Achievement gap

The Data Is Always Bigger in Texas

Eduflack Achievement gap, IES, Reading First, SBRR

At the start of the year, Eduflack made a couple of promises.  I would seek to throw the spotlight on positive stories that were not getting the attention they deserved.  I would look to education policy stories outside of Washington, DC.  And I would continue to my Don Quixote-like obsession with continuing to push the notion that evidence-based reading instruction works, and that it can be proven in state after state.

A few weeks ago, we talked about the exemplary results out in California, where student reading scores have significantly risen after the adoption of scientifically based reading instruction under Reading First.  This follows similar data from states from Idaho to Ohio, where we’ve seen tangible, significant impact of SBRR on student achievement.  Now we set our sights on the Lone Star State, where reading score on the state’s TAKS exam again show that evidence-based reading works if our goal is to boost student reading proficiency and achievement.
The data is clear.  Looking at 2003 data (pre-RF) and 2008 data (the supposed end of RF), third graders in RF schools who passed the TAKS reading section rose 14 percent, from 77 percent to 91 percent.  That compares to 4 percent gains for both all students and for those in non-RF classrooms.
For Hispanic students, the overall state gain was 6 percent, but Hispanic students in RF schools posted a whopping 15 percent gain.  African-American third graders did even better under RF, posting a 4 percent gain overall, but a 16 percent gain in RF classes.  Among economically disadvantaged students, those in RF classrooms saw 15 percent reading passage gains.  And limited English proficient students in RF schools saw an incredible 19 percent gain in their reading proficiency, according to TAKS.
All of this is from data available from the Texas Education Agency.  All of this flies in the face of the urban legend that Reading First had little, if any, impact on student reading proficiency.  All of it shows that evidence-based reading instruction just plain works.  Yet none of this has made its way into the policy debate.
If you talk to education reformers today, they’ll tell you the most significant challenge educators face today is closing the achievement gap.  The differences in performance between white and African-American students, between white and Hispanic students, and between rich and poor students should be a national embarrassment.  We are selling all students on the notion that they need a high school diploma and some form of postsecondary education in order to succeed in life.  But at the same time, we want to ignore that so many students are struggling to be reading proficient by the end of the third grade and will never have the literacy skills to succeed in college.
Those in the classroom will tell you that struggling fourth grade readers have a near impossible task of catching up over the remainder of their academic career.  Where they need more time and more intensity in their reading practice and instruction, they get less as they start to study other academic subjects.  Then they fall behind in social studies and science and even math because they lack the literacy skills needed to perform at grade level in other subjects.
That is why SBRR is so important, and that is why Eduflack continues to tilt at windmills here.  Forget what the IES Impact Study may have said.  It looked at a very small group of schools using a research model that can’t be replicated (as we don’t know the handful of schools that were studied).  Let’s turn our attention to what matters — student achievement.
Like it or not, the best measure we now have for student achievement is the state assessment.  In state after state, that state assessment is showing that student reading achievement is on the rise, markedly so since the introduction of RF in 2003.  Texas is just the latest collection of data points.  We’re seeing it in state after state.
What makes Texas’ data that much more interesting is the clear picture it paints with regard to SBRR and its ability to close the achievement gap.  Doing what is proven effective in literacy instruction, teachers in the Lone Star State dramatically improved student reading achievement for African-American, Hispanic, and poor students.  Students are learning, students are reading, and the major variable between 2003 and 2008 was the introduction (and requirement) of evidence-based instruction, materials, interventions, and professional development.
It all begs the question — how much more state-level data is necessary before the naysayers and the doomsdayers admit that evidence-based reading instruction works, that we can show it works, and that we can replicate its successes in schools and classrooms where too many children are still left behind?  We can get every child reading.  We just need to stay the course, and get real, proven approaches and materials into more classrooms, empower more teachers with the PD and support they need to use it, and effectively measure ongoing student progress (while offering specific interventions when needed).
If SBRR is working and proven effective deep in the heart of Texas (along with California, Ohio, and elsewhere), how can we think of putting on the brakes and denying these kids who are demonstrating real improvement?  

School Leadership in Big D

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP
Where exactly is the intersection between effective school district management (particularly on the financial side) and student improvement?  It’s a question that many have been asking for quite some time, particularly in this era of mayoral and state takeovers of school districts.  Usually, these takeovers happen when both the financial and the academic are failing, when community leaders see no choice but to step in and protect both taxpayer dollars and the students are public schools are intended to serve.
And then you have places like Dallas, Texas.  Over the weekend, Dallas’ mayor, Tom Leppert, indicated he is considering a mayoral takeover of Dallas ISD.  Anyone who has watched the financial “challenges” in the district, knows that something different must happen in the Big D.  And those who have watched cities such as New York and Washington, DC cede control of the schools to the mayor can point to the benefit a new outlook, new attention, and, most often, new leadership, can have on a struggling school district.
The full story of the mayor’s intentions can be found in this past Sunday’s Dallas Morning News — <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022209dnmetmayordisd.3ebacba.html.
What”>www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022209dnmetmayordisd.3ebacba.html.
What makes this exploratory takeover so interesting, or at least newsworthy outside of Texas?  Nothing, until the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution released its latest report yesterday.  Lots of great information in the report (particularly the issue of PISA being used as an international benchmark, but I digress), but two important nuggets for us to consider.
First, Dallas ISD ranked second among nearly 40 large-city school districts when it comes to academic gains.  While Dallas still has significant work to do, particularly compared to suburban and rural districts across the state, it is making progress.  To say that Dallas’ improvement efforts are outperforming districts like Miami, New York, and Chicago is saying something.  (Of course, critics would say Dallas was so far behind these other districts to start that they had no option but to outperform other districts, at least in terms of growth.)
Equally important, the Brown Center looked at mayoral takeovers and found the data “inconclusive” when it came mayoral control’s impact on school improvement.  Yes, there are significant benefits to mayoral takeover, including higher per-pupil expenditures, more focused leadership, and a broader “community” helping to lead the schools.  But for every NYC success story, we have the potential of Detroit, where mayoral control didn’t work, and they are now returning to the old model.    
The full story on DISD and the Brown Center is in this morning’s Dallas Morning News — <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022509dneduurbanschools.f1d859.html
So”>www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022509dneduurbanschools.f1d859.html
So what do we take from all of this?  First and foremost, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to fixing struggling schools.  Mayoral control can be a benefit, or it can be a burden for city leadership.  It all depends on the personalities involved, the commitment from the city, and the buy-in from teachers and administrators across the district.
Second, it demonstrates how difficult it can be to measure school effectiveness with one ruler.  The Brown Center data shows real gains, though they started from a tough spot.  The state assessment — TAKS — shows a district in need of much help.  The Newsweek rankings of the top high schools put the top secondary school (or one of them) squarely in DISD.  Layer on top of that financial mismanagement and leadership chasms, and you can see why there is a growing drumbeat for a new approach to school leadership.
It’s funny.  When Eduflack was living in Dallas (2005 and 2006), there was a citywide plan for DISD to win the Broad Prize in the coming years.  It was a bold and ambitious plan, bringing the schools and the community together to improve instruction, support teachers, and raise student achievement.  Guess the wheels fell off that bus once I left town.
Regardless, the Dallas education community is facing a serious discussion on the future of their public schools.  Mayoral control may be the answer, but it works better in cities with a strong mayor.  That’s not the Dallas model.  The improvements documented by the Brown Center are good, but they must be sustained and demonstrated over the long term.
As Robert Frost would say, Dallas has many miles to go before it can sleep.  The community is definitely aware of the need for improvement and the challenges before it.  But it takes a strong leader to move that awareness into action.  Is Superintendent Michael Hinojosa up to the challenge?  Is Mayor Leppert?  Only time will tell.  The winner will be whomever can win over the hearts and minds of the teachers, parents, and business community in Big D.  Effective change can only occur when stakeholders are buying into the plan, and so far, neither Hinojosa nor Leppert seem to have fully “sold” their vision to the audiences they need to see it through.  But change is coming …

