SBRR

“Read”ing All About It

Eduflack IES, PD, Reading First, SBRR

Today, the final shoe dropped on the Reading First era.  The Institute of Education Sciences released the final version of the Reading First Impact Study.  A surprise to no one, the final impact study came to the same conclusions as the interim study.  The summary of summaries, RF schools aren’t doing a better job of making student reading proficient, compared with non-RF schools.

The full story can be found here at Education Week — www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/11/18/14read.h28.html?tmp=1344181825  
When the interim study came out, many, including Eduflack, pointed out the vast flaws in the study’s methodology, chief among them being the issue of contamination, or the impact of RF programs and materials on non-RF schools.  Back in September, the Reading First Federal Advisory Committee issued its review of the interim study, calling for some wholesale changes before the final report was issued.  Unfortunately, little, if any, of the recommendations coming from the Advisory Committee were addressed in the final Study.
I’ve been mulling the issue all day.  As a surprise to many an Eduflack reader, I am not here to once again defend the goals of Reading First and point to the data that demonstrates that scientifically based reading is having an effect on schools, both those receiving RF funds and those that do not.  In the simplest of terms, been there, done that.  I’m a pragmatist.  I know that RF is dead.  It was dead the day the IG report came out almost two years ago, and the find shovels of dirt were thrown on the program with the release of this Impact Study.
And no, we are not here to eulogize RF, to discuss its merits, or to hash out why it failed to meet its promise or fulfill its mission.  Such tasks are best left to the think tanks and the academicians who can give a careful eye to how the research translated into practice, how effective that practice was, and how effective the measurement and feedback of the program was across its lifetime.
The question should not be what happened.  Instead, we must ask what comes next.  How do we move on from here?
The legacy of RF leaves us with three key buckets of policy we must consider — research to practice, a federal reading program, and IES.
At its heart, RF was a thorough attempt to move research into practice.  It was the development part of the R&D equation, an opportunity to take decades of research on literacy and reading acquisition skills and put it to use in the classroom.  How is the research applied to core materials, such as textbooks?  How is the research applied to teacher development, both pre-service and in-service?  How is the research embedded in instruction and in key interventions designed to get all kids reading?  And how does the federal government effectively do it all, guiding SEAs, impacting LEAs, and doing it all without endorsing specific commercial products or approaches?  
On some of these issues, RF provided a blueprint for success.  On others, it provided a clear portrait of federal failure.  Through it all, RF raised the profile of research in the instructional process, better equipped classroom practitioners to deal with education research, and increased the profile of data-based decisionmaking.  All of those are pluses for school improvement efforts moving forward.
Now onto stream two — a federal reading program.  For decades, the federal government has enhanced literacy instruction for K-12 students.  Before RF, we had the Reading Excellence Act. Before REA we had other federal programs.  That commitment is not going to disappear.  Long after RF is forgotten, there will still be dedicated federal investment in reading instruction. The question before us, now, is how do we do it.  How do we transform Early Reading First into a meaningful component of early childhood education efforts?  How do we enhance instruction for struggling readers, particularly in the early grades?  How do we promote literacy skills across the curriculum, using science and social studies in particular to boost reading skills for all?  What do we do for struggling readers in our high schools, those who have fallen through the cracks?  Now is the time to apply lessons learned and build a new federal reading program that delivers instruction to the kids who need it, that provides content-based PD to the teachers in need, and that boosts student achievement and closes the achievement gap for all students, from our urban centers to our rural schools.
And finally, IES.  The RF experiment has clearly demonstrated that IES is not functioning as it was intended.  Was IES tasked with determining the effectiveness of RF or the effectiveness of RF funding?  Has it providing findings that aid in the improvement of federal reading instruction?  is it serving the public good by providing clear research findings that are received, understood, and applied by practitioners in the field?  At the end of the day, IES needs to better serve the consumer — the schools, their teachers, and the students they serve.  It needs to  do a better job engaging the entire community, and not simply serve as a lifeline between educational researchers.  If anything, the RF experience has provided us a starting point for improving IES (and the What Works Clearinghouse) and transforming it into the R&D arm of the U.S. Department of Education, with the D being just as important as the R.
Will we take advantage of these lessons and build some real improvements?  That question will remain unanswered for some time now.  But now is the time we start talking about how we move forward and build on the RF experience.  A new program will rise from the RF ashes.  It falls to the program’s most ardent supporters and most critical adversaries to ensure that what comes remains solidly focused on a singular goal — empowering all kids with the reading skills they need to achieve and getting all kids reading at grade level as soon as possible (and maintaining it).    

