High School

This Test Brought To You By …

Eduflack AP, High School, NEA

We have all heard the stories of how classroom teachers are forced to supplement instructional materials on their own dime.  Every fall, office supply stores offer discounts for teachers, knowing that supplies are being funded directly from the pockets of educators (and not just from the school districts themselves).  According to the National Education Association, the average teacher spends $430 of their own hard-earned dollars for books and supplies for the students in their classrooms.

When Edu-mom was teaching high school English, Eduflack knew this ritual all too well.  Yes, there were the annual visits to the office supply stores for the basics.  But there were also the add-ons — the videos, the classroom sets of novels, out-of-pocket cash for student lunches, and even dollars for class trips and events.  For her, it was all a part of being a classroom teacher.  If she didn’t provide it, her students wouldn’t receive it.  If her students didn’t receive it, they weren’t getting the full education they deserved.  Providing every student full academic opportunity was far more important than the number of bills in her wallet (and the same could be said for many of her colleagues, particularly those in the English departments of those schools in New Mexico, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and DC in which she taught).
So we definitely have to give California high school teacher Tom Farber an A for creativity when it comes to meeting classroom costs.  In a move to cut costs, Rancho Bernardo Schools cut their teachers’ photocopy budget by nearly a third, to a little more than $300 a year per teacher.  Over a 10-month school year, that means $30 a month, or roughly 1,000 pages a month.  Calculate it out over six classes, and that means about 150 pages a month for tests, quizzes and handouts (or by my calculation, about five pages per student per month, based on average class sizes).
Farber realized $300 wouldn’t cut it, particularly for the AP students he was working with.  His copy bill would be more than $500 a year for the basics.  But rather than dip into his own pocket (which I am sure he is already doing for other classroom supplies), he came up with a novel idea — selling advertising on his quizzes and exams.  The full story is on the front page of today’s USA Today, courtesy of Greg Toppo and Janet Kornblum — www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-12-01-test-ads_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip  
According to USA Today, Farber has already sold more than $350 in ad space, much of it to parents and local businesses.  These aren’t big print ads with photos and visuals and custom-designed logos.  Think more along the lines of inspirational quotes and simple “Sponsored by Eduflack, the leading voice in education reform communications.”  Minor mentions running along the footer of the photocopied material in question.
Some are up in arms about this, crying about commercialism in the schools and the corporatization of instruction.  But this isn’t requiring every AP English student to only show up to school in Nikes or declaring Coke the official beverage of chemistry students at Jefferson High School.  At the end of the day, this isn’t much different than the words of wisdom and inspirational messages sold in virtually every high school yearbook in virtually every public school across the nation.
No, Farber should not be attacked for his actions, he should be praised.  He realized his school couldn’t (or wouldn’t) meet the needs he had for instructional materials and supplies for his classes.  Rather than offer the bare minimum and complaining about the situation, he came up with a novel solution.  Now, his students get the study aids and preparatory materials they need to achieve on AP exams.
Could he have paid for it himself?  Of course.  But what other white-collar professions do we know that require employees to fund their own supplies (particularly since those supplies are going to others)?  Could he have asked students to pony up?  Of course.  But that sorta gets away from the notion of a free public education for all students.  What Farber did is no different than the public-private partnerships that we encourage in the schools on a daily basis.
The cryin’ shame here, of course, is that we aren’t providing our teachers the resources they need to do their jobs effectively.  The demands on today’s teachers are rising by the day.  We want higher student performance, smaller achievement gaps, higher grad rates, and larger college-going rates.  And we want it all in classes that are getting larger while teacher salaries are barely keeping up with inflation.  
It is offensive we expect public school teachers to pay out of their own pocket to photocopy tests or buy novels or other instructional materials.  It is equally wrong that we don’t provide the instructional materials we know are most effective, having to choose between replacing lost textbooks or paying for gasoline for the buses or electricity for the florescent bulbs in the halls.  
We know what it takes to effectively teach a child and have them succeed, both in school and in life.  If we are to empower teachers to provide that instruction, we need to give them the materials they need to succeed.  And if we don’t, we need to give them the flexibility to pursue “alternative” funding sources to get the job done.  If advertising is required to deliver effective instruction (particularly learning materials) then so be it.
 

It’s Virtually the Same Thing

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, Online Education, Parents

A few months ago, the State of Florida mandated that all school districts make distance learning — or virtual education — available to all Florida K-12 students.  The announcement was a major shift in instructional delivery, yet it got barely a notice in the policy community.  For such a major shift — an idea that requires new regulatory oversight, attention to quality, improved standards, and a stronger sense of parental involvement (since they would be monitoring the student at home taking the class — it received minor attention.

