NCLB

Godspeed to a Legislative Legend

Eduflack NCLB

The news broke overnight.  U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy passed away last night, after a courageous battle against brain cancer.  A fighter to the very end, the senior senator from Massachusetts spent his final week focused on the people of the Bay State and of the entire United States, lobbying to ensure that Massachusetts would have two votes in the U.S. Senate after his passing, fighting for the governor to have the right to appoint a temporary replacement for the Senate seat until a special election could be held.  Most appropriately, the story of Kennedy’s passing can be found in the Boston Globe here.

As Eduflack has written before, Senator Kennedy was one of my earliest political heroes.  As a young boy, I was fortunate to go to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library (which my father helped establish when he was at the University of Massachusetts at Boston).  As a kiddo, I was so moved by everything I saw that I insisted on writing to Kennedy immediately.  Within weeks, I received a letter from the Senator, thanking me for my kind words and my picture.  It even included a handwritten postscript noting that I shared a name with his son.  That letter was, and is, a treasured possession, one that was framed and has hung on many a wall since the late 1970s.
When I started off on Capitol Hill for U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, I immediately heard the Byrd/Kennedy stories, including their showdown for Senate Majority Leader more than a decade earlier.  But I found offices of great congeniality and partnership, with the Senate Appropriations and Health/Education Committees working together for a better future.  Just this morning, I learned from legendary Byrd staffer Michael Willard that Kennedy had actually approached Byrd in 1978 to be his running mate in the 1980 presidential election.  Now that would have been a Democratic ticket for the ages.
When I was a Hill staffer working for U.S. Senator Bill Bradley, we were pushing hard in a newly Republican Congress to ban the practice of drive-through deliveries, where mothers and their newborns were kicked out of the hospital less than 24 hours after giving birth because of demands from the insurance companies.  In pushing that bill with then U.S. Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, we received much support and encouragement from Senator Kennedy, all in his effort to help improve the quality and access of healthcare available to all Americans.  We were able to outlaw the practice, despite the huge odds against us.
Years later, I was fortunate enough to be part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001 and 2002, better known as No Child Left Behind.  While many questioned why Kennedy pushed so hard to move George W. Bush’s education bill through, it was clear to those who knew Kennedy and followed his career.  He believed that a good public education was the true equalizer in the United States.  He knew that for far too many Americans, particularly those of color or from low-income households, the playing field would never be level.  He fought for NCLB to ensure that all children had the same right to a high-quality education as his children.  He believed every student should have an effective teacher, regardless of zip code.  And he believed that every student could succeed, and that no child should be given up on or destined to attendance at a drop-out factory or a sub-par public school.  He believed in the potential in all of us, and the need to invest in and nurture that potential, regardless of the odds.
In the coming days and weeks, much will be written about Senator Kennedy and his impact on our nation, our policies, and our government.  As we wage a bitter fight over healthcare reform and brace for a potential battle over education reforms, we must not forget the lessons offered by Senator Ted Kennedy.  Nothing took priority over country and an unwavering commitment to improve the quality of life for every American.  No challenge was too large, whether it be healthcare, fair wages, or education.  Success came from building bridges, working with individuals of all persuasions, political parties, and points of view.  But true leaders also stand by their convictions, never wavering from their commitment and their own beliefs.  It is important to hear others, but it is just as important to stand, unwavering, for what we believe in.
My heart goes out to the entire Kennedy clan.  Here is hoping that his commitment to the people of Massachusetts and the United States is repaid in future efforts to improve the health, education, and welfare of every American.
 

Where Is the “Loyal Opposition” in Ed Reform?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, high-stakes testing, national standards, NCLB, RTT, stimulus

The drumbeat toward reform continues.  Wisconsin’s Democratic governor is now calling for changes to the state law to tear down the firewall preventing the tie between teachers and student achievement.  Indiana continues its push to “reform” teacher certification, with the state superintendent looking to more fully embrace the alternative certification pathways advocated by the U.S. Department of Education and its Race to the Top guidance.  Even states like New York and California are looking for ways to show they are “reformers” and not the status quoers they have long been known as.

