NCLB

McCain v. Obama: The Thrilla for the Schoolhouse

Eduflack charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, higher ed, John McCain, national standards, NCLB, Obama, Online Education, Presidential campaign, STEM, vouchers

Over the past two days, Eduflack has taken a close look at the educational platforms offered up by the two presidential campaigns.  Again, the ground rules were simple.  We looked at the campaigns’ plans as identified, laid out, and described on both candidates’ official websites.  No cheating from the speeches made by Lisa Keegan or Jon Schnur or other surrogates.  No interpreting what a few throw-away lines from the conventions meant.  Not even a few glimpses into both senators’ voting records in the congress these past four years (the time they were together).  No, we are here to measure vetted, official plan against vetted official plan.

The 10,000-Foot View
Just like the two campaigns, the two education platforms couldn’t be more different, particularly in terms of their rhetoric and the framing of the issues.  Yes, they both focused on the issues of early ed, K-12, and higher education.  But that’s a given.  Beyond that, their foci are quite different.  McCain’s plan is a running mantra of accountability and choice.  Obama’s is one of programs, resources, and opportunities.  McCain’s takeaway is one of improvement, where Obama is focused on the problems.  Interestingly, McCain seems more focused on change, while Obama seems keyed in on conserving what we already have in place.
The Buzz Words
Eduflack wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t focus on the words being used by the candidates and the power behind the rhetoric.  So let’s take a look at the hot words lists for each candidate:
* McCain — Standards, accountability, quality, empower, excellence, parents, effectiveness, choice
* Obama — High quality, opportunity, teachers, programs, support, reward
Areas of Agreement
Both campaigns recognize the need for a strong early childhood education program and both want to improve and simplify the financial aid process for those going to college.  Both recognize that NCLB needs work.  Obama seeks to improve and better fund it, McCain wants to build on its lessons.  Both support charter schools, and both want greater accountability for these school choice options.
Issues of Importance
Obama and McCain clearly come to the table with a different view of the federal role in education.  Again, Obama’s platform focuses on strengthening and improving funding for a number of existing federal programs, while adding funding and support for more efforts.  McCain is focused on innovation and local empowerment, almost re-embracing the old-school GOP role of locally controlled education.
What issues stand out for the two candidates?
* McCain — School-based decisionmaking, parental involvement, school choice, alternative certification, merit pay, virtual learning, higher standards, greater accountability
* Obama — Head Start and Early Head Start, math/science education, dropout prevention, afterschool programs, ELL, teacher recruitment and retention (and merit pay, albeit to a lesser degree than we hear on the stump), and college opportunities   
Again, McCain is talking ideas, Obama is speaking programs. It is an important distinction, particularly when we don’t know who will be calling the policy shots from either the Domestic Policy Council or the EdSec’s office.  So the devil is in the details.
Areas of Disagreement
It’s funny, but these are less areas of disagreement than they are issues of priority.  McCain and Obama simply aren’t focusing on many of the same issues.  Their degrees of importance really define the differences.  
On early childhood education, McCain is focused on Centers for Excellence, improving Head Start on a state-by-state basis.  He also emphasizes the need for standards and quality for our youngest learners. Obama believes early education is about getting as many kids as possible into programs.  Obama focuses on quadrupling the funding for Early Head Start, a program that McCain doesn’t even mention.
On K-12, McCain focuses on options, choice (charters and vouchers), and doing what it takes to boost student achievement (particularly principal empowerment).  Obama focuses on the programs that make our schools run — math/science, dropout prevention, afterschool, and college credits.   Obama also mentions charter schools, but his focus is on closing those that are low performing.
On teachers, the biggest difference is prominence.  Obama provides teachers with their own policy category; McCain embeds them in his K-12 platform.  For Obama, it is all about recruiting, training, retaining, and rewarding. For McCain, it is an issue of alternative certification (which Obama never mentions), incentive pay, and professional development.
On higher education, Obama wants new tax breaks, while McCain wants more research and simplified tax benefits.  McCain also emphasizes the need for information, particularly to parents (while Obama seems to avoid parents all together in his education platform).  Both want to fix the “broken” system of student lending, though.
Funding
By focusing so heavily on programs, Obama essentially calls for increased federal spending for education.  He pledges sizable funding increases for Early Head Start, NCLB, the Federal Charter School Program, dropout prevention, 21st Century Learning Centers, GEAR UP, TRIO, and Upward Bound.  He would also create a number of new federal initiatives, including Early Learning Challenge Grants, Make College a Reality, Teacher Service Scholarships, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit.  In today’s economic climate, this is a bold statement.  Paying for these programs either means eliminating current programs that don’t work (see Mike Petrilli’s suggestions at www.edexcellence.net/flypaper for a good start) or it means increasing the annual appropriation for the U.S. Department of Education.  Based on current politics, I’d say the latter is a near impossibility.
On the McCain side, the Republican nominee focuses on some new programs as well — including Centers for Excellence for Head Start, a grant program for online education opportunities, and Digital Passport Scholarships.  He also calls for funding for teacher merit pay, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, and increased monies for Enhancing Education Through Technology.  Still a nice Christmas list, but far more affordable than his Democratic counterpart.
What’s Missing
You know me, I always like to dwell on the negative.  So I immediately jump to the issues that didn’t make the cut in developing the platform.  Neither candidate speaks to the idea of national education standards.  There is almost no discussion of student testing and the measurement of student performance.  Data and research-based practice and decisionmaking can’t be found here.  And while Obama mentions math and science, neither candidate focuses on STEM education, what Eduflack sees as a key to truly linking education, the economy, and our national strength.
Added to the list, McCain avoids ELL (strange for a senator from Arizona), high school dropouts, afterschool, and t
eacher education in general.  Obama avoids discussions of reading/literacy, alternative certification, online learning, and parental involvement.
So Now What?
Eduflack is not going to be so audacious as to make an endorsement of a presidential candidate based on his education platform.  (Those who know me well know where I stand.  And at the end of the day, my opinion is going to be a fairly uncommon one.  Having worked on the Hill for Democratic stalwarts like Robert Byrd and Bill Bradley and then spending so much time advocating for NCLB, Reading First, and accountability, there are few in the Eduflack mold.)  And who cares who I pick?  This above breakdown is to help others take their education priorities and see which candidate better addresses them in the official platform.
If these past 18 months are any indication, education is not a priority for either candidate.  It isn’t what they are out there stumping on, and it is not the red meat the voters want to hear or seem concerned about.  And anyone who has been in this town for more than a few weeks knows that a policy paper is barely worth the paper on which it is printed.
What this does, though, is it makes clear to Eduflack where the priorities are and what emphasis we should see, education wise, should candidate M or candidate O take the oath on a cold January day.  What does Eduflack see?
A McCain Department of Education is one of accountability, standards, and innovation.  Data-driven decisionmaking.  School choice opportunities.  A heavy emphasis on the role of technology, particularly in terms of online learning.  McCain also sees his ultimate customer as the parent, giving them a seat at the table in charting their child’s educational path.
No surprise, then, when we see some of the names on the “finalist” list for McCain EdSec — Lisa Keegan, New Orleans Supe Paul Vallas, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at the top.  (I know some add former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift to the short list, but I fail to see how someone who called for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education a decade ago is really the choice to head that same department today).   All steady, experienced hands to steer the ship.
An Obama Department of Education, though, would have a much different feel.  It almost seems more like a foundation, with a great number of programs running to achieve a common goal.  An Obama ED is one of teacher education, universal preK, increased supports, and improved paths to postsecondary education.  Obama’s ultimate customer — the teacher, without whom most reforms will fail before the get off the ground.
And the tea leaves on an Obama EdSec?  We have the usual suspects, the programmatic heads such as former NC Gov. Jim Hunt.  But we also have out-of-the-box names like New Leaders for New Schools founder Jon Schnur.  The future direction of Obama ed may very well hinge on the leadership qualities he seeks from an EdSec. 
There you have it, the education presidential campaign gospel according to Eduflack.  Let the reflections, debates, and attacks begin.
  

