Students

Playing Games with LA’s Future

Eduflack charter schools, LAUSD, RTT, Students

For more than a year now, we have been hearing about the dire financial state of public education in California.  We’re ridden a roller coaster of threats of massive teacher layoffs and a two-year ban on the purchase of any textbooks or instructional materials.  We’ve viewed district after district struggle to meet the school equity requirements placed on them by the courts.  And we’ve witnessed state officials dance a West Coast two-step to quickly eliminate the barriers to additional federal education funding.  And even though California has spent more of its education stimulus dollars, percentage wise, than any other state in the union, schools in the Golden State are still hurting and are still facing tough decisions and even tougher cuts.

Fortunately, Cali Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has now stepped up to make a major investment in the future of the state, or at least in the future of the greater Los Angeles area.  In the name of creating jobs, growing the economy, and strengthening the community, the guvernator yesterday signed a bill that could deliver upwards of a billion dollars to the City of Angels, money that would be coupled with a $150 million bond pledged by the business community.
Unfortunately, not a dime of these funds will ever see an LA classroom or be used to help an LA teacher improve their craft and meet the new demands being placed on our public schools.  Not a dollar of it is doing to school improvement or innovation.  And not a penny will go to support Los Angeles’ blossoming charter school movement.  No, the entire kitty is designated to go an build a new football stadium for the city, a stadium for an NFL football team that does not exist.  The full story can be found here.
Why does this matter?  In these tough economic times, we have to make choices.  Schwarzenegger signed the controversial spending bill claiming that this stadium investment would generate jobs and bring an economic boost to Los Angeles.  Noble goals, yes.  But there are few facts to back it up.  Even since the renaissance of baseball stadium construction launched two decades ago in Baltimore, we have heard how new sports stadiums result in jobs and economic development.  But in study after study, researchers have found that such impact lasts only as long as the construction cranes are on site.  Once the venue opens to the public, the economic impact is complete.  Jobs are temporary, manifest in the construction itself.  Then the community goes back to normal.  That’s why cities have shied away from paying the tab for such construction projects in recent years, leaving it to the teams that will enjoy the long-term benefits of a shiny new stadium.
In an era where dollars are in short supply in California, if the goal is really to invest in job creation and economic strength, is this really the best investment for the citizens of Los Angeles?  Right now, the state is trying to move heaven and earth to get Race to the Top dollars, following the belief that these dollars can serve as make or break for the future of California education.  If successful, RttT would likely result in a few million dollars a year for four years to LAUSD.  Yes, LAUSD’s cut of a successful RttT grant likely won’t even cover the laundry costs for the school district’s athletic teams. 
Imagine what would be possible if they could muster the strength to move this $1 billion from a stadium that may be used on any given Sunday and instead invest it in LAUSD.  One billion to ensure that LA students are gaining the skills and knowledge they need to hold 21st century jobs.  One billion to improve high school graduation rates.  One billion to demonstrate the relevance of K-12 education to the futures of K-12 students.  One billion to truly innovate and improve.  A $1 billion targeted investment at what LA public schools need the most.  
Football stadiums may be the sexy choice, but they’ll break your hearts and empty your wallets.  If the goal is to create jobs and strengthen the economy, it doesn’t take a Vegas oddsmaker to tell you that the schools are a far better bet than a new stadium.  Years from now, LA will have its new stadium (which may or may not remain empty), but how many area kids will have the high school diplomas, skills, and jobs necessary to enjoy a beautiful LA Sunday afternoon in its friendly confines?
    

Getting Halfway to the College Moon?

Eduflack Achievement gap, early college, High School, higher ed, Students

During his first official address to Congress back this winter (remember, trivia folks, it was not a State of the Union), President Barack Obama made the bold promise that, by 2020, the United States would have the highest percentage of college degree holders in the world.  Recognizing that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for success in today’s economy (let alone tomorrow’s), it is a promise we need to back up.  And Obama did so recognizing that to get there, we need to turn out millions upon millions of additional college graduates on top of current levels.

