I’d like to think that everything I’ve learned about the legislative process, I learned from Saturday morning cartoons (and those five years working on Capitol Hill, I guess). Just about everyone from my generation should know how a bill becomes a law, even if it is just from remembering Schoolhouse Rock. But where is our song about the meaning of vetoing one’s signature domestic policy bill?
For those who missed it, President Bush, at his year-end briefing yesterday, tossed the biggest rhetorical softball possible to his critics and to those on the NCLB fence. The President states that if he gets an NCLB reauthorization that weakens the law, he would veto it.
We may talk about lines in the sand, but Bush has now drawn a rhetorical Grand Canyon. As other policymakers are debating multiple measures and increased funding and escape clauses, the President stands clear and emphatic in his position. It’s improvement, or it is nothing at all.
This is an extremely bold stance from a lame duck president with low national approval rankings and little record on education these past couple of years. And it is just the sort of bold statement the President needed to make if he is to save the one potential legacy piece of his domestic agenda.
With such a strong statement (albeit in a relatively throw-away media session), 2008 could be an interesting one, if we can get NCLB to the front of the policy agenda. Why?
* Senator Kennedy continues to explore reforms to NCLB, and it is clear the law will change. The big question is whether the law is strengthened, the law is watered down, or the law is tabled until a new president can put his imprint on the nation’s K-12 law.
* Advocates of the law have regained their stride. For much of the year, NCLB critics have dominated the debate. But we are starting to see cracks. Earlier this week, Governors Thompson and Barnes of Aspen’s NCLB Commission had their oped on the law printed in The Washington Times. Ed in 08 continues to push on the hows and whys presidential candidates should stand up to strengthen our nation’s commitment to K-12.
* Recent NAEP and PISA scores have many talking about how we continue to improve the quality and measurement of education. There is a growing hunger for proven, long-term improvement.
For years, Eduflack has opined on how NCLB could serve as President Bush’s true domestic policy legacy. The changes he has made in how we teach, how we use research, what we expect of our teachers, and how we measure our schools will be with us for a long time. The federal dollars spent on K-12 have never been higher. And he has given federal education issues a singular voice under the banner of 2008. Like it or not, the relationship between the federal government to K-12 public education is vastly different today compared to 2001. And that relationship shows a vision from which Bush and his education team have never wavered, no matter the criticism, attack, or obstacle.
But if the President wants that legacy, if he wants an NCLB reauthorization he can sign, he needs to be both bold and proactive moving forward. Now is the time for Bush (and Spellings) to step forward and clearly articulate those improvements they would agree to and those improvements that result in a better, stronger NCLB.
Like what?
* Provide schools and districts more flexibility to meet AYP, assuming their actions follow the spirit of the law
* Demand full funding for Reading First, while offering stringent oversight protections to ensure the funds are being used only on “gold standard” interventions with unquestioned research
* Take states to task for weakening their state standards just so they can claim proficiency on state tests
* Amend the HQT provisions to include provisions for effective teaching
* Ensure that real educators, policymakers, and the business community are involved in implementing NCLB 2.0 and evaluating its effectiveness
* Remind us of the primary audience for NCLB. Yes, teachers and counselors and researchers are important. But our primary focus is the student — how do we use the law to ensure all students are provided a high-quality education that prepares them for the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the 21st century.
I’m just an eduflack. I’m sure there are a number of other ways we can strengthen the law, doing so in a way that will gain the President’s signature and the education community’s endorsement. Mr. President, consider it my Christmas present to you. No need for a thank you card, and no reason to consider returning it.
NAEP
A “Broader Yardstick”
Yesterday’s Washington Post continued the public debate on how we measure the efficacy of our public schools. Under a headline of “Calls Grow for a Broader Yardstick for Schools,” the Post’s Maria Glod fan the flames of high-stakes testing and NCLB mandates. But if we peel back the clamoring and positioning, what is the Post really poking at? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501747.html
Eduflack will try to look past the American Society of Civil Engineers’ calls for national science testing. Last I saw, science was one of the three subjects NCLB is slated to test, with those fourth through eighth grade exams coming online shortly. There’s one demand that has already been met.