The Obama Education Platform

Eduflack AP, early childhood education, ELL, High School, NCLB, Obama, Teacher Education

As many of us have known for much of the past two years, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is all about change.  His approach to education reform is no different.  It is a diverse strategy, like his base of supporters, and reflects a message of change from some of the traditional Democratic education planks.  

The Bumper Sticker
We have a real problem with public education in the United States.  We are underfunding No Child Left Behind, or “No Child Left Behind Left the Money Behind.”  It is harder and harder to keep new teachers in the classroom.  And college is too expensive for the average Joe (even if he isn’t from Scranton, PA).
The Plan
Obama-Biden’s education platform operates under four key areas — early childhood education, K-12, teachers, and higher education.
Early Childhood Education
Obama’s early ed efforts are programmatically focused, in an effort to reach as many preschoolers as possible:
* Zero to Five Plan, focusing on early care and infant education; would offer Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state efforts and help move to state-led universal preschool
* Expanded Early Head Start and Head Start, calling for a 4X funding increase in Early Head Start and improving the quality of both programs
* Affordable, high-quality child care
K-12
Obama’s K-12 plan is a relative top eight list of the top buzz issues in education reform today:
* Reform No Child Left Behind, through increased funding and improving assessment and accountability
* Support high-quality schools and close low-performing charter schools, doubling the funding for the Federal Charter School Program and improving general accountability for charters
* Make math and science education a national priority, by recruiting and supporting strong math and science teachers
* Address the dropout crisis, through federal funding for middle school intervention strategies
* Expand high-quality afterschool opportunities, by doubling funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers program
* Support college outreach programs, lending support to GEAR UP, TRIO, and Upward Bound
* Support college credit initiatives, creating a “Make College a Reality” initiative to increase AP-going by 50% by 2016
* Support English language learners, through transitional bilingual education and general school accountability
Recruit, Prepare, Retain, and Reward America’s Teachers
With Obama-Biden, the classroom teacher is clearly the center of the movement.  (And don’t forget it is Biden’s wife’s career of choice):
* Recruit teachers, by creating a new Teacher Service Scholarship program to pay for four years of undergrad or two years of grad school in teacher education
* Prepare teachers, requiring all ed schools to be accredited and to create a voluntary national performance assessment of teacher training
* Retain teachers, expanding mentoring programs that pair vets with newbie teachers
* Reward teachers, allowing teachers a seat at the table in developing incentive programs and providing better pay for those in underserved location and those with a consistent record of success (read: merit pay)
Higher Education
Obama touched on higher ed in K-12, as he looked at college prep issues such college outreach and dual credit, but his platform also includes the following:
* Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit, ensuring the first $4,000 of a college education is “completely free for most Americans”
* Simplify the application process for financial aid, streamlining the process and authorizing the feds to use tax returns automatically as part of the system
The Takeaway
There you have it.  The full Obama-Biden education platform as presented on the official Obama-Biden campaign website.  Available now to lay side-by-side with McCain-Palin to compare, contrast, and critique.  Three pages of total text on the site, along with three downloadable plans (PreK-12 Plan, College Affordability Plan, and Education Reform Plan) and two speeches (one on PreK to 12 education, one on college affordability).  And before I hear it from readers, I know there are many more issues Obama and his surrogates have been talking about. Remember, folks, this is intended to look at the official plans, as offered up by the official websites of the candidates.
So what’s Eduflack’s takeaway?
* A clear understanding of the issues and concerns of the education community, particularly those seen by teachers and school leaders.  This is the ed community hotlist, particularly in K-12
* A stronger-than-strong emphasis on programs, both support of the old and calls for many, many new
* A significant increase in federal funding for education issues
* A focus on the processes that make education systems go
* Emphasis on the student and the school level
* An attempt to improve NCLB, particularly when it comes to funding
What’s missing?  There is little talk, other than some rhetorical mentions, to the need for standards and accountability in the schools.  It seems to be process over results.  And Obama’s previously strong stance on merit pay for teachers is weakly positioned in this policy.  Discussions of issues such as reading instruction, education research, vouchers, parental involvement, alternative certification, elementary schools, and online learning can’t be found.  Again, we can guess where an Obama administration would stand on these issues, based on his personal bio and the good work of his education team, but it isn’t spelled out.
So there you have it, the Obama-Biden education platform, in an equally handy format.  Tomorrow, we put our agitator hat back on and take a close look at how the two campaigns stack up against each other, educa
tion wise, and what are remaining unanswered questions may be.

