Arne Duncan

Jumpin’ Before the RTT Gun Sounds

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, Gates Foundation, stimulus

Washington, DC is a horrible place to keep a secret.  While the average education wonk’s calendar had a reminder that the common standards (for high school at least) would be released next week, the draft is made public yesterday, with Core Knowledge the first to reveal and then Education Week providing more context and substance around it.

Most have similarly been waiting with baited breath for tomorrow’s expected announcement of the Race to the Top (RTT) RFP draft, the great piggy bank for states to demonstrate their education innovation and improvement.  We’ve been working under a hard release date of tomorrow for RTT, with those with a dog in the fight looking to move quickly to help shape and revise the draft before it goes final next month (though I wouldn’t hold my breath on how different the final will be from the draft).
Then we start hearing about a big event in DC, where the RTT will be announced along with Innovation Funds, ed tech, teacher incentives, data systems, and even second round SFSF money.  We hear about governors and chief state school officers being invited to Maryland Avenue.  And this morning, the Education Equality Project, among others, “announces” that President Barack Obama himself will be on hand at the US Department of Education tomorrow AM to help EdSec Duncan announce the draft RTT RFP and re-emphasize the importance of K-12 education reform in our nation’s overall turnaround.  (Of course, the President’s participation hasn’t officially been announced by ED or the White House, but it seems a safe bet at this point.)
All of this is typical, particularly when you compound it with the fact that the draft Race to the Top RFP is already circulating around town.  Lest we forget, RTT is tasked with distributing $4.3 billion for, as described in the draft, “competitive grants to States to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for innovation and reform, implementing ambitious plans in the four reform areas described in the statute, and achieving dramatic improvement in student outcomes, including driving substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers.”
The draft RTT regs (at least the version Eduflack has seen) currently run at 61 pages.  The money will be distributed in two phases, with states ready to run out of the gates can apply for the funds in late 2009, while others can wait until mid-to-late spring of 2010 for Phase Two to open up.  Applicants must address all four of the above noted areas, and can’t just cherry-pick the two or three they think they can make progress in.  It’s all in, or you can’t play.  
Eduflack is particularly tickled to see that STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education has been singled out as a priority in RTT.  While groups like the Gates Foundation, National Governors Association, NMSI and others have been investing in STEM, making it an RTT invitational priority — particularly with an emphasis on training effective K-12 STEM teachers — is a huge step forward for STEM efforts across the nation.  
ED is also to be applauded for calling for stronger K-16 linkages, forcing K-12 and higher education to work together on Race to the Top.  
It is also intriguing to see some of the definitions RTT is using.  Student achievement is measured mostly by performance on the state’s standardized assessment.  Whether that means just reading and math a la AYP or whether it includes science, social studies, and other assessments offered by states is a big TBD.  Instead of AYP, which is a term all but abandoned by this ED, we are now talking student growth (with a similar definition).  Graduation rates are defined by the NGA formula of a four-year grad rate (kudos to ED for sticking with it.)  Formative and interim assessments make the definitions list.  And we are now provided with an official RTT definition of Alternative Certification Programs for teachers.  
Charter schools are featured, as is incentives for teachers and principals.  In my initial read, I can’t find mention of terms like the previously popular “scientifically based,” though they do seem to enjoy the term “evidence” for both qualitative and quantitative purposes.  
Hopefully, we will see a little more teeth in the Annual Reporting and Performance Measures section before this RFP goes to final. This is likely a point that is still being worked out with the states.  Right now, ED is basically asking states to provide an annual written report documenting how they are doing against their own goals.  But it doesn’t call for third-party assessment at all.  We’re being asked to trust grant recipients to tell us how effectively they are spending the money they get.  We’ve seen how well that has worked in the past, particularly if there isn’t an office at ED who is reviewing those reports, documented the results, and performing the spot checks on states to ensure that those written self-assessments are rooted in the realities at the building level.
On the whole, Race to the Top looks like a strong start to actually trying some new things and breaking the bonds of the status quo in far too many struggling schools.  While some will be quick to try and offer changes to the RFP and look to redefine certain sections or re-emphasize (or de-emphasize) others, there seems to be little to quibble with.  The RFP is broad, and intentionally so.  The challenge is how well states respond to it, how closely those responses are scrutinized, and how strongly the states are held to following through on what they promise to receive their RTT checks.
Regardless, tomorrow should be fun.  It’s always good to see a President throw his rhetorical weight behind public education.  Even more so when we are talking about innovation, improvement, and change, and not just more dollars for the status quo.  Now it is up to 50 governors, their chief state school officers, and their education advisors to quickly write some terrific applications so they can get at this money this fall, and put it to use before another generation of kids is lost in the cracks.

Chapter 9 in Detroit

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, High School, Teacher Education, teachers

What happens when a school district files for bankruptcy?  We have heard of LEAs on the brink before, but we’ve never witnessed a district actually enter bankruptcy court, as they are usually saved at the 11th hour by the city or state.  But the latest talk and action coming out of the Motor City points to a new first for K-12 public education in the United States — a school district seeking bankruptcy protection from the courts.  The Wall Street Journal has the full story here.