Now, the plot thickens.  Last week, the Times Daily in Florence, Alabama reported on the evolution of virtual education down south, and traditional teachers embracing the new medium for instruction.  The full story is here — www.timesdaily.com/article/20081116/ARTICLES/811160343/1011/NEWS?Title=Next_year__students_must_take_Internet_course_to_graduate  
What makes this so interesting is that Alabama will soon require every student complete at least one virtual course before earning a high school diploma.  Imagine that — online education required to secure that public school diploma.  Not an option, not an alternative, but an actual requirement.
For decades now, institutions of higher education have experimented with the notion of virtual education.  Almost a decade ago, we talked about the transition from bricks-and-mortar institutions to clicks-and-mortar institutions, with the promise that online learning would reach more students, bring adult learners into the fold, and offer scheduling flexibility previously unavailable to college-goers coming directly from high school graduation.  The verdict is still out, though, on our ability to deliver on such expectations.  For every online college success story, there seems to be two or three of diploma mills and the triumph of profit over quality.
But how are these lessons applicable to K-12?  How do we deal with parental oversight, and family members who are staying home with kids learning in a virtual environment?  How are we ensuring the quality of online education, making sure it is up to the same standard as that offered in the classroom?  How are we aligning K-12 virtual education with the very real world of state assessments?  How are we ensuring that online ed is being delivered by quality, certified teachers, and not just teachers willing to work for a low dollar cost?  How do we ensure that virtual options don’t deny students the social interactions and soft skill acquisitions students pick up in the classroom?
Years ago, Eduflack was part of the online education arena, working on the development of a secondary school online education model.  During the process, I could see the positives.  Delivering relevant, interesting courses to students, even if there aren’t 25 other students who want to enroll in the course.  Further developing 21st century skills, specifically computer-based skills.  Offering learning opportunities beyond the 8 a.m. – 2 p.m. learning environment.  A real opportunity to personalize the learning process.  A chance to deliver urban or rural students courses and dual-credit programs that they otherwise couldn’t access.
But I quickly saw that the online education, at least in the high school space, was also rife with challenges.  Chief among them was ensuring the quality of instruction.  Through some models, teachers are reduced to mere facilitators, giving up their instructional leadership and merely serving as Vanna White to a collection of video lectures and online assessments.  What teacher wants to give up that authority?  And more importantly, what community wants to turn over instruction to the lowest bidder, viewing instruction as merely yet another commodity acquired by the central office?
Which gets us into the larger issue of instructional quality.  It is easy to find an off-the-shelf program and offer it up as an online learning opportunity. How do we ensure there is the proper R&D behind it?  How do we make sure the content and pedagogy match the expectations and standards of the school district?  And more importantly, how do we make sure online learning results match or exceed student achievement in the traditional classroom?  How do we hold districts responsible for AYP if instruction and learning is happening beyond their classrooms and beyond their classrooms?
Without question, our school districts need to explore ways to bring more innovation into the classroom and to offer alternative learning experiences that meet student interests and student abilities.  Our goal is not to de-skill our students, stripping them of the technology or the critical thinking skills they are already acquiring outside of the classroom.  But we need to do so smartly.  As states like Florida and Alabama look to mandate online learning opportunities for their students, they need to consider some safeguards to ensure quality and effectiveness:
* Regular online monitoring of student progress, ensuring that online learners are hitting state achievement marks and are as proficient, if not better, in reading, math, and science than their bricks-and-mortar learning partners.  At the end of the day, online works when we demonstrate it s an improvement to traditional classroom instruction.  Coming close doesn’t cut it.
* Families are committed to the online learning process, with parents not only pledging to ensure their students do the work, but to take advantage of the opportunities themselves to expand their learning and their skills.  Current online efforts are targeting families where parental engagement has been a weakness.  If we can’t get these families to get their kids to school in the morning, do we really expect them to monitor their kids’ online learning process on a daily basis?
* Online content must be delivered by experienced, certified educators, and that those with real K-12 experience are the ones delivering instructional content (and not merely teacher actors doing the work for $15 an hour)
* Online learning opportunities should be innovative, and not merely replications of the traditional classroom experience.  The online model provides a new way to teach and a new way to learn.  Forty-five minute lectures followed by quizzes is not the intent of online learning.  This should be about a new paradigm in learning and teaching.
* Standards are in place for online learning.  If we can’t have national education standards, we should at least have national standards governing online learning, standards that ensure quality and outcomes regardless of which area code is accessing the learning process.  If the thought is a kid in Alabama can take the same course as a kid in Minnesota and a student in New Jersey, we need one common standard that exceeds the expectations of any state assessment or measurement.
* Integration with the school system.  Online learning is a piece of the 21st century instructional puzzle.  It is designed to supplement, and not supplant, what is offered by our school districts.
States like Alabama and Florida should be commended for taking such bold steps forward to improve learning opportunities for their students.  The more options, the broader the options, the greater the chance for student success.  But we must do so the right way, with an emphasis on quality instruction, effective measurement, and real student learning.  Online learning is not the quick and easy path to education, nor is it earning a degree by drawing a turtle off the back of the matchbook.  It is designed to enhance and improve the overall learning process.  The medium is merely the tool, whether it be a classroom, a computer, a closed-circuit television network,
or a lecture hall of thousands.  The curriculum — and our expectations — don’t change.   

The Long View for Superintendents

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, higher ed, Workforce

What is important to an urban superintendent?  What keeps him or her up at night?  Years ago, Eduflack remembers getting into a discussion with a former boss on such issues.  At the time, I was told superintendents simply don’t care about college-going rates or what happens after the merriment of commencement commences.  Life after isn’t their concern, this boss lectured me, superintendents simply care about keeping the bodies in their schools and seeing them through the 12 years.  Then the work is done.

