AYP

Reading First, Last, and Forever

Eduflack AYP, IES, NAEP, Reading First, SBRR, stimulus

Sometimes, it is just tiring being Eduflack, particularly when it comes to the area of reading instruction.  Time and again, I’ve pledged that I’ve written my last post on Reading First.  Between the IES study and Congress’ dismissal, RF has been written off for dead more times than a cat on her ninth life.  It seems the final nail in the coffin has been hammered time and again over the last year or two.

But then along come a series of actions that just make you see that while the Reading First brand may be dead and buried, its impact and its infrastructure are not going anywhere.  The bright spot is Understanding Reading First, a new white paper from MDRC.  The piece is worth a quick read.  No, there is no groundbreaking data or unread news in the document.  But it is a strong summation of RF, its foundations, and some of the results.
And read in the current context, it also shows that scientifically based reading research may indeed have a longer shelf life than any of us, including those stalwart supporters, ever thought was possible.  Thanks to the economic stimulus money in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, states and school districts are now discovering they can use their newfound education riches to extend RF-based programs for another year or two.  In fact, some could say the spending on reading coaches, scientifically based instructional materials, and professional development for reading teachers is exactly what ARRA is intended for.
Then we have the data, including the state research that has come from bellwether states like California, Texas, Ohio, and others demonstrating the positive impact that RF has had on student achievement.  Couple that with last fall’s RF study from the US Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) and there is more than enough strong data to show that the original IES study was flawed and one has to look at its nil finding with skeptical eyes.
Now we can mix in the K-12 reading instruction bill that has been circulating around town, which I am still trying to brand “Yes, We Can Read.”  Thanks to key education groups and key congressional leaders, we are actually working on a literacy bill that will build on RF’s elementary school focus and offer a reading continuum from preschool through high school graduation.  Even more important, the draft language being circulated around Washington, DC reflects a strong crosswalk with the SBRR language in the original Reading First.  An expansion here, some rewording there, but the intent and the embrace of the research is still there.
Hopefully, Understanding Reading First will get more attention and play than those that came before it, particularly the OPEPD study.  There is a growing pool of research demonstrating that RF worked, particularly when you factor in the positive impact it has had on schools and classrooms that didn’t receive specific dollars for Reading First programs.  Across the nation, all schools adopted scientifically based reading instruction and materials.  All teachers were trained in the research methods.  And virtually all kids benefited from it.  And for those who don’t want to listen to the state data, the NAEP results, or the results of other such assessments, MDRC reminds us of that once again.
  

Requiring Quality in Our PreK Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



How the ARRA Times Change

Eduflack AYP, NAEP, stimulus, Workforce

Just a few short months ago, educators with brimming with enthusiasm about the potential economic stimulus funding would offer.  We talked about those new programs that could be pursued.  We discussed how existing efforts could be broadened and expanded.  We dreamed about the possibilities of doing using the “startup” money found in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to do new things designed to spark innovation in the classroom and long-term academic improvement in the student.

Lately, reality has set in.  We’re seeing that most education stimulus moneys are likely going to pay for existing programs and existing teacher salaries, not to buy new books or acquire some new technology that could be the missing link between proficient and not.  And as the folks over at Politics K-12 have been reporting, some states are really struggling to get in those basic applications demonstrating how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (the $44 billion that is already at the mid-point of distribution to the states) is being spend by SEAs across the nation.  With state budgets on a steady decline, state decisionmakers are having difficulty determining which existing programs warrant the life preserver that is ARRA, particularly those efforts aimlessly floating through our K-12 systems.
Before the stimulus legislation was signed into law, states like Virginia got even more ambitious, developing websites before the ARRA money was even signed into law, soliciting proposals and applications from organizations and individuals across the state focused on how they could use stimulus dollars to boost the economy and make a difference for the state’s long-term prosperity.  Other states followed suit, and in education, many a school district was asked to develop their wish lists on how the money would be spent.
Now, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is sending the following to all those not-for-profits, corporations, and individuals who had ideas on how this new money could be used in innovative and new ways, adhering to both the letter and the intent of ARRA:

Thank you for your interest in funding available to Virginia through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Both transparency and accountability are core requirements of ARRA-and I am pleased to update you on the Commonwealth’s progress on projects and proposals related to the Recovery Act.

 

As you may know, my administration launched stimulus.virginia.gov earlier this year to gather project ideas from individuals, groups, and localities for potential funding through ARRA. Between February 10 and the March 6 submission deadline, more than 9,100 project proposals totaling $465.6 billion were suggested through the website. Since then, these proposals have been sorted and sent to the appropriate Cabinet Secretariat for evaluation.

 

Virginia‘s General Assembly incorporated ARRA program funding that is administered by agencies into the state budget and directed it to specific activities. The Recovery Act alsoincreased funding to existing federal programs rather than allowing states to fund projects from a large discretionary fund. As a result, what little discretionary ARRA funding that existed was used by the General Assembly to address Virginia‘s projected budget shortfall. While these decisions around ARRA and the state budget-which I signed into law on March 30-are continuing to ease the economic downturn in the Commonwealth, they also mean there is no discretionary funding available to dedicate to specific projects.