Recovering and Reinvesting in RF

Eduflack Achievement gap, Reading First, SBRR, stimulus

By now, educators must have be living under rocks to have not heard about the enormous sums of money soon coming to school districts.  In the next month and a half, the first installment of nearly 80 billion dollars intended to prevent pending cuts to local K-12 education and allow for real school improvement is expected to flow.  How Title I and IDEA expenditures will be spent is pretty clear cut, following existing distribution formulae and providing a booster shot to those schools already receiving such funds.  The big ticket item — the State Stabilization Fund — is still working through the details.  

For those looking for regular updates on the policy and the language behind it, one of the best sources is EdWeek’s Michele McNeil and Alyson Klein’s Politics K-12 blog — blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/.  
But we know the intent of the Stabilization Fund.  Many, if not most, school districts have been planning budget cuts in these difficult financial times.  Teachers are on the chopping block.  PD is being sacrificed.  Textbook adoptions on hold.  Instructional material purchases put off for a later day.  The Stabilization Fund is intended to stop such drastic action, providing immediate funds so that NO school district faces budget cuts.  School districts are to look at their spending for FY2008 and FY2009 (the previous and current academic year), determine spending levels from those years, and then use the Stabilization Fund to prevent any reduction in spending.  Those programs that have been in the school for the past few years are to be protected, providing educators the opportunity to continue efforts that are working and having a real impact on student achievement, economics be damned.  The Fund is meant to alleviate worry and ensure investment in our classroom continues and that effective programs do not face irrational cuts.
At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday moved the current fiscal year’s budget forward, a spending bill that was to be passed last September, but never quite broke through.  Many educators have long feared that Reading First would be zeroed out in that budget bill, denying school districts around the country needed funding to invest in the research-proven instructional materials, professional development, and technical assistance needed to get our kids reading at grade level.  That fear was realized, as the $300 million or so that was spent on RF last year was missing from the House version of the budget.
Eduflack has come to grips with the fact that Reading First is dead.  The program itself was long plagued with significant implementation problems and a poor public perception.  But its core tenets remain both true and essential.  We can get virtually every child reading at grade level by using proven-effective instruction.  The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) released data late last year demonstrating the effectiveness of our investment in research-proven reading, showing real impact on RF and non-RF schools alike.  And Eduflack has reported on a wide range of data demonstrating the programs effectiveness in states across the country, the most recent being the terrific results shown in California (http://blog.eduflack.com/2009/02/10/golden-reading-results-in-the-golden-state.aspx).  
School districts are rightfully worried about the future of their reading instruction efforts.  RF funds have been a boon to struggling schools, providing then direct funding do what is necessary to improve student reading achievement.  It has resulted in sea change when it comes to the instructional materials and PD available to our schools, whether they are RFs or not.  And it has refocused technical assistance on research-based approaches aligned with classroom instruction and embedded in real practice.  And have we ever mentioned that it just plain works?
The elimination of the Reading First program was an inevitability, but that does not mean our school districts should stop their effective use of proven-effective reading instruction.  They should still invest in the instructional materials and PD that are most effective in getting students to read at grade level.  They should still invest in classroom-based strategies for equipping students with the instruction and skills they need to achieve.  And they should still invest in teacher empowerment, ensuring educators receive the reading PD and data understanding necessary to impact student achievement.
So a simple question?  Why isn’t every state and every RF school across the country looking to use newly available State Stabilization Fund and Title I dollars to continue their literacy efforts?  The Stabilization Fund is designed to ensure that no schools are forced to cut their budgets.  Such reading investments have been part of recent budgets.  They are now facing the ax.  It just seems natural that the Fund is used to continue a school district’s investment in proven-effective reading instruction and professional development.  After all, the law is intended to prevent cuts and continue those efforts that are boosting student achievement.  In those states and districts where RF has been proven effective, it seems continuing the investment (in materials, assessment, and PD) should move forward, even if the original funding stream is gone.  The Fund was meant to replace disappearing funds.  And it becomes a slam dunk when we see that such investments are already proven effective in improving student reading skills and academic achievement?
And why can’t new Title I funds be used to expand the investment, getting it into more classrooms and more students?  If a school district has identified and successfully implemented an approach to get students reading at grade level, that approach should continue, particularly with struggling students in Title I schools.  New Title I funds available under ARRA is intended to expand good work.  Seems there are a great number of Title I schools that could benefit from increased investment in effective reading instruction, particularly if we are looking to boost student achievement and offer every student a pathway to success, as intended by the President.
Heck, there will even be chances to invest in RF concepts through IDEA funds and highly popular Response to Intervention (RtI) approaches.  And we won’t even start talking about the vast opportunities available through the soon-to-be-detailed Innovation Fund.
RF is dead, absolutely.  But that doesn’t mean we give up on teaching our kids to read or offering the research-proven approaches and interventions that are necessary to raising student literacy levels and getting all students reading at grade level.  Our states and districts know what is now working when it comes to reading instruction.  We have administrators, technical assistance providers, coaches, and teachers in place to deliver effective instruction.  After some unfortunate stops and starts, we now know the materials and curriculum that are most effective in reaching our goals.  And we have clear understanding of the professional development and ongoing support our teachers need to turn every child into a reader.  Now is the time to double down on reading, not walk away from the table.
Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Education is now providing school districts the chips to place that needed bet on student reading ability.  Reading programs in school districts across the nation are facing significant cuts.  The feds are now providing upwards of $80 billion to ensure our K-12 schools don’t face any budget cuts and, in fact, can increase instructional spending (particularly on those items that will improve student achievement).  It seems that the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act was custom written to ensure that our federal reading investment (currently through Reading First, previously through the Reading Excellence Act) continues and that no school cut its reading programs or its reading investment, particularly those struggling schools previously identified as RF schools.
I have no doubt that ED will be developing a new federal reading initiative, one based on the most positive attributes of Reading First and enhanced through a broader interpretation of the research and a greater commitment to professional development and teacher supports.  It is a program that is needed by our schools and it is a commitment our federal government must make if we want to make good on our intent of strengthening public education and giving every child a chance at success.  Until such a program is in place, though, every RF school should be working with their district and their state to ensure that these new funds are being use to protect the instructional investments in the classroom.  And few investments are as worthy as the reading instruction programs that are boosting reading achievement for millions of kids across the nation.
Yes, school districts should be using this stimulus money to ensure that teachers stay on the job and no instructional positions are eliminated.  We can’t teach our kids without educators in front of reasonably sized classrooms.  But we must also provide those teachers with the resources, materials, TA, and PD they need to get the job done.  That investment starts with reading, particularly proven-effective reading instruction.  That is the full intent of the stimulus package.
The RF grant program may be long gone, but that doesn’t mean we stop investing in reading instruction that we know works.  The economic stimulus law gives us both the funds and the direction to keep instructional efforts moving forward.  Reading can, should, and must be at the top of that list.