So how do we accomplish that?  Improving high school graduation rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students is a good first-step gateway.  Dual enrollment programs, where we help today’s students see they are capable of doing college-level work helps.  Boosting the number of first-generation college-goers is another.  But how about actually getting those students who enroll in college to actually earn the diploma?  That seems like a no-brainer.
Unfortunately, according to a new report released this AM from the American Enterprise Institute, it seems that a student enrolled at an institution of higher education has only a slightly better chance of earning a degree than an individual who stops at campus for direction, a t-shirt, or a restroom break.  According to AEI’s new study, Diplomas and Dropouts: Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t), only 53 percent of college-goers have a diploma six years after starting the process.  Don’t forget, college is intended to be a four-year endeavor.  So even when we give today’s students two extra years, only half of enrollees manage to actually gain that intended sheepskin.
The numbers get even scarier when you drill down.  For those postsecondary institutions with the least selective admissions criteria — or those dubbed “noncompetitive” institutions — only 35 percent of students graduate within six years.  Even among “competitive” schools, those falling in the bottom 10 are only graduating 20 percent of their kids in six years.
Not surprisingly, the highest graduation rates lie with the most competitive schools.  Grad rates decline as we move down the scale, from highly competitive to very competitive to competitive to less competitive to noncompetitive.
The AEI report presents top “honors” to 10 schools, identified as noncompetitive that scored the lowest when it comes to six-year graduation rates.  Mountain State University in West Virginia (18%), Bellevue University in Nebraska (18%), Heritage University in Washington (17%), University of Houston in Texas (16%), National American University of South Dakota (15%), American InterContinental University in Georgia (13%), Miles College in Alabama (11%), Jarvis Christian College of Texas (10%), Carlos Albizu University of Florida (10%), and Southern University in Louisiana, with a whopping 8 percent.  These schools were all found to be noncompetitive, with the lowest grad rates — a destructive combination.
For those who think money buys success, eight of the 10 lowest-graduating schools are private institutions, with the University of Houston and Southern University being the only public schools to make “the list.”
But we don’t want to just pick on the noncompetitive schools.  In those schools dubbed most competitive, we see a similar trend.  EIght of the 10 schools with the lowest graduation rates are private schools (Webb Institute, Reed College, Tulane University, University of Miami, George Washington University, Scripps College, Case Western Reserve University, Connecticut College, Occidental College, and University of Rochester.  The two publics with the lowest rates are both service academies — the US Air Force Academy and West Point.  For those two, we’d like to think that the standards outside the classroom are the reason for the lower-than-average grad rate among peers, and you don’t have a high proportion of students at Army or Air Force on the seven- or eight-year BA plan.  So let’s give the Air Force Academy and West Point the benefit of the doubt here.
What’s even more disturbing though, particularly when we consider the challenge issued by President Obama and current efforts to close the achievement gap in this country, are graduation rates on the campuses of our competitive Historically Black Colleges and Historically Hispanic Colleges.  For competitive HBCUs (33 were studied) the six-year grad rate is only 36.5 percent.  For IHHEs (30 schools studied), the numbers were slightly better, 44.3 percent.  The only bright spot (if you can dare call it that) in the disaggregation is that HBCUs are relatively level when it comes to graduation rates, with less competitive schools graduating 34.7 percent of their students and noncompetitive schools graduating 37.1 percent of their students, meaning a student at an HBCU has a relatively equal chance of graduating, regardless of the institution’s competitiveness classification.  On the flip side, with noncompetitive IHHEs, only 19.8 percent of students are graduating in six years.
What does all this tell us?  First off, if our goal is to increase the number of college degree holders in the United States, we need to start with the customers we have.  Forget the need to push more students onto the college path.  We first need to address the 47 percent of current pathwalkers we are failing.  There are no excuses for one’s change of earning a college diploma once in college to being the same as winning a coin flip.  Access is clearly not an excuse, and money certainly shouldn’t be.  We need to do a better job of finding out why these enrollees are not graduating, and then act (either institutionally or nationally) to reverse the trend and prioritize degree attainment over college going once and for all.  Despite what some may say, the postsecondary experience is not nearly as important as the credential.  We owe it to every student who passes through a college’s doors to make sure they leave with a degree.
Second, we need to take a much closer look at how we are serving our historically disadvantaged student groups.  Institutions are to be applauded for making more opportunities available to students of color and providing programs and institutions themselves to better meet student needs and expectations.  But competitive HBCUs should do better than one in three graduating.  And competitive IHHEs need to better than two in five graduating.  This is particularly true when the average competitive IHE is turning out grads at nearly double that rate.
But if the numbers tell us anything, it is that the college graduation problem is one that is color blind and income oblivious.  The real problem here is competitiveness and return on investment.  After decades of convincing every family that their child should go to college, we’ve literally build a college or university for every student.  As a result, the correspondence schools and diploma mills of the past have given way to noncompetitive institutions with open admissions and a come one, come all mentality.  For too many of those schools, the tuition check is the end game, not the diploma.  An enrolled student is a steady stream of income.  There is no incentive to graduate students.  Schools aren’t being held accountable for their graduation rates.  Perhaps they should, but they aren’t.  And that shows in the AEI data.
When he took office nearly half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy made the promise we would send a man to the moon.  As we’ve often heard, this was an audacious goal designed to spur interest and investment in the space program in general.  Obama has don
e the same thing, albeit with less fanfare and public enthusiasm, with his promise to be tops in the world when it comes to college degree holders.  With Kennedy, we couldn’t just go halfway to the moon and back.  It was all or nothing.  
The same is true for Obama’s college pledge.  We have 11 years to get to the postsecondary moon.  Only this time, we aren’t starting from scratch.  First order of business is getting those students who are already in the system graduated.  Improving that 53 percent grad mark to 75 percent gets us far closer to our goal.  
But if we are going to have postsecondary impact for decades to come, we need to take a close look at the product we are selling.  Noncompetitive schools with no accountability and little ROI hurt us all in the long run.  There is no getting around it.  Yes, every student needs some form of postsecondary education to succeed in the 21st century economy.  After all of these years, who knew we needed to say that education needed to bring with it a modicum of quality.  For those who say the accreditation process is too difficult or onerous, this data should give them a great deal of pause.  If anything we need to be tougher on our IHEs and expect more.  Otherwise, we may simply be sliding into a game of rock-paper-scissors to see if we earn our diploma or not. 

