High School

Presidential Rhetoric, Education-Style

Eduflack Arne Duncan, charter schools, early childhood education, High School, NCLB, Obama, stimulus

The education game is on.  During last evening’s Presidential Address to Congress, President Obama dedicated significant time in his hour-long speech to the issue of education.  Such a commitment is typically unheard of in typical State of the Union addresses.  Often, a president will throw in a few sentences about education, one about the importance of teachers, one about the value of a college education, and then he will move onto to other issues more adept at capturing the hearts and minds of the American people.

Yes, Obama had a lot to say last night.  The economy, home ownership, energy, national security, healthcare.  All got their due.  And education was right in there as an A-list issue.  Clearly, the President sees the clear connect between an improved K-16 education system and an improved economy, how a strong education leads to good jobs and meaningful contribution.  He sees the next generation of the American workforce will require new levels of knowledge and skills that the generations before them never envisioned.  If anything, he made a clear and compassionate case for 21st century skills.
The full transcript from last night’s speech can be found here, though it is a much more impressive watch than it is a read: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/obama_address_022409.html?hpid=topnews
Of”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/obama_address_022409.html?hpid=topnews
Of course, a significant potion of last night’s education segment was dedicated to higher education.  That should surprise no one.  For the past two years, Obama has spoken of postsecondary education as a primary pathway to life success.  He has pledged to get more kids to go to college, help them pay for it, and then use their talents in the community well after they earned that degree.  And in times of economic trouble, nothing hits the heart better than improving one’s lot in life through learning.  Challenging every American to seek at least one more year of education, whether it be in college or a vocational program, was a bold statement.  Stating that dropping out is never an option is always a crowd-pleaser.  And setting a goal of repositioning the United States as the nation with the highest percentage of postsecondary degree holders by 2020 is an interesting idea (though I’m curious to see how we are defining degrees and how we are equating simply earning the degree with effectively putting it to use).
A few points — some policy, some rhetoric — truly grabbed Eduflack’s attention.
On the policy front, the President made strong commitments to both charter schools and performance pay for teachers.  The latter should be no surprise.  Obama has long advocated for incentive pay, even during a tough primary knowing it may have cost him the support of teachers (or at least the teachers’ unions).  He hasn’t forgotten how important it can be to incentivize educators, particularly those in hard-to-staff communities facing real academic challenges.  By boosting funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he has signaled that performance pay (and possibly differentiated pay scales) are on the horizon.  Perhaps he may even lean to newly minted U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado for some ideas on how to take Denver’s ProComp model to national scale.
On charters, the President put charter schools firmly in the center of his education improvement agenda.  Although he provided no specific details, just by singling them out he built a bridge to an important education community and showed his design for change, innovation, and improvement in our public schools.  It is almost hard to believe that a president or two ago, a Democrat couldn’t even utter the word charter without getting the ire of the education establishment.  For Eduflack, the question for the future is whether the Administration — particularly through the Office of Innovation and Improvement and the newly created Innovation Fund — will broadly define charter schools or whether they will take the new world view pushed by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, limiting our commitment to charters to those that are run by not-for-profit organizations.
The final policy piece?  A renewed commitment to early childhood education.  The President made clear that student learning starts “from the day they are born to the day they begin a career,” and we need to redouble our efforts to deliver real instruction and real learning to children well before they hit kindergarten.  That got applause from Eduflack, but we probably need to retool the statement to address the reality that education continues well beyond the start of a career.  Just ask all of those most recently in the workforce who we are asking to retool, or those teachers for whom we are rightfully investing in improved, content-based professional development.  Learning should be a lifelong pursuit.
And the rhetoric?  As many pundits have already proclaimed, President Obama is clearly a master of the television medium.  He knows how to deliver a speech, and knows how to do it well with real impact.  In the education portion of our program, that was most clear in his articulation of the role of parents.  Again, this has been a key component of his stump speech, and a topic touched on during the Democratic Convention last summer.  He made crystal the job of educating our students is not just left to teachers, and that parents play an equally important role by being involved, taking an interest, and leading by example.  I still believe there is a real need for an Office of Family Involvement over at the U.S. Department of Education, an infrastructure that can harness the power of a wide range of communities and focus on how the home can supplement what is happening in the classroom.  If not an assistant secretary office someone at OESE, OPEPD, or OII needs to take it on as a priority cause.
In his remarks, it is also clear that Obama (and his speechwriters) are clear in their vision and passion for how one talks about higher education and its impact on the individual and the community.  What was interesting, though, is that the speechwriters still seem to be seeking and searching for that same confident voice on K-12 education.  Yes, there were applause line for things like charter schools and dropping out is never an option, but the passion and connectivity was lacking, at least compared with other sections of the speech.Obama didn’t sell the K-12 ideas as well as he did higher education or energy.  Maybe he wanted to stay away from NCLB, maybe he wants to give EdSec Arne Duncan a full latitude in establishing the agenda, or maybe he is still waiting to find that balance between the tried-and-true and innovation (or the status quoers and the reformers, as some prefer).  Over time, we have to hope that the K-12 section, particularly with regard to elementary grades and instructional building blocks becomes clear and a true rallying cry for school improvement.  To truly sell the vision, he needs to speak with confidence and authority on some of the details, particularly as it relates to instructional innovation.
What was missing?  In his discussion of how we can effectively use our educational infrastructure to improve our economy, I wish there was clear, specific mention of STEM education. When done well, STEM education is about well more than just 21st century skills.  It is exactly about equipping all students with the math, science, and technology knowledgebase they need to contribute to the economy and fill the very jobs Obama is looking to create.
I had also hoped to hear a call for national standards.  In talking about global economic competition, we not only need clear national academic standards, but we probably need to tie those to intern
ational benchmarks (as NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve have recently called for).  The Administration has been dipping its toe into the national standards pool, and the financial commitment to improve state data systems is a good step forward.  But the rhetorical nod to a single expectation for student achievement in the United States would have been a powerful, defining statement.
What fell flat?  The attempt to brand this new approach to P-16 as a “complete and competitive education.”  While I appreciate the attempt, I don’t think the concept holds the rhetorical power we both seek and need.  The Administration is looking for a way to improve on No Child Left Behind, both as a policy and as a rhetorical statement.  It may be a punchline to jokes now, but the phrase “no child left behind” wielded enormous power in the early days of the law. It meant something, particularly when combined with lines about the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”
Lines like “dropping out of high school is no longer an option” are good initial steps.  But we still need to capture an umbrella brand and a bumper sticker phrase to define what this new era of innovative public education really stands for.  Complete and competitive are nice attributes, but they aren’t the headline.  It may just be window dressing to some, but how we talk about federal policy and the labels we ascribe to it can be just as important — even more so — than what’s under the hood.  Obama captured much of the nation with his rhetoric of “Yes, we can.”  Now we need to move that into a “yes, we can educate all” mentality.

