reform

Reforming Education Reform

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, charter schools, equity, Parents, reform

Earlier this week, the Fordham Institute’s Robert Pondiscio wrote of “The Left’s drive to push conservatives out of education reform.” As Pondiscio notes:

Like the proverbial frog in a pot, education reformers on the political right find themselves coming to a slow boil in the cauldron of social justice activism. At meetings like New Schools Venture Fund and Pahara (a leadership development program run by the Aspen Institute), conservative reformers report feeling unwelcome, uncomfortable, and cowed into silence. There is an unmistakable and increasingly aggressive orthodoxy in mainstream education reform thought regarding issues of race, class, and gender. And it does not include conservative ideas.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. In response, Justin Cohen and a number of self-described white education reform leaders offered in an open letter:

We must admit the extraordinary flaws and shortsightedness in our own leadership for letting the field become so lopsidedly white through the early 2000s. In under-representing the communities that we hoped to serve, particularly people of color, in the leadership and decision-making processes of reform, we created a movement that lacked the ability to drive durable change.

As a recovering “white education reform leader,” I’ve actually spent a far amount of time thinking about these very issues over the past three or four years. On the specific issue, Pondiscio is correct in one important regard. Education reform is stronger when it has all political views and all ideological perspectives on the team. For every one of the anonymous conservatives he quotes in his piece, there also needs to be reformers coming from the Democrats for Education Reform side and the social justice community.

But the point Cohen makes, and it is a point that was first and strongly stoked by Leading Educators’ Jonas Chartock on his Facebook page soon after the Pondiscio piece was published, is that education reform needs to be about far more than the market-driven solutions Pondiscio writes about. It can’t be about conservatives and the wealthy funders supporting the “cause” feeling uncomfortable. It needs to be about the kids and communities that are yearning for such a solution.

During my reform days, I described this as the hearts versus minds phenomenon. Too many ed reformers are focused on the latter, believing that if one dazzles with facts and figures, and shows strong enough Excel spreadsheets of data to those resisting, that reform will happen. The data-driven, market-focused approach to reform leaves many focused on the operational and systemic sides of school improvement. We argue about school structure, and why a school should be chartered and how it should be stripped of the teachers’ unions. We call for stronger teacher evaluation tied to student test scores. We use the term equity mainly when tied to the concept of school funding, largely when it comes to comparing traditional public schools to charters. We try to position ourselves as the smartest people in the room, believing that if we use enough of that data, even the strongest of opponents will have to come to his or her senses and see our way is the only way.

But school improvement isn’t that simple, and it certainly isn’t that clean. Ultimately, the theory of change is about very real children, families, and communities, and not about columns and rows in a spreadsheet. It’s about taking financial resources from already under-resources public schools to give them to charters who had previously promised to deliver a better education for fewer dollars. It’s about attacking teachers unions, while trying to enlist parents who themselves are in labor unions and trying to convince good teachers to go to the very schools we’ve labeled as failing and hopeless. And its about believing stronger numbers and market-driven solutions can wipe away generations of institutional racism and inequities, even when we may use the term “urban” students because we are uncomfortable talking specifically about Black and brown kids.

In acknowledging their own shortcomings, Cohen et al (and I’d throw Eduflack on that list as well), admit that, as reformers, we have failed the families and communities we have purported to be fighting for. While reform has helped provide safer learning environments for many kids, and has provided greater educational opportunities for those involved, it at best mitigates some of the social obstacles so many face today. To believe that improved school opportunities for some addresses the problems of poverty and racism for far more is a line of thinking that none of us can actual subscribe to.

When I was leading a state-based education reform organization, I worked hard with the leaders of local churches to ensure their voices were heard in the legislative debate. One weekend, on the Saturday before Easter, I was in the basement of a particular church, talking to a group of pastors. As we were talking about next steps, the Bishop present turned to me and said, “You know what your problem is, you’re white.” And he was absolutely correct. No matter all that I knew, no matter how much data I came armed with,  no matter how convincing and eloquent I might be, it was far easier for me to talk it than it was to live it. I would never experience what the parents and kids I was advocating for experience on a daily basis.

