AYP

The Neverending Quest for Good Data

Eduflack AYP, IES, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Why is it so hard to find good, meaningful scientific data to prove the efficacy of an education reform?  Do we know what good data is?  Is it too expensive to capture?  Is it deemed unnecessary in the current environment?  Is it out-of-whack with the thinking of the status quoers?

EdWeek’s Kathleen Manzo has been raising some of these issues over on her blog — Curriculum Matters.  (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/)  And no, Eduflack has no qualms whatsoever with her taking me to task on whether the proof points I use to demonstrate Reading First is working are truly scientifically based proof points.  To the contrary, I appreciate the demand to “show me” and have greatly enjoyed the offline conversations with Manzo on what research is out there and whether that research — the good, the bad, and the ugly — meets the hard standards we expect.

For the record, I am not a methodologist, a neuropsychologist, nor an academic to the nth degree.  I learned about research methodology and standards and expected outcomes from NRPers like Tim Shanahan and Sally Shaywitz and from NICHDers such as Reid Lyon and Peggy McCardle.  My knowledge was gained on the streets, so take it for what it is worth.

When NCLB and RF were passed into law, the education community took a collective gasp of concern over the new definition of education research.  The era of squishy research was over.  The time for passing action research or customer satisfaction surveys as scientific proofs of effectiveness had met its end.  Folks starting scratching their heads, wondering how they would implement (and fund) the longitudinal, double-blind, control-grouped studies defined as scientifically based education research.

The common line in 2002 and 2003 was that only two reading programs, for instance, met the research standards in SBRR.  Those two?  Direct Instruction and Success for All.  Not Open Court.  Not Reading Recovery.  Not Voyager.  Only DI and SFA.

So what has happened over the years?  In 2002, the fear was that every educational publisher would have to adopt a medical model-style research network a la NICHD.  Millions upon millions of dollars would need to be spent by the basals to prove efficacy.  It was to be a new world order in educational research.

Where are we today?  As Manzo correctly points out, five years later there is little (if any) research out there that is now really meeting the standard.  Even the large IES interim study of RF effectiveness — that $31 million study of our RF districts — fails to meet our standards for high-quality, scientific research (if you listen to the researchers who know best).  Why?  Why is it so difficult for us to gather research that is so important?

First, we have interpreted the law the way we want to interpret the law … and not the way it was written or intended.  Those being asked to implement the research models simply didn’t want to believe that Reid Lyon and Bob Sweet really wanted them to pursue such zealous and comprehensive research.  So it was interpreted differently.  Neither consumers (school districts, teachers, and parents) nor suppliers (basals, SES providers, etc.) saw the necessity of longitudinal, control-grouped, double-blind, peer-reviewed research.  We settled for what we could get.  We knew that documents such as the NRP report of the previous National Research Council study met the requirements.  So instead of doing our own research, in the early years of RF we simply attached the NRP study as our “research base” to demonstrate efficacy.  Forget that the ink on the instructional program wasn’t dry, it was “scientifically based.”  And there were no checks or review process to prove otherwise.

Second, we are an impatient people, particularly in the education reform community.  Take a look at the NICHD reading research network, and you’ll see it takes a minimum of five years to see meaningful, long-term impact of a particular intervention.  RF grants were first awarded in 2002, with most early funders using the money for the 2003-04 school year to start.  That means just now — for the 2008-09 school year — would we truly be able to see the impact of RF interventions.  But have we waited?  Of course not.  We declared victory (or defeat) within a year or two of funding.  If test scores didn’t increase after the first full academic year, the nattering nabobs of the status quo immediately declared RF a failure, simultaneously condemning the need for “good” research.

We need to see results.  If our second grader isn’t reading, we want her reading by third grade, tops.  We don’t have the patience or the attention span to wait five to seven years to see the true efficacy of the instruction.  We need a research model that provides short-term rewards, instead of measuring the long-term effects we need.  A shame, yes, but a reality nonetheless.


The final side to our research problem triangle is the notion of control groups.  In good science, we need control groups to properly measure the effects of intervention.  How else do we know if the intervention, and not just a change in environment or a better pool of students, should be credited or student gains?  That is one of the great problems with the IES interim study.  We are measuring the impact of RF funding, but were unable to establish control groups that did not benefit from RF materials, instruction, and PD (even if they didn’t receive any hard RF dollars).