The Measure of a Successful Graduate

Eduflack AFT, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, national standards, NGA

This has been an interesting week for national education standards and firm performance measures.  We celebrated President’s Day on Monday with AFT President Randi Weingarten making the case for national standards on the opinion pages of The Washington Post — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021501257.html.  She makes a compelling case, a case that Eduflack and other have been making for quite some time.

It also flows nicely from the report issued by NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve at the end of 2008, focusing on the need for the United States to pay closer attention to international benchmarking, a push to effectively capture the right data so we know how our students are performing when compared to their academic colleagues in other industrialized nations.
Yesterday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland raised the ante a bit more, calling for an overhaul of the state’s Ohio Graduation Test, citing concerns that nearly one in 10 Ohio high school seniors fail to pass the OGT (after multiple attempts at success).  The full story can be found from Denise Smith Amos at the Cincinnati Enquirer — news.cincinnati.com/article/20090217/NEWS0102/902170316/1055/NEWS.  
It should be no surprise that some in Ohio are already wondering if changes to the OGT mean increasing standards and expecting more from our students (as is Strickland’s stated objective).  Typically when we talk about improving student assessment measures, it means one of two things.  The first is the fear we will ask for more from our students (as is happening in Ohio).  The all-to-often reality is it usually means a weakening of the standards, dropping expectations to ensure that more students are hitting the magic number and schools are reaching their AYP benchmarks.
But the Ohio experience raises a very interesting question.  Can our states provide an effective “graduation test,” one that is expected to measure the full value of a high school education, in the 10th grade?  Obviously, we aren’t testing students on the math and science concepts that are traditional in 11th and 12th grade classes (including Algebra II, Trig, Chemistry II, Physics, or even advanced life sciences).  In some locales, it means not measuring world or U.S. history.  In each and every school, a 10th grade “graduation test” only serves as half of an effective measure.
Yes, Eduflack understands the need to provide students a second chance to pass this important test.  Yes, I realize the stakes are high, particularly when you say a student can’t earn a diploma without demonstrating sufficient performance on a single test.  But can a test taken in the middle of one’s 10th grade year effectively measure the comprehensive learning acquired during the secondary school experience?  Can a graduation test taken two years early truly help postsecondary institutions and employers know the full skills and abilities of the students exiting our K-12 systems?
The answer is clearly no and no.  We tell every student that they need a high school diploma.  We tell them that dropping out is never a viable option.  More states are even shifting to an 18-year-old age requirement for students to drop out.  But how do we expect students to take their full high school experience seriously if we tell them in the spring of their 10th grade year (not even the mid-way point of the high school experience) whether they have passed or failed high school?  History tells us that “failure” tag is not one that inspires students to buckle down and do what it takes to pass on the second or third try.  Quite the opposite, it provides students an excuse to give up, whether then remain in the classroom or not.
Critics will obviously say that there is no effective way to administer a comprehensive exam and effectively evaluate students at the end of 12th grade; we simply don’t have the time to do it right.  It won’t be fair to students that they be denied their diploma because they failed an exam a week or a month prior to graduation, they say.  Students won’t have multiple opportunities to take the exam, working to fix what may have gone wrong.  Teachers won’t have the opportunity to provide the necessary interventions to fill the gaps.
That’s where concepts such as national standards come in.  Yes, we should know what every 10th grader (as well as other students) should know and be capable of doing at the end of an academic year.  Those standards are core to a successful K-12 learning experience.  If students are meeting standards at the end of 8th grade and 10th grade, they should be prepared to meet the challenges of a true graduation exam in 12th grade.  If they are off the mark come 10th grade, educators have two years to intervene and empower students with those educational building blocks they need to succeed.
Yes, Governor Strickland, the OGT is not rigorous enough.  Kudos for trying to do something about it.  Part of the problem is the nature of standardized testing.  Part of that is the reality that we cannot effectively measure high school performance less than halfway through the experience.  A truly rigorous graduation test requires measuring courses and content gathered in 11th and 12th grade.  A true exit exam, offered near the conclusion of 12th grade, may seem as the highest of the high-stakes test.  But it is the only way to truly measure whether our graduates have the skills and abilities holders of a high school diploma should have.  It is the only way to demonstrate to our postsecondary institutions and our local businesses and industries that K-12 graduates are capable of doing what we expect of each and every graduate.
National standards give us the regular, ongoing benchmarks to ensure we are hitting the academic marks we need to hit throughout the K-12 process.  Effective data systems — such as those being built in some states and those advocated for by the Obama administration through the economic stimulus process — provide us the information and the research necessary to ensure our kids are hitting those marks, while providing teachers the guidance on necessary interventions and needed steps to bring all students up to proficiency.  And meaningful, rigorous graduation exams, administered at the close of the high school experience, are the final measure to ensure the impact and effectiveness of that K-12 education.
This is not an either-or-maybe scenario.  We need the national standards, the data systems, the exit exams — and the policymakers, administrators, and teachers who know what to do with it all — if we are to regain our competitive edge and restore real value to a high school diploma.
If we are to deliver real return on investment for our school improvement efforts, we must take assessment and data seriously.  We can’t wait this out and assume it will get better on its own.  We need to get serious now about teaching, measuring, and evaluating the effectiveness of public education.  

