HQT

Improving Teacher Training Efforts Inside or Outside the Norm?

Eduflack Achievement gap, higher ed, HQT, PD, Teacher Education

A few weeks ago on Twitter (eduflack, for those looking to follow), I posed what I thought was an interesting question.  Does reform and improvement of our teacher preparation programs need to be led inside or outside the norm?  Or in simpler terms, can we look to our schools of education to make the necessary changes, or does it require new thinking from alternative certification programs and innovation-minded groups or individuals to lead the sort of sea change we need to boost the quality and outcomes of all teachers in the classroom?

The question led to my call for a Flexner-style Commission to study the current state of teacher education.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/03/09/the-future-of-teacher-ed.aspx  The premise is simple.  We need someone to go in and evaluate the good, the bad, and the downright ugly when it comes to teacher preparation.  What are best practices?  How is what’s proven effective making its way into the classroom?  Who is doing it right?  Who is doing it wrong?  What voices will lead the transformation moving forward, and what calls will try to defend a status quo that is clearly broken.
That latter point is one that bears repeating.  There are real problems in the across-the-board quality of teacher preparation in the United States.  Some alternative routes are mom-and-pop shops that do a quick dash and dump into the school districts with nary a concern for the coursework or clinical training necessary to prepare a student for the challenges of leading a classroom.  Some online programs seek to simply offer quick and cheap degrees to meet district staffing needs, with little concern for the quality of the instruction or the real-life preparedness of the students they only meet virtually and through their bank accounts.  Too many traditional teacher ed programs have watered down their programs to serve the lowest common denominator, seeking to simply provide warm bodies to hard-to-staff schools that have lost sight of much the pedagogical training and ongoing support aspiring and new teachers need to adjust to life in a classroom.  And programs on both sides of the fence simply are putting underprepared educators in the most challenging of classrooms, figuring any teacher, no matter how poorly prepared, is better than no teacher at all.
Clearly, the current model is broken, or at least in need of some serious triage.  At the same time, we have a growing body of evidence regarding the instruction, training, support, and ongoing professional development that teacher educators should impart on the next generation of the molders of student minds.
Recently, Mathematica completed an evaluation on alternative teacher pathways for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).  The study found that new teachers from alternative routes were essentially no worse that teachers from traditional routes, at least in those schools they studied (a finding that the alt cert community, and likely IES, was hoping for).  The study itself went over like a lead balloon, with few noticing it or reporting on it.  Rightfully so.  It should not be news that Eduflack has some major issues with the methodology Mathematica used to reach its conclusions and with the narrow eye with which they looked at the results.  
A recent research critique completed by NYU’s Sean Corcoran and Columbia’s Jennifer Jennings pulls back the curtain on all that was wrong with the Mathematica approach, methodology, and interpretation of the results.  Their full tome can be found at EPIC (University of Colorado, Boulder) and EPRU’s (Arizona State University) joint website at: epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-evaluation-of-teachers.  
Corcoran and Jennings’ work echoes similar critiques that have already been posted by a range of folks, including the Center for Teacher Quality’s Barnett Berry on his blog — teachingquality.typepad.com.  
What did they find?
* None of the teacher studied had the teacher prep generally required of new teachers nationally (because Mathematica only looked at a handful of hard-to-staff schools that would gladly take any warm or lukewarm body willing to sit at the big desk.
* There is a clear difference in the impact of a teacher from a high-coursework prep program and a low-coursework prep program.  Even among alt cert providers themselves, the high courseworkers were most able to do the job.
* Teachers coming from low-coursework alternative programs actually decreased study achievement.  Yes, the data showed that kids in the classroom of ill-trained, ill-prepared teachers actually saw their student performance decline, while teachers from traditional routes either held the line or posted some very, very, very modest gains.