Earlier this week, Politico ran a much-anticipated profile of EdSec Arne Duncan and his push to reform and improve public education in the United States.  The full article can be found here.  As is typical with these sorts of pieces, Politico sought to get some opposing viewpoints on the Duncan agenda.  The end result?  Critique from the usual critic Jack Jennings, concerns about federal control of education from the top Republican on the House Education Committee, and frustrations from a parent advocacy group in Chicago that clearly didn’t get its way when Duncan was CEO of the Windy City’s public school system.
For the past six-plus months, Duncan and his team have moved forward with a bold, ambitious agenda for reforming education.  Through State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, RttT, the anticipated Innovation Fund, and regular prioritization of the pending budget, they have made their plan for improvement clear and unquestioned.  Student achievement is the name of the game.  Charter schools, alternative certification, teacher incentives, and other such tactics are the drivers.  STEM and core standards are foundations.  And ED is going to great lengths to avoid the phrase, Adequate Yearly Progress is still very much the name of the game.  Those states and districts that want to feed at the federal innovation and improvement trough will need to demonstrate that they are making continued, sustained gains in student achievement.  Those who can narrow the achievement gap along the way will get extra gold stars (and possibly extra zeros at the end of their checks).
In response to this agenda, most of the education community is falling over itself to demonstrate that it is already marching in lockstep with ED (or is willing to do whatever it takes to pick up the beat as quickly as possible).  There is little, if any, chatter coming from states about potential changes to RttT.  Instead, states are trying to figure out how they will change to meet RttT.  Instead of questioning one of many of the 19 criteria established in RttT, we are asking if each will hold equal weight.  We want to know if getting union sign off is as important as removing the charter school cap or agreeing to sign on to core standards before they are written and analyzed.
It all begs one very important question.  Where is the loyal opposition to these proposed education reforms?  Why are we not hearing voices speaking out against the proposed policies, the proposed measurements, and the proposed outcomes that will result from this agenda?  Have we truly found a reform agenda that we all agree to, or are concerned voices too worried about retribution or being tagged as roadblocks if they speak out against current plans?
All told, the United States spends more than $500 billion a year on K-12 education.  So RttT represents less than 1 percent of what we spend in a given year.  When you factor in the realization that less than half of states are likely to be dubbed with the RttT honor, the impact is even smaller.  So it can’t just be worry that criticism today means rejection tomorrow, can it?  Do we believe that if a state raises concerns about some of the criteria now that the “expert panel” of reviewers will hold that against them when their RrrT applications (those expected to take states upwards of 700 man hours to complete) will be dinged by such rhetoric?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is a strong supporter of most of reforms moved forward by Duncan and crew.  I believe we need to expand school choice, particularly for those students in chronically low-performing schools.  We should be incentivizing effective teachers, particularly those who are teaching in at-risk communities.  All states should not only adopt core standards, but there should be strong national standards with equally strong assessments to go with them.  We need to provide both the financial carrot and stick to drive reforms, and we need to focus on key states and districts as incubators for real change and improvement, using them to model what is possible for the rest.
But I also believe that good ideas become great policy when they are debated, dissected, and forced to withstand the scrutiny of critics and defenders of the status quo.  Call it being a contrarian or an agitator, but I just can’t believe we get it “right” the first time around.  We let our friends offer improvement, and we listen to our enemies to shore up the plans and make sure we are taking those steps which we believe in, can stand behind, and can demonstrate real return on.  No, we don’t look to build consensus policy.  Consensus is usually the kiss of death, the best friend of the status quo.  But you have to show you can withstand the best shots of the competition, demonstrating the strength of your foundations.
When NCLB was signed into law six and a half years ago, it was an equally bold reform agenda with arguably greater discretionary spending coming from the federal government.  From day one and a half, we had critics and attack dogs going after the policy, the personalities, and the goals.  States threatened to refuse federal money to keep local control.  Teachers unions and advocates sued in court.  Membership organizations spoke out against the law’s narrow focus and perceived unfunded mandates?
Where is similar outrage and organization today?  Are critics building their case against these policies, keeping their powder dry until the RttT guidelines are final and the “law of the land?”  Are groups waiting for a third-party voice to step up and draw the heavy fire from DFER, EEP, TFA, and other such organizations viewed as aligned with the Duncan agenda?  Or are we simply accepting these as a fait accompli? 
I can’t imagine that Jennings is the only voice in the education community that believes there is too much emphasis on charter schools.  I can’t believe that U.S. Rep. John Kline (MN) is the only person concerned we are spending without a comprehensive strategic plan and specific measurements and benchmarks.  So why is that loyal opposition so quiet?
Nothing from traditional voices who have long questioned the role of charter schools in the traditional public school system.  Relatively nothing from teachers and their representatives on teacher incentives and effectiveness being measured by student performance on state assessments.  Virtually nothing on the focus on alternative certification, all but eliminating discussion of improving teacher colleges and traditional pathways.  Quiet on issues like the continual measure of student achievement based on reading and math scores only.  Some minor sparring on the abandonment of the voucher system in DC.  Not a word about teachers unions and their expected approvals of state reform agendas.  Relative silence on the adoption of core standards as a requirement.
Where are our backbenchers and rabble rousers?  Where are our whol
e child advocates and proponents for local control?  Where are our defenders of the status quo and of the whole child?  Where are our critics of “high-stakes” tests and federal mandates?  Where are our doubting Thomases and cynical Samanthas?  
A great deal can happen between the finalization of RttT next month and its implementation at the state and local level.  Now is the time for voices to get on the record, both those echoing the call from ED and those questioning the priorities and the expected outcomes.  Ultimately, those who don’t speak now will have little ground to stand on if they want to play “I told you so” a year or two from now.  Vigorous and educated debate only improves the final outcome.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.
    

Largest ED Discretionary Program in History?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, NCLB, Reading First, RTT, stimulus

This afternoon, the U.S. Department of Education hosted a webinar as follow-up to last Friday’s festivities on Race to the Top, the Innovation Fund, and the host of other additional funding programs made possible through a generous grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The call served as a recap of the paperwork released on Friday, emphasizing the need for partnership, the importance of innovation, and the dollars and timelines associated with both.