So let’s look at the broader picture. NEA’s Reg Weaver is right when he says student success should be more than just one test score. And CCSSO’s Michael Casserly is dead-on when he states that different audiences have different answers to the question of how to best measure our K-12 schools. But instead of looking at “multiple measures” and examining how one state’s proficiency measures stand up to another’s, there has to be a simple way. Oh, wait, there is — national standards.
If we look at the hand-ringing in the Post piece and in public and private discussions these past few years about accountability and the measurement of student, teacher, and school achievement, there is rarely discussion of national standards. It’s as if it is the third rail of education reform (or maybe the 3 1/3 rail, after teacher accountability). We’re afraid to talk about national standards, not knowing what might be behind the curtain if we allow that show to truly take the stage.
But isn’t national standards the rhetorical solution to all of these criticisms?
* It offers a bold solution that demonstrates that we, as a nation, are committed to strengthening our schools and ensuring our students have the skills they need to succeed in the workplace and the community
* It provides a strong fix to the notion that some states may be lowering their standards to appear proficient
* It states that every child, regardless of their home town or economic standing, has the right to a strong, proven effective public education
* It brings equality to our expectations and measurement of classroom teachers, whether they be in urban, suburban or rural settings
* It may just be the only “fair” approach to measuring our schools – with one common yardstick
Earlier this year, Gov. Roy Romer — now heading Strong American Schools — suggested we bring together many of the nation’s top governors and let them hatch the plan for adopting national education standards. Eduflack said it then, and he’ll say it again, it is a visionary approach that may be just what the ed reform community is in search of. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/05/the-next-great-ed-reform-idea.aspx
Most still bristle at the notion of national education standards. We reflect on the belief that education is a local issue, left to town councils and local selectmen. While that may have been true a century or so ago, results from NAEP and PISA tell us a very different story. If we are to maintain a thriving economy, if we are to be home to the world’s top industry and innovative thinking, we need to get serious about how we measure our successes. It just doesn’t get more serious that national standards.
The Need for STEM: Exhibit P
For the past few years, there has been a growing debate on the need for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education. To some, STEM is a program for the elites, an honors program that doesn’t affect the majority of kids who need it. For others, it is too expensive. And for others still, it is a complicated issue that doesn’t fit neatly in the K-12 box. As a result, STEM education efforts have been sporadic to date. Some states — like Minnesota — have done a tremendous job building a STEM education effort that reaches all students in the continuum. Unfortunately, far too many are playing a wait and see, holding off before making significant intellectual, time, or capital investments.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
The After-Effects of After-School
Does learning only happen during school hours, behind school house doors? For years, the education community has debated the impact of after-school programs on student achievement. Today, Education Week’s Debra Viadero has a story on a new research study showing dramatic achievement gains for those students who regularly attend and participate in “top-notch” after-school programs.
The story can be found at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool.h27.html
The findings seem common sense to Eduflack. Take at-risk students. Put them in a high-quality after-school program that reinforces the curriculum and learning strategies they are getting in the classroom. Ensure that they come to all of their after-school sessions. Observe the benefits. Repeat. More instruction, particularly if it is proven to work, is bound to help even the most at-risk student. That’s why we advocate for more instructional time or for parents to reinforce classroom lessons at home.
As is now par for the course in education reform, the critics are out, attacking the methodology. The driver for this — a 2005 study that showed no measurable effects for after-school programs. Questioning how experimental groups and control groups were chosen and the legitimacy of comparing students from group A to group B is destined to quickly turn this report, known as the Promising Afterschool Programs Study, into yet another inning of inside baseball, where researchers will continue to throw brush-back pitches as those students in need aren’t even allowed a ticket in.
