A decade ago, there was one word that was often used to describe educational research. That word — squishy. Despite all we knew about what worked and what didn’t in education, the research base was often soft or without merit. Once you peeled back all of the layers, so-called research studies would end up being nothing more than consumer satisfaction studies, focus group reports, or public opinion surveys without the intellectual heft.
The issue came to a point with the National Reading Panel, which brought the term “scientifically based reading research” into vogue. (Again, full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of it.) Two years later, NCLB took on the term, and used it more than a hundred times in the law. We began to shift toward an industry driven by science and documentable proofs. It was about what works, and a clearinghouse to hold that research. It was about a medical model, with real control groups and replicable research models. It was about proven effectiveness. It was about making a difference.
As part of that shift, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) met its demise. Many scientifically-based proponents placed the blame for squishy research firmly in the laps of OERI. For decades, it funded qualitative studies and those that would never be mistaken for the medical model. To be fair, OERI also endorsed the findings of the NRP and the call for more rigorous research.
After passage of NCLB, Congress approved new legislation to eliminate OERI and create a new research arm for the U.S. Department of Education — the Institute of Education Sciences. IES became the father of the What Works Clearinghouse and the champion for scientifically based education research. And since its inception in 2002, IES has been led by Russ Whitehurst.
Whitehurst’s six-year appointment ends in November, and we’re already seeing his obituaries. Many tag the recent AERA meetings as his swan song. Today’s Washington Post wrote a quite reflective piece on his tenure, which can be found in full here … http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042701866.html.
The Post does a good job of laying out Whitehurst’s legacy at the helm of IES. But the big question is where do we go from here. Some seem to think IES should revert back to more of an OERI-style operation, more closely intertwined with ED and more forgiving when it comes to “different” forms of research. IES has taken a hard line and bears the scars. Some fear the Institute. Others try to avoid it. And others more think it is one of the most positive steps we have taken to strengthen education in this nation.
Put Eduflack down in the third of those three categories. We need to do what works. We need good research. And we need to make sure our federal education research dollars are being spent wisely and on replicable research. Unlike healthcare, education doesn’t have a big private-sector investment in education R&D. We don’t have an FDA or a similar organization to vet outside research. But we have IES. And we have several years of good work from the Institute, work that has eliminated our house on the sand, and put it firmly on a concrete slab.
Sure, there are things that IES could do better. It could improve communication with key stakeholders. It could better promote the WWC and the impact it is having. But most of those improvements are in the communications arena. In terms of policy and content, IES is on firm footing.
So where do we go from here? Who is the next Director of IES? And what path should he or she take?
Clearly, many of the likely candidates this administration would offer have been tagged in one way or another by the IG investigation into Reading First. Others may choose to stay away for that same reason. So I’ll leave it to Knowledge Alliance and the true wonks of the policy wonks to throw out some specific names (I have two or three on my preferred list). But I will offer five characteristics the Administration (or the future Administration) should look for to fill the IES Director’s chair come November:
* A Strong Research Background — This should be a no-brainer, but we have to say it. He has to walk the walk.
* Classroom Experience — One of the greatest criticisms of most scientifically based education researchers is they don’t have K-12 classroom experience. Even if it is only for a few years, they need that line on the resume to be able to talk effectively with classroom teachers
* A Collaborator — For IES to grow and continue to strengthen, the new Director must build bridges between ED departments and the ED blob around town.
* An Understanding of Relevance — Methodology is important. Knowing how to take that research and put it to use in the field is priceless. IES must link its growing research base to practice in public P-12 schools across the nation.
* A Communicator — In its second term, IES must better communicate its mission, its goals, and its successes. It is doing great work, but if we don’t know it, they may as well be whistling in the wind. The Director is not only chief researcher, he is also chief spokesman and chief cheerleader. And the latter two are often more important.
That’s not asking too much, is it? Too often, we squander our progress during transition. It doesn’t have to be that way with IES. With Whitehurst’s legacy, and his and ED’s help in transitioning to the next six years, we can build on the successes, and not let them rot from neglect. We have an opportunity here. Let’s hope ED takes advantage of it.
