In yesterday’s initial analysis of the US Department of Education’s ESEA reauthorization blueprint, I noted I was “whelmed” by the plan as a whole. (And for the record, I am a strong proponent of using the word whelmed. If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I certainly can be whelmed. It’s not like having to choose between North and South Dakota.) Since then, I’ve received a number of questions as to why, particularly since so many people seem to see this as a strong step forward in improving No Child Left Behind.
My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin’, knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered. When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape. Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered). The term “scientifically based research” was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike. And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were. These were all but twinkles in Sandy’s, Margaret’s BethAnn’s, and Reid’s eyes before the reauthorization process began.
But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET. Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. So what were once big ideas — Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards — are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days. We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now. We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.
The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB’s Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec Margaret Spellings’ Teacher Incentive Fund, and the teacher requirements included in RttT. Even in addressing the persistent problem with low-performing schools, this blueprint simply evolves from NCLB’s two-tiered evaluation with a new three-tiered system, as reported here by Greg Toppo. And while that extra tier may really help at addressing those 5,000 lowest-performing schools, it hardly wins hearts and minds.
To be fair, Eduflack realizes you don’t always need some new shiny toy or a jaw-dropping new idea to move forward solid legislation. In fact, in a perfect world, I would hope we’d never need such gimmicks. But with short attention spans and even shorter understanding curves, one often needs that hook, that big idea, to help gain attention and start winning over the necessary converts. When ESEA was reauthorized back in 2001 (and signed into law in early 2002), we not only gave it a new name (NCLB ), but we offered some new ideas and programs to show this was not your father’s version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Working from the existing blueprint, Eduflack sees a few potentials for both some smallball ideas as well as some bases-clearing longballs. What am I thinking?
* Immediately include strong pieces of congressional legislation in the plan. I’m thinking things like U.S. Sen. Patty Murray’s (WA) LEARN Act focused on K-12 reading instruction, Chairman George Miller’s (CA) plan for high school improvement, or even the recent legislation offered by U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI) and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (CO) establishing a federal definition for teacher professional development.
* Get personal on teacher quality. Teacher quality is now clearly a central point of the debate, with even Obama calling out the teacher education sector for not living up to expectations. So let’s get personal here. As part of your data system work, ensure that we are able to track teachers (both leaders and laggards) back to their originating program, be it a college of education or an alt cert program. Then be prepared to name names when it comes to those institutions that are not delivering the long-term results sought under the new law.
* Invest in parents. The day after Obama was elected, Eduflack opined that the EdSec should establish a family engagement office (at the assistant secretary level) so that the Administration could focus on the role of families in school improvement. To date, the Administration has talked a good game. But with the pending elimination of Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC) grants, there is a gaping hole for engaging families. NCLB tried to do this, with mixed results. Building off of the Obama campaign’s success in 2008 and recent activities around healthcare reform, one can build a strong, effective multi-touch effort to really involve parents and families in school turnaround and improvement efforts.
* Kill the bubble sheet. Under ESEA reauthorization, this administration has the power to do away with the dreaded “bubble sheet test.” Proudly proclaim that new assessments coming out of common core standards will be required to be smart computer-based exams. Bring testing into the 21st century while allowing for a more-comprehensive assessment than can be captured by guessing which one of five bubbles may be the most correct.
* Require online learning. I applaud the commitment to improving high schools and working to boost graduation rates. Let’s add a little 21st century relevancy here. Learning from states like Florida and Alabama, let’s require that, by 2020, every student in the United States must take at least one virtual course in order to graduate from high school. Not only does it introduce more relevant coursework into the classroom, it clearly promotes that learning happens beyond what happens between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. behind the traditional schoolhouse doors.
Those are just five ideas to get the discussion started. The legislative pieces could be endorsed by EdSec Duncan during Wednesday’s hearings. Teacher quality could be done this summer when NCATE’s anticipated report is released. A Family Engagement Office could be started immediately. And killing the bubble sheet and folding virtual education into state requirements can be done now as stimulus money is used to invest in a range of ed reform ideas. Regardless, we should be taking this opportunity to continue to move forward big, bold thoughts. Real ed improvement can’t be limited by those ideas moved during year one. Not to mix my sports metaphors, but this game goes at least four quarters. We need to maximize all opportunities.
RTT
Investing in Proven Innovation
The hits keep coming from the good folks down on Maryland Avenue. Today, the U.S. Department of Education officially released its Investing in Innovation, or i3, grant RFP. For all of those districts looking to get a piece of nearly $650 million in i3 dollars, the clock starts … NOW. Full details on the grant process can be found here.
Many will recall that ED circulated a draft i3 RFP for public comment back in the fall. Today’s announcement very closely mirrors that which we say months ago. We are still looking at three categories of grants — development, validation, and scale-up. Development grants still come in with a max of $5 million per; validation with a max of $30 million per, and scale up with a max of $50 million per.
School district applicants still need to provide a 20 percent matching contribution from private sources (including those college/university partners). Bonus points remain for early childhood focus, college access and success focus, ELL focus, and rural schools focus (with rural schools worth two extra points and the others worth just one).