We’ve obviously heard a great deal about corporate bankruptcies, what with General Motors and Chrysler (Detroit Public School neighbors) already seeking help from the courts.  In a previous life, Eduflack worked with a wide range of companies on bankruptcy communications issues, helping consumer goods manufacturers, healthcare companies, and microprocessor producers navigate the Chapter 11 process.
On the corporate side, there are often a great number of misperceptions regarding Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings.  Despite popular belief, it is not usually the first step to liquidation or closing one’s doors forever (that’s left the Chapter 13).  It does not mean that salaries won’t be paid or pensions and benefits have been lost.  It does not mean that vendors will never be paid.  And it certainly does not mean that core business operations will not continue.
Bankruptcy is a chance to reorganize.  Typically, an organization has lost its way and has strayed from its core business.  Expenses have gotten out of hand, debts and obligations have risen, and what has worked in the past simply won’t work again.  As circumstances and conditions change, these organizations need a fresh start.  They need a second chance, an opportunity to break from bad deals and bad situations.  And they need a chance to shed the status quo and refocus on what works and where the future is taking them.  We’ve witnessed companies such as Macy’s, 7-11, and others used bankruptcy reorganization to help them strengthen their business, improve their brand, and better serve their customers.
So when Detroit’s Public Schools talk about filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy (a distinction under the federal code for public entities like school districts), it does not mean Detroit is giving up.  It certainly doesn’t mean we are shuttering public schools in the Motor City and telling all of the area’s students that they need to move on to Catholic schools or similar competitors.  It means Detroit is looking to take control of its own destiny, seeking the flexibility to restructure so it can focus on its core business of educating students and deal with the realities of shrinking student numbers and local tax pools.
Earlier this year, EdSec Arne Duncan referred to Detroit’s schools as a “national disgrace.”  The term drop-out factories may very well have been created to reflect the state of secondary school instruction in Detroit.  While the nation may have been focused on leaving no child behind, Detroit failed to get the memo.  Despite statewide efforts in Michigan to improve public education, boost the high school graduation rate, and better prepare Michiganders with the skills and knowledge they need for the 21st century Michigan workplace, Detroit was a reality we tried to forget, or at least chose to write off.  It stands as the worst-case scenario for the modern-day school district, used as the butt of jokes and an example of what other struggling districts want to avoid. 
All of that makes it very easy for Detroit leaders to simply throw up their hands, say nothing can be done, and simply accept the status quo as the way things need to be in Detroit.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  DPS Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb should be commended for charting the course toward Chapter 9 bankruptcy …. as long as he intends to use it effectively.  

Detroit cannot, should not, and must not simply use bankruptcy to clear the books and go back to operating in the same old way.  Enrollment has dropped nearly 50 percent in less than a decade.  Schools have been closed.  Teachers have been laid off.  These are major changes for a school district.  Such changes mean that one cannot simply go back to the administration and operations of old, content that old debts are behind you.  Doing so simply allows Detroit to run up new debts and likely find themselves in this same situation not too far down the road.
If Bobb and his team take the final step and file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, they need to use the opportunity to change the administration, culture, expectations, and results of Detroit Public Schools.  The courts will provide Detroit the time to reorganize.  They need to take that time to build a better system.  Let’s be honest here.  Students have left DPS in droves for private and charter schools because of quality and outcomes.  Parents want to see their kids succeed.  They want them to be safe.  They want them to learn.  They want them to graduate.  They want them to gain the skills and knowledge necessary for success.  Too many parents haven’t seen those qualities in Detroit Public Schools, so those with the ability — even in this tough economy — have turned to alternatives to ensure their kids are getting the education they need.
Bobb has already taken major steps to clean up Detroit’s administrative issues.  He’s scrubbing the books, rooting out fraud, and providing a clearer view of what, exactly, Detroit is spending its school money on.  Bankruptcy protection provides him additional time and additional power to continue these efforts and build a better operational infrastructure for the schools.  But he must also take the opportunity to focus on the product — ensuring that Detroit is taking the steps to improve the delivery, quality, and results of a Detroit Public Schools education.
How?  Eduflack has three ideas for Mr. Bobb and his team:
* Teacher quality — Simply staffing Detroit’s public school classrooms with whatever warm bodies are coming out of local ed schools isn’t getting the job done.  Detroit needs to demand higher-quality teachers.  They need to require a more rigorous teacher education program from local colleges and universities, one that demands a more rigorous curriculum, a strong clinical experience, and the content and pedagogy that moves classroom educators from “qualified” to “effective.”  Detroit needs to invest in rigorous, content-based professional development for all its teachers, striving for constant improvement.  It needs to reward effective teaching.  And it needs to recognize that not everyone with a teaching degree is cut out to successfully handle the rigors of teaching in Detroit.  Challenging times require the best teachers.  Detroit needs to invest in getting those teachers, and not simply setting for those willing to be part of a failing system.
* Innovative programs — Two weeks ago, Bobb announced plans to bring in partner organizations to help turn around Detroit’s high schools.  This was a master move, and it needs to be followed through (the school board seems to be balking since the announcement).  Bankruptcy be damned, Detroit needs to invest in innovation and new approaches.  it also needs to focus on return on investment.  Elementary school investments make people feel nice, as we help little kids, but their impact isn’t felt for a decade.  Bobb’s plans for the high schools can yield immediate return.  If implemented with fidelity, these partners can boost high school test scores and graduation rates.  They can better prepare today’s high school students for tomorrow’s jobs.  They can be the first step in bringing Detroit’s schools into the 21st century.  We need more thinking and action like this, and fewer roadblocks from those that fear c
hange or embrace the status quo.  These contracts need to be honored and these programs need to be up and running by the start of the new school year this fall.
* Customer focus — Companies that file for bankruptcy often do because they strayed from their core business and invested in products and efforts that didn’t fit their mission.  Detroit Public Schools should have one focus — dramatically improving student achievement.  Every decision coming from the central office should be proceeded by the question, how does this impact student performance?  The hiring of teachers and principals.  The adoption of textbooks.  The selection of instructional programs.  The introduction of technologies and supplemental education.  School build repairs.  Scheduling.  Course offerings.  Professional development.  Every aspect of school operations should focus on the customer (the student) and how to deliver a better product (an education) to that customer.  If an expenditure or a decision is not going to improve the quality or effectiveness of learning, it is likely not needed.
The citizens of Detroit need to see this as an opportunity.  Those voices across the nation calling for school reform and innovation need to see this as an opportunity.  The teachers and students of DPS need to see this as an opportunity.  Bankruptcy filings mean you are not bound by what has happened in the past.  You get a new start, an opportunity to do things differently and take the right steps forward.  It is a chance to succeed when success had been out of grasp for so long.  While many will try to steer Detroit back into its past ways, Bobb needs to keep his eyes on the prize and focus on the end game.  Forget what has been done and focus on what Detroit’s students need to succeed.  We are approaching a new era for Detroit Public Schools.  Here’s hoping it is an era of the new and the innovative, and not a retrospective visit to an era that has failed far too many Detroit students.

