Gates Foundation

A College-Ready Culture

Eduflack early college, Gates Foundation, Green Dot, High School, NGA

Thanks in large part to the funding and attention provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, much of the past five years in education reform has focused on improving high schools.  We’ve seen programs large and small looking for ways to improve rigor and relevance of high school instruction.  We’ve looked at small schools.  We’ve tried to tackle the high school dropout rate and the issue of dropout factories.  We’ve even looked at career education and career academies.  Lots of great ideas that have worked in a lot of well-meaning communities.  But much of it steps along the path of finding a high school improvement model that can truly be implemented at scale.

Why is scale so important?  Scale demonstrates that the reform can have an impact on the nation, and not just the community it is launched in.  It shows real reach and real opportunity.  Don’t believe Eduflack?  Check out groups like KIPP and Green Dot, and it is a discussion of scale.  Look at programs like Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools, it is about scale.  Innovation looking to truly improve public education is all about scale.  It’s about reaching as many people as possible and impacting as many schools and districts as allowable.
Last year, Eduflack was privileged to work with the National Governors Association on its Honor States Initiative, a Gates-funded effort to develop and cultivate meaningful high school reforms at the state level.  In many ways, the Honor States effort was one of the closest we’ve come to identifying a program that truly could be adopted and adapted at scale.  Working with 10 states (and their respective governors and state departments of education), NGA empowered states to implement state-level solutions to issues like grad rates, STEM, increased AP, and graduation requirements.  Equip all states with a similar set of tools and resources and supports, let them tackle the top issue preventing them from improving the high school experience, and help them solve the problem.  With flexibility and personalization, the Initiative provides a scalable model for state-level school improvement, a model that can be followed by all 50 states, regardless of where they get their funding.
As we dig deeper into scalability, though, particularly when it comes to high school improvement, it all comes down to tackling the high school dropout rate and boosting the college-going rate.  Most in education can agree that postsecondary education is a necessity in today’s economy and today’s world.  But with a third of today’s ninth graders dropping out of high school (and almost 50 percent of them in urban centers), and with a third of high school graduates never earning a postsecondary degree or certificate, how do you implement a national solution to reverse the trend?  How do you build a college-ready culture?
Today, College Summit (www.collegesummit.org) — a not-for-profit focused on college-going rates and postsecondary planning — announced a new partnership with the Gates Foundation to focus on “preparing all graduating high school students for college and career success.”  The goal is to get more students, particularly those in underserved populations — onto the college path as quickly and as permanently as possible.
Why is this important?  It is possible that the College Summit model could evolve into a scalable solution for reducing the dropout rate and getting more kids into college.  Why?
* It begins with a focus on ninth grade.  Look at the data, and we see that dropouts come in the ninth grade.  Once a student makes it through that first year of high school, the likelihood of sticking around for the remaining years increases exponentially.  But far too many programs focus on the upper grades of high school, spotlighting rigorous courses in 11th or 12th grade only.  By then, it is simply too late to focus a student on the college path.  If Eduflack had his druthers, we’d start even earlier than the ninth grade, beginning college prep in middle school.
* It is a collaborative process.  If we are to change the college-going behaviors of at-risk students, we need to do more than change those students’ thinking on the value of college.  We need to engage teachers and counselors.  We need to include parents and families.  We need to construct a collaborative discussion that focuses on the problem, the need for a solution, and a discussion of practical, implementable solutions.
* Geographic mix.  College Summit has assembled an interesting list of 13 regions it will start this effort in.  Yes, it includes the traditional urban bellweathers like New York City and Miami.  But it also includes B-list urban districts like Oakland, leadership-challenged districts like St. Louis, and innovation-focused districts like Indianapolis.  And it throws communities like Kanawha County, WV in, to boot.
* They are focusing on the whole school.  The goal here is to change the culture.  How do we get the whole school to transform into a school singularly focused on the path to postsecondary?  How do we ensure all students see a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree as necessary tools for a good job and a successful life?  This isn’t about pulling out specific students or targeting specific populations.  It is about the entire community.
Much is still left to be seen.  What are the hard goals three years from now?  Five years from now?  What rubrics will we use to measure the success of the program?  How will we ensure the 13 regions collaborate and learn from each others’ experiences?  How do we ensure innovations like online education and STEM are included in the process?  How do we make sure the best or promising practices gleaned from this experiment can be applied to more and more communities, offering a truly scalable solution to college readiness?
Lots of questions, yes.  But important questions worth the ask.  No doubt, the issue is one we need to address.  How do we identify and adopt national solutions to our dropout and college-going crisis?  Here’s hoping College Summit may be on to something.

