Achievement gap

Actually Getting Kids to College, or Just Talking About It?

Eduflack Achievement gap, ACT, early college, High School, higher ed, Parents, PR, Students

By now, Eduflack readers know two evident truths about successful communications.  The first is we must raise awareness about the problem and what people know about it.  The second is we must drive audiences to action, getting them to change their behaviors to fix said problem.  It is modern-day advocacy.  Being informed is no longer enough.  If we aren’t taking the action steps to improve student achievement, then any “PR effort” isn’t worth its salt.

For years now, we’ve screamed from the rooftops that each and every child in the United States required a college degree.  The U.S. Department of Education said that 90 percent of new jobs demanded some form of postsecondary education.  We’ve talked about the problems of dropout factories and business’ need for a college-educated workforce.  We’ve discussed 21st century skills and the learning needs one acquires after high school.
Earlier this week, the KnowHow2Go campaign released new public survey information on its efforts to boost public awareness of its efforts to inform eighth to 10th graders on the need for college.  The results include:
* More than one-third (35 percent) of students say they are regularly taking steps to prepare for college (up from 26 percent in 2007)
* Nine in 10 students (91 percent) have spoken to an adult about college prep, up from 80 percent
* Six in 10 students (63 percent) have seen or heard of KnowHow2Go and its advertising campaign
* Eight in 10 students (81 percent) said they were familiar with the courses needed for college, up from 70 percent two years ago
The data points are interesting, don’t get me wrong, but what do they really tell us?  As we are improving our ability to inform students, are we actually changing student behaviors?  Unfortunately, we just don’t know.  This data seems to raise just as many questions as it provides answers.
One-third of students are taking steps to prepare to college.  Interestingly, one-third of high school students will go on to college.  And one-third have gone on to college for decades.  What does that mean?  In 2007, those students who were likely going on to college didn’t know they were taking the steps necessary to get there.  So now those same students know they are asking the right questions and getting the right information.  But what are we doing for the two-thirds of ninth graders who will never go on to college?  What questions are they asking?  What steps are they taking?  And why aren’t they doing what it takes to prepare for postsecondary education?
Ninety percent of students have spoken to an adult about college.  What about that remaining 10 percent?  What are they talking about?  Who are they talking to?  And how are we defining an adult?  Based on my previous research with high school students on whether or not they go on to college, the vast majority of students say they trust their parents first and foremost when it comes to college decisions..  Guidance counselors usually rank near the bottom of adults when it comes to those voices they value.  So are these students talking to parents and trusted adults, those they may actually listen to, or are they talking to the guidance counselors and such that they will immediately discount?
Eight in 10 students are now familiar with the courses needed for college.  But are they taking them?  Again, information is great, but are students acting on the information?  Are they enrolling in higher level science and math classes?  Are they taking dual-credit opportunities?  Are they taking the ACT or SAT test?  Are they passing their state proficiency exams? It is one thing to say we know what we need to do.  It is something completely different to actually do it.
What do we know?  We know that only a third of today’s ninth graders will go on to postsecondary education.  We know that of those who enter college, more than half are unprepared for college-level work, evidenced by the high numbers of students requiring remedial math and ELA courses.  We know that a third of students are still dropping out of high school, and those numbers reach almost 50 percent in our African-American and Hispanic populations.  We know that drop-out factories are still far-too-prominent in too many of our urban centers.
I give KnowHow2Go credit for boosting awareness of the issue.  Based on their data, their message is getting out there and students are more aware of the issues (at least those students who are participating in the survey).  But how is that awareness being used to actually change public behavior?  How do we use that awareness to boost high school graduation rates?  How do we use it to close the achievement gap?  How do we use it to actually boost the college-going rate, particularly among minority and low-income students?  How do we get more students to pursue the multiple pathways of postsecondary education?  How do we move this newly acquired information into real action that is improving student achievement and preparedness for the opportunities in the 21st century workforce.
Growing up, GI Joe taught Eduflack (and many others) that knowing was half the battle.  He was right.  KnowHow2Go has done a good job of informing students of the questions they need to ask and the issues they need to think about.  But what are they doing with that information?  Success only comes when we can show more students are actually going to college.  Success only comes when we demonstrate that students are actually taking the courses they need to go on to college.  Success only comes when we have tangible results to show for it, real results tied to grad rates, college preparedness, and the number of students gaining postsecondary degrees.  Success only comes when we fight that other half of the battle.  And far too many of us still need to gear up for that fight. 

Counting on Technology?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Online Education, stimulus, technology

It seems like we have talked about technology in the classroom since the dawn of time.  We’ve waded our way through the era of one-to-one computing, down the path of virtual K-12 education, and now into the stream of 21st century skills.  We have focused on ensuring kids had access to computers in the classroom, in the community, and at home.  We’ve watched as the cost of technology plummeted, school district access to bandwidth dramatically increased, and students gained a tech savviness that one never quite expected.  But these seem to be spurts of discussion, not the sort of sustained dialogue that lead real change and real improvement.

