NCLB

Finally, An EdSec Nominee

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, national standards, NCLB, STEM

After more than six weeks of handicapping, assessment, critique, and other such parlor games, we can finally see the plume of white smoke emitting from the Chicago chimney.  President-elect Barack Obama has selected Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan as his nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education.

With the choice, Obama selected a candidate who was acceptable to both the reformers (particularly the charter community) and the establishment (particularly the teachers unions).  He picked an urban superintendent with longevity, someone who has put in the sort of years that allow us to really look at the Chicago data and see the impact his leadership has had on student achievement over the last six or so years.  And he has likely picked the first and last EdSec who played in the Australian Basketball League.
What does it all mean, other than two of our largest urban districts (Los Angeles and Chicago) are now beginning searches in earnest for new superintendents?  Quite a lot, if you take a moment to think about it.
* Picking a superintendent, Obama has decided the focus of federal education policy for the next four years will be instruction.  And he recognizes that the challenges of urban educators — delivering high-quality instruction to low-income students from low-educated families with a mix of veteran and newbie teachers with and without the chops to lead urban classrooms — is priority number one.
* NCLB is not a dead duck.  Duncan has been an ongoing supporter of the federal law, calling for improvements along the way.  But he has long believed in the frameworks and the premise of the controversial law.  We may be back to the Miller/McKeon NCLB reauthorization language after all.
* Since Obama has selected the candidate who was anointed by the media and education pundits November 5, much thought has likely been put into who his supporting team is going to be.  Duncan is used to being a CEO, leading the organization.  Who is going to be his COO?  Who is going to be his Chief Strategy (or Policy) Officer?  The number Under and Deputy Secretary positions now become all the more important and all the more interesting.
* Charter schools are feeling pretty darned good about themselves this morning.  Duncan has effectively used charters in Chicago, doing so in a manner that supplemented — instead of supplanting — traditional public schools.  How does the Chicago model go to scale nationally?
* Afterschool leaders should also feel pretty good about things.  Chicago has built an impressive Outside-of-School-Time (OST) network, with Chicago Public Schools near the center.  And its done so by shifting from Clinton-era midnight basketball to instructional supports and curricular enhancements.  OST could become a federal issue.
Most importantly, though, Duncan’s selection ensures that the nation’s chief education officer is one who understands the plight today’s school districts are facing, particularly when it comes to funding.  Groups such as AASA (of which Duncan is a member) have already spoken to the need for federal assistance for instructional materials in the coming year.  Duncan knows all too well how district budgets are stretched and how funding is greatly needed to ensure teachers have the books, technology, materials, and PD necessary to effectively lead their classroom.  Duncan is now in a position to give those school districts voice when it comes potential school funding in the upcoming stimulus package and the FY2010 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill.
Of course, I just wouldn’t be Eduflack if I didn’t have a few ideas for Secretary Designate Duncan to consider as he plans his goals and objectives for 2009.  Yes, he will be following many of the ideas laid out by Obama during the campaign.  And I hope he will look at the recommendations put forward by many (including me) on what issues and ideas he should focus on.  But I’ll limit my recommendations to a top five list:
* Bring life back to Reading First.  We need a federal reading program committed to bringing research-proven instructional materials to the classroom, getting all kids reading at grade level.  Build on RF’s goals and objectives to launch a new program that is equitable and that gets the materials and PD into the classrooms that need it the most.  Our Title I schools, and their struggling readers, need it.  Let’s learn from the implementation failures and do it right this time.  Don’t punish the kids and teachers for bureaucratic failures.
* Raise the profile of STEM education.  It provides you a real opportunity to link K-12 education improvements to our national economy and our workforce needs.  Let’s make sure the resources are getting into the classrooms to equip kids with the skills and knowledge they need to compete, both on exams and in the real world.
* Call for national education standards.  We have growing support for them, and states are now adopting a common standard to measure high school graduation rates.  We only bring true equity to the public schools when all kids are measured by the same yardstick and all schools have the same expectations, regardless of income or state boards.
* Improve your communications and outreach effort.  ED needs to get proactive, and it needs to get interactive.  Instead of just informing, let’s use communications to drive key stakeholders to action.  Let’s build relationships.  Let’s build ED 2.0.  Let’s use the tools that propelled the campaign to propel school improvement at the federal level.
* Seize the bully pulpit.  You need to spend the next year getting out around the country, talking with educators and parents, demonstrating that you understand their needs and concerns.  We won’t have a lot of new money to play with.  So now is the time to win over the hearts and minds of key stakeholders.  Get their support now, then you can go in for the funding increases in FY2011.  Now is about public engagement and demonstrating you will provide the education leadership we so desperately in search of.
Don’t worry about NCLB. That will happen, and it will be driven by Congressman Miller and Senator Kennedy.  Let them drive that train.  You need to focus on getting resources to our school districts and our states.  You need to focus on boosting student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  You need to focus on improvement.  That’s a lot, but it is all necessary.  Let’s just chalk it out like a basketball game.  We have four quarters here.  We stay competitive early on, find our shots, identify our hot shooters, and play until the buzzer.  Now you get to both coach and run point.

