NCLB

These NCLB Colors Don’t Run!

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, NAEP, NCLB

Today, The Washington Post finally opines on the NAEP Long-Term Data released almost two weeks ago.  The official stance of DC’s paper of record should come as surprise to few.  In fact, WaPo seems to be channeling dear ol’ Eduflack on this, agreeing with my general points from a week ago that the NAEP improvements are significant (particularly with regard to students in the elementary grades), our high school performance is still a national embarrassment, and the persistent achievement gap is something that we all should be concerned with.

And like Eduflack, WaPo used the data to demonstrate that the past seven years of No Child Left Behind have been effective in their core purpose — to improve reading and math performance in elementary school.  In fact, the gains across the board — for white, African-American, and Hispanic students, show that we are on to something when it comes to effective practice that generates real results.
What caught my attention was the close of the editorial, best summarized by the piece’s subhead, “This is no time for retreat on No Child Left Behind.”  Couldn’t agree more.  Recent years has demonstrated what works in elementary instruction, at least for reading and math.  It works for all disaggregated groups.  Seems to me we’ve figured out what to teach.  Now we need to redouble or retriple our efforts to deliver it to the students most in need, train teachers in its effective delivery, and better collect data so we continue to monitor and improve.
And, of course, Eduflack is thrilled with WaPo calling for the adoption of national standards.
No, what surprises me is the notion that we, as a nation, are looking to retreat on NCLB.  Nothing coming out of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of Education, or even Capitol Hill has signaled any serious attempt to turn back NCLB.  Yes, we talk about increasing available funding, better focusing on teachers and instruction, and taking a closer look at how we measure success.  But every action and every word to date screams “stay the course.”  No one seems to be dismantling NCLB, particularly with the Administration’s continued focus on both student achievement and innovation.
This continued worry about taking a chainsaw to the tent poles of NCLB seems to boil down to a few key issues.  Will we remain as focused on student achievement?  Will we continue to place such emphasis on accountability?  And what is the future of instruction and training proven most effective over the past decade?
Again, ED is talking the talk with regard to achievement and accountability.  Even previous discussions about multiple measures for student achievement seem to be a thing of the past.  EdSec Duncan’s rhetoric is screaming achievement and accountability.  And we’re all waiting to see if the economic stimulus bill and the new budget put some real teeth behind this new rhetoric.
So why the continued worry about the future of NCLB?  There is room for improvement with regard to the current federal law.  We do little to focus on the needs of secondary instruction, as evidenced by the NAEP scores.  HQT provisions do little to ensure our classrooms — particularly those in hard-to-staff areas — are served by effective teachers with the content knowledge and pedagogy necessary to lead real improvement in those schools that need it most.  And we’ll set aside for another day how one can both focus on student achievement for all, while doing something about our dastardly achievement gap. 
If we turn our attention to just those issues, then yes, NCLB will change … for the better.  (And I mean more than just a new name and tagline.)  NCLB has taught us a lot over the past seven years, and we should be using that to build a stronger Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  No, we shouldn’t tear down and build new every time the opportunity presents itself.  That’s just stupid.  We’ve taken major steps forward with NCLB.  We need to continue that forward progress, and we need to build on the lessons it has taught us.  We need to fix what we got wrong.  And we need to up the investment in that which is truly effective.  Seems common sense, even for government work.
At the end of the day, we are suffering from an information gap.  ED is not talking NCLB because it is an unpopular brand.  We know the law has been up for reauthorization for two years now, with many worried that a new Administration would undo all the previous did.  But we need to move beyond the book cover and take a look at the pages inside.  The Administration’s book seems to be one of NCLB continuation and improvement.  ED and Duncan seem to be preparing to write NCLB, Volume 2.  
We should not be looking to retreat on a national commitment to ensure that every child is proficient in reading, math, and science by the middle grades.  We should not be looking to retreat on our commitment to qualified and effective teachers.  We should not be looking to retreat on our attention to achievement and accountability.  And we certainly should not be looking to retreat on our pledge to provide an effective, high-quality education to all students, regardless of race, income, or zip code.  If it take WaPo and others to remind us of that from time to time, all the better.

A Farewell to Niffle?

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Obama, Reading First, SBRR, Workforce

This morning, the Obama Administration released its plans for the FY2010 budget.  Most in the education community have been taken by some of the big items found on the education side of the ledger.  Cuts to Title I.  Significant investments in early childhood education.  Reductions in education technology.  But it was a $6 million line item that caught the eye of Eduflack.

