NCLB

“An Urgent Call”

Eduflack AFT, Chancellor Klein, Gates Foundation, Michelle Rhee, national standards, NCLB, STEM

It is rare for Eduflack to get generally excited about a particular event.  Those who know me know I am the supreme by nature.  As I’ve said before, I’m not a glass half full/half empty sort of guy.  I just want to know who broke my damned glass.

But every so often, I even surprise myself with real and genuine enthusiasm.  And that enthusiasm is kicking in as we lead into the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit on Monday.  Under the banner of “An Urgent Call,” Aspen is bringing together an unmatched who’s who on education reform, education policy, and corporate support.
I recognize that some may ask, why the enthusiasm?  After all, these sorts of meetings and forums have been a dime a dozen in recent years.  But there just seems to be something a little different about Aspen’s Summit.  And it is those difference that make all the difference:
* The major players will be in attendance … and will be participating.  EdSec Margaret Spellings, Supes Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, reformers like Jon Schnur and John Chubb, policy influencers and leaders like Gates’ Vicki Phillips and Ed in 08’s Roy Romer.  
* The summit is speaking with multiple voices.  Too often, these events come with a specific point of view and a myopic intent.  Here, we have AFT’s Randi Weingarten and EdTrust’s Kati Haycock.  We have urban superintendents and the corporate leaders who are pushing them to change.  And we have an A-list of media members to connect all the voices and provide a clear voice for the future.
* It is about more than diagnosing the problems.  Yes, there will be some focus on how public education in the United States has gotten where it is.  Yes, they will assess the current problems, while providing clear understanding on why the problems need to be fixed.  More importantly, though, the summit is pledging to help “sustain a national will for effective reform.”
As I’ve worked with education organizations and corporations across the country, I’ve always tried to talk about communications and public engagement in the simplest of terms.  Ultimately, one often wants to lower public expectations, and then greatly exceed those expectations.  Why?  We all love a winner.  Those who set goals, and then far exceed those goals, are perceived as winners.  Those who set high public expectations, and then struggle to achieve them, are seen as failing — even if that 80% success rate means a lasting impact on the field (and has far more of an effect than those who easily achieve lower expectations).
Without question, the Aspen Institute has set higher than high expectations with this summit.  More importantly, they are bringing together the right people to actually achieve these goals.  This isn’t just a room of talking heads, brought together to discuss the issues and wring their hands about all that is wrong with our public schools.  On Monday, Aspen is bringing together 300 of the top people best positioned to bring real change and real improvement to our education system.
Sustaining a national will for effective reform is not easy.  Sure, it’s easy to diagnose the problems or to share information about what is wrong and why it is important.  One of the hardest things to do, at least in the communications field, is to move beyond information sharing and move into changing public behavior.  Aspen is seeking to change public behavior, and Monday’s summit serves as their flag in the sand.
The Aspen Institute has demonstrated, through its work with the NCLB Commission, that it is committed to education improvement and to provided the time, support, and leadership to see the issue through.  In my humble eyes, the NCLB Commission’s report — released a year and a half ago — still serves as one of the better blueprints for improving the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  If this summit can serve the same purpose, we may really have something here.
That’s why I am enthusiastic about Monday.  As always, Eduflack will be looking and listening for those issues he knows are essential to improving our schools — national standards, data collection and application, school choice, and STEM among them.  Here’s hoping I leave Monday with the same enthusiasm I’m holding this afternoon.

Is Reading First Dead or Not?

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

Not much more than a month ago, it seemed the entire education community had written Reading First off for dead.  Congress has zero-funded the law.  The U.S. Department of Education was doing little, if anything, to do something about it.  IES had released an interim study questioning the program’s effectiveness.  All seemed relatively lost.