Going Where the Education Action Is

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

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

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

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.

Stronger American Schools?

Eduflack Gates Foundation, PR

Thanks to the folks over at This Week in Education, we learn that the Broad and Gates Foundations have decided to end funding for their joint Strong American Schools/Ed in 08 initiative.  When it was launched a year and a half ago, SAS leaders pledged to place education atop the list of policy issues discussed and debated during the 2008 presidential debate.  Since then, the mortgage debacle, greater attention on environmentalism (thanks to Al Gore’s Nobel), rising consumer costs, and now the latest financial industry crisis, education just hasn’t gotten the foothold it deserved in election politics.

We all recognize that education is not going to be a major player over the next month.  It won’t be a major focus of tomorrow’s VP debate.  It won’t drive the two remaining presidential showdowns.  It is unlikely it will be the topic of a campaign commercial or of third-party spending from PACs and special interest groups.  So the decision makes practical sense in our impractical political world.
What has SAS left us with?  First and foremost, it has provided a network for dialogue.  By SAS’ own statistics, the organization has hosted more than 800 meetings around the country to discuss the needs in public education.  They’ve placed articles and opeds in leading newspapers.  They’ve supported advertising campaigns.  And they’ve gotten both campaigns to think about education issues, at least to the extent where they have built strong education policy teams and are already thinking through transition issues.
When the books are closed on Ed in 08, it will have spent slightly more than a third of total funds originally intended for the effort.  By now, though, we all realize that money doesn’t buy results.  Thanks to the Puget Sound Business Journal, we know approximately $24 million has been spent on this initiative.   Instead of asking about the remaining $36 million, we should focus on where the money spent has gotten us.  More importantly, are we better off now than we were 18 months ago?
As education reformers, we have to believe that the answer is yes.  Beyond the quantifiable results that SAS will document in the coming months, the effort has demonstrated that there is interest in a national debate on the future of education.  We have demonstrated that people do care about the fate of our public schools, the choices we can make, the power we have to change and improve what is available to our kids and our communities.
Just as important, though, SAS has shown us the most important part of education reform — the need for clear goals and the need for a clear call to action.  If Ed in 08 had any shortcoming, it was that it refused to advocate for a particular position.  Yes, raising awareness is important, particularly when we are talking about raising awareness about the current state of the American public school system.  But awareness is just the first step on the road to success.
What SAS lacked, and what so many education organizations must now take up, is a clear call to action.  SAS informed.  It sought to build commitment for that information.  The lacking piece, however, was mobilizing the community to take specific action.  To change public thinking.  To change public behavior.  To change our public schools.
Moving forward, the Gates and Broad Foundations are left with infinite options.  They have made an unwavering commitment to improving the quality and outcomes of public education throughout the United States.  More than ever, those resources must be committed to programs that can be replicated and duplicated.  They must be committed to programs that can be adopted by school after school, district after district, and state after state.  They must be results-based, with an emphasis on data and accountability.  They must make a difference, both today and for the long term.
Now, we must look for ways to build on the work of SAS and Ed in 08, ensuring that we learn and move forward from what has been learned.  Ed in 08 must not be yet another initiative that is boxed up and put away, not to be looked at again.  Let’s tap the energy, the network, and the possibility to move from raising awareness to making a difference.

To Be An Urban Superintendent

Eduflack AYP, Chancellor Klein, Gates Foundation

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

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

“The 21st Century Begins Now?”

