AYP

Looking for Ideas Behind the Endorsement

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, HQT, PR, Presidential campaign

This afternoon, the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton for President of the United States of America.  It should be no surprise.  The former Clinton administration had strong support in the teachers unions.  And Senator Clinton has long been a friend of UFT, NYSUT, and AFT.  In its endorsement, AFT cites Clinton’s “proven ability to advance our nation’s key priorities, and her bold plans for a stronger America.”

And good for the AFT.  Rather than wait for additional polling data from the key early states, or wanting to see another quarter of fundraising totals, or waiting to hear more detail on specific issues and policies, the AFT has put its money down on the horse they expect to see in the winner’s circle.  And they’ve done so believing that Clinton represents the best opportunity for AFT-friendly policies come January 2009.

Eduflack is going to assume that Clinton just wowed AFT during the interview process, discussing those bold plans and awing them with her discussion of how she would deal with those key priorities.  Now she’s won their endorsement, and the organizational prowess, resources, and support that come with it.

But it’s got me scratching my head.  For those of us watching from the cheap seats, what exactly is Hillary Clinton’s education platform?  Visit her website, and you don’t even see “education” in her issues menu.  Take some time to explore, and in the “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” list, you’ll find a bullet to attract and retain good teachers and principals, one to improve NCLB and a bullet increasing access to high-quality early education (a plank she has been quite vocal on and should be credited for).  But those issues are part of a laundry list that includes care for elderly Americans, support for “kinship families,” and opposition to sex and violence in the media.

We all talk about the importance of education.  About the need to improve our schools.  About the need to give every child a chance.  And about how high-quality education affects everything from jobs to healthcare to justice to environment.  Many of us cite education as the top domestic issue this nation faces.  And national polls seem to regularly put it in the list of top fives issues, foreign or domestic.

So if it is so important, why are we still hearing so little of it from presidential candidates?  What platform did Clinton offer to win the support of AFT?  What changes would she make to improve NCLB?  What commitments will she make to attract and retain good teachers?  Does she support merit pay?  What about alternative certification programs?  How about multiple measures of progress?  What interventions does she support to increase the graduation rate?  What is the platform?

I don’t mean to pick on Clinton.  She should be credited for putting forward a meaningful, thought-providing plan for improving early education.  And at the end of the day, she may be the strongest education candidate, in terms of policy ideas, an understanding for the possible, and the capability to reach for the near-impossible.  But if she wins the endorsement of the AFT (and we assume and NEA endorsement may not be too far behind), don’t the voters have a right to hear the specific ways the candidate will improve educational quality and delivery in the United States?  And if we don’t, how do we hold the candidate, any candidate, accountable?

 

In this rush to wrap up the presidential campaigns by this winter, we run the risk of placing assumptions and core rhetoric ahead of real ideas and policies.  In doing so, we continue to perpetuate the same old empty reform rhetoric, with no one being held accountable.  For those of us who vote on education issues, we want to hear those “bold ideas” Senator Clinton has.  That doesn’t come from one debate question or a well-placed oped.  It comes from an integrated, coherent strategic plan for improving K-12 education.  

Eduflack has bold ideas for a strong America too.  But no one is going to rush to endorse me for President.  Now that Clinton has the backing of AFT, I hope she will tell 1.4 million AFT members (and hundreds of millions of American voters) what specifically she is going to improve public education in the United States.  That would be something to truly endorse.  Now where’s Ed in 08 when we need them?

Advocacy from the Urban Superintendent

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB, PR

The common thinking is that the urban superintendent is the last line of defense for the status quo.  AASA has stood hard and long against the reforms in NCLB.  Urban superintendents, it seems, are leading the charge against classroom measurement and AYP and other such improvements to education delivery and measurement.

We forget, though, that the educational leaders in our urban centers are also the early adopters of reforms like Teach for America and KIPP and New Leaders for New Schools.  And we ignore that these superintendents are the ones with the highest stakes, and the ones most willing to try new reforms if they can deliver maximum impact.

And then we get slapped upside the head with a call for national standards.

For those who missed it, Eduflack is referring to an analysis in today’s Washington Post, written by Jay Matthews.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001503.html  Based on interviews and public statements of Washington, DC-areas superintendents, Matthews paints a clear picture of a cadre of superintendents focused on reforms, improvements, and the bottom line.

It’s no secret that these leaders have voiced a real frustration with NCLB and many of its requirements.  And these frustrations have been translated — by many, including Eduflack — as opposition to the law.  But a closer look of the rhetoric paints a very different picture.

Just look at Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale.  Past statements maligning NCLB testing requirements have been interpreted as opposition to testing itself.  Yes, Dale has real issues with a series of state tests that don’t relate or integrate with one another, yet are governed by a single federal enforcement filter.  His solution — let the feds develop the tests, and empower the states (and LEAs, I suppose) to enact the specific interventions necessary to turn our low-performing schools around and offer virtually every kid the keys to success.

