Racing Toward Long-Term Change?

July 31, 2009 Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, national standards, stimulus, Teacher Education

It should come as no surprise that we are seeing a great number of states and school districts instituting new reforms so they appear to align with the goals and ambitions of Race to the Top and the overall Duncan reform agenda. Just this week, Indiana’s state superintendent announced major policy shifts (including a relaxing of teacher certification regulations), Illinois’ governor agreed to double the number of charter schools in Chicago, and even the Los Angeles superintendent is looking for ways to qualify for the RttT moneys, even if California is rejected because of its firewall issues.

Without doubt, governors, chief state school officers, and urban superintendents have been listening carefully to what EdSec Arne Duncan and his team at the LBJ Building are expecting from those who will be a part of the federal school improvement gravy train. For more than half a year, we’ve listened to speeches and dissected policies on topics such as teacher quality and incentives, charter school availability and quality, data systems, alternative teacher pathways, and core standards. We’ve scrutinized the details and criteria of last week’s RttT draft RFP, knowing that little, if anything, will change in the final. We all want to show we are part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Those in the know seem certain that only a select group of states are going to be bestowed the title of Race to the Top states. The betting odds are 10 to 15 states will earn the RttT seal. That leaves another 36 (if you count DC) knowing the end game, but possibly lacking the financial resources to truly innovate.

Earlier this month, the National Conference of State Legislatures released data on the budget gaps. It is no surprise that many of the states on the short end of the budget stick are states that many believe have an inside track for RttT. For instance, Connecticut has a $4.1 billion budget gap; Illinois a $7.3 billion gap. New York posts a $17.65 billion gap, while California clocks in at $38.95 billion. Even with State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars, these states have major obstacles to overcome just to keep pace with previous budget years. That means a lot of energy spent running in place, when ED is looking for states who will be sprinting out of the gates.

On the flip side, there are some interesting states that appear to be in the best financial shape, where their budget gaps are less than 5 percent of the general fund, meaning (in theory) that public education will face a scalpel, and not an axe. So there may be opportunities in states like Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio to quickly put real reforms in place and document the impact it is having on student learning.

It begs the question, who will win RttT? Are we looking for states with the greatest need, the states with the largest achievement gaps to overcome? Are we looking for low-hanging fruit states, where a couple of billion dollars in education funding can make the difference? Are we looking for states that want to invest in one major area, like STEM or teacher incentives, or are we looking for states that will be the full embodiment of the ED reform agenda? Are we looking for states that are willing to “match” federal funding with state and private dollars to spur innovation and improvement, or are we looking for those states extending the most aggressive hand?

And equally important, will the Indianas and Illinoises of the world continue with their reform agendas if they do not get added federal funding? We all want to believe that these proposals and changes are being offered because state decisionmakers see them as in the best interests of the schools and the students. But the cynic in Eduflack wonders how many are acting to give their states “curb appeal” as ED starts shopping for a home for more than $4 billion in new federal education funding. Will Illinois’ legislature fund the doubling of charter schools in Chicago without a check from the feds? Will Indiana’s state superintendent be able to move forward with his reform agenda if the Hoosier State is a spectator, and not a participant in the great Race? If the core standards movement doesn’t gain steam, will anyone other than RttT states endorse them?

Ultimately, programs like RttT are designed to model what is possible and spur innovation across the board. One expects RttT states to be incubators where the remaining members of our great union can see what is possible and what can work for them. We also expect those RttT states to continue their programs well after the federal funding spigot is turned off. But will that be the case? At the end of the day, will states who are not Race states change, without the financial incentive to do so?

One hopes they will, but history tells us that status quo education is status quo for a reason. It is far easier.

Largest ED Discretionary Program in History?

July 27, 2009 Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, NCLB, Reading First, RTT, stimulus

This afternoon, the U.S. Department of Education hosted a webinar as follow-up to last Friday’s festivities on Race to the Top, the Innovation Fund, and the host of other additional funding programs made possible through a generous grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The call served as a recap of the paperwork released on Friday, emphasizing the need for partnership, the importance of innovation, and the dollars and timelines associated with both.

As to be expected, individuals and organizations were already trying to see where they fit and what opportunities would be available specifically to them. What about really small LEAs? Does my planned charter school qualify? Is there money for wind power in RTT? (The third question was indeed a serious one.)

A few interesting points came out of the responses. For now, ED says it does not intend to eliminate SES (or at least replace it with ARRA funds). We’ve been hearing for nearly a year now that SES may be eliminated as part of ESEA reauthorization, but if that’s the plan over on Maryland Avenue, they played it close to the vest today.

We also heard Deputy ED Secretary Tony Miller endorse extended day and extended school year programs. When asked if RTT funds could be used for extended-day efforts, Miller can an enthusiastic affirmative, and even pointed to statewide efforts in Massachusetts as example of how state RTT dollars could be used effectively.

