high-stakes testing

Take the Test? Me?

Eduflack accountability, high-stakes testing, Social media, Students

When we talk about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we usually like to focus on the freedom of speech part.  Some of us (including us former reporters) like the freedom of the press thing.  The recent Occupy movement has given us new-found interest in the right of peaceable assembly.  And come election time, we often hear about freedom of religion.

But what about that fifth First Amendment right?  How often do we give attention to our right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances?”
This week, clause five takes on special significance for dear ol’ Eduflack.  Courtesy of the good folks over at Change.org, I am now the target of an online petition.  
For those unfamiliar, Change.org is a terrific site where folks can post their grievances on any topic you care about.  Oppose the war in Afghanistan?  Wanna stop the Keystone pipeline?  Demand the return of tan M&Ms?  Doesn’t matter, Change.org is your site.  Post up a petition, spread the word, and work toward that goal of 100,000 signatures.  When you hit the magic number, great things will come to the petitioners.
This week, a petition was posted opposing the use of standardized tests in K-12 education.  Using standard language of attacking those dreaded “bubble exams,” the petitions note:
Students are put under pressure like never before to meet high expectations on Standardized Tests. Not only that, but teachers are held accountable for these tests scores, putting just as much pressure on teachers all over the United States. Ultimately, destroying the true purpose of school and education. Basically, it doesn’t matter how much a teacher helped a student go from a struggling reader to a student now never seen without a book in his hand. It doesn’t matter that the teacher inspired and motivated the student to want to graduate high school instead of dropping out on her 16th birthday just 2 months away.
The petition’s call to action?  Before subjecting our kids to more of those dreaded bubble sheets, the politicians responsible for such horrific measures of accountability should first take those standardized tests themselves.  “If you are in a position of power in the education system and think the tests are good and valuable, the theory goes, then you should feel comfortable taking them yourself and sharing how you performed,” the petitioners write.
The petition is addressed to nine parties.  The U.S. Senate, which is working to enact ESEA reauthorization, is target one.  It is followed by folks like CA Gov. Jerry Brown, NJ Gov. Chris Christie, PA Gov. Tom Corbett, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, CT Gov. Dannel Malloy, and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  But wait, there are two other targets on the list.  The first is former DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee, now the head of StudentsFirst.  The second?  Patrick Riccards, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack.
  
For the record, I do think student tests are good and valuable.  I believe that the ultimate measure of our public education systems should be outcomes.  If we are serious about improving student learning, we need to enact some measures to ensure that is happening.  Standardized tests may be far from perfect, and they may not be the only measure of student learning, but they are an important component to determining our success.  Like it or not, we need quantifiable measures of student progress and school achievement.
Sure, technically I’m not “the Government.”  But folks should feel free to bring me their redress of testing grievances.  Will I take the test?  I’d be happy to.  But as the head of an education advocacy organization, I’d like to have some of those voices defending the status quo and chanting “all is well” when we talk about improvement in the testing room right there with their own No. 2 pencils.  
Sadly, we are only up to 27 signatures on the petition.  When we hit the magic number, I’m ready for my bubble sheet.

Saving American Education

Eduflack accountability, assessment, high-stakes testing, teachers

So how do we “save American education?”  As a nation we obviously spend a great deal of time diagnosing the problems, while offering a few targeted solutions.  But what does comprehensive treatment of the problem really look like. 

That’s actually the question that Jay Mathews of The Washington Post recently posed to Mark Tucker, the head of the National Center for Education and the Economy.  And Tucker’s answers may surprise some.  His top five solutions?
1) Make admissions to teacher training programs more competitive
2) Raise teacher compensation significantly
3) Allow larger class sizes
4) End annual standardized testing
5) Spend more money on students who need more help getting to high standards
It is an interesting collection of recommendations, which Tucker and NCEE offer based on observing what other countries have done to improve their educational offerings.  But it begs an important question — are these reforms that the federal government should be leading, or reforms that need to be driven by the states?  Can the United States of America really follow the lead of Singapore, a nation no larger than Kentucky?
Yes, it is important we focus on educator effectiveness.  That starts with getting the best individuals into our teacher training programs and continues with ensuring schools are able to recruit, retain, and support those truly excellent educators.  And yes, we should pay those teachers better, but only after we have developed teacher evaluation systems focused on student achievement measures.
And you will get no disagreement from Eduflack on the need to spend more money on the students who need the most help.  The time has clearly come to overhaul our school finance systems to ensure that scarce tax dollars are going where they are needed the most.  We shouldn’t be funding schools based simply on an historical perspective, doing what we do because it worked a few decades ago.  We need to fund our schools in real time, recognizing that all schools — be they traditional public, magnet, technical, or charter — are treated fairly and equitably when it comes to funding formulas and per-pupil expenditures.
But eliminate testing?  While I like Tucker’s idea of three national exams that identify student performance at the end of elementary school, 10th grade, and 12th grade, do we really believe that is enough?  Is one test between kindergarten and high school really sufficient, particularly when we know a third of our elementary school students are reading below grade level and the real trouble spot for our schools is the middle school years?  
Instead of cutting back on the number of tests, we should first look to use our testing data more effectively.  Empower teachers with formative and summative assessment data to tailor their instructional approaches to meet student needs.  Let the data guide what happens in the classroom.  We need to change the mindset that the test is the end product.  It needs to be the starting line, providing educators with a strong diagnosis for how to proceed with the work at hand for a given school year.
That’s how we can save American education.  Data-driven decision making.  Evidence-based instruction.  By better understanding and applying the research, we have the power to focus on effective teachers, getting the resources where they are most needed, and actually improving student achievement.  Without it, we will just continue to feel our way in the dark.

Saving Our Schools?

Eduflack assessment, charter schools, high-stakes testing, NCLB

Most of those who read the education blogosphere or follow the myriad of edu-tweeters know that this weekend is the “Save Our
Schools” rally in Washington, DC.  On Saturday, teachers, parents, and concerned citizens with gather on the Ellipse.  They are encouraged to “arrive early to enjoy performances, art, and more!” and they are slated to hear from Diane Ravitch, Jonathan Kozol, Jose Vilson, Deborah Meier, Monty Neill, and “other speakers, musicians, performance poets, and more.”  This collection “will encourage, educate, and support this movement.”

