NCLB

As the Election Dust Settles …

Eduflack Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

While we still don’t know where all the chips will fall once all of the votes have been counted and recounted, there are some drive-by observations we can make regarding yesterday’s results and the potential impact for education policy in 2011 and beyond.

One thing that becomes clear from yesterday’s results, folks are frustrated by how much money the federal government has spent in the past two years (dating back to President Bush’s TARP).  So those thinking there are new pots of money for additional rounds of Race to the Top, i3, edujobs, or other such programs are likely to be severely disappointed.  We’re back to doing more with less.

Historically, Republicans prefer to fund education research and assessment, while Democrats prefer to fund implementation.  So it is fair to assume that the House Education and the Workforce Committee, under the leadership of likely new chairman John Kline (MN) will swing the pendulum back to the data.

Changes are coming to the education committees.  On the Senate side, because of last night’s results, we are likely to see the GOP pick up two seats on HELP, while Dems lose two seats.  And we have at least two Senate Dems, Dodd and Goodwin) who leave the Committee because they didn’t seek re-elect (and we still need to see what happens to Murray out in Washington and Bennet in Colorado).  More importantly, we have two GOPers — Gregg and Roberts — who move off the Committee (and possibly a third, Murkowski, depending on write-in vote tallies in Alaska).  A potential for five new Republicans on HELP in 2011.  So Chairman Harkin will have major changes to deal with on a Committee that hasn’t quite been in the education game for the last year.

On the House side?  Huge changes coming.  Kline will be the new chairman.  Rumors are already circulating that outgoing Chairman George Miller (CA) may retire rather than returning for the 112th Congress.  And then we will have a slew of new Republicans added to the roster, while a bunch of Dems rotate off.   

And don’t forget, the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner (OH), was one of the key architects of NCLB, when he himself chaired the House Education and Workforce Committee.  

What about the states?  The map of governors is looking awfully red.  Republicans picked up the chief chair in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, and others.  And we are still waiting for results in Florida, Illinois, and Oregon.  Among RttT states, we are seeing an awful lot of Race states with Republicans at the helm.  

No doubt, changes are coming to the edu-scape.  Many candidates calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education were elected last night.  There was little talk, if any, about the role of charter schools or school choice.  And the incoming majority party was swept in on promises of smaller government, reductions in spending, and a return of local control.  All of these promises have very real impact on federal and state education policy.  

So what now?  Expect Kline to move quickly with a plan to reauthorize ESEA … and expect EdSec Duncan to jump at the opportunity.  It won’t be a major change to NCLB — some improvements, some changes, but the same core framework with some accountability and flexibility returned to the states/localities at roughly a level funding level.   But that may be our only true edu-shot in 2011.
 

Education Policy and 2010 Elections

Eduflack Arne Duncan, assessment, early childhood education, ESEA, i3, Math, NCLB, RTT

This time tomorrow (or possibly this time Thursday or Friday, depending on how close some elections out west may be) we will know what the 112th Congress will look like and we will have a clear sense of who will be sitting in the big desks in governors’ offices across the nation.  You have to be living in a cave (or be in complete denial) not to know that big change is coming.  So how will such change affect education policy plans for 2011 and beyond?

ESEA Reauthorization — We will likely see ESEA reauth in 2011, and it may actually be helped along by Republicans taking over the U.S. House of Representatives.  Rep, John Kline (MN) has already been working closely with Chairman George Miller (CA) on the legislation.  So while Kline is likely to give the draft a greater emphasis on local control and rural schools, it should still move. 

And the U.S. Senate will follow the House’s lead.  It is expected that Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will remain in charge of the HELP Committee.  But major changes on the committee (due to election results and retirements) may change the Senate perspective.  If anything, it may help focus Harkin and get him to move on a meaningful piece of legislation.

Common Core Standards — Tomorrow, we are likely to see a lot of governor’s offices change parties.  Inevitably, that is going to lead to many seeking new GOP governors to reconsider their states’ adoption of the Common Core Standards (all in the name of local control).  And we may well see a few states pull out of the process, particularly if said states were RttT losers and are particularly proud of their state standards.  Texas and Virginia can serve as the model for these “rebel” states.

Phase Three Race to the Top and Phase Two i3 — Many are hoping for another round of both RttT and i3.  But additional rounds mean additional dollars.  And if the lead-up to today’s elections mean anything, it is that folks are frustrated with how many federal dollars have been spent over the past 18 months.  If we are seeing new RttT and i3 processes, it likely means having to move money from existing programs and existing priorities, a task that can be difficult during the reauthorization process.

Early Childhood Education — ECE has been the big loser in the last year.  Despite a great deal of rhetoric about the importance of early childhood education and plans on what should be done, ECE simply hasn’t been shown the budgetary love.  And that is unlikely to change.  ECE advocates will likely be fighting for the scraps in the larger picture for the coming year, particularly if they cannot find new champions on the Hill from both sides of the aisle.

