ESEA

Your Senate GOP ESEA Reform Starting Lineup

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, AYP, ESEA, HQT, NCLB

All week, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) has been talking about his accelerated plans for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  We are hearing of deadline like Easter for when the Senate will either entertain a new draft of the reauth, pass the reauth, or acknowledge the reauth.

Unfortunately, there haven’t been a lot of details as to what may be in Chairman Harkin’s ESEA bill.  Eduflack suspects it will resemble the ESEA Blueprint put forward by the U.S. Department of Education nearly a year ago, with some emphasis on rural education and special education mixed in for good measure.  The naming, last month, of Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM) as Harkin’s ESEA wingman only strengthens the thinking on the Blueprint approach to reauth.
Well, it seems the Republican side of the HELP desk is not going to be left at the side of the road.  In a briefing with reporters this week, HELP Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY) and his education wingman and former Ed Sec Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) highlighted their “nine areas” to address in reauth.
The Senate GOP starting lineup for ESEA reform includes:
* Fixing the 100-percent proficient by 2014 goal (now that we see we can’t reach it)
* Reforming that darned AYP designation, an acronym that ED won’t even utter these days
* Refocusing on results-based testing, as opposed to that worrisome high-stakes testing
* Showing the rural districts some love
* Fixing high quality teacher provisions, particularly for those rural districts
* Offering greater flexibility to states and school districts
* IDing duplicative or wasteful efforts in ED
* Providing greater flexibility in general
* Engaging parents and families in the process
So is this the sort of staring lineup that strikes fear in the opposing team?  At face value, these are all items we’ve heard before.  But sometimes, a team is far greater than its individual players, and this could very well be the case with Enzi and Alexander’s concerns.  The list is a major hat tip to EdSec Arne Duncan’s Blueprint, particularly the revised language he has been touting since the November 2010 midterm elections.  There is some major love here for House Republicans, particularly the calls for flexibility, local control, and rural schools.  Even a little something for the teachers unions, by acknowledging that the current approach to student testing just doesn’t work and current HQT provisions missed the mark.  
And it also embraces one of the strongest components of NCLB — parental engagement — and incredibly powerful tool that was all but abandoned (other than on the school choice issue) soon after NCLB was passed in 2002.
What is the expected outcome?  Chairman Harkin is still writing the law, let there be no doubt.  But by placing their markers down like this, Enzi and Alexander have set the ESEA agenda.  Most, if not all, of these issues were likely to be on Harkin’s wish list in the first place.  Now, his draft will either need to signal an alignment with GOP concerns, or he will need to defend why these issues don’t warrant his attention.  And that’s a game no HELP chairman should want to play.
It is time for that Harkin trial balloon. 

SOTU Disappointment

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, ESEA, NCLB, Obama, RTT

My name is Eduflack, and I am a captain of negativism.  I often like to tease that I’m not a glass half full or half empty sorta guy, I just want to know who took my damned water.  So last evening was a fascinating exercise for me.  As luck would have it, I had a three-and-a-half hour school board meeting last night, meaning I missed the State of the Union live.  But from all of the updates on Facebook and on Twitter, it seemed like President Obama had delivered a truly rousing state of the education union speech, fulfilling all of the hopes and dreams that ed reformers and status quoers alike have for education in the United States.  All those negative feelings I have, year in and year out, about how education gets short shrift in the SOTU would be replaced by an unnatural and unfamiliar sense of joy and happiness in dear ol’ Eduflack.