As to be expected, individuals and organizations were already trying to see where they fit and what opportunities would be available specifically to them.  What about really small LEAs?  Does my planned charter school qualify?  Is there money for wind power in RTT? (The third question was indeed a serious one.)
A few interesting points came out of the responses.  For now, ED says it does not intend to eliminate SES (or at least replace it with ARRA funds).  We’ve been hearing for nearly a year now that SES may be eliminated as part of ESEA reauthorization, but if that’s the plan over on Maryland Avenue, they played it close to the vest today.
We also heard Deputy ED Secretary Tony Miller endorse extended day and extended school year programs.  When asked if RTT funds could be used for extended-day efforts, Miller can an enthusiastic affirmative, and even pointed to statewide efforts in Massachusetts as example of how state RTT dollars could be used effectively.
But I was most intrigued by the answer to a question regarding the timelines for programs and how long each stream of funding would last.  When the discussion turned to RTT, Miller and company noted that Race to the Top funding was operating under a four-year plan.  So $4.5 billion, available to states over four years.  That comes out to $1.125 billion a year to me (although I learned my math before core standards were developed).
For some time, we have been hearing that Race to the Top was the single largest education discretionary spending program in the history of the United States.  Friday, officials and dignitaries discussed all of the many uses for RTT, including STEM, alternative certification, charter schools, and the like (windmills did not make the cut).  That’s a lot of potential silos being funded with the RTT stream of dollars.  Clearly, ED has not indicated how many states will receive RTT funds.  If it is six to eight states, as many expect, that is a huge boon to reform efforts in those states.  If most states get the dollars, as may be politically expedient, that check is looking a little smaller than the Publishers Clearinghouse checks so many are now expecting.
But this afternoon’s discussion has deal ole Eduflack thinking.  Is Race to the Top really the single largest education discretionary program in the history of man?  As I remember it, in 2002, Reading First became law.  As it was originally written, it was a 5-year, $6 billion program.  Yes, all 50 states were expected to receive it, but the plan was approximately $1.2 billion a year for one single stream of educational improvement — reading instruction.  Had the law been maximized, up to 25 percent of that was to go to high-quality professional development for teachers (so nearly $1.5 billion for teacher training and supports).  
Why do I raise the RF issue now?  In continued reading of RTT, the draft language seems to be all things to all people.  It is designed as a consensus program so that each person along the way can hang their pet program or favorite issue on the reform tree.  Governor gets his issue.  State superintendent gets his.  State board of education gets its favorite.  Even the head of the state teachers union (if applicable) gets the final OK, meaning they get some quid for their pro quo.  At the end of the day, the applications are likely going to be a patchwork of different things intended to improve in some places, reward in others, and placate in still others.
If that is how things roll out, and the majority of states receive RTT funds, then how do we ensure that we are really putting the dollars on the specific interventions and action items that will boost student achievement and close the achievement gap?  We struggled in tracking federal effectiveness in RF (with some reporter friends reminding me that ED still hasn’t accounted for how those dollars were actually spent) and that was just focused on a singular issue of reading instruction in grades 3-8?  How do we track, measure, and report progress and effectiveness of a host of issues that may be uncommon across states?  How do we make sure that states are truly using the dollars to race to the top, and aren’t simply stuck in neutral with a gear shift that’s a little too loose?
The clock is ticking on the 30-day review period for RTT.  Do I think the scope will narrow?  No.  But the criteria for evaluating state applications and awarding grants could do the trick.
  

The Effectiveness of IB

Eduflack accountability, AP, AYP, High School, Math, national standards, NCLB, Science

Each year, we see the high school “rankings,” finding that those schools with a high preponderance of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB ) programs tend to do the best.  The greater the penetration of such programs and priorities, the higher a high school ranks.  Over the years, though, the education community has begun to ask the question about true results or the true impact of these programs. 

A decade ago, many a high school student collected AP courses like baseball cards, knowing that AP today meant college credit tomorrow.  The eduwife actually entered Stanford University as a sophomore because of all of the AP classes she took (and the fives she secured on the exams), allowing her to spend her fourth year out at the Farm gaining her master’s degree.
But times have changed.  Many colleges are now saying that even a five on an AP course is not the same as successfully completing the college course.  We’ve shifted from awarding college credit to simply allowing students to waive out of core requirements.  
The situation has always been even more murky with IB.  IB was never intended to provide college credits in a way AP does.  Designed decades ago, the program was created to ensure that students received a rigorous, comprehensive, and relevant high school learning experience.  By maximizing the time in high school through the IB curriculum, young people would become better students, better scholars, and better citizens.  
So how does all that translate when it comes to postsecondary education?  Many a college admissions officer knows that an IB graduate means a strong college candidate.  They are prepared for postsecondary work.  They are motivated.  They’ve been challenged.  They are inquisitive.  And they are able to do more than fill out bubble sheets or choose from a list of five answers.  They are scholars and learners, not merely the processors of information.
In past years, Eduflack has had the privilege of working with IB on a number of issues.  Being me, I would always ask about the research.  How do we know IB is working?  IB would say that the proof is in their alumni network.  One knows IB works when you see the complete IB graduate.  It is not just what they know, but how they apply it.  Those who complete an IB program usually move on to college.  And the IB high school instructional model has been so successful in teaching and motivating students that it has resulted in the development of both elementary and middle grades IB programs.
IB has never been about longitudinal research models.  They know the program works.  Their scholars know it works.  Their teachers, who undergo rigorous training and ongoing support, know it works.  And the schools that adopt it know it works.  They don’t need a medical-style research model to prove what they already know.  No, IB isn’t for everyone.  But those who do adopt it are better for it.  And despite the urban legends, IB isn’t just for the rich schools in the suburbs or for the uber-motivated.  IB works for all students who are motivated enough to seek a high-quality, rigorous educational program that provides the content and the skills to perform well after the IB program is completed.
But this is an era of research and of doing what is proven effective.  One’s word or one’s track record isn’t enough.  We need third party data to prove our effectiveness.  And now, IB has some of that as well.  In recent days, IB announced the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) findings of its International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project.  What did EPIC find?  
* IB is “highly aligned” with the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards
* The IB Diploma’s key cognitive strategies — critical thinking skills, intellectual inquisitiveness, and interpretation — were found to be fully aligned with the expectations of university faculty
* IB math (algebra, trigonometry, and statistical standards) were completely aligned with KSUS
* IB science (chemistry, biology, and environmental science) were completely aligned with KSUS
Alignment is important.  But the data on results is even more compelling.  As part of the EPIC announcement, IB revealed that more than 80 percent of those completing the IB high school program graduate from college within six years, a rate leaps, bounds, and high jumps above the national average for high school students.  IBers are college graduates.  And there are few, if any programs, we can make that statement about with higher certainty.
IB has been one of the best-kept secrets in school improvement and innovation.  We don’t talk about it, but IB’s year-on-year growth in the United States over the last year has been the stuff on which folks write Harvard case studies.  Those teachers who have gone through the training are true believers.  Those students who secure the Diploma are real-life success stories.  And those districts who make the investment quickly realize that the cost is worth it, gaining both quantitative and qualitative return on investment almost from the get-go.
Perhaps IB’s greatest challenge is how it fits into the current environment of improvement, reform, and innovation.  IB succeeded in the NCLB years, in part, because of the misperceptions of who it was targeting.  Since many didn’t see its applicability for those students who were being left behind (despite some tremendous case studies of how IB programs have turned around schools and really helped students from historically disadvantaged groups), the program was left to operate on its own.  It connected enough with AYP and with state assessments that it was a viable alternative for those wishing to pursue it.  But it simply wasn’t seen as a solution for that bottom quartile of students, particularly with NCLB’s focus on the elementary grades.
Today, IB is at a crossroads.  As a nation, we have set hard goals for improving high school graduation rate and college attainment numbers.  The EPIC data demonstrates that IB could be one of those solutions custom-made for rising to the occasion.  The IB training and development model is one that can be used as we look to new ways to improving instruction and preparation for all teachers.  The real challenge, though, is how IB fits into the new call for common standards.  How will the IB framework align with the high school standards currently being pursued?  How do IB assessments dovetail with the assessments that will come out of common standards?  How does IB demonstrate value-add, and not add-on?
Only time will tell if IB is up to the challenge.  It has the opportunity.  It has the track record.  It can display its strengths.  Now is the time for International Baccalaureate to show it is an exemplar of best practice, and not merely a niche program.  It has the pieces.  IB just has to bring them all together for a compelling story that solves the problem so many school decisionmakers are facing.