Public/Private Partnerships — We have long relied on public/private partnerships to help move education issues forward, and STEM education is the latest in a long line of such efforts that the education establishment and the private sector have been able to work together on.  But will the Administration’s attack on business, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, make it more difficult to cut a deal to advance STEM in 2011?  Or will the business community move forward without Obama and company?  Only time will tell.

Teachers — EdSec Arne Duncan’s Teacher campaign is off and running, and it is likely to gain speed following the elections and stronger GOP representation in the states.  Many see the Teacher effort, led by Brad Jupp, as an alt cert campaign (an unfair characterization, but it has stuck).  So an anti-teachers union sentiment could give the recruitment effort some legs, particularly as new Republican governors look to model their administrations after NJ Gov. Chris Christie.

And what are the likely unsung issues in our post-election environment?  Parental and family engagement is at the top of ol’ Eduflack’s list, as folks see the need for community buy-in on reauth and other issues in a difficult budget year.  The assessments aligned with the Common Core will pick up steam.  And we are likely to see state legislatures take on an even stronger role in education issues, particularly as we look at the future for ESEA and Common Core.  And with all of our focus on reading for the past decade, math is likely to step into the forefront, particularly as more and more people raise issues with the math common core.

And so it begins …

Eliminate the US Department of Education?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Marketing, NCLB

Do we need the US Department of Education?  This seems to be a question that comes up every decade or so, ever since President Jimmy Carter made ED its own free-standing cabinet agency. 

Many in the Reagan Administration considered tearing down their own Ed Department, somehow believing it violated the basic tenets of conservatism and local control.  In the mid-1990s, after the Contract with America and Newt Gingrich’s brilliant 1994 mid-term election campaign, Republican congressional leaders made it a rallying cry during the government shutdowns of 1995 and the elections of 1996.

Personally, I thought the issue was over following the passage of No Child Left Behind.  Prior to 2001, education was a decidedly Democratic issue.  Dems were pro-education (as shown by their strong support from the unions), Republicans were anti-education.  President George W. Bush took that away, almost de-politicizing the issue.  Despite what we want to believe now, NCLB was bi-partisan.  We showed that Republicans could care about education issues, and could be equally pro-education and pro-child.  And we demonstrated that Republicans and Democrats could agree (in general) on core issues such as school improvement.

Now, the question is back.  By now, we are all aware of the impact the Tea Party is having on American politics.  We have seen many a “sure thing” Republican fall in this year’s primary elections, with the most recent being U.S. Rep. Mike Castle in his bid to be the next U.S. Senator from Delaware.  Most attribute the Tea Party with simply being anti-Obama.  Against the stimulus spending.  Against healthcare reform.  Against big government.  Against career politicians.  Against business as usual.  (And for some, against common sense.)

But while there is no official “platform” for Tea Party candidates (they are all Republicans, after all), talk of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education has been trickling in to the campaign rhetoric.  Christine O’Donnell, Delaware’s Republican Senate nominee, is the latest to be tagged with the “torpedo ED” language.  True or no, the label has been attached.

So it has got Eduflack thinking.  Who, exactly, is coming up with the idea that the key to winning a U.S. House or Senate seat is calling for the dismantlement of the LBJ Building on Maryland Avenue?  Are there that many folks who are riled up about the Office of Civil Rights and its commitment to an equitable education?  Lines of people opposed to a national commitment to elementary and secondary education?  Torches and pitchforks coming for Title I funding or the administration of student loans?

Year after year, we see that education does NOT serve as a voting issue for national elections.  So why target ED?  Surely there are other cabinet agencies that are better targets for campaign tales of “waste” or “federalism?”  Why don’t we hear a call to eleminate the US Department of Agriculture or Commerce?  

Make no mistake, the US Department of Education is going nowhere.  Every single congressional district in the nation depends on ED for financial support, guidance, and general partnership.  Federal education dollars head into every single city and town in the country.  

But it is time for ED to stop being a whipping boy and an easy target.  We are already hearing about Republicans looking to shut down the government if they take control of Congress.  And the US Department of Education is usually the first to shut its doors and the last to open them after such shutdowns.

As EdSec Arne Duncan and his team continue to develop their plans for ESEA reauthorization, perhaps they need to take on a new branding task.  WIth Race to the Top checks cut, i3 grants awarded, and ESEA coming down the pike, the time is now to remind Main Street USA of the role and responsibilities of the federal government in public education.  Help the average parent see how the feds are partners in the education process.  Help communities better understand where the feds fit in the local-state-federal continuum beyond the one-time injections of the stimulus.  And generally show us that education improvement is a shared job.