For weeks now, we’ve seen the media savvy folks in the Save Our Schools clique use their blogs and Twitter feeds to promote the rally.  Ravitch has been touting it since its inception.  Teacher Ken has written about it on multiple blog platforms.  And Nancy Flanagan has used her perch at Education Week to tout the event, its justification, and its potential significance.
As I’ve written about many times before, successful public engagement is about far more than simply “informing” people on an issue.  Sharing information, as the slated speakers intend to do, is the easiest component of public engagement.  The hard work is affecting outcomes.  How do you move from informing at a rally to building measurable commitment to a specific solution?  How do you mobilize around that specific solution?  And ultimately, how do you successful change both thinking and action related to the issue?
To that end, rather than rehash the points and counterpoints that have been going back and forth, Eduflack simply has a few questions to ask:
* What is the expected turnout for the event?  Noting the “RSVP” function, how many actual attendees will be considered a success?  And how many physical bodies would be considered a failure?
* Will Save Our Schools disclose its funders?
* What are the tangible outcomes coming from the principles?  Does equitable funding mean moving more dollars into failing schools, or can it mean a new formula where funding follows the student?  Where do the dollars for all of the “full funding” come from?  What specific “multiple and varied assessments” are “demanded?”  What exactly do you propose for curriculum development (recognizing the bullets under the principle of curriculum seem to have little do do with actual curriculum development)?
* How does a weekend of speeches, music, and art “draw sustained attention to the critical issues?”
* And why are you following the kiss of death for many recent education movements, opening a “Save Our Schools” store?
I’m all for people have a good, fun time during these hot and humid summer days in our nation’s capital.  But if one is serious about school improvement (setting aside whether SOS’ agenda can be considered “improvement”), you need to offer a little more than arts and crafts.  Set an agenda.  Publicly disclose intentions.  Establish clear, measurable goals and report back on progress.  Allow the same public you are appealing to now to hold you accountable a year from now.  Without that, it is just another fun day in the sun, with chants of “go schools!” between games of ultimate frisbee.  And that gets us no closer to improving student achievement and potential for success.
 

Cart Awaiting a Horse

Eduflack accountability, assessment, high-stakes testing
A little more this week from Eduflack guest blogger, Dr. John Jensen …
Several decades ago when differences between right and left brain thinking were first explored, a story was told to illustrate.

During World War II, many harbors in Hawaii were blocked by sunken warships, one important channel in particular. After the war, engineers puzzled over how to move them out of way. As they found themselves stumped, someone said, “I know a captain who has a reputation as a good problem solver.  Let’s invite him in.”     

They brought the captain to an overlook where, standing among the important brass, he could see the masts of vessels protruding from the water. As he stared at them, someone nearby heard him muttering, “Mother… Mother… the garden.”  The image that came to him was of his mother breaking large clumps of sod into smaller ones, which suggested his solution: Don’’t try to move the ships. Break them into pieces and leave them there–a solution that worked.

Which is to say that if we find ourselves stumped over education, could we consider a different viewpoint? 

The title above hints at a shift. Recently I happened across two reports, one on the ongoing work on national standards, and the other on the international education conference in Helsinki earlier this fall. The reports presented exactly opposite views on how to get quality education. The Finns hosting the conference, as is widely acknowledged, get the best educational results in the world. Two features of their system stood out for me. They 1) insist that teachers know their subject matter, and 2) they allow them great latitude in designing what they personally will teach. 

How unusual!  Find someone who knows and ask him to do what he knows.  What an innovative model!  One wonders what would happen to the entire American economy if such an insight were widely accepted instead of having the state micro-manage everything from the top down.  The US model in contrast 1) presumes that teachers don’t know their subject matter.  Once accepting that as inevitable, the second step follows: 2) spoon-feed them every detail they must teach.  

It’s clear that the Finn model works and, as best we can tell, the US model doesn’’t. The conclusion is obvious. Do the US model more intensively!  Bring into education more people who know even less about teaching, and specify in even more detail what they must teach. Exert more control of the process with less confidence in and freedom for teachers to teach what they know.

I sympathize with policy-makers who don‘t know what to do with their big hammer, the billions they’’re anxious to spend. They don‘’t know what, among their myriad of options, to spend it on that will make the most difference.  A possible corner is at least to define what students need to know in the subjects most commonly taught.            

Sensible as it may sound, even this has its holdouts. Alaska and Texas want no part of it.  Texas, I assume, is independent  enough to believe that their own people know better what their children should learn, but Alaska (my home state) is a different matter.  The knowledge useful for living in many of its remote communities and even larger cities can diverge greatly from what one needs to know in the continental US; climate, weather, geology, environment, wildlife, fish, transportation, Native heritage, and energy, for instance.  The concerns of a Boston or St. Louis are far off the mark, hinting further that a varied and changing world could soon make the current knowledge disseminated today
 in any city moot even there.

But let’’s say the macro-plan has its way and we could standardize what students need to know, what then?

To me this is the cart waiting for a horse, a cart we wouldn’’t need if we just had a horse.  What curriculum do you want to tow along?  Ask the Finns, who say that the curriculum is what a teacher who knows the subject is ready to teach. But even settling that, we still need the horse:How do we get students to learn what is either in the teacher’s mind or, lacking confidence in their mind, in the national standards?

How?  That we even have to ask the question is my concern. If we have any doubt about how to do this, then it’s premature to define standards nationally or require particular knowledge in teachers. The “horse” is what moves everything else–to know that you can teach students whatever you want to teach them each, always, and every time. Do this with a lot of learning (a good start is “whatever the teacher wants to teach.”). After much of that, look around and inquire, “Is there anything essential we haven’’t covered?” Let teachers teach what they want to for eleven and a half years and spend the last semester on lacunae.  These are likely to appear much less significant once you already have a child saturated with usable knowledge, but if something is both missing and important, cover it then.

First, though, do the big chunks, the stuff good teachers already know.  Stay out of the way while they do it and don’t micro-manage.

 

(John Jensen is a licensed clinical psychologist and author of The Silver Bullet Easy Learning System: How to Change Classrooms Fast and Energize Students for Success (Xlibris, 2008), which he will send free as an e-book to anyone requesting it. He can be reached at jjensen@gci.net.  This post represents the opinions of Dr. Jensen only.)

Reading Gaining Speed as Fed Priority?