Eduflack Bloomberg, Gates Foundation, national standards, PR, STEM

We are a nation of lists.  We love lists.  To do lists.  In lists.  Out lists.  Check offs.  Top 25s.  Up and comers.  Give us a list, and it is something that we can embrace.

This month, Esquire magazine (yes, thank you Chris Whittle for saving this pub a few decades ago) is running a cover story on the 75th anniversary of the magazine, focusing on “The 21st Century Begins Now.”  The magazine’s publishers lay out the 75 most influential people of the 21st century.  The selections are more photo than caption (typical for the magazine), and many of them are quite interesting.
What is most startling, though, is how small a role education seems to play in the 21st century (at least in Esquire’s eyes).  When Time magazine did a similar list last year, we saw names like Bill Gates, Wendy Kopp, and others.  Real names that have been involved in real education reforms — and, more importantly, improvements — over the past decade.  Since then, we’ve seen continued investment from Ed in 08 to draw attention to education issues, we’ve heard the phoenix story of New Orleans public schools, and we’ve seen new superintendents take over new districts with a zeal that hasn’t been felt in quite some time.  Now we have events like Aspen’s National Education Summit tomorrow, designed to harness the power, enthusiasm, and sense of urgency that has been brought to modern day education reform.
Esquire seems to turn a blind eye to the influence of educators, though.  We have actors and musicians, futurists and techies.  But it seems educators struggle to make the top 75 list.  Perhaps they’ve forgotten that education has the potential to be the great equalizer, or that it serves as one of the most significant civil rights issues of our time.  Maybe they’ve failed to recognize that better education today results in better jobs and a stronger economy tomorrow.  Whatever the reason, education got little respect from Esquire.
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg makes the cut, but it is all about organizational reform and environmentalism.  Michael Milken is one it, but for his work with FasterCures healthcare reform, and not his previous education efforts.   Recent TED honoree Dave Eggers is on the list, and he nobly talks about the importance of reading, even in the 21st century society.  Bill Gates, of course is there, with a chart of his July charitable giving — only a fraction of it went to education causes, though, showing the diversification of his efforts (health, poverty, microfinance, policy, and education).
That would be the full list.  Maybe we can add actor Will Smith to the educators list because of his recent good work with charter schools.  But at the end of the day, we have one person on the list — an author — who is full-time involved in education.  Two on the list with education experience, though you can find it on their bios.  And one who’s impact on education has been quite measurable, even if it is a small part of the overall philanthropic impact.
I’ll say it.  That simply isn’t enough.  If we are looking at the 75 most influential people of the 21st century, we need to be looking at those who are influencing the actual leaders of the 21st century.  Actors and musicians and politicians may be trendy choices, but are they affecting real influence?  And can we really project the influencers of the century, when most organizations lack the foresight to thoroughly develop a 10-year strategic plan?
That’s why Eduflack is going to assemble a list of the nine individuals with the potential to influence education reform over the next decade.  If nine is good enough for a baseball team, it is good enough for me.  Maybe we’ll add a bench and some role players, but for now, the focus is our starting nine.  And I’m looking for some nominations for my draft.
Who is going assume the HR lead in getting hundreds of thousands of teachers hired following mass retirements over the next five years?  Who is going to harness disparate interests and move us to national education standards?  Who is going to redefine science and research in the classroom?  Who will lead the change evolve the role of principal into instructional and institutional leader?  Who has the approach to close the achievement gap?  Who’s got the inside track to end drop-out crisis?  Who moves STEM from the fringe to a central movement?
Our all-star team is not intended to be a list of well-known urban superintendents or organizational CEOs.  We’re looking for thinkers and voices.  We seek innovators and defenders.  We want the known and those who need to and should be discovered.  Eduflack has had a lot of fun playing parlor games regarding who will become the next EdSec.  But at the end of the day, I know that real reform and real improvement comes from those on the front lines.  EdSecs can provide vision and leadership, and they may even be able to coach the ed reform team, but they will never be the one to win the game.  We’re looking for true game changers and game winners.
Perhaps the Aspen Institute summit will spotlight on some individuals and some ideas that deserve consideration.  Perhaps the lists from Edutopia and others will help educate.  Regardless, the hunt is on.  Who wants to join the search?

