national standards

Lessons Learned from Ed in 08

Eduflack Chancellor Klein, Gates Foundation, national standards, NGA

Paraphrasing from Major League’s legendary Harry Doyle, in case you haven’t noticed, and judging by the attention we haven’t, Strong American Schools has managed to win a few ball games, at least according to SAS.

Two years ago, the Gates and Broad Foundations announced a $60 million initiative designed to make education a major focus of the 2008 presidential campaigns.  Launched under the dual banner of the parent Strong American Schools organization and its Ed in 08 campaign, SAS issued a simple goal — “Use the presidential race to highlight the crisis in American public schools.”
It did so by issuing three key “pillars:” 1) common education standards; 2) an effective teacher in every classroom; and 3) extended learning time for students.
Yesterday, SAS offered up its summary report on the success of its two-year effort tilting at educational windmills.  After both the Democratic and Republic primaries showed little interest in education issues, and then as the bottom fell out of the economy during the general election, SAS never quite got the traction and influence it sought.  Then again, neither did similar efforts to highlight the crisis in healthcare, the environment, and a host of other issues.
None of us are foolish enough to believe that the 2008 presidential campaign was decided (or even debated) on education issues.  Both sides offered up comprehensive education plans.  Eduflack summarized the two here last fall.  Good ideas across the P-16 education continuum.  Now President Obama is being held accountable for promises on preK, teacher quality, incentive pay, and affordable college.  He’s also raised the ante by throwing a spotlight on STEM education, charter schools, and increasing the number of college graduates by 2020.
So what impact did Ed in 08 have on the current state of educational affairs?  How has ARRA and the presidential budget been shaped by the tens of millions of dollars spent by Ed in 08?  Honestly, we still don’t know.  When we look at the SAS successes, they don’t crosswalk cleanly with current policy or promises such as common standards.
According to Strong American Schools, its accomplishments were many, including:
* Obama supported (and continues to support) all three of the campaign’s policy pillars.  John McCain supported two.
* Ed in 08 had “significant input” on the education efforts of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
* Changed the debate on performance pay
* Made education a bipartisan issue
* Produced more than 150 pages of research and policy materials
* Created an 86-page Policy Toolkit
* Commemorated the 25th anniversary of A Nation at Risk with a research update
* Published an examination of the cost of college remediation
* Created a network of 200 organizers and advisors across the country
* Received thousands of media hits
* Used the Internet and other new media tools to engage the public
These “wins” are a mixed bag.  Some are clearly process issues.  Some are stretches (did Ed in 08 change the debate on performance pay, or was that the result of a combination of programs such as Denver’s ProComp and Obama taking a tough stand on incentive pay early in the process?).  Some are just puzzling, such as education being a bipartisan issue (both sides have made education an issue for decades, they just do so from different perspectives).  
What is most interesting in the SAS summary report is the explanation of the obstacles, those challenges that prevented Ed in 08 from achieving its bold objectives.  These challenges include:
* Structure, as a not-for-profit, some activities were restricted, including claims that staff members could not take a position on any legislation, could not directly question candidates, nor could compare candidates’ platforms to SAS recommendations
* The media, and its failure to cover a sustained debate on education and its inability to “push policymakers to consider the failures of our current education system”
* The teachers unions, protecting “the interests of their members” even if it conflicted with reforms
As for structure, wasn’t it up to Broad and Gates to establish the most effective structure possible to achieve the goal?  If SAS was structurally prohibited from advocating for specific policies and holding candidates accountable, shouldn’t it have been built to allow for true advocacy?  Why build a ship that we can’t sail?
As for the media, did we really see the role of media, particularly that of the education media, to “push policymakers?”  If Ed in 08 can’t advocate an agenda, did we really expect reporters to do so?
And as for the unions, did we expect them to do anything other than protect their constituency, the group they are created to protect?
SAS should be given credit for better organizing new media and social networking outlets around education issues.  Their blogger summit in the spring of 2008 is but one example of this.  The drumbeat picked up by Richard Whitmire and others to keep the spotlight on education issues is another.  So there are successes.
More importantly, though, SAS has helped provide a blueprint that future advocacy efforts can learn from.  As part of its final report, SAS is handing the baton off to the Education Equality Project, looking to Joel Klein, Al Sharpton, and company to carry the torch on the issues of standards, teacher quality, and extended learning.  It could have also claimed credit for the current common standards movement, as Roy Romer’s clarion call for national standards and how to get there looks dangerously similar to what NGA, CCSSO, and other are engaging in right now.
So as groups like EEP, Broader and Bolder, Opportunity to Learn, Extended Day, and others look to build advocacy efforts around national education policy, reauthorization, and related issues, they should look closely at SAS.  What can they build on and improve?  What can they learn from and avoid?  What can they throw cold water on?  What can they aspire to?  What’s possible?  What’s a pipe dream?  
Personally, I think SAS was a good idea that was never fully realized.  It didn’t live up to the hype nor to the potential.  But that doesn’t it mean it couldn’t.  The model can work, with the right tweaks and the proper attention. Education advocacy is a must these days.  For all those looking to get in the game, let’s take a close look at Strong American Schools, learning from its forward steps and its missteps.  Rather than starting new each and every day, we need to build on those that come before us.  That’s the only way that real, lasting educational improvement can come.

