HomeMath(Page 2)

Math

Beating Up on 21CS

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for the 21st century skills movement.  Last week, at an event hosted by Common Core, 21CS (embodied by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills) got pretty bloodied by the traditionalists who believe the teaching of soft 21CS mean denying our students much needed core content in reading, math, science, and the social sciences.  The Core Knowledge Foundation was the first to weigh in (http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2009/02/25/21st-century-skills-fadbusters/ ) and Eduwonk has a powerful commentary on the event, and its implications for the future (http://www.eduwonk.com/2009/02/21st-century-skills-in-critical-condition.html ).

This week, the traditional media weighs in on the controversy.  EdWeek’s Stephen Sawchuk has a terrific article on the throwdown in Education Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/03/04/23pushback_ep.h28.html?r=1644068071 ) and USA Today’s Greg Toppo weighs in on the same debate this morning (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-04-core-knowledge_N.htm ), pitting it as 21st century skills versus core knowledge.
Eduflack gets the controversy, don’t get me wrong.  When we start talking about teaching our students “soft skills” in what is already a severely limited academic day, it sends chills down the spines of those who fear we are already falling down on the job when it comes to teaching our kids the basics.  After all, who wants to substitute “world history with “Fun with Technology?”  Who wants to forgo advanced science so we can teach “Interpersonal Communication?”  And who would even think of sacrificing a foreign language so we can offer “Teamwork 101?”
At the end of the day, though, this is all a false debate.  Do our students need 21st century skills, like teamwork, problem solving, critical thinking, and such?  Yes.  Are these skills that many have already been teaching for decades (thus questioning whether they are really 21st century skills)?  Yes.  Should we, or do we, sacrifice our core curriculum to offer this collection of soft skills in its stead?  Of course not.
The debate over 21CS skills should not be one between one set of curricular goals versus the other.  This isn’t core knowledge versus soft skills.  No, our focus should be on how we teach those core subjects that are necessary.  How do we teach math and science so that we better integrate technology and critical thinking skills?  How do we teach the social sciences in a manner that focuses on project-based learning and team-based activities?  How do we ensure that a 21st century student is not being forced to unplug when they enter the classroom, and instead uses the technologies and interests that drive the rest of their life to boost their interest and achievement in core academic subjects?  And most importantly, how do we ensure all students are graduating with the content knowledge and skills needed to truly achieve in the 21st century economy?
If anything, 21CS is guilty of bad messaging and bad PR.  In a time when everyone is concerned about both academic quality and relevance to the economy, many 21CS advocates remain focused on the need for soft skills, believing they have discovered some long, lost map to student success.  In reality, they are calling for a reinforcement of the relevance of core instruction.  Their message has been off, and as a result, they’ve painted a nice, large target on the back of a well-meaning concept.
How do we move beyond it?  The first step is shifting from 21CS skills to STEM skills.  Science-technology-engineering-math education is a strong attempt at unifying core curriculum (at least math and science) with those skills needed in today’s workforce.  STEM literacy requires a keen understanding of core knowledge, along with an adeptness of 21CS.  Most importantly, it is a concept that policymakers and business leaders understand and are starting to embrace, seeing that how a student applies knowledge is just as important as the knowledge they acquire.
Yes, STEM education faces similar criticism to 21CS, but that’s only because some haven’t seen strong, effective STEM education at work.  It isn’t all keyboarding and web development.  It is advanced math and science.  It offers history lessons in technology.  And it even figures out how to teach topics like mechanical engineering in relevant concepts for secondary school students.  In its very soul, STEM is as core knowledge as it can be.
Regardless, this shouldn’t be an either/or debate.  When we look at our K-12 schools, we look at the pipeline into postsecondary education, and we observe the ever-evolving demands for a skilled workforce, it is clear we have miles to go before we solve the problem.  The answer is not more Latin, a better understanding of ancient Greek history, or a finer appreciation for the Great Books.  The true answer is found in how use new technologies, new approaches, and altogether new ways to teach our core subjects.  How do we cultivate new learning skills while reinforcing our tried-and-true curriculum?  How do we better engage a 21st century student on that core knowledge that they just don’t have an interest in or don’t see the relevance of?  How do we better engage students, rather than asking them to unplug and power down upon entering the schoolhouse doors?
What’s clear is the Partnership for 21CS is facing its last stand.  Its positioning and messaging is quickly making it irrelevant, while stoking the engines of those who have long lept to the defense of a deeply held sense of our core academic curriculum.  The Partnership needs to go back to the drawing board, build a new messaging platform, expand its pool of advocates and endorsers, and reassert its relevance in the debate on school improvement.  Otherwise, it is just another good idea that will have failed because of bad execution and an inability to connect with both those who must lead the change and the students we are trying to impact with the reform.

