As the battle lines continue to be drawn with regard to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), some continue to remind us that the discussion is more complex than it seems. K-12 isn’t just about student achievement on math and reading exams, they contend, and true education improvement is about more than just accountability.
One such voice is Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. Reflecting on his past experiences as both a classroom educator and the founding director of the Five Freedoms Project, Chaltain recently released a new book offering a bit of a different framework for classroom instruction. American Schools: The Art of Creating a Democratic Learning Community serves as that call to arms.
Often, we see these sorts of books chock full of ideas, but with little practice or real life to back it up. In American Schools, Chaltain offers up both the theory behind his reccs and specific practice where those ideas have already taken hold. The theory is based on five basics organizational points — reflect, connect, create, equip, and let come. He then offers some real classroom experiences in California, South Carolina, and New Hampshire where those common theoretical words are put to practice.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss looked at American Schools vis-a-vis survey data on the Pledge of Allegiance and how well we are preparing our students to be productive citizens. Such a discussion line becomes particularly interesting when we reflect on some of the proposed education budget “consolidations” being proposed this year, including specific programs focusing on civics and U.S. history.
At a time when closing the achievement gap and boosting student achievement across the board is the name of the game, is there room in the debate for a more holistic look at K-12 education and an emphasis on the qualitative measures of classroom education? Time will tell. As budgets continued to get stretched and we continue to demand more and more of our classroom educators and our school leaders, it becomes harder and harder to add teaching democracy skills to the list of performance measures we expect to see coming out of our public schools. But as we begin focusing on what it means to be “college and career ready,” perhaps it is a line of discussion we should be having as we talk about the knowledge and skills all students should possess to contribute to their community.
Regardless, some of the case studies, rubrics, and examples that Chaltain offers up in American Schools are worth a read (and may be worth showing to folks like U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander and Robert Byrd to remind then of the role civics and history can play in ESEA reauthorization).
And for those in Washington, DC looking to engage Chaltain on the concept, he’ll be over at Busboys and Poets at 14th and V Streets NW in the District tonight at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the democratic learning premise. Eduflack is sure Sam would be up for a good ole debate on the topic.
national standards
Mark Your Ed Reform Calendars
To paraphrase from edu-son’s favorite band, Black Eyed Peas, this week’s gonna be a good week … at least for those in the education reform community. We have core standards, and RttT, and ESEA, oh my!
According to Education Daily, National Governors Association officials are now saying that the much-anticipated draft K-12 common core standards (reading and math) will be released next week. Assuming protocols hold, we’ll all then have 30 days to respond, react, and critique under the public comment period. It seems NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers is still working toward finalization of the K-12 and college/career ready standards by June, so that states can adopt them by July (as called for under Race to the Top).
And speaking of the great Race, EdWeek’s Michele McNeil is reporting at the Politics K-12 blog that Phase One RttT finalists will be announced Thursday, March 4 (that’s tomorrow, folks) at 11:30 a.m. The list of nominees will be announced online by ED’s communications office. Those finalists will then be coming to DC to put on a nice little Ides of March show for the judges, with initial awards slated to come before we’ve played a full month of baseball.
Of course, this AM EdSec Arne Duncan is slated to testify before U.S. Rep. George Miller’s House Education and the Workforce Committee. The session will focus on the President’s budget and ESEA, with some believing today’s hearing may not be the love-fest that the EdSec has enjoyed on the Hill to date. The House Ed Committee is always great about getting testimony and webcast of the hearing up quick, so if you aren’t in DC, be sure to check it out later here.
For those keeping score, it looks like U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin and the Senate HELP Committee are starting to get in the mix on ESEA reauthorization as well. Harkin has slated the Senate’s first hearing on reauthorization for next Tuesday, March 9, at 2 p.m. No word on who will testify or the specific topics yet. Regardless, it sounds like we are going to be getting a lot of ed reform talk to start churning through again!
Assessing Assessment
Over at ISTE Connects, they are continuing the countdown on the Top 10 education technology issues facing the eduworld in 2010. In the latest installment, ISTE’s Hilary Goldmann focuses on the issue of assessment, noting that “we’re looking for better, richer, and more diverse assessment measures. Assessments that provide early feedback in the learning process, not just high-stakes bubble tests in a few content areas that don’t really evaluate the skills students will need. We can do better than this, and we must.”
If one puts an ear to the eduground, one hears multiple discussions on the topic of assessments. Many states are waiting to develop new tools until after the common core standards have been finalized and adopted. Others are working at improving their current measures, with the true leaders adopting new online or computer assisted assessments to provide educators and policymakers alike with a broader and more comprehensive set of data points. And then there are a few voices in the wilderness advocating for the elimination of assessment entirely, believing it is unfair to measure students or teachers on the results of an exam or a collection of tests.