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, high-stakes testing, NAEP, Reading First, SBRR

With all of the talk about RttT, school turnarounds, and the like, we haven’t spent much time at all talking about core instructional issues.  As many schools continue to struggle reaching AYP and demonstrating the sort of student achievement we all expect (and that the federal law still demands), we just haven’t been focusing on the curricular foundations that help us get to our intended destination.  This is particularly true of reading instruction, which has been a red-headed stepchild in federal education policy for the past few years (ever since Congress defunded the Reading First program short of its intended completion date).

For the past year, those in DC who pay attention to reading instruction issues have been hearing grumblings about the next generations of Reading First, a new federal policy that would provide comprehensive reading instruction across grades kindergarten through 12.  We’ve seen working drafts circulated about town talking about a more “comprehensive” approach to reading, a greater emphasis on teaching techniques (and less so on instructional materials), and the possibility of a new definition of “scientifically based,” the one term that came to define RF, for good or bad.
But all has been quiet on the reading front for the past six months or so.  The closest we’ve gotten to talk about reading has been discussions of common core standards.  But after six years of making reading instruction in the elementary grades priority number one in school improvement, we’ve all but forgotten about reading.  (OK, most have forgotten.  Some of us have continued to tilt at windmills in search RF, the next generation.)
Now we finally have our answer.  Yesterday, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (WA) introduced the Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act, or LEARN.  The bill summary looks remarkably similar to the working drafts being circulated around town earlier this year by folks like the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association and others.  Among LEARN’s highlights:
* $2.35 billion in total funding for K-12 literacy instruction, with at least 10 percent going to early childhood education, 40 percent going to K-5 (RF’s sweet spot), and at least 40 percent going to grades 6-12.
* A new rigorous national evaluation of the programs being funded through LEARN (with a particular note of “stringent conflict of interest restrictions for the program’s peer review process,” a direct response to IG investigation into RF)
* A focus on state-based literacy programs (again similar to RF), focusing on leadership teams, a state literacy plan, subgrants to LEAs, focus on struggling schools, and attention to pre-service literacy instruction.  Interestingly, LEARN also includes language to help fund those districts doing well in reading, so they can continue improvements.
The bill summary offered by Senator Murray’s office also sets forward four key goals.  LEARN is intended to “support the creation of local high-quality literacy programs in schools by:

a) providing high-quality professional development for instructional staff that is job-embedded, ongoing, and research-based, providing teachers with expertise in literacy instruction appropriate to specific grade levels, analyzing data to improve student learning, and effective implementation of literacy instruction strategies; 
b) providing students with explicit, systematic, and developmentally appropriate instruction in reading and writing, including but not limited to vocabulary development, phonemic awareness, 
reading comprehension, and the use of diverse texts; 
c) utilizing diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments to inform and improve instruction and student learning at all age levels; and 
d) supporting schoolwide literacy programs and additional literacy supports to address the specific learning needs of struggling readers and writers, including English language learners and students with disabilities.” 


A similar bill is expected to be offered in the U.S. House of Representatives.  RIght now, LEARN is slated to move forward as an independent piece of legislation, not attached as part of ESEA reauthorization or any other similar bill.  Of course, if ESEA reauth does move quickly early next year (a hope Eduflack is quickly losing confidence in) it could easily be rolled into the larger bill.
So what are we to make of all this?  There is much good here, and much still to be determined, including:
* LEARN re-declares a federal commitment to reading instruction, putting billions more into supporting the advances made by many states and school districts under RF;
* It extends our commitment to reading beyond the previous grades K-4 to K-12, ensuring that all of those children who benefited from RF investments in recent years are now seeing similar commitments in middle and high school;
* It recognizes that reading instruction in those middle and secondary grades is essential to our national goals around high school graduation and college-going, and emphasizes that literacy instruction must continue throughout one’s academic career;
LEARN continues to emphasize the importance of professional development, an often overlooked piece of RF (where the law called for up to 25 percent of RF’s $6 billion be directed to PD and teacher training);
* It actually doubles down on the importance of professional development by specifically focusing on the pre-service needs of preparing teachers to teach reading; and
* It continues our emphasis on explicit, systematic, and developmentally appropriate instruction in reading.
And what remains TBD here?
* First and foremost, the money.  RF focused $6 billion on the elementary grades, and many are still questioning the effectiveness of the program and its impact.  As we expand the program to include early childhood education (likely swallowing what was Early Reading First), elementary grades (the old Reading First), and middle and high school grades (currently funded by the meager Struggling Readers program), we are now doing for more in federal reading instruction with significantly less money.  Does the proposed funding get the job done, or does it merely set things in motion, leaving it to SEAs and LEAs to find new funds to enact the comprehensive reading efforts needed.  It is frightening to say, but $2.35 billion, particularly if distributed K-12 to all 50 states, likely won’t be enough.
* It talks about instruction beyond vocabulary and phonemic awareness, but doesn’t specify a specific definition.  Some will read this as a repudiation of RF.  Others can see it as a continuation of those priorities, where phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were the intended foci.  Both sides in the reading wars will be fighting to “redefine” what LEARN’s instruction is intended to focus on.
* It calls for diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments at all age levels.  An essential piece to education reform in the current era, without doubt.  But do we have such tests?  RF was limited by state assessments in grades 3-8, yes.  But after spending the past decade in the so-called “high stakes testing” era, do we have research-based, accepted diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments that can be used immediately in grades k-12?  Or a better question, do we have such assessments that all parties will agree on and use correctly?
* While there is mention of “research-based,” how will that be defined?  Clearly, the previous SBRR definition is going to be rewritten.  So how do we capture “research-based,” and how do we do it so that it means something, and isn’t merely a consensus definition that is acceptable by all, but loved by none?
* While I understand the reasons behind it, can we successfully use LEARN money to both raise reading achievement in struggling schools while incentivizing high-performing schools to continue their investment in results-based reading instruction?
* Most importantly, what are the intended outcomes?  If all of the points identified in Murray’s summary of LEARN are followed and followed with fidelity, what should we expect to see at the end of three or four years?
These are all questions that Murray and other legislators will be able to answer in the coming months as LEARN moves through the process.  Regardless, LEARN is a good next step for our federal reading instruction efforts.  Will make RF advocates happy?  No.  Will it satisfy RF critics?  Based on the summary, absolutely not.  But it may just have the right combination to continue to improve the acquisition of reading skills among students in grades K-12, while continuing to equip all teachers with the literacy instruction skills they need to lead a successful classroom.  It continues to focus on doing what works in the classroom, pursuing paths that are supported by the research and demonstrate effectiveness.  And it recognizes that school and student success hinges on a child’s ability to read at grade level, regardless of what grade they are in.
In an era where nearly two-thirds of all of our nation’s eighth graders are unable to score proficient or better on the eighth grade reading NAEP, LEARN is clearly much needed legislation.  Here’s hoping it doesn’t get lost in the push for Racing, Innovation, and such.  This is too important an issue not to be at center stage for school improvement efforts.