Earlier this year, the economic stimulus package focused, in part, on delivering hundreds of millions of dollars for technology investments in our K-12 classrooms and for data systems for those who are keeping watch over our kids.  So with all of the money spent, all of the programs launched, and all of the technology talk, what do we actually know?  How is our continuing investment in technology affecting student learning, student achievement, and student opportunity?
Sadly, we aren’t close to having the answers to such essential questions.  But we are getting closer.  As a nation, we are now taking a closer look of our schools’ technology capacity, use, and effective integration.  And this week we have two interesting data sets to help move the discussion forward.
First up is Education Week’s Technology Counts.  To be expected, the good folks at EdWeek offer a close look at how our states stack up with regard to capacity and use of educational technology.  This year’s report card looks at four key issues: state standards for students include technology, state tests students on technology, state has established a virtual school, and state offers computer-based assessments.  How do our states do?
On the whole, we are scoring a B when it comes to technology use.  We’re weakest when it comes to state tests students on technology, with only 13 states making the grade.  We’re strongest when it comes to state standards, with 50 states hitting the mark (only DC failed to earn the checkmark in that column).
What’s disturbing, though, is the list of states that seem to be struggling when it comes to integrating technology into their instruction and assessment.  The laggards on EdWeek’s list include California, New York, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.  Based on their economies, Eduflack would have expected better.  These are bellweather states that we look to as leaders.  They are homes to some of our largest urban districts, those communities we specifically reference when we talk about the need to innovate and close the achievement gap.
It is even more startling when you see those states that scored perfect As, states like Louisiana and West Virginia that few would put at the top of any educational leaders list.  but to their credit, these states are doing the right things and taking the right steps to better use technology.
While EdWeek looks at how our states and school districts are (or aren’t) using technology, Project Tomorrow released its annual Speak Up data on students and their use of technology.  Project Tomorrow seems to paint a far less optimistic picture.  Our schools may be providing capacity, but are students seeing its effective application?  Only 39 percent of high schools surveyed said they were doing a good job preparing students for the future, with only 32 percent of parents sharing that view.  And one-third of students say the inability to use their own technology — laptops, cell phones, MP3 players — at school is hampering their learning process.  
Think about that for a second.  One in three students sees the problem in being unplugged when they pass through the schoolhouse doors.  One-third of students feeling they are being deskilled in school, with classroom technology offerings not coming close to the gadgets and devices they are using at home, on the school bus, and in virtually any other non-educational setting.
So what do we make of the best-of-times/worst-of-times data offered by EdWeek and Project Tomorrow?  For Eduflack, there are a few key conclusions:
* We are doing a better job of integrating technology in the learning process, as evidenced by the EdWeek numbers.  But we still have a long way to go.  With 40 percent or more of states failing to make the grade on three of the four Technology Counts categories, there are miles to go before we should be satisfied.
* As we pump hundreds of millions of dollars into new ed tech, we still are struggling to identify best practices.  Only nine states truly make the EdWeek grade.  But do they offer up models that the laggards can follow?
* Our students are more tuned in to the learning and application gaps than we realize.  They know they are being shortchanged when they are asked to check personal technology at the classroom door.  And now their parents are even recognizing that tuning out may cost their kids in the long run.
* Ed tech is still not getting the attention or focus it deserves.  The Project Tomorrow announcement has gotten zero press coverage to date.  Technology Counts has not gotten the recognition it deserves.  And there seems to be little pressing demand for the details on how ARRA spending on education technology will be directed.
But it isn’t all bad.  The growth of virtual schools is an interesting surprise.  Twenty nine states are now offering virtual education.  Florida is mandating it in every one of their school districts.  Alabama is requiring virtual education for graduation.  The fact that so many states — including many that would be described as status quoers in public education — recognize that virtual education can supplement the learning and achievement process is a positive development to say the least.
As is typical, I want to know more.  I want to know how online social networks are being used to support student learning.  I want to know how technology is being used to develop and deliver meaningful professional development for teachers, breaking down geographic barriers so educators can share best practice.  I want to know how we integrate technology in the classroom to technology in testing to technology in data collection and interpretation.  I want to know not only how we keep from deskilling our students, but how do we keep from deskilling our new teachers who were brought up on the same technologies and learning platforms are students seem to hunger for.  And I want to know how we dispel, once and for all, the silly beliefs that low-income and minority students don’t have access to such technologies.
The true measure of all of this, though, is what we do with the information we have.  What will middle-of-the-pack or laggard states do to catch up to West Virginia, South Carolina, and Arizona when it comes to education technology?  How do we ensure that technology is integrated into the core curriculum, used to provide new learning opportunities and new skills in traditional subjects like history, science, and foreign languages?  How do we use technology to better assess student ability and better identify and deliver the interventions students need to improve?  How do we build useful data systems?  How do we use technology to keep kids engaged and interested in what is happening in the classroom?  How do we use ed tech to up-skill our students, and not de-skill them?  How do we help schools, parents, and students feel that they are gaining the tech skills necessary to succeed a
fter the school years are completed?  
And from a practical perspective, how do we ensure that technology and its proper acquisition and application is included as part of any Race to the Top grant or school improvement and innovation effort?  How do we take what we know to improve, rather than just maintain?
A lot of questions, I’ll grant you.  But all necessary.  This week’s data helps guide the inquiry process.  But it can’t be a once-a-year discussion any more.  Effective use of technology in the classroom needs to be a daily point of discussion with policymakers, administrators, educators, and families.  If we expect to boost student achievement, close the achievement gap, and compete on those international benchmarks, it is a non-negotiable.  Technology allows us to innovate, do things differently, and engage students on core subjects in new and exciting ways.  if the name of the game is improvement through innovation, how can we neglect the role of technology in any solution?

Finding a School Year Model that Works

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, stimulus

We all know how the system is supposed to work.  You start your school year right after Labor Day.  You attend school Monday through Friday, usually from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., for the next 10 months or so, with breaks for Christmas and the spring and most of the major holidays.  You wrap up in early June, with students planning three months of fun and working parents looking for three months of childcare coverage.  Despite popular belief, many teachers use their summer months to take seasonal jobs to supplement their incomes.  Rinse and repeat.