NCLB Reauthorization — It’s Baaack!

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NCLB, Reading First

To paraphrase the Godfather, just when we thought it was done, he goes and brings it back to life.  For the past year or so, just about anybody who is anybody had written off No Child Left Behind.  We assumed the law was dead, and we figured that ESEA reauthorization would occur in 2010 at the earliest.  But then U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy strikes.  According to today’s Politico, Kennedy has added NCLB reauthorization to his wish list (thanks to the FritzWire for spotlighting the news story.)

According to Politico, the senior senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wants to use NCLB reauthorization to focus on three key issues:
* Closing the student-teacher achievement gap
* Encouraging parents to get involved in schools
* Amending the legislation’s one-size-fits-all approach to low-performance schools
This should be welcome news to education reformers and agitators throughout the nation.  Instead of pressing for the status quo and looking to roll back the calendars eight or so years, Kennedy is hoping to use his perch as chairman of the Senate HELP Committee to focus on key issues facing our schools.  How so?
First, he is directing our attention to the achievement gap, and not merely student achievement.  We talk about every child succeeding and every child succeeding.  But in state proficiency exam after exam, we see that minority and low-income students are still underperforming the state average.  In our push for overall student achievement, we believed a rising tide would raise all boats.  Today, we see that there is still much work to be done, particularly to get many students into the boats in the first place.  Greater attention to the achievement gap — both for students and for teachers — is a key component to meaningful school improvement.
More importantly, he is placing the spotlight on parents, just as President-elect Obama did during the campaign.  If Kennedy can accomplish just this task, he will make a major contribution to school improvement.  For too long, we left it to the schools and the teachers to fix the problem.  We neglected the fact that parents (or families) are the first and strongest teachers we have.  Learning happens at home just as frequently as it does at school.  And increased parental involvement in the classroom results in improved student success.  Last month, Eduflack called for the establishment of an Office of Family Engagement in the U.S. Department of Education.  Hopefully, Kennedy can help move that forward, helping ED systematize how we engage parents, how we empower them in the education process, and how we use them to help improve instructional quality and outcomes in all our schools.
As Kennedy looks at his NCLB priorities for 2009, I would ask him to consider two others as well:
* We need a Reading First 2.0.  We need a federal program that continues to invest in proven reading instruction, getting best practices into the hands of teachers and providing our students the reading interventions needed to succeed.  Literacy has long been a national education priority.  That should not stop, even if RF’s implementation was problematic.  Kennedy is just the leader to take the best from our Reading First experience and build a better program that delivers resources, technical assistance, and leadership to the schools that need it most.  It is key to closing that achievement gap he is so concerned with.
* We need an economic stimulus package for our schools.  Building bridges, erecting buildings, and even constructing schools are important to the future of our country and the current of our economy.  But new school buildings alone will not improve public education in the United States.  Too many districts, particularly those serving low-income students, are facing grim budget realities.  Budget freezes are passé.  We’re now moving into major budget cuts for K-12 at the state and local level.  The federal government must fill the gaps.  If we can step in to save the auto industry, we can also step in to save our schools.  That only happens when we dedicate specific resources to fund the books, the technology, and the professional development that now face the budgetary chopping blocks.  No superintendent should have to choose between textbooks and lights for his schools.  As our school-age population grows larger, and our expectations grow higher, we need to ensure our schools have the fiscal resources to provide ALL students the materials they need to learn, to achieve, and to succeed.
I don’t know about others, but I’m looking forward to an NCLB reauthorizations scuffle in 2009.  Movement is always better than inertia.  By keeping these issues at the front of the public debate, Kennedy ensures that education improvement efforts continue to move, taking a backseat to no domestic policy issue.

Pulling the Curtain Back on NCLB’s First Round Mistakes

Eduflack NCLB, Obama

For well over a year now, the education community has discussed what was wrong with NCLB, from unfunded mandates to poor implementation to conflicts of interest within the U.S. Department of Education.  But how much of that is smoke, and how much of that is real fire?

Eduflack is at a loss for words this morning, thanks to www.ednews.org and an exclusive piece they have from respected reporter Andrew Brownstein.  Andy offers a look at ED, and more specifically, a look at former OESE chief Susan Neuman, that few have seen before.  
I can’t do justice by summarizing the piece.  Let’s just say ethics issues, lack of authority, and absence of core commitment do not an assistant secretary make.  The full story can be found here: <a href="http://ednews.org/articles/30800/1/Exclusive-NLCB-Insider-Susan-Neuman-Re-Emerges-As-Potential-Obama-Voice/Page1.html
We”>ednews.org/articles/30800/1/Exclusive-NLCB-Insider-Susan-Neuman-Re-Emerges-As-Potential-Obama-Voice/Page1.html
We all love a redemption story.  And maybe UC-Berkeley’s David Pearson is correct, and Neuman is now doing penance for the actions she took, the words she spoke, and the stances she made as assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education.  Let’s not forget, though, that this was the Bush Administration official who defined her mission, in part, as teacher-proofing the curriculum.
What’s the takeaway here?  There is a lot that an Obama Education Department can learn from the Neuman experience.  First and foremost, your team needs to buy into the mission and vision, with no equivocation.  This is your agenda, and you need staff who believe it and who will carry it out with fidelity.  More importantly, you need staff that are there to serve the public good, with a prime goal of improving public instruction for all students.  Now is not the time for ego-building, resume enhancing, or rewarding those who are “friends of the program.”
School improvement is a tough game, a really tough game.  We need leaders who take true positions, positions they believe in, and positions designed to enhance all students, particularly those most at risk.  Hopefully, those moving into power will review Brownstein’s piece, and file it in the “Do Not Replicate” pile.  There is too much at stake for such amateurish mistakes. 

