Many in higher education bemoan the role of regional and state regulatory bodies. Years ago, Eduflack worked with a start-up higher ed company seeking regional accreditation for new graduate programs. We wanted accreditation fast, and we wanted it a week ago. Each, week, we seemed to lament the latest hoop to jump, report to write, and visit to prepare for.
We must remember such processes are there for a reason. Regional accreditors and state higher education boards are there to protect the quality and value of higher education. Not everyone can run a college out of their basement or a warehouse. Someone needs to go in and evaluate the quality of the program, the faculty, the facilities, and the school. Think of these accreditors as the IAB of the higher ed system. No one wants a visit from internal affairs, but all need to pay attention.
We remember this when we see articles like that recently published in the Dallas Morning News. It seems the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board rejected a proposal from the Institute for Creation Sciences to establish a “creation sciences” degree for teachers looking to teach an alternative to evolution. No doubt, legal action is sure to ensue. Check out the full article here — http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/042408dntexcreationscience2.917bf873.html.
I’ll leave the problem of teaching creationism in the public schools aside. At some point, we need to respect the authorizing process and recognize these state and regional boards know exactly what they are doing. Opposing this degree in a religiously charged environment like Texas is a hard thing to do. Someone out there owes the Texas board a word of thanks for standing tall on such a controversial issue.
When I was in higher ed, many liked to say the regulators were simply defending the status quo and protecting the establishing institutions from true innovation. Maybe that is partly true. But they also preserve the integrity of our institutions and ensure that a licensed and accredited institution of higher education is held to high standards and is expected to teach proven facts.
Don’t mis-hear me, there is a place for creationism in classroom debate and intellectual discussion. But what proven scientific texts is one using in a creation sciences? Who has peer-reviewed the Bible? And how do you play Devil’s advocate in a discussion on the fourth day of creation?
STEM
Let’s STEM Together
Collectively, we give a great deal of lip service to the idea of collaboration. We seem to know that we should engage other stakeholders in our reforms. We recognize the importance of different voices from different perspectives. But in the end, we tend to flock around our own. Teacher-focused reform. Policies driven in a decisionmaker vacuum. Even students who try to go down the change path all by their lonesome.
This week, Eduflack was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Team Pennsylvania Foundation. The groups brought hundreds of individuals to Harrisburg to discuss the importance of a statewide STEM education effort. The audience was a textbook definition of the collaboration we typically seek — representatives from P-12, higher education, business, NFPs, and government. High school students and 30-year veterans. All five regions of the state strongly represented. All gathered together to improve STEM education for the state.
The panel discussion, in particular, was an interesting one. We purposely heard from a variety of voices in STEM education field. Two newish educators collaborating to build a STEM high school in Pittsburgh (doors opening in 2009). A corporate representative who has demonstrated his commitment to STEM skills and STEM hires for years. The president of Saint Francis University, whose TEAMS effort could teach a lot of IHEs how to prepare teachers for the rigors of STEM. And two students currently participating in STEM apprenticeship programs with Lockheed Martin — both enrolled in community college, both excited about the career paths available to them.
This diverse panel gave the full audience a great deal to think about, helping them answer some key questions we all seem to dwell on. Why is STEM education so important? Who benefits from it? What is my role in adopting a STEM program? What do we do if we don’t have money to open a new school or start an apprenticeship program? How do we know we are successful? What’s the end game, both in terms of results and calendar.
Father Gabe Zies, the president of Saint Francis, was particularly powerful in discussing the final question. This is not a two-year effort, with a calendar dictated by the term of a grant from the NGA. Investment in STEM education is a long-term game. We don’t look for an end. Instead, we constantly look to improve and enhance. The effort will continue to evolve as our technology and our skill needs evolve. In essence, Father Gabe is saying that STEM is about meeting the challenges of tomorrow. It is about innovation, an innovation that never stops and should never waver. And that means an initiative that is perpetually adapting and changing to address those needs continually ensure our students, our teachers, and our schools are up to the challenges ahead of them.
