I am not ashamed to admit that Eduflack is a Jersey guy, and I don’t just mean that I like Springsteen. I spent many of my formative public school years in New Jersey public schools. I was an altar boy at Holy Name Catholic Church in East Orange. I still dream of those Saturday night visits to Star Tavern pizza in Orange. I was a paperboy for the Newark Star-Ledger, my first paying job. I look fondly on the days when I was fortunate enough to work for U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley. And today, my family makes the trek up to central Jersey (Hamilton, to be exact) for most major holidays and family functions. So while the body may reside in DC, Eduflack’s heart will always be in the Garden State.
As such, I’ve been paying particular attention to recent Race to the Top activities in the state. Back in the fall, the New Jersey Department of Education issued an RFP to find consulting firms who could help it prepare the state’s Race application (as it was not a beneficiary of Gates’ summer grant gifts). Then in November, mere weeks after proposals were due and after Chris Christie defeated incumbent governor Jon Corzine, the state returned all submissions unopened, suspending their engagement. Most saw this as a sign that the SEA was holding off, dumping RttT in the lap of an unprepared Christie administration.
But a funny thing has happened since then. New Jersey Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and her team have been scrambling to complete their application, with every intention of submitting for Phase One consideration. And just yesterday, two weeks before the Phase One deadline, Davy announced her comprehensive plans (and reforms) for making NJ a contender in the Race. The full story can be found in yesterday’s Star-Ledger here.
New Jersey has a compelling story to tell when it comes to education reforms. From the reforms caused by the Abbott decision to some of the bold actions taken by Newark Mayor Corey Booker, there is much to talk about. Yet Jersey lags when it comes to charter schools. And the strength of the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s teachers union, is legendary. All this makes a Race application difficult to write, and even more difficult to enforce should the state win.
Davy focused her remarks yesterday on the adoption of state-of-the-art data systems and school turnaround plans. Calling the plan “aggressive but achievable,” she noted that NJEA was at the table helping to develop the plan (even though NJEA leadership is now voicing objections, particularly to the Race-mandated teacher merit pay provisions). Obviously, this plan is the capstone to Davy’s tenure, representing what she and Gov. Corzine have been working on for years in the area of public education. And for the record, it is a good plan, particularly when you consider the history and politics of public education in the state.
Why all of this expository? Davy’s team will be submitting Jersey’s Race application on the same day that Christie is sworn in as the state’s next governor. It is safe to say that his transition team is not significantly involved in the application development, particularly since Davy did not focus on Christie’s education reform centerpiece — charter schools. So we have a very real possibility of New Jersey charting a course that the incoming powers that be will either be unable or unwilling to actually steer toward. It was a dilemma that Eduflack noted back in November, and now it has become all too real.
So what should Christie do? RttT guidelines say that the application must be endorsed by, among other people, the state’s governor. As of the Phase One deadline, then Gov. Christie’s signature will not be on the application. It may be semantics to some, but at the time of consideration, the New Jersey Race application will not have the endorsement of the state’s sitting governor. So what’s a Jersey governor to do?
If Eduflack were standing in Christie’s shoes on January 19, there is only one inevitable action to take. I would withdraw the state’s Race application. Pull it back from the U.S. Department of Education before it is reviewed and scrutinized. Note that it does not hold the endorsement of the state’s governor … yet. Buy myself some time so my advisors, both in state and out, can help assemble a plan that would utilize that nearly $400 million in possible education support to forward my own plans for education improvement.
(The major wrinkle to all of this, of course, is NJEA. They are now on record as not being thrilled with Davy’s plan. They also led a passionate, expensive, and some say vitriolic non-stop attack against Christie throughout the campaign, trying to paint his as Public Enemy Number One for the state. Rewriting the Race app means likely losing NJEA support entirely (it’s not like they would have a significant seat at the table the second time around). And the state needs the endorsement of the teachers union to put forward an acceptable application. It’s a real damned do/don’t for Christie. Accept the application as is, and live with the plan and NJEA’s role as a driver in it, or pull it back and offer a plan you can truly get behind.)
But if he does withdraw the expected Phase One application, Christie will then have four months to figure out his next move. His Department of Education can begin work sketching out a new vision, building on Davy’s plans for data systems and moderate teacher merit pay while using charters as a major driver for school improvement. He can look to replicate recent reforms in Newark in cities like Trenton. He can show more love to Jersey’s STEM education commitment. He can even look to strengthen the standing of programs like Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools across the Garden State. He has the time and power to craft a Race application that represents his vision and demonstrates the Christie path to improved student learning and test scores.
Or he can be even bolder, and simply decide that New Jersey will not compete in Race to the Top. He can determine that the obligations under standards, assessments, and data systems are too great to manage in this economy with a meager $400 million. He could decree that his education improvement agenda is focused exclusively on the expansion and support of charter schools, and since charters are but a minor part of Race’s intentions, he’s going to go all-in on charters in his own way, and he’ll find the state and private-sector support to make it happen without the federal oversight.
Yes, New Jersey has bigger issues to address than Race to the Top. Christie has to focus immediately on a struggling economy, high taxes, high unemployment, a state pension system out of control, and a populace that has lost confidence in most of its social institutions. Making a bold move on Race, in his first day in office, can signal that Christie is not business as usual. He listened to the state, and knows they are hungry for change. He realizes that today’s struggling parents want a better future for their kids. And that future begins with stronger schools. This may be the one real opportunity he has to truly make his mark on public education, acting now and the refocusing on the state’s economic needs.