Racing to the Top?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

Back in March, everyone held high hopes for the billions of dollars moving from the feds to the states through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF).  Since the release of the economic stimulus package, EdSec Arne Duncan has focused on the need for innovation and improvement, improvement and innovation.  So much so that you’d think that SFSF was actually funding innovation and improvement.

Unfortunately, a recent GAO study has found that SFSF funds are not exactly going to the sort of innovation and new programs we originally dreamed about a few months ago.  Short-term stimulus dollars are going to plug existing holes and, in most places, are going to fund teachers and other long-term, non-discretionary school expenses. 
So it is no wonder that attention has no turned to the Race to the Top (RTT) Fund and all of the new dollars that will be directed to the states to improve student achievement and break the chains of the status quo in public education.  RTT is seen as the latest in big dollar federal education programs, the latest sugar daddy in a long and distinguished line.
The current talk is that the draft RTT RFP will be released by the end of the month (july 31), followed by a short public comment/review period.  By fall, states will be busily assembling their RTT applications, with most seeking the big dollars to turnaround low-performing schools and introduce their struggling school districts to the ideas of innovation and improvement.  If the plan holds, RTT dollars will be delivered by those ED armored trucks by the end of January 2010.
Obviously, the SEAs are going to be asked to address ED’s four pillars of policy: 1) standards and assessment; 2) data systems; 3) teacher quality; and 4) school turnaround.  The RFP is likely to look like those states addressed with Reading First nearly a decade ago the supposed proposals they were asked to provide on SFSF earlier this year.  States will pledge to improve student performance and close the achievement gaps.  They’ll promise to track their progress.  They’ll prioritize the lowest performers and the historically disadvantaged.  And they will have plans, boy will they have plans.
But how can ED make sure that the SEAs are truly going to focus on outcomes, and not simply to inputs?  How do we move from plans to results?  How do we hold SEAs accountable for their promises, ensuring that RTT dollars are actually resulting in student achievement and gap closures?  How do we guarantee that RTT leads to return on investment, with state and local actions charting a course for scalable improvements and innovations that chart the course for the wholesale turnaround that Duncan is looking for?
And how do we do so on the current timetable?  Offering a few weeks during the summer for public comment and review is likely to stretch beyond the planned timeline, extending into the fall.  If past experiences are any guide, the execution of RTT will take longer than expected.  States won’t get the funds until the spring of 2010, after spending for the FY2010-2011 budgets have already been determined.  That means that fast-tracked RTT funds won’t make their way until our schools until the 2011-12 school year.  Two more school years may pass before our local decisionmakers have real dollars in their hands to implement the improvements and innovations Duncan and other officials at ED are calling for now.  Two more years of status quo and mediocrity.  Two more years of our most struggling schools and students muddling through a system that has failed them to date.
So how do we rectify the two?  How do we serve as responsible stewards of new funding while demanding real results from the get-go?  How do we get new dollars into the field as fast as possible, while avoiding the implementation problems of the past?  How do we use RTT to bring about real, meaningful change instead of just continuing the status quo?
There is a great deal riding on RTT.  For many out there, we are looking for this new funding program to bridge the gap between innovative rhetoric and status quo action.  For many, RTT serves as the blueprint for charter schools, alternative certification, improved teacher quality, and data systems.  It will move us from the bare minimums of the adequate in AYP to the higher expectations of student achievement for all.  It is a way for districts in need to break the pattern that has resulted in decades of struggles, providing them the opportunity to do what is new and what will actually change school outcomes for the better.  
Is that what we will see at the end of the month?  Is that what we will see in the final RFP after key stakeholders get to weigh in and have their say?  Currently, Duncan is riding the wave as the reigning Mr. Congeniality in education.  At some point, he will have to take a hard stand that results in some stakeholders disliking him or getting frustrated with the policy borne of the rhetoric.  The big question is whether he will frustrate the reformers or the status quoers.  Will RTT result in the innovation we’re all talking about, or will it support the same old-same old that SFSF is propping up?  The end of the month will be a telling road marker.  Using the bully pulpit is easy.  Moving that vision into policy and funding programs is hard.  

Community Investment in Education

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Gates Foundation, IES, national standards

For years now, those in the education community have noted that education R&D just doesn’t get the love that R&D in other industries — particularly healthcare — receive.  Yes, we throw a few pennies (in the global sense) at the issue through the Institute of Education Sciences and a few private sector interests, but investment in true education R&D is a pittance.  It should come as no surprise, though, as attention to real, measurable, scientific education research is a relatively new issue (and we still haven’t figured out how to adequately focus on the D side of education R&D).

