AYP

Data Use in Our Nation’s Capital

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, Michelle Rhee, NAEP, teachers

Last evening, Eduflack had the honor of testifying before the District of Columbia State Board of Education on DC’s student assessment scores and how they can be used in state-level policy development.  For those unawares, DC is an interesting case study in education system structure.  DC is both a State Education Agency (SEA) and a Local Education Agency (LEA).  The DC State Board serves as a state board in Massachusetts, Texas, or California would, and the SEA is headed by former U.S. Department of Education official Dr. Kerri Briggs.  The SEA is responsible not only for DC Public Schools, but also for the growing number of charter schools in our nation’s capital (with nearly a third of the District’s students attending charters, it is quite some job for the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)).

I was the closing act for a three-part hearing.  The panel first heard from Mike Casserly, the chief of the Council of Great City Schools, who spoke to what other urban school districts are doing with their assessments and their data.  Then they heard a detailed presentation from State Superintendent Briggs and her staff, providing far greater detail on the DC-CAS numbers than was originally provided by the Mayor and Chancellor Rhee back in July.  Yours truly followed up the rear.
For readers who recall, I was harsh on DCPS back in July when they released the initial numbers.  I was concerned that student achievement, on the whole, ticked up, but there was a drop in AYP.  I was worried by Rhee’s comments about picking the low-hanging fruit to achieve those gains, knowing such fruit is now gone for later year replication.  And I was worried about declaring victory based on one or two years of data, when four or five years of real, substantive data is really necessary to see the true impact of reforms.
I was impressed with the probing questions the DCSBOE asked of OSSE and of the data, particularly its persistence in asking for greater disaggregation and a better understanding of what they do with what they have.  So what, exactly, did little ole Eduflack recommend to the District’s education leaders?  I can break it down into five key points.
1. The District should be reassured by the numbers presented by OSSE.  After further reflection and additional breakdowns, we can see that specific schools in DC are indeed trending up (though there are still some worry spots).  More importantly, DC is breaking the national cycle and is really making some progress in closing the achievement gap.  Both black and Hispanic achievement numbers were on the rise, while white student achievement remained relatively flat (noting, though, that only 5 percent of DC schoolchildren are white).
2. The most important data sets for DCSBOE to be concerned with should not be DC-CAS, but rather NAEP and NAEP-TUDA.  These data sets are the most accurate yardstick for determining how DC’s students are doing.  The District needs to better use the NAEP data, better slicing and dicing it to really understand what the data means and how it can be applied. DC also needs to avoid falling victim to the typical NAEP horserace games.  This is not about trying to catch Massachusetts in eighth grade reading NAEP or trying to outdo Atlanta in NAEP-TUDA.  DC needs to look at the data, look at the gaps, and set clear goals based on where DC is, and where they want it to head.  
3. As important as assessments are, Superintendent Briggs is correct.  It makes little sense to rework DC’s tests before core standards are complete and we know what new skills and benchmarks we are supposed to be measuring.  But rather than focusing on the assessment tool itself, DC needs to start taking a far closer look at its overall data system and how that system is better put to use.  This shouldn’t be about collecting more data, it is about better using the existing data.  How do they further disaggregate the numbers so DC families have a better sense for how individual schools and classrooms are doing?  How do they look at the data longitudinally, so they are not just measuring this year’s fourth graders against next year’s fourth graders, but are seeing how this years fourth graders are doing, performance wise, in fifth, sixth, and even eighth grades. 
DC not only needs to determine that it is improving, but it needs to know why.  The system has been layering reform after reform in the schools over the past several years.  It is near impossible to decide what is responsible for the gains and what is the chafe that should probably be cut away so the effective interventions can do their jobs.  In monitoring the schools and classes that are showing the most progress, DC needs to track the efforts that are resulting in those gains, looking at the clusters of specific interventions, and try to diagnose the best and promising practices that are happening in DC classrooms.
4. With that information, DC needs to do a better job of applying what it learns.  Principals and teachers need to be better trained in how to use the data, both before they enter the teaching profession and once they are there.  Best practices needs to be shared and modeled across the district.  Effective teachers need to serve as mentors for new teachers so they can teach good behaviors (hopefully before one has to unteach bad behaviors.)  And we need to give time for new interventions and reforms to take place.  While four or five years may seem like an eternity in education reform, changing horses after just a year or two of data, even if it is promising, is not necessarily in the best interests of DC’s students in the long run.
Many members of the board were focused on the back end, asking what could be done with regard to high school dropouts and college-going rates.  I urged them to look at the front end as well, and make sure that OSSE’s focus on investment in high-quality early childhood education is successfully translated into real ECE opportunities in DCPS.  One only needs to look at the impact of the Abbott decisions in New Jersey, and see how good early childhood education has now impacted student achievement and the achievement gap in some of the Garden State’s historically worst-performing school districts, to see that the gateway to long-term student achievement happens before kindergarten, and not in middle and high school.
5. Finally, this is a team game, and not a one-man sport.  Chancellor Rhee cannot do this by herself, nor can the DCSBOE take the responsibility entirely on its shoulders.  Lasting school improvement requires real buy in from parents and families, teachers, students, and the community at large.  With families in particular, they don’t necessarily understand the arcane definitions of AYP (particularly now that the U.S. Department of Education doesn’t even want to use the term), nor should they have to.  They want assurances that their kids are going to good schools, and if they aren’t good, they want assurances that everything is being done to improve them.  At the end of the day, families want to believe their neighborhood schools are good, particularly because they usually have affection for the principal and the teachers.  If all are invested in school turnaround, and all understand how we are doing it and how we are measuring it, we will come further faster.
Ultimately, it comes down to one key issue — how do we use the data we have?  In most cities and most SEAs, we have a wealth of data points, probably far more than most know are even there.  What we do with it is what is most important.  How do we use it to shape both teaching and learning?  How do teachers use data to implement specific in
terventions for struggling students?  How do we ID promising practice so it can be shared?  How do we find the most effective teachers and learn why they are effective?  How do we support what is working, while cutting away what may be tried, but is having no real impact?  How do we invest in the student, and not just the system?
A lot of questions, yes.  But just the sort of thinking many state boards are pondering as they enter into this new world order of assessments, data systems, achievement, innovation, and the like.
 