A Responsible “No, Thanks?”

Eduflack Achievement gap, NCLB, NGA, stimulus

For quite some time, we have heard how the federal economic stimulus package was essential to stabilizing our nation’s economy… and our nation’s schools.  Nearly $800 billion in new funding, with almost 10 percent of that designated for K-12 and higher education needs, is now being readied for implementation.  In our K-12 schools in particular, we’ve heard how such funds are absolutely necessary.  Without federal assistance, and without it fast, we run the real risk of teacher layoffs, school closings, and academic years put in jeopardy.

Eduflack has already opined on the need to get the proper systems in place to ensure that these federal economic stimulants are being dispersed efficiently and are spent wisely.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/02/20/how-do-we-disperse-ed-stimulus-dollars.aspx  But recent days have posed a question that few anticipated when the House and Senate were negotiating priorities and spending levels.  What happens if a governor says no to his or her share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
Who would say no to such a sizable check, particularly one that doesn’t have ponderous new regulations and oversights attached to it?  Well, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been publicly discussing saying “no, thanks” to the feds.  Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is apparently considering the same thing.  And there are likely a handful of others (presumably all Republican governors) who will offer the same thinking, saying it is irresponsible for them to participate in what they view as an excessive, irresponsible federal funding program.
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard such debate.  Several governors originally decided to opt out of Goals 2000 money, resisting federal involvement in what they believed should be local decisionmaking in public education. Similar discussions surfaced at the start of the NCLB era, with states resisting what they perceived as increased federal oversight and significant unfunded mandates.  Such threats were empty, though, as states eventually all lined up to receive their earned share of what was previously the largest federal investment in K-12 education.  The largest, that is, until now.
Do Louisiana’s public schools — particularly those in the Recovery District — not benefit from increased Title I and special education funding?  Does Minnesota not gain from increased funding for teacher incentive programs and added dollars for colleges and universities?  Does either state (or any of the remaining 48, for that matter) not gain from ARRA funding, securing the dollars (for education and beyond) needed to fill the gaps caused by shrinking property values and depleted state coffers?
If Governor Jindal refuses ARRA money in Louisiana, it won’t save the taxpayers in the Pelican State a dime.  Their federal income taxes will not be reduced a penny because they are not participating in ARRA.  Their legislature can’t simply turn to alternative funding sources with a different sense of priorities or reduced accountability to fill the funding gaps.  We’ve passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act because we had nowhere else to turn.  This was our last, best chance to stabilize our social structures, particularly our public schools.
At this stage of the economic game, it is irresponsible for some governors to flippantly say “I’ll pass” when it comes to their state’s share of the stimulus package, particularly with regard to K-12 education.  Their schools need it.  They need dollars to fund teachers, keeping quality educators in the classroom and providing them the ongoing PD and support they need to do their jobs effectively.  They need money for instructional materials and technology to keep students on task as they acquire the skills they need to achieve.  They need funding for data systems and accountability measures, so we can improve instruction and monitor student progress.  They need coin to improve their school buildings and increase access to the Internet.  And they need the checks to meet our obligations when it comes to Title I, special education, and innovations necessary to continue to improve both access and quality of public education.
I recognize that individuals are already using stimulus funding to position themselves for upcoming elections, whether it be re-election in two or four years or a step up the ladder (yes, even for president) in 2012.  But sometimes responsible governance requires doing the responsible thing, and not necessarily the popular thing.  And sometimes it means setting aside partisanship to do what is best for the populace.  That doesn’t mean turning one’s back on stimulus money, it means ensuring that the money you receive is being spent wisely, aligned with both state needs and state priorities.  it means proving the critics wrong and showing such funding can be used responsibly and with focus on real impact and return on investment.
A smart governor can, will, and must use these stimulus dollars to improve public education in their communities.  Smart governors don’t say no when they are offered a strong helping hand (and a large check) at a time of real need.  And a really smart governor steps up an offers to take Louisiana or Minnesota’s share if they take a pass.  Our schools are hurting.  The money’s been approved.  If some states don’t want their share, there have to be others that are willing to “sacrifice” and put additional funds to use.  I’m sure Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour wouldn’t mind Louisiana’s share.  Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would clearly benefit from Minnesota’s share.  And California’s Governator would gladly take both states’ cuts to apply to the Golden State’s budget.
   