Changing the Game on College Funding

Eduflack High School, higher ed, Students, Workforce

We have all heard the stories (and jokes) about college students who are on the five-, six-, or even seven-year plan.  Those students who love their college years so much, that they simply never want to leave those glory days.  Some maximize the financial aid packages available to them, some have generous families, and others just find a way to stick around their hopeful alma mater.

What few tend to talk about is, for most public colleges and universities, these professional students are big business.  Most state institutions of higher education receive public support based on enrollment numbers.  So while a typical student who graduates in the expected four years would could for four “credits” when it comes to state dollars, that student on the six-year plan counts for six.  Assuming new student enrollment numbers (both freshmen and transfers) remain steady, or increase, every year, those who stick around for an extra year or three can become a financial boon to the institution at which they are camping out.  For some institutions, there is little incentive to see students actually graduate.  As long as they remain enrolled, they are cherished.
But how do such “long-term” learning plans meet with our current calls for educational return on investment, plans to boost the number of U.S. postsecondary degreeholders, or expectations that today’s college students will fill the workforce needs of tomorrow?  Unfortunately, they often don’t.  Many students who extend their stays don’t graduate, leaving with more than a half-decade of experience and memories, but no degree to show for it.  As the nation looks to measure the effectiveness of states and their high schools based on our ability to graduate students from secondary school in four years (those who gain a diploma four years after starting ninth grade), we have few rubrics to really measure the effectiveness of postsecondary education.
Until now.
Over at USA Today, Mary Beth Marklein reports on a growing trend to link college graduation to college funding.  It seems like a simple idea long overdue.  Higher education spending coming from state government would be tied to the number of students graduating (or at least the number completing courses).  The desire is results.  If states are going to support public colleges and universities, they want their own ROI.  They want assurances that those taxpayer dollars are resulting in degree holders prepared to hold the jobs and contribute to the economy of the state that has been subsidizing their education for the past four or more years.
USA Today spotlights a couple of states that are looking to break new ground on college funding ROI, including:
* Ohio, which seeks to tie 100 percent of funding to “course and degree completion”
* Indiana, which is traveling a similar path to Ohio
* Louisiana, looking to tie 25 percent of funding to “student success”
* Missouri, basing finance for allied health and other programs on how students do on licensing exams
* Washington, funding community and technical colleges based on specific student performance hurdles
This is not a new trend, but it is taking on greater intensity.  More than half of states have tried such ROI measures over the last three decades.  Nearly half of those who have tried it have abandoned it.  Some of the best results can be seen in states such as Florida, where tough ROI measures have actually resulted in a 43 percent increase in graduation rates and an 18 percent increase in enrollment for the Sunshine State’s community colleges over the last decade.
In the coming years, we are likely to see more states looking to go down the path of the Buckeye State, particularly if Ohio successfully implements it 100-percent funding plan.  Just a few months ago, President Obama set a national goal that the United States would have the highest percentage of postsecondary degree holders in the world by the year 2020.  And the feds are looking to invest $2.5 billion into efforts to boost college completion rates.  If we are going to hit those goals, we need to turn out significantly more college graduates.  To do so, we need to transform college goers into college completers.  And to do that, we need to hold our institutions of higher education accountable (particularly since placing responsibility solely with the students has so far done us little good).
These are bold moves by state legislatures and state higher education boards.  Accountability is a tough issue, particularly when there are so many “reasons” why one fails to complete a degree path.  ROI is a tough issue, particularly with so many that believe the simple pursuit of higher education is the reward itself.  College graduation rates are a tough issue, particularly when we so struggle nationally with our ability to improve high school graduation and college-going rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students.
But the current times call for bold moves.  There is no question that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for economic success in the 21st century.  We also know that employers value the degree, and not simply the attendance record, when it comes to evaluating a potential job candidate’s educational background.  If we view state investment in higher education as an investment in strengthening the state’s economy and the state’s future, such linkages between funding and completion make sense.  Taxpayers are subsidizing these education experiences.  They have a right to demand some return on that investment.  And we all should have the expectation that when our sibling or child or spouse enrolls in postsecondary education (be it a two- or four-year institution) the ultimate goal is securing a diploma.  That’s the goal.  We should measure against it.

