national standards

Campaigning on Education

Eduflack John McCain, national standards, Obama, STEM, Teacher Education

We are just about at the end of our political conventions, so how has education fared?  At last week’s Democratic convention, we had little mention of K-12 education, with the majority of it coming during Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, and more still coming from former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.  

So far, the GOP convention has been about the same.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke of education last evening.  VP nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made specific mention of special education (and more importantly, made a play for the sped community, perhaps the best-organized grassroots community in the nation).  But on the whole, despite all of the money and attention heaped on the issue by Ed in ’08 and others, public education was barely an also ran in this lead-up to the general election.

Over the past two weeks, Eduwonk (www.eduwonk.com) had done a good job of bringing us education commentary from campaign advisors.  Last week, we heard from the Republicans (including former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, who, in the name of full disclosure, Eduflack helped defeat in a congressional race in 1996).  Swift and company offered some terrific insights into the education whispers being directed into John McCain’s ear, providing us more information in a week than the campaign had provided over the past year.
And this week, we are getting similar insight from Obama advisors Mike Johnston and John Schnur, who have given us both a 10-point plan and a real call to action (at least a call to action for policy wonks).
Yesterday, Greg Toppo reported in USA Today on the Democratic Party platform and how its education planks differ from years past and are seen as crossing the teachers’ unions.  Why?  Because the Party is supporting the idea of merit pay, one of the few education issues put forward by Obama during the primary campaign.
It all has Eduflack thinking.  Why is the issue of accountability seen as a Republican idea?  Don’t Democrats believe in measuring student achievement and knowing how our schools and kids are performing?  Why is the issue of supporting teachers seen as a Democratic idea?  Don’t Republicans care about making sure our teachers are well-trained, well-supported, and well-respected?  
We can go down the list.  School choice.  Charters.  Special education.  STEM.  High school reforms.  Principal preparation.  Alternative certification.  All are now seen as political issues, embraced by one side or condemned by the other.  It is no wonder that true, meaningful education reform is so difficult to come by these days.
I don’t mean to be Pollyanna-ish about this.  I get the ideology behind many of the policy issues.  I understand that it wasn’t so long ago that the national Republican Party was calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.  I know the teachers unions have been myopic in their view of political candidates to support and limited as to their ability to embrace change.  But I also know we should demand more from our education community.
Earlier this year, I made recommendations on how Senators Obama and McCain can and should be talking about K-12 education during this campaign.  But I know that other than a possible question or two during the domestic policy debate, education will unlikely be a subject of presidential discussion.  But I would urge both campaigns to consider a few points, both as they message their campaign and as they prepare for their possible administration:
* Education is not an island unto itself.  A strong educational system leads to a strong economy.  It offers better jobs and better opportunities.  It improves the health and welfare of the community.  It is truly a tide that lifts all boats.  Education is the common denominator that links all of our domestic policy needs.
* We must teach to the 21st century.  These past two weeks, we’ve heard a lot about innovation and alternative energies.  If we are serious about this, we need to be serious about STEM education.  Reducing independence on foreign oil comes, in large part, from U.S. citizens with the skills and abilities to think, explore, and discover differently.  STEM is at the root of all of that, as well as countless other issues that will make us stronger as a nation.
* Education is about people.  We can develop the best curriculum or write an unmatched text, but if we don’t have a qualified, enthusiastic, and successful educators at the helm of the classroom and the school, we won’t see the results.  We need to invest in good teaching and good school leadership.  It starts in teacher training programs, and it continues through professional development for decades.
* Data is king.  We can’t improve if we don’t know where we stand today.  We identify best practices by seeing where our teachers and students are succeeding.  Likewise, we learn where we need to deploy resources and improve offerings based on the information.  School improvement requires high-quality, comparable data at the state, district, school, and student level.
* We need national standards.  We are not a union of independent states with different needs and different expectations.  There should be one national standard, a standard that brings us together and ensures that all students are receiving the high-quality education they deserve (and have been promised).  We can look to the governors to help us define what those standards should be, but a fourth grade education or a high school diploma should mean the same thing, regardless of state, social standing, or political party.
Education may not be THE defining issue of this campaign, but as we are discussing the middle class and small towns and the economy and the future, the one common thread is education.  Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we all should agree that every child should have a high-quality education and every child should have the opportunity to succeed.  I know the campaign advisors agree with this, now we just have to get the nominees to say it out loud and in public.