From one Jersey boy to another, think about it Mr. Christie. We often complain about what we inherit from the predecessors in our jobs. Rarely are we given the opportunity to change things right out of the gate. RttT is a major commitment for New Jersey. Do you take this opportunity to fo
llow, or to lead through your own bold strategy?
charter schools
How Valuable Are the Race Fire Drills?
In recent months, we have seen state departments of education and state legislatures scurry to make themselves eligible and better positioned to win a federal Race to the Top grant. From knocking down the firewalls between student performance data and teachers to smoothing the path for charter school expansion to adopting common core standards to just demonstrating a hospitable environment for education reform and change, states have been doing anything and everything to gain a better position for the Race.
Earlier this week, Michigan announced sweeping reforms to put them in line with the federal requirements. California is currently debating similar positions (with what seems like growing concerns). And we seem genuine changes in reform culture in states like Indiana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and many others along the way. (Every state, that is, except for the Republic of Texas, which as of yesterday still hasn’t committed to even pursuing RttT, despite the $250K it received from the Gates Foundation to prepare its application.)
But one has to ask, is it another tale of too little, too late? In November, the U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive scorecard of how RttT applications would be scored, breaking down allotments so specifically that it included everything but throwing out the low score from the Ukrainian judges. Every state is working off the same 500-point scale, building a workplan that aligns as closely with Arne Duncan’s four pillars as humanly (or bureaucratically) possible. We’re working toward extra points for STEM and for charter schools and for demonstrating a general culture of reform. And we’re growing more and more mindful of how those points break down, recognizing, for instance, that STEM and charters are worth virtually the same score as turning around low-performing schools.
Often overlooked in the discussion, though, is the fact that 52 percent of a state’s RttT application is supposed to be based on past accomplishment and achievement. So for all of those states who just recently removed the caps and changed the charter laws, will they only earn half-credit for their plans for the future, or do we recognize them for the intent of their efforts? What about those states, like California, New York, and Wisconsin, that are just now taking down those data firewalls? Are they out of luck when it comes to evaluating their past performance? And will ED reviewers really dock Texas 80 points (nearly 15 percent of the total score) for not signing onto common standards, when Texas’ state standards may already be closely aligned with where the NGA/CCSSO effort is ultimately headed? Is the 52/48 split a hard-and-fast rule, or is it meant as a guiding suggestion to states to shape how they write they apps, with ED officials hoping to see equal focus on what states have done in these areas and what they are planning to do in the future?
If we believe the former, we are looking at a very, very select group of states that are qualified to win RttT in the end. How many states come to the table with real, tangible, and longitudinal successes on all four of the pillars of Race? How many can really talk about their strong work in effective data systems? How many have really invested in meaningful teacher quality efforts, including state-led teacher incentive pay programs? How many are doing what their legislatures and SEAs have now committed them to do in the future (and more importantly, how many can prove it)?
If the projections are true, 80 percent of states will be submitting their Phase One applications later this month. If we are lucky, we’ll have more than four states actually win in Phase One. (that, my friends, is where Eduflack is setting the Phase One over/under) What will happen to those states that either are not called for oral defenses in March or fail to wow their dissertation panels? Do those states go back to the drawing board, and try to turn around a winning app in 30-60 days, or do they lick their wounds, move on, and say they never really wanted the grants in the first place?
Only time will tell. Regardless, Race has been effective for the enormous influence it has had on changing state laws and policies without doling out a single dollar to support the changes. We have already changed the culture of public education in the last 12 years, at least in terms of regulation and legislation. If a state fails to win the Race, they are unlikely to go back and reinstitute the firewalls, re-restrict charters, or pull out of the common core standards movement. Maybe that was the intent all along …
Jockeying for Race’s Post Position
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education released the list of all states that have indicated that they will file Phase One applications under Race to the Top. Each of these states hopes to submit a comprehensive application that highlights both their successes to date and their plans for the future on areas such as academic standards, assessments, data systems, teacher and principal quality, school turnaround, charter schools, and STEM, to name the highlights. And they each hope to be awarded a “big cash prize” before we get too deep into the spring of 2010 and before the merriment of commencement commences.
What states are planning on having their state departments of education work around the holiday clock to complete these RttT applications? ED has received letters of Phase One intent from the following:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Of the 15 states receiving significant help from the Gates Foundation to prepare their applications, 13 are planning on Phase One apps. Not surprisingly, Texas is not on the early intent list (as the Republic of Texas is likely trying to figure out how to make up points for the big dings it will take over its resistance to common core standards. Surprisingly, North Carolina has NOT indicated its intent to submit in Phase One, despite the Tar Heel State’s reputation for being a true leader in education reforms over the past three decades.
Other surprises? Eduflack finds it interesting that both New Jersey and Virginia are intending to file for Phase One, meaning that both states will submit their apps before their new governors of different political parties than the currents take office in January. It is particularly surprising since Eduflack heard that the Garden State had originally issued an RFP to hire consultants to assist with its application, and then returned all proposals, unopened, after the November gubernatorial election. That likely means that Jon Corzine’s team is putting together a comprehensive plan that Chris Christie’s team (which will bring a SLIGHTLY different perspective to education reform) may have to live with.
While the official RttT scoring makes clear that past accomplishments are worth more points than plans for the future, we see a number of states that have made major changes in recent months (firewalls, charter caps, etc.) just to be compliant with Race requirements. States like California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin will have to demonstrate — in just a few short weeks — that recent legislative action is the culmination of a commitment to school improvement, and not simply fast action to win some quick money.
And who is missing from the list, besides North Carolina? Rhode Island is not there, probably indicating that State Supe Deborah Gist is working to do it right (with regard to detailing her aggressive reform agenda in a few hundred pages of prose). But otherwise, the early app list reads like a list of those most likely to win and those most hopeful to win a major prize.
