HomeNGA(Page 2)

NGA

A Responsible “No, Thanks?”

Eduflack Achievement gap, NCLB, NGA, stimulus

For quite some time, we have heard how the federal economic stimulus package was essential to stabilizing our nation’s economy… and our nation’s schools.  Nearly $800 billion in new funding, with almost 10 percent of that designated for K-12 and higher education needs, is now being readied for implementation.  In our K-12 schools in particular, we’ve heard how such funds are absolutely necessary.  Without federal assistance, and without it fast, we run the real risk of teacher layoffs, school closings, and academic years put in jeopardy.

Eduflack has already opined on the need to get the proper systems in place to ensure that these federal economic stimulants are being dispersed efficiently and are spent wisely.  blog.eduflack.com/2009/02/20/how-do-we-disperse-ed-stimulus-dollars.aspx  But recent days have posed a question that few anticipated when the House and Senate were negotiating priorities and spending levels.  What happens if a governor says no to his or her share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
Who would say no to such a sizable check, particularly one that doesn’t have ponderous new regulations and oversights attached to it?  Well, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been publicly discussing saying “no, thanks” to the feds.  Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is apparently considering the same thing.  And there are likely a handful of others (presumably all Republican governors) who will offer the same thinking, saying it is irresponsible for them to participate in what they view as an excessive, irresponsible federal funding program.
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard such debate.  Several governors originally decided to opt out of Goals 2000 money, resisting federal involvement in what they believed should be local decisionmaking in public education. Similar discussions surfaced at the start of the NCLB era, with states resisting what they perceived as increased federal oversight and significant unfunded mandates.  Such threats were empty, though, as states eventually all lined up to receive their earned share of what was previously the largest federal investment in K-12 education.  The largest, that is, until now.
Do Louisiana’s public schools — particularly those in the Recovery District — not benefit from increased Title I and special education funding?  Does Minnesota not gain from increased funding for teacher incentive programs and added dollars for colleges and universities?  Does either state (or any of the remaining 48, for that matter) not gain from ARRA funding, securing the dollars (for education and beyond) needed to fill the gaps caused by shrinking property values and depleted state coffers?
If Governor Jindal refuses ARRA money in Louisiana, it won’t save the taxpayers in the Pelican State a dime.  Their federal income taxes will not be reduced a penny because they are not participating in ARRA.  Their legislature can’t simply turn to alternative funding sources with a different sense of priorities or reduced accountability to fill the funding gaps.  We’ve passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act because we had nowhere else to turn.  This was our last, best chance to stabilize our social structures, particularly our public schools.
At this stage of the economic game, it is irresponsible for some governors to flippantly say “I’ll pass” when it comes to their state’s share of the stimulus package, particularly with regard to K-12 education.  Their schools need it.  They need dollars to fund teachers, keeping quality educators in the classroom and providing them the ongoing PD and support they need to do their jobs effectively.  They need money for instructional materials and technology to keep students on task as they acquire the skills they need to achieve.  They need funding for data systems and accountability measures, so we can improve instruction and monitor student progress.  They need coin to improve their school buildings and increase access to the Internet.  And they need the checks to meet our obligations when it comes to Title I, special education, and innovations necessary to continue to improve both access and quality of public education.
I recognize that individuals are already using stimulus funding to position themselves for upcoming elections, whether it be re-election in two or four years or a step up the ladder (yes, even for president) in 2012.  But sometimes responsible governance requires doing the responsible thing, and not necessarily the popular thing.  And sometimes it means setting aside partisanship to do what is best for the populace.  That doesn’t mean turning one’s back on stimulus money, it means ensuring that the money you receive is being spent wisely, aligned with both state needs and state priorities.  it means proving the critics wrong and showing such funding can be used responsibly and with focus on real impact and return on investment.
A smart governor can, will, and must use these stimulus dollars to improve public education in their communities.  Smart governors don’t say no when they are offered a strong helping hand (and a large check) at a time of real need.  And a really smart governor steps up an offers to take Louisiana or Minnesota’s share if they take a pass.  Our schools are hurting.  The money’s been approved.  If some states don’t want their share, there have to be others that are willing to “sacrifice” and put additional funds to use.  I’m sure Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour wouldn’t mind Louisiana’s share.  Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would clearly benefit from Minnesota’s share.  And California’s Governator would gladly take both states’ cuts to apply to the Golden State’s budget.
   

How Do We Disperse Ed Stimulus Dollars?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, NCLB, NGA, Reading First, stimulus

By now, we’ve all hear the numbers.  Under the state stabilization fund, $53.4 billion for our governors.  For Title I, $10 billion.  Special education gets $12.2 billion.  The School Improvement Fund, $3 billion.  Head Start comes in a cool billion dollars.  With $250 million for state data systems and $200 million more for the Teacher Incentive Fund.  And then there are the subcategories.

