AYP

Riding NCLB Off Into the Sunset

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, High School, NCLB, NGA, Parents, vouchers

At high noon today, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings officially announced her “final regulations” to strengthen No Child Left Behind.  Speaking to a wide range of stakeholders in South Carolina, Spellings focused on issues like high school graduation rates, improved accountability, better parental notification of supplemental services, and greater school choice.

Of course, Eduflack has a lot of thoughts on a lot of this.  But I am most taken by the banner under which this announcement has been made.  These are the “final regulations to strengthen No Child Left Behind.”  If the future of NCLB was left to question in anyone’s mind, the EdSec answered that today.  Today is NCLB’s last gunfight in the ed reform corral.  After all of the talk of reauthorization and improvements to the law, these final regs make clear that, regardless of the political future at ED, NCLB is done.  A new law will rule the land, replacing, and not simply improving or supplementing what was one of the few positive domestic policy legacies of the Bush Administration.
But if we dig deeper here, where is the news?  In terms of high school graduation rates, Spellings is simply validating the process the National Governors Association began a few years ago.  NGA has already secured all 50 states’ agreement to common graduation rate based on the number of ninth graders who graduate high school four years later.  Sixteen states have this common formula in place already, and most of the others are in process.  These regs may “establish a uniform graduation rate” but we all need to realize such a rate has already been established and agreed to by all, and adopted by many.  
As for the rest, Eduflack completely agrees that all parents should have access to information on the supplemental education services and the school choice options available to them.  I was under the impression that was a core plank of NCLB from the start, and had been in place for more than six years now.  Has it really taken us six years to realize and require that parents get clear and timely notice of their options?  If so, where is all of the money that has been poured into SES since its establishment in 2002?
And finally, we have accountability.  Months ago, ED finally demonstrated some flexibility in the establishment of its growth model pilot project, allowing some states a little give when it comes to achieving AYP.  The pilot announcement had real value when announced, both in terms of policy and rhetoric.  So codifying the pilot in these new regs is a good thing.  In fact, it may be the strongest part of the EdSec’s announcement today.
It’s not all bad, though.  For a law that was originally criticized for focusing only on elementary education, these new regs codify the importance of high schools and the growing need to attend to dismal graduation rates.  With both presidential candidates embracing school choice, it is important to get credit for making vouchers and charters a foundation of NCLB.  With concerns about AYP and federal rigidity, it is important to remind all of the flexibility displayed by ED through its pilot effort.  And probably more important than any, today’s announcement reminds all those involved of the importance of parents in the educational process, ensuring we are getting them good information fast so they can make knowledge-based decisions on their kids’ educational paths.  But these new regulations are rhetorical devices, and have little to do with policy or real school improvement.
During my time in Texas, I often heard of the “all hat, no cattle” syndrome.  The New Yorker in me prefers “all sizzle, no steak.”  Regardless, these new regs — greatly hyped for the past week — provide little that is new, little that is innovative, and little that improves.  They are almost a set of defeatist treatises, a reminder to many of the original intent of NCLB (an intent that has, in part, gone unfulfilled) without seeking to make any new changes or new improvements as the law winds down.
Personally, I prefer the westerns where the protagonist fades to black in a blaze of glory, fighting until the bitter end to protect the town and defend its future.  I’ve never been one for the “Shane” ending, with the hero riding off into the sunset, slumped over in a sense of defeat and even death.  Today’s announcement was definitely a sunset ride.  
    

The Call for ROI in School Reform

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, Gates Foundation, STEM, Workforce

Ever since Eduflack got involved in STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education, I’ve spent a great deal of time talking, writing, and thinking about the ties between public education and economic development.  As I’ve said before, education does not operate in a vacuum.  By focusing on relevant, high-quality, results-based education, we directly impact student learning.  We also greatly affect jobs, economic development, healthcare, the environment, and even national security.  Education is the common linkage between all of our national areas of concern, and it is a linkage that deserves our utmost attention.