Increasing Federal Education Dollars

Eduflack Achievement gap, early childhood education, NCLB

Many folks are looking forward to a new presidential administration and a Democratic Congress and believe that the floodgates are going to open wide when it comes to federal education funding.  Eight years of talk of unfunded education mandates can do that to a person.  But then reality sets in, and we realize that current economic conditions likely mean that additional education dollars are several years in the offing.  Sure, there may be a new prioritization of spending.  Some programs will be abandoned in favor of new priorities.  Federal investment in public education is not likely to grow any time soon, though.  

That’s a large part of why Eduflack has been focused on a new EdSec and his or her power from the bully pulpit.  We may not have more dollars to spend in the coming year, but we have the power of rhetoric and the strength of hope.  We can build public awareness around the important issues, ensuring that current dollars are well spent and human resources and attention are being spent on the issues that matter, the issues that can boost student achievement, close the achievement gap, and get every student learning.
Of course, that doesn’t mean we are starting from nothing, with our pockets out-turned and an empty jar of nickels left on the counter.  Financially, our federal investment in education has never been stronger.  This week, Businessweek magazine dedicates its “Numbers” page to federal spending on education.  The numbers, mostly provided through NCES, are quite surprising.  Adjusting for 2008 dollars, federal education spending has increased 45% over the last decade, from $64 billion in 1998 to $93 billion in 2008. For those focused on K-12, elementary, secondary, and vocational education spending increased from $23.3 billion to $39.7 billion alone.  Credit NCLB, credit Senator Ted Kennedy, credit whomever you want, that’s an almost 70% increase in such federal spending over the past decade.  And that’s some significant dollars.
The question now before those in power, the status quoers, and even the agitators is how we spend that money.  If we’ve increased federal investment in education by 45%, are we seeing the return on investment?  What are we doing to ensure every student has the early reading and math foundations they need to succeed throughout the education process?  What are we doing to use the middle grades to place students on the path for the future?  What are we doing to increase high school graduation rates?  What are we spending on to ensure all grades are offering rigorous and relevant courses that point every student toward opportunity and success?  And what has increased federal spending meant for additional dollars chipped in at the state and federal levels.  (Remember, of course, that the feds only account for about 7% of total K-12 education spending, and Businessweek is only looking at that federal investment.)
The big decisions are not about dollars, but about priorities.  How does the U.S. Department of Education ensure that that nearly $40 billion in K-12 is being spent wisely, particularly since the same decade has seen federal spending on training and employment decline by nearly 20%, from $6.4 billion to $5.2 billion?  Like it or not, that means we are now relying on our K-12 systems to prepare our kids for the challenges of the 21st century workforce.  And as we look at this economy and current job trends, that’s asking an awful lot from a system built on the notion that a third of students will drop out before completing their high school educations.
Spending and student achievement has long been a chicken-egg argument.  Does more money mean more achievement?  Or do we reward improved performance with additional dollars?  The betting odds are education spending will stay flat over the next few years.  If that’s true, and we are selling a new education agenda with new priorities and new programs, how do we ensure we are getting true ROI on that $93 billion investment?  Better yet, and even more simply, how do we effectively measure return?  These are the questions we’ll need to be asking in the coming months.

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

Eduflack charter schools, IES, NCLB, Obama, Parents, Presidential campaign, SBRR, STEM