Most importantly, the evidence requirements remain the same as they have always been. What does this mean? In this case, innovation not only means the introduction of something new or different; it also means that you have to prove that that new or different approach is proven effective. The feds are seeking very real research to drive this innovation, even in the development grants.
Before the end of the month, our friends with the federal government will hold three information sessions for prospective applicants — in Baltimore, Denver, and Atlanta. Those districts looking to apply for i3 should file a notice of intent within 20 days of the RFP being posted on the Federal Register (still hasn’t gone up, as of 11 a.m. today) and applications are due within 60 days of Federal Register posting. ED is now saying they will award i3 grants in two phases.
Today’s official grant notice also offers some guidance on how many grants can be awarded. But in the words immortalized by Barbie (the Doll) back in the late 1990s, “math is hard!” For months now, Eduflack has been telling interested LEAs that we are likely only looking at 30 total winners. With a $650 million pool (now down to $643 million), you are looking at eight or nine winners in each of the three categories, assuming districts get close to the max. So $400 million for scale up (eight grants), $200 million for validation (10 grants), and $40-50 million or so for development grants (10 grants). Then the pot has run dry.
But ED seems to have a different view of things. Average grant awards are estimated at $3 million for development, $17.5 million for validation, and $30 million for scale up. (This despite the realization that virtually every state that applied for Race to the Top funds exceeded the budget range that was assigned to their state). Based on those ranges, ED estimates up to five scale up winners, and up to 100 winners each in both development and validation. Obviously, the budget doesn’t allow anything close to that.
Five scale up winners at $30 million knocks the total pool down to less than $500 million remaining. A hundred validation grants at $17.5 million per would put us at $1.75 billion, more than three times the remaining pool. And those up to 100 development grants at $3 million per adds another $300 million. So if we top out on the estimates (realizing they are all generous ranges) ED is saying i3 could be up to nearly $2.2 billion. I’m all for stretching the dollar, but that seems to be a little more than the $643 million currently available.
Why is this so important? LEAs need to realize that competition for these grants is going to be significantly difficult and cutthroat. With RttT, we had a sense for how many states would and can win. Virtually every state applies, and based on the funding ranges, we can expect close to 20 states to win. If we don’t spend the full RttT pool, then we will have fewer winners.
But with i3, we have the possibility of thousands of school districts and consortia applying for a piece of this money. Some districts have been hard at work on their projects for years, and a scale up grant seems like a slam dunk (Eduflack has long said Chicago Public Schools and its Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, would be a slam dunk for i3). Other districts have been focusing on their applications for months, even before the draft regulations came out. Still others have been looking to partner with other districts, local universities, or nationally recognized non-profits, to strengthen their applications. And then you have some who think that “innovation” in the title means it is supposed to fund technology programs. Regardless, all want a piece of this.
So instead of 25 or 40 percent of states winning a RttT grant, we are looking at the possibility that far fewer than 5 percent of i3 applicants will get a taste of that federal nectar. That means applications must be well written, on point, and based on research like few grant proposals have ever been based before (and unlike RttT, i3 applications can’t be more than 35-50 pages, depending on type). Competition is going to be fierce. The strength of both the research and the impact will be king.
And what does Eduflack expect to see? First, many districts will be dusting off ye olde research protocols to ensure their proposed models match that offered by IES these past five or so years. Second, rural schools are going to fair pretty well here, both because of the extra points and because of the realization that RttT doesn’t provide rurals the attention they may need. And at the end of the day, we still should expect no more than 35 total winners. Five scale up winners each coming in close the $50 million cap, 10 or so validation winners coming closer to the $30 million cap than the $17.5 million ED estimate, and another 10-12 development winners, most of which need more than the $3 million in expected seed money.
Good research and documentation is hard, and it doesn’t come cheap. For months, we’ve been hearing that RttT is all about quality, not quantity. The same needs to be true for i3. The focus should be on providing a select group of school districts with the money to truly ramp up and further test a specific intervention that is boosting student performance and closing the achievement gap. If we want these funds to have a real, true, and lasting impact, we need to spend wisely on the lowest-hanging fruit, investing in those ideas that have the greatest possible return on investment and using those results to inspire other districts to follow suit.
Taking the Pole Position on Race
Those Phase One Race to the Top finalists have now been announced. As we all know by now, the 16 jurisdictions that will now vie for the honor of being the first three or four states to win a RttT grant include: Colorado, Delaware, Washington DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
For Eduflack, the only real surprise here is Washington, DC (which is a pleasant surprise). The remaining 15 are all states that have been on most lists for some time. While a few may be surprised by Illinois, those doubters should read the proposal. It was one of the strongest in the pool. And while some may question South Carolina, the state has been touting it has the best application in the pool. So no major surprised there.
Now let’s take a look at some of the interesting facts. Back in the summer, the Gates Foundation provided $250,000 grants to 15 states to help with the development of their Race grants. Fourteen of those states submitted for Phase One (Texas was the holdout), and 10 of those 14 made the cut — Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. And of the remaining six finalists, four of them received later assistance from Gates, after NGA and CCSSO urgings. Only Delaware and South Carolina did the heavy lifting themselves.
