DCPS

Getting All Educationny at The Washington Post

Eduflack AFT, DCPS, early childhood education, Michelle Rhee, NGA, Students

We all recognize that 2008 was a relative no-go for education issues.  With political campaigns, mortgage bailouts, and economic crises, education improvement just failed to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, nor did it warrant the attention of the average newspaper editor.  Yesterday’s announcement that Denver Public Schools Chief Michael Bennet was a good start to the education year.  Today’s Washington Post is even better.  Not one, not two, but three articles in the A section of WaPo related to education and education improvement.

Exhibit A: On the national/state front, WaPo reports on efforts by a group of Democratic governors to secure $1 trillion in economic stimulus for the states.  Why the interest?  In addition to the money we’ve already been hearing about for school construction, this plan includes $250 billion “in flexible education spending to maintain funding for programs from pre-kindergarten to higher education,” Robin Shulman writes.  That means we have the majority of governors standing up, asking for the funds needed to provide our classrooms with the instructional materials, technology, and teacher supports necessary to get the job done.  As Eduflack has written here before, funding for books and computers and technology are often the first to go in a budget crisis, seen as non-essential while supes look to pay teacher salaries and keep the lights on and the buses running.  Our states need help to keep school improvement efforts, moving forward.  Now the governors are asking (as has AASA and AFT, among others).  The full story is here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202277.html?hpid=topnews
Exhibit”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202277.html?hpid=topnews
Exhibit B: On the local front, Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools Chief Jack Dale is sticking to his guns and fighting to save the strict grading policy the school district has in place.  Parents have been leading a valiant effort to try and weaken Fairfax County’s current system and move to a 10-point scale (meaning an A is earned with a 90-100 score, versus Fairfax’s current 94-100).  In an era where we need tougher standards and measures to ensure all students are competing, making it easier for kids to get As is not the answer.  Watering down grading scales to ensure college admittance or to better chances at scholarships is not the answer.  It is far easier to go along with parent demands and the policies of neighboring school districts.  Dale is standing firm, recognizing that achievement and high standards are important.  The full story is here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202430.html  And it has Eduflack wondering if we need a national grading scale to accompany those national standards our schools could benefit from.
Exhibit C: Education improvement, embodied in Colbert King’s latest and greatest.  Like many, King opines about Michelle Rhee and her efforts as top dog of DC Public Schools.  As we all know, the reigning 2008 Core Knowledge Blog Education Person of the Year has been getting a lot of national media attention, including the network evening news and a Time magazine cover.  But King asks a question that Eduflack has also previously raised.  Who ultimately pays the price for Rhee’s showdown with DC teachers?  I worry about her ability to work with the teachers she needs to enact her reforms after she tries to destroy their local union and their collective voice.  King worries about the long-term on DC’s students.  One has to appreciate Rhee’s zeal in moving forward with her improvement plans and doing what it takes to get them in place.  But one can’t forget the teachers who determine whether such efforts are a success or failure, nor can one ignore the impact on the students we are ultimately trying to help.  King reminds us of this, and his full column can be found here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202078.html?hpid=opinionsbox1  
Lots of issues to get the intellectual juices flowing.  What does it tell us?  The real action on the education improvement front is likely to happen at the state or the school district level, evidenced by the Dem governors call for funding and Jack Dale’s fight to save his grading scale.  
And we are again reminded that personality can get in the way of good policy.  Rhee has built a real cult of personality around herself and her plans for DCPS.  That can be helpful in the early days of an administration, as you try to give some context and some understanding for reforms.  But it can get dangerous when we can’t separate the voice from the rhetoric.  We’ve learned that time and again in both politics and education.  The best of plans fail because we can’t separate a controversial personality from a terrific idea.

Working Around the Union in our Nation’s Capital?

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

Without question, now is a time of transition for DC Public Schools.  Chancellor Michelle Rhee, now hitting a year and a half into her tenure, has made (or offered) many a bold change since taking over the troubled district.  She closed schools.  She fired principals.  She’s offered teacher incentive pay.  She’s paying middle schoolers for high grades.  And she’s taken action when those before her have waited for direction.