There is no getting around it.  This is a massive injection of new cash into our nation’s public education system.  With a sweep of the pen this week, President Obama has more than doubled federal investment in K-12 education, providing our nation’s governors and their chief state school officers with enormous power as to how these new piggy banks will be broken into and what new local buckets will receive the shiny gold coins.
But it begs an enormously important question.  How will the funds be dispersed?  The buzz around the education community is that money will be distributed quickly, with initial chunks going out to the states before the end of the summer.  At the same time, we know that the U.S. Department of Education has yet to staff up, at least in terms of an undersecretary, deputy secretary, and virtually all of its assistant secretaries.
Some of this money will simply be spent using existing funding formulae.  The federal government and the states already have clear systems for dispersing and allocating Title I and special education (IDEA) funds.  Those systems will hold when it comes to getting the $12.2 billion in sped money and $10 billion in additional Title I funds out to the districts it is meant to stimulate.
But what of the state stabilization fund?  Does it require a new structure and a new relationship between the federal government and the states?  Does it require specific rubrics for tracking how funds are spent, ensuring they are not supplanting existing federal dollars and are delivering return on investment when it comes to both stabilizing the financial situation of our schools and boosting student achievement?  Do we even have a mechanism for the feds to cut these stabilization fund checks to the states in quick order?
One assumes that each governor will need to appoint an individual (or an office) in the state to serve as the point person for negotiation with the U.S. Department of Education on the stabilization fund.  Most think this point person will be the chief state school officer.  But in some states, we know that is likely not going to be the case.  Such a point person could reside in the governor’s office, the state board of education, or even the economic development office.  It could even be an outside consultant or group.  There is no one-size-fits-all implementation model here, at least not one evident in the new federal funding structure.  So how does it happen, and how does it happen so quickly?
In recent years, the closest model we have to implementing such an effort was the establishment of the Reading First funding program, as the previous Administration looked to quickly disperse $1 billion a year in new reading dollars.  Moving at lightening speed, it still took nearly a year to establish those state relationships, gain documents from the states on how the funds would be spent, and then write the checks and get them out there.  That was a billion dollars, and the funding was staggered as states tried to get their plans in order (some took well more than a year to get approved work plans in there, some moved more quickly).
And we saw how successful the implementation of that program was.  Moving too quickly, we opened the system up to abuse and the perception of mis-spending and mis-directed priorities.  Originally, ED promised swat teams prepared to go into those school districts receiving RF money, ready to evaluate if the money was being spent as intended and prepared to pull the funding if it was not.  Maybe we’ll follow through on the promise with state stabilization funding squads.
Now we are talking about a scope more than 50 times in size, on an implementation far faster than RF ever envisioned.  Maybe the RF model — and its means for dispersing funds to the states — is they system on which to build this new effort.  What is clear is there is a lot of work ahead for both ED and the states to make sure this economic stimulus money.  Everyone is waiting see the guidelines for new federal spending and how the money flow will be managed and monitored.  We need to move quickly, yes.  But we also need to move smartly.  
The stimulus package makes a major statement with regard to future investment in K-12 education and public school improvement.  It restructures the role of localities, the states, and the federal government in the process.  And it sets clear priorities for the pathways we must take if we are to make lasting improvement and invest this money as intended.  
Eduflack is a results guy, no question about it.  Process always takes a backseat for me, particularly when we have outcomes in the driver’s seat.  But this stimulus package — and the state stabilization fund — cry out for a clear, comprehensive, closely monitored process that ensures swift action, efficient spending, and documentable return on investment.  How do we make sure money is getting to the schools and students who need it the most?  How do we make sure we are using money to supplement existing programs, and not merely replacing existing state funding commitments?  How do we make sure we are having a true impact, beyond the dollar tally?
As more and more details on federal stimulus funding become available, we need to ensure we are getting such details on the process.  Now is not the time to follow a “trust us” philosophy.  We’ve all seen where that has gotten us before.

The Measure of a Successful Graduate

Eduflack AFT, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, national standards, NGA

This has been an interesting week for national education standards and firm performance measures.  We celebrated President’s Day on Monday with AFT President Randi Weingarten making the case for national standards on the opinion pages of The Washington Post — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021501257.html.  She makes a compelling case, a case that Eduflack and other have been making for quite some time.

It also flows nicely from the report issued by NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve at the end of 2008, focusing on the need for the United States to pay closer attention to international benchmarking, a push to effectively capture the right data so we know how our students are performing when compared to their academic colleagues in other industrialized nations.
Yesterday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland raised the ante a bit more, calling for an overhaul of the state’s Ohio Graduation Test, citing concerns that nearly one in 10 Ohio high school seniors fail to pass the OGT (after multiple attempts at success).  The full story can be found from Denise Smith Amos at the Cincinnati Enquirer — news.cincinnati.com/article/20090217/NEWS0102/902170316/1055/NEWS.  
It should be no surprise that some in Ohio are already wondering if changes to the OGT mean increasing standards and expecting more from our students (as is Strickland’s stated objective).  Typically when we talk about improving student assessment measures, it means one of two things.  The first is the fear we will ask for more from our students (as is happening in Ohio).  The all-to-often reality is it usually means a weakening of the standards, dropping expectations to ensure that more students are hitting the magic number and schools are reaching their AYP benchmarks.
But the Ohio experience raises a very interesting question.  Can our states provide an effective “graduation test,” one that is expected to measure the full value of a high school education, in the 10th grade?  Obviously, we aren’t testing students on the math and science concepts that are traditional in 11th and 12th grade classes (including Algebra II, Trig, Chemistry II, Physics, or even advanced life sciences).  In some locales, it means not measuring world or U.S. history.  In each and every school, a 10th grade “graduation test” only serves as half of an effective measure.
Yes, Eduflack understands the need to provide students a second chance to pass this important test.  Yes, I realize the stakes are high, particularly when you say a student can’t earn a diploma without demonstrating sufficient performance on a single test.  But can a test taken in the middle of one’s 10th grade year effectively measure the comprehensive learning acquired during the secondary school experience?  Can a graduation test taken two years early truly help postsecondary institutions and employers know the full skills and abilities of the students exiting our K-12 systems?
The answer is clearly no and no.  We tell every student that they need a high school diploma.  We tell them that dropping out is never a viable option.  More states are even shifting to an 18-year-old age requirement for students to drop out.  But how do we expect students to take their full high school experience seriously if we tell them in the spring of their 10th grade year (not even the mid-way point of the high school experience) whether they have passed or failed high school?  History tells us that “failure” tag is not one that inspires students to buckle down and do what it takes to pass on the second or third try.  Quite the opposite, it provides students an excuse to give up, whether then remain in the classroom or not.
Critics will obviously say that there is no effective way to administer a comprehensive exam and effectively evaluate students at the end of 12th grade; we simply don’t have the time to do it right.  It won’t be fair to students that they be denied their diploma because they failed an exam a week or a month prior to graduation, they say.  Students won’t have multiple opportunities to take the exam, working to fix what may have gone wrong.  Teachers won’t have the opportunity to provide the necessary interventions to fill the gaps.
That’s where concepts such as national standards come in.  Yes, we should know what every 10th grader (as well as other students) should know and be capable of doing at the end of an academic year.  Those standards are core to a successful K-12 learning experience.  If students are meeting standards at the end of 8th grade and 10th grade, they should be prepared to meet the challenges of a true graduation exam in 12th grade.  If they are off the mark come 10th grade, educators have two years to intervene and empower students with those educational building blocks they need to succeed.
Yes, Governor Strickland, the OGT is not rigorous enough.  Kudos for trying to do something about it.  Part of the problem is the nature of standardized testing.  Part of that is the reality that we cannot effectively measure high school performance less than halfway through the experience.  A truly rigorous graduation test requires measuring courses and content gathered in 11th and 12th grade.  A true exit exam, offered near the conclusion of 12th grade, may seem as the highest of the high-stakes test.  But it is the only way to truly measure whether our graduates have the skills and abilities holders of a high school diploma should have.  It is the only way to demonstrate to our postsecondary institutions and our local businesses and industries that K-12 graduates are capable of doing what we expect of each and every graduate.
National standards give us the regular, ongoing benchmarks to ensure we are hitting the academic marks we need to hit throughout the K-12 process.  Effective data systems — such as those being built in some states and those advocated for by the Obama administration through the economic stimulus process — provide us the information and the research necessary to ensure our kids are hitting those marks, while providing teachers the guidance on necessary interventions and needed steps to bring all students up to proficiency.  And meaningful, rigorous graduation exams, administered at the close of the high school experience, are the final measure to ensure the impact and effectiveness of that K-12 education.
This is not an either-or-maybe scenario.  We need the national standards, the data systems, the exit exams — and the policymakers, administrators, and teachers who know what to do with it all — if we are to regain our competitive edge and restore real value to a high school diploma.
If we are to deliver real return on investment for our school improvement efforts, we must take assessment and data seriously.  We can’t wait this out and assume it will get better on its own.  We need to get serious now about teaching, measuring, and evaluating the effectiveness of public education.  