Turning Economic Lemons Into STEM Lemonade

Eduflack High School, higher ed, PD, STEM, Workforce

Many were greatly surprised yesterday when Microsoft announced it was laying off 5,000 employees across the United States.  Microsoft is one of those companies that we have long viewed as invulnerable.  It was a company on a relatively upward trajectory from the start, weathering the dot-com bomb of 2000, the resurgence of Apple and the Mac, legal issues both home and in the European Union, and even trivial issues like the public rejection of its latest operating system.

So when layoffs were announced yesterday, it was a big statement.  Those who thought the economy had turned the corner and was ready for recovery are now reconsidering their optimism.  While the Microsoft downsizing is likely to have a lasting impact on the technology sector, it provides a real opportunity for public education.  Among those employees soon to depart the software giant are individuals expert in math, science, technology, and engineering, just the sort of content background and training our public schools — particularly our high schools — are in desperate need of.
For decades now, we have bemoaned the national shortage of qualified science and math teachers, particularly in our urban areas and in our secondary schools.  The current emphasis on 21st century skills and STEM education only amplifies the shortage.  In recent years, we’ve even added the need for “real life” experience to the discussion, believing that boosting student interest in math and the sciences is assisted by educators who are both teachers and practitioners.
Late last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (yes, the same Bill Gates who founded Microsoft and turned it into the economic giant it became) announced that human capital and strengthening our teacher pool was a priority.  Rightfully so.  Real, lasting education improvement begins with talented, effective teachers.  Without strong math and science teachers in our classrooms — those who understand the content, the pedagogy, and the real-life context — reforms are half-hearted at best.
So why can’t we bring together the Gates Foundation’s vision (and financial commitment) to strengthening and supporting teachers with a new pipeline of knowledgeable STEM practitioners and find a way to get those displaced workers (as well as those from other tech sector companies) out of the boardroom and into the classroom?  Why can’t we use everything we know about pre-service teacher training, necessary pedagogy, and mid-career teacher transitions and build a comprehensive STEM teacher training program that trains tech workers and connects they with communities and school districts in dire need of effective STEM educators?
Such an effort wouldn’t be a first.  Back in 2005, IBM announced it was transitioning a portion of its workforce into K-12 education.  They established relationships with institutions of higher education in key IBM communities to develop mid-career teacher training programs.  They applied the IBM training model to teacher development.  They looked to break new ground in mid-career transition.
Now we have an opportunity for the Gates Foundation, the National Math and Science Initiative, or a host of other organizations to come together and build a better mid-career transition mousetrap.  Yes, we would need to make sure the right workers are entering the program (not everyone is up to the challenge of teaching, and not everyone – no matter how much content knowledge they possess – can teach it).  Yes, we would need to ensure that any training program is research-based and deeply rooted in the pedagogy.  We can’t do drive-by teacher training.  And yes, we know that this doesn’t solve the larger issue of effective math and science teachers in every classroom, particularly those in our at-risk communities.  But it is a start, and a good one.
In STEM programs across the nation, states and school districts are seeking to achieve a number of goals.  First is to boost student interest in the STEM subjects.  Second is to get more students to take STEM classes and pursue STEM degrees.  Third is often how to get those with STEM degrees back into the classroom to teach in those schools where they gained their STEM passions.  These goals take time.  But getting top engineers and video game designers and mathematicians  into the classroom to display their personal passions each and every school day is a good start to building student interest.  With the proper trainings and support, they could become effective STEM teachers equipping a generation of students with the skills and knowledgebase they need to navigate our future challenges and opportunities. 
Now is the time turn some of those economic lemons and turning them into some STEM instruction lemonade.  And the Gates Foundation can do it by first taking care of its own.  Talk about win-win.

Tapping 21st Century Skills

Eduflack High School, STEM, technology, Workforce

We’re still into the first week of the new year, and it looks like 21st century skills is quickly becoming my white whale for 2009, supplanting my doggedness on Reading First and SBRR last year.  Eduflack was prepared the let the issue sit after some of yesterday’s back and forth.  I had my say, and I acknowledge the learned opinions of those who disagree with me on said say.  But then the Christian Science Monitor has to go and tickle my interest again this morning.