In recent interviews RttT Czar Joanne Weiss has indicated that a number of states will be rejected in Phase One. What is yet to be told is if those states will be given a second bite of the apple in Phase Two. The numbers don’t lie. Most states will be requesting the max, except for those states like Colorado which will be asking for more than their assigned category allows for. That means that we are likely looking at a dozen state winners, max, assuming that only half of the Group A states (California, Florida, New York, Texas) win an award (and we all know that Florida has already all but locked up one of those spots).
For those states looking to jump in first, is it a strategic decision, as they hope to get at the money before much has been doled out? It is a tactical decision to just get the app off their plates before the new budget season starts up? Or is it an act of desperation, with states needing the money to keep their forward progress? Time will tell. Clearly, there are likely to be more disappointed faces in this early applicant pool than there will be excited winners. And just think of the added stress to those states waiting to submit in the spring.
UPDATE — Late Wednesday evening, Eduflack heard from Glenn Kleiman, the Executive Director of the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation and Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at North Carolina State University’s College of Education. Professor Kleiman said “NC has planned to submit all along and we have the proposal well underway. The USED letters of intent were optional, and don’t tell anyone whether or not a state will actually apply.” For the record, Eduflack never doubted that North Carolina would apply, the issue is whether the state would apply in Phase One. Professor Kleiman hasn’t answered that directly, but I suspect that such a response suggests that Phase One is indeed in the cards for Carolina. So where is the harm of North Carolina filing a two-paragraph letter announcing its intent (particularly when everyone knows they are applying)?
The Race Officially Begins … Now
At 9 p.m. this evening, the starting gun for the Race to the Top officially started. While many states are already laps into their applications (and many may even be running in the right direction), the U.S. Department of Education officially released the RFP, along with some interesting insights as to how applications will be scored moments ago.
So what are we looking at? We’ve essentially whittled 80 pages of a draft RFP into an “easy-to-read” 14-page summary. The four pillars of the Duncan regime remain the same (standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround). To win, states must have no barriers to linking student achievement data to teachers and principals for the purpose of evaluation. The timetable is as projected back in the early fall, with Phase One applications due in mid-January (to be awarded in April 2010) and Phase Two apps due June 1 (to be awarded September 2010). But we’ve added two bidders’ conferences scheduled for next month in Denver and DC. So there are some new factoids here.
In addition to the four pillars, RttT lays out six additional priorities:
* Comprehensive approach to education reform (an absolute priority)
* Emphasis on STEM (a comprehensive preference priority)
* Innovations for improving early learning outcomes
* Expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems
* P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment
* School-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning
Of these priorities, only STEM is worth extra points on the scoring, offering an all-or-nothing 15-point bonus to those states with both a clear record and clear plan for STEM education. (That 15 points represents 3 percent of the total score.) The others are general value-adds or reflected in other larger scoring buckets.
So what does that overall scorecard look like? What’s the rubric on which states will be evaluated?
States are working toward a max of 500 points (including STEM emphasis). “State success factors” represent 125 points, or 25 percent of the total score. These factors include how well the state’s reform agenda is articulated, whether the state has infrastructure to implement the agenda, and its ability to demonstrate success in raising student achievement and closing the achievement gap. “Standards and assessment” is good for 70 points, or 14 percent, essentially measured by adopting common core standards and developing the assessments to measure against those standards. “Data systems to support instruction” is worth 47 points (9 percent) and is focused on the longitudinal data systems all are talking about.
“Great teachers and leaders” are worth 138 points, or a whopping 28 percent, and while it continues to focus on teacher quality and effectiveness, this time around it has a far greater emphasis on principal quality and effectiveness. “Turning around the lowest-achieving schools” is worth only 50 points, or 10 percent of the total. “General” collects the remaining 55 points (11 percent), with most points coming from ensuring conditions for high-performing charter schools “and other innovative schools.”
As these 500 points are broken down, ED is giving slight emphasis to what states have already done (52 percent of the score), or their “Accomplishments” versus 48 percent of the score coming for “Plans” for the future. So that’s an interesting wrinkle for those who are trying to build a new reform city on their old education hill.
In announcing the RFP, ED says it reviewed the nearly 1,200 responses (1,161, actually) that were submitted to the draft, and made changes reflecting the ideas put forward by those concerned citizens and groups. But despite a 12-page document prepared by ED on the “major changes” that have been made to the RFP, the final looks remarkably similar to the original draft that sparked so much interested many months ago. Yes, there are some changes, including the highlight that states should use multiple measures to evaluate teachers and principals. School district buy-in also plays a larger role in the final than it did in the draft. But while some of the definitions have changed, the overall goals, tenor, and vision remains whole. It seems ED has clarified some of the gray areas from the first go-around, but hasn’t quite changed those issues that many found objectionable or fraught with potential problems. Based on many of the comments Eduflack has read, there are going to be a significant number of disappointed organizations out there, even among the traditional ed reform circles.
So what do we make of all of this? First off, it is clear that those with the dreaded teacher firewalls are going to have a hard time meeting the point threshold. So California, Nevada, New York, and possibly Wisconsin may have some problems. Signing on the dotted line for core standards is also a must, so Texas and South Carolina may be on the outside looking in as well. But it seems ED has softened its overall approach to “my way or the highway,” making firewalls and common standards the only true non-negotiables for winning a grant.