Equity in Teacher Distribution

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, high-stakes testing, NCLB, RTT, stimulus, teachers

The wonkiest of the education policy wonks are currently poring over the more than 1,500 comments, critiques, and outrages submitted as part of the open comment period for the draft Race to the Top criteria.  As Eduflack has written before, much of what has been submitted has been put forward in the name of self interest, with key groups looking to protect their constituencies, their missions, or their very existence from the potential steamroller that is becoming RttT.

Over at the Politics K-12 blog, Michele McNeil has done a great job distilling the volumes of opinion into a few key issues.  Most provocative to Eduflack is the message put forward by National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers that RttT demand that all winning states adopt core standards by the summer of 2010 is far more aggressive than NGA and CCSSO has required of the very states who are being asked to help develop and implement the standards.  While we appreciate the EdSec’s zeal in seeking to get core standards into the K-12 framework as quickly as possible, the timetable is one that is probably best left to Gene, Dane, and their respective teams.  You can see McNeil’s full blog entry here .
What’s tickled my interest this afternoon, though, is a letter that was submitted to the EdSec nearly a month ago (August 3, 2009 to be exact).  The page-and-a-half letter is signed by nine members of the Congressional Black Caucus — U.S. Representatives Danny K. Davis (IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Chaka Fattah (PA), Bobby Scott (VA), Donald Payne (NJ), Yvette Clark (NY), Marcia Fudge (OH), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), and Diane Watson (CA).  The nine serve as co-chairs and/or members of CBC’s Community Reinvestment Taskforce or CBC Education Subcommittee.
The topic of their missive?  Achieving equity in teacher distribution.  These members of Congress note that No Child Left Behind “requires the State educational agency ‘…to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers …'”  They note that Congress underscored this demand deep in the language of the stimulus bill, noting that “States receiving recovery dollars should comply with the teacher equity provisions within ESEA.”  (Of course, they refuse to use the NCLB acronym, utilizing ESEA throughout the letter.)
In reviewing the RttT draft guidance, these U.S. Representatives (and their staffs) note that the “the proposed regulations related to Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution do not address the statutory requirement that States take action to address disparities, fail to recognize the inequities based on race, and replace three statutorily specified indicators with the single and fatally flawed ‘Highly Qualified Teacher’ indicator.” 
They continue to push on Duncan by stating “By ignoring data related to whether teachers are out-of-field or inexperienced and by failing to disaggregate this data by race/ethnicity, we cannot truly understand whether there is an equitable distribution of experienced and qualified teachers.  Moreover, the regulations fail to enforce the statutory requirements to address these inequities.”
These members of the CBC close their letter by noting that the education improvement and innovation sought by President Obama and EdSec Duncan “will only happen if civil rights issues are consistently taken into consideration.”
And why does Eduflack care about this 500-word letter, when there are 1,500 hundred other comments and observations to key in on?  For more than three decades, education advocates have been looking for a way to overturn San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, seeking a way to make a high-quality public education a civil right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.  In Rodriguez (as well as in subsequent cases in New York, California, and elsewhere), the equity issue has been one measured by school finance and actual dollars.  Back in 1973, the US Supreme Court sided with San Antonio ISD, stating that school funding built on the local tax base does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.  The quality and equity of public education remained a local issue, and the guaranteed federal right has been eluded ever since.  And with urban districts spending so much per pupil, it is hard for some to see that our schools are “inequitable,” even when the outcomes clearly are.
Whether intentional or not, the CBC is seeking to reframe the debate on school equity.  When one reads RttT, it is no secret that traditional paths of teacher education have taken the back, back seat to vogue riders like alternative certification.  Charter schools, with limited union influence and typically lower teacher requirements, are seen as a magic wand to fix what ails our struggling schools.  With all of the talk about effective teaching, there is little focus on the effective teacher.  Instead of talking about pre-service education, clinical training, mentoring, in-service PD, and the like, RttT’s headline has been about firewalls and linking teachers to student achievement.  
It seems to forget that in all of those cities that play home to drop-out factories, historically struggling schools, and systems that persistently fail to meet AYP, we have a real teacher problem.  Reformers will say incentive pay is the solution, as if the few extra dollars are all that are holding back teachers in poor and minority communities (unfortunately, that’s where we have our greatest learning and teaching inequities).  The status quoers will cling to National Board Certified Teachers, not wanting to admit that most NBCTs are out in the ‘burbs, and those that aren’t will often use their newly found certification to change schools and move up the educational ladder.
We can match classroom spending dollar for dollar, with urban schools getting the same money as their lily white, suburban competitors, but that doesn’t ensure an equal education.  Heck, it doesn’t even ensure an equal opportunity to an equal education.  It is what we do with the resources that matter.  And we can’t get around the fact that our K-12 schools in most need of good teachers are the ones getting the lousy teachers.  They are serviced by colleges of education that push low-coursework and no-clinical programs, tossing unprepared teachers in the classrooms that need them the most.  Those teachers struggle.  The majority quit within five years.  Those that stick around are the survivors, not necessarily the achievers.
If we are to make a strong public education a national civil right, the answer may very well lay in the quality of the teacher, and not the size of the per pupil expenditure.  With all of the money going into data tracking, teacher preparation (alternative and traditional), and human capital development, we are identifying the qualities and performance measures that define effective teaching (as if we don’t already know the answers).  If we accept that there is more to teacher quality than purely student performance on the state assessment, we can clearly build a rubric for effective teaching.  Then we can apply that rubric to all of our schools.  How do the drop-out factories stand up against their college prep brethren?  How do the magnets hold up versus the dilapidated?  How do the “fails to meet” compare to “exceeds expectations?”  More importantly, how do the teachers in formers measure up to the educators in the latters?
Would
anyone be surprised to see that those schools experiencing the greatest failure rates are the schools that are denied effective teachers?  Would anyone argue that there is currently equity by teacher distribution?  Can anyone argue that a qualified, well-supported, effective teacher has the power and tools to boost student achievement?  
Do I think RttT is going to change its language on HQTs and address the concerns raised by CBC?  Of course not.  But I believe that its point, that the proposed “guidance abandons prematurely what is currently the only available avenue toward achieving — for all students — equitable access to strong teachers.”  And at the end of the day, those strong teachers are going to be what makes or breaks this great federal education reform and innovation experiment.
I talk with a lot of folks who believe that Rodriguez is ripe for overturn by the Court (particularly based on its new makeup).  Maybe, just maybe, the line advocates should be looking toward is one of equitable distribution of effective teachers.  Historically disadvantaged students should have the same access to well-trained, effective teachers as their wealthy or white classmates.  If the dollars are equal, but we’re putting our ill-equipped and ill-prepared teachers in one silo of schools and our well-equipped and well-prepared teachers in another, that is the very definition of inequity.  And I’m willing to bet the house that that inequity is alive, well, and not planning on taking any vacations any time soon.
 