The four Gates-funded states who didn’t make the cut? Arkansas, Arizona, Minnesota, and New Mexico. (Along with the Republic of Texas, of course.)
Only one of the 16 states — Colorado — is west of Mississippi. That seems a bit surprising, but the scoring rubric didn’t take geography into account. The South is particularly well represented, which some could see as a sign of the region’s willingness to embrace education reforms and others may see as the value of right to work states and weaker teachers’ unions/organizations.
And for you history buffs, eight of the original 13 colonies made the cut! Condolences to New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia.
According to the US Department of Education, each of these states scored at least 80 percent — or 400 points — on the reviewer scores. States will be coming to DC in a week and a half (without their consultants and outside proposal preparers) to orally defend their proposals. And states will either gain or lose points based on the interview and swimsuit competitions.
If academic achievement is the name of the game, it is a surprising mix of states. Looking at eighth grade NAEP reading performance (one of the best measures of actual student academic success), of the 16 finalists, only Massachusetts is in the Top 10 for eighth grade NAEP reading scores. And only four of the states — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado — rank in the top 20. Five of the finalists (Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, and DC) are in the bottom quartile.
While Eduflack has read his share of RttT applications, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the nuance and the details (though I will continue to pretend to be to amaze people at forums and cocktail parties). The finalists appear to be a strong mix of states with a good track record, states with a strong plan for the future, states that have made major legislative changes to qualify for RttT, and some states that really need the dollars. But don’t take my word for it. Check out what others are saying.
The US Department of Education’s formal announcement and supporting materials can be found here. Politics K-12 has great analysis here, while Eduwonk weighs in here, Andy Smarick here, with Tom Vander Ark here. Who else wants on the carousel of RttT fun?
Mark Your Ed Reform Calendars
To paraphrase from edu-son’s favorite band, Black Eyed Peas, this week’s gonna be a good week … at least for those in the education reform community. We have core standards, and RttT, and ESEA, oh my!
According to Education Daily, National Governors Association officials are now saying that the much-anticipated draft K-12 common core standards (reading and math) will be released next week. Assuming protocols hold, we’ll all then have 30 days to respond, react, and critique under the public comment period. It seems NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers is still working toward finalization of the K-12 and college/career ready standards by June, so that states can adopt them by July (as called for under Race to the Top).
And speaking of the great Race, EdWeek’s Michele McNeil is reporting at the Politics K-12 blog that Phase One RttT finalists will be announced Thursday, March 4 (that’s tomorrow, folks) at 11:30 a.m. The list of nominees will be announced online by ED’s communications office. Those finalists will then be coming to DC to put on a nice little Ides of March show for the judges, with initial awards slated to come before we’ve played a full month of baseball.
Of course, this AM EdSec Arne Duncan is slated to testify before U.S. Rep. George Miller’s House Education and the Workforce Committee. The session will focus on the President’s budget and ESEA, with some believing today’s hearing may not be the love-fest that the EdSec has enjoyed on the Hill to date. The House Ed Committee is always great about getting testimony and webcast of the hearing up quick, so if you aren’t in DC, be sure to check it out later here.
For those keeping score, it looks like U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin and the Senate HELP Committee are starting to get in the mix on ESEA reauthorization as well. Harkin has slated the Senate’s first hearing on reauthorization for next Tuesday, March 9, at 2 p.m. No word on who will testify or the specific topics yet. Regardless, it sounds like we are going to be getting a lot of ed reform talk to start churning through again!
Race Prognostications
Even those who pay modest attention to national education reform issues realize that, this week, the U.S. Department of Education is slated to reveal it list of finalists for Phase One Race to the Top recipients. Once the double-secret, blue ribbon, expert RttT review panel names the states on its list, each jurisdiction will be scheduling flights to the nation’s capital to defend their Race “dissertations” and make clear to judges and ED officials why they are best positioned to earn the title of Race to the Top state.
In recent days, we’ve had some top-notch analyses of which states may make the final cut. Tom Carroll has a terrific analysis over here at City Journal, where he awards the top three slots to Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee (naming them very competitive). He then has four states — Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, and Michigan — as competitive. Give or take another mid-sized or two small states, that would serve as Carroll’s handicapping of how the $4 billion in initial RttT moneys will be spent.
Over at EdWeek’s Politics K-12, Michele McNeil and Lesli Maxwell have teamed up here to provide a March Madness-style bracket of the RttT competition. They winnow it down to five winners — Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, and Rhode Island just miss McNeil and Maxwell’s bracketology victory.
Most seem to agree that Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee are locks for RttT, most likely in Phase One this spring but in Phase Two for sure. But we can’t just give RttT grants to states in the Southeast (and these frontrunners could make life difficult for states like Georgia and North Carolina). So how does the rest of the field play out?
Eduflack was pleasantly surprised to see Politics K-12 give Illinois the nod. Personally, I thought the Land of Lincoln wrote an incredibly impressive proposal, more thoughtful than most expected. While they could get caught up in the politics of the grant (it wasn’t so long ago that Florida was denied an initial Reading First grant because we couldn’t possibly give the first RF check to the President’s brother), one would like to believe that 100 percent of the RttT decisionmaking is being made on merit and strength of plan, not on such political considerations.
