Students

Gaming Civics Class

Eduflack 21CS, Online Education, Students, technology

When Eduflack talks about 21st century skills, I usually focus on a very basic concept.  At the heart and soul of the 21CS movement is using new media to teach core subjects.  How do we ensure that students remain plugged in while in the classroom?  How do we tap into student interests (particularly as they relate to technology) to ensure they are getting the reading, math, and social science skills required of an effective K-12 education?  How do we keep the tried-and-true, core subjects fresh through new approaches, new formats, and new information distribution channels?

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor seems to have one answer for our classrooms.  The Associated Press reports that the first woman to serve on the High Court has helped develop a series of video games designed to engage students on the core elements of civics and social studies.  With games such as “Do I Have a Right” and “Supreme Decision,” the jurist is promoting these technology-based lessons and intended for the classroom and developed for middle schoolers.  Largely private funded, the effort is also backed by Georgetown University and Arizona State University.  The best part?  The games are free.
O’Connor is the first to admit she isn’t the most tech-savvy of our current educational entrepreneurs.  According to the AP, she’s not on Facebook, she doesn’t Tweet, and she doesn’t event text much.  But she recognizes that our children’s social studies skills are lacking.  She knows our students understanding of civics, social studies, and history are not at acceptable levels.  So she is helping bring the content to the student.  If that means teaching constitutional rights through a video game platform, then so be it.
That, quite frankly, is what 21CS are all about.  O’Connor and her colleagues are applying a new teaching and learning medium to teach core materials to students in need.  By tying student interests and student skills with fundamental instructional lessons, O’Connor is offering just the sort of new thinking our classrooms need to improve student proficiency.  it doesn’t take a unanimous decision from the High Court to see the value of this idea.
  

A New Learning Day?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, Students

Does the traditional 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. school day fit the bill when we talk about our needs to innovate, close the achievement gap, and boost student achievement?  Is the current model of compartmentalized learning — one that clearly has not achieved its intended goals for these many generations — getting the job done in our 21st century environment?

Last week, EdSec Arne Duncan emphasized that extended learning opportunities were are important component of how economic stimulus dollars should be spent.  One has to believe that a portion of the Innovation Fund and a potential non-negotiable for the Race to the Top may be how school districts integrate outside-of-school-time (OST) activities into the day-to-day learning experience, providing students extensions to the learning day, further opportunities to learn, and the one-to-one interventions they need to overcome some of the gaps in the daily classroom experience.
About a year ago, at an event sponsored by Ed in 08, Chris Gabrieli — the chairman of the National Center on Time & Learning — spoke of recent Center efforts to supplement the learning experience and provide a leg up to many of those students that are tagged as the reason for our achievement gap.  Some of these stories are documented in Gabrieli’s book, Time to Learn: How a New School Schedule is Making Smarter Kids, Happier Parents, and Safer Neighborhoods.  Are Gabrieli’s ideas interesting?  Yes.  Are some of them audacious?  Absolutely.  But in forcing us to think about the learning process and the learning structure a little differently, it gets us to approach the job of teaching differently.  And those different approaches are the key to the innovation that is going to drive the day.
Such innovation may be just what is needed to shake up a system that has clearly grown stagnant.  Last week, Eduflack opined on the notion of extending the school year, while taking a closer look at what can be done to extend the learning day.  From a wealth of research, we know that the learning that happens outside of the 8-3 classroom is just as important as that happening within it.  That’s why we push parents to continue the learning process at home, both during the school year and during the summers.  That’s why we explore year-round schooling.  And that’s why we are recognizing the academic value of OST programs.  The era where OST was defined as midnight basketball is over.  Those programs that are truly effective are those that invest in the social and academic development of the student, enhancing the learning processes and building blocks that are established during the traditional school day.