So what do we do with all of this information?  How do we use it to build a better teacher education mousetrap?  Some of the answers can be found with Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond, who looked at both the Mathematica research and data on effective teacher prep in places like North Carolina and New York City to help identify the necessary qualities of effective teacher training programs.  Her research can be found here: edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub_docs/mathematica_policy_brief.pdf.  
Darling-Hammond’s work offers the clearest view on how the confluence of research on teacher preparation can be moved into policy that aligns with current federal priorities to more effectively train, support, demand, and reward good teaching in the schools.  It reminds us of the checklist that should go into evaluating teacher prep programs.  Among her toplines:
* Prospective teachers must learn specific practices and apply them in clinical experiences;
* Prospects need sufficient coursework in content areas (such as math and reading) and the methods of teaching them (so both the content and the pedagogy); and
* Teachers-in-training need to be well-aware of the local district curriculum and how their pre-service education prepares them to meet expectations and achieve expected outcomes;
We also know that those prospects most like to succeed in the classroom are certified in the specific areas they teach, have higher-than-average scores on the teacher licensing test, and graduate from a competitive college.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack works with the good folks at EPIC, including on the announcement of the Corcoran/Jennings piece and has counseled Darling-Hammond, off and on, for a decade now.  Yes, fans, you’ve heard that right, this champion of evidence base and the need for reform has worked with LDH since her days as head of NCTAF.  And despite the urban legend, she is far more of the reformer and innovator than most in the field and that virtually anyone gives her credit for, if you can stand my brief editorial.)
None of this is rocket science.  But delivering it seems to be the challenge, particularly in our urban centers where we are hungry for anyone, and I mean just about anyone, to lead a classroom in an underperforming, hard-to-staff classroom.
What do we do with all of this?  First, the Highly Qualified Teacher provisions in NCLB are correct.  Teachers should be trained in the content matter they are to teach and need to be certified in that subject matter.  There is no replacement for several years of rich, content-based coursework in the subject matter itself.  Those advocates for including Effective in the HQT provisions (including Eduflack) are right as well.  We need
to measure a teacher, in part, by how effective they are.  And the straightest path to measuring that effectiveness is student performance (even the Mathematica study tells us that).  And then there is that which we know instinctually — effective teachers require clinical training and time in the classroom before they are tossed in the deep end.  They need mentors and in-school supports that can help them work through the problems and apply their training to real classrooms.  And they need ongoing, content-based, embedded professional development for the rest of their careers, so they are continually improving an constantly adapting to the changing challenges and opportunities of the modern day classroom and student.
It is just pure common sense.  But as we know from far too many life experiences, some folks just don’t have (or use) the common sense they are born with.  Do our ed schools, in the collective sense, need improvement?  You betcha.  Are alternative pathways the solution for struggling schools?  No, there is no data to make that leap.  Do we know what it takes to train an effective teacher?  Of course we do.  Are we applying it universally in our teacher preparation programs, traditional or alternative?  Not even close.
At some point, the war between traditional and alt cert needs to come to an end.  There will always be a need and a demand for niche programs that can fill specific needs in certain schools or communities.  That’s where good alt cert programs can play their part.  But if we are going to truly reform and improve the quality and results of public education in the United States, change, at scale, can only begin with our schools of education.  We need to do this across the board, ensuring that the new teachers going into our urban centers and so-called dropout factories receive the same level of high-quality content and pedagogical learning and training as those entering our well-funded suburban K-12 schools.  Good teacher training is good teacher training.  Period.  We shouldn’t have different levels, particularly when it comes to those poor and minority students with whom we are trying to close the achievement gap.  
“Good enough for …” should never be a phrase uttered when identifying and hiring teachers in hard-to-staff schools.  Every student deserves the best prepared, the best trained, and the best equipped teachers.  The last thing they need is to settle for a teacher deemed “good enough” for their struggling school or declining community.  That sort of bigotry has gotten us into the achievement problems we still can’t pull out of.
    