And as I’ve raised with Carroll, I agree that Michigan has put forward a strong plan for what it will do in the future should it win a grant. But we can’t forget that 52 percent of a RttT proposal score is supposed to be based on past performance. So states like Michigan (along with Delaware and Rhode Island to lesser degrees) may get dinged on their success to date scores.
On the flip side, it seems that more than a handful of those who should be in the know believe that Colorado’s proposal wasn’t as strong as the rhetoric surrounding it. Personally, I thought it was a strong proposal, but doesn’t knock any socks off.
If Eduflack were headed out to Vegas this week to put my money on the RttT field, my “can’t miss, take this to the bank” locks, as of March 1, would be Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Depending on the states that make it to the swimsuit competitions in DC, I could see Pennsylvania taking Ohio’s place. Colorado is a likely Phase Two. I also expect another Tier One state (either California or New York) taking home the prize. Then I could see Delaware, Michigan, or Rhode Island (with my money on Deborah Gist and RI getting the nod if they can overcome the union implications of firing an entire high school) winning for the best of intentions.
Barring any real surprises in the interview stage, I’m going with California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Rhode Island. How does that fare against the $4 billion pool? Cali and Florida will account for $1.4 billion. Ohio picks up $400 million. Indiana and Tennessee get $200 million apiece. Colorado and Louisiana split $300 million. Rhode Island gets $50 million. That’s $2.55 billion on the first eight states.
For months now, I’ve been saying that there are likely only six to eight states that will cut the muster and earn RttT designation. But we aren’t going to leave $1.45 billion on the table, particularly when the U.S. Department of Education is asking for Phase Three RttT dollars in the FY2011 federal budget. So I’d disperse the remainder as follows: New York ($500 million), Illinois ($200 million), Georgia ($200 million), Arizona ($150 million), Kentucky ($100 million), Minnesota ($75 million). That leaves us with $200 million in the wallet to be split between Delaware, New Mexico, West Virginia, and possibly DC.
We’ll see how the first cut comes this week. Our finalists will be the most likely winners. The remaining states will take the time to regroup to put forward a stronger application for Phase Two. McNeil and Maxwell are right. Who needs NCAA March Madness when we have RttT? Too bad they won’t be televising the finalists’ interviews.
Turning This Race Into a Relay
A year ago, many words and many more column inches were committed to ensure that any and all realized that education funding coming through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was a one-time deal. States were originally discouraged from using State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars to pay teachers’ salaries, out of fear that that account will disappear as quickly as it appeared, thus leaving states looking for new funding to pay for essential educational services in two short years.
We may forget it now, but new competitive grant programs — Race to the Top and i3 chief among them — were part of the original ARRA funding. We allocated $650 million to fund efforts to invest through innovation in our local school districts. And we originally set aside $4.35 billion (now down to $4 billion, as $350 million has been pulled out specifically for data systems) to provide a select group of states big dollars to fund big changes in standards, teacher quality, school turnaround, and charters.
Today, the terms and conditions associated with RttT appeared to change. This morning, President Obama announced his intention to seek an additional $1.35 billion in funding for the next generation of Race to the Top. The preview story can be found in The Washington Post here, and Michele McNeil has the after-announcement reporting over at EdWeek here.
Both pre- and post-coverage leaves us with some sketchy details. Apparently, the intent is to provide additional Race funding for states, while also making dollars available to some school districts. The LEA component makes sense, particularly if states like California and New York are unable to put forward a truly competitive RttT application. This way, districts like Long Beach Unified and NYC can be rewarded for both their past efforts and future plans (fulfilling the RttT mission), while providing a path for future school districts to follow.
The state dollars become more interesting. Is the intent to expand programs in worthy states, answering the call from states like Colorado who believe their alloted range of available dollars is too small to manage their ambitious plans? Or is the intent to add another three or four states to the Race, expanding the total number of states and giving some the chance to revise their laws and their applications after the first two batches are released? Eduflack has to believe the intent is the latter. In fact, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the terms of a Phase 3 Race grant reduced the need to demonstrate “past achievement” and instead provided smaller total grants to those states who have made real changes to be Race compliant and forward thinking.
We’ve heard a lot about Race being the single-largest discretionary program in the history of the U.S. Department of Education. Now, the President will request this additional $1.35 billion in his February budget. And with that request, we should expect to soon see an annual budget line item for Race, with dollars either adding states or expanding programs along the way. Next year, Race will likely be added to ESEA reauthorization (as Reading First was to NCLB , making the policy (and the dollars) part of the federal code for the next five to eight years. And then we’ve gone from a one-time booster shot for innovation toward an annual vaccination against the status quo and the fear of change.
Don’t believe Eduflack? Just take a look at the words of House Education Chairman George Miller, who told EdWeek, “By continuing Race to the Top, the federal government shows it can be a partner in reform and work to uphold the integrity of the program so that these resources are used as intended and help leverage change.” This isn’t an in-and-out engagement as originally believed. We are launching educational nation-building.