Bringing Urgency to Early Childhood Ed

Eduflack Achievement gap, early childhood education, SBRR, STEM

Throughout the education world, it seems virtually everyone is jockeying for position in terms of 2009 priorities.  We go through President-elect Obama’s education platform and policy speeches, looking for indications of priorities and preferences.  This week, many an organization waited with baited breath to see what would come out of the Gates Foundation convening, thinking and hoping for new issues or a new priority or two.  And no one is quite sure when (or even if) we’ll see reauthorization of ESEA in the next 12-18 months.

Six years ago, Eduflack was neck deep in scientifically based reading, believing at the time that Early Reading First and similar issues could be the next big thing.  For the past three and a half years, I’ve been focusing on high school reform efforts, seeing that STEM is the logical off-shoot and just the education improvement we need to effectively link education with the economy.  So much so that I am now advocating for the notion of a national public engagement campaign to ensure families and communities recognize that STEM is a necessity, not a luxury, and an approach needed for all students, not just the fortunate ones.
But I can’t shake the notion that I’ve been missing something from the equation, a piece missing from the great learning continuum.  For the past couple of months, my thinking on the “next big thing” has evolved.  Years ago, we saw a spike in interest in preK, as governors across the country proposed the notion of making it universal.  But current economic situations have many a state, most recently Massachusetts, questioning that commitment.  Early childhood education is stepping forward, and is stepping with a hard boot.
Yesterday, Pre-K Now released a new study looking at the ability of middle-class families to afford quality preK for their kids.  The highlight — more than half of the states that fund preK do so by using family income as a determining criteria.  The result — many a middle-class family, families who can feel the immediate benefits of quality preK, are quickly becoming unable to afford the programs their young kids need to maximize the K-12 experience.  Check out the full report here — www.preknow.org/documents/pre-kpinch_Nov2008_report.pdf  
This study becomes important to the overall debate.  So much of the discussion of preK is focused on low-income families. Too many equate preK with Head Start, or see it as glorified babysitting, or generally lack the vision to see that quality preK can serve as a foundational step for developing social and academic skills in all students, ensuring they are prepared for the rigors and opportunities of K-12 (yes, even those rigors of kindergarten).
In releasing its study, Pre-K Now offers three recommendations for the next generation of early childhood education:
* Expand preK, beginning with the most vulnerable children and moving to include those in the middle class
* Consider eligibility factors outside of include to include more children, including those from single-parent and military-connected families
* Offer full-day programs, rather than half-days, to better meet the needs of working families
It is clear we are still in a learning process here.  Is early childhood education education or sociology?  Is it for all kids, or just those at risk?  What does the data show in terms of linkages between preK and K-12 student achievement?  Is it part of the P-20 education continuum, or is it only for those who can afford it or those who qualify for assistance?  
Last week, Eduflack called for the establishment of an Office of Early Childhood Education at the U.S. Department of Education, building off of Obama’s recognition of the issue’s importance and his pledge to prioritize the issue.  Pre-K Now’s Libby Doggett has done me one better, calling for an “Early Education Czar” at the White House to ensure early childhood issues fit into the larger tapestry of education improvement.
Like so many of the great education reform issues, early childhood education is not a simple issue, easily boxed by the powers that be.  It involves education and healthcare and parental engagement and public/private partnerships and funding mixes and intermediaries and places of worship.  It requires levels of training and requirements and oversight and the determination of quality, both from an instructor and a delivery side.  And it requires deep collaboration, particularly in the tough economic times where early childhood ed can be seen by some as a “value add” and not a necessity.
Time will tell if preK fulfills it possibility as being “the” next issue, or if it simply moves back into place and becomes like so many good ideas with promise, but the inability to seize the public interest and the public sense of urgency.  We aren’t there yet.  With the right approach, the right stakeholders, and the call to action, Doggett and her advocates may yet get their wish.  Regardless, their study is a good step forward in reminding all of us that preK, particularly its funding, is a topic that hits all families, no matter where our economic markets may take us.