Otherwise, these fights will continue, with ED getting back in the crosshairs every decade or so.  Petty and pointless discussions such as eliminating the US Department of Education serve no purpose … other than making for good blog fodder and campaign bullet points.
 

The Pollsters Respond: More on ESEA as a Voting Issue

Eduflack ESEA, NCLB

Earlier this month, Eduflack opined on a survey released by the Alliance for Excellent Education about reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the need for focus on high schools, and the role both topics may play on this November’s upcoming congressional elections.  While I found the findings interesting, I worried that we were reading a little too much into the numbers, giving the average voter a little too much credit for what they think they know about ESEA and its future direction.

I offered up the counterpoint to the data originally compiled on the Alliance’s behalf by Lake Research Partners.  The good folks over at Lake Research Partners — namely Celinda Lake and Chris Matthews — wanted to set the record straight and ensure that we (and I mean that collectively, dear ol’ Eduflack included) don’t misconstrue the findings.  So I’m going to yield the rostrum to Lake and Matthews to offer that clarification.  So without further ado …

“Eduflack made some assertions and questions about the recent AEE poll that we would like to respond to:

1. The poll finds that 8 in 10 voters want to see NCLB changed in the reauthorization of ESEA, while 11 percent say NCLB should be left as it is. Eduflack questions this finding, asking: “Are we to believe that virtually all likely voters recognize that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year; and that 80% understand the components of the current NCLB bill well enough to know that the current law needs to be altered?”

The findings of the poll should not be construed in this way at all. The poll does not indicate that voters know that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year. As AEE and the pollsters asserted at the press conference introducing the poll, if we had to guess, we would agree with Eduflack and say that most voters don’t know this. However, we certainly can say from this survey that when ESEA is introduced to voters in the survey, with concise and accurate information, that ESEA reauthorization is seen as important to voters. And when it comes to NCLB, nearly 90 percent of voters in the survey have an opinion on the NCLB policy: 47% have a favorable opinion and 44% an unfavorable opinion. We agree with Eduflack, in that most voters do not fully understand all of the intricate components of the current NCLB bill, we see in this in the focus groups we conduct throughout the country. Yet, this research shows that they do have a base of knowledge about NCLB, which combined with their own experiences and views that public high schools are in urgent need of improvement, lead us to be confident that voters can weigh-in on whether NCLB should be changed or just reauthorized as it is.

So, to answer Eduflack’s question on whether the survey findings “assume an education policy knowledge among likely voters that is far out of whack with reality” — they do not. We can say with confidence that the survey met voters where they were in terms of knowledge, gave them a small, neutral, and unbiased amount of information about ESEA, and then asked voters to evaluate and make a choice based on that information as well as all the other knowledge and experiences they already have about public education and NCLB.

2.Eduflack also questioned whether “education could really takeover the economy as a key voting issue in November.” AEE and the research team of Lake and Bellwether have not made that assertion, and we would not make it as education does not rank before the economy right now in any polls we have seen. The new AEE poll does allow us to say, however, that education is an important issue and when voters do focus on the issue it is seen as important factor in how they will evaluate Congressional incumbents this fall. The AEE poll also shows that voters link the quality of public high schools and the state and progress of the national economy and our ability to compete in the global economy as well.”

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Data in Education Storytelling

Eduflack Media, NCLB

How do we use data to better tell the local story?  That was the big question Eduflack was asked over the weekend speaking at the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media’s Harold W. McGraw Hr. Seminar for Reporters New to the Education Beat.

For those who don’t know (and you really should), the Hechinger Institute is a terrific outfit being run out of Teachers College, Columbia University.  Back in May, Eduflack wrote about Hechinger’s new efforts in education reporting.  But at its core, Hechinger is about supporting members of the education media, providing the technical assistance and support necessary to support a strong and effective cadre of education reporters across the nation.
In talking with a terrific group of new education reporters (though not necessarily new to reporting) about how they can use education to localize stories, it begs an important question — what can those of us who engage with the education media to do the same.  And for this question, Eduflack has a top five list to guide the discussion:
1) Personalize the story — The most effective stories we can tell are those that are personal.  The individual who is affected by a new policy.  The student who has succeeded under a new curriculum.  The teacher who is raising student achievement scores.  We all like to hear a story.  Facts and figures and data can then be used to help fortify the story.  Trying to pitch a story on teacher incentives?  Paint a picture of that real, individual teacher who can be a case study.  Depict the teacher and her classroom.  Then strengthen the piece with the data, the state test scores and related data points that demonstrate teacher achievement, both for the individual and for the school/district in particular.
2) Know your data sources — There is more to the tale of the tape than simply student test scores on the state assessment.  In offering up a policy story, know which data sources to direct to.  What can we find at the national level?  What can we find at the state level?  What can we find at the local level? 
3) Capture the continuum — Once you identify the data sources, know how they connect and support each other.  If you’re pitching a state or local education story, be able to show the data that substantiates the pitch from the local level all the way up to the national level.  The data shows it works, and the continuum shows it works on a large or a small scale.
4) Acknowledge not all data is created equal — For the last decade, reporters have been hounded with “data.”  Since NCLB, everyone has “research” proving their point.  Unfortunately, much of the third-party “research” circulated out there is little more than marketing collateral for those promoting the policy.  There is good research, and there is bad research.  Reporters ultimately have to distinguish between the two.  But if you are selling bad or squishy data to a reporter, you lose credibility very quickly.  Want to tell an effective story, do so with the strongest data possible.
5) Think beyond the data — Data helps sell the story, but most of the time, it isn’t the story itself.  Long gone is the era when education media would write full stories on the latest research study to cross their desks.  Too much research on too many topics just makes such an approach untenable.  Instead, more and more reporters are looking for good data to enhance stories on the key themes they are covering.  So be prepared to position specific studies on how it can impact the discussion of teacher quality or turnaround schools or a host of other issues that reporters are being asked to cover.  While the data may not be the headline, it can definitely serve as a foundation for a good education news article.

