Arne Duncan

Your Senate GOP ESEA Reform Starting Lineup

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, AYP, ESEA, HQT, NCLB

All week, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) has been talking about his accelerated plans for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  We are hearing of deadline like Easter for when the Senate will either entertain a new draft of the reauth, pass the reauth, or acknowledge the reauth.

Unfortunately, there haven’t been a lot of details as to what may be in Chairman Harkin’s ESEA bill.  Eduflack suspects it will resemble the ESEA Blueprint put forward by the U.S. Department of Education nearly a year ago, with some emphasis on rural education and special education mixed in for good measure.  The naming, last month, of Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM) as Harkin’s ESEA wingman only strengthens the thinking on the Blueprint approach to reauth.
Well, it seems the Republican side of the HELP desk is not going to be left at the side of the road.  In a briefing with reporters this week, HELP Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY) and his education wingman and former Ed Sec Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) highlighted their “nine areas” to address in reauth.
The Senate GOP starting lineup for ESEA reform includes:
* Fixing the 100-percent proficient by 2014 goal (now that we see we can’t reach it)
* Reforming that darned AYP designation, an acronym that ED won’t even utter these days
* Refocusing on results-based testing, as opposed to that worrisome high-stakes testing
* Showing the rural districts some love
* Fixing high quality teacher provisions, particularly for those rural districts
* Offering greater flexibility to states and school districts
* IDing duplicative or wasteful efforts in ED
* Providing greater flexibility in general
* Engaging parents and families in the process
So is this the sort of staring lineup that strikes fear in the opposing team?  At face value, these are all items we’ve heard before.  But sometimes, a team is far greater than its individual players, and this could very well be the case with Enzi and Alexander’s concerns.  The list is a major hat tip to EdSec Arne Duncan’s Blueprint, particularly the revised language he has been touting since the November 2010 midterm elections.  There is some major love here for House Republicans, particularly the calls for flexibility, local control, and rural schools.  Even a little something for the teachers unions, by acknowledging that the current approach to student testing just doesn’t work and current HQT provisions missed the mark.  
And it also embraces one of the strongest components of NCLB — parental engagement — and incredibly powerful tool that was all but abandoned (other than on the school choice issue) soon after NCLB was passed in 2002.
What is the expected outcome?  Chairman Harkin is still writing the law, let there be no doubt.  But by placing their markers down like this, Enzi and Alexander have set the ESEA agenda.  Most, if not all, of these issues were likely to be on Harkin’s wish list in the first place.  Now, his draft will either need to signal an alignment with GOP concerns, or he will need to defend why these issues don’t warrant his attention.  And that’s a game no HELP chairman should want to play.
It is time for that Harkin trial balloon. 

Can We Innovate to Improvement?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, i3

Is there real, honest-to-goodness innovation entering the K-12 education space?  We seem to use the term “innovation” a great deal, but few seem to know what it really means.  The dictionary definition is “something new or different introduced.”  When the U.S. Department of Education issued its Investing in Innovation (i3) program last year, innovation was driven by what was research proven and evidence based.