Tear Down that (Fire)Wall!

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, assessment, AYP, high-stakes testing, NEA, Teacher Education, teachers

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of attention with regard to firewalls and the linkages between the evaluation of teachers and the achievement of students.  The current draft criteria for Race to the Top proclaims that states must be able to use student performance data from their respective state assessments, crosswalking it back to the classroom to determine which teachers have been effective (and which have not).  In a new era of teacher incentives and merit pay, the trickledown of federal law will soon demand that good teachers “show” their effectiveness, and that there is no stronger measure for it than how well their students achieve.

As soon as those draft criteria were written, we started hearing of the legal obstacles policymakers in California, New York, Nevada, and Wisconsin would need to overcome (as all four states currently prohibit linking individual teachers to student achievement data).  California claims that while it is prohibited at the state level, exemplar school districts like Long Beach Unified are already pursuing such policies.  New Yorkers immediately go on the defensive, and claim that the federal interpretation of laws in the Empire State is incorrect.  Wisconsin’s soon-to-be former governor is quickly working with the state legislature to reverse their firewall issue.  And what happens in Vegas is clearly staying there, as we’ve heard nary a peep from Nevada on their plans to address a potential stumbling block to RttT funds.
At the heart of the firewall issue is one incredibly important philosophy.  If we are to improve the quality of K-12 education in the United States, we need to ensure effective, high-quality teaching is happening in classrooms throughout the nation.  To ensure that, we need hard, strong, irrefutable quantitative measures for determining effective teaching.  And the surest path to determining effective teaching is by measuring the outputs.  Good teaching results in effective learning.  Effective learning shows itself on student assessments.  Strong student assessments mean quality teaching in the classroom.  Rinse and repeat.
Is it as simple as that?  In an era where most of our student assessments are focused on measuring reading and math proficiency in grades three through eight, do we really have a full quantitative picture to separate the good teachers from the bad?  Do we really have the data to determine effective teaching from that which is getting in the way of achievement?  And do we know enough about student performance data that we are able to make very clear cause/effect determinations of teacher quality based on student test scores, without needing to factor in the other variables, factors, and resources that ultimately impact a student’s ability to learn?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is all for focusing on teacher quality.  We have schools of education who are turning out teachers that lack the pedagogy or content knowledge to succeed (with most of them ending up in the schools and communities that need teachers the best).  In fact, Harvard University Dean Merseth recently said that only 100 education schools are doing “a competent job,” while the other 1,200 could be shut down tomorrow.  
At the same time, prevalent thinking has grown more and more in line with the belief that pedagogy and clinical training simply do not matter.  New teachers can get by on four weeks of classroom prep, not four years.  Low-quality teacher training programs and questionable alternative certification pathways are all about throwing teachers into the deep end, without ensuring that they are able to swim first.  And we’ve built a system where the classrooms and communities in the most need are rarely serving as home to our strongest and most capable teachers.  Struggling schools are made to feel lucky they have a teacher at all, and are more than happy to just settle for a “warm body.”
The convergence of these beliefs and these realities paint a dangerous picture when it comes to rewarding teacher quality and measuring it by student performance on state assessments.  Why?
Teaching is more than just reading and math.  Yes, those two subjects represent the very foundations of learning.  Without reading and math skills, students will struggle performing in other subjects.  But if state assessments are our rubric, are we saying that some subject matter teachers are less equal than others?  We all know that science will soon be brought on line, but what about other academic subjects.  Social studies and history.  Art and music.  Foreign languages.  Even ELL and special education.  Do those teachers not fit into our bell curve of effective teaching if we do not have state assessments for the subjects they teach?  Are they not effective teachers because we are not measuring student achievement in their chosen academic fields?  
