teachers

Firing Teachers … or Improving Teaching?

Eduflack accountability, teachers

In Rhode Island, they fired an entire high school of teachers because of poor student test scores and a perceived unwillingness to change.  In Florida, the legislature is now moving forward with plans to eliminate job security for teachers, essentially putting them on year-to-year contracts.  Center for American Progress researchers are writing about the need to fire bad teachers if we are to improve public education.  And officials at The New Teacher Project and Education Trust are calling for an end to last hired, first fired and an collective wave bu-bye to poor teachers in California. 

And earlier this year, riding the wave of Race to the Top and the U.S. Department of Education’s four education improvement pillars, even the American Federation of Teachers got into the discussion, advocating for greater adoption of teacher performance measures (albeit at a much less high-stakes way than CAP, TNTP, or EdTrust may call for).

Teacher quality is quickly become issue (and public enemy) number one in education reform debates.  For decades now, we have said that teachers are the most important component to school success.  You couldn’t work around the teachers if you wanted to bring about real change.  One needs the buy-in from educators to adopt real reforms.  All the curriculum, technology, and turnaround plans in the world will do no good if the teachers don’t embrace them and implement them with fidelity.

So as we continue to look at stagnant test scores (at least, according to yet another round of NAEP results), it is no surprise that those looking to make real changes to how K-12 education operates — and the results it generates — are focusing on teachers as either the catalyst or the roadblock to our potential success.  Schools that improve point to teachers (both traditional veterans and the ever-popular TFAers) as a major reason for their success.  Those who continue to struggle, those who fail to meet AYP now and will fail to meet AYP’s successor tomorrow often blame it on the status quo, with a capital S and a capital Q boldly displayed on the chest of a status quo teacher.

Eduflack often says that teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there.  It is a job I don’t believe I am capable of doing well.  And there are a number of people leading our classrooms that likely should not, whether it be for lack of knowledge or pedagogy, a failure to relate to the kids, or a missing passion or educate.

But should we really be looking to fire all of the teachers who can’t get test scores up on one, three, or even five years?  Do we terminate the contracts of all teachers whose classes can’t make AYP for two years in a row?  And what about those years when educators are simply teaching a class full of rocks in a given year, do they only go on double secret probation then?  

I agree with CAP, TNTP, EdTrust, and many others that we need to do a much better job of those teachers who are struggling in the classroom.  We need to gather data on why they are struggling, determining if it is a failure of the system, the school, or the teacher.  We need to better understand the conditions and supports necessary for effective teaching, particularly with historically disadvantaged populations.  And we need to put all of that data and observation to use for us NOW.

But rather than looking to swiftly dismiss “bad” teachers, shouldn’t we first try to improve teaching?  Use the data to partner leader and laggard teachers to improve practice across the board.  Provide improved PD and supports to struggling teachers.  Put our best teachers in the schools and classes with the most need.  Give all teachers the chance to demonstrate they have the skills, the relatability, and the passion necessary to succeed in the classroom.  And then, when those teachers have been given all of the necessary pieces and still fail to clear the bar, do we look to clear the classroom and start new.

In professional sports, we often see the negative impact a succession of new coaches can have on a team and even on star players.  It is tough to learn a new system and a new teacher again, again, and again.  Those athletes who do the best usually come from systems that have stability and longevity.  Why wouldn’t the same be true of students?  Is it better to introduce a new cast of school characters year after year, signaling that students simply aren’t making the cut, or is better do invest in the team on the field, and improve the quality of play on the field?


 

“Teacher Preparation: Who Needs It?”

Eduflack Teacher Education, teachers

Without question, teacher quality is one of THE hot topics in education reform these days.  Logically, we recognize that teachers are the ones primarily responsible for boosting student achievement in the classroom.  Programs like the US Department of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund have thus been designed to reward those teachers whose students demonstrate success.  It is a simple equation, outcomes result in rewards.

But what about the inputs that result in that achievement?  What do teachers need to know, be able to do, and experience before they ever become a teacher of record?  Those are the sorts of questions that the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) is trying to tackle with a new series of policy briefings it launched today, titled “Teacher Preparation: Who Needs It?”

In today’s episode, AACTE offered up The Clinical Preparation of Teachers: A Policy Brief, a document that provides some of the history, the research, and the vision for how to best address clinical preparation.  Chief among the recommendations — all prospective teachers, regardless of their pathway, need at least 450 hours of clinical training (or a full semester). 