Is ESEA a Voting Issue?

Eduflack ESEA, NCLB

For years now, we have heard how “education” is a top-five political issue for most Americans, usually falling behind the economy, jobs, and healthcare in terms of importance.  Despite its standing, though, most election results have shown that K-12 education issues simply are not deciding factors when one steps into the voter booth, particularly when we are casting votes for offices like U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator (and, of course, President).

As much as we may want education to be a voting issue on the national level, it simply is not (and the good folks at Ed in ’08 can back us up here).  Education is perceived by many to be a local issue, a topic best controlled by local school boards, city councils, and mayors.  We may need some state legislatures and governors to weigh in, particularly with the checkbook, but education simply is not seen as a national issue.  Even during the height of No Child Left Behind, we simply didn’t see national elections decided, or even influenced, by education issues.

Will 2010 be any different?  Yesterday the Alliance for Excellent Education released data from a recent survey conducted by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research insinuating that the upcoming congressional elections could be different.  In reporting on public sentiment on high schools and ESEA reauthorization, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and her team found:
* Those surveyed believe “the nation’s public high school are in urgent need of improvement”
* The quality of high schools through ESEA reauthorization is a voting issue for more than 80 percent of voters, with half saying failure to act this year will impact their vote in the 2010 congressional elections
* One in four surveyed gave our high schools an excellent (A) or good (B ) grade, with 20 percent giving them a D or F
* We think our local high schools are doing better than the national average
* Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed say a high school diploma isn’t enough to get a good job
* Two-thirds say high school drop outs have a significant impact on the nation’s economy
* A majority say Congress isn’t paying enough attention to high schools

These are interesting findings, and virtually all speak to the need for ESEA reauthorization and ESEA reauthorization now.  And it helps justify the recent buzz that NCLB will be renamed the College and Career Readiness Act when ESEA finally does come up for a congressional vote.

But Eduflack has to take issue with one of the findings.  According the public summary released by the Alliance yesterday, Lake says:

Eight in ten voters want to see No Child Left Behind (NCLB ) altered in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), while just 11 percent say NCLB should be left as is.  Reauthorizing ESEA this year in a way that improves public high schools is personally important to three-quarters of voters.  Overall, voters give mixed reviews to NCLB.

I’ll completely give you the last point.  For those that know about NCLB, it will always get mixed, at best, reviews.  But the rest of the point has me scratching my head.  Lake and company surveyed 1,000 likely voters through a telephone survey last month.  The data was weighted to reflect actual population (age, education, race, political affiliation, and marital status).

Based on this finding, we are to believe that virtually all likely voters recognize that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year (or know that it was supposed to have been reauthorized years ago).  And we are to believe that 80 percent of likely voters understand the components of the current NCLB well enough to know that the current law needs to be altered to better emphasize the role of high schools in the education continuum.  

Do we honestly think that virtually every likely voter in the upcoming elections is aware of NCLB, ESEA reauthorization, and the priorities that are being debated?  Last year, Brookings released a study showing that only 1.4 percent of national news coverage in the first three quarters of 2009 focused on education issues.   And I’m willing to bet that NCLB/ESEA was but a fraction of that 1.4 percent.  So where are we getting our information?

I’m not saying that the findings are wrong.  I just worry that those surveyed are telling us what we want to hear.  We all want to say that education is an important issue.  We all want to say that we need to do a better job with our schools, particularly our high schools when we hear about drop out rates.  But aren’t we assuming an education policy knowledge among likely voters that is far, far out of whack with reality? 