From the Ed Trenches to the Real Ones

Eduflack higher ed, national standards, NCLB

It doesn’t happen every day, but we have some breaking education news on Capitol Hill today.  Rep. Buck McKeon of California has been named the new ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.  For those who haven’t worked on the Hill or drunk the Kool-Aid, this is a huge deal, particularly as we are dealing with troop expansions in Afghanistan, withdrawals in Iraq, and future commitments we can never foresee.  McKeon will now be working with Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri on issues of military personnel, armed services support, terrorism, and a host of other issues related to the protection of our nation and security around the globe.

So how does this affect our little ole education world?  Unfortunately, the move means that McKeon must now give up his position as the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  After all of his work on higher education issues, cleaning up in the aftermath No Child Left Behind, and the advocacy of greater accountability and quality in our public schools, McKeon will pass the top Republican education chair to a new voice, likely Tom Petri of Wisconsin or Mike Castle of Delaware.  The full story can be found here, courtesy of The Hill.  
Even though Eduflack only worked for the Dems on Capitol Hill, I’ve had a soft spot for McKeon since launching this blog a few years ago.  His staff was one of the first congressional staffs to ensure that I was getting information and updates regarding what was happening on the committee, and this was after he lost his gavel following the 2006 elections.  So I appreciated that he (or his staff) understood the need for continued communications to a wide range of stakeholders.
I also appreciated the stances he took, even on “unpopular” issues.  To this day, I still think the Miller/McKeon version of NCLB reauthorization may end up the law of the land.  Last year, I even advocated for McKeon as a potential EdSec candidate.  Congressman McKeon worked hard on education issues, doing what he believes was best for improving our schools and boosting student achievement across the learning continuum.  That commitment will likely transfer into a new commitment to our men and women in uniform.  That’s a win for the Armed Services Committee and for the nation.
So what does this mean for the House Education Committee?  Chairman Miller is still ruling the roost, and nothing is going to change that (and his staff has gotten even better and more sophisticated at sharing information and keeping the blogosphere apprised of Committee doings).  Clearly it is a signal that Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization is not on the immediate horizon.  But it also offers a little glimmer of what is possible.  If Congressman Castle can rise to the top slot, he and Chairman Miller could do a lot of good for our public schools, working on improvement efforts in a bipartisan fashion.  It may even be enough to make national standards and such a reality.  Now wouldn’t that be something.

Improvement, Incentives, and EdSector

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, national standards, stimulus
Multi-day, online, interactive education events seem to be all the rage lately.  This week, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills kicked off a two-week cybersummit on 21st century skills.  Not to be outdone, the folks over at Education Sector are hosting a three-day online discussion on No Child Left Behind and incentives.
Never one to shy away from the issues, Education Sector is billing the event through the following frame:
“NCLB requires states to establish annual performance targets and hold schools accountable for improving student performance. Currently, great attention rests on motivating school improvement through negative incentives. But NCLB also requires that states establish rewards for schools demonstrating excellence, a part of the law that has been largely ignored. The Department of Education’s $5 billion in “Race to the Top” and innovation funds has reignited a discussion of the role of positive incentives in motivating and supporting school reform efforts. With this boost in funding, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has a chance to reward what he refers to as “islands of excellence” in school achievement and build on those proven success stories.” 
The EdSector forum is particularly interesting in light of this week’s announcement on the intent to establish common, or national, education standards (and the lack of an announcement of the measurement and accountability surrounding the latest push).  EdSector’s Andy Rotherham will host Sir Michael Barber of McKinsey & Company (the folks who recently brought us the economic impact of the achievement gap study), Sandy Kress (the godfather of modern accountability measures), and Dominic Brewer, professor at the University of Southern California.
Interested parties can participate in the discussion here.  EdSector is providing plenty of opportunity for those who want to be a part of the solution or those who want to just learn more about the issue to offer their comments, questions, and opinions, to this blue ribbon panel.  It’s worth checking out.

What Does Common Standards Mean to a State?