In Search of 21st Century Joe Clarks

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, high-stakes testing

When I’m flipping through the cable stations late at night, unable to sleep because something or another has my mind going a thousand miles an hour, there are a number of movies for which I will always stop and watch.  Braveheart, Thank You For Smoking, the original All the King’s Men, Bull Durham, Tin Cup, Roadhouse, 10 Things I Hate About You, and She’s All That tops among them.

The remote also cools down when I stumble across Lean on Me, which I happened to catch again late last night.  We all know the movie I’m talking about, the 1989 film starred Morgan Freeman and told the story of Joe Clark and his transformation of Eastside High School in Paterson, NJ.  The story has become urban legend by now.  About 30 percent of Eastside’s students were passing the state proficiency exam.  New Jersey had just passed a law stating that any school with less than a 75 percent passage rate faced state takeover.  So in a move of desperation, Paterson turned over its most troubled school to “Crazy” Joe Clark, giving him seven months to more than double the passage rate and avoid state control.
In the biopic, Clark is dogged, even possessed, in enacting his version of school improvement.  Focusing on discipline, accountability, self-respect, and responsibility, he quickly brings a new culture to the school.  That culture brings about a change in attitudes and actions from the students.  (He actually appeared on the cover of Time magazine with a baseball bat, not unlike DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee and her broom.)  In the 11th hour, facing possible jail time and certain termination because of personality clashes and violation of the fire codes, the movie Joe Clark reveals that the school surpassed the 75 percent proficiency mark.  Takeover averted.  Possibly the state’s worst public school transformed in a matter of months into a performer.  From dropout factory to postsecondary pipeline.
If only it were that simple.  But why, you may ask, is Eduflack writing about a movie from the late 1980s that has almost been forgotten in recent years?  President Obama and EdSec Duncan’s visit to Wisconsin on Wednesday has really got me thinking.  By now, we’ve all heard the chattering that the visit is being used to advocate for mayoral takeover of urban school districts in crisis, calling for changes at the top of the systemic education pyramid to bring about real change at the foundations.  In recent months, we’ve heard the detailing of successful takeovers in Chicago, New York, and Boston, along with promising takeovers in cities like Washington, DC.  With the success of charter schools in Milwaukee (and to a lesser degree, of vouchers), it only makes sense that the city will be the next test for mayoral takeover.
Yes, we can point to mayors who have been tremendously successful in using their bully pulpit to bring about a new world of thinking in the public schools.  But the story of Joe Clark and Eastside High should make us remember that there is only so much that can be done at the top of the foodchain.  A mayor’s support for a superintendent only goes so far in school transformation.  It ultimately takes the support and efforts of the teachers and the principals to bring about the sort of lasting change sought by Duncan and funded through RttT, i3, and other new programs.  And we are rarely talking about principals and building leaders these days.
So it begs the question, where are the next generation Joe Clarks?  What school districts are empowering their principals to “take no prisoners” and do whatever it takes to fix a broken school, restore order, and deliver improved student achievement?  Where are the breeding grounds for such school leaders, where they develop the instructional leadership, the vision, the executive management, and the passion to take on the schools that need it the most?  How do we embolden incoming cadres of principals, ensuring they see their jobs as more than building managers and more than the middle ground between the superintendent and the teachers?  And how do we give the right people the authority to shake things up and truly toss out what wasn’t working, even when facing strong defenders of the failed status quo?
Year after year, we hear about the modern-day Eastside High Schools, the dropout factories, the persistent contributors to the achievement gap, the schools where too many students are written off before they even arrive for their first day of school.  As we focus on how to move forward with lasting school improvement, it seems we need a whole mess of Joe Clarks to implement a new way of thinking, a new way of teaching, a new way of motivating, and new way of achieving.  Without it, all the fresh paint and duct tape in the free world can’t truly heal the schools that need help the most.

Rethinking Learning … Then What?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, assessment, high-stakes testing, Obama, RTT

While it may be the hip and hot thing to do, Eduflack is not going to spend the majority of today’s blog talking about this afternoon’s Presidential address to students.  After reviewing the text of the speech, one lesson learned from my K-12 education comes to mind — Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing.  While it is unknown if the final remarks circulated today were the intended remarks, what POTUS will say to students in Arlington, Virginia today really is much ado about nothing.  Read the remarks, and you will see a sprinkle of previous lines given by the President to civil rights organizations, with a heavy dose of the type of rhetoric often found in a mayor’s State of the City or a superintendent’s State of the Schools address.  Stay in school  Work hard.  Wash your hands.  Eat your vegetables.  You can find the full speech here, but those worried about indoctrination should have greater worries about the latest infomercial or news segment on Fox or MSNBC than today’s remarks.

No, I’m more intrigued by some of the other actions swirling in the edusphere.  Over at USA Today, today’s he said/she said is on Race to the Top and the need for innovation in the schools.  As expected USA Today speaks for the reformers, those supporting the current agenda moved forward by EdSec Arne Duncan and the team at the U.S. Department of Education.  Speaking for the loyal opposition is Marty Hittelman, the president of the California Federation of Teachers.  We’ve all read about the teachers’ concerns with RttT (particularly the National Education Association’s strong “comments” regarding the RttT draft guidance).  Much of the content of Hittelman’s piece , found here, should surprise no one.  But the most interesting line is one we have all suspected, but no one has been willing to say in public — “our opposition to ‘Race to the Top.'”  For the record, Hittelman has made clear that the California Federation of Teachers is opposed to Race to the Top.  Now we finally have a game, where major groups are starting to pick sides.  (It of course makes it a little easier to be opposed to RttT when it is clear your state won’t receive it, but you watch you top elected officials scramble to enact “reforms” to align with what ED is looking for in the law.)
For weeks now, Eduflack has been calling for the loyal opposition to come out of hiding and have their voices heard in this great debate over reform and innovation in public education.  I believed the initial salvo, launched by EdTrust, DFER, EEP, and CAP, was a good first start.  CFT’s remarks in this morning’s USA Today move the ball further down the hill.  And this morning we have a new public information campaign designed to poke fist-sized holes in ED’s plans over accountability and student achievement.
Today, the Forum for Democracy and Education, among others, launched a new campaign called “Rethink Learning Now.”  Backers of the effort call it a “national grassroots campaign to change the direction of public education reform — from a focus on testing to a focus on learning.”  To support the effort, the Forum is collecting “learning stories” from leaders across the country, seeking tales of those learning experiences that have shaped one’s lives.  The point is to demonstrate that real learning is not measured by the score on a state assessment, it comes from those qualitative and intangible moments where one discovers the motivation for learning and education, beyond just quantitative achievement.  The campaign’s website can be found here, complete with the EdSec’s learning story.
  