What about the notion of the teacher team?  If I am a middle school student, my performance on the state reading exam is impacted by more than just what is happening in my ELA class.  Hopefully, my social studies teacher is introducing new vocabulary words and forcing me to apply critical thinking and comprehension skills to what I am reading.  My first or second year of a foreign language is getting me to reflect more closely on sentence structure and the roots and meanings of key words or word parts.  Even my math and science classes are contributing to my overall literacy skills.  So if I gain on the state reading exam, is that just a win for my reading teacher (as the current proposals would call for) or is that a win for the entire faculty?  Should teacher success be based on the success of the school, with a rising instructional tide lifting all boats, or can it really be winnowed down to a one-to-one formula, where a boost in an individual student’s reading score is solely credited to the teacher who happened to have them in the ELA class for 45 minutes a day?
What about longitudinal gains?  In Washington, DC, this year we witnessed how targeted test skill development can influence performance on the state exam.  So are we asking teachers to do test prep or to teach? Are they to facilitate or to educate?  Seems that the ultimate measure of a teacher is not just the short term gain on the state assessment, but also how well the student retains that knowledge and applies it in future grades and in future studies.  But how, exactly, do we capture that in a quick and dirty way?  In an era where we still look for the immediate payoff, no one wants to wait and see the longitudinal academic gains of students, ensuring that there are no drop-offs from fourth grade until eighth grade?
Are all gains equal?  If I am a math teacher in an upper class suburban public school, and my students post five point gains on the state assessment, taking them from 92 percent to 97 percent, is that equal to a math teacher in a failing urban middle school who boosts student math performance from 45 percent to 50 percent?  Is a gain a gain, or are some gains more equal than others?  Do teachers get extra points for impacting the achievement gap?  Is there a weighted system for demonstrating gains in dropout factories or historically low-performing schools?  Is demonstrating real movement in the bottom quintile worth more than moving a few points in the uppermost quintile?  
And then we have all of the intangibles that should be factored into the mix.  Class size.  Native languages.  Pre-service education.  In-service professional development.  Quality and quantity of instructional materials.  Accessibility to mentor teachers. &nbsp
;Parental involvement.  Principal and administrator support.  All play a role in driving student achievement and ultimately closing the achievement gap.  How do all get factored into the formula that student achievement plus teacher incentives equals effective educators?
We should be doing everything we can to strengthen the teaching profession and ensure that classrooms in need are getting the most effective teachers possible.  We should acknowledge that not everyone is cut out for teaching, and that getting that first teaching job and a union card should not be the only tools required to assure lifetime employment.  And we should look to quantifiably measure teacher effectiveness, recognizing that the ultimate ROI for education is whether students are learning or not (and that they are able to retain it).  We should be incentivizing superstar teachers, particularly those who teach hard-to-staff subjects or in hard-to-staff schools.
But before we tear down the remaining firewalls and decide that teacher evaluations are based solely on a student’s singular performance on a bubble sheet exam, we need to make sure we aren’t moving a bad solution forward without truly diagnosing the problem.  Virtually all states are struggling to implement good data systems that track students longitudinally.  Before such data tracking is in place, can we really use the numbers to evaluate teacher performance?  Current standards are a hodgepodge of the good, bad, and ugly when it comes to what we are teaching students and what we expect them to learn.  Can we evaluate teachers on student performance when we have no national agreement on what student proficiency in fourth or eighth grade truly looks like, regardless of zip code or state lines?  And can we truly use assessments to evaluate teachers when the vast majority of educators teach subjects or grades that simply aren’t assessed in the first place?
Seems we need to focus on the development and implementation of our standards, our assessments, and our data collection before we can move to step 106 and begin applying that data to determine the salaries, longevity, and very existence of the teachers we are linking it to.  In our zeal to fix the problem, we could be creating a slew of additional ones.  And at the end of the day, none of them get at the heart of the matter — improving the quality of instruction while boosting student learning and closing the gaps between the haves and have nots.
 