When we’re talking about billions of education dollars, it is hard to get worked up over a couple of million bucks.  In the grand scheme of things, few are going to truly weep over the potential elimination of the National Institute for Literacy.  Other than a small, but loyal, following in the adult literacy community, there are few that even keep track of what NIFL is up to these days.  But the zeroing out of the NIFL budget in the president’s plans speak loudly and clearly.
For years now, NIFL was struggling to figure out what it wanted to be when it grew up.  Originally, NIFL was developed to focus on adult literacy issues.  According to its own materials:
The National Institute for Literacy was established in 1991 by the National Literacy Act (NLA) and reauthorized by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998. In creating the Institute, the U.S. Congress recognized that building a competitive workforce required a concerted effort to improve adults’ basic skills. Congress tasked the Institute with initiating a coordinated, interagency effort to strengthen and expand adult literacy services. Both laws positioned the Institute as a national leader on adult literacy, a central source of knowledge about research, practice, and policy, and a catalyst for innovation.
A bold mission statement, yes, but some can and do question whether NIFL has actually acted as this rhetoric describes.  After 17 years of operation, how many seriously view it as a central source of knowledge about research or as a catalyst for innovation?  I’m not seeing many hands raised.
In 2002, NIFL took a turn from its core mission to focus on scientifically based reading research and the reading priorities found in No Child Left Behind and Reading First.  The organization focused on research projects, reports, technical assistance, professional development, and even advocacy for K-12 reading instruction.  Eduflack was fortunate enough to lead a communications effort for NIFL’s Partnership for Reading, a collaborative across multiple government agencies to emphasize the importance of scientifically based reading to policymakers, teachers, and families.
At the time, many of NIFL’s early fans and friends thought the NCLB work took away from the Institute’s core mission and unique value proposition.  They thought it distracted NIFL from the business of dealing with literacy issues for those who have left school, including new immigrants and those who were incarcerated.  They thought it was the U.S. Department of Education hijacking a needed lever for helping those adults and non-students who had fallen through the literacy cracks.
Others, Eduflack included, saw reading instruction in the early grades as a necessary, non-negotiable mission for NIFL.  While it may not have been a focus in the early years, one could not dispute that focusing on reading skills with our youngest learners has real and strong impact on our adolescent and adult learners.  The Reading Excellence Act (during the Clinton Administration) opened the door to this focus on the elementary grades.  NCLB merely brightened the spotlight and raised the stakes.
Personally, I like NIFL.  I have respect for the people who have worked there, those who have advised it, and those who have and still do sit on its board.  But the future of NIFL has long been a struggle.  Many felt that adult literacy issues are better served by ED’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education.  And when it came to K-12, there was far more power and effort being exerted by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and even the Reading First office. 
How much impact can $6 million have, particularly when $3 million of it was being spent on the operational costs of the Institute itself?  We’ve heard for years that NIFL was launching a National Reading Panel, Part 2, but it has never come to fruition.  We’ve had multi-year NIFL research panels undertake work, only to have their final reports blocked by the Institute of Education Studies from final publication.  We had listserves taken down because they were far too critical.  And we had non-governmental groups like the National Center for Family Literacy do a more effective job in actually promoting change and improvement in the literacy community.
Am I sad to see the “Going Out of Business” sign potentially hung on NIFL’s doors?  No, not particularly.  The same issues can be better handled by others.  What I am sad about is the great potential NIFL has had, particularly over the last decade, and its inability to capitalize on that potential.  The organization was almost afraid to take a leadership position in a field where it had every right and responsibility to lead.  It favored inaction over action. It feared rocking the boat or drawing attention.  It wanted to go about its business, without truly integrating and interacting with those government offices and individuals who could help take the $6 million investment in NIFL and exponentially increase the impact of the investment.  No wonder the Obama Administration failed to see the value.
Years ago, Congress debated whether to reauthorize NIFL or not, questioning whether the Institute was a necessary cog in our education improvement efforts.  It was written into NCLB to prove its necessity.  Now, seven years later, we see that NIFL is expendable.  Our focus should not be on saving the Institute, that exercise was undertaken years ago.  Instead, we must now look to how the valuable activities and programs managed by NIFL are continued by others.  What do OVAE and OESE take over?  What moves over to IES?  What goes to NCFL and other non-profits?  
We still have much work to do if we are to improve literacy rates and reading proficiency in this country, from our youngest learners to our most experienced workers.  If not NIFL, someone must step in and lead on this issue.  The stakes are too high not to.
 

Spellings Resurfaces on NAEP

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, NCLB, Spellings

In this morning’s Washington Post, former EdSec Margaret Spellings takes her stab at NAEP analysis.  No real surprises here.  She points to the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind, citing progress not just for elementary school students but for middle school students as well.  She notes that we expected such results, and should embrace the accountability that led to them.

Interestingly, she points to (and takes credit for) elementary school gains over the past nine years.  As No Child Left Behind wasn’t signed into law until 2002, and its policies really didn’t affect schools, at the earliest, until 2003, does that mean she is giving the Clinton Administration partial credit for NCLB-era gains?  Does that mean that the Reading Excellence Act deserves some of the credit for Reading First’s gains?  Does that mean our modern-day accountability movement began before she took position at the White House?
Spellings also points to the “troubling story” of our high school achievement.  One could ask what her Administration did to help address this high school crisis, when it was focusing almost exclusively on elementary schools, but that would just be Eduflack being critical and cynical again.  But a lot more could have been done over the past four years to improve high school instruction beyond non-reg regs introduced in December to hold all states to a four-year graduation rate measurement.  But that’s a different battle for a different day.
She also rails against calls for international benchmarking and increased and improved resources for our schools.  Her preference — simply staying the course on current NCLB standards and accountability and holding firm on the goal of 100 percent student learning proficiency in reading, math, and science by 2014.
Not sure what Spellings is adding to the debate, particularly since EdSec Arne Duncan is essentially staying the course with regard to NCLB standards and accountability (at least for now).  Yes, this is partially a legacy-building exercise.  As was typical during her four years, Spellings is focused on low-performing schools and the institutions that deliver public instruction.  But in this new era, the focus is not on the what (school themselves) but on the who (teachers and students).
Eduflack is just a tad disappointed to see Spellings equating the call for increased resources with delaying accountability.  If we are as concerned with the achievement gap as Spellings purports, we have to see that increased resources for historically disadvantaged groups leads to student achievement gains. We have to see that education investments today have lasting economic impacts tomorrow.  And with the train already leaving the station on increasing spending and resources, our focus should be on how those new dollars are spent and the ROI for such spending.  

Continued Work Under the NAEP Hood

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

Last week, Eduflack opined on the recently released NAEP long-term data.  From my cheap seats, the headlines were relatively simple.  Our Nation’s Report Card demonstrated a couple of key points.  First, Reading First during the NCLB era worked.  Second, our attempts over the past two decades to close the achievement gap have not.  