Cutting Off Our Thumbs …

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, ELL, Students

We all recognize that state departments of education are hurting.  Even once they receive a significant financial booster shot from the federal stimulus to help pay for core instructional needs, states are still looking for places to trim, cut, or generally push back on.  Usually, we think that such cuts should first be directed at those areas considered expendable, the sort of luxuries our schools want, but just can’t afford during these belt-tightening times.

Who ever would have thought that such expendable programs would be English Language Learning efforts in the state of Arizona.  Unbelievable, but true.  Over in the Grand Canyon State, the state superintendent has recommended that the Arizona Legislature remove $30 million in ELL funding from the state budget, a nearly three-quarters cut in what was intended.
The full story can be found in the Arizona Republic — <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/13/20090213horne0213.html.
Eduflack”>www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/13/20090213horne0213.html.
Eduflack is not going to quibble with State Supe Tom Horne that Arizona is making great strides in ELL instruction.  I want to believe that Arizona school districts are doubling fluency rates under current efforts, and more and more students are becoming English language proficient.  I even want to believe Horne when Arizona will see “a dramatic increase in the percentage of students becoming proficient in English quickly.”
But our actions often speak far louder than our rhetoric.  Last year, Arizona provided its K-12 schools $40 million to implement new ELL provisions, state standards that many say require at least $275 million to staff and equip with fidelity.  So as the districts start to demonstrate improvement, even very early in the process, our response is to cut funding because clearly the program has already demonstrated effectiveness and accomplished its intended goals?  Foolishness.
Like it or not, the ESL population in states like Arizona will continue to grow.  School districts will continue to face increased needs to deal with non-English speakers, integrate them into the schools quickly, and ensure they are gaining core instruction in math, science, and even literacy in their native language as they are trying to learn English.  This is not a luxury or a value add.  This is a non-negotiable, particularly in states like Arizona, Texas, and others in the Southwest.
Instead, Arizona is now looking at establishing new ways to determine English language proficiency of its students.  This is akin to states that have dramatically lowered their state academic standards in math and reading to meet AYP requirements.  Changing the standard doesn’t get more kids proficient, it just gets them to pass a test.  And those kids who aren’t proficient are the ones that will struggle in school, may ultimately drop out, and will be unable to attain and retain good jobs that will pay the rent and support a family.
Let’s hope the Arizona Legislature takes a close look at its citizens, and its taxpayers, and realizes that Superintendent Horne’s request is a lose-lose-lose position.  It is a loser for the schools, who will be forced to deal with a growing problem with fewer dollars.  It is a loser for the students, many of whom have come to the United States for that better education and opportunity in the first place.  And it is a loser for the state, as they sacrifice a significant portion of the next generation of taxpayer and worker, the very engines that will drive the Arizona economy in the decades to come.

Running Schools as Businesses?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Workforce

We often hear “if only we ran our schools like businesses …”  Over at USA Today this morning, they ran a snapshot of data collected as part of Deloitte’s 2008 Education in Business survey of 300 business executives and 300 educators.  The results should be surprising.  Among business executives, 82 percent say the U.S. education system would become more efficient and effective if it ran like a business. Among educators, that number drops to 56 percent (though still a solid majority).

Eduflack has done more than his fair share of focus groups and polling of American industry and knows all too well that corporate executives do not believe that today’s high school graduates are adequately prepared for the jobs that are to become available.  There has long been a disconnect between K-12 and our economic engines, and that shows in surveys like this.
But what exactly does it mean to run our schools like businesses?  Will our school districts be more effective if they are run like the banking, mortgage, or auto manufacturing industries?  Are we looking for a business model like Nordstrom’s, Macy’s, or Target?  Are we offering lessons from Ruth’s Chris or McDonald’s?  Are we learning from all the businesses chronicled in “Good to Great” or just those that haven’t enacted massive layoffs or declared bankruptcy?
The simply answer is that we simply cannot run our public schools like businesses.  Our public schools cannot refuse service to customers (students) they don’t wish to serve.  Our schools don’t invest in the research and development that most industries require.  We can’t choose not to locate our schools in certain communities because of low incomes or low return on investment.  We can’t hire and fire employees at will, nor can we reward those for a job well done or penalize those for one poorly done.  We can’t tap financial reserves or lines of credit when our budgets dry up (unless we are talking about bonds for construction or capital projects).  We can’t compete for customers, with local schools doing whatever it takes to win over parents and students for their business.  We can’t match supply with demand, requiring us to bus some kids great distances to their schools.  And we can’t even ensure return on investment, as schools are focused on inputs and processes, over outcomes and results.
Running schools as businesses is one of those great “straw men” issues that we often through out there as a substitute for talking about reforms or targeted improvement.  There are well run businesses and poorly run businesses.  Same goes for schools.  There are good CEOs and good superintendents.  There are union and non-union workforces in both.  There are competitors (for the schools, they would include charters and private education alternatives).  
At the same time, though, there are few businesses that are committed, let alone required, to serve each and every customer in the region (even those who may be difficult to serve).  There are few businesses that have their products and services closely regulated by the local, state, and federal levels.  There are few businesses that put their resources where they are least needed (like high-performing schools), while keeping their best employees away from the areas that need good help most (like our urban centers).
Can our schools learn from business best practices?  Absolutely.  We can invest more meaningful R&D.  We can provide teachers the ongoing training and professional development needed to adjust to the changes in the profession.  We can adjust our product (instruction) to meet the changes in our community and in our marketplace.  We can focus on ROI, measuring that all students are getting the education products they are promises.  And we can even offer satisfaction guarantees, where students or future employers can seek additional education or training if we find our graduates lack the skills one associates with the degree earned.
At the end of the day, there is no magic bullet for running American businesses and there certainly is no such solution for running our public schools.  Education can learn a lot from business, both good and bad.  But more efficient and effective?  We still don’t have universal agreement on what efficient and effective means in public education.  We can’t agree on how we measure student achievement or whether such performance is the measure of a school or a teacher.  And if our economy is any indication, our confidence in the efficiency and effectiveness of American business seems to be at an all-time low.
School improvement shouldn’t be about adopting a new “business” model or acting more business-like.  Like good businesses, our schools need to solve the problem.  Successful schools understand their customers, have a handle on their resources, know what their problems are, and identify and implement targeted, proven reforms to solve the problem.  Instead of stockholders, they answer to families and the local community.  Instead of stock prices, they measure themselves based on student learning and achievement.  And like any forward-looking profitable business, they are never satisfied with the status quo.
  