Top 10 RTT Questions

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, charter schools, Gates Foundation, national standards, RTT, stimulus, Teacher Education

The clock has officially started.  Last night, the U.S. Department of Education officially posted the draft Race to the Top (RTT) RFP on the Federal Register.  Interested parties can find at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-17909.pdf.  The big change from the draft circulating before last week’s unveiling is the proposed criteria are now put in a handy, dandy chart, instead of just being pages and pages of text.  Regardless, all interested parties have until August 28 to provide their comments and recommendations to officials at ED.  Eduflack would be surprised if the final version of the RFP is not released to states as close to September 1 as possible.

Earlier this week, ED officials held a conference call to speak to the RFP (along with other funding streams such as State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, ed technology grants, and the like).  After taking some time to digest it all, Eduflack is left with more questions than he has answers.  So rather than suffer with these queries on my own, I’m just going to put them out there so others can struggle along with me (or at least realize that they are not alone).  So here’s my top 10.
1) How many states does ED intend to bestow with RTT grants?  Clearly, they aren’t intending most states to secure Race funding (else the language would be quite different).  But is this intended for half the states?  A quarter?  Fewer?  I’ve heard six to 10 states.  Alexander Russo has reported at thisweekineducation.com that the Gates Foundation is helping 15 states with their applications.  So how many states will actually become RTT states?
2) Speaking of Gates, if it is true, who are the 15 states that they are assisting?  I’ve heard two handfuls of states mentioned as possibles/likelies, including Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Illinois.  Will the four states that will play home to Gates’ deep dive states be priorities for funding?  Can states like Texas, which receives big Gates dollars, overcome the political and administrative obstacles to qualify if they have the right assistance?  Will we ever know who Gates is helping?  (Some ED RFPs require that the applicant disclose who actually wrote the proposal, but I don’t see that in the requirements here.)
3) We know that there will be a Phase One and a Phase Two of grants, so what prevents a prospective state from laying the weeds, waiting to see who is approved in Phase One, and then liberally “borrowing” from the previously approved application?  We saw some of this in the initial rounds of Reading First back in 2002.  Will we see it again this year?
4) And about those approvals, who, exactly, will be reviewing applications?  The folks over at Education Week and its Politics K-12 blog have noted that ED is expecting to get top-notch, expert, experiences individuals with SEA backgrounds to review these applications.  Obviously, reviewers can’t have a dog in the fight.  So who are these reviewers who aren’t currently working with individual states or the organizations that represent them (like NGA or CCSSO) that will be determining how the $4-plus billion is spent?
5) Are California and New York (and Wisconsin) really knocked out of the running because of their prohibitions to link teacher identifiers with student performance data?  ED did a great deal of research and vetting of what was happening in the states before releasing this draft.  I guarantee that they knew about the CA and NY laws.  And we heard EdSec Duncan in California earlier this year expressing some doubts about California being an RTT state.  Is the Golden State just too big with too many moving parts to demonstrate measurable change out of the gates?  Would we prefer to work with smaller states like Delaware, Georgia, or Ohio that may be easier to navigate in the early going?
6) How sacrosanct are the proposed criteria that guide selection?  I can’t help but notice one of the criteria is a letter of endorsement from the state teachers union.  Is that a recommended or a non-negotiable?  Do the state chapters of the NEA and AFT essentially have veto power over a state’s RTT application?  How does a state determine whether they need this item, or whether it is just a nice value-add?
7) With regard to charter schools and requirements around school choice, how will reviewers distinguish between states whose laws essentially prohibit charter schools versus those like Virginia that have terrific charter laws on the books, but just don’t authorize them?  Is the measuring stick intent or actual implementation?
8) The draft focusing on alternative certification, but where is emphasis on improving the quality of traditional certification paths?  Collecting data on the student achievement of graduates of specific colleges of education?  Comparing the impact of traditional certification with alternative certification (and with Teach for America)?  How can RTT be used to ensure an ample supply of effective teachers, regardless of the path they take to the classroom?
9) What is the real crosswalk with core standards?  It seems like ED is hedging its bets, asking states to provide annual reports based on their state assessments, yet requiring RTT states to sign onto the core standards by mid-2010 (if they are out).  Assuming core standards are in place, do we not expect assessments to accompany them?  Or do we expect that such assessments will not be completed and in place until after RTT’s four-year run?
10) Other than state self-reporting, how will we actually know that RTT dollars have improved student performance and closed the achievement gap?  What specific measures, other than state tests, will be in place?  What is ED planning on replacing AYP with for the long haul?  How do we ensure that dollars are being invested to change practice for the long term, and that RTT reforms will stay in place and have impact long after the funding is gone?  
A lot of questions, I know.  Hopefully, others are asking these questions as well as part of the review process.  Or are these just the rants and musings of an education agitator?                     