But how do we move such efforts forward?  After all, it is nice for the EdSec to offer up rhetoric on the value of afterschool efforts, but how does such rhetoric transform into effective policy?  At a time when education dollars are at a premium and we aren’t sure how we are going to fund the core academic day, how do we ensure we are making the necessary investments in the afterschool programs that supplement and enhance the day, programs that give us a real opportunity to break the cycle of mediocrity that has long dominated our public education system?
The first step is likely happening down in New Orleans later this week.  The National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National AfterSchool Association are slated to launch a new initiative — Leading a Learning Day for All Children.  Leading a Learning Day’s goals seem simple, yet essential.  Organizers seek to establish a “seamless learning day where children are engaged, challenged and celebrated,” and where there is “more time for learning and helping children grow and develop with hands-on, active, and project-based learning.”  
Coming out of the Big Easy, NAESP and NAA hope to refocus OST efforts on five key principles:
* Redefinition of student success — Refining what student success means beyond the acquisition of basic skills and including assessments for attributes such as teamwork, civic engagement, and analytical thinking.
* Use of knowledge about how students learn best — Using our research-based knowledge about how children learn and become inquisitive and analytical thinkers to frame their cognitive and developmental experiences throughout the day, early to late and year round.
* Integration of proven strategies to acquire and reinforce knowledge — Recognizing the arts, technology, and service learning are examples of tools to heighten core academic learning, not merely nice things to do to fill children’s time.
* Intentional collaboration across local, state, and national sectors — Building new collaborative structures across sectors in communities and up and down government hierarchies that focus all resources on supporting academic and developmental goals for children.
* New leadership and professional development opportunities — Knowing that while most leadership programs and certification are school-based, the importance of training and compensating educators to build community partnership is growing.
So what, exactly, does all this mean for school improvement?  First off, we need to redefine the learning day to mean far more than the time required by law behind the schoolhouse doors.  We must recognize that if we are to close the achievement gap and make demonstrable improvements in student achievement, we must extend learning opportunities to after school, the weekends, the summers, and other “non-school day” times.
Second, we must recognize that OST is not glorified babysitting.  Afterschool is no longer a holding pen for kids without adult supervision nor is it merely arts and crafts and sports.  High-quality programs are designed to enhance student learning, providing additional opportunities to build core knowledge, develop core skills, and delve deeper into the subjects and concepts that both interest students and are important to their long-term success.
Third, this new dawn of afterschool is completely doable, even with the limited resources of our 2009 economic realities.  It starts with the visions and the examples laid out by organizations such as the National Center on Time & Learning, NAA, and Leading a Learning Day, groups that can all point to promising practices, places where new ideas are working, and students who have been positively impacted by new thinking and even newer actions.  And it is continued by linking the school day with the afterschool day, pursuing core activities like sharing curriculum maps, including afterschool staff in professional development, sharing evaluation data, and jointly reaching out to parents and communities.
Finally, it means recognizing the true value of changing the definition of the learning day.  We need to value all of those who contribute to a student’s academic progress, maximizing the skills and experiences each time and space can best provide for children.  We need to identify more learning opportunities for those students who are falling behind, dropping the misguided belief that students can catch up simply by doing the same (or usually, less) work during the traditional academic day.  And it means recognizing that these investments have a long-term impact on student learning, student health, community safety, and community empowerment.
Words and actions out of Washington, our state capitols, and our school districts all point to a need for new perspectives, new approaches, and
a new view on effective learning.  Is OST the silver bullet for solving all that ails are schools?  Hardly.  But it is an important piece of the puzzle.  For years now, groups like the Mott Foundation and the Wallace Foundation have invested in OST infrastructures in states and cities across the nation.  Success now comes when those investments in inputs are translated into real, outcome-based results.  The principles coming out of New Orleans this week are a strong step forward.  The next step is moving effectively to communicate these ideas with those stakeholders who can put them into practice, getting audiences to change the way they think about afterschool and change what they do with those afterschool hours.  The possibility is there.  Now we just need to seize it.   