Bolder, Broader Accountability?

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

The announcement last month about common standards and the work undertaken by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers seems to have captured the attention of most in the education community.  For those entering their first rodeo, they are worried about how these new standards will be applied and are worried about how they will be applied next year, even before the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Those who have done this dance enough times know that the work is only just beginning.  The current common standard focus on high school exit expectations will have be walked back to first grade or kindergarten, providing common standards for the full K-12 effort.  With those standards, we’ll also have to build the assessments that go with it, how we measure both what is being taught and what is being learned in the classroom.
One of the top concerns about common standards is that the current framework seems focused exclusively on reading and math skills, much as NCLB’s AYP provisions were.  We assume that science will be added.  We hope to fold in social studies and other academic subjects.  And the recent release of the arts NAEP last week gives us hope that there is a chance that we will truly gage student proficiency on all of the issues and topics addressed during the school year.
Adding to this discussion is a new report out today from A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.  BBA’s approach is a simple one.  School improvement cannot be measured by test scores alone.  There are additional quantitative measures, as well as a number of qualitative pieces, that should be factored into current efforts to improve the schools and support our students.  (Full disclosure, my company has been providing counsel to BBA and its leadership on these issues.)
The full BBA Accountability Report can be found here.  But I’ll recap the highlights:
When it comes to accountability, BBA calls on the federal government to:
* Collect state-level data — from an expanded NAEP or from other national surveys — on a broad range of academic subjects, as well as on the arts, student work habits, physical health and fitness, mental health, citizenship habits, and other appropriate behaviors that will enable students to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
* Improve the disaggregation of NAEP and other survey data, where appropriate, to include immigrant generation, parent education, and national origin.
* Maintain NAEP’s low-stakes character to preserve its validity as an indicator of relative state performance, barring its use as an individual-level test for accountability purposes
* Require states to develop accountability systems that rely upon scores on states’ own academic tests and other key educational, health, and behavioral indicators, along with approved inspection systems to evaluate school quality.
And for BBA, it falls to the states to:
* Improve the quality of state assessment, particularly in reading and math, so that assessment results can plan an appropriate role in school evaluation.
* provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that contributions to satisfactory student performance in academic subject areas, as well as in the arts, citizenship, physical fitness and mental and physical health, work, and other behavioral skills that will enable them to achieve success in a pluralistic society and complex global economy.
Provide for the inspection of districts and schools to ensure that appropriate resources and practices, likely to produce satisfactory student achievement, are being followed and promoted.
* Intervene for the purpose of improving schools and district performance where it is unsatisfactory.
There are few that are going to feel lukewarm or ambivalent about BBA and its recommendations.  EIther you’ve drunk the Kool-aid or you are a true nay-sayer/doomsdayer.
True believers are going to embrace this as the fix to what is perceived as a severely flawed accountability system in NCLB, a model that only looks at reading and math, a model that only looks at grades 3-8, a model that fails to account for other academic subjects, other social developments, and other factors that impact the potential and success of the student and the school.  The broader, more comprehensive approach to assessment gets us closer to the multiple measures many states were pursuing before AYP became a primary word in their vocabulary.
Others will absolutely hate the approach.  They will fear that BBA is looking to weaken current accountability models, and are claiming that adequate assessment of math and reading proficiency should no longer be a priority.  It “softens” our current measurement efforts.  It places the qualitative over the quantitative.  And it turns back the accountability clock to when it was every state for itself, with each jurisdiction offering up some version of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  it seeks to deal a setback to one of the real successes of the NCLB era.  And the idea of an “inspectorate” that will parachute in to evaluate our schools will win few friends in the “reform” movement.
Will these recommendations become the centerpiece of ESEA reauthorization, either this year or sometime in the next decade?  Probably not.  But by throwing a spotlight on accountability at this stage of the game, BBA begins a very important debate when it comes to reauthorization.  How do we effectively measure school improvement?  What are the inputs and the outcomes we should be focused on?  How do we define success?  How do we measure success?  How do we capture the full picture, knowing that curricular changes alone cannot get us to the intended destination?  How do we take issues like 21st century skills and STEM and figure out how to effectively layer them into the common standards and the assessments that will come along with those standards?  How do we ensure that all parties, from the classroom up and the feds down, are actually being held accountable for student learning and student achievement?  All are important debates we must have now, if a reauthorized ESEA is indeed an improvement over the current.
Debate is a good thing.  Discussion is a good thing.  Even disagreement is a good thing when it comes to school improvement.  We need choices and different ideas.  We need devil’s advocates and loyal soldiers.  We need to seriously consider our choices (as well as weigh what has worked and what has not in the past) if we are to put real, lasting, meaningful improvement in place.  So if BBA is lighting the match to start some of these debates, we are better for it.
And for those who think that these accountability recommendations won’t hold any water with the Obama Administration and EdSec Arne Duncan, take a look at the following video clips.  Both candidate Obama’s and President Obama’s rhetoric seem far more like that of a true believer than a nay sayer.  This may have more legs to it than it originally appears.
  