Measuring Opportunities to Learn

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, NAEP, Students

If the white smoke coming out of the U.S. Department is any indication, we have decided that the core tenets of No Child Left Behind will continue to drive policy.  In recent months, EdSec Duncan and his team have constructed the four pillars of their education platform, the cornerstones that we can expect to see at the heart of any NCLB reauthorization coming this year or next.  For those choosing not to pay attention, those pillars are (according to the folks on Maryland Avenue):

* Implementing college and career-ready standards and assessments
* Creating comprehensive data systems that track students throughout their education career and track teachers back to schools of education so we can better understand which programs are producing teachers that make a difference
* Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers — paying more to teachers who work in tough schools
* Turning around chronically underperforming schools
Essentially, Duncan and company are calling for every student to have an equal opportunity to learn.  Every child should have an outstanding teacher.  We need to collect better data, establish better standards, and continue our vigilant assessment efforts to ensure a high-quality education is had by all.  And we need to identify those schools where it is not happening, and take the immediate steps to turn it around.
You’ll get no argument from Eduflack on any of that.  All are important.  All should be priorities.  All are essential if we are to continue our forward momentum on student achievement gains and begin to address the persistent problem evidenced by unmovable achievement gap.  But it is as essential as the ED talking points make it seem?
According to a new report issued by the Schott Foundation for Public Education today, the answer is no.  In its Lost Opportunity study, the Schott Foundation looked at all 50 states and their ability to provide a public education system that is both moderately proficient and high access.  To measure proficiency, they looked at 8th grade NAEP reading scores.  For access, the looked at NCES data on the likelihood that a historically disadvantaged student would attend a top quartile high school in the state. 
The results will surprise a great number of people.  Only 16 percent of states — just eight of them — are providing a moderately proficient, high-access public education to all students.  Vermont is tops in the nation, followed by Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Virginia.
Sixteen states provided a moderately proficient education, but provided low access; 17 states provided low proficiency, but high access.  And at the bottom of the list, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, and District of Columbia are providing both low proficiency and low access, with DC scoring lowest in both categories to be the big “winner” in this competition.
What is most surprising about the data is what we have to settle for when it comes to our definition of proficiency and access.  The rankings are comparative.  We have obviously have no states where we have 100-percent student proficiency or true equal access to a high-quality public education.  In fact, on proficiency, the top score is 43 percent (held by Massachusetts), meaning that nearly 60 percent of students are below proficient in 8th grade reading.  Yet that is the gold standard in the country.  By comparison, states are providing a moderately proficient education if they can get less than a third (32 percent) of their 8th graders at proficient or better in reading.
Same is true on the access side.  High-access states are those that essentially provide a 50-percent chance at equal access.  Because of some very real and tangible struggles many states have in providing true equity to all students, getting it right half the time is now the measure of success, by comparison.
What does it all mean?  To paraphrase from Robert Frost, we have many, many miles to go before we sleep.  There are no states that are truly doing it right, not when 40 percent is the gold standard.  Every state in the union has work to do when it comes to providing a high-quality, high-equity education to all students.  Every state has work to do when it comes to ensuring that historically disadvantaged students have the same access to the American educational dream as their white, non-Hispanic counterparts.  Every state has work to do when it comes to ensuring every student is on the path to success, regardless or race, socioeconomic status, or zip code.  Every state just has work to do.
We cannot close the achievement gap in this country without first addressing the opportunity gap.  Students can’t succeed if they aren’t afforded access to the schools, teachers, and resources that put them on the path to success.  That’s why information like that found in Lost Opportunity is so important.  By taking a new cut at data we have seen before (NAEP and NCES data), Schott is providing us a new perspective of our progress in education reform and the hard road ahead for continued improvement.  (As I’ve noted previously, Eduflack has worked with the Schott Foundation on its Opportunity to Learn efforts.)
The Lost Opportunity report is definitely worth a look, particularly when you get under the hood and look at the individual states and how they fare when it comes to quality, equity, and access to resources.  The data isn’t pretty, but it is fascinating.  All of the information, including the individual state reports, can be found at www.otlstatereport.org.  
Why this study?  Why now?  The answer to that is best left to Dr. John Jackson, the President and CEO of the Schott Foundation.  In releasing the report now, two days after the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, he said:
“This serves as a wake-up call to every governor, legislature, state education commissioner, and schools superintendent that falsely believes we are getting the job done in our classrooms.  According to their own data, only eight states are providing a moderately proficient, high-access public education to all.  After a decade of leaving no child behind, we are finding that an entire generation of students is again all but forgotten.”
Here’s hoping we are listening to the call, and ready to act on it.