Actually Getting Kids to College, or Just Talking About It?

Eduflack Achievement gap, ACT, early college, High School, higher ed, Parents, PR, Students

By now, Eduflack readers know two evident truths about successful communications.  The first is we must raise awareness about the problem and what people know about it.  The second is we must drive audiences to action, getting them to change their behaviors to fix said problem.  It is modern-day advocacy.  Being informed is no longer enough.  If we aren’t taking the action steps to improve student achievement, then any “PR effort” isn’t worth its salt.

For years now, we’ve screamed from the rooftops that each and every child in the United States required a college degree.  The U.S. Department of Education said that 90 percent of new jobs demanded some form of postsecondary education.  We’ve talked about the problems of dropout factories and business’ need for a college-educated workforce.  We’ve discussed 21st century skills and the learning needs one acquires after high school.
Earlier this week, the KnowHow2Go campaign released new public survey information on its efforts to boost public awareness of its efforts to inform eighth to 10th graders on the need for college.  The results include:
* More than one-third (35 percent) of students say they are regularly taking steps to prepare for college (up from 26 percent in 2007)
* Nine in 10 students (91 percent) have spoken to an adult about college prep, up from 80 percent
* Six in 10 students (63 percent) have seen or heard of KnowHow2Go and its advertising campaign
* Eight in 10 students (81 percent) said they were familiar with the courses needed for college, up from 70 percent two years ago
The data points are interesting, don’t get me wrong, but what do they really tell us?  As we are improving our ability to inform students, are we actually changing student behaviors?  Unfortunately, we just don’t know.  This data seems to raise just as many questions as it provides answers.
One-third of students are taking steps to prepare to college.  Interestingly, one-third of high school students will go on to college.  And one-third have gone on to college for decades.  What does that mean?  In 2007, those students who were likely going on to college didn’t know they were taking the steps necessary to get there.  So now those same students know they are asking the right questions and getting the right information.  But what are we doing for the two-thirds of ninth graders who will never go on to college?  What questions are they asking?  What steps are they taking?  And why aren’t they doing what it takes to prepare for postsecondary education?
Ninety percent of students have spoken to an adult about college.  What about that remaining 10 percent?  What are they talking about?  Who are they talking to?  And how are we defining an adult?  Based on my previous research with high school students on whether or not they go on to college, the vast majority of students say they trust their parents first and foremost when it comes to college decisions..  Guidance counselors usually rank near the bottom of adults when it comes to those voices they value.  So are these students talking to parents and trusted adults, those they may actually listen to, or are they talking to the guidance counselors and such that they will immediately discount?
Eight in 10 students are now familiar with the courses needed for college.  But are they taking them?  Again, information is great, but are students acting on the information?  Are they enrolling in higher level science and math classes?  Are they taking dual-credit opportunities?  Are they taking the ACT or SAT test?  Are they passing their state proficiency exams? It is one thing to say we know what we need to do.  It is something completely different to actually do it.
What do we know?  We know that only a third of today’s ninth graders will go on to postsecondary education.  We know that of those who enter college, more than half are unprepared for college-level work, evidenced by the high numbers of students requiring remedial math and ELA courses.  We know that a third of students are still dropping out of high school, and those numbers reach almost 50 percent in our African-American and Hispanic populations.  We know that drop-out factories are still far-too-prominent in too many of our urban centers.
I give KnowHow2Go credit for boosting awareness of the issue.  Based on their data, their message is getting out there and students are more aware of the issues (at least those students who are participating in the survey).  But how is that awareness being used to actually change public behavior?  How do we use that awareness to boost high school graduation rates?  How do we use it to close the achievement gap?  How do we use it to actually boost the college-going rate, particularly among minority and low-income students?  How do we get more students to pursue the multiple pathways of postsecondary education?  How do we move this newly acquired information into real action that is improving student achievement and preparedness for the opportunities in the 21st century workforce.
Growing up, GI Joe taught Eduflack (and many others) that knowing was half the battle.  He was right.  KnowHow2Go has done a good job of informing students of the questions they need to ask and the issues they need to think about.  But what are they doing with that information?  Success only comes when we can show more students are actually going to college.  Success only comes when we demonstrate that students are actually taking the courses they need to go on to college.  Success only comes when we have tangible results to show for it, real results tied to grad rates, college preparedness, and the number of students gaining postsecondary degrees.  Success only comes when we fight that other half of the battle.  And far too many of us still need to gear up for that fight. 

Flagship University Vs. Local College

Eduflack higher ed, Students

Across the nation, states have established flagship public universities to attract the nation’s best and brightest.  These institutions bring in the top faculty, establish academic centers of excellence, secure significant federal dollars in R&D, and recruit the top students in the nation.  All of this is done to ensure they can effectively compete with both the top public and private institutions, demonstrating a statewide commitment to education, innovation, and results.

