NCLB

It’s Common Core-tastic!?

Eduflack accountability, assessment, ESEA, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

As the great Yogi Berra is reported as saying, it’s like deja vu all over again!  

This past weekend, dear ol’ Eduflack was out in San Francisco for the ASCD Annual Conference.  On Saturday, I had the privilege of addressing more than 100 folks who came out on a monsoon-like Saturday morning to learn more about how to build, execute, and measure a successful public engagement campaign in the education space.  A good time, I hope, was had by all.
After the conclusion of that merriment, Eduflack wandered over to the exhibit hall to see what companies, non-profits, IHEs, and government agencies thought ASCD attendees would be most interested in.  It was a full hall, comprised of many of the same organizations that make the rounds during the spring education conferences.
But the one thing that caught my eye was how many booths and vendors bore the supposed blessing of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.  We had “Common Core approved” and “Common Core certified.”  For those not quite willing to go out on the limb, we had even had quite a few “Common Core aligned.”  The label could be found on curriculum and supplemental materials, professional development and assessment tools.  It seemed to be applicable for everything short of the tote bags and candy giveaways.
Yes, I realize that most states have signed onto Common Core and are currently in the process figuring out how to move that adoption to implementation.  Yes, I realize the embrace of Common Core was a requirement of Race to the Top and is likely to play a role in ESEA reauthorization.  And yes, I realize the importance of having a one national yardstick by which we measure all U.S. students.
But we also have to be clear here.  States are adopting relatively general standards in just two subject areas.  We have no curriculum to go with those standards yet.  We have no tests to go with the standards yet.  We have no textbooks or workbooks or cookbooks that go with those standards yet.  in fact, we don’t even have the full standards yet, as all states have the ability to add 15 percent of their own priority standards to the common ELA and math standards currently in play.
So it just seems far too premature for us to be peddling the “Common Core approved” when we still don’t know what Common Core looks like in the schools and THERE IS NO ONE TO APPROVE ANYTHING ON BEHALF OF COMMON CORE!  No one is certifying or approving on behalf of CCSSI.  At a time when states and districts are worried about Common Core (and many at ASCD were), we have vendors marketing their wares to those concerns, promising the magical elixirs that will fix everything.
And that’s where the deja vu comes into play.  It was only seven or eight years ago when we saw the exact same scene unfold around scientifically based research.  In 2002, 2003, 2004, just about anyone who was anyone at an education conference was selling an SBR-based product that was aligned with NCLB.  Didn’t matter if it was true or not, everyone was scientifically based.  Everyone had an evidence-based core.  You could talk to a dozen reading programs on conference row in 2003, and they were all SBR.  Ask them what their research was, and most handed the same document to you — the National Reading Panel report (or the NCLB legislation itself).
The problem here is that people understood the expectation (everything needed to be scientifically based) but they didn’t understand (or didn’t care) what that meant.  The type of research required under the law took four or five years to develop, and the sales cycle didn’t allow for that sort of time.  So take the NRP report, slap a focus group or two together, put together some bar graphs, and there was your research base.  Add a colorful “checklist” aligning your product with the NRP and you were really excelling.
(As an aside, perhaps my favorite vendor at ASCD this weekend was one peddling a product labeled as “scientifically researched based.”  I don’t know what scientifically research is, but I’m guessing that extra “ly” makes the research extra good.)
Here we go again.  We all saw how successful it was to sell vapor and snake oil as SBR in the last decade.  It cost us another generation of students.  It killed a potentially strong program in Reading First and wasted millions (if not billions) of dollars in the process, as we couldn’t distinguish between the real deal and the posers.  
Before we rush to reach for the Common Core label, can we just take a moment to actually digest CCSSI?  Can we let states ID their 15 percent add on?  Can we see how districts apply it to instructional expectations?  Can we see how the assessment consortia begin developing their products?  And can we see, please, if these standards actually move into the classroom or if they just hang out there as a good idea that we agree to, but don’t actually implement?
Of course, there is one difference between SBR and CCSSI.  WIth SBR, the federal government established a new pot of money, $1 billion a year under RF, to help fund the acquisition of those new SBR products and services.  With Common Core, there doesn’t appear to be any new money.  Perhaps, as districts and states are spending their own funds from existing obligations and aren’t playing with house money, that they will scrutinize their purchases a little more, ensuring they are buying the real deal.  
There are some great products and services out there that do match up well with Common Core and can help districts and schools meet their current and future obligations.  But anyone can slap a label on a product.  It is up to educators to discern the strong from the squishy.  
  