And Dale isn’t alone.  He seems to be joined in the call for national standards by the supes from Montgomery County, MD; Arlington County, VA; and others.

There’s no question that the voice of the superintendent has been almost non-existent when it comes to NCLB 2.0.  Again, we assume a defense for the status quo and opposition to reforms or attempts to build a better mousetrap.  We may assume, but we also need to verify. 

Failed reforms are littered with the remains of assumptions and generalizations.  If we’re looking to improve our struggling schools, we need to include the very superintendents who manage those schools.  They know the problems.  They know the reforms that have been tried and failed (or succeeded).  And they know that, just sometimes, we need a little bold thinking that no one is expecting. 

Now if only Dale and company can rally their fellow superintendents (and the organization that is supposed to represent their interests) to stand behind national standards, we may just have a reform that could make a lasting difference in every LEA and SEA across the nation.


Not in “My” School

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, PR

Over the past few years, we’ve heard a great deal about the school choice provisions for families in failing schools.  When it was passed into law, the critics painted a picture of a nation of students, fleeing their neighborhood schools (and the poor academic conditions they might house) and running for the nearest suburban school with shiny new desks, just out-of-the-wrap textbooks, and higher per-pupil costs.  We stood by and waited for the great migration, as those schools that missed academic goals for two straight years would see all of their students flee.

According to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602368.html), that scenario hasn’t exactly played out.    In fact, it doesn’t even seem to be a consideration.  Of the 5.4 million students eligible under federal law to switch from a failing school, only 1.2 percent have made the move.  That leaves 98.8 percent who have chosen to stay put.

Why?  Why, when given a chance, are parents not willing to give up on a failing school in their community?  Why, when given a chance, are kids not choosing to attend a school that is better, or at least better on paper?  Why aren’t poor-performing schools forced to close, as all of their students move to higher-performing ones?

Some will say that there aren’t enough slots in those higher-performing schools, and families don’t have the choices we seem to think they do.  While that may be true for a handful of students, is that really what is keeping more than nine of 10 students in their community school, regardless of its performance?

Of course not.  Students stay in their schools because we don’t want to believe our neighborhood school is failing.  Despite the AYP numbers, we trust our schools.  We have faith in our principal.  We like our teachers.  Our child is happy at the school.  The numbers must be wrong.  Other schools in the area may be failing, but not mine.  I just know it.

Back in 1990, the nation voiced loud displeasure for the job Congress was doing.  Some minor scandals, coupled with an ever-growing budget deficit and the sense of a “do nothing” Congress had voters calling for them all to be thrown out.  Much like today’s poll numbers, we were clamoring for the whole Congress to be voted out of office prior to the November election.  They were all corrupt bums.  We needed a new class.  So Election Day came and … virtually every incumbent was re-elected.  The pollsters went back to see if they had messed up their previous interviews.  What they found was startling.  Across the nation, we still wanted to throw those bums out.  Everyone, that was, but our congressman.  They’re all bad, except for my guy.

And that’s what we’re seeing with our schools.  We recognize our nation’s schools need help.  And we know it is hard to find a single school that couldn’t benefit from a more effective curriculum, better student measures, or more effective teachers.  But we’re not ready to give up on our own school.  Those other schools may need to be overhauled or closed altogether, but not mine.  Mine has hope.  Mine has potential.  It’s my school, after all, and I’m going to protect it.

That’s not a bad sentiment to have.  The next task becomes transferring that defense of school into a school-based effort to improve.  Take that school pride, and transform it into reforms that can make a difference.  Really give those parents a school (and school outcomes) to be proud of.

The ability to transfer from a low-performing school is a lovely rhetorical tool.  It puts all schools on notice, and provides parents and families the power to decide the academic futures of their children.  It provides some hope into what was once a hopeless situation.  But it is not a panacea for low-performing schools.

At the end of the day, the goal should be to fix struggling schools, not abandon them.  The objective should be to have students both happy and achieving in their neighborhood schools.  If the threat of transfer gets us closer to that goal, terrific. 

Numbers don’t lie.  We know which schools are performing, and which are struggling.  The challenge is taking the data and fixing the latter, intellectually rebuilding schools so all kids, parents, and neighborhoods really have something to be proud of.       

South of the ELL Border …

Eduflack AYP, ELL, NCLB

With all of the policy talk on AYP and teacher incentives and such issues, it is easy to see how we can lose sight of an enormously important issue facing school districts — English Language Learners.  Take a listen at any large urban school, and you’ll hear dozens of languages spoken.  And Spanish is leading the pack.