Without question, i3 inspired a significant number of school districts, non-profit organizations, and thought leaders to give real thought to innovation in education.  Nearly 1,700 entities submitted applications for i3 funding.  Forty nine applicants became i3 winners.  But hundreds and hundreds of other projects, particularly some at the school district level, received high scores, indicating the opportunity and potential these education innovations could have.
This week, the Aspen Institute is hosting its Education Innovation Forum and Expo.  With a goal of leveraging the interest in i3 to “drive an innovation culture” in education, Aspen and its partners offer up a series of objectives for this meeting and the partnerships and relationships that should come from the gathering, including:
* Create a national stage to feature investment ready non-profit and for profit educational innovations
* Foster an education policy environment that is more innovation and investment friendly
* Showcase high-scoring i3 projects
* Attract more private equity investment to promising education innovations
* Provide an enduring platform for connecting innovators with venture capitalists, social innovation investors, educators, and policymakers
* Engage thought leaders from other sectors in creating a robust education innovation and R&D infrastructure
For those who have been slogging in the ed reform trenches for years, many of these objectives are discussions and actions that we simply have not engaged in to date.  Despite interest in additional dollars, the education community, on the whole, has been slow to embrace the role of for-profit interests — particularly as a partner — in public education.  We are a sector that still can’t agree on what innovation is.  And despite popular opinion, we simply have never invested in a true R&D infrastructure, at least not the way other policy sectors do.
So kudos go to Aspen, the U.S. Department of Education (an “in cooperation” partner of the event), and the partners and sponsors who are jumpstarting the discussion.  When everyone from Arne Duncan to Alan Greenspan, Mark Ecko to Joel Klein, and Paul Pastorek to Mike Johnston takes the time to spur this discussion toward a real, innovative, R&D focus, it merits some attention.
In listening to the conversations and formal discussions across the Washington Convention Center, it also raises a few observations:
* Private-sector, and even philanthropic, support for school improvement is meant to be a catalyst.  Such funding is not intended to supplant current funding from the state or local community.  Private investment is also not intended to be an unending stream of dollars for as long as a new program remains in favor.  Such dollars are a way to jumpstart the system, allowing true reformers to move change in an environment often loathe for such.
* Reductions in traditional funding streams, coupled with the possibility of new streams from the private sector, should force us to move away from the status quo.  When we are being asked to do more with less, we can’t keep funding what we have done because it is what we have done.  New dollars need to be focused on the future and on return on investment.  Innovation is an investment in promising practice, not a way to prop up what hasn’t worked in the past.
* We still do not know if we can bring innovation to scale.  Currently, we have approximately 15,000 school districts across the United States.  In the past decade, Teach for America has been deemed by many the most successful ed reform/innovation effort in public education.  According to the TFA website, the organization is working in 39 placement regions, including many of the larger, urban school districts.  If TFA increased its regions by 400 percent next year, it would be up to 1 percent of our total districts.  This is no knock on TFA, but it is a realization that we still don’t have a working model to bring innovation and reforms to scale in the United States.
Hopefully, the Aspen forum will help drive some thinking toward answering these questions.  How do we fund a true R&D research agenda?  How do we decide what is worthy of funding?  How do we make sure funding is used as intended and drives ROI?  And how do we define scalable reform in an industry so tied to the status quo?
As is typical for education, lots of questions.  If today is indication, we have real people with real influence committed to answering the questions.  We have real checkbooks to back up some of the rhetoric.  Now we just need the real ideas and real measures to move the discussion to true action.
  

Real 21st Century Ed Tech?

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, ESEA, Online Education, technology

As a nation, we tend to give a great deal of lip service to the idea of a 21st century education.  Such a notion is particularly popular when international achievement rankings come out, when we see how the United States stacks up to other industrialized nations, and we all seem to preach on the need to provide a 21st century education to lead to 21st century jobs and a 21st century economy.

Can we really provide a 21st century education without focusing on the role of technology in the process?  While technology remains at the center of many an American life, our schools are still constructed around a 19th century instructional model.  Rows of desks.  A single teacher lecturing.  And technology turned off and put away.  We literally unplug many of our students as they step through the schoolhouse doors.
Yes, the White House paid note to the value of education technology last year, as it pledged to better integrate ed tech throughout the federal ESEA process.  And U.S. Department of Education officials such as Karen Cator have long been advocating for the National Education Technology Plan released late last year.  But how do such commitments translate into action items that are felt in classrooms across the country?
Yesterday, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) released An Ed Tech Trio for 2011: ISTE’s U.S. Education Technology Priorities.  Following up on its popular Top 10 list of ed tech issues last year, ISTE’s Ed Tech Trio keys in on specific, actionable items that Congress can take on to demonstrate a true commitment to ed tech.  The trifecta includes:
* Providing dedicated federal funding for ed tech programs such as Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) and Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners Act (PTDAL)
* Demanding that federal school turnaround efforts, including Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, include an ed tech component
* Ensuring broadband for all students, both in the classroom and outside of classroom hours
It is no secret that well-conceived ed tech can serve an important role in addressing all four of the education pillars moved forward by EdSec Arne Duncan and the ESEA blueprint last year.  From standards to data systems, teacher quality to turnaround schools, ed tech can and does play an essential role.  For instance, programs like EETT (which has never been adequately funded by Congress) provide invaluable professional development and support in ed tech for classroom teachers. 
At the end of the day, funding is king in the world of education priorities.  If Congress is serious about ed tech, it’ll again find a way to fund efforts such as EETT.  It’ll find the funding to match the promise in the recently signed American COMPETES Act, which moves our STEM commitment forward.  And it will even direct specific dollars to ensure that NETP is acted on in classrooms across the country.
It’s time to plug our classrooms back in and provide all students the true 21st century education we just love to talk about.  After all, do we really think we can move toward an instructional world filled with e-learning and virtual schools and OER if we don’t have teachers trained on technology and broadband in all schools?
(Full disclosure, Eduflack has advised ISTE and other ed tech groups over the years.)