CSM’s Stacy Teicher Khadaroo looks at how teachers are making the necessary adjustments to prepare their students for the challenges and opportunities of what is before them.  The full story can be found at: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What”>www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What really got me, though, was the graph that accompanied the article, looking at the issue of what “creativity” means to superintendents and the business community.  The crux of this is, according to CSM, that “creativity is key for a 21st century workforce.”  What’s startling about the data is how our school leaders and our business leaders see the issue of creativity so differently.  Asked to rank issues on a scale of one to 10, what came in as number one for the business community (problem identification or articulation) ranked ninth with superintendents.  The supes’ top concern (problem solving) only scored in the top eight with our business minds.
Why is this significant?  Like it or not, our schools are preparing our future workers.  These numbers demonstrate there is a real disconnect between the learning priorities set by our schools and the expected outcomes of our employers.  It is no wonder so many business leaders I speak with say that a potential hire with only a high school diploma simply doesn’t have the skill sets needed to thrive in today’s challenging economy.  They’re looking for different things than many K-12s are prioritizing.
Let me be clear.  I am not suggesting that our business leaders should hijack the decisionmaking process in K-12, nor should our public schools be transformed into glorified trade schools serving merely as a pipeline into the workforce.  What I am suggesting is the need for greater collaboration in all areas of the learning process.  School districts need a better understanding of the skills and knowledgebase that local employers are seeking and need to better understand how to offer that within the confines of their current curriculum and state performance measures.  They need to look at innovations that open up new content and that offer the tried-and-true in ways that better engage and better inspire today’s students.  
Businesses need to move beyond simply sponsoring the sports teams and placing ads in the yearbook and become true learning partners.  How can they offer internships to students, opening their eyes to potential careers?  How can they offer externships to teachers, helping them see how their instruction links back to the opportunities that will be available to their students?  How can they help more students see the relevance of school, supporting teachers as they try to boost student achievement and avoid growing drop-out numbers?
It is trite and overused, but sometimes it really does take a village to raise a child.  It definitely takes a wide range of stakeholders to effectively educate them.  And until key stakeholders like superintendents and the business community share a common view on needs and priorities, we will continue to struggle between good intentions and missed opportunities.
   

Take Me Home, 21st Century Teachers

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, STEM, Students, technology

Twenty-first century skills seems to be the topic of the day again today.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, Mike Petrilli takes a vastly different point of view from dear ole Eduflack, boiling down the issue of 21st century skills to making our kids tech savvy (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/01/the-conceit-of-21st-century-skills/#comments).  I agree with Petrilli.  Today’s students don’t need any help at all figuring out how technology works.  My two-and-a-half year old son is already more skilled on the iPhone than the eduwife, knowing perfectly well how to turn it on, get it out of sleep mode, and flip through the pages to get to his favorite game (the one with the rabbit eating the carrots and dodging the cans, for those in the real know).

And Robert Pondiscio over at Core Knowledge blog comments on my earlier posting about the real dangers of sacrificing content in the name of 21st century skills. Again, I agree with Pondiscio’s premise and point.  But one can teach the finer points of the War of 1812 beyond the chalkboard and mimeographed pages.  Content still remains king, but we also need to take a careful look at delivery.
We’re seeing the shift in our assessments, as bubble sheets are giving way to computer-based exams.  We’re able to use technology to determine student reading levels.  And states like Florida and Alabama are now requiring virtual education as part of their curriculum, with the latter now requiring virtual education as part of graduation requirements.  That, my friends, is 21st century skills, gaining the content knowledge we’ve prized for decades through new channels and new technologies.  Imagine the difference of studying the Civil War from a classroom in Minnesota, using a tattered grade reader and a chalkboard, versus learning it in a virtual environment with students who live around the block from the very battle sites you are studying, where you can access Brady photographs and clips from Ken Burns’ Civil War series.  That learning 21st century skills.  It’s all in the delivery.
This week’s Education Week has another interesting take on 21st century skills.  Stephen Sawchuk has a piece on how teachers in my former home state of West Virginia are adapting their practice to better meet our 21st century world.  And Sawchuk has one paragraph that helps sum it up:

Business leaders and policymakers more and more say those higher-order, critical-thinking, communication, technological, and analytical skills are the ones crucial for students to master as they enter a service-oriented, entrepreneurial, and global workplace.

I appreciate the sentiments recently offered by Petrilli, Pondiscio, WaPo’s Jay Mathews, and Andy Rotherham.  This is a real discussion that those committed to education improvement should be having.  How do we continue to adapt and improve classroom curriculum to ensure rigorous, relevant courses that hold a student’s interest?  How do we ensure the core content areas we all know are important –the reading, literature, math, science, and social sciences — remain in the curriculum and are effectively consumed by our students.  Current student performance scores show that the old way of delivering such content isn’t working with every student.  If we are going to close achievement gaps, boost performance numbers, and improve graduation rates, perhaps we need to rethink how we are delivering the content.  Some may call that a semantic matter of packaging, but I see it as a core part of 21st century skills.  21CS is about how we deliver content, not what we are delivering.

What’s Wrong with 21st Century Skills?

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM, Students, Workforce

Recently, there seems to be growing momentum against the notion of 21st century skills in our K-12 classrooms.  Some find the term just to be a little too trite for their tastes.  Others believe it moves away from the classically liberal arts education, like literature and history, that K-12 was designed for more than a century ago.  And still others think that it is code for turning our high schools into trade schools.