And while we anticipate the details and the specifics of this extension (along with waiting with baited breath to see the 30 or so RttT apps that will arrive at Maryland Avenue today, and the 10-12 states that will win this first Race by September), one thing remains certain. As the lifespan of RttT is extended, there will be a far greater emphasis on demonstrating success and tracking return on investment. The mission will not be accomplished just because the money was distributed and we all feel better about ourselves as a result. SEAs and LEAs will need to demonstrate, by preponderance of the evidence, that RttT boosted learning, increased student achievement, closed the achievement gap, and improved the quality and effectiveness of teaching, particularly in historically disadvantaged communities.
By many calculations, Reading First (the previously largest discretionary program in ED history) failed at truly documenting the cause/effect of RF dollars and student test scores. We now need to learn from what worked and didn’t with regard to RF assessment and accountability and build a better mousetrap for Race. Four years from now, we don’t want to be left having spent $6 billion on RttT reforms, but no irrefutable way to measure the true effectiveness of the program. Ultimately, when it comes to RttT assessment, it must be trust … but verify.
Running a New Race in New Jersey
I am not ashamed to admit that Eduflack is a Jersey guy, and I don’t just mean that I like Springsteen. I spent many of my formative public school years in New Jersey public schools. I was an altar boy at Holy Name Catholic Church in East Orange. I still dream of those Saturday night visits to Star Tavern pizza in Orange. I was a paperboy for the Newark Star-Ledger, my first paying job. I look fondly on the days when I was fortunate enough to work for U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley. And today, my family makes the trek up to central Jersey (Hamilton, to be exact) for most major holidays and family functions. So while the body may reside in DC, Eduflack’s heart will always be in the Garden State.
As such, I’ve been paying particular attention to recent Race to the Top activities in the state. Back in the fall, the New Jersey Department of Education issued an RFP to find consulting firms who could help it prepare the state’s Race application (as it was not a beneficiary of Gates’ summer grant gifts). Then in November, mere weeks after proposals were due and after Chris Christie defeated incumbent governor Jon Corzine, the state returned all submissions unopened, suspending their engagement. Most saw this as a sign that the SEA was holding off, dumping RttT in the lap of an unprepared Christie administration.
But a funny thing has happened since then. New Jersey Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and her team have been scrambling to complete their application, with every intention of submitting for Phase One consideration. And just yesterday, two weeks before the Phase One deadline, Davy announced her comprehensive plans (and reforms) for making NJ a contender in the Race. The full story can be found in yesterday’s Star-Ledger here.
New Jersey has a compelling story to tell when it comes to education reforms. From the reforms caused by the Abbott decision to some of the bold actions taken by Newark Mayor Corey Booker, there is much to talk about. Yet Jersey lags when it comes to charter schools. And the strength of the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s teachers union, is legendary. All this makes a Race application difficult to write, and even more difficult to enforce should the state win.
Davy focused her remarks yesterday on the adoption of state-of-the-art data systems and school turnaround plans. Calling the plan “aggressive but achievable,” she noted that NJEA was at the table helping to develop the plan (even though NJEA leadership is now voicing objections, particularly to the Race-mandated teacher merit pay provisions). Obviously, this plan is the capstone to Davy’s tenure, representing what she and Gov. Corzine have been working on for years in the area of public education. And for the record, it is a good plan, particularly when you consider the history and politics of public education in the state.
Why all of this expository? Davy’s team will be submitting Jersey’s Race application on the same day that Christie is sworn in as the state’s next governor. It is safe to say that his transition team is not significantly involved in the application development, particularly since Davy did not focus on Christie’s education reform centerpiece — charter schools. So we have a very real possibility of New Jersey charting a course that the incoming powers that be will either be unable or unwilling to actually steer toward. It was a dilemma that Eduflack noted back in November, and now it has become all too real.
So what should Christie do? RttT guidelines say that the application must be endorsed by, among other people, the state’s governor. As of the Phase One deadline, then Gov. Christie’s signature will not be on the application. It may be semantics to some, but at the time of consideration, the New Jersey Race application will not have the endorsement of the state’s sitting governor. So what’s a Jersey governor to do?
If Eduflack were standing in Christie’s shoes on January 19, there is only one inevitable action to take. I would withdraw the state’s Race application. Pull it back from the U.S. Department of Education before it is reviewed and scrutinized. Note that it does not hold the endorsement of the state’s governor … yet. Buy myself some time so my advisors, both in state and out, can help assemble a plan that would utilize that nearly $400 million in possible education support to forward my own plans for education improvement.
(The major wrinkle to all of this, of course, is NJEA. They are now on record as not being thrilled with Davy’s plan. They also led a passionate, expensive, and some say vitriolic non-stop attack against Christie throughout the campaign, trying to paint his as Public Enemy Number One for the state. Rewriting the Race app means likely losing NJEA support entirely (it’s not like they would have a significant seat at the table the second time around). And the state needs the endorsement of the teachers union to put forward an acceptable application. It’s a real damned do/don’t for Christie. Accept the application as is, and live with the plan and NJEA’s role as a driver in it, or pull it back and offer a plan you can truly get behind.)