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

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

Dear President-Elect Obama,

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

Accounting for the RF Dollars

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

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

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

<div><br></div><div>Manzo”>

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

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

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Science

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

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

An Educational Future for the Edu-Daughter

Eduflack charter schools, Gates Foundation, Immigration, national standards, SBRR, STEM

Later this morning, Eduwife and I will board a plane in Guatemala City with our new 13-month-old daughter, Anna Patricia.  At 10:35 a.m., we will touch down in Houston.  Once we deplane and pass through Customs, our first order of business it taking little Anna to the Homeland Security Office in Bush International Airport and have her sworn in as a U.S. citizen.  Before lunch time today, Anna will be part of the American dream, gaining access to the greatest public education system one can find on the planet.

All week, I’ve been down in Guatemala thinking about family, thinking about what is possible, and thinking about what may have been.  I do so knowing that we did not adopt Anna to give her a better life.  No, we did it because my wife and I are selfish and we wanted a better life for ourselves and a bigger family.  Anna provides us both.
But I can’t help but think about the educational path now before her, and the opportunities to which she will be exposed.  I spend so much time railing against the problems in the current system, advocating for the issues that may be unpopular to some, and generally agitating the system in hopes that such agitation will ultimately result in change and improvement.
I watch my two-and-a-half year old son, and Anna’s full birth brother, soak up every educational opportunity made available to him.  He wants to be read to and he models reading behavior.  He is growing more and more computer literate by the day.  He is passionate about art and music and athletics.  He is now working on counting and beginning math skills.  He is putting together full sentences (lots of them declarative), using subjects and verbs.  And he is bilingual to boot.
I am expecting Anna to follow down the same path, modeling herself after her brother.  Yes, she’ll be interested in playing the Wii, but she’ll also embrace the written word.  She’ll enjoy watching Franklin or Little Bear on TV, but she’ll also figure out the puzzles that are recommended for those far beyond her age.  I expect both my children to take full advantage of the educational opportunities available to them, and I expect to do all I can to offer a clear path to high-quality learning.
What is my vision for my children?  Let me nail Eduflack’s 10 tenets to the electronic wall:
* I want every kid, particularly mine, reading proficient before the start of the fourth grade.  Without reading proficiency, it is near impossible to keep up in the other academic subjects.  And to get there, we need high-quality, academically focused early childhood education offerings for all.
* I want proven-effective instruction, the sort of math, reading, and science teaching that has worked in schools like those in my neighborhood with kids just like mine. 
* I want teachers who understand research and know how to use it.  And I want teachers to be empowered to use that research to provide the specific interventions a specific student may need.
* I want clear and easily accessible state, district, school, and student data.  I want to know how my kids stack up by comparison.
* I want relevant education, providing clear building blocks for future success.  That means strong math and technology classes.  It means courses that provide the soft skills needed to succeed in both college and career through interesting instruction.  And it means art and music right alongside math and reading.
* I want national standards, so if my family relocates (as mine did many times when I was a child), I am guaranteed the same high-quality education regardless of the state’s capitol.
* I want educational options, be they charter schools or magnet schools, after-school or summer enrichment programs.  And these options should be available for all kids, not just those struggling to keep up.
* I want schools that encourage bilingual education, without stigmatizing those students for whom English is a second language.  Our nation is changing, and our approach to English instruction must change too.
* I want a high-quality, effective teacher in every classroom.  Teaching is really, really hard.  Not everyone is cut out for it.  We need the best educators in the classroom, and we need to properly reward them for their performance.
* I want access to postsecondary education for all.  If a student graduates from high school and meets national performance standards, they should gain access to an institution of higher education.  And if they can’t afford it, we have a collective obligation to provide the aid, grants, and work study to ensure that no student is denied college because of finances.
Is that asking to much?  I’d like to think not.  I’d like to believe we are there on some points, and getting there on others. But I recognize we have many roads to travel on quite a few.
If we’ve learned anything from this blog, we know that empty rhetoric is often worse than no rhetoric at all.  If we believe in these principles, we need to do something about it.  We need to move to public action.  I am committed to building a public engagement campaign around these principles, helping parents, families, and communities throughout the nation take these on for themselves and demand them of their local schools.  I am ready to lend a voice to such an effort and do what I can to promote these tenets.  I’m ready to do my part.
The question that remains is who is ready to take up the cause and build a national commitment to such principles?  Who will call on a new president and a new U.S. Department of Education to embrace these ideas?  Who will pick up the flag?
In many ways, this is the sort of thing that a group like Ed in 08 could have embraced.  Maybe the Gates and Broad Foundations are willing to lend a little of their cost savings to building true national understanding and commitment to high-quality education in this country.
I yield the soapbox.  Welcome home, Anna!
 

