NCLB

“I Want More NAEP TUDA”

Eduflack AYP, NAEP, NCLB

For those of you looking for more information on NAEP TUDA, particularly those who want to know whether Eduflack’s interpretation is insightful genius or full of it (I’m putting my money on insightful), Associate Commissioner Peggy Carr is going to be taking public questions on the study. 

I’m told questions can be sent to tuda2007questions@ed.gov, and should be submitted until noon Monday.  Answers to all those deep, dark questions should be posted Nov. 20 at 3 p.m. at <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/2007tudachat.asp.

Here’s”>nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/2007tudachat.asp.

Here’s your chance to hear directly from those responsible for the data collection.  Fire those questions away on impact, long-term implications, and lessons learned.


 

It Takes More Than a Village …

Eduflack DCPS, Fenty, NCLB, PR, SBRR

I’m the first to admit it.  Eduflack is results-focused.  When it comes to communications, does it really matter what you say or how you say it if it doesn’t contribute to meeting your overall strategic goals?  And when it comes to education reform, do the best of ideas matter if they don’t improve student achievement?  Good intentions only get you so far.  We measure results, effectiveness, and success.

But sometimes, we do need to take a step back.  And Rick Hess reminded us of that earlier this week in his commentary piece in The Washington Post.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101927.html.  For those who missed it, Hess looked at the early days of the Michelle Rhee administration at DC Public Schools, giving her strong marks for both intent and results.

Hess really grabs the issue of education reform by the throat with his opening paragraph:

One bit of the conventional wisdom hampering school reformers is the belief that if superintendents taking over troubled districts just concentrate on curriculum, instruction and “best practices,” everything else will sort itself out. This myth has been promoted by education professors and others who think large-scale reform entails simply figuring out what a good classroom looks like and then replicating it as necessary.  

I’m a suscriber to such conventional wisdom, at least as it relates to students.  Give a teacher a research-proven curriculum and an understanding and appreciation of best practices, and you can get students to achieve.  Apply what we know works — what we know is effective in classrooms like ours — and virtually every student in the class has the opportunity to succeed.

Of course, there are classrooms and then there are central offices.  Hess reminds us of that.  Before a superintendent can even think about how to get the evidence-based curriculum, the effective teachers, and the best practices into the classroom, he or she must deal with those management components we often forget about.  Personnel and textbook distribution and bureaucracy and broken systems and a faculty that has lost faith in any missive or idea coming from the central office.

School districts like DCPS — those districts that are in real need of reform and improvement — are not just one step away from the promised land.  One can’t just drop in a new SBRR curriculum or an effective teacher provision and assume that AYP will be met by all from that point forward.  These schools are in trouble, and are in need of wholesale improvement and comprehensive reform.  That’s why the keys are being turned over to a reformer in the first place.

At the end of the day, Hess is saying that the achievement we seek can’t be truly gained until we undergo a culture change.  And nothing could be more true.  Some may chide Rhee or Mayor Fenty for what are seen as PR stunts.  And, yes, some of them are.  But what Rhee and her team seem to realize is that they need to change the way DCPS thinks and acts if they are to deliver the student achievement gains we all seek and expect.

Yes, Rhee’s success is going to be based on how well DC’s students achieve.  Yes, we expect test scores to increase in short order.  But we also can’t expect all of DC’s teachers and parents to follow Rhee into battle if they don’t have textbooks, don’t get paychecks on time, and have lost confidence in the administration.  Effective reform requires more than just the village.  Both Rhee and Hess recognize that.

 

Setting a Reading Example

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First

Effective communications is not only about words, it is about actions and behaviors.  We have all heard that a picture is worth a thousand words.  And it is particularly true with young people.  Children mimic adults.  They watch us closely and try do what we do — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

This is particularly true in teaching children to read.  Parents of young children are taught to expose their youngsters to books.  Show them how to hold a book.  Teach them one reads left to right, and front to back.  And most importantly, let them see you read — a book, a magazine, a newspaper anything.