“An Urgent Call”

Eduflack AFT, Chancellor Klein, Gates Foundation, Michelle Rhee, national standards, NCLB, STEM

It is rare for Eduflack to get generally excited about a particular event.  Those who know me know I am the supreme by nature.  As I’ve said before, I’m not a glass half full/half empty sort of guy.  I just want to know who broke my damned glass.

But every so often, I even surprise myself with real and genuine enthusiasm.  And that enthusiasm is kicking in as we lead into the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit on Monday.  Under the banner of “An Urgent Call,” Aspen is bringing together an unmatched who’s who on education reform, education policy, and corporate support.
I recognize that some may ask, why the enthusiasm?  After all, these sorts of meetings and forums have been a dime a dozen in recent years.  But there just seems to be something a little different about Aspen’s Summit.  And it is those difference that make all the difference:
* The major players will be in attendance … and will be participating.  EdSec Margaret Spellings, Supes Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, reformers like Jon Schnur and John Chubb, policy influencers and leaders like Gates’ Vicki Phillips and Ed in 08’s Roy Romer.  
* The summit is speaking with multiple voices.  Too often, these events come with a specific point of view and a myopic intent.  Here, we have AFT’s Randi Weingarten and EdTrust’s Kati Haycock.  We have urban superintendents and the corporate leaders who are pushing them to change.  And we have an A-list of media members to connect all the voices and provide a clear voice for the future.
* It is about more than diagnosing the problems.  Yes, there will be some focus on how public education in the United States has gotten where it is.  Yes, they will assess the current problems, while providing clear understanding on why the problems need to be fixed.  More importantly, though, the summit is pledging to help “sustain a national will for effective reform.”
As I’ve worked with education organizations and corporations across the country, I’ve always tried to talk about communications and public engagement in the simplest of terms.  Ultimately, one often wants to lower public expectations, and then greatly exceed those expectations.  Why?  We all love a winner.  Those who set goals, and then far exceed those goals, are perceived as winners.  Those who set high public expectations, and then struggle to achieve them, are seen as failing — even if that 80% success rate means a lasting impact on the field (and has far more of an effect than those who easily achieve lower expectations).
Without question, the Aspen Institute has set higher than high expectations with this summit.  More importantly, they are bringing together the right people to actually achieve these goals.  This isn’t just a room of talking heads, brought together to discuss the issues and wring their hands about all that is wrong with our public schools.  On Monday, Aspen is bringing together 300 of the top people best positioned to bring real change and real improvement to our education system.
Sustaining a national will for effective reform is not easy.  Sure, it’s easy to diagnose the problems or to share information about what is wrong and why it is important.  One of the hardest things to do, at least in the communications field, is to move beyond information sharing and move into changing public behavior.  Aspen is seeking to change public behavior, and Monday’s summit serves as their flag in the sand.
The Aspen Institute has demonstrated, through its work with the NCLB Commission, that it is committed to education improvement and to provided the time, support, and leadership to see the issue through.  In my humble eyes, the NCLB Commission’s report — released a year and a half ago — still serves as one of the better blueprints for improving the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  If this summit can serve the same purpose, we may really have something here.
That’s why I am enthusiastic about Monday.  As always, Eduflack will be looking and listening for those issues he knows are essential to improving our schools — national standards, data collection and application, school choice, and STEM among them.  Here’s hoping I leave Monday with the same enthusiasm I’m holding this afternoon.

“Those Who Do Not Learn from the Past …”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, higher ed, NAEP, PR, STEM

We’ve all heard George Santayana’s famous quote (often attributed to others), that “those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.”  It is a poignant statement on the importance of understanding what has happened in the past, so we can learn and grow from it.

