High School

Tallying Graduation Rates in the Old Dominion

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, NGA

Yesterday, the Virginia Department of Education released it latest data on on-time graduation rates.  This is the latest trend in data collection, as states across the nation begin to enforce the graduation formula proposed by the National Governors Association (and signed onto by all 50 states).

The formula is a simple one — we look at the total number of ninth graders this year, and four years later we look at home many of those ninth graders leave high school with a diploma.  We factor out transfers and those students who may have died.  Recognizing that high school is intended to be a four-year experience, the goal is a diploma in four years.  No exceptions.
What did Virginia find?  A statewide graduation rate of 81%.  Four in five Virginia ninth graders are graduating on time, according to the data coming out of VDE.  Seventy percent of Hispanic students are graduating on time; 70% of low-income students are graduating on time; and 73% of black students graduated on time.  The full story is today’s Washington Post — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100801674.html.  
(Personally, Eduflack’s own Falls Church City Schools boasted a 98% on-time graduation rate.  I just want to know who those 2% are.  I’d personally be shocked that there were two kids who failed to graduate FCC on time, let alone 2%.)
First things first.  The Commonwealth of Virginia is to be commended for adopting and enforcing the NGA graduation rate formula.  In today’s society, we know that a high school diploma is a non-negotiable.  It is hard to admit our K-12 system is failing some kids, and that 20% of ninth graders aren’t getting that diploma they need to contribute in 21st century society.  It is even harder not to make excuses, blaming record keeping, NCLB expectations, high-stakes testing, and the like.
But I can’t help wondering how accurate the number actually is.  It was only last fall that we heard the stories of dropout factories around the nation, and several of those so-called factories were found in the Old Dominion.  VDE says they expected an 80% grad rate, and they posted an 81% rate.  It’s gotta be nice to know your schools that well.  But we’ve seen the great variances in district-wide graduation numbers, with schools saying one thing and third-party researchers offering completely different numbers.  I want to believe my state and my VDE, but I’m also hoping that Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute will weigh in here and “certify” these numbers.
Interestingly, the State of Maryland is still moving to adopt the NGA formula, boldly predicting to clock in at 85% on-time high school graduation.  Based on those dropout factory stories, though, Eduflack finds that awfully hard to believe.  And I find it harder to believe Maryland will outperform Virginia, but that’s just old collegiate rivalries talking, I suppose.
According to the Post, Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education, uses these numbers to talk about our national need to track student progress.  Certainly, on-time graduation rate data is one of the core pieces of information we need to hold our schools accountable and to measure our effectiveness.  States like Florida and North Carolina and Texas have already worked at adopting the NGA universal on-time high school graduation rate.  Here’s hoping that the rest of the states are soon to join them, giving us a national standard by which to measure high school graduation.
  

The Obama Education Platform

Eduflack AP, early childhood education, ELL, High School, NCLB, Obama, Teacher Education

As many of us have known for much of the past two years, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is all about change.  His approach to education reform is no different.  It is a diverse strategy, like his base of supporters, and reflects a message of change from some of the traditional Democratic education planks.  