The McCain Education Platform

Eduflack charter schools, early childhood education, high-stakes testing, John McCain, national standards, NCLB, Online Education, Presidential campaign, Teacher Education, vouchers

My friends (sorry, can’t resist), despite popular opinion, U.S. Sen. John McCain does indeed have a comprehensive education platform, and it is a plan that clearly reflects the collective experiences and perspectives of the senior staffers advising the McCain-Palin campaign on education policy.

The Bumper Sticker
McCain-Palin’s education platform operates under a simple mission — “Excellence, Choice, and Competition in American Education.”  It pledges to four key educational points:
* American education must be worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves
* We are a nation committed to equal opportunity, and there is no equal opportunity without equal access to excellent education
* We must fight for the ability of all students to have access to all schools of demonstrated excellence, including their own homes
* We must place parents and children at the center of the educational process, empowering parents to greatly expanding their ability to choose a school for their children.
The Plan
The McCain-Palin campaign breaks its education platform into three key areas — early childhood education, strengthening America’s schools, and higher education policy.  The latter two were actually offered as media releases during the summer (though I don’t remember reading much, if any, about either of them).
Early Childhood Education
The early childhood component is focused on the notion that we must “make certain students are ready to learn.”  With an emphasis on a range of high-quality programs that focus on educational foundations in reading, math, social, and emotional skills.  The further highlights:
* Centers for Excellence in Head Start — Ensuring that all Head Start centers have quality instructors, are accountable to parents, and focus on outcomes instead of just processes.  The federal director of Head Start would choose at least one Center in each state, and the state’s governor would nominate potential choices.  Such centers would be expected to expand their services to reach more students, doing so with an extra $200,000 in funding from the feds.  For these centers, the name of the game is results, with a demand for clear goals, clear objectives, and even clearer effective practice.
* Measurable Standards — Every federally funded early childhood program should be held to measurable standards, quality measures that “should be centered on the child and outcome-based.”
* Quality Instruction — Early childhood education is about preparing students for K-12 instruction.  Every early ed instruction should have strong preparation with “an emphasis on performance and outcomes as measured by student development.”  All federally funded preK programs would be required to offer a “comprehensive approach to learning that covers all significant areas of school readiness, notably literacy/language development, as well as math readiness and key motor and social skills.”
* Healthy Children — Advocating partnership grants for early screening programs for hearing, vision, and immunization needs of preschoolers.
* Parental Education and Involvement — McCain-Palin would ensure federal programs focus on educating parents how to prepare their kids for a “productive educational experience.”  Parents would be schooled in reading and numbers skills, nutrition, and general health issues.
Strengthening America’s Schools
Focusing on opportunities and a quality education for all students, the McCain-Palin plan focuses on empowering parents, teachers, and leaders while taking a swipe at the traditional educational bureaucracy.
McCain’s K-12 policy is comprised of four key principles:
* Enact meaningful reform to education
* Provide for equality of choice
* Empower parents
* Empower teachers
More specifics then come in the dozen or so specific policies McCain offers to support these principles:
* Build on the lessons of NCLB, continuing the national emphasis on standards and accountability
* Provide effective education leadership, particularly rewarding achievement
* Ensure children have quality teachers, accomplished by:

– Encouraging alternative certification methods that open the door for highly motivated teachers to enter the field
– Providing bonuses for teachers who locate in underperforming schools and demonstrate strong leadership as measured by student improvement
– Providing funding for needed professional teacher development