But I was most intrigued by the answer to a question regarding the timelines for programs and how long each stream of funding would last. When the discussion turned to RTT, Miller and company noted that Race to the Top funding was operating under a four-year plan. So $4.5 billion, available to states over four years. That comes out to $1.125 billion a year to me (although I learned my math before core standards were developed).

For some time, we have been hearing that Race to the Top was the single largest education discretionary spending program in the history of the United States. Friday, officials and dignitaries discussed all of the many uses for RTT, including STEM, alternative certification, charter schools, and the like (windmills did not make the cut). That’s a lot of potential silos being funded with the RTT stream of dollars. Clearly, ED has not indicated how many states will receive RTT funds. If it is six to eight states, as many expect, that is a huge boon to reform efforts in those states. If most states get the dollars, as may be politically expedient, that check is looking a little smaller than the Publishers Clearinghouse checks so many are now expecting.

But this afternoon’s discussion has deal ole Eduflack thinking. Is Race to the Top really the single largest education discretionary program in the history of man? As I remember it, in 2002, Reading First became law. As it was originally written, it was a 5-year, $6 billion program. Yes, all 50 states were expected to receive it, but the plan was approximately $1.2 billion a year for one single stream of educational improvement — reading instruction. Had the law been maximized, up to 25 percent of that was to go to high-quality professional development for teachers (so nearly $1.5 billion for teacher training and supports).

Why do I raise the RF issue now? In continued reading of RTT, the draft language seems to be all things to all people. It is designed as a consensus program so that each person along the way can hang their pet program or favorite issue on the reform tree. Governor gets his issue. State superintendent gets his. State board of education gets its favorite. Even the head of the state teachers union (if applicable) gets the final OK, meaning they get some quid for their pro quo. At the end of the day, the applications are likely going to be a patchwork of different things intended to improve in some places, reward in others, and placate in still others.

If that is how things roll out, and the majority of states receive RTT funds, then how do we ensure that we are really putting the dollars on the specific interventions and action items that will boost student achievement and close the achievement gap? We struggled in tracking federal effectiveness in RF (with some reporter friends reminding me that ED still hasn’t accounted for how those dollars were actually spent) and that was just focused on a singular issue of reading instruction in grades 3-8? How do we track, measure, and report progress and effectiveness of a host of issues that may be uncommon across states? How do we make sure that states are truly using the dollars to race to the top, and aren’t simply stuck in neutral with a gear shift that’s a little too loose?

The clock is ticking on the 30-day review period for RTT. Do I think the scope will narrow? No. But the criteria for evaluating state applications and awarding grants could do the trick.

Jumpin’ Before the RTT Gun Sounds

July 23, 2009 Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, Gates Foundation, stimulus

Washington, DC is a horrible place to keep a secret. While the average education wonk’s calendar had a reminder that the common standards (for high school at least) would be released next week, the draft is made public yesterday, with Core Knowledge the first to reveal and then Education Week providing more context and substance around it.

Most have similarly been waiting with baited breath for tomorrow’s expected announcement of the Race to the Top (RTT) RFP draft, the great piggy bank for states to demonstrate their education innovation and improvement. We’ve been working under a hard release date of tomorrow for RTT, with those with a dog in the fight looking to move quickly to help shape and revise the draft before it goes final next month (though I wouldn’t hold my breath on how different the final will be from the draft).

Then we start hearing about a big event in DC, where the RTT will be announced along with Innovation Funds, ed tech, teacher incentives, data systems, and even second round SFSF money. We hear about governors and chief state school officers being invited to Maryland Avenue. And this morning, the Education Equality Project, among others, “announces” that President Barack Obama himself will be on hand at the US Department of Education tomorrow AM to help EdSec Duncan announce the draft RTT RFP and re-emphasize the importance of K-12 education reform in our nation’s overall turnaround. (Of course, the President’s participation hasn’t officially been announced by ED or the White House, but it seems a safe bet at this point.)

All of this is typical, particularly when you compound it with the fact that the draft Race to the Top RFP is already circulating around town. Lest we forget, RTT is tasked with distributing $4.3 billion for, as described in the draft, “competitive grants to States to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for innovation and reform, implementing ambitious plans in the four reform areas described in the statute, and achieving dramatic improvement in student outcomes, including driving substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers.”

The draft RTT regs (at least the version Eduflack has seen) currently run at 61 pages. The money will be distributed in two phases, with states ready to run out of the gates can apply for the funds in late 2009, while others can wait until mid-to-late spring of 2010 for Phase Two to open up. Applicants must address all four of the above noted areas, and can’t just cherry-pick the two or three they think they can make progress in. It’s all in, or you can’t play.

Eduflack is particularly tickled to see that STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education has been singled out as a priority in RTT. While groups like the Gates Foundation, National Governors Association, NMSI and others have been investing in STEM, making it an RTT invitational priority — particularly with an emphasis on training effective K-12 STEM teachers — is a huge step forward for STEM efforts across the nation.