Personally, Eduflack prefers the words of baseball philosopher king Yogi Berra, who eloquently said that if we don’t know where we are going, we will never know if we get there.  Both are applicable to life, and both are certainly applicable to education reform.  In an our current era of “change,” we are all looking to do something different with the schools.  But for those who have been around the block a time or two, they are seeing reforms that are simply retreads of ideas past.  We put a new wrapping on them or give them a new name, but they are the same failed ideas, with no indication that we have learned from their participation in that first rodeo.
What does it all mean?  For the most part, it demonstrates that we have little sense for our current standing or what it has taken to get us there.  We still believe we have the best higher education system in the world, even though our college graduation rate has slipped from first place to 15th in 10 years.  We still believe our K-12 system has no match, even as schools in India and China manage to turn out more and more students to take our jobs.  And we still embrace an educational model that was developed nearly a century ago, a model built on the notion that 1/3 in college, 1/3 high school grad, and 1/3 dropout is acceptable, and the three Rs remain the king.
Put simply, we are getting by on our reputations, not on our current actions.  We often hear carbuyers talk about their desire to buy a Volvo because of its unmatched safety record.  Let’s forget, for a moment, that the safety record in question is now a few decades old and not applicable to the current models.  In education, we sell our superiority based on an outdated model and outdated comparisons, believing that tinkering around the edges today will make us stronger, and that no one can match what we really have to offer, because they couldn’t three decades ago.
Exams like NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA obviously tell us otherwise.  The growing national push for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) tells us otherwise too.  But how do we really learn from our educational past, in a way that lets us strengthen our educational future?
On Monday, PBS will debut its “Where We Stand: America’s Schools in the 21st Century” program.  Hosted by The NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, this program was developed to provide “an historic assessment of U.S. Schools in where we stand.”  Premiering at 10 p.m. on Monday, September 15, the program will tell the stories of a number of individuals and communities affected by the current state of public education, focusing on issues such as teaching foreign languages (like Mandarin classes in Ohio), addressing high-poverty, low-performance issues, and using STEM education programs to lift all boats and empower all students.
The program will address the issues in urban, suburban, and rural schools, recognizing our successes and our challenges are not limited to a sliver of our demographic.  More importantly, producers promise a “frank” discusses of public education’s strengths and weaknesses, an adjective that rarely finds its way into media coverage of education and education reform these days.  The show will focus on Ohio, as it is the microcosm of our nation, both politically and educationally.  
Kudos to PBS for taking up such a challenge and producing such a piece (and it isn’t even a John Merrow piece!).  And kudos to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for funding this effort, lending its resources to educating and teaching us, in addition to empowering us to change the classrooms.  Hopefully, “Where We Stand” will provide some important lessons for the reformers, the status quoers, and all those in between to learn from and model as we move forward.
Every GPS out there requires you to enter you start point in order to track your path.  Maybe, just maybe, “Where We Stand” can provide those many educators and policymakers lost out there in the wilderness with a reliable start point on which to plot a new course. 

“An Army of Teachers”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, HQT, NEA, Obama

It should be no surprise that there was little real discussion of K-12 education at this week’s Democratic convention.  As we’re seeing in polls, education simply isn’t an issue on which people cast their national vote.  It isn’t a red-meat topic to rally the troops and build true excitement.  Despite all of the best attempts from groups like Ed in 08, education just didn’t register this week, and isn’t expected to register next week.

