Achievement gap

Chapter 9 in Detroit

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, High School, Teacher Education, teachers

What happens when a school district files for bankruptcy?  We have heard of LEAs on the brink before, but we’ve never witnessed a district actually enter bankruptcy court, as they are usually saved at the 11th hour by the city or state.  But the latest talk and action coming out of the Motor City points to a new first for K-12 public education in the United States — a school district seeking bankruptcy protection from the courts.  The Wall Street Journal has the full story here.

We’ve obviously heard a great deal about corporate bankruptcies, what with General Motors and Chrysler (Detroit Public School neighbors) already seeking help from the courts.  In a previous life, Eduflack worked with a wide range of companies on bankruptcy communications issues, helping consumer goods manufacturers, healthcare companies, and microprocessor producers navigate the Chapter 11 process.
On the corporate side, there are often a great number of misperceptions regarding Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings.  Despite popular belief, it is not usually the first step to liquidation or closing one’s doors forever (that’s left the Chapter 13).  It does not mean that salaries won’t be paid or pensions and benefits have been lost.  It does not mean that vendors will never be paid.  And it certainly does not mean that core business operations will not continue.
Bankruptcy is a chance to reorganize.  Typically, an organization has lost its way and has strayed from its core business.  Expenses have gotten out of hand, debts and obligations have risen, and what has worked in the past simply won’t work again.  As circumstances and conditions change, these organizations need a fresh start.  They need a second chance, an opportunity to break from bad deals and bad situations.  And they need a chance to shed the status quo and refocus on what works and where the future is taking them.  We’ve witnessed companies such as Macy’s, 7-11, and others used bankruptcy reorganization to help them strengthen their business, improve their brand, and better serve their customers.
So when Detroit’s Public Schools talk about filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy (a distinction under the federal code for public entities like school districts), it does not mean Detroit is giving up.  It certainly doesn’t mean we are shuttering public schools in the Motor City and telling all of the area’s students that they need to move on to Catholic schools or similar competitors.  It means Detroit is looking to take control of its own destiny, seeking the flexibility to restructure so it can focus on its core business of educating students and deal with the realities of shrinking student numbers and local tax pools.
Earlier this year, EdSec Arne Duncan referred to Detroit’s schools as a “national disgrace.”  The term drop-out factories may very well have been created to reflect the state of secondary school instruction in Detroit.  While the nation may have been focused on leaving no child behind, Detroit failed to get the memo.  Despite statewide efforts in Michigan to improve public education, boost the high school graduation rate, and better prepare Michiganders with the skills and knowledge they need for the 21st century Michigan workplace, Detroit was a reality we tried to forget, or at least chose to write off.  It stands as the worst-case scenario for the modern-day school district, used as the butt of jokes and an example of what other struggling districts want to avoid. 
All of that makes it very easy for Detroit leaders to simply throw up their hands, say nothing can be done, and simply accept the status quo as the way things need to be in Detroit.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  DPS Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb should be commended for charting the course toward Chapter 9 bankruptcy …. as long as he intends to use it effectively.  