NCLB
A Nation in Transition
Virtually everyone in the education community seems to be celebrating the 25th anniversary of “A Nation at Risk.” For many of us, 25 meant two things. First, we got to rent a car without special surcharges. Second, parents and their friends could start asking us the question, “So what are you going to do with your life?”
For more than a decade now, I have heard educated folks — those far more educated than I am — ask the latter, lamenting the future of “A Nation at Risk.” We throw the term around all of the time, but fail to really delve into its deeper meaning. I can try to explain it, but Eduwonk said it far better earlier this week — http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/04/timepiece.html.
So after two and a half decades, where are we … really? We’ve spent a lot of time fighting the status quo, those folks who believed the schools simply needed more time and more money to fix what ailed them. We went through a magic-bullet stage, where schools adopted anything and everything that vendors claimed could boost student performance or improve learning. And we’ve spent the last seven years in the era of scientifically based learning, where research and “doing what works” is supposed to trump all.
I’ll be honest, I am not a true believer, and I don’t drive the Kool-Aid. Eduflack believes in conspiracy theories and things that go bump in the night. I’m a natural cynic who doesn’t worry if the glass is half full or half empty. I want to know who took my damned water. So it is very easy to see flaws and problems in a Nation, 25 years later.
But as I look across the landscape, I’d like to believe — to paraphrase Ronald Reagan — that we are better off now than we were 25 years ago. Today, we are talking about student achievement and student ability on state standardized tests. Today, we are putting research-based instructional models into the classrooms that need it most. Today, we are focusing on high-quality teaching, giving our educators the support, PD, and such they need to succeed in their classroom. Today, we are talking about a common national graduation rate, allowing us to effectively measure high schools across the city, the state, or the nation. Today, we are focused on outcomes, not just caught up in the inputs and processes of education. We look for a return on investment, and we measure that return based on student success.
Don’t get me wrong. We still have a LONG way to go. “A Nation at Risk,” along with other reports that have come after it, provide us a collaborative blueprint on how to improve our schools, and more importantly, how to improve the quality and the impact of our schools. We’re seeming select successes in pilots and programs across the country. We’re seeing Reading First raising the test scores of young readers. We’re seeing STEM programs engage all students in critical thinking. We’re seeing teachers take a greater pride in their craft and defend their field with a zealousness not found in decades.
One author has opined that “A Nation at Risk” should be renamed “A Nation in Crisis.” Based on what I’ve seen in the field, based on what I’ve heard and read from the experts, even this certified cynic has more hope than that. We may be “A Nation in Transition” now, with the possibility of become “A Nation of Opportunity.”
Let’s STEM Together
Collectively, we give a great deal of lip service to the idea of collaboration. We seem to know that we should engage other stakeholders in our reforms. We recognize the importance of different voices from different perspectives. But in the end, we tend to flock around our own. Teacher-focused reform. Policies driven in a decisionmaker vacuum. Even students who try to go down the change path all by their lonesome.
This week, Eduflack was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Team Pennsylvania Foundation. The groups brought hundreds of individuals to Harrisburg to discuss the importance of a statewide STEM education effort. The audience was a textbook definition of the collaboration we typically seek — representatives from P-12, higher education, business, NFPs, and government. High school students and 30-year veterans. All five regions of the state strongly represented. All gathered together to improve STEM education for the state.
The panel discussion, in particular, was an interesting one. We purposely heard from a variety of voices in STEM education field. Two newish educators collaborating to build a STEM high school in Pittsburgh (doors opening in 2009). A corporate representative who has demonstrated his commitment to STEM skills and STEM hires for years. The president of Saint Francis University, whose TEAMS effort could teach a lot of IHEs how to prepare teachers for the rigors of STEM. And two students currently participating in STEM apprenticeship programs with Lockheed Martin — both enrolled in community college, both excited about the career paths available to them.
This diverse panel gave the full audience a great deal to think about, helping them answer some key questions we all seem to dwell on. Why is STEM education so important? Who benefits from it? What is my role in adopting a STEM program? What do we do if we don’t have money to open a new school or start an apprenticeship program? How do we know we are successful? What’s the end game, both in terms of results and calendar.