Presidential Education Budget Redux

Eduflack Arne Duncan, early childhood education, i3, NCLB, RTT, teachers

Yesterday, President Obama released his FY2012 Budget.  And it was hardly a “the new phone books are here” sort of moment.  In an era of supposed budgetary belt-tightening, we all knew that the U.S. Department of Education was facing a budget increase.  The major question was how much of that increase would go to Pell and how much to P-12.

So when the details of the budget were revealed, Eduflack’s primary response was, “didn’t we just have this discussion last year?”  New rounds of Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation.  A handful of programs eliminated.  A good number of programs “consolidated” into a series of competitive buckets.  So while some of the specific dollars may be a little different (more for RttT this year than last, less for i3), Eduflack comments on the FY2011 budget seem to be fairly evergreen, all things considered. 
Of course, there are a few things that make this year a little different:
* Political realities — For those eagerly waiting to cash checks based on FY2012 presidential projections, please remember we still haven’t passed the FY2011 budget yet.  FY2012 is largely a do-over because FY2011 never became law.  The Administration is to be commended for sticking to its guns and staying with the same policy priorities.  But we can’t forget these priorities couldn’t get passed in a Democratic Congress in 2010.  If the current fight over the FY2011 continuing resolution is any indication, Congress (particularly House Republicans) have a VERY different view of where our education budget should head.  So let’s realize that the President has essentially put forward a “ceiling” for education spending.  The House will drive it down some, and both the House and Senate will swap out some of the president’s programs for their own favorite funding recipients.
* Reauthorization — Much of the “big thinking” in this year’s presidential budget is based on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  Based on yesterday’s ED presentation, all those interesting new programs and the continuation of RttT and i3 are all linked to successful ESEA reauth.  What happens, then, if reauth rolls out at House Education Committee John Kline (MN) wants — incrementally?  Or what happens if Dems in the Senate can’t agree on a strategy?  Another year of ED CRs means none of these big ideas are funded.
* Early childhood education — Kudos to the Administration for the creation of the Early Learning Challenge Fund.  The President is now addressing his 2008 campaign pledges about the importance of ECE.  Even more important, he is placing the responsibility for 21st century early learning with the U.S. Department of Education (instead of over in HHS with the Head Start office).  Could it be we may actually see a P-20 education continuum run through Maryland Avenue?  One can only hope.
* Title I Rewards — Perhaps the most intriguing new idea is that of a Title I Rewards program.  And it is interesting because of what we know, and what we still don’t.  Based on yesterday, it seems that ED will provide $300 million in new Title I dollars directly to the states, based on current Title I formulas.  It will then be up to the states to divide that money up among those Title I districts who are demonstrating the most progress in student achievement improvement.  So will dollars go to a select few districts or most?  Are rewards simply the thanks of a grateful nation, or are they to be designated for specific interventions or to scale particular improvements?  Lots of questions, with lots of opportunities.
* Teacher training — Last year, the Administration took a beating for the perception that it was scrapping its commitment to preservice education for teachers, instead handing the keys over to alt cert providers and programs like Teach for America.  This year, the President is offering up $975 million for the recruitment, reward, and retention of new teachers.  We’re looking at recruitment programs, scholarship efforts (particularly those targeting minorities), and an emphasis on science and math teachers.  This seems like an awful lot of real capital to begin supporting the Teach.gov initiative.
And who is getting condolence cards today?  Those 13 programs slated for elimination (including the Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners, which is experiencing another year of life and another $8.8 million under the CR).  The 38 programs targeted for consolidation, while a few are destined for greatness in the competitive grant process (I’m looking at you, TFA), most may go the way of those Whaling Partners.  Career and Technical Education, which seemed to be the big loser, as some well-meaning program had to sacrifice to make this year’s number, and CTE seems to be the recipient of such cuts.  And I’d also put ARPA-ED on the list, simply because after all of the build up it received in the week leading into the budget, the total dollar figure allotted to our very own DARPA seems small by comparison.
Now the fun begins.  Anyone willing to bet more than half the new funding makes it through the House of Representatives this fall?
 

Your Senate GOP ESEA Reform Starting Lineup

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, AYP, ESEA, HQT, NCLB

All week, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) has been talking about his accelerated plans for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  We are hearing of deadline like Easter for when the Senate will either entertain a new draft of the reauth, pass the reauth, or acknowledge the reauth.

