Achievement gap

The Good, Bad, and NAEP

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, Math, NAEP, national standards, Reading First, SBRR

Whether we like it or not, the name of the game in public education in the United States is student achievement.  It is the one mean by which we measure or successes, determine our progress, and decide whether we are doing an effective job in our public schools or not.  Usually, that manifests itself in performance on state assessments or how schools stack up when it comes to AYP.  But on those few special days each year, we also have National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, scores.  The Nation’s Report Card provides us the best national snapshot on student academic achievement we can find … until we finally get our act together and adopt and enforce national academic standards.

The NAEP Long-Term Trend Results are out, and this year’s numbers are both good and bad.  The Associated Press has a good piece on the topic here.
As Eduflack is the poster child for pessimism, let’s start out with that which should cause educational improvers and agitators the most heartburn and the largest reason for concern.  And special thanks to the folks over at Education Trust for breaking down the numbers and adding to those things that keep Eduflack up at night.  Chief among out NAEP concerns,  are two simple words — achievement gap.  The data breakdown from our EdTrust friends:
* In reading, African-American nine-year-olds scored 44 points lower than their white peers.  At 13, the gap was 39 points.  At 17, the gap was 53 points.
* In math, Hispanic nine-year-olds scored 23 points lower than their white peers.  At 12, the gap was 35 points.  At 17, the gap was 33 points.
* The reading gap between African-American and white 13 year-olds was 21 points in 1990.  It is 21 points in 2008.
* The reading gap between Hispanic and white 13-year-olds was 24 points in 1990.  Today, it is 26 points.
* The math gap between African-American and white 13-year-olds was 27 points in 1990.  It is 28 points today.
* The math gap between Hispanic and white 13-year-olds was 22 points in 1990.  Today, it is 23 points.
It is not all doom and gloom, however.  According to the latest NAEP numbers, we are making real progress in reading instruction.  Since 2004, student reading achievement has increased in all three age brackets.  This is particularly true in the elementary grades, where performance among all groups of students (African-American, Hispanic, and low-income included) increased significantly.  
Why the difference in elementary school reading, the sort of difference that could put a smile on even the most curmudgeonly of education reformers?  We might not want to say it out loud, but some may actually want to consider that Reading First and our emphasis on scientifically based reading instruction has actually worked.  For those nine-year-olds tested under NAEP, SBRR is the only form of reading instruction they have ever known.  Their instruction and their teachers’ professional development has been evidence based and rooted in our strongest scientific principles.  We have applied what works in their classrooms, and used scientific measures to determine instruction, PD, and resource acquisition.  We’ve let the research chart the path, and now we’re arriving at the destination.  Reading scores are up, and they are up in a way far more significant than we have seen in past years.  The only significant change to the process or variable in the formula between 2004 and now is the successful implementation of SBRR.
The only logical conclusion from this is that SBRR, and Reading First, actually work.  We focused our dollars and our efforts on teaching children in the elementary grades to read with scientifically based reading instruction.  We’ve hemmed and hawed and questioned and doubted for years now about the effects.  But if one looks at the Long-Term NAEP trends, the only logical conclusion one can make, at least looking at the recent gains on elementary reading scores, is that SBRR works.  And the drop-offs in reading achievement gains in the later grades only speak to a greater need to expand the reach of SBRR and fund and implement scientifically based reading programs in our middle and secondary grades as well.
But these positive outcomes for elementary school reading (and don’t let anyone fool you, they are indeed positive outcomes) still can’t mask the far greater concerns raised by these NAEP scores.  The achievement gap is still staggering, and we seem to have made no effort in closing such gaps over the last two decades.  If we look at our middle schoolers, white students are scoring nearly 25 percent higher on math and reading tests than their African-American and Hispanic friends.  For African-American and Hispanic students, the achievement gap seems to grow over the years, and is at its worst in high school.
What is particularly frightening about the achievement gap among 17-year-olds is what it doesn’t include.  For instance, among 17-year-old African American students, the reading achievement gap is 53 points.  That’s among those students who are still in high school at age 17.  What about those who have dropped out between ninth and 11th grades?  Are we to honestly believe that those students who choose dropping out as an option do so as reading and math proficient learners?  In our urban centers, where drop-out rates reach near 50 percent, what does it tell us that the learning gap is 50 points JUST FOR THOSE REMAINING IN SCHOOL?  We can’t possibly believe that the achievement gap is getting better.  This should be a huge warning sign that, despite the best of intentions, our achievement gap is only getting worse.
The headlines touting American students are making gains in reading math are reason to smile, particularly when we look at those elementary school reading performance numbers.  But the stark, disturbing data regarding the achievement gap makes crystal clear that the achievement gap is not a temporary problem nor is it an issue that simply mandates a band-aid solution or will heal itself.  We’ve been talking about the gap for more than a quarter century, but we’ve made little progress in identifying a real solution.
When it comes to public education in the United States, the achievement gap is public enemy number one.  It denies a real chance to far too many students.  It strengthens a culture of educational have and have nots.  It puts huge cracks and gaps in our pipelines to both postsecondary education and economic success.  And it demonstrates that true equality in education and opportunity remains little more than an urban legend for far, far too many children across the United States.
We need to do better, and we must do better.  We are still competing in a great race to mediocracy, not to the top.  Hopefully, we can use these numbers to make specific improvements to how we teach and how we learn.  Hopefully, we can use these numbers to see that SBRR works, and we need to extend it into the middle and secondary grades to improve reading achievement scores, particularly with African-American and Hispanic students.  And hopefully we will realize the status quo simply cannot stand, and we must take real, strong, and measurable actions to improve the quality and impact of instruction, particularly with historically disadvantaged student populations.
Yes, we are making progress.  But we still have a long way to go before we can truly celebrate student achievement on the NAEP.  Accepting the achievement gap as a way of life is accepting that a quarter of our young people don’t have access to the pathways of success.  That’s a future that none of us should be willing to
accept.  These numbers should be a clarion call to our states and districts about the need to ensure every dime of available education dollars is going to reach those students most in need.  We need to stop talking about delivering the minimum, as required under the law, and focus on providing the best, particularly for the minority and low-income students who are the victims of the achievement gap.  We need to break the cycle, and remove skin color and wallet size as factors in learning and student success.   