Engaging the Public on Math Reform

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

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

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

Real Scientifically Based Reading Results, Courtesy of AFT

Eduflack AFT, Reading First, SBRR

If it is Tuesday, then it must be time for Eduflack to get up on his scientifically based reading soapbox.  And while I am out of the country this week (down in Guatemala, preparing to bring our 13-month-old daughter home), the trip down South provided me with a great deal of time to catch up on reading and generally think.

Anyone who has read this blog or has generally been within the sound of my voice for the past decade knows that I am a passionate advocate for scientifically based reading instruction.  We know what works to get kids reading.  We know the instructional approaches and building blocks necessary for most kids.  We know the interventions needed for the others.  We know the content-focused professional development our teachers should be receiving.  And we even know how to effectively measure student reading achievement and how to determine the true efficacy of a reading program, basal or otherwise.
We know what works.  We know scientifically based reading works.  And even if Reading First is destined for the great policy heap in the sky, we know that the core tenets of the program — the research base that was to guide instruction and evaluation — works too.
It isn’t just the rabid phonicators who are out there talking scientifically based, though.  Case in point, this month’s edition of American Educator, the publication of record from the American Federation of Teachers.  The Fall 2008 edition of American Educator has two terrific articles that are well worth the read.  The first, authored by American Educator’s Jennifer Dubin, discusses the success of scientifically based reading in turning around performance in struggling schools in cities such as Richmond, Virginia.  The second, authored by NWREL’s Teresa Deussen, Kari Nelsestuen, and Caitlin Scott, touts the initial impact Reading First is having on our schools and advocates for giving the controversial program a second chance.
I’m not going to provide my rhetorical musings on these pieces, because I think the work of the authors speaks for itself.  What is important to note, however, is that AFT has long been a supporter of the notion of scientifically based reading.  From their “Teaching Reading is Rocket Science” publications to their investment in classroom based reading to their support for the U.S. Department of Education’s Partnership for Reading Efforts from 2002-2005 (an effort Eduflack helped direct, at least on the communications side), AFT has long gotten it.  AFT teachers know what works in the classroom, and its leadership has not been afraid to stand up and support it, even if it was unpopular with other education organizations or other teachers unions.
So a tip of the hat to AFT for publishing these two pieces, particularly in this political climate.  Dubin’s piece, in particular, is an important read for those who want to understand how these recently released interim and final RF implementation studies actually relate to what’s happening in real classrooms across the country.  And isn’t that what is most important?
 

What Works for the WWC

Eduflack IES, Reading First, SBRR

Last week, This Week in Education revealed that Russ Whitehurst was leaving the Institute of Education Sciences.  That should come as no surprise, as Whitehurst’s congressionally appointed term expires in November 2008, and he has made clear he was not seeking reappointment.  TWIE’s announcement was followed by Fordham Flypaper’s news that Whitehurst was moving over to Brookings’ Brown Center for Education Policy, presumably to fill the very capable shoes of the departing Tom Loveless.