 

Currently, under each Cabinet Secretariat
, state agencies are working with their federal counterparts to implement ARRA funding for programs ranging from education to water quality, totransportation, to energy. These programs require that all project ideas meet specific criteria and be formally submitted through traditional federal funding processes. In most cases, these processes are now complete and work is ready to begin. Most of the projects that were funded via traditional federal measures were submitted as a project idea.

 

Although there are many other project ideas that could contribute to our economic recovery, a number of proposals we’ve received-including private business investment and tax reduction-fall outside the scope of ARRA funding provided to the Commonwealth.

 

I strongly encourage you to monitor the stimulus.virginia.gov website for information on projects being funded by the ARRA and to explore potential opportunities through the competitive grants process. Some projects submitted through stimulus.virginia.gov not selected for ARRA funds may be eligible to apply for a competitive grant directly from a federal agency.

 

Thank you again for your input. I always appreciate hearing from citizens of the Commonwealth and will take your thoughts and proposals into consideration as we work to get our economy back on track through ARRA. Please do not hesitate to contact me via my web form, and find out more about my initiatives on my web site at www.governor.virginia.gov.

 

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Kaine

Governo
r of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Please note that the bold for emphasis is not coming from Eduflack, it is coming from Governor Kaine himself.  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the economic stimulus package does not provide for any discretionary funding for specific projects.  That’s policy-speak for every dime of money is being plowed into existing programs already codified on the books.  In education, that means that the same programs that Virginians to a whopping 34 percent proficiency on the eighth grade NAEP are the same programs now gaining additional funding (and expected to propel us into the promise land of student success and opportunity).
It is hard to find fault with just Kaine here.  He is a lame-duck governor, with his term completed in six short months.  He was given a bad budget and had to do the best with what he could, both in original negotiations and in the veto session.  And it is a shame that a governor who entered office three and a half years ago with a strong plan for universal preK has been stymied every step of the way by a part-time Legislature that just didn’t agree, and then was hamstrung by the bottom falling out of his state’s budget, particularly those tax receipts that looked so rosy at the start of the term.
 
I recognize this is only Virginia, but these decisions are likely being made by states across the union.  New money is being pumped into the status quo.  New dollars are being thrown into ineffective programs.  All because it is easier to fund what which is on the books versus identify better ways to change horses and fund new discretionary efforts that could make a difference.
Or perhaps we’re just waiting for the Race to the Top and Innovation Funds to kick in, believing that $5 billion or so is the magic elixir to all that is ailing our public schools?

Improvement, Incentives, and EdSector

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, national standards, stimulus
Multi-day, online, interactive education events seem to be all the rage lately.  This week, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills kicked off a two-week cybersummit on 21st century skills.  Not to be outdone, the folks over at Education Sector are hosting a three-day online discussion on No Child Left Behind and incentives.
Never one to shy away from the issues, Education Sector is billing the event through the following frame:
“NCLB requires states to establish annual performance targets and hold schools accountable for improving student performance. Currently, great attention rests on motivating school improvement through negative incentives. But NCLB also requires that states establish rewards for schools demonstrating excellence, a part of the law that has been largely ignored. The Department of Education’s $5 billion in “Race to the Top” and innovation funds has reignited a discussion of the role of positive incentives in motivating and supporting school reform efforts. With this boost in funding, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has a chance to reward what he refers to as “islands of excellence” in school achievement and build on those proven success stories.” 
The EdSector forum is particularly interesting in light of this week’s announcement on the intent to establish common, or national, education standards (and the lack of an announcement of the measurement and accountability surrounding the latest push).  EdSector’s Andy Rotherham will host Sir Michael Barber of McKinsey & Company (the folks who recently brought us the economic impact of the achievement gap study), Sandy Kress (the godfather of modern accountability measures), and Dominic Brewer, professor at the University of Southern California.
Interested parties can participate in the discussion here.  EdSector is providing plenty of opportunity for those who want to be a part of the solution or those who want to just learn more about the issue to offer their comments, questions, and opinions, to this blue ribbon panel.  It’s worth checking out.

What Does Common Standards Mean to a State?

Eduflack AYP, national standards, NGA

For those wondering exactly what today’s announcement that 46 states and the District of Columbia signed on to the National Governors Association’s and the Council of Chief State School Officers’ effort to develop comprehensive common education standards (or national standards for those unafraid to exert the federal role in public education improvement), take a minute to check under the hood of this national standards ride we are about to buy, California style.

Penned by Cali Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Board of Ed Prez Ted Mitchell, and State Supe Jack O’Connell, the Golden State has put its name on the dotted line to “develop common core standards” and “participate in the international benchmarking efforts.”  No surprise, California seems to believe its current standards are likely the bar by which national standards should be measured, making clear the state “cannot commit to adopting [common standards] until we have determined that they meet or exceed our own.” 
The California brain trust has a few other ideas for those leading the common standards effort back in our nation’s capital.  Check out the full letter here: California Common Standards Letter
If this is the sort of non-commitment commitment we’re starting off with, we still have a few steps to go before we are asking our states and districts to actually adopt a common set of national K-12 education standards, complete with the assessments and accountability that need to accompany them.  Miles and miles to go, my friends, but we are taking steps forward.  