But in our real-life classroom environment, who wants their kid to be in that control group?  We all want the best for our children; we don’t want them to get the sugar pill while all the other students are getting scientifically based reading and a real leg up on life.  How do you say to teachers — in our age of collective bargaining — that these teachers on my right will get scientifically based professional development, but these two on my left will get nothing?  How do we say these students on this side of the district will get research-based instruction and materials, but this cluster here will get instruction we know to be ineffective.  Politically, our schools and their leaders can’t let real scientifically based research happen in their schools.  Too much grief.  Too many problems.  Too little perceived impact.

So where does this all leave us?  At the end of the day, we all seem to be making do with the research we can get, hoping it can be held to some standard when it comes to both methodology and outcomes.  We expect it to have enough students in the study so we can disaggregate the data and make some assumptions.  We expect to do the best we can with the info we can get.

Today, we see that most “scientifically based” research is cut from the same cloth.  No, we aren’t following the medical model established by NICHD’s reading network, nor are we following the letter of the law as called for under NCLB and RF.  Some come close, and I would again refer folks to the recent RF impact studies conducted in states such as Idaho and Ohio.  The methodology is strong, the data is meaningful.  And it shows RF is working.

What we are mostly seeing, though, is outcomes-based data.  School X scores XX% on the state reading assessment last year.  This year they introduced Y intervention, and scores increased XX%.  Is it ideal?  No.  But it is a definite start.  We are a better education community when we are collecting, analyzing, understanding, and applying data.  Looking at year-on-year improvement helps us start that learning process and helps us improve our classrooms.  It isn’t the solution, but it is an important step to getting there (particularly if we are holding all schools and students to a strong, singular learning standard).

Yes, Kathleen, we do need better research.  We know what we need, we know how to get there.  But until we demonstrate a need and a sense of urgency for the type of research NCLB and IES are hoping for, we need to take the incremental steps to get us there.  Let’s leave the squishy research of days of old dead and buried.  We’ve made progress on education research over the past five years. We need to build on it, not destroy it. 


 

“Good For You!”

Eduflack AYP, national standards, NCLB

Why is it so hard for some people to see the benefit of national education standards?  It seems like a such a common sense issue — identifying a common standard for all U.S. students and then doing what it takes to get all students to meet it.  Maybe it is just too simple a concept, particularly since it seems to face such disdain or disenchantment from a significant number of people who should know better.

A perfect example of this was on display this past weekend on NBC’s Meet the Press.  For those who missed it, Obama surrogate U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill was asked a throw-away education question following 20 minutes of questions on Iraq, gas, and the economy.  Host Tom Brokaw asked Missouri’s junior senator about No Child Left Behind and the seemingly bipartisan opposition to the law.

McCaskill set her sights on the issue of national standards.  NCLB is too inflexible, expecting too much from too many.  She believes — as many Democrats do — that having one bar for all students to clear is somehow unfair.  We should recognize all schools who demonstrate improvement.  When they improve, she said, “good for you.”  If they don’t improve, then we have a problem.

Where do we start with all of this?  Should we really applaud those schools that increase from 10% to 14% proficiency in 4th grade reading or math?  Is that really worth celebrating?  All that does is tee up the states to reduce their individual “standards” each year to allow for a couple of percentage points increase year on year.  Then all schools can have that “good for you.”  Don’t believe me, take a look at how some states have “readjusted” their standards in recent years.

At the end of the day, standards should be inflexible.  Standards are rigid.  Just today, I was talking with a former urban educator who, without doubt, falls into the “liberal” side of the puzzle.  She was saying that the best thing about NCLB was it held all students to one expectation.  Didn’t matter if they came from a low-income family.  Didn’t matter if their parents were educated.  Didn’t matter if they were an only child or the youngest of eight.  Didn’t matter the language spoken at home or in the neighborhood.  We should expect all students to be proficient.  And we shouldn’t be celebrating anything until they reach that level.

That is the ultimate root of the concept of abolishing the soft bigotry of low expectations that governed the establishment of NCLB.  That bigotry consists of the excuses we make for failure.  The socioeconomic reasons.  The family structure.  The neighborhood strife.  The lack of resources.  We’ve replaced the Horatio Alger story with a “But, if” story.  We celebrate process, without worrying about the end results.  And that’s just a cryin’ shame.