These flagship institutions usually work in partnership with a network of public universities to ensure that the academic needs of the state are effectively met.  Regional demands, areas of specialty, and the downright luck of the draw ultimately determine which students end up where.  These variations allow institutions to build diverse student populations, diverse in terms of race, socioeconomic status, geography, interests, and backgrounds.
No university can serve every student.  There is a reason why the admission process is competitive, particularly for these flagship publics.  That’s what make them so desirable.  That’s what puts them at the top of the college rankings.  That’s what ensures the success of their graduates.  That’s what makes them truly competitive, impactful institutions.
And then legislators have to step in and try to screw it up.  Case in point — Virginia legislators and their most recent assault on Eduflack’s alma mater, the University of Virginia.  U.Va. is one of those flagship public universities, regularly rated the top public university in the nation.  Currently, 33 percent of U.Va.’s students come from out of state (a number not out of line with other leading public universities).  These out-of-state students often turn down offers from top private institutions — including the Ivies — to attend Mr. Jefferson’s University.  And they pay handsomely for it, with tuition far exceeding the cost of actually educating them (some estimating that they pay double the actual cost of the education received, to help subsidize the cost of educating in-state students).
Apparently, some believe the enrollment of out-of-staters is unfair to Virginia residents who do not get into U.Va., and must instead settle for Virginia Tech, James Madison, George Mason, and other Virginia state universities.  So much so that legislators are now seeking to halve the number of out-of-state students at institutions like U.Va. to make more spots available to in-state students.  Fellow U.Va./Cavalier Daily alum and WaPo reporter Anita Kumar has the full story this morning — www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302641.html?hpid=topnews  
I can understand the frustration students have not getting into their first choice college.  You work hard (or mostly hard) for four years of high school.  You get stellar grades.  You do well on the SAT or ACT.  You believe the world should be your oyster.  You believe you are entitled to go to the college of your choice, particularly if it is an in-state school.
And it is logical for an uninformed state legislator to see the reasoning in that logic, and call for the state to slash the number of out-of-state students and offer more slots to in-state student.  Logical, that is, until you really get in under the hood of how institutions like U.Va. operate.  
Currently, the University of Virginia receives less than eight percent of its operating expenses from the state.  That means those legislators are providing fewer than eight cents on the education dollar to provide a University of Virginia education.  The rest of the funds are provided through tuition (a disproportionate amount coming from those “despised” out-of-state students), donations from alumni (a great number of whom were once those out-of-state students), and other funding sources.  
I’ll admit it, I was one of those dreaded out-of-state students at Mr. Jefferson’s University.  As a graduate of the public schools in West Virginia, i found U.Va. to be the ideal college for me the first moment I set foot on grounds, offering opportunities I simply couldn’t find in my home state.  I ultimately chose it over Princeton University, buying into everything about the academical village.  I watched as costs rose from 113% of my actual education my first year to well over 150% by fourth year.  These were during the harshest of SCHEV battles, and it made me appreciate what I was getting even more.  So this is personal for Eduflack.
If legislators want to deny out-of-state students, that is definitely their prerogative.  But they need to be prepared for the impact.  Slashing out-of-state students means a significant cut in operating costs, particularly if it is not offset by real increases in in-state tuition (and yes, if you want to keep academic standards and faculty, and the state can’t increase its support, the only choice is tuition increases.  Gone will be the times where you can just jack up out-of-state rates to make up the difference).  Alums like me will likely choose to reduce their contributions to the College Fund and other operating funds, believing that students like them are no longer being served by the institution.  And yes, U.Va. will quickly drop in the national rankings, due to lower SAT scores, lower budgets, and lower recognition from peer institutions.  Don’t believe me?  Just take a look at how the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill fell in the rankings after it capped out-of-state enrollments.
Personally, I would love to see U.Va. President John Casteen counter with an offer to refuse the 7-plus percent of funding coming in from the state, ridding the institution of many of the oversight and red tape that comes from the Commonwealth.  Of course, U.Va. would still remain a public flagship, but it would also exert its independence and leadership in higher education.  It would definitely be a Jeffersonian thing to do.
But I am also concerned with the larger implications of targeting U.Va.  The University is an easy target, based on its elitist perceptions, it prominent image, and its sizable budgets.  But it is far from being the largest public university in Virginia.  It may be flagship, but it relatively modest when it comes to institutional size, both by in-state and out-of-state comparisons.  Yes, it had a clear target on its back during those SCHEV years and its battles with Governor Wilder, and it remains a target today, particularly as it is in the middle of a highly ambitious $3 billion capital campaign.
These legislative “considerations” create the impression that public education at Virginia Tech or George Mason or William & Mary or VCU is somehow lacking by comparison.  Stating that a student couldn’t get in to U.Va. and had to “settle” for another public university is a slap at the number of fine public institutions in Virginia.  We should be recognizing the uniqueness of our institutions and identifying regional centers of excellence that allow each of our major universities to shine.  Not every Virginian needs to spend four years in C-Ville to succeed.  And in many cases, better educations and better opportunities can be found across the network of Virginia higher education.
More importantly, though, such legislative interventions put us down a dangerously slippery slope.  With U.Va., the issue is that some students in Northern Virginia  — home to some of the nation’s top high schools and competitive students —  don’t gain admission into the University.  Parents and kids alike believe that is unfair, and blame lack of admittance on those out-of-state students.  Even if those out-of-state students have higher grades, higher test s
cores, and stronger resumes, they are taking slots from over-achievers in NoVa.
What happens when U.Va. reduces its out-of-state pool, and we turn our attention to the disproportionate number of in-state students coming from Northern Virginia.  Do we need special intercessions to increase enrollment of students from Southwest Virginia or Norfolk or Richmond?  Will NoVa students simply become the next generation of those dreaded out-of-state students?  It isn’t as silly as it may sound.
But I greatly digress.  The greatness of public flagship universities is the diversity of its students.  Such diversity prepares students for life after college, challenging them to work harder and do better.  And that diversity includes students from other states and other nations.  If we are to sustain truly excellent higher education in Virginia, we should be raising standards and asking more of our students.  The question shouldn’t be how to reduce the out-of-state student pool, it should be how do we raise in-state student achievement and performance so our residents are outperforming those kids from New Jersey and Pennsylvania that  we seem so fearful of.  We should be doing better, not changing the game to make our standards look better than those next to us.

Cutting Off Our Thumbs …

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, ELL, Students

We all recognize that state departments of education are hurting.  Even once they receive a significant financial booster shot from the federal stimulus to help pay for core instructional needs, states are still looking for places to trim, cut, or generally push back on.  Usually, we think that such cuts should first be directed at those areas considered expendable, the sort of luxuries our schools want, but just can’t afford during these belt-tightening times.