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your impressive victory last evening.  For the past two years, you have spoken to the nation about the need for hope, the need to dream, and the need to do things differently.  Your message of change is not only one that should take hold of government itself, but it is also one that should serve as the cornerstone of your education policy.  You now have a mandate for real change, with the Congress and the national will to support it.
Throughout the campaign, you focused on five key education issues: 1) early childhood education; 2) general K-12, 3) teacher recruitment and training; 4) affordability of higher education; and 5) parental involvement. These issues now serve as the tent posts of your federal education policy.  And they play an equally important role in shaping your U.S. Department of Education.
Now is not the time to retreat to the educational status quo of a Democratic president.  Now is not the time to put power in the hands of those seeking to protect and conserve what was, or those who are troubled by the notion of innovation or new approaches.  And now is certainly not the time to refight the NCLB fight, throwing punches that should have been thrown six years ago.
Instead, now is the time to be bold and audacious, as you have called for so many times before.  Now is the time to be innovative and offer new ideas for the problems that have ailed our public schools for decades now. Now is the time to build a non-partisan approach based on what is needed, what is sought, and what works.  Now is indeed a time for change, and you need to use education to drive that change.  The status quoers or the defenders of policies part don’t fit with your message.  This is time for powerful rhetoric, deep thinking, and meaningful change and innovation.
I will leave it to you and your transition team to determine who the next EdSec will be.  If recent history is any indication, the Clinton model works well.  Find a strong administrator — a governor type — who understands the issues and knows how to effectively use knowledgeable staff.  The Mike Easleys or the Janet Napolitanos or even the Phil Bredensens of the world deserve a close look.  Sure, your selection will be based in part on who is selected for other Cabinet posts, as you seek the right racial, gender, and geographic balance of the Cabinet.  But these sorts of governors have the political experience, management background, and general understanding needed to move the issue forward.
Those jobs further down the line in the Department of Education are the jobs that are essential.  Who will be driving policy?  Who will implement the policy?  Who will collect the data?  Who will analyze it?  Who will market and sell all of it to the stakeholders that are needed to move change?  The assistant secretaries you appoint will be the linchpins of your education policy success. Don’t make these patronage jobs.  Don’t use these to reward friends or organizational friends of the campaign.  Get out into the field and find the best people for the jobs.  Of particular importance, at least in Eduflack’s eyes, is finding the right people to head the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Innovation and Improvement, the Office of English Language Acquisition (particularly since the Hispanic community was such an important demographic in your victory), and the Institute of Education Sciences.  Find the true leaders, the true innovators, and the true thinkers to head these offices and drive policy.
Now that we’ve gotten the administrative piece out of the way, let’s focus for a second on actual policies.  In your policy platforms, you’ve identified a number of issues and areas that you want to focus on, both in terms of rhetorical and financial muscle. Many of these are specific programs, whether they be the continuation of the old or the creation of the new.  These are good ideas — some great, but as your education transition team moves forward, I ask that you make sure a number of issues get their fair shake:
* STEM — We all know that science-tech-engineering-math is a hot topic these days.  But it is also a substantive topic.  Education doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  STEM provides you a tangible program to effectively link instruction to our future economic needs.  It tells kids they are career ready.  It tells employers we have a viable pipeline in the workforce.  And it tells the nation we are doing what it takes to align education with the economy.  STEM is your low-hanging fruit, and you can make some immediate gains by focusing on this policy priority, using education as an economic driver in all states.
* Reading — I have reluctantly accepted that Reading First is dead.  But for decades, the federal government has funded programs to boost reading achievement, particularly among minority and low-income populations.  We need to continue that commitment, and Title I doesn’t get the job done.  For all of its flaws, RF has left a legacy of evidence-based instruction and ensuring we are doing what is proven effective.  Let’s use that to build a new, better reading approach.  Scientifically based reading is in place in every Title I district across the country.  Now is not the time to change horses.  Now is the time to build on successes, showing all families — from those in our urban centers to those in our most rural of communities — that we are committed to making sure every child is reading proficient and reading successful.
* Education Research — Staying on the topic, we need to continue federal efforts to support high-quality K-12 research.  We need to do a better job of collecting long-term measurements of student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and the like.  And we need to do a better job of analyzing the data we collect. Now is the time to use IES to further shape education R&D in the United States.  That shaping requires a true innovator at the helm, with a good sense of research and a better sense of innovation and experimenting on what is new and possible.  Few see it, but the IES appointment will speak volumes as to the possibility of new ideas and new educational exploration for the next four years.
* Teachers — Supporting teachers is more than just supporting the teachers unions.  You’ve demonstrated that understanding in your support to merit pay.  Continue to display that independence.  Merit pay, for instance, is a terrific tool to implementing best practice in the schools, sharing best practices among educators, and incentivizing closing the achievement gap and boosting student achievement without the strict use of the ED stick.  If you need help with this, just give a ring over to your advisor Jon Schnur and ask him about New Leaders for New Schools’ lessons learned through the EPIC program.
* Innovation — All of the great education ideas have not been thought of yet.  You need to find ways to invest in experimentation and invest in what is possible and what is promising.  That is why OII was originally conceived. Take a look at advisor Andy Rotherham’s (and Sara Mead’s) study for Brookings on the future of education innovation, and start exploring the ways to use OII as a venture capital fund for new ideas and as an incubator for promising practices.  We should even elevate OII to full assistant secretary status.
* Accountability — Some think you will throw accountability out the window when you take office.  Eduflack knows better.  From your work in Chicago, you understand the importance of measuring the effectiveness of our reforms.  You know we need to see real results if we are to continue real work.  We not only need to keep measuring student achievement, but we need to do a better job of applying the data to policy dec
isions, spending decisions, and instructional decisions.  More importantly, we just need to plain know that what we are doing works, and it works in schools like mine, in classes like mine, with kids like mine.  There is nothing wrong with accountability if it is a shared responsibility, shared by government, schools, teachers, parents, and the students themselves.
* Choice — Forget about vouchers, the future of education choice is charters and virtual education.  There is a fine line between offering choices to families in need and stripping resources from the public schools.  You need to find it. Charter enrollment in our urban centers is at all time highs.  Find ways to further encourage it, while requiring higher quality and greater oversight.  Virtual education, such as that mandated by Florida, is the future, and needs to be further explored to expand learning opportunities, particularly in our urban and rural schools.  Options are key if we are to give every child a chance at opportunity.
* Parental Involvement — Now for my big idea.  I propose you actually establish an Office of Family and Community Engagement, an authorized body at the Assistant Secretary level that can get information into the hands of those who need it most.  The most recent regs from ED show that the current infrastructure isn’t getting it done.  If you’re serious about greater family involvement, turning off the TVs, and such, make the commitment to Family Engagement (and we do have to think beyond the traditional mother/father nuclear parent family structure). EdTrust has today’s student attaining education at lower rates than their parents. That is a travesty.  And the responsibility falls on the family.  Parents are our first, and most durable, of teachers.  Equip them with information, help them build the paths and help them paint the picture of the value and need for education.  Create this new office, have it collaborate with OESE, OCO, and others, and see the impact of effectively collaborating with families and the community at large on education improvement.
Throughout the campaign, you demonstrated a keen understanding for the intersection between policy and communication.   That understanding must be applied to your education work as well.  On the whole, your predecessor did a poor job when it came to communicating, even with regard to some good policies.  Their thinking seemed to be people will realize this is good policy, and if they don’t we’ll make them because we are the federal government. That won’t work for you.  You need to effectively sell your policies, and you need to sell them to a broad cross-section of audiences.  You need stakeholder buy-in from the beginning, and that buy-in comes from more than just the usual suspects.  Through a well-though-out, sustained public engagement plan, you can not only educate Americans on why education is important, you can actually change their thoughts and behaviors when it comes to the above issues and so many others.  And if you aren’t sure how, just give me a call.
I realize, from recent media interviews, that education is not going to be a top three issue for your Administration.  That is understandable.  I was heartened to see it comes into the top five.  That just means there is more heavy lifting for your Department of Education and for those inside it to do more and make more change with less of the presidential bully pulpit.  We share a common goal — a high quality education for all children.  Now we just need to build the team and execute the plan to move that goal into reality.  You have that chance.  Please take full advantage of it.  Yes, you — and we — can.
Best,
Patrick R. Riccards (aka Eduflack)