Advocating for Meaningful STEM Education

Eduflack Math, NGA, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

Earlier this week, www.ednews.org ran a Commentary from Eduflack on how to advocate for meaningful STEM education, particularly at the state level.  The article was originally found here — ednews.org/articles/33615/1/Advocating-STEM-Education-As-a-Gateway-To-Economic-Opportunity/Page1.html.  Thanks also to Fritz Edelstein and the Fritzwire for spotlighting the piece.

I’ve received a lot of response from folks on the piece, so I thought I would repost the original EdNews piece here, crediting EdNews as the publisher.

Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway To Economic Opportunity

By Patrick R. Riccards

Effectively integrating Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education and its impact on the economic opportunity into the culture is more important today than anyone ever anticipated.Our nation’s recent economic struggles, coupled with concerns about career readiness and 21st century jobs, have refocused our attention on infrastructure – both physical and human.At the heart of rebuilding our nation’s intellectual infrastructure is a STEM-literate society, and students equipped with the STEM skills needed to succeed both in school and career.

But implementing a STEM education effort isn’t as easy as it seems.To some, STEM is a retread of education programs offered decades ago or a recast of vocational education.To others, it is something for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, not for every student.To overcome these obstacles, states and school districts are forced to move into a mode of advocacy and social marketing, effectively linking K-12 education and economy and demonstrating the urgency for improvement to both.

Education improvement no longer happens in a vacuum.Call it communications, advocacy, PR, or social marketing, it all comes down to effective public engagement.For education reform efforts across the nation, ultimate success is more than just educating key constituencies about their cause and goals.True success requires specific action – implementing improvements in partnership with educators and other stakeholders to boost student success, close the achievement gap, and ultimately prepare every student for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century workforce. Such actions require us to move from informing the public to building commitment for a solution, and, finally to mobilizing around specific actions.

Making stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for STEM education is one thing.It is quite another to move the public to the more sophisticated level of informed opinion necessary to reach consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action of investing in a K-12 STEM agenda.But this is how great education reforms move from simply good ideas to great successes.

Before we can get audiences to adopt STEM education efforts and embrace the portfolio of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them aware of the issues at hand.The informing stage makes people aware of the issue, developing a true sense of urgency for change.

While many decisionmakers recognize that there are problems in meeting the coming workforce demands, many do not agree on what those problems may be or what actions might successfully address them.Unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that can be done to fix these problems. Those states that are poised to become leaders in STEM education must convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential employers, state and local policymakers, and the public at large that there are solutions that will work, and solutions their communities can get behind and support.

Ultimately, we do this by showing the enormous need for reforms in “schools like mine, in classes like mine, with kids like mine.” By focusing on past successes and proven-effective methods, educators can demonstrate the critical role STEM plays in our schools, economy, and community, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand the serious risks they face simply accepting the status quo. Thanks to groups like the National Governors Association (and a number of forward-thinking states) and the National Math and Science Initiative, such efforts are well underway.


Next, we shift into phase two — building commitment.Once parents, educators, and policymakers recognize the problem, they are ready to commit to a meaningful solution.Transforming a general need for improvement into a public call to arms for STEM education requires understanding that these solutions are the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

Inevitably, some people will reject proposed reforms. Some will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that come from choosing a specific plan of action. Opponents will try to poke holes in specific reforms. The best way to avoid this resistance is to ensure that everyone is involved in the process and that all of their concerns have been heard.