Eduflack is most interested by the emphasis on accomplishments, though. We’ve heard a great deal about what states are doing right now to better position themselves for Race. The thought seems to be that a new coat of paint on the ole education system would provide more curb appeal and give the impression that a state is “reform minded.” But with the final scoring, ED is making clear that Race states are those with both a strong track record on improvement and innovation and a desire to ratchet up current work to the next level. This is not a start-up enterprise, with states needing to demonstrate a proven and ongoing investment in the four pillars prior to the RttT announcement.
And what does this mean for the total number of winning states? We’ve heard everything from four or five total winners to upwards of 40 states getting a taste of the winner’s circle. Based on the summary and documents circulating this evening, Eduflack suspects it will be somewhere in between. In Phase One, we’re likely to see four or five winners, stacked mostly by those states in the Gates Foundation’s Top 15 list. Phase Two will probably see another dozen or so, giving us 20 or so total winners. Interestingly, there will be time for Phase Two applicants to see who wins Phase One and make some final changes to their apps before submitting in June. (And we should also note that ED cites $4 billion available for RttT, with the remaining $350 million going to support the development of assessments aligned with core standards, funding that is being discussed at ED-sponsored public forums this month.)
Regardless, the 500-point scorecard is going to have many states (particularly those Gates-incentivized states that have been feverishly writing their apps believing the draft RFP would be final are going to be scurrying the next two months to revise and extend their remarks. Teacher and principal quality is priority one, with strong explanation of state success factors a very close second. The two represent more than half of the total score. Standards, assessments, and data systems clock in for nearly another 25 percent. School turnarounds are worth only 10 percent, with charter school conditions worth almost the same amount as overall commitment to turnaround efforts. And those states that are already invested in STEM (like Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) need to take advantage of the 15 percent bump their track record provides.
How many points will it take to win the Race? That’s to be determined. We still don’t know what curve states will be scored on. But at least
we are now clear on distance, terrain, and other Race conditions. The gun has officially sounded …
we are now clear on distance, terrain, and other Race conditions. The gun has officially sounded …
New Governors in the Race
Undoubtedly, much of the next few days will be spent dissecting yesterday’s off-year elections and their greater meaning for healthcare reform, the 2010 congressional races, and the 2012 presidential campaigns. What does it mean for Republicans to take back the Virginia governor’s seat? How painful will the Democrats’ gubernatorial loss in New Jersey be? Why was the NYC mayor’s race closer than most expected? These are all questions that will (and already have) been raised in the past 12 hours.
But Eduflack has a far more specific question to ask. How do changes in executives in the Old Dominion and the Garden State impact Race to the Top? It is no secret that both New Jersey and Virginia and busily working on their RttT applications, most likely planning on submitting their prose to the U.S. Department of Education as part of Phase I submissions in early January 2010. Most likely, the respective state departments of education have already invested hundreds of staff hours to prepare their applications, even while we wait on the final RttT RFP to be released by ED later this month. And they have carefully negotiated the support of the governor’s office, the chief state school officer, the state board of education, and the teachers’ unions to put as unified a plan forward as humanly possible.
So what happens when the governorship changes party, and thus shifts priority? Clearly, Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell has a very different approach to school improvement than current Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, particularly with regard to charter schools. New Jersey’s recent victor, Chris Christie, differs with NJ Gov. Jon Corzine in just about every policy way. McDonnell and Christie will be bringing in new secretaries of education and will be working to get their own people on state boards and in other positions of authority. And neither is going to have the NEA or the AFT on their call list over the next few months.
When it comes to RttT, does Corzine’s education team sit down with Christie’s transition team to make sure the new governor is on board when it comes to the state application? How about Kaine and McDonnell? Both incoming Republican governors will be wholly responsible for implementing the Race plans (as they are four-year grants slated to begin soon after both men take office). As such, will they be given any input into the grant’s final development, or will they be forced to live with whatever plan is put forward by their predecessors?
We’d like to believe that Kaine/McDonnell and Corzine/Christie can work together on formulating their Race applications, or at least agree on the broad strokes. But the cynic in me knows that that will never happen, and that’s a cryin’ shame. I’m guessing that Race isn’t high on the list of either outgoing governor’s to-do list, leaving it to the folks in his respective SEA. And neither will be looking to do his successor any favors. So both Virginia and New Jersey will move full steam ahead with their apps, doing what they intended and doing what aligns with the last four years of policy in their respective states, and not the next four years. Of all the issues on the table, McDonnell and Christie likely won’t raise Race as a major transition issue (though they should, when one considers the financial implications of meeting grant requirements that move well beyond the dollars coming from ED).
That being the case, is ED already starting to think about how they will deal with proposed changes to Race priorities after applications have been submitted or even approved? Beyond these two states, what happens if new governors have new ideas for how Race money can be spent after the 2010 elections? What happens if state legislatures have major changes in demographics next year? What happens if more governors win the right to appoint their own state boards of education?
In my home state of Virginia, for instance, charter schools remain a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. On paper, the Old Dominion has one of the best charter school laws in the nation, with no caps, no restrictions, and basically unfettered opportunity to create such alternatives across the state. In practice, though, charter opponents just choose not to enforce the spirit of the law. Only a handful of charters exist across the state, with state and local officials finding ways to stymie their growth and establishment.
Race makes clear that charter schools are a key component to the federal plan for school improvement and turnaround. ED officials expect significant dollars to go to the cultivation of a strong public charter school network. And Virginia Gov.-elect McDonnell has made charters a centerpiece of his K-12 education agenda. So if the Kaine team chooses to overlook charters in their Race app (other than emphasizing the openness of the current state law and how it meets RttT provisions), does McDonnell and his incoming team have the opportunity to make adjustments to throw a greater spotlight on charter development in Virginia? Will the incoming governors have to honor the spirit of the state’s Race application or the letter?