Full disclosure, Eduflack has worked with the folks over at AACTE for years.  Regardless, today’s briefing offered some interesting recommendations for the federal government, state government, and those preparing the next generation of teachers, including:

For the feds:

  • Revise the “Highly Qualified Teacher” definition within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to require that teachers must establish not only their content expertise, but their ability to teach it effectively, as measured by their actual performance in classrooms, following extended clinical experience;
  • Invest in the development of a National Teacher Performance Assessment that would parallel the development and adoption of Common Core Standards;
  • Maintain the Teacher Quality Partnership Grants, with a specific clinical preparation focus, in the Higher Education Opportunity Act while increasing funding for the program;

For states:

  • Require a minimum of 450 hours, or one semester, of clinical experience during pre-service teacher preparation;
  • Ensure that all teacher preparation routes, regardless of pathway, include the same clinical preparation requirements;
  • Require a high-quality teacher performance assessment of all teacher candidates;
  • Collaborate to agree upon common clinical experience requirements;
  • Offer incentives to schools that act as clinical settings for teacher candidates;
  • Support the expansion or replication of successful teacher residency programs;

And for providers of teacher preparation:

  • Ensure school districts and universities work jointly to design and supervise strong clinical practice collaborations;
  • Provide all teacher candidates substantial and appropriate clinical preparation prior to becoming “teacher of record” in their own classrooms;
  • Train clinical teachers and other teacher mentors to help and support novice teachers;
  • Require all clinical teachers to have at least three years of teaching experience; and
  • Assist our nation’s public schools and teacher preparation programs to jointly adopt standards for newly redesigned clinically based teacher preparation programs.

As part of the formal presentation, the crowd heard from U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI), who is quickly becoming THE Senate voice on education in general and professional development in particular.  In his remarks, Senator Reed praised President Obama for adding funds to the Teacher Quality Partnership program as part of last year’s economic stimulus package, but took issue with Obama eliminating the program as part of his budget recommendations last month.  Reed urged all those in attendance to reach out to their Senators and Congressmen to ask that TQP be restored, as the program is essential to ensuring our colleges and universities are working toward developing the high-quality, effectiv
e teachers our schools need so badly.

With a greater and greater focus on effective, results-based instruction, the issue of teacher preparation isn’t going to go away.  Even as part of its Quality Counts study, Education Week recently highlighted those states that are leaders and laggards when it comes to the clinical experience.  Content may be king these days, but pedagogy is quickly gaining stature.    

AFT Policy Talk … and Walk?

Eduflack AFT, Arne Duncan, teachers

About a month ago, Eduflack wrote about AFT President Randi Weingarten’s teacher quality treatises nailed upon the schoolhouse door, where the head of the nation’s second largest teachers’ union laid a vision for how AFT could get on board the new ed reform/school improvement train.  At the time, I wrote that she was talking a good talk, but the real challenge would be how AFT, and Weingarten in particular, would be able to walk the walk.

