charter schools

An Ed Reform Gov in a Blue State?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, charter schools

For the past few decades, we often talk about who the latest “education governor” is, particularly among Democrats.  In the late 1980s, Bill Clinton of Arkansas tried to take the mantle from the esteemed Jim Hunt of North Carolina.  For a bit, it shifted over to Gaston Caperton of West Virginia, as he emerged from a devastating state-wide teachers strike.  And most recently, it was Virginia’s Mark Warner, who ushered in the 21st century in the Old Dominion by focusing on high school reform.

But recent history points primarily to Republicans as the “education governors.”  Lamar Alexander in Tennessee.  George W. Bush in Texas.  Jeb Bush in Florida.  Mitch Daniels in Indiana.  Republicans seem to have the upper hand when it comes to conditions for pushing forward with reforms.  And while many may question the final outcomes, it is those Republican state leaders, be they in red or purple states, that stand as leaders in education.
This week, we may have seen the start of a major shift in the “education governor” formula.  A true-blue Democrat, in one of the truest of blue states boldly laying out an ambitious set of priorities for education reform.  The leader? Dannel Malloy, the governor of Connecticut.
Governor Malloy was sworn into office this past January, elected in a 2010 cycle that wasn’t particularly friendly to Democrats.  Much of his first year has been spent focused on natural disasters and an unmanageable budget.  He addressed the latter in the most unusual of ways for a governor — he both cut spending and raised taxes.  Connecticut is now looking at a potential budget surplus for the year, and that’s following some significant investment in economic strength and jobs creation in the Nutmeg State.
Through it all, Malloy pledged that 2012 would be the “year of education reform.”  He recognized the important that strong public schools played in strengthening the state’s economy.  He knew he couldn’t give it the full attention it needed in year one of his administration.  But in year two, it would be game on.
Yesterday, Malloy threw that first pitch of that ed reform game in Connecticut.  In a bold pronouncement to the state’s legislative leaders, Malloy offered six key principles that would guide the 2012 legislative session.  He urged leaders to act on these six issues — six topics that are intertwined and interconnected to ensure progress.  And he tasked his new Education Commissioner with presenting specific proposals in the next month or so to address these themes.
So what is Connecticut’s new education agenda?
1) Enhance families’ access to high-quality early childhood opportunities
2) Authorize the intensive interventions and enable the supports necessary to turn around Connecticut’s lowest-performing schools and districts
3) Expand the availability of high-quality school models, including traditional schools, magnets, charters, and others
4) Unleash innovation by removing red tape and other barriers to success, especially in high-performing schools and districts
5) Ensure that our schools are home to the very best teachers and principals — working within a fair system that values their skill and effectiveness over seniority and tenure.
6) Deliver more resources, targeted to districts with the greatest need — provided that they embrace key reforms that position our students for success.
Expanding school choice.  Removing red tape.  Valuing educator effectiveness over years on the job.  Focusing resources on the students who need them the most.  This is not a status quo agenda from a typical Democratic politician.  This is the start of an audacious plan focused on actually improving public education for all students, whatever it takes.  These principles can serve as the very model for how a post-NCLB governor of a blue state can take real action steps that get to the heart of what ails our public schools.
Obviously, the devil is in the details.  Connecticut must now look to its State Department of Education to offer up specific policy proposals that ensure effective teachers and principals for all students.  The SDE must move forward ideas on how to fix a school funding formula that has been broken for decades.  And it must do all of this under the reality that there may not be buckets of new money to spend, and we need to expand choice and provide more direct interventions simply by spending existing dollars better than we have in past years. 
While Connecticut is still a long ways from solving its achievement gap crisis and ensuring that all students have access to great public schools, Malloy’s announcement is an important step forward for Connecticut’s students, schools, and the state as a whole.  He has signaled that a Democratic governor in a strong union state can get serious about statewide education reform.  And he has done it in a way that builds on what we have learned from similar efforts in other states, building on the successes and hopefully avoiding the pitfalls.
Yes, Connecticut, we can have an ed reform governor with a real ed reform agenda. 