So I was excited to go and watch the tape of the SOTU.  I, too, wanted to feel that bliss.  Unfortunately, I’m just the same old grumpy Eduflack.
I know it isn’t popular, but I’ll say it.  I was disappointed by last night’s SOTU, particularly how it addressed education.  And I say this knowing that teachers loved his embrace of the teaching profession.  Reformers heard lots about the need for reform.  Local controllers heard what they needed.  The higher ed community heard its shout out.  And even the tough-lovers had the parental responsibility lines to hang their hat on.
So why am I disappointed in the speech?
* It was very inside baseball.  One of my greatest frustrations in education policy is we talk about the work to a broad audience as we do to a group of 12 folks who know how to talk the talk.  We all love teacher quality in a general sense, but it has a very specific meaning to an ed reformer, and very broad meaning to a regular parent.  Despite what those of us in the field think, most Americans don’t actually know what Race to the Top or No Child Left Behind actually is.  We say RttT is the greatest ed reform in a generation (which I wholeheartedly disagree with, as, like it or not, NCLB had a much greater impact, both good and bad) or that NCLB needs fixing, and folks will nod their heads in agreement because it is the President and he should know.  But head out to Main Street USA, ask them how RttT is reforming their classrooms, and you’ll get a blank stare.  Inside baseball.
* It was very much just a laundry list.  I realize that we were trying to group everything under the umbrella of competitiveness and economic improvement, but this just didn’t seem strategic.  Essentially, the speech is summarized as follows:  We all need college degrees.  Parents need to get involved.  Schools need to do a better job.  RttT and federal leadership are great.  So is local control.  We need to respect our teachers and be more like South Korea.  Need a job, become a teacher.  Raise expectations.  It is never too late for education.  Education is a gateway to talking about our immigration challenges.  This isn’t a strategic vision for P-20 education (forgetting that ECE was ignored), this is simply a Chinese menu of education issues.
* It was missing a call to action.  In identifying that laundry list of educational priorities, we were missing a true call to action.  The President spoke, very eloquently, about honoring teachers and encouraging kids and getting to (and graduating from) college.  But what was the big ask, reforming NCLB?  We needed more of an education vision so that the average parent, the average teacher, the average mayor, and the average taxpayer understands what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we get there.  What action do I, as a parent and local school board member, take to get us to to this grand vision?  Listening to the speech, it seems my responsibility is to turn off the TV, respect teachers, applaud the science fair (which as a former International Science and Engineering Fair award winner I already do), and believe in the feds to push the right policies.  But I still don’t know how this boosts student achievement or learning.  And I still don’t know how we are measuring these reforms and how we can one day have that “Mission Accomplished” moment.
I don’t mean to be so negative about this, but it is my way.  Last year, when the U.S. Department of Education released its ESEA Blueprint, that provided me the details and the call to action that I’m looking for.  And nearly a decade ago, we certainly saw it in the adoption of NCLB, as we told teachers and parents and business leaders and policymakers what they needed to do to enact the law with fidelity and improve student achievement.  
It is great that President Obama devoted nearly nine and a half minutes to education in this year’s SOTU, more than doubling the air time given to education last year.  But with all of the build up leading into tonight, the promise that education is a key pillar to improving our nation, and the excitement those in the know demonstrated last night, I just wanted more.  I want the rhetoric to connect to real policies.  I want to know how we measure success.  I want education discussed in a way that we can fill football stadiums, and not just cocktail parties, with supporters.  Is that really too much to ask for?
  
    

State of the Education Union?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, early childhood education, ESEA, HQT, teachers, technology

As is typical for this time of year, most of Washington is eagerly awaiting tomorrow evening’s State of the Union address, delivered by President Barack Obama.  (Of course, Eduflack will be in a school board meeting, discussing local school budgets, but I’ll be listening to the SOTU in spirit).  And just about every year, the education community eagerly awaits to see how big a role education policy will play in the SOTU.