The first stroll of such a challenge took place deep in the heart of Texas earlier this month, when Houston ISD Superintendent Terry Grier tried to use Weingarten’s rhetoric to get his teachers’ backing for a new teacher quality initiative that allows the school district to remove teachers with lagging student test scores.  Grier’s Houston experiment was unanimously supported by the Houston ISD School Board, but was loudly opposed by local teachers and by the national AFT.  Eduflack reflects on the Houston showdown here, while the National Journal’s Education Experts Blog provides some terrific insights and views here.
Coming out of Houston, there were many an education agitator wondering if AFT is indeed serious about being part of the reform agenda.  After all, AFT is in the business of promoting teachers’ jobs and boosting their benefits.  The reform agenda is now focusing on teacher incentives and so-called quality issues, which leads quickly to a discussion of bonuses for some (but not all) teachers and the removal of teachers who are deemed ineffective.  (Though Eduflack recognizes the rubric for effectiveness is one of the biggest sticking points in the game right now).  So while AFT may be for reform and for teacher quality, can it ever really get behind any plan that will call for the removal of educators from the classroom or the professional entirely, particularly when they are dues-paying members protected under an AFT-negotiated collective bargaining agreement?  How does the reform rhetoric translate into action?
While I’m not sure if AFT has figured out how it truly positions the union on the teacher quality issue (other than knowing that there are few in DC with the knowledge and experience on the issue with the ability to take real action like the AFT’s Rob Weil), it is clear that AFT is not content in simply serving as the “loyal opposition” to the current education reform wave.  Yes, AFT is going to do its share of criticism on policies such as Race to the Top, proposed budget cuts, and the expected ESEA reauthorization, but recent actions signal that AFT may also be looking for some common ground where it can move the needle, make a difference, and be a part of real reforms.
Case in point, earlier this week, Weingarten convened an off-the-record discussion with U.S. EdSec Arne Duncan, WV Gov. Joe Manchin, and 25 or so other business leaders, academics and advocates (supposedly from both the left and right) to focus on the issue of career and technical education, or CTE.  For those not paying attention, CTE is one of those key issues to strengthening our educational pathways, improving high school graduation rates and ensuring more students are ready to enter the workforce with the skills and knowledge needed to succeed.  But it is an issue many stay away from, believing that the current version of “vo tech” isn’t sexy or innovative enough to warrant the spotlight.  So bringing business leaders and educators and politicians and researchers together to discuss how to improve CTE is an important step to move CTE closer to the forefront of the discussion.
Eduflack is told the CTE discussion is the first of many “invitation-only” discussions that Weingarten and the Albert Shanker Institute has planned for the next year.  By hosting a series of salons on what are perceived as the important education topics of the day, AFT is clearly seeking to move issues beyond RttT, i3, and reauth into the education policy spotlight.
Personally, I’m all for such discussions.  The more we discuss such issues, and the more people who discuss it, the better prepared we are to have real, serious, and meaningful policy discussions.  But as usual, the devil is in the details.  Beyond the invitation-only events of the usual suspects, how do we engage a broader discussion with those whose voices are rarely heard in such debates?  And more importantly, what do we do after these discussions are held?  What are the policy reccs that will come out of these meetings? What are the action steps?  What is the call to arms?  Those answers will ultimately determine where we are just talking or adding a little strut behind AFT’s words.

Teacher Quality Showdown in Houston’s Corral

Eduflack accountability, AFT, HQT, teachers

Looking at the headlines coming out of Houston last night, it was a regular showdown at the school improvement corral.  Teachers versus parents.  Reformers versus status quo.  Process versus outcomes.  And in the words of far too many Simpsons episodes, we can’t possibly forget about the children!

For those late to the rodeo, last evening the Houston Independent School District School Board voted (unanimously, 7-0) to approve HISD Superintendent Terry Grier’s teacher quality efforts.  The plan allows the school district to terminate (as a last resort) teachers whose students are unable to make the grade on standardized tests.  According to the numbers being circulated, about 3 percent of the HISD teacher force, or 400 teachers, could be affected by this new initiative.  For those who want more on this, the full story can be found here in the Houston Chronicle.

Most see Grier’s efforts as a direct response to the current calls for teacher quality and accountability coming from Arne Duncan and the folks at the US Department of Education.  Student performance remains the king.  Effective teachers are the path to student performance.  Ergo, students whose test scores don’t improve have ineffective teachers who may not be suited for the classroom.  Or so the SAT logic goes.  Grier is moving a real, tangible plan aligned with Duncan’s teacher quality pillar.

This vote has been brewing for weeks.  As part of his negotiations with the teachers union, Grier tried to use AFT President Randi Weingarten’s speech from nearly a month ago (Eduflack’s analysis here) as grounds for the union to support his efforts.  His argument was straightforward.  If Weingarten was serious about rhetoric to fix a broken system and focus on effective teachers and student achievement, she should side with him on his teacher quality efforts.  Why should 97 percent of HISD teachers be tarred by the student test scores of just 3 percent?  And don’t forget, Weingarten embraced the idea of using student test scores as part of teacher evaluation.

The AFT prez failed to see the connection between her speech and HISD’s plans.  As expected, Weingarten rose to the defense of her teachers and in opposition to any plan that would put the jobs of AFT teachers at risk.  As she told the Houston Chronicle, “Houston is a perfect example of what not to do.  The plan has all the wrong components, and it’s one of the reasons why teachers and parents are opposed to standardized testing.”

Typically, these sorts of battles are local.  We see the local union and the local school district spar.  Local parents and teachers lay their hearts on the rostrum at public hearing, and then a vote comes and all sides live to fight another day.  If most national voices get involved at all, it is after the fact to either praise or condemn the local decisions.  After all, who knows better about how to deal with student achievement and teacher quality in Houston than the folks in Houston.

Of course, this wasn’t the typical local issue.  Superintendent Grier’s plan was the proverbial canary in the teacher quality mine.  If he could get the board to approve his efforts, they could serve as a blueprint for similar efforts in other urban school districts across the country.  If he failed, then the teachers unions would be able to demonstrate their strength, even in a weak union state like Texas (where most still refer to the unions as “teachers organizations.”