Waiting for ESEA Reauth?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, ESEA, NCLB

New year, same fight.  As we begin the first school week of 2011, EdSec Arne Duncan renews the call for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in today’s Washington Post.  By painting ESEA as the latest and greatest tool in the national push for ed reform, Duncan seems to say that while everyone is waiting for Superman, the Man of Steel is simply waiting for ESEA reauth to take hold.

Duncan’s points are not new, but they are worth reiterating as we head into the latest round of ed policy fights.  
1) Republicans and Democrats have been hard at work on ESEA reauth for the past year (isn’t it more like the past five?), and ESEA is truly a bipartisan issue
2) No one likes failing schools
3) Transparency and data use are good
4) Bubble sheet exams are bad
5) Nine years later, our teachers still aren’t highly qualified
6) We are now facing a sense of urgency to do something about our schools
Perhaps most interesting are Duncan’s insights into what “reform” currently looks like and how it will be embodied in ESEA:
School districts and their local partners in inner cities and rural communities are overcoming poverty and family breakdown to create high-performing schools, including charters and traditional public schools.  They are taking bold steps to turn around low-performing schools by investing in teachers, rebuilding school staff, lengthening the school day and changing curricula.

In partnership with local teacher unions, districts are finding new ways to evaluate and compensate their teachers and staff their schools.  Some districts have reshaped labor agreements around student success — and teachers have strongly supported these groundbreaking agreements. 
If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought these words were written by incoming House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (MN) or perhaps some of the holdovers from George W. Bush’s presidential administration.  Rural ed is back in the discussion, and we are refocused on the achievement gap.  Charters are again central to fixin’ what ails us.  And we have to remind all those involved that we do indeed work with teachers and the teachers unions.
The EdSec is also quick to remind his critics (and those new Tea Partiers arriving in DC this week) that he is not a creature of Washington, noting: “Since coming to Washington, I’ve been told that partisan politics inevitably trumps bipartisan governing.  But if I have learned anything as education secretary, it is that conventional wisdom serves to prop up the status quo — and is often wrong.”
Duncan definitely earns an A for putting forward the sort of rhetoric we need to see at the start of a new, Republican congress.  There is no talk of the need for additional funding or increased budgets.  There is no mention of new programs such as Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation and edujobs.  We are “fixing” NCLB, not overhauling it.  Common Core is barely referenced, and is done so in such a way that most won’t recognize it.  Flexibility and localities are finally to play a greater role in the great ESEA fight.
But the grade for moving such rhetoric into action remains incomplete.  Is the Blueprint being revised to meet some of these new rhetorical priorities?  Is a draft of ESEA ready to be dropped in the legislative hopper as of Wednesday?  What ed programs will ultimately face cuts in the President’s budget next month?  And what regulatory changes can be made now to make ESEA tolerable for the coming year (or years)?
A new year provides Team Duncan with a fresh start to approach an issue Maryland Avenue has been trying to tackle for many years now.  Will ESEA hold the same level of priority on Capitol Hill as it seems to at ED?  Only time will tell.  Today, Duncan signaled a desire to work with the new Republican Congress.  It is a start.