Unfortunately, there haven’t been a lot of details as to what may be in Chairman Harkin’s ESEA bill.  Eduflack suspects it will resemble the ESEA Blueprint put forward by the U.S. Department of Education nearly a year ago, with some emphasis on rural education and special education mixed in for good measure.  The naming, last month, of Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM) as Harkin’s ESEA wingman only strengthens the thinking on the Blueprint approach to reauth.
Well, it seems the Republican side of the HELP desk is not going to be left at the side of the road.  In a briefing with reporters this week, HELP Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY) and his education wingman and former Ed Sec Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) highlighted their “nine areas” to address in reauth.
The Senate GOP starting lineup for ESEA reform includes:
* Fixing the 100-percent proficient by 2014 goal (now that we see we can’t reach it)
* Reforming that darned AYP designation, an acronym that ED won’t even utter these days
* Refocusing on results-based testing, as opposed to that worrisome high-stakes testing
* Showing the rural districts some love
* Fixing high quality teacher provisions, particularly for those rural districts
* Offering greater flexibility to states and school districts
* IDing duplicative or wasteful efforts in ED
* Providing greater flexibility in general
* Engaging parents and families in the process
So is this the sort of staring lineup that strikes fear in the opposing team?  At face value, these are all items we’ve heard before.  But sometimes, a team is far greater than its individual players, and this could very well be the case with Enzi and Alexander’s concerns.  The list is a major hat tip to EdSec Arne Duncan’s Blueprint, particularly the revised language he has been touting since the November 2010 midterm elections.  There is some major love here for House Republicans, particularly the calls for flexibility, local control, and rural schools.  Even a little something for the teachers unions, by acknowledging that the current approach to student testing just doesn’t work and current HQT provisions missed the mark.  
And it also embraces one of the strongest components of NCLB — parental engagement — and incredibly powerful tool that was all but abandoned (other than on the school choice issue) soon after NCLB was passed in 2002.
What is the expected outcome?  Chairman Harkin is still writing the law, let there be no doubt.  But by placing their markers down like this, Enzi and Alexander have set the ESEA agenda.  Most, if not all, of these issues were likely to be on Harkin’s wish list in the first place.  Now, his draft will either need to signal an alignment with GOP concerns, or he will need to defend why these issues don’t warrant his attention.  And that’s a game no HELP chairman should want to play.
It is time for that Harkin trial balloon. 

SOTU Disappointment

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, ESEA, NCLB, Obama, RTT

My name is Eduflack, and I am a captain of negativism.  I often like to tease that I’m not a glass half full or half empty sorta guy, I just want to know who took my damned water.  So last evening was a fascinating exercise for me.  As luck would have it, I had a three-and-a-half hour school board meeting last night, meaning I missed the State of the Union live.  But from all of the updates on Facebook and on Twitter, it seemed like President Obama had delivered a truly rousing state of the education union speech, fulfilling all of the hopes and dreams that ed reformers and status quoers alike have for education in the United States.  All those negative feelings I have, year in and year out, about how education gets short shrift in the SOTU would be replaced by an unnatural and unfamiliar sense of joy and happiness in dear ol’ Eduflack.