So heading into last evening’s vote, two of the loudest voices in education reform/school improvement gladly took up arms on Grier’s behalf. 

Under the header “Nation’s Edu-Eyes Are On Houston Tonight,” Joe Williams, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform came out as Grier’s bad cop, going after Weingarten and the AFT:



We don’t question President Weingarten’s intent or sincerity, nor do we doubt her assertion that ineffective teachers are a minority of the teaching profession.


 


But far too often in the past, promises by union leaders for real reform over the airwaves have been squarely contradicted by the positions advanced by union officials in political backrooms. Both national unions have steadfastly treated teaching, despite the high stakes for children and communities, as a right rather than a privilege.


 


The first test of AFT’s commitment to the principles it outlined last month will begin tonight in Houston, and play out over the days and weeks ahead.


And the Education Equality Project, in the voice of its director, Ellen Winn, played good cop, offering a far more positive and forward-looking defense of Grier’s reform agenda:



Together, Superintendent Terry Grier (a signatory of the Education Equality Project) and the Houston Board of Education are embarking upon a comprehensive project to dramatically improve student achievement by placing a highly effective teacher in every classroom.  Rigorous research efforts have demonstrated that – in the words of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind – “teacher quality is the single most important school factor in student success.”

Last month, the Board unanimously approved a plan to improve teacher evaluations starting next year. Going forward, teacher evaluations will give teachers an honest assessment of how much they’re helping their students learn. The evaluation process will include standardized test scores as one indicator of teacher success. 


Tonight, Grier is asking the Board to approve a policy that would require principals to use all the information available to them—including value-added test scores—when making decisions about renewing a teacher’s contract.  Value-added analysis is a statistical method used to measure teachers’ and schools’ impact on students’ academic progress rates from year to year.  (The process only analyzes the change across one year relative to where a student begins, thereby leveling the playing field.)


The Education Equality Project emphatically encourages the Board to approve this critical proposal and commends Superintendent Grier for leading the charge to close the achievement gap.  If Houston approves this policy, hundreds of thousands of students will be impacted. Think of the doors that will open to these students with better teachers and better chances at a good education – the chances they will now have for meaningful work and a real opportunity at attaining the American dream.  How can we afford to keep those doors closed?


Together, DFER and EEP are defining a new paradigm with regard to urban education reform.  We are now recognizing that school districts are no longer islands unto themselves, where local decisions are made to stay within the city boundaries.  Instead, when one of the big 50 school districts acts, its repercussions can be felt across the nation.  A good idea pursued by one is replicated by others.  A plan that goes down in flames is avoided by any means possible.  Houston is looking to do what is best for student success in the district.  DFER and EEP are looking to defend and support those activities that can feed into the larger national objectives of school improvement and closing the achievement gap.  And now both sides are working together to put a squeeze play on the system of old.  One thing is for sure, this is the first in what will be many, many local skirmishes on new policies and plans aligned with the new federal education improvement agenda.

Many have been longing for the day when education decisionmaking would leave Washington DC and return back to the localities.  The advocacy dynamic down in Houston may show just how that works in practicality.  Let the locals act, and then have AFT, DFER, and EEP square off in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that will occur during and after the decisionmaking process. 

Act locally and opine nationally!

Backbenching the Prez’ Ed Budget

Eduflack reading, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

It has been a little over a week since President Obama officially submitted his FY2011 budget.  Depending on who you speak to, it was the best of times/worst of times for the education sector.  Overall, the Administration is seeking to raise the federal commitment to education spending by more than 7 percent.  But that increase comes with a new set of priorities, a new grouping of funding streams, and some eliminations of long time, cherished programs.  You can see Eduflack’s original thoughts on the budget here.


During the original scrum, we heard from many of the groups we expected to hear from — including oldies but goodies like the NEA and AFT and the growing number of education “reform” organizations seem by many to benefit the new “consolidation.”  But Eduflack thought it would be interesting to see what some other organizations have been saying about the budget reccs, particularly those who are focused on the issues IDed in my original analysis.  Unsurprisingly, most comments come from those unwilling to throw a big bear hug around the proposed budget.

On the issue of teacher quality and preparation, we have Dr. Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (ISTE) opposing the elimination of programs such as the Teacher Quality Partnership saying: 

Across the nation, colleges and universities are playing an indispensable role in supplying our schools, particularly hard-to-staff schools, with effective teachers who intend to serve as classroom leaders for decades to come.  Through the federal budget and new programs such as Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, the U.S. Department of Education should be supporting and incentivizing those teachers colleges that are blazing a trail when it comes to strengthening instructional standards, effective use of data systems, improving teacher quality, and turning around low-performing schools. Programs like TQP are essential to ensuring preservice teacher preparation is part of our improvement agenda.