Some Resolutions for 2011

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, ESEA, HQT, i3, international benchmarking, NCLB, Online Education, reading, Reading First, RTT, STEM, stimulus, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

Another year about to go down in the history books.  Are we any closer to truly improving our public schools?  For every likely step forward we may have taken in 2010, it seems to be met with a similar step back.  For every rhetorical push ahead, we had a very real headwind blocking progress. 

So as we head into 2011, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack offers up a few “resolutions” for all on the education reform boat to consider as we start a new year.  We need to come to accept the following:
1.  True reform does not happen at the federal level.  The federal government is an important lever in the school improvement process, offering some necessary financial resources and some bully pulpit language to inspire reform.  But true improvement happens at the state and local levels.  It is about what our SEAs and LEAs do with those resources and whether they embrace the call from the bully pulpit.  Just as all politics is local, so too is all education reform.  Why do you think groups like DFER are so keen on launching new statewide efforts, like the new one in California?
2.  ESEA reauthorization really doesn’t matter.  As much as we want to fret about when ESEA is going to be reauthorized and what will and won’t be included, it doesn’t have much impact on the game at hand.  At the end of the day, EdSec Duncan could work from the current NCLB, make a few tweaks, and be just fine for the next few years.  Those thinking a major sea change is coming with reauth will be sadly mistaken.  If we see reauth this year (put at about 60 percent), expect it to simply be a kinder, gentler NCLB.  Nothing more.
3. Education technology matters.  For years now, we’ve placed ed tech in the perifery when it comes to school improvement, trying to define it as simply the adoption of a particular piece of hardware.  Ed tech needs to be at the center of 21st century school improvement.  It is important to instruction and student achievement, teacher quality, and all-around turnaround efforts.  If we are to realize its impact, we need to ensure it is a non-negotiable in the process.
4. We cannot forget about reading instruction.  Nine years ago, Reading First was born, emphasizing the importance of literacy instruction in the elementary grades.  We cannot boost student test scores and we cannot ensure that all kids are college and career ready if everyone isn’t reading at grade level.  RF taught us a great deal on how to teach reading (and how not to advocate it politically).  Building on those lessons, we need to redouble our efforts to get each and every child reading proficient.  And that now includes focusing on middle and high schools, where too many students have fallen between the cracks.
5. Superintendents matter.  Many of our largest and most influential school districts will experience change at the top this coming year.  These new leaders can’t forget that the role of instructional leader is essential to their success.  Shaking things up is good.  Sweeping out the old is fine.  Doing things differently is great.  But at the end of the day, being a superintendent is all about teaching and learning and measurement.  Magazine covers are nice, but rising test scores are far more rewarding.
6. We still need to figure out what teacher quality is.  Is it just student test scores?  Does it include preservice education requirements beyond HQT provisions?  Are their qualitative factors?  Can we accept a “we’ll know it when we see it” definition?  With increased focus continuing to be placed on the topic of teacher quality, we need a true defition and a true measurement to really launch a meaningful discussion.  We’ve spent too much time talking about what it isn’t or what it shouldn’t be.  It is time to determine what it is.
7. Research remains king.  In 2010, we spent a great deal of money on school reforms and improvement ideas.  Most of these dollars were an investment in hope.  Now it is time to verify.  We need to determine what is working and what is not.  We need to know not just that the money is being spent (as ED typically sees evaluation) but instead need to know what it is being spent on and what is showing promise of success.  We need to redouble our investments in evaluation.  Other sectors have made real advances because of investments in R&D.  It is about time for education to do the same.
8. We need to learn how to use social media in education.  It is quite disheartening to see that states like Virginia are exploring banning teachers from using tools like Facebook with their students.  It is also a little frustrating to see that media like Twitter are still being used for one-way communications.  We need to see more engagement and dialogue through our social media.  An example?  How about more Twitter debates like those between @DianeRavitch and @MichaelPetrilli ?
And as we look forward to the new year, some predictions on what is hot and what is not for 2011.
HOT — Accountability (and its flexibility).  Assessments.  International benchmarking.  Rural education.  Alternative certification.  Special education.  Competitive grants.  Local control.  School improvement.  Local elected school boards.  Online education.
NOT —  Charter schools.  Early childhood education.  21st century skills.  STEM.  ELL.  Education schools.  RttT/i3.  Education reform (yeah, you heard me).  Teachers unions.  Mayoral control.  AYP.  Early colleges.  Edujobs.
Happy new year!  