There was universal agreement that STEM education is a shared responsibility with shared returns on investment. No audience can go it alone, and none should be forced to. Through collaboration, these Pennsylvania STEM advocates were confident they can build a strong, sustainable effort that strengthens both P-16 education and the workforce.
The group also heard from Pennsylvania Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, who kicked the forum off with an inspirational discussion of hope and opportunity. Channeling football great Vince Lombardi, Zahorchak cited a goal of perfection. He noted Lombardi consistently pushed all his players to achieve perfection. Whenever they were asked about it, they said they aren’t there yet, but they are a whole lot better today than they were before. And they would be better tomorrow.
Such sentiment is important in education reform, and it is often lost in the NCLB era. We seem to look for excuses as to why every child can’t succeed and how we need expand exceptions to the law or look for loopholes to get us out of the problem. In discussing STEM, Zahorchak recognizes what the end goal is — a fully STEM-literate society. High school diplomas that hold real value in the work world. Postsecondary academic pathways that were previously unavailable to many. Career opportunities that strengthen the family while strengthening the region and state’s overall economy. Opportunities for all, not just for those seeking to be rocket scientists or brain surgeons.
I don’t know about the other participants, but Coach Zahorchak, I’m ready to suit up and get down in a three-point stance. Perfection should be our end game. The panelists I spoke with clearly demonstrated we have the tools, the experience, and the passion to get there. Now we just need to harness all those tools, work together, and ensure that our strongest team is on the field.
After this week, I am certain Pennsylvania is up to the challenge, and has the opportunity to serve as a true model for STEM education in the coming years.
It Just Adds Up
Nearly eight years ago, the National Reading Panel released its findings before Congress, officially starting the push for scientifically based reading research — or SBRR — in the classroom. Then, just as now, we knew that all students needed reading skills in order to achieve. We knew that an inability to read at grade level by fourth grade would hamper learning ability throughout a student’s academic career. And, thanks to the NRP and the previous work done by the National Academies of Science, we know what our classrooms needed to do to transform every child into a reader. The research was clear, the NRP documented it, and the challenge became equipping every teacher with the knowledgebase and ability to use that research and get kids reading.
In many ways, the NRP report was a revolution. Strong supporters and equally strong opponents went through it recommendation by recommendation, idea by idea. Other researchers, such as Camilli, re-analyzed everything to determine if the findings were accurate (they were). And in the end, the research stands as strong today as it did in April of 2000. Some may attack the personalities involved in the NRP. Others may wish the NRP had studied more issues or made additional recommendations (particularly as they relate to literature or to qualitative research). And still others may wish the NRP findings had been more flexibly adopted as part of Reading First. But no one can question that the NRP started a revolution, giving us a new way to look at education, a new way to look at educational research, and higher standard for doing what works and seeking return on educational investment. (Full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of the Panel, its work, and its impact on education.)
It took years before we saw the full impact of the NRP findings. SBRR didn’t enter the discussion until two years later, after NCLB and RF were signed into law. (Yes, the NRP was a Clinton-era initiative). But look at it now.
It is significant to remember this as we look at this week’s report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. For those who missed it (and it was hard to, with the significant media coverage it received from the nation’s leading newspapers), the Math Panel offered significant recommendations on the math skills our students need to succeed and how our nation’s teachers can empower all students with such skills.
In doing so, the Math Panel has now planted a firm flag in the name of education reform and improved student achievement. By looking at ways to improve the PreK through eighth grade math curriculum, the Panel has clearly articulated what our kids should know as part of their mathematics education. And they have provided specific goals for math instruction, goals that can and should guide curriculum development, program acquisition, teaching, and learning in schools and classrooms across the nation.
The Panel’s members should be applauded for their hard work and their commitment. This report is an important milestone in the improvement of math education in the United States. Unfortunately, it is just the first step of many. From Eduflack’s experience, the hard work begins now. Now, we have to move those findings into practice.
Too often, we’ve seen important government studies that never live up to their potentials. Reports are published. Copies are distributed. Then they sit in closets or on bookshelves never to be seen again. Many believe simply distributing the report, and raising awareness of its existence and contents, is all that is needed. We know, however, that is far from the case.