The Bumper Sticker
We have a real problem with public education in the United States.  We are underfunding No Child Left Behind, or “No Child Left Behind Left the Money Behind.”  It is harder and harder to keep new teachers in the classroom.  And college is too expensive for the average Joe (even if he isn’t from Scranton, PA).
The Plan
Obama-Biden’s education platform operates under four key areas — early childhood education, K-12, teachers, and higher education.
Early Childhood Education
Obama’s early ed efforts are programmatically focused, in an effort to reach as many preschoolers as possible:
* Zero to Five Plan, focusing on early care and infant education; would offer Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state efforts and help move to state-led universal preschool
* Expanded Early Head Start and Head Start, calling for a 4X funding increase in Early Head Start and improving the quality of both programs
* Affordable, high-quality child care
K-12
Obama’s K-12 plan is a relative top eight list of the top buzz issues in education reform today:
* Reform No Child Left Behind, through increased funding and improving assessment and accountability
* Support high-quality schools and close low-performing charter schools, doubling the funding for the Federal Charter School Program and improving general accountability for charters
* Make math and science education a national priority, by recruiting and supporting strong math and science teachers
* Address the dropout crisis, through federal funding for middle school intervention strategies
* Expand high-quality afterschool opportunities, by doubling funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers program
* Support college outreach programs, lending support to GEAR UP, TRIO, and Upward Bound
* Support college credit initiatives, creating a “Make College a Reality” initiative to increase AP-going by 50% by 2016
* Support English language learners, through transitional bilingual education and general school accountability
Recruit, Prepare, Retain, and Reward America’s Teachers
With Obama-Biden, the classroom teacher is clearly the center of the movement.  (And don’t forget it is Biden’s wife’s career of choice):
* Recruit teachers, by creating a new Teacher Service Scholarship program to pay for four years of undergrad or two years of grad school in teacher education
* Prepare teachers, requiring all ed schools to be accredited and to create a voluntary national performance assessment of teacher training
* Retain teachers, expanding mentoring programs that pair vets with newbie teachers
* Reward teachers, allowing teachers a seat at the table in developing incentive programs and providing better pay for those in underserved location and those with a consistent record of success (read: merit pay)
Higher Education
Obama touched on higher ed in K-12, as he looked at college prep issues such college outreach and dual credit, but his platform also includes the following:
* Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit, ensuring the first $4,000 of a college education is “completely free for most Americans”
* Simplify the application process for financial aid, streamlining the process and authorizing the feds to use tax returns automatically as part of the system
The Takeaway
There you have it.  The full Obama-Biden education platform as presented on the official Obama-Biden campaign website.  Available now to lay side-by-side with McCain-Palin to compare, contrast, and critique.  Three pages of total text on the site, along with three downloadable plans (PreK-12 Plan, College Affordability Plan, and Education Reform Plan) and two speeches (one on PreK to 12 education, one on college affordability).  And before I hear it from readers, I know there are many more issues Obama and his surrogates have been talking about. Remember, folks, this is intended to look at the official plans, as offered up by the official websites of the candidates.
So what’s Eduflack’s takeaway?
* A clear understanding of the issues and concerns of the education community, particularly those seen by teachers and school leaders.  This is the ed community hotlist, particularly in K-12
* A stronger-than-strong emphasis on programs, both support of the old and calls for many, many new
* A significant increase in federal funding for education issues
* A focus on the processes that make education systems go
* Emphasis on the student and the school level
* An attempt to improve NCLB, particularly when it comes to funding
What’s missing?  There is little talk, other than some rhetorical mentions, to the need for standards and accountability in the schools.  It seems to be process over results.  And Obama’s previously strong stance on merit pay for teachers is weakly positioned in this policy.  Discussions of issues such as reading instruction, education research, vouchers, parental involvement, alternative certification, elementary schools, and online learning can’t be found.  Again, we can guess where an Obama administration would stand on these issues, based on his personal bio and the good work of his education team, but it isn’t spelled out.
So there you have it, the Obama-Biden education platform, in an equally handy format.  Tomorrow, we put our agitator hat back on and take a close look at how the two campaigns stack up against each other, educa
tion wise, and what are remaining unanswered questions may be.

A College-Ready Culture

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

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

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

The Measure of College Admissions

Eduflack ACT, College Board, High School, higher ed, national standards

Down here in Eduflack’s temporary offices in Central America (long story, but the good news is that it looks like baby Eduflackette, who turned one on Saturday, should be coming home to the DC area for good before the end of the year), my eye was caught by a newsbrief in the NYTimes Digest (even I’m not willing to pay $8 for the full NYT down here) about the latest commission report on college admissions.