We’d all like to believe that all of the schools in McCaskill’s Show Me State are reading and computing at proficient levels, and all can get that pat on the back and the “good for you” that she wants to hand out along with increased federal appropriation.  But we all know that’s not the case.  We need to set a national standard because we need something for the nation to aspire to.  We need a bar that means something, a common bar that every single student in the United States must clear to demonstrate effective learning.  Is that really asking for too much?

 

Closing the Achievement Gap?

Eduflack AYP, HQT, NCLB

When No Child Left Behind was implemented back in 2002, one of its prime goals was to close the achievement gap.  Then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige made it the cornerstone of his stump speech, focusing much of the law’s early days on how to help low-income and minority students in struggling schools.  Supplemental funds were geared, in large part, to addressing the achievement gap issue.  Reading First funding was gift-wrapped for schools struggling with the problem.  Even Highly Qualified Teacher provisions were developed to ensure that urban (read minority) schools were getting qualified, effective teachers.

The multi-billion-dollar question out there is did it work?  Has NCLB made a difference in closing the achievement gap.  Critics of the law have made NCLB all about inflexibility and high-stakes tests and unreachable expectations.  And they’ve been successful, in large part, because many believe the law hasn’t worked (basing their beliefs on the opinion pages and coffee clatchs, instead of real, hard data).

This week, the Center on Education Policy released its comprehensive study, “Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?”

The findings are just fascinating.  USA Today draws out the highlights (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-24-no-child_N.htm).

What does all this tell us?  First and foremost, the tenets of NCLB seem to be working.  Several states — including Texas and Arkansas — showed moderate to large gains in both reading and math.  Others — including Tennessee — showed similar gains in reading.  And others more — such as New Jersey and Ohio — showed those gains in math.  Scores are rising.  The achievement gap between white and black students is shrinking.  And states are far more serious about data collection and accountability today than they were six years ago.

We’re a far, far ways away from declaring “mission accomplished” with NCLB.  But we are starting to see its impact (and it is a positive one to boot).  Once we move beyond the rhetoric and vitriol of NCLB, and start looking at the resources it provides, the supports it offers, and the roadmap it lays forward, we can still see the positive impact the law can have if implemented correctly.

Sure, NCLB is the furthest thing from the collective mind of Congress.  And yes, it is far easier to kill the law rather than improve it.  But if our goal is to improve student achievement, particularly among low-income and minority students, it is hard to ignore this CEP data or the continuous roll call of teachers, parents, and students who speak on the positive impact the law has had on them.

And just imagine the success it could have if it went from being the education community’s Stretch Armstrong doll and once again enjoyed the bi-partisan support and encouragement it received in 2002?
  
 

SES Not Supplementing Learning?

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, Students

There’s no doubt there are leaders and laggards when it comes to our public schools.  But how do we help those kids in struggling schools without condemning the teacher, the building, or even the school district?  For the folks responsible for No Child Left Behind, the answer was SES, or supplemental educational services.  The idea was brilliant in its simplicity — for students in struggling schools, make extra help and tutoring available to get them up to par.  SES was intended to provide all students with a common base of instruction and support.

Of course, those of us in education reform know that the promise and the reality are often far, far away from each other.  Exhibit 1, today’s Washington Post piece on how SES programs in Virginia and Maryland have done little to improve student achievement.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html

For years, Eduflack has heard about the problems with SES tutoring.  For much of the NCLB era, SES funding sat dormant, with many schools not sure how to spend the money.  Originally, people said the tutoring funds would be spent to send poor kids to for-profit providers like Sylvan or Huntington or Kumon.  Makes sense, right?  If a family with means has a kid struggling to make the grade, they pick up the phone and book their kid in a tutoring program.  Why shouldn’t a family without the financial ability be able to take the same advantages with SES?

The hitch, of course, is that many of the for-profit tutors have business models that set them up near those families of means.  We see tutoring centers in the suburbs.  We certainly don’t see them in our urban centers, where many of the struggling schools are located.  So who provides the tutoring?