Detroit cannot, should not, and must not simply use bankruptcy to clear the books and go back to operating in the same old way.  Enrollment has dropped nearly 50 percent in less than a decade.  Schools have been closed.  Teachers have been laid off.  These are major changes for a school district.  Such changes mean that one cannot simply go back to the administration and operations of old, content that old debts are behind you.  Doing so simply allows Detroit to run up new debts and likely find themselves in this same situation not too far down the road.
If Bobb and his team take the final step and file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, they need to use the opportunity to change the administration, culture, expectations, and results of Detroit Public Schools.  The courts will provide Detroit the time to reorganize.  They need to take that time to build a better system.  Let’s be honest here.  Students have left DPS in droves for private and charter schools because of quality and outcomes.  Parents want to see their kids succeed.  They want them to be safe.  They want them to learn.  They want them to graduate.  They want them to gain the skills and knowledge necessary for success.  Too many parents haven’t seen those qualities in Detroit Public Schools, so those with the ability — even in this tough economy — have turned to alternatives to ensure their kids are getting the education they need.
Bobb has already taken major steps to clean up Detroit’s administrative issues.  He’s scrubbing the books, rooting out fraud, and providing a clearer view of what, exactly, Detroit is spending its school money on.  Bankruptcy protection provides him additional time and additional power to continue these efforts and build a better operational infrastructure for the schools.  But he must also take the opportunity to focus on the product — ensuring that Detroit is taking the steps to improve the delivery, quality, and results of a Detroit Public Schools education.
How?  Eduflack has three ideas for Mr. Bobb and his team:
* Teacher quality — Simply staffing Detroit’s public school classrooms with whatever warm bodies are coming out of local ed schools isn’t getting the job done.  Detroit needs to demand higher-quality teachers.  They need to require a more rigorous teacher education program from local colleges and universities, one that demands a more rigorous curriculum, a strong clinical experience, and the content and pedagogy that moves classroom educators from “qualified” to “effective.”  Detroit needs to invest in rigorous, content-based professional development for all its teachers, striving for constant improvement.  It needs to reward effective teaching.  And it needs to recognize that not everyone with a teaching degree is cut out to successfully handle the rigors of teaching in Detroit.  Challenging times require the best teachers.  Detroit needs to invest in getting those teachers, and not simply setting for those willing to be part of a failing system.
* Innovative programs — Two weeks ago, Bobb announced plans to bring in partner organizations to help turn around Detroit’s high schools.  This was a master move, and it needs to be followed through (the school board seems to be balking since the announcement).  Bankruptcy be damned, Detroit needs to invest in innovation and new approaches.  it also needs to focus on return on investment.  Elementary school investments make people feel nice, as we help little kids, but their impact isn’t felt for a decade.  Bobb’s plans for the high schools can yield immediate return.  If implemented with fidelity, these partners can boost high school test scores and graduation rates.  They can better prepare today’s high school students for tomorrow’s jobs.  They can be the first step in bringing Detroit’s schools into the 21st century.  We need more thinking and action like this, and fewer roadblocks from those that fear c
hange or embrace the status quo.  These contracts need to be honored and these programs need to be up and running by the start of the new school year this fall.
* Customer focus — Companies that file for bankruptcy often do because they strayed from their core business and invested in products and efforts that didn’t fit their mission.  Detroit Public Schools should have one focus — dramatically improving student achievement.  Every decision coming from the central office should be proceeded by the question, how does this impact student performance?  The hiring of teachers and principals.  The adoption of textbooks.  The selection of instructional programs.  The introduction of technologies and supplemental education.  School build repairs.  Scheduling.  Course offerings.  Professional development.  Every aspect of school operations should focus on the customer (the student) and how to deliver a better product (an education) to that customer.  If an expenditure or a decision is not going to improve the quality or effectiveness of learning, it is likely not needed.
The citizens of Detroit need to see this as an opportunity.  Those voices across the nation calling for school reform and innovation need to see this as an opportunity.  The teachers and students of DPS need to see this as an opportunity.  Bankruptcy filings mean you are not bound by what has happened in the past.  You get a new start, an opportunity to do things differently and take the right steps forward.  It is a chance to succeed when success had been out of grasp for so long.  While many will try to steer Detroit back into its past ways, Bobb needs to keep his eyes on the prize and focus on the end game.  Forget what has been done and focus on what Detroit’s students need to succeed.  We are approaching a new era for Detroit Public Schools.  Here’s hoping it is an era of the new and the innovative, and not a retrospective visit to an era that has failed far too many Detroit students.

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.  

Requiring Quality in Our PreK Programs

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, early childhood education, stimulus

What, exactly, is the future of the federal
investment in public education? 
For months now, we have tried to cobble together an answer to that
question, using presidential campaign rhetoric, economic stimulus package
priorities, and now Presidential budget decisions to help us see where we are
headed as a nation.   Since
assuming his position in late January, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has
provided us little more detail, sticking mostly to the talking points on
stimulus and education’s impact on the economy. 

But few seem to have a clear sense of what the
U.S. Department of Education has in store for the future, particularly the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  The general agreement is that
reauthorization could happen as early as this fall and as late as the summer of
2010, but it is indeed coming.  The
common logic is NCLB will stay relatively intact.  Along the way, we hear about efforts in Washington, DC to
construct more comprehensive reading legislation (to replace Reading First) and
a framework for national standards (expected to be delivered by Achieve to
Duncan in the coming weeks), but where, exactly, will our future priorities
lie?

Recently, Duncan and his lieutenants have been
focusing on four key policy pillars on which the new U.S. Department of
Education is constructed.  First,
implementation of college and career-ready standards and assessments.  Second, creation of comprehensive data
systems that track students throughout their education career and track
teachers back to schools of education to better understand which programs are
producing teachers that make a difference.  Third, recruitment, preparation, and reward of outstanding
teachers, paying more to teachers who work in tough schools.  And finally, turn around of chronically
underperforming schools.

What figured prominently during President Obama’s
campaign – but what seems to be missing from the core tenets – is early
childhood education.  Early and
often, Obama campaigned on the notion of a strong national commitment to early
childhood education.  Instead of
just focusing on access and an expansion of current programs, the President
seemed focused on committing to quality just as much as he committed to
quantity.  The talk was not
universal preK; the rhetoric was high-quality preK.