In a field where modeling promising practices is king, this seems like a no-brainer.  Non-verbal communications is a key component in teaching our children.

That’s why it was so discouraging to see the latest AP-Ipsos poll that found one in four adults read no books at all in the past year.  And on the whole, the average American read four books a year.  Startling — 25 percent of adults couldn’t bother to read one piece of chick lit, one Harry Potter, or entry from the NY Times best seller list.

Is it any wonder that 40 percent of fourth graders can’t read at grade level?  Of those who struggle to master basic reading skills, how many do you think see parents or siblings or neighbors reading at home?  Do we honestly think there is no correlation between the absence of reading in adults and the struggles of reading in kids?

Like it or not, parents are the first, last, and most impactful teacher a child ever has.  Because of this, we have an obligation to ensure all children have access to the education and opportunity needed to succeed in this 21st century economy.  And one can’t get on that path without an ability to read.

I know, I’m up on the Eduflack soapbox.  And it can get lonely up here.  But it is just too important not to scream into the wind on this topic yet again.  I’ll yield the microphone if you pick up a book.  Young eyes are on us all.

Waiting for NCLB

Eduflack AYP, HQT, Marketing, NCLB

NCLB 2.0 is shaping up to be education reform’s version of Waiting for Godot.  Those who were hopeful that something, anything might move by the end of this calendar year were severely disappointed to read yesterday’s Washington Post piece on NCLB past, present, and future.

The article itself is worth reading, and is worth commenting on.  As for the latter, I don’t see how anyone can frame it better than Eduwonk — http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/11/textbook.html. 

So what does the WP news coverage and Andy’s commentary really tell us?

* Major education reform requires bi-partisan support (at least at some level).  Sure, there were critics from both the right and the left from the get-go.  But with an advocacy team like Bush, Kennedy, Miller, McKeon, Boehner, et al, NCLB got the benefit of the doubt.  We all want to believe we can put aside partisan attacks to improve our schools.  2.0 is lacking that strong bi-partisan feel.

* NCLB is going to be a political punching bag for 2008.  Those who think that 2.0 will become law in an election year haven’t spent much time up on Capitol Hill.  Opposition to NCLB is strong.  Support for it needs to be stronger.  Name me a single senator or congressman — save for George Miller or Buck McKeon — who seem willing to put their reputations on the line to advocate for reauthorization of an improved NCLB.

* NCLB has been relegated to the role of rhetorical device.  Educators, researchers, and politicians use it to rail again a federal government seeking too much power.  Others use it as a straw man to justify the flaws and weaknesses of our current K-12 system.  Few of those still talking about it point to it as a tool of accountability and improvement for our public schools.

* NCLB is an inside baseball game.  It remains a discussion point for DC policy and political folks (and what exactly does that say about us?)  At testing time, you may hear some rank-and-file teachers and administrators bemoan NCLB testing and big brother, but it isn’t a day-to-day concern.

Eduflack has long said that NCLB was in desperate need of a strong marketing campaign.  If you really want to sell version 2.0, you need to remind audiences — parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders — of what they are buying and what return they’ll get on their investment.  No one is buying NCLB 2.0 because they look fondly on their original version.  But they will buy it if we separate the impact and the goals from the brand.  We don’t want NCLB, but we sure want student achievement.  We don’t want NCLB, but we want our schools doing what works.  We don’t want NCLB, but we want more effective teachers and more involvement from our parents.

We know what we want.  Will anyone sell it to us in an election year?

Reading Between the NCLB Lines

Eduflack AP, Marketing, NCLB, NGA, PR, SBRR

As most in the education reform world know by now, yesterday House Education Committee Chairman George Miller spoke on his thoughts about NCLB.  The highlights — NCLB will be reauthorized, NCLB will be revised and improved, and Miller has heard the “teaching to the test” critics.  The Washington Post has the full story — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education

All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date.  The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so.  Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law.  If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.