Unfortunately, in far too many of these struggling neighborhoods, the schools turned to classroom teachers to provide after-school tutoring (with extra pay funded through SES, of course.)  Imagine the logic.  Students are not getting the skills they need during school hours from their teachers, so we pay the SAME teachers extra money to teach the SAME kids after school?  And then we wonder why SES funding isn’t demonstrating measurable improvements on student assessments?  Only in America.

And the circle of life continues.  We look to education reforms to change practice and fix that which is broken.  SES is a well-intentioned reform with strong potential.  But like so many other NCLB-era policies, it fails in the execution.  With so much supplemental money available to boost struggling students, it’s a shame so many don’t get much more than a retread of the instruction that just doesn’t work in the first place.

Where does all of this take us?  Under NCLB, we also give those struggling students the option of transferring to better schools that provide the academic means get students on track.  We’ve all seen the numbers, and few families ever take advantage of the school choice provisions, fearing transportation costs and believing their neighborhood schools are doing the best they can. 

Maybe this latest data will have more families take a second look at the options available to give their kids the educational helping hand they deserve.

Caffeinating NCLB

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB

If we’re to believe the chattering class, the greatest problem in public education today is No Child Left Behind.  It’s destroyed our schools, bankrupted our districts, frustrated our teachers, and destroyed the morale of our students.  Those standards and high stakes testing, in particular, have been the death of us.

You hear it so much that you almost believe it.  Then you get that slap upside the head, much like an overcaffeinated espresso, that reminds of you the truth.  This week, that slap has come from Seattle, hardly the home of the George W. fan club.  It seems the Seattle Times has thrown its editorial muscle behind NCLB (kudos to Ed Trust’s Equity Express for highlighting it.)

In a strongly worded editorial this week, the Seattle Times praises NCLB for “injecting rigor and accountability into a system that previously had little of both.”  The editors also note that recent improvements to the law — including demonstrations of flexibility on AYP — will take years for us to see, and we need to be patient.  The full article is here — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004444420_nclbed29.html.

It’s unusual to see such pieces these days, when NCLB has been left as a punchline to a national education joke.  But as the Seattle Times and many others have noted, there is value to the law.  Forget, for a moment, that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act isn’t going away.  There are real positives in this law, and states, municipalities, and schools are seeing that.  

The Times is absolutely correct.  We are a better nation because of NCLB.  A national commitment to academic rigor is a good thing.  A national commitment to student achievement is a good thing.  A national commitment to doing what works in getting kids to learn is a good thing.  And a national belief that EVERY kid can succeed, given the right opportunities and circumstances, is indeed a good thing.

These were the sorts of messages we needed to hear three years ago, when we actually had the chance to reauthorize NCLB.  As Spellings and ED now play out the clock, there are few sane policywonks that believe reauthorization will happen this year.  Most don’t even believe it will happen in 2009. 

That could be a very different story is editorials like those appearing in Seattle had been printed years ago, and with in greater numbers.  ANd the responsibility, or the failed responsibility, for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Department of Education.  The want us to drink the kool-aid, but they failed to market it to us as the end-all, be-all thirst quencher for our educational woes.  They failed to build demand for NCLB, and instead tried to force it upon us, no questions asked.  Thus, we are in the situation we’re in today.

The age-old story of opportunities lost and chances squandered.  Hopefully, we will always have the intent of NCLB propelling our ed reform sails … even if it goes by a different name and has different champions.  Rigor, accountability, achievement, success should have no party affiliation and should always remain in vogue.   

Is 100% Proficiency Possible? You Betcha

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Since its gaining its moniker, No Child Left Behind has faced growing scrutiny about its goal — ensuring that every student is achieving at grade level.  On the reading side of the coin, when NCLB was passed into law, only 60 percent of fourth graders were proficient or better at reading.  Two of every five students was struggling at reading.  The goal was to get all five of them reading, offering scientifically based interventions to fill the gaps.

Such promises became a punchline for folks.  It seemed like some would have felt better if we had said “Only 10 Percent Left Behind” or “Just a Few Left Behind.”

Today’s Washington Post, though, shows that 100 percent proficiency is not just a campaign slogan, it can be a way of life for some schools.  Over at the Core Knowledge Blog, they’ve done a good job discussing this very topic, and the fact that a school in Ocean City has already completely fulfilled its AYP obligations.  Check it out at http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2008/05/28/no-child-no-problem/.