Jumpin’ Before the RTT Gun Sounds

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

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

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

Real Improvement or Student “Creaming” in DC?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, AYP, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

What exactly is happening with K-12 transformation in our nation’s capital?  Last week, DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced that reading and math scores in the District improved for the second year in a row, with nearly half of DC’s elementary students scoring proficiency or better on the standardized test.  Two years ago, just more than a third of such students were posting such scores, allowing one to clearly proclaim that the past two years have resulted in test scores on the rise.

Buried under the test scores lede was that fewer DC schools made adequate yearly progress, or AYP, this year.  Just 27 percent of DCPS schools made AYP, compared with 31 percent last year.  And that is after Rhee closed 15 of the poorest-performing schools in the first place.
So how do scores go up, but AYP declines?  Rhee herself provided us insight into how DCPS can improve yet do a poorer overall job.  By teaching testing strategies, targeting “low-hanging” fruit students who could make one-year gains, and conducting that dreaded “teaching to the test,” DC schools were able to focus on the immediate gains.  And before one gets too critical of Eduflack’s choice of words, look at Rhee’s own word choice here.  “Low-hanging fruit” is her description for DCPS’ new targeted approach to learning.
Let me be very clear here.  I want to see DCPS and Michelle Rhee succeed.  For too many years, for too many generations of students, DCPS has failed the people of Washington, DC.  The hearty embrace of the status quo has not worked in DC.  Increasing per-pupil expenditures, yet spending on failed programs, has not worked.  Focusing on the inputs, while trying to divert attention from the outcomes, has not worked.  Denying students most in need access to the schools, teachers, materials, instruction, and attention they need has not worked.
Without question, DCPS needed a revolution.  It needed a new way of thinking, a new way of acting, and new way of measuring success.  It needed a way to harness all of its educational experiments — charters, vouchers, TFA, NLNS, and everything in between — to determine what works and what doesn’t.  And it needed a new sheriff who was beholden to no one but the students she was trying to serve.
In donning the badge, the new DCPS sheriff has been granted powers and authority that previous superintendents simply have not received.  She’s acted quickly, shutting down failing schools, removing failing principals, and seeking to do the same to struggling teachers.  She added a new “return on investment” approach to public education, calling everyone’s attention to the bottom line — results.  And she has done so successfully.
But in cherry picking that “low-hanging fruit,” Rhee has forgotten her responsibility to all of the students of the District.  Increasing test scores is important, yes, but at what cost?  Do we sacrifice real learning to hit the magic number on one test administered each winter?  Do we sacrifice the majority of students to focus raising scores for the one quartile most likely to show improvement based on statistical models?  Is the school day for learning or test prep?  Does an increased score for some on the DC-CAS substitute for improved high school graduation rates and for the acquisition of the knowledge and skills all DC students will need to succeed?  What about those teachers who are not teaching the “chosen group” of students who get the added push to improve?  Are they to be held responsible because they drew a classroom that didn’t make the cut for the added resources and attention?  Instead of making a high-quality public education a right for every DC student, have we really reached the point where it is acceptable to leave significant segments of the student population behind because it is too hard to improve their scores on the standardized tests?
Yes, all of this may be a bit of an overreaction.  DCPS should be proud that it has raised scores for the second year in a row (personally, I expected a small slippage in the numbers this year, the result of year two weariness and the ongoing battle between Rhee and the teachers union).  But we should be troubled that fewer schools are hitting AYP, particularly after already closing the worst of the bunch.  In a city of haves and have nots, we run a real danger of building a class system in the public schools, where some students are on the path to potential, and others are simply just running out the clock.
Such problems are compounded with Mayor Fenty’s decision to cut funding for the independent assessor who was to evaluate the success of Fenty and Rhee’s transformation of DCPS.  With so many changes, reforms, and innovations underway, with so many dollars being spent and additional dollars potentially coming in, with scores rising yet few knowing exactly what to attribute the increases to, an independent assessment is exactly what the DC Public Schools needs.  We need an impartial third party to come in and determine what is working and what isn’t.  We need a review of policies and procedures.  And we need a true vetting of the data to ensuring that such gains are real and sustaining, and aren’t simply a spinning of the numbers or a fancy card trick that can’t be replicated or sustained with all of DC’s young people.
For the sake of all of the students in all of DC’s 128 schools, let’s give Rhee the benefit of the doubt.  Student proficiency in reading and math is increasing.  The achievement gap is narrowing.  The reforms are taking hold and having effect.  And even those efforts targeting “low-hanging fruit” are nothing more than phase one of an effort to do the same for all students, better preparing all for the rigors of more rigorous and comprehensive assessments down the road.  These are the first steps in a true revolution to improve the quality, access, and impact of education for all DC students.  Now we just need to make sure they continue to move onward and upward for years three, four, five, and beyond.
Yes, let’s trust Rhee.  But let’s do so with independent reviewers scrutinizing what’s happening under the DCPS hood.  Trust … but verify, if you will.