 

A “Develop”ing Interest in Teachers

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, ELL, NCLB, PD, Teacher Education

“We must do more with the talent we have,” said NSDC Executive Director Stephanie Hirsh.  “Nothing is more important than teacher quality,” EdSec Arne Duncan said.  “We must close the yawning achieving gap in this country,” said Stanford Professor Linda Darling-Hammond.  With the statements of all three, we were off to the races on the issue of teacher quality and professional development this morning.

The setting was a briefing hosted by the National Staff Development Council, unveiling their most recent research (led by Darling-Hammond and her School Redesign Network) on the state of teacher development.  The takeaway was simple.  The current state of teacher professional development is severely lacking, particularly as federal and state requirements and expectations continue to grow.  Earth-shattering, no.  But the findings serve as a strong insight into what may be coming down the pike.
If anything, the past era in federal education policy has been one about research.  The need for data.  The definition of good data (and of bad).  And the most stringent of means by which to go about collecting it.  The new era seems to be one of successfully applying that research so it gets to the rank-and-file policymaker and practitioner.  What do we do with data once we have it?  How do we use it to effectively close the achievement gap?  How do we use it to improve student and teacher performance?  How do we use it to grow, to improve, and to generally do better?
Yes, the research data was mostly qualitative.  Yes, we still have a lot of unanswered questions about the correlations between strong teacher PD and student achievement.  But NSDC provided some interesting points to get this new discussion on teacher development started, and they were points heard by the EdSec, by CCSSO chief Gene Wilhoit, and by the many who are looking for details into how to train, retain, and support good teachers in every classroom.
The full report can be found at www.nsdc.org/stateproflearning.cfm.  The highlights, at least according to Eduflack, include:
* “Drive-by” or “dump-and-run” professional development doesn’t cut it, at least not in this time of accountability.  Meaningful PD must be ongoing, content-based, and embedded as part of the learning day.
* According to the data we do have, the right PD can improve student achievement.  
* That said, we need to improve the linkages between teaching and student learning.
* We need experimental research into teacher professional development, particularly in subjects other than math and science.
* Our students are slipping in international measures, in part, because of our professional development opportunities.  Our competitors — particularly those in Southeast Asia — are just investing more time, effort, money, and thought into high-quality PD that has a direct impact on student learning and performance.  They are taking advantage of our water-treading for the past decade.
* We need to increase both the quantity and the quality of PD offered to teachers, particularly those who are entering the profession.
* At the end of the day, improved professional development (particularly in-service) is key to achieving our educational goals.
Information is nice, using it effectively is even better.  As CCSSO’s Wilhoit pointed out, the challenge we face is how do we move from good ideas to better practice?  Particularly as it relates to state policy, how do we take these data points and build a better teacher development and support network, a network offering the ongoing PD, measuring its effectiveness, and ensuring that all teachers are getting the support and professional learning opportunities they need to do their jobs well?
Some good ideas were offered by the experts this morning, including:
* We need to create levers and investments in Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education act to support the features of effective professional development
* We need to invest in rigorous studies of professional learning in relation to student achievement.
* We need to participate in OECD studies of teaching, teacher development, and student learning.
As always, Eduflack has a few other ideas to add to the mix:
* When it comes to PD, all means all.  All teachers (and principals for that matter) need ongoing, content-based, job-embedded professional learning opportunities.  No exceptions.
* We need to align learning goals (as measured by state assessments) with teaching goals.  Every teacher should not only know what is expected of their classes on the state tests, but they should be given the tools and training to deliver.
* Every teacher in the United States should receive specific, content-based PD in reading instruction.  Reading is an issue that affects every teacher, whether you are ELA, math, social studies, or science.  With more than a third of fourth graders still reading below grade level, every teacher needs the knowledgebase to provide the interventions needed to get students reading and engage them in the written word outside of English class.
* We need to incentivize best teaching, through general performance pay provisions and federal efforts such as the Teacher Incentive Fund.  As part of such efforts, we need to document, share, and learn from best practice.  Those schools that are exceeding AYP expectations (particularly those rewarded for it) should be mentoring those schools that are struggling at it.  Such a learning loop should be required as part of any incentive program.
*  And while we are collaborating, we need to use what we know about social networking and online communities to build virtual networks for teachers to share and learn.  How do rural teachers gain best practices from other rural teachers?  What can urban teachers in Detroit learn from their brethren in Atlanta or Los Angeles?  How do we capture best practices so that we can literally see it (via video) happen in classes like ours with kids like ours?  As the teaching profession grows younger and more technologically savvy, such online communities are going to be core to professional learning and development.  Such social networking is the only way we can deliver high-quality, impactful PD at scale to all teachers, urban, suburban, and rural (particularly with our incoming federal investment in school technology).
* We need to focus high-quality PD on those who need it most, particularly schools in urban areas and teachers of ELLs and special education students.  They are the teachers who have fallen through the cracks the most severely, and they are the ones who can most benefit from it today.
* Such PD activities are a shared responsibility.  The feds set the priorities and lay out some of the funding to make it happen.  The states take those priorities and develop specific programs that align with federal expectations yet specifically meet state standards.  Then the districts become the implementers supreme, delivering the right programs to the all teachers, while feeding content and outcomes back to other districts, the state, and the feds to create an ongoing feedback and improvement loop for PD.
No, this isn’t rocket science.  We all know that a well-trained, well-supported, empowered teacher will be more effective than a have not.  We know that ongoing, content-based PD can have a direct impact on teacher quality and student achievement.  We know teaching can’t improve through a drive-by workshop at the start of the school year or a half-day seminar offered twice a year following a half day of teaching.  We know we can do it, we know some are doing it, we just need to figure out how to package it and deliver it to all.  
When it comes to PD, so much time is focused on the pre-service side of the coin, ensuring that every teacher entering the classroom is highly qualified and certified to teach the subject matter.  Two important traits, yes.  But the hard word begins after the certificate is awarded and the classrooms are assigned.  NCLB talked about and offered funding for PD (heck, up to 25% of the billions spent on Reading First was intended for content-based professional development), but little was done to ensure the funds were spent right, the programs delivered correctly, and the outcomes documented effectively.  High marks for intent, low marks for follow through.
EdSec Duncan, along with his colleagues on Maryland Avenue and the crew down on Pennsylvania Avenue, has made it crystal clear that teachers are the gateway to school improvement (and to our general economic and social strength).  “We must dramatically increase our investment in teachers, and do it systemically,” Duncan said today.  Amen.  We also must make sure that investment is delivering real return on investment.  That means doing the scientific research to demonstrate the real linkages between PD and student achievement.  That means content-based PD that is delivered in the appropriate context to meet the needs of today’s teachers.  And that means empowering teachers so they are leading in their classroom.
A new era is here indeed.  We just need to ensure we maximize the opportunities, transform good ideas into great policies, and ensure we are having a real, measurable impact.
   