But what, precisely, is high-quality early
childhood education?  For decades
now, many have viewed the 800-pound gorilla in the ECE room – Head Start – as
being little more than glorified babysitting.  Instead of using the time to help disadvantaged or
low-income students get a jump start on their academic futures, Head Start just
focuses on the “social” aspects. 
We make our youngest learners more comfortable with existing in a
learning environment.  The
pre-reading and pre-math skills such learners needed simply come once they
officially entered kindergarten – and entered miles behind their academically better-off
peers.

In recent years, we have watched the universal
preK movement transform from the hare into the tortoise.  Supporters of universal preK have
watched new plans ground to a halt and have seen existing programs slowed or
scaled back, all because of a smaller pot of resources going education
needs.  Smaller state budgets,
caused by less-than-planned real estate taxes, have forced some tough decisions
when it comes to public education. 
And early childhood education was one of the first on the chopping
block.

Last month, the Pew Center of the States
released Leadership Matters: Governors’ Pre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2010.  Looking at recent education budgets
proposed by the current state chief executives, Pew found that our greatest
fears are likely not going to be realized (unless state legislatures have
anything to do with it).  Despite
our states’ economic struggles, 14 states are proposing increases in early
childhood education investment. 
Thirteen states are proposing to level fund programs.  And three states are looking to
establish preK efforts where there currently are none.  All told, our nation’s governors intend
to boost FY2010 investment in early childhood education by 4 percent over
2009’s commitments.

The Pew study only tells half the story,
though.  The other 50 percent still
has yet to be written.  Sixty
percent of our states are looking to start, continue, or strengthen their
investment in preK.  But what are
they investing in?  How do we
ensure that we are investing in high-quality early childhood education?  How do we measure return on investment
in preK?  How do we make sure our
youngest learners are gaining the academic building blocks needed to succeed
throughout their academic careers, overcoming some of the learning gaps that
have long dogged disadvantaged students and have long dug a deep scholastic
trench between the haves and have nots?

The doubting Thomases would say one cannot truly
quantify results in early childhood education.  But we know that to simply be incorrect.  When it comes to pre-reading, we know
the letter recognition and vocabulary skills three- and four-year olds can gain
to prepare them for the research-based K-4 reading instruction that will
transform them into proficient, confident readers.  We know the numeracy that all students need to know to
maximize the start of their K-12 experience.  And we know the core skills all students require to be ready
to learn when they pass through those kindergarten doors for the first time.

So what, then, does quality look like?  We can turn our gaze to two unlikely
places – Washington, DC and Texas – to provide us some real insight into
high-quality, effective preK instruction. 
In Washington, the AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation,
through the DC Partnership for Early Literacy, is working in some of our
nation’s capital’s lowest-income communities, yet posting significant gains on
student early reading achievement. 
Based on standardized, nationally normed assessments, AppleTree students
gained 21 percentile points in vocabulary proficiency, placing them higher than
the national norm and more than doubling the gains demonstrated by students in
DC Head Start classrooms.  Among
AppleTree’s lowest 50 percent of students, learners posted even more impressive
gains – 26 percentile points, nearly tripling typical Head Start results while
working with students from similar demographics.

In Texas, the Children’s Learning Institute,
through its Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), is now working with more than
61,000 young learners across 38 communities in the Lone State State.  There, students are achieving and
demonstrating progress in key literacy skills, including phonological
awareness, rapid letter naming, and vocabulary development.

These two programs are not merely the exceptions
to the rule.  They are worth
acknowledging for two reasons. 
First, they are demonstrating results.  Both AppleTree and TEEM help define what high-quality early
childhood education is, how we can measure it, and the sort of results we
should expect from effective preK. 
More importantly, though, both programs also demonstrate that our
youngest learners can benefit from the same policy pillars that Secretary
Duncan is putting in place for our K-12 systems.

In early childhood education, we also see that
standards and assessments are key, particularly if we expect to demonstrate and
measure the results that define quality. 
In ECE, we also see that data systems are key, providing educators and
policymakers the information necessary to bridge three-year-old programs to
four-year-old programs to kindergarten and beyond.  In ECE, we know that effective teachers are the key to a
quality program, and early childhood educators must be well trained, well
supported, and constantly encouraged to improve their practice and improve
their knowledgebase.  And in ECE,
we know that our most disadvantaged students – those from historically
underperforming neighborhoods – are the kids that most benefit and most need a
high-quality, academically focused preK experience.

Nationally, we believe that every child should
have access to a high-quality education. 
We believe that student achievement is king, and all learners should be
proficient and should be able to demonstrate that proficiency, both in the
classroom and on state and national assessments.  We believe that a strong public education is the gateway to
a strong future, both for the individual and society.  And we believe, or should, that we must hold our systems
accountable for the quality and effectiveness of the education they deliver.