Last year, we expected big things, but just about all of the ed discussion was focused on higher ed and student loans, not on P-12 issues.  In the lead-up to Tuesday, the White House has made clear that this year’s speech will focus on the five pillars to turn around our nation’s economy (not to be confused with EdSec Arne Duncan’s four pillars for turning around K-12 public education).  And go figure, education is expected to be one of those five pillars.
But in the Washington Post, in a graphic that accompanies today’s story on the SOTU, expects that the education focus will be on protecting funding for existing programs.  So if WaPo is right (and it hasn’t necessarily been lately), part of the great road to economic improvement is maintaining the status quo in K-12 education.
Yes, I realize that means continuing funding for new programs such as Race to the Top, with Duncan just last week calling for a third RttT round focused on school districts.  I’ll say it here and I’ll say it loudly.  If tomorrow’s education focus is simply about staying the course, the education sector will have missed a major opportunity.
Across the nation, we are asking states, districts, schools, and teachers to do more and more with less and less.  As those budgets have shrunk, some have even said it is a golden opportunity for schools and school improvement, as we can no longer the maintain that which we’ve had, and instead need to focus on that with the greatest impact or the highest return on investment.  We’re calling for virtually all schools to “reform” or “improve,” making clear that the way we used to do things isn’t going to cut it in the future.
So if President Obama comes out tomorrow and says we need to keep on keeping on, it will be a major step backward.  If we merely try to save the U.S. Department of Education from budget cuts, while protecting recent gains for Title I, RttT, teacher quality efforts, and student loans, we will have squandered a real chance at real improvement.  And if the goal is a true economic renaissance for the United States, status quo at a time when our international standing is slipping, our achievement gap is offensive, and our resources and lacking just isn’t going to cut it.
I recognize that tomorrow evening’s speech is likely already loaded into the teleprompter, but there are a few key items I’d like to see make the cut:
* Early childhood education — We need to honor the promises made with regard to ECE and begin to fund what the research tells us is needed.  Achievement gaps start before kids ever hit kindergarten.  We address that by confronting the problem from the start.  And that means real, academic-focused ECE efforts.  Babysitters and social adaptation programs need not apply.
* Teacher quality — First, we need to agree on the qualitative and quantitative measures of what makes an effective teacher.  Then we need to see what goes into the pre-service and in-service education of a teacher to get there.  Only then can we effective use teacher incentive programs to improve the schools.  We need real research that gets at the heart of the teacher quality issue.
* STEM — And I use this as a collective discussion.  We need to increase on investment in effective math and science education.  We need to put real resources behind the goals of America Competes.  It is the only way we start to move the needle when it comes to international competitiveness.
* Ed tech — We need to convert our 19th century classrooms into 21st century learning environments.  That means focusing on both how we teach and what we teach with.  Ed tech needs to be both at the heart of our ESEA discussions and of our school funding realities.
* Achievement gap — Let’s stop dancing around the issue.  If we are talking about righting our economy, we need to address the achievement gap.  Until black, Hispanic, and low-income students start gaining ground against white, wealthy students, our schools will always struggle.  With the gaps as astounding as they currently are now, it isn’t enough to applaud all groups for incremental gains.
* College prep — We need more opportunities to prepare students for postsecondary education.  More dual enrollment.  More opps to study at local community colleges.  More career-focused, relevant courses.  More exposure to the academic world beyond the high school.  A high school diploma isn’t going to cut it as we head deeper into the 21st century.  
* Parental engagement — We need a concerted, supported effort to better engage parents and families in the learning process.  The responsibility for student success does not rest solely with the classroom teacher.  Parents need to know what their role is, how to play it, and how to ask the questions to ensure their kids are getting the education they both need and deserve.  
* R&D — As we keep asking folks to do more with less, we need to ensure that what we are doing is proven effective and has a strong evidence base behind it.  For too long, educators have done what they thought worked or what they believed worked or what they hoped worked.  It is now time to invest in what we can prove works.  That starts with a robust R&D effort focused on the classroom.  And the “&D” is very important, particularly as we look translating good research into real practice.  
What I want to see if fairly simple.  I want the circle of educational life.  What are the conditions we need to start effective learning (teacher quality, parental engagement, ECE)?  What should all children know and be able to do (STEM, ed tech, college prep)?  What obstacles must be overcome (achievement gap, ed tech)?  And what is our intended destination (increased grad rates, increased college-going rates, and the economic success that we’ll hear about for more than an hour tomorrow)?
And I would NOT talk about ESEA.  How we get to these above points isn’t nearly as important as actually doing it.  ESEA is merely a process.  But it isn’t a required path for 2011.  And I’d stay away from issues like common core, charters, and AYP.  All those buzz words do is stoke the fires of the loyal opposition (whichever side on which they may be).
What am I missing?  What is necessary to tell the true state of our education union?
 
 

Real 21st Century Ed Tech?

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, ESEA, Online Education, technology

As a nation, we tend to give a great deal of lip service to the idea of a 21st century education.  Such a notion is particularly popular when international achievement rankings come out, when we see how the United States stacks up to other industrialized nations, and we all seem to preach on the need to provide a 21st century education to lead to 21st century jobs and a 21st century economy.