Education reform is about improvement. We advocate for what works, and we push to adopt what is proven effective in schools and with kids like ours. As we look at the pool of at-risk students, can anyone — with a straight face — honestly say that the current classroom instruction is enough to turn those kids around, have them catch up to their cohort, and achieve on assessments? Of course not. They’ll always be a step behind without additional help beyond school hours.
When an affluent student struggles in the classroom, his parent is quick to hire an after-hours tutor to turn things around. Some after-school sessions and special attention (and much money) later, the student gets the concept and is able to keep up in trig or biology or physics.
So why would it be any different for an at-risk student in a low-income community? Research-based after-school programs are designed to provide students that same sort of instruction and attention, giving them a boost in the classroom the next day. If such programs are proven effective (and the Promising Afterschool Programs Study is posting eye-popping positive results) then shouldn’t we encourage their continued use?
Research can often be a double-edged sword in education. Yes, we can and should use it to measure the effectiveness of a school, a class, or a student. We should use it to ensure that instructional programs are effective and are proven to work. We use it to validate our decisions, when faced with vocal resistance. It is a powerful communications tool.
But research can also be used to tear down. Yes, the 2005 study found after-school programs to have no effect on student achievement. But that doesn’t mean this new study is wrong. If anything, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the type of after-school program we’re looking to. Like everything else, there are good and bad programs. If continued research of after-school programs gets us closer to replicating the good and eradicating the bad, it’s a win for researchers, a win for the schools, and a huge win for the students.
The story can be found at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/28/13afterschool.h27.html
The findings seem common sense to Eduflack. Take at-risk students. Put them in a high-quality after-school program that reinforces the curriculum and learning strategies they are getting in the classroom. Ensure that they come to all of their after-school sessions. Observe the benefits. Repeat. More instruction, particularly if it is proven to work, is bound to help even the most at-risk student. That’s why we advocate for more instructional time or for parents to reinforce classroom lessons at home.
As is now par for the course in education reform, the critics are out, attacking the methodology. The driver for this — a 2005 study that showed no measurable effects for after-school programs. Questioning how experimental groups and control groups were chosen and the legitimacy of comparing students from group A to group B is destined to quickly turn this report, known as the Promising Afterschool Programs Study, into yet another inning of inside baseball, where researchers will continue to throw brush-back pitches as those students in need aren’t even allowed a ticket in.
Education reform is about improvement. We advocate for what works, and we push to adopt what is proven effective in schools and with kids like ours. As we look at the pool of at-risk students, can anyone — with a straight face — honestly say that the current classroom instruction is enough to turn those kids around, have them catch up to their cohort, and achieve on assessments? Of course not. They’ll always be a step behind without additional help beyond school hours.
When an affluent student struggles in the classroom, his parent is quick to hire an after-hours tutor to turn things around. Some after-school sessions and special attention (and much money) later, the student gets the concept and is able to keep up in trig or biology or physics.
So why would it be any different for an at-risk student in a low-income community? Research-based after-school programs are designed to provide students that same sort of instruction and attention, giving them a boost in the classroom the next day. If such programs are proven effective (and the Promising Afterschool Programs Study is posting eye-popping positive results) then shouldn’t we encourage their continued use?
Research can often be a double-edged sword in education. Yes, we can and should use it to measure the effectiveness of a school, a class, or a student. We should use it to ensure that instructional programs are effective and are proven to work. We use it to validate our decisions, when faced with vocal resistance. It is a powerful communications tool.
But research can also be used to tear down. Yes, the 2005 study found after-school programs to have no effect on student achievement. But that doesn’t mean this new study is wrong. If anything, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the type of after-school program we’re looking to. Like everything else, there are good and bad programs. If continued research of after-school programs gets us closer to replicating the good and eradicating the bad, it’s a win for researchers, a win for the schools, and a huge win for the students.
Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?
Two data sets on student performance are out this week. But what exactly does the data tell us? And more importantly, what do we say about the data?