But if he does withdraw the expected Phase One application, Christie will then have four months to figure out his next move. His Department of Education can begin work sketching out a new vision, building on Davy’s plans for data systems and moderate teacher merit pay while using charters as a major driver for school improvement. He can look to replicate recent reforms in Newark in cities like Trenton. He can show more love to Jersey’s STEM education commitment. He can even look to strengthen the standing of programs like Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools across the Garden State. He has the time and power to craft a Race application that represents his vision and demonstrates the Christie path to improved student learning and test scores.
Or he can be even bolder, and simply decide that New Jersey will not compete in Race to the Top. He can determine that the obligations under standards, assessments, and data systems are too great to manage in this economy with a meager $400 million. He could decree that his education improvement agenda is focused exclusively on the expansion and support of charter schools, and since charters are but a minor part of Race’s intentions, he’s going to go all-in on charters in his own way, and he’ll find the state and private-sector support to make it happen without the federal oversight.
Yes, New Jersey has bigger issues to address than Race to the Top. Christie has to focus immediately on a struggling economy, high taxes, high unemployment, a state pension system out of control, and a populace that has lost confidence in most of its social institutions. Making a bold move on Race, in his first day in office, can signal that Christie is not business as usual. He listened to the state, and knows they are hungry for change. He realizes that today’s struggling parents want a better future for their kids. And that future begins with stronger schools. This may be the one real opportunity he has to truly make his mark on public education, acting now and the refocusing on the state’s economic needs.
From one Jersey boy to another, think about it Mr. Christie. We often complain about what we inherit from the predecessors in our jobs. Rarely are we given the opportunity to change things right out of the gate. RttT is a major commitment for New Jersey. Do you take this opportunity to fo
llow, or to lead through your own bold strategy?
How Valuable Are the Race Fire Drills?
In recent months, we have seen state departments of education and state legislatures scurry to make themselves eligible and better positioned to win a federal Race to the Top grant. From knocking down the firewalls between student performance data and teachers to smoothing the path for charter school expansion to adopting common core standards to just demonstrating a hospitable environment for education reform and change, states have been doing anything and everything to gain a better position for the Race.
Earlier this week, Michigan announced sweeping reforms to put them in line with the federal requirements. California is currently debating similar positions (with what seems like growing concerns). And we seem genuine changes in reform culture in states like Indiana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and many others along the way. (Every state, that is, except for the Republic of Texas, which as of yesterday still hasn’t committed to even pursuing RttT, despite the $250K it received from the Gates Foundation to prepare its application.)
But one has to ask, is it another tale of too little, too late? In November, the U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive scorecard of how RttT applications would be scored, breaking down allotments so specifically that it included everything but throwing out the low score from the Ukrainian judges. Every state is working off the same 500-point scale, building a workplan that aligns as closely with Arne Duncan’s four pillars as humanly (or bureaucratically) possible. We’re working toward extra points for STEM and for charter schools and for demonstrating a general culture of reform. And we’re growing more and more mindful of how those points break down, recognizing, for instance, that STEM and charters are worth virtually the same score as turning around low-performing schools.
Often overlooked in the discussion, though, is the fact that 52 percent of a state’s RttT application is supposed to be based on past accomplishment and achievement. So for all of those states who just recently removed the caps and changed the charter laws, will they only earn half-credit for their plans for the future, or do we recognize them for the intent of their efforts? What about those states, like California, New York, and Wisconsin, that are just now taking down those data firewalls? Are they out of luck when it comes to evaluating their past performance? And will ED reviewers really dock Texas 80 points (nearly 15 percent of the total score) for not signing onto common standards, when Texas’ state standards may already be closely aligned with where the NGA/CCSSO effort is ultimately headed? Is the 52/48 split a hard-and-fast rule, or is it meant as a guiding suggestion to states to shape how they write they apps, with ED officials hoping to see equal focus on what states have done in these areas and what they are planning to do in the future?
If we believe the former, we are looking at a very, very select group of states that are qualified to win RttT in the end. How many states come to the table with real, tangible, and longitudinal successes on all four of the pillars of Race? How many can really talk about their strong work in effective data systems? How many have really invested in meaningful teacher quality efforts, including state-led teacher incentive pay programs? How many are doing what their legislatures and SEAs have now committed them to do in the future (and more importantly, how many can prove it)?
If the projections are true, 80 percent of states will be submitting their Phase One applications later this month. If we are lucky, we’ll have more than four states actually win in Phase One. (that, my friends, is where Eduflack is setting the Phase One over/under) What will happen to those states that either are not called for oral defenses in March or fail to wow their dissertation panels? Do those states go back to the drawing board, and try to turn around a winning app in 30-60 days, or do they lick their wounds, move on, and say they never really wanted the grants in the first place?