Based on the timetables, McDonnell and Christie will likely be given no opportunity to impact their state’s Race applications. Those are in process now, and few have the heart (after tough elections in both states) to open things back up and start over, particularly with a team that has just put them out of a job. But both incoming governors will be responsible for distributing Race money to school districts across the state, and both will be responsible for determining how the state spends their dollars on the standards, assessments, and accountability called for in the grant.
Both New Jersey and Virginia made marked shifts in their executive leadership last evening, both overall and with regard to public education (particularly K-12). What’s left to be seen is how the rhetoric of the last year will translate into the policies of 2010, and whether either wants to start one of their first fights on the topic of education and the spending of federal ed dollars. If they do, charters are likely to be the first battlefield, with teacher incentives (and a showdown with the teachers’ unions who fought so hard to defeat them this fall) coming quickly on its heels. Let the fireworks begin!
Playing Games with LA’s Future
For more than a year now, we have been hearing about the dire financial state of public education in California. We’re ridden a roller coaster of threats of massive teacher layoffs and a two-year ban on the purchase of any textbooks or instructional materials. We’ve viewed district after district struggle to meet the school equity requirements placed on them by the courts. And we’ve witnessed state officials dance a West Coast two-step to quickly eliminate the barriers to additional federal education funding. And even though California has spent more of its education stimulus dollars, percentage wise, than any other state in the union, schools in the Golden State are still hurting and are still facing tough decisions and even tougher cuts.
Fortunately, Cali Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has now stepped up to make a major investment in the future of the state, or at least in the future of the greater Los Angeles area. In the name of creating jobs, growing the economy, and strengthening the community, the guvernator yesterday signed a bill that could deliver upwards of a billion dollars to the City of Angels, money that would be coupled with a $150 million bond pledged by the business community.
Unfortunately, not a dime of these funds will ever see an LA classroom or be used to help an LA teacher improve their craft and meet the new demands being placed on our public schools. Not a dollar of it is doing to school improvement or innovation. And not a penny will go to support Los Angeles’ blossoming charter school movement. No, the entire kitty is designated to go an build a new football stadium for the city, a stadium for an NFL football team that does not exist. The full story can be found here.
Why does this matter? In these tough economic times, we have to make choices. Schwarzenegger signed the controversial spending bill claiming that this stadium investment would generate jobs and bring an economic boost to Los Angeles. Noble goals, yes. But there are few facts to back it up. Even since the renaissance of baseball stadium construction launched two decades ago in Baltimore, we have heard how new sports stadiums result in jobs and economic development. But in study after study, researchers have found that such impact lasts only as long as the construction cranes are on site. Once the venue opens to the public, the economic impact is complete. Jobs are temporary, manifest in the construction itself. Then the community goes back to normal. That’s why cities have shied away from paying the tab for such construction projects in recent years, leaving it to the teams that will enjoy the long-term benefits of a shiny new stadium.
In an era where dollars are in short supply in California, if the goal is really to invest in job creation and economic strength, is this really the best investment for the citizens of Los Angeles? Right now, the state is trying to move heaven and earth to get Race to the Top dollars, following the belief that these dollars can serve as make or break for the future of California education. If successful, RttT would likely result in a few million dollars a year for four years to LAUSD. Yes, LAUSD’s cut of a successful RttT grant likely won’t even cover the laundry costs for the school district’s athletic teams.
Imagine what would be possible if they could muster the strength to move this $1 billion from a stadium that may be used on any given Sunday and instead invest it in LAUSD. One billion to ensure that LA students are gaining the skills and knowledge they need to hold 21st century jobs. One billion to improve high school graduation rates. One billion to demonstrate the relevance of K-12 education to the futures of K-12 students. One billion to truly innovate and improve. A $1 billion targeted investment at what LA public schools need the most.
Football stadiums may be the sexy choice, but they’ll break your hearts and empty your wallets. If the goal is to create jobs and strengthen the economy, it doesn’t take a Vegas oddsmaker to tell you that the schools are a far better bet than a new stadium. Years from now, LA will have its new stadium (which may or may not remain empty), but how many area kids will have the high school diplomas, skills, and jobs necessary to enjoy a beautiful LA Sunday afternoon in its friendly confines?
From the Mouths of TFAers
When Eduflack was a very green Capitol Hill staffer, a wise veteran imparted some basic advice that I have not forgotten now going on almost two decades. Never talk in an elevator. Capitol Hill is one of those places where people (the unelected, of course) like to make themselves seem far more important than they really are. They brag to friends and strangers alike about the legislation they’ve “written” their “access” to leadership, and other attributes that make working on the Hill so appealing.
The advice was offered as we were listening to a legislative assistant talk about the counsel they were providing a particular senator. As we were both intimately familiar with the issue and the senators involved, we knew the story was hogwash. The lesson to me was simple. Don’t talk in an elevator. You never know who is listening, and you never know what life such elevator tales will take on. And all of this was before the regular use of the Internet and our happy go lucky blogs and tweets.
After a recent flight from Charlotte to Washington, DC, I would add never talk on an airplane to the list. Typically, I want to be ignored on a plane. Introvert that I am, I don’t want to engage in conversation, and I don’t want people to engage with me. I want to be left alone with my readings and perhaps a quick game of Book Worm on my iPhone, using the confines of that flying tube to gain a few free moments where I don’t have to focus exclusively on work and the outlying issues that surround it. But this flight just wouldn’t let me bury my head in a few newspapers and start thinking about the next day.