Advocating for Meaningful STEM Education

Eduflack Math, NGA, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

Earlier this week, www.ednews.org ran a Commentary from Eduflack on how to advocate for meaningful STEM education, particularly at the state level.  The article was originally found here — ednews.org/articles/33615/1/Advocating-STEM-Education-As-a-Gateway-To-Economic-Opportunity/Page1.html.  Thanks also to Fritz Edelstein and the Fritzwire for spotlighting the piece.

I’ve received a lot of response from folks on the piece, so I thought I would repost the original EdNews piece here, crediting EdNews as the publisher.

Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway To Economic Opportunity

By Patrick R. Riccards

Effectively integrating Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education and its impact on the economic opportunity into the culture is more important today than anyone ever anticipated.Our nation’s recent economic struggles, coupled with concerns about career readiness and 21st century jobs, have refocused our attention on infrastructure – both physical and human.At the heart of rebuilding our nation’s intellectual infrastructure is a STEM-literate society, and students equipped with the STEM skills needed to succeed both in school and career.

But implementing a STEM education effort isn’t as easy as it seems.To some, STEM is a retread of education programs offered decades ago or a recast of vocational education.To others, it is something for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, not for every student.To overcome these obstacles, states and school districts are forced to move into a mode of advocacy and social marketing, effectively linking K-12 education and economy and demonstrating the urgency for improvement to both.

Education improvement no longer happens in a vacuum.Call it communications, advocacy, PR, or social marketing, it all comes down to effective public engagement.For education reform efforts across the nation, ultimate success is more than just educating key constituencies about their cause and goals.True success requires specific action – implementing improvements in partnership with educators and other stakeholders to boost student success, close the achievement gap, and ultimately prepare every student for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century workforce. Such actions require us to move from informing the public to building commitment for a solution, and, finally to mobilizing around specific actions.

Making stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for STEM education is one thing.It is quite another to move the public to the more sophisticated level of informed opinion necessary to reach consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action of investing in a K-12 STEM agenda.But this is how great education reforms move from simply good ideas to great successes.

Before we can get audiences to adopt STEM education efforts and embrace the portfolio of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them aware of the issues at hand.The informing stage makes people aware of the issue, developing a true sense of urgency for change.

While many decisionmakers recognize that there are problems in meeting the coming workforce demands, many do not agree on what those problems may be or what actions might successfully address them.Unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that can be done to fix these problems. Those states that are poised to become leaders in STEM education must convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential employers, state and local policymakers, and the public at large that there are solutions that will work, and solutions their communities can get behind and support.

Ultimately, we do this by showing the enormous need for reforms in “schools like mine, in classes like mine, with kids like mine.” By focusing on past successes and proven-effective methods, educators can demonstrate the critical role STEM plays in our schools, economy, and community, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand the serious risks they face simply accepting the status quo. Thanks to groups like the National Governors Association (and a number of forward-thinking states) and the National Math and Science Initiative, such efforts are well underway.


Next, we shift into phase two — building commitment.Once parents, educators, and policymakers recognize the problem, they are ready to commit to a meaningful solution.Transforming a general need for improvement into a public call to arms for STEM education requires understanding that these solutions are the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

Inevitably, some people will reject proposed reforms. Some will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that come from choosing a specific plan of action. Opponents will try to poke holes in specific reforms. The best way to avoid this resistance is to ensure that everyone is involved in the process and that all of their concerns have been heard.

After moving beyond initial resistance, stakeholders begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.Decisionmakers need to feel that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.Successful advocacy clarifies the pros and cons of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation.In Colorado, for instance, STEM leaders are working with business leaders and the P-20 Council to explore opportunities and make specific choices to meet the state’s educational and economic needs.