Sure, there were a few veiled references to No Child Left Behind and how it has saddled our schools.  Many speakers talked about the need for more student loans.  But other than a few sentences in former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s speech and in current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s remarks, education was an also-ran issue.
But last night, Barack Obama upped the ante.  Yes, his spoke globally on a range of issues, focusing mainly on the economy and on foreign policy.  Education, though, also popped up in his speech.  The most interesting line, perhaps, was his notion that, as president, he would recruit a “new army of teachers” for our schools.
We all have heard the stories about how more than half of all teachers will be retiring over the next five years.  We know that there is a teacher “shortage” out there, particularly in subjects such as math and science.  And we’ve seen the stories about school districts recruiting for new teachers outside of their state and even outside of the United States.  But it is a bold statement to say that the federal government is soon going to get into the business of identifying and recruiting a new “army of teachers.”
At a Jobs for the Future conference last fall, the Gates Foundation’s education director, Vicki Phillips, spoke of the Foundation’s need to get into the human capital business.  Few noticed the line, but it left a lasting impact on Eduflack.  Imagine the impact on teacher recruitment if the Gates Foundation put its money and its willpower behind the teacher recruitment, bringing individuals into the fold who can lead the new classrooms of the 21st century.  It was an interesting idea, an idea that hasn’t been fleshed out since Phillips tossed it into the pool.
Getting the federal government — and, thus, the U.S. Department of Education — makes it just a little more interesting.  Imagine an assistant secretary for teacher recruitment, leading an office that is looking at new incentives and alternative certifications and performance pay and teachers at charter schools.  I know I am jumping to conclusions here, but it is an interesting thought that the feds could soon be in the teacher recruitment business.
Yes, the chance if far greater that this is a line that will soon be forgotten and never adopted into policy.  In an Obama Administration, even if it moved forward, it could simply be an initiative run by the National Education Association, looking so much like efforts that have come before it.  
Or it could just be a bold way to truly improve education, putting everything on the table and making clear that the teacher in front of the classroom is the most important component to student achievement.  It could redefine how we think of a qualified, effective teacher.  And it could re-energize a new generation to become classroom teachers.

Lookin’ for Edu-R&D Sugardaddies

Eduflack Gates Foundation, IES, SBRR, STEM

For years now, we have heard IES Director Russ Whitehurst lament the dirth of funding for education research and development.  Compare the U.S. Department of Education’s research budget with that of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it is embarrassing (even if you do it as a percentage of the total agency budget).

The good folks over at Knowledge Alliance (formerly NEKIA) have waved a similar banner.  If we expect a scientifically based educational experience, we need to invest in scientifically based research.  If we are going to do what works, we need to investigate it.  And if we are going to drive the squishy research from the K-12 kingdom, we need to make meaningful investments in the strong, scientific, longitudinal research we are seeking.

Yet education R&D still seems to be feeding from the scraps of practice.  We have few industry leaders that are funding R&D the way we see it in the health industry.  And that view becomes even more acute today, when the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announces a $600 million grant to fund the research of 56 top medical researchers.  The Washington Post has the full story here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701014.html?hpid=topnews.

It has all got Eduflack thinking of the impact such an investment could have on education. Just imagine if a philanthropy offered up $200 or $100 or even $50 million to education’s top researchers to develop major findings in how to improve public education.  Science and math instruction.  ELL.  Teacher training.  Effects of technology.  Charters.  The list of possible topics is limitless.  In reading alone, you can take a look at the list of potential research subjects offered by the National Reading Panel in 2000.  Today, most of those still haven’t been pursued.

But we all recognize that such sugardaddies are few and far between in education reform.  We put our money on educational practice.  We fund practitioners.  R&D is an add-on, often used just to test the ROI for funders, be they philanthropic or corporate.

Yes, we have significant education investment from groups like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They have made a significant contribution to funding education reforms, particularly in our urban areas.  But the focus is not on R&D, it is on classroom practice.  Valuable indeed, but it doesn’t mean we don’t need a similar investment on the research side.  In fact, such R&D investment can ensure Gates’ money is being wisely spent.

Without question, the money available in the education industry is at levels never imagined in generations past.  Somewhere among those growing pots, there must be a potential sugardaddy (or a collection of sugarbabies) who can do for education what the Hughes Institute is doing for medicine.  

As we struggle with the definitions of SBRR and the findings of the WWC, just imagine the impact we can have with a nine-figure investment in education R&D, particularly if it is led through a public-private partnership.  

Today, education reform is kinda like filling a lake with teaspoon.  We’re adding some drops here or there, but we can’t necessarily see the impact.  With stronger R&D, we have the option of at least adding water by the barrel full, if not more.  And that’s the only way to raise the opportunity boats of the kids who need it most.