Headed By Harvard University Admissions Dean William Fitzsimmons, the latest report recommends that colleges and universities reduce their dependence on SAT and ACT scores when it comes to admitting new students.  Instead, the commission is recommending specific admission exams more closely tied to high school curriculum and student achievement.
For years now, we have seen leading national colleges and universities back off of SAT and ACT scores as requirements for admission.  Researchers have claimed that high school grades, and not standardized admission scores, are the true measure of student success in the postsecondary classroom.  And still more see the tests — particularly the SAT — as yet another example of the high stakes testing that has permeated P-16 education today.
At the very heart of Fitzsimmons’ report, though, I can’t help but think we are simply rearranging some of the deck chairs for postsecondary admittance.  After all, how different do we expect an “admissions exam” to be from the SAT or ACT.  All will serve as standardized tests.  All will measure students on a common level of English, math (and hopefully science and social studies, and maybe even foreign language) abilities.  All will be used to determine the cutoff line, knowing that a score of X gets you in, a score of Y puts you on the border line, and a score of Z puts you in the also rans.
The real issue is how one goes about constructing the admission exam.  By early reports, the Fitzsimmons commission is proposing an admissions exam based on high school curriculum.  A noble idea, yes.  But is it worth the paper it would be printed on (or the computer it would be coded on?)  Can national college admissions exams really be worth anything until we have national standards on which high school curriculum is based?
The answer, as we all know, is of course not.  College entry exams are intended to demonstrate that entering students have the skills and abilities to do basic postsecondary education work.  At a time when nearly half of all college-going students are forced to take remedial reading or math courses, such a determination has never been more important.  Are our high schools turning out students capable of college-level work?  Are our kids ready for postsecondary education?  And if not, what is it our secondary schools should be doing to ensure they are meeting their responsibilities in the P-16 education continuum?
It all brings us back to the simple concept of national education standards.  A rising senior B student in Alabama should have the same skills, abilities, and access to information as a B student in Connecticut, or one in Wisconsin, or one in Oregon or Nevada.  Algebra II should mean the same thing, no matter what state or what school district is taking it.  And a high school diploma should come with a guarantee of a basic knowledge and ability in English, math, and science.  As a nation, we should have common goals.  As a national education system, we should have common expectations from all of our students, regardless of location or socioeconomic status.
Yes, our goal should be getting a greater number of diverse students into postsecondary education.  We need to increase the number of first-generation students entering the halls of higher education.  We need to promote the notion that postsecondary education is a requirement for success in today’s ever-evolving economy.
A college admissions test simply doesn’t get us there, and in today’s environment, too many colleges may be required to develop dozens of such tests to reflect the vast differences in standards and performances across our 50 states.  If college admissions deans really want to make a difference, they should be out there advocating for national K-12 standards.  They should be demanding that every applicant be measured on the same scale.  They should require that a high school education — rural, suburban, or urban; northeast, south, midwest, or southwest — provides the same levels of skill, preparation, and knowledge.  They should require national standards.

How Do Grad Rates Rate?

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, NGA

It is the start of a new school year, thus the perfect time to start talking about graduation.  Recently, the media has run two interesting stories on high school graduation rates.  Last week, Michigan announced a 75% graduation rate, a number that dropped 10% from the previous year.  The cause?  Michigan is using a new graduation rate formula, a calculation that — while a little harsher — is far more accurate in determining graduation rates.

This week, Florida announced it may change the way it calculates the grad rate, eliminating a formula that included students who passed the GED and state assessments as high school “graduates.”  The expected result, like Michigan, Florida may soon see a significant drop in the high school graduation rate overnight.
These are but two examples of the challenges facing states in high school improvement efforts.  Take a look at the longitudinal data on high school graduation, and the numbers are quite unsettling.  States like Michigan and Florida tell you one thing, while Education Week and its Graduation Counts effort tell a completely different story (and it is usually a far-scarier one).  Talk to an urban superintendent about his graduation numbers, and you’ll hear rates in the 70 or 80 percents.  Ask Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute the same question about the same districts, and you will often get a number that is 30 to 40 percent less than the superintendent is offering.
Why the great variance?  How can intelligent people look at the same schools, the same students, and the same data, yet come up with results that hold no resemblance to one another?
Florida is the perfect example of that.  When we talk grad rates, we expect it to measure the percentage of kids who started ninth grade and then finished 12th grade four years later (or in some cases, five years later).  We don’t expect students who drop out to pursue GEDs to be included in the grad pool.  After all, those students did not graduate from high school.  They pursued an alternative education path, but they did not graduate.
We talk a lot about AYP and how to compare schools, districts, and states when it comes to academic achievement.  We question whether student reading proficiency in Mississippi is equal to student reading proficiency in Massachusetts.  So why is it so hard for us to wrap our hands around a singular, clear high school graduation rate?
Years ago, the National Governors Association got all 50 states to buy into a common graduation formula.  Take a look at how many kids start ninth grade.  Factor out the school transfers and similar considerations.  Then look at how many of those kids graduated four years later.  That’s the grad rate — how many students completed high school four years after beginning it.
Several states have adopted this formula (including Michigan, thus the change in its most recent numbers).  But many more still have yet to apply the common formula to their state’s data.  Some are holding off because they are fearful of announcing a significant drop in grad rate overnight.  Others are working on building the data collection systems they need to do the work effectively.  And still others are just trying to sort it all out, trying to fit this priority in with a growing list of state education needs.
No matter the reason, the time has come for all states to embrace a common longitudinal graduation rate.  There is simply too much at stake not to.  In virtually every state in the union, we talk about the need to prepare our students for the opportunities of the 21st century.  We talk about new skills and new jobs.  About working smarter.  We discuss that a high school diploma is no longer a sufficient terminal degree, and that postsecondary education is a necessary step for all.
Can we really get more kids into postsecondary education if we don’t know who is actually finishing high school?  How do we boost graduation rates if we don’t have an accurate baseline to build on?  How do we improve the high school experience if we don’t have good data on who finishes, who doesn’t, and why?
Michigan and Florida’s announcements are indications we are heading in the right direction.  The first step might be painful.  No one wants to see their grad rates significantly decline.  But it is the right thing to do.  And it is a necessary step if we are to improve our nation’s high schools, increasing the number of kids who graduate from high school and go on to college.