“My Bright Future”

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools

Frequent readers of this blog know that Eduflack can best be described as a pessimist.  My pop icon hero is Eeyore.  And as I’ve often said, it isn’t even a glass half full/empty issue for me, I want to know who stole my damned water.

But sometimes even I can be moved by true positivity and commitment.  And today is just one of those sorts of moments.  This morning, I had the honor of attending the dedication of the new Amistad Academy facility in New Haven, Connecticut.  Founded in 1999, Amistad was the first charter school launched in the Nutmeg State.  And this new campus, just blocks from Yale University, was a project many, many years in the making.
As impressive as the facility is, it pales in comparison to the kids enrolled in the facility.  There is an enthusiasm, an embrace for learning, and a commitment to success at Amistad that is too often lacking in many other public schools – urban, suburban, and rural.  There is a sense of community and family in the building, from the administrators and teachers to the students and families to the community at large.
What is even more impressive, though, are the results.  Amistad is the cornerstone of non-profit Achievement First’s efforts in Connecticut.  At a time when Connecticut is suffering through the worst achievement gaps in the nation, Amistad and its fellow AF schools are demonstrating real results.  On the 2010 Connecticut Mastery Test of 4th grade reading, math and writing, AF students are passing at 75.2 percent rate.  That is a higher passage rate than the state as a whole, and it is a passage rate more than double that in the cities in which they operate.
We see the same for 8th grade performance on the 2010 Connecticut Mastery Exam.  AF posts a 79.5 percent passage rate, again higher than the overall Connecticut average and nearly double that of the cities in which they operate.
Those trends continue.  Looking at the 2011 state scores, 93 percent of AF 10th graders are proficient in all subjects tested by the state, 10 points higher than the state average and 36 percent higher than the proficiency levels in their host districts.
No, it isn’t all about the test scores.  It is also about every single kid at Amistad intending to go to college.  It is about schools like Amistad working with other public schools in the host district to improve instruction across the board.  And it is about demonstrating the cycles of failure and the absence of opportunity that have long dominated too many of our urban centers can be broken and populated.
Too often, we hear the criticism that charter schools somehow do damage to our public schools.  Such urban legend overlooks the fact that charter schools ARE public schools.  When we see the successes and the energy in schools like Amistad Academy, we are reminded of what is possible in public education.  We are reminded of the network that comprises effective K-12 public education — traditional public schools, charters, magnet schools, and technical/vo-tech institutions.  And we see how such institutions can work together to fulfill the social compact we have extended to offer all children — regardless of race or zip code — access to excellent public schools.
At today’s event, Paige Leigh Brown, a 7th grade scholar at Amistad, presented her poem, “My Bright Future.”  Her poignant words said it all:
You look before you and what do you see?
A bright scholar shining beautifully.
I see myself reflected.
My voice in society projected.
I see myself getting a degree
We should seek such insight and sentiment from every single student who passes through our public schoolhouse doors, whether they be traditional, charter, magnet, or otherwise.  All students should see a bright future.
      

A Great Public School for All Children

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, charter schools, Parents, teachers

For the past four and a half years, Eduflack has written about education reform.  What is working.  What is not.  How successful are we communicating our efforts to improve our public schools.  For the most part, I’ve done so from the cheap seats, observing from the sidelines, watching through the eyes of an observer, a consultant, or an advisor.