Such belief systems should not be restricted to
our K-12 systems, or even more narrowly construed for grades 3-8 when we
measure AYP.  If we expect to
transform every child into a successful learner, we also need to implement the
quality, accountability, and teacher effectiveness into our preK systems.  As our states look to invest in the
future of early childhood education, as the Pew Center indicates, we need to
make sure this money is going toward good programs that demonstrate true
ROI.  We need to look at programs
like TEEM, AppleTree, and others to guide our decisions.  Demanding early childhood education is
no longer enough.  We should be
demanding quality – and results – for our youngest learners as well. 


Let’s leave the babysitting to teenagers seeking
some extra spending money.  Our
early childhood education programs should be focused on providing the academic
frameworks that empower even the most disadvantaged of students to achieve in a
school setting.



ARRA: Rise of the Charters

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, Gates Foundation, Green Dot, stimulus

Can one make lasting improvement working solely within the confines of the status quo?  That seems to be the question the US Department of Education, particularly EdSec Arne Duncan, is asking as additional details on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and our federal education policy come into crisper focus.

In recent weeks, the education community has “discovered” that ARRA included language requiring states to boost their charter school cap, essentially requiring the expansion of charter offerings if states want access to all of the new economic stimulus money.  Couple the details of ARRA with recent speeches by Duncan and hires of those with backgrounds that include organizations such as the NewSchool Venture Fund, and we are starting to see that the limits of the status quo simply will not hold.
Today, the EdSec went all in on the topic.  Addressing the media on how to turnaround our lowest performing schools, Duncan cited the value of “real autonomy for charters combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance standards.”  Among the stats used by ED this afternoon:
* 10 states currently do not have laws allowing charter schools;
* 26 states put artificial caps on the number of public charter schools (with President Obama calling on states to lift those caps);
* The Maine state legislature is debating a bill to establish a pilot program for its first charter schools (though this afternoon’s headlines looked like the legislature would reject the proposal and risk losing its education stimulus dollars); and
* Tennessee refuses to lift its charter enrollment restrictions while Indiana is considering a moratorium on new charter schools.
And that status quo question?  Duncan seemed to answer that this afternoon as well.  “I am advocating for using whatever models work for students, and particularly where improvements have stagnated for years,” Duncan said.  “We cannot continue to do that same thing and expect different results.  We cannot let another generation of children be deprived of their civil right to a quality education.”
While one has to question Duncan’s definition of insanity to be used as a justification for expanding our charter laws, he does have a point.  And all this talk is bound to generate a great of attention, particularly with the positive press generated by charters like KIPP and the Gates Foundation’s likely intention to provide a $125 million “deep dive” into a “network of charter schools” in the Los Angeles area (can we all say Green Dot?).  The real challenge, then, for Duncan, Obama, Gates, and others is to ensure that this is not an either-or situation.
In the early days of the charter debate, opponents of public charter schools fought the good fight, accusing school districts of looking to replace traditional public schools with these new charters.  Over time, we have witnessed that the best of our charter schools are in communities where they complement the traditional publics.  Strong charters, with strong accountability, offer greater opportunity.  They can raise quality.  They increase choice.  And, if held to high standards, they contribute to student achievement gains and can be a useful lever in turning around our lowest performing school districts.  They can also give families and students a choice in communities where previous choice was between one failing school and another.
Ultimately, the EdSec is right in seeking to include charter schools in our Race to the Top funds.  if we are to turn around persistently underperforming schools, we need to do something different.  We can’t simply pump more dollars into historically troubled schools and expect that student achievement will improve.  After all, we’ve tried that approach for decades now.  How has it worked so far?
But we also must recognize that charters are not the magical elixir that will aid any district in need.  We can point to plenty of school districts with liberal charter policies but poor student achievement (just look at our nation’s capital).  Charters work when they take a firm line with regard to structure, expectations, and accountability.  Such a line isn’t for everyone.  Too often, we make compromises, offering charter schools destined for many of the same failings their traditional publics are suffering through.  If the Race to the Top is going to work, we need new ideas and new approaches.  But we also need the research and accountability behind them to ensure success.  Otherwise, we will keep throwing good money after bad, doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome.  With the stakes as high as they are, that, my friends, really is insanity.
 
   
 

Getting Halfway to the College Moon?

Eduflack Achievement gap, early college, High School, higher ed, Students

During his first official address to Congress back this winter (remember, trivia folks, it was not a State of the Union), President Barack Obama made the bold promise that, by 2020, the United States would have the highest percentage of college degree holders in the world.  Recognizing that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for success in today’s economy (let alone tomorrow’s), it is a promise we need to back up.  And Obama did so recognizing that to get there, we need to turn out millions upon millions of additional college graduates on top of current levels.

