Yesterday’s Washington Post continued the public debate on how we measure the efficacy of our public schools. Under a headline of “Calls Grow for a Broader Yardstick for Schools,” the Post’s Maria Glod fan the flames of high-stakes testing and NCLB mandates. But if we peel back the clamoring and positioning, what is the Post really poking at? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501747.html
Eduflack will try to look past the American Society of Civil Engineers’ calls for national science testing. Last I saw, science was one of the three subjects NCLB is slated to test, with those fourth through eighth grade exams coming online shortly. There’s one demand that has already been met.
So let’s look at the broader picture. NEA’s Reg Weaver is right when he says student success should be more than just one test score. And CCSSO’s Michael Casserly is dead-on when he states that different audiences have different answers to the question of how to best measure our K-12 schools. But instead of looking at “multiple measures” and examining how one state’s proficiency measures stand up to another’s, there has to be a simple way. Oh, wait, there is — national standards.
If we look at the hand-ringing in the Post piece and in public and private discussions these past few years about accountability and the measurement of student, teacher, and school achievement, there is rarely discussion of national standards. It’s as if it is the third rail of education reform (or maybe the 3 1/3 rail, after teacher accountability). We’re afraid to talk about national standards, not knowing what might be behind the curtain if we allow that show to truly take the stage.
But isn’t national standards the rhetorical solution to all of these criticisms?
* It offers a bold solution that demonstrates that we, as a nation, are committed to strengthening our schools and ensuring our students have the skills they need to succeed in the workplace and the community
* It provides a strong fix to the notion that some states may be lowering their standards to appear proficient
* It states that every child, regardless of their home town or economic standing, has the right to a strong, proven effective public education
* It brings equality to our expectations and measurement of classroom teachers, whether they be in urban, suburban or rural settings
* It may just be the only “fair” approach to measuring our schools – with one common yardstick
Earlier this year, Gov. Roy Romer — now heading Strong American Schools — suggested we bring together many of the nation’s top governors and let them hatch the plan for adopting national education standards. Eduflack said it then, and he’ll say it again, it is a visionary approach that may be just what the ed reform community is in search of. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/05/the-next-great-ed-reform-idea.aspx
Most still bristle at the notion of national education standards. We reflect on the belief that education is a local issue, left to town councils and local selectmen. While that may have been true a century or so ago, results from NAEP and PISA tell us a very different story. If we are to maintain a thriving economy, if we are to be home to the world’s top industry and innovative thinking, we need to get serious about how we measure our successes. It just doesn’t get more serious that national standards.
AYP
The Blame Game, Iowa and Hollywood Style
We may not be all that adept at determining solutions for improving our nation’s public schools, but we certainly know how to assign blame. Case in point this week, conservatives in the GOP presidential debates and liberals on the TV show “Boston Legal.”
If you missed it, earlier this week the Republican candidates for president had yet another debate. At this one, multiple presidential hopefuls attacked the NEA as the primary obstacle to education reform. Tagging the teachers unions as the defenders of a broken school system, these Republicans (yes, I’m talking about you Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson) seem to think that if the NEA would just step back and allow school choice, all would be made right in our K-12 schools.
On the flip side, Boston Legal ran a plotline of a high-achieving high school student stealing her school’s standardized tests to spotlight the inadequacies of high-stakes testing. Lines like standardized tests are producing a school of “idiots” and this is all the fault of the “No Child Left Behind nazis” certainly makes for good television. Throw in a sobbing staffer from National Geographic bemoaning student mapping abilities, a principal believing NCLB is denying him the ability to teach what students need, and a student believing she is being denied a quality education at a predominantly white high school in Boston, and we see how NCLB can become must-see prime time TV viewing.
What does it all mean? We still aren’t taking education seriously as a topic for discussion, debate, and thought. Instead of the GOP discussing the merits of school choice and the impact it has had on disadvantaged youth or those from low-performing schools, we seek to tar the NEA. Then we use NCLB as a punchline, sandwiched between suing the National Guard for failing to stop a flood and a former teen madame. We’ve resorted to using education reform as an applause line or a punchline, take your pick. (Don’t believe me, look at a recent Family Guy cartoon, that also focused on NCLB and AYP.)