It’s no secret that our national attention has been solely fixed on the economy this past month or so.  Personally, I’m tired or reading the articles wondering when the markets will officially crater.  Each day, I look at the Business section, thinking the Edufamily needs to heed Warren Buffett’s advice and invest what we have now, buying when people are scared (and selling during the joyous times).
Through it all, I’ve given little thought as to how this economic roller coaster is going to affect public education.  Sure, we know that colleges and universities are worried about how students will pay tuition and how money concerns will impact public versus private decisions (just check out the front page of today’s USA Today for that story).  We worry about the short- and long-term impact the current rises and falls will have on philanthropy and the vast supports coming in from foundations, corporations, and others invested in improving the public schools.  (Personally, I was glad to hear that Bill and Melinda Gates are personally guaranteeing all of their current grantmaking, even as Microsoft stock has lost about 25% in value in the past month).  And yes, some may even think how reduced earnings, rising unemployment, and shrinking property tax pools impact a state’s ability to fulfill all their obligations.
This morning, the Boston Globe really drives this issue home.  Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is now dramatically scaling back his ambitious plans for P-20 education improvement, citing the state’s budget woes.  Plans for free education for all — from preK to community college are now being scuttled, all in the name of economic woes.  Check out the full article here — www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2008/10/27/patrick_pulling_back_on_education/  
Over the next decade, the great education improvements are going to happen at the state level.  We often forget that the feds are only responsible for 7 cents of every dollar spent on public education.  The federal government’s greatest strength is that of the bully pulpit — highlighting the successes of reform, spotlighting best practices, focusing on the issues of most importance, corralling our desire to jump from issue to issue to issue and instead focus on the few areas where we can really boost student achievement and make a lasting difference.
It’s up to the states (and the school districts) to implement what works and do what it takes to help all students.  But what happens when the financial wells run dry?  How do we invest more in education, as Gov. Patrick has proposed, when we have fewer dollars to pay for healthcare, police, prisons, pensions, roads, and other equally important issues?  
It is a good question.  But there is a better one.  How do we improve education without boosting our financial commitment?  How do we reform our system at the $10,000 or $14,000 per student we are already paying in struggling districts, without inserting more dollars into what may be clearly broken?  How do we better use our existing resources to improve options, improve quality, and improve results for all students, and not just the fortunate ones?  How do we build a better educational mousetrap with the materials already lying around the workshop?
The minds who know best say our national economic pain is likely a multi-year ride, with good days and bad days, but ongoing worry and angst.  If that is true, the visionaries who can answer the question of how we do better educationally with fewer resources are ultimately the ones who will rule the kingdom.  We have tough choices to make.  Now is the time to set education priorities and identify true return on investment.  Now is the time to think hard, act boldly, and spend wisely.  The bumper sticker is simple, we need to focus on what works.  It’s a new concept for the education field, but ROI is soon going to rule the day.

Putting Parents First

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, Parents

When we talk about education improvement initiatives, we often immediately focus on the role of the teacher.  Eduflack is quick to note that teaching, particularly in the 21st century, is one of the most challenging careers out there.  Some people are cut out to be excellent, effective teachers.  Others simply aren’t up to the challenges and rigors of our current classrooms.  One of our most important responsibilities in ed reform is making sure we are getting the right teachers in the right classrooms, and we are helping those teachers that just aren’t up to the challenge.

But what about the role of the parent?  When we talk about changing student learning behaviors, classroom instructional approaches, and school environments, what is the responsibility of the parent?  It is a question we ask far less than we should, but it is an issue that is becoming front and center.
At last week’s presidential debate, Barack Obama donned the Bill Cosby sweater (as he has before) and spoke of parental responsibility, the need to turn off the television, pick up a book, and focus on a child’s future.  In his education-focused campaign commercials, Obama says much of the same, placing responsibility for student achievement squarely on the shoulders of the parents, along with the new, effective teachers he is recruiting.
Over at Education Week, David Hoff has a piece on how the presidential candidates’ views on parental engagement differ.  www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/15/08parents.h28.html  But Hoff’s piece is really just the start of the story.
For years now, parents have almost been the third rail of education reform.  Teachers and school administrators expect a subset of parents to come in and “complain” about learning conditions each year.  These squeaky wheels are what keep our schools moving, as some parents demand more for their kids, require more slack for others.  For every other parent, we just hope they show up for the annual parent/teacher conference, sign the permission slips, and generally stay content and out of the way.
If we are to truly improve our schools, we need active, educated parents involved in the process. This means more than just complaining about the here and now.  It means getting invested in the future and what can be.  Yes, it means turning off the TV (or the computer or the Wii/XBox/360).  But it also means so much more.  Parents are a linchpin to improving student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  They are key to getting more rigorous programs in the schools, including more AP courses and more STEM courses.  They are central to improving school choice, including charters, magnets, and virtual learning opportunities.  And they are important to successful teacher recruitment efforts, getting the very best into our classrooms and ensuring that they stay in our communities.  In the collective sense, parents are the one constant in our ever-changing education universe. 
What does parental improvement really mean, in today’s era of accountability, school improvement, and student achievement?  Eduflack has seven simple tenets, based on the real needs of our real classrooms:
* Parents need to understand standards and what is expected of their students academically.  What does it mean to be proficient?  What is my student expected to learn during this particular grade?  Ideally, parents would demand a common national standard so they know how their child measures up to children across the nation.
* Parents need to know how their child is actually doing.  Am I getting regular progress reports?  Where are the gaps?  What are the available interventions?  What can I do to supplement instruction at home?  Parents need to obtain their own child’s data and know what it means.
* Parents need to understand the curriculum.  What textbooks and workbooks are my kids using?  What materials are coming home?  What instructional materials are my kids enjoying?  Parents need to ensure we are implementing what works.”
* Parents need to know their kids’ teachers.  Am I engaging with the teacher during more than just the traditional parent/teacher conferences?  Am I taking advantage of email addresses or phone numbers?  Am I taking an active interest in the process, and not just complaining about what is happening to my kid?  Parents need to be partners with their teachers, not adversaries.
* Parents need to know their choices.  Have I visited my child’s school?  Do I know about charter school opportunities?  What about virtual school opportunities?  Do I understand the supplemental services that may be available to my kid or my community?  Parents need to know their rights and know all the opportunities available to them.
* Parents need to get involved.  If we are requiring community service for students to graduate from high school, why can’t we require school service for families whose kids are moving from grade to grade?  Parents need to be a fixture in the classroom and the school.
* Parents need to know learning happens beyond the schoolhouse doors.  Education is not limited to classrooms and teachers only.  Parents have a responsibility to supplement education at home, providing learning opportunities, encouraging their kids, ensuring homework is complete, and moving education from obligation to opportunity for all kids.  They need to be the first and the constant teacher in their child’s life.
Too often, we think it is easier in public education if we can keep parents out of the mix.  Keep them content (or keep them uninvolved), and it is easier to get things done.  It is also easier to protect the status quo.  Parents are a key lever to truly improve education.  But that only comes with knowledgeable, motivated, involved parents.  Perhaps the time has come for a real parental education bill of rights, one focused on the parents’ roles and responsibilities in improving the school, boosting student achievement, and increasing opportunity for all students … particularly their own children.