At the time, I fought the notion.  It seemed awfully cynical (even for a cynic like me) and lacked the sophistication of school district leaders seeking where they fit along the P-20 continuum.  It meant superintendents were focused on the process, and not on the outcomes or the product of their work.  I refused to believe that.
When my father was president of a public institution of higher education in New England, one of his top concerns was making sure his kids graduated ready for the workforce.  He actually issued a guarantee to the local business community, offering to take back any graduate who was found to lack the soft skills a college graduate with a certain major should have.  It seemed novel at the time, and took many a stakeholder aback.  But it was a bold statement.  It said the local college cared about the product of its work, and measured it success, in part, on what happens long after student had taken their final course or paid their final bill.
After today’s Education Trust conference, Eduflack feels validated.  I can see that many a superintendent shares the view of my father (and not that former boss), and are deeply concerned about the success of their graduates AFTER graduation.  District leaders such as Chicago’s Arne Duncan, San Jose Unified’s Don Iglesias, and Montebello’s Janet Tomcello, along with the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals’ Jim Ballard, all spoke to the need for preparing ALL kids for college and careers.   
It obviously helps that this is also a priority shared by a thick checkbook such as the Gates Foundation.  But it was reassuring to hear these leaders talk about college and career preparation in a meaningful way, recognizing the need for improved rigor and relevance in the classroom, knowing that education is not completed at the end of the 12th grade, and embracing the notion that today’s jobs require a more comprehensive education reflective of the more complex work and life environments we’re all facing.
We ask a great deal of our superintendents.  We want them to get all students proficient as soon as possible.  We ask them to show AYP. We want them to close achievement gaps.  We want problem schools turned around quickly.  And we want 100% high school graduation rates to boot.  Now we expect those diplomas to stand for something, both in terms of college readiness and workforce preparedness.
We’ve all heard the data on college remediation and how more than half of today’s college freshmen (two- and four-year institutions) have to take either remedial English or remedial math.  I’ve done survey after survey and focus group after focus group with business leaders who share the sentiment that today’s high school graduates lack the skill sets to excel in today’s workforce.  Clearly, we are facing a gap here, a gap between our aspirations and our realities.
If leaders like Duncan and Iglesias are serious, maybe it is a time for our major urban districts to offer their own guarantee.  If a Chicago Public Schools graduate lacks the reading or math skills to do college-level learning, CPS will take them back and get them up to speed.  If a recent graduate from San Jose lacks the literacy or problem-solving skills to work in the local factory, San Jose Unified will step in and further equip their grads.  These supes will stand behind their diplomas, and make good on all of them.
Such guarantees may seem gimmicky, but they work.  We see a guarantee, and we assume it is a stronger product.  We believe those who sell it believe in its quality.  Imagine the power of a high school guarantee.  We say the superintendent and his principals all stand behind the value of the education the provided.  Talk about a confidence builder for those looking for college and career preparedness.

The Future of Education Philanthropy in the Pacific Northwest

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, Gates Foundation, High School, national standards, Obama, STEM

Today, many an education reformer is waiting to hear word out of Seattle, Washington.  Why?  The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is supposedly making a major announcement regarding the future of its educational philanthropy.  Some, particularly current grantees, believe today’s discussion will be a reiteration of current priorities and a discussion of the successes of work such as small schools, high school reform, and early college high schools.  Others, though, are expecting a major paradigm shift, one that re-aligns Gates funding with the 2008 (or 2009) edition of our schools’ needs.

In all likelihood, it will be a combination of the two — a renewed commitment to Gates’ high school reform efforts and the launch of new pledges to broaden reach and improve the whole school environment.  More than a year ago, Vicki Phillips, head of the education portfolio, began discussing Gates’ need to get into the human capital (re: teacher development) game.  So that is a likely target.  Many a good high school improvement effort has evolved into a pursuit of STEM education, so STEM is a likely addition as well.  But what else?
At the beginning of the calendar year, Eduflack offered a novel concept for the Gates Foundation.  Recognizing the growing problem of drop-out factories in our nation, seeing continued challenges in getting students up to grade level, watching the difficulties of trying to do new things in dangerously old buildings, Gates should simply build the better mousetrap.  Invest some funding into building a shadow school district in one of our nation’s most challenging urban centers, construct the right learning facilities, find and train the right educators, implement the right instructional models, and mine the real successes.  Consider it charter schools on steroids.  A pipe dream, of course, but the opportunity to really improve rather than just reform. (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/02/07/renovate-or-tear-down.aspx)  
But I digress.  Despite the recent downturn in the economic markets, the Gates Foundation will clearly reiterate its commitment to fund education improvement in the United States.  Such improvement, though, requires evolution and a continuing adjustment to the wants and needs of the field.  Ed in 08, for instance, was an interesting experience (and at the end of the day, not too costly, by comparison).  No, it didn’t move education to top of mind of politicians and voters across the country.  But it did begin a social network, allowing Gates, Broad, and others to begin to see how civic engagement could be used to move reforms in education and other policy issues.
Let me be clear, I have no advance copy of today’s Gates announcement.  But if I were part of the Gates team, I would focus on a new, unwavering commitment to the following five points:
* STEM education — Yes, science-technology-engineering-math instruction is the flavor of the month.  More importantly, though, it is the strongest link we have between K-12 education and an improved workforce and a stronger economy.  STEM is not just for rocket scientists and brain surgeons.  EVERY student benefits from the acquisition of STEM skills, and virtually every job opportunity over the next two decades will require some application of a STEM education, even if it is just teamwork or problem-solving.  We have STEM models out there on the verge of scalability.  A Gates institutional commitment to STEM moves the issue to the forefront in all states, not just the dozen or so that have been leaders in the field.
* Teacher development — As noted above, Phillips wants to be involved in human capital development.  The incoming Obama administration has made investing in the recruitment, retention, and support of teachers a priority of its education policy.  By opening new channels to recruit new teachers, focusing on research and practice that links quality PD with student achievement, and working with our schools to ensure we are getting the right people — and not just any people — to lead our classrooms, Gates can really leave its mark on our schools.  We are in the process of hiring an entirely new generation of teachers.  Gates can be at the forefront of that.
* Civic engagement — In Gates communities throughout the nation, we have seen that learning successes require more than just change at the schoolhouse level.  They require changes of thinking and behavior in the community at large, from businesses, community leaders, healthcare providers, members of the clergy, childcare providers, policymakers, and families.  Gates cannot do it alone.  To support their changes in the schools, they should be launching public engagement activities in the communities, ensuring activities, policies, and support beyond the schoolhouse walls are contributing to meeting the Gates goals within them.
* High school graduation — Gates has been steadfast in its commitment to improving rigor, relevance, and relationships in our high schools.  We have witnessed real success stories throughout the nation, and we have seen some great ideas that simply don’t work or don’t work at scale.  Now is the time to refocus high school efforts.  Our first priority should be attending to the high school graduation rate.  It is a national shame that we have many high schools where half of all students drop out.  Dropping out should never be an option, particularly in a 21st century economy that requires practical 21st century skills.  Gates should issue a national challenge to increase the high school graduation rate.  And it should work with its advocacy team to encourage a national high school graduation exam to ensure each of those graduates is leaving with the skills and “rigorous” instruction that Gates is known for.  It shouldn’t matter where a high school is or what courses were taken, a high school diploma is currency, and it should have the same value in all 50 states.
* Early childhood education — Now, it is time for Eduflack’s moonshot.  Yes, I recognize Gates has been carefully focused on the notion of secondary and postsecondary education and that this could be seen as a distraction or a misalignment of Gates priorities.  But it would actually build nationally on the work Gates is engaging in in Washington State.  It speaks to strengthening the community at large, prioritizing education at the earliest of ages and for all families.  It ensures ultimate value of a K-12 education.  Across the nation, states have made major investments in preK, with many of those investments facing threat of extinction with current budget issues.  PreK focused on instruction and academic preparation is enormously valuable.  It ensures students at risk have the skills and foundations necessary to maximize the K-12 opportunities before them.  It ensures that parents become involved in the learning process from the start.  And it effectively trains the next generation of students that will benefit from the full portfolio of Gates improvements.  So take a little of that money and launch some pilot projects in some low-hanging states.  Unite your education and your libraries work and find a way to bring your three R strategy to our youngest of learners.  It will ultimately ensure that that generation is ready for the challenges and opportunities you will offer them when they hit their high school years.  Consider it an experiment in linkages, a try at civic engagement, and an opportunity to build true family and community commitment from the start.
There are obviously a number of other paths Gates could take — increasing investment in virtual education options, strengthening quality and access to school choice (particularly with its Green Dot ties), or postsecondary affordabi
lity options (including its ECHS models).  All are likely to be part of the framework.
We shall all see where today’s announcement truly takes us.  Regardless of the content, one of the most important commitments the Gates Foundation can make is to renew its demand for strong research and even stronger evaluation and accountability.  To date, Gates has done what the feds have been unable to — enact a workable accountability system that tracks how additional education funding is spent and measures that spending against student achievement and instructional improvement.  Gates has intentionally built an ROI model for education reform.  And it is a model many a school district, state, or even U.S. Department of Education would be wise to model, build on, or outright adopt, whether they receive Gates funding or not.
   