Reform Vs. Improvement, 2009 Edition

Eduflack AFT, charter schools, Green Dot, HQT, Obama, PD, Teacher Education

For the past few weeks, the crystal ball gazers waiting to see who is tapped for EdSec have been all a twitter about how the choice will serve as the white smoke as to whether the Obama Administration is the status quo or a reformer when it comes to education.  Will reformers (whether they be Democrats for Education Reform or advocates for new ideas such as Teach for America or New Leaders for New Schools) be given the keys to Maryland Avenue?  Or will the old guard (be it the teachers unions or old-school researchers and academics) be given the power to lead?

It is no secret that Eduflack is no fan of the status quo.  Those that are unable or unwilling to change bear ultimate responsibility for 40 percent of today’s fourth graders being unable to read at grade level, they bear responsibility for two thirds of today’s ninth graders failing to earn a college degree.  And they bear responsibility for too few effective teachers in far too many classrooms, particularly the urban and low-income classrooms that needs good teachers the most.
In recent years, though, we have used the term reform as a form a shorthand to describe a few key issues.  Reform is charter schools.  Reform is vouchers.  Reform is school choice.  Reform is alternative certification.  In essence, reform is a particular education intervention, designed to improve access, opportunity, reach, and quality of public education.  Reforms are important, yes.  And I haven’t been shy to advocate for key reforms, particularly charter schools, virtual education, and the like.  But at the end of the day, reform is but a process.  It is an input.  Important, yes, but not as important as the ultimate output.
Instead of talking about reforms and inputs, shouldn’t our focus be on improvement?  Shouldn’t the discussion about the next EdSec and the next list of marching orders for ED be a debate between the status quo and real school improvement?  Shouldn’t it be about whether we continue down to same path, or whether we identify and pursue a better path?
I realize this may be a matter of semantics, and that many of those who talk about education reform are meaning to talk about school improvement.  But from the discussions over the past few years, it is high time for us to drop the term “reform” from our educational vocabularies.  It is overused and has lost most meaning.  (That’s why many have already shifted from reform to innovation.)  We should be talking about improvements — improvements for the schools, improvements for the teachers, and improvements for the students.  Reform gives the impression we are acting for acting’s sake.  Improvement is about results and ROI.
So what does this all mean?  First and foremost, I would say we don’t need any additional reforms, we need real improvements.  When we look at the policy positions of the President-elect and the rhetoric coming out of the Senate HELP Committee Chairman’s office, we know that such improvement starts with the teacher.  We know that the best instructional ideas fall flat without an effective educator leading the classroom.  We have clear and uncontroverted evidence of what good teaching is and of effective pre-service and in-service teacher education.  You invest in the teacher — providing them the training, instructional materials and ongoing supports they need to do their job effectively — you see the results in terms of student achievement.
When we talk about current reform efforts — be it TFA, NLNS, KIPP, Green Dot, or others — they all hold similar characteristics.  They all start with the importance of caring educators and quality teaching.  They pledge a commitment to ongoing, job-embedded PD opportunities.  They provide educators the materials and technology they need to do the job.  They empower educators by giving them data and teaching them how to effectively use data to deliver needed interventions for kids.  And they are focused on more than just education reform, they are all committed to improvement, as measured by student achievement and school success.
A recent New Yorker article highlighted the research of Stanford/Hoover researcher Rick Hanushek on effective teaching.  The data is simple, yet illuminating.  Quality teaching trumps all.  Kids have a better chance of success with great teachers in lousy schools than they do with mediocre or bad teachers in great schools.  (Sorry for oversimplifying your research, Rick, but that’s this layman’s interpretation.)
From his work at Hoover and Koret, and his training as an economist, Hanushek is seen as a leading researcher for the “reform” side of the education debate.  But how different is his bottom line of the importance of high-quality, effective teachers than the decades of work developed by fellow Stanford-ite Linda Darling-Hammond?  They may come at it from different angles, they may define effective teaching differently, but they both recognize that school improvement begins and ends with highly qualified, effective, supported teachers.
Our schools need improvement, and improvement begins with the teacher.  The status quoers are those who say that today’s teachers are better than any generation of teachers before them.  The status quoers are those who say that schools of education and in-service PD is the best it can be.  The status quoers are those who say the current outputs of our K-12 teachers (whether it be measured by “high-stakes tests or other quantitative or qualitative measures) are sufficient, and don’t require improvement.  The status quoers are those who don’t see the need for President-elect Obama’s call for major investment in the recruitment, retention, and support of the 21st century teacher.
Yes, there are ideological differences on how we can build and support a better teacher, including the pedagogical needs of new and veteran teachers, the ongoing, embedded PD teachers needs throughout the year, and the better understanding and implementation of data in the classroom.   But improving teaching is improving education.  Clear and simple.
We should be talking about how we are going to improve teaching and improve education, not whether we will or not.  Perhaps the selection of an EdSec redirects the debate for the positive.  Regardless, we need to be focusing on improvements, and not on personalities and personal agendas.  Has it really been almost two years since the NCLB Commission called for a greater focus on “effective” teachers?  Has it really been a year since a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators called for adding “effective” to the HQT provisions?  How much longer does it have to be before we really invest in quality, effective teaching, aligning federal policy and Title II with outcomes and ROI?  That should be the reformers’ dream come true.
    

Looking for a Few Good Men?