Reauthorization Timetable?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB

It is always a fun game to ask those “in the know” when they expect the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to be reauthorized.  In 2007, we saw several draft bills that some thought were indications that reauth would happen before the elections.  Those drafts quickly stalled, and we started talking 2009, 2010, 2011, and beyond.

Recent reports had been tagging ESEA – and yes, most are now referring to it as ESEA and not NCLB – reauthorization for as late as 2011.  The thinking has been that 2009 is slated for healthcare reform, 2010 has a student loan priority, so ESEA must be coming along in 2011.
The reauthorization waters have only been muddied further with discussions on economic stimulus, Races to the Top, common standards, and such.  Some will even go as far as to say that common standards is the priority, and the push for national standards will simply be put into place through EdSec caveat, without the need to codify under ESEA.  After all, EdSec Arne Duncan has made it pretty clear that he is relatively content with NCLB, needing just some minor tweaks to funding priorities and programmatic emphasis.
But Eduflack is starting to hear a different story with regard to reauthorization.  It is a major priority for the EdSec and his senior staff.  So much so that the current plan is to make ESEA reauthorization a Capitol Hill priority this fall, with hopes of signing the new law into the official record in the early part of 2010.  So we are facing a possibility of 2009 reauthorization after all.  The game is back on.
If the schedule holds, many are going to be caught by surprise with the accelerated schedule.  The education chattering class is thinking reauthorization is months away, and is putting their attention on other issues and other priorities.  If the new ESEA process is really just months away, the education blob has a great deal of thinking to do.  Summer school is in session, and those who want their voices heard during reauthorization better be ready to advocate loudly and clearly when the new school year starts this fall.  Otherwise, they could be left behind for another five to eight years. 
(And as for the new name, today’s WaPo made clear that NCLB moniker has been put to bed.  Earlier this year, Eduwonk held a rebranding contest, receiving more than 700 entries.  Check out the best of the best here.  If only naming were our biggest concern.)
    

From the Ed Trenches to the Real Ones

Eduflack higher ed, national standards, NCLB

It doesn’t happen every day, but we have some breaking education news on Capitol Hill today.  Rep. Buck McKeon of California has been named the new ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.  For those who haven’t worked on the Hill or drunk the Kool-Aid, this is a huge deal, particularly as we are dealing with troop expansions in Afghanistan, withdrawals in Iraq, and future commitments we can never foresee.  McKeon will now be working with Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri on issues of military personnel, armed services support, terrorism, and a host of other issues related to the protection of our nation and security around the globe.

So how does this affect our little ole education world?  Unfortunately, the move means that McKeon must now give up his position as the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  After all of his work on higher education issues, cleaning up in the aftermath No Child Left Behind, and the advocacy of greater accountability and quality in our public schools, McKeon will pass the top Republican education chair to a new voice, likely Tom Petri of Wisconsin or Mike Castle of Delaware.  The full story can be found here, courtesy of The Hill.  
Even though Eduflack only worked for the Dems on Capitol Hill, I’ve had a soft spot for McKeon since launching this blog a few years ago.  His staff was one of the first congressional staffs to ensure that I was getting information and updates regarding what was happening on the committee, and this was after he lost his gavel following the 2006 elections.  So I appreciated that he (or his staff) understood the need for continued communications to a wide range of stakeholders.
I also appreciated the stances he took, even on “unpopular” issues.  To this day, I still think the Miller/McKeon version of NCLB reauthorization may end up the law of the land.  Last year, I even advocated for McKeon as a potential EdSec candidate.  Congressman McKeon worked hard on education issues, doing what he believes was best for improving our schools and boosting student achievement across the learning continuum.  That commitment will likely transfer into a new commitment to our men and women in uniform.  That’s a win for the Armed Services Committee and for the nation.
So what does this mean for the House Education Committee?  Chairman Miller is still ruling the roost, and nothing is going to change that (and his staff has gotten even better and more sophisticated at sharing information and keeping the blogosphere apprised of Committee doings).  Clearly it is a signal that Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization is not on the immediate horizon.  But it also offers a little glimmer of what is possible.  If Congressman Castle can rise to the top slot, he and Chairman Miller could do a lot of good for our public schools, working on improvement efforts in a bipartisan fashion.  It may even be enough to make national standards and such a reality.  Now wouldn’t that be something.