Sure, there have been bumps along the way.  Parents have pushed back, wondering why the Chancellor was picking on their schools or their neighborhoods.  The City Council has wondered if the administration has over-stepped its authority, thus leaving Council members out of the process in determining the schools’ future.  But no pushback has been greater than that felt by DC teachers — and the DC teachers union — who are quickly going from primary drivers in DC instruction to also-rans.
Today’s Washington Post highlights the plans by Rhee and DC Mayor Adrian Fenty to “look for ways around the union” to deal with DC teacher reform.  It details ideas such as creating more nonunionized charter schools, declaring a “state of emergency” for the schools, and other opportunities designed to “eliminate the need to bargain with the Washington Teachers’ Union.”  The full story can be found here — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111502456.html?hpid=sec-education   
As WP writer Bill Turque points out in the piece, the goal is to essentially do in DC what leaders did in New Orleans, create a major takeover of the system, allowing for major rebuilding and a whole new set of new rules.  Unfortunately, there was no major individual tragedy resulting in such a move, just decades of stops and starts and general inaction.
Triggering lasting improvement in a district like DC is hard work, really hard work.  It requires new thinking and it requires action that is far outside the norm and far beyond what may have been tried before.  It means holding all parties accountable, including the classroom teachers, and ensuring that all those involved in the educational and instructional process share a common commitment to boosting quality and improving student achievement.  The status quo won’t stand, nor will educators who are complacent or who simply want to do the bare minimum to earn a paycheck.
This may surprise many an Eduflack reader, but this bold move is the wrong step at the wrong time.  In her first year at the helm, Rhee was able to produce some promising first-year achievement gains.  But such gains are typical in year one, when you have a new system, a new leader, and new enthusiasm for it across the district.  The real challenge is maintaining those gains three and four years into the reform.  The real proof is demonstrating year-on-year gains of student achievement over a five-year period.  
If Rhee and her team are going to achieve that, they need full buy-in of DC teachers, they need meaningful team-building and relationship development, not ongoing skirmishes that are leading into outright wars.  In the WP, Rhee says that the vast majority of DC teacher support her plans for incentive pay, the elimination of tenure, and the removal of teachers unable to make the grade, and that it is the WTU that is standing in her — and her teachers’ — way.  That may or may not be the case.  But when Rhee took the job, she knew that WTU was the advocate for DC’s teachers.   Anyone who has studied Education Politics 101 knows that if you want to change the collective bargaining agreement, you need to work with the union.
Unfortunately, there is a deep history here.  Too many a DC teacher is used to hearing big promises from the central office, only to find reams of new regulations and, at times, an inability to even receive the paychecks they’ve earned.  But they are also still smarting from the scandal of WTU years ago, a scandal that stripped the union of its leadership and stripped the organization of the trust of the 4,000 teachers it currently serves.
At the end of the day, that is really where Rhee sees her opening.  Fair or no, George Parker is a weak leader of WTU.  He hasn’t been empowered by his membership to take the bold action needed to stand up to a strong schools leader and a strong mayor.  As a result, he learns about such reforms from the Washington Post, instead of from the district, and he looks uninformed and without real power.  Rhee knows that and is trying to take advantage of that.  Would she try such tactics if this is NYC and Randi Weingarten was still running the local?  Of course not.  Strong leadership is strong leadership, regardless of which side of the negotiating table one is sitting on.  Strong district leaders need strong union leaders to keep them honest. 
 