Interestingly, no one in DC education policy circles seems to be talking about what comes next for IES.  Who will serve as the next director?  What will the priorities be?  Heck, we don’t even know where an Obama or McCain administration stands on IES, its mission, and its programs.  One thing seems certain, though, the future of the Institute won’t be determined until well after the next president is sworn into office. 
The defining experiment of IES has been the What Works Clearinghouse.  Released six years ago with much fanfare, the WWC was intended to be a Consumer’s Reports of sorts for education practitioners.  It was to sort through all of the education research data, determine what works, and provide guidance to school district officials, building leaders, and teachers on what was most effective and how education dollars should be spent.
A noble goal, and a much needed role in today’s education universe. Unfortunately, a funny thing happened on the way to implementation.  WWC became a methodological monster.  In its zeal to distinguish itself from the past work of the U.S. Department of Education’s former Office of Education Research and Improvement, WWC laid out strict and complicated criteria for every piece of research it would examine.  The result?  Most research was kicked out during the initial stages, found to lack the methodological rigor WWC called for.  For these studies, we never got to the issue of effectiveness or impact because they lacked effective control groups or didn’t form the proper study structures, as called for by WWC and its advisors.
Over the years, we have accepted the WWC process as fact.  Some organizations have pleaded mea culpa, asking WWC for advice on what to do.  Others have carefully constructed a single study to meet WWC criteria so they could claim approval (while claiming their competitors were rejected).  And still others refused to acknowledge the value and authority of WWC, and continued to do things their way, stating that their research was true, clear, and effective.
In recent months, WWC has drawn some real attention, mostly for its negative findings on the instructional impact of reading programs Open Court and Reading Mastery. For those watching WWC all these years, we just chalked it up to WWC being WWC.  Eduflack was of similar mind, reminding individuals that, at the end of the day, decisionmakers at the district or school level are simply not making decisions based on WWC findings.  While it may have been the intention, WWC is now merely a forum for researchers to try and outresearch each other, for methodological masters to do their jousting and determine who the true jedi was.  Despite the best of intentions and the most noblest of needs, WWC had become irrelevant.
Then an interesting document crossed my desk.  Under the headline “Machinations of the What Works Clearinghouse,” Zig Englemann provides a terrific analysis on the WWC’s decisions regarding Reading Mastery.  The headline?  “What Works Clearinghouse is so irreparably biased that it would have to be thoroughly reoriented and reorganized under different management rules to perform the function of providing reliable, accurate information about what works.”
With regard to Reading Mastery, Englemann points to the fact that there are more than 90 research studies on the program (and its predecessor DISTAR Reading), with most of these studies appearing in “refereed journals.”  Yet WWC found that “no studies of Reading Mastery that fell within the scope of the Beginning Reading review meet WWC evidence standards.”
Honestly, Eduflack is just plain tired of hearing that no studies fell within the scope.  For years, I defended WWC and IES, seeing both as necessary components to strengthening the research base of the education field.  When Mathematica announced that it was reopening and re-examining the Beginning Reading field — a prior review that had caused much heartburn across the reading community — I was heartened that change may be in the works.  But my atypical optimism has quickly been replaced by my real and necessary skepticism.  Englemann is right, we need to build a new, better, and more effective IES before it dies from within.
Englemann does a terrific job in looking at the WWC methodology, identifying the problems in techniques, approaches, and analyses undertaken by WWC (who knew that research conducted prior to 1985 didn’t count, even if it met every methodological standard laid out by WWC and its methodological advisors).  I would highly recommend the study for all those seeking to better understand how good research has been deemed outside the federal scope these past few years.
But yelling into the wind only gets us so far.  For the record, I still believe in the mission and goals of WWC, and I particularly believe in the mission, goals, and objectives of IES.  We need a strong, independent voice in the federal government that can tell us what works and can point us to valuable research on improving practice and instruction.  We need a voice that ensures what is proven effective is what is being practiced.  We need the evidence, plain and simple.
Now is a unique time for IES and the Board that oversees it.  Currently, a number of board member nominations are pending before Congress.  Clearly, a search for a new IES director must be underway.  So what’s the message IES and its Board should be spending in the near future?
* The voice of the practitioner is just as important as the voice of the researcher.  Methodology is important, but it is no more important that ensuring an intervention works in a school like mine, in a class like mine, with kids like mine.
* We cannot exclusively value process over results.  Again, the methodology is important, but so are outcomes.  Which is more valuable to our schools — methodologically strong programs with middling results or middling methodology with extremely strong results?  Yes, we want strong methodology and results, but if I have to choose, I want to invest in what works and what’s working on a large scale.
* We need to broaden the audience.  IES should be playing to a wide range of stakeholders, and not merely the research community and the education publishers it happens to review at a given time.  It should be a resource for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers.  To do that, we need to simplify the message and broaden the appeal.
* IES can become a Consumer Reports for the education sector.  But to do so, it needs to change its thinking and approach.  It needs to be user friendly.  It needs to be collaborative.  And it needs to think more broadly about the impact it is having, not just on research but on education and the community at large.
* IES needs to inspire and lead.  This isn’t just about being the stick to ED’s funding carrot.  It isn’t just about good, methodologically sound research.  IES needs to invest the time and effort into educating stakeholders as to why scientifically-sound education is important.  Why do we care about methodology?  What are the benefits to scientifically based instruction?  And what can I do to get the science into my kids’ schools?  It needs to demonstrate how education sciences improves student achievement and boost student options for both school and
life.
Recent attempts by IES and WWC to quickly turn around focused research reports are a good first step. But if the Institute is going to build its legacy, it needs to focus on building both public awareness for its mission and objectives and establishing public support and enthusiasm for achieving those goals.  It’s not a simple process, but it is doable.  And it is necessary for IES to survive and thrive.
Regardless of who is EdSec come January, IES should be a priority for either administration.  It possesses enormous potential and opportunity.  Hopefully, someone will remember that and we can build on its best qualities, learn from its worst, and do what is right by states, districts, schools, and students.