Yes, there was a small chorus of sane voices out there, trying to save this important program.  Sol Stern led a charge.  USA Today strongly weighed in.  Fordham Foundation provided intellectual heft.  Even little ol’ Eduflack got in more than its cent and a half.
Yet most have been planning for RF’s funeral.  Facts are facts, and the facts for RF were just not looking good.  Despite the need for scientifically based reading, despite the impact it has had on student achievement over the past five years, the simple fact was that RF was being zeroed out.  Those schools looking to implement SBRR would need to do so on their own, finding the necessary resources to fund programs that work (without the help from the feds).
The start of the school year may have shifted a little bit of thinking, though.  Tomorrow, EdSec Margaret Spellings will be in Des Moines, Iowa for a day o’ Reading First.  She’ll be touring RF classrooms at George Washington Carver Community School, and then will participate in a roundtable discussion with the superintendent and RF teachers.
More important, though, was the report issued late last month by the Reading First Federal Advisory Committee.  This advisory committee — led by Katherine Mitchell, the former Assistant State Superintendent in Alabama — issued its report as a direct response to the RF interim study released earlier this year by IES.  In their report, the Advisory Committee points to the interim study’s fundamental flaws (most of them methodological, which should be a surprise coming from IES).  More importantly, the committee states that the data found in the IES study is insufficient to make the claim that RF is ineffective.  The advisory committee’s ultimate conclusion — the Congress and ED should not make any long-term decisions on RF until better, more comprehensive data is collected.  They aren’t saying the IES study is wrong, they are just saying the data is insufficient to make any meaningful conclusions.
Of course, this study has gotten little (just about NO) attention from the media.  IES’s interim study was a dagger into RF’s heart, offering the media an entertaining Shakespearean education reform tragedy.  It made from great news, as IES (the office created, in many eyes, to build up SBRR and RF) was ultimately inflicting the wound.  It fell to alternate media, such as the blogosphere, to identify the flaws in the interim study.  It will likely fall to them once more.
So what comes next?  Despite the wishes of the chattering class, RF is likely to get level-funded for one more year.  As Congress fails to pass a new Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill before the end of the month, Congress will simply move into CR mode, meaning that the new budget will simply be a carbon copy of the old budget. So RF programs will collect another year of federal funding, some $350 million or so.  One more year of life.  One more year of opportunity.
Why is this important?  It gives RF (and more importantly, SBRR) supporters a final year to ensure that the legacy of RF is not abandoned when the federal implementation funding dries up.  In a year when the White House, ED, and a number of state departments of education will change hands, those who have benefited from RF’s beacon will need to figure some things out.  How do we keep what works in the classroom?  How do we ensure our schools continue to prioritize scientifically based reading research?  How do we distinguish between good and bad research?  How do we empower teachers with research-based instruction?  How do we get all kids reading?
A lot of questions, yes.  But a lot of questions with clear answers.  We may need a change of vocabulary, but the core principles on which RF was built remain more important than ever.

“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.

Fins to the Left, Teachers to the Right

Eduflack NCLB, PR

Over the weekend, Eduflack and his far better half ventured out to the Jimmy Buffett concert.  It was indeed time for the “Labor Day weekend show.”  The perfect opportunity to check out from the real world for a few hours, putting concerns about education reform out of mind for a short period of time and instead focusing on great music and modern-day pirates.