So I was excited to go and watch the tape of the SOTU.  I, too, wanted to feel that bliss.  Unfortunately, I’m just the same old grumpy Eduflack.
I know it isn’t popular, but I’ll say it.  I was disappointed by last night’s SOTU, particularly how it addressed education.  And I say this knowing that teachers loved his embrace of the teaching profession.  Reformers heard lots about the need for reform.  Local controllers heard what they needed.  The higher ed community heard its shout out.  And even the tough-lovers had the parental responsibility lines to hang their hat on.
So why am I disappointed in the speech?
* It was very inside baseball.  One of my greatest frustrations in education policy is we talk about the work to a broad audience as we do to a group of 12 folks who know how to talk the talk.  We all love teacher quality in a general sense, but it has a very specific meaning to an ed reformer, and very broad meaning to a regular parent.  Despite what those of us in the field think, most Americans don’t actually know what Race to the Top or No Child Left Behind actually is.  We say RttT is the greatest ed reform in a generation (which I wholeheartedly disagree with, as, like it or not, NCLB had a much greater impact, both good and bad) or that NCLB needs fixing, and folks will nod their heads in agreement because it is the President and he should know.  But head out to Main Street USA, ask them how RttT is reforming their classrooms, and you’ll get a blank stare.  Inside baseball.
* It was very much just a laundry list.  I realize that we were trying to group everything under the umbrella of competitiveness and economic improvement, but this just didn’t seem strategic.  Essentially, the speech is summarized as follows:  We all need college degrees.  Parents need to get involved.  Schools need to do a better job.  RttT and federal leadership are great.  So is local control.  We need to respect our teachers and be more like South Korea.  Need a job, become a teacher.  Raise expectations.  It is never too late for education.  Education is a gateway to talking about our immigration challenges.  This isn’t a strategic vision for P-20 education (forgetting that ECE was ignored), this is simply a Chinese menu of education issues.
* It was missing a call to action.  In identifying that laundry list of educational priorities, we were missing a true call to action.  The President spoke, very eloquently, about honoring teachers and encouraging kids and getting to (and graduating from) college.  But what was the big ask, reforming NCLB?  We needed more of an education vision so that the average parent, the average teacher, the average mayor, and the average taxpayer understands what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we get there.  What action do I, as a parent and local school board member, take to get us to to this grand vision?  Listening to the speech, it seems my responsibility is to turn off the TV, respect teachers, applaud the science fair (which as a former International Science and Engineering Fair award winner I already do), and believe in the feds to push the right policies.  But I still don’t know how this boosts student achievement or learning.  And I still don’t know how we are measuring these reforms and how we can one day have that “Mission Accomplished” moment.
I don’t mean to be so negative about this, but it is my way.  Last year, when the U.S. Department of Education released its ESEA Blueprint, that provided me the details and the call to action that I’m looking for.  And nearly a decade ago, we certainly saw it in the adoption of NCLB, as we told teachers and parents and business leaders and policymakers what they needed to do to enact the law with fidelity and improve student achievement.  
It is great that President Obama devoted nearly nine and a half minutes to education in this year’s SOTU, more than doubling the air time given to education last year.  But with all of the build up leading into tonight, the promise that education is a key pillar to improving our nation, and the excitement those in the know demonstrated last night, I just wanted more.  I want the rhetoric to connect to real policies.  I want to know how we measure success.  I want education discussed in a way that we can fill football stadiums, and not just cocktail parties, with supporters.  Is that really too much to ask for?
  
    

A Tea Party Comes to Education?

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, Michelle Rhee, national standards, NCLB, Obama, Parents

Today, the 112th Congress officially takes its seat.  Anyone who watched the November elections realizes that a major change in philosophy takes the gavel in Washington, riding on the momentum of the “Tea Party” movement.

Sure, we pretty much have no idea how that wave is going to affect education policy on Capitol Hill.  During the campaign, those Tea Party candidates spoke little, if at all, about education.  We know they’d prefer to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, but we really don’t know where they stand on ESEA reauthorization, turnaround schools, charters, and all of the other topics that seem to freeze up the Congress.
But all of the analysis pieces on how the Tea Party movement will affect government in general has Eduflack thinking.  What would happen if we applied the Tea Party philosophy to education?  No, I’m not talking about federal education policy, but rather the K-12 education space in general.  Perhaps it would look a little like this:
Fiscal Responsibility (Funding) — “We are simply paying too much on public education.  The federal government keeps taking more and more from our paychecks to pay for expensive programs like Race to the Top and i3, and the states are taking more and more in property taxes to cover the rest.  We need to be smarter with how we spend our education dollars.  Why is it some of our best school districts can educate kids at $10,000 a head, while our worst-performing districts are spending close to twice that?  It just doesn’t make sense.  We need to get back to basics, focus on the core needs of our kids, and ensure we are receiving return on investment for our education dollars.  It is time to do more with less.”
Limited Government (Control) — “The federal government needs to get out of our classrooms.  No one knows what our kids need best than our local community.  We elect our local school boards to look after our interests.  They know us.  We know them.  And they held accountable for their actions.  The feds care about our money, our localities care about our kids.  We must restore local control to our schools, telling the feds to keep their noses out of how we spend our money, how we teach our kids, how we test our kids, and how we know when we are doing a good job.  Our schools, our rules.”
Free Markets (Choice) — “We need to restore power to individual parents and individual families.  As the individual is the one funding our schools, the individual should have the power to decide how those dollars are spent.  if your neighborhood schools aren’t doing the job, you should have the right to take your child — and your dollars — and go to a school that meets your needs.  Speaking through the pocketbook is the only way to get those broken schools to fix themselves, and it is the only way to ensure our kids get the education they need.  We should not just accept what we have been given.  We need to encourage choice and competition, letting the schools and the teachers who have failed us be cycled out of the system for good.”
Personal Responsibility (Parents) — “For too long we have trusted government to do what is right for our kids.  As a result, our schools are failing and our kids are uncompetitive.  It is time to take that responsibility back.  The US Department of Education isn’t going to fix our schools.  The state isn’t going to fix our schools.  Parents are going to fix our schools.  It is time for all parents to rise up and demand better.  It is time to get in schools, demand answers, and refuse to leave until those answers are put into practice.  These are our schools, and we need to retake ownership of them.”
Maybe it is just me, but aren’t we already sitting down to a tea party in K-12 education?  We are making hard choices, asking our schools to do more with less and questioning high per-pupil expenditures in struggling urban districts.  There is a growing chorus (led by the new chairman of the House Education Committee, John Kline) to restore more local control to education, taking away much of the power shift resulting from NCLB.  We’ve long talked about school choice, with the current turnaround schools effort likely leading to a greater call.  And even President Obama has been talking for the past few years on parental responsibility and how families need to take more active, hands on, and impactful roles if their kids are to be college and career ready.
Is Michelle Rhee’s Students First education’s Tea Party Patriots?  Is 50-CAN or DFER’s “Ticket to Teach” the edu-Tea Party Express?  Only time will tell …

