approach.  They will fear that BBA is looking to weaken current accountability models, and are claiming that adequate assessment of math and reading proficiency should no longer be a priority.  It “softens” our current measurement efforts.  It places the qualitative over the quantitative.  And it turns back the accountability clock to when it was every state for itself, with each jurisdiction offering up some version of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  it seeks to deal a setback to one of the real successes of the NCLB era.  And the idea of an “inspectorate” that will parachute in to evaluate our schools will win few friends in the “reform” movement.
Will these recommendations become the centerpiece of ESEA reauthorization, either this year or sometime in the next decade?  Probably not.  But by throwing a spotlight on accountability at this stage of the game, BBA begins a very important debate when it comes to reauthorization.  How do we effectively measure school improvement?  What are the inputs and the outcomes we should be focused on?  How do we define success?  How do we measure success?  How do we capture the full picture, knowing that curricular changes alone cannot get us to the intended destination?  How do we take issues like 21st century skills and STEM and figure out how to effectively layer them into the common standards and the assessments that will come along with those standards?  How do we ensure that all parties, from the classroom up and the feds down, are actually being held accountable for student learning and student achievement?  All are important debates we must have now, if a reauthorized ESEA is indeed an improvement over the current.
Debate is a good thing.  Discussion is a good thing.  Even disagreement is a good thing when it comes to school improvement.  We need choices and different ideas.  We need devil’s advocates and loyal soldiers.  We need to seriously consider our choices (as well as weigh what has worked and what has not in the past) if we are to put real, lasting, meaningful improvement in place.  So if BBA is lighting the match to start some of these debates, we are better for it.
And for those who think that these accountability recommendations won’t hold any water with the Obama Administration and EdSec Arne Duncan, take a look at the following video clips.  Both candidate Obama’s and President Obama’s rhetoric seem far more like that of a true believer than a nay sayer.  This may have more legs to it than it originally appears.
  

Charter-ing the Race

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, CPS, Gates Foundation

There seems to be little question about it.  Charter schools are front and center when it comes to the federal government’s new approach to school improvement and student achievement.  EdSec Arne Duncan has been promoting charters as a core part of successful Race to the Top grants and as necessary components to comprehensive district turnarounds.  Duncan can even point to his use of the charter tool in Chicago as the justification for his new push.

The Gates Foundation has announced its plans to go in and do a “deep dive” in four school districts across the nation, focusing $125 million per district on improved professional development.  On the short list for the final four, an unnamed charter school district in the Los Angeles area.  Only the village idiot doesn’t realize that Green Dot is the intended target for these funds.
We’ve seen greater interest and appreciation for what KIPP has done, due in large part to Jay Mathews’ recent book on that charter system.  And the number of ED employees with ties to the NewSchool Venture Fund, one of the top thinkers on the effective development of high-quality charter schools (and part of New Leaders for New Schools’ model for teacher incentives under their TIF-funded EPIC program) continues to grow by the day.
So for those who thought charters may take a back seat under a new Democratic administration, they have been sadly mistaken.  The economic stimulus package called for states to raise their charter caps.  Other states are being pushed to actually maximize their current laws (like my home state of Virginia, which has a decent charter law, but just doesn’t allow any charters to actually get started under it, thus failing to live up to the promise).  And others still are being asked to establish flexible, growth-oriented charter laws that demonstrate the value-add charters can play to a school district on the rise or a school district in need of improvement.
But who is doing it well?  A decade ago, charters were tagged with a reputation of low quality and low results.  We had images of individuals running schools out of their homes and their basements, trying to take advantage of available funding or looking to thrust a particular political or religious point of view on a select group of students.  Many still subscribe to that stereotype, despite the hard work undertaken by groups like NACSA to ensure that states have strong charter establishment and accountability laws and by organizations like the Center for Education Reform for continually providing new data on how well our charter systems are doing.
CER actually has a new report out, this one called Race to the Top for Charter Schools: Which States Have What It Takes to Win, Rankings and Scorecard 2009.  In the study, CER provides some interesting data, grading our states on issues such as the number of charter operators, number of schools allowed, operations, and equity.  We see that three states earn As from CER — the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and California.  Four states earn Fs — Kansas, Virginia, Iowa, and Mississippi.  D seems to be the most popular grade when it comes to charter scores.
When you couple this data with recent CER data on charter school achievement and the costs involved (showing that charters are putting up equal or better performance when compared to their traditional public school peers for nearly half the per-pupil dollars), it gives you a strong sense for why Duncan and company are emphasizing the opportunity available under charters … and how much work we really have to do before we effectively integrate charters into the public school network.
Most states want to get their Race to the Top dollars and the chances that come with it.  In the process, hopefully they will recognize that good, effective charter networks are designed to supplement, not supplant, our traditional public school systems.  They aren’t the magic bullet for struggling schools, but they sure are a useful tool.  And that like most in school improvement, charters only work when we focus on quality, proven research, assessment, and accountability.