Imagine my surprise, then, that amid the shark fins, Parrotheads, and rivers of margaritas, I stumble across a sign welcoming me “to the education revolution,” a promotional booth for EPIC, or Educators for Progressive Instructional Change.  Sure, it stood out from among the grass skirts, leis, and tequila, but it nonetheless caught my eye (and what exactly does that say about me?).
EPIC is a non-profit “focused on empowering teachers to impact the process of education reform.”  Its goal seems simple enough, to provide teachers the information and professional development so that they can get involved in the policy process.  The mission is similar to many others “to create education reform that will empower teachers.  Our efforts aim to connect, inspire, and motivate teachers to become the focus of education reform.  The primary goal is to unite teachers as an indomitable force for education reform.”
How?  At first blush, much of the same old, same old.  A brochure that looks like so many that have come before it.  LiveStrong style bracelets that have long lost their power.  And promotion of a march on DC later this fall, as a show of support by and for area teachers.
Talking with EPIC’s founder and president, Myra Sawyers, Eduflack learned that EPIC (www.epicreform.org) is focusing on the DC area first, with plans to roll out activities in other cities (Charlotte, NC was mentioned) down the road.  Sawyers is quick to note that the group is not a PAC, but instead is a non-profit organization with no political mandate.
This mission, indeed, is a noble one, one that is desperately needed in 21st century public education.  We do need to treat good teachers with more professionalism and respect.  Teachers should be involved in the policy process, at the local, state, and federal levels.  And teachers must be empowered to be self-advocates, voices in the schools and the community that not only trigger reform, but bring about meaningful improvement.
Many things must be done, though, to move from well-intentioned to impactful. There are scores of organizations like EPIC that are created each and every year.  And each and every year, even more organizations like it fail.  They fail for many of the same reasons, and many of them focus on communications.
So how does EPIC learn those lessons and continue to build a strong non-profit organization dedicated to teacher empowerment?  By following five simple steps:
* Have a plan — A NFP is no different than a corporation or a political campaign.  The first step to success is having a clear business plan you can follow.  What are your goals? Who are you trying to reach?  How will you measure success?  What resources (human and financial) are available to you?  In the words of baseball philosopher Yogi Berra, if you don’t know where you are going, you are never going to get there.  The plan helps you see where you are going.
* Know your audience — We all want to be everything to everyone.  But success requires clear identification of your target audience.  More importantly, it means understanding the stakeholders who can make the most difference in the shortest period of time.  Who’s in a position to call for change?  Who can implement change?  Who has the resources to bring about change?
* Have a clear ask — Too many start-up not-for-profits see themselves as information-sharing organizations only.  They believe that if they get the information out, their work is done.  Success comes when you drive your audience to take a specific action.  And that only comes from a clear ask.  If EPIC is targeting teachers, what exactly do they want them to do?  Speak at school boards?  Visit state legislatures?  Write letters to the editor?  Figure out what actions are needed to bring change, then ask for those actions (and those actions only).
* Don’t go alone — It is hard to have lasting impact if you are a singular voice trying to break through the white noise.  Education reform success often comes through relationships, partnerships, and advocates. Find those groups and individuals that share a common vision and common goals.  Use their communications channels.  Build on their membership and recognition.  Establish a network of champions and advocates that can carry your message well beyond your own resources.
* Evaluate, adjust, repeat — Yes, it is essential to set clear, measurable goals from the beginning.  A good reform organization knows to constantly evaluate its efforts, establishing ongoing benchmarks of effectiveness.  A truly successful reform group knows to take that evaluation and use it to adjust its communications and advocacy efforts, constantly improving and strengthening its activities.  Such an ongoing feedback loop only strengthens the organization and ensures the maximization of resources.
And one final piece of advice for Ms. Sawyers and the education reformers like her. PACs aren’t the only groups that advocate.  Under the law, not-for-profits and 501(c)(3)s can be effective policy advocates at all levels of government.  Yes, there is a fine line between lobbying and advocacy.  But for groups like EPIC to be successful, they must become successful policy advocates.  Simply spotlighting the importance of teachers is no longer good enough.  Those organizations that leave a lasting impact are ones that guide us to improvement.  They are groups that make specific policy recommendations to improve the power of the teaching profession.  And then they leave it up to the legislators to codify and fund it.

Thinking Less of Our Schools

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB, PR

This week, Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University released their second annual survey on public education.  There is a lot of interesting data here (http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/26380034.html).

For years, we have subscribed to the notion that we believe our own schools are doing a great job, even if we think public schools nationally are struggling.  What does the data say?  Nationally, only 9% of those surveyed would give their own schools an A (still a huge improvement from the 2% who give us an A nationally).  More than half of those surveyed said their own schools scored a C or worse, while more than three-quarters of adults gave a C or poorer to our schools nationally.