Waiting for ESEA Reauth?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, ESEA, NCLB

New year, same fight.  As we begin the first school week of 2011, EdSec Arne Duncan renews the call for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in today’s Washington Post.  By painting ESEA as the latest and greatest tool in the national push for ed reform, Duncan seems to say that while everyone is waiting for Superman, the Man of Steel is simply waiting for ESEA reauth to take hold.

Duncan’s points are not new, but they are worth reiterating as we head into the latest round of ed policy fights.  
1) Republicans and Democrats have been hard at work on ESEA reauth for the past year (isn’t it more like the past five?), and ESEA is truly a bipartisan issue
2) No one likes failing schools
3) Transparency and data use are good
4) Bubble sheet exams are bad
5) Nine years later, our teachers still aren’t highly qualified
6) We are now facing a sense of urgency to do something about our schools
Perhaps most interesting are Duncan’s insights into what “reform” currently looks like and how it will be embodied in ESEA:
School districts and their local partners in inner cities and rural communities are overcoming poverty and family breakdown to create high-performing schools, including charters and traditional public schools.  They are taking bold steps to turn around low-performing schools by investing in teachers, rebuilding school staff, lengthening the school day and changing curricula.

In partnership with local teacher unions, districts are finding new ways to evaluate and compensate their teachers and staff their schools.  Some districts have reshaped labor agreements around student success — and teachers have strongly supported these groundbreaking agreements. 
If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought these words were written by incoming House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (MN) or perhaps some of the holdovers from George W. Bush’s presidential administration.  Rural ed is back in the discussion, and we are refocused on the achievement gap.  Charters are again central to fixin’ what ails us.  And we have to remind all those involved that we do indeed work with teachers and the teachers unions.
The EdSec is also quick to remind his critics (and those new Tea Partiers arriving in DC this week) that he is not a creature of Washington, noting: “Since coming to Washington, I’ve been told that partisan politics inevitably trumps bipartisan governing.  But if I have learned anything as education secretary, it is that conventional wisdom serves to prop up the status quo — and is often wrong.”
Duncan definitely earns an A for putting forward the sort of rhetoric we need to see at the start of a new, Republican congress.  There is no talk of the need for additional funding or increased budgets.  There is no mention of new programs such as Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation and edujobs.  We are “fixing” NCLB, not overhauling it.  Common Core is barely referenced, and is done so in such a way that most won’t recognize it.  Flexibility and localities are finally to play a greater role in the great ESEA fight.
But the grade for moving such rhetoric into action remains incomplete.  Is the Blueprint being revised to meet some of these new rhetorical priorities?  Is a draft of ESEA ready to be dropped in the legislative hopper as of Wednesday?  What ed programs will ultimately face cuts in the President’s budget next month?  And what regulatory changes can be made now to make ESEA tolerable for the coming year (or years)?
A new year provides Team Duncan with a fresh start to approach an issue Maryland Avenue has been trying to tackle for many years now.  Will ESEA hold the same level of priority on Capitol Hill as it seems to at ED?  Only time will tell.  Today, Duncan signaled a desire to work with the new Republican Congress.  It is a start.