All of the talk and action around healthcare reform has Eduflack thinking.  The Obama Administration is looking to offer a major shift in how we deliver healthcare in this nation, seeking to improve quality and access in one shift action.  Like it or hate it, healthcare is moving.  Stakeholders are seeing the need for change.  We’ve outlined the action steps for improvement and, supposedly, innovation.  And we are moving toward it.  To help such a monumental effort continue to move forward, the Administration has gained the rhetorical support from major entities such as the pharmaceutical industry and the nation’s hospitals.  More importantly, they’ve gotten these stakeholders to ante in, with the pharmaceutical industry offering $80 billion and hospitals throwing in $155 billion toward the effort.  The thought is real reform cannot happen by government fiat alone. 
Why doesn’t such thinking carry over into public education?  When we look at national reforms in education — changes designed to boost student achievement, access, and quality — we look solely to the federal government for the dollars.  Look to implement core standards in the 50 states, our SEAs will turn to the feds for the money to follow through.  Call for an injection of innovation in the classroom, recognizing that following the status quo path all these many decades hasn’t gotten us very far, we provide an address where the federal government can send the check.  Demand change, reform, improvement, or any of the above, and we look to the U.S. Treasury to make it all happen.
Yes, the US Department of Education is seeking a $5 billion commitment from the philanthropic community to match the $5 billion the feds are willing to invest in education innovation.  Yes, groups like the Gates Foundation are now looking to throw in $500 million to dive deep into teacher quality in a select group of school districts.  But in the grand scheme of things, are these significant investments to education improvement — on par with those PhRMA and the hospitals are providing to healthcare reform — or are they simply nibbles around the edges of the major issues at hand.
Ultimately, it falls on folks like the EdSec and other to utilize the bully pulpit to draw attention and commitment to the issue of education improvement.  In recent years, we’ve done a damned fine job informing virtually every stakeholder audience of the problems in K-12 (or even P-16) education.  We’ve even started building commitment for some of the changes that are needed to improve the quality and impact of education delivery in the United States.  But we are still struggling to mobilize those audiences around those specific changes.
Why?  We are still struggling to show those audiences what specifically they can do to deliver on those changes.  What action steps can I take to improve the system?  What do I prioritize?  What do I do?  What do I fund?  To what do I hold my members accountable?
After much trial and error, we’ve learned these issues in healthcare, which is why we are now getting rhetorical and checkbook buy-in from the pharmaceutical industry and the hospital industry to move reform.  But we still haven’t learned this in education.  We are still looking for the ultimate Sugar Daddy — the federal government — to let us know what to do, how to do it, and then provide the dollars for it.
If we expect plans to improve public education to truly take hold and have the impact we all seek, we need to call on all stakeholders to play a specific role in the development, implementation, and funding of it.  If the past eight years has taught us anything, it is that the feds can’t do it alone.  We need the help of teachers, administrations, higher education, business leaders, community organizations, families, and students.  We need their support.  We need their advocacy.  And we need their financial support.  Each stakeholder may not play a starring role, but they play a role in improving our public schools.  Now’s the time for all to step up and make that role their own.  
It doesn’t matter if they’ve received a golden-gilded invitation to the game or if they are crashing the gates.  You can’t complain about the final outcome if you aren’t ready to step up to the plate.  The feds can get the ball rolling, but it is going to fall to all of those stakeholder audiences to sustain, build on, and cultivate additional improvements.  
  

Some Main Street USA Reality

Eduflack Arne Duncan, AYP, stimulus

Sometimes, our national education policy debates become very “Beltway-centric.”  They are discussions among federal policy leaders and national education voices, between influencers and devil’s advocates, between those who have power and those who seek it once again.  Too often, we focus on in the inputs and who is seated around the table, often forgetting those we are affecting and those who will be asked to carry out the very policies being put into place in Washington.

Eduflack was reminded of that last evening.  I had the privilege of sitting down with members of a town council and a local school board up in New England.  Like far too many communities, they are struggling with both the economic and the educational challenges of 2009.  A town with a rich history, they’ve seen home values dramatically decline (by more than a third in two years), they’ve struggled to meet AYP (particularly in math), and they are finding it hard to communicate their community value to those who are looking for new communities to live in, despite their proximity to a major city and their strong quality of life.  They want to make sure there are real job opportunities for their kids in the future, but they aren’t sure how to ensure it.
It is a diverse community, growing more diverse by the year.  As a result, the schools are forced to deal with growing demands of ELLs, both as students and as parents.  The school district has implemented an ambitious school improvement plan, seeking to address struggles in math and ELA proficiency with lower student-teacher ratios, full community involvement in the schools, and a community-wide commitment to improvement and innovation.  They have a clear vision of where they want to do; they now just need the roadmap to get there.
Their challenge is this great nexus between economic and educational factors.  Too often, we believe education operates in a vacuum.  We do things because they make sense on paper (or worse, because others tell us it looks good on paper) without realizing how it fits into the larger picture.  In communities like this, we see the ongoing continuum generated by the economy/schools intersection.  School improvement requires additional dollars, money beyond the stimulus and Title I dollars offered by the federal government.  That money comes from local government, which relies on property taxes to get there.  Housing values decline.  Housing sales slide.  And the community has fewer dollars to do all of the things it does — police, fire, transportation, social services, and yes, education.  So in a downturn, we are looking to reinvest in the schools, making them stronger so new families want to relocate in the community because it is a district on the rise, yet we struggle to find the dollars to execute.
Fortunately, in many towns like the one I visited yesterday, they have a real story to tell, offering a rich history with a clear plan of where they want to go.  They have a loyal local business community, dedicated municipality officials, and schools committed to doing what it takes to improve.  Are they happy with their AYP or their standing on state exams?  No.  Are they throwing up their hands, saying that a community with their challenges is a lost cause?  Of course not.  They are acting.  They are looking to innovate, within the confines of their human and fiscal realities.  They realize the status quo won’t cut it, and are looking for new ways to teach, new ways to learn, and new ways to share their story with those in the community and those who may join the community.  They see this as a joint effort, with school and town working with local business, local churches, and local families and community leaders to move forward.
A few months ago, there were some guffaws around EdSec Duncan’s planned “listening tour.”  They grew a little louder when we learned that the EdSec was actually doing the listening on these visits.  He wasn’t going into communities to tell them what he was doing or to explain what they needed to do to fit his goals.  He was listening to their experiences.  He listened to stories of the fiscal troubles in communities like Detroit, where the schools are now facing bankruptcy.  He was, supposedly, greatly impacted hearing the tales of learning and school improvement in our Native American community.  Hopefully, he is hearing stories like those I heard last evening, understanding how federal action is but a small part of actual turnaround and improvement.  He is realizing the collective responsibility, from the feds down to the localities, we all have in real innovation.  And he is appreciating that his goal of turning around the 1,000 lowest performing schools starts with those actual schools, and does not come with a trickle-down of federal policy, dollars, and well wishes.  It comes through empowerment, support, and investment beyond the annual checks.
I walked away last evening feeling better about the possibilities.  In recent weeks, the details about federal education “improvement and innovation” had me feeling that there was little truly new and innovative happening.  Aside from a renewed interest in charter schools, we were dealing with retreads of ideas of the past, talking about issues like mayoral control and inputs-based changes, hopin’, wishin’, and prayin’ that those inputs would result in improved outcomes.  History tells us they rarely do.
So it was refreshing to hear directly from a local community that was taking the future into their own hands, committed to a turnaround plan built specifically for their community, supported by those in the locality, and addressing their real needs (and not the needs of a program officer in Washington).  They understand the stakes have never been higher, and they are prepared to ante into the game and do what is necessary to improve education — and the lives — of the students of both today and tomorrow.
No, what I heard is not unique to this community.  It is a tale that can be told of communities across the nation, where education improvement and innovation is underway, and has been before the influx of stimulus dollars was made available.  It is told of those cities and towns that realize the schools are the heart and soul of the community, and require real attention and commitment.  And hopefully, it is a tale that the EdSec and his staff are hearing as part of their listening tour, helping them see how they can help encourage and enhance current efforts, and not get in the way of real innovation.
 