With that, we are finally ready to move to phase three — mobilizing for action.Changing attitudes and informing the debate is not enough. STEM education succeeds when policymakers and community leaders are actively supporting its solutions.Once our target audiences are engaged because they believe in the merits of our position, they will need to know what we want them to do to help accomplish these goals.So it is important that our communications and organizing efforts include specific actions – ideally actions that are easy and feasible – that supporters can take to help reach overall goals.

If history tells us anything, we know the public may agree that reform efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt specific recommendations.This is
temporary, though.Given time, incentives, and opportunities to consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, stakeholders can reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of the importance of improving education opportunity for all.Now is the best time to make sure that there is a role for everyone to play in education improvement, giving stakeholders the tools and information needed to move themselves and others from awareness to action.

Education is an industry as driven by emotion as it is by fact.As a result, too often, stakeholders decide that inaction is the best action, out of fear of taking a wrong step or alienating a specific group. That is why too many groups, causes, and reforms struggle to develop true public engagement efforts that affect real outcomes.That’s where the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action model comes into play, offering education leaders one of the most effective methods to implement meaningful education solutions. Applying this model to STEM efforts is critical and will offer long-term impacts on strengthening our schools, our community, and our economy.

(Patrick R. Riccards is CEO of Exemplar Strategic Communications, an education consultancy, and author of Eduflack, an education reform blog.)

Published February 9, 2009

Advocating STEM Education as a Gateway to Economic Opportunity

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM

Over at www.ednews.org, Eduflack has a new commentary piece on how STEM education efforts — particularly those led at the state level — can have a real, lasting impact on strengthening our economy.  I’ve said it often and I’ve said it loudly, STEM education is an enormously powerful tool to our P-16 infrastructure.  We unlock that power by understanding the issues, knowing the audiences involved, their pressing concerns, and how STEM can help erase those issues and empower decisionmakers to use our educational levers to make instruction more relevant for all students while building a workforce pipeline ready and willing for the challenges of the 21st century economy.

This commentary piece focuses on how we effectively market STEM to the teachers, business leaders, elected officials, and families who are all a part of the solution.  And it walks you through the steps we must take from informing those audiences about STEM to driving them to specific actions that improve our schools and strengthen our economy and community.
Happy reading!

What’s Wrong with 21st Century Skills?

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM, Students, Workforce

Recently, there seems to be growing momentum against the notion of 21st century skills in our K-12 classrooms.  Some find the term just to be a little too trite for their tastes.  Others believe it moves away from the classically liberal arts education, like literature and history, that K-12 was designed for more than a century ago.  And still others think that it is code for turning our high schools into trade schools.