As is typical with these sort of issues, Eduflack has been accused of giving short shrift to the good and the positive in these data sets.  I looked at the half-empty glass, instead of focusing on the gains we have made in the last decade in reading and math for white, African-American, and Hispanic students.  On this point, I will concede  When it comes to reading and math scores of nine-year-olds, we posted impressive gains across the board.  African-American and Hispanic students made gains similar to their white counterparts.  For a closer look at this side of the debate, take a look at the give-and-take between Dallas Morning News columnist Bill McKenzie and former Bush education advisor Sandy Kress here.  
Whether one wants to accept it or not, the data does seem to indicate that the policies introduced under No Child Left Behind and based on scientifically based research — particularly Reading First — were effective and were effective across all disaggregated groups.  While some critics would say there were similar gains in the decade prior to NCLB, we must note that we not only maintained those previous advances, but we really added to them, at least when it comes to nine-year-olds.
Yes, the NAEP data shows us that, when implemented with fidelity, NCLB instructional policies worked.  The law focuses on the elementary grades, and the elementary grades showed real gains in both reading and math.  And they showed such gains across all demographic groups, not just with white students.  That is an achievement, and is one worth noting.  We have made real gains for elementary school students, and we should be in agreement as to the causes for those gains.
But I am still that glass-is-half-empty sort of guy, and I can’t shake two important takeaways I have with regard to the NAEP data.  The first involves high schools and the achievement gap.  I made this point last week, but it is worth emphasizing again and again and again.  The reading achievement gap between African-American and white 17-year-olds remains 53 points.  Did we expect to make major gains at closing the gap?  No.  We haven’t put in any measurable interventions to focus on the literacy crisis in our middle and high school grades.  But we have to look at this data in the larger picture.  We know that students, particularly those at our nation’s drop-out factories, are leaving high school in the ninth or 10th grades.  We know that in many cities, up to half of African-American students are dropping out of high school, and are usually doing it as early as possible.  The majority of minority students are not in high school long enough to even take the 17-year-old NAEP test.  So when we talk about a 53 point achievement gap, that is AFTER all of these drop-outs have checked out.  The reading performance of our most at-risk students isn’t even factored in here.  This huge gap is just among those minority students who have remained in school and plan to stick around for their diplomas.  Can we even fathom what the number would look like if all of those drop-outs were tested and analyzed too?  We think we have a crisis now.  Then, it would be a downright epidemic.
Second, the data shows that we continue to neglect both our middle and secondary school grades.  Our gains are posted in the elementary years, the same academic time that NCLB focuses on and that garners the vast majority of our accountability and assessment focus.  We don’t have clear expectations of the knowledge and skills are middle schoolers need before entering high school.  And we certainly don’t have such expectations with regard to high school graduates.  As a result, we’ve made no real gains when it comes to our middle and high schoolers.
That shouldn’t be a major surprise.  For the past seven years, we have gone all in, placing all of our chips on elementary school students.  Recognizing you have to start somewhere, we started with those entering the education continuum, seeking to give all new students a full chance and knowing we would have to go back and address those who have already fallen through the cracks later.  From the NAEP scores, some would say the bet has paid off.  The question is what we now do with our winnings.  We can get up from the table, declare mission accomplished, and be satisfied with the progress we have made to date and the notion that such scientifically based instructional methods will continue for years to come.  Or we can double down and use what has worked to focus on the later grades, figuring out ways to help those who have fallen through the cracks.  How do we address the instructional problems in the middle and high school grades?  How do we ensure our nine-year-olds build on their current gains, and don’t merely take an academic step back once they hit middle school?  How do we use the building blocks we have to construct a stronger academic product for all?  What do we do about the millions of kids who have fallen through those cracks and lack the basic proficiencies in middle and high school to maximize their learning experience?
  
In our elementary grades, we now have clear standards and clear assessments to measure against those standards.  We have put in place high-quality instruction and the professional development and teacher supports necessary to deliver that instruction well and with fidelity.  We’ve shown how to do it, now we just need to do it at scale.  We need to apply such standards, assessments, and expectations across K-12.
At the same time, we cannot and must not lost sight of the achievement gap, even among our elementary school learners.  Yes, educators are to be commended for their across-the-board gains in reading and math for nine-year-olds.  We’ve shown that African-American and Hispanic students are just as capable as white students in the classroom, and can demonstrate similar success.  But at this stage of the game, we have to expect far, far more.  In basketball, we know that if you are down by 20 heading into the halftime, you can’t win the game simply by matching your opponent basket for basket.  You need to throw up the three pointers, gaining three points for every two sunk by the opposition.  That (and just downright shutting down your opponent) is the only way to put yourself in a position to win.  Right now, minority and low-income students not only have little chance to win, they are still barely able to keep the game competitive.
We need to find ways to get historically disadvantaged groups back in the game here, giving them real opportunities to close the learning and achievement gaps.  Holding their own is not good enough.  We need to provide the resources, the opportunities,and the results to start cutting into that lead.  Specific efforts to closing the achievement gap in elementary school can reap exponential results in middle and high school.  If we’ve found methods that work in equipping young African-American and Hispanic students with the math and reading skills necessary for success (and the latest NAEP data indicates we have) we need to figure out ways to double or triple the impact of that instruction on such students.  And we need to figure out a way to extend such instruction after those students blow out the candles on their 10th birthday cake.
Is there good to be found in th
e latest NAEP data?  Absolutely.  Should we be satisfied with such gains?  Absolutely not.  The across-the-board elementary school gains demonstrate that we don’t have to accept mediocrity  Every child can succeed with effective instruction, resources, and teachers to deliver it.  But too few of the students who need it the most are getting such instruction, resources, and educators.  Now is not the time to bask in what has been done.  Now is the time to focus on the great amount that  still needs to be done. 

Gaps, Equality, and Student Achievement

Eduflack Achievement gap, Chancellor Klein, NCLB

For nearly a decade now, the buzzword in education reform has been student achievement.  Thanks to NCLB and AYP, we were all about the test scores and whether learners were able to show year-on-year gains, demonstrating that their skills and abilities were improving academic year after academic year.