This morning, ConnCAN (the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now) formally announced me as its new CEO.  This is a tremendously exciting opportunity.  For years now, I have seen ConnCAN as the gold standard in state-based education advocacy organizations.  From its school report cards to its reports to its community engagement and advocacy, ConnCAN has demonstrated a clear path for how a state (and a nation) can provide a great public school for all children.
More importantly, ConnCAN isn’t shy about tackling the tough issues.  Many organizations in the education sector often struggle with the question of whether it is better to lose big or win small.  Over the years, ConnCAN has been able to win big on issues that matter to real families and real communities.  And its “no fear” attitude allows it to advocate for bigger and more significant agendas each and every year, priorities that can directly impact our communities and our economies.
Through recent efforts, the organization has made clear that the status quo in public education simply cannot stand.  If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, improving opportunities, and providing a great public education to all students, we must take bold steps.  Tinkering around the edges will not cut it.  Real change demands real action.  And that means implementing a school funding formula that addresses the needs of today and tomorrow, not the expectations of the past.  It means a great focus on teacher quality, where every student — regardless of race, socio-economic status, or zip code — has educators who are effective and supported.  And it means a community that is united in its vision to improve the quality of public education for all, recognizing there are NO excuses for achievement and instructional gaps.
I am incredibly fortunate to be working with such a terrific team, each and every one committed to bringing real change and real improvement to our public schools.  I am incredibly fortunate to work with a board equally committed to such improvement.  And I am honored to be working with a network of advocates, friends, partners, teachers, parents, and policymakers all dedicated to improving our schools and charting new, more effective paths to lasting school improvement. 
As the son of educators, I was raised to believe that there was nothing more important than a good education.  Through organizations like ConnCAN, we can clearly see how fixing our schools is possible and the social, economic, and community benefits that come from such a commitment. 
 

The First Day of School

Eduflack 21CS, accountability, charter schools, ELL, national standards, Parents, Students, teachers

Today is a very special day in the Eduflack household.  This morning, the edu-son started kindergarten.  As we walked up North Oak Street toward his elementary school, he was getting a little apprehensive.  For weeks, we had been excited about going to the “hippo school” (the school’s mascot is a purple hippo).  We did a week of “kindergarten orientation” and went last week to meet his new teachers.  But as we walked up the steep hill, I could tell the previous excitement was giving way to some fear about the new.

All those worries evaporated once the edu-son entered his classroom.  Warm hugs from the three teachers who will be manning classroom three this year.  His own hook and cubby to house his new Captain America backpack.  And a seat at the “Lego table” where he immediately started the building process before class even began.
Before this morning, we talked about what the edu-son wanted to learn now that he was in kindergarten.  His expectations were specific and direct.  He wanted to learn to build a robot.  He wanted to learn about outer space, penguins, and sharks.  And he wanted to learn how to make pizza.  After all that, he wanted to learn math.  Sounds like a full academic year.  I just hope his teachers are up for the challenge.
I’ll admit, I was a little misty eyed when I dropped my son off this morning.  He didn’t quite understand what the big deal was (and certainly didn’t know why dad had a tear in his eye).  But as I watched him start his public school career today, I am reminded of a blog post I wrote nearly three years ago, when we brought our daughter home from Guatemala.  At the time, I reflected on my educational hopes and dreams for the edu-daughter (and by extension, my son, who is 18 months older).  
At the time, I laid out 10 tenets for the education I wanted my children to experience.  Three years later, they seem even more appropriate:

What is my vision for my children?  Let me nail Eduflack’s 10 tenets to the electronic wall:

* I want every kid, particularly mine, reading proficient before the start of the fourth grade.  Without reading proficiency, it is near impossible to keep up in the other academic subjects.  And to get there, we need high-quality, academically focused early childhood education offerings for all.

* I want proven-effective instruction, the sort of math, reading, and science teaching that has worked in schools like those in my neighborhood with kids just like mine. 

* I want teachers who understand research and know how to use it.  And I want teachers to be empowered to use that research to provide the specific interventions a specific student may need.

* I want clear and easily accessible state, district, school, and student data.  I want to know how my kids stack up by comparison.

* I want relevant education, providing clear building blocks for future success.  That means strong math and technology classes.  It means courses that provide the soft skills needed to succeed in both college and career through interesting instruction.  And it means art and music right alongside math and reading.

* I want national standards, so if my family relocates (as mine did many times when I was a child), I am guaranteed the same high-quality education regardless of the state’s capitol.

* I want educational options, be they charter schools or magnet schools, after-school or summer enrichment programs.  And these options should be available for all kids, not just those struggling to keep up.