“Glad” NCLB Wasn’t Reauthorized?

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Spellings

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

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

How Do Grad Rates Rate?

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, NGA

It is the start of a new school year, thus the perfect time to start talking about graduation.  Recently, the media has run two interesting stories on high school graduation rates.  Last week, Michigan announced a 75% graduation rate, a number that dropped 10% from the previous year.  The cause?  Michigan is using a new graduation rate formula, a calculation that — while a little harsher — is far more accurate in determining graduation rates.

This week, Florida announced it may change the way it calculates the grad rate, eliminating a formula that included students who passed the GED and state assessments as high school “graduates.”  The expected result, like Michigan, Florida may soon see a significant drop in the high school graduation rate overnight.
These are but two examples of the challenges facing states in high school improvement efforts.  Take a look at the longitudinal data on high school graduation, and the numbers are quite unsettling.  States like Michigan and Florida tell you one thing, while Education Week and its Graduation Counts effort tell a completely different story (and it is usually a far-scarier one).  Talk to an urban superintendent about his graduation numbers, and you’ll hear rates in the 70 or 80 percents.  Ask Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute the same question about the same districts, and you will often get a number that is 30 to 40 percent less than the superintendent is offering.
Why the great variance?  How can intelligent people look at the same schools, the same students, and the same data, yet come up with results that hold no resemblance to one another?
Florida is the perfect example of that.  When we talk grad rates, we expect it to measure the percentage of kids who started ninth grade and then finished 12th grade four years later (or in some cases, five years later).  We don’t expect students who drop out to pursue GEDs to be included in the grad pool.  After all, those students did not graduate from high school.  They pursued an alternative education path, but they did not graduate.
We talk a lot about AYP and how to compare schools, districts, and states when it comes to academic achievement.  We question whether student reading proficiency in Mississippi is equal to student reading proficiency in Massachusetts.  So why is it so hard for us to wrap our hands around a singular, clear high school graduation rate?
Years ago, the National Governors Association got all 50 states to buy into a common graduation formula.  Take a look at how many kids start ninth grade.  Factor out the school transfers and similar considerations.  Then look at how many of those kids graduated four years later.  That’s the grad rate — how many students completed high school four years after beginning it.
Several states have adopted this formula (including Michigan, thus the change in its most recent numbers).  But many more still have yet to apply the common formula to their state’s data.  Some are holding off because they are fearful of announcing a significant drop in grad rate overnight.  Others are working on building the data collection systems they need to do the work effectively.  And still others are just trying to sort it all out, trying to fit this priority in with a growing list of state education needs.
No matter the reason, the time has come for all states to embrace a common longitudinal graduation rate.  There is simply too much at stake not to.  In virtually every state in the union, we talk about the need to prepare our students for the opportunities of the 21st century.  We talk about new skills and new jobs.  About working smarter.  We discuss that a high school diploma is no longer a sufficient terminal degree, and that postsecondary education is a necessary step for all.
Can we really get more kids into postsecondary education if we don’t know who is actually finishing high school?  How do we boost graduation rates if we don’t have an accurate baseline to build on?  How do we improve the high school experience if we don’t have good data on who finishes, who doesn’t, and why?
Michigan and Florida’s announcements are indications we are heading in the right direction.  The first step might be painful.  No one wants to see their grad rates significantly decline.  But it is the right thing to do.  And it is a necessary step if we are to improve our nation’s high schools, increasing the number of kids who graduate from high school and go on to college.

Too Good?

Eduflack AYP, DCPS, national standards, Students

In New Haven, CT, a nine-year-old boy was just told he couldn’t play Little League baseball.  His offense?  League officials have determined that the boy is just too good.  His team is 8-0.  A pitcher, the boy throws a 40-mile-per-hour fastball (which for those unfamiliar with the game is just filthy good).  It means most opposing players are unable to hit his pitches.  He broke no rules; he did nothing wrong.  In fact, he did it all right, performing as all of us former Little Leaguers wish we could.  The result?  The nine-year-old has been banished from the league, and his fellow teammates have been offered slots on the remaining teams in the league.