Robbing from Schools to Pay Prisons in Maryland

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, stimulus, Workforce

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law last month, it provided a sigh of relief for a great many school districts that were fearing dangerously severe budget cuts.  Without doubt, the economy was taking its toll.  Real estate taxes are down, and school district budgets would pay the price.  Then ARRA swoops in to save the day, offering State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars to ensure that school budgets avoid the ax.  The pledge was to assure level school budget funding for the higher of the past two budget years.

Along the way, folks have remained fearful.  We’ve heard of state legislatures looking to slash public school funding believing that ARRA dollars could simply fill the gaps.  We’ve heard of schools looking to use stimulus dollars to fund long-term obligations, forgetting that such money is a one-time-only spend that is not promised for future years.  But we haven’t been that worried about school districts following through with cuts after all, believing that the tens of billions of dollars designated to our public schools under ARRA would do its job.
But in this morning’s Washington Post, we read that we can’t take such assumptions for granted.  In a piece by Nelson Hernandez, we learn that Prince Georges County, Maryland is asking for wavers to gut more than $23 million from its public schools budget, even with the large ARRA honey pot close enough to taste.  
The reason?  The county executive claims that the schools have been well-funded in the past, and he needs the dollars to take care of issues such as public safety.  Imagine that.  In an urban district that has long struggled and has just started to make progress (just the sort of district the Obama administration is targeting with many of its education improvement policies), we seek to slash the budget because they’ve done alright in years past.
To be fair, County Executive Jack Johnson isn’t looking at ARRA funds.  He’s asking the State of Maryland for a waiver from his legislative mandate regarding the minimum that must be spent on local public education.  At a time when the value of an education has never been more important, at a time when we see the intersection between the strength of our schools and the strength of our economy, at a time when the federal government is providing new dollars to support our public schools, in a school district that can best be labeled a home to historically disadvantaged students, we are purposely seeking to spend less money.  We are seeking to provide less than the minimum required by law.  We are seeking to strip well-deserving schools of the opportunities and resources they need — and the taxpayers are supporting.
Jack Johnson should be embarrassed he made such a request, and he should be ashamed that he used such a specious argument to try and strip needed funds from schools in need.  Hopefully, Maryland State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick can step in and ensure that Prince Georges County Public Schools continues to at least receive the bare minimum resources required under the law.  And hopefully, all of PG County will rally behind Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. to advocate for the needs of PG schools.
Eduflack doesn’t doubt that PG County has financial needs when it comes to public safety and other community issues.  But you don’t rob from the schools to pay for the prisons.  If anything, we need to do the reverse.  We all know the data about educational opportunity and student success.  And we know the research on lost opportunities and a life of failures and struggles.
We are looking to communities like PG County to continue their school turnaround, improve student achievement, and expand opportunities to learn.  That’s why we are giving them the additional resources to do so, ensuring that schools are spared cuts in the short term.  How do we expect our students — particularly those in historically underserved communities — to achieve if we are now seeking special dispensation to deny them the bare minimum when it comes to school dollars and resources?
If PG County is the latest test case, let’s hope we can figure out how to pass the test.  In this age of growing demands for student achievement and expanding student achievement gaps, we should be raising our financial minimums when it comes to school funding, not seeking ways to lower them.  True leaders, Mr. Johnson, find a way to inspire and offer opportunities to their constituents.  They don’t say we’ve done well enough in the past, so its time for you to feel the pain now.  It is now way to lead, and it is no way to educate.
 
   

Gaps, Equality, and Student Achievement

Eduflack Achievement gap, Chancellor Klein, NCLB

For nearly a decade now, the buzzword in education reform has been student achievement.  Thanks to NCLB and AYP, we were all about the test scores and whether learners were able to show year-on-year gains, demonstrating that their skills and abilities were improving academic year after academic year.