Father Gabe Zies, the president of Saint Francis, was particularly powerful in discussing the final question. This is not a two-year effort, with a calendar dictated by the term of a grant from the NGA. Investment in STEM education is a long-term game. We don’t look for an end. Instead, we constantly look to improve and enhance. The effort will continue to evolve as our technology and our skill needs evolve. In essence, Father Gabe is saying that STEM is about meeting the challenges of tomorrow. It is about innovation, an innovation that never stops and should never waver. And that means an initiative that is perpetually adapting and changing to address those needs continually ensure our students, our teachers, and our schools are up to the challenges ahead of them.
There was universal agreement that STEM education is a shared responsibility with shared returns on investment. No audience can go it alone, and none should be forced to. Through collaboration, these Pennsylvania STEM advocates were confident they can build a strong, sustainable effort that strengthens both P-16 education and the workforce.
The group also heard from Pennsylvania Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, who kicked the forum off with an inspirational discussion of hope and opportunity. Channeling football great Vince Lombardi, Zahorchak cited a goal of perfection. He noted Lombardi consistently pushed all his players to achieve perfection. Whenever they were asked about it, they said they aren’t there yet, but they are a whole lot better today than they were before. And they would be better tomorrow.
Such sentiment is important in education reform, and it is often lost in the NCLB era. We seem to look for excuses as to why every child can’t succeed and how we need expand exceptions to the law or look for loopholes to get us out of the problem. In discussing STEM, Zahorchak recognizes what the end goal is — a fully STEM-literate society. High school diplomas that hold real value in the work world. Postsecondary academic pathways that were previously unavailable to many. Career opportunities that strengthen the family while strengthening the region and state’s overall economy. Opportunities for all, not just for those seeking to be rocket scientists or brain surgeons.
I don’t know about the other participants, but Coach Zahorchak, I’m ready to suit up and get down in a three-point stance. Perfection should be our end game. The panelists I spoke with clearly demonstrated we have the tools, the experience, and the passion to get there. Now we just need to harness all those tools, work together, and ensure that our strongest team is on the field.
After this week, I am certain Pennsylvania is up to the challenge, and has the opportunity to serve as a true model for STEM education in the coming years.
ED’s Back in the Game
In the hit baseball movie “Major League,” the Indians’ supposed slugger — Pedro Serrano — has a problem. He “hit straight ball very much,” but he just can’t seem to hit a curveball. The problem comes to a climax in the bottom of the eighth inning of a one-game playoff to decide whether the Indians or Yankees win the division. The Tribe is down by two runs, Pedro is up with a runner on first.
All season, the slugger had been praying to his voodoo god — Joboo — to help him hit the curve. Nothing works. Finally, with two strikes, Pedro steps out of the batters box, and speaks to Joboo for a final time. “I go to you, I stick up for you,” Pedro says. “If you no help me now, then [forget] you Joboo. I do it myself.” He then goes on to tie the game with a rocket home run, and the Indians win in the bottom of the ninth. All because of Pedro.
Anyone who knows Eduflack knows he is a die-hard baseball fan (Go, Mets!) and an education reform advocate. The two share a great number of characteristics. We usually swing for the fences, and we often fail. And we are considered an all-start if we can manage to succeed a third of the time.
These commonalities were even more clear yesterday, when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced her proposed regulations to strengthen NCLB. Essentially, Spellings has assumed the role of Pedro Serrano (which is not so bad since he goes on to become U.S. President David Palmer on “24”). For years, the field has been throwing a number of NCLB curveballs at Spellings. She’s fouled many off. She’s swung and missed on quite a few. And up until her last at bat, she hasn’t made good contact on any pitch that wasn’t straight and easy down the plate.
Yes, she’s embraced NCLB. She’s defended the law. She’s believed in it. But she left it to others to improve. The Miller/McKeon draft was a deep fly ball that landed foul. Kennedy’s revision of NCLB still hasn’t made it into the game. And there’s Spellings insisting the NCLB was going to win it come the end of the game.