How Does My High School Rate?

Eduflack High School, national standards

It’s that time of year again.  The national high school rankings are out. The number one spot has changed.  Most of the schools in the top 20 are the same as previous years.  The formula has been adjusted, but it is still a measure of AP and IB courses offered.  The DC area did particularly well (as those of us paying taxes in the suburbs expect).  And The Washington Post has an article today saying that these schools are eliminating honors classes to pump in more of those AP and IB classes needed for the rankings.

It’s all got Eduflack thinking, though.  We rank colleges and universities, in part, so consumers can make educated choices about their higher education futures.  We compare national research universities. We compare liberal arts colleges.  We compare private or public institutions.  We use the data to make decisions, and to make us feel better about past decisions (and past tuition bills).

But do the same comparisons apply to high schools?  As a product of public schools, Eduflack never had a choice in the high schools I attended.  I spent 9th and 10th grades at Santa Fe High School in New Mexico.  Eleventh and 12th grades were at Jefferson High School in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia.  Neither is a top high school.  Jefferson High only offered three AP classes when I was there many moons go.  And neither school was a choice.  They were simply my assigned public secondary school.  I don’t expect to see either on a top 100 list in my lifetime.

That said, what good do the high school rankings play?  We can’t use them to make a choice as to what high school we send our children to.  Are we expected to use the rankings to force changes in our own high schools?  Do we use them as part of a school choice push?  Do we use them to separate the haves from the have nots, or to demonstrate to the world that we have successful schools?

As with colleges, we can only effectively compare high schools if we are comparing apples to apples.  The Newsweek rankings simply don’t do that.  We have one list that ranks, theoretically, every high school in the United States.  Urban, rural, and suburban.  High per pupil expenditure and low per pupil expenditure.  Schools in states with stringent grad standards and those with none at all.  Everyone is in the same pool.  Everyone is measured by the same yardstick.

I’ll ring the bell again.  The first step to allowing us to use the same yardstick is to adopt national standards.  If every high school is held to the same standard, they can be commonly measured.  If high school graduation requirements are universal in all 50 states, they can be commonly measured.  If we want to offer a national ranking for our high schools, we should have a national standard they are all held to.

I don’t mean to take away from those schools that scored highly.  Congrats to all, including to my children’s future high school here in Falls Church, Virginia (George Mason High was ranked 58th, due in large part to its IB offerings).  But I’d feel a whole lot better knowing, if we should have to move from our school district, that my son (and his sister, who will hopefully officially join the family by the end of summer) was weighed and measured against fellow students from all 50 states, and was not found wanting.  National standards is the only way to provide that peace of mind to those families not sending their kids to the top 100.

Kids Are Reading?!?

Eduflack AYP, High School, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

These are definitely reading days.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the front page of today’s Washington Post.  Jay Matthews brings us the latest data from Accelerated Reader, an online reading program from Renaissance Learning.  Looking at its student usage data from more than 63,000 schools nationwide, AR has identified what books today’s students are reading … and how often they are reading them.

The full Matthews story is here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/04/ST2008050402168.html?hpid=topnews.  The AR study can be found here — http://www.renlearn.com/whatkidsarereading/ReadingHabits.pdf?sid=ST2008050402168.

The results are both interesting and disturbing.  Some of the top titles are to be expected.  “Green Eggs and Ham” is tops for first graders.  “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing” for fourth graders.  “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” was most read for second graders.