Often overlooked in our push for improved student achievement has been the student achievement gap.  While we were tracking how students were doing longitudinally, we were missing the boat on the growing performance problems between the haves and the have nots.  How were African-American students measuring up compared to white students?  Hispanic students versus white students?  Native-American students versus white students?  Low-income students versus rich students?
Since the release of A National at Risk two and a half decades ago, we have realized the achievement gap should be a top concern, one that we need to address and, more importantly, one that we need to solve.  Despite improvements in student achievement, performance gaps are still there, still large, and still very much a destructive force in our nation’s public schools.  Yesterday, McKinsey & Company released a new study on the achievement gap, offering up some pretty startling statistics.  According to McKinsey, achievement gap data can predict, as early as the fourth grade, that the achievement gap can result in:
* Lower rates of high school and college graduation;
* Lower lifetime earnings;
* Poorer health; and
* Higher rates of incarceration.
Why is this so important?  First, student achievement is about more than just student test scores.  It has a wholesale and long-term impact on students, families, and the community at large.  McKinsey estimates that the achievement gap between students of color and white students cost the nation upwards of $525 billion in 2008, or 4 percent of our GDP.  For the gap between rich and poor, the cost was upwards of $670 billion, or 5 percent of our GDP.
Such numbers should be unacceptable to a nation that prides itself of the quality of its public education system and the often misguided notion that every child has access to equal opportunities and high-quality chances when it comes to their education and their future.  What is clear is we are not providing all students equal access to meaningful learning opportunities.  Poor students do not have the same learning opportunities and the same resources as rich students.  Black and Hispanic students do not have the same learning opportunities as white students.  Fifty-five years after Brown v. Board, we believe in equal education, but we aren’t delivering on it, particularly when it comes to students in our lowest performing schools and our struggling economic communities.
The McKinsey research was released in conjunction with the Education Equality Project, an effort joining the unlikely bedfellows of NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and the Rev. Al Sharpton.  EEP is looking at a series of issues on how to bring real, measurable equity to our nation’s public schools.  Issue one for EEP is teacher quality.  Their first briefing paper can be found here.  The highlights are not groundbreaking, but remind us of some key issues that school districts — particularly those serving historically disadvantaged populations — must consider when they look at how to improve the quality and outcomes of instruction:
1) Recruit the best possible candidates for teaching jobs;
2) Give aspiring and veteran teachers the right incentives and targeted training to perform well in the classroom;
3) Evaluating teacher performance fairly but rigorously;
4) Dismissing incompetent instructors after they have had an opportunity to improve their performance; and
5) Placing the best teachers where they are needed most.
Off the bat, we should be able to agree to 80 percent of the above recommendations.  Idea number four is likely to cause heartburn and major concern for the teachers unions and many who don’t want to rock the boat too much.  Such ideas, though, force us to look comprehensively at the ways we can address the issues and close the gaps.  They start debates that need to be had.  Will EEP win the day on removing teachers from their duties?  Unlikely.  But raising the subject forces superintendents and policymakers to take a much keener look at how we measure the effectiveness of the teachers entrusted with closing our learning and achievement gaps.
  
Currently, there are a number of groups and collaborations focusing on issues of access and equity in public education.  Some like to think that groups like EEP and Bigger, Bolder are competing interests.  But can’t we all agree that the achievement gap problem is one that needs lots of great thinkers and lots of new ideas and new approaches?  As long as organizations are out there putting forward ideas, offering new thoughts and new recommendations about how to better spend our current education dollars, how to better measure our effectiveness in the classroom, how to better teach our students, and how to ensure more (and hopefully) all students have access to the same high-quality learning opportunities, aren’t we better off for it?  Doesn’t such civil discourse force us to shake the status quo and start thinking about real solutions that rattle the system yet offer real chances to improve educational opportunities?
EEP will continue to issue recommendations on a series of classroom-based issues for addressing the achievement gap.  They need to.  For those who agree, they need to amplify the voice and move these ideas into action.  For those who disagree, they need to get on their soapboxes and offer better ideas to capture the hearts and minds of the community.  But there is no room for staying silent.  The education, economic, and societal impacts of the achievement gap are simply too great for us to say nothing, do nothing, and expect nothing.  The status quo is no longer an option.  Too many students have dropped out, lost out, and missed out because we have done nothing.  If we are to fulfill our national promise to provide every child with equal, high-quality learning opportunities, we need to act.  And we need to act now.

A Middle-ing Approach to School Improvement

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NCLB, Students

In the current era of school improvement, student achievement, and innovation, the points of conversation often jump from what we do in the elementary school grades to what is happening in our high schools.  The reasons for this are fairly obvious.  We believe that all children are entering the elementary grades on relatively equal footing (an urban legend, I’ll give you, but many actually believe it).  That’s why we start the student assessment process in the early grades.  As for high schools, that’s where the money and the attention rests.  Gates is funneling billions of dollars into high schools, and graduation rates, drop-out factories, and the like have become a common yardstick for measuring the outcomes of our K-12 experience.

Often lost is the discussion is the middle grades.  That’s no surprise.  There is no national start and stop to a middle school.  Middle school can begin anywhere between fourth and seventh grade.  It can end anywhere from seventh through ninth grade.  With such overlaps into both elementary and secondary schools, middle schools are often left as the monkey in the middle, a necessary, but often overlooked, connector in the P-12 education continuum.
Unfortunately, much of what ails our public education system is rooted in what is happening during our middle grades.  AYP and the growing achievement gaps are usually being documented once students hit middle school, when we first see the failures of effective math and reading instruction in the early grades.  Students begin falling behind in subjects like science and social studies because they lack the core skills they should enter middle school with in the first place.  Those beloved student scores on state assessments start taking hold in the middle grades, when it is often too late to reverse the downward trend.
We also forget that the middle grades determine the success or failure of the high school experience.  Tenth graders are not sitting their agonizing whether they will complete school or drop out.  The vast majority of high school drop-out decisions are made by middle schoolers, determined between that eight and ninth grade year.  And that decision is based, largely, on how one performs, how one engages, and how one experiences educational relevance during those middle grades.  The middle years are about academic achievement, but they are also about motivation, about character development, and about showing every student — particularly those students from traditionally disadvantaged groups that have been given up on well before they enter high school.
What does all this tell us?  MIddle school isn’t just the passthrough of the continuum.  In many ways, it is an essential linchpin.  It is the road marker measuring the success of our elementary school experiences.  And it is the road map that determines secondary and postsecondary opportunities, particularly for those students who may not see the value of their educational experience.
Which is why the recent developments in Alexandria, Virginia are so interesting.  For those outside the DC area, Alexandria is one of many suburbs to our nation’s capital.  Alexandria often gets lost in the regional education discussions.  DCPS is the focal point.  Fairfax (VA) is the big boy.  Arlington (VA) is diversity.  Montgomery County (MD) is the innovator.  And Prince Georges County (MD) is the problem child.  Districts like Alexandria often get overlooked in the mix, as they lack the size or the depth of problems of some of their neighbors.
This week, Alexandria Schools Superintendent Morton Sherman announced his plans to revamp the middle grades.  The proclamation received minor mention in The Washington Post, but hasn’t yet gotten the attention or the discussion it probably requires.  Alexandria’s middle schools have failed to hit federal benchmarks, not too uncommon of urban or suburban middle schools around the country.  Alexandria’s drop-out rate is among the highest in the DC region (though not the highest to garner screamer headlines in the Post).  So Sherman has put two and two together and actually gotten four, realizing that addressing his middle school performance problems will have a direct impact on issues in the latter grades.
What is Alexandria looking to do?  It wants to break its middle schools up into smaller schools with greater autonomy and opportunities.  It wants to extend some elementary schools from K-6 to K-8.  And it wants to introduce International Baccalaureate offerings across the district.
In laying out this plan, Sherman is addressing the granddaddies of school improvement issues — school leadership, school structure, academic options, and improved rigor.  At face value, this isn’t about re-arranging some of the deck chairs in Alexandria Public Schools.  This is about putting middle schoolers on a completely different boat.
Will it work?  Eduflack readers know that intentions aren’t even worth the recycled paper they are printed on.  The name of the game is results.  What specifically will be done?  Will teachers and principals and parents buy into the reforms?  Will we hold educators accountable, both with carrot and stick?  And most importantly, how will we define success?
But Alexandria and Sherman are on the right track.  Middle schools are the often unmentioned problem in our public education family.  High school drop-out problems can be attributed to the middle grades.  Achievement gap issues can be attributed to the middle grades.  Even issues of equity and opportunity start in the middle grades (since we like to believe all little first graders are equal in both access and opportunity).   
It also provides us something to think about when we start building Innovation Fund and Race to the Top grant applications.  How are our struggling school districts addressing the middle school crisis?  Are they offering potential solutions, as Alexandria attempts, or will they gloss over the issue, making the jump from elementary building blocks to secondary school pathways and graduation numbers?  Innovations in middle grades education should be a non-negotiable for our future school improvement efforts.  Without it, we lose many of the benefits of elementary school improvements, while denying far too many the full opportunities of an improved secondary school experience.