So Eduflack asks the question, what’s wrong with 21st century skills?  We hear time and again that other nations are eating our collective school lunches when it comes to international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.  We worry about how our kids stack up when it comes to math and science and such, worrying that more jobs may either be eliminated or relocated.  We wonder what jobs will be out there when they do graduate, and whether they will be competitive enough to secure those jobs.
In last year’s Quality Counts, EdWeek gave my home state of Virginia an “F” when it came to college preparedness of our students.  In my previous work with the Virginia Department of Education, I heard time and again from businesses in the Commonwealth that today’s high school graduates simply don’t have the skills necessary to fill today’s jobs, let alone tomorrow’s jobs.  Nationally, our high school drop-out rate is still about one-third, meaning one in three students never gains that diploma in the first place.  And for those who get through high school and do move on to postsecondary education, more than half of them need remedial English or math courses when arriving at their higher education institution of choice.
So, again, what is wrong with 21st century skills for our 21st century schools?  Better yet, what is wrong with defining what 21st century skills really are, at least as they relate to today’s K-12 students?
Reading, math, and science are all 21st century skills.  The ability to use technology is a 21st century skill.  Soft skills like problem solving and teamwork and critical thinking and such are 21st century skills as well.  The problem we have is that when we talk about 21st century skills, too many people think we are talking about skills newly discovered in the 21st century.  That just isn’t the case.  Yes, we are talking about core skills that have been around since Plato.  But that doesn’t mean the skills aren’t as relevant today as they were a millennia or two ago.  It just means we need to starting thinking about them and teaching them in new or different ways that make them more relevant in our 21st century world.
In recent weeks, I’ve talked with a good friend who is a former urban superintendent about the future of classroom instruction.  One of his top concerns is the belief that we are “un-plugging” our students once they enter schools.  Here at Eduflack, we’ve used the term “de-skilling.”  For many, this boils down to the issue of technology in the classroom.  When you have students living on computers and MP3s and instant messaging and cell phones, and you have a world and an economy that are equally reliant on the same, where is the logic of putting away all that technology between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.  and teaching reading, math, science, and social studies through 19th century delivery mechanisms?  
Concern on the issue is redoubled when we consider the changing face of the American classroom teacher.  Across the nation, school districts have been experiencing significant retirements and a new face on the teaching workforce.  Incoming teachers, particularly in our urban districts, have been brought up on computers and cell phones.  They’ve likely never used a card catalog, and many of them do not take a daily newspaper.  But that doesn’t mean they are informationally deprived.  They simply get their data through other sources, through 21st century sources aligned with their interests, their skills, and the world in which they live.
I am no shrinking violet when it comes to the advocacy for STEM education and the need to ensure every student is STEM literate.  For me, this isn’t just an issue for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world.  Even that student looking to work on the manufacturing line next to his father is going to need STEM skills in our new economy.  Every student benefits from STEM literacy, regardless of their future education, career, or life path.  That includes providing them the soft and the content skills that we define as 21st century skills.  More importantly, it requires a new way to deliver the content that, for decades, has been deemed essential learning.
What does all this mean?  Ultimately, when we talk about 21st century skills, we aren’t talking about new sets of content and new academic areas of study.  Sure, topics such as engineering still have yet to really be defined in a K-12 environment (and we clearly don’t have a praxis for secondary school engineering teachers), but we are still talking about core academics like reading, writing, math, science, and the social sciences.  At its heart, 21st century skills is about a new delivery system.  It is about moving beyond the chalkboard to the interactive white board.  It is about moving from the card catalog to the World Wide Web.  And it is about moving from rows and rows of single desks into groups of interactive, collaborative students progressing beyond rote memorizations into critical thinking and higher-level learning.  
Ultimately, it is about delivering our core education in a 21st century world through 21st century means.  An education more relevant and interesting for students.  An education more engaging and empowering for teachers  An education more applicable and valued in the economy.  If 21st century skills is a code, then it is simply code for skills that are relevant and outcome-based for all those involved in the learning process.  That is the sort of progress we should be investing in.

Yes We Can … Or Will We?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, early childhood education, High School, NCLB, Obama

How committed are we, as a nation, to improving public education?  A decade or two ago, education ranked as a top issue in the minds of the American voter.  Yet this time around, education was an also-ran, a second-tier issue at best.  In survey after survey, we hear that America’s schools in general need improving, but not mine.  The common thought is that Rome might be burning, but my own neighborhood school is doing just fine, largely because I know the principal, I know some of the teachers, and my kid goes there.  And I wouldn’t send my child to a bad school, at least not intentionally.