* I want schools that encourage bilingual education, without stigmatizing those students for whom English is a second language.  Our nation is changing, and our approach to English instruction must change too.

* I want a high-quality, effective teacher in every classroom.  Teaching is really, really hard.  Not everyone is cut out for it.  We need the best educators in the classroom, and we need to properly reward them for their performance.

* I want access to postsecondary education for all.  If a student graduates from high school and meets national performance standards, they should gain access to an institution of higher education.  And if they can’t afford it, we have a collective obligation to provide the aid, grants, and work study to ensure that no student is denied college because of finances.

   
As we all experience the start of the new school year, aren’t these tenets that we should expect from all of our schools?   

Saving Our Schools?

Eduflack assessment, charter schools, high-stakes testing, NCLB

Most of those who read the education blogosphere or follow the myriad of edu-tweeters know that this weekend is the “Save Our
Schools” rally in Washington, DC.  On Saturday, teachers, parents, and concerned citizens with gather on the Ellipse.  They are encouraged to “arrive early to enjoy performances, art, and more!” and they are slated to hear from Diane Ravitch, Jonathan Kozol, Jose Vilson, Deborah Meier, Monty Neill, and “other speakers, musicians, performance poets, and more.”  This collection “will encourage, educate, and support this movement.”

For weeks now, we’ve seen the media savvy folks in the Save Our Schools clique use their blogs and Twitter feeds to promote the rally.  Ravitch has been touting it since its inception.  Teacher Ken has written about it on multiple blog platforms.  And Nancy Flanagan has used her perch at Education Week to tout the event, its justification, and its potential significance.
As I’ve written about many times before, successful public engagement is about far more than simply “informing” people on an issue.  Sharing information, as the slated speakers intend to do, is the easiest component of public engagement.  The hard work is affecting outcomes.  How do you move from informing at a rally to building measurable commitment to a specific solution?  How do you mobilize around that specific solution?  And ultimately, how do you successful change both thinking and action related to the issue?
To that end, rather than rehash the points and counterpoints that have been going back and forth, Eduflack simply has a few questions to ask:
* What is the expected turnout for the event?  Noting the “RSVP” function, how many actual attendees will be considered a success?  And how many physical bodies would be considered a failure?
* Will Save Our Schools disclose its funders?
* What are the tangible outcomes coming from the principles?  Does equitable funding mean moving more dollars into failing schools, or can it mean a new formula where funding follows the student?  Where do the dollars for all of the “full funding” come from?  What specific “multiple and varied assessments” are “demanded?”  What exactly do you propose for curriculum development (recognizing the bullets under the principle of curriculum seem to have little do do with actual curriculum development)?
* How does a weekend of speeches, music, and art “draw sustained attention to the critical issues?”
* And why are you following the kiss of death for many recent education movements, opening a “Save Our Schools” store?
I’m all for people have a good, fun time during these hot and humid summer days in our nation’s capital.  But if one is serious about school improvement (setting aside whether SOS’ agenda can be considered “improvement”), you need to offer a little more than arts and crafts.  Set an agenda.  Publicly disclose intentions.  Establish clear, measurable goals and report back on progress.  Allow the same public you are appealing to now to hold you accountable a year from now.  Without that, it is just another fun day in the sun, with chants of “go schools!” between games of ultimate frisbee.  And that gets us no closer to improving student achievement and potential for success.
 

Waiting for ESEA Reauth?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, ESEA, NCLB

New year, same fight.  As we begin the first school week of 2011, EdSec Arne Duncan renews the call for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in today’s Washington Post.  By painting ESEA as the latest and greatest tool in the national push for ed reform, Duncan seems to say that while everyone is waiting for Superman, the Man of Steel is simply waiting for ESEA reauth to take hold.