Meeting the Education Needs of the Hispanic Community

Eduflack AYP, ELL, Students, Teacher Education

When we discuss education reform, the issue of urban education is usually one of the top discussion points.  But in most corners, urban education translates into the education of the African-American community.  We look at the achievement gap, and it is usually how black students measure up against white students.  Even recent efforts to boost high school graduation rates and college-going rates that focus on underserved populations seem to focus first on the African-American community.

Anyone who has followed politics over the last year, however, knows that much of the political and community action is now happening in the Hispanic community.  The fastest growing demographic in the United States, Hispanic Americans are a growing force in the education reform movement, but in general terms and with regard to issues specific to their community.
Just this week, Eduflack had two interesting announcements cross his desk.  The first was from the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE).  The alternative certification group announced a new partnership with the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to recruit and certify more teachers of color for high-need Florida schools.  The real challenge — how do we get more qualified, successful Hispanic teachers at the front of Hispanic-dominant classes?
Through scholarships and incentives, ABCTE will work across a number of Florida counties to build a better program.  To date, they claim 150 individuals, both career changers and recent graduates, have taken up the cause and made the commitment.
Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced a three-quarter-of-a-million-dollar grant to the National Academy of Sciences to study how best to distribute Title III English Language Acquisition state grant funds.  The goal here?  Ensuring that federal ELL funding is actually getting to the communities that need it the most, those with the highest concentrations of English language proficiency.  For those keeping track, the feds are spending about $700 million on such state grants, so delivering them to the right addresses is a pretty good priority.
So why does all of this have my antenna up?  Education reform isn’t just a black-and-white issue.  These two announcements serve as a clear reminder of the need to focus on the Hispanic community in education reform.  And for education communicators, we also need to realize that means more than just ELL/ESL issues.  Accountability and standards are just as important.  Research and proven effectiveness are just as important.  Reading, math, and STEM education are just as important.  PreK and afterschool programs are just as important.  School choice and online education are just as important.  Qualified, effective teachers and equipped, supported schools are just as important.
As the population continues to shift, those who figure out how to effectively engage the Hispanic community in overall education reform issues will be in a position to make a real difference.  To get there, we need to set aside urban legends like Hispanic families don’t have home computers or such families don’t want to get engaged in the educational process.
ABCTE and NAS can help us expand the debate.  But there is a national dialogue on this issue that is just itching to happen.

Tallying Graduation Rates in the Old Dominion

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, NGA

Yesterday, the Virginia Department of Education released it latest data on on-time graduation rates.  This is the latest trend in data collection, as states across the nation begin to enforce the graduation formula proposed by the National Governors Association (and signed onto by all 50 states).