An International Achievement Gap

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, assessment

The new PISA scores are here, the new PISA scores are here!  As we all know by now, the latest edition of PISA is now out, and it isn’t the prettiest of pictures.  Much of the day of/day after debate seems to be focused on the performance of China, which entered this year’s countdown at the top of the charts.  While some may want to fault the sample size (of Shanghai) or look for other reasons to discount China’s positioning, there is no getting around the truth.  The students in China who took the test did better than the students in other countries who took the test.  Blame cherrypicking of students, overprepping for the tests, or a host of other excuses, but Chinese test takers still did better than everyone else.

And what about the dear ol’ U.S. of A?  Again, we get to settle for middle of the pack, with an undistinguished placement for all categories.  Be it reading, math, or science, we are consistently average (unless you look at math, where we are now below average).
Thankfully, the US Department of Education did not try to sugar coat this or claim victories for an incredibly modest gain in science.  Instead, EdSec Duncan declared the PISA results a “wake-up call” and a “hard truth” that we are being passed by.
Hopefully, Duncan and company are successful in using such test scores to push for more substantive, results-based school improvement efforts.  But these numbers — and the numbers of recent years previous — paint a very grim picture.  We are caught in an international achievement gap.  Each year, we take great pride in the fact that we have “held our own” or managed to gain a point or two in a given subject.  At the same time, our international counterparts are making significant gains of their own, increasing the space between their students and ours.  China taking the top spot its first year in the competition merely magnifies our mediocrity and this very real achievement gap.
As a nation, we continue to focus on how our students do against students in other states.  We play games with our state standards and the resultant tests (a practice hopefully ending by most with the adoption of common core) to show increasing numbers of proficient students.  But in the process, it doesn’t matter that a 10th grader today is proficient if he can do the work of a 7th grader of 25 years ago.  We just want that proficient label, declaring victory once we can apply it to our schools and our students, standards and actual knowledge be damned.
International benchmarks such as PISA and TIMSS force us to compete on a level, fair, and painfully honest playing field.  We can’t adjust the standards and rubrics to meet our regional needs.  In many ways, these scores are far more accurate indicators of our actual student achievement than anything one sees on a state exam.
And that is why these results are so discouraging.  We are fighting to tread water (despite state numbers showing strong gains for most in recent years) as our competitors are building 21st century speedboats.  As other nations do it better and more effectively, we run a real risk of being left behind, with nothing but excuses and substandard state exams to keep us warm at night.
At the end of the day, this isn’t an issue that China (or Finland or Korea or Singapore or Canada or New Zealand or Estonia or countless others) is doing better than the United States.  The issue is that we are failing our students.  The international achievement gap is not a measure of student failures.  It is a measure of the failures of the U.S. public school system.  Unless we fight for real, systemic change, all we are doing is teaching our students a new stroke by which to tread water.  

Analyzing the Ed Stimulus’ Impact

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB, RTT, stimulus

So it is more than a year and a half since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law and the faucet of federal education stimulus dollars was turned on, sending a stream (either a raging river or a trickle, depending on your perspective) to states and school districts across the nation.  While much has been done (particularly from the good folks over at EdWeek’s Politics K-12 blog) on whether we are actually spending the ed stimulus dollars or not, a larger question may very well be if such spending is having any impact.