We’re continuing to blame others for our educational problems, rather than offer solutions where we take responsibility. As Mitt Romney is attacking the NEA, can’t he also be blamed for the fictitious school failures in Boston Legal. After all, these were his schools 11 months ago. Where are the Romney and Thompson’s K-12 education plans? What will they do to fix the problems? How are they going to expand school choice? How will they get effective teachers in the classroom, and ineffective teachers out? And what are they going to do to get Candice Bergen’s sure to be Wellesley College-bound grand-daughter to stop destroying the tests and ensure that her high school is accurately measured? (Interestingly, Romney was actually mentioned on the program, while Massachusetts’ current education governor, Deval Patrick, was not.)
The only positive out of all this, I suppose, is that NCLB is known well enough as a brand that it can stand as a story line on a top prime-time television program, without needing explanation or set-up. As silly as blaming NCLB for our high school woes may be, those TV producers assume that their viewers know NCLB, know the issues around AYP and high-stakes testing, and will buy into the concerns over teaching to the test and preparing students for the challenges of the future. Maybe the NCLB brand name is better recognized than Eduflack has assumed.
As we close out the pop reference portion of today’s program, it all comes back to our of Eduflack’s favorite movies of recent years, Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, the lead character — a tobacco industry lobbyist — explains the lobbying game to his son. It isn’t about proving you are right, he opines, it is about proving your opponent is wrong. If your opponent is wrong, the electorate has not choice but to assume you must then be right.
Clearly, this is what we are seeing these days in education reform. Few are stepping up to show us how they are right and what they will do to approve it. Instead, we’re giftwrapping blame and defending bad behavior by attacking.
I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to change the channel. I’ll read the blogs and the websites and the newspapers for my news and education reform information. I want mindless bubblegum entertainment on my TV programs. Let’s leave the social commentary to the Sunday morning talk shows and the news channels I never seem to reach, up past ESPN and Noggin on my cable box.
The Need for STEM: Exhibit P
For the past few years, there has been a growing debate on the need for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education. To some, STEM is a program for the elites, an honors program that doesn’t affect the majority of kids who need it. For others, it is too expensive. And for others still, it is a complicated issue that doesn’t fit neatly in the K-12 box. As a result, STEM education efforts have been sporadic to date. Some states — like Minnesota — have done a tremendous job building a STEM education effort that reaches all students in the continuum. Unfortunately, far too many are playing a wait and see, holding off before making significant intellectual, time, or capital investments.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
The After-Effects of After-School
Does learning only happen during school hours, behind school house doors? For years, the education community has debated the impact of after-school programs on student achievement. Today, Education Week’s Debra Viadero has a story on a new research study showing dramatic achievement gains for those students who regularly attend and participate in “top-notch” after-school programs.
The story can be found at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool.h27.html
The findings seem common sense to Eduflack. Take at-risk students. Put them in a high-quality after-school program that reinforces the curriculum and learning strategies they are getting in the classroom. Ensure that they come to all of their after-school sessions. Observe the benefits. Repeat. More instruction, particularly if it is proven to work, is bound to help even the most at-risk student. That’s why we advocate for more instructional time or for parents to reinforce classroom lessons at home.
As is now par for the course in education reform, the critics are out, attacking the methodology. The driver for this — a 2005 study that showed no measurable effects for after-school programs. Questioning how experimental groups and control groups were chosen and the legitimacy of comparing students from group A to group B is destined to quickly turn this report, known as the Promising Afterschool Programs Study, into yet another inning of inside baseball, where researchers will continue to throw brush-back pitches as those students in need aren’t even allowed a ticket in.