Accounting for the RF Dollars

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Reading First has been the federal law of the land for more than six and a half years now.  To date, more than $5 billion has been provided to the states to implement scientifically based reading programs in their schools.  A huge bucket of dollars, these moneys were intended to provide evidence-based curricular materials, instructional programs, interventions, and professional development in those schools that needed the most help in getting every child reading proficient.

We’ve all heard about the problems with the implementation of the program.  Eduflack is clearly on the record believing RF is a terrifically intentioned program, with the right priorities, the right goals, and the right research.  But I’ve also been critical of the implementation of the program.  Oversight was sloppy.  Programs weren’t adopted with fidelity.  And we’ve done a poor job collecting and promoting the data that demonstrates overall effectiveness.
In recent months, the field has debated what the research really tells us.  We’ve had dueling studies, one from the U.S. Department of Education’s OPEPD came out with a study showing real results; IES came out with an interim study questioning impact.  OPEPD addressed the issues of non-RF schools making real gains because of changes in instructional approaches and materials (what the researchers call contamination); IES did not.
Through it all, we’ve assumed that that $5 billion has been spent as intended.  Sure, we know there are some companies that got rich off of RF, selling snake oil to anyone with an open wallet.  There are profiteers that saw an opening in the law, and squeezed every last nickel they could out of RF to line their pockets and enrich their companies.  There are those who claimed to be research-based, who clearly had no understanding what good research was nor any intention to achieve it.  And, yes, there were some really good programs that got into the schools to further show their ability, those that could serve as lighthouses or meaningful examples of promising or best practice.
But how has the money actually been spent?  Over at EdWeek’s Curriculum Matters blog, Kathleen Manzo raises a disturbing point.  In more than six years, it seems no one at the U.S. Department of Education has bothered to collect data on how the LEAs actually spent the billions in RF dollars that made its way down to the localities.  <div><br></div><div>Manzo”>blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2008/10/where_has_all_the_money_gone.html

<div><br></div><div>Manzo”>

Manzo points to the just-released Notice of Proposed Information Collection issued by ED, asking questions about whether data collection on RF is necessary.  Yes, such notices are required by the Office of Management and Budget of any government agency looking to collect data from more than nine or so folks.  So Eduflack isn’t so worried about the release of the notice.  I’m just heartbroken and frustrated by its timing.
Shouldn’t ED have been collecting this data from the start, gathering information after year one about how RF dollars are spent?  Shouldn’t knowing how dollars are spent be part of the determination of whether the program is effective?  Shouldn’t it be a given that when you’re issuing billions of dollars in checks, you expect to get detailed spending reports in return?
I’d like to believe this is just standard operating procedure, a necessary notice that is sent out at the close of any federal program.  I’d like to believe that such data as been collected annually since 2002, thinking as each SEA gets a new check, they hand over old data.  I’d like to believe such data was collected, in part, as part of the research done by OPEPD and IES.  I’d like to believe, yes, but I also know better.  Through all of the attacks, all of the IG investigations, of the defunding threats, no one in an official position has talked in any detail about how RF money has been effectively spent.  And I know it is a question Manzo and EdWeek have been asking for years, without getting any answers of substance.
  