For the Math Panel report to have the impact it should have on our schools, we need to look beyond mere information distribution and focus on changing math teaching and math learning. If we learned anything from the NRP, it is that an aggressive public engagement campaign is key to long-term impact. Yes, it is important that we learn of the Math Panel’s findings. But it is more important for teachers to understand how they need to change their practice and the impact it will have on students. We need administrators to know what they must look for in selecting curricular solutions. We need teacher educators to know what skills and abilities they must equip future generations of math teachers with. We must let all of our key stakeholders know what they have to do differently to meet the Math Panel’s goals — and we must arm them with the resources and support necessary to achieve it.
The time is now for the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and math educators, math advocates, parents, and policymakers who are committed to boosting math achievement among U.S. students. And it is a time to act. With a clear blueprint, we know where we need to go and what we need to do. Now, we must learn from the experiences of the NRP, avoid the political roadblocks and the straying from the research, and focus on doing. It’s the only way our kids can ensure that classroom experience times research-based practice equals long-term results.
Teaching to the Student
Tonight on PBS, Frontline offers a program titled “Growing Up Online” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/) an attempt to provide greater understanding of today’s youth. A sociological exploration, if you will, into a generation that never knew corded telephones, typewriters, a library card catalog, or UHF television. A demographic that can’t recall a pre-Internet world. A group we hope is being built on the notion of working smarter, not harder; to innovate and not follow.
From some of the early reports on this special, we are seeing that some teachers are fretting the current generation of students because of their short attention spans and desire for instant gratification. Undoubtedly, we’ll eventually hear pinings for the good ole days, when students plucked quills from porcupines and hand-wrote everything on paper with chunks of wood still embedded in it.
Face it, we are living, working, and learning in a new frontier. It’s adapt or perish. We see that in industry, as businesses are forced to do more with less, to adopt green practices, and constantly innovate and build a better mousetrap. We see it in the media, where morning newspapers and traditional network news has been replaced with specialty cable stations and a plethora of web sites, blogs, and other “news outlets” that provide the information we want, as soon as we want it.
So shouldn’t we expect it in education as well? K-12 education is one of the last bastions of old-world thinking. Consider this, most of today’s high schools are just like the high schools we went to, or our parents, or our grandparents. The fact is, little has changed in secondary education over the past century. We still have rows of one-piece desks. We still have teachers lecturing 25 some-odd students for the full class time. We still have worksheets and multiple-choice tests on relatively arcane topics. And we still have anywhere from a third to a half of students dropping out before earning their diploma.
At the same time, we preach the need for education. We tell students that high-skill, high-wage jobs require both a high school diploma and some form of postsecondary education. We talk about the relevance of school and the need to achieve. And then, in far too many communities, we go back to rows of desks and a lecture on the French Revolution.
It shouldn’t be this way. Last summer, Eduflack wrote about the danger of “deskilling” today’s students. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/07/26/deskilling-our-students.aspx Perhaps Frontline can teach us a little about what we need to do to engage students, make school relevant, and upgrade the learning environment to meet the skills and expectations of todays skills … and not their great-grandparents.
What does all that mean? It means change. Change in how we teach. Change in what we teach. Change in how we measure it.
It means putting technology in the center of the learning process. If students resonate to information gleaned from MySpace, Facebook, You Tube, and the Internet in general, use it to the teachers’ advantage. We can expect far more from students using the Internet than the Dewey decimal system.
It means making school relevant. We are already seeing the successes of programs like Early College High Schools and other Gates grantees. If I want a high-skill, high-wage job, show me how my high school (or middle school) experience gets me there. Yes, some of our nation’s great educational thinkers believe K-12 is a time to cultivate a love for learning, and college or grad school is the time to focus on career. But if you talk to today’s eighth or ninth graders, it is all about the path to a good job. The courses they take, the extra-curriculars they participate in, the schools they choose. If our students are focused on relevance, shouldn’t we?