Answerin’ to Mr. Miller

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, stimulus

Sometimes, what you don’t say can be as important as what you do say.  Case in point, EdSec Arne Duncan’s testimony yesterday before the House Education and Labor Committee.  Emphasizing current efforts to effectively use American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars, Duncan focused on a number of issues in the free-form part of the discussion, including topics such as restraint and student loans.

The full rundown can be found over at the Committee’s website, complete with video links to testimony and key questions.  Some of the highlights from Duncan’s testimony:
“Many of you have heard me say that I believe education is the civil rights issue of our time. I truly believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. I will work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make sure that we properly review compliance in all programs and policymaking.”
“If we are going to be successful in rebuilding our economy, our early childhood programs need to prepare our youngest children for kindergarten so they’re ready to start reading and learning, our K-12 schools need to make sure our students have all of the academic knowledge and skills that they need to enter college or the workforce, and our higher education system needs to offer whatever advanced learning students need to be successful in a career, whether they will become a plumber, a teacher, or a business executive. As federal policymakers, we need to improve preparation for college and expand college access and completion by increasing financial aid so that students of all income levels can pay for college without taking on a mountain of debt.”
“States must build data systems that can track student performance from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and their parents know when they are making progress and when they need extra attention. This information must also be put in the hands of educators so they can use it to improve instruction. Right now, according to the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah are the only states that are reporting to have comprehensive data systems meeting the basic elements of a good system.”

“I don’t want to invest in the status quo. I want states and districts to take bold actions that will lead directly to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders to find change agents who can fix these schools. I want them to provide incentives for their best teachers to take on the challenge of

teaching in these schools. And where appropriate, I want them to create partnerships with charter school operators with a track record of success. I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult step of shutting down a failing school and replacing it with one they know will work.”

“Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused on helping states do the right thing. And that’s appropriate because States are responsible for establishing systems of education through the 12th grade. It’s our role to make it a national priority to reform schools and help states and districts do that.”

Eduflack bookended the two quotes in particular because I find them the most intriguing of what was said.  The first is Duncan’s continued commitment to the notion that a high-quality public education is an American civil right.  Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed, determining that education is a topic best left to the states and the localities (at least according to the U.S. Constitution).  We’ve seen school equity fights in states like California and New York recently, but with limited results.  SCOTUS hasn’t really heard the issue since the Rodriguez decision in 1973.  Perhaps the EdSec is daring a forward-looking advocacy or policy organization to bring the issue before the Supreme Court yet again.  The time may be ripe.
Duncan also focused on the issue of “helping states do the right thing.”  Eduflack couldn’t agree more, but can’t help but notice Duncan’s team seems to be a little light in the state understanding department, as highlighted in our post yesterday. 
What was noticeably absent from Duncan’s testimony, though, was any mention of No Child Left Behind reauthorization.  Certainly, it is an issue that both he and Chairman Miller are all too aware of.  Maybe they’ve already had deep and intimate conversations on the topic, and thus didn’t need to talk for the sake of the public record.  Maybe Duncan believes his four pillars of the Duncan Education Department suffices as the blueprint for where we are headed.  Maybe we believe that ARRA and the President’s budget are all that we need to know when it comes to the plan for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization this fall or next spring.
Also missing from the general love-fest over at Chairman Miller’s committee was discussion of two specific policy matters.  There was no talk of the Reading First successor bill circulating around town (which Eduflack has dubbed, Yes I Can Read), though plans to expand the Striving Readers program ten-fold did warrant a mention.  And there was no talk at all about the national education standards drafts that Achieve is rumored to be delivering to the EdSec in the coming weeks for review, discussion, and debate.
All in all, Duncan’s performance was just a regularly scheduled check-up with the Committee, a chance to show that ARRA plans are moving forward, key concerns are being addressed, and no additional attention or worry needs to be paid to the U.S. Department of Education.  The trains are running fine.  There is nothing to see here.
Me, I’m waiting for the questions that have yet to be asked.  What’s in store for our federal accountability measures?  What improvements will be made to NCLB?  What’s next for federal reading investment?  Are we really heading to national standards?  What are our expectations from these new data systems?  Are we really going to turn back the regs on four-year high school graduation rates?  And how do we ensure that every low-performing and hard-to-staff school has effective teachers leading the classroom when the feds are only contributing eight cents of every educational dollar spent?  Lots of questions.  Hopefully, the answers aren’t too far in the offing.
On a related note, I have to give kudos to Chairman Miller’s staff and the way that they make information accessible to the average parent and the average blogger.  Almost immediately, the Committee has transcripts of the prepared testimony, along with video segments of the hearing, up on the Web.  For us former Hill rats, it may not be a big deal to watch a congressional hearing, but the Committee’s use of technology really throws the sunshine on the process and improves understanding and access.  Congressman McKeon and his staff were always terrific about getting information out to interested parties, and it is good to see Chairman Miller has taken it several steps further.

Who’s Speaking for the States at ED?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, NCLB, NGA, stimulus

In what seems like a little-publicized announcement of a major appointment, EdSec Arne Duncan has selected Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, superintendent of Pomona (CA) Unified School District to be the U.S. Department of Education’s new assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education.  The choice seems to be a solid one for ED, the good doctor is a former bilingual classroom teacher, middle school assistant principal, elementary school principal, and former school district director of instruction of elementary and middle schools.  She is also a Broad Superintendents Academy alum.

