Now that he is all but the official Democratic presidential nominee, it is time for Senator Barack Obama to start putting out some real ideas — real policies — that complement his vision for the future. For most Democrats, that means a clear education policy, one that goes from pre-natal to geriatric.
Unfortunately, Obama’s message of hope and opportunity doesn’t quite jive with the education (particularly K-12) mantras of hopelessness and obstacles. How do we restore hope for education reform in an industry that has been paralyzed by the fear of change?
More than a year ago, Eduflack offered some recommendations to the Democratic candidates running for president on how they can focus on education. Since then, we’ve seen Ed in 08 and others try to do the same. What’s funny is how wrong I was in March of 2007. I thought it was a gimme that the Democrats would focus on education, seeing it as a great equalizer and a bridge to a stronger economy and better jobs. How wrong I was! Even the talking snowman has gotten more media play than the party’s education ideas.
But let’s take a second to look back on Eduflack’s specific recommendations, knowing full well they are just as strong and pertinent today as they were a year ago:
1. We all must commit to improve our schools. We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo. That means having hard conversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions. Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow.
2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement. For every carrot, there is a stick. If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions. As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.
3. National standards level the playing field. Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards. Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools. For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country. That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.
4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions. Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn’t benefit from teacher improvement. HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones. Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally. We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines. But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge. Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers. Good teachers will thrive. Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.
5. Education reform is a shared responsibility. Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations. Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one. Improving our schools requires teamwork. Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform. Shared responsibility results in shared success.
I maintain that all of these are still cogent, winning issues for Obama. Case in point, Obama’s previous endorsement of teacher merit pay. It is a strong idea, and one that can have an immediate impact on teacher and instructional quality in the schools. It is an idea that resonates with most parents, and means something to local decisionmakers. And it is a concept that the unions — particularly the NEA — greatly oppose. We all recognize that Obama and the teachers unions are allies. But performance pay can be one of those flag-in-the-sand moments that demonstrates Obama’s independence and the priority of kids in his education policy.
But it all seems to loop back around to national standards. The National Governors Association and CCSSO have long been champions of a the concept. This week, the National Association of Secondary School Principals threw its collective weight behind the issue as well. And Obama endorser Roy Romer has been carrying the banner for it over at Ed in 08.
Imagine the rhetorical impact national standards could have coming out of Obama’s mouth. The opportunity that all U.S. students, regardless of their home state, are learning and achieving together. The belief that the nation is stronger academically, and can measure it, because of national standards. The elimination of have and have not states, knowing that a kid in Alabama is getting the same education as a kid in Connecticut. Imagine.
Senator Obama, it is quite easy for you to write off education policy as part of your stump speech this all. You’ll have the endorsement of the unions. Education has never been a strong policy concern of Senator McCain’s. And the anti-NCLB crowds will crow a vote for a Dem is a vote against NCLB.
But as you have all year, you have the opportunity to tell us what you stand for, and not just what you speak against. If your recent anti-NCLB remarks are coming from the heart, tell us what you will do to fix the law. If you are concerned about high-stakes testing, let Romer and company develop a national standard that lessens the stress on our student test takers. But please, please, please, do and stand for something.
We’ve spend far too much time in recent years talking about what’s wrong and what we’re opposed to. We need more people — particularly our leaders — telling us what they stand for in education reform.
high-stakes testing
Bloggin’ with Ed in 08
Most folks who read the education blogs know that today was Ed in 08’s big education blogger’s summit. The crowd seemed to be an interesting mix of both bloggers and ed policy folks (particularly those with education orgs that either deal with the tech issue or have a strong online presence). At first blush, the cynic in me says the primary focus of the summit was to get Ed in 08’s name in a significant number of blogs all at the same time. But after a few hours of reflection, I can also see some real benefits.
What has stuck most with Eduflack is the opening speech by Ed in 08 head Roy Romer. Forget debate questions or campaign commercials or grassroots organizing or even a movie about two million minutes. The most intriguing — and most valuable — contribution that Ed in 08 is now making is Romer’s continued push for national standards. This is the third time I’ve heard Romer touting the Ed in 08 line. Each time, after delivering the stump speech, he focuses on the long-term value of national standards and his dream of locking up a dozen or so well-meaning governors, have them identify standards that tie to international assessments, and then send us on our way to better performance. I thought it was a good idea when I first heard him lay it out last fall at Jobs for the Future’s conference. And it is even a better idea today.