Duncan’s points are not new, but they are worth reiterating as we head into the latest round of ed policy fights.  
1) Republicans and Democrats have been hard at work on ESEA reauth for the past year (isn’t it more like the past five?), and ESEA is truly a bipartisan issue
2) No one likes failing schools
3) Transparency and data use are good
4) Bubble sheet exams are bad
5) Nine years later, our teachers still aren’t highly qualified
6) We are now facing a sense of urgency to do something about our schools
Perhaps most interesting are Duncan’s insights into what “reform” currently looks like and how it will be embodied in ESEA:
School districts and their local partners in inner cities and rural communities are overcoming poverty and family breakdown to create high-performing schools, including charters and traditional public schools.  They are taking bold steps to turn around low-performing schools by investing in teachers, rebuilding school staff, lengthening the school day and changing curricula.

In partnership with local teacher unions, districts are finding new ways to evaluate and compensate their teachers and staff their schools.  Some districts have reshaped labor agreements around student success — and teachers have strongly supported these groundbreaking agreements. 
If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought these words were written by incoming House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (MN) or perhaps some of the holdovers from George W. Bush’s presidential administration.  Rural ed is back in the discussion, and we are refocused on the achievement gap.  Charters are again central to fixin’ what ails us.  And we have to remind all those involved that we do indeed work with teachers and the teachers unions.
The EdSec is also quick to remind his critics (and those new Tea Partiers arriving in DC this week) that he is not a creature of Washington, noting: “Since coming to Washington, I’ve been told that partisan politics inevitably trumps bipartisan governing.  But if I have learned anything as education secretary, it is that conventional wisdom serves to prop up the status quo — and is often wrong.”
Duncan definitely earns an A for putting forward the sort of rhetoric we need to see at the start of a new, Republican congress.  There is no talk of the need for additional funding or increased budgets.  There is no mention of new programs such as Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation and edujobs.  We are “fixing” NCLB, not overhauling it.  Common Core is barely referenced, and is done so in such a way that most won’t recognize it.  Flexibility and localities are finally to play a greater role in the great ESEA fight.
But the grade for moving such rhetoric into action remains incomplete.  Is the Blueprint being revised to meet some of these new rhetorical priorities?  Is a draft of ESEA ready to be dropped in the legislative hopper as of Wednesday?  What ed programs will ultimately face cuts in the President’s budget next month?  And what regulatory changes can be made now to make ESEA tolerable for the coming year (or years)?
A new year provides Team Duncan with a fresh start to approach an issue Maryland Avenue has been trying to tackle for many years now.  Will ESEA hold the same level of priority on Capitol Hill as it seems to at ED?  Only time will tell.  Today, Duncan signaled a desire to work with the new Republican Congress.  It is a start.

Some Resolutions for 2011

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, ESEA, HQT, i3, international benchmarking, NCLB, Online Education, reading, Reading First, RTT, STEM, stimulus, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

Another year about to go down in the history books.  Are we any closer to truly improving our public schools?  For every likely step forward we may have taken in 2010, it seems to be met with a similar step back.  For every rhetorical push ahead, we had a very real headwind blocking progress. 