Eduflack AYP, national standards, NGA

For those wondering exactly what today’s announcement that 46 states and the District of Columbia signed on to the National Governors Association’s and the Council of Chief State School Officers’ effort to develop comprehensive common education standards (or national standards for those unafraid to exert the federal role in public education improvement), take a minute to check under the hood of this national standards ride we are about to buy, California style.

Penned by Cali Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Board of Ed Prez Ted Mitchell, and State Supe Jack O’Connell, the Golden State has put its name on the dotted line to “develop common core standards” and “participate in the international benchmarking efforts.”  No surprise, California seems to believe its current standards are likely the bar by which national standards should be measured, making clear the state “cannot commit to adopting [common standards] until we have determined that they meet or exceed our own.” 
The California brain trust has a few other ideas for those leading the common standards effort back in our nation’s capital.  Check out the full letter here: California Common Standards Letter
If this is the sort of non-commitment commitment we’re starting off with, we still have a few steps to go before we are asking our states and districts to actually adopt a common set of national K-12 education standards, complete with the assessments and accountability that need to accompany them.  Miles and miles to go, my friends, but we are taking steps forward.  

What’s in the Cards for 21CS?

Eduflack 21CS, national standards, STEM

In recent months, we’ve had a great deal of debate on the future of 21st century skills and their role in a public education system that focuses on accountability and quantifying student achievement on the core academic subjects.  This week’s announcement of planned national academic standards only further muddy the future of 21CS.

As Eduflack has written time and again, 21CS skills are an important component to 21st century learning, particularly if we are to give STEM education the emphasis and the due that it so richly deserves.  But as I’ve always looked at it, it is not about teaching 21CS as course content, it is about using 21CS as a delivery system for the ELA, math, science, and social studies that our students have needed, do need, and will need in order to maximize their K-12 experiences and be on a pathway toward real opportunity.  At the end of the day, 21CS is about how we teach, not what we teach.  For me, it is about ensuring that our current learning environment does not devolve into one where we are unplugging and deskilling our students.
But don’t take my word for it.  Check out what the folks over at the Partnership for 21st Century Skills are up to here.  For the next two weeks, are hosting a cybersummit on 21CS.  As of the kickoff this morning, they have more than 1,700 folks registered to at least take a peek at the current discussion and content around 21CS.  It may be worth checking out, particularly for those who may have their doubts.

The Slow March Toward National Standards

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, NAEP, national standards, NGA