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
“Dropout Factories”
From most media coverage over the past few years, we like to think of our high schools as incubators for success. We throw around terms like rigor and relevance. We opine that every child should go onto to college. We push efforts to add additional AP or IB or dual enrollment programs to our schools. And then, researchers such as those at Johns Hopkins throw a big wake-up call at our feet, reminding us of how far we still need to go.
If you missed it, Nancy Zuckerbrod at AP has the story. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/10/30/1_in_10_schools_are_dropout_factories?mode=PF The summary: one in 10 high schools in the United States post a graduation rate of 60 percent or less. That’s 17 percent of all of the high schools in the United States.
For years, these school districts have underestimated the problem. The folks at Manhattan Institute would tell us an urban school district’s graduation rate was 55 percent. The district would self-report 87 percent. And we’d believe the latter. We all want to believe statistics, and given the choice want to believe those that make us feel better about ourselves. And there is no feel-good message in half of our students failing to earn a high school diploma.
We’d like to believe this is a problem in our urban areas. But it isn’t limited to those communities. These factories are just as likely in rural communities. Why? It’s purely economics. We’re far more likely to find these schools in poor communities. Dropout factories may be colorblind, but they know per-capita income. According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, Florida and South Carolina have the greatest percentage of these schools.
Those communities providing refuge to such schools have been all abuzz about their dropout factories over the past few days. We’re quick to defend, to refute, and to deny. Such response is natural in crisis communications, and losing nearly half your students before graduation is indeed a crisis. But if there were ever a time calling out for vision and for strategy, it has to be now.
In her piece, Zuckerbrod points to a number of legislative proposals to help fix the problem. A common graduation rate formula is essential, as is stronger data collection and effective disaggregation of that data. Then what?
We need to ask WHY these students are dropping out. Despite popular opinion, few students leave high school because it is too hard. To the contrary, many will leave because it is too boring or irrelevant.
Are they leaving to go to work? If so, what “good” job is out there for a 16-year-old high school dropout? Some say they are dropping out because of NCLB or testing. But I’d opine that most high school students don’t even know what NCLB is.
If we can gather data on why students leave school, we can craft the messages to get them to stay in school. Even without the data, we know that the message must be personalized, must be relevant, and must just be common sense. What does Eduflack mean?
* We need to start early. Focusing on high schools and careers in ninth or 10th grade is just too late. We need to get our kids on the right paths in middle school, get them thinking about the future, and show them the opportunities that really exist. Middle school is the time to dream … and to plan.
* We need to better link high school to career. Why take Algebra II? If you want to design video games or work in a hospital, you need it. High school courses are relevant.
* We need to take an interest. In talking with today’s high school students about dropping out, most are staying in school because their teachers know them and take an interest in their lives. We get rid of the factory mentality when we treat students as individuals.
* Every child has opportunity. Education is the great equalizer. With it, any student — regardless of socioeconomic level — can succeed. But they need that high school diploma (and likely college degree) to do so.
* We cannot accept mediocrity. We should be appalled by with the dropout rates reported by Manhattan Institute and others. We simply cannot afford to lose a third of our students before the end of high school (and then another sizable group between high school and college completion).
I know, I know, I’m up on my high horse again. But sometimes, we just have to ride that stag. Dropout factories are simply unacceptable. Dropping out of high school is never a viable choice. If we want to build a new, strong economy based on high skill jobs, these are just the sort of factories that need a visit from the wrecking ball. We need schools that prepare us for the rigors, challenges and opportunities of the future, not those that keep us from participating in that future.
If you missed it, Nancy Zuckerbrod at AP has the story. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/10/30/1_in_10_schools_are_dropout_factories?mode=PF The summary: one in 10 high schools in the United States post a graduation rate of 60 percent or less. That’s 17 percent of all of the high schools in the United States.
For years, these school districts have underestimated the problem. The folks at Manhattan Institute would tell us an urban school district’s graduation rate was 55 percent. The district would self-report 87 percent. And we’d believe the latter. We all want to believe statistics, and given the choice want to believe those that make us feel better about ourselves. And there is no feel-good message in half of our students failing to earn a high school diploma.