Who ever would have thought that such expendable programs would be English Language Learning efforts in the state of Arizona.  Unbelievable, but true.  Over in the Grand Canyon State, the state superintendent has recommended that the Arizona Legislature remove $30 million in ELL funding from the state budget, a nearly three-quarters cut in what was intended.
The full story can be found in the Arizona Republic — <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/13/20090213horne0213.html.
Eduflack”>www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/13/20090213horne0213.html.
Eduflack is not going to quibble with State Supe Tom Horne that Arizona is making great strides in ELL instruction.  I want to believe that Arizona school districts are doubling fluency rates under current efforts, and more and more students are becoming English language proficient.  I even want to believe Horne when Arizona will see “a dramatic increase in the percentage of students becoming proficient in English quickly.”
But our actions often speak far louder than our rhetoric.  Last year, Arizona provided its K-12 schools $40 million to implement new ELL provisions, state standards that many say require at least $275 million to staff and equip with fidelity.  So as the districts start to demonstrate improvement, even very early in the process, our response is to cut funding because clearly the program has already demonstrated effectiveness and accomplished its intended goals?  Foolishness.
Like it or not, the ESL population in states like Arizona will continue to grow.  School districts will continue to face increased needs to deal with non-English speakers, integrate them into the schools quickly, and ensure they are gaining core instruction in math, science, and even literacy in their native language as they are trying to learn English.  This is not a luxury or a value add.  This is a non-negotiable, particularly in states like Arizona, Texas, and others in the Southwest.
Instead, Arizona is now looking at establishing new ways to determine English language proficiency of its students.  This is akin to states that have dramatically lowered their state academic standards in math and reading to meet AYP requirements.  Changing the standard doesn’t get more kids proficient, it just gets them to pass a test.  And those kids who aren’t proficient are the ones that will struggle in school, may ultimately drop out, and will be unable to attain and retain good jobs that will pay the rent and support a family.
Let’s hope the Arizona Legislature takes a close look at its citizens, and its taxpayers, and realizes that Superintendent Horne’s request is a lose-lose-lose position.  It is a loser for the schools, who will be forced to deal with a growing problem with fewer dollars.  It is a loser for the students, many of whom have come to the United States for that better education and opportunity in the first place.  And it is a loser for the state, as they sacrifice a significant portion of the next generation of taxpayer and worker, the very engines that will drive the Arizona economy in the decades to come.

Improving College Readiness and Results

Eduflack higher ed, Online Education, Students

In keeping with Eduflack’s ongoing discussions of college readiness, following is a guest post from Holly McCarthy.

Over the years, the importance of a college education has
become more and more recognized by young people of a wide variety of
socioeconomic backgrounds.  With
the current economic situation, the importance of having lasting and pertinent
skills is something that is on the minds of many as they begin to map out their
futures.  Knowing the importance of
a college education is the first step; these young people must be prepared for
college, however, before they go off to school. 

Many entering freshmen are completely unprepared for the
rigors of academic life beyond public schooling.  While the reasons for this can be quite complicated, the
fact of the matter is that college preparation needs to be taught in schools, especially
when students are encouraged to go to college to earn a degree.  Something is being lost along the
way—kids are being told to go, but they are not taught what to do once they
arrive.

Study Skills

One of the biggest problems many students face once they set
foot on campus is a lack of good study skills.  This problem adversely affects many aspects of the college
experience and puts these students at a disadvantage.  In high school, teachers often spend a great deal of time
explaining what will be on tests, handing out review sheets, etc., but spend
little time explaining that this kind of thing won’t be given out by most
college professors.

A good idea for rectifying this situation would be for
students to be gradually weaned off of these study guides and unambiguous study
sessions.  Learning how to figure
out what is going to be important and how to take notes and personally develop
study skills is something that shouldn’t have to be learned by being thrown to
the wolves in college.  Rather, students
should be given opportunities to learn and develop these skills over time in an
environment with fewer consequences and more chances for remediation.

Time Management

Another area where public schools fall far behind is teaching
students how to manage their time wisely. 
We live in a world that values results and productivity very
highly.  Advances in technology
have made many jobs obsolete and the expectations for employees continue to
increase as a result.  Time
management in college is something that can make or break a student’s career if
they are not careful.

Teaching students to take responsibility for projects and
reinforcing the importance of timelines and setting up achievable goals would
truly help students to learn how to effectively manage their time.  In most cases, high school students are
actually taking more courses per semester than they ultimately will in
college.  Showing them how to
effectively manage tasks such as reading large amounts of material, studying on
a schedule, and preparing papers and projects so that they don’t end up being
done at the last minute could mean the difference between success and failure. 

(This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of online schools. It represents Holly’s opinions only, and she invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12@gmail.com.)   

Coming Together for School Improvement

Eduflack Achievement gap, Chancellor Klein, early childhood education, Students

Over the last month or so, a great deal has been written (and far more has been spoken and gossiped) about the wars between “education camps” and who is going to take the lead in the Obama Administration.  At Sunday’s National Urban Alliance gathering, the crowd heard from NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, AASA Chief Dan Domenech, and Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University professor and top Obama education advisor, on the need for coming together.  The message was a simple one, and it is one that all those seeking improvement in our public schools should take into account, particularly today when we swear in a new president.