Of course, we are assessing all of our students now. Under NCLB, every state in the union (even you Texas) is working to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP. Each state sets their own learning standards and each year we evaluate how many students are proficient (according to those standards) compared to the previous year. Those states that show year-on-year gains quickly become our case studies. Those that flatline on proficiency or, heaven forbid, slip, are put on our lists.
In the pursuit of making the AYP success list, many states have been accused of lowering standards in order to show continued gains on the assessments. And some started at a low threshold for proficiency to begin with just so they could have high marks right out of the box a few years ago. As a result, we have a mis-mash of state learning standards.
Don’t believe it? Take a look at some of data released by Gary Phillips of the American Institutes for Research last week at the Quality Counts event. Phillips took a look at state test scores, state academic standards, and comparable international benchmarks. We shouldn’t be surprised to see that those states with the highest AYP scores are those with some of the lowest standards. And those states with the highest standards (and some of the lower proficiency numbers) are the states mostly closely aligned with the international learning standards set forth by TIMSS, PISA, and PIRLS. (And just as interesting, how a state does on eighth grade NAEP seems to align pretty well with how it does in international comparisons.)
So which becomes more important when it comes to student proficiency? Is the emphasis on how many students score high enough on the scale or is it making sure that students are working on a scale that ensures they are academically competitive with their peers, regardless of country?
Common core standards is intended to fix some of this, supposedly giving all 50 states (and DC) one common standard to work toward and, presumably, one common assessment to measure it. But it begs two important issues, one of which Goldmann highlights, the other illuminated by Phillips and others.
First, can one single exam adequately assess the teaching and learning in a classroom, or do we need multi-variable assessments that look at both formative and summative assessment? It it a single state-administered exam, or is it a state exam influenced and shaped by ongoing tests and temperature-taking in the classroom at all points along the learning process?
And second, and perhaps most importantly, how do those assessments stack up outside of our fine union? How do they match up to PISA and PIRLS? Are the offering multiple-choice, constructed-response, extended tasks and project queries? Are they offering on-demand and curriculum embedded tests and tasks? Do they assess both knowledge (recall and analysis) and assessments of performance (demonstration of ability to apply knowledge in practice)? Do they effectively measure whether all students have both the skills and knowledge to succeed outside of a classroom environment?
Ultimately, we are putting an awful lot on the shoulders of “assessment” when we talk about school improvement, student achievement, and the narrowing of the achievement gap. But if we don’t have the right yardstick, we’ll never know exactly how far we’ve come and how far we still need to go. By taking a hard look at the data, as scientists like Phillips have, and building better mousetraps, both in terms of content and the shift away from those bubble sheets, are essential steps forward.
How Valuable Are the Race Fire Drills?
In recent months, we have seen state departments of education and state legislatures scurry to make themselves eligible and better positioned to win a federal Race to the Top grant. From knocking down the firewalls between student performance data and teachers to smoothing the path for charter school expansion to adopting common core standards to just demonstrating a hospitable environment for education reform and change, states have been doing anything and everything to gain a better position for the Race.
Earlier this week, Michigan announced sweeping reforms to put them in line with the federal requirements. California is currently debating similar positions (with what seems like growing concerns). And we seem genuine changes in reform culture in states like Indiana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and many others along the way. (Every state, that is, except for the Republic of Texas, which as of yesterday still hasn’t committed to even pursuing RttT, despite the $250K it received from the Gates Foundation to prepare its application.)
But one has to ask, is it another tale of too little, too late? In November, the U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive scorecard of how RttT applications would be scored, breaking down allotments so specifically that it included everything but throwing out the low score from the Ukrainian judges. Every state is working off the same 500-point scale, building a workplan that aligns as closely with Arne Duncan’s four pillars as humanly (or bureaucratically) possible. We’re working toward extra points for STEM and for charter schools and for demonstrating a general culture of reform. And we’re growing more and more mindful of how those points break down, recognizing, for instance, that STEM and charters are worth virtually the same score as turning around low-performing schools.
Often overlooked in the discussion, though, is the fact that 52 percent of a state’s RttT application is supposed to be based on past accomplishment and achievement. So for all of those states who just recently removed the caps and changed the charter laws, will they only earn half-credit for their plans for the future, or do we recognize them for the intent of their efforts? What about those states, like California, New York, and Wisconsin, that are just now taking down those data firewalls? Are they out of luck when it comes to evaluating their past performance? And will ED reviewers really dock Texas 80 points (nearly 15 percent of the total score) for not signing onto common standards, when Texas’ state standards may already be closely aligned with where the NGA/CCSSO effort is ultimately headed? Is the 52/48 split a hard-and-fast rule, or is it meant as a guiding suggestion to states to shape how they write they apps, with ED officials hoping to see equal focus on what states have done in these areas and what they are planning to do in the future?