Eduflack HQT

The “hunt is on,” at least according to the Boston Globe.  After generations of misguided thinking that teaching was somehow “women’s work,” school districts — particularly those in our urban areas — are recognizing the importance of male teachers, and male role models, in the classroom.

In Massachusetts, for instance, less than one quarter of all K-12 teachers are men.  The number is about the same nationally (25%), according to the Globe, representing a 40-year low.  The full story can be found at: www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2008/11/18/hunt_is_on_for_more_men_to_lead_classrooms/  
For years now, we’ve been discussing the “problem with boys.”  As the legend goes, young women are making significant gains in the classroom, achieving at higher levels, graduating at higher levels, and going on to postsecondary education at higher levels.  And despite what former Harvard University President Larry Summers may have intimated, they are even going into the math and science fields, as they cement their roles at the center of educational and economic innovation and opportunity.
But what about those boys?  In looking at ways to boost high school graduation and college-going numbers in Maine, for instance, state leaders immediately targeted middle school boys.  Young men are seen as the weak link in the chain, more likely to drop out, more likely not to take their educations seriously, more likely to face the challenges before them only half-prepared.
Eduflack understands the premise behind this hunt for male teachers.  The logic goes that struggling male students are in need of strong male role models.  If they have a male teacher (or heaven forbid, teachers) involved in their daily lives, taking interest in them and building lasting relationships, then student achievement will improve.  And yes, the research does show that teachers who take an interest in their students and their personal lives are more successful in the classroom.
When I reflect back on my K-12 experience, there are a handful of teachers that stand out for me.  Two of them are male (Mr. Wolf in second grade and Mr. Ertmer for 9th and 10th grade social studies).  But the real standouts were my female teachers, led by Mrs. Lee (AP U.S. History) and Mrs. Sowers (AP English).  They stand out not because they were women, but because they were really good teachers.  They took an interest in me and my passions.  They related the content in a way that sparked curiosity in me.  And they continually pushed me to do more, do better, and expect more, both of myself and of my education.  The same could be said of Edu-mom, a tough high school teacher I carefully stayed away from in the classroom, but who has guided my learning from my formative years right up to today.  And she continues to do it through strong relationships and that constant push to do better and try my best.  Those are the qualities that are found in good teachers, whether they be male or female.
If the search is on, it shouldn’t be for more male teachers, it should be for more “better teachers.”  We are expecting more from our students than we ever have.  That requires a teacher who understands both content and pedagogy.  A teacher who relates to students and to school administration.  A teacher who seeks to boost student achievement, but is empowered to try alternative and innovative ways to get us there.  Teaching is no longer simply about being qualified.  It is about being effective, and it is about building relationships.  It is about becoming a learning partner, of sorts, with the student.
Yes, it is important that we get more men into teaching.  But this is far more than simply getting a Y chromosome to stand up in front of a classroom.  We need to get passionate, effective educators in the system, regardless of their DNA.  We need to acknowledge that some people are destined for greatness in education, and some are simply not cut out to be effective teachers.  We need to demonstrate that education is a noble profession, a leadership profession, a lifetime career where the individual can excel and make a lasting difference on the community.  We should be recruiting the best men and women possible to the field, give them the tools to succeed, and then reward them for their success.
A few good men?  Sure, if that’s what the situation calls for.  I’d settle for a whole lot of great teachers.  Demographics are shifting and a sea change is coming with a slew of teacher retirements on the horizon.  Now is the time to focus on getting the best educators in the classroom, particularly in those classes that need them the most.     

Improving Schools By Improving Leadership

Eduflack HQT, PD, Teacher Education

Amid all of the Washington talk on who is going to move into what ED job and whether the reformers or the status quoers were going to be in a position of authority over on Maryland Avenue (I’m assuming the little red school houses will come down, regardless), there are actually some discussions of substance and purpose.  Case in point — the Education Trust conference happening this week across the river from our nation’s capital.