Any education group that has received philanthropic support knows they need to account for dollars to their donor.  Just ask any organization in town that’s received money from the Gates Foundation.  They document how the money is spent, making sure it aligns with the goals and promises of the original application.  And then they detail how the spending has led to real, measurable results that demonstrate effectiveness.
If this Notice of Proposed Information Collection is what it seems — the first attempt to gather information on RF spending — someone needs to step up and accept responsibility for a monumental failure.  NCLB was the largest federal investment in public education in the history of the republic.  With such an investment should come the largest measure of accountability as well. 
If accountability is to be the legacy of NCLB, and if we are to expect all of our schools to ratchet up their levels of personal accountability, we owe it to every teacher, every publisher, every legislator, every parent, and every teacher to demonstrate similar accountability.  Ultimately, we can’t declare RF a success or a failure until we’ve accounted for how the money has been spent.  At the end of the day, fidelity is more than just a buzzword to measure teachers by.  It is a measure of our action and our spending.  Unfortunately, ED seems to have missed that lesson in Accountability 101 class.
 

Riding NCLB Off Into the Sunset

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, High School, NCLB, NGA, Parents, vouchers

At high noon today, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings officially announced her “final regulations” to strengthen No Child Left Behind.  Speaking to a wide range of stakeholders in South Carolina, Spellings focused on issues like high school graduation rates, improved accountability, better parental notification of supplemental services, and greater school choice.

Of course, Eduflack has a lot of thoughts on a lot of this.  But I am most taken by the banner under which this announcement has been made.  These are the “final regulations to strengthen No Child Left Behind.”  If the future of NCLB was left to question in anyone’s mind, the EdSec answered that today.  Today is NCLB’s last gunfight in the ed reform corral.  After all of the talk of reauthorization and improvements to the law, these final regs make clear that, regardless of the political future at ED, NCLB is done.  A new law will rule the land, replacing, and not simply improving or supplementing what was one of the few positive domestic policy legacies of the Bush Administration.
But if we dig deeper here, where is the news?  In terms of high school graduation rates, Spellings is simply validating the process the National Governors Association began a few years ago.  NGA has already secured all 50 states’ agreement to common graduation rate based on the number of ninth graders who graduate high school four years later.  Sixteen states have this common formula in place already, and most of the others are in process.  These regs may “establish a uniform graduation rate” but we all need to realize such a rate has already been established and agreed to by all, and adopted by many.  
As for the rest, Eduflack completely agrees that all parents should have access to information on the supplemental education services and the school choice options available to them.  I was under the impression that was a core plank of NCLB from the start, and had been in place for more than six years now.  Has it really taken us six years to realize and require that parents get clear and timely notice of their options?  If so, where is all of the money that has been poured into SES since its establishment in 2002?
And finally, we have accountability.  Months ago, ED finally demonstrated some flexibility in the establishment of its growth model pilot project, allowing some states a little give when it comes to achieving AYP.  The pilot announcement had real value when announced, both in terms of policy and rhetoric.  So codifying the pilot in these new regs is a good thing.  In fact, it may be the strongest part of the EdSec’s announcement today.
It’s not all bad, though.  For a law that was originally criticized for focusing only on elementary education, these new regs codify the importance of high schools and the growing need to attend to dismal graduation rates.  With both presidential candidates embracing school choice, it is important to get credit for making vouchers and charters a foundation of NCLB.  With concerns about AYP and federal rigidity, it is important to remind all of the flexibility displayed by ED through its pilot effort.  And probably more important than any, today’s announcement reminds all those involved of the importance of parents in the educational process, ensuring we are getting them good information fast so they can make knowledge-based decisions on their kids’ educational paths.  But these new regulations are rhetorical devices, and have little to do with policy or real school improvement.
During my time in Texas, I often heard of the “all hat, no cattle” syndrome.  The New Yorker in me prefers “all sizzle, no steak.”  Regardless, these new regs — greatly hyped for the past week — provide little that is new, little that is innovative, and little that improves.  They are almost a set of defeatist treatises, a reminder to many of the original intent of NCLB (an intent that has, in part, gone unfulfilled) without seeking to make any new changes or new improvements as the law winds down.
Personally, I prefer the westerns where the protagonist fades to black in a blaze of glory, fighting until the bitter end to protect the town and defend its future.  I’ve never been one for the “Shane” ending, with the hero riding off into the sunset, slumped over in a sense of defeat and even death.  Today’s announcement was definitely a sunset ride.  
    

When It Comes to Reading, It’s All in Our Heads

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Science

Over the last decade, we have seen a real evolution into scientifically based reading instruction.  The work of the National Research Council and the National Reading Panel both focused on the research base that was out there, and what the data told us about good, effective instruction.  The American Federation of Teachers released a report on reading instruction titled “Teaching Reading is Rocket Science,” hoping to dispel, once and for all, that there was a proven scientific method behind effective reading instruction madness.