We’d like to believe this is a problem in our urban areas. But it isn’t limited to those communities. These factories are just as likely in rural communities. Why? It’s purely economics. We’re far more likely to find these schools in poor communities. Dropout factories may be colorblind, but they know per-capita income. According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, Florida and South Carolina have the greatest percentage of these schools.
Those communities providing refuge to such schools have been all abuzz about their dropout factories over the past few days. We’re quick to defend, to refute, and to deny. Such response is natural in crisis communications, and losing nearly half your students before graduation is indeed a crisis. But if there were ever a time calling out for vision and for strategy, it has to be now.
In her piece, Zuckerbrod points to a number of legislative proposals to help fix the problem. A common graduation rate formula is essential, as is stronger data collection and effective disaggregation of that data. Then what?
We need to ask WHY these students are dropping out. Despite popular opinion, few students leave high school because it is too hard. To the contrary, many will leave because it is too boring or irrelevant.
Are they leaving to go to work? If so, what “good” job is out there for a 16-year-old high school dropout? Some say they are dropping out because of NCLB or testing. But I’d opine that most high school students don’t even know what NCLB is.
If we can gather data on why students leave school, we can craft the messages to get them to stay in school. Even without the data, we know that the message must be personalized, must be relevant, and must just be common sense. What does Eduflack mean?
* We need to start early. Focusing on high schools and careers in ninth or 10th grade is just too late. We need to get our kids on the right paths in middle school, get them thinking about the future, and show them the opportunities that really exist. Middle school is the time to dream … and to plan.
* We need to better link high school to career. Why take Algebra II? If you want to design video games or work in a hospital, you need it. High school courses are relevant.
* We need to take an interest. In talking with today’s high school students about dropping out, most are staying in school because their teachers know them and take an interest in their lives. We get rid of the factory mentality when we treat students as individuals.
* Every child has opportunity. Education is the great equalizer. With it, any student — regardless of socioeconomic level — can succeed. But they need that high school diploma (and likely college degree) to do so.
* We cannot accept mediocrity. We should be appalled by with the dropout rates reported by Manhattan Institute and others. We simply cannot afford to lose a third of our students before the end of high school (and then another sizable group between high school and college completion).
I know, I know, I’m up on my high horse again. But sometimes, we just have to ride that stag. Dropout factories are simply unacceptable. Dropping out of high school is never a viable choice. If we want to build a new, strong economy based on high skill jobs, these are just the sort of factories that need a visit from the wrecking ball. We need schools that prepare us for the rigors, challenges and opportunities of the future, not those that keep us from participating in that future.
The Next Great “Ed” Reform Idea
NCLB may be now, with reauthorization and merit pay being leading topics of education cocktail parties. But as Eduflack friend and online marketing guru Geoff Livingston says, now is gone. Now is what has happened. We need to focus on what is to happen. If the last few weeks has been any indication, the future of education reform could center around two key words — national standards.
For decades, almost no one wanted to touch the issue of national standards. It was almost the third rail of public education. It was an affront to local control. It stood against hundreds of years of American educational tradition. National standards was a dead-end issue before the words ever fully left the lips of the most eager reformer.
But not any more. In recent days, we’ve heard from a varied chorus led by Diane Ravitch and DC area superintendents calling for some form of national standards. And now, we get to enjoy a passionate solo from Roy Romer, chairman of Ed in 08.
At Jobs for the Future’s Double the Numbers 2007 Conference Thursday, Romer asked the question — Why are we, as a nation, not focused on what we can to improve public education? If we truly want to improve our schools, Romer contends, we need to change the national discussion. We need each and every citizen to declare, “I want my child to be ready for life. I want them to have the opportunity for a good college and a good career.”
Amen. For months now, we’ve been waiting on some bold statements to come from Strong American Schools and Ed in 08. And bold may not even be strong enough for Romer’s call to action. I might even call it visionary.