By comparison, 19% give our local police force an A.  Heck, 22% give the post office an A.

But we are schizophrenic on our views of our schools.  Three quarters of adults rate the schools average (C) or worse, yet 56% believe our schools are heading in the right direction (with two of three teachers surveyed seeing an upward trend).

The right direction must be because of NCLB, right?  Wrong.  Half of adults say NCLB should either be overhauled or not renewed at all.  With teachers, three-quarters of educators give it a thumbs down.

Huh?  How can that be?  We are headed in the right direction, but we need to dramatically change or reject the path we’ve been taking for the past six years?  It just doesn’t make sense.

Education Next does deserve credit for its definition of NCLB.  Over the past five years, survey after survey has tried to capture similar data, with varied results.  And it often comes down to the questions posed.  For this survey, NCLB is defined simply:  “the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set standards in math and reading and to test students each year to determine whether schools are making adequate progress, and to intervene when they are not.”
 
On the plus side, 69% of adults want national education standards, and want standards defined as “one test and standard for all students.”  (A majority of teachers, 54%, support a single national standard.)

What does all this tell us?  Unfortunately, we’re back to a familiar refrain from Eduflack.  We must do a better job of promoting the progress, the successes, and the good works of our local schools.  For the past few years, we have dwelled on the negatives and the negatives only.  Failing students.  Over-their-head teachers.  Overworked administrators.  Unconcerned parents.  Is it any wonder we don’t see any A schools out there, either nationally or in our own communities?

Reforming schools is about improving schools.  We can put in the right curriculum.  Train and support the right teachers.  Demonstrate improved student achievement.  It is all for naught if we aren’t “selling” reform and educating stakeholders on what’s really happening in our classrooms.  If this data is any indication, effective marketing and PR for our schools may be almost as important instruction.
  
 

“Legacy”

Eduflack HQT, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

For years now — well before the lawsuits, the IG investigations, and the delays in reauthorization — Eduflack trumpeted that No Child Left Behind could and should be this Administration’s domestic policy legacy.  Like it or not, NCLB had the opportunity to transform and improve public education in the United States for decades to come.

I can hear the belly laughs already, but think about it.  The largest federal investment in K-12 education in history.  A commitment to improving student achievement.  Unmatched accountability.  Proven-effective, research-based instruction.  Content-based professional development.  Supplemental education and school choice for those in struggling schools.  Every child reading at grade level by fourth grade.  Education that was results based, not process based.  A sea change from the status quo.

The opportunities to cement that legacy have been there.  When Margaret Spellings took over in 2005.  When high school improvement gained attention from ED in 2005 and 2006.  The release of the NCLB Commission report in early 2007, following by genuine congressional interest to reauthorize and strengthen the law.  There was even the moment when Spellings declared the law 99.99% pure.  All were opportunities, and virtually all were squandered.  Opportunities lost, legacies missed.

In today’s USA Today, Greg Toppo quotes our educator in chief — First Lady Laura Bush — as stating that NCLB will indeed be a legacy of her husband’s Administration.  The question today, though, is what type of legacy will it become?  In 2005 or 2006, the opportunity was there to demonstrate the enormous benefit the law — or at least the intent of the law — could have on K-12 education throughout the nation.  Today, that legacy has the strong possibility of being cloaked in negativity, leaving a lasting mark for unfunded mandates, high-stakes testing, and teacher-proof instruction.

It doesn’t have to be that way.  Spellings and her team have six months remaining to leave the legacy the law should have, the legacy deserved by the good folks who created NCLB nearly seven years ago.  Even without reauthorization (which none of us expect to see before a new edsec takes the helm at Maryland Ave.), there is one last chance to do it right.