Those who believe in the whole language philosophy (and it is a philosophy folks, it is not an instructional method), would tell you that good reading instruction is actually more art than science.  We need to let students learn at their own pace, do the things they enjoy, and gain skills (or not gain them) on their own terms.  Instead of focusing on the need for practice and skills development, those who stand up against proven instructional methods would almost prefer we let our kids feel their way around reading, guessing in the untested instead of learning through the proven.
When we think about proven reading instruction, particularly in elementary schools, we often think about teachers, teachers’ aides, reading specialists, parents, and after-school programs.  How often, though, do we think of neuropsychologists?  But today’s Washington Post, the Health section no less, reminds us of the lasting and meaningful role hard sciences can have on teaching our children.
WaPo’s Nelson Hernandez paints a compelling picture of the impact neuropsychology, MRIs, and brain scans can have on diagnosing reading difficulties and helping educators provide the interventions specific students need.  The full story is here — <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402987.html?hpid=sec-health.
Eduflack”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402987.html?hpid=sec-health.
Eduflack has had the privilege of spending time with Laurie Cutting at the Kennedy Krieger Institute and seeing how this science works and how it can guide effective classroom instruction.  It is truly amazing to see the process the Post describes in action, to see how brain activity changes, both during an individual session and over time.  It is incredible to know we can use brain maps to literally see scientifically-based reading approaches take hold in a child’s head, giving the instructional foundations virtually all students need to learn to read.  And it is that science that must serve as a foundation for the future of reading instruction.
In the coming year, we are likely to see a de-emphasis in our attention to scientifically based instruction.  We’ve all heard how much scientifically based research was included in the original NCLB legislation.  We’ve all questioned the true impact and validity of the findings offered by the What Works Clearinghouse.  And we’ve are even slowly seeing the differences between both good research and bad research, though most are still learning how to tell the difference.  
Both presidential candidates, along with legislative leaders such as Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman George Miller, and Congressman Buck McKeon have all spoken to the need to continue to “do what works” in our classrooms.  That means spending our valuable education dollars on methods and materials that are proven effective and based on real, replicable research.  No matter who is calling the shots come January 2009, we all must remember that guiding principle.  We pay for what is effective.  We reward what works.  
And we make a national commitment to move evidence-based instruction forward, regardless of the direction ESEA reauthorization may take.  At the end of the day, we are investing in our children, placing a large bet that virtually every child can succeed and every kid can perform.  We win that bet by putting our marker on a sure thing.  Evidence-based instruction is as sure as it gets these days.

Engaging the Public on Math Reform

Eduflack Marketing, Math, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

When the National Reading Panel released its landmark “Teaching Children to Read” report in April 2000, the obvious question to follow was, “what’s next?”  The federal government releases studies like “Teaching Children to Read” all the time.  The report comes out, copies are distributed, and they usually end up in someone’s closet, on someone’s bookcase to get dusty, or as a doorstop in a state department of education.