The formula is a simple one — we look at the total number of ninth graders this year, and four years later we look at home many of those ninth graders leave high school with a diploma.  We factor out transfers and those students who may have died.  Recognizing that high school is intended to be a four-year experience, the goal is a diploma in four years.  No exceptions.
What did Virginia find?  A statewide graduation rate of 81%.  Four in five Virginia ninth graders are graduating on time, according to the data coming out of VDE.  Seventy percent of Hispanic students are graduating on time; 70% of low-income students are graduating on time; and 73% of black students graduated on time.  The full story is today’s Washington Post — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100801674.html.  
(Personally, Eduflack’s own Falls Church City Schools boasted a 98% on-time graduation rate.  I just want to know who those 2% are.  I’d personally be shocked that there were two kids who failed to graduate FCC on time, let alone 2%.)
First things first.  The Commonwealth of Virginia is to be commended for adopting and enforcing the NGA graduation rate formula.  In today’s society, we know that a high school diploma is a non-negotiable.  It is hard to admit our K-12 system is failing some kids, and that 20% of ninth graders aren’t getting that diploma they need to contribute in 21st century society.  It is even harder not to make excuses, blaming record keeping, NCLB expectations, high-stakes testing, and the like.
But I can’t help wondering how accurate the number actually is.  It was only last fall that we heard the stories of dropout factories around the nation, and several of those so-called factories were found in the Old Dominion.  VDE says they expected an 80% grad rate, and they posted an 81% rate.  It’s gotta be nice to know your schools that well.  But we’ve seen the great variances in district-wide graduation numbers, with schools saying one thing and third-party researchers offering completely different numbers.  I want to believe my state and my VDE, but I’m also hoping that Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute will weigh in here and “certify” these numbers.
Interestingly, the State of Maryland is still moving to adopt the NGA formula, boldly predicting to clock in at 85% on-time high school graduation.  Based on those dropout factory stories, though, Eduflack finds that awfully hard to believe.  And I find it harder to believe Maryland will outperform Virginia, but that’s just old collegiate rivalries talking, I suppose.
According to the Post, Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education, uses these numbers to talk about our national need to track student progress.  Certainly, on-time graduation rate data is one of the core pieces of information we need to hold our schools accountable and to measure our effectiveness.  States like Florida and North Carolina and Texas have already worked at adopting the NGA universal on-time high school graduation rate.  Here’s hoping that the rest of the states are soon to join them, giving us a national standard by which to measure high school graduation.
  

Going Where the Education Action Is

Eduflack AP, AYP, early childhood education, ELL, Gates Foundation, national standards, NCLB, NGA, STEM

If you spend enough time reading about education reform — particularly over the past few years — you get the sense that Washington, DC is the unwavering center and base for all that is new, all that is relevant, and all that is necessary to school improvement.  NCLB.  The U.S. Department of Education.  The Institute of Education Sciences.  The blob of representative education organizations.  All, it seems, serve as the epicenter for real change in our educational system.

But when you really get down to it, the real action of education reform is not at the national level.  In reality, the U.S. Department of Education and the federal government account for less than eight cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education in the United States.  Despite the tales coming from the status quoer bogeymen, there are few educators who are taking their marching orders directly from NCLB or from the data captured by IES or NAGB.  And although some would like to believe it, superintendents and principals are not waiting for detailed instructions from the EdSec before they take action on instructional improvement.
Don’t get me wrong.  The federal hand is a great influencer in what is happening in education reform.  It provides an enormous carrot, usually in the form of federal dollars, to get new and valuable programs — such as Reading First or the American Competitiveness Initiative — from research to policy to practice.  It also provides a more ominous stick, providing punishment for those who fail to meet AYP, misuse federal funds, or generally choose not to follow the mission and guidelines put forward by the federal government (particularly as it relates to important laws such as Title I).
In a perfect world, the federal education lever is one of a velvet hammer.  It provides us the opportunity to feel good about what we are doing, while knowing that swift and meaningful judgment can come down on those who ignore, flaunt, or seek to reverse the laws of the land.  Be it gender equity, special education, teacher training, or even reading or math instruction, there is little doubt that the educational velvet hammer rests in the hands of ED and the EdSec.
Many know I spend most of my working days helping organizations, companies, and agencies determine the best ways to advocate for education issues, particularly improvements to the current K-12 system.  Much of these discussions tend to focus on the federal, for the reasons detailed above.  We all want to meet with folks on the seventh floor of ED, hoping to convince them we’ve built a better mousetrap or offer a solution unmatched by those that have come previously.  As a good counselor and advisor, I try to respect the wishes of my clients, and identify ways they can be a part of the federal discussion of education reform.
Eduflack finds himself spending more and more time these days, though, redirecting these good intentions to where the education action really is.  For those looking to make a difference, for those looking to enact meaningful change, for those looking to truly boost student achievement and improve instruction, for those looking to identify and develop an education solution that can be implemented at scale, the real action is happening at the state level.
Real reform has the greatest opportunity to succeed when introduced at the state level.  First, it can serve as a lever of influence on federal decisionmakers, demonstrating the results we need to see that a particular program or intervention works.  Second, it has the power to implement those changes in a large number of school districts simultaneously, using the state’s own carrot/stick powers to implement reforms directly in school districts that need the help the most.  The feds have levels of bureaucracy to go through before they can reach the school district. The state gets there with a phone call and a well-constructed relationship.
In the education policy world, we’re all looking to the future to see what the next version of No Child Left Behind will hold.  But we don’t need to wait for the NCLB lever to enact real, meaningful reforms.  The Gates Foundation recognized this long ago, and has invested significant money in statewide education reforms designed to model innovations.  The National Governors Association has focused tremendous effort and incredible intellectual capital on issues such as high school reform, AP, science/math education, national standards, and data collection — each path offering statewide solutions and demonstrating statewide results.  The National Conference of State Legislatures has all but ignored NCLB, focusing on its own issues.  And membership groups such as the Council of Chief State School Officers, Education Commission of the States, and even the Southern Regional Education Board have taken courageous policy stands to enact real reforms that improve the quality and results of education across the states.
What’s the lesson to be learned here?  Those seeking to enact real, meaningful education reforms must include statewide engagement strategies as part of their efforts.  They must recognize that each state is different, and each state must be handled and approached differently.  They must know that most state departments of education are vastly understaffed and overworked, and thus have little time to hear about the great ideas.  They must know that results are king, whether you be a principal, a state education chief, or the EdSec herself.  And they must know that states watch what other states do, they model after the successful ones, and they try to ensure their “competitors” don’t get too far ahead of them when it comes to policy or education results.
The success of integrated communications advocacy comes when you reach multiple stakeholders at multiple levels.  We all know that.  And preaching state education officials as a key stakeholder is hardly a new idea to slap anyone upside the head.  But we all must remember where the real action is.  We all must remember where real change and improvement can occur.  And we all must remember who can make a real difference.
High school reform.  Graduation rates.  National standards.  General accountability provisions.  STEM education.  Early childhood ed.  ELL and ESL.  RTI.  Closing the achievement gap.  Reading, math, and science instruction.  Professional development.  Teacher recruitment.  Online education.  Charter schools.  True success for these and other issues lies in our states,working in partnership with bellweather school districts.  To paraphrase from politics, as Ohio (and Pennsylvania and Georgia and Florida and Arizona and Minnesota) goes, so goes the nation.  True in politics.  Definitely true in education reform.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, check out a similar post on the power of the states in education policy this year — www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2008/10/education-really-is-a-state-issue-at-least-this-year/  