One of the more interesting strands of discussion was that of educational leadership.  More importantly, it was about leadership at the school and the district level.  At a session sponsored by the Wallace Foundation and facilitated by Wallace President Christine DeVita, nearly 1,000 activists and practitioners from around the country heard about the need for leadership development in our principal ranks and a glimpse at what has been working to transform the principal from building manager to instructional leader.
Coming off a Wallace Foundation study on the subject, Stanford University Professor Linda Darling-Hammond offered some of the more interesting tidbits of the afternoon.  Why are current school leadership programs failing?  Because they focus on the wrong things.  According to Darling-Hammond, too many educational leadership programs take whoever wants to enroll (versus identifying and recruiting future leaders), offer courses focused on school administration (teaching only about schools as they are, instead of schools as they could be), and prepare future leaders for generic schools (instead of prepping them for the real challenges of both urban and poor rural schools in need of real leadership).  
What should these programs be doing?  First, they need to recognize they are educating the next generation of teachers and leaders.  Second, the need to focus on core issues such as instructional leadership, organizational development, and change processes.  They need to position their lessons around real school reforms in real districts.  And they need to focus the next generation of leaders to commit to moving schools to the next level.  
For Darling-Hammond, that means principals and school leaders developing instruction, and not just administering it.  It means holding all kids to high standards.  It means helping teachers develop the skills needed to achieve school goals.  It means recognizing we have to change, and knowing the constituencies we need to work with (and how to work with them) to get that change to happen.
When we talk about professional development, we usually think of it in terms of the classroom teacher.  Few really focus on PD for the leadership.  We assume that you give a teacher a graduate degree, offer five or seven years of instructional PD as part of the in-service program, and BOOM, they are qualified to lead the building as a principal.  We assume that good teachers make good principals.  We assume great teachers can make great principals.  And in doing so, we often pull the best teachers out of the classroom.
From today’s Ed Trust presentations to research study after research study to missives such as NAESP’s Leading Learning Communities, we know that good principals are those that are both effective building managers and strong instructional leaders.  Those skills comes from a focused and sustained effort in leadership development.  It comes from recognizing that we need to change principal training to to reflect the changing challenges of the job.
What does all this mean?  First and foremost, we need to think of the job of school principal differently.  Second, we need to better understand the connections between school leadership and student achievement.  And third, PD is for all those in the education continuum, not just for those newbie teachers in search of a better understanding of pedagogy.
Leave it to Ed Trust to open up conversations that too few are engaging in.  Maybe as a new Congress and a new Administration begin to look at the issue of PD under Title II, they will look at it for the teacher, the principal, and the superintendent.  Now if only we could find a way to offer educational PD for the parent, then we’d have the perfect storm for school improvement.

Education Chicken and Egg at the Presidential Debate

Eduflack early childhood education, HQT, John McCain, NCLB, Obama, vouchers

I don’t know about you, but Eduflack was quite surprised to see the final 10 minutes or so of this evening’s presidential debate being devoted to the issue of education.  Kudos must first go to CBS’ Bob Schieffer for asking the right question.  It wasn’t about NCLB or teachers unions or any of the traditional hot-button issues.  Instead, Schieffer asked about the United States spending more per capita on education than any other nation, yet being outperformed by many of our international counterparts.

The initial responses from both candidates should be of no surprise.  Both Barack Obama and John McCain stuck to their campaign’s educational talking points.  For Obama, it was all about early childhood education, teachers, and affordability of higher education (and a tip of the hat to the Illinois senator for calling out parents as part of both the problem and the solution).  For McCain, it was charters, vouchers, and expanded opportunity.
Also of no surprise, neither candidate really addressed the question.  Sure, Obama focused on the need for greater investment in education and the notion that NCLB was severely underfunded.  And McCain called for greater dollars for vouchers, pointing to the DC voucher program as a shining success.
But back to the original question.  What Schieffer was really asking, or should have been asking, is whether greater investment in the schools results in greater achievement, or whether greater achievement gets rewarded with greater investment.  It is the ultimate educational chicken and egg question.
We know that some of our best-funded school districts, at least in terms of per pupil spending, are some of our lowest performers.  Will more dollars turn them around?  Unlikely.  It may help bring some better teachers into the classroom, but real turnaround requires a change in culture and a change in approach.  Both are free, its the implementation that costs money.
I’d like to believe we should reward achievement and encourage innovation.  We invest in what works.  We help fund those programs that can make a difference and boost student achievement.  We reward those schools and those teachers who are boosting student performance.  We should place results first and foremost.  That’s the answer so many families should be hearing.
 

Accountability!

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Obama

This past week at the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit, there was one clear super password for education improvement — accountability.  Superintendent after superintendent positioned accountability as the lasting mark of the NCLB era.  Business leaders spoke of how accountability was the true GPS to education reform.  Even EdSec Margaret Spellings has been using it to describe the education legacy of the Bush Administration.  Leaving the summit on Monday evening, one thing was clear, if we are to improve our schools and better educate our students, we must redouble our commitment to the notion of accountability.