We know from student performance data, though, that many of our schools are not doing just fine.  Students in all grades are still struggling to master basic reading and math skills.  A third or so of all ninth graders won’t complete high school four years later.  And only a third of those same original ninth graders will end up earning some sort of postsecondary degree.  We promise our children a world-class education, but we are still delivering as if it is class in a 19th century world.  This shouldn’t be a fight about status quo or not.  We all should agree there is room for improvement in our early childhood education and K-12 systems.
Over at USA Today this morning, the editorial writers riff off of will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” to spotlight the dire educational situation for African-American boys.  The graduation gap between black and white males is staggering.  Sixteen percent in Texas, 18 percent in Georgia, 21 percent in California, 22 percent in Florida, 26 percent in Pennsylvania, 30 percent in Ohio, 36 percent in New York, and a whopping 42 percent in Illinois.  In most of the states analyzed by USA Today, less than half of African-American males graduate from high school, and the number usually hovers in the 30-percents.
The full editorial can be found here: <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/index.html#entry-60921352
USA”>blogs.usatoday.com/oped/index.html#entry-60921352
USA Today uses the will.i.am song as its lead-in because it was a popular motivator in the 2008 elections, driving generations and demographics of voters to the polls (and to volunteerism) for the first time ever.  The video created for the song (and the Obama campaign) was viewed on YouTube nearly 15 million times, serving as a rallying cry for a significant portion of the American populace that felt their voice had been ignored in the past, and now was their time to stand up, speak clearly, and bring about real change in their community and their nation.
Step one was accomplished.  The “Yes We Can” president was elected.  Now comes the hard work.  Moving from “yes we can” to “yes we will.”  Current economic times make it difficult to say yes to a host of new education initiatives, programs, and efforts designed to make good on what millions of Americans committed to.  But it also provides a real opportunity for those committed to change to come together, set some common goals, and build community commitment to long-term improvement. 
Case in point, the Forum for Education & Democracy.  Until today, the Forum was known mostly as a convener, bringing together leading stakeholder voices to focus on “equitable access to quality schools for all American families.”  Today, though, the Forum launches down a new path of advocacy, looking to transform Obama’s mantra of “Yes We Can” into real school improvement.
Launching a national advocacy campaign, the Forum has begun a petition drive calling on the Obama administration to focus on four key commitments when it comes to school improvement:
* Every child deserves a 21st century education
* Every community deserves an equal chance
* Every child deserves a well-supported teacher
* Every child deserves high-quality health care
The national online petition is complemented by a new website — www.willwereally.com — and a new YouTube video featuring the ideas and, more importantly, some of the students, who can be affected by a new national commitment to public school improvement.  The video in particular (found on the home page) is worth checking out.
I’ll admit, there is a lot of wiggle room in the four key issues the Forum is putting out there through its Will We Really effort.  As a community, we still haven’t defined what a 21st century education is, nor have we come to consensus that 21st century skills should be the focus of our K-12 system.  We all agree that every community deserves an equal chance, until that means taking resources from my community to help another.  And we all believe every child deserves a well-supported teacher, until that discussion turns to boosting pay for good teachers and the new taxes that come along with it.  Like most in education reform, the real devil is in the details.  How do we capture these mission statements into actionable policy?
That is a question that will be left to EdSec in-waiting Arne Duncan and his presumably able team of leaders over at ED.  It is a question that will be left to our governors, state departments of education, mayors, and superintendents.  It is a question that will be left to the influencers — the Forum for Education & Democracy included — who are lining up to recommend new programs, new policies, and new ideas for a new administration.  And it is a question for the hopefully millions of parents, students, and Americans that will sign onto the Will We Really petition and remind decisionmakers of our national commitment to these fundamental principles.
For Eduflack, the answers are found in a few places.  First and foremost is the research.  How do we better collect, analyze, and apply data on our students and their achievement?  That data determines what is lacking in classroom instruction today and how to deliver a 21st century education.  That data helps us see what supports today’s teachers need, and how educators can learn from and lean on one another.
The second is ROI, or return on investment.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  We cannot change simply for change’s sake.  We must bring forward meaningful improvements that boost student achievement, get better teachers in the classroom (and keep them there), and convince every student that dropping out is never a viable alternative to earning that high school diploma.  We must start early, recognizing that high-quality early childhood ed programs ensure that disadvantaged youth have that equal chance to achieve.  And we must invest in instructional programs that get students performing at grade level and exceeding expectations.  Like it or not, we’re still talking about ensuring that no child is left behind.  Will We Really is just looking more at the whole child, and not just the quantitative performance measures of NCLB.
The achievement gap highlighted in USA Today should be a national embarrassment.  In 2009, graduation rates between African-American and white males should be nearing equity, not approaching 30 or 40 percent.  And we haven’t even looked at the gender gap issues.  Does anyone really want to see the numbers as to how black males measure up to white females?  Of course not.  
We’ve moved far beyond the issue of whether we can or not.  It is now an issue of whether we will.  Can we rediscover education as a national priority?  Can we clearly see the linkages between a high-quality K-12 education and economic opportunities?  Can we acknowledge we have no choice if we want to remain an educational and economic leader?

Hiding High School Graduation Standards?

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, High School, national standards, NGA, Spellings

In case you missed it (and you likely did, based on timing), the U.S. Department of Education finally released its non-regulatory guidance regarding a uniform national high school graduation rate.  Readers may recall that EdSec Spellings announced the federal government’s intent to adopt the four-year graduation rate established years ago by the National Governors Association, agreed to by all 50 states soon after, and adopted by many states already.  Well, on Christmas Eve’s Eve, ED decided to offer some of the specifics around the new grad rate.