* Empowering school principals with greater control over spending, focusing principal decisions on doing what is necessary to raise student achievement
* Making real the promise of NCLB by giving parents greater choice, choice over how school money is being spent
* Expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, better known as DC’s voucher system
* Ensuring children struggling to meet state standards will have immediate access to high-quality tutoring programs, made available from the LEAs, the feds, or private providers
* Expanding virtual learning by reforming the “Enhancing Education Through Technology Program,” providing $500 million to develop virtual K-12 schools
* Allocating $250 million through a competitive grant program to support states that commit to expanding online education opportunities, offering a path for states to establish virtual math and science academies
* Offering $250 million for Digital Passport Scholarships to help students pay for online tutors to enroll in virtual schools, offering competitive funds to provide low-income students greater access to a range of courses and programs needed to maximize opportunity
Higher Education Policy
Focusing on innovation, the reduction of regulatory barriers, and a shared need that our economic strength depends on strong postsecondary education, the McCain-Palin team calls for the following in higher education policy:
* Improve information for parents, particularly institutional i
nformation on postsecondary choices
* Simplify higher education tax benefits, connecting a lower tax burden to greater pursuit of higher education
* Simplify federal financial aid, consolidating the financial aid process
* Improve research by eliminating earmarks, tying the campaign’s signature anti-pork barrel spending to boosting the funds available for federally funded research programs
* Fix the student lending programs, expanding capacity and demanding high levels of lender activity.
The Takeaway
There you have it.  The full McCain-Palin education platform, as presented on the official McCain-Palin campaign website.  Six total pages of text.  So what’s Eduflack’s takeaway?
* A strong focus on accountability and standards
* Emphasis on core instructional approaches and needs
* Recognition that improvement comes with parents, kids, and teachers working together
* Significant focus on innovations, specifically virtual education, alternative certification, and school choice
* An effort to place results over process
* An attempt to learn from and move beyond NCLB, not fix the federal law
What’s missing?  Discussions of issues such as ELL/ESL, student testing, national standards, STEM education, high school dropout rates, and teacher education.  But we can surmise from the policy ideas above where the McCain administration would stand on some, if not all of these issues.
So there you have it, the McCain-Palin education platform, in a handy email/pocket-sized guide.  Senator Obama, you’re up tomorrow. 

Going Where the Education Action Is

Eduflack AP, AYP, early childhood education, ELL, Gates Foundation, national standards, NCLB, NGA, STEM

If you spend enough time reading about education reform — particularly over the past few years — you get the sense that Washington, DC is the unwavering center and base for all that is new, all that is relevant, and all that is necessary to school improvement.  NCLB.  The U.S. Department of Education.  The Institute of Education Sciences.  The blob of representative education organizations.  All, it seems, serve as the epicenter for real change in our educational system.

But when you really get down to it, the real action of education reform is not at the national level.  In reality, the U.S. Department of Education and the federal government account for less than eight cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education in the United States.  Despite the tales coming from the status quoer bogeymen, there are few educators who are taking their marching orders directly from NCLB or from the data captured by IES or NAGB.  And although some would like to believe it, superintendents and principals are not waiting for detailed instructions from the EdSec before they take action on instructional improvement.
Don’t get me wrong.  The federal hand is a great influencer in what is happening in education reform.  It provides an enormous carrot, usually in the form of federal dollars, to get new and valuable programs — such as Reading First or the American Competitiveness Initiative — from research to policy to practice.  It also provides a more ominous stick, providing punishment for those who fail to meet AYP, misuse federal funds, or generally choose not to follow the mission and guidelines put forward by the federal government (particularly as it relates to important laws such as Title I).
In a perfect world, the federal education lever is one of a velvet hammer.  It provides us the opportunity to feel good about what we are doing, while knowing that swift and meaningful judgment can come down on those who ignore, flaunt, or seek to reverse the laws of the land.  Be it gender equity, special education, teacher training, or even reading or math instruction, there is little doubt that the educational velvet hammer rests in the hands of ED and the EdSec.
Many know I spend most of my working days helping organizations, companies, and agencies determine the best ways to advocate for education issues, particularly improvements to the current K-12 system.  Much of these discussions tend to focus on the federal, for the reasons detailed above.  We all want to meet with folks on the seventh floor of ED, hoping to convince them we’ve built a better mousetrap or offer a solution unmatched by those that have come previously.  As a good counselor and advisor, I try to respect the wishes of my clients, and identify ways they can be a part of the federal discussion of education reform.
Eduflack finds himself spending more and more time these days, though, redirecting these good intentions to where the education action really is.  For those looking to make a difference, for those looking to enact meaningful change, for those looking to truly boost student achievement and improve instruction, for those looking to identify and develop an education solution that can be implemented at scale, the real action is happening at the state level.
Real reform has the greatest opportunity to succeed when introduced at the state level.  First, it can serve as a lever of influence on federal decisionmakers, demonstrating the results we need to see that a particular program or intervention works.  Second, it has the power to implement those changes in a large number of school districts simultaneously, using the state’s own carrot/stick powers to implement reforms directly in school districts that need the help the most.  The feds have levels of bureaucracy to go through before they can reach the school district. The state gets there with a phone call and a well-constructed relationship.
In the education policy world, we’re all looking to the future to see what the next version of No Child Left Behind will hold.  But we don’t need to wait for the NCLB lever to enact real, meaningful reforms.  The Gates Foundation recognized this long ago, and has invested significant money in statewide education reforms designed to model innovations.  The National Governors Association has focused tremendous effort and incredible intellectual capital on issues such as high school reform, AP, science/math education, national standards, and data collection — each path offering statewide solutions and demonstrating statewide results.  The National Conference of State Legislatures has all but ignored NCLB, focusing on its own issues.  And membership groups such as the Council of Chief State School Officers, Education Commission of the States, and even the Southern Regional Education Board have taken courageous policy stands to enact real reforms that improve the quality and results of education across the states.
What’s the lesson to be learned here?  Those seeking to enact real, meaningful education reforms must include statewide engagement strategies as part of their efforts.  They must recognize that each state is different, and each state must be handled and approached differently.  They must know that most state departments of education are vastly understaffed and overworked, and thus have little time to hear about the great ideas.  They must know that results are king, whether you be a principal, a state education chief, or the EdSec herself.  And they must know that states watch what other states do, they model after the successful ones, and they try to ensure their “competitors” don’t get too far ahead of them when it comes to policy or education results.
The success of integrated communications advocacy comes when you reach multiple stakeholders at multiple levels.  We all know that.  And preaching state education officials as a key stakeholder is hardly a new idea to slap anyone upside the head.  But we all must remember where the real action is.  We all must remember where real change and improvement can occur.  And we all must remember who can make a real difference.
High school reform.  Graduation rates.  National standards.  General accountability provisions.  STEM education.  Early childhood ed.  ELL and ESL.  RTI.  Closing the achievement gap.  Reading, math, and science instruction.  Professional development.  Teacher recruitment.  Online education.  Charter schools.  True success for these and other issues lies in our states,working in partnership with bellweather school districts.  To paraphrase from politics, as Ohio (and Pennsylvania and Georgia and Florida and Arizona and Minnesota) goes, so goes the nation.  True in politics.  Definitely true in education reform.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, check out a similar post on the power of the states in education policy this year — www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2008/10/education-really-is-a-state-issue-at-least-this-year/  