What does all this have to do with education reform, you may ask?  Actually, a great deal.  Let’s first look at the message we are sending children.  After a decade of soccer games where do don’t keep score, trophies for all kids who participate, and the elimination of games like dodgeball because they make some kids feel bad about themselves, we are now ostracizing students for excelling.  We are telling them that the goal is mediocrity.  Better to remain in the pack rather than strive to be the leader.
It is hard enough to be a student in today’s world.  If we believe media reports, peer pressure, bullying, and the like are far worse today than they were when Eduflack was a kid.  We hear tales of students who downplay their intellect and are ashamed of their achievement, fearful of the repercussions on the playground or in the neighborhood.  And now they have to worry about attacks and dismissal from the adults that were trusted to teach them and further develop their skills?  League officials should celebrate this kid for being an all-star and achieving at levels of kids two, three, or four years older than the one in question.
It is no wonder we have such a difficult time encouraging, supporting, and demanding improved student achievement.  We don’t focus on those schools that regularly make AYP.  Instead, we come up with excuses as to why so many schools are failing to excel.  Instead of offering incentives to ensure that the very best teachers are in DC classrooms, we accuse the DCPS chancellor or racism, sexism, ageism, and any other ism we can think of.  Instead of ensuring all U.S. schools are world class, and can compete with our international colleagues, we turn a blind eye to how our lax U.S. national standards measure up to other industrialized nations.  Instead of striving to continue to offer the best public education available in the free world and a system of meritocracy, we are content with status quo and a life of mediocrity.
Sure, this is a lot to deduce from a Little League pitcher.  But look at the past two weeks.  We celebrated U.S. performances in the Olympic Games, cheering the fact the United States won more medals than any other nation.  But how much attention did educators pay to the educational olympics offered by the Fordham Foundation, which show our standing slipping in critical academic areas?
We should be asking ourselves how we get out kids to throw lights-out when it comes to algebra II or chemistry, Spanish or world history.  We should be encouraging STEM education in the elementary grades and advanced-level courses at the start of high school.  We should be asking how we can get every kid excelling academically — exceeding expectations and grade-level requirements.    

What is Achievement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Neverending Quest for Good Data

Eduflack AYP, IES, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Why is it so hard to find good, meaningful scientific data to prove the efficacy of an education reform?  Do we know what good data is?  Is it too expensive to capture?  Is it deemed unnecessary in the current environment?  Is it out-of-whack with the thinking of the status quoers?

EdWeek’s Kathleen Manzo has been raising some of these issues over on her blog — Curriculum Matters.  (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/)  And no, Eduflack has no qualms whatsoever with her taking me to task on whether the proof points I use to demonstrate Reading First is working are truly scientifically based proof points.  To the contrary, I appreciate the demand to “show me” and have greatly enjoyed the offline conversations with Manzo on what research is out there and whether that research — the good, the bad, and the ugly — meets the hard standards we expect.

For the record, I am not a methodologist, a neuropsychologist, nor an academic to the nth degree.  I learned about research methodology and standards and expected outcomes from NRPers like Tim Shanahan and Sally Shaywitz and from NICHDers such as Reid Lyon and Peggy McCardle.  My knowledge was gained on the streets, so take it for what it is worth.

When NCLB and RF were passed into law, the education community took a collective gasp of concern over the new definition of education research.  The era of squishy research was over.  The time for passing action research or customer satisfaction surveys as scientific proofs of effectiveness had met its end.  Folks starting scratching their heads, wondering how they would implement (and fund) the longitudinal, double-blind, control-grouped studies defined as scientifically based education research.

The common line in 2002 and 2003 was that only two reading programs, for instance, met the research standards in SBRR.  Those two?  Direct Instruction and Success for All.  Not Open Court.  Not Reading Recovery.  Not Voyager.  Only DI and SFA.

So what has happened over the years?  In 2002, the fear was that every educational publisher would have to adopt a medical model-style research network a la NICHD.  Millions upon millions of dollars would need to be spent by the basals to prove efficacy.  It was to be a new world order in educational research.

Where are we today?  As Manzo correctly points out, five years later there is little (if any) research out there that is now really meeting the standard.  Even the large IES interim study of RF effectiveness — that $31 million study of our RF districts — fails to meet our standards for high-quality, scientific research (if you listen to the researchers who know best).  Why?  Why is it so difficult for us to gather research that is so important?