Newly embracing the tag of educational agitator, Eduflack is ready and willing to trumpet the need for greater accountability in our schools.  As we discuss shared responsibility and shared gains in education, accountability is an action in which we can all take part, whether we be practitioners or policymakers, business or community leaders, parents or students, agitators or even status quoers.  When we hold our nation, our states, our districts, and our schools more accountable for both the instruction and the outcomes of that instruction, we have to believe that real, measurable student gains will only follow.
From the rhetoric in recent months, it seemed that both presidential candidates were equally supportive of the notion of increased accountability in our schools.  While neither has come out to wrap a bearhug around NCLB (and we shouldn’t wait for either to do so), both seemed to indicate that strengthening both standards and accountability are goals for the future.  Regardless of what wrapping we may place it in, the era of every educator for himself with little repercussion for success or failure is over.  It is time to put up and prove it.
So Eduflack was taken aback by Bruce Fuller’s September 18 blog piece on the New York Times online, which seems to indicate that an Obama administration would turn back the clock on accountability measures.  From his perch at the University of California Berkeley, Fuller states that Obama’s plan is one that simply sets learning standards, records student data, and recruits a stronger teacher base.
Don’t get me wrong, all three are important objectives.  But these are process-driven goals, not outcome-driven goals.  What good are learning standards (and please, oh please, can’t we come out for national standards instead), if we aren’t holding the students, their teachers, or their schools accountable for hitting levels of proficiency?  What good is recording student data if we aren’t using it improve instruction, identify what truly works in the classroom, and ensure that our teachers and our schools are hitting the benchmarks we have set for them?  And what good is teacher recruitment if we don’t have the systems in place to truly identify good teaching, reward it, and replicate it?  
The Aspen event has left the education policy community in an interesting position.  Not only did they bring together a who’s who of policy, business, and practice, but they moved nearly everyone to ask, what now?  This was more than just an informational session, it was a call to action.  It now falls to those leaders, both those at the rostrum and those in the audience, to drive us to real action, to real agitation, and to real improvement.
It is clear that accountability is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue.  Educational accountability is an American issue, and it is the necessary path to true school reform and true educational improvement.  We’ve spent decades fretting about processes.  Now is the time for action — for clear standards and even clearer accountability measures, both of which are enforced, and not just talked about.  That’s the only way we truly move our rhetoric to action.

“Glad” NCLB Wasn’t Reauthorized?

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Spellings

Over the past year, we’ve heard from a lot of people that were thrilled that No Child Left Behind hadn’t been reauthorized.  Folks who felt it was an unfunded mandate.  Those who felt it overemphasized high-stakes testing. Those who feared it federalized education, removing the local control we’ve long depended on.  And those who questioned particular legislative components, whether it be special ed provisions, lack of attention on rural schools, highly qualified teacher language, over-emphasis on scientifically based research, etc.  Take your pick.  NCLB opponents have had a virtual Chinese menu of reasons to be glad that reauthorization efforts have stalled over the last two years.

But it was surprising to hear that EdSec Margaret Spellings shared in the joy of a stalled NCLB.  In remarks reported in Education Week’s Campaign K-12 blog, Spellings said she was “glad” the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was not reauthorized last year, due in large part to her view of the Miller/McKeon draft that was put forward early in the process.  Even more interesting, she believes the delay in reauthorization has allowed NCLB supporters to rally the troops and strengthen our resolve to build a law around “accountability.”
To a degree, Eduflack can understand where Spellings is coming from.  Congressman Miller was advocating some real changes to the law, including giving states and localities the flexibility of pursuing their own assessments.  Miller and McKeon did not share the view that NCLB was 99.99% good.  In reflecting on their goals when passing the law in the first place in 2002, the Democrat and Republican came together on a trial draft designed to strengthen the law and improve those areas where implementation has clearly fallen short.
I can also appreciate the need to take the time to do it right, ensuring a reauthorization effort is focused on the right issues — such as accountability.  But can we forget that the sand is quickly leaving the hourglass?  In March of 2007, one may have been “glad” that reauthorization didn’t move forward.  But this is now September 2008.  Those 18 months mean one thing and one thing only — NCLB has met its end.  We have been rallying the troops around accountability issues, but we’re about to disband the battalions.
Regardless of who wins the White House and who holds what majorities in the Congress, NCLB will soon cease to exist.  New decisionmakers will reauthorize ESEA their way.  Hopefully, accountability will remain a core tenet.  Maybe national standards will be moved front and center, as it should.  And if the presidential conventions are any indication, issues like teacher performance pay, school choice, and the achievement gap are likely to play prominent roles as well, as they deserve.  But NCLB is over.
Sure, NCLB may face the same fate as the Higher Education Act — a protracted reauthorization effort that takes five or more years to resolve.  The law may simply be level-funded year-on-year as the Congress tends to other priorities.  But change is coming, whether it be in 2009, 2010, or even further into the future.
For years, Eduflack has talked about how NCLB was one of those legacy pieces for this Administration.  As the final grains of sand fall, it is clear that that legacy is going to be one, first and foremost, of missed opportunities.  The goals and intentions of NCLB remain strong, and should remain the guiding principles we follow, both today and into the future.  But we’re lacking on the action.  We let threats and ultimatums win out over improvements and innovation.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.