For months now, the education chattering class has been talking about the behind-the-scenes efforts by the US Department of Education to craft national education standards.  We’ve heard that Achieve was slated to deliver draft math and reading standards to Maryland Avenue by early summer, with plans for a thorough and robust debate leading up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In this morning’s Washington Post, Maria Glod reports that 46 states and the District of Columbia have signed onto the K-12 national education standards movement, offering “an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American Schools.”  The full story can be found here.   
The thinking here is a simple one.  In this era of AYP, it only makes sense that we have a single yardstick by which to measure student achievement, starting with math and reading.  For years now, we’ve heard how students are knocking it out of the park when it comes to state assessments (just look at elementary reading in Mississippi), but then we fail to see the progress when it comes to annual NAEP scores.  The common thinking is that some states have dropped their bars so low in order to demonstrate student achievement and student growth that some state tests have become complete irrelevant in determining actual student achievement and success.
So now National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have brought together most of the states to help develop these common standards for academic performance.  Most states have already anted in.  The only holdouts, according to WaPo, are Texas, Alaska, Missouri, and South Carolina.  Their reason?  These Republican-controlled states are touting the need for local control of the schools, and national standards run contrary to local decisionmakers determining what is best for their local residents.
The current plan is to roll out “readiness standards” in July, benchmarks for high school graduates in reading and math.  Then folks would build out the grade-by-grade needs to reach those readiness standards.  It is important to note that the 46+ states have simply agreed to the process.  They would then need to agree to, adopt, fund, and implement the standards once they are developed.  So we are still a good ways away from national standards even being close to national policy.  Why?
First, every expert, quasi-expert, and member of the chattering class is going to want to get in on this discussion.  Everyone has ideas as to what should be in national standards.  Every political and ideological group will want to get in on the process, running the risk of taking a bold move and watering it down so much to appease all of the audiences that believe they should have a seat at the table.
Second, many will raise concerns that we are only addressing math and reading.  LIke AYP, this push is focusing on the corest of the core subjects.  But can we really have a true national standards system without addressing science, social studies, and foreign language?  In a month when NAEP is actually releasing national art education data (scheduled for June 15), can we settle for just reading and math?  Many an expert or an expert in training will call for a comprehensive system that addresses all academic subjects, worried that an initial focus on math and reading means we only value the two subjects and will only hold states and schools accountable on these two measures (much like we have with AYP).
Third, we need to give standards real teeth.  In many ways, national standards serve as a wish list for public education in the United States.  To put real power behind it, we need to develop and implement actual tests aligned with those standards.  Such tests seem to be the third rail of public education.  We fret about the costs, we worry about the quantitative and qualitative, and we struggle with the notion we are implementing another “high-stakes” test on our kids.  The end result?  We could end up with a lovely policy document outlining our national education expectations, but lacking a tangible way to transform that policy into instructional reality with real measurement and accountability.  National standards only work if we have one strong test that is implemented and enforced EQUALLY by all of the states.
Fourth, states actually need to agree to the final documents … and put them into practice.  In 2005, all 50 states agreed to common high school graduation standards, shepherded through the process by NGA.  At the time, every governor in the country agreed to a measure that called for grad rates to be calculated as the number of ninth graders who secure a diploma four years later.  We’re now four years later, and the majority of states have failed to actually implement the formula.  (In part because those who have have experienced a drop in their statewide grad rates.)  Former EdSec Margaret Spellings tried to institute the new grad rate through federal regulation, but the current talk about town is that EdSec Duncan will be turning back Spellings’ Christmas Eve Eve decision, leaving grad rate determination to the states.  So even if every governor in the country agrees to the idea of standards in principle, they all need to sign off on the final decisions and actually move them into practice, replacing the patchwork of states standards of various strengths and scopes with one common national standard.
Currently, the Nation’s Report Card — or NAEP — is the closest thing we have to national standards.  But as we take a look at the NAEP results, we see many a disturbing data set that must be addressed in developing national standards.  It stands to reason that NAEP measures for reading and math proficiency would be pretty close to national standards in the same subjects.  So what does it mean when slightly more than half of all U.S. fourth graders can score proficient or better on the NAEP reading exam?  What does it mean when only about a third of eighth graders are score proficient or better, and the best state in the union is clocking in at 43 percent proficiency on eighth grade reading?  And what do we do about the persistent achievement gap, particularly the 20-plus year problem we see in 11th grade math and reading?  How do we make sure that all students — even those from historically disadvantaged groups — are performing against the national standards and achieving?  When we set national standards, the goal needs to be all students hitting the mark.  We cannot and must not settle for a system where the majority of kids fail to achieve proficiency, and we still see that as a sign of a successful public school system.
Yes, Eduflack is a pessimist by nature.  But I also believe that today’s NGA/CCSSO announcement is a positive step forward.  In today’s transient society, with students changing schools and states as families change and jobs shift, we need some guarantees that a fifth grade education is the same, regardless of area code.  We need some promise that a high school diploma means the same thing, regardless of Zip code.  This is a non-negotiable if we are to prepare all students for the opportunities before them, particularly if we are looking for them to hold their own on international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.
Obviously, the devil is in the details.  We need to get all states to overcome the notion of local control and embrace the guidance and framework of national standards.  We need to construct effective tests that move those standards into practice.  We need to move beyond just math and reading and ensure that all academic (and even those some would deem non-academic) are measured as well.  We need to give equal billing t
o elementary, middle, and secondary learning standards.  And we need to ensure that if all students are to be held to the same national standard, they all need to have equal access to the same educational resources.  That means national standards, if you will, when it comes to early childhood education, high-quality teachers, and other such measures.
But we are moving forward.  We just have to keep that momentum going, transforming challenges into opportunities and not allowing roadblocks to divert our attention (and subvert our public will) in the process.  If we believe that every student in the United States requires a high-quality, effective education, we need to measure every student with the same yardstick.  Quality and effectiveness should be universal, not subjective based on state borders.  National standards starts making that goal a reality.

Answerin’ to Mr. Miller

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, stimulus

Sometimes, what you don’t say can be as important as what you do say.  Case in point, EdSec Arne Duncan’s testimony yesterday before the House Education and Labor Committee.  Emphasizing current efforts to effectively use American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars, Duncan focused on a number of issues in the free-form part of the discussion, including topics such as restraint and student loans.

The full rundown can be found over at the Committee’s website, complete with video links to testimony and key questions.  Some of the highlights from Duncan’s testimony:
“Many of you have heard me say that I believe education is the civil rights issue of our time. I truly believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. I will work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make sure that we properly review compliance in all programs and policymaking.”
“If we are going to be successful in rebuilding our economy, our early childhood programs need to prepare our youngest children for kindergarten so they’re ready to start reading and learning, our K-12 schools need to make sure our students have all of the academic knowledge and skills that they need to enter college or the workforce, and our higher education system needs to offer whatever advanced learning students need to be successful in a career, whether they will become a plumber, a teacher, or a business executive. As federal policymakers, we need to improve preparation for college and expand college access and completion by increasing financial aid so that students of all income levels can pay for college without taking on a mountain of debt.”
“States must build data systems that can track student performance from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and their parents know when they are making progress and when they need extra attention. This information must also be put in the hands of educators so they can use it to improve instruction. Right now, according to the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah are the only states that are reporting to have comprehensive data systems meeting the basic elements of a good system.”