She started making contact earlier this spring, when she announced her flexibility measures in Minnesota. This week, she finally parked one of those curveballs over the leftfield wall. Just as everyone had written NCLB off as dead, just as we had declared that the status quo would win at the end, Spellings has tied up the game and left NCLB in a position to win in the final inning.
Some of her proposed regulations look remarkably similar to ideas floated by Buck McKeon and others. That’s a good thing. She’s learned from both her friends and opponents, and has demonstrated she is listening. Her performance yesterday focused on the issues we wanted to hear. Flexibility on AYP. Strengthening school restructuring. Establishing the NGA’s universal high school graduation rate. Strengthening parental engagement. All individuals hits. Combined, they can win the game.
Of course, Spellings is now playing in a hostile park. She’s not only facing tough critics from legislators and the education blob, she’s also hearing it from the crowd as many hope for a swing and a miss. But she’s now showing she has the potential to knock in the winning run.
How? She needs to build public support for these administrative changes. She needs to demonstrate a commitment to improving the law, not just protect it. She needs to show that she is collaborating, both with her friends and enemies, to make the law better. And she needs to communicate, communicate, communicate with any and all who may be involved in the implementation.
“Major League” is but a movie. Spellings is playing in real life. And this isn’t just a one-game playoff. These changes are for her legacy and for the domestic policy legacy of this Administration. But that doesn’t mean she can’t have that Hollywood ending, and leave ED with a new, stronger NCLB.
Scanning for Success
You can often hear the most interesting things on talk radio, particularly at the height of campaign season. This afternoon, Eduflack was surfing the AM stations and came across and interesting tale from primary season in Indiana. As he is barnstorming for his wife in the Hoosier State, former President Bill Clinton spoke on education. More importantly, he spoke on scientifically based education.
In what I’m guessing was a detour from the approved stump speech, Clinton told the audience that there were now machines out there that could scan the brains of everyone in the audience. With those scans, he continued, we could get every person (except those with diagnosed learning disabilities) to learn and achieve. If we can do it, why aren’t we getting our children to learn?
If I didn’t know any better, the Clinton campaign is now advocating for scientifically based education research. For those in the trenches of the reading wars, we’ve long heard the impact of such scans and brain patterns on learning. Just take a look at the work from folks like Sally Shaywitz, Guinevere Eden, and many others, and you can see the power of the scan. It is just amazing to see how brain activity changes as students are stimulated with scientifically based instruction.
For many, learning is just as much art as it is science. And that’s unfortunate. In the past decade alone, we have seen significant quantitative research on effective instruction. We know what works. We know what we can prove (and we know what we can’t). Scientifically based education is about getting what is proven effective into the classroom. It’s about ensuring that every child can indeed succeed in the classroom.
Bill Clinton is right. We can scan the brain, and use the technology to improve instruction and classroom success. The research is clear. Scientifically based education research works. Maybe those steadfast opponents of scientifically based research need a quick run in the old scanner themselves.
Eight-Dollar Words
Secretary Spellings’ big national NCLB policy announcement came yesterday in Minnesota. And the closely guarded secret was exactly what Alexander Russo and others thought it would be — greater flexibility in determining student achievement and AYP.
We all know it was an important step, and one that was a long time in coming. The Commonwealth of Virginia is aggressively looking at pulling out of NCLB over the issue, willing to refuse its federal education dollars because of issues involving AYP and ELL students (among others). For years now, the states have been clamoring for additional flexibility, noting unique demographic and data circumstances in their states.
Such flexibility is not an excuse for avoiding federal requirements, rather it is a recognition that some states have to take different paths to reach proficiency and to get every student achieving. While we’re all heading to the same ultimate goal, it may take some longer and it may require more work and more innovation from others.
The U.S. Department of Education should be commended for finally offering this lifeline to those states trying to do the right thing when it comes to AYP. And we likely have groups like CCSSO for helping push it forward. Now, the spotlight will be placed on which 10 states will gain this newly found flexibility (and from the speakers list yesterday, it seems Minnesota and South Dakota are likely to be in the pool. And Spellings also singled out Maryland, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Massachusetts. Here’s hoping that Eduflack’s home state of Virginia makes the cut as well.