Continued flexibility for the states is a good start.  Marketing recent reading and math gains for the students who needed NCLB the most helps too.  Spotlighting the teachers and schools who have improved under the law reminds us all of what is possible.  Reminding us that NCLB is about more than just elementary school, as evidenced by ED’s American competitiveness work goes a long way, as does promotion of the law’s investment in teachers and their continued training and development.  And who can argue with the value of better data and better understanding of data, allowing our schools to use such information to make better spending, leadership, and instructional decisions. 

Of course, Eduflack would personally like to see a metaphorical charge up San Juan Hill to save Reading First, reminding the world that literacy skills are needed to succeed in school, career, and life, and the only way to gain those skills is to ensure that our classrooms are using only the very best and the very proven instructional approaches.

So what comes next?  Spellings and company have six months.  They lose two of them for the election, and lose a few more weeks in January for transition.  That leaves three months for a legacy campaign.  Hard, yes.  Impossible, not quite.  But the clock is ticking.  The question remains … is anyone at ED watching the clock?

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?

 

Is Opinion Research?

Eduflack DCPS, IES, NCLB, Spellings, vouchers

For nearly a decade now, “research” has been the buzz word in education reform.  It comes in many flavors, and it usually comes with a number of adjectives — scientifically based, high quality, effective, squishy, and such.  And by now we all know that “scientifically based research” is in the NCLB law more than 100 times.

With all of the talk about research, we know there is good research and there is not so good research.  We have action research passed off as longitudinal.  We have customer satisfaction studies passed off as randomized trials. We have people mis-using, mis-appropriating, and downright abusing the word “research.”

Through it all (at least for the past seven years or so), the U.S. Department of Education was supposed to be the arbiter between good and bad research.  IES was founded to serve as the final, most official word on what constitutes good education research.  Dollars have been realigned.  Programs have been thoroughly examined.  Priorities have been shaken up.

So where does it all leave us?  In this morning’s Washington Post, EdSec Margaret Spellings launches a passionate defense of the DC voucher program.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702216.html  (Personally, I’m still waiting for such a defense of Reading First, a program helping millions upon millions of more students in schools beyond our nation’s capital, but what can you do?)

It should come as no surprise that Spellings sought to use research to demonstrate the effectiveness and the need for the DC voucher program.  Without doubt, vouchers have had a real impact on the District of Columbia.  It has reinforced the importance of education with many families.  It has opened doors of schools previously closed off to DC residents.  It has forced DC public schools and charters to do a better job, as they seek to keep DC students (and the dollars associated with their enrollment) in the DCPS coffers.  And, of course, we are starting to see the impact vouchers are having on student achievement among students who previously attended the most struggling of struggling schools.

Spellings points out all of this in her detailing of the research validating the voucher program.  But there is one “research” point Spellings uses that just has Eduflack scratching his head.  From the EdSec’s piece — “The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) found that parents of scholarship children express confidence that they will be better educated and even safer in their new schools.”
 
Such a statement is downright funny, and quite a bit concerning.  In all of the discussions about scientifically based research, high-quality research, the medical model, double-blind studies, control groups, and the like, I don’t remember public opinion surveys meeting the IES standard for high-quality research.  Parents feel better about their children because of vouchers?  That’s a reason to direct millions in federal funding to the program? 

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all for public opinion polling and the value of such surveys (along with the focus groups and other qualitative research that helps educate them).  But it is one of the last things that should be used to validate a program or drive government spending on educational priorities.

If DC is to keep vouchers, it should keep them because it is driving improvement in student performance and is giving a real chance to kids previously in hopeless situations.  It should be saved with real data that bears a resemblance to the scientifically based research we demand of the our programs and that we expect our SEAs and LEAs to use in decisionmaking.  It should be actionable research, with a clear methodology that can be replicated.
 
Otherwise, we’re just wrapping up opinion in a research wrapper.  That may be good enough for some for-profit education companies and others trying to turn a quick buck on available federal resources, but it shouldn’t make the cut for the government — particularly the branch of ED that is in charge of high-quality research.  Ed reform should be more than a finger-in-the-wind experiment.  And Spellings and IES should know that by now.