Ultimately, it means recognizing that the student is the primary customer in our K-12 system. And as we all know, the customer is always right. That means we teach in the environment where our students can get maximum benefit. Think about it for a second. Would we rather build up a teacher’s skills so they are teaching in a 21st century learning environment, or would we rather strip a student down so they are learning in a 19th or 20th century classroom? The choice should be simple. Our schools should be home to an ongoing evolution of effective learning and teaching. They shouldn’t be museums where we honor the good teaching of 1937 educators.
Some get this, and we see their impact in efforts such as one-to-one computing, online high schools, dual enrollment programs, high school internship programs, and the like. But these seem to be the exception, instead of the rule. If a public K-12 education is going to mean something in 10 or 20 years, such innovations need to be the norm. Deep down, we all know that, even if we don’t want to talk about it. The educational model of the past century is not going to cut it as we move further into this one.
Sure, this is all a little harsh. Yes, if we try to build of K-12 systems solely around the whims and wishes of the average teenager, we’ll run in circles and lose what hair we have left. But if we are to learn anything from programs such as “Growing Up Online,” it is that we need to effectively reach our audiences with language, tactics, and strategies they understand, appreciate, and embrace. We need to build that better educational mousetrap, if you will. And we need it now.
Math is Hard? Ha!
Back in the late 1990s, Mattel came out with a Barbie doll that, among other things, informed many little girls (and some little boys) that “math is hard.” It was the wrong message to send then, and the wrong message now. We all know that girls (and boys) should be encouraged to pursue math and science, and not feel they aren’t smart enough to take these essential courses.
The worry, at the time, was that Barbie would plant her message of underachievement in a many young girls, denying us a generation of Madame Curies, Sally Rides, and even Danica MacKellars. After all, would a plastic doll lie?
Fortunately, our fears seem to be unfounded. This week, women were the big winners of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology, taking top honors for individual and team projects. Looks like those chemistry sets had a far greater impact than Malibu Barbie and her dream house.
The worry, at the time, was that Barbie would plant her message of underachievement in a many young girls, denying us a generation of Madame Curies, Sally Rides, and even Danica MacKellars. After all, would a plastic doll lie?
Fortunately, our fears seem to be unfounded. This week, women were the big winners of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology, taking top honors for individual and team projects. Looks like those chemistry sets had a far greater impact than Malibu Barbie and her dream house.
Congrats to Isha Jain, Janelle Schlossberger, Amanda Marinoff, and all of the others who participated in the Siemens competition. Now winning Siemens, that’s hard.
The Need for STEM: Exhibit P
For the past few years, there has been a growing debate on the need for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education. To some, STEM is a program for the elites, an honors program that doesn’t affect the majority of kids who need it. For others, it is too expensive. And for others still, it is a complicated issue that doesn’t fit neatly in the K-12 box. As a result, STEM education efforts have been sporadic to date. Some states — like Minnesota — have done a tremendous job building a STEM education effort that reaches all students in the continuum. Unfortunately, far too many are playing a wait and see, holding off before making significant intellectual, time, or capital investments.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
Pundits Vs. Analysts on Ed
Is it or isn’t it? Yesterday, the Ed in 08 folks held a forum up in New Hampshire, offering an impressive list of “pundits” discussing how education was becoming a key issue for the upcoming presidential elections. Today, This Week in Education has a link to a CNS News story, where their “analysts” say education will not be a significant issue in 2008. (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11560325/) Who’s right? And does it matter?
At the end of the day, they are probably both right. Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections. We’ll vote on the war. On healthcare. On the general economy. Even for a balanced budget. But education is viewed as a local issue. The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources. Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues. Not presidents. As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.
But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope). To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month. Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans. Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing. That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.
For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform. The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning. Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.
Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT. Republicans want to return education issues to the localities. That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.
What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution. A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue. It is an economic development issue. If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job. We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works. Proven effective rules the day. Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success. The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over. It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility. From the fed to the locality. From teachers to parents. From the CBOs to the business community. We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes. We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools. We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool. We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed. And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.
