Arne Duncan

Eliminate the US Department of Education?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Marketing, NCLB

Do we need the US Department of Education?  This seems to be a question that comes up every decade or so, ever since President Jimmy Carter made ED its own free-standing cabinet agency. 

Many in the Reagan Administration considered tearing down their own Ed Department, somehow believing it violated the basic tenets of conservatism and local control.  In the mid-1990s, after the Contract with America and Newt Gingrich’s brilliant 1994 mid-term election campaign, Republican congressional leaders made it a rallying cry during the government shutdowns of 1995 and the elections of 1996.

Personally, I thought the issue was over following the passage of No Child Left Behind.  Prior to 2001, education was a decidedly Democratic issue.  Dems were pro-education (as shown by their strong support from the unions), Republicans were anti-education.  President George W. Bush took that away, almost de-politicizing the issue.  Despite what we want to believe now, NCLB was bi-partisan.  We showed that Republicans could care about education issues, and could be equally pro-education and pro-child.  And we demonstrated that Republicans and Democrats could agree (in general) on core issues such as school improvement.

Now, the question is back.  By now, we are all aware of the impact the Tea Party is having on American politics.  We have seen many a “sure thing” Republican fall in this year’s primary elections, with the most recent being U.S. Rep. Mike Castle in his bid to be the next U.S. Senator from Delaware.  Most attribute the Tea Party with simply being anti-Obama.  Against the stimulus spending.  Against healthcare reform.  Against big government.  Against career politicians.  Against business as usual.  (And for some, against common sense.)

But while there is no official “platform” for Tea Party candidates (they are all Republicans, after all), talk of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education has been trickling in to the campaign rhetoric.  Christine O’Donnell, Delaware’s Republican Senate nominee, is the latest to be tagged with the “torpedo ED” language.  True or no, the label has been attached.

So it has got Eduflack thinking.  Who, exactly, is coming up with the idea that the key to winning a U.S. House or Senate seat is calling for the dismantlement of the LBJ Building on Maryland Avenue?  Are there that many folks who are riled up about the Office of Civil Rights and its commitment to an equitable education?  Lines of people opposed to a national commitment to elementary and secondary education?  Torches and pitchforks coming for Title I funding or the administration of student loans?

Year after year, we see that education does NOT serve as a voting issue for national elections.  So why target ED?  Surely there are other cabinet agencies that are better targets for campaign tales of “waste” or “federalism?”  Why don’t we hear a call to eleminate the US Department of Agriculture or Commerce?  

Make no mistake, the US Department of Education is going nowhere.  Every single congressional district in the nation depends on ED for financial support, guidance, and general partnership.  Federal education dollars head into every single city and town in the country.  

But it is time for ED to stop being a whipping boy and an easy target.  We are already hearing about Republicans looking to shut down the government if they take control of Congress.  And the US Department of Education is usually the first to shut its doors and the last to open them after such shutdowns.

As EdSec Arne Duncan and his team continue to develop their plans for ESEA reauthorization, perhaps they need to take on a new branding task.  WIth Race to the Top checks cut, i3 grants awarded, and ESEA coming down the pike, the time is now to remind Main Street USA of the role and responsibilities of the federal government in public education.  Help the average parent see how the feds are partners in the education process.  Help communities better understand where the feds fit in the local-state-federal continuum beyond the one-time injections of the stimulus.  And generally show us that education improvement is a shared job.

Otherwise, these fights will continue, with ED getting back in the crosshairs every decade or so.  Petty and pointless discussions such as eliminating the US Department of Education serve no purpose … other than making for good blog fodder and campaign bullet points.
 

The Drumbeat for Mayoral Control

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, Michelle Rhee

Do mayors run better urban school systems?  That is the question the Wall Street Journal asked yesterday as it used Rochester (NY) Mayor’s Robert Duffy’s bid to take over his struggling city schools as a launching pad to discuss the merits of mayoral control.

Duffy is lobbying the New York Legislature to take over his schools, seeking to dissolve the current elected school board and replace it with a board appointed by himself and the city council.  The pressing demand?  The need to close failing schools and reopen new ones better aligned with student needs and learning expectations.

For those that read the WSJ’s education coverage, this is a regular drumbeat.  Back in March of 2009, the Journal wrote (and Eduflack opined on) an interesting piece on the growing embrace of mayoral control, riffing off of the notion that President Obama and EdSec Arne Duncan were advocating for mayoral takeovers in order to implement their aggressive school improvement plans.  As it did 17 months ago, the Wall Street Journal cites successes in New York, Boston, and Washington DC to make its case for giving the keys to the schools to the municipal leader.