ED is also to be applauded for calling for stronger K-16 linkages, forcing K-12 and higher education to work together on Race to the Top.

It is also intriguing to see some of the definitions RTT is using. Student achievement is measured mostly by performance on the state’s standardized assessment. Whether that means just reading and math a la AYP or whether it includes science, social studies, and other assessments offered by states is a big TBD. Instead of AYP, which is a term all but abandoned by this ED, we are now talking student growth (with a similar definition). Graduation rates are defined by the NGA formula of a four-year grad rate (kudos to ED for sticking with it.) Formative and interim assessments make the definitions list. And we are now provided with an official RTT definition of Alternative Certification Programs for teachers.

Charter schools are featured, as is incentives for teachers and principals. In my initial read, I can’t find mention of terms like the previously popular “scientifically based,” though they do seem to enjoy the term “evidence” for both qualitative and quantitative purposes.

Hopefully, we will see a little more teeth in the Annual Reporting and Performance Measures section before this RFP goes to final. This is likely a point that is still being worked out with the states. Right now, ED is basically asking states to provide an annual written report documenting how they are doing against their own goals. But it doesn’t call for third-party assessment at all. We’re being asked to trust grant recipients to tell us how effectively they are spending the money they get. We’ve seen how well that has worked in the past, particularly if there isn’t an office at ED who is reviewing those reports, documented the results, and performing the spot checks on states to ensure that those written self-assessments are rooted in the realities at the building level.

On the whole, Race to the Top looks like a strong start to actually trying some new things and breaking the bonds of the status quo in far too many struggling schools. While some will be quick to try and offer changes to the RFP and look to redefine certain sections or re-emphasize (or de-emphasize) others, there seems to be little to quibble with. The RFP is broad, and intentionally so. The challenge is how well states respond to it, how closely those responses are scrutinized, and how strongly the states are held to following through on what they promise to receive their RTT checks.

Regardless, tomorrow should be fun. It’s always good to see a President throw his rhetorical weight behind public education. Even more so when we are talking about innovation, improvement, and change, and not just more dollars for the status quo. Now it is up to 50 governors, their chief state school officers, and their education advisors to quickly write some terrific applications so they can get at this money this fall, and put it to use before another generation of kids is lost in the cracks.

Racing to the Top?

July 14, 2009 Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

Back in March, everyone held high hopes for the billions of dollars moving from the feds to the states through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). Since the release of the economic stimulus package, EdSec Arne Duncan has focused on the need for innovation and improvement, improvement and innovation. So much so that you’d think that SFSF was actually funding innovation and improvement.

Unfortunately, a recent GAO study has found that SFSF funds are not exactly going to the sort of innovation and new programs we originally dreamed about a few months ago. Short-term stimulus dollars are going to plug existing holes and, in most places, are going to fund teachers and other long-term, non-discretionary school expenses.

So it is no wonder that attention has no turned to the Race to the Top (RTT) Fund and all of the new dollars that will be directed to the states to improve student achievement and break the chains of the status quo in public education. RTT is seen as the latest in big dollar federal education programs, the latest sugar daddy in a long and distinguished line.

The current talk is that the draft RTT RFP will be released by the end of the month (july 31), followed by a short public comment/review period. By fall, states will be busily assembling their RTT applications, with most seeking the big dollars to turnaround low-performing schools and introduce their struggling school districts to the ideas of innovation and improvement. If the plan holds, RTT dollars will be delivered by those ED armored trucks by the end of January 2010.

Obviously, the SEAs are going to be asked to address ED’s four pillars of policy: 1) standards and assessment; 2) data systems; 3) teacher quality; and 4) school turnaround. The RFP is likely to look like those states addressed with Reading First nearly a decade ago the supposed proposals they were asked to provide on SFSF earlier this year. States will pledge to improve student performance and close the achievement gaps. They’ll promise to track their progress. They’ll prioritize the lowest performers and the historically disadvantaged. And they will have plans, boy will they have plans.

But how can ED make sure that the SEAs are truly going to focus on outcomes, and not simply to inputs? How do we move from plans to results? How do we hold SEAs accountable for their promises, ensuring that RTT dollars are actually resulting in student achievement and gap closures? How do we guarantee that RTT leads to return on investment, with state and local actions charting a course for scalable improvements and innovations that chart the course for the wholesale turnaround that Duncan is looking for?

And how do we do so on the current timetable? Offering a few weeks during the summer for public comment and review is likely to stretch beyond the planned timeline, extending into the fall. If past experiences are any guide, the execution of RTT will take longer than expected. States won’t get the funds until the spring of 2010, after spending for the FY2010-2011 budgets have already been determined. That means that fast-tracked RTT funds won’t make their way until our schools until the 2011-12 school year. Two more school years may pass before our local decisionmakers have real dollars in their hands to implement the improvements and innovations Duncan and other officials at ED are calling for now. Two more years of status quo and mediocrity. Two more years of our most struggling schools and students muddling through a system that has failed them to date.