If we believe the former, we are looking at a very, very select group of states that are qualified to win RttT in the end. How many states come to the table with real, tangible, and longitudinal successes on all four of the pillars of Race? How many can really talk about their strong work in effective data systems? How many have really invested in meaningful teacher quality efforts, including state-led teacher incentive pay programs? How many are doing what their legislatures and SEAs have now committed them to do in the future (and more importantly, how many can prove it)?
If the projections are true, 80 percent of states will be submitting their Phase One applications later this month. If we are lucky, we’ll have more than four states actually win in Phase One. (that, my friends, is where Eduflack is setting the Phase One over/under) What will happen to those states that either are not called for oral defenses in March or fail to wow their dissertation panels? Do those states go back to the drawing board, and try to turn around a winning app in 30-60 days, or do they lick their wounds, move on, and say they never really wanted the grants in the first place?
Only time will tell. Regardless, Race has been effective for the enormous influence it has had on changing state laws and policies without doling out a single dollar to support the changes. We have already changed the culture of public education in the last 12 years, at least in terms of regulation and legislation. If a state fails to win the Race, they are unlikely to go back and reinstitute the firewalls, re-restrict charters, or pull out of the common core standards movement. Maybe that was the intent all along …
Under the Eduflack Tree 2010
It is that time of the year again. Most of the year, Eduflack can be critical, cynical, and downright combustible about what is happening in the education community. We spend a great deal of time talking, but little time delivering. We get caught up on the 20 percent or so of improvements we don’t agree on, thus neglecting the 80 percent that could make real change now. And we regularly fall into a cult of personality, rather than focusing on the substance of both character and ideas.
But Christmas is a special time of year, that time when we all get a blank slate and we all look forward to a new year with a renewed sense of purpose and commitment. As for Eduflack, I don’t believe in naughty lists (personally, I’m worried about what all of my general agitation would mean for such databases). And with two little kiddos at home who are the absolute loves of my life and motivations for getting up each morning, I’m all for being generous and giving gifts for both a great 2009 and the hopes of an even better 2010. So without further ado, let’s check out what’s under the ol’ Eduflack tree this holiday season.
To NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, a return to the spotlight. In 2008, Chancellor Klein was the king of the ed reform kingdom. Scores were up in NYC. The city was coming off the Broad Prize, and Klein was on the short list for U.S. Secretary of Education. But a funny thing happened in 2009. The good chancellor seemed to take a public back seat, dealing with collective bargaining agreements, a city council that was trying to take away mayoral control, and other such operational issues. He even seemed to take a back seat with the Education Equality Project, letting Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich play center stage for much of 2009. But 2010 is Klein’s year again. With states and districts desperate to demonstrate sustained student gains on assessments and a closing of the achievement gap, there is no better model than the revolution that has happened in NYC over the last decade. And the NYC experience is one that can serve as a research-based model for many urbans looking to secure i3 grants in the coming year. Klein has always been a force, but with all of the elements coming together, 2010 can very well be the year of Klein.
To Detroit’s de facto public schools chief Robert Bobb, a wide berth. By now, most of us have written off Detroit Public Schools, believing there is no hope for America’s most struggling urban district, whether it declares bankruptcy or not. But for those not paying attention, Bobb is really trying to do God’s work up in the Motor City. With a new mayor and a renewed sense of purpose, Bobb and his team and rebuilding the DPS infrastructure while taking on instructional reforms designed to improving student learning and close the dreaded achievement gap. Bobb has thrown a lot against the wall in the past year. Here’s hoping the city (and the nation) the time to see what sticks and build on what works. Improvement is possible in Detroit, with the right time and support.
To EdSec Arne Duncan, a continued bounce in his step. Without question, the past 12 months have been the year of Arne. He started off strong, and quickly built a cult of personality around the nation. (Some may even call it idol worship.) He’s won friends where previous secretaries could only find enemies. He’s talked, passionately, about issues that were taboo to previous federal education bosses. And he has emerged as one of the leading voices for the administration, even on issues like economic stimulus and other issues not previously in the EdSec’s purview. For the coming year, Duncan needs to keep pushing through, talking the tough talk, while walking the tough walk. Many expect to see real results when it comes to Race to the Top and i3, so he has to be ready to talk about where we are (with details) and where we are going. More importantly, though, he needs to keep that bounce and forward motion even after we discover that ESEA reauthorization is a gift most likely received in 2011. Just keep driving to the basket, Mr. Secretary.