Bolder, Broader Accountability?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, NAEP, national standards, NCLB

The announcement last month about common standards and the work undertaken by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers seems to have captured the attention of most in the education community.  For those entering their first rodeo, they are worried about how these new standards will be applied and are worried about how they will be applied next year, even before the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Those who have done this dance enough times know that the work is only just beginning.  The current common standard focus on high school exit expectations will have be walked back to first grade or kindergarten, providing common standards for the full K-12 effort.  With those standards, we’ll also have to build the assessments that go with it, how we measure both what is being taught and what is being learned in the classroom.
One of the top concerns about common standards is that the current framework seems focused exclusively on reading and math skills, much as NCLB’s AYP provisions were.  We assume that science will be added.  We hope to fold in social studies and other academic subjects.  And the recent release of the arts NAEP last week gives us hope that there is a chance that we will truly gage student proficiency on all of the issues and topics addressed during the school year.
Adding to this discussion is a new report out today from A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.  BBA’s approach is a simple one.  School improvement cannot be measured by test scores alone.  There are additional quantitative measures, as well as a number of qualitative pieces, that should be factored into current efforts to improve the schools and support our students.  (Full disclosure, my company has been providing counsel to BBA and its leadership on these issues.)
The full BBA Accountability Report can be found here.  But I’ll recap the highlights:
When it comes to accountability, BBA calls on the federal government to:
* Collect state-level data — from an expanded NAEP or from other national surveys — on a broad range of academic subjects, as well as on the arts, student work habits, physical health and fitness, mental health, citizenship habits, and other appropriate behaviors that will enable students to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
* Improve the disaggregation of NAEP and other survey data, where appropriate, to include immigrant generation, parent education, and national origin.
* Maintain NAEP’s low-stakes character to preserve its validity as an indicator of relative state performance, barring its use as an individual-level test for accountability purposes
* Require states to develop accountability systems that rely upon scores on states’ own academic tests and other key educational, health, and behavioral indicators, along with approved inspection systems to evaluate school quality.
And for BBA, it falls to the states to:
* Improve the quality of state assessment, particularly in reading and math, so that assessment results can plan an appropriate role in school evaluation.
* provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that contributions to satisfactory student performance in academic subject areas, as well as in the arts, citizenship, physical fitness and mental and physical health, work, and other behavioral skills that will enable them to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
Provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that appropriate resources and practices, likely to produce satisfactory student achievement, are being followed and promoted.
* Intervene for the purpose of improving schools and district performance where it is unsatisfactory.
There are few that are going to feel lukewarm or ambivalent about BBA and its recommendations.  EIther you’ve drunk the Kool-aid or you are a true nay-sayer/doomsdayer.
True believers are going to embrace this as the fix to what is perceived as a severely flawed accountability system in NCLB, a model that only looks at reading and math, a model that only looks at grades 3-8, a model that fails to account for other academic subjects, other social developments, and other factors that impact the potential and success of the student and the school.  The broader, more comprehensive approach to assessment gets us closer to the multiple measures many states were pursuing before AYP became a primary word in their vocabulary.
Others will absolutely hate the approach.  They will fear that BBA is looking to weaken current accountability models, and are claiming that adequate assessment of math and reading proficiency should no longer be a priority.  It “softens” our current measurement efforts.  It places the qualitative over the quantitative.  And it turns back the accountability clock to when it was every state for itself, with each jurisdiction offering up some version of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  it seeks to deal a setback to one of the real successes of the NCLB era.  And the idea of an “inspectorate” that will parachute in to evaluate our schools will win few friends in the “reform” movement.
Will these recommendations become the centerpiece of ESEA reauthorization, either this year or sometime in the next decade?  Probably not.  But by throwing a spotlight on accountability at this stage of the game, BBA begins a very important debate when it comes to reauthorization.  How do we effectively measure school improvement?  What are the inputs and the outcomes we should be focused on?  How do we define success?  How do we measure success?  How do we capture the full picture, knowing that curricular changes alone cannot get us to the intended destination?  How do we take issues like 21st century skills and STEM and figure out how to effectively layer them into the common standards and the assessments that will come along with those standards?  How do we ensure that all parties, from the classroom up and the feds down, are actually being held accountable for student learning and student achievement?  All are important debates we must have now, if a reauthorized ESEA is indeed an improvement over the current.
Debate is a good thing.  Discussion is a good thing.  Even disagreement is a good thing when it comes to school improvement.  We need choices and different ideas.  We need devil’s advocates and loyal soldiers.  We need to seriously consider our choices (as well as weigh what has worked and what has not in the past) if we are to put real, lasting, meaningful improvement in place.  So if BBA is lighting the match to start some of these debates, we are better for it.
And for those who think that these accountability recommendations won’t hold any water with the Obama Administration and EdSec Arne Duncan, take a look at the following video clips.  Both candidate Obama’s and President Obama’s rhetoric seem far more like that of a true believer than a nay sayer.  This may have more legs to it than it originally appears.
  