Interestingly, yesterday’s article by Joy Ressmovits seems to note there has been no mad rush to add to the powers of our nation’s mayors.  Despite last year’s declarations, we are not seeing huge numbers of urban districts turning to mayoral control.  Despite efforts in cities like Detroit and Milwaukee, such moves seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Why? 

First, there is no clear “mayoral control” model for which one can buy the playbook and just implement the plan.  In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg had a particular plan in place, and he and Chancellor Joel Klein have implemented it step by step.  In our nation’s capital, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee have tried to crib from NYC and build a NYCDOE South in DC.  But leaders in Boston have behaved very differently, both in leadership style and in organization.  The same can be said for Chicago.

Second, because there is no one-size-fits-all model, there is no guarantee of success.  Just look at Cleveland, where student performance on NAEP has actually declined since the mayor’s office took control of the schools.  Or look at NYC, where despite an historic increase in test scores, many still believe that the current regime isn’t working, even seizing on the recent realignment of the state assessment to discredit recent gains.  And in DC, after two years of real gains, this year’s scores seem to have flatlined some. 

Third, there are real political ramifications for taking over the schools.  Case in point here is Washington, DC, where Fenty is in the re-election fight of his life this fall.  One of the central issues to the campaign?  Control of the schools.  Fenty’s chief opponent, City Council Chairman Vincent Gray, has made major issue of how the DC Schools are run.  So much so, in fact, that he has strongly suggested one of his first orders of business when elected mayor would be the removal of Rhee as schools chancellor.  Who would have thought a superintendent would be a major campaign issue for an urban mayor? 

If we just look at the NAEP, clearly mayoral control is not the answer to school success.  The top districts (including Charlotte, NC and Austin, TX) on the NAEP TUDA are those run by school boards.  Mayoral control superstars like NYC and Boston are still posting scores below the national NAEP average (though above the large city average).

In hearing Mayor (and hopeful NY LG) Duffy tell his tale, one has to believe there has to be a middle ground.  Can’t we adequately deal with failing schools without needing to seize control of the district?  Can’t school boards be held to the same accountability as we expect of the superintendent and the principals?  Aren’t there incentives (beyond the current federal dollars) to get school districts to make the necessary changes to turn around histories of failure?  Aren’t there ways to bring in the reforms Duffy seeks without having to go to the state legislature and ask for the nuclear option to deal with the schools?  And as we assess our ability to turn around struggling districts, what measures should we use, besides NAEP, to determine success?

Lots of questions.  But who has the answers? 

Gutting School Improvement to Keep the Lights On

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, charter schools, RTT, stimulus, teachers

Short-term pain relief or long-term improvement?  That seems to be the choice that is currently facing Congress, as the House debates how to fund “edujobs,” the federal relief necessary to supposedly save hundreds of thousands of teachers’ jobs in this difficult economy.

Earlier this month, Eduflack wrote on the edu-jobs issue and how Congress could get creative in finding the $23 billion needed to protect classroom jobs.  Since then, the edu-jobs issue has gone nowhere.  The U.S. Senate, in particular, seems to lack the fortitude to vote for additional spending, even it was to save the jobs of K-12 teachers.  So edujobs has just been left hanging, with no resolution in sight.
Until this week.  In the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Chairman David Obey has offered plans to move $10 billion in edujobs dollars.  The full text of Congress’ spending plans can be found here, on the House Rules Committee website.  But since the release of the report language, it begged the question — where is Congress finding the money to offset the dollars being spent on edujobs?
It is a question that Alyson Klein over at EdWeek and its Politics K-12 blog has refused to let go of.  Now, Klein has the answers for us.  It seems that, to ease the short-term pain of school districts struggling to meet payroll, that Congress is ready to sacrifice some of its commitment to wholesale school improvement efforts.
According to Klein, much of the money needed to offset the spending for edujobs comes from cuts to existing school improvement efforts.  Chairman Obey and company are planning on pulling $500 million from Race to the Top, $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, and another $100 million from innovation and improvement (which she reads as charter school moneys) to help fund the $800 million in budget offsets Democrats have promised.  
In response, Rep. John Kline (MN), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee referred to the move as exploitation, and said Dems were taking the first chance to “discard education reform.”    
So it begs an important question — is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain?  Is one year of supporting teachers’ salaries worth slashing one-eighth of the RttT pool?  Is it worth eliminating the $200 million increase that the stimulus bill originally gave to TIF?  And is it worth slashing charter dollars after we demanded that states change their charter laws and promote the establishment of more charter schools?
RttT, TIF, and innovation dollars are all long-term investments.  Cutting $500 million from Race, for instance, likely means at least three or four states that won’t be able to participate in the Phase Two program.  Those mid-sized states that could have taken a Race and done some real good with it over the next few years will now lose out.  All to cover salaries for the coming school year (and one coming year only).
What makes such a move dangerous is that this is stopgap; it isn’t a solution.  What happens next year when we need another $10 or $15 billion to help with teachers’ salaries?  And more importantly, what happens with plans to add new phases to RttT or i3?  Once these cuts to education reform efforts are made, it becomes near impossible to restore them.  Supporting teacher pay becomes a long-term obligation, with little opportunity in the near term to add new programs or expand competitive grant programs. 
Without question, it is important that our school districts figure out ways to pay their workforces, both this year and the years to come.  But should that maintenance mean sacrificing real efforts to improve our schools and their outcomes?  Do we really want to get into a position where we are choosing between paying teachers and improving student test scores?  And do we really want the federal government to become more and more responsible for paying salaries in our localities?
 