But in all of the excitement of a major education policy announcement, I can’t help but notice the need by some to secure a triple-word score on the announcement. For years now, the talk has been on flexibility. Yet if we look at all of the headlines from the “official” documents coming out of the Minnesota announcement, we’ve decided to rebrand flexibility as a “differentiated accountability pilot.”
If the goal is to win over the research professors in our schools of education and public policy, then the rebrand is genius. But if our intent is to demonstrate that ED is listening, and has answered the call for greater flexibility, we are falling a little flat.
Over the past few years, one of the greatest criticisms of this Department of Education (and this Administration) is that it is inflexible. It is their way or the highway. And that has been particularly true of NCLB. It is enforced the way those on the seventh floor intend it to, and there is little (if any) room for interpretation or flexibility. That is why you have seen so many states (along with ed organizations like AASA, NEA, and the others) grouse about the law and its implementation for the last seven years.
We blunt that criticism by showing we are flexible. We scream from the rooftops of our ability to recognize and adapt to the needs of our constituencies. At this stage of the game, we should become virtual Gumbies of public policy, doing whatever it takes to reauthorize the law and recommit to boosting achievement in all students. These last 10 months are all about legacy, after all.
Instead, we fly such flexibility under the banner of “differentiated accountability pilot.” After reaching for our latest copy of Webster, we may figure out that ED is demonstrating flexibility. Or we may just move on, seeing it as just the latest in policyspeak and education gobbledygook. Worse, we may think there is something unknown and hidden in such a complicated term, fearing there is an enforcement shoe to drop that we don’t see or don’t understand.
Don’t get me wrong. A differentiated accountability pilot is a good step, particularly if ED selects the right states — those who need the flexibility the most and those who can demonstrate that, with a little help, improved achievement is just around the corner. But we should look to use common-sense words to describe complex issues.
We don’t need eight-dollar words when a 50-cent one will do. The name of the game here is flexibility. Hopefully, educators and policymakers will overlook our Scrabble-speak and recognize the opportunity and possibility behind the actions. After all, this is what they’ve been calling for for years.
The Gift of Educational Giving?
Even after all these years, everyone wants to get their products or ideas on Oprah. Authors, community activists, actors, and the wannabes want to hear their names (and hopefully some praise) come out of the Queen of Television’s mouth. And those in the education community are no different.
For those who have missed it, Sunday nights for the past month have been home for Oprah Winfrey’s Big Give. The premise is simple. They send a pack of volunteers to raise money or make a difference for an individual, a family, or a community. Each week, the weakest philanthropist is sent home, with the remaining givers moving on to the next fundraising event.
Tonight, Oprah sent two teams to Houston to raise money for two low-income elementary schools. Aided by sports phenoms Andre Agassi and Tony Hawk, the amateur philanthropists had a great impact on the two schools — and the two school communities — they were tasked with serving.
Among all the hoopla of tennis events and skateboarding and Santa Claus and new playgrounds, there was a lost PR opportunity for the education sector. In the middle of the program, there was a visit from former President George H.W. Bush. And a throwaway line thanking his son for giving curriculum to the school.
It is presumed that a tip of the hat should go to Neil Bush and Ignite! Learning. We have to assume that Ignite! stepped up and provided one of these Houston schools with their computer-based curriculum. After all, no other Bush children are in the curriculum business (unless you count the current president).
It isn’t unusual for a company to participate in such an act. Typically, it is so it can get prime “advertising” space, having its name plastered across the screen or coming out of the mouths of the program’s host. It’s a marketing tactic, designed to build name recognition and demonstrate the company is committed to the community.
But it is unusual to make a donation on a national television program, and not demand such recognition. Maybe the applause for Ignite! was left on the cutting room floor. Or maybe Bush and his company just wanted to give a little to a Houston school that can’t afford its software. Regardless, Ignite! should get a little credit for its giving. And maybe, just maybe, it is part of a larger corporate commitment to getting its learning platform into the schools that need it, even if they can’t pay for it today.