Reauthorization Timetable?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB

It is always a fun game to ask those “in the know” when they expect the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to be reauthorized.  In 2007, we saw several draft bills that some thought were indications that reauth would happen before the elections.  Those drafts quickly stalled, and we started talking 2009, 2010, 2011, and beyond.

Recent reports had been tagging ESEA – and yes, most are now referring to it as ESEA and not NCLB – reauthorization for as late as 2011.  The thinking has been that 2009 is slated for healthcare reform, 2010 has a student loan priority, so ESEA must be coming along in 2011.
The reauthorization waters have only been muddied further with discussions on economic stimulus, Races to the Top, common standards, and such.  Some will even go as far as to say that common standards is the priority, and the push for national standards will simply be put into place through EdSec caveat, without the need to codify under ESEA.  After all, EdSec Arne Duncan has made it pretty clear that he is relatively content with NCLB, needing just some minor tweaks to funding priorities and programmatic emphasis.
But Eduflack is starting to hear a different story with regard to reauthorization.  It is a major priority for the EdSec and his senior staff.  So much so that the current plan is to make ESEA reauthorization a Capitol Hill priority this fall, with hopes of signing the new law into the official record in the early part of 2010.  So we are facing a possibility of 2009 reauthorization after all.  The game is back on.
If the schedule holds, many are going to be caught by surprise with the accelerated schedule.  The education chattering class is thinking reauthorization is months away, and is putting their attention on other issues and other priorities.  If the new ESEA process is really just months away, the education blob has a great deal of thinking to do.  Summer school is in session, and those who want their voices heard during reauthorization better be ready to advocate loudly and clearly when the new school year starts this fall.  Otherwise, they could be left behind for another five to eight years. 
(And as for the new name, today’s WaPo made clear that NCLB moniker has been put to bed.  Earlier this year, Eduwonk held a rebranding contest, receiving more than 700 entries.  Check out the best of the best here.  If only naming were our biggest concern.)
    

Charter-ing the Race

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, CPS, Gates Foundation

There seems to be little question about it.  Charter schools are front and center when it comes to the federal government’s new approach to school improvement and student achievement.  EdSec Arne Duncan has been promoting charters as a core part of successful Race to the Top grants and as necessary components to comprehensive district turnarounds.  Duncan can even point to his use of the charter tool in Chicago as the justification for his new push.

The Gates Foundation has announced its plans to go in and do a “deep dive” in four school districts across the nation, focusing $125 million per district on improved professional development.  On the short list for the final four, an unnamed charter school district in the Los Angeles area.  Only the village idiot doesn’t realize that Green Dot is the intended target for these funds.
We’ve seen greater interest and appreciation for what KIPP has done, due in large part to Jay Mathews’ recent book on that charter system.  And the number of ED employees with ties to the NewSchool Venture Fund, one of the top thinkers on the effective development of high-quality charter schools (and part of New Leaders for New Schools’ model for teacher incentives under their TIF-funded EPIC program) continues to grow by the day.
So for those who thought charters may take a back seat under a new Democratic administration, they have been sadly mistaken.  The economic stimulus package called for states to raise their charter caps.  Other states are being pushed to actually maximize their current laws (like my home state of Virginia, which has a decent charter law, but just doesn’t allow any charters to actually get started under it, thus failing to live up to the promise).  And others still are being asked to establish flexible, growth-oriented charter laws that demonstrate the value-add charters can play to a school district on the rise or a school district in need of improvement.
But who is doing it well?  A decade ago, charters were tagged with a reputation of low quality and low results.  We had images of individuals running schools out of their homes and their basements, trying to take advantage of available funding or looking to thrust a particular political or religious point of view on a select group of students.  Many still subscribe to that stereotype, despite the hard work undertaken by groups like NACSA to ensure that states have strong charter establishment and accountability laws and by organizations like the Center for Education Reform for continually providing new data on how well our charter systems are doing.
CER actually has a new report out, this one called Race to the Top for Charter Schools: Which States Have What It Takes to Win, Rankings and Scorecard 2009.  In the study, CER provides some interesting data, grading our states on issues such as the number of charter operators, number of schools allowed, operations, and equity.  We see that three states earn As from CER — the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and California.  Four states earn Fs — Kansas, Virginia, Iowa, and Mississippi.  D seems to be the most popular grade when it comes to charter scores.
When you couple this data with recent CER data on charter school achievement and the costs involved (showing that charters are putting up equal or better performance when compared to their traditional public school peers for nearly half the per-pupil dollars), it gives you a strong sense for why Duncan and company are emphasizing the opportunity available under charters … and how much work we really have to do before we effectively integrate charters into the public school network.
Most states want to get their Race to the Top dollars and the chances that come with it.  In the process, hopefully they will recognize that good, effective charter networks are designed to supplement, not supplant, our traditional public school systems.  They aren’t the magic bullet for struggling schools, but they sure are a useful tool.  And that like most in school improvement, charters only work when we focus on quality, proven research, assessment, and accountability.