What is that message?  Put simply:
* We are all committed to improving our public schools.
* In this process, nothing is more important than our children, ensuring all have access to high-quality education and high-quality teachers.
* Real improvement requires the participation of all parties.  Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines.
* Those committed to improving our public schools have far more in common than they realize.  Those commonalities are what will drive the agenda for the next four years.
Feeding from the energy, commitment, and passion demonstrated by the overpacked room at the NUA event, I would add a few additional messages for consideration in our quest toward school improvement:
* Lasting improvement begins with the teacher.  That means training qualified and effective teachers, supporting their ongoing development once they are in the classroom, and ensuring they have the materials and supports necessary to lead and inspire in their classroom.
* True success requires building on the promising practices of the past.  What can we do to improve and strengthen NCLB?  How do we preserve the good of the past eight years in moving us to the great of the next eight?
* We are learning, and teaching, across a continuum.  Our focus should not be limited to fourth through eighth grades, as NCLB’s accountability measures focus.  Learning begins in preK, and extends through secondary school and beyond.  We must invest and attend to the full continuum, particularly those who may have fallen through the cracks in recent years, entering the middle or secondary grades without the core skills or abilities they need to succeed.
* We must continue to challenge one another to get lasting improvement.  There is no magic bullet or quick path here.  It takes hard work.  That means challenging conventional wisdom and engaging with a wide range of perspectives to get to the best, most effective path possible.
* The achievement gap should be priority number one.  Education is a civil right, as so many have articulated, it also is a non-negotiable.  If we are to give every student access to the American dream — regardless of the state of the economy — we must first make sure that access to quality education (and the equitability of such programs, whether they be offered in urban, suburban, or rural communities) is universal and adequately funded.
* In 2009, improvement comes from a velvet glove approach, not from the carrot-stick version we’ve experiences for years now.
* There is a hunger to see real, tangible improvements soon.  Step number one will be ensuring that the economic stimulus money designated for public education is getting into our schools.  We must effectively capture those real-life stories of how such funding is making a difference and impacting the lives of real teachers and real students immediately.  We must show that economic stimulus in education is having an immediate impact in schools like ours, with kids like ours.
Yesterday, in celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,  Democrats for Education Reform held an education equality rally in Washington, DC.  DFER Chair Kevin Chavous’ remarks reflect much of what was said at NUA and much of what we should consider as we hopefully join together to close the achievement gap and improve public schools in every city and town across the United States:

At this historic time, in this city of our nation’s founders,  on the day designated to honor Dr. Martin Luther King and his legacy, it is fitting that we all stand before you to challenge America. Although this challenge is made out of love and respect, it is a challenge nonetheless. 

Quite simply, it is time for our country to stand up for our children.  As great as we are, we still are failing our kids.  Failing them miserably.  When half of the children of color drop out of high school, we are failing our kids; when we offer fewer and fewer AP courses, we are failing our kids; when our world education rankings continue to slide, we are failing our kids; and when we remain committed to a one size fits all model of education service delivery, we are failing our kids.  Yes, there are some very good schools in America that provide some children with an excellent education.  But that is not good enough and we are still failing our kids.

In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Dr. King directly chastises white clergy for their unwillingness to confront the status quo on the issue of segregation and social justice.  Dr. King alludes to the interconnectedness of us all by saying that ‘we are caught on an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly’.  Indeed, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.  This is the inter-related structure of reality.

Like King, we need to be honest and forthright about what ails us in education.  If a child is failing in a school in southeast Washington, DC, it hurts the suburbanite living in Aurora, Colorado. And we all lose.  Until each and every American child receives equal access to a high quality education, our destiny will never be fulfilled, our promise never reached.  This is the last civil rights struggle in America and we need to employ the same sense of urgency and resolve that we did to end segregation during the time of King.

Indeed.
UPDATE — The MLK event where Kevin Chavous spoke was sponsored by Education Equality Project, not DFER.  But the power of the remarks remain the same.

Take Me Home, 21st Century Teachers

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, STEM, Students, technology

Twenty-first century skills seems to be the topic of the day again today.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, Mike Petrilli takes a vastly different point of view from dear ole Eduflack, boiling down the issue of 21st century skills to making our kids tech savvy (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/01/the-conceit-of-21st-century-skills/#comments).  I agree with Petrilli.  Today’s students don’t need any help at all figuring out how technology works.  My two-and-a-half year old son is already more skilled on the iPhone than the eduwife, knowing perfectly well how to turn it on, get it out of sleep mode, and flip through the pages to get to his favorite game (the one with the rabbit eating the carrots and dodging the cans, for those in the real know).