The Slow March Toward National Standards

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, NAEP, national standards, NGA

For months now, the education chattering class has been talking about the behind-the-scenes efforts by the US Department of Education to craft national education standards.  We’ve heard that Achieve was slated to deliver draft math and reading standards to Maryland Avenue by early summer, with plans for a thorough and robust debate leading up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In this morning’s Washington Post, Maria Glod reports that 46 states and the District of Columbia have signed onto the K-12 national education standards movement, offering “an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American Schools.”  The full story can be found here.   
The thinking here is a simple one.  In this era of AYP, it only makes sense that we have a single yardstick by which to measure student achievement, starting with math and reading.  For years now, we’ve heard how students are knocking it out of the park when it comes to state assessments (just look at elementary reading in Mississippi), but then we fail to see the progress when it comes to annual NAEP scores.  The common thinking is that some states have dropped their bars so low in order to demonstrate student achievement and student growth that some state tests have become complete irrelevant in determining actual student achievement and success.
So now National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have brought together most of the states to help develop these common standards for academic performance.  Most states have already anted in.  The only holdouts, according to WaPo, are Texas, Alaska, Missouri, and South Carolina.  Their reason?  These Republican-controlled states are touting the need for local control of the schools, and national standards run contrary to local decisionmakers determining what is best for their local residents.
The current plan is to roll out “readiness standards” in July, benchmarks for high school graduates in reading and math.  Then folks would build out the grade-by-grade needs to reach those readiness standards.  It is important to note that the 46+ states have simply agreed to the process.  They would then need to agree to, adopt, fund, and implement the standards once they are developed.  So we are still a good ways away from national standards even being close to national policy.  Why?
First, every expert, quasi-expert, and member of the chattering class is going to want to get in on this discussion.  Everyone has ideas as to what should be in national standards.  Every political and ideological group will want to get in on the process, running the risk of taking a bold move and watering it down so much to appease all of the audiences that believe they should have a seat at the table.
Second, many will raise concerns that we are only addressing math and reading.  LIke AYP, this push is focusing on the corest of the core subjects.  But can we really have a true national standards system without addressing science, social studies, and foreign language?  In a month when NAEP is actually releasing national art education data (scheduled for June 15), can we settle for just reading and math?  Many an expert or an expert in training will call for a comprehensive system that addresses all academic subjects, worried that an initial focus on math and reading means we only value the two subjects and will only hold states and schools accountable on these two measures (much like we have with AYP).
Third, we need to give standards real teeth.  In many ways, national standards serve as a wish list for public education in the United States.  To put real power behind it, we need to develop and implement actual tests aligned with those standards.  Such tests seem to be the third rail of public education.  We fret about the costs, we worry about the quantitative and qualitative, and we struggle with the notion we are implementing another “high-stakes” test on our kids.  The end result?  We could end up with a lovely policy document outlining our national education expectations, but lacking a tangible way to transform that policy into instructional reality with real measurement and accountability.  National standards only work if we have one strong test that is implemented and enforced EQUALLY by all of the states.
Fourth, states actually need to agree to the final documents … and put them into practice.  In 2005, all 50 states agreed to common high school graduation standards, shepherded through the process by NGA.  At the time, every governor in the country agreed to a measure that called for grad rates to be calculated as the number of ninth graders who secure a diploma four years later.  We’re now four years later, and the majority of states have failed to actually implement the formula.  (In part because those who have have experienced a drop in their statewide grad rates.)  Former EdSec Margaret Spellings tried to institute the new grad rate through federal regulation, but the current talk about town is that EdSec Duncan will be turning back Spellings’ Christmas Eve Eve decision, leaving grad rate determination to the states.  So even if every governor in the country agrees to the idea of standards in principle, they all need to sign off on the final decisions and actually move them into practice, replacing the patchwork of states standards of various strengths and scopes with one common national standard.
Currently, the Nation’s Report Card — or NAEP — is the closest thing we have to national standards.  But as we take a look at the NAEP results, we see many a disturbing data set that must be addressed in developing national standards.  It stands to reason that NAEP measures for reading and math proficiency would be pretty close to national standards in the same subjects.  So what does it mean when slightly more than half of all U.S. fourth graders can score proficient or better on the NAEP reading exam?  What does it mean when only about a third of eighth graders are score proficient or better, and the best state in the union is clocking in at 43 percent proficiency on eighth grade reading?  And what do we do about the persistent achievement gap, particularly the 20-plus year problem we see in 11th grade math and reading?  How do we make sure that all students — even those from historically disadvantaged groups — are performing against the national standards and achieving?  When we set national standards, the goal needs to be all students hitting the mark.  We cannot and must not settle for a system where the majority of kids fail to achieve proficiency, and we still see that as a sign of a successful public school system.
Yes, Eduflack is a pessimist by nature.  But I also believe that today’s NGA/CCSSO announcement is a positive step forward.  In today’s transient society, with students changing schools and states as families change and jobs shift, we need some guarantees that a fifth grade education is the same, regardless of area code.  We need some promise that a high school diploma means the same thing, regardless of Zip code.  This is a non-negotiable if we are to prepare all students for the opportunities before them, particularly if we are looking for them to hold their own on international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.
Obviously, the devil is in the details.  We need to get all states to overcome the notion of local control and embrace the guidance and framework of national standards.  We need to construct effective tests that move those standards into practice.  We need to move beyond just math and reading and ensure that all academic (and even those some would deem non-academic) are measured as well.  We need to give equal billing t
o elementary, middle, and secondary learning standards.  And we need to ensure that if all students are to be held to the same national standard, they all need to have equal access to the same educational resources.  That means national standards, if you will, when it comes to early childhood education, high-quality teachers, and other such measures.
But we are moving forward.  We just have to keep that momentum going, transforming challenges into opportunities and not allowing roadblocks to divert our attention (and subvert our public will) in the process.  If we believe that every student in the United States requires a high-quality, effective education, we need to measure every student with the same yardstick.  Quality and effectiveness should be universal, not subjective based on state borders.  National standards starts making that goal a reality.

