We need to better prepare our students to compete on the world economy. Such is the driving mantra behind current pushes to improve our high schools and strengthen the links between secondary and postsecondary education. Our students need the skills to succeed, they need the math, science, and problem-solving skills to hold their own against other students around the world. They need the skills to gain good jobs in the United States. And they need strong math and science skills to ensure such jobs remain here in the United States. Math and science skills are necessary to keeping our economy strong and our future generations employed. All strong rhetoric, all believed by Main Street USA, and all pretty damned true.
That’s why Eduflack was a little disappointed to read a piece by Sarah D. Sparks in Education Daily a little more than a week ago, which reported that the United States will not participate in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, for physics and calculus.
Eduflack waited to comment on this development to see how those who truly understand the policy implications reacted. And the response was as surprising as the announcement — deafening silence.
Why is the U.S. Department opting out of TIMSS? Two simple reasons. The first is cost. The second is lack of students. What is the United States lacking? Apparently, we don’t have a few million dollars to conduct the study and we don’t have the 16,000 students needed to comprise an effective sample size.
Yes, such reasoning seems quite questionable, particularly with everything we know about NCLB funding, the demand for greater assessments, and the rapid increase in science and math instruction thanks to programs like STEM, early colleges, and similar high school reforms.
At a time when the international team is looking to go head-to-head with the United States, we choose to sit on the bench. At a time when we tell our kids that they need to gain math and science skills to succeed in both college and career, we send then to the showers before they even have a chance to pitch the first inning. And at a time when we should be doing all we can to post impressive stats and demonstrate we are the world leaders, instead we choose to hide behind the stats on the back of our bubblegum cards, those numbers that defined us in years past.
But what, exactly, does this announcement say about us? Instead of dwelling on what we cannot do or where we see the failings, Eduflack offers up some talking points for Secretary Spellings on this important topic.
* Ensuring that our high school students are truly prepared to compete in the global economy must become a fiscal priority for us. We are, rightfully so, pouring billions and billions into elementary- and middle-school improvements and testing (including TIMSS for fourth and eighth graders), but the current federal commitment to high schools is but a fraction. We need to educate and train our students, particularly those in high school, in math and science, and we need to effectively assess those skills.
* We need to applaud those school districts that are taking the responsibility to prepare all students for the future. Early colleges and dual-enrollment offerings. AP and IB programs. STEM education. All of these are important steps our schools, districts, and states are taking to ready our kids for the challenges and opportunities of the future.
* The United States stands as the true home for innovation. And we’re willing to make the investment to keep it that way. Our future is too important not to equip our students with the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to achieve, both in school and in life.
Yes, TIMSS is merely one measure of our effectiveness. It is a tool, like other assessments, to ensure we are on the right track. And it is one of the few we have to effectively measure our abilities versus our trading partners and our economic competitors around the globe. Not participating in the study reads like we are worried about our ability to compete and our ability to excel. If we aren’t ready for the big leagues, then we need to get back into training and prepare ourselves for true competition. You can’t win the big game of life if you’re unwilling to step onto the field.
AP
Reading Between the NCLB Lines
As most in the education reform world know by now, yesterday House Education Committee Chairman George Miller spoke on his thoughts about NCLB. The highlights — NCLB will be reauthorized, NCLB will be revised and improved, and Miller has heard the “teaching to the test” critics. The Washington Post has the full story — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education
All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date. The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so. Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law. If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.
The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words. While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement. He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.
Why is this so interesting to Eduflack? Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools. Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade. We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way. For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments.
But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach. Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools. How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests? How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later? These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.
Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words. As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation. That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.
Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements. Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom. With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it.
All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date. The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so. Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law. If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.
The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words. While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement. He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.
Why is this so interesting to Eduflack? Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools. Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade. We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way. For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments.
But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach. Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools. How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests? How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later? These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.
Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words. As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation. That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.
Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements. Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom. With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it.
On the Road Again
For the past few weeks, Eduflack has spent the majority of his time well beyond the DC beltway. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana to name just a few. And the coming weeks add Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado. One thing’s clear, discussions of education reform are occurring well beyond Capitol Hill and One DuPont.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
Reform is More Than a Four-Letter Word
OK, I’ll go first. My name is Eduflack, and I’m an NCLB-aholic. That was never my intention. It just seems that every time I look for information on education reform and how we can improve the schools, I’m sucked in by the flashing lights and attractive packaging of NCLB stories. Even when I try to get away from it, someone is offering me a taste of NCLB. Some HQT here, some accountability there, and a whole lot of SBRR just about everywhere. I admit it, I’m hooked. And I like it.
And as much as I am an unapologetic supporter of the law and its goals, I also realize there is far more to education reform than NCLB. Some of those topics — like high school reform and STEM — are already being discussed as additions to NCLB 2.0. But there has to be more to school improvement than our federal elementary and secondary education act.