After that gathering, the pastors asked what I wanted from them. I went in prepared to tell them I needed their help to advocate for my agenda. But after having spent that morning listening to their concerns, my response was quite different. I told them something like, “It would be presumptuous of me to tell you what is best for your congregants. So I’m not going to do that. I would just ask that you get involved. Have your voices heard. While I’d love for those voices to agree with me, it is far more important that you be a part of this process.”

And they were. In united voice, a voice last heard in the state during the fair housing debates a few decades prior, those pastors and their congregants made clear what was the best path for education in the state. And change happened as a result.

My proudest moment from that time was being witness to those pastors and the leadership they displayed.

Looking back on that time, I wish I had done more to demonstrate the equity and understanding I often preached. I wish I had been stronger, particularly about how we built our movement. I wish I had focused more on the people and the hearts of the community, and less on the data and trying to be the smartest in the room. And I wish I could pretend that racism and poverty were something that could be eliminated by a bill signing or an ad campaign.

Chartock, Cohen, and others have engaged in an important discussion, and one that needs to continue. Until the reform community is clear on WHY it is advocating reform, what it hopes to achieve, and who it serves, we can bring the true change we are seeking. I applaud them for publicly stating what many of us have been telling ourselves for years.

Now what can I do?

A Surprising Backer of “Fair Share”

Eduflack AFT, NEA, reform, teachers, Uncategorized

As just about everyone engaged in education policy knows, today the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Friedrichs v California Teachers Association. For those who need the Cliffnotes, the case is about whether a public union (California’s NEA affiliate) can require those who choose not to be union members to still pay agency fees for the collective bargaining benefits they receive.

Or even more simply, if you are a school teacher who chooses not be part of the teachers union, should you have to help pay some of the costs for all of the work that goes into negotiating your salary and benefits and that provides you the job guarantees you expect, whether you hold a union card or not?

Longtime readers of Eduflack would probably assume that I come down on the side of Friedrichs, joining with many other reformers in a supposed effort to stand up to the unions. But you’d be wrong.

I believe in the “fair share” arguments that the CTA and their supporters are making. I believe in the editorial stance that the Los Angeles Times took this morning. I believe that since Friedrichs benefits, she should pay her fair share for the collective bargaining rights she enjoys. She doesn’t have to pay the full freight of being a union member if she doesn’t want to, but we have to acknowledge that fair is fair.

My reasoning for such is simple, and quite personal. Twenty five years or so ago, I watched as my mother, and NEA member and high school teacher in West Virginia, walked the picket lines for better pay and better rights for teachers. Most of her fellow educators walked with her, as did most of the educators across the entire state. They did so against great threat. Striking teachers were told they would not be paid. They were told they would be punished for their actions. They were sued in court.

In my mother’s school, there were two or three teachers who chose not to strike, as is their right. They went into school each day during the strike, sitting in empty classrooms and drinking coffee. These teachers would be paid. And then they would receive the pay increases, improved benefits, and greater protections that the striking teachers fought so hard for.

None of the risk, all of the reward. Those teachers who chose to cross the picket lines of their fellow teachers were in a win-win. They didn’t jeopardize their careers, nor did they have to wonder how they were going to pay their rent that month. And then they received all of the benefits that they themselves refused to ask for. They got it because the teachers union negotiated it. Everyone benefits or no one does. That’s what a union and collective bargaining is all about.

At the time, my mother explained to my younger sisters the importance of unions and of collective bargaining. Her father was a lifelong member of the Teamsters. After dropping out of high school, he joined the Army. The Army taught him to drive a truck. And the Teamsters turned that skill into a profession. Because of his union, he was able to provide for his family of seven. When he cast a vote as a Teamster, it was always what was best for the group, not what may be best for him personally. They were a brotherhood, believing a rising tide lifted all boats.