The Disconnect Between the Policy World and the Real World

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, national standards, STEM

Sometimes, we forget that is done and said in Washington simply stays in Washington.  We expect that Main Street USA understands what we do, why we do it, and who we do it for.  It’s almost like we buy into the notion that, “we’re from Washington, and we’re here to help you.”

Eduflack was reminded (like I really needed a reminder) of the disconnect between the education policy world and the real world yesterday at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce and Talkers Magazine on our nation’s future education agenda.  The headline — lots of interesting comments, some that were greatly reassuring we were on the right track, education reform-wise, and some that were downright disturbing.
First for the best of times.  The forum was framed by two important voices in this debate — the Chamber’s Arthur Rothkopf and Education Trust’s Kati Haycock.  There are few better voices in DC to help identify the problems in public education AND identify the real solutions we can adopt to improve instruction and better prepare our students for the rigors of tomorrow.
Kicking off by stating “the business community is dissatisfied with the quality of what it receives” from the staid and traditional K-12 system, Rothkopf laid out a clear six-point plan for education reform:
* NCLB (or whatever we choose to call it) must be reauthorized, strengthened, and improved
* Better teachers, with performance measured and better, merit-based pay going to the educators who deserve it
* Better management of the system, with more accountability
* Better data (along with better application of the data)
* Higher standards (though no mention of a single national standard)
* More innovation, with an emphasis on investments in charters and online education
By this time, Eduflack was ready to jump to his feet, crying out an “amen.”  But he waited, knowing the true voice of all that is right and effective in education reform — EdTrust’s Haycock — was about to take hold of the microphone.  She didn’t disappoint.  Haycock clearly laid out the problem, “the deeper you dig, the more worried you become” when it comes to K-12 instruction.  She reminded the audience this isn’t just an issue of poor kids or an issue of kids of color, and that even our nation’s highest achievers simply can’t measure up compared to the highest achievers of other industrialized nations.  Ultimately, the problem flows from the choices we make in education — choices like what to expect from our students and what to teach our students.
Haycock’s remarks were not all doom and gloom.  She reminded us (as Eduflack has been saying for years) that there are placed that are doing it right, schools and districts where we’re boosting achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Places where we are simply doing what works.  She rattled off schools in Georgia, Delaware, Kansas, and New York, for instance, that can serve as beacons for teaching at high levels and achieving at even higher levels.
And then the worst of times, the moment when I was slapped upside the head with a reality stick.  The program moved from Rothkopf and Haycock to four local radio talk show hosts — selected by sponsor Talkers magazine — to represent Main Street USA and what is being heard on the airwaves throughout the United States.  Here in policyworld, we frame education reform around issues such as accountability, quality, results, and research.  We talk about processes and outcomes.  We look to separate the status quo from the innovation.  Oh what a sheltered world we live in.
From listening to our esteemed talk show hosts, the ed policy community may as well be living on Mars.  They focused on issues such as student discipline, asking why today’s students don’t fear their teachers the way we did decades ago.  They talked about the failures or parents (who bear some responsibility, don’t get me wrong, but are more a part of the solution, not a major part of the problem).  That their former great high schools are now low-income high schools.  They talked about students being down because all their potential jobs have gone to India (how 2005/World is Flat).  And they even said that vo-tech high school students enrolled in cosmetology courses are getting the higher-level math skills they need to succeed, so we shouldn’t worry at all.
It wasn’t all bad.  Talker Joe Madison declared that “Education is the new currency of the 21st century.”  For the most part, the talkers tried to personalize the story.  Communication-wise, such an approach is a good thing.  It makes it easier for stakeholders to relate and understand the issues at hand.  Unfortunately, here they were personalizing the trivial.  The word accountability didn’t come out of the talkers’ mouths until the very end.  The issue of national standards never came up.  To the contrary, we had one talker actually saying it was unfair to expect a state like Mississippi to perform as a state like Massachusetts does?
Unfair?  I would say not.  If we are truly worried about jobs going away and kids being unmotivated because they don’t see employment opportunities, we need to raise standards.  More importantly, we need to show a potential employer that a high school graduate in Mississippi has the same math and problem-solving skills as a graduate in Massachusetts, Arizona, or North Dakota.  We need to show all our schools are making the grade, not just a select few in a select few states.
Fortunately, Rothkopf and Haycock were able to bring us back to reality.  With Rothkopf, it was the realization that the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to succeed in college are the same skills one needs to succeed in the workforce (a statement that high school reform and STEM advocates, including Eduflack), have long trumpeted.