After moving beyond initial resistance, stakeholders begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.Decisionmakers need to feel that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.Successful advocacy clarifies the pros and cons of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation.In Colorado, for instance, STEM leaders are working with business leaders and the P-20 Council to explore opportunities and make specific choices to meet the state’s educational and economic needs.

With that, we are finally ready to move to phase three — mobilizing for action.Changing attitudes and informing the debate is not enough. STEM education succeeds when policymakers and community leaders are actively supporting its solutions.Once our target audiences are engaged because they believe in the merits of our position, they will need to know what we want them to do to help accomplish these goals.So it is important that our communications and organizing efforts include specific actions – ideally actions that are easy and feasible – that supporters can take to help reach overall goals.

If history tells us anything, we know the public may agree that reform efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt specific recommendations.This is
temporary, though.Given time, incentives, and opportunities to consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, stakeholders can reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of the importance of improving education opportunity for all.Now is the best time to make sure that there is a role for everyone to play in education improvement, giving stakeholders the tools and information needed to move themselves and others from awareness to action.

Education is an industry as driven by emotion as it is by fact.As a result, too often, stakeholders decide that inaction is the best action, out of fear of taking a wrong step or alienating a specific group. That is why too many groups, causes, and reforms struggle to develop true public engagement efforts that affect real outcomes.That’s where the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action model comes into play, offering education leaders one of the most effective methods to implement meaningful education solutions. Applying this model to STEM efforts is critical and will offer long-term impacts on strengthening our schools, our community, and our economy.

(Patrick R. Riccards is CEO of Exemplar Strategic Communications, an education consultancy, and author of Eduflack, an education reform blog.)

Published February 9, 2009

Moving From One-Way PR to Two-Way Dialogue

Eduflack Gates Foundation, NGA, STEM, Workforce

How do we move from one-way communication to two-way dialogue?  And more importantly, do we need such dialogue if we are to make lasting education improvements?  Those are the questions that Eduflack asked this afternoon to attendees of the National Governors Association’s STEM Policy Academy here in Washington.

The NGA STEM Policy Academy is a fascinating gathering of stakeholders and influencers in statewide STEM policy.  A year and a half ago, NGA provided six states (Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) with two-year, Gates Foundation-funded grants to implement long-term STEM solutions in their communities.  This week, each state brought approximately 10 of their STEM leaders — representing the governors office, state departments of education, state departments of economic or workforce development, the business community, higher education, and K-12 — to share their lessons learned to date and help encourage and invigorate the states as they near their two-year reporting deadline.  (For more on NGA’s STEM efforts, check out www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.1f41d49be2d3d33eacdcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=b1da18bd4bae0110VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD)  
The energy among the group is fantastic, particularly since so many of them are focused on the long-term (think 10 years) versus just the two years in the grant.  Yes, folks are conducting sustainability discussions, even in this economy.
It was heartening that the NGA STEM states are asking the right communications questions.  How does the governor use the bully pulpit to advocate for STEM when he or she is equally passionate about pursuing additional education and workforce development issues?  What is the overarching message? Who do they need to communicate to?  Who does the communicating?  How much communication is needed to succeed?
As Eduflack has written here many times before, one of the great misperceptions about effective communications is that it is simply one-way public relations.  Send out a press release, issue a report, distribute a brochure, and declare mission accomplished.  In reality, the mission is just beginning.  Such one-way communications are simply tools for informing, ways to raise awareness of a specific issue.  The real communications effort comes after the informing phase, as we look to build networks to effectively engage the community and then to mobilize those networks to bring about real change.
For these STEM states, and countless other states seeking education improvements, effective communications becomes a game of multiples.  Multiple stakeholders reaching multiple audiences with multiple messages and multiple tactics achieving multiple objectives and reaching multiple goals.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution.  There is no silver bullet.  It requires real, ongoing, integrated work.
Why is this game of multiples so important?  For a number of reasons.
1) Education reforms no longer happen in vacuums.  There are multiple players involved in the process. For STEM to succeed, policymakers must join together with K-12 and higher education and the business community, among others.
2) Education improvement is rapidly becoming a state-level game.  Don’t let the increased federal investment in education, as reflected in the economic stimulus package, fool you.  Much of that money is being distributed through block grants.  It falls to the states (the governors and the state departments of education, in particular) to put those funds to good use.  That means collaboration at the state level, both in government and through public/private partnerships.
3) It also means collaboration at the local level.  The majority of NGA STEM states are pursuing regional networks to implement policy.  These regional networks are taking state goals and state objectives, and implementing them through the lens of local realities.  With STEM, in particular, how are we using changes at the K-12 and postsecondary levels to meet the specific needs of local employers?  That’s the million-dollar (or more) question.
4) Effective STEM communications requires simplifying the complex.  STEM is a complicated issue, culminating in the intersection of K-12, higher education, workforce development, and community engagement.  Despite popular belief, all students benefit from STEM education, not just the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons.  And STEM literacy has an effect on the economy, the justice system, healthcare, and the environment, to name just a few.  Taking all of that and putting it on a bumper sticker is no easy task.  We need to keep it simple if it is to touch the lives of all it can and should reach.
5) Successful communication requires multiple touches.  The brain is a funny thing.  We need to hear the same message seven or eight times before it registers in our memory banks.  That means hearing about the impact of STEM from our employer, our kids’ teacher, our church, our neighbors, and our volunteer groups.  it means hearing why it is important from the student, the teacher, and the workforce perspective.  And it means hearing it in person, in print, online, and through public events.  Once we are sick of hearing the STEM message, it means it is finally sinking in and success is within reach.
The STEM states are making real progress in developing the policies necessary to move STEM into the core of our education and our economy.  Minnesota’s STEM website, Colorado’s STEM-apolooza, and Pennsylvania’s upcoming podcasts are strong tactics to move us toward successful communication.  The challenge now is wrapping it all together with long-term strategic communications. 
STEM efforts, like other education improvements, are only true successes when others know what we’ve done, why we’ve done it, and the impact it has on the stakeholders involved.  We need to know our return on investment.  it may be a bit crass, but if we don’t effectively “sell” our education improvements, they will never achieve their full purpose nor will the maximize their true opportunities.
NGA has long made communications a non-negotiable as part of its grant programs.  Strategic communications should be a non-negotiable in any school improvement effort.  it’s the only way to share best practice and to build upon the promise of our forward progress.  The STEM states are learning that.  And there is likely much they can teach others in the long term.
  