Father, father, father …

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Obama, Parents

In our nation’s capital yesterday, President Barack Obama reissued his call to get fathers more involved in their children’s lives.  Calling for “responsible fatherhood,” the President noted that fathers (Eduflack included) need to be part of their kids’ lives “not just with words, but with deeds.”

USA Today’s Greg Toppo has the full story on the event here.  What’s most interesting are the stats that Toppo offers up from the U.S. Census.  About one in three children lived away from their biological fathers last year, and that number leaps to almost two in three (64 percent) for African-American children.
Why is this an issue for Eduflack?  Allow me to get on my soapbox for a moment.  If we are serious about improving our public schools, particularly for historically disadvantaged students, we need to better engage in the homes.  If we are going to improve student proficiency scores, we need parents keeping tabs on what is happening in the classroom and making sure homework is done.  If we are going to improve graduation rates, we need parents who are prioritizing that diploma.  And if we are going to move more first-generation students onto college, we need parents who nag and prioritize and push their kids to achieve.
So when Obama talks about getting fathers more involved in their children’s lives, he is also talking about getting them more involved in their kids’ schools.  He’s reminding them that good fathers can be in the PTA.  They can chaperone class trips.  They can pick the kids up at school.  They can actually know their kids’ teachers and other parents in the classroom.  They can talk with their kids about school, and life.
Back in November 2008, Eduflack offered up some education reccs to then President-elect Obama.  The “big idea” of the day was focused on parental involvement, building off of the similar father encouragement efforts the President is still offering today.  At the time, I wrote:
  

I propose you actually establish an Office of Family and Community Engagement, an authorized body at the Assistant Secretary level that can get information into the hands of those who need it most.  The most recent regs from ED show that the current infrastructure isn’t getting it done.  If you’re serious about greater family involvement, turning off the TVs, and such, make the commitment to Family Engagement (and we do have to think beyond the traditional mother/father nuclear parent family structure). EdTrust has today’s student attaining education at lower rates than their parents. That is a travesty.  And the responsibility falls on the family.  Parents are our first, and most durable, of teachers.  Equip them with information, help them build the paths and help them paint the picture of the value and need for education.  Create this new office, have it collaborate with OESE, OCO, and others, and see the impact of effectively collaborating with families and the community at large on education improvement.

      
So how about it?  Obama is absolutely correct.  It falls on all of us fathers to be a bigger and better part of our children’s lives.  But we can’t ignore the fact that some kids will never experience the benefits of having their biological fathers around them.  That’s why we need to focus on family and community engagement.  Buying into the notion that it takes a community to raise a child, we need to engage all parental units into tuning in to the education needs facing their family, boosting interest, involvement, dialogue, and results.  The U.S. Department of Education has focused on family engagement before.  Now is the time to go all in and note that family engagement is just as important to classroom success as many of the content areas on which ED currently focuses.
Can anyone really question that Race to the Top and I3 have a higher chance of success if families are engaged in the process and invested in the outcomes?  What about ESEA?  Clearly, the families of today’s students can help prioritizing key issues, hold policymakers accountable, and ensure that our expected results are not forgotten once the ink on the reauthorization has dried.
An Office of Family and Community Engagement fits with Obama’s call to fathers yesterday.  And it works with EdSec Duncan’s speech to the National PTA earlier this month.  And it aligns with the goals and priorities both have offered for our national education agenda.  So if not now, when?  And if not now, why?  The time, the demand, and the attention is there.

Social Media Failure in Our School Districts

Eduflack Arne Duncan, teachers, technology

By now, we’ve all heard the concerns about social media in the K-12 setting.  The fears of teachers revealing their personal lives of Facebook.  The worry of what can be accessed and posted on YouTube, revealing the good, bad, and ugly of the 21st century classroom.  Even ongoing tweets about both policy and practice in the classroom or the central office.  The concern has grown so significant that many school districts have policies banning the use of social media, even erecting firewalls to ban access to sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter with LEA computers or through LEA-based Internet connections.