A Hand in the ARRA Till?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, NCLB, stimulus, technology

By now, we have all heard (many of us dozens of times) about the intent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, particularly as it relates to public education.  The goal of the economic stimulus bill was to make our schools whole, financially.  For those districts that were forced to cut budgets, eliminate programs, or delay the adoption of new textbooks or technology over the past two years, their woes are now supposed to be over.  Federal money (and I’m talking the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars) was intended to make up for those cuts.  School budget levels are to be restored to the highest of the past two years courtesy of the red-white-and-blue taxpayers.

That’s what is written in the law.  And that’s why the money is to go directly to the school districts.  The states serve merely as a pass-through for the dollars, a distribution checkpoint through which the feds can more effectively disseminate the dollars.  Money is not intended to go to state programs, nor are the states supposed to add any strings as to how it is funded.  SFSF is a lifeline to the school districts, and is designed to make up for their shortfalls (usually the result of previous state budget cuts).  Additional dollars, such as Title I, IDEA, and such also flow back directly into the districts, so we are supplementing and improving instruction on the ground, impacting the students we are trying to improve, rather than funding additional process and bureaucracy.
But something seems to have gotten lost along the way.  The Washington Post has a great story this AM about how the states are essentially looking to skim off the top of the SFSF, complete with a Mafia-laced quote about stimulus money “falling off the truck.”  The thinking here is relatively simple.  Yes, states are providing the LEAs the SFSF and related school improvement money as dictated under the stimulus bill.  But some are only doing so after schools give back some dollars to the county or to the state.  After all, while should the school district remain flush while other government agencies are suffering?  Why should the county pay its fair share into the schools (one of its primary obligations and the reason, in Virginia for instance, it collects property taxes) when the feds are issuing a blank check?
(As an aside, I must just say that WaPo has really raised its game when it comes to education policy reporting.  In recent months, the WaPo team has done some great work when it comes to capturing the world view and the local impact of ed policy, looking at key issues through both its federal/national lens and its local one.  And it only gets better when the WaPo editorial board and many of its columnists — I mean you Colby King — are covering these issues with great thought and regularity.)
Eduflack hopes that the examples laid out in WaPo this morning are exceptions to the rule, and not what we see happening around the country.  But I am enough of  a realist to know that this could very well become standard operating procedure.  Everybody wants a piece of the largest spending bill in town.  Everyone is hurting from the economic downturn.  So it shouldn’t surprise us that everyone wants a “taste” of what is intended for the school districts and for our students.
But officials who are acting on those wants should be ashamed of themselves.  Already, we are hearing stories of state legislatures that are looking to make deep, specific cuts to education spending because they know that the stimulus will make up the difference.  Already, we are hearing about states that are looking for “waivers” as to how they can spend their stimulus money, so they can redirect it to their preferred targets, rather than the students it was intended for.  And already we are now listening to tales of counties and localities looking to skim a little off the top so they can get a taste.  Reprehensible.
Education stimulus dollars are intended for education.  If we have heard anything that EdSec Arne Duncan has said or read anything ED has released in the guidance or related documents, it is that this is a one-time influx of cash.  Why is that important?  If a school district, county, or state makes a cut in anticipation of the ARRA money, they need to make up that cut next year or the following.  ARRA is not an open spigot of continuously flowing education dollars.  It is a one-time, stopgap funding act.  It is not intended to cover teacher salaries or offset core operating expenses or generally pay for the long-term operating expenses of a school district.  It is designed to fill the unexpected and unintended cuts our schools have faced in the past two years because of the economy, under the assumption that the localities and states will restore that funding soon, once the economy stabilizes and the state budget is in better shape.
That’s why so many are resistant to using ARRA to pay for teacher salaries and other such long-term obligations.  Once we get on that train, it is hard to get off and start walking on our own.  Stimulus money for teacher salaries becomes a long-term engagement, not a quick injection of funds.
At the end of the day, these stimulus dollars are intended to make sure that schools are spending on what they need in order to continue the learning process and move the needle on student achievement.  It is meant to end the logjam and the worry that has forced a district to delay a textbook adoption.  It is meant to loosen the pursestrings so that those hardware and software purchases that have been planned for years can be completed.  It is meant to place those supplemental learning materials in our low-performing classrooms, using this economic injection to provide an academic booster shot to students in need.
One of the greatest fears in town is that the stimulus money is not going to end up where it is intended.  That we are investing billions upon billions of dollars in our public schools, but won’t have anything to show for it.  That dollars are going to be thrown after process, rather than outcome.  That we will be investing in operations, rather than results.  Articles like these add fuel to that fire, and demonstrate the real need for strict federal oversight on how these funds are spent.  Simply offering technical assistance isn’t enough.  Perhaps it is time to revisit those intended NCLB SWAT teams, who will descend on school districts and make sure the money is spent as intended.  Those that do, continue to move forward.  Those that don’t, lose their dollars.  And those states or counties who try to undermine or circumvent the process face repercussions.
Education Trust has launched its Education Watch 2009 to keep a close eye on how the states are spending their money. (UPDATE: They are doing so by focusing on the results and outcomes.)  Perhaps we need similar watchdogs to oversee the LEAs, ensuring that money is spent as designated and that the layers of government that will touch ARRA will not be skimming dollars off the top before it reaches our students.
I recognize that ARRA represents an obscene amount of money when it comes to public school improvement.  I also know that, before the stimulus dollars, the feds were paying less than eight cents on every education dollar going into our public schools.  That means the vast majority of obligation for our schools rests with the states and localities.  That means the vast cost of our schools rests with the states and localities.  And that means the responsibility for results in our schools rests with states and localities.  The feds can provide ongoing booster shots of money and innovative grant pro
grams and a host of new ideas, but the heavy lifting, the real execution, and the improved results come from the states, localities, and schools themselves.  No matter whose name may be printed on the money or whose signatures may be on those initial checks. 