First, we have interpreted the law the way we want to interpret the law … and not the way it was written or intended.  Those being asked to implement the research models simply didn’t want to believe that Reid Lyon and Bob Sweet really wanted them to pursue such zealous and comprehensive research.  So it was interpreted differently.  Neither consumers (school districts, teachers, and parents) nor suppliers (basals, SES providers, etc.) saw the necessity of longitudinal, control-grouped, double-blind, peer-reviewed research.  We settled for what we could get.  We knew that documents such as the NRP report of the previous National Research Council study met the requirements.  So instead of doing our own research, in the early years of RF we simply attached the NRP study as our “research base” to demonstrate efficacy.  Forget that the ink on the instructional program wasn’t dry, it was “scientifically based.”  And there were no checks or review process to prove otherwise.

Second, we are an impatient people, particularly in the education reform community.  Take a look at the NICHD reading research network, and you’ll see it takes a minimum of five years to see meaningful, long-term impact of a particular intervention.  RF grants were first awarded in 2002, with most early funders using the money for the 2003-04 school year to start.  That means just now — for the 2008-09 school year — would we truly be able to see the impact of RF interventions.  But have we waited?  Of course not.  We declared victory (or defeat) within a year or two of funding.  If test scores didn’t increase after the first full academic year, the nattering nabobs of the status quo immediately declared RF a failure, simultaneously condemning the need for “good” research.

We need to see results.  If our second grader isn’t reading, we want her reading by third grade, tops.  We don’t have the patience or the attention span to wait five to seven years to see the true efficacy of the instruction.  We need a research model that provides short-term rewards, instead of measuring the long-term effects we need.  A shame, yes, but a reality nonetheless.


The final side to our research problem triangle is the notion of control groups.  In good science, we need control groups to properly measure the effects of intervention.  How else do we know if the intervention, and not just a change in environment or a better pool of students, should be credited or student gains?  That is one of the great problems with the IES interim study.  We are measuring the impact of RF funding, but were unable to establish control groups that did not benefit from RF materials, instruction, and PD (even if they didn’t receive any hard RF dollars).

But in our real-life classroom environment, who wants their kid to be in that control group?  We all want the best for our children; we don’t want them to get the sugar pill while all the other students are getting scientifically based reading and a real leg up on life.  How do you say to teachers — in our age of collective bargaining — that these teachers on my right will get scientifically based professional development, but these two on my left will get nothing?  How do we say these students on this side of the district will get research-based instruction and materials, but this cluster here will get instruction we know to be ineffective.  Politically, our schools and their leaders can’t let real scientifically based research happen in their schools.  Too much grief.  Too many problems.  Too little perceived impact.

So where does this all leave us?  At the end of the day, we all seem to be making do with the research we can get, hoping it can be held to some standard when it comes to both methodology and outcomes.  We expect it to have enough students in the study so we can disaggregate the data and make some assumptions.  We expect to do the best we can with the info we can get.

Today, we see that most “scientifically based” research is cut from the same cloth.  No, we aren’t following the medical model established by NICHD’s reading network, nor are we following the letter of the law as called for under NCLB and RF.  Some come close, and I would again refer folks to the recent RF impact studies conducted in states such as Idaho and Ohio.  The methodology is strong, the data is meaningful.  And it shows RF is working.

What we are mostly seeing, though, is outcomes-based data.  School X scores XX% on the state reading assessment last year.  This year they introduced Y intervention, and scores increased XX%.  Is it ideal?  No.  But it is a definite start.  We are a better education community when we are collecting, analyzing, understanding, and applying data.  Looking at year-on-year improvement helps us start that learning process and helps us improve our classrooms.  It isn’t the solution, but it is an important step to getting there (particularly if we are holding all schools and students to a strong, singular learning standard).

Yes, Kathleen, we do need better research.  We know what we need, we know how to get there.  But until we demonstrate a need and a sense of urgency for the type of research NCLB and IES are hoping for, we need to take the incremental steps to get us there.  Let’s leave the squishy research of days of old dead and buried.  We’ve made progress on education research over the past five years. We need to build on it, not destroy it. 


 

“Good For You!”

Eduflack AYP, national standards, NCLB

Why is it so hard for some people to see the benefit of national education standards?  It seems like a such a common sense issue — identifying a common standard for all U.S. students and then doing what it takes to get all students to meet it.  Maybe it is just too simple a concept, particularly since it seems to face such disdain or disenchantment from a significant number of people who should know better.