“I don’t want to invest in the status quo. I want states and districts to take bold actions that will lead directly to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders to find change agents who can fix these schools. I want them to provide incentives for their best teachers to take on the challenge of

teaching in these schools. And where appropriate, I want them to create partnerships with charter school operators with a track record of success. I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult step of shutting down a failing school and replacing it with one they know will work.”

“Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused on helping states do the right thing. And that’s appropriate because States are responsible for establishing systems of education through the 12th grade. It’s our role to make it a national priority to reform schools and help states and districts do that.”

Eduflack bookended the two quotes in particular because I find them the most intriguing of what was said.  The first is Duncan’s continued commitment to the notion that a high-quality public education is an American civil right.  Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed, determining that education is a topic best left to the states and the localities (at least according to the U.S. Constitution).  We’ve seen school equity fights in states like California and New York recently, but with limited results.  SCOTUS hasn’t really heard the issue since the Rodriguez decision in 1973.  Perhaps the EdSec is daring a forward-looking advocacy or policy organization to bring the issue before the Supreme Court yet again.  The time may be ripe.
Duncan also focused on the issue of “helping states do the right thing.”  Eduflack couldn’t agree more, but can’t help but notice Duncan’s team seems to be a little light in the state understanding department, as highlighted in our post yesterday. 
What was noticeably absent from Duncan’s testimony, though, was any mention of No Child Left Behind reauthorization.  Certainly, it is an issue that both he and Chairman Miller are all too aware of.  Maybe they’ve already had deep and intimate conversations on the topic, and thus didn’t need to talk for the sake of the public record.  Maybe Duncan believes his four pillars of the Duncan Education Department suffices as the blueprint for where we are headed.  Maybe we believe that ARRA and the President’s budget are all that we need to know when it comes to the plan for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization this fall or next spring.
Also missing from the general love-fest over at Chairman Miller’s committee was discussion of two specific policy matters.  There was no talk of the Reading First successor bill circulating around town (which Eduflack has dubbed, Yes I Can Read), though plans to expand the Striving Readers program ten-fold did warrant a mention.  And there was no talk at all about the national education standards drafts that Achieve is rumored to be delivering to the EdSec in the coming weeks for review, discussion, and debate.
All in all, Duncan’s performance was just a regularly scheduled check-up with the Committee, a chance to show that ARRA plans are moving forward, key concerns are being addressed, and no additional attention or worry needs to be paid to the U.S. Department of Education.  The trains are running fine.  There is nothing to see here.
Me, I’m waiting for the questions that have yet to be asked.  What’s in store for our federal accountability measures?  What improvements will be made to NCLB?  What’s next for federal reading investment?  Are we really heading to national standards?  What are our expectations from these new data systems?  Are we really going to turn back the regs on four-year high school graduation rates?  And how do we ensure that every low-performing and hard-to-staff school has effective teachers leading the classroom when the feds are only contributing eight cents of every educational dollar spent?  Lots of questions.  Hopefully, the answers aren’t too far in the offing.
On a related note, I have to give kudos to Chairman Miller’s staff and the way that they make information accessible to the average parent and the average blogger.  Almost immediately, the Committee has transcripts of the prepared testimony, along with video segments of the hearing, up on the Web.  For us former Hill rats, it may not be a big deal to watch a congressional hearing, but the Committee’s use of technology really throws the sunshine on the process and improves understanding and access.  Congressman McKeon and his staff were always terrific about getting information out to interested parties, and it is good to see Chairman Miller has taken it several steps further.

The Good, Bad, and NAEP

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, Math, NAEP, national standards, Reading First, SBRR

Whether we like it or not, the name of the game in public education in the United States is student achievement.  It is the one mean by which we measure or successes, determine our progress, and decide whether we are doing an effective job in our public schools or not.  Usually, that manifests itself in performance on state assessments or how schools stack up when it comes to AYP.  But on those few special days each year, we also have National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, scores.  The Nation’s Report Card provides us the best national snapshot on student academic achievement we can find … until we finally get our act together and adopt and enforce national academic standards.