Don’t get me wrong.  Eduflack recognizes the value charter schools play in improving many an urban school district.  I am an advocate for merit pay, particularly if we can identify those principals, teachers, and school leaders who are responsible for leading school turnaround and boosting student achievement.  I know there are teachers in the classroom — particularly in our urban centers — who shouldn’t be teachers (and I think those teachers realize it, and just don’t have a better alternative or a workable exit strategy).  And I believe a superintendent (or a schools chancellor) needs the authority and the ability to make real changes if he or she is going to make real improvements.
The way to do that is not through state of emergencies or “work arounds” when it comes to the teachers.  It comes from building strong relationships that result in trust, support, and action across the school district.  For the sort of reforms Rhee is calling for, she needs every teacher in the district to serve as a passionate advocate for reform.  She needs the commitment to improvement from all of those in the classroom, knowing that sustained improvement will result in meaningful reward.  And she needs this to be a team effort, with the chancellor, the central office, the principals, the teachers, the parents, and the business community working TOGETHER to bring the sort of improvement that will revolutionize the district, and not just make minor changes resulting in short-term gains and long-term headaches.
At the end of the day, once Rhee has gotten all of the change and reform she’s seeking, she actually has to work with those left standing to deliver on her promise to boost student achievement and close the achievement gap.  That means parents and families.  It means teachers and principals.  And it certainly means the Washington Teachers Union.  Rhee’s ultimate success will be determined by the effectiveness of the teachers and the union that supports them.  And there is no working around that, no matter how hard you try.

The Trickle-Down Effect

Eduflack charter schools, DCPS

Without question, economy is top of mind for virtually all Americans.  We’re concerned how it is going to effect our employment, our ability to pay our bills, saving for our kids’ college, or having any hope for retirement.  The recent collapses in stock prices (and just about everyone’s 401Ks) and the absence of public faith and trust in our economy has just about everyone worried.

That said, only time will tell what affect it all might have on our educational system.  We started the school year hearing that some districts were considering shifting to a four-day school week to save money on gas prices.  Now we’re hearing districts’ concerns about the value of retirement accounts and how we’re all going to do more with less.  But are there any real short-term concerns that come out of the immediate economic problems?
If you read The Washington Post, the answer is a resounding yes.  For those who watched the evolution of DC Public Schools, we all know the power and the impact of public charter schools in our nation’s capital.  Currently, nearly a third of DC public school students attend charter schools.  And just this year, we saw the DC Catholic Archdiocese convert a number of high-quality Catholic schools into public charter schools, all in the name of better serving the greater DC community (and not just the Catholics within the city).
So what’s the story?  WaPo now has DC’s charter schools facing “financial challenges.”  KIPP DC is struggling to line up funds for renovations for a new high school and early childhood center to be added to KIPP’s successful DC efforts.  The successful Cesar Chavez Public Charter Schools for Public Policy may not be able to add a third campus, as originally intended.  And other charters with lower-than-expected enrollment (and thus lower-than-expected funding from DCPS) are scrambling to find stopgap funds to help them meet their obligations to the students and families of DC.
Why is this all so important?  As a nation, commitment to public charters schools as part of our educational system has never been stronger.  Both presidential candidates note their support for charters, and emphasize the needs for strong structure, strong quality, and strong results from these schools.  Recent data from groups such as the Center for Education Reform has shown that public charter schools are already being asked to do more with less that a traditional, old-school public school gets to operate.
What’s next?  We’d all like to believe the economic issues will resolve themselves, and money will once again freely flow into our school systems.  But we are realistic enough to know that is unlikely to happen, at least in the short term.  We also are smart enough to know that if this is happening in DC, it is likely having similar repercussions on other cities with strong charter systems.    
All this speaks to the a greater emphasis on quality, whether they be charter schools or not.  Our states and school districts need to ensure that education funding is going to high-quality schools, to those with strong policies, strong administration, strong practice, and strong results.  As our dollars are scarcer, we need to invest in schools that are doing it right and proving their work.  At the same time, we need to make sure that lenders and financial agencies — those who help fund building renovations and bonds and bridge loans — understand the importance of strong governance and strong management in our schools, charters or otherwise.
After watching the education reform process for the past decade, does anyone really believe that a $23 million loan to build a KIPP high school and early education center in DC is a bad investment?  Of course not.  We know there is good research and not so good research in education.  Likewise, we know there are good investments and not so good investments in public education.  Financial, academic, or otherwise, a good investment is one accountability and achievement.  
These financial times call for tough choices.  We need to make sure we are investing in what works, and we need to make sure that innovations like high-quality charter schools don’t fall victim to the larger worry.  Otherwise, we hurt families today when we shut down or cut back their school options, then we hurt them again when their kids don’t have the high-quality education they need to achieve in the 21st century workplace.