Some Resolutions for 2011

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, ESEA, HQT, i3, international benchmarking, NCLB, Online Education, reading, Reading First, RTT, STEM, stimulus, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

Another year about to go down in the history books.  Are we any closer to truly improving our public schools?  For every likely step forward we may have taken in 2010, it seems to be met with a similar step back.  For every rhetorical push ahead, we had a very real headwind blocking progress. 

So as we head into 2011, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack offers up a few “resolutions” for all on the education reform boat to consider as we start a new year.  We need to come to accept the following:
1.  True reform does not happen at the federal level.  The federal government is an important lever in the school improvement process, offering some necessary financial resources and some bully pulpit language to inspire reform.  But true improvement happens at the state and local levels.  It is about what our SEAs and LEAs do with those resources and whether they embrace the call from the bully pulpit.  Just as all politics is local, so too is all education reform.  Why do you think groups like DFER are so keen on launching new statewide efforts, like the new one in California?
2.  ESEA reauthorization really doesn’t matter.  As much as we want to fret about when ESEA is going to be reauthorized and what will and won’t be included, it doesn’t have much impact on the game at hand.  At the end of the day, EdSec Duncan could work from the current NCLB, make a few tweaks, and be just fine for the next few years.  Those thinking a major sea change is coming with reauth will be sadly mistaken.  If we see reauth this year (put at about 60 percent), expect it to simply be a kinder, gentler NCLB.  Nothing more.
3. Education technology matters.  For years now, we’ve placed ed tech in the perifery when it comes to school improvement, trying to define it as simply the adoption of a particular piece of hardware.  Ed tech needs to be at the center of 21st century school improvement.  It is important to instruction and student achievement, teacher quality, and all-around turnaround efforts.  If we are to realize its impact, we need to ensure it is a non-negotiable in the process.
4. We cannot forget about reading instruction.  Nine years ago, Reading First was born, emphasizing the importance of literacy instruction in the elementary grades.  We cannot boost student test scores and we cannot ensure that all kids are college and career ready if everyone isn’t reading at grade level.  RF taught us a great deal on how to teach reading (and how not to advocate it politically).  Building on those lessons, we need to redouble our efforts to get each and every child reading proficient.  And that now includes focusing on middle and high schools, where too many students have fallen between the cracks.
5. Superintendents matter.  Many of our largest and most influential school districts will experience change at the top this coming year.  These new leaders can’t forget that the role of instructional leader is essential to their success.  Shaking things up is good.  Sweeping out the old is fine.  Doing things differently is great.  But at the end of the day, being a superintendent is all about teaching and learning and measurement.  Magazine covers are nice, but rising test scores are far more rewarding.
6. We still need to figure out what teacher quality is.  Is it just student test scores?  Does it include preservice education requirements beyond HQT provisions?  Are their qualitative factors?  Can we accept a “we’ll know it when we see it” definition?  With increased focus continuing to be placed on the topic of teacher quality, we need a true defition and a true measurement to really launch a meaningful discussion.  We’ve spent too much time talking about what it isn’t or what it shouldn’t be.  It is time to determine what it is.
7. Research remains king.  In 2010, we spent a great deal of money on school reforms and improvement ideas.  Most of these dollars were an investment in hope.  Now it is time to verify.  We need to determine what is working and what is not.  We need to know not just that the money is being spent (as ED typically sees evaluation) but instead need to know what it is being spent on and what is showing promise of success.  We need to redouble our investments in evaluation.  Other sectors have made real advances because of investments in R&D.  It is about time for education to do the same.
8. We need to learn how to use social media in education.  It is quite disheartening to see that states like Virginia are exploring banning teachers from using tools like Facebook with their students.  It is also a little frustrating to see that media like Twitter are still being used for one-way communications.  We need to see more engagement and dialogue through our social media.  An example?  How about more Twitter debates like those between @DianeRavitch and @MichaelPetrilli ?
And as we look forward to the new year, some predictions on what is hot and what is not for 2011.
HOT — Accountability (and its flexibility).  Assessments.  International benchmarking.  Rural education.  Alternative certification.  Special education.  Competitive grants.  Local control.  School improvement.  Local elected school boards.  Online education.
NOT —  Charter schools.  Early childhood education.  21st century skills.  STEM.  ELL.  Education schools.  RttT/i3.  Education reform (yeah, you heard me).  Teachers unions.  Mayoral control.  AYP.  Early colleges.  Edujobs.
Happy new year!  