The NAEP Long-Term Trend Results are out, and this year’s numbers are both good and bad.  The Associated Press has a good piece on the topic here.
As Eduflack is the poster child for pessimism, let’s start out with that which should cause educational improvers and agitators the most heartburn and the largest reason for concern.  And special thanks to the folks over at Education Trust for breaking down the numbers and adding to those things that keep Eduflack up at night.  Chief among out NAEP concerns,  are two simple words — achievement gap.  The data breakdown from our EdTrust friends:
* In reading, African-American nine-year-olds scored 44 points lower than their white peers.  At 13, the gap was 39 points.  At 17, the gap was 53 points.
* In math, Hispanic nine-year-olds scored 23 points lower than their white peers.  At 12, the gap was 35 points.  At 17, the gap was 33 points.
* The reading gap between African-American and white 13 year-olds was 21 points in 1990.  It is 21 points in 2008.
* The reading gap between Hispanic and white 13-year-olds was 24 points in 1990.  Today, it is 26 points.
* The math gap between African-American and white 13-year-olds was 27 points in 1990.  It is 28 points today.
* The math gap between Hispanic and white 13-year-olds was 22 points in 1990.  Today, it is 23 points.
It is not all doom and gloom, however.  According to the latest NAEP numbers, we are making real progress in reading instruction.  Since 2004, student reading achievement has increased in all three age brackets.  This is particularly true in the elementary grades, where performance among all groups of students (African-American, Hispanic, and low-income included) increased significantly.  
Why the difference in elementary school reading, the sort of difference that could put a smile on even the most curmudgeonly of education reformers?  We might not want to say it out loud, but some may actually want to consider that Reading First and our emphasis on scientifically based reading instruction has actually worked.  For those nine-year-olds tested under NAEP, SBRR is the only form of reading instruction they have ever known.  Their instruction and their teachers’ professional development has been evidence based and rooted in our strongest scientific principles.  We have applied what works in their classrooms, and used scientific measures to determine instruction, PD, and resource acquisition.  We’ve let the research chart the path, and now we’re arriving at the destination.  Reading scores are up, and they are up in a way far more significant than we have seen in past years.  The only significant change to the process or variable in the formula between 2004 and now is the successful implementation of SBRR.
The only logical conclusion from this is that SBRR, and Reading First, actually work.  We focused our dollars and our efforts on teaching children in the elementary grades to read with scientifically based reading instruction.  We’ve hemmed and hawed and questioned and doubted for years now about the effects.  But if one looks at the Long-Term NAEP trends, the only logical conclusion one can make, at least looking at the recent gains on elementary reading scores, is that SBRR works.  And the drop-offs in reading achievement gains in the later grades only speak to a greater need to expand the reach of SBRR and fund and implement scientifically based reading programs in our middle and secondary grades as well.
But these positive outcomes for elementary school reading (and don’t let anyone fool you, they are indeed positive outcomes) still can’t mask the far greater concerns raised by these NAEP scores.  The achievement gap is still staggering, and we seem to have made no effort in closing such gaps over the last two decades.  If we look at our middle schoolers, white students are scoring nearly 25 percent higher on math and reading tests than their African-American and Hispanic friends.  For African-American and Hispanic students, the achievement gap seems to grow over the years, and is at its worst in high school.
What is particularly frightening about the achievement gap among 17-year-olds is what it doesn’t include.  For instance, among 17-year-old African American students, the reading achievement gap is 53 points.  That’s among those students who are still in high school at age 17.  What about those who have dropped out between ninth and 11th grades?  Are we to honestly believe that those students who choose dropping out as an option do so as reading and math proficient learners?  In our urban centers, where drop-out rates reach near 50 percent, what does it tell us that the learning gap is 50 points JUST FOR THOSE REMAINING IN SCHOOL?  We can’t possibly believe that the achievement gap is getting better.  This should be a huge warning sign that, despite the best of intentions, our achievement gap is only getting worse.
The headlines touting American students are making gains in reading math are reason to smile, particularly when we look at those elementary school reading performance numbers.  But the stark, disturbing data regarding the achievement gap makes crystal clear that the achievement gap is not a temporary problem nor is it an issue that simply mandates a band-aid solution or will heal itself.  We’ve been talking about the gap for more than a quarter century, but we’ve made little progress in identifying a real solution.
When it comes to public education in the United States, the achievement gap is public enemy number one.  It denies a real chance to far too many students.  It strengthens a culture of educational have and have nots.  It puts huge cracks and gaps in our pipelines to both postsecondary education and economic success.  And it demonstrates that true equality in education and opportunity remains little more than an urban legend for far, far too many children across the United States.
We need to do better, and we must do better.  We are still competing in a great race to mediocracy, not to the top.  Hopefully, we can use these numbers to make specific improvements to how we teach and how we learn.  Hopefully, we can use these numbers to see that SBRR works, and we need to extend it into the middle and secondary grades to improve reading achievement scores, particularly with African-American and Hispanic students.  And hopefully we will realize the status quo simply cannot stand, and we must take real, strong, and measurable actions to improve the quality and impact of instruction, particularly with historically disadvantaged student populations.
Yes, we are making progress.  But we still have a long way to go before we can truly celebrate student achievement on the NAEP.  Accepting the achievement gap as a way of life is accepting that a quarter of our young people don’t have access to the pathways of success.  That’s a future that none of us should be willing to
accept.  These numbers should be a clarion call to our states and districts about the need to ensure every dime of available education dollars is going to reach those students most in need.  We need to stop talking about delivering the minimum, as required under the law, and focus on providing the best, particularly for the minority and low-income students who are the victims of the achievement gap.  We need to break the cycle, and remove skin color and wallet size as factors in learning and student success.   