Such gains are not just left to our beachside communities.  We are starting to see more and more examples of schools that have cracked the code and have figured out how to get every child reading and get every child performing.  Case in point, Pennsylvania’s Souderton Collaborative Charter School.

Full disclosure, I recently came across Souderton as part of my day job.  Based in Montgomery County, PA, this K-8 school has clear academic goals.  For language arts, that goal is to “read with comprehension, to write with skill, and to communicate effectively and responsibly in a variety of ways/settings.”

To achieve this goal, the school leadership adopted a scientifically based approach to independent reading.  The school provides books on topics of interest to the student, at reading levels and content appropriate to the students’ age.  In return, the students develop an interest and a passion for reading, developing the skills they need to succeed in ELA and other classroom results.

The result?  Success.  Don’t believe Eduflack?  Take a look at Souderton’s results on the PSSA for 2005-06 — Pennsylvania’s state assessment.  Third grade PSSA reading scores — 100% proficient or better.  Fourth grade PSSA reading scores — 100% proficient or better.  Even seventh grade reading scores — 100% proficient or better.  That’s every child reading at grade level.

Souderton achieved this, in part, because they are using approaches that are proven effective.  Their reading instruction models the best practices called for by the National Reading Panel and Reading First.  They are empowering both students and teachers, inspiring both to achieve.  And the results show.

Ocean City and Souderton can’t be the only schools with these sorts of results.  While schools don’t have to be 100 percent proficient until 2014, I have a feeling that these two schools are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unsung heroes that are achieving despite the white noise of failure and impossibility.  We should be modeling behaviors after schools like OC and Souderton.  And we, including Eduflack, should be doing a better job uncovering those schools that are doing it right.  Finding those schools that are achieving.  Throwing the spotlight on those communities where SBRR works, and where student reading proficiency is the norm, not the exception.
 

RF Works, Just Ask Idaho

Eduflack AYP, IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

If we believe the initial buzz from this month (along with the interim study from IES), the Reading First program just doesn’t seem to do the job it was intended to take on.  By now, those who care have heard all about the IES study, as well as the growing criticism about its shortcomings, most notably its methodology.

Throughout this debate, we’ve heard little from the practitioners who have put RF to work in their states or communities.  From those who have seen the positive effects of scientifically based reading research.  From those who have determined what works for their schools and their kids.  Until now.

Over at www.ednews.org, we’re seeing continued comment on this RF debate.  Of particular note is a comment recently posted by Steven Underwood, the Reading First School Improvement Coordinator for Boise State University’s Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies.  The headline — Reading First is working in Idaho.  Not just working, but really working.  Almost as if RF was designed to help struggling schools boost student reading proficiency.

Rather than summarize Underwood’s contribution to the debate, let’s here directly from the horse’s mouth, with a thanks to Underwood for letting Eduflack use the words originally posted at www.ednews.org.

“I applaud the efforts to help the nation’s most at-risk children by consulting a large body of research and theory, sifting out opinion from facts, and making policies and practices that benefit children. It is unfortunate, but many of the critics of Reading First both here and elsewhere seem to speak foremost of theory and secondarily of students. I am saddened by the number of critics who neither have worked in Reading First schools nor fully understand their practices. To continue the analogy of the car from previous posts, many critics, who undoubtedly mean well in their criticisms, seem to misunderstand the repair work that is being done and seem to be completely unaware of the data that demonstrate that Reading First is having a positive impact on student outcomes. In the criticisms, it seems like people are criticizing the mechanic who is working on the complex engine (of literacy among disadvantaged students) without themselves having ever been truly successful at fixing engines which demonstrate the same types of problems. Literacy among our nation’s needy children has been a nationwide concern for years, and Reading First is the first systemic approach to find success in addressing that concern. Had the [IES] study been conducted more in line with the mandate given to IES, we would be able to better understand the impact of Reading First at the national level. However, since the study was not well designed and did not meet its mandate, being people of reason, we are obliged to evaluate all of the other data that has been provided through systems such as the annual performance reports over the course of the years. As one studies these data, Reading First is arguably the most powerful federal education program to date. As part of No Child Left Behind, Reading First has demonstrated powerful results among those children in our nation who have traditionally been “left behind” in literacy skills.