Yes, we all should believe that federal policy should be changed to help improve our high schools.  But we also need to know that real improvement only comes when state and local policy, and buy in from practitioners, is part of the equation.  Policy itself does improve education.  It merely serves as a blueprint.

Perhaps I am wrong, and this November there will be an outpouring of votes cast because of ESEA and Congress’ inability to reauthorize the law.  But I doubt it.  I’d love to be wrong, but we have never enjoyed a year when congressional elections were decided on education issues.  And with the economy and healthcare still swirling, do we honestly think this is the year education moves from fifth to first place?

Is Education a National Job?

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, NCLB

Following yesterday’s election results in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Arkansas, and elsewhere, there is a great deal of buzz about what the latest collections of primary votes in an off-year election year truly mean.  The talking heads immediately keyed in on the “power” of President Obama’s support, the strength of the Tea Party movement, and other such harbingers of what is to come.

Such talk also has direct impact on current education improvement efforts.  Last fall’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia have had real edu-implications.  Just look at New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie has sought to revolutionize school finance efforts, freeze teacher pay, expand charter schools, single-handedly take down the New Jersey Education Association, one of the strongest state teachers’ unions in the nation.  As his reward?  The NJ legislature provides lukewarm, at best, support for his Phase II Race to the Top application, an application that seems to be strongly in line with what the feds are expecting.  This after they gave the strongest of endorsements to a Phase One plan that was a major loser. 
If yesterday’s elections told us anything, it is that the anti-government sentiment found in many a Tea Party statement has real strength.  Yesterday, the movement may have very well elected a U.S. Senator in Kentucky.  And growing frustration with support for federal policies and efforts may very well have brought down the sitting Senator from Arkansas (we will see after the runoff), and may have contributed to the demise of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania in his new-found political party.
So why does this matter?  Those of us who worked on the Hill at the time clearly remember the “revolution” of 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America brought down the decades-long rule that Democrats had enjoyed in Congress.  At the time, Gingrich promised a much smaller government, less intrusion, and more freedoms.  And one of the centerpieces of that agenda was the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.  The thinking here is that education is a local matter.  With the feds contributing less than a dime for every dollar spent in K-12, the thinking goes, it is far easier exclude the federal intrusion and let local school boards decide what is taught, what is measured, and what is paid for.
Today we are seeing much of the same rhetoric, particularly coming through the anti-government Tea Party movement.  Today, Education Daily (sorry folks, no link to share) has an interesting piece on how several state Republican parties, influenced by Tea Party supporters, are now advocating for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in their official policy platforms.  Cloaking themselves in the 10th Amendment, Republican parties in states like Maine, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Oregon have either officially adopted or are expected to sign on to calls to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
Is this backlash against eight years of No Child Left Behind?  Is it frustration that so many states worry that they will be excluded from the riches found in Race or i3?  Is it worry of strengthened accountability under ESEA reauthorization?  Or is it legitimate concern that public education is a local responsibility?  More importantly, is it something we need to worry about?
We all well know that the U.S. Department of Education is going nowhere.  Its role is too important, and its scope to large for us to pull back now.  But these political rumblings within local Republican parties can have real influence on topics such as reauthorization, particularly when Republicans pick up seats in both the Senate and House this fall.  Republican leaders on the Senate HELP Committee or the House Education and Labor Committee don’t want to anger their core constituencies back home, and those constituencies are only gaining more attention and strength by the month.
For reauthorization, that likely means greater scrutiny of plans, particularly when it comes to expanding Race, replacing AYP, adopting Common Core Standards, and all of the other goodies found in ED’s official ESEA blueprint.  If you couldn’t get some of these reforms through in 2007 and 2008, when Dems and GOPers were looking to deal on reauthorization, and you couldn’t get it through in 2009 and 2010 when Dems have the strongest majorities we’ve seen in quite a while, do we really see expansion of the federal education role in 2011 and 2012, when we could have razor-thin majorities and stronger anti-government sentiment?
  

A College Degree for Every Child?

Eduflack AYP, national standards, NCLB, Workforce

By now, most in national education policy circles realize we are transitioning from the era of AYP to the era of college/career ready.  Instead of using middle school reading and math proficiency as our yardstick, we will soon be using the college- and career-ready common core standards to determine if states, districts, and schools are truly making progress toward student achievement.

Over at National Journal’s Education Experts Blog, they’ve been spending the week discussing EdSec Arne Duncan’s Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization.  Lots of interesting opinion here, from Sandy Kress’ significant disappointment to Michael Lomax’ support to real concerns about the “5 percent rule” to a general feeling that lack of details is a good thing in planning legislative policy.