Measuring Opportunities to Learn

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, NAEP, Students

If the white smoke coming out of the U.S. Department is any indication, we have decided that the core tenets of No Child Left Behind will continue to drive policy.  In recent months, EdSec Duncan and his team have constructed the four pillars of their education platform, the cornerstones that we can expect to see at the heart of any NCLB reauthorization coming this year or next.  For those choosing not to pay attention, those pillars are (according to the folks on Maryland Avenue):

* Implementing college and career-ready standards and assessments
* Creating comprehensive data systems that track students throughout their education career and track teachers back to schools of education so we can better understand which programs are producing teachers that make a difference
* Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers — paying more to teachers who work in tough schools
* Turning around chronically underperforming schools
Essentially, Duncan and company are calling for every student to have an equal opportunity to learn.  Every child should have an outstanding teacher.  We need to collect better data, establish better standards, and continue our vigilant assessment efforts to ensure a high-quality education is had by all.  And we need to identify those schools where it is not happening, and take the immediate steps to turn it around.
You’ll get no argument from Eduflack on any of that.  All are important.  All should be priorities.  All are essential if we are to continue our forward momentum on student achievement gains and begin to address the persistent problem evidenced by unmovable achievement gap.  But it is as essential as the ED talking points make it seem?
According to a new report issued by the Schott Foundation for Public Education today, the answer is no.  In its Lost Opportunity study, the Schott Foundation looked at all 50 states and their ability to provide a public education system that is both moderately proficient and high access.  To measure proficiency, they looked at 8th grade NAEP reading scores.  For access, the looked at NCES data on the likelihood that a historically disadvantaged student would attend a top quartile high school in the state. 
The results will surprise a great number of people.  Only 16 percent of states — just eight of them — are providing a moderately proficient, high-access public education to all students.  Vermont is tops in the nation, followed by Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Virginia.
Sixteen states provided a moderately proficient education, but provided low access; 17 states provided low proficiency, but high access.  And at the bottom of the list, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, and District of Columbia are providing both low proficiency and low access, with DC scoring lowest in both categories to be the big “winner” in this competition.
What is most surprising about the data is what we have to settle for when it comes to our definition of proficiency and access.  The rankings are comparative.  We have obviously have no states where we have 100-percent student proficiency or true equal access to a high-quality public education.  In fact, on proficiency, the top score is 43 percent (held by Massachusetts), meaning that nearly 60 percent of students are below proficient in 8th grade reading.  Yet that is the gold standard in the country.  By comparison, states are providing a moderately proficient education if they can get less than a third (32 percent) of their 8th graders at proficient or better in reading.
Same is true on the access side.  High-access states are those that essentially provide a 50-percent chance at equal access.  Because of some very real and tangible struggles many states have in providing true equity to all students, getting it right half the time is now the measure of success, by comparison.
What does it all mean?  To paraphrase from Robert Frost, we have many, many miles to go before we sleep.  There are no states that are truly doing it right, not when 40 percent is the gold standard.  Every state in the union has work to do when it comes to providing a high-quality, high-equity education to all students.  Every state has work to do when it comes to ensuring that historically disadvantaged students have the same access to the American educational dream as their white, non-Hispanic counterparts.  Every state has work to do when it comes to ensuring every student is on the path to success, regardless or race, socioeconomic status, or zip code.  Every state just has work to do.
We cannot close the achievement gap in this country without first addressing the opportunity gap.  Students can’t succeed if they aren’t afforded access to the schools, teachers, and resources that put them on the path to success.  That’s why information like that found in Lost Opportunity is so important.  By taking a new cut at data we have seen before (NAEP and NCES data), Schott is providing us a new perspective of our progress in education reform and the hard road ahead for continued improvement.  (As I’ve noted previously, Eduflack has worked with the Schott Foundation on its Opportunity to Learn efforts.)
The Lost Opportunity report is definitely worth a look, particularly when you get under the hood and look at the individual states and how they fare when it comes to quality, equity, and access to resources.  The data isn’t pretty, but it is fascinating.  All of the information, including the individual state reports, can be found at www.otlstatereport.org.  
Why this study?  Why now?  The answer to that is best left to Dr. John Jackson, the President and CEO of the Schott Foundation.  In releasing the report now, two days after the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, he said:
“This serves as a wake-up call to every governor, legislature, state education commissioner, and schools superintendent that falsely believes we are getting the job done in our classrooms.  According to their own data, only eight states are providing a moderately proficient, high-access public education to all.  After a decade of leaving no child behind, we are finding that an entire generation of students is again all but forgotten.”
Here’s hoping we are listening to the call, and ready to act on it.