Closing the Gap?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, NAEP, NCLB

Has No Child Left Behind worked?  That may be a question best left to sociologists or historians or anthropologists, but it is one we must be asking as congressional committees and presidential education advisors continue to contemplate the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a reauthorization that is past due, I might add.)

When first passed into law, NCLB was positioned as an effective tool to close the achievement gap.  By “eliminating the soft bigotry of low expectations,” NCLB would penetrate the schools and communities that have long suffered, providing hope, opportunity, and real demonstrations of achievement for kids that have long been written off.
Of course, these past few years, NCLB has been seen far more as a punch line to a bad joke, a walking, talking example of burdensome regulations and over-testing.  It’s almost like we’ve forgotten the intent of the law, and the goal of ensuring that every student — regardless of race, gender, neighborhood, or socioeconomic standing — has the opportunity to achieve academically.
It is forgotten, that is, until the data reminds us otherwise.  For those doubting Thomases, today’s Washington Post offers yet more proof that NCLB is, indeed, working.  The Post’s Maria Glod and Daniel de Vise offer up an analysis that shows it clearly.  And the story lede says it all — “since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind law, students from poor families in the Washington area have made major gains on reading and math tests and are starting to catch up with those from middle-class and affluent backgrounds.”
What does the Post analysis show, other than NCLB works?  The data is quite clear … and quite interesting.  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103096.html
In”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103096.html
In Maryland, the reading and math achievement gaps have closed, according to results from the Maryland School Assessment.  In Anne Arundel County, the reading performance gap shrunk from 24 to 14, while math moved from 20 down to 14.  In Howard County, the reading gap shrunk from 31 to 17, while the math gap shrunk from 33 to 25.  And in Montgomery County, the reading gap shrunk from 28 to 14 and the math from 26 to 17.
And in Virginia, on its Standards of Learning?  In Fairfax County, the reading gap shrunk from 20 to 11, the math gap from 29 to 16.  In Loudoun County, reading gaps went from 24 to 15, while math went from 20 to 17.  And in Prince William, reading closed from 18 to 9, while the math gap went from 15 to 11.
All data was measured from 2003 to 2007.  And before you ask the question, there doesn’t seem to be good data for DCPS, with Stanford Achievement Tests and the Comprehensive Assessment System showing little results of meaning. 
What does it all tell us?
* In school districts, at least those in the greater Washington area, NCLB has worked.  From 2003 to 2007, we’ve seen real, demonstrable results closing the gap in reading and math achievement
* Despite popular belief, reading scores are improving.  In fact, in most of the counties studied by the Washington Post, reading gaps have narrowed more than math gaps.  In Arlington County, VA, for instance, the reading gap shrank (as NCLB and Reading First intended), but the math gap did not. 
* Good data takes time.  Education researchers have long told me you need at least five years of good data to determine the effectiveness of an education reform.  Imagine that, the Post looked at five years of NCLB era data, and found real improvement.
* The achievement gap is a very real issue, and needs to be a very real focus on any ongoing reform.  If we are truly going to improve the quality of public education in the United States, we need to show meaningful gains for low-income students, for African-American students, and for Hispanic students.  Educational opportunity for all needs to include all, no matter how you disaggregate the data.
Kudos to the Washington Post for its analysis, and for stepping forward (on the front page of the paper, no less) and claiming that NCLB is indeed closing the achievement gap.  But if it is true here in Washington, odds are the same results are found in cities and towns throughout the United States.  Where are the similar studies?  Who is looking at similar achievement data?  Who is talking about what is being done (or has been done) to close the achievement gap in cities like Chicago and Atlanta and Dallas and Phoenix and Los Angeles?  Who is speaking truth, despite an unpopular law with a bad reputation?
If we’re going to continue these positive trends, now is the time to speak up.
 

Will Real Formative Assessment Please Stand Up?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, NAEP, NCLB

As Eduflack has previously noted, the issues of accountability and assessment have risen to the top of the education reform heap.  Thanks to the Aspen Institute and others, we seem to have consensus — at least with education and business leaders — that accountability should lead the day.  And to get there, we need strong, reliable, replicable assessments that effectively measure the effectiveness of our programs, our schools, and out students.