A True “Opportunity Equation”

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, Math, national standards, NGA, Science, STEM

In recent months, we have significantly raised the stakes when it comes to education improvement.  The economic stimulus bill makes clear that the success of our economy depends on the improvement of our schools.  The Data Quality Campaign (along with additional stimulus dollars) have focused on the need to improve data collection at the state level.  The recent release of NAEP long-term data pointed to the push for continued accountability.  And the most recent announcement of progress in the national standards movement — namely the National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School Officers push — have only increased the volume.

But what, exactly, are we improving?  A little more than a month ago, President Barack Obama spotlighted the need to redouble our commitment to science-technology-engineering-mathematics, or STEM, education.  Today, the Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education amplified the instructional content call even further.  In releasing The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy, Carnegie provided a useful blueprint for moving our rhetorical commitment to improvement and STEM education into actionable items, issuing a true call to action to policymakers and educators committed to improving our nation and our economy by strengthening our academic offerings.
Specifically, Opportunity Equation issued a clarion call on four key issues:
* The need for higher levels of mathematics and science learning for all American students
* Common standards in math and science that are fewer, clearer, and higher, couple with aligned assessments
* Improved teaching and professional learning, supported by better schools and system management
* New designs for schools and systems to deliver math and science learning more effectively
Surely we have seen reports like these before.  Many issue broad platitudes.  Others are chock full of process, with little in terms of outcome.  And others still simply preach in a vacuum, demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding about our schools, particularly those students that need STEM the most.  So what makes Carnegie’s report so different than those that have come before it?
First, Opportunity Equation clearly identifies those stakeholders most important to STEM education and assigns them specific responsibilities in the improvement effort.  Throughout its report, Carnegie lays out the action stems that the federal government, states, schools and school districts, colleges and universities, unions, businesses, nonprofit organization, and philanthropy must play.  School improvement is a team game, and Carnegie has drawn up specific plays so that every stakeholder — particularly teachers and schools — has a chance to get on the court at some point during the game.
Second, it combines the requisite inputs with the necessary outcomes.  Too often, reports like this are forced to either embrace the status quo, essentially serving as a consensus document designed to make all parties happy.  Such papers focus on inputs, talking about what is possible, but ignore the outcomes that are necessary to measure true improvement.  Carnegie makes clear that process is important.  But it makes clearer that the best intentions in the world are meaningless if we aren’t delivering measurable results on the back end.  Student results, data, measurement, and accountability are key components to the Carnegie plan.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Carnegie recognizes that STEM education is for all students, and that all students should be held to higher, clearer standards (with similar accountability).  For years now, Eduflack has heard many an educator and policymaker push back that STEM education isn’t for everyone.  Our future rocket scientists and brain surgeons may benefit from STEM, but it is unnecessary for the “average” student.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Every student benefits from STEM education, particularly if that student is interested in going on to postsecondary education or holding a job after finishing their schooling.  Carnegie puts this fact front and center.  Effective STEM instruction is not about cherry-picking.  It is about a rising tide lifting all boats, providing all students — particularly those who have been left behind or neglected in the past — with the skills and instruction they need to achieve in the 21st century global classroom and workplace.
Opportunity Equation also demonstrates a nimbleness that we rarely see in studies of this sort.  The report boasts a Who’s Who on its roster of Commission members.  Usually, such a roll call means this report was in the can for months, undergoing proofing and design and gut checks to make sure all were comfortable with the language.  But Carnegie has done two things here to dispel the pattern.  First, its four priorities align with the four policy pillars put forward by EdSec Arne Duncan and the US Department of Education.  Second, Opportunity Equation calls on stakeholders to endorse the NGA/CCSSO Common Standards effort, and effort that just went public a little more than a week ago.  Relevancy is always a good thing.
In Opportunity Equation, Carnegie Corporation has clearly informed audiences on what is necessary to improve math and science instruction in the United States, building a stronger pipeline for both the economy and the community.  As Eduflack has lectured far too often, that is merely step one of effective public engagement.  Now that the inform stage is completed, it now falls to Carnegie and its supporters to build commitment to the model laid out by Carnegie and then mobilize stakeholders around the specific actions called for in the report.  
Carnegie offers yet another GPS unit for guiding us through the complexities of school improvement toward a final destination of a STEM-literate society equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for academic and life success.  It is now up to the wide range of stakeholders (those identified by Carnegie) to actually plug the unit in and let it guide us.  Opportunity Equation provides those turn-by-turn directions to get us to the results we seek.  We just need to follow the guidance.

Requiring Quality in Our PreK Programs

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, early childhood education, stimulus

What, exactly, is the future of the federal
investment in public education? 
For months now, we have tried to cobble together an answer to that
question, using presidential campaign rhetoric, economic stimulus package
priorities, and now Presidential budget decisions to help us see where we are
headed as a nation.   Since
assuming his position in late January, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has
provided us little more detail, sticking mostly to the talking points on
stimulus and education’s impact on the economy. 

But few seem to have a clear sense of what the
U.S. Department of Education has in store for the future, particularly the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  The general agreement is that
reauthorization could happen as early as this fall and as late as the summer of
2010, but it is indeed coming.  The
common logic is NCLB will stay relatively intact.  Along the way, we hear about efforts in Washington, DC to
construct more comprehensive reading legislation (to replace Reading First) and
a framework for national standards (expected to be delivered by Achieve to
Duncan in the coming weeks), but where, exactly, will our future priorities
lie?

Recently, Duncan and his lieutenants have been
focusing on four key policy pillars on which the new U.S. Department of
Education is constructed.  First,
implementation of college and career-ready standards and assessments.  Second, creation of comprehensive data
systems that track students throughout their education career and track
teachers back to schools of education to better understand which programs are
producing teachers that make a difference.  Third, recruitment, preparation, and reward of outstanding
teachers, paying more to teachers who work in tough schools.  And finally, turn around of chronically
underperforming schools.