Reading First 2.0

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

What is the future of the federal investment in reading instruction?  It is a question that many folks are still waiting to answer.  By now, we all realize that Reading First is dead as a doornail.  After billions of dollars of dollars spent, a significant number of research studies demonstrating its effectiveness at the state level, and even a US Department of Education (OPEPD) study highlighting that the program has worked, the fat lady has indeed sung.  The implementation problems, the IG investigation, the Bush-era RF tag, and a recent, yet flawed, IES study have all assured that.

But the federal government has been investing in reading instruction for decades.  RF was just the latest iteration of the effort (and probably the most significant).  But the end of RF doesn’t mean the end of federal reading, does it?  If one looks at the President’s budget, released last week, the answer is a clear “no.”  Buried in the thick volume is approximately $300 million for reading investment, comparable to the last year of RF (though the term Reading First is no where to be found, don’t mistake me).
So I’ll ask again, what is the future of the federal investment in reading instruction?  Eduflack opined on this back in January.  The current buzz around town, four months later, is pretty simple.  Critics of RF believe to this day that it was all about phonics.  It was a drill-and-kill bill designed to prop up programs like Direct Instruction or Open Court, teaching reading in an automaton sort of way.  We forget that the legislation — and the instruction to come from it — was supposed to focus on five key, research-based principles.  It was all about phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, with each component building on the one that came before it.
RF wasn’t a phonics bill, it was a scientifically based reading research bill.  That’s why we saw the “scientifically based” terminology i the NCLB legislation more than 100 times.  Its writers recognized that we have spent billions of dollars in this country trying to get our youngest learners reading.  And despite all of the money and the best of intentions, nearly 40 percent of fourth-graders were still falling below the proficiency mark.  RF was intended to refocus our dollars on what was proven effective.  it was about spending on what works.  It sought to abandon the notion that our classrooms are laboratories to test out the latest and greatest silver bullets, and instead should be centers of excellence where we apply instruction and teacher training that is proven most effective in getting kids to read.
Until I am provided a better name, Eduflack will refer to RF 2.0 as Yes, I Can Read.  So what does Yes, I Can Read look like in 2009?  We know from the buzz that Yes is going to place a stronger emphasis on both vocabulary and reading comprehension, two key components of SBRR.  For well more than a decade now, we have heard about the vocabulary gaps between high-income and low-income students.  Low-income students often enter school having heard thousands fewer words than their counterparts.  One can’t be truly proficient in reading if you don’t know the words.  So yes, vocabulary should be a key component of Yes.
As should comprehension.  All of the work at the beginning of the learning process — that focus on phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency — is meaningless if a student ultimately doesn’t understand what he or she is reading.  We use the fourth grade measure because that is when students need to start using their reading skills to learn other subjects, like science and social studies.  At the end of the day, comprehension is king.  Without it, all of the previous work was for naught.  So you get Eduflack’s ringing endorsement on that as well.
Third, we have the teacher component.  Although RF provided for up to 25 percent of the dollars to be spent on professional development, it is often a provision that is overlooked.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.  We cannot expect our kids to learn to read if we are not properly supporting and training our teachers to lead the instruction.  It is hard, hard work to teach a child to read.  It’s not just a matter of finding the right button to push or handing out the right workbook.  Teachers need to understand the five core building blocks of reading instruction.  They need to be able to identify where a student’s roadblock may be, using whatever is necessary to increase the application of that principle.  They need to use RtI when appropriate to get students over the hump.  They need to stick the research, but do so in an engaging way with literature that is both relevant and interesting to a student.  They need to become reading wizards, doing the impossible with more than a third of our students — engaging, educating, and inspiring.  They need to do it all.