Often overlooked in our push for improved student achievement has been the student achievement gap.  While we were tracking how students were doing longitudinally, we were missing the boat on the growing performance problems between the haves and the have nots.  How were African-American students measuring up compared to white students?  Hispanic students versus white students?  Native-American students versus white students?  Low-income students versus rich students?
Since the release of A National at Risk two and a half decades ago, we have realized the achievement gap should be a top concern, one that we need to address and, more importantly, one that we need to solve.  Despite improvements in student achievement, performance gaps are still there, still large, and still very much a destructive force in our nation’s public schools.  Yesterday, McKinsey & Company released a new study on the achievement gap, offering up some pretty startling statistics.  According to McKinsey, achievement gap data can predict, as early as the fourth grade, that the achievement gap can result in:
* Lower rates of high school and college graduation;
* Lower lifetime earnings;
* Poorer health; and
* Higher rates of incarceration.
Why is this so important?  First, student achievement is about more than just student test scores.  It has a wholesale and long-term impact on students, families, and the community at large.  McKinsey estimates that the achievement gap between students of color and white students cost the nation upwards of $525 billion in 2008, or 4 percent of our GDP.  For the gap between rich and poor, the cost was upwards of $670 billion, or 5 percent of our GDP.
Such numbers should be unacceptable to a nation that prides itself of the quality of its public education system and the often misguided notion that every child has access to equal opportunities and high-quality chances when it comes to their education and their future.  What is clear is we are not providing all students equal access to meaningful learning opportunities.  Poor students do not have the same learning opportunities and the same resources as rich students.  Black and Hispanic students do not have the same learning opportunities as white students.  Fifty-five years after Brown v. Board, we believe in equal education, but we aren’t delivering on it, particularly when it comes to students in our lowest performing schools and our struggling economic communities.
The McKinsey research was released in conjunction with the Education Equality Project, an effort joining the unlikely bedfellows of NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and the Rev. Al Sharpton.  EEP is looking at a series of issues on how to bring real, measurable equity to our nation’s public schools.  Issue one for EEP is teacher quality.  Their first briefing paper can be found here.  The highlights are not groundbreaking, but remind us of some key issues that school districts — particularly those serving historically disadvantaged populations — must consider when they look at how to improve the quality and outcomes of instruction:
1) Recruit the best possible candidates for teaching jobs;
2) Give aspiring and veteran teachers the right incentives and targeted training to perform well in the classroom;
3) Evaluating teacher performance fairly but rigorously;
4) Dismissing incompetent instructors after they have had an opportunity to improve their performance; and
5) Placing the best teachers where they are needed most.
Off the bat, we should be able to agree to 80 percent of the above recommendations.  Idea number four is likely to cause heartburn and major concern for the teachers unions and many who don’t want to rock the boat too much.  Such ideas, though, force us to look comprehensively at the ways we can address the issues and close the gaps.  They start debates that need to be had.  Will EEP win the day on removing teachers from their duties?  Unlikely.  But raising the subject forces superintendents and policymakers to take a much keener look at how we measure the effectiveness of the teachers entrusted with closing our learning and achievement gaps.
  
Currently, there are a number of groups and collaborations focusing on issues of access and equity in public education.  Some like to think that groups like EEP and Bigger, Bolder are competing interests.  But can’t we all agree that the achievement gap problem is one that needs lots of great thinkers and lots of new ideas and new approaches?  As long as organizations are out there putting forward ideas, offering new thoughts and new recommendations about how to better spend our current education dollars, how to better measure our effectiveness in the classroom, how to better teach our students, and how to ensure more (and hopefully) all students have access to the same high-quality learning opportunities, aren’t we better off for it?  Doesn’t such civil discourse force us to shake the status quo and start thinking about real solutions that rattle the system yet offer real chances to improve educational opportunities?
EEP will continue to issue recommendations on a series of classroom-based issues for addressing the achievement gap.  They need to.  For those who agree, they need to amplify the voice and move these ideas into action.  For those who disagree, they need to get on their soapboxes and offer better ideas to capture the hearts and minds of the community.  But there is no room for staying silent.  The education, economic, and societal impacts of the achievement gap are simply too great for us to say nothing, do nothing, and expect nothing.  The status quo is no longer an option.  Too many students have dropped out, lost out, and missed out because we have done nothing.  If we are to fulfill our national promise to provide every child with equal, high-quality learning opportunities, we need to act.  And we need to act now.

From the Eduflack Bookshelf

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, technology

For someone who writes so much about reading, I don’t seem to do enough of it.  Chalk it up to a consulting business busting at the seams, two toddlers at home, and a personal choice of writing over reading.  For my birthday, the edu-wife gave me the Kindle II, bringing together my loves of technology and books.  And I have excitedly downloaded a number of tomes on my new handheld (unfortunately, most of them are business related).

So before I head off on my latest business trip, I wanted to clear off the ole Eduflack bookshelf and reflect a little on three books (two new) that are worth a close read as we continue our discussions, debates, and activities on education improvement.
The first is Jay Mathews’ Work Hard.  Be Nice.If you haven’t heard of this book yet, you must be living under a rock.  This is Mathews’ telling of the creation of the Knowledge is Power Program, or KIPP.  This is a must-read, particularly in this day and age.  Anyone who doubts the value of well-run charter schools has to read this book.  Anyone who doubts the role hard work (both of teacher and student) can have on achievement has to read this book.  And anyone who thinks that some kids just aren’t cut out for success has to read this book.  Whether you believe in the KIPP model or not, whether you trust the data on KIPP or not, you have to appreciate the passion and belief structure that goes into the schools and is so clearly articulated in Work Hard.  As for Eduflack, I’ve got the work hard part down pretty well.  Be nice has always been a challenge.
Second off the shelf is Chalkbored: What’s Wrong with School & How to Fix It.  I’ll admit it, I was simply intrigued by the title.  Jeremy Schneider does a great job at laying out the problems, or perceived problems, facing our public schools.  More importantly, Schneider focuses on two key issues to move us from obstacle to opportunity.  The first is that we all must take responsibility for change.  it isn’t just up to the teacher or the principal to improve the learning process.  There is a role for all involved in the development of the child.  The second is that technology is a key component to meaningful solutions.  This is particularly important in today’s economic age, as we ask our schools to do more and more with less and less.  Chalkbored begins to even lay the groundwork for the impact open educational resources (or OER) can have on the school improvement movement.
My final read may surprise some folks.  Eduflack has been spending a great deal of time focusing on educational equity and access issues.  So a friend passed along a great title to help inspire me and guide some of my thinking.  Black Genius: African American Solutions to African American Problems is a collection of essays from some great leaders in the African-American community.  Edited by Eduflack fave Walter Mosley, Black Genius provides a range of intriguing thoughts on a range of topics such as effective communications, the media, and democracy.  The book is both thought-provoking and inspiring, and again reminds us that improvement requires the work of all.  We can’t blame anyone for our problems, nor can we expect others to help if we won’t step up ourselves.
Each of these books deserves a post on their own merits.  Collectively, they help provide a better understanding of the lens through which Eduflack views our education improvement activities, how we can truly improve, and who and how needs to be involved if we are to make such changes stick and have a real difference.