Over time, folks have pushed back against the model.  We’ve had those who believe the school day should start later in the morning, particularly for secondary school students (the premise being their minds aren’t as sharp first thing in the morning and it would help better manage transportation issues).  We’ve had those who say the system is built on an agrarian notion that children needed to be home during the summer months to help work the fields and harvest the crops (a task few of our students are doing these days).  And we’ve even have those who believe that extended summer break is a detriment to student learning, offering too large a gap in instruction and forcing a new re-ramp up process each fall that sets many students behind in the learning process.
So from time to time, we hear the calls for year-round schooling, where the school year will be 12 months long (for today’s debate, let’s set aside the collective bargaining agreements virtually every teacher operates under and believe such a move to be possible).  Typically, the arguments against year-round schooling have little to do with the students or with instruction.  We fret over how to deal with child care (if managing summer break weren’t hard enough, now we need to manage a series of long breaks across the year?!), what it means for schools with no air conditioning, and what it means for transportation and food service costs.
We also talk about the need to innovate, the need to do something different to spur student learning and boost student achievement.  Is there learning skill and content loss as a result of a three-month vacation?  Yes, if parents aren’t keeping their kids reading and engaged during that summer break.  Could a year-round schedule provide students a true learning scaffolding that lets us build on knowledge acquisition without having to rebuild annually?  Yes, assuming we are providing the proper supports and professional development for the teachers we would be asking more of.  Is it even feasible?  We may soon know, thanks to the good educators over in Milwaukee.
About a week and a half ago, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos floated the idea of taking the entire district year round.  The idea has yet to be embraced, and a recent study of Milwaukee’s pilot efforts show mixed results.  But he is soldiering on.  (The most recent article can be found in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel here).  I must admit, I’m not sure what to make of the research study.  To me, it doesn’t seem like they have enough year-on-year data to make any hard decision yet.  And the fact that many kids in the year-round classrooms didn’t realize the new school year started August 1, and didn’t roll in until September, raises all sort of issues.  But you have to give Andrekopoulos credit for trying to think outside the box.  He has his eye on the goal line, and isn’t letting recent criticism or current budget problems hold him back.  
But I would push the good superintendent even further.  MPS has never been afraid to try new things in the quest for student improvement.  Just look at their experiments with both vouchers and charter schools.  You will be offering year-round school in about 10 percent of your buildings this coming fall.  At best, this is still a pilot.  But you are piloting it under the notion that school year is still just 175 academic days.  Why not expand that?  If you are worried about student learning retention, why not push it to 200 academic days.  That’s less than a 15 percent increase in academic time.  WIll it boost student achievement scores 15 percent?  Maybe.  We don’t know what impact it will have, but one has to assume that additional classroom time, time that is focused on academic subjects, can only help student achievement on the state exam.
What about just extending the school day itself?  If we can’t boost the number of academic days, what about adding an extra hour of instruction to those 175 days we have?  Traditionally scheduled schools can add an extra class.  Block-scheduled schools can explore topics in further detail.  Again, we expand the amount of academic-focused time in the school year, it logically follows we will expand student achievement, no?
The timing of Milwaukee’s call for year-round schooling is an interesting one.  Just yesterday, USA Today reported that, in face of current budget realities, more and more schools are looking at shifting to four-day instructional weeks, shortening the school year, and such.  They cite an Arizona district looking to cancel Friday classes for the next two years to save a half-million dollars in HVAC and transportation costs.  A California district that is dropping block scheduling so it can save a million bucks in reduced teacher need.  And even a Kansas district that changed the end of the school year from May 22 to May 1 to reap a whopping $32,000 in annual savings.
Don’t get Eduflack wrong.  I recognize the grim realities the current budget crisis is having on our schools.  We are asking school districts to do more and more with less and less.  But at a time when our top educational concern should be boosting student achievement and equipping all students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in even the toughest of economic storms, is the answer really cutting back school days and reducing the amount of time students are spending in a structured learning environment?  For struggling students or those in poor communities, is less instruction, reduced access to teachers and role models, and even fewer days with a hot breakfast and lunch provided the path to closing the achievement gap and providing opportunity to all?  Hardly.  And let’s face it.  When we talk about scaling back the school day or cutting instructional time, it is low-income and minority kids that are hit first and hit hardest.  How in the world do we close the achievement gap while denying them classroom time?
In our current pursuit of innovation and our race to the top, it seems we should be looking for ways to do more with what we have, not to do less.  If we want our kids to achieve, to hold their own on international benchmarks, and just to be able to read and write a grade level, we need to expand learning opportunities, not shrink them.  We need to call for more mandatory learning time, not move courses and pathways into the optional category.  We need to expand the learning day, expand outside-of-school-time academic efforts, and restructure our efforts so we maximize resources and provide more to our students.
In business, tough economic times often lead to two paths of thinking.  The first is to hunker down, make deep cuts, do with the bare minimum, and hope we can ride out the worst of it.  That seems to be what so many of our schools are preparing to do today. The second path, the path that many an industry leader and innovator chooses to take, is to use these times of uncertainty and worry to expand.  To grow.  To make acquisitions.  To do different things.  To redefine oneself to new markets and new customers, taking advantage of uncertainty by
demonstrating your own strength, certainty, and ability.
We need to find more of the latter in our K-12 infrastructure.  The EdSec and his team are promising billions in resources to schools that seek to innovate and improve.  Let’s just hope those dollars are going to school districts that are pushing to do more and try new, and not to those that are hoping to hoard for the next rainy day or tough budget choice.    

Saying No in the Last Frontier

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NGA, stimulus, Workforce

Perhaps it is the old Capitol Hill rat in me, but Eduflack finds it fascinating to watch some Republican governors perform these painful Kabuki dances to refuse portions of the economic stimulus package.  I sort of understand Louisiana’s concerns regarding unemployment funds and the required changes ARRA money would demand of state unemployment laws.  After all, no one want to make legal changes that will require state fiscal obligations well after the federal dollars are gone.

I find it more difficult for South Carolina to consider refusing the education stimulus dollars wholesale, putting the jobs of 4,000 teachers in the Palmetto State at risk.  The political cynic in me has to believe that SC Gov. Mark Sanford is simply using the issue to gain some better negotiating ground with the state teachers’ union on larger issues.
But I am really scratching my head trying to figure out what goes into the thinking process of Alaska Gov. — and once and future GOP superstar — Sarah Palin.  Or maybe there is nothing going through that pretty little head at all.  For those who missed it, this week Palin announced that Alaska will NOT be taking the Title I and IDEA funds made available through the economic stimulus package.
That’s right.  Alaska will be refusing the automatic increases in Title I and special education dollars that are being readied for immediate delivery to the states.  No to dollars that will be distributed through existing funding structures with no real new regulations or requirements of them.  No to dollars to fund federal education programs that are mandated by law and required by statute.  After all, it is not like Alaska can all of a sudden decide it is not going to abide by the IDEA laws and refuse special education services to students in need.
What is even more entertaining is the reasoning that the good governor of the Last Frontier provided.  Following is a statement from the Governor’s official website:
“The law requires me to certify that the requests I forward for legislative approval will meet the requirements of the ARRA to create jobs and promote economic growth,” Governor Palin said. “Legitimately, I can only certify capital projects that are job-ready. Alaska has seen unprecedented increases in the level of state funding for education because that is our priority. I don’t want to automatically increase federal funding for education program growth, such as the National Endowment for the Arts, at a time when Alaska can’t afford to sustain that increase.” “Simply expanding state government under this federal stimulus package creates an unrealistic expectation that the state will continue these programs when the federal funds are no longer available,” said Governor Palin. “Our nation is already over $11 trillion in debt; we can’t keep digging this hole.”