So how do we accomplish that?  Improving high school graduation rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students is a good first-step gateway.  Dual enrollment programs, where we help today’s students see they are capable of doing college-level work helps.  Boosting the number of first-generation college-goers is another.  But how about actually getting those students who enroll in college to actually earn the diploma?  That seems like a no-brainer.
Unfortunately, according to a new report released this AM from the American Enterprise Institute, it seems that a student enrolled at an institution of higher education has only a slightly better chance of earning a degree than an individual who stops at campus for direction, a t-shirt, or a restroom break.  According to AEI’s new study, Diplomas and Dropouts: Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t), only 53 percent of college-goers have a diploma six years after starting the process.  Don’t forget, college is intended to be a four-year endeavor.  So even when we give today’s students two extra years, only half of enrollees manage to actually gain that intended sheepskin.
The numbers get even scarier when you drill down.  For those postsecondary institutions with the least selective admissions criteria — or those dubbed “noncompetitive” institutions — only 35 percent of students graduate within six years.  Even among “competitive” schools, those falling in the bottom 10 are only graduating 20 percent of their kids in six years.
Not surprisingly, the highest graduation rates lie with the most competitive schools.  Grad rates decline as we move down the scale, from highly competitive to very competitive to competitive to less competitive to noncompetitive.
The AEI report presents top “honors” to 10 schools, identified as noncompetitive that scored the lowest when it comes to six-year graduation rates.  Mountain State University in West Virginia (18%), Bellevue University in Nebraska (18%), Heritage University in Washington (17%), University of Houston in Texas (16%), National American University of South Dakota (15%), American InterContinental University in Georgia (13%), Miles College in Alabama (11%), Jarvis Christian College of Texas (10%), Carlos Albizu University of Florida (10%), and Southern University in Louisiana, with a whopping 8 percent.  These schools were all found to be noncompetitive, with the lowest grad rates — a destructive combination.
For those who think money buys success, eight of the 10 lowest-graduating schools are private institutions, with the University of Houston and Southern University being the only public schools to make “the list.”
But we don’t want to just pick on the noncompetitive schools.  In those schools dubbed most competitive, we see a similar trend.  EIght of the 10 schools with the lowest graduation rates are private schools (Webb Institute, Reed College, Tulane University, University of Miami, George Washington University, Scripps College, Case Western Reserve University, Connecticut College, Occidental College, and University of Rochester.  The two publics with the lowest rates are both service academies — the US Air Force Academy and West Point.  For those two, we’d like to think that the standards outside the classroom are the reason for the lower-than-average grad rate among peers, and you don’t have a high proportion of students at Army or Air Force on the seven- or eight-year BA plan.  So let’s give the Air Force Academy and West Point the benefit of the doubt here.
What’s even more disturbing though, particularly when we consider the challenge issued by President Obama and current efforts to close the achievement gap in this country, are graduation rates on the campuses of our competitive Historically Black Colleges and Historically Hispanic Colleges.  For competitive HBCUs (33 were studied) the six-year grad rate is only 36.5 percent.  For IHHEs (30 schools studied), the numbers were slightly better, 44.3 percent.  The only bright spot (if you can dare call it that) in the disaggregation is that HBCUs are relatively level when it comes to graduation rates, with less competitive schools graduating 34.7 percent of their students and noncompetitive schools graduating 37.1 percent of their students, meaning a student at an HBCU has a relatively equal chance of graduating, regardless of the institution’s competitiveness classification.  On the flip side, with noncompetitive IHHEs, only 19.8 percent of students are graduating in six years.
What does all this tell us?  First off, if our goal is to increase the number of college degree holders in the United States, we need to start with the customers we have.  Forget the need to push more students onto the college path.  We first need to address the 47 percent of current pathwalkers we are failing.  There are no excuses for one’s change of earning a college diploma once in college to being the same as winning a coin flip.  Access is clearly not an excuse, and money certainly shouldn’t be.  We need to do a better job of finding out why these enrollees are not graduating, and then act (either institutionally or nationally) to reverse the trend and prioritize degree attainment over college going once and for all.  Despite what some may say, the postsecondary experience is not nearly as important as the credential.  We owe it to every student who passes through a college’s doors to make sure they leave with a degree.
Second, we need to take a much closer look at how we are serving our historically disadvantaged student groups.  Institutions are to be applauded for making more opportunities available to students of color and providing programs and institutions themselves to better meet student needs and expectations.  But competitive HBCUs should do better than one in three graduating.  And competitive IHHEs need to better than two in five graduating.  This is particularly true when the average competitive IHE is turning out grads at nearly double that rate.
But if the numbers tell us anything, it is that the college graduation problem is one that is color blind and income oblivious.  The real problem here is competitiveness and return on investment.  After decades of convincing every family that their child should go to college, we’ve literally build a college or university for every student.  As a result, the correspondence schools and diploma mills of the past have given way to noncompetitive institutions with open admissions and a come one, come all mentality.  For too many of those schools, the tuition check is the end game, not the diploma.  An enrolled student is a steady stream of income.  There is no incentive to graduate students.  Schools aren’t being held accountable for their graduation rates.  Perhaps they should, but they aren’t.  And that shows in the AEI data.
When he took office nearly half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy made the promise we would send a man to the moon.  As we’ve often heard, this was an audacious goal designed to spur interest and investment in the space program in general.  Obama has don
e the same thing, albeit with less fanfare and public enthusiasm, with his promise to be tops in the world when it comes to college degree holders.  With Kennedy, we couldn’t just go halfway to the moon and back.  It was all or nothing.  
The same is true for Obama’s college pledge.  We have 11 years to get to the postsecondary moon.  Only this time, we aren’t starting from scratch.  First order of business is getting those students who are already in the system graduated.  Improving that 53 percent grad mark to 75 percent gets us far closer to our goal.  
But if we are going to have postsecondary impact for decades to come, we need to take a close look at the product we are selling.  Noncompetitive schools with no accountability and little ROI hurt us all in the long run.  There is no getting around it.  Yes, every student needs some form of postsecondary education to succeed in the 21st century economy.  After all of these years, who knew we needed to say that education needed to bring with it a modicum of quality.  For those who say the accreditation process is too difficult or onerous, this data should give them a great deal of pause.  If anything we need to be tougher on our IHEs and expect more.  Otherwise, we may simply be sliding into a game of rock-paper-scissors to see if we earn our diploma or not. 