Education reform is about improvement. We advocate for what works, and we push to adopt what is proven effective in schools and with kids like ours. As we look at the pool of at-risk students, can anyone — with a straight face — honestly say that the current classroom instruction is enough to turn those kids around, have them catch up to their cohort, and achieve on assessments? Of course not. They’ll always be a step behind without additional help beyond school hours.
When an affluent student struggles in the classroom, his parent is quick to hire an after-hours tutor to turn things around. Some after-school sessions and special attention (and much money) later, the student gets the concept and is able to keep up in trig or biology or physics.
So why would it be any different for an at-risk student in a low-income community? Research-based after-school programs are designed to provide students that same sort of instruction and attention, giving them a boost in the classroom the next day. If such programs are proven effective (and the Promising Afterschool Programs Study is posting eye-popping positive results) then shouldn’t we encourage their continued use?
Research can often be a double-edged sword in education. Yes, we can and should use it to measure the effectiveness of a school, a class, or a student. We should use it to ensure that instructional programs are effective and are proven to work. We use it to validate our decisions, when faced with vocal resistance. It is a powerful communications tool.
But research can also be used to tear down. Yes, the 2005 study found after-school programs to have no effect on student achievement. But that doesn’t mean this new study is wrong. If anything, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the type of after-school program we’re looking to. Like everything else, there are good and bad programs. If continued research of after-school programs gets us closer to replicating the good and eradicating the bad, it’s a win for researchers, a win for the schools, and a huge win for the students.
The story can be found at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool.h27.html
The findings seem common sense to Eduflack. Take at-risk students. Put them in a high-quality after-school program that reinforces the curriculum and learning strategies they are getting in the classroom. Ensure that they come to all of their after-school sessions. Observe the benefits. Repeat. More instruction, particularly if it is proven to work, is bound to help even the most at-risk student. That’s why we advocate for more instructional time or for parents to reinforce classroom lessons at home.
As is now par for the course in education reform, the critics are out, attacking the methodology. The driver for this — a 2005 study that showed no measurable effects for after-school programs. Questioning how experimental groups and control groups were chosen and the legitimacy of comparing students from group A to group B is destined to quickly turn this report, known as the Promising Afterschool Programs Study, into yet another inning of inside baseball, where researchers will continue to throw brush-back pitches as those students in need aren’t even allowed a ticket in.
Education reform is about improvement. We advocate for what works, and we push to adopt what is proven effective in schools and with kids like ours. As we look at the pool of at-risk students, can anyone — with a straight face — honestly say that the current classroom instruction is enough to turn those kids around, have them catch up to their cohort, and achieve on assessments? Of course not. They’ll always be a step behind without additional help beyond school hours.
When an affluent student struggles in the classroom, his parent is quick to hire an after-hours tutor to turn things around. Some after-school sessions and special attention (and much money) later, the student gets the concept and is able to keep up in trig or biology or physics.
So why would it be any different for an at-risk student in a low-income community? Research-based after-school programs are designed to provide students that same sort of instruction and attention, giving them a boost in the classroom the next day. If such programs are proven effective (and the Promising Afterschool Programs Study is posting eye-popping positive results) then shouldn’t we encourage their continued use?
Research can often be a double-edged sword in education. Yes, we can and should use it to measure the effectiveness of a school, a class, or a student. We should use it to ensure that instructional programs are effective and are proven to work. We use it to validate our decisions, when faced with vocal resistance. It is a powerful communications tool.
But research can also be used to tear down. Yes, the 2005 study found after-school programs to have no effect on student achievement. But that doesn’t mean this new study is wrong. If anything, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the type of after-school program we’re looking to. Like everything else, there are good and bad programs. If continued research of after-school programs gets us closer to replicating the good and eradicating the bad, it’s a win for researchers, a win for the schools, and a huge win for the students.
Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?
Two data sets on student performance are out this week. But what exactly does the data tell us? And more importantly, what do we say about the data?