So why does the issue of national standards fail to gain the attention it deserves? It should be a campaign issue, it’s not. It should be a national policy discussion, it’s not. It should be a primary goal of the education blob and those in the blob’s shadow, it’s not.
It’s as if we seem to think our traditional of local education control means we can’t have national standards. Such thinking is just lazy. Groups like NGA and CCSSO have had the courage to talk about a common set of U.S. learning standards. More need to follow that lead.
If it is the only thing that Romer and company do from this point forward with Gates’ and Broad’s money, it will be well worth it. National standards deserve a national debate. We should all be for high expectations, global competition, and improved skills. A national dialogue provides us the rhetoric to discuss such goals. And Eduflack is ready to sign up as a town crier on the issue today.
What else came out of the blogger summit? I personally loved Romer’s stat that the average American student is a year or a year and a half behind their international peers in math instruction. We hate to hear it, but we know it is true. And I am still scratching my head on having Newt Gingrich as the keynoter for an ed event focused on national policies. It was only a decade ago that Gingrich and his team was calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.
Alexander Russo tried to push his panel on the issue of merit pay, but few wanted to bite. It was good to hear the AFT say that merit pay is a local issue, to be embraced in local CBAs. Let’s just hope the locals know that.
The hot issues seem to be preK and assessments (high-stakes, differentiated, multiples, take your pick and political line). No buzz at all for high school reform, despite the ducats coming from Gates. And with all our lip service to the P-16 education continuum, higher ed is still the gawky girl at the ed dance, with no one paying her much attention either.
And big surprise, few seem to see a future for NCLB. Some, like Ed Trust’s Amy Wilkins, want to see the law strengthened and more strongly enforced. But the majority seemed to lean toward “improving” by weakening and adding Elasticman-level flexibility.
More later this week on the notion of changing the structure of the school day. It is an intriguing issue that could have some legs.
The Measure of a Student
State assessments are always good as an educational conversation-starter. We like to talk about high-stakes tests, teaching to the test, and whether such exams are a true measure of learning in the classroom. Like it or not, we take such exams seriously, seeing them as a measure of the student … and the teacher.
Earlier this week, Eduflack was told a story of a Northern Virginia student and a Northern Virginia teacher. The student is your typical pre-teen boy. He’s smart, but he lacks focus. From an immigrant family, his parents are limited in their English language ability, so many notes and instructions home fail to have maximum impact.
This week, the student took a practice test for Virginia’s SOL in history. Regardless of the reason, he only got about 60 percent of the questions right. He should be doing better, particularly after nearly a year studying the subject in class. The teacher was naturally worried, so sent a note home.
The note was classic passing of the buck. The teacher informed the parents of the poor performance on the practice test. Then the teacher informed the parents that the student had a notebook full of study materials he was required to bring home every night. The teacher reminded the parents he is to “study every night.”
At face value, the conversation seems pretty basic enough. Yes, parents need to take responsibility for their children’s performance. Yes, parents need to make sure their students are studying and successfully completing their assignments. And yes, parents should care about their children’s achievement on state assessments.
But there are two other issues here. The first is shared responsibility, the second the intention of state assessments. Teachers administer pre-tests so they know where their students stand. Such tests allow teachers to administer targeted interventions to address student learning needs. It allows for adjustment in classroom instruction, letting teachers see what lessons have sunk in and what lessons have not.
Students succeed in the classroom when parents, students, and teachers all take responsibility for learning. Teaching is not merely assembling a notebook of study materials. Requiring a notebook go home each night doesn’t translate into learning. Such materials are designed to enhance classroom learning. They can’t replace instruction.
Which gets us to the larger point — the intent of state assessments. In Virginia, we assume the SOLs will measure what a student has learned over the course of the academic year. While some may say teachers teach to the test, SOLs (or similar tests in other states) are not meant to be an exam we cram for. To suggest that SOL success comes from students studying sample questions at home undoes the intent and purpose of the state assessment.
It’s no wonder people have such issues with state assessments. It cheapens the value of the test when teachers give the impression and all-nighter will result in passing marks or students will learn through notebook osmosis or when parents think the responsibility is all on them to prepare their kids for the state exam. At the end of the day, state assessments should never be the vocal point of the classroom. The academic year should be about good instruction. If teachers teach well, students will succeed. And they will achieve on any independent exam the state or nation want to throw at them.
I wish my young friend luck on his history SOLs. And I hope his teacher experiences success with applied instructional methods. It’s good to encourage parents to get involved, as long as the teacher shares the responsibility, instead of passing potential blame.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 