Only time will tell. Regardless, Race has been effective for the enormous influence it has had on changing state laws and policies without doling out a single dollar to support the changes. We have already changed the culture of public education in the last 12 years, at least in terms of regulation and legislation. If a state fails to win the Race, they are unlikely to go back and reinstitute the firewalls, re-restrict charters, or pull out of the common core standards movement. Maybe that was the intent all along …
Under the Eduflack Tree 2010
It is that time of the year again. Most of the year, Eduflack can be critical, cynical, and downright combustible about what is happening in the education community. We spend a great deal of time talking, but little time delivering. We get caught up on the 20 percent or so of improvements we don’t agree on, thus neglecting the 80 percent that could make real change now. And we regularly fall into a cult of personality, rather than focusing on the substance of both character and ideas.
But Christmas is a special time of year, that time when we all get a blank slate and we all look forward to a new year with a renewed sense of purpose and commitment. As for Eduflack, I don’t believe in naughty lists (personally, I’m worried about what all of my general agitation would mean for such databases). And with two little kiddos at home who are the absolute loves of my life and motivations for getting up each morning, I’m all for being generous and giving gifts for both a great 2009 and the hopes of an even better 2010. So without further ado, let’s check out what’s under the ol’ Eduflack tree this holiday season.
To NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, a return to the spotlight. In 2008, Chancellor Klein was the king of the ed reform kingdom. Scores were up in NYC. The city was coming off the Broad Prize, and Klein was on the short list for U.S. Secretary of Education. But a funny thing happened in 2009. The good chancellor seemed to take a public back seat, dealing with collective bargaining agreements, a city council that was trying to take away mayoral control, and other such operational issues. He even seemed to take a back seat with the Education Equality Project, letting Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich play center stage for much of 2009. But 2010 is Klein’s year again. With states and districts desperate to demonstrate sustained student gains on assessments and a closing of the achievement gap, there is no better model than the revolution that has happened in NYC over the last decade. And the NYC experience is one that can serve as a research-based model for many urbans looking to secure i3 grants in the coming year. Klein has always been a force, but with all of the elements coming together, 2010 can very well be the year of Klein.
To Detroit’s de facto public schools chief Robert Bobb, a wide berth. By now, most of us have written off Detroit Public Schools, believing there is no hope for America’s most struggling urban district, whether it declares bankruptcy or not. But for those not paying attention, Bobb is really trying to do God’s work up in the Motor City. With a new mayor and a renewed sense of purpose, Bobb and his team and rebuilding the DPS infrastructure while taking on instructional reforms designed to improving student learning and close the dreaded achievement gap. Bobb has thrown a lot against the wall in the past year. Here’s hoping the city (and the nation) the time to see what sticks and build on what works. Improvement is possible in Detroit, with the right time and support.
To EdSec Arne Duncan, a continued bounce in his step. Without question, the past 12 months have been the year of Arne. He started off strong, and quickly built a cult of personality around the nation. (Some may even call it idol worship.) He’s won friends where previous secretaries could only find enemies. He’s talked, passionately, about issues that were taboo to previous federal education bosses. And he has emerged as one of the leading voices for the administration, even on issues like economic stimulus and other issues not previously in the EdSec’s purview. For the coming year, Duncan needs to keep pushing through, talking the tough talk, while walking the tough walk. Many expect to see real results when it comes to Race to the Top and i3, so he has to be ready to talk about where we are (with details) and where we are going. More importantly, though, he needs to keep that bounce and forward motion even after we discover that ESEA reauthorization is a gift most likely received in 2011. Just keep driving to the basket, Mr. Secretary.
To House Education Chairman George Miller (CA), incremental success. For a good portion of 2009, we assumed that Chairman Miller would successfully lead ESEA reauthorization in the first half of 2010. Now, we know such thoughts are only for the most optimistic of optimists. Eduflack realizes that healthcare reform has taken a lot out of your committee, but now is the time for you to move forward and make crystal clear to all involved that you are the educational top dog on Capitol Hill. Through the House Education and Labor Committee, let’s get your Graduation for All Act of 2010 passed into law as quickly as possible. And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that Congress (both your House and the Senate) make Senator Patty Murray’s LEARN Act (focusing on reading) the law of the land before school’s out for summer. Instead of looking for that four-bagger to win the game with one swing right now, let’s play a little small ball and move some very real education improvements now, improvements that can help many, many kids right now.
To Senator Mike Enzi (WY), ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, an itch to fight for the home team. In 2009, we spent a lot of time focusing on education reform issues that seemed custom tailored for urban areas. RttT has turned into a focus on turning around low performing urban districts. Despite the extra points for rural districts, most also see i3 as a reward for the Council of Great City Schools sect. And even the most recent NAEP TUDA puts our gaze on what’s happening in the cities. It falls to Senator Enzi (and to a lesser degree Rep. John Kline of Minnesota) to make sure that the voice of rural districts and the needs or rural students are heard in these school improvement discussions. There are too many students attending small districts and rural schools for us to neglect them. If we are going to improve achievement for all American students, we need to give rural schools the same attention we give urbans. And we can’t forget that closing the achievement gap is about closing the gaps between white and black and closing the gaps between rich and poor.