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
On the Road Again
For the past few weeks, Eduflack has spent the majority of his time well beyond the DC beltway. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana to name just a few. And the coming weeks add Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado. One thing’s clear, discussions of education reform are occurring well beyond Capitol Hill and One DuPont.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
Multiple Pathways for Students … and Teachers
We all like to believe that we’re all entitled to one week in the sun. No one can dispute that last week was just such a week for Teach For America. Bookended by articles in The New York Times magazine and the Economist, TFA has been the “it” program of the week. No small feat, what with continued discussions of NCLB, merit pay, and a host of national policy shifts.
Without doubt, TFA has a growing cadre of supporters throughout the nation. As it has expanded the cities and communities in which it serves, the organization has had a demonstrable impact on the school culture, on student and teacher motivation, and, yes, on student performance. Don’t believe Eduflack? Check out the comprehensive research study Mathematica has done on the effectiveness of TFA.
Unfortunately, such attention and growth also gives birth to a healthy opposition. I’ve long told reform clients that if you don’t have such critics, you aren’t doing your job. Changing the status quo, calling on stakeholders to work harder or think smarter or do better invariably always brings forward that opposition. And TFA is no exception.
For years, those critics have been led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the greatest defender of the status quo pedagogy of teacher education. Yes, she is a name to be reckoned with. Yes, she brings a distinguished history of good work and a commitment to public education. But sometimes, even the best take a wrong turn.
The status quoers have tried to protect teacher education for decades. The result? Our students’ test scores have been relatively flat for most of Eduflack’s lifetime. We may claim that our schools of education are churning out the best educators ever to face a classroom, but the results don’t reflect that. For too long, we’ve allowed pedagogy to substitute for results. Sure, the inputs may be great, but what out the final outcomes? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are our students better of now than they were two decades ago?
The simple answer is, of course not. Today, we are asking far more of our students than ever before. Success in 2007 requires a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or certificate. The time when only a third of high school students went to college is over. Instead, we are demanding multiple educational pathways for our students, pathways that provide every student with a way to postsecondary education and a guide to life success.
Which takes us back to Teach For America. If we are expected to build multiple instructional pathways for our students, it only goes to reason that we are to build multiple instructional pathways for our teachers as well. There is no one way to train a teacher. If there was, we’d build that factory and have a non-stop supply of highly qualified, effective teachers for every classroom, including those in low-performing areas.
No, the challenges of our schools requires multiple ways of thinking. From looking at those schools where programs like Teach For America or Troops to Teachers reside, we know that pedagogy is the least of these classrooms’ problems. Here, many students have all but given up hope. They’ve lost faith in the school, or in the teacher, or in learning itself. For them, it isn’t about instructional approaches. It is about repairing the school culture. Returning hope. Connecting the student with the teacher and the school.
And that’s where programs like TFA excel. Success is not measured by an individual teacher or a specific cadre of corps members. Success, in the long run, comes from knowing there will always been a TFA teacher in front of that classroom, a teacher who connects with the student, inspires the student, and reconnects the student’s passion for learning.
Accomplish that, and the student achievement will come. And scientific research can prove it. If anything, Darling-Hammond and her defenders of the status quo should be seeking out more opportunities and efforts like TFA. More programs that bring hope to inner-city schools. More programs that instill a culture of learning. More programs that provide our schools with enthusiastic, driven instructors eager to lead a classroom that has long been neglected. More programs that build a future generation of leadership on the notion that no issue is more important to the success of our nation and our community than a high-quality, effective education for ALL students.
Some critics, including those at dear ole Stanford, would point to the lifespan of a TFA teacher, questioning whether two years in the classroom really makes a difference. But how different is the two-year commitment of a TFA teacher from the short lifespan of today’s traditional new teacher? TFA’s mission was never to focus on teacher retention issues — it was to provide an ongoing stream of qualified, enthusiastic, committed educators in the communities that need them the most. TFA plays that specific role extremely well, so much so that it is continually embraced by superintendents, principals, and teachers across the nation. And in reality, the studies of TFA alumni show many of them stay in the classroom, go into school administration, or assume other roles that support education and growth in the community. And isn’t that a measure of an effective educator?