Rethink Learning focuses on three key buckets — learning, teaching, and fairness.  The motives behind the three are simple.  Learning cannot be measured simply by student performance on state assessments.  Teaching cannot be measured simply by crosswalking teachers with those same student test scores.  And as long as we have the resource gaps between the haves and have nots, we can never truly deliver high-quality teaching and learning to all students.
I will give it to the Rethink Learning Now folks.  Their TV commercials are top notch.  This AM, CNN previewed one commercial in particular.  In it, a tween goes on about how states are now using third grade student test scores to determine potential incarceration rates, then following the path to talk about how we are spending more on prisons than we are in schools.  The visuals of the bright-faced kids in orange prison jumpsuits drives the message home, and speaks to the President’s message about the need to stay in school and the EdSec’s recent bemoaning of our national 30 percent high school dropout rate.  For an attention-getter, the Forum has hit a home run here.
But the nagging question is what do we do with this?  Once all of the learning stories are collected, once we have shocked those suburban parents who will watch such commercials on CNN, once we have driven a self-selected group of individuals to visit the Rethink Learning website and enter their contact information, what do we do with it?  Do we declare mission accomplished because we have hit a certain number of visitors?  Do we bask in the glow of folks seeing some edgy commercials?  Do we celebrate some of the celebrities who have shared their stories, thus giving the campaign an A for effort?  Or do we expect more?
Those who have read Eduflack for a while know that I am a disciple of the Yankelovich school of public engagement.  it isn’t enough to simply inform individuals about an issue, as Rethink Learning Now is doing.  That is merely the first step to a more complex engagement effort.  Informing is the easy part.  You then need to move on to building commitment for a solution and mobilizing around a particular action.
Building commitment is more than just building an email list.  It is gaining proactive participation and support for a particular solution.  And mobilization comes when we get those stakeholders to say and do whatever is necessary to bring about change.  So the question before Rethink Learning is what is the ask?  
Do we want to join with the California Federation of Teachers to fight federal provisions that say a good teacher is measured by how well his or her student does on the state exam?  Do we want to join with the Broader Bolder Approach to Education and oppose the general education accountability framework in general?  Do we want to join with the Opportunity to Learn folks in the name of multiple measures and equity of resources?  Is it a little of each, or is it a new path that the Rethink Learning organizers are planning for down the road?
Regardless, Rethink Education and its backers need to have us stand for something, and not just argue against something.  It is no longer enough to say that state assessments are unfair or that we need to look at the whole child to get a full measure of the quality of education.  It is no longer enough to say that there are too many intangibles to teaching that we can’t effective measure good instruction.  And it certainly is no longer enough to say we need a different approach, particularly if we aren’t willing to offer up the specifics of that approach.
Rethink Learning should get credit for breaking through the white noise and having its voice heard at a time when most are only listening to the folks at ED.  But now is the time to maximize that opportunity.  If folks are listening, they need to hear what is worthwhile.  They need a real call to action, a direction, a goal.
 They need to know what they are working toward, how to measure success, and when we will be able to declare mission accomplished.  Otherwise, this is just the latest in grassroots campaigns that mean well, but have no lasting impact on the education infrastructure. 
The next decade of public education reform is being determined right now, as we sort out RttT, i3, and then ESEA reauthorization.  We’ve got group after group talking, with many afraid to offend the power structure and even more trying to be everything to everyone.  What we need is a voice what can harness the power of the naysayers and backbenchers and offer a unified alternative to what is moving forward.  And in the immortal words of Elvis Presley, we are in desperate need of a little less conversation and a little more action.  Please.
  

Equity in Teacher Distribution

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, high-stakes testing, NCLB, RTT, stimulus, teachers

The wonkiest of the education policy wonks are currently poring over the more than 1,500 comments, critiques, and outrages submitted as part of the open comment period for the draft Race to the Top criteria.  As Eduflack has written before, much of what has been submitted has been put forward in the name of self interest, with key groups looking to protect their constituencies, their missions, or their very existence from the potential steamroller that is becoming RttT.