For the past year, we’ve heard how Race to the Top has completely changed the game, with states across the union overhauling their policies on data systems, teacher firewalls, charter schools, turnaround schools, and many topics in between.  A new reform era has been ushered in, according to many, leaving status quoers with nothing to show for decades worth of work.
But a new study released today by Bellwether Education Partners and Education First Consulting finds that the stimulus’ impact on education reform may not be as definitive as both cheerleaders and critics may believe.  InConflicting Missions and Unclear Results: Lessons from the Education Stimulus Funds, Bellwether’s Sara Mead and Andy Rotherham and Ed First’s Anand Vaishnav and William Porter lend an analytical eye to whether the $100 billion in ed stimulus cash is having the sea change impact we expected.
Their findings?:
* Stimulus dollars are being used primarily to make up for cuts in state and local budgets, with most of those cuts coming in the HR arena
* Districts are confused by mixed messages from the US Department of Education as to whether stimulus bucks are intended to preserve jobs or advance reform
* ARRA spending is being driven by existing processes and expected inertias in many school districts (instead of by the reform priorities in the stimulus rhetoric)
* In districts that used ARRA dollars in a strategic way, it went more to local leadership, local capacity issues, and local factors, instead of to federal reform priorities
* The edu-problems ARRA intended to solve aren’t going away
For those at the district or building level, such findings should be no surprise.  Stimulus money was primarily for stopping the bleeding, not for inventing new 21st century educational sutures.  So once the money passes from the feds to the states to the localities, those much needs dollars are used for tactical needs, not strategic visions.
What can we learn from these findings?  Bellwether and Education First offer a few insights.  First, federal funds won’t generate reform unless they are attached to clear reform requirements (does Eduflack hear NCLB?  Anybody?).  Competitive grants (like RttT and i3) have the greatest chance of driving reforms.  Formula-based programs, not so much.  Reform plans need to be strategic.  Policymakers need to support strategies that build capacity of all types (data, analytic, research, instructional).    
Most interestingly, Conflicting Missions touts the importance of advocacy in the reform process.  During the NCLB era, we lost this point, believing that the federal stick was enough to force long-term change.  It didn’t work.  In the early days of ARRA, we re-found the importance of advocacy, with the EdSec and other ED officials working hard to reach out to key groups and stakeholders so they understood the problems, what ED was doing to fix those problems, and the expected outcomes we would all reap following the fix.
Heading into ESEA reauthorization, we have lost some of that focus on advocacy.  But history tells us that effective public engagement is the best way to drive real and lasting reforms and improvements.  Erect a big tent and give all stakeholders a voice.  Make the process open and public.  Make clear the problem and the available solutions.  Give stakeholders a choice on such solutions, making clear that ED’s vision is the best for the current situation.  Underpromise and overdeliver on the agreed solutions.  Rinse and repeat.
Yes, Conflicting Missions focuses on ARRA.  But it also offers some real lessons for moving ESEA forward in 2011.  The big question, will anyone listen.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack has provided counsel to Bellwether Education Partners.)

  
 

Is ESEA Reauth a Done Deal?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

For months now, the popular wisdom has been that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be reauthorized in 2011 (only three or so years late).  After all, John Kline (MN), the incoming House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman, and EdSec Arne Duncan have never been that far off on what they wanted from the law.  Duncan’s blueprint has been public record since March.  Kline has been hoping for more local control and greater attention on rural schools, two issues Duncan seems fine with.  Their only significant difference is that Duncan is the champion of Race to the Top and Kline would like to see the program carted off to an early death.  Otherwise, there is a lot to work with in the middle.

Following Tuesday’s elections, folks (including Eduflack) have been quick to say that education is the one issue Democrats and Republicans can probably agree on (to a degree) in the coming year.  If both sides are looking for a quick win and a chance to show they stand FOR something and can move something forward, ESEA is likely it.  The outstanding question, to many, is whether Hill Republicans want to give the White House and the Dems such a quick win.

Let’s be clear.  We aren’t talking about a comprehensive overhaul of No Child Left Behind.  When you take the March 2010 ESEA Blueprint, and mix in current political realities, we are really talking about a minor remodel of the law, not a rebuild.  Additional flexibility.  Revised accountability measures.  Greater collaboration.  More carrot and less stick.  A kinder, gentler (and now level-funded) NCLB if you will.