All of these are fun, well-written books that can be found in most independent reading collections for those grade levels.  But we’re also seeing a number of “required” reading titles on the list, particularly with the older grades.

“The Outsiders” was tops for seventh and eighth graders.  Eduflack remembers that as required reading in middle school.  And for high schoolers, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was the most-read book.  The Harper Lee classic has long been a mandatory read in ninth or 10th grade classes throughout the country.

Such data is interesting.  The most popular titles today, for the most part, were popular titles when Eduflack was in school decades ago.  What’s disturbing, though, is the amount of reading these students are doing.  We all keep hearing about the Harry Potter effect, and how kids are reading more today than they used to (due, in part, to the tri-wizard champion).  But AR’s data seems to tell a different story.

The average seventh grader is only reading seven books a year.  Take away the required readings like “The Outsiders,” and it is probably safe to say these junior high students are only reading two or three books independently each year.  Even more disturbing are high schoolers.  The average 12th grader is reading four books a year, meaning after books assigned in English class, the only thing seniors are reading is the back of a cereal box.

If we’ve learned anything during the RF era, it is that good reading comes in two parts.  Students need to gain the instructional building blocks identified under the law — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.  Then they need to practice it.  They need to read in class and outside of it.  They need to continue to develop those skills.  They need to become readers for life.

Reading is like any other skill.  If you want to play golf, you can get instruction on how to tee off, how to chip, and how to putt.  You can learn how to read the greens and choose your clubs.  But if you aren’t out there knocking out a few buckets a week and playing on real courses, you will never be a good golfer (though completing those tasks is no guarantee of success, trust me).  Developing skills requires practice, practice, practice.  And reading skills are no different.

This data also helps us see the need to prioritize independent reading in our schools and homes.  And that is due to the continued importance of statewide assessments.  When it comes to ELA, the assessment is one big independent reading test.  Think about it.  The test may include an excerpt from “Charlotte’s Web,” but it isn’t a test on how much you know about spiders and pigs. Assessments are independent, cold reads.  We test a student’s ability to comprehend what they read. Do they know the vocabulary?  Can they read and process it in the requisite period of time?  Can they reach conclusions based on what they read?

Now, we must see what we can do with this data from AR.  How do we use it to get good books in the hands of good students?  How do we set goals to increase book consumption among students of all ages?  How, exactly, do we build the reading skills of all students?

Lots of questions.  In RF and in successful schools throughout the nation, we can find the answers.  We just need to look.  And we need to know how to read the signs.

Let’s STEM Together

Eduflack High School, Math, NCLB, NGA, STEM

Collectively, we give a great deal of lip service to the idea of collaboration.  We seem to know that we should engage other stakeholders in our reforms.  We recognize the importance of different voices from different perspectives.  But in the end, we tend to flock around our own.  Teacher-focused reform.  Policies driven in a decisionmaker vacuum.  Even students who try to go down the change path all by their lonesome.

This week, Eduflack was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Team Pennsylvania Foundation.  The groups brought hundreds of individuals to Harrisburg to discuss the importance of a statewide STEM education effort.  The audience was a textbook definition of the collaboration we typically seek — representatives from P-12, higher education, business, NFPs, and government.  High school students and 30-year veterans.  All five regions of the state strongly represented.  All gathered together to improve STEM education for the state.

The panel discussion, in particular, was an interesting one.  We purposely heard from a variety of voices in STEM education field.  Two newish educators collaborating to build a STEM high school in Pittsburgh (doors opening in 2009).  A corporate representative who has demonstrated his commitment to STEM skills and STEM hires for years.  The president of Saint Francis University, whose TEAMS effort could teach a lot of IHEs how to prepare teachers for the rigors of STEM.  And two students currently participating in STEM apprenticeship programs with Lockheed Martin — both enrolled in community college, both excited about the career paths available to them.

This diverse panel gave the full audience a great deal to think about, helping them answer some key questions we all seem to dwell on.  Why is STEM education so important?  Who benefits from it?  What is my role in adopting a STEM program?  What do we do if we don’t have money to open a new school or start an apprenticeship program?  How do we know we are successful?  What’s the end game, both in terms of results and calendar.