Over at the Politics K-12 blog, Michele McNeil has done a great job distilling the volumes of opinion into a few key issues.  Most provocative to Eduflack is the message put forward by National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers that RttT demand that all winning states adopt core standards by the summer of 2010 is far more aggressive than NGA and CCSSO has required of the very states who are being asked to help develop and implement the standards.  While we appreciate the EdSec’s zeal in seeking to get core standards into the K-12 framework as quickly as possible, the timetable is one that is probably best left to Gene, Dane, and their respective teams.  You can see McNeil’s full blog entry here .
What’s tickled my interest this afternoon, though, is a letter that was submitted to the EdSec nearly a month ago (August 3, 2009 to be exact).  The page-and-a-half letter is signed by nine members of the Congressional Black Caucus — U.S. Representatives Danny K. Davis (IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Chaka Fattah (PA), Bobby Scott (VA), Donald Payne (NJ), Yvette Clark (NY), Marcia Fudge (OH), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), and Diane Watson (CA).  The nine serve as co-chairs and/or members of CBC’s Community Reinvestment Taskforce or CBC Education Subcommittee.
The topic of their missive?  Achieving equity in teacher distribution.  These members of Congress note that No Child Left Behind “requires the State educational agency ‘…to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers …'”  They note that Congress underscored this demand deep in the language of the stimulus bill, noting that “States receiving recovery dollars should comply with the teacher equity provisions within ESEA.”  (Of course, they refuse to use the NCLB acronym, utilizing ESEA throughout the letter.)
In reviewing the RttT draft guidance, these U.S. Representatives (and their staffs) note that the “the proposed regulations related to Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution do not address the statutory requirement that States take action to address disparities, fail to recognize the inequities based on race, and replace three statutorily specified indicators with the single and fatally flawed ‘Highly Qualified Teacher’ indicator.” 
They continue to push on Duncan by stating “By ignoring data related to whether teachers are out-of-field or inexperienced and by failing to disaggregate this data by race/ethnicity, we cannot truly understand whether there is an equitable distribution of experienced and qualified teachers.  Moreover, the regulations fail to enforce the statutory requirements to address these inequities.”
These members of the CBC close their letter by noting that the education improvement and innovation sought by President Obama and EdSec Duncan “will only happen if civil rights issues are consistently taken into consideration.”
And why does Eduflack care about this 500-word letter, when there are 1,500 hundred other comments and observations to key in on?  For more than three decades, education advocates have been looking for a way to overturn San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, seeking a way to make a high-quality public education a civil right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.  In Rodriguez (as well as in subsequent cases in New York, California, and elsewhere), the equity issue has been one measured by school finance and actual dollars.  Back in 1973, the US Supreme Court sided with San Antonio ISD, stating that school funding built on the local tax base does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.  The quality and equity of public education remained a local issue, and the guaranteed federal right has been eluded ever since.  And with urban districts spending so much per pupil, it is hard for some to see that our schools are “inequitable,” even when the outcomes clearly are.
Whether intentional or not, the CBC is seeking to reframe the debate on school equity.  When one reads RttT, it is no secret that traditional paths of teacher education have taken the back, back seat to vogue riders like alternative certification.  Charter schools, with limited union influence and typically lower teacher requirements, are seen as a magic wand to fix what ails our struggling schools.  With all of the talk about effective teaching, there is little focus on the effective teacher.  Instead of talking about pre-service education, clinical training, mentoring, in-service PD, and the like, RttT’s headline has been about firewalls and linking teachers to student achievement.  
It seems to forget that in all of those cities that play home to drop-out factories, historically struggling schools, and systems that persistently fail to meet AYP, we have a real teacher problem.  Reformers will say incentive pay is the solution, as if the few extra dollars are all that are holding back teachers in poor and minority communities (unfortunately, that’s where we have our greatest learning and teaching inequities).  The status quoers will cling to National Board Certified Teachers, not wanting to admit that most NBCTs are out in the ‘burbs, and those that aren’t will often use their newly found certification to change schools and move up the educational ladder.
We can match classroom spending dollar for dollar, with urban schools getting the same money as their lily white, suburban competitors, but that doesn’t ensure an equal education.  Heck, it doesn’t even ensure an equal opportunity to an equal education.  It is what we do with the resources that matter.  And we can’t get around the fact that our K-12 schools in most need of good teachers are the ones getting the lousy teachers.  They are serviced by colleges of education that push low-coursework and no-clinical programs, tossing unprepared teachers in the classrooms that need them the most.  Those teachers struggle.  The majority quit within five years.  Those that stick around are the survivors, not necessarily the achievers.
If we are to make a strong public education a national civil right, the answer may very well lay in the quality of the teacher, and not the size of the per pupil expenditure.  With all of the money going into data tracking, teacher preparation (alternative and traditional), and human capital development, we are identifying the qualities and performance measures that define effective teaching (as if we don’t already know the answers).  If we accept that there is more to teacher quality than purely student performance on the state assessment, we can clearly build a rubric for effective teaching.  Then we can apply that rubric to all of our schools.  How do the drop-out factories stand up against their college prep brethren?  How do the magnets hold up versus the dilapidated?  How do the “fails to meet” compare to “exceeds expectations?”  More importantly, how do the teachers in formers measure up to the educators in the latters?
Would
anyone be surprised to see that those schools experiencing the greatest failure rates are the schools that are denied effective teachers?  Would anyone argue that there is currently equity by teacher distribution?  Can anyone argue that a qualified, well-supported, effective teacher has the power and tools to boost student achievement?  
Do I think RttT is going to change its language on HQTs and address the concerns raised by CBC?  Of course not.  But I believe that its point, that the proposed “guidance abandons prematurely what is currently the only available avenue toward achieving — for all students — equitable access to strong teachers.”  And at the end of the day, those strong teachers are going to be what makes or breaks this great federal education reform and innovation experiment.
I talk with a lot of folks who believe that Rodriguez is ripe for overturn by the Court (particularly based on its new makeup).  Maybe, just maybe, the line advocates should be looking toward is one of equitable distribution of effective teachers.  Historically disadvantaged students should have the same access to well-trained, effective teachers as their wealthy or white classmates.  If the dollars are equal, but we’re putting our ill-equipped and ill-prepared teachers in one silo of schools and our well-equipped and well-prepared teachers in another, that is the very definition of inequity.  And I’m willing to bet the house that that inequity is alive, well, and not planning on taking any vacations any time soon.
 

Tear Down that (Fire)Wall!

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, assessment, AYP, high-stakes testing, NEA, Teacher Education, teachers

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of attention with regard to firewalls and the linkages between the evaluation of teachers and the achievement of students.  The current draft criteria for Race to the Top proclaims that states must be able to use student performance data from their respective state assessments, crosswalking it back to the classroom to determine which teachers have been effective (and which have not).  In a new era of teacher incentives and merit pay, the trickledown of federal law will soon demand that good teachers “show” their effectiveness, and that there is no stronger measure for it than how well their students achieve.