Arts Education and Quantification

Eduflack arts, AYP, NAEP, national standards, Students

For nearly a decade now, we have talked about quantifying the impact of education.  How do we effectively measure student progress?  How do we measure effective teaching?  How do we make sure our policymakers, school districts, administrators, and educators are doing their jobs when it comes to impactful and results-based instruction?

For many, AYP and achievement on the state assessments usually suffices.  Under federal law, we are now measuring core competency in reading, math, and science, using those scores as a benchmark for evaluating student achievement.  Like it or not, decisionmaking and funding is usually based on that triad of academic subjects, with reading and math winning the day (as science is the late comer to this little education data dance.)
But what about other subjects?  More importantly, what about the arts?  How many people are truly aware that this year’s NAEP results are going to include data on our nation’s proficiency in the arts?  How many know that the arts are included in the federal law as a core part of the K-12 curriculum?  How many know that there are some states looking at how to measure effective art instruction and determine student knowledge and ability in the field?  And more importantly, how many realize that effective arts education can be used as an early predictor of student reading ability and a general predictor of a student’s postsecondary pursuits and opportunities?
A few years ago, while working with new Leaders for New Schools on its EPIC teacher incentive program, I learned of a music teacher in the District of Columbia who was doing phenomenal work with her kindergarten music students.  To an outside observer, you would think you were watching a math class.  But she was using the power of music to teacher her students.  She was integrating the arts into the other subjects her kids were taking.  And she was doing so with incredible results.
In recent years, the arts have faced some trying times.  They are usually the first on the budgetary chopping block, seen as a nice value-add but not part of the core curriculum it actually is.  This tends to be driven by a great public misperception about the arts’ role in K-12 and our general inability to quantify the impact of its teaching.  Thing about it.  For what other academic subject do we sacrifice certified, effective teachers, substituting in well-meaning but untrained professionals-in-residence?  And in what other subjects do we fail to see the negative impact such a move can have?  We don’t have to talk about the need for a certified reading, math, science, social studies, foreign language, or even physical education or drivers ed teacher in every school, but we have to have that fight over a certified arts teacher far too often.
We are starting to see some of the data pointing to the value and impact of arts education.  As chair of the Education Commission of the States, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee placed a spotlight on the need for arts education.  We’re seeing quantifiable data out of the University of California, Los Angeles and the College Board on the outcomes.  The research is coming, and it is telling us a lot.
When I teach effective communication, I often focus on the power of telling an effect story.  Data points are nice, but we really resonate with the personal story.  We like to hear about the real people and the real communities that are affected by real policies and real ideas.  We like to hear about the protagonist, the struggle, and the ultimate victory.  We want the fairy tale, even for issues such as education policy, education research, and school improvement and innovation.
So this evening, I want to pass along a little story on that has appeared in two parts recently on Huffington Post, written by one of the most passionate advocates for arts education Eduflack has ever come across.  Lucia Brawley.  Part one can be found here, with part two recently published here.  Brawley tells a fascinating story, highlighting both the “art” and the “science” behind arts education.  For those who question the true value of the visual arts, drama, and music in the classroom, it is a most read.
As we start contemplating reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and what are the non-negotiables for new programs such as the Innovation Fund and the Race to the Top, we need to consider these data points and these stories as we build a better K-12 educational system.  Effective learning and skill development can come from many places, particularly if we have the data to prove it.  Not every child is going to become the next Jackson Pollack, Wynton Marsalis, or Meryl Streep.  They may not even be particularly talented in any of the arts.  But they can benefit from effective visual arts, music, and theater programs.  And we are gathering the research to prove it.
 

Talkin’ Baseball & School Equity

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, national standards, Students

Those who know Eduflack know that I have but a few true passions.  First and foremost is my family.  Nothing is more important to me than my wife and my two perfect little tots.  Then we have two things tied for a close second — education improvement and baseball.  Those who read these pages realize the first, and they may surmise the second based on the regular baseball references and analogies.  Such continue this morning.