Earlier this month, Scott Cech did a piece in Education Week reflecting on internal disagreements within the testing industry on the issue of “formative assessments.”  (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/17/04formative_ep.h28.html)   The piece is an interesting one, particularly in light of recent focus by major school districts on Response to Intervention, or RTI.  Like issues before it, education companies throughout the nation see RTI as a pending blank check, a major money-making program for those who can sell an answer to the problem.
While Cech’s piece raises some good questions on the issue of assessment and the role of both corporations and teachers in implementing meaningful assessment measures in the classroom, the piece — and the questions it raises — is being used by some to celebrate the end of accountability and is, unfortunately, being used to trumpet the demise of modern-day assessment models.
Because of issues like RTI, we have seen some very strong formative assessment models developed.  Just take a look at the investments made by organizations such as Wireless Generation, and you can see what high-quality, high-value assessment models can look like.  Focusing on pre- and post-assessment tools, educators gain the mechanisms they need to effectively evaluate student progress and determine the additional interventions needed to get every student succeeding.
Like most areas in education reform, there are good assessments and there are bad assessments.  There are research-based assessments, and there are squishy assessments.  There are assessments that work, and those that simply don’t.  The job of a good educator or a good policymaker is to learn the difference, and make sure we are using what works in our own schools and our own classrooms.
Those that celebrate articles like these as the “end of assessments” do so for one of two reasons.  Either they don’t truly understand what formative assessments are or they don’t have the research to prove that their models work.  
Cech is right.  This is an issue that many educators simply do not understand.  Nor is an issue that should be the exclusive playground of vendors or for-profit industry.  If we are going to hold our schools and our policymakers accountable for results in the classroom, we need to ensure that they have effective assessment tools AND understand how to use them appropriately.  We need to empower teachers to measure their students’ progress, and do so in a way that aligns with state and, hopefully, national learning standards.  And we need to simplify the assessment process so the average parent, the average teacher, and the average community member gets it.
Understanding meaningful assessment of student achievement should not require advanced degrees nor should it demand a multi-step, multi-part process that looks more like Swedish furniture assembly instructions than a benchmark of student progress.  There are simple, effective assessments out there.  We just need to redouble our efforts to get them out into the classroom.

Read Early, Read Often

Eduflack early childhood education, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

As we have reported many times before, far too many people have written Reading First off for dead.  Eduflack doesn’t want to go through the litany of reasons why.  It is simply too depressing.  But I will say for the record, just one more time, that Reading First works.  The science behind the program, making sure we are implementing what works in the classrooms that need it.  Collecting data and putting it to use effectively.  Implementing research-based reading programs with fidelity.  All are no-brainer steps in boosting student reading ability and reading achievement in schools and classrooms across the country.

Yes, I am pleased by the notion that RF seems to be getting a one year reprieve before it heads out to the ed reform gallows.  Thankfully, Congress’ inability to move on most FY2009 federal spending bills means that the federal reading program will be continued for yet another year.  One more year of funding for SBRR.  One more year for reading data collection.  One more year for research-focused reading professional development.  One more year of doing what works and doing what is right (before we figure out what comes next).
Often forgotten in this whole debate of RF is the fate of its baby sister — Early Reading First.  To a casual observer, the two programs appear joined together, bearing a similar fate.  It only makes sense to some that Early RF should be punished for RF’s sins, even though the program is different, the funding is different, and the intended audience and impact are different.
So imagine my surprise when I saw a major uptick on Early RF news over the past week.  Last week, the U.S. Department of Education announced that 19 states would share more than $100 million in new Early Reading First grant moneys.  EdSec Margaret Spellings began talking about Early RF last week (likely because of the release of new funding).  And just yesterday, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) released a new report — “The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement.”  (Thanks, Kimberly, for the tip.)  Add to that the What Works Clearinghouse’s re-examination of early reading programs, and it seems beginning reading is the HOT topic in literacy once again.
This is a refreshing and positive development for those who have been fighting in the scientifically based reading trenches all these many years.  Yes, there have been some real problems with the implementation of Reading First.  But whether we are Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservative, reformers or status quoers, we all have to agree that solid reading skills are essential to student success.  Those kids who are unable to read at grade level by the end of third grade or the start of fourth grade are, unfortunately, in an academic hole they may never be able to dig themselves out of.  
Reading ability is indeed a civil right.  To participate in school, participate in the workplace, and participate in this democracy, we need to be literate.  The era of working hard and signing your name with an X is no over.  Reading ability is the great equalizer.  A kid who can read (and one who can comprehend what she has read) is able to accomplish anything.  And proficiency only becomes a reality when one begins learning the skill as early as possible.
That is why the focus on Early RF is so important.  Reading at grade level by third grade requires work at the earliest of ages.  We know what skills students need before they reach kindergarten.  We know what parents should be doing at home with their toddlers to develop skills they need to become readers.  We know literacy instruction does not begin at the age of five.  And we know it is much harder to make up the lessons that can be learned early on than it is to teach them right at the right time.
In the long term, Reading First works when Early Reading First has done its job.  If we’re going to agitate for increased attention and increased support for RF, we need to make sure that Early RF remains a part of our educational fabric.  And we need to make sure we are conducting the proper students to measure its effectiveness.  Those committed to Early RF interventions know they work, now let’s show the world the data to prove it.  

Accountability!