Virtually, the Next Big Thing

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

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

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

Too Good?

Eduflack AYP, DCPS, national standards, Students

In New Haven, CT, a nine-year-old boy was just told he couldn’t play Little League baseball.  His offense?  League officials have determined that the boy is just too good.  His team is 8-0.  A pitcher, the boy throws a 40-mile-per-hour fastball (which for those unfamiliar with the game is just filthy good).  It means most opposing players are unable to hit his pitches.  He broke no rules; he did nothing wrong.  In fact, he did it all right, performing as all of us former Little Leaguers wish we could.  The result?  The nine-year-old has been banished from the league, and his fellow teammates have been offered slots on the remaining teams in the league.

What does all this have to do with education reform, you may ask?  Actually, a great deal.  Let’s first look at the message we are sending children.  After a decade of soccer games where do don’t keep score, trophies for all kids who participate, and the elimination of games like dodgeball because they make some kids feel bad about themselves, we are now ostracizing students for excelling.  We are telling them that the goal is mediocrity.  Better to remain in the pack rather than strive to be the leader.
It is hard enough to be a student in today’s world.  If we believe media reports, peer pressure, bullying, and the like are far worse today than they were when Eduflack was a kid.  We hear tales of students who downplay their intellect and are ashamed of their achievement, fearful of the repercussions on the playground or in the neighborhood.  And now they have to worry about attacks and dismissal from the adults that were trusted to teach them and further develop their skills?  League officials should celebrate this kid for being an all-star and achieving at levels of kids two, three, or four years older than the one in question.
It is no wonder we have such a difficult time encouraging, supporting, and demanding improved student achievement.  We don’t focus on those schools that regularly make AYP.  Instead, we come up with excuses as to why so many schools are failing to excel.  Instead of offering incentives to ensure that the very best teachers are in DC classrooms, we accuse the DCPS chancellor or racism, sexism, ageism, and any other ism we can think of.  Instead of ensuring all U.S. schools are world class, and can compete with our international colleagues, we turn a blind eye to how our lax U.S. national standards measure up to other industrialized nations.  Instead of striving to continue to offer the best public education available in the free world and a system of meritocracy, we are content with status quo and a life of mediocrity.
Sure, this is a lot to deduce from a Little League pitcher.  But look at the past two weeks.  We celebrated U.S. performances in the Olympic Games, cheering the fact the United States won more medals than any other nation.  But how much attention did educators pay to the educational olympics offered by the Fordham Foundation, which show our standing slipping in critical academic areas?
We should be asking ourselves how we get out kids to throw lights-out when it comes to algebra II or chemistry, Spanish or world history.  We should be encouraging STEM education in the elementary grades and advanced-level courses at the start of high school.  We should be asking how we can get every kid excelling academically — exceeding expectations and grade-level requirements.    

Mini Me, Version DCPS

Eduflack AYP, Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, DCPS, Fenty, Michelle Rhee

Educators are very big on the concept of modeling.  We find what is effective in a similar situation (with a school, a class, or a student just like mine) and put it into practice in our own situation.  Makes sense — if it is works for someone else, it just may work for me.