Where Does the Student Optimism Go?

Eduflack High School, Students

By now, we’ve all heard the gory details.  One third of all students will drop out of high school.  Nearly half of all students in our inner-city schools will drop out.  Minority and low-income students have half the opportunity to learn as white, non-Latino students.  Ninety percent of newly created jobs will require postsecondary education, but only a third of today’s ninth graders will secure a postsecondary degree.  

These are the statistics that the adults managing our education system provide us.  Today, Gallup, along with the America’s Promise Alliance and AASA, provide us a close look at what students in the United States are thinking.  Surveying more than 70,000 students in grades five through 12 in 18 states and the District of Columbia, on topics such as dropout prevention and college readiness.  The results may surprise you:
* More than a third of students are “struggling or suffering”
* Half of students are “not hopeful”
* A third of students feel “stuck”
* 94 percent of students say they will graduate from high school
* 86 percent of students believe there is a good job waiting for them after high school
Eduflack finds the dichotomy between the views on the present and the future to be the most interesting.  Living in the current, students are focused on the negative, feeling stuck, not hopeful, and generally cynical about their current experiences.  Just half of students say there were treated with respect on the day surveyed.  When it comes to the qualitative of now, students are just as negative and cynical as the rest of us.
But in looking ahead, in looking at life after high school, these same students seem transform into bluebirds of happiness and optimism.  They all see high school diplomas in their future, despite the statistics that one in three will drop out.  And nearly as many believe there is a good job waiting for them after high school, at a time when even graduates from our top colleges and graduate schools can’t find gainful employment.
Why the difference?  Over the years, Eduflack has spent a lot of time conducting interviews and focus groups with high school students about their futures.  In general, today’s students do not enjoy their high school experience.  They are bored by the classes, feel disrespected by many teachers, and generally worry about what opportunities may come next.  But they follow through because they want to believe there is a positive at the end of the path.  They persevere because they believe there is a payout at the end of the game.
What’s likely missing from this survey sample are those youth for whom reality has set in — those who have already dropped out of high school.  The survey is likely heavy on middle schoolers, and light on high schoolers.  Thus the optimism about the future and the hopes for a high school diploma and a good job.  The current struggles are indicative of today’s middle schoolers, many of whom are starting to think about dropping out as a viable alternative to continuing their education.
So the big question is how we bridge the hope to the reality?  If 94 percent of students believe they will graduate, how do we get to the nearly 30 percent that will change their minds before earning that diploma?  For those 86 percent who believe they have a good job waiting for them, how do we get nearly half of them to realize that a good job requires postsecondary education?  How do we transform the optimism for the future into achievement today?  How do we get all students to feel a sense of hope and a right to opportunity?  How do we do better?
Call me mister negativity, but Gallup’s data points should be a wake-up call to all of those who think we have righted the ship.  We have fathoms to travel before we reach our destination.  It is good that students are hopeful, even if they are facing harsh realities today.  But at some point, we need to transform that hope into real action.  We need to fulfill the promise we have made to every student, that if they work hard and stay in school, success is in their grasp.  Otherwise, those struggling, stuck, and hopeless students become similarly distraught adults.  And we all know the effect that has on our economy, society, and nation.
 

Reflecting on Columbine

Eduflack High School, Students

Ten years ago today, two gunmen killed 13, 12 students and one teacher,  (and themselves) at Columbine High School in Colorado.  The tragedy was one of those moments that truly caught a community, a state, and a nation off guard.  We never expect such actions to happen in our public schools, particularly in the suburbs of Denver, and when they do it results in a range of thoughts, rhetoric, and actions.

Since the shootings (and subsequent tragedies on campuses like Virginia Tech) we talk about a lot, including the impact of bullying, the need for improved guidance departments, and even the arming of classroom teachers.  But today is not a day to debate such issues.  Today is really just a day to remember those 13 students, the 24 others who were injured in the mindless attacks, and the families of Columbine who are still affected, even a decade later.
USA Today, and reporters Greg Toppo and Marilyn Elias, offered a good story last week on the lessons learned from Columbine.  This AM, USA Today highlights, on its editorial pages, what schools have done to avoid such inexplainable actions in the future.  The piece is worth a close read from any policymaker, superintendent, school administrator, teacher, or community leader who is dealing today’s students in today’s complex society.  The four primary observations coming out of Columbine, according to our national newspaper of record. the need for:
* Better partnerships between law enforcement and schools
* Encouraging students to report suspicions
* Watching for red flags
* Better reaction plans
Today, and this topic, is not a time for clever Eduflack quips and rhetorical cadences designed to promote (or tear down) a policy agenda.  For educators, today should be a day of remembrance, and a day to ensure that tragedies like Columbine never happen again.  We can’t expect our kids to develop, academically and socially, if they don’t feel safe once they step through those schoolhouse doors.  There’s no simpler way to state such a serious issue.