Getting All Educationny at The Washington Post

Eduflack AFT, DCPS, early childhood education, Michelle Rhee, NGA, Students

We all recognize that 2008 was a relative no-go for education issues.  With political campaigns, mortgage bailouts, and economic crises, education improvement just failed to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, nor did it warrant the attention of the average newspaper editor.  Yesterday’s announcement that Denver Public Schools Chief Michael Bennet was a good start to the education year.  Today’s Washington Post is even better.  Not one, not two, but three articles in the A section of WaPo related to education and education improvement.

Exhibit A: On the national/state front, WaPo reports on efforts by a group of Democratic governors to secure $1 trillion in economic stimulus for the states.  Why the interest?  In addition to the money we’ve already been hearing about for school construction, this plan includes $250 billion “in flexible education spending to maintain funding for programs from pre-kindergarten to higher education,” Robin Shulman writes.  That means we have the majority of governors standing up, asking for the funds needed to provide our classrooms with the instructional materials, technology, and teacher supports necessary to get the job done.  As Eduflack has written here before, funding for books and computers and technology are often the first to go in a budget crisis, seen as non-essential while supes look to pay teacher salaries and keep the lights on and the buses running.  Our states need help to keep school improvement efforts, moving forward.  Now the governors are asking (as has AASA and AFT, among others).  The full story is here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202277.html?hpid=topnews
Exhibit”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202277.html?hpid=topnews
Exhibit B: On the local front, Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools Chief Jack Dale is sticking to his guns and fighting to save the strict grading policy the school district has in place.  Parents have been leading a valiant effort to try and weaken Fairfax County’s current system and move to a 10-point scale (meaning an A is earned with a 90-100 score, versus Fairfax’s current 94-100).  In an era where we need tougher standards and measures to ensure all students are competing, making it easier for kids to get As is not the answer.  Watering down grading scales to ensure college admittance or to better chances at scholarships is not the answer.  It is far easier to go along with parent demands and the policies of neighboring school districts.  Dale is standing firm, recognizing that achievement and high standards are important.  The full story is here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202430.html  And it has Eduflack wondering if we need a national grading scale to accompany those national standards our schools could benefit from.
Exhibit C: Education improvement, embodied in Colbert King’s latest and greatest.  Like many, King opines about Michelle Rhee and her efforts as top dog of DC Public Schools.  As we all know, the reigning 2008 Core Knowledge Blog Education Person of the Year has been getting a lot of national media attention, including the network evening news and a Time magazine cover.  But King asks a question that Eduflack has also previously raised.  Who ultimately pays the price for Rhee’s showdown with DC teachers?  I worry about her ability to work with the teachers she needs to enact her reforms after she tries to destroy their local union and their collective voice.  King worries about the long-term on DC’s students.  One has to appreciate Rhee’s zeal in moving forward with her improvement plans and doing what it takes to get them in place.  But one can’t forget the teachers who determine whether such efforts are a success or failure, nor can one ignore the impact on the students we are ultimately trying to help.  King reminds us of this, and his full column can be found here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202078.html?hpid=opinionsbox1  
Lots of issues to get the intellectual juices flowing.  What does it tell us?  The real action on the education improvement front is likely to happen at the state or the school district level, evidenced by the Dem governors call for funding and Jack Dale’s fight to save his grading scale.  
And we are again reminded that personality can get in the way of good policy.  Rhee has built a real cult of personality around herself and her plans for DCPS.  That can be helpful in the early days of an administration, as you try to give some context and some understanding for reforms.  But it can get dangerous when we can’t separate the voice from the rhetoric.  We’ve learned that time and again in both politics and education.  The best of plans fail because we can’t separate a controversial personality from a terrific idea.

Hiding High School Graduation Standards?

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, High School, national standards, NGA, Spellings

In case you missed it (and you likely did, based on timing), the U.S. Department of Education finally released its non-regulatory guidance regarding a uniform national high school graduation rate.  Readers may recall that EdSec Spellings announced the federal government’s intent to adopt the four-year graduation rate established years ago by the National Governors Association, agreed to by all 50 states soon after, and adopted by many states already.  Well, on Christmas Eve’s Eve, ED decided to offer some of the specifics around the new grad rate.