A perfect example of this was on display this past weekend on NBC’s Meet the Press.  For those who missed it, Obama surrogate U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill was asked a throw-away education question following 20 minutes of questions on Iraq, gas, and the economy.  Host Tom Brokaw asked Missouri’s junior senator about No Child Left Behind and the seemingly bipartisan opposition to the law.

McCaskill set her sights on the issue of national standards.  NCLB is too inflexible, expecting too much from too many.  She believes — as many Democrats do — that having one bar for all students to clear is somehow unfair.  We should recognize all schools who demonstrate improvement.  When they improve, she said, “good for you.”  If they don’t improve, then we have a problem.

Where do we start with all of this?  Should we really applaud those schools that increase from 10% to 14% proficiency in 4th grade reading or math?  Is that really worth celebrating?  All that does is tee up the states to reduce their individual “standards” each year to allow for a couple of percentage points increase year on year.  Then all schools can have that “good for you.”  Don’t believe me, take a look at how some states have “readjusted” their standards in recent years.

At the end of the day, standards should be inflexible.  Standards are rigid.  Just today, I was talking with a former urban educator who, without doubt, falls into the “liberal” side of the puzzle.  She was saying that the best thing about NCLB was it held all students to one expectation.  Didn’t matter if they came from a low-income family.  Didn’t matter if their parents were educated.  Didn’t matter if they were an only child or the youngest of eight.  Didn’t matter the language spoken at home or in the neighborhood.  We should expect all students to be proficient.  And we shouldn’t be celebrating anything until they reach that level.

That is the ultimate root of the concept of abolishing the soft bigotry of low expectations that governed the establishment of NCLB.  That bigotry consists of the excuses we make for failure.  The socioeconomic reasons.  The family structure.  The neighborhood strife.  The lack of resources.  We’ve replaced the Horatio Alger story with a “But, if” story.  We celebrate process, without worrying about the end results.  And that’s just a cryin’ shame.

We’d all like to believe that all of the schools in McCaskill’s Show Me State are reading and computing at proficient levels, and all can get that pat on the back and the “good for you” that she wants to hand out along with increased federal appropriation.  But we all know that’s not the case.  We need to set a national standard because we need something for the nation to aspire to.  We need a bar that means something, a common bar that every single student in the United States must clear to demonstrate effective learning.  Is that really asking for too much?

 

How Does My High School Rate?

Eduflack High School, national standards

It’s that time of year again.  The national high school rankings are out. The number one spot has changed.  Most of the schools in the top 20 are the same as previous years.  The formula has been adjusted, but it is still a measure of AP and IB courses offered.  The DC area did particularly well (as those of us paying taxes in the suburbs expect).  And The Washington Post has an article today saying that these schools are eliminating honors classes to pump in more of those AP and IB classes needed for the rankings.

It’s all got Eduflack thinking, though.  We rank colleges and universities, in part, so consumers can make educated choices about their higher education futures.  We compare national research universities. We compare liberal arts colleges.  We compare private or public institutions.  We use the data to make decisions, and to make us feel better about past decisions (and past tuition bills).

But do the same comparisons apply to high schools?  As a product of public schools, Eduflack never had a choice in the high schools I attended.  I spent 9th and 10th grades at Santa Fe High School in New Mexico.  Eleventh and 12th grades were at Jefferson High School in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia.  Neither is a top high school.  Jefferson High only offered three AP classes when I was there many moons go.  And neither school was a choice.  They were simply my assigned public secondary school.  I don’t expect to see either on a top 100 list in my lifetime.

That said, what good do the high school rankings play?  We can’t use them to make a choice as to what high school we send our children to.  Are we expected to use the rankings to force changes in our own high schools?  Do we use them as part of a school choice push?  Do we use them to separate the haves from the have nots, or to demonstrate to the world that we have successful schools?

As with colleges, we can only effectively compare high schools if we are comparing apples to apples.  The Newsweek rankings simply don’t do that.  We have one list that ranks, theoretically, every high school in the United States.  Urban, rural, and suburban.  High per pupil expenditure and low per pupil expenditure.  Schools in states with stringent grad standards and those with none at all.  Everyone is in the same pool.  Everyone is measured by the same yardstick.