The Neverending Saga of RF Data

Eduflack IES, Reading First, SBRR

Even the most zealous of Reading First advocates/agitators (yours truly included) recognize that the headstone for the federal program has been carved.  At this point, we’re all just waiting to see if RF will officially be laid to rest on October 1, 2009, when a new fiscal year takes affect or in March 2009 or so, when a new Congress decides to abandon a continuing resolution for the federal budget and actually passes a Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill (and as former appropriations folk, Eduflack would be shocked if anything new happens with the budget this spring, regardless of who is president).

Earlier this year, we heard much media trumpeting of the failure of RF.  Flying a banner of an IES interim study of RF effectiveness, RF opponents and many members of the media flatly stated that, after billions of dollars, Reading First just didn’t work.  The proof?  While reading scores have improved since RF’s passage, the initial differences in proficiency increases in RF schools and non-RF schools weren’t that much different.
As we’ve stated here before (and as others have more prominently stated in other more prominent forums) that interim study was significantly flawed, methodologically.  More importantly, it never took into account the effect that RF had on reading instruction throughout the nation.  What does that mean?  Publishing houses changed their textbooks and their support materials to meet the RF research standards.  Teacher training and PD programs evolved to meet the research standards laid out in RF.  Whether a school received specific RF funding or not, all schools were and are benefiting from the policy, mandates, and expectations of the Reading First law.
Late last week, the U.S. Department of Education released a new study on RF.  This study, prepared by Abt Associates and meant as a follow-up to a similar 2006 study, declared “limited benefits.”  This study did look at the RF schools versus the non-RF schools, noting that all are likely affected by the law, but that RF schools adopted the law with more fidelity.
At the end of the day, the ED study found limited gains for third-grade reading proficiency in half of the 24 states surveyed,  For fourth graders, six of 17 states surveyed saw improvements in reading proficiency.  Data came from 1,000 RF schools and from 500 Title I schools that did not receive RF funding.  The full story can be found at Education Week, courtesy of Kathleen Manzo — <div><br></div><div>While”>www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/15/08reading.h28.html?tmp=326752502.

<div><br></div><div>While”>

<div><br></div><div>While”>While I like to pretend I am, I am not a researcher.  I’ll leave it to the real experts to tell us what’s under the topline data and what these findings really mean, both for Reading First and for schools throughout the nation.  There is still a lot to be written about what this study truly finds, just as there is a lot to be said in what IES will report in its final study, hopefully cleaning up the problems of this year’s interim study.
What troubles Eduflack, though, is how little attention this study has received.  I recognize it was only released late last week.  To date, I have only seen Education Week take the time and consideration to cover this issue.  In the past, publications tripped over themselves to report on the failures of RF or the finding of no findings.  Where is the media coverage of this study?  Here, we have data that demonstrates benefit, and real benefit in half those states surveyed.  Sure, I wish the results were stronger.  But this data — hopefully one of many studies to come in future years, demonstrates there is benefit to Reading First.  And that means we have something to learn from.
RF’s research base, instructional goals, priorities, and potential impact on quality instruction are all positives for our education system.  Hopefully, once that headstone is erected, we can take these parts — a multiple organ donation if you will — and use them to add real life to a strong research-based reading policy.  As a federal government, we’ve invested in reading instruction for decades now.  That won’t stop when RF stops.  With luck, though, we will build and evolve, and not simply scrap and start new.