“An Army of Teachers”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, HQT, NEA, Obama

It should be no surprise that there was little real discussion of K-12 education at this week’s Democratic convention.  As we’re seeing in polls, education simply isn’t an issue on which people cast their national vote.  It isn’t a red-meat topic to rally the troops and build true excitement.  Despite all of the best attempts from groups like Ed in 08, education just didn’t register this week, and isn’t expected to register next week.

Sure, there were a few veiled references to No Child Left Behind and how it has saddled our schools.  Many speakers talked about the need for more student loans.  But other than a few sentences in former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s speech and in current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s remarks, education was an also-ran issue.
But last night, Barack Obama upped the ante.  Yes, his spoke globally on a range of issues, focusing mainly on the economy and on foreign policy.  Education, though, also popped up in his speech.  The most interesting line, perhaps, was his notion that, as president, he would recruit a “new army of teachers” for our schools.
We all have heard the stories about how more than half of all teachers will be retiring over the next five years.  We know that there is a teacher “shortage” out there, particularly in subjects such as math and science.  And we’ve seen the stories about school districts recruiting for new teachers outside of their state and even outside of the United States.  But it is a bold statement to say that the federal government is soon going to get into the business of identifying and recruiting a new “army of teachers.”
At a Jobs for the Future conference last fall, the Gates Foundation’s education director, Vicki Phillips, spoke of the Foundation’s need to get into the human capital business.  Few noticed the line, but it left a lasting impact on Eduflack.  Imagine the impact on teacher recruitment if the Gates Foundation put its money and its willpower behind the teacher recruitment, bringing individuals into the fold who can lead the new classrooms of the 21st century.  It was an interesting idea, an idea that hasn’t been fleshed out since Phillips tossed it into the pool.
Getting the federal government — and, thus, the U.S. Department of Education — makes it just a little more interesting.  Imagine an assistant secretary for teacher recruitment, leading an office that is looking at new incentives and alternative certifications and performance pay and teachers at charter schools.  I know I am jumping to conclusions here, but it is an interesting thought that the feds could soon be in the teacher recruitment business.
Yes, the chance if far greater that this is a line that will soon be forgotten and never adopted into policy.  In an Obama Administration, even if it moved forward, it could simply be an initiative run by the National Education Association, looking so much like efforts that have come before it.  
Or it could just be a bold way to truly improve education, putting everything on the table and making clear that the teacher in front of the classroom is the most important component to student achievement.  It could redefine how we think of a qualified, effective teacher.  And it could re-energize a new generation to become classroom teachers.

“Legacy”

Eduflack HQT, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

For years now — well before the lawsuits, the IG investigations, and the delays in reauthorization — Eduflack trumpeted that No Child Left Behind could and should be this Administration’s domestic policy legacy.  Like it or not, NCLB had the opportunity to transform and improve public education in the United States for decades to come.

I can hear the belly laughs already, but think about it.  The largest federal investment in K-12 education in history.  A commitment to improving student achievement.  Unmatched accountability.  Proven-effective, research-based instruction.  Content-based professional development.  Supplemental education and school choice for those in struggling schools.  Every child reading at grade level by fourth grade.  Education that was results based, not process based.  A sea change from the status quo.