Last night, I had the good fortune of attending the first official New York Mets baseball game to be held at Citi Field.  (Yes, the name is unfortunate, but it seems the grassroots effort to rename it “Taxpayer Field” quickly sputtered out.)  It is an absolutely beautiful ballpark — far, far better than the dump that was previously known as Shea Stadium.  It is also a new ballpark that is rich in baseball history, particularly that of the Brooklyn Dodgers and of Jackie Robinson (a little too much Dodger for this die-hard Mets fan, particularly when you think of all of the Mets history — particularly 1969, 1973, and 1986 that could be there in its stead.)
The focus on Jackie Robinson and the majestic blue “42” (see below) as you initially pass through the Citi turnstiles can’t help but have you think of Robinson and his ability to break the color barrier and bring a sense of equity to America’s pastime.  As we get ready to celebrate the anniversary of that important day later this week, it serves as yet another example of how separate is never equal.  Two leagues — one for whites and one for blacks — would never be the same as simply having the best players competing on the same field.  Success only comes when we have access to the same resources, are held to the same standards, and are measured by the same record books and the same tape measures.
Which gets us to the issues of school improvement.  How do we expect to say we improving our schools when we operate so many dropout factories in our urban centers?  How can we say everyone has access to a high-quality public education when 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic students are dropping out of high school?  How do we talk about equity of opportunity when there are clearly haves and have-nots in public education, those with access to the best teachers, the latest technology, the newest books, and the best data systems, and those who are just left to muddle through the best they can with what we are willing to give them?
When Jackie Robinson stepped onto the field in that Dodger jersey for the first time, he landed a significant body blow to all of those who believed that separate could be equal, that facilities and leagues for blacks were “good enough,” or that the standards and records by which we measured ballplayers of color were different than those by which we measured white players.  We talk of the greatness of pitchers like Cy Young and Walter Johnson, yet we truly don’t know how they would stack up to greats like Satchel Paige and Smokey Joe Williams.  We speak of baseball hitting legends like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, but have no idea if they could even take practice swings in Josh Gibson’s shadow.  For 60 years, major league baseball refused admittance to equity, and the game and the nation paid the price.
As we stand on the precipice of a new day in public education — a day when all schools are in the same Race to the Top and a day when all schools are held to the same AYP standards and, hopefully, all students are held to the same academic standards — we need to think about tearing down those remaining barriers that prevent our public school systems from truly offering equal access to resources, education, and opportunity.  “Good enough for …” should be eliminated from our educational vocabularies.  Dropout factories should be urban legends.  And lowered expectations for certain subsets of disaggregated student populations should be retired along with so many baseball jersey numbers.  If we expect all of our students — regardless of skin color or socioeconomic status — to compete on the common field of academic and career success, we need to make sure they have the skills and the equipment to do so.  
Yes, education is a great American civil right.  Yes, far too many of our citizens are denied complete access to it.    Yes, every child can succeed, with the proper support and motivation.  Yes, there are specific action steps we can take to do something about it.
Getting additional financial resources to schools in need through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and through a host of third-party foundations and corporations is a good first step.  But we need to make sure those resources are being used effectively.  We need to make all students are being held to the same standard.  We need to make sure the dollars that represent our inputs are results in true return on investment when it comes to student performance.  Otherwise, we will continue to have some students who are playing in the big show when it comes to their futures, and some that are still just playing Whiffle ball in the backyard.  
It is now April 2009 in the United States.  Is it really too much to ask that every school, regardless of demographics, has equal access to well-trained, effective teachers?  Is it too much to ask that every student have access to the latest textbooks, technology, and instructional materials?  Is it too much to hold every state, district, school, and student to the same measurable academic standards?  Is it too much to believe that every child can succeed — both in school and in life — if provide equal access to an education of equal quality?
Tomorrow, we celebrate the 62nd anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier and stepping onto the brilliant green grass in crisp Brooklyn Dodger white.  Next month, we celebrate the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court case that declared, once and for all, that separate was not equal when it came to public education. As we reflect on these landmark moments, we can see how far we have come in bringing equity of both resource and opportunity to our schools and communities … and how far we still need to go.  
Can we really see school success and 21st century competitiveness without addressing the dire problems in our urban schools and those serving historically underserved student populations?  Can we truly see an America that can compete on both international benchmarks and in the 21st century global economy if we are writing off so many students and so many schools so early in the game?
Believe it or not, these were some of the thoughts going through the head of the occupant of Section 114, Row 30, Seat 1 last evening at Citi.