But sometimes we can take modeling a little too far, giving the impression we are just mimicking or copying those that others like.  Case in point, DC Public Schools.  For a school district that is supposedly all about innovation and improvement, they seem to be an awful lot like the new student trying to dress, talk, and act like the “cool kid” on the playground.
We saw it last year when DC Mayor Fenty decided he would channel NYC Mayor Bloomberg, appointing a schools chancellor (instead of a superintendent) and choosing a non-traditional choice (former Justice Department official Joel Klein in NYC and New Teacher Project founder Michelle Rhee in DC).  Since, we’ve seen it in Rhee’s dealings issues such as school closings and dealings with the unions and even parental engagement.
Yesterday, though, Rhee officially became Klein’s mini-me.  She announced a new pilot project to “pay” middle school students for showing up for school and doing their work.  If successful, Rhee intends to take the pilot project across all middle schools in DC, offering up crisp Benjamins for students who do their jobs as students.
Let’s forget that there are still unanswered questions about the effectiveness of NYC’s own pilot effort.  What message does it send when we offer middle school students pay for play?
Supporters of such efforts would argue it is simply an equity issue.  Upper-class families have been paying their kids for good grades for years, the line goes, why can’t we give at-risk students the financial incentive to come to class, pay attention, and do their homework.  After all, fair is fair.
Unfortunately, such thinking completely misses the larger picture.  Pay for play is necessary when there is no larger reason for the action.  In recent years, though, we’ve been telling students and their families that a good education is necessary for a good job.  We need more rigorous classes.  We need kids with high school diplomas and postsecondary educations.  We need students with the academic and social skills to succeed.
Step one to getting there is actually showing up for school.  Step two is paying attention.  Step three is doing the work.  Step four is measuring proficiency.  Repeat.  
The reward should be the proficiency and the skill acquisition.  A crisp $100 bill shouldn’t be the incentive for student performance.  If it is, getting middle school students to show up is the least of our problems.
If DCPS wants to borrow from the NYC DOE playbook, it should be focusing on increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Gimmicks such as pay to play may look good in the local papers, but they simply aren’t going to solve the larger issues facing DCPS and other urban districts.

Higher Expectations, Lower Funding

Eduflack charter schools, DCPS

For years now, the education establishment has debated the value and impact of charter schools throughout the United States.  In cities like Washington, DC, we have seen the positive impact such schools can have.  The number of charters continues to grow.  They are a valuable piece of the public education infrastructure in the city, and as such their oversight has greatly improved over the last decade.  Heck, now we even have the DC Archdiocese converting many of its Catholic schools to public charters to better serve the families of our nation’s capital.

Yes, charters have come a long way.  But we still see many defenders of the status quo set their ire onto these community schools.  Most recently, the attack has been that charters are not academically outperforming the traditional public schools they were intended to replace.  Why, the critics say, would we move more public funds over to these schools if they aren’t an improvement?

The issue of improvement is up for great debate.  Throughout the nation, many charter schools have demonstrated they can succeed where old-school publics have failed, or at least struggled.  In larger urban centers, we’ve seen charter schools change the culture and mindset of both the students and the communities.  And as a result, we see improvement in terms of student achievement.  So how do these charters stack up against the schools they are designed to supplement (or supplant, depending on who you speak with)?

Last week, the Center for Education Reform released its comprehensive survey on charter schools.  http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_charter_survey_2008.pdf  There is a great deal of interesting information in the survey.  But what is most interesting is the statistic that public charter schools receive, on average, 40 percent less funding that other public schools.  

Imagine that.  Held to the same academic standards by the school district and state.  Teaching the same pool of students (or possibly the most difficult students in the pool).  Tied to the same real estate, utility, and staffing costs as other schools in the city.  Yet these charters are only getting 60 cents on the dollar to deliver BETTER results than those fully-funded schools.

If we expect our public charter schools to outperform our old-school public schools, moving more students to academically proficient and getting more students on the pathway to success, they need the resources to do so.  If the status quoers are correct, and public charters are only doing as well as other publics today, imagine what may be possible if those public charters were able to increase their budgets by 25 or 35 percent.  

No, money doesn’t buy achievement.  But it does help in employing effective teachers.  It helps in acquiring research-proven instructional materials.  It helps provide learning interventions to those who need it the most.  It helps to provide after-hours learning opportunities.  It helps providing facilities that are conducive to teaching and learning.