The opportunities to cement that legacy have been there.  When Margaret Spellings took over in 2005.  When high school improvement gained attention from ED in 2005 and 2006.  The release of the NCLB Commission report in early 2007, following by genuine congressional interest to reauthorize and strengthen the law.  There was even the moment when Spellings declared the law 99.99% pure.  All were opportunities, and virtually all were squandered.  Opportunities lost, legacies missed.

In today’s USA Today, Greg Toppo quotes our educator in chief — First Lady Laura Bush — as stating that NCLB will indeed be a legacy of her husband’s Administration.  The question today, though, is what type of legacy will it become?  In 2005 or 2006, the opportunity was there to demonstrate the enormous benefit the law — or at least the intent of the law — could have on K-12 education throughout the nation.  Today, that legacy has the strong possibility of being cloaked in negativity, leaving a lasting mark for unfunded mandates, high-stakes testing, and teacher-proof instruction.

It doesn’t have to be that way.  Spellings and her team have six months remaining to leave the legacy the law should have, the legacy deserved by the good folks who created NCLB nearly seven years ago.  Even without reauthorization (which none of us expect to see before a new edsec takes the helm at Maryland Ave.), there is one last chance to do it right.

Continued flexibility for the states is a good start.  Marketing recent reading and math gains for the students who needed NCLB the most helps too.  Spotlighting the teachers and schools who have improved under the law reminds us all of what is possible.  Reminding us that NCLB is about more than just elementary school, as evidenced by ED’s American competitiveness work goes a long way, as does promotion of the law’s investment in teachers and their continued training and development.  And who can argue with the value of better data and better understanding of data, allowing our schools to use such information to make better spending, leadership, and instructional decisions. 

Of course, Eduflack would personally like to see a metaphorical charge up San Juan Hill to save Reading First, reminding the world that literacy skills are needed to succeed in school, career, and life, and the only way to gain those skills is to ensure that our classrooms are using only the very best and the very proven instructional approaches.

So what comes next?  Spellings and company have six months.  They lose two of them for the election, and lose a few more weeks in January for transition.  That leaves three months for a legacy campaign.  Hard, yes.  Impossible, not quite.  But the clock is ticking.  The question remains … is anyone at ED watching the clock?

Closing the Achievement Gap?

Eduflack AYP, HQT, NCLB

When No Child Left Behind was implemented back in 2002, one of its prime goals was to close the achievement gap.  Then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige made it the cornerstone of his stump speech, focusing much of the law’s early days on how to help low-income and minority students in struggling schools.  Supplemental funds were geared, in large part, to addressing the achievement gap issue.  Reading First funding was gift-wrapped for schools struggling with the problem.  Even Highly Qualified Teacher provisions were developed to ensure that urban (read minority) schools were getting qualified, effective teachers.

The multi-billion-dollar question out there is did it work?  Has NCLB made a difference in closing the achievement gap.  Critics of the law have made NCLB all about inflexibility and high-stakes tests and unreachable expectations.  And they’ve been successful, in large part, because many believe the law hasn’t worked (basing their beliefs on the opinion pages and coffee clatchs, instead of real, hard data).

This week, the Center on Education Policy released its comprehensive study, “Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?”

The findings are just fascinating.  USA Today draws out the highlights (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-24-no-child_N.htm).

What does all this tell us?  First and foremost, the tenets of NCLB seem to be working.  Several states — including Texas and Arkansas — showed moderate to large gains in both reading and math.  Others — including Tennessee — showed similar gains in reading.  And others more — such as New Jersey and Ohio — showed those gains in math.  Scores are rising.  The achievement gap between white and black students is shrinking.  And states are far more serious about data collection and accountability today than they were six years ago.

We’re a far, far ways away from declaring “mission accomplished” with NCLB.  But we are starting to see its impact (and it is a positive one to boot).  Once we move beyond the rhetoric and vitriol of NCLB, and start looking at the resources it provides, the supports it offers, and the roadmap it lays forward, we can still see the positive impact the law can have if implemented correctly.

Sure, NCLB is the furthest thing from the collective mind of Congress.  And yes, it is far easier to kill the law rather than improve it.  But if our goal is to improve student achievement, particularly among low-income and minority students, it is hard to ignore this CEP data or the continuous roll call of teachers, parents, and students who speak on the positive impact the law has had on them.

And just imagine the success it could have if it went from being the education community’s Stretch Armstrong doll and once again enjoyed the bi-partisan support and encouragement it received in 2002?