So as we head into 2011, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack offers up a few “resolutions” for all on the education reform boat to consider as we start a new year.  We need to come to accept the following:
1.  True reform does not happen at the federal level.  The federal government is an important lever in the school improvement process, offering some necessary financial resources and some bully pulpit language to inspire reform.  But true improvement happens at the state and local levels.  It is about what our SEAs and LEAs do with those resources and whether they embrace the call from the bully pulpit.  Just as all politics is local, so too is all education reform.  Why do you think groups like DFER are so keen on launching new statewide efforts, like the new one in California?
2.  ESEA reauthorization really doesn’t matter.  As much as we want to fret about when ESEA is going to be reauthorized and what will and won’t be included, it doesn’t have much impact on the game at hand.  At the end of the day, EdSec Duncan could work from the current NCLB, make a few tweaks, and be just fine for the next few years.  Those thinking a major sea change is coming with reauth will be sadly mistaken.  If we see reauth this year (put at about 60 percent), expect it to simply be a kinder, gentler NCLB.  Nothing more.
3. Education technology matters.  For years now, we’ve placed ed tech in the perifery when it comes to school improvement, trying to define it as simply the adoption of a particular piece of hardware.  Ed tech needs to be at the center of 21st century school improvement.  It is important to instruction and student achievement, teacher quality, and all-around turnaround efforts.  If we are to realize its impact, we need to ensure it is a non-negotiable in the process.
4. We cannot forget about reading instruction.  Nine years ago, Reading First was born, emphasizing the importance of literacy instruction in the elementary grades.  We cannot boost student test scores and we cannot ensure that all kids are college and career ready if everyone isn’t reading at grade level.  RF taught us a great deal on how to teach reading (and how not to advocate it politically).  Building on those lessons, we need to redouble our efforts to get each and every child reading proficient.  And that now includes focusing on middle and high schools, where too many students have fallen between the cracks.
5. Superintendents matter.  Many of our largest and most influential school districts will experience change at the top this coming year.  These new leaders can’t forget that the role of instructional leader is essential to their success.  Shaking things up is good.  Sweeping out the old is fine.  Doing things differently is great.  But at the end of the day, being a superintendent is all about teaching and learning and measurement.  Magazine covers are nice, but rising test scores are far more rewarding.
6. We still need to figure out what teacher quality is.  Is it just student test scores?  Does it include preservice education requirements beyond HQT provisions?  Are their qualitative factors?  Can we accept a “we’ll know it when we see it” definition?  With increased focus continuing to be placed on the topic of teacher quality, we need a true defition and a true measurement to really launch a meaningful discussion.  We’ve spent too much time talking about what it isn’t or what it shouldn’t be.  It is time to determine what it is.
7. Research remains king.  In 2010, we spent a great deal of money on school reforms and improvement ideas.  Most of these dollars were an investment in hope.  Now it is time to verify.  We need to determine what is working and what is not.  We need to know not just that the money is being spent (as ED typically sees evaluation) but instead need to know what it is being spent on and what is showing promise of success.  We need to redouble our investments in evaluation.  Other sectors have made real advances because of investments in R&D.  It is about time for education to do the same.
8. We need to learn how to use social media in education.  It is quite disheartening to see that states like Virginia are exploring banning teachers from using tools like Facebook with their students.  It is also a little frustrating to see that media like Twitter are still being used for one-way communications.  We need to see more engagement and dialogue through our social media.  An example?  How about more Twitter debates like those between @DianeRavitch and @MichaelPetrilli ?
And as we look forward to the new year, some predictions on what is hot and what is not for 2011.
HOT — Accountability (and its flexibility).  Assessments.  International benchmarking.  Rural education.  Alternative certification.  Special education.  Competitive grants.  Local control.  School improvement.  Local elected school boards.  Online education.
NOT —  Charter schools.  Early childhood education.  21st century skills.  STEM.  ELL.  Education schools.  RttT/i3.  Education reform (yeah, you heard me).  Teachers unions.  Mayoral control.  AYP.  Early colleges.  Edujobs.
Happy new year!  

Are We Still Waiting for Superman?

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, Media, Parents

Back at the start of the fall, the ed reform community was all atwitter about the movie documentary, Waiting for Superman.  Throughout the spring and summer, we had special previews of the movie for reform-minded audiences.  The national release of the movie in September brought effusive articles in national publications on the movie, its message, and the impact it would have on public education throughout the United States.  It seemed everyone was waiting for Superman.