Punishing Those We Should Be Helping

Eduflack ELL, NCLB, Reading First, Spellings

Last year, Congress slashed funding for Reading First, citing the Inspector General’s report on the program and concerns from critics about the management of the program and its “political priorities.”  At the time, folks in the know saw it as a warning shot.  Popular thinking was that the 65% cut would be restored at the end of the day, once EdSec Margaret Spellings issued a mea culpa and promised to run a tighter ship.  After all, even House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey’s home district in Wisconsin saw demonstrable gains because of Reading First.  Clearly, he wasn’t going to deny his own schools, would he?

Of course, the funding was never restored, and RF is now a funding shell of its former shelf.  That was bad news for the program, but worse news for the countless schools across the nation that boosted student reading achievement because of RF support and programs.  Now, we’re moving into disaster.

Last week, House appropriators moved to eliminate the Reading First program entirely.  They want to zero out the program, putting an end to what was a signature component of NCLB.  One can’t blame, them, really.  The program has been a high-profile effort of the Administration.  There is plenty of blame to go around on the stumbling blocks and problems that arose during its early implementation.  And after the release of the IG report, the Department has done little — if anything — to promote the law, perhaps fearing greater attention or critique.  It’s become the bastard stepchild of NCLB.

Let’s forget — for a second — that RF works.  Let’s forget the data released last week — prepared by American Institutes for Research for the U.S. Department of Education — that shows the effectiveness of the program.  Forget that RF increased reading comprehension proficiency for first graders in 44 of 50 SEAs.  Forget that it boosted reading success of second graders in nearly 4 out of 5 SEAs.  Forget that third graders in 70% of reporting SEAs saw test scores increase.  And forget the similar positive impact it is having on both English Language Learners and students with disabilities.  Forget all of it.  

Forgetting it all is the only way one can justify action to eliminate the program.  Student proficiency increasing in first, second, and third grades (the very grades targeted by RF)?  Interventions that work with all students, including ELL students?  Funds for results-based teacher professional development?  Real interventions that work with virtually all students?  No, we don’t need any of that.

Yes, Spellings deserved (and deserves) to have her wrist slapped.  The problems with the implementation of RF happened under her watch, first as quarterback over at DPC and then over at the building of little red schoolhouses.  The proverbial buck has to stop somewhere, and it should be at her desk.  She has to take responsibility.  More importantly, she has to fix it.  The data is clear — the program works.  She needs to whatever it takes to keep the mission, vision, and goals of this necessary law in place.  She’s been fighting to save NCLB for the past year, demonstrating flexibility to bring more states and their politicians into the fold.  She should be doing the same thing for RF.

If she can’t, then she’s just letting Congress punish the wrong people.  When House and Senate leaders choose to zero out RF, the only people they are punishing are the teachers and students who depend on the funding and who are making demonstrable gains because of the guidance and support it provides.  They’re hurting those elementary school students who now finally gaining the reading skills they need to succeed in both school and life.  And they are penalizing those schools that have made a success of RF, despite the problems at the national level.

I’m all for strong rhetoric with real teeth.  Congress should demand more accountability for RF and NCLB programs.  They should expect the problems highlighted in the IG report to be remedied.  And they should use the stick when the carrot isn’t working.  But they also need to remember why we committed $1 billion a year to effectively teach reading.  They need to look at both the letter and intent of the RF law, and ensure it is implemented with fidelity.  They need to fulfill their commitment to our schools and beginning readers across the nation.

It’s easy to throw up our hands, get out the red pens, and draw and X through RF.  It’s far, far harder to teach kids to read.  If Reading First works (and even the recent Center on Education Policy data shows it does), we need to support it, not sentence it to a slow, political death.  Otherwise, we’re just punishing those kids that are picking up their first book … or it may be their last.