So obviously, we need to invest more heavily in both the pre-service and in-service teacher training and support for reading instruction. And this isn’t just for ELA teachers, this is for all teachers.  Every educator has a vested interest in a child reading at grade level.  Every teacher pays the price if the child is not.  It is only natural, then, after more so many dollars have been spent in the past six years to get SBRR materials in the classroom, that Yes focuses on equipping teachers with the skills and knowledge to maximize the learning tools they currently have.
The final piece to this equation is recognizing that reading instruction is not simply a K-4 game.  As the Christian Science Monitor reported yesterday, a new NCES study found that 14 percent of Americans over the age of 16 struggle with basic reading and writing.  That’s 30 million adults and young adults!  What does that say?  For Yes, it means that our reading efforts can’t be limited to the elementary grades.  We need to focus on middle and high school reading instruction as well, particularly for our most struggling readers.  We need to take what we know works with younger students, mix in the limited research about middle and secondary school reading, and build an instructional program and the teacher supports that work with these students.  The Alliance for Excellent Education’s Reading Next report gives us a start.  We now need to move those recommendations into practice.
NAEP’s recently released long-term data showed us a couple of things (and no, I’m not going to harp on the achievement gap … this time).  First, it demonstrated that we are on the right track with SBRR.  Reading scores for our elementary grades are on the rise. They are on the rise for white, African-American, and Hispanic students.  And they are on the rise for both rich and poor students.  What this means is the investment in SBRR, and the development of SBRR materials, is working.  All kids are improving reading proficiency, whether they are in a RF school or not.  This is not an indictment of RF, rather it is a vindication of SBRR.  Textbook publishers are not selling one set of texts to RF schools, and another to non-RF schools.  All texts are now aligned with SBRR. Teacher training programs are not offering one set of reading pedagogy to those teachers about to enter RF schools and another to those going into non-RF schools.  All teachers are getting the same basics in the tenets of SBRR (if they are getting any reading at all).  The NAEP data shows it is working, and shows we need to keep at it and redouble it, not change course and try something new … again.
The NAEP data also demonstrates the impact of greater accountability measures.  The implementation of SBRR has come at the same time we were holding our sch
ools to a greater level of accountability through AYP.  Such accountability measures have ensured that all students were served, and we were making no exceptions for such standards.  Yes, it was seen as harsh by some, particularly those who wanted to use their own lenses or sought greater proportionality in how AYP was measured.  Accountability is harsh because it needs to be.  At the end of the day, the rise in NAEP scores over the last decade better aligns with the accountability movement than it does with NCLB.  As some states started to put firm accountability measures into place in late 1990s, we started to see the uptick.  As NCLB nationalized it, the results on NAEP speak for themselves.  When we hold our schools and state accountable, truly accountable, they can rise to the occasion.
Why is this important?  It gets back to the learning needs of our older students.  We don’t have such accountability measures in place for secondary schools, and we really don’t have them in place for our middle schools.  If Yes, I Can Read is going to have real teeth and leave a lasting impact, we need to hold our schools, particularly our secondary schools, accountable for its effective implementation. We need to collect all the data, measure all the students, grades K-12, and report who is doing the job and who isn’t.  Those who are should serve as beacons and exemplars for the nation.  Those who aren’t should be put on notice and should have to take the corrective action to get those students reading.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that there is a correlation between drop-out rates and literacy levels.  Nor does it take a brain surgeon to know that the root of the achievement gap is our reading proficiency gap.
So as we build Yes, I Can Read, we need to make sure we are investing in all five of the core components of SBRR, particularly vocabulary and comprehension.  We need to invest in our teachers, ensuring they have the data, knowledge, and skills to be effective literacy instructors to all students, regardless of age or current reading level.  And we need to hold our K-12 schools accountable for reading proficiency.  
Reading is not mastered at the fourth grade.  Those who are proficient at that stage still have a lot of work to do.  Those who are not need extra work, extra attention, and extra intervention.  SBRR has a lifetime of application.  It has been proven effective.  And as far as I know, no one has offered up a better roadmap to getting virtually all children reading.  Hopefully, just maybe, it will remain the core of Yes, I Can Read.    
   