Last week’s congressional elections make pretty clear that any ESEA reauth likely means a new law that is level funded.  The incoming class (many of who ran on a platform to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education) is not looking to increase Duncan’s budget.  And those cockeyed optimists who believe a lame duck congress passing an omnibus appropriations bill means a third round of RttT clearly haven’t been listening to Kline or a number of others who can undo in two months that which is done in the coming weeks. 

But are we missing the bigger story in the reauthorization debate?  Most seem to couch this as a Democrats versus Republicans issue, failing to see what current House Ed Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Kline have been moving a good draft forward for much of this year.  And both Miller and Kline seem to be in tune with most of the priorities coming out of Maryland Avenue.

Instead, isn’t the real debate between the House and the Senate?  Even when both chambers were controlled by Dems and all Dems were complaining about NCLB, we didn’t see a shared vision.  If we couldn’t get a Dem Administration, a Dem House, and a Dem Senate to agree on K-12 education, what makes tomorrow different?

Has Sen. Tom Harkin (IA) been the stumbling block?  Harkin controls both the Senate HELP Committee and the appropriations subcommittee that oversees education funding.  While the senior senator from Iowa has held numerous hearings on specific issues related to ESEA, we haven’t seen the trial balloon drafts we come to expect during the reauth process.  In fact, the Senate has been downright silent regarding its hopes and dreams for next-gen ESEA.  So even if Duncan and Kline come to agreement on a bill that could work for their constituencies, will Harkin join in the fun?

In all honesty, we simply don’t know if ESEA is a priority for either the House or the Senate.  Both committees have a significant number of TBDs on the membership roster for the coming congress.  When we hear the list of priorities for the new House, education simply isn’t on the list.  And we are hearing nothing coming out of the Senate.

If Duncan is smart, he just prepares to work under the confines of the current NCLB.  He can do most of what he wants anyway, with the current law and some guidance (even of the non-regulatory variety) to make the shifts proposed in his blueprint.  Is it ideal, no.  But it may be the best choice in the current environment.
   

As the Election Dust Settles …

Eduflack Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

While we still don’t know where all the chips will fall once all of the votes have been counted and recounted, there are some drive-by observations we can make regarding yesterday’s results and the potential impact for education policy in 2011 and beyond.

One thing that becomes clear from yesterday’s results, folks are frustrated by how much money the federal government has spent in the past two years (dating back to President Bush’s TARP).  So those thinking there are new pots of money for additional rounds of Race to the Top, i3, edujobs, or other such programs are likely to be severely disappointed.  We’re back to doing more with less.

Historically, Republicans prefer to fund education research and assessment, while Democrats prefer to fund implementation.  So it is fair to assume that the House Education and the Workforce Committee, under the leadership of likely new chairman John Kline (MN) will swing the pendulum back to the data.

Changes are coming to the education committees.  On the Senate side, because of last night’s results, we are likely to see the GOP pick up two seats on HELP, while Dems lose two seats.  And we have at least two Senate Dems, Dodd and Goodwin) who leave the Committee because they didn’t seek re-elect (and we still need to see what happens to Murray out in Washington and Bennet in Colorado).  More importantly, we have two GOPers — Gregg and Roberts — who move off the Committee (and possibly a third, Murkowski, depending on write-in vote tallies in Alaska).  A potential for five new Republicans on HELP in 2011.  So Chairman Harkin will have major changes to deal with on a Committee that hasn’t quite been in the education game for the last year.

On the House side?  Huge changes coming.  Kline will be the new chairman.  Rumors are already circulating that outgoing Chairman George Miller (CA) may retire rather than returning for the 112th Congress.  And then we will have a slew of new Republicans added to the roster, while a bunch of Dems rotate off.   

And don’t forget, the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner (OH), was one of the key architects of NCLB, when he himself chaired the House Education and Workforce Committee.  

What about the states?  The map of governors is looking awfully red.  Republicans picked up the chief chair in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, and others.  And we are still waiting for results in Florida, Illinois, and Oregon.  Among RttT states, we are seeing an awful lot of Race states with Republicans at the helm.  