Yes, such messages are bound to offend some. But isn’t that what bold communication is all about? If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact. Improvement is reform. Reform is change. Change is rocking the boat.
For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers. Look where it has gotten us. If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change. That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.
Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this. The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions. Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools. Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you. Tell us how your administration will fix it. Please.
If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.
At the end of the day, they are probably both right. Education may be a top five issue when it comes to voter concerns, but it simply is not an issue that people vote on, particularly for presidential elections. We’ll vote on the war. On healthcare. On the general economy. Even for a balanced budget. But education is viewed as a local issue. The president may carry a rhetorical stick, but the vast majority of reforms, improvements and dollars are coming from state and local sources. Governors and mayors and city councils get elected on education issues. Not presidents. As a result, education won’t be a significant issue in 2008.
But it can become a key issue in differentiating some of the presidential candidates (and that’s likely Ed in 08’s hope). To date, Obama has done the most with the issue, calling for merit pay before the NEA and offering a fairly comprehensive education agenda earlier this month. Others have dabbled in issues like preK or college loans. Most have come out strongly against NCLB (even in GOP circles), particularly when it comes to testing. That leaves a great deal of room to play in, position, and orate.
For months now, folks have been waiting for Ed in 08 to seize the podium as it intended this past spring, and really make the case for national leadership in education reform. The organization has set a goal of advocating for three key issues with presidential candidates — 1) agreement on American education standards; 2) effective teachers in every classroom; and 3) more time and support for student learning. Hardly the call to action that makes hearts skip a beat and convinces the citizenry to slay dragons with a butter knife.
Democrats want to advocate for education policy that aligns with the wishes and dreams of the NEA and AFT. Republicans want to return education issues to the localities. That leaves a wide lane for bold, strong action and rhetoric.
What would Eduflack be screaming on the stump?
1) A high school diploma is a non-negotiable that every student needs to obtain a meaningful job.
2) In the 21st century, every student needs some form of postsecondary education, be it community college, CTE training, or four-year institution. A well-paying career requires postsec ed.
3) K-12 is no longer just an education issue. It is an economic development issue. If we want economic development, if we want good jobs, if we want job growth in our community, we need a strong K-12 system (and a strong PK-16 system would be even better).
4) Teaching is a hard job. We need to make sure every classroom has a proven effective teacher, and that teacher has the support he or she needs to do the job (see Aspen’s Commission on NCLB for the blueprint on this one)
5) We only teach what works. Proven effective rules the day. Curriculum, teachers, and students must all show their worth and must demonstrate success. The era of silver-bullet education and quick fixes is over. It takes real work and proven effective instruction to do the job.
6) Education reform is a shared responsibility. From the fed to the locality. From teachers to parents. From the CBOs to the business community. We all have a role, and an obligation, in improving our public schools.
7) We need to publicize the successes. We spend too much time talking about what’s going wrong in our schools. We need to provide the megaphone to what is working, and use it a teaching and modeling tool. We all benefit when we see what schools like ours and kids like our are doing to succeed. And there’s a lot of good happening in our schools.
Yes, such messages are bound to offend some. But isn’t that what bold communication is all about? If we want to protect the status quo, we can speak in vague generalities with words that have muddled meaning and virtually no impact. Improvement is reform. Reform is change. Change is rocking the boat.
For the past few decades, public education has been home to the status quoers. Look where it has gotten us. If we expect to get real traction on issues like national education standards, performance measures for teachers, expansion of charter schools and school choice, and a number of other reforms and ideas that are thrown about, we need an environment that allows for change. That’s the only way we get education into the top tier of issues for federal elections.
Without doubt, the good people at Ed in 08 have the resources, the experience, and the know how to do this. The snowmen have had their chance to ask the tough questions. Now’s the time to put the candidate’s feet to the fire on what exactly they would do to boost student achievement and educational quality in our public schools. Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the system; we know it better than you. Tell us how your administration will fix it. Please.
If Ed in 08 can get us those answers, then we really have something to talk about.
Does Creativity Matter?