Can we really provide a 21st century education without focusing on the role of technology in the process?  While technology remains at the center of many an American life, our schools are still constructed around a 19th century instructional model.  Rows of desks.  A single teacher lecturing.  And technology turned off and put away.  We literally unplug many of our students as they step through the schoolhouse doors.
Yes, the White House paid note to the value of education technology last year, as it pledged to better integrate ed tech throughout the federal ESEA process.  And U.S. Department of Education officials such as Karen Cator have long been advocating for the National Education Technology Plan released late last year.  But how do such commitments translate into action items that are felt in classrooms across the country?
Yesterday, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) released An Ed Tech Trio for 2011: ISTE’s U.S. Education Technology Priorities.  Following up on its popular Top 10 list of ed tech issues last year, ISTE’s Ed Tech Trio keys in on specific, actionable items that Congress can take on to demonstrate a true commitment to ed tech.  The trifecta includes:
* Providing dedicated federal funding for ed tech programs such as Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) and Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners Act (PTDAL)
* Demanding that federal school turnaround efforts, including Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, include an ed tech component
* Ensuring broadband for all students, both in the classroom and outside of classroom hours
It is no secret that well-conceived ed tech can serve an important role in addressing all four of the education pillars moved forward by EdSec Arne Duncan and the ESEA blueprint last year.  From standards to data systems, teacher quality to turnaround schools, ed tech can and does play an essential role.  For instance, programs like EETT (which has never been adequately funded by Congress) provide invaluable professional development and support in ed tech for classroom teachers. 
At the end of the day, funding is king in the world of education priorities.  If Congress is serious about ed tech, it’ll again find a way to fund efforts such as EETT.  It’ll find the funding to match the promise in the recently signed American COMPETES Act, which moves our STEM commitment forward.  And it will even direct specific dollars to ensure that NETP is acted on in classrooms across the country.
It’s time to plug our classrooms back in and provide all students the true 21st century education we just love to talk about.  After all, do we really think we can move toward an instructional world filled with e-learning and virtual schools and OER if we don’t have teachers trained on technology and broadband in all schools?
(Full disclosure, Eduflack has advised ISTE and other ed tech groups over the years.)

A Tea Party Comes to Education?

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, Michelle Rhee, national standards, NCLB, Obama, Parents

Today, the 112th Congress officially takes its seat.  Anyone who watched the November elections realizes that a major change in philosophy takes the gavel in Washington, riding on the momentum of the “Tea Party” movement.

Sure, we pretty much have no idea how that wave is going to affect education policy on Capitol Hill.  During the campaign, those Tea Party candidates spoke little, if at all, about education.  We know they’d prefer to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, but we really don’t know where they stand on ESEA reauthorization, turnaround schools, charters, and all of the other topics that seem to freeze up the Congress.
But all of the analysis pieces on how the Tea Party movement will affect government in general has Eduflack thinking.  What would happen if we applied the Tea Party philosophy to education?  No, I’m not talking about federal education policy, but rather the K-12 education space in general.  Perhaps it would look a little like this:
Fiscal Responsibility (Funding) — “We are simply paying too much on public education.  The federal government keeps taking more and more from our paychecks to pay for expensive programs like Race to the Top and i3, and the states are taking more and more in property taxes to cover the rest.  We need to be smarter with how we spend our education dollars.  Why is it some of our best school districts can educate kids at $10,000 a head, while our worst-performing districts are spending close to twice that?  It just doesn’t make sense.  We need to get back to basics, focus on the core needs of our kids, and ensure we are receiving return on investment for our education dollars.  It is time to do more with less.”
Limited Government (Control) — “The federal government needs to get out of our classrooms.  No one knows what our kids need best than our local community.  We elect our local school boards to look after our interests.  They know us.  We know them.  And they held accountable for their actions.  The feds care about our money, our localities care about our kids.  We must restore local control to our schools, telling the feds to keep their noses out of how we spend our money, how we teach our kids, how we test our kids, and how we know when we are doing a good job.  Our schools, our rules.”
Free Markets (Choice) — “We need to restore power to individual parents and individual families.  As the individual is the one funding our schools, the individual should have the power to decide how those dollars are spent.  if your neighborhood schools aren’t doing the job, you should have the right to take your child — and your dollars — and go to a school that meets your needs.  Speaking through the pocketbook is the only way to get those broken schools to fix themselves, and it is the only way to ensure our kids get the education they need.  We should not just accept what we have been given.  We need to encourage choice and competition, letting the schools and the teachers who have failed us be cycled out of the system for good.”
Personal Responsibility (Parents) — “For too long we have trusted government to do what is right for our kids.  As a result, our schools are failing and our kids are uncompetitive.  It is time to take that responsibility back.  The US Department of Education isn’t going to fix our schools.  The state isn’t going to fix our schools.  Parents are going to fix our schools.  It is time for all parents to rise up and demand better.  It is time to get in schools, demand answers, and refuse to leave until those answers are put into practice.  These are our schools, and we need to retake ownership of them.”
Maybe it is just me, but aren’t we already sitting down to a tea party in K-12 education?  We are making hard choices, asking our schools to do more with less and questioning high per-pupil expenditures in struggling urban districts.  There is a growing chorus (led by the new chairman of the House Education Committee, John Kline) to restore more local control to education, taking away much of the power shift resulting from NCLB.  We’ve long talked about school choice, with the current turnaround schools effort likely leading to a greater call.  And even President Obama has been talking for the past few years on parental responsibility and how families need to take more active, hands on, and impactful roles if their kids are to be college and career ready.
Is Michelle Rhee’s Students First education’s Tea Party Patriots?  Is 50-CAN or DFER’s “Ticket to Teach” the edu-Tea Party Express?  Only time will tell …