In a nation looking for K-12 solutions, we need multiple answers. One just won’t do. And Teach For America is definitely one of the answers. Ask a “traditional” teacher who works with a TFAer, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Ask a family whose child is in a TFA classroom, and they’ll concur. Ask Mathematica and other researchers, and they’ll give you the proof points.
Teacher For America and its leaders should enjoy their week in the sun. The hard work begins today. Across the nation, districts and schools know TFA and programs like it work. So as the critics circle, TFA, its leadership, and its corps members need to ensure the highest quality implementation, instruction, and effect. Success is the best defense of the critics and the status quoers. And TFA is on its way.
Without doubt, TFA has a growing cadre of supporters throughout the nation. As it has expanded the cities and communities in which it serves, the organization has had a demonstrable impact on the school culture, on student and teacher motivation, and, yes, on student performance. Don’t believe Eduflack? Check out the comprehensive research study Mathematica has done on the effectiveness of TFA.
Unfortunately, such attention and growth also gives birth to a healthy opposition. I’ve long told reform clients that if you don’t have such critics, you aren’t doing your job. Changing the status quo, calling on stakeholders to work harder or think smarter or do better invariably always brings forward that opposition. And TFA is no exception.
For years, those critics have been led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, perhaps the greatest defender of the status quo pedagogy of teacher education. Yes, she is a name to be reckoned with. Yes, she brings a distinguished history of good work and a commitment to public education. But sometimes, even the best take a wrong turn.
The status quoers have tried to protect teacher education for decades. The result? Our students’ test scores have been relatively flat for most of Eduflack’s lifetime. We may claim that our schools of education are churning out the best educators ever to face a classroom, but the results don’t reflect that. For too long, we’ve allowed pedagogy to substitute for results. Sure, the inputs may be great, but what out the final outcomes? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are our students better of now than they were two decades ago?
The simple answer is, of course not. Today, we are asking far more of our students than ever before. Success in 2007 requires a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or certificate. The time when only a third of high school students went to college is over. Instead, we are demanding multiple educational pathways for our students, pathways that provide every student with a way to postsecondary education and a guide to life success.
Which takes us back to Teach For America. If we are expected to build multiple instructional pathways for our students, it only goes to reason that we are to build multiple instructional pathways for our teachers as well. There is no one way to train a teacher. If there was, we’d build that factory and have a non-stop supply of highly qualified, effective teachers for every classroom, including those in low-performing areas.
No, the challenges of our schools requires multiple ways of thinking. From looking at those schools where programs like Teach For America or Troops to Teachers reside, we know that pedagogy is the least of these classrooms’ problems. Here, many students have all but given up hope. They’ve lost faith in the school, or in the teacher, or in learning itself. For them, it isn’t about instructional approaches. It is about repairing the school culture. Returning hope. Connecting the student with the teacher and the school.
And that’s where programs like TFA excel. Success is not measured by an individual teacher or a specific cadre of corps members. Success, in the long run, comes from knowing there will always been a TFA teacher in front of that classroom, a teacher who connects with the student, inspires the student, and reconnects the student’s passion for learning.
Accomplish that, and the student achievement will come. And scientific research can prove it. If anything, Darling-Hammond and her defenders of the status quo should be seeking out more opportunities and efforts like TFA. More programs that bring hope to inner-city schools. More programs that instill a culture of learning. More programs that provide our schools with enthusiastic, driven instructors eager to lead a classroom that has long been neglected. More programs that build a future generation of leadership on the notion that no issue is more important to the success of our nation and our community than a high-quality, effective education for ALL students.
Some critics, including those at dear ole Stanford, would point to the lifespan of a TFA teacher, questioning whether two years in the classroom really makes a difference. But how different is the two-year commitment of a TFA teacher from the short lifespan of today’s traditional new teacher? TFA’s mission was never to focus on teacher retention issues — it was to provide an ongoing stream of qualified, enthusiastic, committed educators in the communities that need them the most. TFA plays that specific role extremely well, so much so that it is continually embraced by superintendents, principals, and teachers across the nation. And in reality, the studies of TFA alumni show many of them stay in the classroom, go into school administration, or assume other roles that support education and growth in the community. And isn’t that a measure of an effective educator?