Before departing, Haycock left the audience with the sobering fact that the greatest obstacle facing school improvement is one of complacency.  Yes, improvement comes from innovation and new ideas focused on achievement and success.  But those improvements require the rocking of boats, the upsetting of apple carts, and the changing of minds — just the sort of things the status quoers fight against.  
What lessons are to be learned here?  More than anything, we need more people calling in to radio talk shows to discuss issues such as student achievement, school accountability, and research-based decisionmaking.  When we talk of such issues in DC, they tend to drop like a stone, with a thud to the bottom.  Discuss them in public forums like talk radio, and they have the possibility of skipping across the pond, causing ripples that can be unmeasurable.

Closing the Gap?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, NAEP, NCLB

Has No Child Left Behind worked?  That may be a question best left to sociologists or historians or anthropologists, but it is one we must be asking as congressional committees and presidential education advisors continue to contemplate the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a reauthorization that is past due, I might add.)

When first passed into law, NCLB was positioned as an effective tool to close the achievement gap.  By “eliminating the soft bigotry of low expectations,” NCLB would penetrate the schools and communities that have long suffered, providing hope, opportunity, and real demonstrations of achievement for kids that have long been written off.
Of course, these past few years, NCLB has been seen far more as a punch line to a bad joke, a walking, talking example of burdensome regulations and over-testing.  It’s almost like we’ve forgotten the intent of the law, and the goal of ensuring that every student — regardless of race, gender, neighborhood, or socioeconomic standing — has the opportunity to achieve academically.
It is forgotten, that is, until the data reminds us otherwise.  For those doubting Thomases, today’s Washington Post offers yet more proof that NCLB is, indeed, working.  The Post’s Maria Glod and Daniel de Vise offer up an analysis that shows it clearly.  And the story lede says it all — “since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind law, students from poor families in the Washington area have made major gains on reading and math tests and are starting to catch up with those from middle-class and affluent backgrounds.”
What does the Post analysis show, other than NCLB works?  The data is quite clear … and quite interesting.  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103096.html
In”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103096.html
In Maryland, the reading and math achievement gaps have closed, according to results from the Maryland School Assessment.  In Anne Arundel County, the reading performance gap shrunk from 24 to 14, while math moved from 20 down to 14.  In Howard County, the reading gap shrunk from 31 to 17, while the math gap shrunk from 33 to 25.  And in Montgomery County, the reading gap shrunk from 28 to 14 and the math from 26 to 17.
And in Virginia, on its Standards of Learning?  In Fairfax County, the reading gap shrunk from 20 to 11, the math gap from 29 to 16.  In Loudoun County, reading gaps went from 24 to 15, while math went from 20 to 17.  And in Prince William, reading closed from 18 to 9, while the math gap went from 15 to 11.
All data was measured from 2003 to 2007.  And before you ask the question, there doesn’t seem to be good data for DCPS, with Stanford Achievement Tests and the Comprehensive Assessment System showing little results of meaning. 
What does it all tell us?
* In school districts, at least those in the greater Washington area, NCLB has worked.  From 2003 to 2007, we’ve seen real, demonstrable results closing the gap in reading and math achievement
* Despite popular belief, reading scores are improving.  In fact, in most of the counties studied by the Washington Post, reading gaps have narrowed more than math gaps.  In Arlington County, VA, for instance, the reading gap shrank (as NCLB and Reading First intended), but the math gap did not. 
* Good data takes time.  Education researchers have long told me you need at least five years of good data to determine the effectiveness of an education reform.  Imagine that, the Post looked at five years of NCLB era data, and found real improvement.
* The achievement gap is a very real issue, and needs to be a very real focus on any ongoing reform.  If we are truly going to improve the quality of public education in the United States, we need to show meaningful gains for low-income students, for African-American students, and for Hispanic students.  Educational opportunity for all needs to include all, no matter how you disaggregate the data.
Kudos to the Washington Post for its analysis, and for stepping forward (on the front page of the paper, no less) and claiming that NCLB is indeed closing the achievement gap.  But if it is true here in Washington, odds are the same results are found in cities and towns throughout the United States.  Where are the similar studies?  Who is looking at similar achievement data?  Who is talking about what is being done (or has been done) to close the achievement gap in cities like Chicago and Atlanta and Dallas and Phoenix and Los Angeles?  Who is speaking truth, despite an unpopular law with a bad reputation?
If we’re going to continue these positive trends, now is the time to speak up.
 