Listening, Federal Style

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, PR

On this morning’s Today Show, Vanity Fair writer Maureen Orth discussed her March 2009 piece on the new leaders in the Obama administration.  EdSec Arne Duncan was included in the discussion, focusing on his desire to launch a national listening tour as he embarks on a major national initiative to improve our public schools.

Regardless of how many dollars end up in the economic stimulus package for public education (and Eduflack assumes that the U.S. Senate will scale back some of the U.S. House’s cockeyed optimism), now is the time for action.  As we discussed last week, that action which will have the most impact cannot be a one-way discussion, it requires an open tent that incorporates the multiple viewpoints and multiple organizations and individuals who are committed to the larger view of improving the quality and outcomes of public education, particularly in those communities that have struggled to get the resources, the teachers, and the academic gains necessary to ensure all kids are getting the opportunity promised to them.
Listening tours can be important, particularly if they evolve into full-fledged dialogues.  Listening is the first step, but the EdSec needs to engage with key stakeholder audiences, understanding why they believe what they believe, knowing what it will take to change both thinking and behavior, and discovering what is necessary to bring together a loud, enthusiastic, and diverse chorus singing of ED’s commitment to closing the achievement gap and improving all our public schools.
So as Secretary Duncan begins planning for his tour, I recommend he take a look at the listening tour model we implemented as part of the National Reading Panel’s early work.  The model is a simple one, one that takes into account geographic differences and the wide range of stakeholders necessary to bring about lasting education improvements.
First, look at the geography.  Make sure you’re hearing from the diverse corners of the United States.  That means visits to New England, the mid-Atlantic, the MidWest, the Southwest, and the West Coast.  It means spending time in the “key” stakes, the Pennsylvanias, Ohios, Floridas, Texases, and Californias of the world (I assume you know Illinois pretty well by now).  But it also means visiting other states that are often left out of the process, like Alabama, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Idaho, for instance.  All offer us some key thinking on education reform, both for our urban centers, our suburban bases, and our rural communities.
Second, at each of these whistle stops, bring together multiple audiences.  When the NRP went out into the field, we ensured each regional hearing included specific stakeholder testimony from teachers, teacher educators, researchers, community organizations, business leaders, school administrators, and policymakers.  All of these are important to your mission.  But you need to clearly distinguish between primary and secondary audiences, those who will move your agenda themselves and those will support the movement.  As you move beyond the Beltway, be sure you are talking with classroom teachers, state policymakers (the governors, the chief state school officers, and those who are advising them), business leaders, and parents.  
Why?  Successful advocacy is all about a squeeze play that leads to real change.  We recognize that improvements come at the district or school level, as local education leaders implement the programs, approaches, and interventions necessary to improving our schools.  Such change comes from influence at the top, where governors (who are becoming even more important to ed reforms as they must now determine how best to spend the educational block grants provided them under the stimulus package) and the business community (that has specific thoughts about what changes are needed from our schools to improve classroom learning and meet future economic opportunities).  This is complemented by pressure from the grassroots, with educators and parents calling for the sorts of changes and improvements they’ve been hungry for for far too long
Listening, yes.  Dialogue, absolutely.  Engagement, a necessity.  Hopefully, ED will make this a meaningful exercise designed to build public support for the changes that are coming, while gaining necessary input to make those changes even stronger and more valuable.  Headlines are great.  Long-term, systemic school improvement is even better.

What’s Next for Federal Reading?

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, early childhood education, IES, NCLB, PD, Reading First, SBRR

For decades now, the federal government has made teaching children to read a national priority.  Reading First is just the latest iteration of this commitment.  The Reading Excellence Act came before it, with other federal efforts before REA.  That’s why Eduflack is always surprised when he hears from reading advocates who are gravely concerned that federal investment in reading instruction will grind to a halt this year when RF ends.