Last month, Eduflack wrote on edreformer.com about current disintermediation efforts.  The concept is a simple one.  Rather than work exclusively through the traditional media, hoping they can offer a complete and balanced story, more and more folks are doing the storytelling themselves.  Using blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and the like, they cut out the media “middle man” and get the story directly to those stakeholders who need it most.  The Obama Administration has been particularly adept at the practice, using the powers of the Internet and social media to build lasting dialogues on the issues of the day.

This is a practice also pursued by the good folks over at the U.S. Department of Education, where, among other things, they have their own usedgov YouTube channel.  To date, there are 139 videos up there.  Some are of events that EdSec Arne Duncan and his staff participate in.  Others are specific efforts to deliver the ED message directly to key stakeholder audiences.

About three weeks ago, ED offered up a video from Duncan for school principals.  In the five-minute piece, Duncan lays out the Administration’s education priorities, funding commitments for programs like Title I and IDEA, and plans for improving the federal commitment to public education (particularly through ESEA).  It is just Duncan in front of a blue curtain and US flag and the ED learning tree seal, but it is effective.  A good video, with both good intent and a good message.  And it also gives a strong pat on the back to those school leaders who are fighting the good fight each and every school day.

By now, we all know that ED has been investing resources to ensure that school principals are part of the ESEA reauthorization discussion and have bought into school improvement efforts like i3.  We’ve seen teacher quality expanded to include principals.  And we’ve seen school leaders better involved in discussions than we seen in years past.  According to the Digest of Education Statistics 2008, there were 98,793 K-12 public schools in the United States.  We assume most of these schools have principals leading them.  So figuring out how to engage these nearly 100,000 school leaders on issues of policy and improvement is a good thing.

Yet as of this morning, there have only been 143 views of the video.  In three weeks, only 143 people have watched the piece (and I assume some of them are like Eduflack, not principals, the intended audience).  Nearly 100,000 school leaders, yet only 143 visits.  Why?

One primary reason, it appears, is our school districts’ fear of social media.  ED is using YouTube to distribute the video.  Most school districts ban YouTube, fearing access to unauthorized materials and a general waste of instructional time.  So even if ED puts all of the promotional efforts at its disposal behind the release of this video (and others like it) the intended audiences simply can’t access it.  Classroom teachers can’t get to the usedgov YouTube channel  Principals can’t peruse it.  Even superintendents and central office personnel can’t get in.  (Eduflack first heard about this video from educators in Houston who wanted to view the video, but were denied.  Since then, it seems the ban is a pretty standard practice.)

We ask our schools to prepare students for the rigors and opportunties of a 21st century world, yet we are asking them to teach with access to only the most basic of 19th century tools?  We continue to ask a technologically adept student population (for the most part) to unplug when they get to the schoolhouse doors, and forget how to access an unending wealth of information?  We ask teachers to improve the quality and result of their teaching, yet deny them the ability to supplement instruction through shared technologies and content that are FREE to all?  

Years ago, when the Edu-mom used to teach 10th grade English, she would roll out an old videotape of the Simpsons to help teach Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven.  It was nothing special, just Bart Simpson reciting the poem, word for word, with the requisite Homer and company as backdrop.  But it helped make the poem more relevant for the students.  It took it beyond the printed words in the textbook and brought it to life.  (And the Simpsons then subsequently did the same with Hamlet, the Iliad, and other classics that should be covered in an English class in a way that even the most disinterested student would pay attention.)

ED should be complimented for offering up information distribution channels like YouTube and delivering information directly to the stakeholder audiences who need it the most.  (Though it is important to note that ED’s own firewalls prevent most employees from accessing sites like Facebook or many education policy blogs.)  The real failure here is on the school districts.  Despite the fears of accessing unauthorized materials or wasting classroom time and resources on social media, these uniform bans are only handicapping educators and shortchanging students.

We should be encouraging intellectual exploration and finding new ways to engage new technologies and medias to make learning more interactive, more relevant, and more effective.  We should be expanding educators’ access to the resources they need, not restricting them.  If we are really focused on 21st century learning, we need to find ways to embrace and maximize 21st century tools.  Now’s the time to embrace, not run away in fear.

         

A Work-Around for Edu-Jobs?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, stimulus, teachers, Workforce

Edu-jobs.  For the past month or so, we have been hearing how our K-12 public school systems need $23 billion in emergency funding from the federal government in order to keep teachers across the nation in jobs this fall.  EdSec Arne Duncan has made passioned pleas on Capitol Hill for such funding.  The teachers unions have stood behind Duncan’s request in a way far stronger than they have ever supported the EdSec.  And House leaders like Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Appropriations Chairman David Obey (WI) have echoed the calls and urged their fellow leaders on the Hill to ask, “what about the teachers?”