These NCLB Colors Don’t Run!

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, NAEP, NCLB

Today, The Washington Post finally opines on the NAEP Long-Term Data released almost two weeks ago.  The official stance of DC’s paper of record should come as surprise to few.  In fact, WaPo seems to be channeling dear ol’ Eduflack on this, agreeing with my general points from a week ago that the NAEP improvements are significant (particularly with regard to students in the elementary grades), our high school performance is still a national embarrassment, and the persistent achievement gap is something that we all should be concerned with.

And like Eduflack, WaPo used the data to demonstrate that the past seven years of No Child Left Behind have been effective in their core purpose — to improve reading and math performance in elementary school.  In fact, the gains across the board — for white, African-American, and Hispanic students, show that we are on to something when it comes to effective practice that generates real results.
What caught my attention was the close of the editorial, best summarized by the piece’s subhead, “This is no time for retreat on No Child Left Behind.”  Couldn’t agree more.  Recent years has demonstrated what works in elementary instruction, at least for reading and math.  It works for all disaggregated groups.  Seems to me we’ve figured out what to teach.  Now we need to redouble or retriple our efforts to deliver it to the students most in need, train teachers in its effective delivery, and better collect data so we continue to monitor and improve.
And, of course, Eduflack is thrilled with WaPo calling for the adoption of national standards.
No, what surprises me is the notion that we, as a nation, are looking to retreat on NCLB.  Nothing coming out of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of Education, or even Capitol Hill has signaled any serious attempt to turn back NCLB.  Yes, we talk about increasing available funding, better focusing on teachers and instruction, and taking a closer look at how we measure success.  But every action and every word to date screams “stay the course.”  No one seems to be dismantling NCLB, particularly with the Administration’s continued focus on both student achievement and innovation.
This continued worry about taking a chainsaw to the tent poles of NCLB seems to boil down to a few key issues.  Will we remain as focused on student achievement?  Will we continue to place such emphasis on accountability?  And what is the future of instruction and training proven most effective over the past decade?
Again, ED is talking the talk with regard to achievement and accountability.  Even previous discussions about multiple measures for student achievement seem to be a thing of the past.  EdSec Duncan’s rhetoric is screaming achievement and accountability.  And we’re all waiting to see if the economic stimulus bill and the new budget put some real teeth behind this new rhetoric.
So why the continued worry about the future of NCLB?  There is room for improvement with regard to the current federal law.  We do little to focus on the needs of secondary instruction, as evidenced by the NAEP scores.  HQT provisions do little to ensure our classrooms — particularly those in hard-to-staff areas — are served by effective teachers with the content knowledge and pedagogy necessary to lead real improvement in those schools that need it most.  And we’ll set aside for another day how one can both focus on student achievement for all, while doing something about our dastardly achievement gap. 
If we turn our attention to just those issues, then yes, NCLB will change … for the better.  (And I mean more than just a new name and tagline.)  NCLB has taught us a lot over the past seven years, and we should be using that to build a stronger Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  No, we shouldn’t tear down and build new every time the opportunity presents itself.  That’s just stupid.  We’ve taken major steps forward with NCLB.  We need to continue that forward progress, and we need to build on the lessons it has taught us.  We need to fix what we got wrong.  And we need to up the investment in that which is truly effective.  Seems common sense, even for government work.
At the end of the day, we are suffering from an information gap.  ED is not talking NCLB because it is an unpopular brand.  We know the law has been up for reauthorization for two years now, with many worried that a new Administration would undo all the previous did.  But we need to move beyond the book cover and take a look at the pages inside.  The Administration’s book seems to be one of NCLB continuation and improvement.  ED and Duncan seem to be preparing to write NCLB, Volume 2.  
We should not be looking to retreat on a national commitment to ensure that every child is proficient in reading, math, and science by the middle grades.  We should not be looking to retreat on our commitment to qualified and effective teachers.  We should not be looking to retreat on our attention to achievement and accountability.  And we certainly should not be looking to retreat on our pledge to provide an effective, high-quality education to all students, regardless of race, income, or zip code.  If it take WaPo and others to remind us of that from time to time, all the better.

Education Equality and Opportunity Now!

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

Last week, Eduflack had a Commentary piece on Education News on education equity.  Unfortunately, the link to the piece seems to have disappeared into the online ether.  But I wanted to share the piece, nonetheless.  So without further ado …

Aside from those who are polishing up their
“Status Quoer of the Year” trophies, most within the education sector recognize
that the future of public education has never been as intertwined with the
future of our economy as it is today. 
The school improvements sought by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) and those long funded by groups such as the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation are not simply change for change sake.  They are specific actions designed to make our P-12 systems
more relevant to life after school, ensuring that more students see the career
options before them and possess the knowledgebase and skills necessary to
achieve in a 21st century workforce.

 

Education, or at least effective education, does
not happen in a vacuum. 
Improvement efforts must be tied to outcomes and to real-life
expectations.  That’s why we no
longer teach our children Sanskrit. 
It’s why typing has given way to keyboarding.  And it is why language instruction in Latin and Italian has
given way to greater emphasis on the teaching of Spanish, Chinese, and even
Hmong.  We do not, cannot, and
should not reform simply for reforms’ sake.  We need to ensure that changes are relevant to future
educational and career paths.

 

Yet even today, there are those who fail to see
the connections.  In recent years,
I’ve held focus groups and discussion sessions with teacher educators and
classroom teachers and school board members and policymakers, and some of the
comments were frightening.  Many
believe the quality of education in the United States is stronger today than it
has ever been.  Instruction has
never been more effective.  And
some believe achievement gaps and drop-out rates are simply urban legends, designed
to spur changes that are unnecessary and undermine the great work being done by
the system, overlooking that “the system” has nearly half of minority students
are dropping out of high school and where only a third of today’s ninth graders
will go on to postsecondary education.

 

For these doubting Thomases and the defenders of
the status quo, the recent data released by McKinsey & Company crosswalking
the achievement gap in our schools with the financial shortfalls of our economy
is downright startling.  McKinsey’s
April 2009 report, The Economic Impact of
the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools, paints a bleak picture of the
very real impact of the performance failures in our schools on the future of
our nation.  The student
achievement gap costs our nation $3 billion to $5 billion a day.  The achievement gap between black and
Hispanic students and white students costs us more than half a trillion dollars
a year, or 4 percent of our GFP. 
And the gap between low-income students and the rest can cost us upwards
of $670 billion a year, or 5 percent of GDP. 

 

Recognizing there are obvious overlaps between
those two disaggregated groups, we know that achievement gap costs us a bare
minimum of $500 billion a year. 
For those clamoring for additional dollars for our public schools,
believing that funding has been the only obstacle to student success, imagine
the impact half a trillion dollars could have on P-12?