Virtually, the Next Big Thing

Eduflack AFT, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, Gates Foundation, NEA, Online Education

Without doubt, we in education reform like to follow the trends.  We like to determine what the next big thing is, and then jump on that bandwagon before everyone else has grabbed hold for themselves.  When Reading First was all the rage in 2003, most looking at the tea leaves were certain that early reading would be the next big thing.  At the time, no one was even considering the sort of high school reform that the Gates Foundation was ushering in, full force, by 2005.

Lately, I’ve been hearing from a lot of my reading friends, colleagues, and clients that the “next big thing” is RTI, or Response to Intervention.  I’m guessing RTI has moved to the top of the list because it has been the subject of many an RFP (meaning there is money attached), and groups like the International Reading Association has put it on the hot list.  But I’m not a believer.  Until folks get their hands around the need for the true pre- and post-assessments necessary for effective RTI (and most trying to sell a solution are not), RTI will simply be an also ran.
As we forecast, then, what comes next, we must also decide what issue has run its course.  For the past few months now, Eduflack has been offering private eulogies for the voucher movement.  Yes, school choice is still one of the most important issues the education community — particularly those operating in failing schools — faces.  But DCPS has all but killed and buried its landmark voucher program.  Results coming out of bellweather voucher cities such as Milwaukee and Cleveland have not shown the results many expected.  And even the voucher haven of Florida has watched as its many voucher programs have been scaled back.
So what’s next?  What is the next great issue in school reform?  Where is the next great fight to be waged?  The tale of vouchers helps point us in the right direction.  The next big thing will remain school choice, but it will be a redefined debate — charter versus virtual.
It wasn’t so long ago that charter schools were seen as niche programs run out of someone’s basement.  Today, we see well-run charters dominating the education improvement debate.  Cities like DC, New Orleans, and Cleveland are now seeing charters challenge traditional public schools, student for student.  In DC, the Catholic Archdiocese has decided to convert a number of their previously private Catholic schools into public charter schools.  Why?  First to address the issue of the failed voucher experiment in DC.  Second, and more importantly, to provide broader reach of high-quality instruction across the city it serves.
Over the past decade, public charter schools have demonstrated the ability to build a better mousetrap.  Those that have focused on strong infrastructure, good instruction, and effective measurement and accountability are fulfilling our mission of student improvement.  They are seeing results on their student achievement numbers, and they are pushing traditional public schools to do a better job, or risk losing more students to better run charters with better results.
After all, wasn’t that the goal?  Charters were never intended to replace the public schools, waging a bloodless coup for control of public education.  Instead, they sought to show we could do a better job, particularly in those communities with failing schools.  Reaching the same students, they could build a better school, equip a better teacher, and generate better results.  And with the right management, vision, and commitment, they are succeeding.  Charters are changing the landscape, and that change is reflected in both a shift in AFT and NEA’s view of charters and the public and private positions taken by the presidential campaigns on school choice.
But there is an interesting fork in that road to the next great thing.  A year ago, I would have placed my money for charters to win, place, and show.  After all, they lack the radioactivity of the voucher movement.  They have a network of educators and funders throughout the nation.  And they have a documentable track record of positive results.  But then along came a pesky little thing called the virtual school.
Again, our sights are set down on the Sunshine State.  Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post reports on a new state mandate that school districts must now create an all virtual school option for K-12 instruction.  The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having”>www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having formerly worked for a proposed provider of online high school education, I can see the benefit for school districts.  The need for school buildings and facilities drop dramatically.  Worries about teacher shortages, particularly in areas such as math, science, and foreign language, all but disappear.  Students are provided the option to pursue courses of study that are relevant to their interests and needs, not just those courses where 24 fellow classmates want to share a classroom.  And if it works for higher education, why not K-12.
The problem, of course, is we still struggle with high-quality online higher education.  Employers discount the value of a degree from an online institution.  Graduation rates are traditionally significantly lower in virtual higher ed institutions than they are in traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions.  And the variance in quality, regulation, and results still has yet to be determined.
Despite these concerns, virtual education is here to stay, and places like Florida are determined to integrate it into the framework of K-12 education.  What does that mean for the next big thing?  Perhaps we are looking at a hybrid — a melding of the mission, oversight, and outcomes of a well-run public charter school with the options and flexibility of a virtual school.  Expansion of charter school course choice through virtually delivered options.  A way to bring well-run charter school models up to scale in communities where demand or sheer numbers are just lacking.  A chance to bring 21st century thinking and technology to 21st century school choice.
Now is the time for someone to seize the cutting edge mantle from vouchers and move the school choice movement to the next level.  The race is now between the model charter school and the edgy virtual school to see who can capture the public attention and who can demonstrate the results we demand from the next generation of public education.