To House Education Chairman George Miller (CA), incremental success. For a good portion of 2009, we assumed that Chairman Miller would successfully lead ESEA reauthorization in the first half of 2010. Now, we know such thoughts are only for the most optimistic of optimists. Eduflack realizes that healthcare reform has taken a lot out of your committee, but now is the time for you to move forward and make crystal clear to all involved that you are the educational top dog on Capitol Hill. Through the House Education and Labor Committee, let’s get your Graduation for All Act of 2010 passed into law as quickly as possible. And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that Congress (both your House and the Senate) make Senator Patty Murray’s LEARN Act (focusing on reading) the law of the land before school’s out for summer. Instead of looking for that four-bagger to win the game with one swing right now, let’s play a little small ball and move some very real education improvements now, improvements that can help many, many kids right now.
To Senator Mike Enzi (WY), ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, an itch to fight for the home team. In 2009, we spent a lot of time focusing on education reform issues that seemed custom tailored for urban areas. RttT has turned into a focus on turning around low performing urban districts. Despite the extra points for rural districts, most also see i3 as a reward for the Council of Great City Schools sect. And even the most recent NAEP TUDA puts our gaze on what’s happening in the cities. It falls to Senator Enzi (and to a lesser degree Rep. John Kline of Minnesota) to make sure that the voice of rural districts and the needs or rural students are heard in these school improvement discussions. There are too many students attending small districts and rural schools for us to neglect them. If we are going to improve achievement for all American students, we need to give rural schools the same attention we give urbans. And we can’t forget that closing the achievement gap is about closing the gaps between white and black and closing the gaps between rich and poor.
Fortunately, Eduflack is feeling generous this season. There are also gifts under the Eduflack tree for those who have done good work in 2009, those good little boys and girls like EdTrust’s Kati Haycock, EEP’s Ellen Winn, AFT’s Randi Weingarten, Rethink Learning Now’s Sam Chaltain, Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond, and the Alliance’s Bob Wise. And special stockings for the EdWeek bloggers who keep us fed on a daily basis. Keep it up!
We also have those policy gifts that all get to enjoy for the coming year, those issues that can truly lift all boats. We have STEM education, one of the few topics that can help all states and localities maximize the opportunities under Race to the Top and effectively link education reform to economic recovery. Chicago’s Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), which may likely be the posterchild for effective i3 spending and the model for how we can really get an effective teacher quality and incentive program. For scientifically based education, which is back with a vengeance as ED talks over and over again about evidence and innovation. Effective teacher professional development, with more and more people realizing that improved student achievement and test scores requires a better equipped, better supported teacher force. The rediscovery of data, both the continued exploration of good data versus bad and, more importantly, how we can effectively use data to improve our schools. And
, of course, common core standards, which is hoping to work through a rough past few months to deliver every U.S. school child, regardless of zip code, one common yardstick to determine if we are prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the future … or not.
, of course, common core standards, which is hoping to work through a rough past few months to deliver every U.S. school child, regardless of zip code, one common yardstick to determine if we are prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the future … or not.
And with that, I’ll put my edufinger to the nose attached to my broad face and little round belly, and wish a Happy Eduholidays to all!
Don’t Know Much About History …
As Eduflack has written before, I am the son of an historian. My father is actually an expert on the American presidency (the office itself, and the evolution of presidential leadership over the past two centuries in particular) and is the author of countless books and articles on the subject. Add to that four years at Mr. Jefferson’s University, and it would be hard for me not to be fascinated with history, particularly American history. That’s why I am always fascinated with the latest numbers on how little the American people know about our country. We struggle to name the VP. We can’t recall how many members are on the U.S. Supreme Court. We struggle to ID our own elected officials. And forget it if we’re asked to recall the facts, figures, and dates for the truly significant moments in our nation’s history. (And we only have 200-plus years of it, imagine if we were Chinese, Greek, or British.)
So I was, of course, taken by a survey shared with me today from the American Revolution Center. Eduflack was shocked — shocked, I tell you — to learn that 83 percent of adults failed a basic test on the American Revolution (and this is after 89 percent of those surveyed believed they could pass such an exam with no trouble). Among some of the highlights from ARC’s survey:
* 90 percent of Americans think it is important for U.S. citizens to know the history and principles of the American Revolution
* Half of those surveyed believe we have a direct democracy, despite having pledged to “the republic for which it stands” every morning as a school kid
* More than half of those surveyed attribute a famous quote from Karl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” to George Washington, Thomas Paine, or Barack Obama
* No surprise, but more people can ID Michael Jackson as the singer of “Beat It” than know the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution
* Half of those surveyed believe the Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, or War of 1812 occurred before the American Revolution
* One-third of Americans do not know the right to a jury trial is covered in the U.S. Constitution, while 40 percent think a right to vote is covered (when it is not)
For more of these interesting factoids, give a gander over at the report on ARC’s website — <a href="http://www.AmericanRevolutionCenter.org.