For this flight, I was seated directly in front of a regional manager from Teach for America. As luck would have it, he was a chatter, as was the businessman seated next to him. TFA was asked what he did for living. He stated he worked for an education non-profit called Teach for America. The businessman clearly had never heard of the organization, so he inquired as to whether it was a new group and if it was surviving in the current economy. I think Mr. TFA (who was part of the very first teacher cohort) was surprised that there was someone who had not heard of Teach for America. So he went on to provide a wealth of interesting tidbits and bragging points to demonstrate that Teach for America was not your average bear education not-profit.
Of course, Eduflack’s ears perked up, interested to hear how this Teach for America executive (I believe he was a regional manager for sites in a number of states in the south and southwest) would begin describing an organization so well known in education circles to someone so unfamiliar with it. Some of the highlights:
* Teach for America recently embarked on a $142 million fundraising drive, and has already raised more than $149 million
* Teach for America’s new strategy is to reach out to more and more charter schools, seeing them as a quicker point to help close the achievement gap. “There are a lot of good charter schools and a lot of bad charter schools,” he explained. The key was to find schools that would buy Teach for America whole cloth. And in his eyes, KIPP can do no wrong.
* Teach for America is beloved and has never run into any opposition. In fact, Boston is the first and only school district where any teachers have ever had any problems whatsoever with Teach for America coming in. And isn’t that just short-sighted of them.
* Teach for America is becoming so selective that it recently determined a student who “wrote” the new University of Virginia financial aid policy was a questionable candidate. (As an alum of Mr. Jefferson’s alma mater, I won’t get into the number of underlying issues here)
* The ranks of devout Christians joining Teach for America is growing by the day, in large part because the work of a Teach for America teacher is so demanding that they need the supports that their beliefs provide them to do their secular work well.
What I found most interesting, though, was that the notion of recruiting and placing teachers didn’t come up until nearly 10 minutes into the conversation. Teach for America was about school improvement. It was about closing the achievement gap. It was about partnering with schools who couldn’t fix themselves. It was about the organization serving poor communities and black communities and such. But the notion of teachers (and teaching for that matter) didn’t come up until deep in the conversation, when Mr. TFA wanted to demonstrate how exclusive and competitive Teach for America slots were. Then he began discussing how they place only the best college graduates in schools that need their help, making clear they did not want students who attended education schools or formally studied education.
Now I’m not naive, I realize that Mr. TFA was trying to play to his audience (and certainly had no idea that Eduflack was sitting two feet in front of him). He read his seatmate as a good southern Christian who believed in school choice, so he tried to play up those issues. But listening to the whole conversation (which ran for almost half of the flight), I was struck by how “off message” Mr. TFA was. Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is a Teach for America fan. I believe that TFA plays an important role in school improvement, both literally and rhetorically. But this certainly isn’t the way that Wendy Kopp talks about her organization. This isn’t the way TFA has been positioned in education improvement discussions. And it certainly isn’t how the org is depicted as it moves into countries like India and Australia.
Teach for America is an organization that prides its good press (and moves heaven and earth to deal with any media that is just the tiniest bit critical). It is a group that has an incredible network of alumni and advocates who would do anything and everything to protect the TFA brand and promote the TFA mission. But as a fly on the wall, it seems that a little message discipline may be in the works for Teach for America. A cynical listener, unfamiliar with Teach for America, could have listened to this conversation and heard that TFA had just raised $150 million to move smart, motivated devout Christians into public charter schools across the country. Does that sound like the Teach for America we have all grown to know and love?
I’d willing to chalk the experience up to a green TFAer excited about the program, but I know he has been part of the TFA family since the beginning, an original corps member who moved into a leadership position (at least this current one) years ago. If this is what we’re hearing from seasoned TFA vets, what else is being said out there? Perhaps it is time for Kopp and company to warn their staff about speaking on elevators and airplanes … or at least to only do so once they have the corporate messaging and stump speech down.
Hold On, ESEA Reauth is Coming
Likely one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, DC, the U.S. Department of Education is now hard at work on draft language for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. EdSec Arne Duncan started the ball bouncing last week, bringing together the education blob to talk about his reauth priorities, including increasing funding for key NCLB components, taking some of the nastiness out of the current law, and codifying some of the policies that have been moved forward under the stimulus package.
As Eduflack has heard from many folks this week, the plan is to introduce ESEA reauthorization in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in January 2010. The goal will be final passage of the federal ed law before the Memorial Day recess. House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) will likely serve as the lead dog moving the bill through Congress in Q1 of next year.
Why is this significant? For months now, those opposed to NCLB have been wishing, hoping, and projecting that reauthorization wouldn’t move until 2011. They offered up a host of reasons for this misguided belief, most of which aren’t worthy of dissection here. The simple fact is that NCLB opponents need reauthorization to be put off until 2011 because they simply aren’t ready to fight the good fight on federal ed policy in a few months. The “loyal opposition” is not gathered around a few key points. They haven’t adopted a common language of change. They don’t necessarily have reccs on how to improve the law to meet their needs. They know they don’t like NCLB, and likely won’t like NCLB 2.0. They know what they are opposed to, but don’t necessarily know what to stand for … at least not yet.
Most presume that the new ESEA will not be a major change from the current law. The new bill will still emphasize accountability and student achievement, but will provide greater flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to achieve it. The stick of AYP will be whittled down to a nub before all is said and done. Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) will be redefined, focusing on the effective teachers emphasized in Race to the Top and de-emphasizing the checklist of what is needed simply to enter a classroom. New Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will ensure that special education, RtI, and IDEA will get greater attention than in the previous iteration. Charter schools will continue to remain strong. Teacher incentives will see increased funding. And we may even see Reading First transformed from an elementary grades program to a more comprehensive effort focused on middle and secondary students. While the law will most likely be bucketed around the priorities of standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround, the details will be a reorganization of NCLB components, not a reinvention.