Leave it to Checker Finn and Diane Ravitch to remind us of what else is out there. In a Wall Street Journal commentary yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118653759532491305.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries), the two focus on their desire to protect liberal arts education in the K-12 curriculum. Their goal: to ensure we continue to teach history, civics, literature, and such subjects alongside our math and science requirements.
During a time when we are so focused on our “world is flat” economy and competition with India, China, and other nations around the globe, Ravitch and Finn’s piece makes one take pause. They argue that to truly be competitive, students not only need technical skills, but they need to understand people, need to be thoughtful, and need to be equipped to question authority and ask, “why?”
Ultimately, they raise the issue of whether it needs to be all or nothing. Successful schools can focus on STEM and core subject assessments. But they can also teach the Great Books and Western Civ.
For two individuals who are best known for their research, they deserve credit for personalizing their cause. Citing the “academic” paths that made Steve Jobs, Alan Greenspan, and Warren Buffett successes helps most doubters see that it is not the academic major on the diploma, but what one does with their knowledge that really matters. And their turn of the phrase, calling for “leaves and flowers” to be added to STEM, definitely leaves it mark.
The great rhetorical challenge now is how one keeps focus on the NCLB building blocks necessary to provide the path to high-quality liberal arts education. Or more simply, how do you say we are spending too much time and money and effort on NCLB, when the reading skills NCLB provides under Reading First are essential to any student understanding Shakespeare or the great philosophers?
Regardless, with their think piece, Finn and Ravitch have definitely thrown the opening pitch in what could be a very interesting ed reform ballgame. If they can continue to talk about it, outside of the context of NCLB, it could also be one that fills the stands.
And as much as I am an unapologetic supporter of the law and its goals, I also realize there is far more to education reform than NCLB. Some of those topics — like high school reform and STEM — are already being discussed as additions to NCLB 2.0. But there has to be more to school improvement than our federal elementary and secondary education act.
Leave it to Checker Finn and Diane Ravitch to remind us of what else is out there. In a Wall Street Journal commentary yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118653759532491305.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries), the two focus on their desire to protect liberal arts education in the K-12 curriculum. Their goal: to ensure we continue to teach history, civics, literature, and such subjects alongside our math and science requirements.
During a time when we are so focused on our “world is flat” economy and competition with India, China, and other nations around the globe, Ravitch and Finn’s piece makes one take pause. They argue that to truly be competitive, students not only need technical skills, but they need to understand people, need to be thoughtful, and need to be equipped to question authority and ask, “why?”
Ultimately, they raise the issue of whether it needs to be all or nothing. Successful schools can focus on STEM and core subject assessments. But they can also teach the Great Books and Western Civ.
For two individuals who are best known for their research, they deserve credit for personalizing their cause. Citing the “academic” paths that made Steve Jobs, Alan Greenspan, and Warren Buffett successes helps most doubters see that it is not the academic major on the diploma, but what one does with their knowledge that really matters. And their turn of the phrase, calling for “leaves and flowers” to be added to STEM, definitely leaves it mark.
The great rhetorical challenge now is how one keeps focus on the NCLB building blocks necessary to provide the path to high-quality liberal arts education. Or more simply, how do you say we are spending too much time and money and effort on NCLB, when the reading skills NCLB provides under Reading First are essential to any student understanding Shakespeare or the great philosophers?
Regardless, with their think piece, Finn and Ravitch have definitely thrown the opening pitch in what could be a very interesting ed reform ballgame. If they can continue to talk about it, outside of the context of NCLB, it could also be one that fills the stands.
A New World for Online Ed
Education Week is reporting on a new study that nearly two-thirds of public school administrators surveyed said they are offering some form of online education. Fascinating study, and even more interesting implications for how we talk about successful education reform.
High school doesn’t have the capacity to increase the number of AP courses? Access them online. Limited interest in foreign languages like Chinese or Arabic? Learn through the computer. Unable to build a sustainable early college program in your community? Dial in a reputable two-year or four-year college. And let’s not even talk the possibilities for home schoolers or charter schools.
The unanswered question is how did the 63% of those surveyed by the Sloan Foundation get buy in from their local teachers? How do you convince a licensed, veteran teacher to ultimately play the role of facilitator, as the instruction is handled by an image on a computer screen or on a DVD?
If access to online learning is to continue to grow in our public schools, we need to demonstrate to all stakeholders — especially teachers — that there is value to them. If the study is right, and 19% of all students will soon be taking all of their classes online, teachers will need to be under the online ed tent. Growth and success are one thing. Buy-in from the teachers is essential to successfully implementing classroom change.
(Originally posted March 6, 2007)
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 