Fortunately, Eduflack is feeling generous this season. There are also gifts under the Eduflack tree for those who have done good work in 2009, those good little boys and girls like EdTrust’s Kati Haycock, EEP’s Ellen Winn, AFT’s Randi Weingarten, Rethink Learning Now’s Sam Chaltain, Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond, and the Alliance’s Bob Wise. And special stockings for the EdWeek bloggers who keep us fed on a daily basis. Keep it up!
We also have those policy gifts that all get to enjoy for the coming year, those issues that can truly lift all boats. We have STEM education, one of the few topics that can help all states and localities maximize the opportunities under Race to the Top and effectively link education reform to economic recovery. Chicago’s Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), which may likely be the posterchild for effective i3 spending and the model for how we can really get an effective teacher quality and incentive program. For scientifically based education, which is back with a vengeance as ED talks over and over again about evidence and innovation. Effective teacher professional development, with more and more people realizing that improved student achievement and test scores requires a better equipped, better supported teacher force. The rediscovery of data, both the continued exploration of good data versus bad and, more importantly, how we can effectively use data to improve our schools. And
, of course, common core standards, which is hoping to work through a rough past few months to deliver every U.S. school child, regardless of zip code, one common yardstick to determine if we are prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the future … or not.
, of course, common core standards, which is hoping to work through a rough past few months to deliver every U.S. school child, regardless of zip code, one common yardstick to determine if we are prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the future … or not.
And with that, I’ll put my edufinger to the nose attached to my broad face and little round belly, and wish a Happy Eduholidays to all!
Jockeying for Race’s Post Position
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education released the list of all states that have indicated that they will file Phase One applications under Race to the Top. Each of these states hopes to submit a comprehensive application that highlights both their successes to date and their plans for the future on areas such as academic standards, assessments, data systems, teacher and principal quality, school turnaround, charter schools, and STEM, to name the highlights. And they each hope to be awarded a “big cash prize” before we get too deep into the spring of 2010 and before the merriment of commencement commences.
What states are planning on having their state departments of education work around the holiday clock to complete these RttT applications? ED has received letters of Phase One intent from the following:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Of the 15 states receiving significant help from the Gates Foundation to prepare their applications, 13 are planning on Phase One apps. Not surprisingly, Texas is not on the early intent list (as the Republic of Texas is likely trying to figure out how to make up points for the big dings it will take over its resistance to common core standards. Surprisingly, North Carolina has NOT indicated its intent to submit in Phase One, despite the Tar Heel State’s reputation for being a true leader in education reforms over the past three decades.
Other surprises? Eduflack finds it interesting that both New Jersey and Virginia are intending to file for Phase One, meaning that both states will submit their apps before their new governors of different political parties than the currents take office in January. It is particularly surprising since Eduflack heard that the Garden State had originally issued an RFP to hire consultants to assist with its application, and then returned all proposals, unopened, after the November gubernatorial election. That likely means that Jon Corzine’s team is putting together a comprehensive plan that Chris Christie’s team (which will bring a SLIGHTLY different perspective to education reform) may have to live with.
While the official RttT scoring makes clear that past accomplishments are worth more points than plans for the future, we see a number of states that have made major changes in recent months (firewalls, charter caps, etc.) just to be compliant with Race requirements. States like California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin will have to demonstrate — in just a few short weeks — that recent legislative action is the culmination of a commitment to school improvement, and not simply fast action to win some quick money.
And who is missing from the list, besides North Carolina? Rhode Island is not there, probably indicating that State Supe Deborah Gist is working to do it right (with regard to detailing her aggressive reform agenda in a few hundred pages of prose). But otherwise, the early app list reads like a list of those most likely to win and those most hopeful to win a major prize.
In recent interviews RttT Czar Joanne Weiss has indicated that a number of states will be rejected in Phase One. What is yet to be told is if those states will be given a second bite of the apple in Phase Two. The numbers don’t lie. Most states will be requesting the max, except for those states like Colorado which will be asking for more than their assigned category allows for. That means that we are likely looking at a dozen state winners, max, assuming that only half of the Group A states (California, Florida, New York, Texas) win an award (and we all know that Florida has already all but locked up one of those spots).
For those states looking to jump in first, is it a strategic decision, as they hope to get at the money before much has been doled out? It is a tactical decision to just get the app off their plates before the new budget season starts up? Or is it an act of desperation, with states needing the money to keep their forward progress? Time will tell. Clearly, there are likely to be more disappointed faces in this early applicant pool than there will be excited winners. And just think of the added stress to those states waiting to submit in the spring.
UPDATE — Late Wednesday evening, Eduflack heard from Glenn Kleiman, the Executive Director of the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation and Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at North Carolina State University’s College of Education. Professor Kleiman said “NC has planned to submit all along and we have the proposal well underway. The USED letters of intent were optional, and don’t tell anyone whether or not a state will actually apply.” For the record, Eduflack never doubted that North Carolina would apply, the issue is whether the state would apply in Phase One. Professor Kleiman hasn’t answered that directly, but I suspect that such a response suggests that Phase One is indeed in the cards for Carolina. So where is the harm of North Carolina filing a two-paragraph letter announcing its intent (particularly when everyone knows they are applying)?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 