Every”>www.AmericanRevolutionCenter.org.
Every congressional session, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) and U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (WV) offer legislation to refocus on the instruction of American history (particularly around our nation’s founding). And Eduflack’s former boss, the esteemed Senator Byrd, still carries around a copy of the Constitution in his breast pocket, as a reminder of the very reasons why he has committed his life to our nation’s government. Legislation focusing on the importance of history of civics in a K-12 classroom may not be sexy, but can we really question whether it is seriously needed? While we may not be developing common core standards on U.S. history, shouldn’t every high school graduate know the basics about their country, its history, their rights, and other such noble pursuits?
Each year, thousands upon thousands of immigrants study up on U.S. history in order to pass our citizenship test. They learn more about the nation they hope will soon adopt them than those who are born and raised in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s a shame we don’t all have to pass a citizenship test to be an adult citizen. Just as we register with Selective Service, if you want a driver’s license or a student loan or the right to vote, why not require passage of a basic skills test. I’m just sayin’ ….
There’s Gambling in Our Ed Assessment Casablanca?
Yesterday’s release of the National Center for Education Statistics’ report Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto National Assessment of Education Progress Scales: 2005-2007 seemed like it was almost lifted from the movie Casablanca. We are shocked, shocked to learn that many states’ “standards” are hardly standards at all. For years, we’ve been reading about how student proficiency on state exams has been on the rise, while NAEP scores have remained virtually stagnant. Now, NCES paints a grim picture of the situation, demonstrating that most states are below or only meet the basic learning standards established by NAEP.
How can that be? The cynic in us says that states have been downgrading their state assessments to meet NCLB and AYP expectations. As they need to demonstrate year-on-year gains in math and reading, they’ve had to readjust their tests and their scoring scales to demonstrate such gains. It is why we hear that, according to state data, students in Alabama beat students in Massachusetts when it comes to reading proficiency. Of course, there is no telling what those numbers would look like if Bay Staters were taking Alabama’s state test instead of their own MCAS. The full NCES study can be found here.
Perhaps the strongest statement on the NCES report came from Congressman George Miller, the chairman of the House Education Committee. In response to the latest data comparisons, Miller said: “The quality of a child’s education should not be determined by their zip code. It is unacceptable that many states have chosen to lower the bar rather than strive for excellence. This means that many students aren’t even expected to rise to meet rigorous standards — they are allowed to linger in a system that doesn’t challenge them to do better and doesn’t help them to develop the complex skills and knowledge needed to succeed in the jobs of the future.”
These are strong words from the man who is in charge of managing reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act next year, the Congressman who will ultimately decide the future of AYP, the adoption of core standards, and the development of the assessments and data systems to track against those standards. And they are right on the money. Effective assessment has hardly been a strong suit in U.S. public education, particularly considering the rough patchwork that has long made up our testing systems. That’s why so many people are providing a big bear hug to the notion of common core standards. In the pursuit of a better mousetrap, we hope that core standards provide a common baseline for all assessment, regardless of the state administering the exam. If we accept the concept of core standards, it means that fourth grade reading proficiency means the same thing in Alabama as it does in Massachusetts, the same in Texas as it is in Oregon. And if the we are all working off the same standards, in theory, we should all have similar benchmarks by which to measure proficiency. Proficient is proficient.
But if we are moving from the promise of core standards to the realization of common expectations, we can’t overlook some of the core realities that underly the data. Yes, we should be appalled that proficiency percentages on state exams don’t track well with NAEP proficiencies. But we should be equally appalled (if not more so) by what NAEP itself tells us.
As Eduflack has discussed before, the eighth grade reading NAEP has long been considered the best measure of true student achievement. It provides a strong longitudinal approach to learning (as kids have been taught reading four eight years), and those reading skills are essential to success in other academic subjects. We look at Massachusetts, with the highest eighth grade NAEP scores, and see it as the gold standard in reading proficiency. But only 43 percent of Massachusetts eighth graders score proficient or better on the reading NAEP. Is that really the bar we want to set, where nearly six in 10 students are scoring below proficient? Is that the best we can do, or the best to which we aspire?
Core standards will only take us so far. At some point, we have to raise our game when it comes to both teaching and learning, ensuring that all students are gaining the skills and knowledge necessary to both hit the mark on the requisite assessments and achieve when it comes to both college and career opportunities. Standards only mean so much if we aren’t achieving the goals they set forth.