So how do we rectify the two? How do we serve as responsible stewards of new funding while demanding real results from the get-go? How do we get new dollars into the field as fast as possible, while avoiding the implementation problems of the past? How do we use RTT to bring about real, meaningful change instead of just continuing the status quo?

There is a great deal riding on RTT. For many out there, we are looking for this new funding program to bridge the gap between innovative rhetoric and status quo action. For many, RTT serves as the blueprint for charter schools, alternative certification, improved teacher quality, and data systems. It will move us from the bare minimums of the adequate in AYP to the higher expectations of student achievement for all. It is a way for districts in need to break the pattern that has resulted in decades of struggles, providing them the opportunity to do what is new and what will actually change school outcomes for the better.

Is that what we will see at the end of the month? Is that what we will see in the final RFP after key stakeholders get to weigh in and have their say? Currently, Duncan is riding the wave as the reigning Mr. Congeniality in education. At some point, he will have to take a hard stand that results in some stakeholders disliking him or getting frustrated with the policy borne of the rhetoric. The big question is whether he will frustrate the reformers or the status quoers. Will RTT result in the innovation we’re all talking about, or will it support the same old-same old that SFSF is propping up? The end of the month will be a telling road marker. Using the bully pulpit is easy. Moving that vision into policy and funding programs is hard.

Some Main Street USA Reality

July 8, 2009 Eduflack Arne Duncan, AYP, stimulus

Sometimes, our national education policy debates become very “Beltway-centric.” They are discussions among federal policy leaders and national education voices, between influencers and devil’s advocates, between those who have power and those who seek it once again. Too often, we focus on in the inputs and who is seated around the table, often forgetting those we are affecting and those who will be asked to carry out the very policies being put into place in Washington.

Eduflack was reminded of that last evening. I had the privilege of sitting down with members of a town council and a local school board up in New England. Like far too many communities, they are struggling with both the economic and the educational challenges of 2009. A town with a rich history, they’ve seen home values dramatically decline (by more than a third in two years), they’ve struggled to meet AYP (particularly in math), and they are finding it hard to communicate their community value to those who are looking for new communities to live in, despite their proximity to a major city and their strong quality of life. They want to make sure there are real job opportunities for their kids in the future, but they aren’t sure how to ensure it.

It is a diverse community, growing more diverse by the year. As a result, the schools are forced to deal with growing demands of ELLs, both as students and as parents. The school district has implemented an ambitious school improvement plan, seeking to address struggles in math and ELA proficiency with lower student-teacher ratios, full community involvement in the schools, and a community-wide commitment to improvement and innovation. They have a clear vision of where they want to do; they now just need the roadmap to get there.

Their challenge is this great nexus between economic and educational factors. Too often, we believe education operates in a vacuum. We do things because they make sense on paper (or worse, because others tell us it looks good on paper) without realizing how it fits into the larger picture. In communities like this, we see the ongoing continuum generated by the economy/schools intersection. School improvement requires additional dollars, money beyond the stimulus and Title I dollars offered by the federal government. That money comes from local government, which relies on property taxes to get there. Housing values decline. Housing sales slide. And the community has fewer dollars to do all of the things it does — police, fire, transportation, social services, and yes, education. So in a downturn, we are looking to reinvest in the schools, making them stronger so new families want to relocate in the community because it is a district on the rise, yet we struggle to find the dollars to execute.

Fortunately, in many towns like the one I visited yesterday, they have a real story to tell, offering a rich history with a clear plan of where they want to go. They have a loyal local business community, dedicated municipality officials, and schools committed to doing what it takes to improve. Are they happy with their AYP or their standing on state exams? No. Are they throwing up their hands, saying that a community with their challenges is a lost cause? Of course not. They are acting. They are looking to innovate, within the confines of their human and fiscal realities. They realize the status quo won’t cut it, and are looking for new ways to teach, new ways to learn, and new ways to share their story with those in the community and those who may join the community. They see this as a joint effort, with school and town working with local business, local churches, and local families and community leaders to move forward.

A few months ago, there were some guffaws around EdSec Duncan’s planned “listening tour.” They grew a little louder when we learned that the EdSec was actually doing the listening on these visits. He wasn’t going into communities to tell them what he was doing or to explain what they needed to do to fit his goals. He was listening to their experiences. He listened to stories of the fiscal troubles in communities like Detroit, where the schools are now facing bankruptcy. He was, supposedly, greatly impacted hearing the tales of learning and school improvement in our Native American community. Hopefully, he is hearing stories like those I heard last evening, understanding how federal action is but a small part of actual turnaround and improvement. He is realizing the collective responsibility, from the feds down to the localities, we all have in real innovation. And he is appreciating that his goal of turning around the 1,000 lowest performing schools starts with those actual schools, and does not come with a trickle-down of federal policy, dollars, and well wishes. It comes through empowerment, support, and investment beyond the annual checks.