I realize that many believe the Court will side with Friedrichs and determine that “fair share” is unfair for those not wanting to be in the union. I hope that isn’t the case. Yes, it is the right of every worker to determine whether they want to be full members of a public union or not. Yes, it is the right of a teacher to not want to pay for lobbying or political activities if they choose so. But it is also the obligation of that teacher, if he or she benefits from collective bargaining, to pay their fair share of the costs of said bargaining.

 

Attacking #edreform and Progress, No Matter How Ridiculous

Eduflack Achievement gap, NEA, reform, technology

Throughout the years, I’ve heard a lot of ridiculous statements made in efforts to thwart education reform initiatives and to block efforts designed to provide all kids with access to a world-class public education.

I’ve heard legislators say it isn’t their problem because they represent districts without black and brown kids. I’ve heard the business community say we don’t want to give kids too many high-level skills, out of fear that they won’t be satisfied working in a blue-collar job for three or four decades. I’ve heard teachers tell parents to “sit down and shut up,” saying they had no business being part of discussion of education reform. And I’ve heard parents waxing eloquently about just going back to the “good ol’ days.” Yes, I’ve heard it all.

And I’ve also said my fair share of hyperbolic statements, of attacks on those who didn’t necessarily deserve to be attacked. Of making policy fights personal. All in the name of progress and improving our public schools.

But my jaw just about hit the floor when I saw an old adversary, former Connecticut State Sen. Don Williams, make the most outrageous of outrageous statements in defense of the status quo. A few years back, Williams retired from the Connecticut General Assembly, taking a job with the Connecticut Education Association. (I’ll be honest, during my years in Connecticut ed reform, I assumed that Williams was already working for the CEA, based on his education positions.)

Earlier this week, as a CEA spokesman, Williams was railing on all things reform. speaking on WNHH radio, and as reported by the New Haven Independent, he held nothing back. Williams attacked testing. He attacked the “corporatization” of our public schools. He attacked the cost of college. And he did all of it, trying to wrap himself in the flag and American and all that is good and holy in the United States. Nothing most of us haven’t heard before.

Then he dropped the following, “Computers create achievement gap.” Yes, the Honorable Don Williams attacked technology and computers in the schools, blaming them for the achievement gaps that have existed well before technology was ever introduced into a public school classroom.

Let’s go through the roster. When it comes to the achievement gap, charter schools are to blame. And private philanthropy. And testing. And Common Core. And poverty, please don’t forget poverty. And now computers are to blame as well.

Are we serious? Does the CEA, and by extension, the National Education Association, really believe that technology is to blame for the achievement gap? Do they agree, as Williams says, that when we “digitize our children” we make it impossible for them to become problem solvers? And does the NEA really believe that today’s urban schools are “drilling and spending time on test prep instead of enrichment?”

I get that we are all trying to score rhetorical points in a battle that should be about what is best for kids. But in a 21st century learning environment, can we honestly say technology is bad for classrooms, particularly for high-need classrooms?

Education technology is the great equalizer. It brings knowledge and resources into classrooms that otherwise would be without. It allows a diverse student body to learn in diverse ways. It ensures we aren’t deskilling and unplugging our 21st century kids. At its very heart, edtech is the answer to our achievement, opportunity, and resource gap problems we seek to solve, not the cause.

The time for blame games needs to come to an end. We have spent too much time, wasted too much breath, and spread too much electronic ink on the negative attack. All the fighting back and forth is doing absolutely nothing to help kids who need  safe, good schools. All the vitriol does zero to close those gaps we speak so much of, and does nothing more than letting just another generation of students fall through the cracks as the adults protect their own interests.

Senator Williams, I’ve seen the power of technology to transform high-need schools and to empower teachers to deliver world-class educations to all students. It’s sad that you and the CEA have now added technology and computers to the enemies list when it comes protecting public education.

Following the CT Charter Money

Eduflack charter schools, Connecticut, reform

Up in Connecticut, they are slogging it out over the future of charter schools. As part of education reforms signed into law in 2012, the most significant school reforms legislated in the state’s history, lawmakers pledged to both increase the number of charter schools and available charter seats. At the same time, they put in place a plan to increase the per-pupil payment to said charter schools, bringing financial commitments closer to the per-pupil costs of the traditional public schools in those cities.