Waiting for ESEA Reauth?

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

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

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

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

Some Resolutions for 2011

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

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

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

Analyzing the Ed Stimulus’ Impact

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB, RTT, stimulus

So it is more than a year and a half since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law and the faucet of federal education stimulus dollars was turned on, sending a stream (either a raging river or a trickle, depending on your perspective) to states and school districts across the nation.  While much has been done (particularly from the good folks over at EdWeek’s Politics K-12 blog) on whether we are actually spending the ed stimulus dollars or not, a larger question may very well be if such spending is having any impact.

For the past year, we’ve heard how Race to the Top has completely changed the game, with states across the union overhauling their policies on data systems, teacher firewalls, charter schools, turnaround schools, and many topics in between.  A new reform era has been ushered in, according to many, leaving status quoers with nothing to show for decades worth of work.
But a new study released today by Bellwether Education Partners and Education First Consulting finds that the stimulus’ impact on education reform may not be as definitive as both cheerleaders and critics may believe.  InConflicting Missions and Unclear Results: Lessons from the Education Stimulus Funds, Bellwether’s Sara Mead and Andy Rotherham and Ed First’s Anand Vaishnav and William Porter lend an analytical eye to whether the $100 billion in ed stimulus cash is having the sea change impact we expected.
Their findings?:
* Stimulus dollars are being used primarily to make up for cuts in state and local budgets, with most of those cuts coming in the HR arena
* Districts are confused by mixed messages from the US Department of Education as to whether stimulus bucks are intended to preserve jobs or advance reform
* ARRA spending is being driven by existing processes and expected inertias in many school districts (instead of by the reform priorities in the stimulus rhetoric)
* In districts that used ARRA dollars in a strategic way, it went more to local leadership, local capacity issues, and local factors, instead of to federal reform priorities
* The edu-problems ARRA intended to solve aren’t going away
For those at the district or building level, such findings should be no surprise.  Stimulus money was primarily for stopping the bleeding, not for inventing new 21st century educational sutures.  So once the money passes from the feds to the states to the localities, those much needs dollars are used for tactical needs, not strategic visions.
What can we learn from these findings?  Bellwether and Education First offer a few insights.  First, federal funds won’t generate reform unless they are attached to clear reform requirements (does Eduflack hear NCLB?  Anybody?).  Competitive grants (like RttT and i3) have the greatest chance of driving reforms.  Formula-based programs, not so much.  Reform plans need to be strategic.  Policymakers need to support strategies that build capacity of all types (data, analytic, research, instructional).    
Most interestingly, Conflicting Missions touts the importance of advocacy in the reform process.  During the NCLB era, we lost this point, believing that the federal stick was enough to force long-term change.  It didn’t work.  In the early days of ARRA, we re-found the importance of advocacy, with the EdSec and other ED officials working hard to reach out to key groups and stakeholders so they understood the problems, what ED was doing to fix those problems, and the expected outcomes we would all reap following the fix.
Heading into ESEA reauthorization, we have lost some of that focus on advocacy.  But history tells us that effective public engagement is the best way to drive real and lasting reforms and improvements.  Erect a big tent and give all stakeholders a voice.  Make the process open and public.  Make clear the problem and the available solutions.  Give stakeholders a choice on such solutions, making clear that ED’s vision is the best for the current situation.  Underpromise and overdeliver on the agreed solutions.  Rinse and repeat.
Yes, Conflicting Missions focuses on ARRA.  But it also offers some real lessons for moving ESEA forward in 2011.  The big question, will anyone listen.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack has provided counsel to Bellwether Education Partners.)