In a nation looking for K-12 solutions, we need multiple answers. One just won’t do. And Teach For America is definitely one of the answers. Ask a “traditional” teacher who works with a TFAer, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Ask a family whose child is in a TFA classroom, and they’ll concur. Ask Mathematica and other researchers, and they’ll give you the proof points.
Teacher For America and its leaders should enjoy their week in the sun. The hard work begins today. Across the nation, districts and schools know TFA and programs like it work. So as the critics circle, TFA, its leadership, and its corps members need to ensure the highest quality implementation, instruction, and effect. Success is the best defense of the critics and the status quoers. And TFA is on its way.
Putting Our Money on a Winning Proposition
In education, the focus is often on people first, results second, and the money third. We think of the teachers and the students, then on achievement, and only then do we really start talking about dollars. We talk of per student costs, and compare our per-pupil spending with similar districts or with those who are outperforming us. The punchline, inevitably, is that we need more dollars for our classrooms.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
The Next Great “Ed” Reform Idea
NCLB may be now, with reauthorization and merit pay being leading topics of education cocktail parties. But as Eduflack friend and online marketing guru Geoff Livingston says, now is gone. Now is what has happened. We need to focus on what is to happen. If the last few weeks has been any indication, the future of education reform could center around two key words — national standards.
For decades, almost no one wanted to touch the issue of national standards. It was almost the third rail of public education. It was an affront to local control. It stood against hundreds of years of American educational tradition. National standards was a dead-end issue before the words ever fully left the lips of the most eager reformer.
But not any more. In recent days, we’ve heard from a varied chorus led by Diane Ravitch and DC area superintendents calling for some form of national standards. And now, we get to enjoy a passionate solo from Roy Romer, chairman of Ed in 08.
At Jobs for the Future’s Double the Numbers 2007 Conference Thursday, Romer asked the question — Why are we, as a nation, not focused on what we can to improve public education? If we truly want to improve our schools, Romer contends, we need to change the national discussion. We need each and every citizen to declare, “I want my child to be ready for life. I want them to have the opportunity for a good college and a good career.”
Amen. For months now, we’ve been waiting on some bold statements to come from Strong American Schools and Ed in 08. And bold may not even be strong enough for Romer’s call to action. I might even call it visionary.
For those who missed it, Romer too has issued the call for national standards. The former “education” governor of Colorado, the former superintendent of LAUSD, even took it a step further. According to Romer, the time has come for a collection of leading states to come together and write common education standards. He issued the call to “education” governors to be proactive, and create the measurements by which our nation’s schools should be evaluated. Those founding states would all adhere to the common standard. The remainder of states would soon follow. And national standards are born.
For decades, almost no one wanted to touch the issue of national standards. It was almost the third rail of public education. It was an affront to local control. It stood against hundreds of years of American educational tradition. National standards was a dead-end issue before the words ever fully left the lips of the most eager reformer.
But not any more. In recent days, we’ve heard from a varied chorus led by Diane Ravitch and DC area superintendents calling for some form of national standards. And now, we get to enjoy a passionate solo from Roy Romer, chairman of Ed in 08.
At Jobs for the Future’s Double the Numbers 2007 Conference Thursday, Romer asked the question — Why are we, as a nation, not focused on what we can to improve public education? If we truly want to improve our schools, Romer contends, we need to change the national discussion. We need each and every citizen to declare, “I want my child to be ready for life. I want them to have the opportunity for a good college and a good career.”
Amen. For months now, we’ve been waiting on some bold statements to come from Strong American Schools and Ed in 08. And bold may not even be strong enough for Romer’s call to action. I might even call it visionary.