The Slow March Toward National Standards

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, NAEP, national standards, NGA

For months now, the education chattering class has been talking about the behind-the-scenes efforts by the US Department of Education to craft national education standards.  We’ve heard that Achieve was slated to deliver draft math and reading standards to Maryland Avenue by early summer, with plans for a thorough and robust debate leading up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In this morning’s Washington Post, Maria Glod reports that 46 states and the District of Columbia have signed onto the K-12 national education standards movement, offering “an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American Schools.”  The full story can be found here.   
The thinking here is a simple one.  In this era of AYP, it only makes sense that we have a single yardstick by which to measure student achievement, starting with math and reading.  For years now, we’ve heard how students are knocking it out of the park when it comes to state assessments (just look at elementary reading in Mississippi), but then we fail to see the progress when it comes to annual NAEP scores.  The common thinking is that some states have dropped their bars so low in order to demonstrate student achievement and student growth that some state tests have become complete irrelevant in determining actual student achievement and success.
So now National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have brought together most of the states to help develop these common standards for academic performance.  Most states have already anted in.  The only holdouts, according to WaPo, are Texas, Alaska, Missouri, and South Carolina.  Their reason?  These Republican-controlled states are touting the need for local control of the schools, and national standards run contrary to local decisionmakers determining what is best for their local residents.
The current plan is to roll out “readiness standards” in July, benchmarks for high school graduates in reading and math.  Then folks would build out the grade-by-grade needs to reach those readiness standards.  It is important to note that the 46+ states have simply agreed to the process.  They would then need to agree to, adopt, fund, and implement the standards once they are developed.  So we are still a good ways away from national standards even being close to national policy.  Why?
First, every expert, quasi-expert, and member of the chattering class is going to want to get in on this discussion.  Everyone has ideas as to what should be in national standards.  Every political and ideological group will want to get in on the process, running the risk of taking a bold move and watering it down so much to appease all of the audiences that believe they should have a seat at the table.
Second, many will raise concerns that we are only addressing math and reading.  LIke AYP, this push is focusing on the corest of the core subjects.  But can we really have a true national standards system without addressing science, social studies, and foreign language?  In a month when NAEP is actually releasing national art education data (scheduled for June 15), can we settle for just reading and math?  Many an expert or an expert in training will call for a comprehensive system that addresses all academic subjects, worried that an initial focus on math and reading means we only value the two subjects and will only hold states and schools accountable on these two measures (much like we have with AYP).
Third, we need to give standards real teeth.  In many ways, national standards serve as a wish list for public education in the United States.  To put real power behind it, we need to develop and implement actual tests aligned with those standards.  Such tests seem to be the third rail of public education.  We fret about the costs, we worry about the quantitative and qualitative, and we struggle with the notion we are implementing another “high-stakes” test on our kids.  The end result?  We could end up with a lovely policy document outlining our national education expectations, but lacking a tangible way to transform that policy into instructional reality with real measurement and accountability.  National standards only work if we have one strong test that is implemented and enforced EQUALLY by all of the states.
Fourth, states actually need to agree to the final documents … and put them into practice.  In 2005, all 50 states agreed to common high school graduation standards, shepherded through the process by NGA.  At the time, every governor in the country agreed to a measure that called for grad rates to be calculated as the number of ninth graders who secure a diploma four years later.  We’re now four years later, and the majority of states have failed to actually implement the formula.  (In part because those who have have experienced a drop in their statewide grad rates.)  Former EdSec Margaret Spellings tried to institute the new grad rate through federal regulation, but the current talk about town is that EdSec Duncan will be turning back Spellings’ Christmas Eve Eve decision, leaving grad rate determination to the states.  So even if every governor in the country agrees to the idea of standards in principle, they all need to sign off on the final decisions and actually move them into practice, replacing the patchwork of states standards of various strengths and scopes with one common national standard.
Currently, the Nation’s Report Card — or NAEP — is the closest thing we have to national standards.  But as we take a look at the NAEP results, we see many a disturbing data set that must be addressed in developing national standards.  It stands to reason that NAEP measures for reading and math proficiency would be pretty close to national standards in the same subjects.  So what does it mean when slightly more than half of all U.S. fourth graders can score proficient or better on the NAEP reading exam?  What does it mean when only about a third of eighth graders are score proficient or better, and the best state in the union is clocking in at 43 percent proficiency on eighth grade reading?  And what do we do about the persistent achievement gap, particularly the 20-plus year problem we see in 11th grade math and reading?  How do we make sure that all students — even those from historically disadvantaged groups — are performing against the national standards and achieving?  When we set national standards, the goal needs to be all students hitting the mark.  We cannot and must not settle for a system where the majority of kids fail to achieve proficiency, and we still see that as a sign of a successful public school system.
Yes, Eduflack is a pessimist by nature.  But I also believe that today’s NGA/CCSSO announcement is a positive step forward.  In today’s transient society, with students changing schools and states as families change and jobs shift, we need some guarantees that a fifth grade education is the same, regardless of area code.  We need some promise that a high school diploma means the same thing, regardless of Zip code.  This is a non-negotiable if we are to prepare all students for the opportunities before them, particularly if we are looking for them to hold their own on international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.
Obviously, the devil is in the details.  We need to get all states to overcome the notion of local control and embrace the guidance and framework of national standards.  We need to construct effective tests that move those standards into practice.  We need to move beyond just math and reading and ensure that all academic (and even those some would deem non-academic) are measured as well.  We need to give equal billing t
o elementary, middle, and secondary learning standards.  And we need to ensure that if all students are to be held to the same national standard, they all need to have equal access to the same educational resources.  That means national standards, if you will, when it comes to early childhood education, high-quality teachers, and other such measures.
But we are moving forward.  We just have to keep that momentum going, transforming challenges into opportunities and not allowing roadblocks to divert our attention (and subvert our public will) in the process.  If we believe that every student in the United States requires a high-quality, effective education, we need to measure every student with the same yardstick.  Quality and effectiveness should be universal, not subjective based on state borders.  National standards starts making that goal a reality.