The next great chapter of the charter achievement discussion is likely to come from DC, as we witness of the success of the Center City effort to transform those great Catholic schools into public charter schools.  Here’s hoping that those Center City schools get the full funding they need to achieve the lofty goals they have set.  Then, we can continue a real, meaningful discussion of how public charters stack up against the old-school publics.

Is Opinion Research?

Eduflack DCPS, IES, NCLB, Spellings, vouchers

For nearly a decade now, “research” has been the buzz word in education reform.  It comes in many flavors, and it usually comes with a number of adjectives — scientifically based, high quality, effective, squishy, and such.  And by now we all know that “scientifically based research” is in the NCLB law more than 100 times.

With all of the talk about research, we know there is good research and there is not so good research.  We have action research passed off as longitudinal.  We have customer satisfaction studies passed off as randomized trials. We have people mis-using, mis-appropriating, and downright abusing the word “research.”

Through it all (at least for the past seven years or so), the U.S. Department of Education was supposed to be the arbiter between good and bad research.  IES was founded to serve as the final, most official word on what constitutes good education research.  Dollars have been realigned.  Programs have been thoroughly examined.  Priorities have been shaken up.

So where does it all leave us?  In this morning’s Washington Post, EdSec Margaret Spellings launches a passionate defense of the DC voucher program.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702216.html  (Personally, I’m still waiting for such a defense of Reading First, a program helping millions upon millions of more students in schools beyond our nation’s capital, but what can you do?)

It should come as no surprise that Spellings sought to use research to demonstrate the effectiveness and the need for the DC voucher program.  Without doubt, vouchers have had a real impact on the District of Columbia.  It has reinforced the importance of education with many families.  It has opened doors of schools previously closed off to DC residents.  It has forced DC public schools and charters to do a better job, as they seek to keep DC students (and the dollars associated with their enrollment) in the DCPS coffers.  And, of course, we are starting to see the impact vouchers are having on student achievement among students who previously attended the most struggling of struggling schools.

Spellings points out all of this in her detailing of the research validating the voucher program.  But there is one “research” point Spellings uses that just has Eduflack scratching his head.  From the EdSec’s piece — “The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) found that parents of scholarship children express confidence that they will be better educated and even safer in their new schools.”
 
Such a statement is downright funny, and quite a bit concerning.  In all of the discussions about scientifically based research, high-quality research, the medical model, double-blind studies, control groups, and the like, I don’t remember public opinion surveys meeting the IES standard for high-quality research.  Parents feel better about their children because of vouchers?  That’s a reason to direct millions in federal funding to the program? 

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all for public opinion polling and the value of such surveys (along with the focus groups and other qualitative research that helps educate them).  But it is one of the last things that should be used to validate a program or drive government spending on educational priorities.

If DC is to keep vouchers, it should keep them because it is driving improvement in student performance and is giving a real chance to kids previously in hopeless situations.  It should be saved with real data that bears a resemblance to the scientifically based research we demand of the our programs and that we expect our SEAs and LEAs to use in decisionmaking.  It should be actionable research, with a clear methodology that can be replicated.
 
Otherwise, we’re just wrapping up opinion in a research wrapper.  That may be good enough for some for-profit education companies and others trying to turn a quick buck on available federal resources, but it shouldn’t make the cut for the government — particularly the branch of ED that is in charge of high-quality research.  Ed reform should be more than a finger-in-the-wind experiment.  And Spellings and IES should know that by now.


CBS on DCPS

Eduflack AFT, DCPS, Fenty, Michelle Rhee

The future of urban education?  On this evening’s CBS News, Katie Couric and company threw the spotlight on Washington, DC Public Schools and DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee.  The relative puff piece credited Rhee with shaking things up, getting rid of the dead wood, and taking the steps necessary to change the culture and performance of an urban school system that has been in perpetual decline.

Yes, many would — and have — questioned some of Rhee’s actions.  The local AFT affiliate has had their issues, particularly with the notion of “firing” teachers.  Parents have been frustrated by being cut out of the loop, particularly when it comes to school closings and the elimination of principals they love.  But meaningful reform does not come without criticism.  If everyone agreed with Rhee, then she was likely avoiding hard decisions and just rearranging the educational furniture.