  
 

Are Dropout Factories Closing?

Eduflack Achievement gap, ESEA, High School

Following years of a national policy push toward college- and career-readiness, are we seeing a decline in dropout factories?  According to Building a Grad Nation, a new report released today by Civic Enterprises, the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University, and America’s Promise Alliance, the answer to that question seems to be yes, with some caveats.

According to Grad Nation, more than a million students are still dropping out of high school each and every year.  And many of those million come from historically disadvantaged groups.  But there does seem to be some movement, including:

* The number of high school dropout factories fell 13 percent between 2002 and 2008
* More than half of states (29, actually) increased their graduation rates
* Tennessee has made the most impressive progress (boosting grad rates 15 percent), with New York offering an impressive 10 percent increase
* The decline in dropout factories is most prevalent in the South

That’s the good news.  What about the not-so-good?
* The graduation rate for Hispanic students is still only 64 percent, and for African-American students it is only 62 percent
* Nearly 80 percent of the dropout factory reductions are happening in suburbs and towns, meaning our urban centers remain magnets for dropout factories
* Our national high school grad rate is essentially still where it was 25 years ago when Nation at Risk was released
* Three states (Arizona, Nevada, and Utah) actually saw significant declines in their grad rates from 2002 to 2008

Yes, the collective authors are trying to put a positive spin on data that shows only modest improvements, at best.  But Grad Nation also offers some insights into what can be done, at least at a building level, to build on the successes of those who have improved and make change at those schools that have been persistently lagging.  It advocates for improved parental engagement (a must that we too often ignore).  It preaches the importance of both data collection and application.  It embraces scientifically based research and the need to do what works.  And it even tips its hat to the importance of making instruction relevant, particularly for students how may leave without the diploma otherwise.

Most realize that if we see an ESEA reauthorization in the coming months, it is going to focus, in large part, on college and career readiness.  As the GI Joe mantra goes, knowing is half the battle.  And Grad Nation goes a long ways in making sure we both know the current state of high school dropout affairs and know the possible paths of remedy available, even for those dreaded dropout factories.

Getting Caught In the Net(P)

Eduflack 21CS, ESEA, i3, NCLB, technology

With all of the talk about innovation, 21st century skills, college and career readiness, and much of the remaining buzz words surrounding school improvement this past year, little has actually be said about the old innovation workhorse, education technology.

Back in February and March, President Obama’s budget proposed zeroing out a number of the programs that served as dedicated ed tech funding for states and school districts, with a promise that ed tech would be better integrated in ESEA (and in ESEA reauthorization), and that increased dollars would be available for competitive ed tech programs that reach directly into school districts and schools.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education finally released its National Education Technology Plan, or NETP 2010.  Wrapping itself around the topics of readiness, global competitiveness, performance, and accountability, ED planted a new flag for the direction of education technology programs, injecting a little 21st century into our national blueprint.

According to ED, “NETP presents a model of learning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The plan also identifies far-reaching ‘grand challenge’ R&D problems that should be funded and coordinated at a national level.”

How novel.  We are connecting the issues of school tech with actual learning and teaching in the classroom.  We are connecting ed tech with assessment and student performance.  And most importantly, we are addressing the “R&D problems,” important shorthand for how grossly underfunded education R&D, particularly in the area of technology, has been at the government level.  (Don’t believe Eduflack, at the percentage of the federal health budget committed to R&D and compare it to the percentage of the ED budget committed to R&D.  And don’t even get me started on the horrific shortage of private-sector education R&D.)

The release of NETP 2010 is important.  What is equally important, though, is how the rhetoric will be moved into practice.  How are these goals being integrated into ESEA reauth planning?  How are these goals weaved into evaluations for both RttT and i3 efforts in 2011 and beyond?  In our national commitment to better integrate ed tech into the infrastructure of K-12 education, how are we ensuring the necessary funding?  And in answering all of the above, who will champion a renewed federal interest and investment in ed tech on Capitol Hill?

For too many years, the ed tech community has been forced to play defense, trying to protect programs from deeper cuts, year after year.  NETP 2010 provides a greater sense of hope, a verbal agreement that ed tech is a priority of this Administration and this nation.  Now that verbal just has to carry over to the written contracts of this coming February’s Presidential Budget and long-expected ESEA action.