A Middle-ing Approach to School Improvement

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NCLB, Students

In the current era of school improvement, student achievement, and innovation, the points of conversation often jump from what we do in the elementary school grades to what is happening in our high schools.  The reasons for this are fairly obvious.  We believe that all children are entering the elementary grades on relatively equal footing (an urban legend, I’ll give you, but many actually believe it).  That’s why we start the student assessment process in the early grades.  As for high schools, that’s where the money and the attention rests.  Gates is funneling billions of dollars into high schools, and graduation rates, drop-out factories, and the like have become a common yardstick for measuring the outcomes of our K-12 experience.

Often lost is the discussion is the middle grades.  That’s no surprise.  There is no national start and stop to a middle school.  Middle school can begin anywhere between fourth and seventh grade.  It can end anywhere from seventh through ninth grade.  With such overlaps into both elementary and secondary schools, middle schools are often left as the monkey in the middle, a necessary, but often overlooked, connector in the P-12 education continuum.
Unfortunately, much of what ails our public education system is rooted in what is happening during our middle grades.  AYP and the growing achievement gaps are usually being documented once students hit middle school, when we first see the failures of effective math and reading instruction in the early grades.  Students begin falling behind in subjects like science and social studies because they lack the core skills they should enter middle school with in the first place.  Those beloved student scores on state assessments start taking hold in the middle grades, when it is often too late to reverse the downward trend.
We also forget that the middle grades determine the success or failure of the high school experience.  Tenth graders are not sitting their agonizing whether they will complete school or drop out.  The vast majority of high school drop-out decisions are made by middle schoolers, determined between that eight and ninth grade year.  And that decision is based, largely, on how one performs, how one engages, and how one experiences educational relevance during those middle grades.  The middle years are about academic achievement, but they are also about motivation, about character development, and about showing every student — particularly those students from traditionally disadvantaged groups that have been given up on well before they enter high school.
What does all this tell us?  MIddle school isn’t just the passthrough of the continuum.  In many ways, it is an essential linchpin.  It is the road marker measuring the success of our elementary school experiences.  And it is the road map that determines secondary and postsecondary opportunities, particularly for those students who may not see the value of their educational experience.
Which is why the recent developments in Alexandria, Virginia are so interesting.  For those outside the DC area, Alexandria is one of many suburbs to our nation’s capital.  Alexandria often gets lost in the regional education discussions.  DCPS is the focal point.  Fairfax (VA) is the big boy.  Arlington (VA) is diversity.  Montgomery County (MD) is the innovator.  And Prince Georges County (MD) is the problem child.  Districts like Alexandria often get overlooked in the mix, as they lack the size or the depth of problems of some of their neighbors.
This week, Alexandria Schools Superintendent Morton Sherman announced his plans to revamp the middle grades.  The proclamation received minor mention in The Washington Post, but hasn’t yet gotten the attention or the discussion it probably requires.  Alexandria’s middle schools have failed to hit federal benchmarks, not too uncommon of urban or suburban middle schools around the country.  Alexandria’s drop-out rate is among the highest in the DC region (though not the highest to garner screamer headlines in the Post).  So Sherman has put two and two together and actually gotten four, realizing that addressing his middle school performance problems will have a direct impact on issues in the latter grades.
What is Alexandria looking to do?  It wants to break its middle schools up into smaller schools with greater autonomy and opportunities.  It wants to extend some elementary schools from K-6 to K-8.  And it wants to introduce International Baccalaureate offerings across the district.
In laying out this plan, Sherman is addressing the granddaddies of school improvement issues — school leadership, school structure, academic options, and improved rigor.  At face value, this isn’t about re-arranging some of the deck chairs in Alexandria Public Schools.  This is about putting middle schoolers on a completely different boat.
Will it work?  Eduflack readers know that intentions aren’t even worth the recycled paper they are printed on.  The name of the game is results.  What specifically will be done?  Will teachers and principals and parents buy into the reforms?  Will we hold educators accountable, both with carrot and stick?  And most importantly, how will we define success?
But Alexandria and Sherman are on the right track.  Middle schools are the often unmentioned problem in our public education family.  High school drop-out problems can be attributed to the middle grades.  Achievement gap issues can be attributed to the middle grades.  Even issues of equity and opportunity start in the middle grades (since we like to believe all little first graders are equal in both access and opportunity).   
It also provides us something to think about when we start building Innovation Fund and Race to the Top grant applications.  How are our struggling school districts addressing the middle school crisis?  Are they offering potential solutions, as Alexandria attempts, or will they gloss over the issue, making the jump from elementary building blocks to secondary school pathways and graduation numbers?  Innovations in middle grades education should be a non-negotiable for our future school improvement efforts.  Without it, we lose many of the benefits of elementary school improvements, while denying far too many the full opportunities of an improved secondary school experience.

Talkin’ Baseball & School Equity

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, national standards, Students

Those who know Eduflack know that I have but a few true passions.  First and foremost is my family.  Nothing is more important to me than my wife and my two perfect little tots.  Then we have two things tied for a close second — education improvement and baseball.  Those who read these pages realize the first, and they may surmise the second based on the regular baseball references and analogies.  Such continue this morning.