But this morning, your NJ ring leader Eliza Kligman broke a bit from protocol and posted an anonymous comment from a reader in South Carolina.  (For those who don’t realize the participant list for the Education Experts Blog is a virtual who’s who.  There are MANY in the chattering class who desperately want to be added to the list, but haven’t yet.  And to focus on these experts, National Journal doesn’t allow readers to post comments to the blog.  A general concept that usually means the kiss of death for a blog, but seems to work for National Journal.)

But I digress.  This reader raised an important question with regard to the next generation of ESEA and our intent of getting every child in the United States “college ready.”  In fact, the comment is a little more pointed, with the reader stating, “if everyone is highly technically trained or college educated who is going to check out my groceries, cut down the dead tree in my back yard, tow my car when it breaks down, or take my money when I buy gas at the convenience store?  If you think the illegal alien problem is bad now, just wait until all of us middle class soon-to-be-elderly are told we have to pay highly skilled wages tot he guy who cuts our grass.”

While SC is mixing and matching a wide range of policy issues that shouldn’t be joined together (such as who is worthy of earning highly skilled wages and the immigration issue), he does start to touch on an interesting point.  But Eduflack would ask a more important question — does being college ready mean that every student should actually attend college?

In today’s global economy, just about everyone who holds a full-time job likely needs the sort of knowledge and skills that would be deemed “college- and career-ready.”  That guy fixing his car is most likely ASE certified and needs to be well versed in computers, math, and other subjects to successfully repair what are now four-wheeled computers with AC and a killer sound system.  The guy cutting the tree now needs to know ecology and life sciences and hopefully some math to generate accurate invoices.  And regardless of the job, we want everyone to be literate with some level of social skill.  So the fear expressed by SC and many, many others is a bit of a straw man.

It opens the larger question, though.  As a nation, though, we have set a national goal to have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by the year 2020.  Why?  Is it more important for someone to hold a diploma or a good-paying job?  What is the measure of a successful nation?  A strong economy?  A robust workforce?  Or the total worth of outstanding student loans?

I don’t mean to be negative here, but Eduflack has long believed we are selling students a bill of goods by telling them everyone should go to college.  First off, when we say college, most mean four-year degrees (and that’s even how that national goal is being measured).  But what about the knowledge and skills that are earned through community college programs and career and technical education programs?   What about military service, where four years of Army training may be far more beneficial than a BA in the liberal arts?  What about those whose passion is pursuing a trade, or the true entrepreneurs who are itching to open a business and pursue their passion?  Are all of those pursuits worth less because they don’t come attached to a four-year degree?

When Eduflack got into this discussion a few years ago, it generated an ongoing offline debate with a liberal arts professor from a college in the Pacific Northwest.  He regularly called me a complete idiot, saying I completely missed the point.  The role of college, he would say, is not to prepare kids for career, it was to broaden their minds and open them up to new experiences.

The ESEA Blueprint is correct is seeking to ensure that all those who graduate from U.S. high schools are ready for either college or career.  But we need to have a much deeper discussion of who should go to college, why they should pursue postsecondary education, and what the expected return on investment is for such a pursuit.  In an era where an aspiring college student can drop more than $200,000 to earn a BA from a private liberal arts institution, ROI becomes an important topic — for lenders, potential employers, and the students themselves.
 

Swingin’ for the ESEA Fences

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, NCLB, Online Education, RTT, SBRR

In yesterday’s initial analysis of the US Department of Education’s ESEA reauthorization blueprint, I noted I was “whelmed” by the plan as a whole.  (And for the record, I am a strong proponent of using the word whelmed.  If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I certainly can be whelmed.  It’s not like having to choose between North and South Dakota.)  Since then, I’ve received a number of questions as to why, particularly since so many people seem to see this as a strong step forward in improving No Child Left Behind.

My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin’, knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered.  When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape.  Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered).  The term “scientifically based research” was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike.  And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were.  These were all but twinkles in Sandy’s, Margaret’s BethAnn’s, and Reid’s eyes before the reauthorization process began.

But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET.  Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization.  So what were once big ideas — Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards — are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days.  We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now.  We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.

The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB’s Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec Margaret Spellings’ Teacher Incentive Fund, and the teacher requirements included in RttT.  Even in addressing the persistent problem with low-performing schools, this blueprint simply evolves from NCLB’s two-tiered evaluation with a new three-tiered system, as reported here by Greg Toppo.  And while that extra tier may really help at addressing those 5,000 lowest-performing schools, it hardly wins hearts and minds.

To be fair, Eduflack realizes you don’t always need some new shiny toy or a jaw-dropping new idea to move forward solid legislation.  In fact, in a perfect world, I would hope we’d never need such gimmicks.  But with short attention spans and even shorter understanding curves, one often needs that hook, that big idea, to help gain attention and start winning over the necessary converts.  When ESEA was reauthorized back in 2001 (and signed into law in early 2002), we not only gave it a new name (NCLB ), but we offered some new ideas and programs to show this was not your father’s version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Working from the existing blueprint, Eduflack sees a few potentials for both some smallball ideas as well as some bases-clearing longballs.  What am I thinking?