In support of this, allow me to briefly summarize results from the state of Idaho. To qualify to become a Reading First school in Idaho, a district has to have the highest level of needs (e.g. the largest percentages of free and reduced lunch in the state) and the lowest available financial resources to meet those needs. The reason for this qualification is that student performance has so often been correlated with socio-economic status. Even though Idaho Reading First schools have such high needs, they have not only grown in their data more quickly on state reading measures, but have closed or nearly closed the gap in all grade levels. Idaho has a universal K-3 reading screener, the IRI, which measures fluency and basic comprehension. From 2003 to 2007, Reading First schools in Idaho improved on this measure at a rate that exceeded the state’s growth during the same timeframe and currently have an overall average that is within 4 percentage points of the state average.


More importantly, Idaho’s economically disadvantaged students grew at a rate in Reading First schools that far surpassed their economically disadvantaged peers in state averages. Among this subpopulation, which is a focus in the NCLB legislation, Reading First schools performed at a rate of improvement between 2003 and 2007 that was 12% better than the state average in Grade 1, 10% better in Grade 2, and 7% better in Grade 3. These results are also mirrored in the comprehensive outcome measure for Idaho Reading First schools. Idaho Reading First schools have consistently performed more than 10 percentile points above the national cut-score on the Normal Curve Equivalence for ITBS Reading Comprehension. This average far surpasses the last year in Idaho in which the ITBS was given to all students (2001), which again demonstrates that Reading First is closing the gap among the neediest children in our state. Furthermore, among economically disadvantaged students, Reading First schools have improved ITBS scores at rates between 20% and 24% in Grades 1-3 from 2004 to 2007, which again demonstrates alignment of reading comprehension results with one of the primary missions of Reading First. Lastly, and very importantly, Idaho Reading First schools are demonstrating greater overall gains and closing the achievement gap on the Grade 3 AYP measure for reading, the ISAT.


Whereas in 2003, the participating schools were significantly behind the state average, Idaho Reading First Schools are now within 2 percentage points of the state average. While the IES interim report may show no statistical significance in its study sample, the reality of Reading First in Idaho shows a vastly different picture. As mentioned before, it is unfortunate that some well-meaning educators criticize Reading First based upon political preference, theory alone, opinion, or incomplete and misleading information. The interim study published by IES did not do an adequate job in meeting its mandate, nor was it representative of the nationwide set of Reading First schools, nor did it triangulate multiple sets of reading data, nor did it identify all of the pertinent variables, nor did it operate on the basis of a true pre-Reading First baseline. With these and other criticisms of the impact study in mind, I respectfully ask our critical colleagues who believe Reading First to be ineffective to review the broader set of data that exist. Reading First has set a high standard for our nation’s public elementary schools who serve its neediest children. According to multiple sets of data in multiple states, this high standard is paying off for thousands upon thousands of children.”


There you go.  Reading First is working in Idaho.  In a state where the motto is “Let it be perpetual,” they are making reading instruction improvements that will empower a generation of new readers.  And I’m betting there are a lot more states like it that are showing similar gains and similar benefits from RF and the implementation of SBRR in the classroom.  We should be out there cultivating these positive stories, spotlighting those schools, LEAs, and SEAs that are making a difference and boosting student achievement.  I know that is harder than promoting our failures and explaining why AYP can never be achieved, but we can learn a lot more examining what works rather than volleying around excuses for what doesn’t.

Is NCLB a Red Herring?

Eduflack AYP, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First

For years now, we have heard how No Child Left Behind was at the root of everything that was wrong with our schools.  We’re spending too much time on high-stakes testing.  We’re spending too much money on NCLB requirements.  We’re asking too much of our teachers.  We’re expecting too much from our students.  If only NCLB were tucked back into the drawer, then our schools would improve, all students would be on their way to Nobel Prizes, and achievement gaps would be a thing of the past.  Oh, if only we could go back to the good ole days.

Today’s Washington Times reports on the NCLB study released by the Center for Education Policy.  It is an interesting read.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/NATION/766555380/1002  Under the header, “Many states leave behind education law,” Amy Fagan reports that more than 20 states have “procrastinated” in meeting NCLB requirements, meaning they likely will not hit the 2014 targets laid out in the law.