It is nice to know that Palin takes the whole notion of “shovel-ready” seriously when it comes to economic stimulus money.  But when it comes to statements like this, it seems the good governor is shoveling a little more than just snow.  Title I money is to ensure that students in the lowest of low-income communities have the resources necessary to access a high-quality education.  Surely, Alaska has low-income communities and students in need.  IDEA is intended to meet the needs of special needs students, those with legally recognized disabilities who may need special assistance or specific education interventions to maximize their learning opportunities.  I have to believe there is a special education population in Alaska (and a true cynic would point out that Palin’s youngest child would be classified in the IDEA population when he hits the public schools in a few years).
Palin’s entire argument against additional federal education funding is that, as the chief fiscal steward for Alaska, she can only take stimulus money that creates jobs and promotes economic growth.  Perhaps she needs to pay a little more attention to the content at those National Governors Association meetings she’s supposed to attend twice a year.  For a governor, education is the primary level for creating jobs and promoting economic growth.  Strong schools produce a pipeline of future workers prepared for the job opportunities of the future.  Students with a strong core education knowledgebase and 21st century skills are the ultimate catalysts for economic growth and opportunity.  At a time when so many governors are seeking to enhance their K-12 education options and provide more opportunity for students, Palin seems to be turning back the clock, hoping that minimizing the breadth and depth of public education is in the best interests of the next generation of Alaskans.
When the federal government announced $25 billion in additional, immediate funding for Title I and IDEA, the beauty of the plan was that there were no new substantial strings or bureaucracy attached.  Money would flow through existing funding streams, to current Title I and IDEA schools.  No new applications, no new formulas, no new requirements.  The dollars are intended to give a booster shot to existing Title I and special education classrooms, giving them a needed boost as the school districts around them are struggling.
Such funding is not an expansion of state government, nor will refusing the funding do anything to reduce the federal debt.  The money is obligated.  Refusing it does nothing other than punishing those students who need a helping hand the most.  How can one oppose additional resources to provide low-income students new learning materials?  How can one oppose additional investment in special education classrooms, particularly if it doesn’t come out of your own pocket?  And how can one say economic stimulus funds are only to go to capital expenditure projects, particularly after all of the guidance and language coming out of the US Department of Education talks about the need to invest in instructional materials, technology, teacher supports and such geared primarily at boosting student achievement.
Maybe Palin’s got it all figured out, and has a special plan to have all her schools meet AYP and have every student grade level proficient without needing additional dollars.  Maybe she already has the full confidence that all Alaska students — particularly those in Title I and sped classrooms — already have the plans and pathways in place to obtain the skills and knowledge to perform in the 21st century economy and secure the new jobs that are yet to be created.  Maybe she has a model for school improvement we’re just not aware of, and public education in Alaska is in great shape and good hands.
Or maybe she is just planning on using economic stimulus dollars to build weekend cabins for the caribou, believing they create jobs (at least for those building such cabins) and promote economic growth (establishing a tourist industry for the caribou, once we figure out how to tap into their economy).
Regardless, Palin’s decision is yet another display of trying to win political points at the expense of at-risk students.  Like every state in the union, Alaska has real needs when it comes to sustaining and improving K-12 public education.  Saying no to such education dollars to win kudos from conservatives or to better position oneself for higher aspirations in 2012 is just downright irresponsible.  Every Alaskan parent, every Alaskan student, every Alaskan business, and every Alaskan teacher should be offended by Palin’s line in the snow.  And every Title I classroom and special education program in the remaining 49 should li
ne up to ask for Alaska’s share of the economic stimulus fund.  
If they don’t want to improve educational opportunity in Title I and special education classrooms up in the Last Frontier, there are plenty of other responsible governors and schools superintendents who can make strong use of such an investment, and can even do so with job creation and economic growth in mind.  Even in Alaska, those education pathways can be bridges to economic and workforce success, particularly for at-risk students.  Otherwise, Alaska and Gov. Palin are simply building educational bridges to nowhere, failing to use all the resources available to them and failing to equip all students with access to the learning opportunities they both need and deserve.
  
 

Moving the Accountability Ball Forward

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, AYP, high-stakes testing, national standards, NCLB

Many educators have seen recent discussions about topics such as multiple assessment measures and the problems of teaching to a “bubble test” as early indicators that the high-stakes world of No Child Left Behind accountability are coming to an end.  We hear talk about the “whole child” and skewed test scores and such, hoping that we will find qualitative measures by which to evaluate our schools and our students.

But it all begs the question — why are we so afraid of accountability?  Why is it that only folks like NYC Schools Chancellor seem to be relatively lone voices in being unapologetic for testing and for endorsing the notion with teachers teaching to an assessment that measures student progress?  Why do we believe having hard data on where students stand up, even against the state academic levels, to be a bad thing or a necessary evil?  And how do we move the discussion from a fear of assessment to improving the utility of our accountability measures?
The spring edition of the American Federation of Teachers’ American Educator takes a look at the issue, including pieces by Richard Rothstein and company about how we need to look at the issue of accountability beyond just the core quantitative numbers.  The articles are well worth the read.
What was most interesting is Rothstein’s call to “enhance” accountability by combining student assessments with “careful school inspections.”  Currently, we look at assessment as a measure of basic academic knowledge, coupled by critical thinking and problem solving skills in more advanced assessment models.  Rothstein seeks to expand the tick list, adding evaluations of items such as arts and literature appreciation, employment preparation, work ethic, physical health, and emotional health.  These, he posits, are a collection of our ultimate expectations for public education, and thus should be part of the assessment process.  Again, how do we measure the whole child?
Rothstein does offer some interesting specific on how to improve student assessments.  Namely:
* Assess representative samples of students at the state level and on a regular schedule, not only in math and reading, but in other academic subject areas — science, history, other social studies, writing, foreign language — as well as in the arts, citizenship, social skills and health behavior.
* Gather better demographic data.
* Report NAEP scores on scales, not achievement levels.
* Use age-level, not grade-level, sampling.
* Supplement in-school samples with out-of-school samples.
The latter four all fit within the general push to apply multiple measures to our assessment efforts, all in the hopes of providing a more “comprehensive” view of what is happening in the schools, using data for informative processes, and not necessarily for punitive or even intervention purposes.  I’ll admit, when I hear many of the ideas put forward by folks like Rothstein, I usually see them as attempts to weaken our accountability and assessment systems.  Age-level sampling, for instance, weakens the notion of grade-level proficiency.  We know what it takes to successfully complete the fourth grade, not what it takes to move from 10 years old to 11 years old. So let’s park that for a later discussion on the softer sides of accountability.
I’m particularly taken with the notion of expanding the slate of course subjects for which we assess student ability.  Just as we look at student achievement on reading and math, we should be evaluating students (and by extension, teaching) in other subjects.  The visual arts, for instance, are identified as a core subject under NCLB.  Can anyone tell us, though, how we assess student achievement in the visual arts?  Is there a good state arts exam we can point to as an exemplar?
if we are to expand the scope of student performance, though, don’t we need to start with national standards?  Can we effectively evaluate student achievement without clear, uniform learning standards?  Don’t we need a real understanding for what students are supposed to know as part of eighth grade life sciences or 10th grade U.S. government?  If we are to move comprehensively look at student achievement across all academic subjects, don’t we need to set expectations for proficiency now?  And if we do so, doesn’t it make sense to set a uniform expectation for all students?
AFT’s discussion should be seen as a positive development for those advocates of student assessment and accountability.  We are not talking about turning back the clock on nearly a decade’s worth of investment in strong student assessment models.  We’re not giving time of day to ridiculous drivel such as those offered by resident curmudgeon Joanne Yatvin that the feds should “lose the words ‘achievement’ and ‘rigor,’ which have no connection to the inquisitiveness, determination, creative thinking and perseverance students need.”  (And kudos to Joanne Jacobs to calling Ms. Yatvin to task for wasting space with this relic of an idea from a failed educational era.)  If anything, we need to restore real meaning to words like achievement and rigor, using them for more than just a punchline for whine parties hosted by the status quoers. 
No, American Educator demonstrates that assessment is here to stay.  It is no longer a matter of will we or won’t we.  The challenge before us now is how do we strengthen the system.  How do enhance assessments so they provide a more complete picture of student achievement?  How do we use data to improve instruction and hold all in the learning process accountable?  How do we ensure that every child is equipped with the skills and knowledgebase to move forward academically?  How do we hold our schools, teachers, and students more accountable, laying out clear standards, clear expectations, and clear rewards for measuring up?
We are definitely approaching a new day when it comes to student assessment.  We have the opportunity to strengthen our systems, ensuring that data is not just punitive and information is used to improve instruction and measure the true abilities of our children.  If the Obama Administration is serious about our need to innovate in the classroom, we all must recognize that innovation only works with hard, research-based measures to evaluate its effectiveness.  Innovation without assessment has no impact.  Great innovation can only go to scale if we assess its impact, measure its value, and assess its outcomes.