No doubt, changes are coming to the edu-scape.  Many candidates calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education were elected last night.  There was little talk, if any, about the role of charter schools or school choice.  And the incoming majority party was swept in on promises of smaller government, reductions in spending, and a return of local control.  All of these promises have very real impact on federal and state education policy.  

So what now?  Expect Kline to move quickly with a plan to reauthorize ESEA … and expect EdSec Duncan to jump at the opportunity.  It won’t be a major change to NCLB — some improvements, some changes, but the same core framework with some accountability and flexibility returned to the states/localities at roughly a level funding level.   But that may be our only true edu-shot in 2011.
 

Education Policy and 2010 Elections

Eduflack Arne Duncan, assessment, early childhood education, ESEA, i3, Math, NCLB, RTT

This time tomorrow (or possibly this time Thursday or Friday, depending on how close some elections out west may be) we will know what the 112th Congress will look like and we will have a clear sense of who will be sitting in the big desks in governors’ offices across the nation.  You have to be living in a cave (or be in complete denial) not to know that big change is coming.  So how will such change affect education policy plans for 2011 and beyond?

ESEA Reauthorization — We will likely see ESEA reauth in 2011, and it may actually be helped along by Republicans taking over the U.S. House of Representatives.  Rep, John Kline (MN) has already been working closely with Chairman George Miller (CA) on the legislation.  So while Kline is likely to give the draft a greater emphasis on local control and rural schools, it should still move. 

And the U.S. Senate will follow the House’s lead.  It is expected that Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will remain in charge of the HELP Committee.  But major changes on the committee (due to election results and retirements) may change the Senate perspective.  If anything, it may help focus Harkin and get him to move on a meaningful piece of legislation.

Common Core Standards — Tomorrow, we are likely to see a lot of governor’s offices change parties.  Inevitably, that is going to lead to many seeking new GOP governors to reconsider their states’ adoption of the Common Core Standards (all in the name of local control).  And we may well see a few states pull out of the process, particularly if said states were RttT losers and are particularly proud of their state standards.  Texas and Virginia can serve as the model for these “rebel” states.

Phase Three Race to the Top and Phase Two i3 — Many are hoping for another round of both RttT and i3.  But additional rounds mean additional dollars.  And if the lead-up to today’s elections mean anything, it is that folks are frustrated with how many federal dollars have been spent over the past 18 months.  If we are seeing new RttT and i3 processes, it likely means having to move money from existing programs and existing priorities, a task that can be difficult during the reauthorization process.

Early Childhood Education — ECE has been the big loser in the last year.  Despite a great deal of rhetoric about the importance of early childhood education and plans on what should be done, ECE simply hasn’t been shown the budgetary love.  And that is unlikely to change.  ECE advocates will likely be fighting for the scraps in the larger picture for the coming year, particularly if they cannot find new champions on the Hill from both sides of the aisle.

Public/Private Partnerships — We have long relied on public/private partnerships to help move education issues forward, and STEM education is the latest in a long line of such efforts that the education establishment and the private sector have been able to work together on.  But will the Administration’s attack on business, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, make it more difficult to cut a deal to advance STEM in 2011?  Or will the business community move forward without Obama and company?  Only time will tell.

Teachers — EdSec Arne Duncan’s Teacher campaign is off and running, and it is likely to gain speed following the elections and stronger GOP representation in the states.  Many see the Teacher effort, led by Brad Jupp, as an alt cert campaign (an unfair characterization, but it has stuck).  So an anti-teachers union sentiment could give the recruitment effort some legs, particularly as new Republican governors look to model their administrations after NJ Gov. Chris Christie.

And what are the likely unsung issues in our post-election environment?  Parental and family engagement is at the top of ol’ Eduflack’s list, as folks see the need for community buy-in on reauth and other issues in a difficult budget year.  The assessments aligned with the Common Core will pick up steam.  And we are likely to see state legislatures take on an even stronger role in education issues, particularly as we look at the future for ESEA and Common Core.  And with all of our focus on reading for the past decade, math is likely to step into the forefront, particularly as more and more people raise issues with the math common core.

And so it begins …