The highlights, according to ED itself:
* Defines the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, and the transitional graduation rates that are allowable until States must implement the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
* Guides States in setting a single graduation rate goal and annual graduation rate targets
* Outlines requirements for reporting graduation rates
* Answers questions about how States include the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate in AYP determinations, including the use of disaggregated rates for student subgroups
* Explains how a State must revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook to include certain information and submit its revisions to the Department for technical assistance and peer review
* Clarifies the timeline for implementing the new graduation rate provisions, as well as the process for how a State that cannot meet the deadlines outlined in the final regulations may request, from the Secretary, an extension of time to meet the requirements.
Thanks to the FritzWire for drawing attention to the announcement.  The full non-regs can be found at: www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf
Don’t get Eduflack wrong.  I’m thrilled ED has gone and endorsed the NGA formula.  They should have done so years ago.  I also recognize that ED is using an awful lot of words and “non-regulatory” language to describe what should be a simple concept.  At the end of the day, the federal government is saying a high school graduation rate is measured based on how many ninth graders complete their secondary school education four years later.  Obvious exceptions are made for transfers and deaths and such, but high school is a four-year experience, and the measurement is a four-year yardstick.
No, what troubles me is the timing.  At no time in our nation’s history is a secondary (and some form of postsecondary) education as important and necessary as it is today.  Under virtually no circumstances should we say it is acceptable for any student to drop out of high school.  Dropping out simply is not a viable option.  This new formula is a big deal, with major implications for the states and for the nation.  We need an accurate count of how many kids are graduating high school on time (and then we need to determine why the rest are not).  So why dump it during a holiday week when no one is paying attention?
Years ago, Eduflack was doing crisis communications work for a manufacturing company.  We had a big story coming out, a story we didn’t want to see in print.  We couldn’t control the story, but we did have some control over the timing.  Through some creative issue management, the article ran in a major daily newspaper the Sunday following Thanksgiving.  Few read the story.  The issue was forgotten before the post-holiday work week had ramped up.  It died a quick death in the natural news cycle.  The lesson here — there are good times to release important news, and good times to bury news of concern.  Thirty-six hours before Christmas simply isn’t the time to garner the attention of the populace, or even just the education policy chattering class.
And that’s a cryin’ shame.  The move to establish a common high school graduation rate is an important step forward in the discussion of national standards and student equity.  It puts all high school schools on a level playing field, letting parents, policymakers, and decisionmakers truly see what schools are doing their jobs, where the true dropout factories are, and who is hiding behind a mound of disaggregated data.
I’ve been hard on the EdSec for sitting out much of 2008, shying away from the controversial issues and losing grasp of what could have been a positive legacy of education improvement for this Administration.  Her announcement earlier this year to embrace a universal high school graduation rate was a moment of strength and of power.  Unfortunately, the potential has again been squandered, lost amid a pile of Christmas wrappings and end-of-the-year lists of who’s hot and who’s not.  If this guidance couldn’t be released in early December, it should have been held for the new year.  It should have been released when education reporters were in the office, ed bloggers were updating their postings, and policy websites were getting their usual traffic.
A Christmas Eve’s Eve dump does a disservice to those states who have already adopted the universal grad rate, and paid the price because it dropped their numbers virtually overnight.  It does a disservice to those who have been fighting for high school improvement and for national performance standards.  And it does a disservice to ED and the EdSec, who again score well on intent but struggle with the execution.
Is it too much to ask for ED to maximize the bully pulpit it possesses?  Is it too much to think major policy issues and efforts to improve our schools deserve the spotlight, and not simply a midnight release as the last person turns out the lights over at Maryland Avenue?        

·   

From Under the Eduflack Tree

Eduflack AFT, Arne Duncan, early childhood education, ELL, IES, national standards, NCLB, NGA, STEM

I admit it, Eduflack is a sucker for Christmas.  As a kid, I used to stay up all night, just waiting for Christmas morning to come.  Now, there is nothing I like more than giving gifts to the Edu-family.  Each year, I tend to go a little overboard, receiving more than my share of reprimands from Eduwife for my “generosity.”  This season is sure to be no different.