“Because I’m the Mayor, That’s Why!”

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, AYP, Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, DCPS, Fenty, Michelle Rhee

One of the billion-dollar questions in education improvement these days is whether change is better served through mayoral control or strong superintendents.  To many, traditional superintendent/school board structures are merely the last line of defense for the status quo, with supes looking to protect the same old structures and programs, because that’s the way we’ve always done it.

Mayors, on the other hand, have a bully pulpit unlike any superintendent.  They can force through real change, rallying key stakeholders (like the business community and philanthropy) that may otherwise back away from the same-old, same-old.  They can push through the new, even if it may face resistance from those defenders of the status quo.  They can put new leadership in place, layer in the necessary oversight, and do what is needed.
So it seems obvious that, at least for struggling urban school districts, mayoral takeover is the way to go.  But as Eduflack wrote last month, such moves aren’t necessarily slam dunks.  For every New York City success (and I realize that there are many who doubt the NYC DOE miracle), there is a Detroit.  Even recent research out of the Brown Center found no real school improvement impact coming from mayoral takeovers.
Apparently, the Wall Street Journal sees things a little differently.  Late last week, under the banner headline, “For More Mayors, School Takeovers Are a No-Brainer,” reporters John Hechinger and Suzanne Sataline describe how “more U.S. cities are considering scrapping a longstanding tradition in American education, the elected school board, and opting to let mayors rule over the classroom.”
For its case studies, WSJ offers up for mayors and their education successes.  In Boston, where Mayor Tom Menino took over the schools in 1992, they credit the takeover with major achievement gains in national math tests and the opening of charter schools.  In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley took over in 1995 and is credited with improvements on state test scores.  NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2002 takeover is credited with raising high school graduation rates by 11 percentage points.  And in DC, the new kid on the block, Mayor Adrian Fenty’s 2007 takeover is also credited with raising graduation rates in a majority of high schools.
I learned long ago, courtesy of my friends up at Gotham Schools, to be careful when defending the improvements in NYC.  For the record, I believe that Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein have done a great deal when it comes to improving NYC schools.  We’ve seen the data and heard it retold by folks like the Broad Foundation.  Student achievement gains may not be exploding, but they are moving forward.  And such progress is a significant achievement in a system as large and entrenched as NYC.  Yes, I recognize that some teachers and parents have taken issue with the approaches Bloomberg and Klein have taken.  But at the end of the day, I continue to appreciate Klein’s unapologetic approach, particularly when he says there is nothing wrong with teachers teaching to a test if such a test is a fair measure of student performance.
Eduflack is really scratching his head, though, when it comes to branding DC as a successful mayoral takeover model.  If anything, Fenty and DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee have earned significant incompletes at this point.  Yes, Fenty has given Rhee the power.  But she still is fighting to implement a new staffing structure and is now preparing for what could be a bloody showdown with Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers over tenure and teacher incentives.  And while Rhee declared victory over the summer for first-year student achievement gains, the real win only comes when such gains are demonstrated year-on-year-on-year over the next three years or not.
But how can DC claim victory when it comes to raising high school graduation rates?  Most education researchers will tell you that student dropouts occur primarily between eighth and ninth and ninth and 10th grades.  The common belief is if you can get a student into the 11th grade, you probably can get them to stick around.  So how, exactly, does Fenty take credit for raising high school graduation rates in a majority of high schools when he only has one year of data (2007-08) to look at?  If more kids graduated during the first year of his mayoral control, is that due to mayoral leadership or to efforts put in place by the former superintendent and current high school teachers three or four years ago?  Most would say 2008 graduation rates are due to 2005 activities, those interventions taken years before Fenty took over.
I recognize we want to see Washington, DC’s schools succeed.  Even though DCPS is the smallest of the four school districts spotlighted, it carries a cache that Boston and even Chicago does not.  It is our nation’s capital, and a school district long seen as a disaster that simply cannot be fixed.  We embraced Rhee’s year one student achievement gains last summer as proof of success, even through we knew, in our heart of hearts, that a lion’s share of the success probably belonged to Cliff Janey and the previous regime.  We want and need DC to succeed, so we grab onto whatever we can.  We cannot afford for DC to become another Detroit, at least when it comes to mayoral control and school success.
WSJ does the field a disservice, though, by declaring such victory in Washington, DC.  Yes, we can look at places like Boston, Chicago, and NYC and look at five or more years of progress and results.  Any ed researcher worth her salt will tell you we need that much data to truly know whether a reform has been successful or not.  A year’s worth of data is meaningless.  We need some year-on-year information, a longitudinal view, to truly measure.
I’m the first to stand up and say we need to do whatever it takes to improve opportunity and success in public schools in our urban centers.  We have too much at stake, and too far to go, to pussyfoot around or nibble around the edges when it comes to real reforms and measurable improvements.  If it takes a mayor to take those steps, all the better.  It provides us a strong leader who can be held accountable for such efforts.  Let’s model best practices where there is evidence of real success.  If that comes as a result mayoral control, terrific.  
But we have to remember that for every mayoral success, we have equal parts failure or lack of impact.  Now is certainly not the time to declare premature victory or to misrepresent data that is, or is not, even there.  Although year’s worth of information is interesting, it is a far cry from a school improvement victory.  DC still has many miles to go before it is ready to even think about declaring a major win as a result of mayoral takeover of the schools.
  

Improving Teacher Training Efforts Inside or Outside the Norm?