The financial realities set in. In 2014 and again this year, Connecticut has experienced lighter state coffers than anticipated. Reductions in revenue have meant cuts to budgets. And charter schools have been on the block for such cuts.

It is important to note, though, that when the ed reform law was originally passed, there were only 17 charter schools in 10 cities across the state. Those schools educated less than 2 percent of the total K-12 public school population.

Anyone who has followed the education reform battles knows that charter school advocates do not go quietly when their programs are slated for cuts or even freezes. And Connecticut is no different. In today’s Hartford Courant, ed reporter extraordinaire Kathleen Megan, along with Matthew Kauffman, has a great piece that looks at where the charter school funding comes from. In a small state like Connecticut, when millions of dollars is spent to advocate for less than 2 percent of the public school population, following the dollars becomes an important and necessary exercise.

Full disclosure, Eduflack served as CEO of one of the groups that Megan and the Courant write about. In fact, I led the ed reform org when we helped pass those major gains for reforms and overall school improvement. And I led both a 501c3 and a 501c4 in the process.

Those who know Eduflack know I’m never one to shy away from a question. So while it seems the CT ed reform community doesn’t want to talk about the “follow the money” storyline, I was happy to oblige.

Patrick Riccards, a former chief executive officer for ConnCAN, said that when he was there — from 2011 through 2012 — most of the funding came in equal parts from board members, the hedge fund community, and local foundations.

He said that in general many of the same names turn up as contributors to several education reform groups.

For many of those givers with an entrepreneurial leaning, Riccards said, it is far more appealing to fund new schools — charters — than to try to fix failing schools when there is so little agreement about how best to do that.

Riccards, who is now chief communications and strategy officer for the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, said he is convinced that ConnCAN’s donors were “true believers” who were donating funds because they believed they were improving education for children. “They don’t make any money off the schools,” Riccards said. “It’s one of those great urban legends. There’s no grand conspiracy.”

A fair assessment? Read the piece. Check it out. Let me know.
UPDATE: For more on the topic, also check out this piece from the Connecticut Mirror. 

Urban Supes: We Want Greater Accountability

Eduflack accountability, assessment, CCSS, ESEA, high-stakes testing, reform

While all the things that go bump in the night tell us that tests and standards and accountability are responsible for the complete and utter fall of western civilization as we once knew it, a large and impressive group of superintendents (present and former) representing some of the nation’s largest school districts have a different view. They believe strong standards, assessments, and accountability are required if we are to provide all kids with a top-notch school experience.

Over at Education World, I write about how this group of school district leaders is calling on Congress to ensure a great public education for all kids. In asking Congressional leaders not to lose sight of the gains many of their districts made because of accountability measures in place, these educators offer a very simple equation for success. As Eduflack writes, these supes are telling us:

We believe in strong academic standards. We need annual tests in core subjects to determine student progress in meeting those standards. Those test results need to get back to teachers quickly, so they can adjust classroom instruction accordingly. States need to make sure this happens as intended. If it doesn’t, the feds need to step in. That’s how we make sure all kids—regardless of race, family income, or zip code—get a world-class public education.

It’s an important lesson from an impressive list of education leaders on the front lines of school transformation and improvement. I hope you will give it a read.

“Broad”-ening Ed Leadership Opportunities

Eduflack higher ed, reform, Teacher Education, teachers, Woodrow Wilson

As Eduflack has written previously, some research shows that a good school principal can account for 25 percent of a school’s total impact on student achievement. In the education space, we talk a great deal about the importance of having top-notch principals and superintendents and central office personnel in place, but we do so with the same, sometimes lame ed leadership programs serving as their training grounds.

We know that many of these ed leadership graduate degree programs aren’t of the highest quality. We know that many enroll in them just to move up the salary scale and get a bump in pay. And we know that few of these programs are providing aspiring leaders with the skills, knowledge, and support they need to be both the managers and instructional leaders we seek and that so many of our kids need.