I walked away last evening feeling better about the possibilities. In recent weeks, the details about federal education “improvement and innovation” had me feeling that there was little truly new and innovative happening. Aside from a renewed interest in charter schools, we were dealing with retreads of ideas of the past, talking about issues like mayoral control and inputs-based changes, hopin’, wishin’, and prayin’ that those inputs would result in improved outcomes. History tells us they rarely do.

So it was refreshing to hear directly from a local community that was taking the future into their own hands, committed to a turnaround plan built specifically for their community, supported by those in the locality, and addressing their real needs (and not the needs of a program officer in Washington). They understand the stakes have never been higher, and they are prepared to ante into the game and do what is necessary to improve education — and the lives — of the students of both today and tomorrow.

No, what I heard is not unique to this community. It is a tale that can be told of communities across the nation, where education improvement and innovation is underway, and has been before the influx of stimulus dollars was made available. It is told of those cities and towns that realize the schools are the heart and soul of the community, and require real attention and commitment. And hopefully, it is a tale that the EdSec and his staff are hearing as part of their listening tour, helping them see how they can help encourage and enhance current efforts, and not get in the way of real innovation.

Reading First, Last, and Forever

June 17, 2009 Eduflack AYP, IES, NAEP, Reading First, SBRR, stimulus

Sometimes, it is just tiring being Eduflack, particularly when it comes to the area of reading instruction. Time and again, I’ve pledged that I’ve written my last post on Reading First. Between the IES study and Congress’ dismissal, RF has been written off for dead more times than a cat on her ninth life. It seems the final nail in the coffin has been hammered time and again over the last year or two.

But then along come a series of actions that just make you see that while the Reading First brand may be dead and buried, its impact and its infrastructure are not going anywhere. The bright spot is Understanding Reading First, a new white paper from MDRC. The piece is worth a quick read. No, there is no groundbreaking data or unread news in the document. But it is a strong summation of RF, its foundations, and some of the results.

And read in the current context, it also shows that scientifically based reading research may indeed have a longer shelf life than any of us, including those stalwart supporters, ever thought was possible. Thanks to the economic stimulus money in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, states and school districts are now discovering they can use their newfound education riches to extend RF-based programs for another year or two. In fact, some could say the spending on reading coaches, scientifically based instructional materials, and professional development for reading teachers is exactly what ARRA is intended for.

Then we have the data, including the state research that has come from bellwether states like California, Texas, Ohio, and others demonstrating the positive impact that RF has had on student achievement. Couple that with last fall’s RF study from the US Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) and there is more than enough strong data to show that the original IES study was flawed and one has to look at its nil finding with skeptical eyes.

Now we can mix in the K-12 reading instruction bill that has been circulating around town, which I am still trying to brand “Yes, We Can Read.” Thanks to key education groups and key congressional leaders, we are actually working on a literacy bill that will build on RF’s elementary school focus and offer a reading continuum from preschool through high school graduation. Even more important, the draft language being circulated around Washington, DC reflects a strong crosswalk with the SBRR language in the original Reading First. An expansion here, some rewording there, but the intent and the embrace of the research is still there.

Hopefully, Understanding Reading First will get more attention and play than those that came before it, particularly the OPEPD study. There is a growing pool of research demonstrating that RF worked, particularly when you factor in the positive impact it has had on schools and classrooms that didn’t receive specific dollars for Reading First programs. Across the nation, all schools adopted scientifically based reading instruction and materials. All teachers were trained in the research methods. And virtually all kids benefited from it. And for those who don’t want to listen to the state data, the NAEP results, or the results of other such assessments, MDRC reminds us of that once again.

Requiring Quality in Our PreK Programs

June 9, 2009 Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, early childhood education, stimulus

What, exactly, is the future of the federal
investment in public education?
For months now, we have tried to cobble together an answer to that
question, using presidential campaign rhetoric, economic stimulus package
priorities, and now Presidential budget decisions to help us see where we are
headed as a nation. Since
assuming his position in late January, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has
provided us little more detail, sticking mostly to the talking points on
stimulus and education’s impact on the economy.

But few seem to have a clear sense of what the
U.S. Department of Education has in store for the future, particularly the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The general agreement is that
reauthorization could happen as early as this fall and as late as the summer of
2010, but it is indeed coming. The
common logic is NCLB will stay relatively intact. Along the way, we hear about efforts in Washington, DC to
construct more comprehensive reading legislation (to replace Reading First) and
a framework for national standards (expected to be delivered by Achieve to
Duncan in the coming weeks), but where, exactly, will our future priorities
lie?

Recently, Duncan and his lieutenants have been
focusing on four key policy pillars on which the new U.S. Department of
Education is constructed. First,
implementation of college and career-ready standards and assessments. Second, creation of comprehensive data
systems that track students throughout their education career and track
teachers back to schools of education to better understand which programs are
producing teachers that make a difference. Third, recruitment, preparation, and reward of outstanding
teachers, paying more to teachers who work in tough schools. And finally, turn around of chronically
underperforming schools.