The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words.  While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement.  He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.

Why is this so interesting to Eduflack?  Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools.  Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade.  We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way.  For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments. 

But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach.  Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools.  How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests?  How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later?  These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.

Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words.  As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation.  That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.

Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements.  Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom.  With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it. 

Making “Public” a Dirty Word?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR

For decades, America used to crow about its public school system.  We were the model that other nations aspired to.  From kindergarten through college graduation, public schools were meant to stand as a symbol of equal education and opportunity.

Today, however, the criticism over public schools is growing louder and louder.  The success of charter schools has further highlighted the flaws in some urban districts.  Vouchers are now allowing parents to opt out of the public school system in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Washington DC, and throughout Florida.  And NCLB has more parents and communities scrutinizing those public schools that fail to make AYP and fail to provide a high-quality, effective education to all.

So it is no surprise it has come to this.  According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “public” is now a dirty word when talking about our local schools.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07192/800808-298.stm  Pittsburgh Public Schools is dropping “public” from its name, in an attempt to “brighten and strengthen” its image.

Eduflack is all for school districts doing what is necessary, rhetorically, to improve their image.  Schools need to instill confidence in the teachers, students, and families that are part of the school community.  We need to believe in the educators and leaders who head our schools.  And we need to trust our children are getting the high-quality, effective education that our taxpayer dollars are funding.

Does anyone believe that dropping the “public” improves the quality of education, or even the perception of the quality of education?  Does the franchise-ination of school names, as Pittsburgh Public Schools proposes, really do anything to improve the schools?  Of course not.

Yes, schools should simplify the message and making sure their goals are clear to every and any stakeholder audience.  That’s the only way you can successfully communicate reform.  And I’m all for Pittsburgh’s new tagline — “Excellence for all.”  Every student, including those in Pittsburgh, deserve excellent education and should be expected to demonstrate proficiency and excellence.

But you need more than a new tagline to improve your schools.  Such rhetorical devices are useless if one is not adopting the reforms and improvements necessary to deliver on the promise.  If Pittsburgh is promising excellence for all, it better be coming to the classroom with more than a tagline, a new logo, and a “streamlined” name for the school district.  It better bring the instruction, the interventions, the measurement, and methods for improvement that are needed for any school district to truly excel.

Without such content commitments, this is nothing more than empty rhetoric.  I appreciate that Pittsburgh officials believe that “public” has negative connotations with some.  Based on the performance of many public schools over the past decade, it should.  The most effective way to reverse that image is not with a new coat of paint or a new neon sign, though.  The most effective way to communicate “public” schools in a positive way is to show real, lasting, meaningful student achievement.  For our nation to succeed, we need to be proud of our public schools, not ashamed of them.

Getting Lost in the NCLB Wilderness

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

Is it possible to say all of the right things, but still fail in effectively communicating?  It may sound hard, but it is quite easy.  Don’t believe Eduflack?  Just check out President Bush’s remarks to the 2007 Presidential Scholars yesterday.

The President picked a good venue for his remarks — a room full of high-achieving high school students.  He brought with him ED Secretary Spellings, along with Republican members of Congress key to NCLB reauthorization.  And he had a clear messaging platform — NCLB’s goals, what NCLB has achieved to date, and vision for NCLB 2.0.

And that messaging was strong. 
* NCLB is bipartisan. 
* “The federal government should expect results  in return for the money it spends.”
* “The only way to determine whether a child is reading at grade level is to have accountability in our school systems.”
* “We’re making good progress.”
* “Our ability to compete in the 21st century depends upon educating children”
* “If a child needs extra help, there’s going to be money available to help that child.”
* “Strengthen math and science”
* “Extra funding for under-performing schools.”
* “We believe in local control of schools, you reform them, you fix them.”

Bush addressed his remarks to the students, their parents, and their teachers.  He spoke of believing in students, supporting teachers, and improving our schools.  The President was passionate about an issue he cared about (particularly when talking about the impact of SBRR on reading scores).  And that’s where he should have stopped. 