So Eduflack asks the question, what’s wrong with 21st century skills?  We hear time and again that other nations are eating our collective school lunches when it comes to international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.  We worry about how our kids stack up when it comes to math and science and such, worrying that more jobs may either be eliminated or relocated.  We wonder what jobs will be out there when they do graduate, and whether they will be competitive enough to secure those jobs.
In last year’s Quality Counts, EdWeek gave my home state of Virginia an “F” when it came to college preparedness of our students.  In my previous work with the Virginia Department of Education, I heard time and again from businesses in the Commonwealth that today’s high school graduates simply don’t have the skills necessary to fill today’s jobs, let alone tomorrow’s jobs.  Nationally, our high school drop-out rate is still about one-third, meaning one in three students never gains that diploma in the first place.  And for those who get through high school and do move on to postsecondary education, more than half of them need remedial English or math courses when arriving at their higher education institution of choice.
So, again, what is wrong with 21st century skills for our 21st century schools?  Better yet, what is wrong with defining what 21st century skills really are, at least as they relate to today’s K-12 students?
Reading, math, and science are all 21st century skills.  The ability to use technology is a 21st century skill.  Soft skills like problem solving and teamwork and critical thinking and such are 21st century skills as well.  The problem we have is that when we talk about 21st century skills, too many people think we are talking about skills newly discovered in the 21st century.  That just isn’t the case.  Yes, we are talking about core skills that have been around since Plato.  But that doesn’t mean the skills aren’t as relevant today as they were a millennia or two ago.  It just means we need to starting thinking about them and teaching them in new or different ways that make them more relevant in our 21st century world.
In recent weeks, I’ve talked with a good friend who is a former urban superintendent about the future of classroom instruction.  One of his top concerns is the belief that we are “un-plugging” our students once they enter schools.  Here at Eduflack, we’ve used the term “de-skilling.”  For many, this boils down to the issue of technology in the classroom.  When you have students living on computers and MP3s and instant messaging and cell phones, and you have a world and an economy that are equally reliant on the same, where is the logic of putting away all that technology between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.  and teaching reading, math, science, and social studies through 19th century delivery mechanisms?  
Concern on the issue is redoubled when we consider the changing face of the American classroom teacher.  Across the nation, school districts have been experiencing significant retirements and a new face on the teaching workforce.  Incoming teachers, particularly in our urban districts, have been brought up on computers and cell phones.  They’ve likely never used a card catalog, and many of them do not take a daily newspaper.  But that doesn’t mean they are informationally deprived.  They simply get their data through other sources, through 21st century sources aligned with their interests, their skills, and the world in which they live.
I am no shrinking violet when it comes to the advocacy for STEM education and the need to ensure every student is STEM literate.  For me, this isn’t just an issue for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world.  Even that student looking to work on the manufacturing line next to his father is going to need STEM skills in our new economy.  Every student benefits from STEM literacy, regardless of their future education, career, or life path.  That includes providing them the soft and the content skills that we define as 21st century skills.  More importantly, it requires a new way to deliver the content that, for decades, has been deemed essential learning.
What does all this mean?  Ultimately, when we talk about 21st century skills, we aren’t talking about new sets of content and new academic areas of study.  Sure, topics such as engineering still have yet to really be defined in a K-12 environment (and we clearly don’t have a praxis for secondary school engineering teachers), but we are still talking about core academics like reading, writing, math, science, and the social sciences.  At its heart, 21st century skills is about a new delivery system.  It is about moving beyond the chalkboard to the interactive white board.  It is about moving from the card catalog to the World Wide Web.  And it is about moving from rows and rows of single desks into groups of interactive, collaborative students progressing beyond rote memorizations into critical thinking and higher-level learning.  