To date, though, Congress has resisted.  Many senators, wary of spending more and more money, have refused to move the issue forward.  They even cite the absence of edu-jobs from President Obama’s request for emergency funding from Congress.  Despite the best of intentions, right now, it seems like efforts to fund edu-jobs aren’t going anywhere.

It all has Eduflack thinking.  In February of 2009, the U.S. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion spending bill designed to help states and localities IMMEDIATELY deal with the budget shortfalls and shrinking coffers just about everyone was facing.  By spring, we saw roadside signs erected declaring that this public works project or these jobs were funded courtesy of ARRA.  Our K-12 schools got a big chunk of that money as well, with ARRA funding Race to the Top, i3, and big boosts to Title I and IDEA funding just for starters.

We’ve also heard how a great deal of the education ARRA funds went back to the school districts to pay for salaries.  Despite the initial guidance that stimulus dollars were meant to be one-time injections, and were not designed to pay for long-term obligations (like teachers’ salaries) that would have to be funded well after all the ARRA money was spent, we still used the stimulus for teachers’ salaries.  Just last month, one of President Obama’s leading economic advisors declared ARRA had saved 400,000 educator jobs across the country (while saying that one out of every 15 teachers could now be laid off without the additional $23 billion). 

Curiosity has gotten the better of Eduflack.  We committed $787 billion to economic stimulus that was needed as soon as possible.  The funds were made available in February of 2009.  It is now June 2010.  The nearly $800 billion is all supposed to be spent by September of this year.  According to the Recovery website, of that $787 billion that was so desperately needed, $406 billion has actually been paid out.  There is still $381 billion still sitting in the kitty.

In California, the state seen as having the most dire current economic position (and the most difficulty paying teachers), only $8.8 billion of the nearly $22 billion promised to the Golden State has been dispersed.  In New York, they’ve gotten $2.5 billion of their $12 billion.  Illinois has taken in $3.7 billion of its $8.1 billion.  Georgia’s taken in $2 billion of its $5.4 billion.  Oregon’s taken in just $809 million of its $2.5 billion.  And even the cash-strapped Ohio has only tapped $1.7 billion of its available $7.6 billion.

So it begs the question, why don’t we just reallocate some of the committed $787 billion in stimulus money to pay for the $23 billion in edu-jobs?  The money was designed to help states and localities save jobs.  Check.  Funds have already been used to save teachers’ jobs (those 400K that Christina Romer touts).  Check.  There is plenty of money that still hasn’t been spent.  Check.  And we need to spend this soon.  Seems like a win-win for all involved.  And one could even win over the reformer crowd (which has been concerned that edu-jobs funding will simply perpetuate the notion of last hired, first fired and prize tenure over effective teaching).  Tie the dollars to the priorities in ARRA, using RttT language to ensure that new edu-jobs spending is aligned with teacher and principal quality provisions being moved through Race.

A simplistic idea?  Perhaps.  But new federal funding for teachers’ jobs isn’t going anywhere.  If the goal is to protect those educators and avoid laying off the “one in 15,” then why not ask Congress to reallocate the funding they’ve already spent?  At this point, it is just like asking if we can use our allowance to buy baseball cards instead of bubble gum.  The money’s already left Congress’ wallet. 

“The Incredibly Shrinking Education Commissioner”

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NEA, RTT, teachers

We all assume that governors and their appointed education commissioners (or state superintendents or secretaries of education) will generally get along.  When the top ed job is appointed (as opposed to many states that actually elect the educator-in-chief), the gov and the ed commish tend to hail from the same party.  We assume they share the same general philosophy.  And we most certainly expect that the commish serves at the pleasure of the governor, and is on the same page agenda wise (at least publicly).

But then we have those great political states like New Jersey, the state dear ol’ Eduflack is mostly likely to call home.  After reading the political soap opera that is education policy and politics in the Garden State, a state known for bare-knuckle politics, we are now seeing the best and worst of it on the education front. 

For those who haven’t been turning into the telenovela, here’s what you missed.  Gov. Chris Christie was elected last November despite the incredible vitriol and massive campaign attacks waged by the New Jersey Education Association.  NJEA expected Christie would then play ball with them, as they are a powerful labor union in a state that generally appreciates powerful labor unions, but he refused (and who can blame him, after the attacks he suffered during the campaign).  On Christie’s first day of office, New Jersey submitted a Phase One Race to the Top app, based largely on the wishes of NJEA.  The application didn’t make the cut, and NJ was not a Phase One finalist.  Christie appoints Bret Schundler, champion of charter schools, as the state education commissioner.  Schundler reworks the state’s RttT app, based on reviewer feedbak, and cuts a deal with NJEA to make the state’s recommended teacher quality provisions (particularly on seniority and incentive pay) palatable to the union so they sign on.  Folks are shocked the Christie Administration and NJEA reach detente.  Then, before the app is submitted, Christie swoops in, says he agreed to no such deal with NJEA, and changes the RttT application to reflect his preferences and reject NJEA’s needs with regard to teacher quality measures.  The RttT app was then submitted to the feds last week in Christie’s image, the NJEA (and Schundler) be damned.  With me so far?