But now that we are a few months from the theatrical release, where exactly are we?  Reviewers on IMdB gave the movie a 7.4 out of 10.  Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 4.1 out of 5, with 86 percent of those who saw it liking it.  But so far it has taken in just over $6 million in ticket sales, making it the 147th most popular movie of 2010.  And it is 20th on the all-time documentary list, currently earning about one-quarter of what An Inconvenient Truth earned at the box office.  At its widest release, it was showing at 330 movie theaters around the country.
We know it was popular in East Coast anchors (and reform cities) like New York and Washington, DC.  But is the movie having the sort of rhetorical and advocacy impact so many expected just three months ago?
Recent media coverage on Superman focuses on whether it is gaining Oscar buzz, not whether it is impacting our public schools.  The “status quoers” who were aghast when Superman first came out are now trying to direct educator attention to movies such as Race to Nowhere.  And while the movie’s producers continue to try drive advocacy through its website, the biggest recent news seems to be the $15 gift card you can get for your school if you buy the Waiting for Superman book at Border’s Books.
It all begs the question, are we still Waiting for Superman?  Is a movie with so much promise or hype (depending on your perspective) having the sort of impact promised during those advance screenings and the sophisticated social media campaigns to drive folks to the theaters?
Back in September, Eduflack questioned whether Superman could deliver on the promise, and move us from a state of awareness (which Superman does a great job of) to one of action.  It isn’t enough to visit a website or to click on a web box to read how important it is to write elected officials.  Change needs goals.  Change needs specific assignments and tactics.  Change needs tick lists to measure progress.  And change needs clear asks that voices from across the country are asking for in pitch-perfect unison.  That’s the only way you reform a system that is so invested in maintaining the status quo.
Perhaps it was too much for us to expect a movie to do all of that.  But there is still the opportunity for someone to harness the interest in Superman and put it to use in a real, honest-to-goodness, social advocacy campaign.  The problems identified in Superman remain.  They won’t be fixed overnight. 

Gutting School Improvement to Keep the Lights On

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, charter schools, RTT, stimulus, teachers

Short-term pain relief or long-term improvement?  That seems to be the choice that is currently facing Congress, as the House debates how to fund “edujobs,” the federal relief necessary to supposedly save hundreds of thousands of teachers’ jobs in this difficult economy.

Earlier this month, Eduflack wrote on the edu-jobs issue and how Congress could get creative in finding the $23 billion needed to protect classroom jobs.  Since then, the edu-jobs issue has gone nowhere.  The U.S. Senate, in particular, seems to lack the fortitude to vote for additional spending, even it was to save the jobs of K-12 teachers.  So edujobs has just been left hanging, with no resolution in sight.
Until this week.  In the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Chairman David Obey has offered plans to move $10 billion in edujobs dollars.  The full text of Congress’ spending plans can be found here, on the House Rules Committee website.  But since the release of the report language, it begged the question — where is Congress finding the money to offset the dollars being spent on edujobs?
It is a question that Alyson Klein over at EdWeek and its Politics K-12 blog has refused to let go of.  Now, Klein has the answers for us.  It seems that, to ease the short-term pain of school districts struggling to meet payroll, that Congress is ready to sacrifice some of its commitment to wholesale school improvement efforts.
According to Klein, much of the money needed to offset the spending for edujobs comes from cuts to existing school improvement efforts.  Chairman Obey and company are planning on pulling $500 million from Race to the Top, $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, and another $100 million from innovation and improvement (which she reads as charter school moneys) to help fund the $800 million in budget offsets Democrats have promised.  
In response, Rep. John Kline (MN), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee referred to the move as exploitation, and said Dems were taking the first chance to “discard education reform.”    
So it begs an important question — is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain?  Is one year of supporting teachers’ salaries worth slashing one-eighth of the RttT pool?  Is it worth eliminating the $200 million increase that the stimulus bill originally gave to TIF?  And is it worth slashing charter dollars after we demanded that states change their charter laws and promote the establishment of more charter schools?
RttT, TIF, and innovation dollars are all long-term investments.  Cutting $500 million from Race, for instance, likely means at least three or four states that won’t be able to participate in the Phase Two program.  Those mid-sized states that could have taken a Race and done some real good with it over the next few years will now lose out.  All to cover salaries for the coming school year (and one coming year only).
What makes such a move dangerous is that this is stopgap; it isn’t a solution.  What happens next year when we need another $10 or $15 billion to help with teachers’ salaries?  And more importantly, what happens with plans to add new phases to RttT or i3?  Once these cuts to education reform efforts are made, it becomes near impossible to restore them.  Supporting teacher pay becomes a long-term obligation, with little opportunity in the near term to add new programs or expand competitive grant programs. 
Without question, it is important that our school districts figure out ways to pay their workforces, both this year and the years to come.  But should that maintenance mean sacrificing real efforts to improve our schools and their outcomes?  Do we really want to get into a position where we are choosing between paying teachers and improving student test scores?  And do we really want the federal government to become more and more responsible for paying salaries in our localities?
 