And Robert Pondiscio over at Core Knowledge blog comments on my earlier posting about the real dangers of sacrificing content in the name of 21st century skills. Again, I agree with Pondiscio’s premise and point.  But one can teach the finer points of the War of 1812 beyond the chalkboard and mimeographed pages.  Content still remains king, but we also need to take a careful look at delivery.
We’re seeing the shift in our assessments, as bubble sheets are giving way to computer-based exams.  We’re able to use technology to determine student reading levels.  And states like Florida and Alabama are now requiring virtual education as part of their curriculum, with the latter now requiring virtual education as part of graduation requirements.  That, my friends, is 21st century skills, gaining the content knowledge we’ve prized for decades through new channels and new technologies.  Imagine the difference of studying the Civil War from a classroom in Minnesota, using a tattered grade reader and a chalkboard, versus learning it in a virtual environment with students who live around the block from the very battle sites you are studying, where you can access Brady photographs and clips from Ken Burns’ Civil War series.  That learning 21st century skills.  It’s all in the delivery.
This week’s Education Week has another interesting take on 21st century skills.  Stephen Sawchuk has a piece on how teachers in my former home state of West Virginia are adapting their practice to better meet our 21st century world.  And Sawchuk has one paragraph that helps sum it up:

Business leaders and policymakers more and more say those higher-order, critical-thinking, communication, technological, and analytical skills are the ones crucial for students to master as they enter a service-oriented, entrepreneurial, and global workplace.

I appreciate the sentiments recently offered by Petrilli, Pondiscio, WaPo’s Jay Mathews, and Andy Rotherham.  This is a real discussion that those committed to education improvement should be having.  How do we continue to adapt and improve classroom curriculum to ensure rigorous, relevant courses that hold a student’s interest?  How do we ensure the core content areas we all know are important –the reading, literature, math, science, and social sciences — remain in the curriculum and are effectively consumed by our students.  Current student performance scores show that the old way of delivering such content isn’t working with every student.  If we are going to close achievement gaps, boost performance numbers, and improve graduation rates, perhaps we need to rethink how we are delivering the content.  Some may call that a semantic matter of packaging, but I see it as a core part of 21st century skills.  21CS is about how we deliver content, not what we are delivering.

What’s Wrong with 21st Century Skills?

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM, Students, Workforce

Recently, there seems to be growing momentum against the notion of 21st century skills in our K-12 classrooms.  Some find the term just to be a little too trite for their tastes.  Others believe it moves away from the classically liberal arts education, like literature and history, that K-12 was designed for more than a century ago.  And still others think that it is code for turning our high schools into trade schools.

So Eduflack asks the question, what’s wrong with 21st century skills?  We hear time and again that other nations are eating our collective school lunches when it comes to international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.  We worry about how our kids stack up when it comes to math and science and such, worrying that more jobs may either be eliminated or relocated.  We wonder what jobs will be out there when they do graduate, and whether they will be competitive enough to secure those jobs.
In last year’s Quality Counts, EdWeek gave my home state of Virginia an “F” when it came to college preparedness of our students.  In my previous work with the Virginia Department of Education, I heard time and again from businesses in the Commonwealth that today’s high school graduates simply don’t have the skills necessary to fill today’s jobs, let alone tomorrow’s jobs.  Nationally, our high school drop-out rate is still about one-third, meaning one in three students never gains that diploma in the first place.  And for those who get through high school and do move on to postsecondary education, more than half of them need remedial English or math courses when arriving at their higher education institution of choice.
So, again, what is wrong with 21st century skills for our 21st century schools?  Better yet, what is wrong with defining what 21st century skills really are, at least as they relate to today’s K-12 students?
Reading, math, and science are all 21st century skills.  The ability to use technology is a 21st century skill.  Soft skills like problem solving and teamwork and critical thinking and such are 21st century skills as well.  The problem we have is that when we talk about 21st century skills, too many people think we are talking about skills newly discovered in the 21st century.  That just isn’t the case.  Yes, we are talking about core skills that have been around since Plato.  But that doesn’t mean the skills aren’t as relevant today as they were a millennia or two ago.  It just means we need to starting thinking about them and teaching them in new or different ways that make them more relevant in our 21st century world.
In recent weeks, I’ve talked with a good friend who is a former urban superintendent about the future of classroom instruction.  One of his top concerns is the belief that we are “un-plugging” our students once they enter schools.  Here at Eduflack, we’ve used the term “de-skilling.”  For many, this boils down to the issue of technology in the classroom.  When you have students living on computers and MP3s and instant messaging and cell phones, and you have a world and an economy that are equally reliant on the same, where is the logic of putting away all that technology between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.  and teaching reading, math, science, and social studies through 19th century delivery mechanisms?  
Concern on the issue is redoubled when we consider the changing face of the American classroom teacher.  Across the nation, school districts have been experiencing significant retirements and a new face on the teaching workforce.  Incoming teachers, particularly in our urban districts, have been brought up on computers and cell phones.  They’ve likely never used a card catalog, and many of them do not take a daily newspaper.  But that doesn’t mean they are informationally deprived.  They simply get their data through other sources, through 21st century sources aligned with their interests, their skills, and the world in which they live.
I am no shrinking violet when it comes to the advocacy for STEM education and the need to ensure every student is STEM literate.  For me, this isn’t just an issue for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world.  Even that student looking to work on the manufacturing line next to his father is going to need STEM skills in our new economy.  Every student benefits from STEM literacy, regardless of their future education, career, or life path.  That includes providing them the soft and the content skills that we define as 21st century skills.  More importantly, it requires a new way to deliver the content that, for decades, has been deemed essential learning.
What does all this mean?  Ultimately, when we talk about 21st century skills, we aren’t talking about new sets of content and new academic areas of study.  Sure, topics such as engineering still have yet to really be defined in a K-12 environment (and we clearly don’t have a praxis for secondary school engineering teachers), but we are still talking about core academics like reading, writing, math, science, and the social sciences.  At its heart, 21st century skills is about a new delivery system.  It is about moving beyond the chalkboard to the interactive white board.  It is about moving from the card catalog to the World Wide Web.  And it is about moving from rows and rows of single desks into groups of interactive, collaborative students progressing beyond rote memorizations into critical thinking and higher-level learning.  
Ultimately, it is about delivering our core education in a 21st century world through 21st century means.  An education more relevant and interesting for students.  An education more engaging and empowering for teachers  An education more applicable and valued in the economy.  If 21st century skills is a code, then it is simply code for skills that are relevant and outcome-based for all those involved in the learning process.  That is the sort of progress we should be investing in.