Immediately following Christie’s charge up RttT Hill, some presumed that Schundler’s days would be numbered.  After all, how could a Christie lieutenant strike a deal with Public Enemy Number One?  The Newark Star-Ledger editorial board now says that Schundler’s “credibility is in jeopardy.”   The folks over at NJ Left Behind wonder  if Christie and Schundler are playing “good cop-bad cop” with the teachers’ union in the name of progress? 

Back in January, Eduflack was so bold as to suggest that New Jersey should have pulled its Phase One application.  Christie should have demonstrated his strength on Day One, declared that the hard work of his predecessor did not reflect his educational priorities as the state’s new governor, and spend the next few months crafting an application in his own image.  Instead, the app went forward.  New Jersey came in 18th place, and the rework has been in process for the past few months.

So where does New Jersey go from here?  Some seem to think the current application is damaged goods, that the loss of union support will be too great for Joysey to overcome.  Those critics forget, though, that US EdSec Arne Duncan has been preaching that strong reform is more important that kumbaya universal buy-in.  So do ed reformers in New Jersey now need to pick sides, choosing Camp Christie or Camp Bret?

Hardly.  Christie made a shrewd political move.  He knows it is still a long shot that New Jersey will win a RttT grant.  (Particularly with Duncan saying there may only be another 10 or so winners).  If NJ wins, Christie wants to do so on his own terms.  Winning Race means having to take on new responsibilities in reporting and accountability.  It also likely means having to pony in additional dollars from the state coffers to make good on the promises to the feds.  If Christie is going to do that, in what is a disastrous financial climate in his state, he needs to do it on his terms.  His house, his rules, if you will.  He won the election, so folks can do it his way or no way at all.  With so many strings attached to the funding, and the US Department of Education talking about withdrawing funding if they find the application is not being followed to the letter, it is only natural for Christie to seek to pull as many of the strings involved here as possible.

And as for Schundler?  He deserves major points for reaching out and trying to actually work with NJEA.  Yes, his credibility with the union may be a little damaged in the short term.  He now needs to demonstrate he can deliver on the specific deals he may cut.  (And that requires a team at the State Department of Ed cast in his image, which is in process.)  But he’s shown a willingness to deal and has demonstrated a bit on an independent streak from the good governor.  Whether that was intended or not, it can now be used to help move specific state efforts on other school improvement efforts.

Now is the time for both leaders to put a bold, yet simple, plan for education improvement forward.  Communities across the state have turned back efforts to raise taxes to provide additional dollars for the schools.  Now is the time for the state to step forward and issue three challeges, challenges focused on outcomes and students.  For instance, scrap efforts to award high school diplomas to anyone who is 18 and with a pulse and ensure that a NJ high school diploma means more than an attendance certificate.  Figure out what is working in places like Newark and replicating those programs and initiatives in other struggling urban centers.  Implement a real strategic plan for charter school expansion across the state.  Even figure out the best practices that can be learned from the Abbott Schools, and apply them in other schools (without the promise of big dollars).  

Address a couple of those issues, offer some measurements to know the state is making progress, and remind parents, business leaders, and even teachers’ unions of what you are doing and why you are doing it, and you could have some real progress.  Christie provides the global vision, Schundler leads the troops on the ground.  All get to declare victory.
 

Throwing Some Needed Cold Water on i3

Eduflack Arne Duncan, i3, RTT

For nearly a year now, school districts across the nation have been eagerly anticipating a piece of the Investing in Innovation grant program.  The promise of $650 million to continue innovative approaches to school improvement is too big a lure for many to pass up.  While districts and non-profits worried about how they could get their applications done, where they would find the staff time, and what to promote, they were not going to forgo the opportunity.

Final proposals were due this month, and by US Department of Education count, nearly 1,700 applications were submitted.  These applications range from the large (those seeking $50 million) to the small (those seeking $5 million or less for their plans).  They include proposals from urban, rural, and suburban school districts, consortias of school districts, colleges and universities, not-for-profits, and blends of all of the above.

Every one of them optimistic of their chances to get a piece of the $650 million i3 pie.  And that optimism was only heightened when the final i3 RFP and regs were released earlier this year, and ED talked about plans to award up to 300 grants (up to 100 in each of the three categories) before the end of the coming fiscal year.