Last night, I had the good fortune of attending the first official New York Mets baseball game to be held at Citi Field.  (Yes, the name is unfortunate, but it seems the grassroots effort to rename it “Taxpayer Field” quickly sputtered out.)  It is an absolutely beautiful ballpark — far, far better than the dump that was previously known as Shea Stadium.  It is also a new ballpark that is rich in baseball history, particularly that of the Brooklyn Dodgers and of Jackie Robinson (a little too much Dodger for this die-hard Mets fan, particularly when you think of all of the Mets history — particularly 1969, 1973, and 1986 that could be there in its stead.)
The focus on Jackie Robinson and the majestic blue “42” (see below) as you initially pass through the Citi turnstiles can’t help but have you think of Robinson and his ability to break the color barrier and bring a sense of equity to America’s pastime.  As we get ready to celebrate the anniversary of that important day later this week, it serves as yet another example of how separate is never equal.  Two leagues — one for whites and one for blacks — would never be the same as simply having the best players competing on the same field.  Success only comes when we have access to the same resources, are held to the same standards, and are measured by the same record books and the same tape measures.
Which gets us to the issues of school improvement.  How do we expect to say we improving our schools when we operate so many dropout factories in our urban centers?  How can we say everyone has access to a high-quality public education when 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic students are dropping out of high school?  How do we talk about equity of opportunity when there are clearly haves and have-nots in public education, those with access to the best teachers, the latest technology, the newest books, and the best data systems, and those who are just left to muddle through the best they can with what we are willing to give them?
When Jackie Robinson stepped onto the field in that Dodger jersey for the first time, he landed a significant body blow to all of those who believed that separate could be equal, that facilities and leagues for blacks were “good enough,” or that the standards and records by which we measured ballplayers of color were different than those by which we measured white players.  We talk of the greatness of pitchers like Cy Young and Walter Johnson, yet we truly don’t know how they would stack up to greats like Satchel Paige and Smokey Joe Williams.  We speak of baseball hitting legends like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, but have no idea if they could even take practice swings in Josh Gibson’s shadow.  For 60 years, major league baseball refused admittance to equity, and the game and the nation paid the price.
As we stand on the precipice of a new day in public education — a day when all schools are in the same Race to the Top and a day when all schools are held to the same AYP standards and, hopefully, all students are held to the same academic standards — we need to think about tearing down those remaining barriers that prevent our public school systems from truly offering equal access to resources, education, and opportunity.  “Good enough for …” should be eliminated from our educational vocabularies.  Dropout factories should be urban legends.  And lowered expectations for certain subsets of disaggregated student populations should be retired along with so many baseball jersey numbers.  If we expect all of our students — regardless of skin color or socioeconomic status — to compete on the common field of academic and career success, we need to make sure they have the skills and the equipment to do so.  
Yes, education is a great American civil right.  Yes, far too many of our citizens are denied complete access to it.    Yes, every child can succeed, with the proper support and motivation.  Yes, there are specific action steps we can take to do something about it.
Getting additional financial resources to schools in need through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and through a host of third-party foundations and corporations is a good first step.  But we need to make sure those resources are being used effectively.  We need to make all students are being held to the same standard.  We need to make sure the dollars that represent our inputs are results in true return on investment when it comes to student performance.  Otherwise, we will continue to have some students who are playing in the big show when it comes to their futures, and some that are still just playing Whiffle ball in the backyard.  
It is now April 2009 in the United States.  Is it really too much to ask that every school, regardless of demographics, has equal access to well-trained, effective teachers?  Is it too much to ask that every student have access to the latest textbooks, technology, and instructional materials?  Is it too much to hold every state, district, school, and student to the same measurable academic standards?  Is it too much to believe that every child can succeed — both in school and in life — if provide equal access to an education of equal quality?
Tomorrow, we celebrate the 62nd anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier and stepping onto the brilliant green grass in crisp Brooklyn Dodger white.  Next month, we celebrate the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court case that declared, once and for all, that separate was not equal when it came to public education. As we reflect on these landmark moments, we can see how far we have come in bringing equity of both resource and opportunity to our schools and communities … and how far we still need to go.  
Can we really see school success and 21st century competitiveness without addressing the dire problems in our urban schools and those serving historically underserved student populations?  Can we truly see an America that can compete on both international benchmarks and in the 21st century global economy if we are writing off so many students and so many schools so early in the game?
Believe it or not, these were some of the thoughts going through the head of the occupant of Section 114, Row 30, Seat 1 last evening at Citi.  
  

Vouching for DC Students

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, NCLB, vouchers

By now, the funeral procession for the DC school voucher program has been winding its was through the city streets.  Long a target of the status quo, the DC Scholarship Opportunity Program has been criticized for many things, chief among them for taking money from well-deserving DC public schools and handing it over to local private schools.  As of late, it has faced fire over its effectiveness, with opponents alleging that student achievement had not improved as a result of a change in environment and the empowerment of choice.