Re-Prioritizing the U.S. Department of Education

Eduflack charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, High School, IES, Math, national standards, Obama, Online Education, STEM, Teacher Education

As President-Elect Obama and his Administration-in-waiting begin working through the transition, they have a terrific opportunity to shape the direction of future policy and future successes.  With each new administration, particularly with a change in party leadership, there is the opportunity to reorganize Cabinet departments, the chance to emphasize new priorities and to turn back the efforts of previous administrations.  While Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution cautions against overhauls and reorganizations at the start of an Administration, now is definitely the time to look at a new organization for the U.S. Department of Education.

In the coming weeks, the Obama transition team will begin reading through the ED transition notebooks, interview staff (particularly the career staff), and quickly making staffing decisions, from EdSec down to a slew of congressionally-approved assistant secretaries.  This is a lot of work, and it will be happening simultaneously in all agencies.  But the amount of work should not keep us from thinking about education — and education improvement — a little differently.
For the most part, the Bush Administration took on the structure that Clinton EdSec Richard Riley left behind.  But if recent years and new thinking are any indication, an Obama Administration may need a very different framework to focus on the issues emphasized on the stump, in policy platforms, and by its strongest advocates.
So how do we do it?  Never shy about such things, Eduflack has a few ideas for the new Obama Administration:
The New Approaches
* Office of Early Childhood Education — Obama has really driven home the importance of early childhood education and its ability to prepare all students — particularly those from at risk families — for the instructional, social, and emotional challenges of elementary school.  The creation of this office systematizes that commitment.  And if you really want to be bold, move Head Start over from HHS and put it under ED, and this new office’s, purview.  While early childhood has long been the official territory of HHS, ED has always had a chip in the game, and Obama’s priorities could settle the issue once and for all whether early childhood ed is just Head Start or a broader academic preparedness scope.
* Office of Elementary Education — For quite some time, we have had an Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.  It is time to separate the two.  The Office of Elementary Education would focus on the foundations of education success, particularly reading and math.  With a K-8 focus, this office would emphasize the early building blocks of successful learning (reflecting much of the research we now know), while providing some new-found emphasis on the middle grades.  We at least need someone who will continue to promote the National Math Panel findings, particularly if we expect STEM to drive secondary ed policy.
* Office of Secondary Education and 21st Century Skills — Nationally, we have made a major investment in improving high schools, making them more rigorous, and providing all students the pathways to educational and life successes.  This office would focus on high school improvement, early colleges, and the transition from secondary to postsecondary.  Bolder still would be a deputy assistant secretary for STEM education, to ensure science-tech-engineering-math instruction is embedded in all our secondary school improvements.
* Office of Teacher Advancement — Obama has made a major commitment to recruiting, retaining, and rewarding teachers.  We should focus an office on the teacher, including teacher training and pre-service education, in-service professional development, teacher incentives, alternative routes for teachers, and overall educator quality.
* Office of Assessment and Accountability — Yes, I know we have an Institute of Education Sciences.  We’ll address that later.  ED needs an office that works directly with SEAs and LEAs on assessment issues, how we measure student achievement, how we address the issue of multiple measures, and how we ensure our schools and our government are accountable and focusing on the instruction and the supports that make a true difference.  And I wouldn’t mind if this office took a close look at the notion of national education standards.
* Office of School Options — During Obama’s time in Chicago, he was involved in the charter school movement.  He has also acknowledged charters as a piece of the education improvement puzzle.  This office would seek to de-politicize the issue, focusing on effective infrastructure, supports, and accountability in school options, particularly charter schools and virtual schools.  Within this office, ED should also include after-school, or out-of-school-time, programs, as such OST efforts are now a bastion for academic supports, social supports, the arts and other opportunities designed to fill the current learning gaps.
* Office of Family and Community Engagement — As I detailed in my open letter to the President-Elect earlier this week, there is a need and a hunger for an office focused on better involving parents and families in the education improvement process.  We need to better inform families, better encourage families to pursue options, and better prepare families to be a part of the solution. (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/11/05/an-open-letter-to-presidentelect-barack-obama.aspx)
* Office of Educational Entrepreneurship and Innovation — I’ll admit it, I’ll buy into Andy Rotherham’s vision for converting OII into an incubator for new ideas and new opportunities.  Call it entrepreneurship, call it venture capitalism, even call it pubic/private partnerships if it feels easier, but it is a needed component to education improvement in the 21st century.
Not all of these may be (or should be) assistant secretary-level offices, but they should merit consideration somewhere in the grid.
The Conversions  
In addition to these new approaches, there are also a number of current offices that could use some assistance and  fresh outlook on the education landscape:
* Office of Communication and Outreach — This is obviously an office near and dear to Eduflack’s heart.  For too long, OCO has been viewed as a reactive office, one that regularly issues press releases, fields FOIA requests, and decides which media calls will be returned by whom.  Moving forward, the office needs to jump on the latter part of its name, and transform into an office of public engagement.  Utilize the vast social network built by the Obama campaign.  Broaden the reach to stakeholders.  Be proactive in pushing policy issues and promoting successes.  Set the terms and drive the story.  Doesn’t get more simple than that.
* Institute of Education Sciences — IES was created to be our nation’s home for education R&D.  Unfortunately,
there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done to meet that goal.  IES needs to broaden its mission beyond the WWC and become a true clearinghouse for quality research and a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for what works.  More importantly, it needs to expand the dialogue beyond the researchers and effectively communicate the education sciences to practitioners, advocates, and others in the field.
* Office of English Language Acquisition — OELA, and its previous personalities, has almost been a red-headed stepchild in ED for quite some time.  But as our nation’s demographics continue to shift, ELL and ESL issues become more and more important to closing the achievement gap and providing opportunity to all students.  Focusing on inclusiveness, partnership development, stakeholder engagement, and integration with other offices (particularly elementary ed), OELA can be the lever for improvement many want it to be.
* Office of Federal Student Aid — I’ll admit, I am a little out of my element here.  But with the economic issues we are facing as a nation, ED is going to have to spend more time and intellectual capital on helping students and their families better understand the funding options for postsecondary education.  Simplifying the FASA, ensuring students understand accreditation, articulation of credits between institutions (and between high schools and colleges), and other issues that factor into our ability to pay for college.
I can go on, but I will leave it at that.  Obviously, many core offices will likely remain in place — General Counsel, Inspector General, Civil Rights, Leg Affairs, etc.  Some will say the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development — could be folded into the core responsibilities of a top three ED official.  And offices like Vocational and Adult Education may be past rescuing and just need to be left alone.  Regardless, there are clearly a lot of options for those thinking the big thoughts in the transition.
Yes, the Obama campaign was based on hope and change.  When it comes to the U.S. Department of Education, it may also be a time for similar hope and change.  Clearly, our educational priorities and needs have shifted over the last decade, as we focus on teacher development, 21st century skills, STEM, and the P-20 education continuum.  A new approach, with new foci, serves as a strong rhetorical tool to make clear what the Obama Administration will hold dear.  And such rhetoric is all the more important when current economic concerns make it difficult to fund new policy ideas straight out of the gate.  

The Rigors of High School Rigor

Eduflack High School, NGA

For years now, we have been talking about the need to focus on improved rigor in secondary instruction.  Rigor has long been a core component of the Gates Foundation redesign philosophy, and many reformers have signed onto the notion that if secondary (and postsecondary) education is as important as it is in today’s economy and today’s society, and we are going to push more kids to acquire that education, we need to make a diploma or a degree as worthwhile as possible.

The urban legend is that kids drop out of high school because high school is too hard.  The data, though, finds that simply is not the case.  Students drop out because they don’t see the point.  They drop out because they don’t see how school aligns with their goals or their dreams.  And, yes, they drop out because they don’t feel stimulated or pushed during their secondary school experience.
So what can we do to make high school a little more relevant and a little more rigorous?  A new report from the National Governors Association (hat tip to Eduwonk, of course), offers a glimpse of some of the promising practice coming out of states like Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.  The full policy brief can be found here — www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0810IMPROVEINSTRUCTION.PDF.  
The great takeaway?  Three specific policy recommendations for boosting consistent rigor in our high schools:
1.  Align courses with challenging academic standards (while offering more consistent course expectations)
2.  Include end-of-course exams in a comprehensive assessment system
3.  Provide teachers extended professional development that integrates with both instruction and assessment
These sorts of policy briefs are important to forwarding the dialogue on education reform because they both point to promising practice while informing us on that with good intentions, yet limited impact.  Pilots such as the NGA’s demonstrate the need for strong research methodology, the demand for implementation fidelity, and the strength to admit when such efforts don’t work out as intended.  As a result, NGA shows us the need to get teachers more enthused for professional development opportunities and to better see the value of PD crosswalked with instructional improvements.  And it shows us the constant struggle of both data collection and the construction of effective assessment systems.
More than anything, though, it speaks to the growing need for the trifecta of stronger academic standards, effective assessment systems to measure students against those standards, and the knowledgebase to use those student assessments to improve instruction, achievement, and teacher development.
At the end of the day, the question is not what is in the Policy Brief or the outcomes in the three specific states.  The real question we must ask is what we do with this sort of data.  How do we take these lessons learned and apply them to similar reform efforts occurring in the remaining 47 states?  What are we doing to continue efforts in Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania and to improve the fidelity of implementation?  What do we do to ultimately make all high schools — regardless of demographic, graduation rate, or college-going rate — more rigorous?