That expectation (up to) 300 grants had Eduflack scratching his head a little at the time.  Expecting that most applicants would seek the maximum dollar amount for their category, By my meager math, I could only see 40 or so winners.  Think about it.  Development grants allow a max of $5 million, validation grants a max of $30 million per, and scale up grants a max of $50 million per.  If you awarded just eight grants in each of those three categories, you had already exceeded the $650 million available.  Account for a few winners asking for less than the max, or a few more development awards and a few less scale ups, and you might push 40 up to 50.  But 300 grants was never a possibility, at least not under Phase One of i3 (assuming, as most do, that EdSec Duncan will get Congress to offer up new funds for new rounds of i3).  You’d need billions ot hit that mark, unless applicants were just asking for a fraction of the available money.

This reality was confirmed earlier this week by none other than the good EdSec himself.  According to the usually reliable Eduwonk, Duncan revealed, at a Wednesday meeting that he expects 70 total i3 awards to come this fall.  So nearly 1,700 enter the i3 steel cage, with 70 or so emerging as victors.

Surprisingly, this declaration hasn’t been widely reported.  But it throws a real splash of cold water on the whole i3 process.  Even expecting 300 winners, the odds for most applicants was pretty low.  Winnow that down to 70, and many districts would have been better off buying scratch tickets or hosting a car wash to fund some of their “innovative” plans.

It appears that ED is building the i3 path based on the same blueprint it used for Phase One Race to the Top.  The goal is to award funds to those with the highest chance of success.  One IDs just a fraction of the 1,700 applicants, gives them the seed money, and watches it blossom.  Let those 70 or so winners show how i3 can be sucessfully used, how to measure ROI, and how to actually boost student achievement.  Reward some of those rural districts who feel left out of the Race.  Encourage partnerships.  And, most importantly, require all those enjoying i3 to both demonstrate real research findings to date and provide even stronger research moving forward. 

We’ll show you the money if you can show us the data, if you will.

RttT Part Two: This Time, We’re Serious

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, RTT

Now that the dust is settling on the recent Race to the Top Phase One announcement (go Tennessee and Delaware!), the remaining states in the union are starting to get serious about their Phase Two apps.  In the last day or so, we’ve now seen that Kansas has decided to opt out  of the Phase Two process, while Phase One finalist Colorado is making additional legislative changes  to look more appealing to judges. 

When the two winners were announced last month, Eduflack (and others) wondered how much help the two winning applications could provide to those seeking Phase Two dollars.  With unique demographics, political situations, and hungers for school reform, there are few states that could just do a “search and replace” with apps from either the First State or the Volunteer State and expect to win the day.

While a great deal has been written about the Phase One apps, particularly, the two winners, the folks over at The New Teacher Project (a org that is in both of the winning apps, I believe) has provided a solid analysis of what the applications can really tell us.  The full analysis can be found here .

Among the most interesting of TNTP’s findings are its seven lessons learned:
* Reform must reach statewide and beyond the four-year grant period (so we must have a continuity plan after the federal dollars dry up)
* Implementation must be certain (no contingencies allowed; it is all or nothing)
* Plans must be clear (this was particularly clear in the Minnesota critique)
* Local advantages are key (the cookie-cutter reform effect doesn’t work)
* Points can be won and lost in unexpected places (with insufficient progress on data systems and lack of a STEM plan singled out)
* On Teachers and Leaders, bold policies are rewarded (but it doesn’t carry the day, as TNTP notes with both Louisiana’s and Rhode Island’s particularly strong and bold teacher plans)
* Borrow concepts, do not cut and paste (with Eduflack still waiting to see if there were perceived Phase One content similarities between applications prepared by the same consulting companies) 

The TNTP analysis also offered a few cautions for judges and the U.S. Department of Education when it comes to Phase Two reviews.  Based on its analysis of the Phase One finalists, TNTP voices real concern over four issues: 1) lack of differentiation of scoring; 2) inflated scores; 3) deviation from scoring guidance; and 4) excessive influence of outliers.

When EdSec Arne Duncan announced the Phase One winners, he made clear that RttT was going to be an exclusive club for a select number of states.  That’s why states like Kansas have already opted out of the second running, and while other states are likely considering the same.  And it has to have many states, particularly those who didn’t make the finalist cut first time around, wondering if it is worth the time and effort to comprehensively overhaul their plans for this go-around.

Whether one was a finalist in Round One or not, each and every state preparing a Phase Two app needs to ask itself a few key questions.  Are we committed to real, substantive, and long-term change and improvement?  Are we prepared to pay for such improvement, both now and in the out years?  Do we have the relationships, partnerships, and promises to truly change the tires on a racecar going 195 miles an hour?  Do we have the legislative support for what will likely require more changes?  Do we have the intestinal fortitude to follow through on our plans?  Are we willing to be truly bold?  Are we willing to stand behind what is right, even if it may be unpopular?  Are we able to continue these plans, even if we have a change in governor, state legislature leadership, or with the state board?  Are we able to demonstrate our plan has been effective, and to measure that effectiveness based on student test scores?  Are we truly ready to lead, without the cover of other states doing the exact same things?