Eduflack Achievement gap, higher ed, HQT, PD, Teacher Education

A few weeks ago on Twitter (eduflack, for those looking to follow), I posed what I thought was an interesting question.  Does reform and improvement of our teacher preparation programs need to be led inside or outside the norm?  Or in simpler terms, can we look to our schools of education to make the necessary changes, or does it require new thinking from alternative certification programs and innovation-minded groups or individuals to lead the sort of sea change we need to boost the quality and outcomes of all teachers in the classroom?

The question led to my call for a Flexner-style Commission to study the current state of teacher education.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/03/09/the-future-of-teacher-ed.aspx  The premise is simple.  We need someone to go in and evaluate the good, the bad, and the downright ugly when it comes to teacher preparation.  What are best practices?  How is what’s proven effective making its way into the classroom?  Who is doing it right?  Who is doing it wrong?  What voices will lead the transformation moving forward, and what calls will try to defend a status quo that is clearly broken.
That latter point is one that bears repeating.  There are real problems in the across-the-board quality of teacher preparation in the United States.  Some alternative routes are mom-and-pop shops that do a quick dash and dump into the school districts with nary a concern for the coursework or clinical training necessary to prepare a student for the challenges of leading a classroom.  Some online programs seek to simply offer quick and cheap degrees to meet district staffing needs, with little concern for the quality of the instruction or the real-life preparedness of the students they only meet virtually and through their bank accounts.  Too many traditional teacher ed programs have watered down their programs to serve the lowest common denominator, seeking to simply provide warm bodies to hard-to-staff schools that have lost sight of much the pedagogical training and ongoing support aspiring and new teachers need to adjust to life in a classroom.  And programs on both sides of the fence simply are putting underprepared educators in the most challenging of classrooms, figuring any teacher, no matter how poorly prepared, is better than no teacher at all.
Clearly, the current model is broken, or at least in need of some serious triage.  At the same time, we have a growing body of evidence regarding the instruction, training, support, and ongoing professional development that teacher educators should impart on the next generation of the molders of student minds.
Recently, Mathematica completed an evaluation on alternative teacher pathways for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).  The study found that new teachers from alternative routes were essentially no worse that teachers from traditional routes, at least in those schools they studied (a finding that the alt cert community, and likely IES, was hoping for).  The study itself went over like a lead balloon, with few noticing it or reporting on it.  Rightfully so.  It should not be news that Eduflack has some major issues with the methodology Mathematica used to reach its conclusions and with the narrow eye with which they looked at the results.  
A recent research critique completed by NYU’s Sean Corcoran and Columbia’s Jennifer Jennings pulls back the curtain on all that was wrong with the Mathematica approach, methodology, and interpretation of the results.  Their full tome can be found at EPIC (University of Colorado, Boulder) and EPRU’s (Arizona State University) joint website at: epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-evaluation-of-teachers.  
Corcoran and Jennings’ work echoes similar critiques that have already been posted by a range of folks, including the Center for Teacher Quality’s Barnett Berry on his blog — teachingquality.typepad.com.  
What did they find?
* None of the teacher studied had the teacher prep generally required of new teachers nationally (because Mathematica only looked at a handful of hard-to-staff schools that would gladly take any warm or lukewarm body willing to sit at the big desk.
* There is a clear difference in the impact of a teacher from a high-coursework prep program and a low-coursework prep program.  Even among alt cert providers themselves, the high courseworkers were most able to do the job.
* Teachers coming from low-coursework alternative programs actually decreased study achievement.  Yes, the data showed that kids in the classroom of ill-trained, ill-prepared teachers actually saw their student performance decline, while teachers from traditional routes either held the line or posted some very, very, very modest gains.
So what do we do with all of this information?  How do we use it to build a better teacher education mousetrap?  Some of the answers can be found with Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond, who looked at both the Mathematica research and data on effective teacher prep in places like North Carolina and New York City to help identify the necessary qualities of effective teacher training programs.  Her research can be found here: edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub_docs/mathematica_policy_brief.pdf.  
Darling-Hammond’s work offers the clearest view on how the confluence of research on teacher preparation can be moved into policy that aligns with current federal priorities to more effectively train, support, demand, and reward good teaching in the schools.  It reminds us of the checklist that should go into evaluating teacher prep programs.  Among her toplines:
* Prospective teachers must learn specific practices and apply them in clinical experiences;
* Prospects need sufficient coursework in content areas (such as math and reading) and the methods of teaching them (so both the content and the pedagogy); and
* Teachers-in-training need to be well-aware of the local district curriculum and how their pre-service education prepares them to meet expectations and achieve expected outcomes;
We also know that those prospects most like to succeed in the classroom are certified in the specific areas they teach, have higher-than-average scores on the teacher licensing test, and graduate from a competitive college.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack works with the good folks at EPIC, including on the announcement of the Corcoran/Jennings piece and has counseled Darling-Hammond, off and on, for a decade now.  Yes, fans, you’ve heard that right, this champion of evidence base and the need for reform has worked with LDH since her days as head of NCTAF.  And despite the urban legend, she is far more of the reformer and innovator than most in the field and that virtually anyone gives her credit for, if you can stand my brief editorial.)
None of this is rocket science.  But delivering it seems to be the challenge, particularly in our urban centers where we are hungry for anyone, and I mean just about anyone, to lead a classroom in an underperforming, hard-to-staff classroom.
What do we do with all of this?  First, the Highly Qualified Teacher provisions in NCLB are correct.  Teachers should be trained in the content matter they are to teach and need to be certified in that subject matter.  There is no replacement for several years of rich, content-based coursework in the subject matter itself.  Those advocates for including Effective in the HQT provisions (including Eduflack) are right as well.  We need
to measure a teacher, in part, by how effective they are.  And the straightest path to measuring that effectiveness is student performance (even the Mathematica study tells us that).  And then there is that which we know instinctually — effective teachers require clinical training and time in the classroom before they are tossed in the deep end.  They need mentors and in-school supports that can help them work through the problems and apply their training to real classrooms.  And they need ongoing, content-based, embedded professional development for the rest of their careers, so they are continually improving an constantly adapting to the changing challenges and opportunities of the modern day classroom and student.
It is just pure common sense.  But as we know from far too many life experiences, some folks just don’t have (or use) the common sense they are born with.  Do our ed schools, in the collective sense, need improvement?  You betcha.  Are alternative pathways the solution for struggling schools?  No, there is no data to make that leap.  Do we know what it takes to train an effective teacher?  Of course we do.  Are we applying it universally in our teacher preparation programs, traditional or alternative?  Not even close.
At some point, the war between traditional and alt cert needs to come to an end.  There will always be a need and a demand for niche programs that can fill specific needs in certain schools or communities.  That’s where good alt cert programs can play their part.  But if we are going to truly reform and improve the quality and results of public education in the United States, change, at scale, can only begin with our schools of education.  We need to do this across the board, ensuring that the new teachers going into our urban centers and so-called dropout factories receive the same level of high-quality content and pedagogical learning and training as those entering our well-funded suburban K-12 schools.  Good teacher training is good teacher training.  Period.  We shouldn’t have different levels, particularly when it comes to those poor and minority students with whom we are trying to close the achievement gap.  
“Good enough for …” should never be a phrase uttered when identifying and hiring teachers in hard-to-staff schools.  Every student deserves the best prepared, the best trained, and the best equipped teachers.  The last thing they need is to settle for a teacher deemed “good enough” for their struggling school or declining community.  That sort of bigotry has gotten us into the achievement problems we still can’t pull out of.
    