What figured prominently during President Obama’s
campaign – but what seems to be missing from the core tenets – is early
childhood education. Early and
often, Obama campaigned on the notion of a strong national commitment to early
childhood education. Instead of
just focusing on access and an expansion of current programs, the President
seemed focused on committing to quality just as much as he committed to
quantity. The talk was not
universal preK; the rhetoric was high-quality preK.

But what, precisely, is high-quality early
childhood education? For decades
now, many have viewed the 800-pound gorilla in the ECE room – Head Start – as
being little more than glorified babysitting. Instead of using the time to help disadvantaged or
low-income students get a jump start on their academic futures, Head Start just
focuses on the “social” aspects.
We make our youngest learners more comfortable with existing in a
learning environment. The
pre-reading and pre-math skills such learners needed simply come once they
officially entered kindergarten – and entered miles behind their academically better-off
peers.

In recent years, we have watched the universal
preK movement transform from the hare into the tortoise. Supporters of universal preK have
watched new plans ground to a halt and have seen existing programs slowed or
scaled back, all because of a smaller pot of resources going education
needs. Smaller state budgets,
caused by less-than-planned real estate taxes, have forced some tough decisions
when it comes to public education.
And early childhood education was one of the first on the chopping
block.

Last month, the Pew Center of the States
released Leadership Matters: Governors’ Pre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2010. Looking at recent education budgets
proposed by the current state chief executives, Pew found that our greatest
fears are likely not going to be realized (unless state legislatures have
anything to do with it). Despite
our states’ economic struggles, 14 states are proposing increases in early
childhood education investment.
Thirteen states are proposing to level fund programs. And three states are looking to
establish preK efforts where there currently are none. All told, our nation’s governors intend
to boost FY2010 investment in early childhood education by 4 percent over
2009’s commitments.

The Pew study only tells half the story,
though. The other 50 percent still
has yet to be written. Sixty
percent of our states are looking to start, continue, or strengthen their
investment in preK. But what are
they investing in? How do we
ensure that we are investing in high-quality early childhood education? How do we measure return on investment
in preK? How do we make sure our
youngest learners are gaining the academic building blocks needed to succeed
throughout their academic careers, overcoming some of the learning gaps that
have long dogged disadvantaged students and have long dug a deep scholastic
trench between the haves and have nots?

The doubting Thomases would say one cannot truly
quantify results in early childhood education. But we know that to simply be incorrect. When it comes to pre-reading, we know
the letter recognition and vocabulary skills three- and four-year olds can gain
to prepare them for the research-based K-4 reading instruction that will
transform them into proficient, confident readers. We know the numeracy that all students need to know to
maximize the start of their K-12 experience. And we know the core skills all students require to be ready
to learn when they pass through those kindergarten doors for the first time.

So what, then, does quality look like? We can turn our gaze to two unlikely
places – Washington, DC and Texas – to provide us some real insight into
high-quality, effective preK instruction.
In Washington, the AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation,
through the DC Partnership for Early Literacy, is working in some of our
nation’s capital’s lowest-income communities, yet posting significant gains on
student early reading achievement.
Based on standardized, nationally normed assessments, AppleTree students
gained 21 percentile points in vocabulary proficiency, placing them higher than
the national norm and more than doubling the gains demonstrated by students in
DC Head Start classrooms. Among
AppleTree’s lowest 50 percent of students, learners posted even more impressive
gains – 26 percentile points, nearly tripling typical Head Start results while
working with students from similar demographics.

In Texas, the Children’s Learning Institute,
through its Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), is now working with more than
61,000 young learners across 38 communities in the Lone State State. There, students are achieving and
demonstrating progress in key literacy skills, including phonological
awareness, rapid letter naming, and vocabulary development.

These two programs are not merely the exceptions
to the rule. They are worth
acknowledging for two reasons.
First, they are demonstrating results. Both AppleTree and TEEM help define what high-quality early
childhood education is, how we can measure it, and the sort of results we
should expect from effective preK.
More importantly, though, both programs also demonstrate that our
youngest learners can benefit from the same policy pillars that Secretary
Duncan is putting in place for our K-12 systems.

In early childhood education, we also see that
standards and assessments are key, particularly if we expect to demonstrate and
measure the results that define quality.
In ECE, we also see that data systems are key, providing educators and
policymakers the information necessary to bridge three-year-old programs to
four-year-old programs to kindergarten and beyond. In ECE, we know that effective teachers are the key to a
quality program, and early childhood educators must be well trained, well
supported, and constantly encouraged to improve their practice and improve
their knowledgebase. And in ECE,
we know that our most disadvantaged students – those from historically
underperforming neighborhoods – are the kids that most benefit and most need a
high-quality, academically focused preK experience.