When the EdSec outlined these priorities (and emphasized the need for equity in public education) his remarks were well-received in most corners of the education community. The strongest voice of opposition came from the Forum for Education and Democracy, who took Duncan to task for seeking to narrow the curriculum, lacking details on real teacher quality, and staying true to current accountability provisions. The comments from Forum head Sam Chaltain were even distributed under the header, “you can’t just invoke MLK, Jr. – you have to really address fairness and equity.” So it is clear where they shake out with regard to the future of ESEA. And at the end of the day, the Forum speaks for more than itself (at least in terms of philosophy).
National Education Association’s strong response to the draft Race to the Top RFP guidance still serves as the best primer for those who want to make significant change to ESEA, particularly if they want to move the law back to where it stood in the 1990s. In fact, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel upped the ante yesterday when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he called for a better distribution of exemplary teachers in struggling schools (with additional pay for such moves likely to be the second shoe to drop in his noble pursuits).
Barring the completely unforeseen, Chairman Miller is going to get this reauthorization through before this time next year. And if I were taking bets, the current line is that the draft legislation dropped in January is going to be pretty darned close to the final that will be passed (with some additional dollars thrown into the mix for some to swallow the policy priorities). If folks think they are truly going to influence ESEA and shape federal education policy for the next decade, now is the time to act. Now is the time to have voices heard at ED and on the Hill about priorities and lines in the sand. Now is the time to make clear what support or opposition will be based on. Now is the time to form those alliances and determine what the truly make-or-break issues may be.
ESEA reauthorization is going to be a fast-tracked affair. The first five months of 2010 are going to be spent winning folks over to the proposed law, not looking for alterations, changes, and overhauls to months of work at ED and in Chairman Miller’s office. Those waiting to engage after the draft legislation is introduced will likely miss the show before the curtain is even raised.
Digging Deeper into Deep Dive
While it has taken a back seat to Race to the Top talk (and is shouldn’t since it is worth far more to the winning school districts than any RttT or i3 innovation), folks are still waiting to see who the Gates Foundation will award their Deep Dive teacher improvement grants to. Earlier this fall, the pool was narrowed down to five — Pittsburgh, Memphis, Hillsborough County (FL), Oklahoma City, and a consortium of charter schools in Los Angeles. The talk has long been the four winners will split the $500 million Gates is committing to the project.
On several occasions, Eduflack has asked why we continue to refer to an unnamed consortium of charter schools in the City of Angels, and just come out and say Green Dot. Seems the logical choice, based on Gates’ ongoing support for Green Dot, current plans to expand the charter network on the East Coast, and the favor with which Green Dot is held by Duncan and his crew at ED.
But an Eduflack reader has recently pointed out that Green Dot is but part of the teacher quality petri dish that Gates is looking for in Los Angeles. They are using the consortium of charter schools language to describe plans to invest in a group of charter school organizations out on the left coast. Should LA win, the likely recipients of Deep Dive dollars would include LA-area schools led by the Alliance for College Ready Public Schools, Aspire, the Inner City Education Foundation, Partnership to Uplift Communities, and, yes, Green Dot.
And how much will these trailblazing charters have to spend on the identification, cultivation, instruction, and incentivization of effective teaching? That still seems to be up in the air. Since the Deep Dive plan was first discussed earlier this year, we’ve been hearing four districts, $500 million. Dear ole Eduflack did fairly well on the math portion of his SATs way back when, and my abacus tells me that works out to about $125 million per Deep Dive district.
In yesterday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there is an interesting story about how Pittsburgh is working to provide a new contract for whiz superintendent Mark Roosevelt, whose contract is set to expire in a year and a half. The full piece can be found here, but the article cites that Pittsburgh is being fast-tracked for Gates Deep Dive money, and has requested $50 million for its teacher efforts.
So it begs the question. If the finalists are requesting a specific amount of dollars for their plan, instead of working under the assumption of an equal allocation of the pot, what will happen to the excess money in the fund? Will the four winners go back for additional rounds of funding? Will Gates open up a phase two to other districts who try to model what the first cohort is doing? Will some districts, like Pittsburgh seek $50 million while others look for $150 or $200 million for their ideas?
Regardless, this is A LOT of money going into a few districts to focus on teacher quality. And it is far, far more than even the best district can hope to gain through RttT or other federal programs. Significant eyes will be on the winners and their plans, with many a reformer (and a status quoer) expecting to see immediate results. Unfair? Yes. But in our rush for broad and immediate school improvement, we don’t have time for programs to mature and develop. We need our results now. Pittsburgh, Green Dot, and others are going to have high expectations to reach with those oversized Gates checks.
Data Use in Our Nation’s Capital
Last evening, Eduflack had the honor of testifying before the District of Columbia State Board of Education on DC’s student assessment scores and how they can be used in state-level policy development. For those unawares, DC is an interesting case study in education system structure. DC is both a State Education Agency (SEA) and a Local Education Agency (LEA). The DC State Board serves as a state board in Massachusetts, Texas, or California would, and the SEA is headed by former U.S. Department of Education official Dr. Kerri Briggs. The SEA is responsible not only for DC Public Schools, but also for the growing number of charter schools in our nation’s capital (with nearly a third of the District’s students attending charters, it is quite some job for the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)).