To Be An Urban Superintendent

Eduflack AYP, Chancellor Klein, Gates Foundation

Over the past few weeks, the national education media has reported on the perils of being (or more importantly hiring and retaining) the urban superintendent.  By now, we’ve all read of the soap opera down in Miami-Dade, first with Rudy Crew’s departure and then with the delay on the official appointment of Alberto Carvalho as Crew’s permanent replacement (it is always the fault of those reporters, after all, isn’t it).

Most recently, the spotlight has been focused on the revolving door of the St. Louis superintendency, where it seems no one really wanted the top job, or at least no one wants to hold the job.  The Associated Press has Oklahoma City Schools on its 25th supe in 39 years, with the average tenure for a school chief now less than three years.  (See the full story here at <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26932546/)
There”>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26932546/)
There is no question it is hard, hard work to lead an urban school district these days.  Reduced financial resources.  Greater academic expectations.  AYP demands.  Struggling schools.  Collective bargaining with teachers unions.  Increased energy costs.  School violence.  Drugs.  Drop outs.  And we haven’t even gotten into the issues of effectively educating today’s young people.  Being a superintendent may be one of the most difficult jobs out there, particularly when you factor in the searing spotlight, the high stakes, and the even higher expectations.
Two years ago, Prince George’s County, MD, handed over the keys to their educational kingdom to John Deasy, a promising educational leader from a small beach community in California.  His old Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District was one-tenth the size of PG’s 130,000 student system.  He was a white man coming into a predominantly minority school district.  And he brought real stability — and real improvement — to a district in need of some positive development.
We all know that it takes a good five years to see the true impact of educational reforms, particularly those classroom-based changes.  We need many years of data to view the long-term result.  But after a year or two, we can see some promising practices.  And in PG, Deasy has posted some real promise.  Test scores seem to be rising, and rising faster than the state average.  The number of schools on the state watch list has dramatically declined since Deasy’s arrival.  The district is now a beacon of possibility, and not the punchline for school failure it once was.   
Why is all this so important?  This morning’s Washington Post reports that Deasy will depart from PG in February, to take a senior position with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  No doubt, it is a great opportunity for Deasy and it will be a strong asset for the Gates Foundation.  Deasy’s experience in PG will be of real value to Gates, as he has solved problems in just the sort of school district that Gates is trying to reach with its education reform efforts. 
But it is a sad development for Prince George’s Public Schools, and a sadder day for urban education in general.  As the lifespan of an urban superintendent continues to shrink, we need to do everything we can to keep the good ones in place.  We need continuity in our district leadership, ensuring that good supes are sufficiently recognized, rewarded, and supported.  We need a system for mentoring the next generation of superstar superintendents, where the Deasys and Joel Kleins and Tom Payzants of the world can mentor and teach.  And just as we focus on teacher recruitment, we need a national investment in high-quality, effective school and district leadership.
Superintendent Deasy should be congratulated on his new appointment.  Through Gates, he has the opportunity to impact millions of students and dozens of school districts like PG.  He has the chance to take his PG experiences to scale, demonstrating to a larger audience that school improvement is possible, student test scores can rise, and schools can take the necessary steps to make AYP.  
Eduflack only hopes that PG will seek out a replacement from the reformer/improver model, someone who can continue the work Deasy has moved forward since his arrival in 2006.  Now is not the time for caretakers or those who won’t cause ripples.  Deasy shook up PG.  Gates saw that, and wanted to see more of that.  Hopefully, PG will stay the course.