The highlights, according to ED itself:
* Defines the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, and the transitional graduation rates that are allowable until States must implement the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
* Guides States in setting a single graduation rate goal and annual graduation rate targets
* Outlines requirements for reporting graduation rates
* Answers questions about how States include the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate in AYP determinations, including the use of disaggregated rates for student subgroups
* Explains how a State must revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook to include certain information and submit its revisions to the Department for technical assistance and peer review
* Clarifies the timeline for implementing the new graduation rate provisions, as well as the process for how a State that cannot meet the deadlines outlined in the final regulations may request, from the Secretary, an extension of time to meet the requirements.
Thanks to the FritzWire for drawing attention to the announcement.  The full non-regs can be found at: www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf
Don’t get Eduflack wrong.  I’m thrilled ED has gone and endorsed the NGA formula.  They should have done so years ago.  I also recognize that ED is using an awful lot of words and “non-regulatory” language to describe what should be a simple concept.  At the end of the day, the federal government is saying a high school graduation rate is measured based on how many ninth graders complete their secondary school education four years later.  Obvious exceptions are made for transfers and deaths and such, but high school is a four-year experience, and the measurement is a four-year yardstick.
No, what troubles me is the timing.  At no time in our nation’s history is a secondary (and some form of postsecondary) education as important and necessary as it is today.  Under virtually no circumstances should we say it is acceptable for any student to drop out of high school.  Dropping out simply is not a viable option.  This new formula is a big deal, with major implications for the states and for the nation.  We need an accurate count of how many kids are graduating high school on time (and then we need to determine why the rest are not).  So why dump it during a holiday week when no one is paying attention?
Years ago, Eduflack was doing crisis communications work for a manufacturing company.  We had a big story coming out, a story we didn’t want to see in print.  We couldn’t control the story, but we did have some control over the timing.  Through some creative issue management, the article ran in a major daily newspaper the Sunday following Thanksgiving.  Few read the story.  The issue was forgotten before the post-holiday work week had ramped up.  It died a quick death in the natural news cycle.  The lesson here — there are good times to release important news, and good times to bury news of concern.  Thirty-six hours before Christmas simply isn’t the time to garner the attention of the populace, or even just the education policy chattering class.
And that’s a cryin’ shame.  The move to establish a common high school graduation rate is an important step forward in the discussion of national standards and student equity.  It puts all high school schools on a level playing field, letting parents, policymakers, and decisionmakers truly see what schools are doing their jobs, where the true dropout factories are, and who is hiding behind a mound of disaggregated data.
I’ve been hard on the EdSec for sitting out much of 2008, shying away from the controversial issues and losing grasp of what could have been a positive legacy of education improvement for this Administration.  Her announcement earlier this year to embrace a universal high school graduation rate was a moment of strength and of power.  Unfortunately, the potential has again been squandered, lost amid a pile of Christmas wrappings and end-of-the-year lists of who’s hot and who’s not.  If this guidance couldn’t be released in early December, it should have been held for the new year.  It should have been released when education reporters were in the office, ed bloggers were updating their postings, and policy websites were getting their usual traffic.
A Christmas Eve’s Eve dump does a disservice to those states who have already adopted the universal grad rate, and paid the price because it dropped their numbers virtually overnight.  It does a disservice to those who have been fighting for high school improvement and for national performance standards.  And it does a disservice to ED and the EdSec, who again score well on intent but struggle with the execution.
Is it too much to ask for ED to maximize the bully pulpit it possesses?  Is it too much to think major policy issues and efforts to improve our schools deserve the spotlight, and not simply a midnight release as the last person turns out the lights over at Maryland Avenue?        

·   

Seeking Measurable School Improvement in the Buckeye State

Eduflack Achievement gap, early college, Gates Foundation, High School

We like to believe that the federal level is where all the action is when it comes to education improvement.  It’s easier to wrap our hands around, with one national policy to keep an eye on.  And it is cleaner when it comes to funding, as we just watch federal funding streams and an annual appropriations bill that has stayed relatively level-funded for much of the past few years.  In reality (as EdSec designee Arne Duncan will soon realize), the feds only account for about eight cents of every dollar spent in the classrooms.  The federal level may be the rhetorical brass ring, but the real action (especially these days) is happening at the state level.

Don’t believe Eduflack?  We all know we’re asking our schools to do more and more these days.  Close the achievement gap.  Make AYP.  Boost the grad rate.  Hire and retain effective teachers.  Collect and use meaningful data.  All is in a day’s work for our schools.  Our current economy is putting a major wrinkle in our plans to do more and achieve more.  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 27 states have cut education because of the economic recession.  We’ve read about the 9 percent cut offered in Alabama.  We were disappointed by the hundreds of millions of K-12 cuts proposed in our home state of Virginia.  We’re also seeing significant K-12 cuts either implemented or proposed in states such as California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, and New York.  These cuts are real, and our students will be feeling them.
These past few weeks, Eduflack has been paying particular attention to the state economic realities, particularly in Ohio.  The Buckeye State has a new state superintendent — Deborah Delisle, the former superintendent of the Cleveland Heights-University Heights school district.  Delisle doesn’t seem to be deterred by these budget issues, as least according to a new piece from Cathy Candisky and the Columbus Dispatch.  www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/19/copy/delisle.ART_ART_12-19-08_B9_93C9GRJ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101  Candisky depicts a real school improver in her piece, despite a possible $2 billion cut to public education in Ohio’s upcoming two-year budget.
What is Delisle focusing on?  Teacher quality, drop-out rates, and achievement gaps.  She’s looking at replacing the Ohio Graduation Test with a college entrance exam, recognizing that graduation is one thing, but having kids prepared for college is something completely different.  She wants mentoring programs and a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom.  She wants to boost student quantitative measures while maintaining (and we presume increasing) students’ general love for learning.  And she recognizes her battle lines are being drawn in her urban districts, the low-income, low-family-education centers just like those she just arrived from.
Why is this important?  What Ohio and Delisle face is really a microcosm for what we collectively must address.  Her agenda is remarkably similar to what EdSec in-waiting Duncan will likely announce and what the Obama campaign had laid out.  Her challenges are near identical to what other states — like Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Georgia, Arizona, California, and others — must face.  And she is doing so in a budget scenario that would be considered doomsday by far too many chief state school officers.  Yet she is rising to the challenge and not backing down.  Delisle is spotlighting the need for communications and better sharing of information, and isn’t claiming that the absence of increased budgets will keep her from achieving her goals.  She really is looking to build a “world-class education system” in Ohio, and she’s offering no excuses to get there.  And as we know from our politics, as goes Ohio, so goes the nation.
Fortunately, Delisle is not doing it alone, and she’s got some real successes to build on.  Yesterday, KnowledgeWorks Foundation released data on its high school improvement efforts in Ohio, embodied in its Ohio High School Transformation Initiative (OHSTI) and Early College High School (ECHS) efforts.  Over the last six years, KnowledgeWorks (along with the Gates Foundation and others) has worked with some of Ohio’s most struggling high schools.  Working with more than 25,000 students and 2,000 teachers, KnowledgeWorks has some pretty impressive data to talk about.  The graduation rates in OHSTI high schools is up 31%.  The graduation gap in OHSTI schools, compared to all of Ohio high schools, closed by 77%.  89% of OHSTI sites reported an increase on math and reading pass rates on the OGT.  ECHS students earned more than 10,000 college credits, with ECHS 10th graders outperforming the state average on the OGT’s reading, writing, math, social studies, and science portions.  The full announcement can be found here — www.edworkspartners.org/pr121908.aspx  (Full disclosure, Eduflack has been working with KnowledgeWorks on this important initiative,)  
These are real results in schools that many would have given up on years ago.  These aren’t cherry-picked high schools or those with the resources to supplement and enhance at will.  These are urban schools in communities that have gotten poorer and have watched family education levels drop over the last five years.  So if it can happen in KnowledgeWorks schools, it can happen just about anywhere.  The OHSTI and ECHS effort gives Delisle and other state superintendents a clear blueprint on the multiple pathways available to improve our high schools, and how those improvements can both improve grad rates and provide postsecondary options to those who never envisioned it.  More importantly, it gives Delisle clear data that proves her state mission is achievable, assuming school districts follow the right path to improvement.  And she should know, her former district was part of the OHSTI network.  Who knows better?