Doubting ESEA Reauthorization

Eduflack accountability, AYP, charter schools, HQT, NCLB

My name is Eduflack, and I am a natural-born cynic.  All day, I have been reading the unbridled optimism that folks seem to have for a quick and easy reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  In this morning’s Washington Post, House Education and Labor Committee members boldly declare their intentions to begin work on reauth next week.  For Chairman George Miller (CA) and company, it is now full steam ahead.  But I still have my doubts.

Congressional leaders are to be commended for moving forward in a bipartisan fashion.  Last year, few thought we would see Miller and John Kline (MN) work together to move this important issue forward.  Today, House Democrats and Republicans signaled it is time to improve No Child Left Behind and better align the federal law with the priorities and issues that have been moving forward over the past year.  Issues like common core standards, the next iteration of AYP, teacher quality, and charter schools will likely take center stage right quick.
But how realistic are we being in saying that this will get done now, on the express timetable many are expecting?  All parties involved have made clear this needs to be done by summer, in advance of the House of Representatives having to head back home and stand for re-election in November.  This is particularly true of Democrats, many of whom may have to vote for a law that makes life a little tougher for the teachers’ unions that help get them elected every two years.
But let’s be frank about timing.  First off, today’s big announcements are only coming out of the House of Representatives.  We have yet to hear a similarly ambitious agenda from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee or from Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) and Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY).  If we learned anything from issues such as climate change and health care, it is you need both sides of the Hill working in tandem to actually move legislation forward.  The House can have the best of intentions, but unless the Senate is planning the same rapid reauthorization, this bill is going to get bogged down over on the senior circuit.
Second, let’s look at the calendar.  Back in 2001, President George W. Bush made ESEA reauthorization priority number one.  It was his first piece of legislation out of the box and he immediately enlisted the help of folks like Senator Ted Kennedy to move it.  Despite the bipartisanship and the quick movement of both the House and Senate, it still took a full year to get NCLB through.  Granted, 9-11 forced congressional priorities to change in the fall of 2001.  But that team couldn’t get NCLB through in those first eight months.  It is now the second half of February.  Eight months puts us into October, which is completely untenable, particularly since congressional campaigns will begin in earnest come Labor Day.  Can we really reauthorize ESEA in four or five months this time around?  And can we do it when Congress is grappling with healthcare reform, a jobs bill, banking reform, climate control, and the full complement of annual appropriations bills?
Eduflack doesn’t want to be the skunk at this particular garden party, but I do want to be realistic.  I would love to see Congress reauthorize ESEA by summer.  I hope they are able to.  But I also know that the Hill calendar is working against such an effort, particularly with other major issues still pending.  I know that some in Congress may not have the stomach to pass an ESEA that will likely come with increased spending.  I know there are the continuing debates between rural districts and the perceived urban thrust of the last year.  And I know that many of the major issues involving ESEA — standards, AYP, data systems, Title II, and other issues — are not simple ideas that will be fixed in a hearing or two.  So this takes real work.  
Can Miller and Kline get such a bill out of committee by the end of spring?  Yes, absolutely.  Can it be voted out of the House, possibly.  But will we see all of that, along with Senate action and conference committee, happen before our final trip to the beach in September?  I just can’t see it … yet.
So that leaves me with one big question.  Are we talking a wholesale reauthorization of ESEA and all of its Titles or are we talking targeted legislation that focuses on a couple of the big issues?  Are we talking full-blown open-heart surgery or triage?  Are we swinging for the fences or playing small ball?
If it is the former, we may be in for a tough stretch.  If we are working toward the latter, and targeted amendment to NCLB, we could be in business.