Millions and Millions of Minutes
It’s been used by education reformers and praised by the folks like Newt Gingrich. Business leaders point to it as a sign of the looming “crisis” our education system may be facing. It’s been screened at policy events and cited in opinion pieces. The “it,” of course, is the movie 2 Million Minutes: The 21st Century Solution. Produced by Robert A. Compton, the film is demonstrates how the United States is failing to keep up with the world (notable India and China) when it comes to education.
The movie is essentially the visual equivalent of Tom Friedman’s World Is Flat tome, watched through an entirely education lens. Those living in the education policy world (particularly those who pay attention to international assessments like PISA and TIMSS) will not be surprised by what they see and hear. China and India do a remarkably better job graduating students from high school (or high school equivalents) and the hard work is represented on international benchmarks and other assessments that measure student learning, particularly college and career readiness. These countries are adapting, and adapting quickly, meeting today’s educational challenges and thus preparing for tomorrow’s economic opportunities. Their students may be venturing across the Pacific to attend American colleges and universities, but the message is clear. They are building a better 21st century mousetrap when it comes to teaching necessary skills and knowledge.
And for those looking for some positive news, the film’s producers have also found some American success stories in some unlikely neighborhoods. So it does provide some hope, it what many may see as a hopeless situation. The trailer can be viewed here.
But 2 Million Minutes raises some interesting questions, particularly as we look at issues like common core standards and the assessments that will soon follow. When it comes to programmatic and instructional innovations, Eduflack would like to believe the United States is second to none. In my travels, I have seen communities, schools, and classes that were long written off succeed, despite the odds, out of sheet will. They turned it around when it came to effective reading instruction. They implemented groundbreaking STEM initiatives, ensuring that students and jobs were properly aligned. They implemented technologies in ways never thought possible. And they even enacted whole school reforms to boost expectations and drive achievement gains.
Assessment, though, remains a tough nut for us to crack. It was little more than a decade ago when it was every state for itself, with a mismatch of tests, standards, and expectations littering the national map. In 2002, we made the national commitment to measure reading and math achievement (and in theory, science) in grades three through eight, presumably to give us a common frame of reference. But assessments still vary, the once-a-year tests have their limitations, and we are still left with only the samples found in NAEP to stand as our only true common yardstick for student achievement.
If we are serious about running a school improvement and innovation race with the Chinas and the Indias of the world, we need to get serious about the assessments we will use to evaluate our successes. That means setting new expectations for learning that measure beyond a common bubble sheet. It means differentiated learning, investments in teachers, and holistic measures of effectiveness. And it means a focus on higher order skills and the multi-faceted assessments that truly measure critical thinking, performance, and meaningful progress for all students.
At state education agencies across the nation, they recognize that current state assessments just aren’t cutting it. But they are also pragmatists, recognizing that the new common core standards will demand a revision of any assessments used in the schools. So no one is ready to invest in assessment overhaul now, knowing that it may be coming again in a year or two once the common standards are adopted.
Hopefully, the end game is not to simply find the one state assessment that is better than many others (and I know quite a few states that believe theirs is the gold standard). Instead, we need to be looking at the assessment systems coming out of countries like Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and Singapore to guide our thinking., a new approach that measures not just the memorization of key facts, but the true comprehension and application of those facts in multiple learning venues.
Assessments and accountability aren’t going anywhere (particularly as we see what other nations are doing to leapfrog us on current international assessments). So our challenge is to build a better assessment system, aligning a strong system of national standards (coming through the common standards push), a strong and robust commitment to teaching and learning in the classroom, and the evaluation of that learning through the proper assessments. It is the only way we are going to be able to out-innovate the other guys, and it may be the only way that 2 Million Minutes becomes simply a warning of what could be, and not a self-fulfilling prophesy for where American public education is headed.
Speaking Collaboratively on RttT
For months now, Eduflack has been asked the same question from a growing group of education policy observers and a great many of those who are looking to get out of the stands and into the game. The question focuses on why a number of groups have been relatively silent on issues like the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to the Top, and other new funding streams coming out of the U.S. Department of Education.
Typically, the query focuses on two groups — Education Trust and Democrats for Education Reform. Is EdTrust just planning on transferring its status as NCLB cheerleader and chief over to RttT (somehow those folks seemed to miss the strong critique coming out of EdTrust during the stimulus debate)? Or is EdTrust speaking no evil because Russlynn Ali is now over at ED? Is DFER simply basking in the glow of having so many of its disciples named to ED posts? Or is DFER simply measuring itself for NCLB 2.0 cheerleader skirts?
All of those questions were put to rest last night with a quick look over to the public comment postings for the draft RttT language. In a strong, powerful statement, EdTrust and DFER, along with the Center for American Progress and the Education Equality Project, offered a detailed, thoughtful, and tough critique of RttT (and SFSF), making quite clear that we have far to go before we have “perfect” education reform and improvement policy. The full statement can be found here.