As soon as those draft criteria were written, we started hearing of the legal obstacles policymakers in California, New York, Nevada, and Wisconsin would need to overcome (as all four states currently prohibit linking individual teachers to student achievement data).  California claims that while it is prohibited at the state level, exemplar school districts like Long Beach Unified are already pursuing such policies.  New Yorkers immediately go on the defensive, and claim that the federal interpretation of laws in the Empire State is incorrect.  Wisconsin’s soon-to-be former governor is quickly working with the state legislature to reverse their firewall issue.  And what happens in Vegas is clearly staying there, as we’ve heard nary a peep from Nevada on their plans to address a potential stumbling block to RttT funds.
At the heart of the firewall issue is one incredibly important philosophy.  If we are to improve the quality of K-12 education in the United States, we need to ensure effective, high-quality teaching is happening in classrooms throughout the nation.  To ensure that, we need hard, strong, irrefutable quantitative measures for determining effective teaching.  And the surest path to determining effective teaching is by measuring the outputs.  Good teaching results in effective learning.  Effective learning shows itself on student assessments.  Strong student assessments mean quality teaching in the classroom.  Rinse and repeat.
Is it as simple as that?  In an era where most of our student assessments are focused on measuring reading and math proficiency in grades three through eight, do we really have a full quantitative picture to separate the good teachers from the bad?  Do we really have the data to determine effective teaching from that which is getting in the way of achievement?  And do we know enough about student performance data that we are able to make very clear cause/effect determinations of teacher quality based on student test scores, without needing to factor in the other variables, factors, and resources that ultimately impact a student’s ability to learn?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is all for focusing on teacher quality.  We have schools of education who are turning out teachers that lack the pedagogy or content knowledge to succeed (with most of them ending up in the schools and communities that need teachers the best).  In fact, Harvard University Dean Merseth recently said that only 100 education schools are doing “a competent job,” while the other 1,200 could be shut down tomorrow.  
At the same time, prevalent thinking has grown more and more in line with the belief that pedagogy and clinical training simply do not matter.  New teachers can get by on four weeks of classroom prep, not four years.  Low-quality teacher training programs and questionable alternative certification pathways are all about throwing teachers into the deep end, without ensuring that they are able to swim first.  And we’ve built a system where the classrooms and communities in the most need are rarely serving as home to our strongest and most capable teachers.  Struggling schools are made to feel lucky they have a teacher at all, and are more than happy to just settle for a “warm body.”
The convergence of these beliefs and these realities paint a dangerous picture when it comes to rewarding teacher quality and measuring it by student performance on state assessments.  Why?
Teaching is more than just reading and math.  Yes, those two subjects represent the very foundations of learning.  Without reading and math skills, students will struggle performing in other subjects.  But if state assessments are our rubric, are we saying that some subject matter teachers are less equal than others?  We all know that science will soon be brought on line, but what about other academic subjects.  Social studies and history.  Art and music.  Foreign languages.  Even ELL and special education.  Do those teachers not fit into our bell curve of effective teaching if we do not have state assessments for the subjects they teach?  Are they not effective teachers because we are not measuring student achievement in their chosen academic fields?  
What about the notion of the teacher team?  If I am a middle school student, my performance on the state reading exam is impacted by more than just what is happening in my ELA class.  Hopefully, my social studies teacher is introducing new vocabulary words and forcing me to apply critical thinking and comprehension skills to what I am reading.  My first or second year of a foreign language is getting me to reflect more closely on sentence structure and the roots and meanings of key words or word parts.  Even my math and science classes are contributing to my overall literacy skills.  So if I gain on the state reading exam, is that just a win for my reading teacher (as the current proposals would call for) or is that a win for the entire faculty?  Should teacher success be based on the success of the school, with a rising instructional tide lifting all boats, or can it really be winnowed down to a one-to-one formula, where a boost in an individual student’s reading score is solely credited to the teacher who happened to have them in the ELA class for 45 minutes a day?
What about longitudinal gains?  In Washington, DC, this year we witnessed how targeted test skill development can influence performance on the state exam.  So are we asking teachers to do test prep or to teach? Are they to facilitate or to educate?  Seems that the ultimate measure of a teacher is not just the short term gain on the state assessment, but also how well the student retains that knowledge and applies it in future grades and in future studies.  But how, exactly, do we capture that in a quick and dirty way?  In an era where we still look for the immediate payoff, no one wants to wait and see the longitudinal academic gains of students, ensuring that there are no drop-offs from fourth grade until eighth grade?
Are all gains equal?  If I am a math teacher in an upper class suburban public school, and my students post five point gains on the state assessment, taking them from 92 percent to 97 percent, is that equal to a math teacher in a failing urban middle school who boosts student math performance from 45 percent to 50 percent?  Is a gain a gain, or are some gains more equal than others?  Do teachers get extra points for impacting the achievement gap?  Is there a weighted system for demonstrating gains in dropout factories or historically low-performing schools?  Is demonstrating real movement in the bottom quintile worth more than moving a few points in the uppermost quintile?  
And then we have all of the intangibles that should be factored into the mix.  Class size.  Native languages.  Pre-service education.  In-service professional development.  Quality and quantity of instructional materials.  Accessibility to mentor teachers. &nbsp
;Parental involvement.  Principal and administrator support.  All play a role in driving student achievement and ultimately closing the achievement gap.  How do all get factored into the formula that student achievement plus teacher incentives equals effective educators?
We should be doing everything we can to strengthen the teaching profession and ensure that classrooms in need are getting the most effective teachers possible.  We should acknowledge that not everyone is cut out for teaching, and that getting that first teaching job and a union card should not be the only tools required to assure lifetime employment.  And we should look to quantifiably measure teacher effectiveness, recognizing that the ultimate ROI for education is whether students are learning or not (and that they are able to retain it).  We should be incentivizing superstar teachers, particularly those who teach hard-to-staff subjects or in hard-to-staff schools.
But before we tear down the remaining firewalls and decide that teacher evaluations are based solely on a student’s singular performance on a bubble sheet exam, we need to make sure we aren’t moving a bad solution forward without truly diagnosing the problem.  Virtually all states are struggling to implement good data systems that track students longitudinally.  Before such data tracking is in place, can we really use the numbers to evaluate teacher performance?  Current standards are a hodgepodge of the good, bad, and ugly when it comes to what we are teaching students and what we expect them to learn.  Can we evaluate teachers on student performance when we have no national agreement on what student proficiency in fourth or eighth grade truly looks like, regardless of zip code or state lines?  And can we truly use assessments to evaluate teachers when the vast majority of educators teach subjects or grades that simply aren’t assessed in the first place?
Seems we need to focus on the development and implementation of our standards, our assessments, and our data collection before we can move to step 106 and begin applying that data to determine the salaries, longevity, and very existence of the teachers we are linking it to.  In our zeal to fix the problem, we could be creating a slew of additional ones.  And at the end of the day, none of them get at the heart of the matter — improving the quality of instruction while boosting student learning and closing the gaps between the haves and have nots.
 