The good thing about the blogsphere is that words are (virtually) free.  So I can’t help but offer up a few virtual gifts or best wishes for the holidays for those who were good little boys and girls this past year.
To EdSec in-waiting Arne Duncan and the incoming U.S. Department of Education, an Office of Communications and Outreach that is proactive and engaging.  Now is the time to seize the bully pulpit, engage key stakeholders, and promote the need for school improvement and the avenues by which we achieve it.  That doesn’t get done through press conferences and reports.  Duncan and ED need to get innovative, using new communication vehicles, new communication channels, and new ideas to build an army of support for real, meaningful school improvement.
To the Institute of Education Sciences, a new director with a sharper mission about engaging practitioners and policymakers on research.  IES is meant to be the R&D arm of the U.S. Department of Education.  We don’t need more discussion between researchers, debating which ivory tower is more effective on which research issue.  IES should build a national dialogue on education research, committing itself to providing data (and how to use it) to the practitioners in the field.  Don’t settle for anything less than becoming the Consumer Reports or the Good Housekeeping seal for education research.
To DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, a velvet glove.  I appreciate her take-no-prisoners approach to improving education in our nation’s capital, and I applaud her willingness to buck the status quo and do whatever she sees necessary.  But she can’t neglect what she’ll be left with when the dust settles.  It is fine to demand more from your teachers.  But you need to treat them with general respect, rather than tagging them all as the lowest common denominator.  Win over the teachers (and the teachers union), and you’ll have the hearts and minds of the schools and the city itself.
To Randi Weingarten and the AFT, an unprecedented opportunity.  The Obama Administration has made clear that teachers — particularly their training, recruitment, and retention — is at the top of the education improvement wish list.  If that’s to happen, teachers need a clear, powerful voice to break through the white noise and effectively advocate for good teachers and good teaching.  AFT is nimble enough, reform-minded enough, and innovative enough to be that voice.  The coming year provides a unique opportunity to remind all stakeholders that there is no more important investment than that of effective classroom instruction.  And it all starts with the teacher.  Someone needs to give those teachers a voice during such a debate, and that someone is the AFT.  Seize the opportunity.
To the National Governors Association’s Dane Linn and his Education Division, the spotlight.  In many ways, NGA is the workhorse of education improvement organizations.  They are in the mix on most major issues.  They give and receive grants.  And they provide great intellectual leadership on key issues, including high school reform, STEM, literacy, national standards, and the like.  But they often get the backseat when it comes to media attention and recognition beyond those in the know.  Eduflack always favors the workhorse over the showhorse, but NGA has earned its ring of roses these days.
To the next education governor, a bold plan.  Virtually every governor declares him or herself as the next education governor.  Behind this rhetoric is often little follow through.  By now, we should realize that the truly great education improvements are not going to happen at the federal level.  They are going to occur at the state level, led by governors who see how improved P-20 education leads to improved economic opportunity.  Those governors who effectively connect educational pathways to economic prosperity will be the ones who persevere the current economic situation and leave a lasting mark on their schools.
To Kati Haycock and Education Trust, a continued drumbeat.  Many believe that EdTrust hitched its star onto No Child Left Behind, and that such a move would ultimately come with a price.  As we prepare to move into NCLB 2.0, reauthorization, and a new Administration, EdTrust is in the catbird seat when it comes to advocating for student achievement and school improvement.  Haycock and company have long focused on the end game of the students.  NCLB was a means for that.  It wasn’t an end to it.  Continue to keep an eye on the end result, and EdTrust will continue to drive this debate.
To the U.S. Congress, a reauthorized NCLB.  There is no need to put off what needs to be done now.  NCLB needs improvement.  Senator Kennedy, Congressman Miller, Congressman McKeon, and others have put forward ideas for improving the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  EdSec Designate Duncan wants a federal law of his own, one that reflects his goals and the priorities of the Obama Administration.  Let’s reauthorize the law now, proudly proclaiming a national commitment to improved student achievement, improved teaching, improved data collection, and the supports needed to deliver all of the above.
To STEM advocates, a moment in the spotlight.  Those who read Eduflack know I am a strong advocate for science-technology-engineering-math education efforts.  STEM is a complex topic with the potential for real impact on our schools and our economy.  It isn’t just for rocket scientists and brain surgeons.  As more and more states ramp up STEM efforts and more non-profits support STEM initiatives, I wish them the headlines and communication channels to ensure their good work gets the good attention it deserves.  Without the right advocacy and the right communications, the STEM star may soon burn out, before it has fulfilled its true potential.
To the education advocacy community, a better appreciation for effective communication.  For far too many, effective communication is a one-way activity, where we share information with others and hope they put it to use.  You’ve heard it hear before, but information-sharing is merely the first step to effective communication.  Our goal should not be to simply inform.  Our goal is to change thinking and change public behavior.  That means communications efforts that focus on stakeholder engagement and real measures of success. A clip packet is not a measure of effective communication.
To the education blog community, some ideas to go along with our rocks.  It is very easy to shout against the wind or to throw rocks against that which we don’t like.  Eduflack has been blogging for almost two years now, and I’m constantly amazed by the number of people who look to the education blogs for information and how ideas quickly circulate through education’s online community.  We need to use that power for good.  Yes, it is important to be a watchdog and to keep those in power in check.  But we also need to use these forums for good — for sharing information, offering up solutions, and spotlighting best practices and the good in school improvement.  I can promise you it’ll be one of my New Year’s resolutions.  I hope others will join me.
My scroll of gifts is curling over.  I hope stockings are filled for the advocates of scientifically based reading and early childhood education and ELL and national standards and real school innovations.  I hope the agitators and the improvers and t
he innovators receive the best of holiday tidings.  And I hope the status quoers see a guiding light this holiday season, recognizing that our schools need real improvement, and that we should stop at nothing until every fourth grader is reading at grade level, every student is graduating high school and is graduating college ready, and every teacher has the training and ongoing support necessary to deliver the high-quality education every student needs and deserves.  ‘Tis the season, after all.

The Rigors of High School Rigor

Eduflack High School, NGA

For years now, we have been talking about the need to focus on improved rigor in secondary instruction.  Rigor has long been a core component of the Gates Foundation redesign philosophy, and many reformers have signed onto the notion that if secondary (and postsecondary) education is as important as it is in today’s economy and today’s society, and we are going to push more kids to acquire that education, we need to make a diploma or a degree as worthwhile as possible.

The urban legend is that kids drop out of high school because high school is too hard.  The data, though, finds that simply is not the case.  Students drop out because they don’t see the point.  They drop out because they don’t see how school aligns with their goals or their dreams.  And, yes, they drop out because they don’t feel stimulated or pushed during their secondary school experience.
So what can we do to make high school a little more relevant and a little more rigorous?  A new report from the National Governors Association (hat tip to Eduwonk, of course), offers a glimpse of some of the promising practice coming out of states like Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.  The full policy brief can be found here — www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0810IMPROVEINSTRUCTION.PDF.  
The great takeaway?  Three specific policy recommendations for boosting consistent rigor in our high schools:
1.  Align courses with challenging academic standards (while offering more consistent course expectations)
2.  Include end-of-course exams in a comprehensive assessment system
3.  Provide teachers extended professional development that integrates with both instruction and assessment
These sorts of policy briefs are important to forwarding the dialogue on education reform because they both point to promising practice while informing us on that with good intentions, yet limited impact.  Pilots such as the NGA’s demonstrate the need for strong research methodology, the demand for implementation fidelity, and the strength to admit when such efforts don’t work out as intended.  As a result, NGA shows us the need to get teachers more enthused for professional development opportunities and to better see the value of PD crosswalked with instructional improvements.  And it shows us the constant struggle of both data collection and the construction of effective assessment systems.
More than anything, though, it speaks to the growing need for the trifecta of stronger academic standards, effective assessment systems to measure students against those standards, and the knowledgebase to use those student assessments to improve instruction, achievement, and teacher development.
At the end of the day, the question is not what is in the Policy Brief or the outcomes in the three specific states.  The real question we must ask is what we do with this sort of data.  How do we take these lessons learned and apply them to similar reform efforts occurring in the remaining 47 states?  What are we doing to continue efforts in Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania and to improve the fidelity of implementation?  What do we do to ultimately make all high schools — regardless of demographic, graduation rate, or college-going rate — more rigorous?