Imagine that.  Nearly half of states are not implementing NCLB with the zealousness called for in the law.  According to CEP, states like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and others aren’t in a position to bring all students to proficiency in reading and math in six years.  Even Washington, DC, which has to answer to the feds, falls into the laggard bucket.

Interestingly, many of the states that join DC on the laggard list are the states that have been most vocal about the high costs and powerful problems caused by NCLB.  We’ve heard the cries from Oregon, for example.  They’re on the list.  We’ve heard from states like Wisconsin that NCLB’s Reading First doesn’t work.  Yes, America’s Dairyland is on the list as well.  Even states who are about to lose their chief state school officers — like Rhode Island and Indiana — are also on the hit list.

It makes Eduflack wonder, is NCLB really to blame?  Are these states having such difficulty implementing the law with fidelity that they have fallen so far behind?  Or have they been slowly addressing the law, hoping a reauthorization or a new president would again change the game?  Are they diligent in doing it right, or are they simply waiting it out?

Like many, I still believe our national goal should be every child proficient in math and reading.  That’s a baseline that should be required in every school, every state across the nation.  How can it not be?  Do we identify now which third-graders don’t have to be proficient?  Do we brand those fourth graders who we figure will drop out, and won’t factor into our high school data?  Of course not.

As long as half the states are failing to keep up with NCLB implementation, we can’t say the law is failing.  NCLB doesn’t work if the states can’t implement it, or if we find the states can’t make it work. The majority of states have been able to implement the law, and will meet the 2014 requirements.  So the first box is checked. 

The second box is the unanswered question.  We are seeing states that are making NCLB work.  We are seeing others with the potential.  We are seeing math scores on the rise.  We have identified what works and what hasn’t with Reading First.

It seems, to this uneducated soul, that 2014 is our moment of truth.  Then, we’ll see how successful the states have been in gaining math and reading proficiency for all.  Until then, we need to stop the blame game and focus on implementing the law with full fidelity.  Maybe, just maybe, NCLB has a few solutions to what ails us educationally.

Bloggin’ with Ed in 08

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, Gates Foundation, high-stakes testing, national standards, Roy Romer

Most folks who read the education blogs know that today was Ed in 08’s big education blogger’s summit.  The crowd seemed to be an interesting mix of both bloggers and ed policy folks (particularly those with education orgs that either deal with the tech issue or have a strong online presence).  At first blush, the cynic in me says the primary focus of the summit was to get Ed in 08’s name in a significant number of blogs all at the same time.  But after a few hours of reflection, I can also see some real benefits.

What has stuck most with Eduflack is the opening speech by Ed in 08 head Roy Romer.  Forget debate questions or campaign commercials or grassroots organizing or even a movie about two million minutes.  The most intriguing — and most valuable — contribution that Ed in 08 is now making is Romer’s continued push for national standards.  This is the third time I’ve heard Romer touting the Ed in 08 line.  Each time, after delivering the stump speech, he focuses on the long-term value of national standards and his dream of locking up a dozen or so well-meaning governors, have them identify standards that tie to international assessments, and then send us on our way to better performance.  I thought it was a good idea when I first heard him lay it out last fall at Jobs for the Future’s conference.  And it is even a better idea today.

So why does the issue of national standards fail to gain the attention it deserves?  It should be a campaign issue, it’s not.  It should be a national policy discussion, it’s not.  It should be a primary goal of the education blob and those in the blob’s shadow, it’s not. 

It’s as if we seem to think our traditional of local education control means we can’t have national standards.  Such thinking is just lazy.  Groups like NGA and CCSSO have had the courage to talk about a common set of U.S. learning standards.  More need to follow that lead. 

If it is the only thing that Romer and company do from this point forward with Gates’ and Broad’s money, it will be well worth it.  National standards deserve a national debate.  We should all be for high expectations, global competition, and improved skills.  A national dialogue provides us the rhetoric to discuss such goals.  And Eduflack is ready to sign up as a town crier on the issue today.