A Middle-ing Approach to School Improvement

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NCLB, Students

In the current era of school improvement, student achievement, and innovation, the points of conversation often jump from what we do in the elementary school grades to what is happening in our high schools.  The reasons for this are fairly obvious.  We believe that all children are entering the elementary grades on relatively equal footing (an urban legend, I’ll give you, but many actually believe it).  That’s why we start the student assessment process in the early grades.  As for high schools, that’s where the money and the attention rests.  Gates is funneling billions of dollars into high schools, and graduation rates, drop-out factories, and the like have become a common yardstick for measuring the outcomes of our K-12 experience.

Often lost is the discussion is the middle grades.  That’s no surprise.  There is no national start and stop to a middle school.  Middle school can begin anywhere between fourth and seventh grade.  It can end anywhere from seventh through ninth grade.  With such overlaps into both elementary and secondary schools, middle schools are often left as the monkey in the middle, a necessary, but often overlooked, connector in the P-12 education continuum.
Unfortunately, much of what ails our public education system is rooted in what is happening during our middle grades.  AYP and the growing achievement gaps are usually being documented once students hit middle school, when we first see the failures of effective math and reading instruction in the early grades.  Students begin falling behind in subjects like science and social studies because they lack the core skills they should enter middle school with in the first place.  Those beloved student scores on state assessments start taking hold in the middle grades, when it is often too late to reverse the downward trend.
We also forget that the middle grades determine the success or failure of the high school experience.  Tenth graders are not sitting their agonizing whether they will complete school or drop out.  The vast majority of high school drop-out decisions are made by middle schoolers, determined between that eight and ninth grade year.  And that decision is based, largely, on how one performs, how one engages, and how one experiences educational relevance during those middle grades.  The middle years are about academic achievement, but they are also about motivation, about character development, and about showing every student — particularly those students from traditionally disadvantaged groups that have been given up on well before they enter high school.
What does all this tell us?  MIddle school isn’t just the passthrough of the continuum.  In many ways, it is an essential linchpin.  It is the road marker measuring the success of our elementary school experiences.  And it is the road map that determines secondary and postsecondary opportunities, particularly for those students who may not see the value of their educational experience.
Which is why the recent developments in Alexandria, Virginia are so interesting.  For those outside the DC area, Alexandria is one of many suburbs to our nation’s capital.  Alexandria often gets lost in the regional education discussions.  DCPS is the focal point.  Fairfax (VA) is the big boy.  Arlington (VA) is diversity.  Montgomery County (MD) is the innovator.  And Prince Georges County (MD) is the problem child.  Districts like Alexandria often get overlooked in the mix, as they lack the size or the depth of problems of some of their neighbors.
This week, Alexandria Schools Superintendent Morton Sherman announced his plans to revamp the middle grades.  The proclamation received minor mention in The Washington Post, but hasn’t yet gotten the attention or the discussion it probably requires.  Alexandria’s middle schools have failed to hit federal benchmarks, not too uncommon of urban or suburban middle schools around the country.  Alexandria’s drop-out rate is among the highest in the DC region (though not the highest to garner screamer headlines in the Post).  So Sherman has put two and two together and actually gotten four, realizing that addressing his middle school performance problems will have a direct impact on issues in the latter grades.
What is Alexandria looking to do?  It wants to break its middle schools up into smaller schools with greater autonomy and opportunities.  It wants to extend some elementary schools from K-6 to K-8.  And it wants to introduce International Baccalaureate offerings across the district.
In laying out this plan, Sherman is addressing the granddaddies of school improvement issues — school leadership, school structure, academic options, and improved rigor.  At face value, this isn’t about re-arranging some of the deck chairs in Alexandria Public Schools.  This is about putting middle schoolers on a completely different boat.
Will it work?  Eduflack readers know that intentions aren’t even worth the recycled paper they are printed on.  The name of the game is results.  What specifically will be done?  Will teachers and principals and parents buy into the reforms?  Will we hold educators accountable, both with carrot and stick?  And most importantly, how will we define success?
But Alexandria and Sherman are on the right track.  Middle schools are the often unmentioned problem in our public education family.  High school drop-out problems can be attributed to the middle grades.  Achievement gap issues can be attributed to the middle grades.  Even issues of equity and opportunity start in the middle grades (since we like to believe all little first graders are equal in both access and opportunity).   
It also provides us something to think about when we start building Innovation Fund and Race to the Top grant applications.  How are our struggling school districts addressing the middle school crisis?  Are they offering potential solutions, as Alexandria attempts, or will they gloss over the issue, making the jump from elementary building blocks to secondary school pathways and graduation numbers?  Innovations in middle grades education should be a non-negotiable for our future school improvement efforts.  Without it, we lose many of the benefits of elementary school improvements, while denying far too many the full opportunities of an improved secondary school experience.