It Just Adds Up
Nearly eight years ago, the National Reading Panel released its findings before Congress, officially starting the push for scientifically based reading research — or SBRR — in the classroom. Then, just as now, we knew that all students needed reading skills in order to achieve. We knew that an inability to read at grade level by fourth grade would hamper learning ability throughout a student’s academic career. And, thanks to the NRP and the previous work done by the National Academies of Science, we know what our classrooms needed to do to transform every child into a reader. The research was clear, the NRP documented it, and the challenge became equipping every teacher with the knowledgebase and ability to use that research and get kids reading.
In many ways, the NRP report was a revolution. Strong supporters and equally strong opponents went through it recommendation by recommendation, idea by idea. Other researchers, such as Camilli, re-analyzed everything to determine if the findings were accurate (they were). And in the end, the research stands as strong today as it did in April of 2000. Some may attack the personalities involved in the NRP. Others may wish the NRP had studied more issues or made additional recommendations (particularly as they relate to literature or to qualitative research). And still others may wish the NRP findings had been more flexibly adopted as part of Reading First. But no one can question that the NRP started a revolution, giving us a new way to look at education, a new way to look at educational research, and higher standard for doing what works and seeking return on educational investment. (Full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of the Panel, its work, and its impact on education.)
It took years before we saw the full impact of the NRP findings. SBRR didn’t enter the discussion until two years later, after NCLB and RF were signed into law. (Yes, the NRP was a Clinton-era initiative). But look at it now.
It is significant to remember this as we look at this week’s report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. For those who missed it (and it was hard to, with the significant media coverage it received from the nation’s leading newspapers), the Math Panel offered significant recommendations on the math skills our students need to succeed and how our nation’s teachers can empower all students with such skills.
In doing so, the Math Panel has now planted a firm flag in the name of education reform and improved student achievement. By looking at ways to improve the PreK through eighth grade math curriculum, the Panel has clearly articulated what our kids should know as part of their mathematics education. And they have provided specific goals for math instruction, goals that can and should guide curriculum development, program acquisition, teaching, and learning in schools and classrooms across the nation.
The Panel’s members should be applauded for their hard work and their commitment. This report is an important milestone in the improvement of math education in the United States. Unfortunately, it is just the first step of many. From Eduflack’s experience, the hard work begins now. Now, we have to move those findings into practice.
Too often, we’ve seen important government studies that never live up to their potentials. Reports are published. Copies are distributed. Then they sit in closets or on bookshelves never to be seen again. Many believe simply distributing the report, and raising awareness of its existence and contents, is all that is needed. We know, however, that is far from the case.
For the Math Panel report to have the impact it should have on our schools, we need to look beyond mere information distribution and focus on changing math teaching and math learning. If we learned anything from the NRP, it is that an aggressive public engagement campaign is key to long-term impact. Yes, it is important that we learn of the Math Panel’s findings. But it is more important for teachers to understand how they need to change their practice and the impact it will have on students. We need administrators to know what they must look for in selecting curricular solutions. We need teacher educators to know what skills and abilities they must equip future generations of math teachers with. We must let all of our key stakeholders know what they have to do differently to meet the Math Panel’s goals — and we must arm them with the resources and support necessary to achieve it.
The time is now for the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and math educators, math advocates, parents, and policymakers who are committed to boosting math achievement among U.S. students. And it is a time to act. With a clear blueprint, we know where we need to go and what we need to do. Now, we must learn from the experiences of the NRP, avoid the political roadblocks and the straying from the research, and focus on doing. It’s the only way our kids can ensure that classroom experience times research-based practice equals long-term results.
Wither NCLB?
It has been a rough couple of weeks for our federal elementary and secondary education act. During a recent road tour, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings speculated that it is unlikely that NCLB will be reauthorized this calendar year. We’re still waiting on Ted Kennedy’s new version of the law. Buck McKeon is just as skeptical as Spellings about the 2008 future of new legislation. The future ain’t too bright in our nation’s capital.