* Immediately include strong pieces of congressional legislation in the plan.  I’m thinking things like U.S. Sen. Patty Murray’s (WA) LEARN Act focused on K-12 reading instruction, Chairman George Miller’s (CA) plan for high school improvement, or even the recent legislation offered by U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI) and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (CO) establishing a federal definition for teacher professional development.

* Get personal on teacher quality.  Teacher quality is now clearly a central point of the debate, with even Obama calling out the teacher education sector for not living up to expectations.  So let’s get personal here.  As part of your data system work, ensure that we are able to track teachers (both leaders and laggards) back to their originating program, be it a college of education or an alt cert program.  Then be prepared to name names when it comes to those institutions that are not delivering the long-term results sought under the new law. 

* Invest in parents.  The day after Obama was elected, Eduflack opined that the EdSec should establish a family engagement office (at the assistant secretary level) so that the Administration could focus on the role of families in school improvement.  To date, the Administration has talked a good game.  But with the pending elimination of Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC) grants, there is a gaping hole for engaging families.  NCLB tried to do this, with mixed results.  Building off of the Obama campaign’s success in 2008 and recent activities around healthcare reform, one can build a strong, effective multi-touch effort to really involve parents and families in school turnaround and improvement efforts.

* Kill the bubble sheet.  Under ESEA reauthorization, this administration has the power to do away with the dreaded “bubble sheet test.”  Proudly proclaim that new assessments coming out of common core standards will be required to be smart computer-based exams.  Bring testing into the 21st century while allowing for a more-comprehensive assessment than can be captured by guessing which one of five bubbles may be the most correct.

* Require online learning.  I applaud the commitment to improving high schools and working to boost graduation rates.  Let’s add a little 21st century relevancy here.  Learning from states like Florida and Alabama, let’s require that, by 2020, every student in the United States must take at least one virtual course in order to graduate from high school.  Not only does it introduce more relevant coursework into the classroom, it clearly promotes that learning happens beyond what happens between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. behind the traditional schoolhouse doors.

Those are just five ideas to get the discussion started.  The legislative pieces could be endorsed by EdSec Duncan during Wednesday’s hearings.  Teacher quality could be done this summer when NCATE’s anticipated report is released.  A Family Engagement Office could be started immediately.  And killing the bubble sheet and folding virtual education into state requirements can be done now as stimulus money is used to invest in a range of ed reform ideas.  Regardless, we should be taking this opportunity to continue to move forward big, bold thoughts.  Real ed improvement can’t be limited by those ideas moved during year one.  Not to mix my sports metaphors, but this game goes at least four quarters.  We need to maximize all opportunities. 

Finally, an ESEA Blueprint from the Feds

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, national standards, NCLB

After months of anticipation, we finally have the official blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act form the Obama Administration.  The plan was teased in some news articles yesterday (Saturday) morning and was previewed during President Barack Obama’s weekly radio address on Saturday morning.  The official plan, found here, was officially released on Saturday evening at 8 p.m.