Arts Education and Quantification

Eduflack arts, AYP, NAEP, national standards, Students

For nearly a decade now, we have talked about quantifying the impact of education.  How do we effectively measure student progress?  How do we measure effective teaching?  How do we make sure our policymakers, school districts, administrators, and educators are doing their jobs when it comes to impactful and results-based instruction?

For many, AYP and achievement on the state assessments usually suffices.  Under federal law, we are now measuring core competency in reading, math, and science, using those scores as a benchmark for evaluating student achievement.  Like it or not, decisionmaking and funding is usually based on that triad of academic subjects, with reading and math winning the day (as science is the late comer to this little education data dance.)
But what about other subjects?  More importantly, what about the arts?  How many people are truly aware that this year’s NAEP results are going to include data on our nation’s proficiency in the arts?  How many know that the arts are included in the federal law as a core part of the K-12 curriculum?  How many know that there are some states looking at how to measure effective art instruction and determine student knowledge and ability in the field?  And more importantly, how many realize that effective arts education can be used as an early predictor of student reading ability and a general predictor of a student’s postsecondary pursuits and opportunities?
A few years ago, while working with new Leaders for New Schools on its EPIC teacher incentive program, I learned of a music teacher in the District of Columbia who was doing phenomenal work with her kindergarten music students.  To an outside observer, you would think you were watching a math class.  But she was using the power of music to teacher her students.  She was integrating the arts into the other subjects her kids were taking.  And she was doing so with incredible results.
In recent years, the arts have faced some trying times.  They are usually the first on the budgetary chopping block, seen as a nice value-add but not part of the core curriculum it actually is.  This tends to be driven by a great public misperception about the arts’ role in K-12 and our general inability to quantify the impact of its teaching.  Thing about it.  For what other academic subject do we sacrifice certified, effective teachers, substituting in well-meaning but untrained professionals-in-residence?  And in what other subjects do we fail to see the negative impact such a move can have?  We don’t have to talk about the need for a certified reading, math, science, social studies, foreign language, or even physical education or drivers ed teacher in every school, but we have to have that fight over a certified arts teacher far too often.
We are starting to see some of the data pointing to the value and impact of arts education.  As chair of the Education Commission of the States, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee placed a spotlight on the need for arts education.  We’re seeing quantifiable data out of the University of California, Los Angeles and the College Board on the outcomes.  The research is coming, and it is telling us a lot.
When I teach effective communication, I often focus on the power of telling an effect story.  Data points are nice, but we really resonate with the personal story.  We like to hear about the real people and the real communities that are affected by real policies and real ideas.  We like to hear about the protagonist, the struggle, and the ultimate victory.  We want the fairy tale, even for issues such as education policy, education research, and school improvement and innovation.
So this evening, I want to pass along a little story on that has appeared in two parts recently on Huffington Post, written by one of the most passionate advocates for arts education Eduflack has ever come across.  Lucia Brawley.  Part one can be found here, with part two recently published here.  Brawley tells a fascinating story, highlighting both the “art” and the “science” behind arts education.  For those who question the true value of the visual arts, drama, and music in the classroom, it is a most read.
As we start contemplating reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and what are the non-negotiables for new programs such as the Innovation Fund and the Race to the Top, we need to consider these data points and these stories as we build a better K-12 educational system.  Effective learning and skill development can come from many places, particularly if we have the data to prove it.  Not every child is going to become the next Jackson Pollack, Wynton Marsalis, or Meryl Streep.  They may not even be particularly talented in any of the arts.  But they can benefit from effective visual arts, music, and theater programs.  And we are gathering the research to prove it.
 

Talkin’ Baseball & School Equity

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, national standards, Students

Those who know Eduflack know that I have but a few true passions.  First and foremost is my family.  Nothing is more important to me than my wife and my two perfect little tots.  Then we have two things tied for a close second — education improvement and baseball.  Those who read these pages realize the first, and they may surmise the second based on the regular baseball references and analogies.  Such continue this morning.