It’s one of the reasons I get so excited about the work I’m involved with at the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, where we are now working in three states, and with many more universities, to provide aspiring school and district leaders with a high-impact MBA program for education leaders. I know our model works because I witness the impact. I can see how an MBA path steeped in a strong academic program, an equally robust clinical experience, and multi-year mentoring can transform a great teacher into a tremendous ed leader.

And I get equally excited when I see announcements like I did this week from the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems. For those following from home, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities granted Initial Accreditation to the Broad Center.

This is an important announcement because it demonstrates there is more than one path toward being an effective school leader. Through its Broad Residency in Urban Education, the Broad Center provides a two-year management development program for career-switchers looking to move into top levels of K-12 urban public education systems. They come out of the Broad program with a master’s of education in educational leadership, and now, thanks to WASC, they graduate with an accredited degree, ready to take on the world and help run an urban school system.

Yes, some of the haters will continue to crow about Broad and ask how this could happen. But let’s remember, WASC isn’t a “reform organization.” It is the quasi-governmental body that oversees higher education institution in California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Pacific Basin. It is the West Coast equivalent of NEASC, which oversees the likes of Harvard and MIT. in the Northeast. It is a long-standing, established institution embedded into the very fabric of American higher education.

In granting the Broad Center this important approval, the WASC Educational Effectiveness Review Team, according to Broad, commended The Broad Residency for “a very rich data-driven program of unusual depth,” “reflecting a pervasive spirit of inquiry and a commitment to continuous improvement” and for being “painstaking and comprehensive in its assessment of its programs, residents’ learning and satisfaction during the residency period, and through the residents’ career preparation.”

I get that accreditation decisions rarely grab the headlines and public attention. But let’s not overlook the significance of Broad joining the WASC accreditation club. It is a strong acknowledgement that there are different ways to effectively prepare school leaders, and it is an even stronger nod to the need for new, innovative approaches to educational leadership preparation.

No, this isn’t your grandpa’s ed leader prep program, and that’s a good thing. As our needs continue to change, as our demands continue to grow, and as our hunger for accountability and quality continues to expand, we need better prep mousetraps that truly develop a cadre of diverse, effective ed leaders. This is another step toward that.

Jeb Bush and the Politics of Education Policy

Eduflack CCSS, reading, Reading First, reform

Over at the New Yorker this week, there is a terrific deep dive from Alec MacGillis on former Florida Gov. and potential GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush and his deep work in education reform, both in Florida and nationally.

MacGillis does a great job of really telling the tale of the breadth of Bush’s efforts in education, how his thinking has evolved, and how one action or issue led to his involvement in another. It’s definitely worth the read.

And dear ol’ Eduflack is included in the piece:

Some friends and associates saw personal motivations behind Bush’s initiatives. Patrick Riccards, who, as counsel for the federal government’s National Reading Panel, discussed education reform with Bush, said, “As the father of Hispanic kids, you become far more sensitive to disparities—kids who look like your kids not getting the skills they need or getting into the right colleges.” (Bush’s children attended private schools in Miami and Jacksonville.) Others detected a competitive desire to surpass his brother’s agenda in Texas.

I’m speaking personally in the above. As the father of two Latino kids, talk of achievement gaps grew far more personal to me. It was no longer just a rhetorical point, but it affected my kids and kids just like them. Having engaged some with Jeb over the years, I have to believe it has had the same impact on him. If not, he wouldn’t be as passionate about the topic as he is.

Definitely take the time to read MacGillis’ piece in the New Yorker. There is a lot flying around about Jeb and Common Core, but this is the first piece I’ve seen in a good long while that really takes a thorough look at a complex issue.

Ed Reform Through Litigation

Eduflack accountability, reform, teachers

In yesterday’s New York Times, Michael Shear offers up a piece on how the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill may be looking to the courts to help win on the issues the GOP has prioritized. In his lede, he cites healthcare, climate change, and immigration as top issues Republicans are looking to.

The Times quotes West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, with saying, “Given the state of dysfunction in Congress, in many cases, the courts do represent the last opportunity to get a fair hearing on these issues.”