A broad audience.  A relatively light and easy event.  The President should have called it a day, and walked off the mound leaving the crowd with the broad rhetorical strokes that define the benefits of NCLB.  Had he done so, it would have been a win.  A strong “A” from the teachers in the crowd.

Instead, he kept speaking.  Using his bully pulpit, he decided to further define NCLB in terms of school choice and vouchers.  Important issues, yes.  Volatile components of NCLB, for sure.  But completely inappropriate for the audience, the venue, or the ultimate end game.  Yes, it is important for the President to appease a key audience (his conservative base), particularly as Republicans are quickly jumping off the NCLB ship.  But you need to address such concerns directly with the audience that holds them.  By spending a third of his time focused on issues that appeal to a small, but vocal, segment of the education universe, he muddled his message and chipped away at his clear framing of the value of NCLB.

And the result of the tip of the hat to his conservative base?  Nil.  The criticisms of big government and the federalization of education still rang out in The Washington Post’s coverage of it.  A golden opportunity to focus on the positive impact and long-term gains as a result of NCLB, yet the President still only scores the gentleman’s “C” for execution.

Speaking Locally, Thinking Nationally

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR

To put it mildly, it’s no secret that state legislatures and local governments have been resistant to NCLB, particularly its accountability provisions.  The reason is fairly simple.  K-12 education has long been perceived as a local issue.  Local school boards make curricular decisions, state legislatures set funding priorities, and all are focused on the educational needs at the very local of levels.

It’s only been in recent years that the federal role in K-12 has gained a spotlight.  NCLB moved the feds from the role of funder to the role of active participant.  Sure, the feds provide less than 10% of the money spent on education in this country.  But it carries a big stick.  NCLB provides a lot of new money if you’re willing to play ball, and poses the threat of pulling funding if you don’t play by the rules.

So yesterday’s vote at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual conference should come as no surprise.  NCSL members rejected national education standards, even voluntary ones.  Education Week has the story, as disappointing as it is.  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/06/45ncsl_web.h26.html

We all know the great Tip O’Neill adage that all politics is local.  That was surely the case for NCSL.  In carefully chosen language, they embraced the notion of “rigorous state standards” and “individual state refinement of standards.”  This should be no surprise.  When you are a member of a state legislature, you want to keep the power in your hands.  You want to be the one to write the standards, fund the standards, and evaluate the standards.  It’s your best chance to control the outcomes, particularly if you are to be held accountable by your constituency.

No, Eduflack isn’t going to fault NCSL for defending its turf and speaking strongly on a key issue.  For that they should be applauded.  But I will take issue with, yet again, the attack on NCLB as a justification for the such a policy stance.  So I issue a rhetorical challenge to all, stand up for what you believe in, without needing to tear down or tear into NCLB.  It’s a great communications bogeyman, sure, but NCLB is not responsible for all that ills our schools, despite the urban legend.

Yes, we all know there is room for improvement in NCLB.  We all know that many states have felt the financial sting of meeting the accountability standards in the law, with some seeing it as an unfunded mandate.  But you also can’t ignore that Reading First has given the states more than $5 billion in additional funding to date to implement SBRR.  And a quarter of that — more than $1 billion — was intended for stronger, more relevant teacher professional development.

Like it or not, local control is quickly intersecting with national expectations.  Blame the “world is flat” economy, blame NAFTA, blame the little that has been done since we discovered we were a “Nation at Risk.”  If we expect our kids to thrive once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time, living up to the expectations and standards of the local community is no longer enough.

Today’s students are being asked to compete with students across the state, across the nation, and around the world.  Employers are looking for core competencies in all of their corporate locations.  They expect employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Hartford, and even Bangalore to bring the same skills and the same abilities.  Our institutions of higher education are usually screening applicants with one master rubric.  National standards (even the voluntary ones) are coming.