Let’s be perfectly clear.  Reading First is dead.  There is no political will to continue this program, particularly with the baggage it carries.  RF has been tarred, feathered, and paraded through the town square as an example of poor government implementation and of questionable outcomes at best.  But that doesn’t mean the program, at least as it was originally envisioned in 2001, does not offer some strong instructional components upon which a better, stronger, more effective reading effort can be constructed.
To get us started, we need to drop Reading First from our vocabulary.  Call it “Yes We Can Read,” “And Reading For All,” “Literacy for America,” or anything else that will capture the hearts and minds of countless schools and families looking for literacy skills to improve their lots in life and close the achievement gaps in their schools.  (And while we are on the topic, no one in the Administration should utter the words No Child Left Behind or NCLB from this point forward.  That was the old regime.  As we focus on reauthorization and improving the law, let’s stick to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, until we come up with a stronger brand for our overall federal education policy.)
So how do we do it?  What are the core components of “Yes We Can Read” that redouble our national commitment to ensuring every student is equipped with the literacy skills to read at grade level, particularly by fourth grade?  How do we ensure that every child –regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or neighborhood — becomes a skilled, able reader?
Working from the strongest and best of RF — those components that have reading teachers, state RF directors, and a host of other stakeholders excited about reading instruction and certain that they are making the reading gains originally intended — we can build that better reading program by focusing on five key components:
1) Continue the commitment to scientifically based reading.  RF turned a new page on education research, how it is defined, and how it is applied.  It is important that any new education programs continue to rely on science as part of its policy.  We need to make sure we are doing what is proven effective.  If we expect to demonstrate return on investment, we must ensure our federal dollars are being spent on efforts that work.  That means demonstrating a strong scientific base.  We cannot lose sight of that.  But we must also broaden our view of that proven research base.  To date, we’ve been governing under rule of the National Reading Panel report.  That is a strong start.  But there is more to SBRR than just the NRP.  The National Research Council’s Reading Difficulties report, the Alliance for Excellent Education’s Reading Next study, the AFT’s Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science, and even the recent National Early Literacy Panel findings all contribute to the scientifically based reading base we must build upon.  If it is good, replicable research, we must include it into the equation.
2) We need to broaden our spectrum.  RF was built as an elementary school reading program, believing we could catch all kids and get them reading proficient by fourth grade.  Today, more than a third of our fourth graders are still reading below grade level.  We have millions of kids in danger of falling through the cracks.  Our federal reading program must be a P-12 reading initiative.  We need to start with the best of what was found in Early Reading First, ensuring our early childhood education efforts are empowering our students with early literacy skills.  We continue that through the elementary grades.  And then we move it through the middle grades and our secondary schools.  If reading is a lifelong pursuit, our federal reading efforts must continue across the educational continuum.  This is particularly true as we look to international benchmarks and state exit and graduation exams as the marks of success.
3) Federal dollars need to be focused on two key components — instructional materials and professional development.  We’ve wasted the past six years fighting over commercial products and which one of those is on a so-called golden list.  This is supposed to be about getting what is proven effective into the hands of good teachers.  The name on the box doesn’t matter.  We need to find a better way to make sure that good research is getting into the classroom.  Too many people took advantage of the intent of SBRR, selling research vapor and serving as 21st century RF profiteers.  Moving forward, it should be about content and proof, not branding.
We forget that 25 percent of the more than $1 billion spent on RF was intended for teacher professional development.   We also forget that effective instruction begins and ends with effective teaching.  Our teachers need to be empowered to improve literacy instruction in our schools.  They need to better understand the research and put it to use in their classrooms, using that knowledge to provide the specific interventions necessary to get all children reading.  We must recognize that such professional development should reach more than just the traditional ELA teacher in our elementary grades.  Every teacher across the continuum is, in essence, a reading teacher.  How do we help math and science and social studies teachers reinforce our reading priorities in their classrooms?  In many ways, research-based pre-service and in-service professional development is the single most important component to any future reading instruction effort.  We need to train, equip, and support our teachers in both the broader and the finer points of literacy.
4) We need to factor ELL and ESL into the equation.  At the end of the day, reading skills are reading skills, whether they are acquired in English or in your native Spanish, Hmong, or other language.  We teach all children to read, and then we convert those skills into English as needed.  With a growing immigrant population and school districts that are now home to 100+ native languages spoken in their hallways, we need to instill literacy skills in all students and then look for ways to transfer those skills to the English language.  Reading is reading.  Phonemic awareness and fluency and comprehension are universal, regardless of the language you may be starting in or what is spoken or read at home.
5) We need to better measure the impact of our efforts.  RF has been bottlenecked the past year over measures of efficacy.  The recent Institute of Education Sciences study on Reading First is seen by many as a repudiation of the program.  Unfortunately, it is not a study of SBRR, it is a study on the effectiveness of program spending.  As we’ve written about many times before, IES failed to take into account the issue of contamination, meaning that the study was built on the notion that only those schools receiving RF funds were implementing RF programs and SBRR, so we compared RF schools with non-RF schools to see the difference.  We know that to be a false comparison.  Publishers changed their textbooks to meet RF standards, and those new books were sold to all schools, not just RF schools.  PD programs were redeveloped to address RF expectations, and that PD was offered to all teachers, not just those in RF districts.  RF permeated all schools in the nation, whether they received a federal check or not. Â
 A programmatic study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) took this contamination issue into account, and its fall 2008 evaluation report identified real success in our federal reading initiative.
Regardless of one’s loyalties to IES or OPEPD, the next generation of federal reading needs to include clear measurements and clear assessment tools to identify our progress and determine true ROI.  How do we measure our success?  What tools, beyond the state exams, should be considered?  How do we quantify good reading PD?  How do we demonstrate that the good works performed by teachers, teacher educators, reading specialists, families, and CBOs is not for naught?  Good programs must be measured.  Great programs must be assessed, reviewed, improved, and strengthened over time.  
These five components provide us the foundations for a federal reading initiative that addresses the real-world needs of our classrooms today.  They recognize the need for federal funds, particularly at a time when state and local budgets are strained beyond belief.  They recognize the central role of the teacher, as an educator, researcher, and student.  And they recognize the ultimate end game we all are playing — to get every student reading proficient, ensuring they have the skills and abilities necessary to achieve in school and in society.
Even when we talk about 21st century skills or STEM skills, literacy remains key.  Nothing is possible if our students can’t read.  They can’t do advanced math.  They can’t study the sciences. They can’t explore our civilizations or our history.  They can’t even fully participate in the school chorus.  Reading is the heart and soul of the American public education system.  Now is the time to come together, tap available resources, and redouble our national commitment to getting each and every child to read.  It is the only way we close the achievement gap, boost student achievement, and improve graduation rates.  It all begins with reading.  And effective reading begins now.