Last night, I had the good fortune of attending the first official New York Mets baseball game to be held at Citi Field.  (Yes, the name is unfortunate, but it seems the grassroots effort to rename it “Taxpayer Field” quickly sputtered out.)  It is an absolutely beautiful ballpark — far, far better than the dump that was previously known as Shea Stadium.  It is also a new ballpark that is rich in baseball history, particularly that of the Brooklyn Dodgers and of Jackie Robinson (a little too much Dodger for this die-hard Mets fan, particularly when you think of all of the Mets history — particularly 1969, 1973, and 1986 that could be there in its stead.)
The focus on Jackie Robinson and the majestic blue “42” (see below) as you initially pass through the Citi turnstiles can’t help but have you think of Robinson and his ability to break the color barrier and bring a sense of equity to America’s pastime.  As we get ready to celebrate the anniversary of that important day later this week, it serves as yet another example of how separate is never equal.  Two leagues — one for whites and one for blacks — would never be the same as simply having the best players competing on the same field.  Success only comes when we have access to the same resources, are held to the same standards, and are measured by the same record books and the same tape measures.
Which gets us to the issues of school improvement.  How do we expect to say we improving our schools when we operate so many dropout factories in our urban centers?  How can we say everyone has access to a high-quality public education when 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic students are dropping out of high school?  How do we talk about equity of opportunity when there are clearly haves and have-nots in public education, those with access to the best teachers, the latest technology, the newest books, and the best data systems, and those who are just left to muddle through the best they can with what we are willing to give them?
When Jackie Robinson stepped onto the field in that Dodger jersey for the first time, he landed a significant body blow to all of those who believed that separate could be equal, that facilities and leagues for blacks were “good enough,” or that the standards and records by which we measured ballplayers of color were different than those by which we measured white players.  We talk of the greatness of pitchers like Cy Young and Walter Johnson, yet we truly don’t know how they would stack up to greats like Satchel Paige and Smokey Joe Williams.  We speak of baseball hitting legends like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, but have no idea if they could even take practice swings in Josh Gibson’s shadow.  For 60 years, major league baseball refused admittance to equity, and the game and the nation paid the price.
As we stand on the precipice of a new day in public education — a day when all schools are in the same Race to the Top and a day when all schools are held to the same AYP standards and, hopefully, all students are held to the same academic standards — we need to think about tearing down those remaining barriers that prevent our public school systems from truly offering equal access to resources, education, and opportunity.  “Good enough for …” should be eliminated from our educational vocabularies.  Dropout factories should be urban legends.  And lowered expectations for certain subsets of disaggregated student populations should be retired along with so many baseball jersey numbers.  If we expect all of our students — regardless of skin color or socioeconomic status — to compete on the common field of academic and career success, we need to make sure they have the skills and the equipment to do so.  
Yes, education is a great American civil right.  Yes, far too many of our citizens are denied complete access to it.    Yes, every child can succeed, with the proper support and motivation.  Yes, there are specific action steps we can take to do something about it.
Getting additional financial resources to schools in need through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and through a host of third-party foundations and corporations is a good first step.  But we need to make sure those resources are being used effectively.  We need to make all students are being held to the same standard.  We need to make sure the dollars that represent our inputs are results in true return on investment when it comes to student performance.  Otherwise, we will continue to have some students who are playing in the big show when it comes to their futures, and some that are still just playing Whiffle ball in the backyard.  
It is now April 2009 in the United States.  Is it really too much to ask that every school, regardless of demographics, has equal access to well-trained, effective teachers?  Is it too much to ask that every student have access to the latest textbooks, technology, and instructional materials?  Is it too much to hold every state, district, school, and student to the same measurable academic standards?  Is it too much to believe that every child can succeed — both in school and in life — if provide equal access to an education of equal quality?
Tomorrow, we celebrate the 62nd anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier and stepping onto the brilliant green grass in crisp Brooklyn Dodger white.  Next month, we celebrate the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court case that declared, once and for all, that separate was not equal when it came to public education. As we reflect on these landmark moments, we can see how far we have come in bringing equity of both resource and opportunity to our schools and communities … and how far we still need to go.  
Can we really see school success and 21st century competitiveness without addressing the dire problems in our urban schools and those serving historically underserved student populations?  Can we truly see an America that can compete on both international benchmarks and in the 21st century global economy if we are writing off so many students and so many schools so early in the game?
Believe it or not, these were some of the thoughts going through the head of the occupant of Section 114, Row 30, Seat 1 last evening at Citi.  
  

Guaranteeing a High School Diploma

Eduflack 21CS, EdNews, High School, Students, Workforce

Many will say that a high school diploma simply isn’t worth what it was a half-century ago, or even a decade ago.  That may be true, but in this day and age, shouldn’t we offer some sort of guarantee as to what a high school diploma really stands for?  Shouldn’t an employer be assured that a high school graduate possesses a finite skill set and is holds competencies in core subjects?  Shouldn’t an institution of higher education trust that a high school graduate doesn’t require massive amounts of remediation?

If you answered yes to any of these (or a strong no, for that matter), check out my latest column over at Education News.  This morning, I discuss how we need to begin guaranteeing the value of a high school diploma if we are to retain their value in our education system and our economy.