Inside the Mind of Arne Duncan

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, Gates Foundation, stimulus, teachers

The popular parlor game these days is trying to figure our the inner psyche of our EdSec, Arne Duncan.  Anyone who is anyone is trying to read nuanced meanings into everything he says or does.  We scour over this internal emails to ED staff, his stump speeches, the groups he speaks to (and those he doesn’t), where is going on his listening tour (and who he will listen to), and just about every stop in between.

Today, though, we are provided with two interesting insights into what makes the good ole EdSec tick.  The first are his words themselves.  For those who missed it, Duncan spoke at the National Press Club today, riffing on a whole host of issues.  The “buzz” coming out of the event is that the EdSec is pro-charter schools, seeking to lift the caps on the number of such schools.  At least that is what has been filling up Eduflack’s Tweet deck this afternoon.   The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools is also making the full clip of the “pro-charter” remarks available here.  
The leading ladies over at Politics K-12 have a more detailed description of the high points of Duncan’s NPC remarks here.
Perhaps more interesting is Eddy Ramirez’ piece over at US News & World Report today, which takes a closer look at what Duncan did as head of Chicago Public Schools to help turn around the city’s true problem-child buildings.  We’re talking closures, firing entire staffs, and bringing in third-party organizations to run the schools.  In the piece, Ramirez reflects on Duncan’s recent remarks to turn around the 1,000 lowest-performing schools in the United States — just 1 percent of our total schools — we can “move the needle” and “change the lives of tens of millions of underserved children.”
The CPS experience is interesting, particularly when one factors in the large contingent of Gates Foundation and NewSchool Venture Fund alums currently running around the seventh floor of 400 Maryland Avenue.  But like most good pieces, the USNWR piece, along with Politics K-12 provides most parties their own view on the future.  Some see the future of charter schools.  Some see school management companies.  Some are even going to see the opportunity for the teachers unions to re-inject themselves into the process and demonstrate their relevance in school improvement efforts. 
Insight is in the eye of the reader.  But no matter how you look at it, it is safe to say that Duncan is not looking to defend the status quo.  Big changes are a comin’.  If not through economic stimulus, then through the policies and programs that are soon to follow.  Duncan’s built a great deal of capital these past four-plus months defending the economic stimulus package and serving as an Administration all-around go-to guy.  Those chits are going to come due soon.  And the EdSec is laying the groundwork for some new ideas and for some legitimate rockin’ of the ed policy boat.
     