Nationally, we believe that every child should
have access to a high-quality education.
We believe that student achievement is king, and all learners should be
proficient and should be able to demonstrate that proficiency, both in the
classroom and on state and national assessments. We believe that a strong public education is the gateway to
a strong future, both for the individual and society. And we believe, or should, that we must hold our systems
accountable for the quality and effectiveness of the education they deliver.

Such belief systems should not be restricted to
our K-12 systems, or even more narrowly construed for grades 3-8 when we
measure AYP. If we expect to
transform every child into a successful learner, we also need to implement the
quality, accountability, and teacher effectiveness into our preK systems. As our states look to invest in the
future of early childhood education, as the Pew Center indicates, we need to
make sure this money is going toward good programs that demonstrate true
ROI. We need to look at programs
like TEEM, AppleTree, and others to guide our decisions. Demanding early childhood education is
no longer enough. We should be
demanding quality – and results – for our youngest learners as well.

Let’s leave the babysitting to teenagers seeking
some extra spending money. Our
early childhood education programs should be focused on providing the academic
frameworks that empower even the most disadvantaged of students to achieve in a
school setting.

ARRA: Rise of the Charters

June 9, 2009 Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, Gates Foundation, Green Dot, stimulus

Can one make lasting improvement working solely within the confines of the status quo? That seems to be the question the US Department of Education, particularly EdSec Arne Duncan, is asking as additional details on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and our federal education policy come into crisper focus.

In recent weeks, the education community has “discovered” that ARRA included language requiring states to boost their charter school cap, essentially requiring the expansion of charter offerings if states want access to all of the new economic stimulus money. Couple the details of ARRA with recent speeches by Duncan and hires of those with backgrounds that include organizations such as the NewSchool Venture Fund, and we are starting to see that the limits of the status quo simply will not hold.

Today, the EdSec went all in on the topic. Addressing the media on how to turnaround our lowest performing schools, Duncan cited the value of “real autonomy for charters combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance standards.” Among the stats used by ED this afternoon:

* 10 states currently do not have laws allowing charter schools;

* 26 states put artificial caps on the number of public charter schools (with President Obama calling on states to lift those caps);

* The Maine state legislature is debating a bill to establish a pilot program for its first charter schools (though this afternoon’s headlines looked like the legislature would reject the proposal and risk losing its education stimulus dollars); and

* Tennessee refuses to lift its charter enrollment restrictions while Indiana is considering a moratorium on new charter schools.

And that status quo question? Duncan seemed to answer that this afternoon as well. “I am advocating for using whatever models work for students, and particularly where improvements have stagnated for years,” Duncan said. “We cannot continue to do that same thing and expect different results. We cannot let another generation of children be deprived of their civil right to a quality education.”

While one has to question Duncan’s definition of insanity to be used as a justification for expanding our charter laws, he does have a point. And all this talk is bound to generate a great of attention, particularly with the positive press generated by charters like KIPP and the Gates Foundation’s likely intention to provide a $125 million “deep dive” into a “network of charter schools” in the Los Angeles area (can we all say Green Dot?). The real challenge, then, for Duncan, Obama, Gates, and others is to ensure that this is not an either-or situation.

In the early days of the charter debate, opponents of public charter schools fought the good fight, accusing school districts of looking to replace traditional public schools with these new charters. Over time, we have witnessed that the best of our charter schools are in communities where they complement the traditional publics. Strong charters, with strong accountability, offer greater opportunity. They can raise quality. They increase choice. And, if held to high standards, they contribute to student achievement gains and can be a useful lever in turning around our lowest performing school districts. They can also give families and students a choice in communities where previous choice was between one failing school and another.

Ultimately, the EdSec is right in seeking to include charter schools in our Race to the Top funds. if we are to turn around persistently underperforming schools, we need to do something different. We can’t simply pump more dollars into historically troubled schools and expect that student achievement will improve. After all, we’ve tried that approach for decades now. How has it worked so far?

But we also must recognize that charters are not the magical elixir that will aid any district in need. We can point to plenty of school districts with liberal charter policies but poor student achievement (just look at our nation’s capital). Charters work when they take a firm line with regard to structure, expectations, and accountability. Such a line isn’t for everyone. Too often, we make compromises, offering charter schools destined for many of the same failings their traditional publics are suffering through. If the Race to the Top is going to work, we need new ideas and new approaches. But we also need the research and accountability behind them to ensure success. Otherwise, we will keep throwing good money after bad, doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome. With the stakes as high as they are, that, my friends, really is insanity.

How the ARRA Times Change

June 4, 2009 Eduflack AYP, NAEP, stimulus, Workforce

Just a few short months ago, educators with brimming with enthusiasm about the potential economic stimulus funding would offer. We talked about those new programs that could be pursued. We discussed how existing efforts could be broadened and expanded. We dreamed about the possibilities of doing using the “startup” money found in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to do new things designed to spark innovation in the classroom and long-term academic improvement in the student.