As loyal readers know, NRP was a passion project for Eduflack.  I was involved from the very beginning serving as a senior advisor to the panel and helping with everything from qualitative research to editorial.  For two years, NRP was my life, and I wouldn’t change a day of it.
During the NRP process, the we recognized that we needed to do more than just traditionally “disseminate” the findings.  Informing key stakeholders on reading research was an important step, yes.  But if the NRP was going to have the lasting effect it intended (and the lasting effect, I argue, it has) we needed to reach far deeper.  We needed to move beyond simply informing to engaging.  And we needed to move from engaging to changing behavior.  
Ultimately, we needed to change the way the education world dealt with reading instruction.  We needed to change how teachers taught kids to read.  We needed to change what parents asked about reading in the classroom.  We needed to change how school administrators made decisions on the programs they purchased.  We needed to change how local, state, and federal elected officials prioritized funding for reading instruction.  And we needed to change how the community at large, particularly the business community, addressed the issue and focused on reading.  Most importantly, we needed to change student reading ability, ensuring that virtually every student gained the research-based instruction needed to be reading proficient by fourth grade.
Such change is no small undertaking.  Following the release of the NRP report in 2000, we spent two years engaging in a range of communications and public engagement activities.  Conference presentations.  Interviews with the media.  Interactions with key stakeholder groups and influential individuals.  Armed with just the massive Report of the Subgroups, the Summary Report, and the NRP Video Report, we began the process of informing, engaging, and changing thinking.
After the tenets of NRP were included in No Child Left Behind (Reading First in particular), a new phase of engagement began.  The U.S. Department of Education created the Partnership for Reading, a joint effort led by all federal agencies involved in one way or another with reading.  This included ED, HHS, Labor, and NIH.  Together, these agencies pledged a shared support to promote a unified commitment to scientifically based reading instruction.
Through the Partnership (another project Eduflack played a leading role in), we were able to launch a national public engagement campaign to ensure that all audiences 1) understood scientifically based reading instruction; 2) knew why it was important; and 3) began implementing it in their schools, classes, and communities.  Originally, the work focused on a broad range of stakeholder audiences, including policymakers, the business community, school administrators, researchers, teacher educators, teachers, and parents.  During the two-year process, we winnowed down our audiences, seeing the key actors in getting SBRR into the classroom as both the teacher and the parent.
To accomplish this effort, we engaged in a wide range of communications activities, far more than those used following the NRP release.  Development of strong, audience-specific messages.  Creation of specific materials designed for specific stakeholders.  Media relations.  Public service announcement campaign (both print and radio, in both English and Spanish).  Conference presentations and exhibitions.  A speakers bureau.  Partnership development.  And any and all marketing and communications activities designed to spread the word about the need for and the impact of SBRR.
At the end of the day, I am proud of the results we accomplished.  Yes, we secured significant media coverage (millions of impressions worth millions and millions of ad-equivalent dollars).  But we also built a strong network of supporters and advocates.  Through a working partners group, we brought together organizations like NEA, AFT, AASA, and IRA (organizations not exactly friendly with ED or NCLB at the time) and joined them with NGA, NAESP, BRT, and the Chamber as a sign of shared commitment to scientifically based reading.  How?  At the end of the day, all of these organizations, regardless of their political leanings, shared a common belief that every child needed to learn to read and we needed to use instructional approaches that worked to get all children reading.
I don’t take this walk down memory lane to toot any particular horn or wait for an applause line for the hard work of all of the people at NICHD and ED who helped move this forward, from 2000 through 2005.  Instead, I reflect on this experience because of an article in this week’s Education Week.  In it, Sean Cavanagh reports on the current efforts underway to promote the recently released report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/10/08mathpanel.h28.html
The”>www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/10/08mathpanel.h28.html
The Math Panel is to be commended for its work, and it is especially noteworthy that they were able to pull together a conference earlier this month for policy folks and practitioners to focus on how to move the Panel’s findings into U.S. classrooms.  The NRP shared a similar goal, but those conferences quickly evolved into RF conferences after the passage of NCLB.
Cavanagh also focuses on efforts to print more than 160,000 pamphlets for parents on elementary and middle school math.  Again, a needed step.  For change to occur in our schools, parents must be effectively used as a lever for action.  Lasting change does not come without real, sustained action from the parents.
EdWeek also notes the work of the ED’s Doing What Works website (http://dww.ed.gov) to move the Math Panel’s findings into teachable moments for educators and professional developers.  (Full disclosure, Eduwife is managing DWW for ED).
But I also hope the Math Panel is thinking bigger, thinking bolder, and thinking more audaciously.  Yes, it is unfortunate that ED will soon change hands, and a new EdSec will have new priorities.  And yes, it is unfortunate that the Math Wars make the Reading Wars seem like Cub Scout jamborees.  But the findings of the Math Panel are too important to fall by the wayside come January 2009.  The need to equip all students with real math skills is too important for our schools, our community, our economy, and our nation for the Math Panel’s report to hit a dusty shelf come next year, forgotten for the “next big thing.”
Someone needs to launch a massive public engagement campaign to reform math instruction.  Building from the work, infrastructure, and results of the Partnership for Reading, someone needs to work with parents, teachers, and policymakers to focus on getting what works when it comes to math into the classroom.  And, ideally, someone outside of the federal government needs to make this their national priority, allowing such a campaign to move swifter and more nimbly than a government effort.
Interested?  I’m happy to give you my cent-and-a-half to get it off the ground.
 

Education Chicken and Egg at the Presidential Debate

Eduflack early childhood education, HQT, John McCain, NCLB, Obama, vouchers

I don’t know about you, but Eduflack was quite surprised to see the final 10 minutes or so of this evening’s presidential debate being devoted to the issue of education.  Kudos must first go to CBS’ Bob Schieffer for asking the right question.  It wasn’t about NCLB or teachers unions or any of the traditional hot-button issues.  Instead, Schieffer asked about the United States spending more per capita on education than any other nation, yet being outperformed by many of our international counterparts.

The initial responses from both candidates should be of no surprise.  Both Barack Obama and John McCain stuck to their campaign’s educational talking points.  For Obama, it was all about early childhood education, teachers, and affordability of higher education (and a tip of the hat to the Illinois senator for calling out parents as part of both the problem and the solution).  For McCain, it was charters, vouchers, and expanded opportunity.
Also of no surprise, neither candidate really addressed the question.  Sure, Obama focused on the need for greater investment in education and the notion that NCLB was severely underfunded.  And McCain called for greater dollars for vouchers, pointing to the DC voucher program as a shining success.
But back to the original question.  What Schieffer was really asking, or should have been asking, is whether greater investment in the schools results in greater achievement, or whether greater achievement gets rewarded with greater investment.  It is the ultimate educational chicken and egg question.
We know that some of our best-funded school districts, at least in terms of per pupil spending, are some of our lowest performers.  Will more dollars turn them around?  Unlikely.  It may help bring some better teachers into the classroom, but real turnaround requires a change in culture and a change in approach.  Both are free, its the implementation that costs money.
I’d like to believe we should reward achievement and encourage innovation.  We invest in what works.  We help fund those programs that can make a difference and boost student achievement.  We reward those schools and those teachers who are boosting student performance.  We should place results first and foremost.  That’s the answer so many families should be hearing.