Over at NSDC, policy advisor Rene Islas had a very different take on the future of teacher preparation, stating:

What does this framework say about teacher effectiveness? The president is beginning to adopt NSDC’s language. The budget request outline a new program called “Excellent Instructional Teams.” Sound familiar? Taking it to the next step, the new program description includes the following statement: “promote collaboration and the development of instructional teams that use data to improve practice.” I count that as a significant victory.


And what about education technology and its consolidation into the overall ESEA framework (and the elimination of specific grant programs funding ed tech at the state or district levels)?  The following was offered by Don Knezek, CEO of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE):

We cannot and must not lose sight of the value and impact of education technology in our classrooms. As ISTE noted in its Top Ten in 2010 just last month, education technology is the lifeblood of lasting school improvement. Working from best and promising practices in the field, we must continue to use technology as the backbone of school improvement. We must ensure technology expertise is infused throughout our schools and classrooms—particularly through programs like EETT—and that we are continuously upgrading educators’ classroom technology skills as a pre-requisite of ‘highly effective’ teaching. We must boost student learning through real data and assessment efforts. And we must work together to leverage education technology as a gateway for college and career readiness so that our K-12 systems can help fulfill the President’s pledge to make the United States tops in the world when it comes to college-completion rates. We cannot and must not deny policymakers and educators the resources they require to provide all students with the globally competitive education they so desperately need.  

And we saw similar words coming from the ed tech community at large in a joint statement from ISTE, State Education Technology Directors Association, and the Consortium for School Networking:

While there are elements of the President’s proposed budget that are laudable, we remain extremely concerned that the Administration has elected to defund EETT in its FY11 Budget Proposal and urge the Administration and Congress to restore adequate funding for this critical program. Congress and the President included EETT as a core provision of the current ESEA law in recognition of the importance of driving the next generation of innovations in teaching and learning, assessment and continuous improvement, and cost-efficiency in coordination with other federal, state and local school improvement strategies. We fear that years of investments through EETT and the E-Rate, coupled with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act investment, may be devalued or lost entirely without adequately funding EETT or a successor program.


Carol Rasco, the president and CEO of Reading is Fundamental, was far more direct on RIF being eliminated (and not consolidated) from the President’s budget:

Without this federal funding, over 4.4 million children and families will not receive free books or reading en
couragement from RIF programs at nearly 17,000 locations throughout the U.S.

Unless Congress reinstates $25 million in funding for this program, RIF will not be able to distribute 15 million books annually to the nation’s children at greatest risk for academic failure. RIF programs in schools, community centers, hospitals, military bases, and other locations serving children from low-income families, children with disabilities, homeless children, and children without adequate access to libraries. The Inexpensive Book Distribution program is authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEC.5451 Inexpensive Book Distribution Program for Reading Motivation) and is not funded through earmarks. It has been funded by Congress and six Administrations without interruption since 1975.


Interestingly, many of the so-called reform groups didn’t issue public statements (or at least haven’t put them up on the web for discerning minds to review).  Nothing from Teach for America.  Nothing from American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence.  Nothing up from New Leaders from New Schools.  Nothing posted from the National Council on Teacher Quality.  (And, in fairness, Eduflack realizes that public statements are often issued but are slow to get up on the websites, as seems to be the case with groups like the Committee for Education Funding, which released a statement that can’t be found on its website.) 

The priorities identified in the President’s proposed budget demonstrate which groups and individuals have the greatest sway over on Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues.  What’s left to be seen is who will have real impact on Capitol Hill.  Anyone who is ready to leave RIF for dead, for instance, is underestimating Rasco’s passion and the power of the national RIF network.  The President’s budget is merely the first hand in what is going to be a long and expensive game of poker.  Those players who have been around the table many, many times before are likely to be the ones with chips still on the table when all is said and done.

(Full disclosure, I have done work with both AACTE and ISTE in recent years.)

Finding Value in The Flat World and Education

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, teachers

This week’s Presidential budget is further raising attention on pressing education issues such as teacher quality, closing the achievement gap, and ensuring our communities have the systems in place to drive the levels of improvement we are so desperately thinking.  With all of the rhetoric, both this week and in recent years, we seem to be focusing on promising ideas without necessarily looking for the research, evidence, proof, and data that should be separating the good ideas from the great ideas.