Vouching for DC Students

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, NCLB, vouchers

By now, the funeral procession for the DC school voucher program has been winding its was through the city streets.  Long a target of the status quo, the DC Scholarship Opportunity Program has been criticized for many things, chief among them for taking money from well-deserving DC public schools and handing it over to local private schools.  As of late, it has faced fire over its effectiveness, with opponents alleging that student achievement had not improved as a result of a change in environment and the empowerment of choice.

When it was introduced at the start of the NCLB era, the model was pretty simple.  DC public schools were failing a significant number of the very students it was designed to serve, to help, and to provide with the knowledge they needed to succeed.  Despite the rich network of public charter schools across the District, federal officials decided to introduce the voucher model, allowing families of children in truly failing schools to send their children to private schools in the area.  Private schools would agree to accept the “vouchers” in exchange for school tuition.  The plan was modeled after successful efforts in places like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida.
Competition for the voucher program was fierce from the very start.  Families lined up 10-deep for the access to these vouchers, all looking to provide their kids a better choice and better options.  Interestingly, vouchers provided no more than $7,500 a year in tuition, fees, and expenses for private schools, less than 50 percent of what DCPS spends to educate its students in the public schools, even in the worst of its failing schools.
Critics have been chipping away at the program from the start.  When initial data showing promising results was released by researchers a few years, ago, we attacked it for being incomplete or not providing a full picture of the situation.  We’ve painted a picture that there has been a mass exodus from DCPS into Gonzaga, Sidwell Friends, and Georgetown Prep, where wealthy schools are getting wealthier off the backs of DCPS and DC taxpayers.  (Let’s forget that most voucher students were not going to these “blue chip” privates and all privates were taking a significant cut in their tuition to admit voucher students.)  Most recently, the dealt the death blow to the voucher effort in DC, getting funding stripped from the federal appropriations bill last month.  For all practical purposes, DC Vouchers is now dead as a doornail, even with more than 1,700 DC students taking advantage of the program.
What’s interesting, then, is the report that came out of the U.S. Department of Education yesterday afternoon.  Despite all of the chatter about the failure of the DC Scholarship Opportunity Program, an ED study determined that voucher students outperformed their public school counterparts on reading proficiency.  The full story can be found here at The Washington Post.
House of Representatives Republican Educator-in-Chief Buck McKeon has used the IES research to demonstrate that the voucher program works and demands it be continued.  Senator Joe Lieberman, who oversees the District in our senior legislative body, is talking about holding further hearings on the issue.  It begs the question, is the great DC voucher experiment as dead as it appeared just a week ago?
This has long been an issue of federal voices deciding what is best for the residents of Washington, DC.  The program was initiated by a zealous Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress who wanted to prove that vouchers were the solution to failing public schools.  The program has faced relentless attack from equally zealous Democrats in Congress (along with the national teachers’ unions) who believed it was robbing the public schools of needed financial resources and was undermining the very foundations of public education.
What about the residents of DC?  What about the very families who have been impacted (or who have chosen not to be) by the DC Voucher program?  One can look at the demand for the limited slots and say there is local public desire for the program. One can look at the qualitative surveys over the years, showing support for the program and satisfaction with its outcomes.  One can even look at recent efforts by the Washington Archdiocese to convert many of its Catholic schools (those where so many DC residents were attending through their vouchers) into public charter schools to ensure that those kids currently in the pipeline were not kicked out of their learning environments when the voucher program came to an end later this year.
WaPo’s Colbert King takes the issue even further this AM, calling on District leaders to make the ultimate decision on the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program’s fate.  What a novel concept.  Instead of seeking the permission and dollars of federal officials, Mayor Fenty, the DC Council, and other local leaders should talk to the community and determine if DC Vouchers are in the best interests of the city.  Imagine that.  Local officials making local education decisions, policies, and funding choices that affect local residents.  It’s almost as if one could build a governmental structure around such a silly idea.
But back to the key issue, the research.  IES has determined that DC voucher students are outperforming the public school peers when it comes reading scores.  Overall, the study found that voucher students were nearly four months ahead of non-voucher students when it came to reading skill.  Those students moving from the lowest-performing public schools did not show that level of reading gain.  And there appeared to be no difference in math proficiency.
Seems that such data requires more than a Friday afternoon media release, with the hopes that few notice it in our rush to celebrate the Palm Sunday weekend (or Eduflack’s birthday, whichever holiday you prefer).  Fridays are notorious for dumping information and data you hope will get short shrift from the media or will get overlooked entirely.  One has to ask if this data was available a few weeks ago when Congress was inflicting its death blow on DC vouchers.  If so, why wasn’t it discussed then?  And now that we do have it, how closely will we look at it?  Does the research model stand up to scrutiny, or does it have its failings like so many recent IES studies?  Do we have some real information here that needs to factor into education policy in our nation’s capital and throughout the country?
At the end of the day, what are we left with?  Is there public demand for vouchers in DC?  Absolutely.  Has the program been implemented effectively?  It appears so.  Is the program working?  It seems so.  Is the program a political atomic bomb?  Absolutely.
It seems, in this era of innovation and demands for improved student achievement, we need every opportunity and every good idea we can find.  If vouchers are showing promise in DC, shouldn’t we let the District decide if they continue the program, allowing us to see if that promise transforms into best practice?  And at some point, shouldn’t those decisions be made by the citizens the program is designed to affect, instead of by representatives who will never receive a single vote from a single resident of the District of Columbia?
Let’s take EdSec Arne Duncan at his word and that he does not want to end the voucher program for any student that is currently participating in it.  Even if we don’t add new students to the program, it seems there is a lot we can learn by supporting those already in the syst
em.  And we haven’t even touched on the positive impact we could have on those kids whose lives have been changed by providing them the opportunity to leave failing schools.  The choice itself has given them hope, a chance at opportunity, and a worldview that education can impact their lives.  That’s a return on investment we all should seek.