Analyzing the Ed Stimulus’ Impact

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB, RTT, stimulus

So it is more than a year and a half since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law and the faucet of federal education stimulus dollars was turned on, sending a stream (either a raging river or a trickle, depending on your perspective) to states and school districts across the nation.  While much has been done (particularly from the good folks over at EdWeek’s Politics K-12 blog) on whether we are actually spending the ed stimulus dollars or not, a larger question may very well be if such spending is having any impact.

For the past year, we’ve heard how Race to the Top has completely changed the game, with states across the union overhauling their policies on data systems, teacher firewalls, charter schools, turnaround schools, and many topics in between.  A new reform era has been ushered in, according to many, leaving status quoers with nothing to show for decades worth of work.
But a new study released today by Bellwether Education Partners and Education First Consulting finds that the stimulus’ impact on education reform may not be as definitive as both cheerleaders and critics may believe.  InConflicting Missions and Unclear Results: Lessons from the Education Stimulus Funds, Bellwether’s Sara Mead and Andy Rotherham and Ed First’s Anand Vaishnav and William Porter lend an analytical eye to whether the $100 billion in ed stimulus cash is having the sea change impact we expected.
Their findings?:
* Stimulus dollars are being used primarily to make up for cuts in state and local budgets, with most of those cuts coming in the HR arena
* Districts are confused by mixed messages from the US Department of Education as to whether stimulus bucks are intended to preserve jobs or advance reform
* ARRA spending is being driven by existing processes and expected inertias in many school districts (instead of by the reform priorities in the stimulus rhetoric)
* In districts that used ARRA dollars in a strategic way, it went more to local leadership, local capacity issues, and local factors, instead of to federal reform priorities
* The edu-problems ARRA intended to solve aren’t going away
For those at the district or building level, such findings should be no surprise.  Stimulus money was primarily for stopping the bleeding, not for inventing new 21st century educational sutures.  So once the money passes from the feds to the states to the localities, those much needs dollars are used for tactical needs, not strategic visions.
What can we learn from these findings?  Bellwether and Education First offer a few insights.  First, federal funds won’t generate reform unless they are attached to clear reform requirements (does Eduflack hear NCLB?  Anybody?).  Competitive grants (like RttT and i3) have the greatest chance of driving reforms.  Formula-based programs, not so much.  Reform plans need to be strategic.  Policymakers need to support strategies that build capacity of all types (data, analytic, research, instructional).    
Most interestingly, Conflicting Missions touts the importance of advocacy in the reform process.  During the NCLB era, we lost this point, believing that the federal stick was enough to force long-term change.  It didn’t work.  In the early days of ARRA, we re-found the importance of advocacy, with the EdSec and other ED officials working hard to reach out to key groups and stakeholders so they understood the problems, what ED was doing to fix those problems, and the expected outcomes we would all reap following the fix.
Heading into ESEA reauthorization, we have lost some of that focus on advocacy.  But history tells us that effective public engagement is the best way to drive real and lasting reforms and improvements.  Erect a big tent and give all stakeholders a voice.  Make the process open and public.  Make clear the problem and the available solutions.  Give stakeholders a choice on such solutions, making clear that ED’s vision is the best for the current situation.  Underpromise and overdeliver on the agreed solutions.  Rinse and repeat.
Yes, Conflicting Missions focuses on ARRA.  But it also offers some real lessons for moving ESEA forward in 2011.  The big question, will anyone listen.
(Full disclosure, Eduflack has provided counsel to Bellwether Education Partners.)

  
 

Getting Caught In the Net(P)

Eduflack 21CS, ESEA, i3, NCLB, technology

With all of the talk about innovation, 21st century skills, college and career readiness, and much of the remaining buzz words surrounding school improvement this past year, little has actually be said about the old innovation workhorse, education technology.

Back in February and March, President Obama’s budget proposed zeroing out a number of the programs that served as dedicated ed tech funding for states and school districts, with a promise that ed tech would be better integrated in ESEA (and in ESEA reauthorization), and that increased dollars would be available for competitive ed tech programs that reach directly into school districts and schools.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education finally released its National Education Technology Plan, or NETP 2010.  Wrapping itself around the topics of readiness, global competitiveness, performance, and accountability, ED planted a new flag for the direction of education technology programs, injecting a little 21st century into our national blueprint.

According to ED, “NETP presents a model of learning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The plan also identifies far-reaching ‘grand challenge’ R&D problems that should be funded and coordinated at a national level.”