For those who missed it, Romer too has issued the call for national standards. The former “education” governor of Colorado, the former superintendent of LAUSD, even took it a step further. According to Romer, the time has come for a collection of leading states to come together and write common education standards. He issued the call to “education” governors to be proactive, and create the measurements by which our nation’s schools should be evaluated. Those founding states would all adhere to the common standard. The remainder of states would soon follow. And national standards are born.
For decades, almost no one wanted to touch the issue of national standards. It was almost the third rail of public education. It was an affront to local control. It stood against hundreds of years of American educational tradition. National standards was a dead-end issue before the words ever fully left the lips of the most eager reformer.
But not any more. In recent days, we’ve heard from a varied chorus led by Diane Ravitch and DC area superintendents calling for some form of national standards. And now, we get to enjoy a passionate solo from Roy Romer, chairman of Ed in 08.
At Jobs for the Future’s Double the Numbers 2007 Conference Thursday, Romer asked the question — Why are we, as a nation, not focused on what we can to improve public education? If we truly want to improve our schools, Romer contends, we need to change the national discussion. We need each and every citizen to declare, “I want my child to be ready for life. I want them to have the opportunity for a good college and a good career.”
Amen. For months now, we’ve been waiting on some bold statements to come from Strong American Schools and Ed in 08. And bold may not even be strong enough for Romer’s call to action. I might even call it visionary.
For those who missed it, Romer too has issued the call for national standards. The former “education” governor of Colorado, the former superintendent of LAUSD, even took it a step further. According to Romer, the time has come for a collection of leading states to come together and write common education standards. He issued the call to “education” governors to be proactive, and create the measurements by which our nation’s schools should be evaluated. Those founding states would all adhere to the common standard. The remainder of states would soon follow. And national standards are born.
That one standard, then, would benchmark with standards in countries across the world. Finally, we would truly know how our students compare with learners across the world. And the feds role in all of this — to pay for the test. States set a national measurement and hold themselves to it, and the folks back in Washington write the check. Sounds simple enough to actually work.
The result — true consumer protection in American public education. We have our standards. We know what we’re doing. And we know where we stand. Doesn’t matter if a parent or student is in Seattle, Dubuque, Huntsville, or Boston. Achievement is achievement, regardless of state border or school district boundary.
Some may be uncomfortable with this discussion, but it is just the sort of issue the education community should be talking about. Worried about high stakes testing? Make sure the national standard is one that measures true knowledge. Concerned we need more stringent accountability measures? Focus on a standard that truly means something, and doesn’t just speak to the common denominator.
If Romer and Ed in 08 want to really leave their mark on the upcoming presidential elections, this may very well be the way to do so. We shouldn’t just talk about education, we should be talking about how to improve it. True national school improvement requires more than asking a question on a YouTube debate or getting an oped printed. It comes from changing the national discussion. Only then can we really start identifying and adopting the sorts of solutions that can fix the problem … for good.
The result — true consumer protection in American public education. We have our standards. We know what we’re doing. And we know where we stand. Doesn’t matter if a parent or student is in Seattle, Dubuque, Huntsville, or Boston. Achievement is achievement, regardless of state border or school district boundary.
Some may be uncomfortable with this discussion, but it is just the sort of issue the education community should be talking about. Worried about high stakes testing? Make sure the national standard is one that measures true knowledge. Concerned we need more stringent accountability measures? Focus on a standard that truly means something, and doesn’t just speak to the common denominator.
If Romer and Ed in 08 want to really leave their mark on the upcoming presidential elections, this may very well be the way to do so. We shouldn’t just talk about education, we should be talking about how to improve it. True national school improvement requires more than asking a question on a YouTube debate or getting an oped printed. It comes from changing the national discussion. Only then can we really start identifying and adopting the sorts of solutions that can fix the problem … for good.
Unusual Allies
As one would suspect, there is a great deal of buzz in the ed reform community regarding this morning’s New York Times op-ed piece from Diane Ravitch. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03ravitch.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin With a provocative title “Get Congress Out of the Classroom” and a strong academic reputation, Ravitch gets people to take notice … even if NCLB bashing is cliché at this point.