When it was introduced at the start of the NCLB era, the model was pretty simple.  DC public schools were failing a significant number of the very students it was designed to serve, to help, and to provide with the knowledge they needed to succeed.  Despite the rich network of public charter schools across the District, federal officials decided to introduce the voucher model, allowing families of children in truly failing schools to send their children to private schools in the area.  Private schools would agree to accept the “vouchers” in exchange for school tuition.  The plan was modeled after successful efforts in places like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida.
Competition for the voucher program was fierce from the very start.  Families lined up 10-deep for the access to these vouchers, all looking to provide their kids a better choice and better options.  Interestingly, vouchers provided no more than $7,500 a year in tuition, fees, and expenses for private schools, less than 50 percent of what DCPS spends to educate its students in the public schools, even in the worst of its failing schools.
Critics have been chipping away at the program from the start.  When initial data showing promising results was released by researchers a few years, ago, we attacked it for being incomplete or not providing a full picture of the situation.  We’ve painted a picture that there has been a mass exodus from DCPS into Gonzaga, Sidwell Friends, and Georgetown Prep, where wealthy schools are getting wealthier off the backs of DCPS and DC taxpayers.  (Let’s forget that most voucher students were not going to these “blue chip” privates and all privates were taking a significant cut in their tuition to admit voucher students.)  Most recently, the dealt the death blow to the voucher effort in DC, getting funding stripped from the federal appropriations bill last month.  For all practical purposes, DC Vouchers is now dead as a doornail, even with more than 1,700 DC students taking advantage of the program.
What’s interesting, then, is the report that came out of the U.S. Department of Education yesterday afternoon.  Despite all of the chatter about the failure of the DC Scholarship Opportunity Program, an ED study determined that voucher students outperformed their public school counterparts on reading proficiency.  The full story can be found here at The Washington Post.
House of Representatives Republican Educator-in-Chief Buck McKeon has used the IES research to demonstrate that the voucher program works and demands it be continued.  Senator Joe Lieberman, who oversees the District in our senior legislative body, is talking about holding further hearings on the issue.  It begs the question, is the great DC voucher experiment as dead as it appeared just a week ago?
This has long been an issue of federal voices deciding what is best for the residents of Washington, DC.  The program was initiated by a zealous Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress who wanted to prove that vouchers were the solution to failing public schools.  The program has faced relentless attack from equally zealous Democrats in Congress (along with the national teachers’ unions) who believed it was robbing the public schools of needed financial resources and was undermining the very foundations of public education.
What about the residents of DC?  What about the very families who have been impacted (or who have chosen not to be) by the DC Voucher program?  One can look at the demand for the limited slots and say there is local public desire for the program. One can look at the qualitative surveys over the years, showing support for the program and satisfaction with its outcomes.  One can even look at recent efforts by the Washington Archdiocese to convert many of its Catholic schools (those where so many DC residents were attending through their vouchers) into public charter schools to ensure that those kids currently in the pipeline were not kicked out of their learning environments when the voucher program came to an end later this year.
WaPo’s Colbert King takes the issue even further this AM, calling on District leaders to make the ultimate decision on the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program’s fate.  What a novel concept.  Instead of seeking the permission and dollars of federal officials, Mayor Fenty, the DC Council, and other local leaders should talk to the community and determine if DC Vouchers are in the best interests of the city.  Imagine that.  Local officials making local education decisions, policies, and funding choices that affect local residents.  It’s almost as if one could build a governmental structure around such a silly idea.
But back to the key issue, the research.  IES has determined that DC voucher students are outperforming the public school peers when it comes reading scores.  Overall, the study found that voucher students were nearly four months ahead of non-voucher students when it came to reading skill.  Those students moving from the lowest-performing public schools did not show that level of reading gain.  And there appeared to be no difference in math proficiency.
Seems that such data requires more than a Friday afternoon media release, with the hopes that few notice it in our rush to celebrate the Palm Sunday weekend (or Eduflack’s birthday, whichever holiday you prefer).  Fridays are notorious for dumping information and data you hope will get short shrift from the media or will get overlooked entirely.  One has to ask if this data was available a few weeks ago when Congress was inflicting its death blow on DC vouchers.  If so, why wasn’t it discussed then?  And now that we do have it, how closely will we look at it?  Does the research model stand up to scrutiny, or does it have its failings like so many recent IES studies?  Do we have some real information here that needs to factor into education policy in our nation’s capital and throughout the country?
At the end of the day, what are we left with?  Is there public demand for vouchers in DC?  Absolutely.  Has the program been implemented effectively?  It appears so.  Is the program working?  It seems so.  Is the program a political atomic bomb?  Absolutely.
It seems, in this era of innovation and demands for improved student achievement, we need every opportunity and every good idea we can find.  If vouchers are showing promise in DC, shouldn’t we let the District decide if they continue the program, allowing us to see if that promise transforms into best practice?  And at some point, shouldn’t those decisions be made by the citizens the program is designed to affect, instead of by representatives who will never receive a single vote from a single resident of the District of Columbia?
Let’s take EdSec Arne Duncan at his word and that he does not want to end the voucher program for any student that is currently participating in it.  Even if we don’t add new students to the program, it seems there is a lot we can learn by supporting those already in the syst
em.  And we haven’t even touched on the positive impact we could have on those kids whose lives have been changed by providing them the opportunity to leave failing schools.  The choice itself has given them hope, a chance at opportunity, and a worldview that education can impact their lives.  That’s a return on investment we all should seek.

A New Learning Day?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, Students

Does the traditional 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. school day fit the bill when we talk about our needs to innovate, close the achievement gap, and boost student achievement?  Is the current model of compartmentalized learning — one that clearly has not achieved its intended goals for these many generations — getting the job done in our 21st century environment?