Her Name is Rio …

Eduflack High School, higher ed, STEM, Workforce

In recent weeks, we’ve spent a great deal of time talking about economic stimuli, bailouts, and investing in the future.  We talk about what is necessary to compete in the 21st century workforce, what skills our kids need to acquire to compete, and how we as a nation stack up against other nations.  We look at our major industries, wondering which will thrive and which will still just exist a decade or two from now.

Lost in the urgent needs of addressing the very real economic crises of the past few months are the urgent needs of meeting the workforce demands of the next decade.  Are our schools preparing students for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century?  Are we offering the skills students need to compete, both locally and globally?  Do students and families even understand that the jobs of today may no longer be around next year, let alone come graduation day?
So in this discussion of stimulus and reconstruction, how do we ensure that our current K-12 systems are re-skilling to meet the needs of our economy?  How do we ensure that public education does not merely operate in a vacuum, and that it is relevant to the to the economic and community needs of our nation.
Over at The Washington Post, Joshua Partlow writes about specific steps taken to equip today’s students, the future workforce, with the skills and knowledgebase they need to succeed.  How business is stepping in to provide technical and career-focused instruction so students can capitalize on the opportunities of tomorrow.  The wrinkle — Partlow is writing about recent developments in Brazil, not in the United States.  The full story can be found at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803747.html?hpid=topnews   It is a fascinating story, essentially positioning Brazil’s industry in the role of U.S. community college.
As we discuss what our nation is doing to bail out our businesses, shouldn’t we also be talking about what our businesses can do to better assist our K-12 systems?  We tell our kids that they cannot gain meaningful employment without a high school diploma and some form of public education.  Shouldn’t we better engage our local businesses to ensure that high school diploma is relevant and of value in the local economy?  Shouldn’t we better partner with industry to make courses more relevant and to show the pathways from K-12 education to interesting jobs and fascinating careers?  Should we see these public-private partnerships as real partnerships when it comes to goals and instruction, and not just partnerships related to scoreboards and yearbook ads?
For years, Eduflack has taken flack for the belief that our K-12 (and postsecondary) systems bear responsibility for preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s workforce.  The concern I regularly hear is that our schools are not trade schools, they are not training programs.  They are intended, critics say, to provide a broad-based education, a liberal arts education, to get kids thinking and considering.  Once they complete those basics, then students can begin pursuing career paths.  Unfortunately, by then, it is usually too late.  Students lack the foundational courses and knowledge they need to pursue careers.  They lose opportunities to use their high school years to study relevant courses.  And they close off pathways before they even get a few steps down the road.
Actions like those taken by “mining giant” Vale in Brazil demonstrate that others are building a better mousetrap.  We know where our skill gaps are today.  We know where our skill gaps are going to be tomorrow.  Shouldn’t we have business and education working hand-in-hand to fill those gaps now, so we aren’t scrambling at the point of maximum urgency?
One of the reasons I advocate so strongly for STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) education is because STEM begins to answer that question. When we look at states that are doing good work in STEM education — such as Minnesota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania — they succeed because of three key reasons.  First, it is an integrated education effort that includes K-12 and higher education.  Second, it embraces the notion that STEM education is required learning for more than just future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, and that every single student benefits from being STEM literate.  And third, it brings together education and industry, ensuring that the business community sees its role and responsibility in educating a better student and preparing a better workforce.
At the end of the day, economic stimulus is about more than physical infrastructure.  It is about more than the roads and bridges and buildings we’ve been talking about.  Economic stimulus is also about the human infrastructure that serves as the true catalyst and the true engine driving the American economy.  It’s about equipping today’s students with the skills and knowledge they need to win and keep real jobs.  It’s about giving them a reason to take those roads and bridges.  It’s about instruction, skill building, and workforce readiness.  That’s the real hope, that’s the real opportunity, and that’s the real stimulus, both know and for the long term.