Reading Between, Through, and All Around the Lines

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, high-stakes testing, national standards, Obama, stimulus, teachers

It is always interesting how people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.  We all latch onto particular issues or ideas, believing that was the intent of a speech, a news story, or a television program.  Some would say that the measure of a truly good advocacy speech is the speaker allows all audiences to find a little something in the text that rallies them to action, an idea or phrase that makes them believe the speaker understands their concerns and is doing something to solve the problem.

Case in point — President Obama’s lauded education speech delivered yesterday at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.  USA Today led with the headline that Obama called for longer school days and longer school years.  The Washington Post saw it as a critique of our current state of schools, a rebuke that called for rewarding good teachers, getting rid of bad teachers, and putting more money into the system.  Education Week saw the call for teacher standards and tougher academic requirements.  The U.S. House of Representatives’ top education Republican, Buck McKeon, saw it as an indictment of the education establishment and status quo.  The U.S. Senate’s top Republican, Lamar Alexander, saw it as a call to arms for merit pay.  NEA’s president saw it as rewarding teachers who were successful with children, but according to the Politics K-12 blog didn’t see anything in the speech about merit pay.  The charter school folks were thrilled with what they saw as an endorsement of expansion of charter schools.  Higher ed officials saw their concerns returning to the forefront.  Even voucher advocates had to have a good feeling for a while, until the U.S. Senate ended the DC voucher program late last night.  
The full text of the speech can be found here, so you can come to your own conclusions — <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-the-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce/.
Personally,”>www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-the-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce/.
Personally, Eduflack saw the speech as laying out two very important trains of thought for future activity, particularly the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (which some still hope will happen later this year).  First, it made clear that the status quo will not stand, and we need real solutions from a wide variety of sources if we are to truly improve our schools.  More importantly, though, it was the start of a clarion call for national standards.  With its focus on student achievement, school improvement, measuring teacher effectiveness, and ensuring our schools are preparing all students for the opportunities of the 21st century, the next logical step is national standards (that, and going along with NGA and CCSSO’s ideas on international benchmarking).
This was an important moment because it amplified the federal voice on education policy.  For months now, we have clearly heard EdSec Arne Duncan and his plans for the future.  The president’s address raised the ante, demonstrating that school improvement is a top priority, even in this economy.  And doing it before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce signaled that this is not an issue that will be solved by the education establishment alone.
With all good policy addresses, the devil is in the details.  There were a number of good lines, a lot of good promises, and heaps of great rhetoric in the speech.  We expect no less from President Obama.  The real challenge, though, is how that rhetoric is transformed into policies and initiatives.  How will the Secretary’s Innovation Fund take shape?  How will we measure success in the Race to the Top fund?  What specific new programs will we put in place to close the achievement gap?  How will we hold our SEAs more accountable for all of the economic stimulus funds headed into the states?  How will we use the Teacher Incentive Fund to truly reward and incentivize good instruction?  How will we address college costs in more ways than simply making more dollars available to aspiring students?  How will we measure student achievement, particularly if we are to move beyond one “bubble test?”  And yes, Eduflack fans, how are we to equip all students with proven instruction, particularly in the subject of reading?
For now, the folks down on Maryland Avenue are still busily working on the guidance and regs that are to accompany the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, determining the RFP process for the Race to the Top and trying to figure out how to disperse 40 some odd billion dollars to states without a system in place to cut some checks.  And then they need to focus on staffing, actually getting senior leadership in place to administer our existing federal education infrastructure.
Currently, the EdSec is riding a wave of popularity from the stimulus money and a current national focus on public education.  That wave can soon top off, though, if it isn’t backed up by new ideas, new policies, and new initiatives that move us from idea to action.  We need specifics to rally behind, specifics that call key stakeholders to action and can be put into place in ways that demonstrate real results out of the box.  Good speeches come and go.  Strong programs that improve the way our schools operate and our children learn last forever (or at least until the next administration).
Otherwise, it is just empty rhetoric at a time when we need real action.  The stimulus money was a start, but as every ED official reminds us, that is just a temporary, one-time thing.  It is time for ED to put its long-term policy stake in the ground, moving from words to action.

“Charter”-ing the Course

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, stimulus

We all know that huge sums of federal dollars will soon be flowing into states and school districts throughout the nation.  Courtesy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, billions upon billions of dollars will move into the field in the next month or so, or so says EdSec Arne Duncan and the officials holding the purse strings.