Last week, EdSec Arne Duncan emphasized that extended learning opportunities were are important component of how economic stimulus dollars should be spent.  One has to believe that a portion of the Innovation Fund and a potential non-negotiable for the Race to the Top may be how school districts integrate outside-of-school-time (OST) activities into the day-to-day learning experience, providing students extensions to the learning day, further opportunities to learn, and the one-to-one interventions they need to overcome some of the gaps in the daily classroom experience.
About a year ago, at an event sponsored by Ed in 08, Chris Gabrieli — the chairman of the National Center on Time & Learning — spoke of recent Center efforts to supplement the learning experience and provide a leg up to many of those students that are tagged as the reason for our achievement gap.  Some of these stories are documented in Gabrieli’s book, Time to Learn: How a New School Schedule is Making Smarter Kids, Happier Parents, and Safer Neighborhoods.  Are Gabrieli’s ideas interesting?  Yes.  Are some of them audacious?  Absolutely.  But in forcing us to think about the learning process and the learning structure a little differently, it gets us to approach the job of teaching differently.  And those different approaches are the key to the innovation that is going to drive the day.
Such innovation may be just what is needed to shake up a system that has clearly grown stagnant.  Last week, Eduflack opined on the notion of extending the school year, while taking a closer look at what can be done to extend the learning day.  From a wealth of research, we know that the learning that happens outside of the 8-3 classroom is just as important as that happening within it.  That’s why we push parents to continue the learning process at home, both during the school year and during the summers.  That’s why we explore year-round schooling.  And that’s why we are recognizing the academic value of OST programs.  The era where OST was defined as midnight basketball is over.  Those programs that are truly effective are those that invest in the social and academic development of the student, enhancing the learning processes and building blocks that are established during the traditional school day.
But how do we move such efforts forward?  After all, it is nice for the EdSec to offer up rhetoric on the value of afterschool efforts, but how does such rhetoric transform into effective policy?  At a time when education dollars are at a premium and we aren’t sure how we are going to fund the core academic day, how do we ensure we are making the necessary investments in the afterschool programs that supplement and enhance the day, programs that give us a real opportunity to break the cycle of mediocrity that has long dominated our public education system?
The first step is likely happening down in New Orleans later this week.  The National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National AfterSchool Association are slated to launch a new initiative — Leading a Learning Day for All Children.  Leading a Learning Day’s goals seem simple, yet essential.  Organizers seek to establish a “seamless learning day where children are engaged, challenged and celebrated,” and where there is “more time for learning and helping children grow and develop with hands-on, active, and project-based learning.”  
Coming out of the Big Easy, NAESP and NAA hope to refocus OST efforts on five key principles:
* Redefinition of student success — Refining what student success means beyond the acquisition of basic skills and including assessments for attributes such as teamwork, civic engagement, and analytical thinking.
* Use of knowledge about how students learn best — Using our research-based knowledge about how children learn and become inquisitive and analytical thinkers to frame their cognitive and developmental experiences throughout the day, early to late and year round.
* Integration of proven strategies to acquire and reinforce knowledge — Recognizing the arts, technology, and service learning are examples of tools to heighten core academic learning, not merely nice things to do to fill children’s time.
* Intentional collaboration across local, state, and national sectors — Building new collaborative structures across sectors in communities and up and down government hierarchies that focus all resources on supporting academic and developmental goals for children.
* New leadership and professional development opportunities — Knowing that while most leadership programs and certification are school-based, the importance of training and compensating educators to build community partnership is growing.
So what, exactly, does all this mean for school improvement?  First off, we need to redefine the learning day to mean far more than the time required by law behind the schoolhouse doors.  We must recognize that if we are to close the achievement gap and make demonstrable improvements in student achievement, we must extend learning opportunities to after school, the weekends, the summers, and other “non-school day” times.
Second, we must recognize that OST is not glorified babysitting.  Afterschool is no longer a holding pen for kids without adult supervision nor is it merely arts and crafts and sports.  High-quality programs are designed to enhance student learning, providing additional opportunities to build core knowledge, develop core skills, and delve deeper into the subjects and concepts that both interest students and are important to their long-term success.
Third, this new dawn of afterschool is completely doable, even with the limited resources of our 2009 economic realities.  It starts with the visions and the examples laid out by organizations such as the National Center on Time & Learning, NAA, and Leading a Learning Day, groups that can all point to promising practices, places where new ideas are working, and students who have been positively impacted by new thinking and even newer actions.  And it is continued by linking the school day with the afterschool day, pursuing core activities like sharing curriculum maps, including afterschool staff in professional development, sharing evaluation data, and jointly reaching out to parents and communities.
Finally, it means recognizing the true value of changing the definition of the learning day.  We need to value all of those who contribute to a student’s academic progress, maximizing the skills and experiences each time and space can best provide for children.  We need to identify more learning opportunities for those students who are falling behind, dropping the misguided belief that students can catch up simply by doing the same (or usually, less) work during the traditional academic day.  And it means recognizing that these investments have a long-term impact on student learning, student health, community safety, and community empowerment.
Words and actions out of Washington, our state capitols, and our school districts all point to a need for new perspectives, new approaches, and
a new view on effective learning.  Is OST the silver bullet for solving all that ails are schools?  Hardly.  But it is an important piece of the puzzle.  For years now, groups like the Mott Foundation and the Wallace Foundation have invested in OST infrastructures in states and cities across the nation.  Success now comes when those investments in inputs are translated into real, outcome-based results.  The principles coming out of New Orleans this week are a strong step forward.  The next step is moving effectively to communicate these ideas with those stakeholders who can put them into practice, getting audiences to change the way they think about afterschool and change what they do with those afterschool hours.  The possibility is there.  Now we just need to seize it.   

A Necessary ARRA Watchdog

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

Typically in federal education policy, we hear a great deal about inputs, but not much about outcomes.  We talk about how many dollars are going to go into a program, how many students or teachers might be affected, and how many stakeholders were involved in the process.  It is almost as if we are secure in the notion that how a decision was made is far more important than the impact of the decision itself.