Failing to Meet Our Parents’ Expectations

Eduflack early college, Gates Foundation, High School, national standards, NGA, PR, Students

Earlier this month, we had the American Council on Education release data showing that today’s students are attaining less education than their parents.  At the time, I took that to mean that many students stopping at their BAs have parents with advanced degrees, the kids of BA parents are wrapping up at the associates level, and some children of college grads are settling for just a high school diploma.

Over the past decade, particularly over the past three or so years, it seemed pretty clear to Eduflack that there was universal agreement, at least among adults, that a high school diploma was a non-negotiable in today’s world.  I’ve even say that every student requires some form of postsecondary education — be it training program, community college, or four-year degree — if they are to compete and succeed in the 21st century economy.  We may say it, but the Education Trust’s latest report is enough to send a chill down my eduspine.
If you’ve missed it, CNN.com has the story — beta.cnn.com/2008/US/10/24/dropout.rate.ap/index.html.  The headline says it all.  Kids are less likely to graduate than their parents.  What the headline is missing, but the lede provides, is that we are now talking about HIGH SCHOOL.  Today, in 2008, teenagers are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were.  And according to the EdTrust numbers, one in four kids is dropping out of high school, a number than has held steady for a half-decade now.
This story should be a punch in the gut to all of those who have been working on high school reform efforts for the past decade.  After all of the time and money and attention and effort that the Gates Foundation and the Alliance for Excellent Education and Jobs for the Future and the National High School Alliance and others have poured into improving the high school experience, we still haven’t convinced our young people that a high school diploma is a worthwhile goal.
Yesterday, we heard the EdSec talk about the importance of a common high school graduation rate, so we know where every state stands when it comes to handing out the diplomas.  Alliance President Bob Wise likened it to Fedex, providing us real-time data to understand where every student is along the continuum.  But according to EdTrust, even when we let each state set their own rates (and some set the bar awfully low), only half of states are hitting the mark.  Once every state adopts the NGA formula mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, state grad rates are likely to fall in the short term (and not just hold) in a great number of states.  It becomes hard to hide behind the data when you don’t get to set the data collection terms.
Don’t worry, I am not hear to rant (or to continue to rant) about what we need to do to make high school more rigorous or relevant or how to better capture data.  We have enough of that information from those individuals and organizations that have dedicated their work lives to the process.  One just has to look at a state like Ohio, both through its OHSTI and ECHS efforts, to see how you improve the secondary school experience.
No, the EdTrust data isn’t a clarion call for yet another round of ideas on high school reform or redesign.  Instead, it is a clear and unquestioned alert that we need to do a better job communicating with today’s young people.
Speak to many involved in high school redesign efforts, and they will talk about their work with school administrators, teachers, and state policymakers.  They’ll talk about the role of the business community.  Some may even mention a parent or a member of the clergy.  But when it comes to talking about primary audiences for high school reform, we often take students — the end user and ultimate customer — for granted.
All the reform and improvement in the world doesn’t mean squat if the student doesn’t see the value and importance of it.  And the only way we can effectively communicate that value is to communicate with the students themselves.
Are kids dropping out because class is too hard or because it is too boring?  Are they dropping out to pursue a job opportunity or because they want out of school?  Are classes fun and interesting?  Do they have career plans?  Are they getting classes that align with those career plans?  Do they know what it takes to secure the job they want?  What do they deem a good job?  Are they engaging with their teachers?  Are they using technology?  Do they see high school dropouts who are succeeding?  Who are they getting advice from?  What’ll it take to keep them in the classroom?
Over the years, Eduflack has done more than his share of focus groups with high school students.  Each time, I am surprised by how we underestimate them and their views on the value of education.  Often, these sessions are the first time a 15-year-old has been asked by an adult what their goals are and how they get there.  I’ve spoken with kids in some of the poorest areas in our nation, urban and rural, and I can tell you one thing — every kid knows dropping out simply isn’t an option.  They know it is a wasted opportunity.  And they know it means a future of struggle.
So what do we do about it?  As a nation, we have invested billions of dollars into high school redesign efforts, working to improve instruction, delivery, measurement, rigor, and relevance in our secondary schools.  We’ve made great strides.  But the EdTrust numbers and last year’s study on dropout factories tells us we still have a long way to go.  
We don’t need more redesign.  We need a better sales job.  We need state policymakers and superintendents to better understand what works, both to increase the grad rate and boost student achievement on the state exams.  We need teachers to better understand how to relate to today’s students, connecting lessons in chemistry or history or English to student interests and student desires.  But most importantly, we need to sell students on the notion that this is just the first major step down the path they want to take, that they need to take.
Students need to better understand that secondary and postsecondary education are requirements for a good job in this economy.  Students need to know dropping out is never a viable choice.  Students need to know the career and life options before them, and the education required to get them there.  Students need to be challenged, both in terms of curriculum and its delivery.  Students need choices and options, whether they be honor students or struggling learners.  Students need to value a high school diploma as much as their parents or grandparents do.
It is easy to lecture at a kid and tell them this is important.  It is even easy to inform them on why they need to stay in school and why they need to take their education seriously.  And it is somewhat comforting to know that we don’t need to overly worry about three out of every four students out there.  But for that remaining 25%, we need to take bold action to change their minds and change their behavior.  We need to get them to stay in school.  That doesn’t come by changing the drop-out age to 18 or mandating exit exams for all.  That comes from communicating the value and need of secondary instruction.  That comes from engaging today’s kids (and often before they get to high school).  It comes from selling kids on school and their future.  
We may think we are doing it, but the data shows we clearly are not.  Instead of communicating with students, we are speaking past them.  We need big change, at least when it comes to the attitudes of young people.  Without it, our schools, our economy, and our nation will never live up to the sta
ndard we set or the potential we have.