Her focus on middle schools, in particular, gives Eduflack a great deal of hope.  Often, OESE focuses exclusively on elementary instruction.  To date, we’ve seen a great number of appointments at ED focused on secondary issues such as STEM and college readiness.  So an assistant secretary with a strong background in the middle grades offers some real hope to those of us who realize that improving high school graduation rates and college-going rates is a task best completed in middle school.  (In fact, once a student gets to high school, the die is usually already cast.)
But the announcement, in the context of other ED appointments, does cause Eduflack (and I’m sure many others) a great deal of pause.  As we’ve hashed and rehashed many times over, the economic stimulus package placed a great deal of responsibility and influence with our states and our state education agencies.  The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is dispersed entirely through the SEAs.  The same will be true of the soon-to-be-rolled-out Race to the Top Fund.  In fact, much of the EdSec’s plans to improve chronically underperforming schools rests in SEAs doing new things through the Race to the Top.
And then we get into issues like state data systems, increased accountability measures, continued AYP focus, and a stronger reliance on Title I and IDEA distribution streams to drive school improvement.  All run through the states.  All require a keen understanding of how to effectively use the power of the SEA (and how to avoid the pitfalls and roadblocks that often stymie states from exactly real, lasting improvements in our schools).
No question about it.  The future of public education in the United States rests, in large part, with state decisionmakers.  Collectively, governors, state legislators, and chief state school officers will be the drivers of improvement or the obstacles to it, serving as the defenders of the status quo.  Regardless, states will be driving, navigating, and even filling the tank.
Despite this realization, there seems to be few, if any, experienced voices for the states in the U.S. Department of Education.  We have a number of superintendents and those who have worked for the LEAs.  We have higher education pros, particularly those representing the community colleges.  We have strong players who have come from Capitol Hill, think tanks and advocacy organizations, and leading philanthropies.  But who is speaking for the states, at least as a voice of experience?
Currently, that responsibility seems to be a one-woman-band of sorts.  Judy Wurtzel, formerly of the Aspen Institute and the Learning First Alliance, has been running point, providing technical assistance to the states on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (and has recently announced she is remaining at ED).  But where is the breadth and depth when it comes to those who understand the complexities of state education policy or those who are familiar with how states effectively disperse federal dollars (particularly Title I dollars) to local districts?
In recent months, we have heard a great deal about those external organizations who hold significant influence with the EdSec and leaders at ED.  Tops among them seem to the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  Both orgs understand the challenges of the SEAs and how federal policy gets translated by the states and implemented by the localities.  They know how to hold those in the education chain accountable, both for how money is spent and how students perform.  Yet we have no former chief state school officers working out of ED.  We have no governors or top education aides to the governors.  The closest we have seem to be state legislators who are working as deputy assistant secretaries or special assistants.
Hopefully, CCSSO and NGA will remain close behind the throne, ensuring that the states have strong advocates, both in terms of the stimulus and upcoming ESEA reauthorization.  Without a strong advocate for the states, and a strong understanding for how those SEAs operate, the transition from federal policy to local implementation can be a difficult one.  We need strong hands at the state level, setting policy, building budgets, and driving change.  But we also need strong voices at ED ensuring those hands are getting the resources necessary to do what we are demanding.
We can’t make lasting student achievement gains and school transformations on a school-by-school, district-by-district basis only.  Real improvement happens at the state level, with best practice rippling across the state quickly and efficiently.  Someone needs to make sure that voice is heard as federal education policy debates move forward.  As we address accountability, data systems, Title I, and other such issues, state buy-in and state support is key.  We need to ensure that voice is heard, and heard clearly, at the federal table.  If that isn’t going to happen from the inside, it falls to those outside groups to speak loudly for their members.  Not to put added pressure on Gene Wilhoit and Dane Linn, but it really is game on now.

Reading First 2.0

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

What is the future of the federal investment in reading instruction?  It is a question that many folks are still waiting to answer.  By now, we all realize that Reading First is dead as a doornail.  After billions of dollars of dollars spent, a significant number of research studies demonstrating its effectiveness at the state level, and even a US Department of Education (OPEPD) study highlighting that the program has worked, the fat lady has indeed sung.  The implementation problems, the IG investigation, the Bush-era RF tag, and a recent, yet flawed, IES study have all assured that.