While Eduflack seems to spend a great deal of my time talking and opining, every so often I do find the time to actually read and learn from others.  And even more infrequently, I actually find what I read to be of the sort of import that I want to make sure others are aware of it, positioning the latest book or article so it is influencing the current policy discussions.  Today is such a day.  The book is “The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity WIll Determine Our Future.”  And The Flat World and Education is brought to us by dear Eduflack friend Linda Darling-Hammond (who really needs no introduction).

In this latest volume from the Multicultural Education Series and Teachers College Press, Dr. Darling-Hammond offers up a clear and compelling primer for comprehensive school system improvement.  Rather than looking at incremental reforms or boutique solutions that address just a sliver of the students who are in such need of real, lasting efforts, the book provides a detailed blueprint of how to create high-quality and equitable school systems, with emphases on student achievement and teacher quality (those terms that far too many think are owned by the so-called “reformer” community.)

Some of the statistics Darling-Hammond presents are startling (yet all too familiar).  One one in 10 low-income kindergartners ever earn a college degree.  Our nation’s graduation rate (listed at an optimistic 70 percent) has dropped from first in the world to the bottom half of the rankings for comparable nations.  And we won’t even get into how U.S. students on the whole (let alone those from historically disadvantaged groups) stand up against their international counterparts on tests like TIMSS, PERLS, and PISA.

Darling-Hammond provides one of the strongest and most passionate discussions regarding the opportunity gap in the United States and the downright destructive impact it is having on both educational quality and long-term value of our public schools.  Fortunately, it is not all doom and gloom.  The book provides specific action steps we can take (at a federal, state, or even local level) to implement the sort of comprehensive systemic reforms that may be required to truly address the opportunity gap problem, including:
* Implementing stronger induction programs for teachers — We can’t ask new teachers to row our children to the promise land while only giving them half a broken oar.  New teachers entering the classroom need strong pedagological background and even stronger clinical training.  Believe it or not, we can learn a great deal from our global competitors about how to properly prepare a teacher candidate, ensuring they have the knowledge, skills, and direction necessary to succeed in even the most challenging of classrooms.
* Supporting quality teachers — Teacher quality is not just about financial incentives for those who are boosting student test scores.  New teachers (even the best of them) need mentors and a strong support network.  School districts and states need to use tools like National Board Certification to both identify quality instruction in their classrooms and share that best practice with other teachers in the building, the district, and the state.
* Designing effective schools — School structure does matter.  In the current reform agenda, we aren’t spending as much time talking about systems as we probably should.  When we look at the problems — resource inequities, getting good teachers in the classrooms that need them the most, and providing the necessary targeted interventions (particularly for ELL and special needs populations) — we need to create and support the school structures that are most effective in serving 21st century students.

By looking to establish strong professional practice in all schools and promoting equitable and sufficient resources across the board, Darling-Hammond IDs a clear route to ensure that all students — including low-income students, students of color, and English language learners — have the teachers, curriculum, and level of resources necessary to achieve … and to make sufficient gains to begin to close that daunting achievement gap.

Does The Flat World and Education provide all of the answers?  No, and it shouldn’t.  This book provides some important lines of inquiry and thinking that should be front and center as we discuss implementation of new funding streams like RttT and i3 and the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  As EdSec Arne Duncan and his team look to completely reinvent Title II (both under ESEA and the Higher Education Act), Darling-Hammond’s data and conclusions on teacher induction and ongoing teacher support need to be central to the discussion.  They may not be adopted whole cloth (and probably shouldn’t) but if they aren’t part of the debate, we are missing a central point to meaningful education improvement.  These aren’t just good ideas, but they have the data and the real-life case studies that can be pointed to to demonstrate true impact.

I recognize that many may be quick to discount Linda Darling-Hammond, fearing this is just the latest defense of the status quo.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  We forget that the role that Darling-Hammond has played in the charter school movement in California and her work in both building and supporting effective charter schools in Northern California.  We overlook her commitment to common core standards and her commitment to accountability, albeit a more comprehensive and broader approach to measurement.  And we are quick to discount that everything and everything she does seems to be in the name of the student, particularly those low-income and minority students who have been perpetually caught in the opportunity gap vortex.  For those who want to get caught in such urban legends, forget who the author is.  Just read the book.  It will still prove worthy.