Riding NCLB Off Into the Sunset

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, High School, NCLB, NGA, Parents, vouchers

At high noon today, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings officially announced her “final regulations” to strengthen No Child Left Behind.  Speaking to a wide range of stakeholders in South Carolina, Spellings focused on issues like high school graduation rates, improved accountability, better parental notification of supplemental services, and greater school choice.

Of course, Eduflack has a lot of thoughts on a lot of this.  But I am most taken by the banner under which this announcement has been made.  These are the “final regulations to strengthen No Child Left Behind.”  If the future of NCLB was left to question in anyone’s mind, the EdSec answered that today.  Today is NCLB’s last gunfight in the ed reform corral.  After all of the talk of reauthorization and improvements to the law, these final regs make clear that, regardless of the political future at ED, NCLB is done.  A new law will rule the land, replacing, and not simply improving or supplementing what was one of the few positive domestic policy legacies of the Bush Administration.
But if we dig deeper here, where is the news?  In terms of high school graduation rates, Spellings is simply validating the process the National Governors Association began a few years ago.  NGA has already secured all 50 states’ agreement to common graduation rate based on the number of ninth graders who graduate high school four years later.  Sixteen states have this common formula in place already, and most of the others are in process.  These regs may “establish a uniform graduation rate” but we all need to realize such a rate has already been established and agreed to by all, and adopted by many.  
As for the rest, Eduflack completely agrees that all parents should have access to information on the supplemental education services and the school choice options available to them.  I was under the impression that was a core plank of NCLB from the start, and had been in place for more than six years now.  Has it really taken us six years to realize and require that parents get clear and timely notice of their options?  If so, where is all of the money that has been poured into SES since its establishment in 2002?
And finally, we have accountability.  Months ago, ED finally demonstrated some flexibility in the establishment of its growth model pilot project, allowing some states a little give when it comes to achieving AYP.  The pilot announcement had real value when announced, both in terms of policy and rhetoric.  So codifying the pilot in these new regs is a good thing.  In fact, it may be the strongest part of the EdSec’s announcement today.
It’s not all bad, though.  For a law that was originally criticized for focusing only on elementary education, these new regs codify the importance of high schools and the growing need to attend to dismal graduation rates.  With both presidential candidates embracing school choice, it is important to get credit for making vouchers and charters a foundation of NCLB.  With concerns about AYP and federal rigidity, it is important to remind all of the flexibility displayed by ED through its pilot effort.  And probably more important than any, today’s announcement reminds all those involved of the importance of parents in the educational process, ensuring we are getting them good information fast so they can make knowledge-based decisions on their kids’ educational paths.  But these new regulations are rhetorical devices, and have little to do with policy or real school improvement.
During my time in Texas, I often heard of the “all hat, no cattle” syndrome.  The New Yorker in me prefers “all sizzle, no steak.”  Regardless, these new regs — greatly hyped for the past week — provide little that is new, little that is innovative, and little that improves.  They are almost a set of defeatist treatises, a reminder to many of the original intent of NCLB (an intent that has, in part, gone unfulfilled) without seeking to make any new changes or new improvements as the law winds down.
Personally, I prefer the westerns where the protagonist fades to black in a blaze of glory, fighting until the bitter end to protect the town and defend its future.  I’ve never been one for the “Shane” ending, with the hero riding off into the sunset, slumped over in a sense of defeat and even death.  Today’s announcement was definitely a sunset ride.  
    

21st Century Skills with a 21st Century Vision

Eduflack Gates Foundation, High School, STEM, Workforce

Earlier this year, Eduflack got into a very heated offline “discussion” with a reader about the role of the American high school.  Personally, I believe it is the role of every public high school in the United States to help prepare every student for the challenges and opportunities before them, be it in education, the workforce, or life.  That means relevant courses, a focus on preparation, and the recognition that virtually every student today needs some form of postsecondary education to succeed in the 21st century workplace.