Good, Bad, and Promising

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, AYP, early childhood education, NAEP

In many ways, yesterday reflected the good, the bad, and the promising with regard to educational improvement and student achievement data.  On the positive front, in New Jersey, a NIEER-led study found that students who participated in high-quality early childhood education programs outperformed those who were not exposed to similar preK efforts.  On the negative, Maryland’s Abell Foundation found the state’s secondary mathematics curriculum to be lacking.  And then we have the new NAEP data, which shows a narrowing of the achievement gap, particularly in the lower grades.  

Individually, the data tell very specific stories.  Collectively, though, there is much room for interpretation.  Those with rose-colored glasses will see that student achievement is on the rise, we are making improvements, and continued and increased investment in key areas will only help continue the trend.  The cynics will note the data show we are starting strong, but between both Maryland and NAEP, we are failing to truly kick into gear as we head to the finish line when it comes to K-12 improvement.
In my discussions with some experts on the range of data yesterday, Eduflack heard a very interesting observation with regard to the Jersey data, but which is applicable to all.  Many are trumpeting the NIEER study as proof positive that preK is the solution to all of our struggles.  But this expert observed that New Jersey does not have a P-6 problem, it has a K-12 problem.  PreK may be helping students start off on the right foot, but something happens during their journey to take them off track.  By the time middle school sets in, the gains and advances are long forgotten. And by the time many of those students become high schoolers (if they choose to remain in secondary school) they are risk becoming nothing but a statistic of what could have been.
The NAEP data seems to tell a similar tale.  Over the last decade, we have collectively invested significantly in closing the achievement gap in the lower grades.  Setting fourth grade reading and math as our goal, we have worked hard to lift all boats, recognizing that improved instruction, teacher quality, assessments, and accountability would help all students.  Increased dollars for Title I schools and classrooms at risk were expected to give an even larger boost to those students from historically disadvantaged groups, thus starting to close the dreaded achievement gap.
So what does the data tell us?  We are starting to make real inroads in closing the elementary school achievement gap, with both fourth grade math and reading proficiency gaps closing by five points nationally.  (Though the 26-point gap in math and 27-point gap in firth grade reading are still very disturbing.)
But what happens when we move four years forward to eighth grade?  By the end of middle school, those gaps remain large.  The eighth grade math gap stands at 31, closing only two points in nearly two decades.  The reading gap is slightly better — only 26 points — but it has only closed three points in 15 years.
Why is this important?  We like to believe that providing strong building blocks early in the educational process will result in a lifetime of benefits.  Yet when we look at these new NAEP numbers, we see that the math achievement gap grows over a student’s career, while the reading achievement gap remains flat.  We may be starting strong, but at the halfway point of the race, we’re starting to lose a step or two.  And if the long-term NAEP data released earlier this year is any indication, by the time we get to the end of our K-12 experience, the gap has widened and our historically disadvantaged students are huffin’ and puffin’ as others cross the finish line.
Then there is the trickle-down effect.  The math achievement gap in 8th grade has direct impact on science achievement for all students.  The reading gap affects history and other social science classes.  Even if we aren’t measuring student performance (at least not through AYP), reading and math performance has a direct impact on total student learning.  Those students who are struggling to read in eighth grade are likely struggling in all of their subjects.  Those students who have difficulty with may are likely having the same issues in the sciences and other subjects that are seen as “must knows” for success in today’s economy.
What are our takeaways?  First, the gains in the elementary grades lend credibility to the ongoing push for greater accountability in school improvement.  We’ve focused our efforts on the early grades, and we are starting to see the impact.  Test scores are rising, achievement gap is closing.  That’s a good thing. 
But the real challenge is how we continue the trend.  How do we extend elementary school progress into the middle and secondary grades?  How do we replicate (and measure) student performance in math and reading in other core academic subjects?  As we identify the interventions that are working for our younger learners, how do we replicate and accelerate such interventions in the later grades? 
Yes, our questions continue to mount.  We talk a great game about innovation and school improvement, but we are still scoring an incomplete when it comes to our final scores.  We are starting to ID what works … and what doesn’t.  We are prioritizing student performance, data collection, assessment, and accountability.  We are talking about moving away from the status quo “solutions” that have had little impact and are focusing the improvements and innovations that are proven effective (including the increased investment in teacher quality). 
We should celebrate the progress that is made in the early grades and the impact that high-quality preK is having on student performance in those early grades.  But if we are going to truly, really, meaningfully address that K-12 problem, we need to broaden our view beyond elementary school.  Success is ultimately measured at the finish line.  That means high school diplomas, 17-year-old NAEP, and the knowledge and skills displayed by high school graduates.  Anything short of that is simply missed opportunity, unmet expectations, and what could have been.

Some Main Street USA Reality

Eduflack Arne Duncan, AYP, stimulus

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

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

The Effectiveness of IB

Eduflack accountability, AP, AYP, High School, Math, national standards, NCLB, Science

Each year, we see the high school “rankings,” finding that those schools with a high preponderance of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB ) programs tend to do the best.  The greater the penetration of such programs and priorities, the higher a high school ranks.  Over the years, though, the education community has begun to ask the question about true results or the true impact of these programs. 