Lately, reality has set in. We’re seeing that most education stimulus moneys are likely going to pay for existing programs and existing teacher salaries, not to buy new books or acquire some new technology that could be the missing link between proficient and not. And as the folks over at Politics K-12 have been reporting, some states are really struggling to get in those basic applications demonstrating how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (the $44 billion that is already at the mid-point of distribution to the states) is being spend by SEAs across the nation. With state budgets on a steady decline, state decisionmakers are having difficulty determining which existing programs warrant the life preserver that is ARRA, particularly those efforts aimlessly floating through our K-12 systems.

Before the stimulus legislation was signed into law, states like Virginia got even more ambitious, developing websites before the ARRA money was even signed into law, soliciting proposals and applications from organizations and individuals across the state focused on how they could use stimulus dollars to boost the economy and make a difference for the state’s long-term prosperity. Other states followed suit, and in education, many a school district was asked to develop their wish lists on how the money would be spent.

Now, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is sending the following to all those not-for-profits, corporations, and individuals who had ideas on how this new money could be used in innovative and new ways, adhering to both the letter and the intent of ARRA:

Thank you for your interest in funding available to Virginia through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Both transparency and accountability are core requirements of ARRA-and I am pleased to update you on the Commonwealth’s progress on projects and proposals related to the Recovery Act.

As you may know, my administration launched stimulus.virginia.gov earlier this year to gather project ideas from individuals, groups, and localities for potential funding through ARRA. Between February 10 and the March 6 submission deadline, more than 9,100 project proposals totaling $465.6 billion were suggested through the website. Since then, these proposals have been sorted and sent to the appropriate Cabinet Secretariat for evaluation.

Virginia‘s General Assembly incorporated ARRA program funding that is administered by agencies into the state budget and directed it to specific activities. The Recovery Act alsoincreased funding to existing federal programs rather than allowing states to fund projects from a large discretionary fund. As a result, what little discretionary ARRA funding that existed was used by the General Assembly to address Virginia‘s projected budget shortfall. While these decisions around ARRA and the state budget-which I signed into law on March 30-are continuing to ease the economic downturn in the Commonwealth, they also mean there is no discretionary funding available to dedicate to specific projects.

Currently, under each Cabinet Secretariat
, state agencies are working with their federal counterparts to implement ARRA funding for programs ranging from education to water quality, totransportation, to energy. These programs require that all project ideas meet specific criteria and be formally submitted through traditional federal funding processes. In most cases, these processes are now complete and work is ready to begin. Most of the projects that were funded via traditional federal measures were submitted as a project idea.

Although there are many other project ideas that could contribute to our economic recovery, a number of proposals we’ve received-including private business investment and tax reduction-fall outside the scope of ARRA funding provided to the Commonwealth.

I strongly encourage you to monitor the stimulus.virginia.gov website for information on projects being funded by the ARRA and to explore potential opportunities through the competitive grants process. Some projects submitted through stimulus.virginia.gov not selected for ARRA funds may be eligible to apply for a competitive grant directly from a federal agency.

Thank you again for your input. I always appreciate hearing from citizens of the Commonwealth and will take your thoughts and proposals into consideration as we work to get our economy back on track through ARRA. Please do not hesitate to contact me via my web form, and find out more about my initiatives on my web site at www.governor.virginia.gov.

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Kaine

Governo
r of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Please note that the bold for emphasis is not coming from Eduflack, it is coming from Governor Kaine himself. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the economic stimulus package does not provide for any discretionary funding for specific projects. That’s policy-speak for every dime of money is being plowed into existing programs already codified on the books. In education, that means that the same programs that Virginians to a whopping 34 percent proficiency on the eighth grade NAEP are the same programs now gaining additional funding (and expected to propel us into the promise land of student success and opportunity).

It is hard to find fault with just Kaine here. He is a lame-duck governor, with his term completed in six short months. He was given a bad budget and had to do the best with what he could, both in original negotiations and in the veto session. And it is a shame that a governor who entered office three and a half years ago with a strong plan for universal preK has been stymied every step of the way by a part-time Legislature that just didn’t agree, and then was hamstrung by the bottom falling out of his state’s budget, particularly those tax receipts that looked so rosy at the start of the term.

I recognize this is only Virginia, but these decisions are likely being made by states across the union. New money is being pumped into the status quo. New dollars are being thrown into ineffective programs. All because it is easier to fund what which is on the books versus identify better ways to change horses and fund new discretionary efforts that could make a difference.

Or perhaps we’re just waiting for the Race to the Top and Innovation Funds to kick in, believing that $5 billion or so is the magic elixir to all that is ailing our public schools?

	michael riccards on The End of a Cheer Era
	M Riccards on Declaring Our Independence fro…
	At A Loss For Words,… on My Fellow Americans: Reflectio…
	Gilda rorro on A Proposal for Heroes
	Mriccards on When It Comes To History, Let’…

Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards

The Intersection of Education Communications, Policy, and Politics

stimulus