Eduflack recognizes he is a bit of an advocate for dear ol’ LDH.  And after reading The Flat World and Education, I am reminded why.  Too often, we talk about education reform as if it is a lab experiment where we can substitute one ingredient for the next, and just move on the next test.  Darling-Hammond reminds us that teachers are at the core of our public schools, both good and bad, and need to be central to any school improvement effort.  More importantly, though, she makes clear that we are not operating in an experimental vacuum.  There are very real children who are effected by our decisions and those kids impacted the most are the ones that are neglected in the decisionmaking far too often. 

We may not realize it now, but ultimately the education reform parade is going to have to head down the street LDH is paving if we are going to have the sort of impact we are looking for.  Better to give this primer a close look now and see what can be implemented in the current environment than discounting it in its entirety and then needing to play catch up when ESEA rolls back around in another decade.  Happy reading!

ED Budget Winners and Losers

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NCLB, teachers, technology

The President’s FY2011 budget is out, and we’ve now had a day to digest the toplines and find out if our pet programs are on the chopping block or slotted for additional support.  Not surprisingly, ED is reorganizing its budget around priorities similar to Race to the Top, leaving some clear winners and losers.  (The full breakdown of the budget reccs can be found here.)

As a former Capitol Hill rat and appropriations staffer, I find it important to note that yesterday’s document is a starting point, and not the final deal.  Programs that have been eliminated or consolidated are bound to be reinstated once their constituency speaks up.  Additional money is likely to be found to fund those reinstatements.  (And as a former Byrd scholar, Eduflack, for one, is hoping that funding for the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship is reinstated immediately).  But the new parameters and programmatic headers offered in the President’s budget is likely to hold, standing as our new organizational strands for future spending and ESEA reauthorization.

So who are the winners?  Who are the losers?  Let’s take a quick look, shall we.

Winners
* Arne Duncan — The EdSec has put his personal brand on both discretionary and non-discretionary spending, while imposing his own “brand” on the future of federal education dollars.  The current budget demonstrates that Duncan’s four pillars are not a one-time RttT deal, and instead are the buckets by which federal education policy will be governed for years to come.
* Reforming School Districts — The new budget likely provides another $700 million to LEAs under an expanded RttT and another $500 million for i3 (more than doubling our current i3 investment).  For those districts that are focusing on teacher/principal quality and school turnaround and research-proven innovation, the coming years may be profitable ones (as long as there aren’t too many good districts who can walk the walk).
* Teach for America — At first glance, some would say that TFA being “consolidated” is a bad thing.  But take a closer look at the budget.  The meager federal funds going to TFA now are being consolidated with a host of other teacher development funds to create a significant fund that can support TFA expansion and alternative certification pathways.  Wendy Kopp’s plans for scalability may be coming into clearer focus.
* Low-Performing Schools — Following a decade of NCLB and AYP, many thought RttT was going to focus on the turnaround of our lowest-performing schools.  Then the RttT scorecard came out, and it seemed turnarounds were being minimized.  But yesterday, he new budget proposed a 65 percent increase for turning around our 5,000 lowest-performing schools.  And this is in addition to support LEAs can get through Race to the Top.  It is a good time to be a school district with nowhere to go but up.
* STEM — No surprise here, based on the amount of attention the White House has been paying to STEM.  But by consolidating math and science moneys, we are now increasing our STEM commitment by 66 percent while focusing on high-need schools.  Interestingly, it seems we are shifting from a notion of all students needing to be STEM literate to using STEM to train the next generation of scientists and engineers.
* U.S. Sen. Patty Murray — Senator Murray’s inclusion here may surprise some.  But the President just strengthened her hand for her LEARN reading act.  the budget eliminates a lot of reading programs, including Even Start, National Writing Project, and Striving Readers, moving the money into a general literacy fund to support both PD and instructional materials.  But the proposed K-12 commitment to reading is only $450 million, well below the more than $1 billion a year that was recently spent under Reading First to move K-4 reading instruction.  Throwing another $500 million toward Murray’s bill and the support of middle and secondary school literacy (and the PD and support that goes with it) seems like more of a no-brainer now, either as a stand-alone piece of legislation or rolled into ESEA. 