What figured prominently during President Obama’s
campaign – but what seems to be missing from the core tenets – is early
childhood education.  Early and
often, Obama campaigned on the notion of a strong national commitment to early
childhood education.  Instead of
just focusing on access and an expansion of current programs, the President
seemed focused on committing to quality just as much as he committed to
quantity.  The talk was not
universal preK; the rhetoric was high-quality preK.

But what, precisely, is high-quality early
childhood education?  For decades
now, many have viewed the 800-pound gorilla in the ECE room – Head Start – as
being little more than glorified babysitting.  Instead of using the time to help disadvantaged or
low-income students get a jump start on their academic futures, Head Start just
focuses on the “social” aspects. 
We make our youngest learners more comfortable with existing in a
learning environment.  The
pre-reading and pre-math skills such learners needed simply come once they
officially entered kindergarten – and entered miles behind their academically better-off
peers.

In recent years, we have watched the universal
preK movement transform from the hare into the tortoise.  Supporters of universal preK have
watched new plans ground to a halt and have seen existing programs slowed or
scaled back, all because of a smaller pot of resources going education
needs.  Smaller state budgets,
caused by less-than-planned real estate taxes, have forced some tough decisions
when it comes to public education. 
And early childhood education was one of the first on the chopping
block.

Last month, the Pew Center of the States
released Leadership Matters: Governors’ Pre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2010.  Looking at recent education budgets
proposed by the current state chief executives, Pew found that our greatest
fears are likely not going to be realized (unless state legislatures have
anything to do with it).  Despite
our states’ economic struggles, 14 states are proposing increases in early
childhood education investment. 
Thirteen states are proposing to level fund programs.  And three states are looking to
establish preK efforts where there currently are none.  All told, our nation’s governors intend
to boost FY2010 investment in early childhood education by 4 percent over
2009’s commitments.

The Pew study only tells half the story,
though.  The other 50 percent still
has yet to be written.  Sixty
percent of our states are looking to start, continue, or strengthen their
investment in preK.  But what are
they investing in?  How do we
ensure that we are investing in high-quality early childhood education?  How do we measure return on investment
in preK?  How do we make sure our
youngest learners are gaining the academic building blocks needed to succeed
throughout their academic careers, overcoming some of the learning gaps that
have long dogged disadvantaged students and have long dug a deep scholastic
trench between the haves and have nots?

The doubting Thomases would say one cannot truly
quantify results in early childhood education.  But we know that to simply be incorrect.  When it comes to pre-reading, we know
the letter recognition and vocabulary skills three- and four-year olds can gain
to prepare them for the research-based K-4 reading instruction that will
transform them into proficient, confident readers.  We know the numeracy that all students need to know to
maximize the start of their K-12 experience.  And we know the core skills all students require to be ready
to learn when they pass through those kindergarten doors for the first time.

So what, then, does quality look like?  We can turn our gaze to two unlikely
places – Washington, DC and Texas – to provide us some real insight into
high-quality, effective preK instruction. 
In Washington, the AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation,
through the DC Partnership for Early Literacy, is working in some of our
nation’s capital’s lowest-income communities, yet posting significant gains on
student early reading achievement. 
Based on standardized, nationally normed assessments, AppleTree students
gained 21 percentile points in vocabulary proficiency, placing them higher than
the national norm and more than doubling the gains demonstrated by students in
DC Head Start classrooms.  Among
AppleTree’s lowest 50 percent of students, learners posted even more impressive
gains – 26 percentile points, nearly tripling typical Head Start results while
working with students from similar demographics.

In Texas, the Children’s Learning Institute,
through its Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), is now working with more than
61,000 young learners across 38 communities in the Lone State State.  There, students are achieving and
demonstrating progress in key literacy skills, including phonological
awareness, rapid letter naming, and vocabulary development.

These two programs are not merely the exceptions
to the rule.  They are worth
acknowledging for two reasons. 
First, they are demonstrating results.  Both AppleTree and TEEM help define what high-quality early
childhood education is, how we can measure it, and the sort of results we
should expect from effective preK. 
More importantly, though, both programs also demonstrate that our
youngest learners can benefit from the same policy pillars that Secretary
Duncan is putting in place for our K-12 systems.

In early childhood education, we also see that
standards and assessments are key, particularly if we expect to demonstrate and
measure the results that define quality. 
In ECE, we also see that data systems are key, providing educators and
policymakers the information necessary to bridge three-year-old programs to
four-year-old programs to kindergarten and beyond.  In ECE, we know that effective teachers are the key to a
quality program, and early childhood educators must be well trained, well
supported, and constantly encouraged to improve their practice and improve
their knowledgebase.  And in ECE,
we know that our most disadvantaged students – those from historically
underperforming neighborhoods – are the kids that most benefit and most need a
high-quality, academically focused preK experience.

Nationally, we believe that every child should
have access to a high-quality education. 
We believe that student achievement is king, and all learners should be
proficient and should be able to demonstrate that proficiency, both in the
classroom and on state and national assessments.  We believe that a strong public education is the gateway to
a strong future, both for the individual and society.  And we believe, or should, that we must hold our systems
accountable for the quality and effectiveness of the education they deliver.

Such belief systems should not be restricted to
our K-12 systems, or even more narrowly construed for grades 3-8 when we
measure AYP.  If we expect to
transform every child into a successful learner, we also need to implement the
quality, accountability, and teacher effectiveness into our preK systems.  As our states look to invest in the
future of early childhood education, as the Pew Center indicates, we need to
make sure this money is going toward good programs that demonstrate true
ROI.  We need to look at programs
like TEEM, AppleTree, and others to guide our decisions.  Demanding early childhood education is
no longer enough.  We should be
demanding quality – and results – for our youngest learners as well. 


Let’s leave the babysitting to teenagers seeking
some extra spending money.  Our
early childhood education programs should be focused on providing the academic
frameworks that empower even the most disadvantaged of students to achieve in a
school setting.