Father Gabe Zies, the president of Saint Francis, was particularly powerful in discussing the final question.  This is not a two-year effort, with a calendar dictated by the term of a grant from the NGA.  Investment in STEM education is a long-term game.  We don’t look for an end.  Instead, we constantly look to improve and enhance.  The effort will continue to evolve as our technology and our skill needs evolve.  In essence, Father Gabe is saying that STEM is about meeting the challenges of tomorrow.  It is about innovation, an innovation that never stops and should never waver.  And that means an initiative that is perpetually adapting and changing to address those needs continually ensure our students, our teachers, and our schools are up to the challenges ahead of them.

There was universal agreement that STEM education is a shared responsibility with shared returns on investment.  No audience can go it alone, and none should be forced to.  Through collaboration, these Pennsylvania STEM advocates were confident they can build a strong, sustainable effort that strengthens both P-16 education and the workforce.

The group also heard from Pennsylvania Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, who kicked the forum off with an inspirational discussion of hope and opportunity.  Channeling football great Vince Lombardi, Zahorchak cited a goal of perfection.  He noted Lombardi consistently pushed all his players to achieve perfection.  Whenever they were asked about it, they said they aren’t there yet, but they are a whole lot better today than they were before.  And they would be better tomorrow.

Such sentiment is important in education reform, and it is often lost in the NCLB era.  We seem to look for excuses as to why every child can’t succeed and how we need expand exceptions to the law or look for loopholes to get us out of the problem.  In discussing STEM, Zahorchak recognizes what the end goal is — a fully STEM-literate society.  High school diplomas that hold real value in the work world.  Postsecondary academic pathways that were previously unavailable to many.  Career opportunities that strengthen the family while strengthening the region and state’s overall economy.  Opportunities for all, not just for those seeking to be rocket scientists or brain surgeons.

I don’t know about the other participants, but Coach Zahorchak, I’m ready to suit up and get down in a three-point stance.  Perfection should be our end game.  The panelists I spoke with clearly demonstrated we have the tools, the experience, and the passion to get there.  Now we just need to harness all those tools, work together, and ensure that our strongest team is on the field.

After this week, I am certain Pennsylvania is up to the challenge, and has the opportunity to serve as a true model for STEM education in the coming years.
 

AT&T Makes the Call

Eduflack Gates Foundation, High School, Students

Late last week, telecommunications giant AT&T announced it was investing $100 million into solutions to our nation’s high school dropout problem.  The funding is to be directed into four key areas — school grants, job shadowing programs, research, and dropout-prevention summits.  Education Week has the full story at http://www.edweek.org/ew/2008/04/17/34att.h27.html.

Of course, AT&T isn’t the first to dial into this conference call.  The Gates Foundation (through Microsoft money) first placed the call years ago.  Since then, it has been joined by groups such as the Dell Foundation, State Farm Insurance, and Boeing.  All have signaled the importance of a rigorous and relevant high school experience.  All have put their money in to solve the problem, as they see it, and offer improvements to a long-neglected secondary education system.

What AT&T is proposing to fund isn’t breaking new ground.  Gates has become the king of school grants.  Local company after local company have long offered shadowing programs in partnership with their local high schools.  States like Arkansas and Indiana have conducted successful dropout-prevention summits over the last year.  And anyone who is anyone is funding “research.”

But this announcement is indeed significant.  Why?  It is all about the end game and all about the outcomes.  Some folks don’t like to hear it, but today’s high schools are necessary prep zones for tomorrow’s workforce.  We hear Gates and others talk about relevant and rigorous curriculum.  What does that mean?  It means high school courses relate to student interests and future career paths.  It means that high schools are equipping students with the skills –critical thinking, reading, computational, teamwork, etc. — to succeed in the postsecondary environment of their choice and in a meaningful career.

At the end of the day, this is all about the workforce.  Does anyone truly think you can get a good job without a high school diploma?  In an industry like telecommunications, can AT&T put a high school dropout to work without having to significantly invest in worker training and education?

Like many employers, AT&T is looking down the road, anticipating what happens as Baby Boomers prepare for retirement over the next decade.  At the same time, they’ve watched their industry evolve, with even blue-collar jobs requiring more knowledge, more know-how, and more skills.  They know the sorts of employees they need in the coming years.  And they know that high school dropouts can’t fill the need.