To counter, U.S. Rep.Gerry Connolly of Virginia counters with, “What they cannot win in the legislative body, they now seek and hope to achieve through judicial activism.”

So why highlight this sort of “policy through lawsuit” philosophy? Because one has to ask if it is the same approach that education reform advocates are shifting towards.

For more than a decade, “reformers” have been working the state legislatures seeking changes to how public education is addressed. Expansion of school choice here. VAM on teacher evaluations there. Adoption of new standards and assessments. Vouchers. We all know the list. Most of the major changes we have seen in education in recent years has been the result of legislative action, where governors and or state legislatures have addressed both policy and appropriation to bring about change.

But 2014 ushered in a new approach to education reform. Both 2013 and 2014 saw major slowdowns (if not downright freezes) on school improvement efforts in state capitals. Reformers (and many of their funders) have grown impatient. So it should be no surprise that the largest education policy development in 2014 — teacher tenure and due process rights via the Vergara decision in California) has become the new playbook. A similar suit has already been filed in New York, with other states anticipating their own versions of Vergara.

Sure, litigation in education is nothing new. Each year, it seems we have a handful of states dealing with court cases over funding and equity. And we’ve had such cases since the Abbott districts were created in New Jersey in 1985 following a court decision in the Garden State.

Reform via legislation is tough work. It requires both a ground game and an air game. It demands strong relationships with governors’ offices and legislatures. It begs for voices beyond the reform community asking for change. And more often than not, based on the past decade, efforts fall short. Compromises are made. Politics comes into play. Reformers are left with partial wins, if that, as the legislative session draws to a close. And even if they do win big, they have to be back the following year to ensure adequate funding for the reforms in question.

Will 2015 be the year the reform model truly changes, with lobbyists and ad campaigns replaced with lawyers and amicus briefs? Is there a perceived higher ROI going to the courts versus working the statehouse hallways? Is it easier to have the courts decree change rather than fight for the dollars for it each and every year?

Time will tell. But if the national GOP has determined it is easier to address sticky policy in the courts rather than in the wells of Congress, surely reform organizations and their funders have been having the same conversations, no? Is Vergara the spark that reforms reform?

It’s All About the States, Bout the States, No Federal

Eduflack reform, Teacher Education, teachers, Woodrow Wilson

For years now, Eduflack has written about the balance of edu-power between the Federal government and the states. While major statement pieces like NCLB or Race to the Top signal the Feds in the driver’s seat, the real action (or inaction) on school improvement continues to happen at the state level.

And as Congress continues to show less and less interest in funding those big signature pieces, that power will likely continue to shift to the states, with governors and state legislatures determining what is best for their states and their students. The Feds provide the guidance and broad strokes, but it falls to states and locals to decide what to do, how to do it, and ultimately how to determine if it works.

Over at The Hill, my colleague Arthur Levine (former president of Teachers College, Columbia University) has a commentary on this specific topic. In his piece, Levine focuses on how states can and should be beacons for innovation and school improvement. And he looks at places like Tennessee, as well as states like Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio (all states that have adopted the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship program) as examples of the power of state transformation in education.

As Levine writes:

States are already doing much to strengthen education. Simply put, they need the encouragement, policy framework, and flexibility to explore new avenues that will work best for their schools, their students, and their communities.

As the 114th Congress looks to chart the course for the next phase of our shared educational journey, policymakers in Washington must give states the tools they need and the right incentives to help them think outside the box, and then hold them accountable for results.

Give it a read. With a new Congress coming to Washington, and new leadership more in tune with the power of states than the growing power of the Feds, it could be a glimpse into the edu-future.

The Courage to Listen

Eduflack accountability, reform

As we continue to debate the future of public education, this is an important lesson to consider. Too often, education reformers seek to show they are the smartest people in the room, the folks with all of the answers. We can forget the value of a diversity of opinion and of experience.

It isn’t just what we know or think, it is about those that are affected and those who have come before is. Winston Churchill has it right.

IMG_1543.JPG