What else came out of the blogger summit?  I personally loved Romer’s stat that the average American student is a year or a year and a half behind their international peers in math instruction.  We hate to hear it, but we know it is true.  And I am still scratching my head on having Newt Gingrich as the keynoter for an ed event focused on national policies.  It was only a decade ago that Gingrich and his team was calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.

Alexander Russo tried to push his panel on the issue of merit pay, but few wanted to bite.  It was good to hear the AFT say that merit pay is a local issue, to be embraced in local CBAs.  Let’s just hope the locals know that.

The hot issues seem to be preK and assessments (high-stakes, differentiated, multiples, take your pick and political line).  No buzz at all for high school reform, despite the ducats coming from Gates.  And with all our lip service to the P-16 education continuum, higher ed is still the gawky girl at the ed dance, with no one paying her much attention either.

And big surprise, few seem to see a future for NCLB.  Some, like Ed Trust’s Amy Wilkins, want to see the law strengthened and more strongly enforced.  But the majority seemed to lean toward “improving” by weakening and adding Elasticman-level flexibility.

More later this week on the notion of changing the structure of the school day.  It is an intriguing issue that could have some legs.

Kids Are Reading?!?

Eduflack AYP, High School, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

These are definitely reading days.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the front page of today’s Washington Post.  Jay Matthews brings us the latest data from Accelerated Reader, an online reading program from Renaissance Learning.  Looking at its student usage data from more than 63,000 schools nationwide, AR has identified what books today’s students are reading … and how often they are reading them.

The full Matthews story is here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/04/ST2008050402168.html?hpid=topnews.  The AR study can be found here — http://www.renlearn.com/whatkidsarereading/ReadingHabits.pdf?sid=ST2008050402168.

The results are both interesting and disturbing.  Some of the top titles are to be expected.  “Green Eggs and Ham” is tops for first graders.  “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing” for fourth graders.  “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” was most read for second graders.

All of these are fun, well-written books that can be found in most independent reading collections for those grade levels.  But we’re also seeing a number of “required” reading titles on the list, particularly with the older grades.

“The Outsiders” was tops for seventh and eighth graders.  Eduflack remembers that as required reading in middle school.  And for high schoolers, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was the most-read book.  The Harper Lee classic has long been a mandatory read in ninth or 10th grade classes throughout the country.

Such data is interesting.  The most popular titles today, for the most part, were popular titles when Eduflack was in school decades ago.  What’s disturbing, though, is the amount of reading these students are doing.  We all keep hearing about the Harry Potter effect, and how kids are reading more today than they used to (due, in part, to the tri-wizard champion).  But AR’s data seems to tell a different story.

The average seventh grader is only reading seven books a year.  Take away the required readings like “The Outsiders,” and it is probably safe to say these junior high students are only reading two or three books independently each year.  Even more disturbing are high schoolers.  The average 12th grader is reading four books a year, meaning after books assigned in English class, the only thing seniors are reading is the back of a cereal box.

If we’ve learned anything during the RF era, it is that good reading comes in two parts.  Students need to gain the instructional building blocks identified under the law — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.  Then they need to practice it.  They need to read in class and outside of it.  They need to continue to develop those skills.  They need to become readers for life.

Reading is like any other skill.  If you want to play golf, you can get instruction on how to tee off, how to chip, and how to putt.  You can learn how to read the greens and choose your clubs.  But if you aren’t out there knocking out a few buckets a week and playing on real courses, you will never be a good golfer (though completing those tasks is no guarantee of success, trust me).  Developing skills requires practice, practice, practice.  And reading skills are no different.

This data also helps us see the need to prioritize independent reading in our schools and homes.  And that is due to the continued importance of statewide assessments.  When it comes to ELA, the assessment is one big independent reading test.  Think about it.  The test may include an excerpt from “Charlotte’s Web,” but it isn’t a test on how much you know about spiders and pigs. Assessments are independent, cold reads.  We test a student’s ability to comprehend what they read. Do they know the vocabulary?  Can they read and process it in the requisite period of time?  Can they reach conclusions based on what they read?

Now, we must see what we can do with this data from AR.  How do we use it to get good books in the hands of good students?  How do we set goals to increase book consumption among students of all ages?  How, exactly, do we build the reading skills of all students?

Lots of questions.  In RF and in successful schools throughout the nation, we can find the answers.  We just need to look.  And we need to know how to read the signs.