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Obama

This past week at the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit, there was one clear super password for education improvement — accountability.  Superintendent after superintendent positioned accountability as the lasting mark of the NCLB era.  Business leaders spoke of how accountability was the true GPS to education reform.  Even EdSec Margaret Spellings has been using it to describe the education legacy of the Bush Administration.  Leaving the summit on Monday evening, one thing was clear, if we are to improve our schools and better educate our students, we must redouble our commitment to the notion of accountability.

Newly embracing the tag of educational agitator, Eduflack is ready and willing to trumpet the need for greater accountability in our schools.  As we discuss shared responsibility and shared gains in education, accountability is an action in which we can all take part, whether we be practitioners or policymakers, business or community leaders, parents or students, agitators or even status quoers.  When we hold our nation, our states, our districts, and our schools more accountable for both the instruction and the outcomes of that instruction, we have to believe that real, measurable student gains will only follow.
From the rhetoric in recent months, it seemed that both presidential candidates were equally supportive of the notion of increased accountability in our schools.  While neither has come out to wrap a bearhug around NCLB (and we shouldn’t wait for either to do so), both seemed to indicate that strengthening both standards and accountability are goals for the future.  Regardless of what wrapping we may place it in, the era of every educator for himself with little repercussion for success or failure is over.  It is time to put up and prove it.
So Eduflack was taken aback by Bruce Fuller’s September 18 blog piece on the New York Times online, which seems to indicate that an Obama administration would turn back the clock on accountability measures.  From his perch at the University of California Berkeley, Fuller states that Obama’s plan is one that simply sets learning standards, records student data, and recruits a stronger teacher base.
Don’t get me wrong, all three are important objectives.  But these are process-driven goals, not outcome-driven goals.  What good are learning standards (and please, oh please, can’t we come out for national standards instead), if we aren’t holding the students, their teachers, or their schools accountable for hitting levels of proficiency?  What good is recording student data if we aren’t using it improve instruction, identify what truly works in the classroom, and ensure that our teachers and our schools are hitting the benchmarks we have set for them?  And what good is teacher recruitment if we don’t have the systems in place to truly identify good teaching, reward it, and replicate it?  
The Aspen event has left the education policy community in an interesting position.  Not only did they bring together a who’s who of policy, business, and practice, but they moved nearly everyone to ask, what now?  This was more than just an informational session, it was a call to action.  It now falls to those leaders, both those at the rostrum and those in the audience, to drive us to real action, to real agitation, and to real improvement.
It is clear that accountability is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue.  Educational accountability is an American issue, and it is the necessary path to true school reform and true educational improvement.  We’ve spent decades fretting about processes.  Now is the time for action — for clear standards and even clearer accountability measures, both of which are enforced, and not just talked about.  That’s the only way we truly move our rhetoric to action.

Truly Gifted?

Eduflack AYP, NCLB
In recent months, we have heard the large urban districts trumpet their successes in hitting AYP and achieving the designation “proficient.”  Scores in NYC Public Schools have soared.  Year One of the Rhee Experiment in Washington, DC posted proficiency numbers few ever expected.  And similar data has been seen in similar districts throughout the nation.
Some critics questioned the standards used to measure proficiency in the first place.  Did we drop the bar to achieve AYP?  Are 2007 measures as strong as they were in, say, 2005?  In states like Maryland and cities like NYC, one could honestly raise the issue.  State and district standards have “evolved” in the NCLB era, and many of those evolutions have resulted in improved student achievement.  Students may not know more today, but they are more proficient, based on assessments.
So what’s the big deal?  Isn’t our goal to get all students proficient by any means necessary?  After all, we promised 100% proficiency in math, reading, and science by 2014.  We have to get there by any means necessary.
For years, the flip side of NCLB proficiency has been the issue of “gifted & talented.”  We have heard how G&T students have been punished by NCLB, as teacher attention and school resources are focused on those at risk and those hovering around the proficient mark.  At times, you’d even think NCLB was awarding new MacBooks to at-risk students, while leaving gifted kids to persevere with yellowed paper with chunks of wood still floating in it.
Perhaps that’s why Eduflack was taken aback yesterday by an article in the Washington Examiner, looking at the G&T issue in DC’s suburban schools.  Perhaps I am naive.  I’ve long thought that G&T was an elite designation.  Few students received the label, either due to limited resources to act with or the very real fact that few students are truly gifted.
The Examiner paints a very different picture, though.  At Bethesda, MD’s Westbrook Elementary School, for example, 87% of second graders have been designated G&T.  Across Montgomery County (home to Westbrook), 39% of second graders are G&T.  Fifty-two percent of them are white, 23% Asian, 13% Black, and 12% Hispanic.
In Fairfax County, VA, 34% of second graders earned the designation.  The breakdowns are similar — 53% white, 23% Asian, 7% Black, 10% Hispanic, and 7% multiracial.
I’m not saying there are not strong students in Montgomery or Fairfax Counties.  Students there and in other suburban districts (as well as in urban and rural districts) work hard and achieve.  But do we honestly believe that a third of ALL second graders are truly G&T?
Of course not.  The problem, though, is our national commitment to proficiency.  It seems that more and more districts are designating students as gifted if they perform above grade level on assessments.  Demonstrate your proficiency, and you must be gifted, right?
It is an odd line of thinking.  On a typical grading scale, we can assume “proficient” comes from earning a C.  So now, even those B-minus students are qualifying as gifted and talented.  And we all pat ourselves on the back for the achievement. 
Parents of truly gifted students would say such a policy is further harming their children and denying them the educational resources they need to reach their full potential.  Advocates for the new era of G&T designation would say we are challenging more students, instilling a new sense of hope and optimism in students who were previously just seen as average.  And those worrying about failing schools and drop-out factories would say we are just missing the point.  All may be right, but all are missing the larger point.
I’m all for acceleration in the classroom and more rigorous classes and programs for all students — not just the top tier.  Equipped with the right learning skills, all students should be pushed to study more advanced materials.  And I believe none of us should ever settle for mere “proficiency.”
But 34% G&T rates are the equivalent of every child winning a trophy, regardless of who actually won.  If a G&T designation isn’t limited to those who are truly outstanding among the top students, then the designation simply loses all meaning whatsoever.  We might as well just assign students colors, with every student performing grade level earning a purple.  It holds the same value. 