Ultimately, it is about delivering our core education in a 21st century world through 21st century means.  An education more relevant and interesting for students.  An education more engaging and empowering for teachers  An education more applicable and valued in the economy.  If 21st century skills is a code, then it is simply code for skills that are relevant and outcome-based for all those involved in the learning process.  That is the sort of progress we should be investing in.

A TIMSS-tastrophe?

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM

Eduflack has been a broken record when it comes to the need to equip all students with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve in the 21st century.  We know all kids will need higher-level math, science, and technology skills if they are to hold good jobs a year or a decade from now.  And we’ve put the impetus on our K-12 system to provide the instruction relevant to today’s economy and to tomorrow’s opportunities.

In many states across the nation, specific STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) programs are just getting off the ground.  Forward-minded states are laying the necessary frameworks to establish statewide STEM education strategies, building real, relevant instructional programs for our K-12 and higher education systems.  But from today’s data, we clearly aren’t moving fast enough.
Today, NCES released “Highlights from TIMSS: 2007,” revealing the data of U.S. student achievement in math and the sciences.  The lowlights:
* Only 10 percent of fourth graders and 6 percent of eighth graders scored at or above the advanced international benchmark for math.  Our fourth graders were outperformed by fourth graders in such educational leadership nations such as Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.  Our eighth graders couldn’t measure up to heavyweights such as Russia and Hungary.
* The average science score for both fourth and eighth graders hasn’t increased since 1995.
* Of the 35 countries participating in TIMSS, our eighth graders were outperformed by seven countries in math and six in science.
What does it all mean?  When it comes to math and science performance, the United States is quickly becoming a textbook case for mediocrity.  There was a time when countries like Kazakhstan and Hungary aspired to just get closer to us, now they are outperforming us.  There was a time when we offered the gold standard in science and math education, now we are fortunate to be competing in the top 25 percent.
It is no surprise that NCES and the U.S. Department of Education are trying to put a positive face on this disappointing data.  At a time when we promised every student would be math and science proficient within the decade, we are heaping praise on statistically insignificant gains on math scores (against ourselves from 12 years previous) and merely holding our own on science.  We’re treading water, and we’re doing a damned fine job at it!
It’s nice to live in such a world, but the data just doesn’t live up to the real world our kids are facing.  We know we need dramatic increases in math and science achievement, but the numbers just don’t show it.  We know our kids need stronger math and science ability, but they just can’t demonstrate it.  We know STEM is the path to success, yet we are only slowly moving toward its reality.
How do we learn from the TIMSS data?  We need to focus on five key ideas:
* Ensuring that all schools, particularly those in at-risk communities, have qualified, effective math, science, and technology teachers … and those teachers have the instructional materials and professional development they need to succeed
* Rapidly ramp up statewide STEM initiatives that affect all students, in grades kindergarten through high school, looking at Minnesota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania as models
* Better connecting K-12 and higher education, tapping into quality instruction, quality course offerings, and long-term pathways of learning
* Exploring more ways to get mid-careers in the classroom, moving those from the science professions into science instruction (particularly in the middle and secondary grades)
* Providing all classrooms with the instructional materials, technology, and access they need to effectively learn, whether it be through textbooks, virtual instruction, internships, and real-life engagements.
The task before us is whether we take these TIMSS results, act on them, and build from them or whether we simply put this report on a shelf and move on to the next issue.  For the sake today’s students, we desperately need to focus on the former.  Unfortunately, we historically have spent too much time on the latter.  
These results should be a call to arms for the education community.  We shouldn’t be satisfied with the outcomes, and we shouldn’t settle for mediocrity.  We have a lot of work to do if we are to pass by those kids from Hungary and Kazakhstan and start competing with the likes of Hong Kong and Japan.  