But there was one thing about the CBS segment that bothers Eduflack.  Rhee is shown teaching in an elementary school classroom.  For those of us in the greater DC area, we read about Rhee and DCPS almost daily.  (I personally think the Washington Post goes out of its way to find bad photos of the Chancellor.)  But I have never read or heard anything about her teaching in the classroom.  If she’s doing it, she needs a PR team to better promote it.  If not, the footage just contributes to the larger criticism that many actions are just for “show.”

The larger issue was the classroom Rhee was teaching.  Maybe it was the camera angle, but it appeared she was teaching to an virtually all white elementary class.  Nothing wrong with that, no, but if Rhee is taking a serious stand talking about the change needed to improve DCPS’ performance, she should be showing it in the classrooms that are most affected.  She should be in SE DC, and not Upper NW.

At the end of the day, though, we know this is all just the dress rehearsal.  How much longer will friends and foes alike give Rhee (and Mayor Fenty) until they ask to see the test scores and demand to see improvements in achievement?  Ultimately, it is all about the numbers.

The Future of Urban Education?

Eduflack DCPS, vouchers

Here in our nation’s capital, many are abuzz about our visit from Pope Benedict XVI.  It isn’t often that a U.S. city gets a visit from his Holiness.  And this is this Pope’s first visit to the United States.

With so many U.S. Catholics descending on Washington, DC and New York City as part of the visit, it is no wonder that talk about Catholic issues has been on the rise.  What is particularly interesting is that much of that talk has focused on the future of Catholic schools here in the good ole U.S. of A.

For years, Catholic schools were seen as a beacon of hope in urban public districts that folks had long given up on.  Parents, regardless of their own religious affiliation, would save their pennies to send their kids to Catholic schools.  Here in DC, when the voucher program was adopted five or so years ago, DC Catholic schools were the ones who felt the brunt of new enrollments (and who accepted new students for the cost of the voucher, regardless of what the sticker price of the education may have been).

Recognizing this, the Fordham Foundation has released a new study on the future of America’s urban Catholic schools.  If you haven’t seen it already, it is worth a look — http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/.cfm?id=383.  And as usual, Mike Petrilli’s discussion of the report and the general topic in The Washington Post and other media has been an interesting one.

The interesting sidecar to that report is what is going on here with Catholic schools in Washington.  Due to vouchers and other actors, DC’s Catholic schools have been asked to educate more and more students with fewer and fewer resources.  The number of Catholic students enrolling in the schools is dwindling, and DC parishioners are being asked to shoulder the costs of providing a Catholic education to a growing number of non-Catholics.

As a result, the DC Archdiocese is working to transform many of its Catholic schools into public charter schools.  If the plan works, the schools would receive appropriate funding from the District and the schools would remain open and could continue to serve a growing population seeking its services.  Teachers and classroom rules would remain the same.  Yes, it means that the traditional religious instruction provided by those schools would need to be removed.  And we would have to hope that such a removal would not affect the overall impact of instruction.  Simply put, it is a bold move by the Archdiocese, as it seeks to provide high-quality, effective education to all those who want it.

It does beg the question as to the true future of urban education.  If DC is successful, it could serve as a model for inner-city Catholic schools across the nation.  Running a school system is expensive, and it is a lot to ask parishioners to pay an increasing tab for students who may never join the Church and may never become members of the Catholic community.  But does Catholic school lose something when you remove the Catholic?

The Fordham folks are correct in noting urban Catholic schools are doing a lot of good when it comes to education.  As a nation, we want to support school success in all of its forms, knowing we can learn from all forms and all offerings.  But Eduflack has to ask, is the future of urban education one of Catholic education or charter school education?

We just may have to wait to see how DC turns out to know for sure.  If we can figure out a way to keep Catholic school instruction, discipline, and outcomes, but deliver it in a public or public charter shell, we may just have a winning combination for communities in need. 

And those seeking Catholic education can always turn to CCD like so many of us.