The reform collaborative reminds us that, with all of the talk about reform and improvement, we can’t lose sight of those schools most in need, those “serving large numbers of low-income students, English-language learners, and students of color.” And at a time when we are talking about using SFSF monies to backfill budgetary losses, the organizations are quick to point out that “the temptation to use State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top funds to get things back to normal must absolutely be resisted.” In other words, using funds to get us back to the status quo is the wrong path to take. Funding systems that result is only 40 percent student proficiency and a growing number of drop-out factories is simply not the way to improve and innovate.
The groups make several thought-provoking points:
* In our zeal to use data to determine and reward teacher quality immediately, we fail to acknowledge that we don’t have the information systems needed to deliver on the promise. Such data systems are years and years away, yet the law could be using bad data or incomplete information to identify and reward “effective” teachers. This is particularly true in schools and districts that serve historically disadvantaged students. We just don’t have the data or the systems to collect the data to truly measure teacher effectiveness.
* Struggling schools are not stuck because they don’t know what to do. We need to move off the notion of focusing on “the metrics only on the interventions made,” and instead be sure to require reporting of subsequent student achievement results. In simpler terms, like its predecessors before it, RttT runs the risk of evaluating inputs and processes, and not outcomes and results. And while the group acknowledges that ED is working toward fixing the problems of measuring high schools, the current proposal is still not adequate.
* While applauding the core standards movement, the collective notes that “better standards and better tests aren’t enough.” Teachers need better curriculum, students need better instruction, and we all need better expectations.
* In addition to ED’s current focus on standards and assessments, real reform needs greater emphasis on college and career readiness.
As one would expect from EdTrust, DFER, and the like, the education thought leaders offer three specific recommendations for improving RttT language:
* Assure a stronger focus on equity by (a) asking states not just about the amount of funding in education, but also about the fairness of its distribution to high- and low-poverty and high- and low-minority districts and schools, and (b) asking states to document their efforts (required under federal law) to address gaps in teacher quality between high- and low-poverty and high- and low-minority schools.
* Ensure that higher education does its part by including a sign-off from the state’s chief higher education officer (or CEO of the public university system) on the RttT application.
* Bolster the evidence of progress in raising achievement and closing gaps requested of states.
When one takes a look at the more than 106 pages of RttT online comments (representing well more than 1,000 pieces of “input” provided from all sorts of groups with specific interests and self-interests in mind), it is easy to see many groups and individuals looking to defend their “turf.” What makes this collaborative statement so interesting is that it isn’t about the four organizations who have lent their signatures to the final draft. It is about improving teaching and learning for those students who need improvement the most. While these reccs may not influence the final RttT guidance, they certainly should serve as a guide for how we can improve standards, assessment, data, and teachers as part of ESEA reauthorization and the future of education policy.
Kudos to DFER, EdTrust, CAP, and EEP for putting forward this draft and focusing on the bigger picture. Rather than getting hung up in the weeds, they are offering a clearer, alternative path for improvement and innovation. And these groups know of which they speak.
Where Is the “Loyal Opposition” in Ed Reform?
The drumbeat toward reform continues. Wisconsin’s Democratic governor is now calling for changes to the state law to tear down the firewall preventing the tie between teachers and student achievement. Indiana continues its push to “reform” teacher certification, with the state superintendent looking to more fully embrace the alternative certification pathways advocated by the U.S. Department of Education and its Race to the Top guidance. Even states like New York and California are looking for ways to show they are “reformers” and not the status quoers they have long been known as.
Earlier this week, Politico ran a much-anticipated profile of EdSec Arne Duncan and his push to reform and improve public education in the United States. The full article can be found here. As is typical with these sorts of pieces, Politico sought to get some opposing viewpoints on the Duncan agenda. The end result? Critique from the usual critic Jack Jennings, concerns about federal control of education from the top Republican on the House Education Committee, and frustrations from a parent advocacy group in Chicago that clearly didn’t get its way when Duncan was CEO of the Windy City’s public school system.
For the past six-plus months, Duncan and his team have moved forward with a bold, ambitious agenda for reforming education. Through State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, RttT, the anticipated Innovation Fund, and regular prioritization of the pending budget, they have made their plan for improvement clear and unquestioned. Student achievement is the name of the game. Charter schools, alternative certification, teacher incentives, and other such tactics are the drivers. STEM and core standards are foundations. And ED is going to great lengths to avoid the phrase, Adequate Yearly Progress is still very much the name of the game. Those states and districts that want to feed at the federal innovation and improvement trough will need to demonstrate that they are making continued, sustained gains in student achievement. Those who can narrow the achievement gap along the way will get extra gold stars (and possibly extra zeros at the end of their checks).