A Necessary ARRA Watchdog

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

Typically in federal education policy, we hear a great deal about inputs, but not much about outcomes.  We talk about how many dollars are going to go into a program, how many students or teachers might be affected, and how many stakeholders were involved in the process.  It is almost as if we are secure in the notion that how a decision was made is far more important than the impact of the decision itself.

It’s why, for instance, the good folks over at Education Week are unable to get specific information on how $5 billion in Reading First dollars were actually spent.  Sure, we know how the states and the LEAs intended to spend them.  But after requests, cajoling, and such, Kathleen Manzo and the EdWeek team still can’t get specific answers on what those dollars were actually spent on.  And don’t even get Eduflack started on how effectively we are measuring the impact and results of that federal expenditure.
So when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act offers up tens of billions of new education dollars with virtually no strings attached, it is easy to see why some people get worried.  Yes, each state will submit a plan for how they spend their new windfall, with such plans due to the U.S. Department of Education this week.  Checks will be cut two weeks from now, after a pro forma review of those state plans.  We should expect a few states to have their initial plans rejected, if for no other reason than ED can “demonstrate” that they are reviewing the plans and have protocols in place for how the money should be spent.  If South Carolina comes in requesting dollars to retire their school bonds, that will be rejected.  If California comes in expecting to spend its ARRA buckets on teacher salaries, I suspect that will get the “NO” stamp as well.  But on the whole, states will be approved, and then we will leave it up to the LEAs to actually spend to the state guidelines and deliver the results that ED is expecting from this stimulus.
I so want to believe EdSec Duncan and his team when they state that stimulus dollars (and we assume future ED fiscal obligations) should be primarily focused on boosting student achievement.  Innovations need to align with student performance.  The Race to the Top is all about closing the achievement gap and boosting high school graduation rates.  And it is all tied together by new data systems that ensure we are effectively capturing, tracking, and utilizing student achievement data to improve instruction, performance, and quality.  Makes perfect sense.  After all, what is the role of our public schools if not to teach our kids and get them performing at proficient levels at the very least?
But the devil is always in the details.  For many, relying on ED to measure the effectiveness of their own policies and their own spending is much like letting the fox guard the hen house.  After a year or two, after more than $50 billion in new money sent out to the districts, do we expect ED to come back and say the money was misappropriated?  Do we expect OPEPD reports demonstrating that funds did align with intended goals or that we have no demonstrable return on investment?  Of course not.  We expect all to declare “mission accomplished.”  ED provided protocols for how the money would be spent, the states assured the feds they would spend the funds per those guidelines, and LEAs were given their new dollars after promising the states they wouldn’t blow it all on video games and bubblegum.  We’re all happy, even if there is no uptick in student achievement and there is little movement in innovation because we have met our process goals.  We’ve achieved the desired inputs, outcomes be damned.
That’s why I am so excited by the announcement coming out of Education Trust today.  Through their Education Watch, Kati Haycock and company will offer an unbiased, third-party analysis of “how effectively states are using the infusion of federal support.”  They do so believing that “the public will need accurate, reliable data” if we are to truly measure the success of ARRA on school improvement.
EdTrust’s full announcement of the initiative can be found here.  The series of Education Watch indicators, broken down by state, can be found here.  Most interesting is the “starting line” Ed Trust provides, a detailed chart tracking state achievement gains and achievement gap closings over the past decade.  Building on their past successes the ARRA Education Watch is modeled after EdTrust’s similar efforts in 2003, 2004, and 2006.  
I realize that EdTrust didn’t set out to be the ARRA watchdog, but someone has to do it, and there are few as qualified and capable as EdTrust.  Does Education Watch abdicate ED’s responsibility to do the same?  Of course not.  Does it prevent other groups, including NGA, CCSSO, and even the teachers unions from acting in the same manner?  Golly, I hope not.  But someone had to be the first to step up to the plate, and better EdTrust that a status quo voice just trying to protect what is theirs.
Over the last few years, EdTrust has gotten a bit of a bad rap.  Many in the chattering class have seen the organization, and Kati Haycock in particular, as being the cheerleader-in-chief for No Child Left Behind.  It is an unfair criticism.  EdTrust has always been about pushing for higher student achievement for all students, particularly those who had been the forgotten cause of our rising achievement gaps.  When NCLB became the law of the land, it only made sense that EdTrust would fight to make sure the law lived up to its promise.  They pushed hard on achievement and assessment, believing that data would guide us out of the land of mediocrity and show us the path to equity and achievement, particularly for low-income students and students of color.  After all, one is far more effective using the tools (and the funding streams) available to exact change and improvement than they are shouting into the wind and simply wishing upon a star for things to be different.
As we got caught up in the politics of NCLB and deciding who was with us or against us, we seemed to lose track of the true mission of groups like EdTrust.  For the Education Trust, the mission is simple.  “The Education Trust works for the high academic achievement of all students at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college, and forever closing the achievement gaps that separate low-income students and students of color from other youth.  Our basic tenet is this — All children will learn at high levels when they are taught to high levels.”
So who, exactly, wants to stand against that goal?  If anything, the U.S. Department of Education adopt that mission as their own, applying the lens of high academic achievement and the elimination of the achievement gap to every policy and spending decision it puts forward.  If that isn’t the goal for public education in the United States, what is?
I know the folks over at EdTrust have thick skins, and they are prepared for any of the slings and arrows the status quoers will throw at them, either now or in an expected post-NCLB era.  I also know that the team shies away from no fight, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to move us closer to the overall goal of student success for all.  If that means being the ARRA watchdog, so be it.  Regardless, Education Watch should provide some valuable insights, data, and recommendations as we move forward.  (And if this makes me a cheerleader for EdTrust, so be it.  I’ll gladly pick up the pom-poms and the megaphone if it means narrowing the achievement gap as quickly as possible.)  
Who knows, it may actually help ensure that all of these federal dollars are actually spent on efforts that boost student achievement … and we are able to actually see such a boost.  Wouldn’t that be something different and innovative.