Where Is the “Loyal Opposition” in Ed Reform?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, high-stakes testing, national standards, NCLB, RTT, stimulus

The drumbeat toward reform continues.  Wisconsin’s Democratic governor is now calling for changes to the state law to tear down the firewall preventing the tie between teachers and student achievement.  Indiana continues its push to “reform” teacher certification, with the state superintendent looking to more fully embrace the alternative certification pathways advocated by the U.S. Department of Education and its Race to the Top guidance.  Even states like New York and California are looking for ways to show they are “reformers” and not the status quoers they have long been known as.

Earlier this week, Politico ran a much-anticipated profile of EdSec Arne Duncan and his push to reform and improve public education in the United States.  The full article can be found here.  As is typical with these sorts of pieces, Politico sought to get some opposing viewpoints on the Duncan agenda.  The end result?  Critique from the usual critic Jack Jennings, concerns about federal control of education from the top Republican on the House Education Committee, and frustrations from a parent advocacy group in Chicago that clearly didn’t get its way when Duncan was CEO of the Windy City’s public school system.
For the past six-plus months, Duncan and his team have moved forward with a bold, ambitious agenda for reforming education.  Through State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, RttT, the anticipated Innovation Fund, and regular prioritization of the pending budget, they have made their plan for improvement clear and unquestioned.  Student achievement is the name of the game.  Charter schools, alternative certification, teacher incentives, and other such tactics are the drivers.  STEM and core standards are foundations.  And ED is going to great lengths to avoid the phrase, Adequate Yearly Progress is still very much the name of the game.  Those states and districts that want to feed at the federal innovation and improvement trough will need to demonstrate that they are making continued, sustained gains in student achievement.  Those who can narrow the achievement gap along the way will get extra gold stars (and possibly extra zeros at the end of their checks).
In response to this agenda, most of the education community is falling over itself to demonstrate that it is already marching in lockstep with ED (or is willing to do whatever it takes to pick up the beat as quickly as possible).  There is little, if any, chatter coming from states about potential changes to RttT.  Instead, states are trying to figure out how they will change to meet RttT.  Instead of questioning one of many of the 19 criteria established in RttT, we are asking if each will hold equal weight.  We want to know if getting union sign off is as important as removing the charter school cap or agreeing to sign on to core standards before they are written and analyzed.
It all begs one very important question.  Where is the loyal opposition to these proposed education reforms?  Why are we not hearing voices speaking out against the proposed policies, the proposed measurements, and the proposed outcomes that will result from this agenda?  Have we truly found a reform agenda that we all agree to, or are concerned voices too worried about retribution or being tagged as roadblocks if they speak out against current plans?
All told, the United States spends more than $500 billion a year on K-12 education.  So RttT represents less than 1 percent of what we spend in a given year.  When you factor in the realization that less than half of states are likely to be dubbed with the RttT honor, the impact is even smaller.  So it can’t just be worry that criticism today means rejection tomorrow, can it?  Do we believe that if a state raises concerns about some of the criteria now that the “expert panel” of reviewers will hold that against them when their RrrT applications (those expected to take states upwards of 700 man hours to complete) will be dinged by such rhetoric?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is a strong supporter of most of reforms moved forward by Duncan and crew.  I believe we need to expand school choice, particularly for those students in chronically low-performing schools.  We should be incentivizing effective teachers, particularly those who are teaching in at-risk communities.  All states should not only adopt core standards, but there should be strong national standards with equally strong assessments to go with them.  We need to provide both the financial carrot and stick to drive reforms, and we need to focus on key states and districts as incubators for real change and improvement, using them to model what is possible for the rest.
But I also believe that good ideas become great policy when they are debated, dissected, and forced to withstand the scrutiny of critics and defenders of the status quo.  Call it being a contrarian or an agitator, but I just can’t believe we get it “right” the first time around.  We let our friends offer improvement, and we listen to our enemies to shore up the plans and make sure we are taking those steps which we believe in, can stand behind, and can demonstrate real return on.  No, we don’t look to build consensus policy.  Consensus is usually the kiss of death, the best friend of the status quo.  But you have to show you can withstand the best shots of the competition, demonstrating the strength of your foundations.
When NCLB was signed into law six and a half years ago, it was an equally bold reform agenda with arguably greater discretionary spending coming from the federal government.  From day one and a half, we had critics and attack dogs going after the policy, the personalities, and the goals.  States threatened to refuse federal money to keep local control.  Teachers unions and advocates sued in court.  Membership organizations spoke out against the law’s narrow focus and perceived unfunded mandates?
Where is similar outrage and organization today?  Are critics building their case against these policies, keeping their powder dry until the RttT guidelines are final and the “law of the land?”  Are groups waiting for a third-party voice to step up and draw the heavy fire from DFER, EEP, TFA, and other such organizations viewed as aligned with the Duncan agenda?  Or are we simply accepting these as a fait accompli? 
I can’t imagine that Jennings is the only voice in the education community that believes there is too much emphasis on charter schools.  I can’t believe that U.S. Rep. John Kline (MN) is the only person concerned we are spending without a comprehensive strategic plan and specific measurements and benchmarks.  So why is that loyal opposition so quiet?
Nothing from traditional voices who have long questioned the role of charter schools in the traditional public school system.  Relatively nothing from teachers and their representatives on teacher incentives and effectiveness being measured by student performance on state assessments.  Virtually nothing on the focus on alternative certification, all but eliminating discussion of improving teacher colleges and traditional pathways.  Quiet on issues like the continual measure of student achievement based on reading and math scores only.  Some minor sparring on the abandonment of the voucher system in DC.  Not a word about teachers unions and their expected approvals of state reform agendas.  Relative silence on the adoption of core standards as a requirement.
Where are our backbenchers and rabble rousers?  Where are our whol
e child advocates and proponents for local control?  Where are our defenders of the status quo and of the whole child?  Where are our critics of “high-stakes” tests and federal mandates?  Where are our doubting Thomases and cynical Samanthas?  
A great deal can happen between the finalization of RttT next month and its implementation at the state and local level.  Now is the time for voices to get on the record, both those echoing the call from ED and those questioning the priorities and the expected outcomes.  Ultimately, those who don’t speak now will have little ground to stand on if they want to play “I told you so” a year or two from now.  Vigorous and educated debate only improves the final outcome.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.