In response to this agenda, most of the education community is falling over itself to demonstrate that it is already marching in lockstep with ED (or is willing to do whatever it takes to pick up the beat as quickly as possible). There is little, if any, chatter coming from states about potential changes to RttT. Instead, states are trying to figure out how they will change to meet RttT. Instead of questioning one of many of the 19 criteria established in RttT, we are asking if each will hold equal weight. We want to know if getting union sign off is as important as removing the charter school cap or agreeing to sign on to core standards before they are written and analyzed.
It all begs one very important question. Where is the loyal opposition to these proposed education reforms? Why are we not hearing voices speaking out against the proposed policies, the proposed measurements, and the proposed outcomes that will result from this agenda? Have we truly found a reform agenda that we all agree to, or are concerned voices too worried about retribution or being tagged as roadblocks if they speak out against current plans?
All told, the United States spends more than $500 billion a year on K-12 education. So RttT represents less than 1 percent of what we spend in a given year. When you factor in the realization that less than half of states are likely to be dubbed with the RttT honor, the impact is even smaller. So it can’t just be worry that criticism today means rejection tomorrow, can it? Do we believe that if a state raises concerns about some of the criteria now that the “expert panel” of reviewers will hold that against them when their RrrT applications (those expected to take states upwards of 700 man hours to complete) will be dinged by such rhetoric?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is a strong supporter of most of reforms moved forward by Duncan and crew. I believe we need to expand school choice, particularly for those students in chronically low-performing schools. We should be incentivizing effective teachers, particularly those who are teaching in at-risk communities. All states should not only adopt core standards, but there should be strong national standards with equally strong assessments to go with them. We need to provide both the financial carrot and stick to drive reforms, and we need to focus on key states and districts as incubators for real change and improvement, using them to model what is possible for the rest.
But I also believe that good ideas become great policy when they are debated, dissected, and forced to withstand the scrutiny of critics and defenders of the status quo. Call it being a contrarian or an agitator, but I just can’t believe we get it “right” the first time around. We let our friends offer improvement, and we listen to our enemies to shore up the plans and make sure we are taking those steps which we believe in, can stand behind, and can demonstrate real return on. No, we don’t look to build consensus policy. Consensus is usually the kiss of death, the best friend of the status quo. But you have to show you can withstand the best shots of the competition, demonstrating the strength of your foundations.
When NCLB was signed into law six and a half years ago, it was an equally bold reform agenda with arguably greater discretionary spending coming from the federal government. From day one and a half, we had critics and attack dogs going after the policy, the personalities, and the goals. States threatened to refuse federal money to keep local control. Teachers unions and advocates sued in court. Membership organizations spoke out against the law’s narrow focus and perceived unfunded mandates?
Where is similar outrage and organization today? Are critics building their case against these policies, keeping their powder dry until the RttT guidelines are final and the “law of the land?” Are groups waiting for a third-party voice to step up and draw the heavy fire from DFER, EEP, TFA, and other such organizations viewed as aligned with the Duncan agenda? Or are we simply accepting these as a fait accompli?
I can’t imagine that Jennings is the only voice in the education community that believes there is too much emphasis on charter schools. I can’t believe that U.S. Rep. John Kline (MN) is the only person concerned we are spending without a comprehensive strategic plan and specific measurements and benchmarks. So why is that loyal opposition so quiet?
Nothing from traditional voices who have long questioned the role of charter schools in the traditional public school system. Relatively nothing from teachers and their representatives on teacher incentives and effectiveness being measured by student performance on state assessments. Virtually nothing on the focus on alternative certification, all but eliminating discussion of improving teacher colleges and traditional pathways. Quiet on issues like the continual measure of student achievement based on reading and math scores only. Some minor sparring on the abandonment of the voucher system in DC. Not a word about teachers unions and their expected approvals of state reform agendas. Relative silence on the adoption of core standards as a requirement.
Where are our backbenchers and rabble rousers? Where are our whol
e child advocates and proponents for local control? Where are our defenders of the status quo and of the whole child? Where are our critics of “high-stakes” tests and federal mandates? Where are our doubting Thomases and cynical Samanthas?
e child advocates and proponents for local control? Where are our defenders of the status quo and of the whole child? Where are our critics of “high-stakes” tests and federal mandates? Where are our doubting Thomases and cynical Samanthas?
A great deal can happen between the finalization of RttT next month and its implementation at the state and local level. Now is the time for voices to get on the record, both those echoing the call from ED and those questioning the priorities and the expected outcomes. Ultimately, those who don’t speak now will have little ground to stand on if they want to play “I told you so” a year or two from now. Vigorous and educated debate only improves the final outcome. Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 