Moving the Accountability Ball Forward

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, AYP, high-stakes testing, national standards, NCLB

Many educators have seen recent discussions about topics such as multiple assessment measures and the problems of teaching to a “bubble test” as early indicators that the high-stakes world of No Child Left Behind accountability are coming to an end.  We hear talk about the “whole child” and skewed test scores and such, hoping that we will find qualitative measures by which to evaluate our schools and our students.

But it all begs the question — why are we so afraid of accountability?  Why is it that only folks like NYC Schools Chancellor seem to be relatively lone voices in being unapologetic for testing and for endorsing the notion with teachers teaching to an assessment that measures student progress?  Why do we believe having hard data on where students stand up, even against the state academic levels, to be a bad thing or a necessary evil?  And how do we move the discussion from a fear of assessment to improving the utility of our accountability measures?
The spring edition of the American Federation of Teachers’ American Educator takes a look at the issue, including pieces by Richard Rothstein and company about how we need to look at the issue of accountability beyond just the core quantitative numbers.  The articles are well worth the read.
What was most interesting is Rothstein’s call to “enhance” accountability by combining student assessments with “careful school inspections.”  Currently, we look at assessment as a measure of basic academic knowledge, coupled by critical thinking and problem solving skills in more advanced assessment models.  Rothstein seeks to expand the tick list, adding evaluations of items such as arts and literature appreciation, employment preparation, work ethic, physical health, and emotional health.  These, he posits, are a collection of our ultimate expectations for public education, and thus should be part of the assessment process.  Again, how do we measure the whole child?
Rothstein does offer some interesting specific on how to improve student assessments.  Namely:
* Assess representative samples of students at the state level and on a regular schedule, not only in math and reading, but in other academic subject areas — science, history, other social studies, writing, foreign language — as well as in the arts, citizenship, social skills and health behavior.
* Gather better demographic data.
* Report NAEP scores on scales, not achievement levels.
* Use age-level, not grade-level, sampling.
* Supplement in-school samples with out-of-school samples.
The latter four all fit within the general push to apply multiple measures to our assessment efforts, all in the hopes of providing a more “comprehensive” view of what is happening in the schools, using data for informative processes, and not necessarily for punitive or even intervention purposes.  I’ll admit, when I hear many of the ideas put forward by folks like Rothstein, I usually see them as attempts to weaken our accountability and assessment systems.  Age-level sampling, for instance, weakens the notion of grade-level proficiency.  We know what it takes to successfully complete the fourth grade, not what it takes to move from 10 years old to 11 years old. So let’s park that for a later discussion on the softer sides of accountability.
I’m particularly taken with the notion of expanding the slate of course subjects for which we assess student ability.  Just as we look at student achievement on reading and math, we should be evaluating students (and by extension, teaching) in other subjects.  The visual arts, for instance, are identified as a core subject under NCLB.  Can anyone tell us, though, how we assess student achievement in the visual arts?  Is there a good state arts exam we can point to as an exemplar?
if we are to expand the scope of student performance, though, don’t we need to start with national standards?  Can we effectively evaluate student achievement without clear, uniform learning standards?  Don’t we need a real understanding for what students are supposed to know as part of eighth grade life sciences or 10th grade U.S. government?  If we are to move comprehensively look at student achievement across all academic subjects, don’t we need to set expectations for proficiency now?  And if we do so, doesn’t it make sense to set a uniform expectation for all students?
AFT’s discussion should be seen as a positive development for those advocates of student assessment and accountability.  We are not talking about turning back the clock on nearly a decade’s worth of investment in strong student assessment models.  We’re not giving time of day to ridiculous drivel such as those offered by resident curmudgeon Joanne Yatvin that the feds should “lose the words ‘achievement’ and ‘rigor,’ which have no connection to the inquisitiveness, determination, creative thinking and perseverance students need.”  (And kudos to Joanne Jacobs to calling Ms. Yatvin to task for wasting space with this relic of an idea from a failed educational era.)  If anything, we need to restore real meaning to words like achievement and rigor, using them for more than just a punchline for whine parties hosted by the status quoers. 
No, American Educator demonstrates that assessment is here to stay.  It is no longer a matter of will we or won’t we.  The challenge before us now is how do we strengthen the system.  How do enhance assessments so they provide a more complete picture of student achievement?  How do we use data to improve instruction and hold all in the learning process accountable?  How do we ensure that every child is equipped with the skills and knowledgebase to move forward academically?  How do we hold our schools, teachers, and students more accountable, laying out clear standards, clear expectations, and clear rewards for measuring up?
We are definitely approaching a new day when it comes to student assessment.  We have the opportunity to strengthen our systems, ensuring that data is not just punitive and information is used to improve instruction and measure the true abilities of our children.  If the Obama Administration is serious about our need to innovate in the classroom, we all must recognize that innovation only works with hard, research-based measures to evaluate its effectiveness.  Innovation without assessment has no impact.  Great innovation can only go to scale if we assess its impact, measure its value, and assess its outcomes.