How novel.  We are connecting the issues of school tech with actual learning and teaching in the classroom.  We are connecting ed tech with assessment and student performance.  And most importantly, we are addressing the “R&D problems,” important shorthand for how grossly underfunded education R&D, particularly in the area of technology, has been at the government level.  (Don’t believe Eduflack, at the percentage of the federal health budget committed to R&D and compare it to the percentage of the ED budget committed to R&D.  And don’t even get me started on the horrific shortage of private-sector education R&D.)

The release of NETP 2010 is important.  What is equally important, though, is how the rhetoric will be moved into practice.  How are these goals being integrated into ESEA reauth planning?  How are these goals weaved into evaluations for both RttT and i3 efforts in 2011 and beyond?  In our national commitment to better integrate ed tech into the infrastructure of K-12 education, how are we ensuring the necessary funding?  And in answering all of the above, who will champion a renewed federal interest and investment in ed tech on Capitol Hill?

For too many years, the ed tech community has been forced to play defense, trying to protect programs from deeper cuts, year after year.  NETP 2010 provides a greater sense of hope, a verbal agreement that ed tech is a priority of this Administration and this nation.  Now that verbal just has to carry over to the written contracts of this coming February’s Presidential Budget and long-expected ESEA action.
   

Is ESEA Reauth a Done Deal?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

For months now, the popular wisdom has been that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be reauthorized in 2011 (only three or so years late).  After all, John Kline (MN), the incoming House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman, and EdSec Arne Duncan have never been that far off on what they wanted from the law.  Duncan’s blueprint has been public record since March.  Kline has been hoping for more local control and greater attention on rural schools, two issues Duncan seems fine with.  Their only significant difference is that Duncan is the champion of Race to the Top and Kline would like to see the program carted off to an early death.  Otherwise, there is a lot to work with in the middle.

Following Tuesday’s elections, folks (including Eduflack) have been quick to say that education is the one issue Democrats and Republicans can probably agree on (to a degree) in the coming year.  If both sides are looking for a quick win and a chance to show they stand FOR something and can move something forward, ESEA is likely it.  The outstanding question, to many, is whether Hill Republicans want to give the White House and the Dems such a quick win.

Let’s be clear.  We aren’t talking about a comprehensive overhaul of No Child Left Behind.  When you take the March 2010 ESEA Blueprint, and mix in current political realities, we are really talking about a minor remodel of the law, not a rebuild.  Additional flexibility.  Revised accountability measures.  Greater collaboration.  More carrot and less stick.  A kinder, gentler (and now level-funded) NCLB if you will.

Last week’s congressional elections make pretty clear that any ESEA reauth likely means a new law that is level funded.  The incoming class (many of who ran on a platform to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education) is not looking to increase Duncan’s budget.  And those cockeyed optimists who believe a lame duck congress passing an omnibus appropriations bill means a third round of RttT clearly haven’t been listening to Kline or a number of others who can undo in two months that which is done in the coming weeks. 

But are we missing the bigger story in the reauthorization debate?  Most seem to couch this as a Democrats versus Republicans issue, failing to see what current House Ed Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Kline have been moving a good draft forward for much of this year.  And both Miller and Kline seem to be in tune with most of the priorities coming out of Maryland Avenue.

Instead, isn’t the real debate between the House and the Senate?  Even when both chambers were controlled by Dems and all Dems were complaining about NCLB, we didn’t see a shared vision.  If we couldn’t get a Dem Administration, a Dem House, and a Dem Senate to agree on K-12 education, what makes tomorrow different?

Has Sen. Tom Harkin (IA) been the stumbling block?  Harkin controls both the Senate HELP Committee and the appropriations subcommittee that oversees education funding.  While the senior senator from Iowa has held numerous hearings on specific issues related to ESEA, we haven’t seen the trial balloon drafts we come to expect during the reauth process.  In fact, the Senate has been downright silent regarding its hopes and dreams for next-gen ESEA.  So even if Duncan and Kline come to agreement on a bill that could work for their constituencies, will Harkin join in the fun?

In all honesty, we simply don’t know if ESEA is a priority for either the House or the Senate.  Both committees have a significant number of TBDs on the membership roster for the coming congress.  When we hear the list of priorities for the new House, education simply isn’t on the list.  And we are hearing nothing coming out of the Senate.

If Duncan is smart, he just prepares to work under the confines of the current NCLB.  He can do most of what he wants anyway, with the current law and some guidance (even of the non-regulatory variety) to make the shifts proposed in his blueprint.  Is it ideal, no.  But it may be the best choice in the current environment.