My K-12 years were spent in public schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia.  Did I notice the differences?  You bet.  Did I feel one state’s education was stronger than another’s?  Of course.

More and more, we are becoming a transient society.  Unlike generations past (even mine), it is now a rarity for a student to finish high school with the same cohort of students he or she started kindergarten with.  A little sad, sure, but it is the reality.  Whether NCLB is on the books or not, national education standards are an important tool in our changing education system and our evolving economy.  They are the great equalizer, ensuring that a public education is worth the same in Alabama as it is in Oregon, the same in Nevada as it is in New York.

If we want a public education to mean something again, we need to restore its value and we need to quantify its impact.  The era where one could say, “well it is good enough for <insert state here>” is over.  This should be the new frontier, where we demonstrate that students in our state are outperforming those in our neighboring states.  The only way that works is when we measure with the same ruler.  Groups like NCSL should be a key part of the dialogue to choose the right national ruler; they shouldn’t be hiding it from those who really need a good measure.
  

Putting the Math Cart Before the Counting Horse

Eduflack AYP, Math, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

If we are to improve our schools, we need research-based instruction.  Student achievement increases when we use instruction and interventions that are proven effective.  Do what works, and see the results.  It is an easy concept to spout, but a far harder one to put into practice.

Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation.  We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade.  Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently.  And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.

But what about math?  With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online).  Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom?  Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills?  After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.

For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act.  If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.

Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch.  For RF, $1 billion a year to start.  For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million).  Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice.  Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.

There is one major difference, though.  Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice.  We identify what works and put our money behind it.  On the whole, the effort has been successful.  Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from).  Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding.  Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets.  We expect results.  We pay for what works.  That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.

Which takes us back to math.  Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.  The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research.  The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.

Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so?  Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice.  Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.”  Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?

Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo.  We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement.  And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work.  Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.

The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation.  And Math Now is a good idea with real potential.  We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed.  Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter.  If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.

“State” the Case

Eduflack AYP, HQT, NCLB

Across the nation, governors and chief state school officers are now delivering their annual addresses and preparing their annual budgets.  But what role will education (and education reform) play in these rhetorical events?  Shrinking real estate tax rolls, worries of a recession, and demands of other social programs have many thinking that 2008 will not be the year of education.

Fortunately, we are starting to see that educational improvement is not necessarily sitting on the sidelines this year.  Governors and state supes are talking about early childhood education and STEM.  They are talking about real improvements, not merely attacking NCLB or the state status quo.  And they are demonstrating that education is one of the strongest ways to strengthen the schools, the economy, and the future of the state.

How do they do it?  Let’s go west, young men and women, and take a look at how California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken control of the bully pulpit and talked education.

In his state of the state, Schwarzenegger announced:

* California will be the first state to use its NCLB powers to turn challenged districts around, allocating a higher percentage of NCLB funds to the districts that need them most
* Establish a differentiated assistance model to get funds and support to underachieving schools.
* Provide greater flexibility to high-performing schools
* Improve the quality and access of information available to parents, educators, and policymakers on California’s teacher shortages

We’ll wait until later this week to see how the good governor is going to fund all of this, but what are the rhetorical benefits of such a platform?

* Schwarzenegger recognizes that reform requires a broad group of partners and stakeholders.  He made clear that success requires the involvement of parents, educators, the business community, the legislature, and the public at large.
* He is focused on results.  How do we get more resources to those states that need to improve their results?  How do we reward those schools and students that are already doing well?
* He is focused on improvement, not tearing down and building new.  He’s using the NCLB powers available to him (and unused by others).  He’s taking control of state purse strings.  He’s acting, not reacting.

Schwarzenegger is not the only governor talking the talk and walking the walk.  We’re seeing similar talk in statehouses across the nation.  But for those who say we can’t talk about these issues now, or such issues are too wonky, take a closer look.  The California Guv has integrated education into his broader message, and demonstrated an understanding for the key issues and a focus on the future.  And it may just work …