But the federal government has been investing in reading instruction for decades.  RF was just the latest iteration of the effort (and probably the most significant).  But the end of RF doesn’t mean the end of federal reading, does it?  If one looks at the President’s budget, released last week, the answer is a clear “no.”  Buried in the thick volume is approximately $300 million for reading investment, comparable to the last year of RF (though the term Reading First is no where to be found, don’t mistake me).
So I’ll ask again, what is the future of the federal investment in reading instruction?  Eduflack opined on this back in January.  The current buzz around town, four months later, is pretty simple.  Critics of RF believe to this day that it was all about phonics.  It was a drill-and-kill bill designed to prop up programs like Direct Instruction or Open Court, teaching reading in an automaton sort of way.  We forget that the legislation — and the instruction to come from it — was supposed to focus on five key, research-based principles.  It was all about phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, with each component building on the one that came before it.
RF wasn’t a phonics bill, it was a scientifically based reading research bill.  That’s why we saw the “scientifically based” terminology i the NCLB legislation more than 100 times.  Its writers recognized that we have spent billions of dollars in this country trying to get our youngest learners reading.  And despite all of the money and the best of intentions, nearly 40 percent of fourth-graders were still falling below the proficiency mark.  RF was intended to refocus our dollars on what was proven effective.  it was about spending on what works.  It sought to abandon the notion that our classrooms are laboratories to test out the latest and greatest silver bullets, and instead should be centers of excellence where we apply instruction and teacher training that is proven most effective in getting kids to read.
Until I am provided a better name, Eduflack will refer to RF 2.0 as Yes, I Can Read.  So what does Yes, I Can Read look like in 2009?  We know from the buzz that Yes is going to place a stronger emphasis on both vocabulary and reading comprehension, two key components of SBRR.  For well more than a decade now, we have heard about the vocabulary gaps between high-income and low-income students.  Low-income students often enter school having heard thousands fewer words than their counterparts.  One can’t be truly proficient in reading if you don’t know the words.  So yes, vocabulary should be a key component of Yes.
As should comprehension.  All of the work at the beginning of the learning process — that focus on phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency — is meaningless if a student ultimately doesn’t understand what he or she is reading.  We use the fourth grade measure because that is when students need to start using their reading skills to learn other subjects, like science and social studies.  At the end of the day, comprehension is king.  Without it, all of the previous work was for naught.  So you get Eduflack’s ringing endorsement on that as well.
Third, we have the teacher component.  Although RF provided for up to 25 percent of the dollars to be spent on professional development, it is often a provision that is overlooked.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.  We cannot expect our kids to learn to read if we are not properly supporting and training our teachers to lead the instruction.  It is hard, hard work to teach a child to read.  It’s not just a matter of finding the right button to push or handing out the right workbook.  Teachers need to understand the five core building blocks of reading instruction.  They need to be able to identify where a student’s roadblock may be, using whatever is necessary to increase the application of that principle.  They need to use RtI when appropriate to get students over the hump.  They need to stick the research, but do so in an engaging way with literature that is both relevant and interesting to a student.  They need to become reading wizards, doing the impossible with more than a third of our students — engaging, educating, and inspiring.  They need to do it all.
So obviously, we need to invest more heavily in both the pre-service and in-service teacher training and support for reading instruction. And this isn’t just for ELA teachers, this is for all teachers.  Every educator has a vested interest in a child reading at grade level.  Every teacher pays the price if the child is not.  It is only natural, then, after more so many dollars have been spent in the past six years to get SBRR materials in the classroom, that Yes focuses on equipping teachers with the skills and knowledge to maximize the learning tools they currently have.
The final piece to this equation is recognizing that reading instruction is not simply a K-4 game.  As the Christian Science Monitor reported yesterday, a new NCES study found that 14 percent of Americans over the age of 16 struggle with basic reading and writing.  That’s 30 million adults and young adults!  What does that say?  For Yes, it means that our reading efforts can’t be limited to the elementary grades.  We need to focus on middle and high school reading instruction as well, particularly for our most struggling readers.  We need to take what we know works with younger students, mix in the limited research about middle and secondary school reading, and build an instructional program and the teacher supports that work with these students.  The Alliance for Excellent Education’s Reading Next report gives us a start.  We now need to move those recommendations into practice.
NAEP’s recently released long-term data showed us a couple of things (and no, I’m not going to harp on the achievement gap … this time).  First, it demonstrated that we are on the right track with SBRR.  Reading scores for our elementary grades are on the rise. They are on the rise for white, African-American, and Hispanic students.  And they are on the rise for both rich and poor students.  What this means is the investment in SBRR, and the development of SBRR materials, is working.  All kids are improving reading proficiency, whether they are in a RF school or not.  This is not an indictment of RF, rather it is a vindication of SBRR.  Textbook publishers are not selling one set of texts to RF schools, and another to non-RF schools.  All texts are now aligned with SBRR. Teacher training programs are not offering one set of reading pedagogy to those teachers about to enter RF schools and another to those going into non-RF schools.  All teachers are getting the same basics in the tenets of SBRR (if they are getting any reading at all).  The NAEP data shows it is working, and shows we need to keep at it and redouble it, not change course and try something new … again.
The NAEP data also demonstrates the impact of greater accountability measures.  The implementation of SBRR has come at the same time we were holding our sch
ools to a greater level of accountability through AYP.  Such accountability measures have ensured that all students were served, and we were making no exceptions for such standards.  Yes, it was seen as harsh by some, particularly those who wanted to use their own lenses or sought greater proportionality in how AYP was measured.  Accountability is harsh because it needs to be.  At the end of the day, the rise in NAEP scores over the last decade better aligns with the accountability movement than it does with NCLB.  As some states started to put firm accountability measures into place in late 1990s, we started to see the uptick.  As NCLB nationalized it, the results on NAEP speak for themselves.  When we hold our schools and state accountable, truly accountable, they can rise to the occasion.
Why is this important?  It gets back to the learning needs of our older students.  We don’t have such accountability measures in place for secondary schools, and we really don’t have them in place for our middle schools.  If Yes, I Can Read is going to have real teeth and leave a lasting impact, we need to hold our schools, particularly our secondary schools, accountable for its effective implementation. We need to collect all the data, measure all the students, grades K-12, and report who is doing the job and who isn’t.  Those who are should serve as beacons and exemplars for the nation.  Those who aren’t should be put on notice and should have to take the corrective action to get those students reading.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that there is a correlation between drop-out rates and literacy levels.  Nor does it take a brain surgeon to know that the root of the achievement gap is our reading proficiency gap.
So as we build Yes, I Can Read, we need to make sure we are investing in all five of the core components of SBRR, particularly vocabulary and comprehension.  We need to invest in our teachers, ensuring they have the data, knowledge, and skills to be effective literacy instructors to all students, regardless of age or current reading level.  And we need to hold our K-12 schools accountable for reading proficiency.  
Reading is not mastered at the fourth grade.  Those who are proficient at that stage still have a lot of work to do.  Those who are not need extra work, extra attention, and extra intervention.  SBRR has a lifetime of application.  It has been proven effective.  And as far as I know, no one has offered up a better roadmap to getting virtually all children reading.  Hopefully, just maybe, it will remain the core of Yes, I Can Read.