25 Things

Eduflack Achievement gap, PR, SBRR

By now, most have probably heard about the “25 Random Things About Me” effort that is circulating around the Internet.  It is essentially a modern-day chain letter, but one designed to provide greater insight about the people we deal with on a day-to-day basis.  The concept is simple, once you’re tagged, you are to reveal 25 random things about yourself.  You are also expected to “tag” 25″ colleagues on the Web to do the same about themselves.  An interesting concept, particularly if one believes that information is key to forward movement.

Although I was tagged on Facebook (and will be tagging back through the social networking forum), I thought I would share my list, giving readers a better sense of the unique personality behind this blog.  So without further ado, here are 25 random things about Eduflack:
1) I am the son of educators, and am reminded of it each and every day.  My mother was a high school English teacher (10th grade) and my father is a presidential historian, author of more than a half dozen books, and retired college president.
2) As a child, I grew up in six states and one foreign country (NY, NJ twice, MA, NM, WV, and Japan) as my father moved up the higher education administration ladder.
3) In 1984, I canvassed door-to-door for then-Senator Al Gore.  Did the same for Bill Clinton in the 1992 primaries, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Obama in 2008.  Somewhere in between Gore and Clinton, I went through a “Republican phase,” thanks in large part to Family Ties and Alex P. Keaton.
4) In high school, I was an International Science Fair Winner and the 1991 West Virginia Science and Engineering Fair Grand Prize Winner for a social/behavioral sciences project on the effects of verbal conditioning.
5) At the age of 21, I had the honor of serving as Managing Editor of The Cavalier Daily, one of the top collegiate newspapers in the nation.  At the University of Virginia’s CD (an independent newspaper, mind you) I managed a staff of 150 and turned out 16 pages or so of well-written news each and every day.  That meant 80-hour work weeks for no pay and no college credit for an entire year.
6) At the age of 22, I was named press secretary for U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia and the once and future chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  One cannot describe how much I learned about government, politics, and community from Senator Byrd.
7) As a senior press aide to U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, I helped manage Bill’s retirement announcement in 1995.  That meant calls from everyone from Meet the Press to SportsCenter to Saturday Night Live.  George Magazine’s JFK Jr. even called me himself and provided me his cell number for an upcoming piece.
8) My greatest professional highlight was shepherding the National Reading Panel from infancy into the cornerstone of federal education policy.
9) My second greatest professional moment was helping Senator Bradley pass the “drive-through” deliveries bill, ensuring newborns and their mothers received at least two days of hospital care before being discharged.
10) My third greatest professional moment was stopping the U.S. Department of Treasury from allowing foreign companies to print U.S. currency paper.  Our dollars have been, are, and always should be printed by Crane & Co. in western Massachusetts.
11) I have written speeches and opeds for cabinet secretaries, U.S. senators, congressmen,and Fortune 500 CEOs.  There is no greater challenge and no better high than findings an individual’s “voice” for an effective speech.  A life goal is to write, just once, for the President of the United States.
12) Despite a career in politics and public relations, I am a classic introvert.
13) My wife, Jennifer, is the only true love of my life.  And I knew after our first date that I would one day marry her.  It took me two and a half months to convince her of that fact.
14) I am the proud father of two children, Michael and Anna.  Both are adopted from Guatemala, and they are full birth siblings born 17 months apart.  They are now the center of my universe and what drives me in all corners of my life.
15) I am a bit of a clothes horse.  When it comes to everyday wear, it is Tommy Bahama and Nat Nast.  When its professional time, I’m all about Italian suits and Brooks Brothers shirts (I know it isn’t the ideal mix, but it works for me).
16) I subscribe to nearly 20 magazines and publications, and read each and every one of them.  I even get USA Today delivered to my home.  And if I am spending the day in the office, I gather information from nearly 100 websites and blogs daily.  I have a long favorites list and use each and every one of them to stay on top of things.
17) I have owned four Ford Mustangs in my life.  A 1981 Mustang that was my first car, a 1966 Mustang sold to buy post-wedding furniture for our home, a 1998 Mustang, and my current 2006 school bus yellow Mustang convertible.
18) I desperately want to own a motorcycle, as my Teamster grandfather once did.  But my mother and wife have conspired against me to block that dream.
19) I am an eBay addict.
20) I am a rabid New York Mets fan, due in large part because my die-hard Yankee fan of a father took me to Mets games as a kid because it was easier and safer to go to into Queens than it was to go into the Bronx.
21) To badly paraphrase from Bull Durham, I believe in scientifically based education research, national education standards, 21st century skills, and strong, legitimate efforts to close the achievement gap and improve our schools.
22) My life dream is to move to a small town and run its local newspaper.  I recognize print is dying, but with a good advertising director, I’m certain I can make it a success. 
23) I am the oldest of three siblings.  One sister is an investigative attorney for the City of New York.  The other sister is a professional jazz singer in the city that never sleeps.  Although we come from the same stock, the three of us couldn’t be more different.
24) There is nothing I enjoy more than a terrific, high-quality pen (green or blue ink) writing on good, heavy cardstock.  I’m still searching for the ideal pen ( a 20-year pursuit), but the note cards from Levenger meet my paper requirement.  And I take all my notes on index cards, no notebooks or legal pads for me.
25) I have written Eduflack for just about two years now, and it continues to provide me true joy and professional satisfaction.  There is nothing more cathartic than writing about issues you care passionately about.
Of course, it was pointed out to me that I did not reveal anything terribly embarrassing, so I will go ahead and add an unnecessary 26th thing.  As a child, I had a horrible stutter, and hated anyone to hear.  It was only made worse by having a wicked bad Boston/New Jersey-blended accent (the result of our moves).  Terribly amusing now that I spend much of my time speaking for a living.