Getting All Educationny at The Washington Post

Eduflack AFT, DCPS, early childhood education, Michelle Rhee, NGA, Students

We all recognize that 2008 was a relative no-go for education issues.  With political campaigns, mortgage bailouts, and economic crises, education improvement just failed to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, nor did it warrant the attention of the average newspaper editor.  Yesterday’s announcement that Denver Public Schools Chief Michael Bennet was a good start to the education year.  Today’s Washington Post is even better.  Not one, not two, but three articles in the A section of WaPo related to education and education improvement.

Exhibit A: On the national/state front, WaPo reports on efforts by a group of Democratic governors to secure $1 trillion in economic stimulus for the states.  Why the interest?  In addition to the money we’ve already been hearing about for school construction, this plan includes $250 billion “in flexible education spending to maintain funding for programs from pre-kindergarten to higher education,” Robin Shulman writes.  That means we have the majority of governors standing up, asking for the funds needed to provide our classrooms with the instructional materials, technology, and teacher supports necessary to get the job done.  As Eduflack has written here before, funding for books and computers and technology are often the first to go in a budget crisis, seen as non-essential while supes look to pay teacher salaries and keep the lights on and the buses running.  Our states need help to keep school improvement efforts, moving forward.  Now the governors are asking (as has AASA and AFT, among others).  The full story is here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202277.html?hpid=topnews
Exhibit”>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202277.html?hpid=topnews
Exhibit B: On the local front, Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools Chief Jack Dale is sticking to his guns and fighting to save the strict grading policy the school district has in place.  Parents have been leading a valiant effort to try and weaken Fairfax County’s current system and move to a 10-point scale (meaning an A is earned with a 90-100 score, versus Fairfax’s current 94-100).  In an era where we need tougher standards and measures to ensure all students are competing, making it easier for kids to get As is not the answer.  Watering down grading scales to ensure college admittance or to better chances at scholarships is not the answer.  It is far easier to go along with parent demands and the policies of neighboring school districts.  Dale is standing firm, recognizing that achievement and high standards are important.  The full story is here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202430.html  And it has Eduflack wondering if we need a national grading scale to accompany those national standards our schools could benefit from.
Exhibit C: Education improvement, embodied in Colbert King’s latest and greatest.  Like many, King opines about Michelle Rhee and her efforts as top dog of DC Public Schools.  As we all know, the reigning 2008 Core Knowledge Blog Education Person of the Year has been getting a lot of national media attention, including the network evening news and a Time magazine cover.  But King asks a question that Eduflack has also previously raised.  Who ultimately pays the price for Rhee’s showdown with DC teachers?  I worry about her ability to work with the teachers she needs to enact her reforms after she tries to destroy their local union and their collective voice.  King worries about the long-term on DC’s students.  One has to appreciate Rhee’s zeal in moving forward with her improvement plans and doing what it takes to get them in place.  But one can’t forget the teachers who determine whether such efforts are a success or failure, nor can one ignore the impact on the students we are ultimately trying to help.  King reminds us of this, and his full column can be found here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202078.html?hpid=opinionsbox1  
Lots of issues to get the intellectual juices flowing.  What does it tell us?  The real action on the education improvement front is likely to happen at the state or the school district level, evidenced by the Dem governors call for funding and Jack Dale’s fight to save his grading scale.  
And we are again reminded that personality can get in the way of good policy.  Rhee has built a real cult of personality around herself and her plans for DCPS.  That can be helpful in the early days of an administration, as you try to give some context and some understanding for reforms.  But it can get dangerous when we can’t separate the voice from the rhetoric.  We’ve learned that time and again in both politics and education.  The best of plans fail because we can’t separate a controversial personality from a terrific idea.