If a state can answer yes to all of the above, without hesitating, it is likely on the right track.  If not …
 

Swingin’ for the ESEA Fences

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, NCLB, Online Education, RTT, SBRR

In yesterday’s initial analysis of the US Department of Education’s ESEA reauthorization blueprint, I noted I was “whelmed” by the plan as a whole.  (And for the record, I am a strong proponent of using the word whelmed.  If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I certainly can be whelmed.  It’s not like having to choose between North and South Dakota.)  Since then, I’ve received a number of questions as to why, particularly since so many people seem to see this as a strong step forward in improving No Child Left Behind.

My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin’, knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered.  When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape.  Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered).  The term “scientifically based research” was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike.  And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were.  These were all but twinkles in Sandy’s, Margaret’s BethAnn’s, and Reid’s eyes before the reauthorization process began.

But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET.  Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization.  So what were once big ideas — Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards — are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days.  We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now.  We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.

The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB’s Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec Margaret Spellings’ Teacher Incentive Fund, and the teacher requirements included in RttT.  Even in addressing the persistent problem with low-performing schools, this blueprint simply evolves from NCLB’s two-tiered evaluation with a new three-tiered system, as reported here by Greg Toppo.  And while that extra tier may really help at addressing those 5,000 lowest-performing schools, it hardly wins hearts and minds.

To be fair, Eduflack realizes you don’t always need some new shiny toy or a jaw-dropping new idea to move forward solid legislation.  In fact, in a perfect world, I would hope we’d never need such gimmicks.  But with short attention spans and even shorter understanding curves, one often needs that hook, that big idea, to help gain attention and start winning over the necessary converts.  When ESEA was reauthorized back in 2001 (and signed into law in early 2002), we not only gave it a new name (NCLB ), but we offered some new ideas and programs to show this was not your father’s version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Working from the existing blueprint, Eduflack sees a few potentials for both some smallball ideas as well as some bases-clearing longballs.  What am I thinking?

* Immediately include strong pieces of congressional legislation in the plan.  I’m thinking things like U.S. Sen. Patty Murray’s (WA) LEARN Act focused on K-12 reading instruction, Chairman George Miller’s (CA) plan for high school improvement, or even the recent legislation offered by U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI) and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (CO) establishing a federal definition for teacher professional development.

* Get personal on teacher quality.  Teacher quality is now clearly a central point of the debate, with even Obama calling out the teacher education sector for not living up to expectations.  So let’s get personal here.  As part of your data system work, ensure that we are able to track teachers (both leaders and laggards) back to their originating program, be it a college of education or an alt cert program.  Then be prepared to name names when it comes to those institutions that are not delivering the long-term results sought under the new law. 

* Invest in parents.  The day after Obama was elected, Eduflack opined that the EdSec should establish a family engagement office (at the assistant secretary level) so that the Administration could focus on the role of families in school improvement.  To date, the Administration has talked a good game.  But with the pending elimination of Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC) grants, there is a gaping hole for engaging families.  NCLB tried to do this, with mixed results.  Building off of the Obama campaign’s success in 2008 and recent activities around healthcare reform, one can build a strong, effective multi-touch effort to really involve parents and families in school turnaround and improvement efforts.

* Kill the bubble sheet.  Under ESEA reauthorization, this administration has the power to do away with the dreaded “bubble sheet test.”  Proudly proclaim that new assessments coming out of common core standards will be required to be smart computer-based exams.  Bring testing into the 21st century while allowing for a more-comprehensive assessment than can be captured by guessing which one of five bubbles may be the most correct.

* Require online learning.  I applaud the commitment to improving high schools and working to boost graduation rates.  Let’s add a little 21st century relevancy here.  Learning from states like Florida and Alabama, let’s require that, by 2020, every student in the United States must take at least one virtual course in order to graduate from high school.  Not only does it introduce more relevant coursework into the classroom, it clearly promotes that learning happens beyond what happens between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. behind the traditional schoolhouse doors.

Those are just five ideas to get the discussion started.  The legislative pieces could be endorsed by EdSec Duncan during Wednesday’s hearings.  Teacher quality could be done this summer when NCATE’s anticipated report is released.  A Family Engagement Office could be started immediately.  And killing the bubble sheet and folding virtual education into state requirements can be done now as stimulus money is used to invest in a range of ed reform ideas.  Regardless, we should be taking this opportunity to continue to move forward big, bold thoughts.  Real ed improvement can’t be limited by those ideas moved during year one.  Not to mix my sports metaphors, but this game goes at least four quarters.  We need to maximize all opportunities.