Re-Prioritizing the U.S. Department of Education

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

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

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

Engaging the Public on Math Reform

Eduflack Marketing, Math, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

When the National Reading Panel released its landmark “Teaching Children to Read” report in April 2000, the obvious question to follow was, “what’s next?”  The federal government releases studies like “Teaching Children to Read” all the time.  The report comes out, copies are distributed, and they usually end up in someone’s closet, on someone’s bookcase to get dusty, or as a doorstop in a state department of education.

As loyal readers know, NRP was a passion project for Eduflack.  I was involved from the very beginning serving as a senior advisor to the panel and helping with everything from qualitative research to editorial.  For two years, NRP was my life, and I wouldn’t change a day of it.
During the NRP process, the we recognized that we needed to do more than just traditionally “disseminate” the findings.  Informing key stakeholders on reading research was an important step, yes.  But if the NRP was going to have the lasting effect it intended (and the lasting effect, I argue, it has) we needed to reach far deeper.  We needed to move beyond simply informing to engaging.  And we needed to move from engaging to changing behavior.  
Ultimately, we needed to change the way the education world dealt with reading instruction.  We needed to change how teachers taught kids to read.  We needed to change what parents asked about reading in the classroom.  We needed to change how school administrators made decisions on the programs they purchased.  We needed to change how local, state, and federal elected officials prioritized funding for reading instruction.  And we needed to change how the community at large, particularly the business community, addressed the issue and focused on reading.  Most importantly, we needed to change student reading ability, ensuring that virtually every student gained the research-based instruction needed to be reading proficient by fourth grade.
Such change is no small undertaking.  Following the release of the NRP report in 2000, we spent two years engaging in a range of communications and public engagement activities.  Conference presentations.  Interviews with the media.  Interactions with key stakeholder groups and influential individuals.  Armed with just the massive Report of the Subgroups, the Summary Report, and the NRP Video Report, we began the process of informing, engaging, and changing thinking.
After the tenets of NRP were included in No Child Left Behind (Reading First in particular), a new phase of engagement began.  The U.S. Department of Education created the Partnership for Reading, a joint effort led by all federal agencies involved in one way or another with reading.  This included ED, HHS, Labor, and NIH.  Together, these agencies pledged a shared support to promote a unified commitment to scientifically based reading instruction.
Through the Partnership (another project Eduflack played a leading role in), we were able to launch a national public engagement campaign to ensure that all audiences 1) understood scientifically based reading instruction; 2) knew why it was important; and 3) began implementing it in their schools, classes, and communities.  Originally, the work focused on a broad range of stakeholder audiences, including policymakers, the business community, school administrators, researchers, teacher educators, teachers, and parents.  During the two-year process, we winnowed down our audiences, seeing the key actors in getting SBRR into the classroom as both the teacher and the parent.
To accomplish this effort, we engaged in a wide range of communications activities, far more than those used following the NRP release.  Development of strong, audience-specific messages.  Creation of specific materials designed for specific stakeholders.  Media relations.  Public service announcement campaign (both print and radio, in both English and Spanish).  Conference presentations and exhibitions.  A speakers bureau.  Partnership development.  And any and all marketing and communications activities designed to spread the word about the need for and the impact of SBRR.
At the end of the day, I am proud of the results we accomplished.  Yes, we secured significant media coverage (millions of impressions worth millions and millions of ad-equivalent dollars).  But we also built a strong network of supporters and advocates.  Through a working partners group, we brought together organizations like NEA, AFT, AASA, and IRA (organizations not exactly friendly with ED or NCLB at the time) and joined them with NGA, NAESP, BRT, and the Chamber as a sign of shared commitment to scientifically based reading.  How?  At the end of the day, all of these organizations, regardless of their political leanings, shared a common belief that every child needed to learn to read and we needed to use instructional approaches that worked to get all children reading.
I don’t take this walk down memory lane to toot any particular horn or wait for an applause line for the hard work of all of the people at NICHD and ED who helped move this forward, from 2000 through 2005.  Instead, I reflect on this experience because of an article in this week’s Education Week.  In it, Sean Cavanagh reports on the current efforts underway to promote the recently released report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/10/08mathpanel.h28.html
The”>www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/10/08mathpanel.h28.html
The Math Panel is to be commended for its work, and it is especially noteworthy that they were able to pull together a conference earlier this month for policy folks and practitioners to focus on how to move the Panel’s findings into U.S. classrooms.  The NRP shared a similar goal, but those conferences quickly evolved into RF conferences after the passage of NCLB.
Cavanagh also focuses on efforts to print more than 160,000 pamphlets for parents on elementary and middle school math.  Again, a needed step.  For change to occur in our schools, parents must be effectively used as a lever for action.  Lasting change does not come without real, sustained action from the parents.
EdWeek also notes the work of the ED’s Doing What Works website (http://dww.ed.gov) to move the Math Panel’s findings into teachable moments for educators and professional developers.  (Full disclosure, Eduwife is managing DWW for ED).
But I also hope the Math Panel is thinking bigger, thinking bolder, and thinking more audaciously.  Yes, it is unfortunate that ED will soon change hands, and a new EdSec will have new priorities.  And yes, it is unfortunate that the Math Wars make the Reading Wars seem like Cub Scout jamborees.  But the findings of the Math Panel are too important to fall by the wayside come January 2009.  The need to equip all students with real math skills is too important for our schools, our community, our economy, and our nation for the Math Panel’s report to hit a dusty shelf come next year, forgotten for the “next big thing.”
Someone needs to launch a massive public engagement campaign to reform math instruction.  Building from the work, infrastructure, and results of the Partnership for Reading, someone needs to work with parents, teachers, and policymakers to focus on getting what works when it comes to math into the classroom.  And, ideally, someone outside of the federal government needs to make this their national priority, allowing such a campaign to move swifter and more nimbly than a government effort.
Interested?  I’m happy to give you my cent-and-a-half to get it off the ground.
 

The Mind as an Education Tool

Eduflack Math, SBRR, Science, STEM

Eduflack is a true disciple of the science of education.  Over the years, though, I’ve heard many people describe instruction as more art than anything else.  At a National School Boards Association national conference years ago, I actually got into an argument with an attendee who tried to explain to me that it was wrong to try and force kids to learn to read at any age.  His thought, they will eventually come along to the issue.  Instead, we should be encouraging them to play guitar or yodel or do whatever feels good, and once they were focusing on what they were enjoying, they may soon decide that reading could be a joyful activity as well.  Reading will come in time, through wishful thinking and pockets full of rainbows.