In recent discussions of 21st century jobs, the focus is usually on science and math skills, problem solving, multi-tasking, and the ability to work in a team. From there, the talk moves to postsecondary education and the much-cited stat that 90% of new jobs will require some college education?
Some critics of the STEM focus, like Checker Finn, have drawn attention to the need of a classically liberal arts education, one that includes civics and history along with science and math. The goal being a nation of thinkers, not just a nation of workers.
So where in all of this discussion does the need for creativity come into play? Honestly, Eduflack doesn’t know if he has heard the word used as part of the needs of a 21st century workplace until this morning, when he saw the following AP article posted on edweek.org on a conference held by Washington-based Creativity Matters. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/16/13apseattle_web.h27.html
It is an interesting concept, tying workplace success to creativity and the ability use one’s imaginations. And it raises larger questions. How do you teach creativity? How do you measure it? What do you do with a linear thinker who follows the rules, and can’t “think outside the box?” And are we really talking creativity, or do we mean those who solve problems and try different approaches?
In Eduflack’s mind, creativity is a term associated with artists and musicians and writers and others who express emotions and thoughts. I don’t think I’d use it to describe someone working at a Boeing plant or writing code for Microsoft. But maybe the word is taking on new meaning and new context.
Regardless, the focus on including creativity in K-12 instruction is an important one for one central reason. It demonstrates that the recent push to link high school education to meaningful careers has taken hold. We no longer have to convince the American people that a high school diploma and postsecondary education are essential components to a successful career. We now know they are non-negotiables.
Instead, we now get to focus the discussion on what constitutes a high-quality secondary education. Whether it be STEM education, rigorous and relevant instruction, classic liberal arts, or creativity 101, the talk is on what skills can be taught now to take advantage of opportunities tomorrow. We’re not convincing people of why, but rather leading them down the path of how.
It demonstrates that progress has been made in marketing the need and effectiveness of high school reform over the past few years. People get it. Even without creative thinking, we now see that a strong education leads to a good job.
Some critics of the STEM focus, like Checker Finn, have drawn attention to the need of a classically liberal arts education, one that includes civics and history along with science and math. The goal being a nation of thinkers, not just a nation of workers.
So where in all of this discussion does the need for creativity come into play? Honestly, Eduflack doesn’t know if he has heard the word used as part of the needs of a 21st century workplace until this morning, when he saw the following AP article posted on edweek.org on a conference held by Washington-based Creativity Matters. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/16/13apseattle_web.h27.html
It is an interesting concept, tying workplace success to creativity and the ability use one’s imaginations. And it raises larger questions. How do you teach creativity? How do you measure it? What do you do with a linear thinker who follows the rules, and can’t “think outside the box?” And are we really talking creativity, or do we mean those who solve problems and try different approaches?
In Eduflack’s mind, creativity is a term associated with artists and musicians and writers and others who express emotions and thoughts. I don’t think I’d use it to describe someone working at a Boeing plant or writing code for Microsoft. But maybe the word is taking on new meaning and new context.
Regardless, the focus on including creativity in K-12 instruction is an important one for one central reason. It demonstrates that the recent push to link high school education to meaningful careers has taken hold. We no longer have to convince the American people that a high school diploma and postsecondary education are essential components to a successful career. We now know they are non-negotiables.
Instead, we now get to focus the discussion on what constitutes a high-quality secondary education. Whether it be STEM education, rigorous and relevant instruction, classic liberal arts, or creativity 101, the talk is on what skills can be taught now to take advantage of opportunities tomorrow. We’re not convincing people of why, but rather leading them down the path of how.
It demonstrates that progress has been made in marketing the need and effectiveness of high school reform over the past few years. People get it. Even without creative thinking, we now see that a strong education leads to a good job.
Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?
Two data sets on student performance are out this week. But what exactly does the data tell us? And more importantly, what do we say about the data?
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
On the Road Again
For the past few weeks, Eduflack has spent the majority of his time well beyond the DC beltway. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana to name just a few. And the coming weeks add Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado. One thing’s clear, discussions of education reform are occurring well beyond Capitol Hill and One DuPont.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 