We Are Agitators, Not Advocates

Eduflack AFT, AYP, Chancellor Klein, national standards, NCLB, Roy Romer, Spellings

We’ve reached halftime at the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit.  So far, the sessions have been interesting … and a little surprising.  What’s surprising?  No one is calling for the abolition of No Child Left Behind.  Even on a panel with two superintendents and the new president of the AFT, no one called for NCLB’s demise.  In fact, everyone seemed to believe the law has had a positive impact on education in the United States.  Why aren’t these folks talking to Congress?

But this is clearly not a conference on NCLB.  If the morning sessions are any indication, the future of education is about one thing and one thing only — accountability.  Perhaps EdSec Margaret Spellings is correct that accountability is going to be the lasting legacy of the NCLB era.  Today, everyone is talking about accountability, and everyone is talking about it in positive and glowing terms.
Some of the highlights from this morning:
* Spellings is reporting that test scores are up, the achievement gap is closing, and we are making great progress, particularly when it comes to math instruction.  EdSec also used the forum to promote her notion of Key Educational Indicators, her banking-industry metaphor for improving education (though the timing of modeling yourself after banking today is a little iffy.  I’d even prefer Tommy Thompson’s comparison to evaluating nursing homes).  What are those Indicators you may ask?  Simple measures — effective educators, reliable data, proven strategies.
* Ed in O8’s Roy Romer used his time at the rostrum to focus on his group’s new study on remedial education in postsecondary education, reporting one in three college-going high school grads needs remedial ed.  An important statistic, yes, but Eduflack thinks we should first figure out how to eliminate the 35% or so high school drop out rate, before focusing on those who made it through the system (even if it was a mediocre system at best)
* NPR/Fox commentator Juan Williams surprised the room by stating one of the biggest issues facing public education is the need (or the requirement) that we must be willing to challenge the unions.
* NYCPS’ Joel Klein has apparently heard one too many times that you can’t fix education until you fix poverty.  He countered with the mirror.  You can fix poverty once you fix education.  He also served as the chief voice for national education standards.
Surprisingly, Roy Romer seems to now be backing off his support for national standards.  A year ago, the former Colorado governor laid out what Eduflack thought was a terrific plan for using the nation’s top education governors to develop national education standards that could be adopted by all states.  Today, Romer said national standards just weren’t doable.  Instead, he proposed states developing their own standards that aligned with international standards, with the feds rewarding them for basing benchmarks on things like PISA.  An interesting idea, yes, but isn’t it more important to have the United States develop a single standard that matches up with PISA or TIMSS, and not that Arizona and Virginia have figured out how to do it by themselves, leaving the other 48 behind?  If national standards are not doable, tell us why and let’s task some folks to solve the problem.  Surrender isn’t the option, particularly on national standards.
The morning closed with an interesting discussion that focused, in part, on staff development.  Prince George’s County (MD) superintendent John Deasy focused on the concept that “teaching matters.”  Atlanta supe Beverly Hall called for professional development to be job embedded, and not simply an add-on offered one morning a month (Are you listing National Staff Development Council?  Hall is singing your song.)  Even Ed Trust’s Kati Haycock got in the act, suggesting that our schools need more programs like Core Knowledge if we are to really close that achievement gap and boost student achievement.
The takeaways?  No fireworks.  The Mayflower Hotel is hosting a room full of power players with the ability to enact real change.  They spent the morning listening and gathering information.  This was not about posturing or getting your slogan mentioned (since there are no open mikes for statements or questions) or showing you are the smartest person in the room.  Instead, this was about hearing and really understanding.  It was about making sure your view (and your motivation) for education reform is motivated by the same issues as your colleague across the table.  It is about making sure we’re all working together to solve the same problem and seeing success in the same way.
The event is being billed as “An Urgent Call.”  What is clear, though, is that there is still an absence of a national sense of urgency for the issue, particularly with those who aren’t running school districts, organizations, or corporations.  We still believe our individual school is doing a great job, regardless of the available data.  We still believe our students can compete, despite our slippage in international competition.  And we still think our kids are ready for the future, despite the growing dropout rate and increased remediation rate.  Clearly, we need an urgent call to Main Street, USA … and we need it now.
For years, Eduflack has talked about the need for public engagement and advocacy, particularly when it comes to the issue of school improvement.  But EdSec Spellings had it right when she said we should not settle for being advocates.  Instead, we should be agitators.  We’ve advocated for reform for decades.  Maybe the only way to really make a difference — to close the achievement gap, to boost student achievement in national and international measures, to measurably improve and support teaching, to broaden school choice and school opportunities — we really need to agitate.  I’m ready.  I’m Eduflack, and I’m an agitator.