Who’s Speaking for the States at ED?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, NCLB, NGA, stimulus

In what seems like a little-publicized announcement of a major appointment, EdSec Arne Duncan has selected Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, superintendent of Pomona (CA) Unified School District to be the U.S. Department of Education’s new assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education.  The choice seems to be a solid one for ED, the good doctor is a former bilingual classroom teacher, middle school assistant principal, elementary school principal, and former school district director of instruction of elementary and middle schools.  She is also a Broad Superintendents Academy alum.

Her focus on middle schools, in particular, gives Eduflack a great deal of hope.  Often, OESE focuses exclusively on elementary instruction.  To date, we’ve seen a great number of appointments at ED focused on secondary issues such as STEM and college readiness.  So an assistant secretary with a strong background in the middle grades offers some real hope to those of us who realize that improving high school graduation rates and college-going rates is a task best completed in middle school.  (In fact, once a student gets to high school, the die is usually already cast.)
But the announcement, in the context of other ED appointments, does cause Eduflack (and I’m sure many others) a great deal of pause.  As we’ve hashed and rehashed many times over, the economic stimulus package placed a great deal of responsibility and influence with our states and our state education agencies.  The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is dispersed entirely through the SEAs.  The same will be true of the soon-to-be-rolled-out Race to the Top Fund.  In fact, much of the EdSec’s plans to improve chronically underperforming schools rests in SEAs doing new things through the Race to the Top.
And then we get into issues like state data systems, increased accountability measures, continued AYP focus, and a stronger reliance on Title I and IDEA distribution streams to drive school improvement.  All run through the states.  All require a keen understanding of how to effectively use the power of the SEA (and how to avoid the pitfalls and roadblocks that often stymie states from exactly real, lasting improvements in our schools).
No question about it.  The future of public education in the United States rests, in large part, with state decisionmakers.  Collectively, governors, state legislators, and chief state school officers will be the drivers of improvement or the obstacles to it, serving as the defenders of the status quo.  Regardless, states will be driving, navigating, and even filling the tank.
Despite this realization, there seems to be few, if any, experienced voices for the states in the U.S. Department of Education.  We have a number of superintendents and those who have worked for the LEAs.  We have higher education pros, particularly those representing the community colleges.  We have strong players who have come from Capitol Hill, think tanks and advocacy organizations, and leading philanthropies.  But who is speaking for the states, at least as a voice of experience?
Currently, that responsibility seems to be a one-woman-band of sorts.  Judy Wurtzel, formerly of the Aspen Institute and the Learning First Alliance, has been running point, providing technical assistance to the states on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (and has recently announced she is remaining at ED).  But where is the breadth and depth when it comes to those who understand the complexities of state education policy or those who are familiar with how states effectively disperse federal dollars (particularly Title I dollars) to local districts?
In recent months, we have heard a great deal about those external organizations who hold significant influence with the EdSec and leaders at ED.  Tops among them seem to the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  Both orgs understand the challenges of the SEAs and how federal policy gets translated by the states and implemented by the localities.  They know how to hold those in the education chain accountable, both for how money is spent and how students perform.  Yet we have no former chief state school officers working out of ED.  We have no governors or top education aides to the governors.  The closest we have seem to be state legislators who are working as deputy assistant secretaries or special assistants.
Hopefully, CCSSO and NGA will remain close behind the throne, ensuring that the states have strong advocates, both in terms of the stimulus and upcoming ESEA reauthorization.  Without a strong advocate for the states, and a strong understanding for how those SEAs operate, the transition from federal policy to local implementation can be a difficult one.  We need strong hands at the state level, setting policy, building budgets, and driving change.  But we also need strong voices at ED ensuring those hands are getting the resources necessary to do what we are demanding.
We can’t make lasting student achievement gains and school transformations on a school-by-school, district-by-district basis only.  Real improvement happens at the state level, with best practice rippling across the state quickly and efficiently.  Someone needs to make sure that voice is heard as federal education policy debates move forward.  As we address accountability, data systems, Title I, and other such issues, state buy-in and state support is key.  We need to ensure that voice is heard, and heard clearly, at the federal table.  If that isn’t going to happen from the inside, it falls to those outside groups to speak loudly for their members.  Not to put added pressure on Gene Wilhoit and Dane Linn, but it really is game on now.