Failing to Meet Our Parents’ Expectations

Eduflack early college, Gates Foundation, High School, national standards, NGA, PR, Students

Earlier this month, we had the American Council on Education release data showing that today’s students are attaining less education than their parents.  At the time, I took that to mean that many students stopping at their BAs have parents with advanced degrees, the kids of BA parents are wrapping up at the associates level, and some children of college grads are settling for just a high school diploma.

Over the past decade, particularly over the past three or so years, it seemed pretty clear to Eduflack that there was universal agreement, at least among adults, that a high school diploma was a non-negotiable in today’s world.  I’ve even say that every student requires some form of postsecondary education — be it training program, community college, or four-year degree — if they are to compete and succeed in the 21st century economy.  We may say it, but the Education Trust’s latest report is enough to send a chill down my eduspine.
If you’ve missed it, CNN.com has the story — beta.cnn.com/2008/US/10/24/dropout.rate.ap/index.html.  The headline says it all.  Kids are less likely to graduate than their parents.  What the headline is missing, but the lede provides, is that we are now talking about HIGH SCHOOL.  Today, in 2008, teenagers are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were.  And according to the EdTrust numbers, one in four kids is dropping out of high school, a number than has held steady for a half-decade now.
This story should be a punch in the gut to all of those who have been working on high school reform efforts for the past decade.  After all of the time and money and attention and effort that the Gates Foundation and the Alliance for Excellent Education and Jobs for the Future and the National High School Alliance and others have poured into improving the high school experience, we still haven’t convinced our young people that a high school diploma is a worthwhile goal.
Yesterday, we heard the EdSec talk about the importance of a common high school graduation rate, so we know where every state stands when it comes to handing out the diplomas.  Alliance President Bob Wise likened it to Fedex, providing us real-time data to understand where every student is along the continuum.  But according to EdTrust, even when we let each state set their own rates (and some set the bar awfully low), only half of states are hitting the mark.  Once every state adopts the NGA formula mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, state grad rates are likely to fall in the short term (and not just hold) in a great number of states.  It becomes hard to hide behind the data when you don’t get to set the data collection terms.
Don’t worry, I am not hear to rant (or to continue to rant) about what we need to do to make high school more rigorous or relevant or how to better capture data.  We have enough of that information from those individuals and organizations that have dedicated their work lives to the process.  One just has to look at a state like Ohio, both through its OHSTI and ECHS efforts, to see how you improve the secondary school experience.
No, the EdTrust data isn’t a clarion call for yet another round of ideas on high school reform or redesign.  Instead, it is a clear and unquestioned alert that we need to do a better job communicating with today’s young people.
Speak to many involved in high school redesign efforts, and they will talk about their work with school administrators, teachers, and state policymakers.  They’ll talk about the role of the business community.  Some may even mention a parent or a member of the clergy.  But when it comes to talking about primary audiences for high school reform, we often take students — the end user and ultimate customer — for granted.
All the reform and improvement in the world doesn’t mean squat if the student doesn’t see the value and importance of it.  And the only way we can effectively communicate that value is to communicate with the students themselves.
Are kids dropping out because class is too hard or because it is too boring?  Are they dropping out to pursue a job opportunity or because they want out of school?  Are classes fun and interesting?  Do they have career plans?  Are they getting classes that align with those career plans?  Do they know what it takes to secure the job they want?  What do they deem a good job?  Are they engaging with their teachers?  Are they using technology?  Do they see high school dropouts who are succeeding?  Who are they getting advice from?  What’ll it take to keep them in the classroom?
Over the years, Eduflack has done more than his share of focus groups with high school students.  Each time, I am surprised by how we underestimate them and their views on the value of education.  Often, these sessions are the first time a 15-year-old has been asked by an adult what their goals are and how they get there.  I’ve spoken with kids in some of the poorest areas in our nation, urban and rural, and I can tell you one thing — every kid knows dropping out simply isn’t an option.  They know it is a wasted opportunity.  And they know it means a future of struggle.
So what do we do about it?  As a nation, we have invested billions of dollars into high school redesign efforts, working to improve instruction, delivery, measurement, rigor, and relevance in our secondary schools.  We’ve made great strides.  But the EdTrust numbers and last year’s study on dropout factories tells us we still have a long way to go.  
We don’t need more redesign.  We need a better sales job.  We need state policymakers and superintendents to better understand what works, both to increase the grad rate and boost student achievement on the state exams.  We need teachers to better understand how to relate to today’s students, connecting lessons in chemistry or history or English to student interests and student desires.  But most importantly, we need to sell students on the notion that this is just the first major step down the path they want to take, that they need to take.
Students need to better understand that secondary and postsecondary education are requirements for a good job in this economy.  Students need to know dropping out is never a viable choice.  Students need to know the career and life options before them, and the education required to get them there.  Students need to be challenged, both in terms of curriculum and its delivery.  Students need choices and options, whether they be honor students or struggling learners.  Students need to value a high school diploma as much as their parents or grandparents do.
It is easy to lecture at a kid and tell them this is important.  It is even easy to inform them on why they need to stay in school and why they need to take their education seriously.  And it is somewhat comforting to know that we don’t need to overly worry about three out of every four students out there.  But for that remaining 25%, we need to take bold action to change their minds and change their behavior.  We need to get them to stay in school.  That doesn’t come by changing the drop-out age to 18 or mandating exit exams for all.  That comes from communicating the value and need of secondary instruction.  That comes from engaging today’s kids (and often before they get to high school).  It comes from selling kids on school and their future.  
We may think we are doing it, but the data shows we clearly are not.  Instead of communicating with students, we are speaking past them.  We need big change, at least when it comes to the attitudes of young people.  Without it, our schools, our economy, and our nation will never live up to the sta
ndard we set or the potential we have.