It’s been just as interesting in the states. Most of us know about the long-pending NCLB lawsuit waged by the National Education Association and many states. Now we have new action and new rhetoric in the Mid-Atlantic adding to NCLB’s poor grades.
In Virginia, the state’s legislature this weekend voted to mandate that the Virginia Board of Education explore opting out of NCLB. Citing concerns about ELL students and exceptions (or the lack thereof) made for Virginia students with regard to AYP. It’s a bold move. Pulling out of NCLB would cost the Old Dominion millions upon millions of dollars. And that comes at a time when Gov. Tim Kaine is pushing hard to add universal preK, expand high school pathways, and boost the state’s college-going rates. With such aspirations, it says a lot that Virginia officials are saying it is worth more to refuse the NCLB check from the feds than it is to pay for all of the mandates that come with the law.
Across the border, West Virginia educators told Spellings that NCLB’s mandates are crushing teacher morale. Standardized tests and the scripted curriculums that come with them are destroying the teaching profession. We’ve heard about teaching to the test for years now and its impact on students, but Mountaineer teachers gave Spellings an earful on its long-term impact for teachers.
So what does this all mean? For years now, Eduflack has been saying that reauthorization of NCLB (with improvements) only comes when Main Street USA buys into it. Credit to Spellings for trying to do just that, but it may be a day late and a dollar short. The time to promote the value and impact of NCLB was two or three years ago, when its impact was just coming to light. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education froze, fearful of IG investigations and such. For the past 18 months, NCLB opposition has been banging and banging and banging away on the law, throwing a bright light on every flaw, blemish, and problem. And that light hasn’t dimmed,
Whatever the name, whatever the logo, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to be reauthorized. Isn’t it time we look at the good of NCLB and preserve those benefits, while identifying the shortcomings and building real, meaningful solutions that can make up those gaps and improve the law?
NCLB or its offspring should be seen as a benefit for states, not as an overwhelming obstacle that hinders states from boosting student achievement across all demographics. With its investment in PD, it should be seen as a boon for teachers, not a destroyer of morale. It should be about what the feds can do to improve state and local public education. And at the end of it all, isn’t it supposed to be about student learning?
The Hard Truth on Proven Reading
For the last year, many have been rushing to bury the federal Reading First program. Congress has dramatically slashed funding for the effort. Critics have been quick to discount the impact the program has had on student achievement scores. And the program has quickly been lumped in with No Child Left Behind as another example of what is wrong with federal involvement in education.
These eulogies make us forget of the deserved praise the program received when it was first written into law. The goals were admirable. Get every child reading at grade level by fourth grade. Significant, relevant professional development for teachers. A commitment to doing what works, ensuring schools are adopting programs and instructional approaches that are proven effective. It was about giving all students — regardless of reading skill, socioeconomic level, or geographic location — a sense of hope and opportunity.
Those goals were lost in recent years to urban legends of “approved lists” and conspiracy theories. A noble mission was lost to implementation mis-steps. A research-based approach fell victim to politics.
The whole story can be found in a report written by Sol Stern and released by the Fordham Foundation. “Too Good To Last: The True Story of Reading First” (http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/reading_first_030508.pdf) is a fantastic analysis of the roller-coaster ride that is Reading First. In exposing both the warts and the silver lining of the program, Stern has done what few have been able to do in recent years. He reminds us of the promise and intent of Reading First, clearly demonstrating what could have been and why it is not.
At the end of the day, we know that scientifically based reading works. We’ve seen the positive impact its had on districts, schools, and kids across the nation. It works with struggling readers, and it works with G&T readers. It works in urban, suburban, and rural schools. It just plain works.
Reading First sought to get SBRR into every classroom in the United States. If we are to learn from the past, we should definitely study up on Stern’s analysis. By learning why so much went wrong in implementing Reading First, we can all learn what is needed to get research-based reading into all those classes we promised it to. The federal program may be ramping down, but we still have a nation of students that need to be reading at grade level and need the hope and opportunity that reading ability instills.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 