At first glance, I found the plan to be whelming.  On the whole, I thought it was entirely solid and relatively thoughtful.  But as I read it (and it shows you what type of life Eduflack lives when he spends his Saturday night reading the Administration’s ESEA blueprint, but for what is was worth, I was also watching West Virginia University beat Georgetown), I was surprised by how little I was surprised with.  As we used to write about two years ago, this was clearly NCLB 2.0.  Much of the last iteration of ESEA remains intact.  Some needed improvements are being made.  And the priorities emphasized in Race to the Top are being codified, hopefully, into the new law.
The highlights?  The plan is grouped under five key principles (not to be confused with ED’s four pillars).  The principles include: college and career-ready students, great teachers and leaders, raise the bar and reward excellence, equity and opportunity, and promote innovation.  These principles break into the following tasks:
  • College and Career-Ready Students — Raising standards for all students, better assessments, a complete education (meaning a well-rounded curriculum beyond the common core standards)
  • Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School — Effective teachers and principals, our best teachers and leaders where they are needed the most, and strengthening teacher and leadership preparation and recruitment.
  • Equity and Opportunity for All Students — Rigorous and fair accountability for all students, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and greater equity.
  • Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence — Fostering a Race to the Top, supporting effective school choice, and promoting a culture of college readiness and success.
  • Promoting Innovation and Continuous Improvement — Fostering innovation and accelerating success, supporting recognizing and rewarding local innovations, and supporting student success.
See, nothing that exactly shakes the K-12 education earth.  As I read the blueprint, I am seeing much of the original intent of NCLB, mixed in with the goals of RttT, a heavy, heavy influence of common core standards, and a strong dash of the principles advocated through the Schott Foundation’s recent Opportunity to Learn (OTL) campaign (primarily the equity planks).  A little something here for everyone, but not enough that any one party is quite swooning at this point.
I’ll be honest, the timing of this release as Eduflack completely puzzled.  This blueprint was released as if ED was trying to dump it so no one noticed it.  In PR, the general rule is you never release something of importance over a weekend.  And you certainly don’t do it at 8 p.m. on a Saturday night.  Many of the leading reporters got an advance briefing of the blueprint (as evidenced by The Washington Post coverage here, which notes an expected 16 percent spending increase in the federal education budget), but it is clear from the early comments that this release was not maximizing the interest in the topic.  We have 16 states coming over to ED this week to plead their case for RttT, with this blueprint now stepping on that significant reform story.  Yes, Duncan is slated to speak before the Senate HELP Committee this Wednesday, but with all of Washington focused on healthcare reform, this blueprint is likely to go undernoticed in the coming days and weeks.
But from the look and feel of the blueprint, it is clear that neither Capitol Hill nor the media is in the intended target here.  Since the beginning of the calendar year, we have been hearing how Assistant ED Secretary Carmel Martin was preparing an ESEA blueprint for legislators on the Hill.  But this document, from its design to its word choices to its bulleted focus of key concepts, is designed to deliver talking points and marching orders to the education blob.  This “blueprint” is designed to move the discussion at member organizations, forums about town, and cocktail parties and gab sessions.  In that way, it isn’t so much a blueprint as it is framing document for debate.
A few things are crystal clear.  One, EdSec Arne Duncan is going all in when it comes to common core standards.  The execution of this blueprint requires the adoption of the proposed standards across the country.  Anything short of 80 percent adoption within the year is going to severely hamstring much of what is proposed in this plan.
Two, those who were expecting accountability (and AYP) to be weakened are going to be severely disappointed.  Yes, we no longer use the term AYP.  But accountability remains alive and well in this document.  Localities are not being granted the flexibility many had hoped they may receive.  And while we are changing some of the rubrics (again, aligning them with those core standards) it is clear that continued improvement of student achievement remains the name of the game.  Even more so when it now appears that states, districts, schools, and teachers will be judged by how good a job they do getting more kids to graduate from high school.
Three, the teachers unions have been put on notice.  Obama’s remarks last week about the situation in Rhode Island were quite an intentional statement against the teaching status quo.  This blueprint strengthens the call for closing low-performing schools, addressing teachers who aren’t making the cut, and holding school districts, administrators, and teachers far more accountable for student achievement than even NCLB did.
Four, rural education is not going to be happy.  After seeking to improve its lot under NCLB, rural ed is almost an afterthought in this blueprint, inserted in a list of specialty audiences AFTER Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education interests.  Hardly the sort of focus that Senate HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY) and House Education Committee Ranking Member John Kline (MN) are hoping to see.  And Eduflack would quibble with what is labeled as “A New Approach,” as many of these bullet items do indeed read like the rhetoric surrounding NCLB intentions back in 2001 and 2002.  But looking to bullet out the takeaways (and distinguish between new and continued approaches) is always useful to those who will be asked to opine on this blueprint now and in the future.
And what’s missing?  No real discussion of anticipated plans of eliminating the current Title II (focused on teachers) and replacing it with new language aligned with the last year’s activities (though I suspect that’s what the effective teachers section is intended to address).  No real emphasis on plans to eliminate traditional, guaranteed block grants and replace them with competitive grant programs a la RttT and i3, particularly at the school district level.  And most importantly, no crosswalk of dollars with priorities.  WaPo may be pointing to a major spending increase under the reauthorization, but it simply isn’t part of the plan that has
been shared with the at large chattering class.  We’re being asked to buy into big ideas, with specific dollars, programs, and line items available on a need-to-know basis at a later date.
So what now?  From early reports, AASA (which was a strong opponent to NCL seems happy.  Teachers unions are upset.  And most simply didn’t realize this was dropped late last night (and announced proudly on Facebook for those who are Fans of the US Department of Education).  While this gives both the House and Senate committees additional information to consider as they hold their ESEA hearings, it is clear that Chairman George Miller (CA) is moving forward with his own plans, and this blueprint may very well be tossed onto the pile with other recommendations coming in to Miller from across the sector.  
Timing?  Eduflack loves those cock-eyed optimists who are still talking about reauthorization by this summer.  It ain’t happening.  If the intent is to re-bucket ESEA around this proposed blueprint, we are looking at spring 2011 at the earliest, assuming we don’t have significant shifts in congressional makeup this November.  But at least it gives us more to talk about than just RttT!