When Eduflack’s mother came to the United States at the age of 5, she didn’t know a word of English.  At the time, the response from the public schools in New Jersey was to hand her a paintbrush, point her to an easel, and let her draw until she started picking up enough English to handle the rigors of Sayreville Public Schools.

That approach may have worked then, but we all know it won’t work now.  In many classrooms, if we followed that approach, we’d need a few dozen easels, and only a couple of school desks.  So what is a school district, or a teacher, to do when faced with the challenges of teaching a growing Spanish-speaking population?

There’s an interesting answer coming out of Oregon.  Following efforts being pursued by school districts in Washington, California, and Texas, the Oregon Department of Education has sought out a unique solution to this growing problem.  Oregon is now working with Mexico’s Secretariat of Public Education, gaining the textbooks, Internet sites, and interactive materials developed by our neighbor to the South to teach math, science, and history to its Spanish speakers. 

The story is here, courtesy of the Associated Press.  http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_091907_education_mexican_curriculum_.ede64566.html

Undoubtedly, some will have real problems with such an approach.  We hear we only need English-speaking classrooms, and anything else just grows the problem.  For these folks, the solution is more paintbrushes.

Our public schools, though, have an obligation to educate all students who come through their doors.  And if those schools can find a method to successfully teach their students the math and science skills they need to succeed in school, and are able to effectively measure such learning, they should pursue it.  And as we demonstrate effectiveness, we should be looking to replicate it in districts and schools that face similar student challenges.

No one is saying we give up on English language instruction.  That is a non-negotiable in our schools, even those where 100+ languages are being spoken.  But we can’t afford to wait for those skills to be mastered before we provide math, science, or social studies instruction.  It isn’t an either/or solution.  And the Oregon Department of Education recognizes that.

What does this approach say to the education reform community?  If we are going to have every student in our public schools achieving in the classroom, we need to explore multiple pathways, solutions, and ideas to get us there.  As we opine on best practices and modeling, we need to realize that those best practices are not limited to our schools of education or the lessons learned in the lower 48.



And the Prize Goes To …

Eduflack AYP, Broad Prize, Chancellor Klein, NCLB

When talking school improvement, we often hear that an individual school or even a school district may be beyond repair.  Wrong teachers.  Wrong curriculum.  Wrong buildings.  Wrong students.  Sure, we may hear that, but it is just the wrong thing to say.

If you look at public education across the United States, there is not a single district, school, or student we can afford to give up on.  It may be hard.  It may take time.  It may require suspending previous thinking.  But Eduflack would like to believe any school can be turned around with the right culture, knowledgebase, commitment, curriculum, measurement, and feedback loop.  Don’t believe me?  Take a look at the Broad Prize.

Nearly impossible to miss, yesterday the Broad Foundation awarded the New York City Public Schools with the annual Broad Prize, the sixth urban school district to win the prestigious award.  A $1 million pot speaks volumes about the impact of the Prize, but what does the Prize tell us about urban school reform?

If you look at NYC — along with past winners like Houston, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Norfolk, and Boston — you see a collection of urban school districts that, a decade or two ago, we were ready to complete give up on.  We see districts that many, especially those who knew them best, said were beyond repair.  Spurred by a desire to improve and encouraged by the prize across the Broad finish line, these school districts did the impossible.  They made real change.  They reinvented the school culture.  They demonstrated real student achievement.  Simply, they got the job done.

And this year’s winner?  Chancellor Klein and company have much to be proud of, even without the oversized Broad check.  In reading and math, NYC outperformed other New York districts serving students of similar income levels.  African-America, Hispanic, and low-income students showed great improvement in reading and math.  The city has made real strides in closing the achievement gap.

This isn’t a revolution.  By definition, a revolution has a finite end.  Instead, NYC and its fellow winners have started a movement.  An ongoing process of improvement and success designed to continue to gain momentum.

What lessons can we learn from the Broad Prize, aside from the notion that school improvement is a universal possibility?  Interestingly, the Broad Prize can serve as a teaching tool for those who are weighing the future of NCLB and AYP.  Much has been written, spoken, and shouted about the issue of multiple measures.  Is there one — and only one — way to effectively measure student achievement?  Or are there a number of factors that must be taken into account when evaluating the success of a school or classroom?

If Broad is any indication, the true measure of school improvement requires multiple measures.  Looking at quantitative and qualitative data, analyzing a range of topics and issues, taking all facets of the school and the operating environment into account, Broad makes its decisions.  It is a complicated process.

It’s one thing to give an award to the urban school district that simply shows the greatest year-on-year improvement in student achievement.  It is something completely different to recognize that there are a number of factors — some immeasurable — that contribute to the overall success of a school district.

It’s enough to give even the strongest of data-driven decisionmakers a little something to think about.