Perhaps that’s why we often hear that the reading wars are an issue of phonics versus whole language.  The only problem with that, though, is that phonics is an instructional approach (and but one piece of many instructional approaches needed for effective reading teaching), where whole language is a classroom philosophy.  Anyone who has attended a postsecondary institution knows there is a difference between science and philosophy.  But I digress.
During my work in scientifically based reading advocacy, I was most taken with a visit I made to Georgetown University and the time I spent with Professor Guinevere Eden.  Dr. Eden showed me how MRI machines can help diagnose reading skill struggles.  By studying the brain, we can literally see students struggling with phonics or fluency or vocabulary.  And with the right interventions, we can actually see the brain changing, with colors and activity evolving as students acquire the reading skills they need to become reading proficient and achieve in the classroom.
After all of these years, we know the brain science associated with reading instruction.  We also know that such approaches and such science applied to other instructional topics as well, particularly mathematics instruction.
Don’t believe me?  Then check out an upcoming summit here in Washington on October 21.  The MIND Research Institute will host a national summit on math education and brain research.  Consider it the perfect chaser to this week’s U.S. Department of Education’s implementation summit on the National Math Panel’s report.
We all know how important reaching multiple audiences is to promoting a good education idea.  The MIND Research Institute is not only promising the usual practitioners and policymakers, but they are bring neuroscientists to the fold, giving them the soapbox to talk about real, measurable, non-squishy research in instructional practice.  It is a little different for DC, yes, but different can be good, particularly as we struggle to identify the best ways to get proven instruction in our math classrooms.  Check out www.mindresearch.net for more information.
Doesn’t matter if it is reading, math, science, or even the arts.  Research-based practice is research-based practice.  Whatever we can do to better explain the research base, educate stakeholders on good versus bad research, and actually get scientifically based education research into practice is an action worth taking.  Hopefully, the MIND Research Summit will keep the discussion going, demonstrating that science tells us a great deal about instruction and doing what works shouldn’t be limited to reading instruction.

What is Achievement?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, Math, NAEP, national standards

In today’s education reform era, student achievement is king.  We want to see our kids succeeding.  We want to see test scores rise.  We want to know we can better compete against foreign nations on things like PISA and TIMSS.  We want assurances our students are getting a top-notch education measure by results, and not by processes.

But what, exactly, is achievement?  Eduflack and a close friend have been debating this very issue this week, and it really has me thinking.  Do we, as a nation, now believe that student achievement is only measured based on state-offered standardized tests?  And if not, what else qualifies as a measurement tool?

When the State of Maryland announced earlier this year that student achievement had dramatically increased in many at-risk schools across the state, Mike Petrilli and the folks over at the Fordham Foundation quickly pounced, correctly noting that reducing a standard so more kids make it does not mean students are achieving.  The same could be said in NYC.  NYCDOE’s recent test score boastings are indeed impressive.  But how does this year’s yardstick measure with the previous years, those years when fewer students hit the mark?

And what about those subjects not measured by the state tests or by national measures like NAEP?  Is there no student achievement in subjects like foreign languages or the arts or, in some cases, social studies?  Clearly, that isn’t the case.

I recognize these are some odd questions coming from me, particularly when I have long argued that we know programs like Reading First work because we have the student performance data to show it.  Don’t get me wrong, I still believe that.  In core subjects like reading and math, we have decades of data that demonstrate student performance.  As long as the measurement tools are the same (as is the formula to calculate achievement) we know effectiveness or not.

I’ve heard myriad of stories of how elementary school music classes have boosted student math ability and how “non-core” classes have had a real impact on student interest and ability in the three Rs.  With the recent push of STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) programs in our K-12s, we often talk about how social studies and other course electives can help strengthen a student’s STEM ability.  Can we quantify such impacts?  How do we claim more than just causal relationships between X course and student achievement?

A relative first for me, I’ll admit, but I don’t have all of the answers here.  I know that student achievement should be our primary focus, and that we must ensure that all students are performing at the necessary levels in all subjects.  I know that national standards are key to delivering on this promise, providing a singular yardstick by which to measure all students in all 50 states.  And I know that such measures in reading/ELA, math, and science are the most important ones to provide us a real benchmark on where our students are … and where they need to go.

But I also recognize there is more to it than just that.  How do we benchmark other subjects, particularly those that are not mandated as part of the state assessment or graduation requirements?  How do we make sure that the year-on-year yardstick doesn’t move from 36 inches to 33, giving us a false reading in a given year?  How, exactly, do we make sure our kids are really learning and achieving?
 

Let’s STEM Together

Eduflack High School, Math, NCLB, NGA, STEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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