For those who missed it, Romer too has issued the call for national standards. The former “education” governor of Colorado, the former superintendent of LAUSD, even took it a step further. According to Romer, the time has come for a collection of leading states to come together and write common education standards. He issued the call to “education” governors to be proactive, and create the measurements by which our nation’s schools should be evaluated. Those founding states would all adhere to the common standard. The remainder of states would soon follow. And national standards are born.
That one standard, then, would benchmark with standards in countries across the world. Finally, we would truly know how our students compare with learners across the world. And the feds role in all of this — to pay for the test. States set a national measurement and hold themselves to it, and the folks back in Washington write the check. Sounds simple enough to actually work.
The result — true consumer protection in American public education. We have our standards. We know what we’re doing. And we know where we stand. Doesn’t matter if a parent or student is in Seattle, Dubuque, Huntsville, or Boston. Achievement is achievement, regardless of state border or school district boundary.
Some may be uncomfortable with this discussion, but it is just the sort of issue the education community should be talking about. Worried about high stakes testing? Make sure the national standard is one that measures true knowledge. Concerned we need more stringent accountability measures? Focus on a standard that truly means something, and doesn’t just speak to the common denominator.
If Romer and Ed in 08 want to really leave their mark on the upcoming presidential elections, this may very well be the way to do so. We shouldn’t just talk about education, we should be talking about how to improve it. True national school improvement requires more than asking a question on a YouTube debate or getting an oped printed. It comes from changing the national discussion. Only then can we really start identifying and adopting the sorts of solutions that can fix the problem … for good.
The result — true consumer protection in American public education. We have our standards. We know what we’re doing. And we know where we stand. Doesn’t matter if a parent or student is in Seattle, Dubuque, Huntsville, or Boston. Achievement is achievement, regardless of state border or school district boundary.
Some may be uncomfortable with this discussion, but it is just the sort of issue the education community should be talking about. Worried about high stakes testing? Make sure the national standard is one that measures true knowledge. Concerned we need more stringent accountability measures? Focus on a standard that truly means something, and doesn’t just speak to the common denominator.
If Romer and Ed in 08 want to really leave their mark on the upcoming presidential elections, this may very well be the way to do so. We shouldn’t just talk about education, we should be talking about how to improve it. True national school improvement requires more than asking a question on a YouTube debate or getting an oped printed. It comes from changing the national discussion. Only then can we really start identifying and adopting the sorts of solutions that can fix the problem … for good.
Unusual Allies
As one would suspect, there is a great deal of buzz in the ed reform community regarding this morning’s New York Times op-ed piece from Diane Ravitch. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03ravitch.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin With a provocative title “Get Congress Out of the Classroom” and a strong academic reputation, Ravitch gets people to take notice … even if NCLB bashing is cliché at this point.
What’s far more interesting, though, is holding Ravitch’s recommendations up against those made by Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale and others earlier this week in The Washington Post. At the time, Eduflack wrote, with great surprise, of Dale and company’s call for national testing and the realignment of responsibilities between the states and the feds. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/01/advocacy-from-the-urban-superintendent.aspx
Who would have thought that Ravitch, Dale, and Montgomery County (MD) Superintendent Jerry Weast would all be singing from the same hymnal? If researchers like Ravitch and urban superintendents like Dale and Weast keep sharing each other’s talking points on public education reform, we may just have meaningful, long-term school improvement yet!
What’s far more interesting, though, is holding Ravitch’s recommendations up against those made by Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale and others earlier this week in The Washington Post. At the time, Eduflack wrote, with great surprise, of Dale and company’s call for national testing and the realignment of responsibilities between the states and the feds. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/01/advocacy-from-the-urban-superintendent.aspx
Who would have thought that Ravitch, Dale, and Montgomery County (MD) Superintendent Jerry Weast would all be singing from the same hymnal? If researchers like Ravitch and urban superintendents like Dale and Weast keep sharing each other’s talking points on public education reform, we may just have meaningful, long-term school improvement yet!
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 