What’s far more interesting, though, is holding Ravitch’s recommendations up against those made by Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale and others earlier this week in The Washington Post. At the time, Eduflack wrote, with great surprise, of Dale and company’s call for national testing and the realignment of responsibilities between the states and the feds. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/01/advocacy-from-the-urban-superintendent.aspx
Who would have thought that Ravitch, Dale, and Montgomery County (MD) Superintendent Jerry Weast would all be singing from the same hymnal? If researchers like Ravitch and urban superintendents like Dale and Weast keep sharing each other’s talking points on public education reform, we may just have meaningful, long-term school improvement yet!
What’s far more interesting, though, is holding Ravitch’s recommendations up against those made by Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale and others earlier this week in The Washington Post. At the time, Eduflack wrote, with great surprise, of Dale and company’s call for national testing and the realignment of responsibilities between the states and the feds. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/10/01/advocacy-from-the-urban-superintendent.aspx
Who would have thought that Ravitch, Dale, and Montgomery County (MD) Superintendent Jerry Weast would all be singing from the same hymnal? If researchers like Ravitch and urban superintendents like Dale and Weast keep sharing each other’s talking points on public education reform, we may just have meaningful, long-term school improvement yet!
In the NAEP Scrum
It’s been almost a week now, and the dust following the release of the latest NAEP scores is just finally starting to settle. The story varies widely, depending on who you listen to and who you respect on such issues. This year’s reading and math NAEP scores demonstrate we have greatly improved instruction over the past few years. Or they show that we have actually taken a step backward. Progress or regress, it seems.
What is clear is that both math and reading scores have ticked upward, with math performance rising more than reading. What is even clearer, though, is that we still have much work to do. The education community is quibbling over the “meaning” of the small rise in reading scores and its implications for the future. It’s like listening to a faculty senate meeting, focusing on the personal periphery rather than the ultimate outcomes and impact.
But there is a lesson to be found in the stacks of disaggregated data and he said/she said debates. Set aside all of the rhetoric. Put away all of the interpretation. Forget all of the hidden meanings. What’s left? A national commitment to boosting student achievement.
For some, the scores were badges of success. For others, they were indicators of inadequacy. But for all, the NAEP scores were the tool for determining whether we have demonstrably improved student achievement. For once, the education industry was focused on outcomes, and not just on the inputs. We were talking results (or lack there of) and how to further improve those results.
Without question, there is MUCH work that still needs to be done to improve student proficiency in reading and math. The experts will spend the next few weeks determining the significance of these gains, comparing them to previous gains. But these scores do send a message to all willing to listen. Improvement is possible, but it requires significantly more work, attention, and resources. And that’s a far harder lesson to learn.
What is clear is that both math and reading scores have ticked upward, with math performance rising more than reading. What is even clearer, though, is that we still have much work to do. The education community is quibbling over the “meaning” of the small rise in reading scores and its implications for the future. It’s like listening to a faculty senate meeting, focusing on the personal periphery rather than the ultimate outcomes and impact.
But there is a lesson to be found in the stacks of disaggregated data and he said/she said debates. Set aside all of the rhetoric. Put away all of the interpretation. Forget all of the hidden meanings. What’s left? A national commitment to boosting student achievement.
For some, the scores were badges of success. For others, they were indicators of inadequacy. But for all, the NAEP scores were the tool for determining whether we have demonstrably improved student achievement. For once, the education industry was focused on outcomes, and not just on the inputs. We were talking results (or lack there of) and how to further improve those results.
Without question, there is MUCH work that still needs to be done to improve student proficiency in reading and math. The experts will spend the next few weeks determining the significance of these gains, comparing them to previous gains. But these scores do send a message to all willing to listen. Improvement is possible, but it requires significantly more work, attention, and resources. And that’s a far harder lesson to learn.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 