I’ll ring the bell again.  The first step to allowing us to use the same yardstick is to adopt national standards.  If every high school is held to the same standard, they can be commonly measured.  If high school graduation requirements are universal in all 50 states, they can be commonly measured.  If we want to offer a national ranking for our high schools, we should have a national standard they are all held to.

I don’t mean to take away from those schools that scored highly.  Congrats to all, including to my children’s future high school here in Falls Church, Virginia (George Mason High was ranked 58th, due in large part to its IB offerings).  But I’d feel a whole lot better knowing, if we should have to move from our school district, that my son (and his sister, who will hopefully officially join the family by the end of summer) was weighed and measured against fellow students from all 50 states, and was not found wanting.  National standards is the only way to provide that peace of mind to those families not sending their kids to the top 100.

Bloggin’ with Ed in 08

Eduflack AYP, early childhood education, Gates Foundation, high-stakes testing, national standards, Roy Romer

Most folks who read the education blogs know that today was Ed in 08’s big education blogger’s summit.  The crowd seemed to be an interesting mix of both bloggers and ed policy folks (particularly those with education orgs that either deal with the tech issue or have a strong online presence).  At first blush, the cynic in me says the primary focus of the summit was to get Ed in 08’s name in a significant number of blogs all at the same time.  But after a few hours of reflection, I can also see some real benefits.

What has stuck most with Eduflack is the opening speech by Ed in 08 head Roy Romer.  Forget debate questions or campaign commercials or grassroots organizing or even a movie about two million minutes.  The most intriguing — and most valuable — contribution that Ed in 08 is now making is Romer’s continued push for national standards.  This is the third time I’ve heard Romer touting the Ed in 08 line.  Each time, after delivering the stump speech, he focuses on the long-term value of national standards and his dream of locking up a dozen or so well-meaning governors, have them identify standards that tie to international assessments, and then send us on our way to better performance.  I thought it was a good idea when I first heard him lay it out last fall at Jobs for the Future’s conference.  And it is even a better idea today.

So why does the issue of national standards fail to gain the attention it deserves?  It should be a campaign issue, it’s not.  It should be a national policy discussion, it’s not.  It should be a primary goal of the education blob and those in the blob’s shadow, it’s not. 

It’s as if we seem to think our traditional of local education control means we can’t have national standards.  Such thinking is just lazy.  Groups like NGA and CCSSO have had the courage to talk about a common set of U.S. learning standards.  More need to follow that lead. 

If it is the only thing that Romer and company do from this point forward with Gates’ and Broad’s money, it will be well worth it.  National standards deserve a national debate.  We should all be for high expectations, global competition, and improved skills.  A national dialogue provides us the rhetoric to discuss such goals.  And Eduflack is ready to sign up as a town crier on the issue today.

What else came out of the blogger summit?  I personally loved Romer’s stat that the average American student is a year or a year and a half behind their international peers in math instruction.  We hate to hear it, but we know it is true.  And I am still scratching my head on having Newt Gingrich as the keynoter for an ed event focused on national policies.  It was only a decade ago that Gingrich and his team was calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.

Alexander Russo tried to push his panel on the issue of merit pay, but few wanted to bite.  It was good to hear the AFT say that merit pay is a local issue, to be embraced in local CBAs.  Let’s just hope the locals know that.

The hot issues seem to be preK and assessments (high-stakes, differentiated, multiples, take your pick and political line).  No buzz at all for high school reform, despite the ducats coming from Gates.  And with all our lip service to the P-16 education continuum, higher ed is still the gawky girl at the ed dance, with no one paying her much attention either.

And big surprise, few seem to see a future for NCLB.  Some, like Ed Trust’s Amy Wilkins, want to see the law strengthened and more strongly enforced.  But the majority seemed to lean toward “improving” by weakening and adding Elasticman-level flexibility.

More later this week on the notion of changing the structure of the school day.  It is an intriguing issue that could have some legs.

Some Ed Reccs for Senator McCain

Eduflack IES, John McCain, national standards, NCLB

Thanks to the Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper blog (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/) we now have a good sense for the great minds advising expected Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain on education policy.  As to be expected, it is an impressive bunch.  Their challenge, though, will be to get education issues to stand out on the Arizona Senator’s proposed domestic policy agenda.