Let Eduflack be clear, this is not a criticism.  In fact, I wish more companies would think and act with the same interest that AT&T does.  Over the years, we have seen significant movement happen in K-12 education, and much of it is driven when the business community joins forces with K-12.  Public-private partnerships have been invaluable.  And the recent philanthropic investment from corporate charities provide resources that simply cannot be offered from other entities. 

Business knows what it needs from our future workforce.  They know the costs of recruitment and training.  They know the skills they are seeking.  And they see that they just aren’t getting what they know they need.

In most circles, we talk about the need of corporate America to adapt.  They adapt to the global economy.  The adapt to the eco-economy.  They adapt to population shifts and increased regulations and higher costs and greater competition.  They adapt because they need to.  It is the only way to succeed … or just to survive.

Those lessons of adaptation can also be adopted by our high schools.  In most communities, our high schools still operate under the model that worked 50 or even 100 years ago.  Then, a third of students dropped out and found a job or joined the military.  A third graduated high school and moved into the workforce.  And a third graduated and pursued a postsecondary education.

Today, we now those numbers can’t hold.  According to the U.S. Department of Education, 90 percent of new jobs will require postsecondary education.  That means a high school diploma.  And that means a high school experience that is both relevant and interesting to all students, not just those looking to go to college.

So kudos to AT&T and those who have come before it for investing in their futures by investing in our high schools.  They clearly are putting their money where their mouths are.  Now it is up to our school districts and high schools (particularly those now tagged as dropout factories) to answer that phone call and take meaningful action.  And don’t worry, AT&T is picking up the charges.
 

Dropping Out in the Windy City

Eduflack AYP, CPS, Gates Foundation, High School

Just how bad is the drop-out problem in the United States?  For years, we have heard the Manhattan Institute talk about urban drop-out rates of 30 percent, 40 percent, and even 50 percent.  At the same time, many superintendents would counter with rates a fraction of that, citing circumstances that Manhattan wasn’t accounting for.  Last week, Eduflack heard a tale (still to be verified) that until very recently one state was calculating their graduation rate based on the number of 12th graders who managed to graduate that year.  As to be expected, they had a pretty good grad rate.

Today, the CPS Graduation Pathways Strategy is to be released in Chicago.  Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the report cites recent Chicago drop-out rates of nearly 50 percent.  The most recent data shows a dropout rate of 44 percent.  The full story is here in today’s Chicago Tribune — http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-dropout_25feb25,0,1248671.story.  Thanks to www.educationnews.org for flagging it.

Why is this study so important?  We all know our large, urban school districts have long had a drop-out problem.  Heck, it was only a few months ago that many of their schools were dubbed drop-out factories.  While such rates are indeed alarming, they have long been part of the drumbeat of the need for reform.  We know kids aren’t graduating from high school, and we’ve known it for decades.

No, the important issue here is that Chicago is standing behind some very ugly numbers.  They recognize that the first step to improvement is strong data collection and strong data analysis.  Working with BMGF, they now know the true scope and size of the problem.  They aren’t trying to hide the numbers.  They aren’t trying to develop an alternative approach to convert that 44 percent to 32 percent or 26 percent.  They are laying out the cold hard facts, using them as a launching pad for substantive, meaningful reforms.

It isn’t often that we see a large school district go naked like that by choice.  Data is often a closely held secret, and one might need dual degrees in statistics and computer science to dig out meaningful information from a district website or  state education database.  This study, though, seems to lay out a frank and open discussion of seven years worth of graduation data for the Windy City.  And it serves as a model for other urban districts who recognize the drop-out crisis is a major education and economic issue.

As communication goes, CPS deserves a gold star here.  If the goal is school improvement, one needs to generate a genuine demand for change.  You need to demonstrate that is a significant problem, we know what that problem is, and we have the people and resources to fix it.  And that’s just what Chicago is doing this week (and hopefully well beyond).  They’ve identified the problem, and a 44 percent drop-out rate is definitely a problem, and acknowledge the softer spots such as male drop-outs and a high school population that is older than the norm.  They’ve assembled a team of educators, representing the central office and the high schools, to get to work.  They’ve partnered with BMGF to both study the issue and implement solutions.  Now they just need to convince parents, teachers, and the community at large to back their proposed course of action.

It seems straightforward and common sense.  But we don’t always see that in education reform communications, do we?  Yes, we have a while to go before we know if CPS’ approach is effective.  From the cheap seats, it definitely seems like their thoughts, words, and actions are pointed in the right direction.