My treasured reader, a professor at an institution of higher learning, took issue with my notion of high schools (and colleges) as “trade schools.”  To him, career preparation came later, and well after a student had secured a good traditional liberal arts education, both in the secondary and postsecondary environment.
For the past two years, I’ve worked closely with organizations on STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) education.  For the past five years, I’ve worked just as hard on high school redesign and high school improvement.  If I’ve learned anything from these experiences, it is that it is never too early to begin to engage students on their futures and equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.  Even with our focus on high school improvement, I hear in more and more states we should be starting in middle school, and not wait for high school.  If we don’t prepare today’s students for the jobs of tomorrow TODAY, they will never be prepared.
This isn’t a new concept.  Back in the 1980s, the SCANS Commission believed much of the same thing.  And as we’ve seen a greater focus on high schools and STEM in recent years, it has taken center stage. It’s all been helped along by the Gates Foundation, Jobs for the Future, the American Diploma Project, and other such programs at the national, state, and local levels.
Now, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has gotten in the mix, and they are taking the fight directly to the state level — exactly where it needs to be to make a lasting impact.  Working with nine states, the Partnership is helping its project states to work through the skills, curricula, and standards for success.  The full story on this initiative can be found over at Education Week — www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/15/08skills.h28.html?tmp=982428651  
Do we need this shift and this added attention?  You betcha.  American public schools — particularly our high schools — need to become incubators for creating the workforce of tomorrow.  That means equipping them with the skills and knowledge they need, not just for today’s jobs, but for tomorrow’s as well.
It is an unfortunate reality that many of today’s high schools are built on an instructional model that is 50, maybe even 100, years old.  Then, it assumed all kids would find jobs.  A third of them would do so after graduating high school and going on to college.  A third would move directly to the workforce with their high school diploma.  And a third would leave high school before completion, contributing to the economy at an early age.
No one believes that model holds today.  Every student needs some form of postsecondary education, whether it four-year college, two-year college, or workforce training program.  Virtually every employer will tell you that a high school diploma is not sufficient for a long-term career (at least that’s what I’ve learned from surveys I’ve done with the business community in many states).  And skills — particularly math, literacy, problem-solving, and teamwork — are non-negotiables in today’s economy.
We look at the economy and at the national unemployment rate, and we wonder what the future holds, both for us and for our kids.  One thing is certain, a worker with relevant, up-to-date skills has a far better chance of staying employed than one with out-of-date skills or none at all.  The Partnership for 21st Century Skills recognizes that, and now they are working with nine states to put this vision into practice.  Here’s hoping for scalable solutions we can continue to model.
  

Exceeding Our Parents’ Expectations

Eduflack High School, higher ed

For generations now, we’ve heard that the goal of education (and life) is to do better than our parents.  Families moved from high school dropout to high school graduate to first generation college going.  Families shifted from blue collar to white collar.  Each step along the way, parents wanted to see their kids do better, to know their children would have it a little easier raising their family, paying their mortgage, and generally getting on with life.

In the Eduflack family, for instance, my maternal grandfather was a high school dropout.  He joined the Army, went overseas, and learned how to drive a truck.  He returned to the United States five or six years later with a wife and two small children (including Edumother).  He joined the Teamsters, became a professional short-haul driver (and then supervisor).  He spent his entire career on the loading docks, raising a family of five children, paying his mortgage, and living his version of the American dream.  After retirement, he bought a small plot of land in the middle of nowhere Virginia, moving to the solitude he sought most of his life.
His first daughter, Edumother, took a different path.  She graduated high school.  After high school, she worked three jobs, one of which was as a secretary at Rutgers University.  Why?  So she could take one free college course each semester.  She eventually went on to earn her bachelor’s degree.  Then a teaching certificate.  Then a master’s degree.  She spent most of her career teaching 10th grade English, and while she’d never say it, she is a terrific teacher.  She is also the only member of her family who went on to earn a postsecondary education.  No matter how you measure it, she did manage to do better than her father’s generation.
Which gets us to the point of this little discussion.  This week, a new American Council on Education study reports that today’s younger generation of adults have less education than their parents’ generation.  The numbers are particularly bad with blacks and Hispanics (whites and Asians actually have more education, helping close the gap for the overall average).  Men, in general, are also less educated than their parents.
The Greenville News has the full story, courtesy of Ed Trust and its Equity Express — www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081009/NEWS04/810090316&template=printart.  
Why is this so important?  We spend so much time talking about the ability to compete in the 21st century economy.  We talk about education as the great equalizer.  We discuss how a high school diploma is no longer sufficient for career success.  We promote the notion that some form of postsecondary education is necessary for all, regardless of their career plans.  Yet the numbers show not everyone is listening.
The message is getting lost. Everyone needs postsecondary education, yet in black and Hispanic communities, kids aren’t enrolling.  Even if their parents have a college degree, they aren’t necessarily choosing the college option.  And for those who enroll, we continue to see huge postsecondary non-completion rates, particularly with the black and Hispanic communities.  And more men are no longer seeing the value of a college degree.
Many groups — Jobs for the Future chief among them — have invested significant time and effort encouraging college-going among underserved populations and boosting college-going rates in the black and Hispanic communities.  Typically, this means convincing a young student that they have what it takes to be the first in their family to go to college.  But if the ACE data is any indication, we have a much larger issue to deal with.
This all boils down to an economic issue, and the past month doesn’t help much.  Many go on to college because they see it as a necessary card to hold to get a good job, pay that mortgage, and raise that family.  We look at the economic news, and many a high school student can sit there wondering if there are good jobs, if anyone can actually afford to pay for a mortgage (if they can secure one at all), and if the hard work is worth it at all.  The challenges are immense.
So what comes next?  It is clear we need to promote the value of postsecondary education for all.  All students benefit from college, regardless of their potential career path or their current socioeconomic status.  All jobs require postsecondary skills, particularly the math, science, and problem-solving skills one gains.  And every young person should still hold out hope that they can do as well, or a little better, than their parents.
I’d like to believe my mother gave me opportunities she never received, and as a result, I have measured up to the expectations my parents had for me.  Personally, I expect my two little ones are going to far exceed anything and everything I ever accomplish, and will be true leaders in their communities and their careers.  I’d also like to believe that ACE is going to take the data it has made available, and invest in a public education campaign to reverse the trend it has uncovered.  I never thought I’d say it, but we at least need to aspire to the status quo, with today’s generation at least reaching the educational levels of their parents.