I was the closing act for a three-part hearing. The panel first heard from Mike Casserly, the chief of the Council of Great City Schools, who spoke to what other urban school districts are doing with their assessments and their data. Then they heard a detailed presentation from State Superintendent Briggs and her staff, providing far greater detail on the DC-CAS numbers than was originally provided by the Mayor and Chancellor Rhee back in July. Yours truly followed up the rear.
For readers who recall, I was harsh on DCPS back in July when they released the initial numbers. I was concerned that student achievement, on the whole, ticked up, but there was a drop in AYP. I was worried by Rhee’s comments about picking the low-hanging fruit to achieve those gains, knowing such fruit is now gone for later year replication. And I was worried about declaring victory based on one or two years of data, when four or five years of real, substantive data is really necessary to see the true impact of reforms.
I was impressed with the probing questions the DCSBOE asked of OSSE and of the data, particularly its persistence in asking for greater disaggregation and a better understanding of what they do with what they have. So what, exactly, did little ole Eduflack recommend to the District’s education leaders? I can break it down into five key points.
1. The District should be reassured by the numbers presented by OSSE. After further reflection and additional breakdowns, we can see that specific schools in DC are indeed trending up (though there are still some worry spots). More importantly, DC is breaking the national cycle and is really making some progress in closing the achievement gap. Both black and Hispanic achievement numbers were on the rise, while white student achievement remained relatively flat (noting, though, that only 5 percent of DC schoolchildren are white).
2. The most important data sets for DCSBOE to be concerned with should not be DC-CAS, but rather NAEP and NAEP-TUDA. These data sets are the most accurate yardstick for determining how DC’s students are doing. The District needs to better use the NAEP data, better slicing and dicing it to really understand what the data means and how it can be applied. DC also needs to avoid falling victim to the typical NAEP horserace games. This is not about trying to catch Massachusetts in eighth grade reading NAEP or trying to outdo Atlanta in NAEP-TUDA. DC needs to look at the data, look at the gaps, and set clear goals based on where DC is, and where they want it to head.
3. As important as assessments are, Superintendent Briggs is correct. It makes little sense to rework DC’s tests before core standards are complete and we know what new skills and benchmarks we are supposed to be measuring. But rather than focusing on the assessment tool itself, DC needs to start taking a far closer look at its overall data system and how that system is better put to use. This shouldn’t be about collecting more data, it is about better using the existing data. How do they further disaggregate the numbers so DC families have a better sense for how individual schools and classrooms are doing? How do they look at the data longitudinally, so they are not just measuring this year’s fourth graders against next year’s fourth graders, but are seeing how this years fourth graders are doing, performance wise, in fifth, sixth, and even eighth grades.
DC not only needs to determine that it is improving, but it needs to know why. The system has been layering reform after reform in the schools over the past several years. It is near impossible to decide what is responsible for the gains and what is the chafe that should probably be cut away so the effective interventions can do their jobs. In monitoring the schools and classes that are showing the most progress, DC needs to track the efforts that are resulting in those gains, looking at the clusters of specific interventions, and try to diagnose the best and promising practices that are happening in DC classrooms.
4. With that information, DC needs to do a better job of applying what it learns. Principals and teachers need to be better trained in how to use the data, both before they enter the teaching profession and once they are there. Best practices needs to be shared and modeled across the district. Effective teachers need to serve as mentors for new teachers so they can teach good behaviors (hopefully before one has to unteach bad behaviors.) And we need to give time for new interventions and reforms to take place. While four or five years may seem like an eternity in education reform, changing horses after just a year or two of data, even if it is promising, is not necessarily in the best interests of DC’s students in the long run.
Many members of the board were focused on the back end, asking what could be done with regard to high school dropouts and college-going rates. I urged them to look at the front end as well, and make sure that OSSE’s focus on investment in high-quality early childhood education is successfully translated into real ECE opportunities in DCPS. One only needs to look at the impact of the Abbott decisions in New Jersey, and see how good early childhood education has now impacted student achievement and the achievement gap in some of the Garden State’s historically worst-performing school districts, to see that the gateway to long-term student achievement happens before kindergarten, and not in middle and high school.
5. Finally, this is a team game, and not a one-man sport. Chancellor Rhee cannot do this by herself, nor can the DCSBOE take the responsibility entirely on its shoulders. Lasting school improvement requires real buy in from parents and families, teachers, students, and the community at large. With families in particular, they don’t necessarily understand the arcane definitions of AYP (particularly now that the U.S. Department of Education doesn’t even want to use the term), nor should they have to. They want assurances that their kids are going to good schools, and if they aren’t good, they want assurances that everything is being done to improve them. At the end of the day, families want to believe their neighborhood schools are good, particularly because they usually have affection for the principal and the teachers. If all are invested in school turnaround, and all understand how we are doing it and how we are measuring it, we will come further faster.
Ultimately, it comes down to one key issue — how do we use the data we have? In most cities and most SEAs, we have a wealth of data points, probably far more than most know are even there. What we do with it is what is most important. How do we use it to shape both teaching and learning? How do teachers use data to implement specific in
terventions for struggling students? How do we ID promising practice so it can be shared? How do we find the most effective teachers and learn why they are effective? How do we support what is working, while cutting away what may be tried, but is having no real impact? How do we invest in the student, and not just the system?
terventions for struggling students? How do we ID promising practice so it can be shared? How do we find the most effective teachers and learn why they are effective? How do we support what is working, while cutting away what may be tried, but is having no real impact? How do we invest in the student, and not just the system?
A lot of questions, yes. But just the sort of thinking many state boards are pondering as they enter into this new world order of assessments, data systems, achievement, innovation, and the like.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 