Along the way, we’ve also heard the EdSec speak of the value and virtues of charter schools.  He used the effectively in Chicago, and has said (as has the President) that charters are a part of the fabric of our 21st century public schools.
Just yesterday, Eduflack was asked an interesting question.  Of all of the dollars moving to schools in need through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and boosts in Title I and IDEA funds, how much of that, if any, can be spent on charter schools?  In cities like Washington, DC, cities that are facing significant cuts to charter schools that have been proven effective in boosting student achievement, can these new dollars be used to prevent detrimental cuts to successful charters?
This is one of those questions that I still don’t have a perfect answer to.  After reviewing the most recent guidance from ED on the stimulus funds, listening in on conference calls with ED officials, and generally talking the talk, the answer, at least in terms of the letter of the law, still isn’t clear.  The intent, though, is crystal.  These funds are designed to prevent cuts from public education, particularly cuts that can have a negative impact on student achievement and school performance.  The money is intended to guarantee that successful reforms and school improvements move forward, and no ground is lost to ensure that every child receives a high-quality education.  Doesn’t that include charters?
Like it or not, charter schools are part of that public education patchwork.  In city after city, they are supplementing current education offerings.  Yes, in other cities they have supplanted failing schools, as families turn to new models to provide their children a new chance and a new opportunity.  And charter schools aren’t going anywhere.  If anything, they have gained in terms of both acceptance and popularity, particularly in communities with struggling schools and at-risk students.
Eduflack has previously reported on the research demonstrating how charter schools are able to deliver comparable student achievement results to their traditional public school colleagues, while doing so at roughly half the per-student-dollar cost.  The true success of charter schools has, is, and always will be measured based on student performance.  How do they stand up against traditional public schools?  How do they start demonstrating stronger-than-average gains?  How do we hold states, school districts, and school operators accountable for how they spend their money and for the quality of the instruction they provide?  All are measures that will decide whether charters are a title wave or a ripple in the education reform ocean.
To help answer some of those questions, the Center for Education Reform just announced their 2009 Accountability Report on Charter Schools.  Chock full of both facts and advocacy, the CER report provides an interesting glimpse into the quality of state charter laws and the funding charters are receiving in those states.  The full report can be found at edreform.com/accountability/.    
And what do we see?  Six states earn an A when it comes to its state charter laws.  Six states also receive a D or F when it comes to charter laws (including Eduflack’s home state of Virginia).  And 10 states still have no charter laws at all.  On average, charters are funded at about 65 percent the rate of traditional public schools, with only Missouri coming close to near-equal funding.  (I must say, the state-by-state map is particularly useful.)
CER’s study doesn’t answer our questions about how charters are going to fit into the new world order of ARRA funding, but it does provide some important information on how charters fit into the landscape.  It speaks to the need for strong state charter laws, tough accountability provisions, strong data collection efforts, and adequate levels of funding.  With those pieces, charters can deliver the results so many are seeking from our schools, particularly those in the inner city.
If the economic stimulus money is indeed intended to invest in those efforts that improve school quality and boost student achievement, charter schools really can’t be ignored.  And CER provides an initial roadmap to help State Education Agencies about how to do it with an eye on effectiveness, impact, and results.  As we look to improve public education in the United States, can we really afford not to cast a gaze at effective charters that are demonstrating and documenting real results?  
UPDATE: For those seeking additional information on how charter schools are or can be affected by the economic stimulus package, check out the resources that the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools have assembled — http://www.publiccharters.org/node/619  


Virtual School Cuts

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, charter schools, Online Education, technology

A great deal has been said (and written) lately about Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and his plans for charter schools in the Buckeye State.  As part of his state of the state address in January, Strickland embraced the notion of charter schools … as long as they were run by not-for-profits.  It was a bold stance, once that could be a precursor to future charter fights in the years to come.

Like most states, Ohio is faced with serious budget shortfalls.  Some may say the Ohio budget may be the most challenging, in terms of potential for massive cutbacks, save for California.  Even with support from the federal government under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Ohio is having to make tough decisions on its K-12 policy priorities.
Those decisions seem to be forcing Strickland to finetune his charter school philosophy even more.  Earlier this week, as part of the Governor’s budget, Ohio proposed that virtual charter schools suffer the same fate as their for-profit brethren — elimination.  The Governor proposed slashing 75 percent of funding for the state’s virtual charter schools, affecting 34 schools serving more than 23,000 students.
In previous budgets, Ohio’s virtual charter schools received approximately $5,400 per pupil for education.  The proposed budget drops that to $1,500 per pupil in aid.  The plan makes a clear distinction in aid formulas provided to brick-and-mortar schools and these virtual academies.  The full story, courtesy of the Columbus Dispatch’s Catherine Candisky, can be found here – www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/01/charter.ART_ART_03-01-09_B3_UDD2SLF.html?sid=101.  
Yes, virtual schools operate on less dollars than traditional, bricks-and-mortar schools.  Duh!  With no physical infrastructure to attend to, operating costs are indeed lower.  But these schools still need to invest in the technological infrastructure, curriculum, teacher salaries and benefits, educator PD, and student assessments, to name just a few.  There are real costs associated with virtual schools, particularly if educators are to ensure that students maximize the opportunities posed to them.
But it begs larger questions.  What are we getting, even for those reduced dollars?  Are virtual charter schools working in Ohio?  The Dispatch cites on K-12 virtual school that has regularly hit AYP numbers while earning a decent “continuous improvement” grade.  But that school is operating at a 35:1 student:teacher ratio, far above the 25:1 ration the proposed state formula expected.  What about the other 33 schools?
As we are seeing in Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and a host of other states, there is a real role for virtual education in the K-12 experience if it is done right, done effectively, and done with the purpose of improving access and opportunity for all students.  We also know that virtual education can be an incubator for bad practice, with those seeking to make a quick buck taking advantage of a state or school district’s desire to innovate.  One only has to look at higher education to see how a good, well-meaning idea can quickly be bastardized.
So as Ohio’s virtual charter schools are facing the virtual guillotine, we must look at their success boosting student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Like Ohio’s Connections Academy, are all the Buckeye State’s virtual schools regularly making AYP?  If not, why not?  Is the quality of instruction (and the quality of the teacher) the same as in traditional schools?  Are they improving access for all students, particularly those in low-income and hard-to-serve communities, or are the attracting a select group of students who can receive a good education in virtually any circumstance?  Are we seeing longitudinal data on student achievement, or are students not staying in the virtual programs long enough to measure true year-on-year-on-year data?  Are the programs proven effective, and can we demonstrate it?
Virtual schools are an easy mark when it comes to education budget cutting.  Most taxpayers and policymakers are under the impression that such programs are the playgrounds of white families with some financial resources.  The urban legend goes most minority and low-income families simply don’t have the technology at home to effectively engage in online education, and they certainly don’t have the familial oversight to ensure that students, particularly those in the elementary and middle grades, are putting in the time and effort required of effective virtual education.  (Hogwash, of course, but many believe it.)  Layer on the notion that most virtual teachers are non-union, many providers are for-profit, and we just don’t trust the rigor of “computer game” education and you can see why virtual K-12 schools are an easy target during tough budget times.
Is there a role for virtual education in our K-12 infrastructure?  Absolutely.  Can new technologies level the playing field and provide learning opportunities some schools could never get?  Absolutely.  Can virtual ed boost student achievement, close the achievement gap, and meet AYP just as well as a bricks-and-mortar school?  When executed properly, absolutely.  But such programs remain a supplement to the traditional public education network.  As much as some may want them to supplant failing programs, that will never happen, at least not in our current education mindset.
We’re all for innovation, as long as we innovate within reason.  If virtual schools are going to be fully embraced as a key component of our K-12 patchwork, they must first do a better job communicating their strong academic foundations, benefits, quality, and results.  Until then, many will continue to see them as online playing when “real” students are hard at work.  And as long as that is the case, they will always face potential cuts and elimination from policymakers balancing a range of interests, especially when virtual K-12 is seen as a boutique industry (and a mostly for-profit one at that).