No, McCain is not known in DC circles as one of the Senate’s leaders on education.  But that doesn’t mean he can’t rise to the occasion.  The presidential bully pulpit is a strong one, and education remains a top five domestic policy issue for most.  If you can’t figure out how to fix the economy in the short term, you certainly can focus on education for the long-term economic benefit.

More than a year ago, Eduflack offered a top-five list of education ideas for the Republican nominee to think about when constructing an education platform.  A lot has changed since then.  The latest State of the Union seemed to de-emphasize the future of vouchers.  Research still isn’t sure the long-term impact of charter schools.  And the expected Democratic presidential nominee has been known to talk about merit pay for teachers. 

That said, let’s take a look at those March 2007 recommendations:

“1.  National standards benefit the nation.  Such standards don’t mean we are denying local control.  They empower our local districts to remain competitive in their state, across the nation, and throughout the world.  National standards, both for students and teachers, are the only way today’s students can succeed in tomorrow’s global economy.

2. Invest in education R&D.  We all understand the value of investing in medical or technology R&D.  Now is the time to invest in research focused on improving our schools and educational quality in our classrooms.  Such investment is key to triggering true innovation at the state or national level, leading to improved economies, better jobs, and better lives.

3. Respect the practitioners.  It is easy for some to say our schools have failed because our teachers have failed.  If any Republican wants to engender change in our schools, they need to respect the teachers delivering the curriculum.  They are on the front lines.  Without their support, reform will fall flat, destined for a garbage heap of good but failed ideas.

4. Don’t fear additional spending.  NCLB scared off many a Republican, particularly with increased federal education spending.  The feds are still only responsible for about 8 cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education.  Additional funding is good for the system, as long as we are spending it on research-proven instruction and improvements we know will boost student achievement.

5. Focus on what works.  For decades, our schools have been bombarded with the latest in snakeoils and silver bullets.  Today’s educators want to see what works in schools like theirs, with kids lke theirs.  NCLB is all about replicable school reforms.  Now is the time to spotlight what is going right in your hometown or your home state, and use it as the model for why we need to continue federal education reforms.  Many of today’s improvements are directly tied to NCLB efforts.  Take credit for it.”

Interestingly, these reccs ring as true today as they did 15 months ago.  But I’d offer a few caveats to Arizona’s senior senator:

* Don’t hitch your wagon to NCLB, attach yourself to the intent.  It isn’t about “NCLB” the proper, it is about doing what works and funding what is proven effective.  Forget the title of the law.  Focus on the outcomes.  The federal government has a role in public education.  Claim that role, focusing on the future and expected goals.

* Don’t forget, you were a teacher too.  As a leader in the Navy, you instructed and taught.  You molded and trained young men.  It may not have been the ABCs or the quadratic equation, but you understand the importance of good teaching.  Remind us of it.

* Shine your education agenda through the filter of economic opportunity.  Too often, we view education in a vacuum.  We can’t afford to do that in today’s economy.  Education policies should be positioned as opportunities to better prepare today’s kids for the opportunities of tomorrow.  That doesn’t mean turning our K-12 schools into trade schools, but it does mean an education that is relevant to both the student and the world.

* Borrow (and steal) from the Arizona experience.  As you are looking at what is relevant, take a close look at what your Governor has been doing.  Her focus on innovation and STEM education shows what we need to be thinking about in education reform.  Speaking from the Arizona experience, you can let the home state serve as a model for others in need.  You come from a state that gets it.

Eduflack isn’t naive.  I recognize that education is not going to be a primary discussion topic for you between now and November.  I don’t expect it will be an issue for a keynote speech during the Minneapolis convention.  But I know it is a basic bread-and-butter issue that can play well in the blue states and with independent voters. 

The days when a GOP president wanted to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education are over.  Now, you have the opportunity to strengthen the Department, making it more efficient and better focused on the end result.  You have a team of advisors who understand data, how to use it, and the importance of measurement and assessment.  Take advantage of it.  Improve the system.  Reject the status quo.

And please, Senator, don’t lose sight of recc #1.  It may not be popular with some, but national standards are worth a good, long look.  Someone, some day is going to adopt national standards.  And it will result in a legacy many seek, but almost none achieve.

Just my three cents (inflation, after all).  Feel free to crib from, improve, or adopt wholesale.