It’s why, for instance, the good folks over at Education Week are unable to get specific information on how $5 billion in Reading First dollars were actually spent.  Sure, we know how the states and the LEAs intended to spend them.  But after requests, cajoling, and such, Kathleen Manzo and the EdWeek team still can’t get specific answers on what those dollars were actually spent on.  And don’t even get Eduflack started on how effectively we are measuring the impact and results of that federal expenditure.
So when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act offers up tens of billions of new education dollars with virtually no strings attached, it is easy to see why some people get worried.  Yes, each state will submit a plan for how they spend their new windfall, with such plans due to the U.S. Department of Education this week.  Checks will be cut two weeks from now, after a pro forma review of those state plans.  We should expect a few states to have their initial plans rejected, if for no other reason than ED can “demonstrate” that they are reviewing the plans and have protocols in place for how the money should be spent.  If South Carolina comes in requesting dollars to retire their school bonds, that will be rejected.  If California comes in expecting to spend its ARRA buckets on teacher salaries, I suspect that will get the “NO” stamp as well.  But on the whole, states will be approved, and then we will leave it up to the LEAs to actually spend to the state guidelines and deliver the results that ED is expecting from this stimulus.
I so want to believe EdSec Duncan and his team when they state that stimulus dollars (and we assume future ED fiscal obligations) should be primarily focused on boosting student achievement.  Innovations need to align with student performance.  The Race to the Top is all about closing the achievement gap and boosting high school graduation rates.  And it is all tied together by new data systems that ensure we are effectively capturing, tracking, and utilizing student achievement data to improve instruction, performance, and quality.  Makes perfect sense.  After all, what is the role of our public schools if not to teach our kids and get them performing at proficient levels at the very least?
But the devil is always in the details.  For many, relying on ED to measure the effectiveness of their own policies and their own spending is much like letting the fox guard the hen house.  After a year or two, after more than $50 billion in new money sent out to the districts, do we expect ED to come back and say the money was misappropriated?  Do we expect OPEPD reports demonstrating that funds did align with intended goals or that we have no demonstrable return on investment?  Of course not.  We expect all to declare “mission accomplished.”  ED provided protocols for how the money would be spent, the states assured the feds they would spend the funds per those guidelines, and LEAs were given their new dollars after promising the states they wouldn’t blow it all on video games and bubblegum.  We’re all happy, even if there is no uptick in student achievement and there is little movement in innovation because we have met our process goals.  We’ve achieved the desired inputs, outcomes be damned.
That’s why I am so excited by the announcement coming out of Education Trust today.  Through their Education Watch, Kati Haycock and company will offer an unbiased, third-party analysis of “how effectively states are using the infusion of federal support.”  They do so believing that “the public will need accurate, reliable data” if we are to truly measure the success of ARRA on school improvement.
EdTrust’s full announcement of the initiative can be found here.  The series of Education Watch indicators, broken down by state, can be found here.  Most interesting is the “starting line” Ed Trust provides, a detailed chart tracking state achievement gains and achievement gap closings over the past decade.  Building on their past successes the ARRA Education Watch is modeled after EdTrust’s similar efforts in 2003, 2004, and 2006.  
I realize that EdTrust didn’t set out to be the ARRA watchdog, but someone has to do it, and there are few as qualified and capable as EdTrust.  Does Education Watch abdicate ED’s responsibility to do the same?  Of course not.  Does it prevent other groups, including NGA, CCSSO, and even the teachers unions from acting in the same manner?  Golly, I hope not.  But someone had to be the first to step up to the plate, and better EdTrust that a status quo voice just trying to protect what is theirs.
Over the last few years, EdTrust has gotten a bit of a bad rap.  Many in the chattering class have seen the organization, and Kati Haycock in particular, as being the cheerleader-in-chief for No Child Left Behind.  It is an unfair criticism.  EdTrust has always been about pushing for higher student achievement for all students, particularly those who had been the forgotten cause of our rising achievement gaps.  When NCLB became the law of the land, it only made sense that EdTrust would fight to make sure the law lived up to its promise.  They pushed hard on achievement and assessment, believing that data would guide us out of the land of mediocrity and show us the path to equity and achievement, particularly for low-income students and students of color.  After all, one is far more effective using the tools (and the funding streams) available to exact change and improvement than they are shouting into the wind and simply wishing upon a star for things to be different.
As we got caught up in the politics of NCLB and deciding who was with us or against us, we seemed to lose track of the true mission of groups like EdTrust.  For the Education Trust, the mission is simple.  “The Education Trust works for the high academic achievement of all students at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college, and forever closing the achievement gaps that separate low-income students and students of color from other youth.  Our basic tenet is this — All children will learn at high levels when they are taught to high levels.”
So who, exactly, wants to stand against that goal?  If anything, the U.S. Department of Education adopt that mission as their own, applying the lens of high academic achievement and the elimination of the achievement gap to every policy and spending decision it puts forward.  If that isn’t the goal for public education in the United States, what is?
I know the folks over at EdTrust have thick skins, and they are prepared for any of the slings and arrows the status quoers will throw at them, either now or in an expected post-NCLB era.  I also know that the team shies away from no fight, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to move us closer to the overall goal of student success for all.  If that means being the ARRA watchdog, so be it.  Regardless, Education Watch should provide some valuable insights, data, and recommendations as we move forward.  (And if this makes me a cheerleader for EdTrust, so be it.  I’ll gladly pick up the pom-poms and the megaphone if it means narrowing the achievement gap as quickly as possible.)  
Who knows, it may actually help ensure that all of these federal dollars are actually spent on efforts that boost student achievement … and we are able to actually see such a boost.  Wouldn’t that be something different and innovative.

School Improvement, the Gates Way

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, Arne Duncan, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, early college, Gates Foundation, national standards

Over at the Washington Post this AM, Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt asks the multi-billion-dollar question, How would Bill Gates repair our schools?  Reflecting on a recent interview Gates had with WaPo, Hiatt opines that Gates is an advocate for the sort of reforms that EdSec Arne Duncan and DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee evangelize.  He points to the status quo — collective bargaining agreements, tenure, resistance to charter schools, and opposition to pay for performance — as some of the great roadblocks that Duncan, Rhee, and even Gates face in their quest to improve public education.

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