 

Moreover, McKinsey’s data spotlighted the social
impacts of a struggling school system. 
The consulting company boldly proclaimed that data clearly demonstrates
that, as early as the fourth grade, achievement gap indicators demonstrate: 1)
lower rates of high school and college graduation; 2) lower lifetime earnings;
3) poorer health; and 4) higher rates of incarceration.

 

This data needs to end, once and for all, the
debate on how important student achievement is as an evaluation measure.  In today’s day and age, performance is
king.  Data is the driver.  And quantitative information needs to
rule the roost. 

 

Like it or not, that means student achievement is
determined by performance on state assessments and on Adequate Yearly Progress
measures.  Until we have national
education standards and national assessments, the state test is our tool.  It is the single measure that helps us
determine student proficiency and allows teachers and families to understand
where their children stand in comparison with others in the class, the school,
and the state.

 

Now is the not the time for debate about multiple
measures or looking for creative ways to evaluate students on qualitative
factors that cannot be captured on “high-stakes tests.”  The McKinsey data, coupled with the
warning calls and alerts issued for the past 25 years since the issuance of A Nation at Risk make one thing
clear.  The achievement gap is
Public Enemy Number One when it comes to the success of our schools.

 

Elementary school learning gaps are driven, in
large part, between the reading proficiency differences between low-income and
higher-income students.  Our
national high school crisis is further exacerbated by the irrefutable realities
than half of black and Hispanic students drop out rather than earn a high
school diploma.  And even for those
who enter postsecondary education, high levels of remediation, particularly in
English and math, only further emphasize the differences between the haves and
have nots.

 

The Education Equality Project has seized on the
McKinsey data, using the most-recent numbers as a beacon to draw attention to
EEP’s overall goal to eliminate the racial and ethnic achievement gap in public
education by working to create and effective school for every child.  Last week, EEP used the opportunity to
address the issue of teacher quality, and the irrefutable linkages between the
effectiveness of teachers and the performance of students.  This is particularly true of students
from historically disadvantaged populations, who are often saddled with
teachers who are unqualified, unprepared, or simply incapable of leading
struggling classrooms and providing the instruction necessary to overcome the
learning gaps identified by McKinsey and others.

 

The achievement gap is a national disgrace.  There is no question about it.  For the past decade, we have talked ad
naseum about student achievement and the need to reach AYP.  Noble goals, yes.  But in the process, we have neglected
the gaps and let far too many children fall through the cracks.  As a result, the NCLB era is one where
the differences between the haves and have nots continues to grow.  Race is more of an indicator of student
struggles than per capita spending. 
And those students who benefit the most from a meaningful public
education are often the last to actually receive it.

 

But it begs a larger question.  Can we truly close the achievement gap
before we have addressed the issues of equity and opportunity?  Can historically disadvantaged students
narrow the learning gap if they are not provided equal access to high-quality
learning opportunities?  Can we
improve the quality and impact of our public education system by simply
defining resources and equity by dollar signs, without factoring in quality and
impact?

 

The answer to all of the above questions is
obviously no.  The achievement gap
cannot be closed simply through rhetoric and pleasant dreams of lollipops and
rainbows.  It requires serious
investment in real solutions.  It
requires rocking the boat, doing things differently, and holding our states,
our schools, and our teachers to high expectations with high consequences.  It requires refusing to buy into the
status quo, and accept that the paths of the past have gotten us into the
crisis of the present.

 

So where do we go?  We need qualified, effective teachers in the classroom, and
we need to quantify their effectiveness. 
We need to demand equitable instructional resources for our schools,
ensuring that equity is measured at the highest points of the scale, and not by
dropping to the lowest common denominator.  We need greater accountability in the schools, both for
instruction and for how we utilize our education resources (particularly new
ARRA dollars) and ensure that such money is reaching those students most in
need.  We need to involve parents,
families, and the community in the school improvement process.  We need to ensure that those students
on the failing end of the achievement gap are given new access to the very best
instruction, from early childhood education to college prep curricula.  We need to collectively demand more
from our schools, and settle for no less. 
And we need to keep up the fight until both the opportunity and the
achievement gaps are things of the past, joining the phoenix and the unicorn as
mythical beasts of the past, never to be seen again.

 

We must also recognize we have no choice in the
matter.  As McKinsey has made
crystal clear, the stakes are simply too high for us to be content with the way
things are.  The achievement gap is
downright destroying the quality of our public schools, the impact of public
instruction, and the future of our economy.  To borrow from a mentor of mine, failure to act, knowing
what we know, is committing educational malpractice.  If education is indeed our next great civil right, now is
the time for our great march on Washington and now is the time for us to truly
act on our dream.

 

Next month, we celebrate the 55th
anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board decision, integrating our public
schools and offering the promise of equity and opportunity all U.S.
Students.  More than a half century
later, we still have many, many miles to go before the intent of that decision
becomes a reality in our inner-city and low-income schools.  What exactly are we waiting for?