A decade ago, many a high school student collected AP courses like baseball cards, knowing that AP today meant college credit tomorrow.  The eduwife actually entered Stanford University as a sophomore because of all of the AP classes she took (and the fives she secured on the exams), allowing her to spend her fourth year out at the Farm gaining her master’s degree.
But times have changed.  Many colleges are now saying that even a five on an AP course is not the same as successfully completing the college course.  We’ve shifted from awarding college credit to simply allowing students to waive out of core requirements.  
The situation has always been even more murky with IB.  IB was never intended to provide college credits in a way AP does.  Designed decades ago, the program was created to ensure that students received a rigorous, comprehensive, and relevant high school learning experience.  By maximizing the time in high school through the IB curriculum, young people would become better students, better scholars, and better citizens.  
So how does all that translate when it comes to postsecondary education?  Many a college admissions officer knows that an IB graduate means a strong college candidate.  They are prepared for postsecondary work.  They are motivated.  They’ve been challenged.  They are inquisitive.  And they are able to do more than fill out bubble sheets or choose from a list of five answers.  They are scholars and learners, not merely the processors of information.
In past years, Eduflack has had the privilege of working with IB on a number of issues.  Being me, I would always ask about the research.  How do we know IB is working?  IB would say that the proof is in their alumni network.  One knows IB works when you see the complete IB graduate.  It is not just what they know, but how they apply it.  Those who complete an IB program usually move on to college.  And the IB high school instructional model has been so successful in teaching and motivating students that it has resulted in the development of both elementary and middle grades IB programs.
IB has never been about longitudinal research models.  They know the program works.  Their scholars know it works.  Their teachers, who undergo rigorous training and ongoing support, know it works.  And the schools that adopt it know it works.  They don’t need a medical-style research model to prove what they already know.  No, IB isn’t for everyone.  But those who do adopt it are better for it.  And despite the urban legends, IB isn’t just for the rich schools in the suburbs or for the uber-motivated.  IB works for all students who are motivated enough to seek a high-quality, rigorous educational program that provides the content and the skills to perform well after the IB program is completed.
But this is an era of research and of doing what is proven effective.  One’s word or one’s track record isn’t enough.  We need third party data to prove our effectiveness.  And now, IB has some of that as well.  In recent days, IB announced the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) findings of its International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project.  What did EPIC find?  
* IB is “highly aligned” with the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards
* The IB Diploma’s key cognitive strategies — critical thinking skills, intellectual inquisitiveness, and interpretation — were found to be fully aligned with the expectations of university faculty
* IB math (algebra, trigonometry, and statistical standards) were completely aligned with KSUS
* IB science (chemistry, biology, and environmental science) were completely aligned with KSUS
Alignment is important.  But the data on results is even more compelling.  As part of the EPIC announcement, IB revealed that more than 80 percent of those completing the IB high school program graduate from college within six years, a rate leaps, bounds, and high jumps above the national average for high school students.  IBers are college graduates.  And there are few, if any programs, we can make that statement about with higher certainty.
IB has been one of the best-kept secrets in school improvement and innovation.  We don’t talk about it, but IB’s year-on-year growth in the United States over the last year has been the stuff on which folks write Harvard case studies.  Those teachers who have gone through the training are true believers.  Those students who secure the Diploma are real-life success stories.  And those districts who make the investment quickly realize that the cost is worth it, gaining both quantitative and qualitative return on investment almost from the get-go.
Perhaps IB’s greatest challenge is how it fits into the current environment of improvement, reform, and innovation.  IB succeeded in the NCLB years, in part, because of the misperceptions of who it was targeting.  Since many didn’t see its applicability for those students who were being left behind (despite some tremendous case studies of how IB programs have turned around schools and really helped students from historically disadvantaged groups), the program was left to operate on its own.  It connected enough with AYP and with state assessments that it was a viable alternative for those wishing to pursue it.  But it simply wasn’t seen as a solution for that bottom quartile of students, particularly with NCLB’s focus on the elementary grades.
Today, IB is at a crossroads.  As a nation, we have set hard goals for improving high school graduation rate and college attainment numbers.  The EPIC data demonstrates that IB could be one of those solutions custom-made for rising to the occasion.  The IB training and development model is one that can be used as we look to new ways to improving instruction and preparation for all teachers.  The real challenge, though, is how IB fits into the new call for common standards.  How will the IB framework align with the high school standards currently being pursued?  How do IB assessments dovetail with the assessments that will come out of common standards?  How does IB demonstrate value-add, and not add-on?
Only time will tell if IB is up to the challenge.  It has the opportunity.  It has the track record.  It can display its strengths.  Now is the time for International Baccalaureate to show it is an exemplar of best practice, and not merely a niche program.  It has the pieces.  IB just has to bring them all together for a compelling story that solves the problem so many school decisionmakers are facing.

Bolder, Broader Accountability?

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

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

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