Losers (at least for the time being)
* Education Technology — The proposed budget essentially eliminated all of the targeted ed tech dollars coming from the federal government, with the promise that technology would be integrated into core ESEA activities.  But here in DC, dollars are king.  In an era focused on school improvement and innovation, how can we zero out ed tech funding?  In a 21st century education, how can we eliminate funding for teacher development and support in the technology arena?  While the notion of integration may look good on paper, ED is going to face a real fight from the education community on the future of ed tech investment.  This is the one decision that really makes the least sense, in light of all of the rhetoric.
* Teachers Colleges — Perhaps the most interesting piece of the budget (at least to Eduflack) is the fact that Teacher Quality Partnership grants have been zeroed out, less than six months after ED awarded huge sums to colleges and universities across the nation under the TQP initiative.  By focusing teacher quality and development dollars on alternative certification pathways and programs focused on student outcomes, ED has all but said that our colleges and universities are playing little, if any, role in developing the next generation of high-quality teachers.  This is a big shift from Duncan’s remarks up at TC this fall and draws a real line in the sand between higher education and K-12.
* Teacher Incentive Fund — Back in the good ol’ Margaret Spellings days, a little program called TIF was created to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to incentivize effective teaching.  While few have seen the end result of TIF, the program was viewed as a core component of Duncan’s teacher quality efforts.  But now TIF has been zeroed out, with the dollars going to establish a new “Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.”  While ED claims the new fund will be built on TIF’s strengths, it is clear the Administration is clearly the deck of most programs and initiatives associated with the previous regime.
* AYP — Though not explicitly spelled out in the budget priorities, AYP is now going the way of the do-do bird.  Adequate Yearly Progress, as measured by middle school proficiency in math and reading, is now going to be replaced by the college/career-ready common core standards developed by CCSSO and NGA.  State assessments tied to the middle grades reading and math standards will now be replaced.  NAEP now looks stronger, some of the accountability measures from the 1990s are losing a step, and we are clearly entering a new world order when it comes to student achievement, with the term AYP quickly expunged from our vocabulary.
* Beloved Pet Programs — As part of the consolidation efforts, funding for a number of beloved programs is being eliminated to make more money available for the streamlined priorities.  Federal commitment to the National Writing Project, Close Up, and Reading is Fundamental have been placed on the chopping block.  Javits G&T is soon gone, as is AP funding (unless College Board and Tom Luce can find a way to save it).  And it makes no sense to pick on the Byrd Scholarships again, particularly when we know the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee will find a way to restore funding. 
While many of these programs will ultimately get some dollars back, it is a sign of changing times.  And this may very well be the true end of the “Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners” effort, an ED program that collected $5 million in federal funding last year. 

And other surprises?  LEAs seem to be favored over the states.  Competitive funding is quickly replacing the block grants the sector has grown to depend on.  The Promise Neighborhoods initiative may finally focus on the role of family and community in education improvement.  The $1 billion bonus to pass ESEA remains in play.  And the significant funds found in both ESEA and HEA Title II appears to be in the cross hairs of the reform agenda.

Regardless of one’s personal preferences, the coming months are shaping up to be a “fun” debate on education funding  I just hope Chairman Harkin, Chairman Obey, and the rest of the approps gang are up for the challenge.

The Weingarten Doctrine

Eduflack accountability, AFT, Arne Duncan, teachers

For those who remember the early days, Eduflack was founded nearly three years ago to comment on how successfully (or unsuccessfully) we were communicating education and education reform ideas.  At the time, NCLB was a hot topic in many circles, Ed in 08 was committed to raise the profile of education issues in national campaigns, and changes in organizational leadership and new constructs of advocacy groups threatened to move education back onto the front pages.

But as a recent Brookings study has demonstrated, education stories simply aren’t capturing the hearts and minds of the media, let alone the residents of Main Street USA.  So Eduflack evolved with the times.  Rather than critique the scraps of media, I spend most of my time talking about the issues that merit discussion.  But we long for the good old days and our original mission.
This is particularly true of speeches.  As a former speechwriter (for members of Congress, members of presidential Administrations, and executives at Fortune 500 companies and leading non-profits), I greatly appreciate the written word.  I particularly appreciate capturing a speaker’s voice, gaining an audience’s attention, and delivering a real ask that results in a change of thinking or a change in behavior.  Unfortunately, such speeches are few and far between in education.  Yes, we occasionally get the Gingrich/Sharpton engagements brought by our friends over at the Education Equality Project, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.  EdSec Arne Duncan delivers a good speech, but pretty much sticks to the stump speech these days (with the true exception being the speech at the NEA last June).  President Obama can deliver a powerful ed reform speech, as he did at the National Academies of Science last spring on the topic of STEM, but those are rarities.  And if we spend time at many of the forums and discussions in DC and around the country, those “discussions” could be scripted and blocked out weeks ahead of time, with transcripts (including questions and answers) released before they are delivered.  For the most part, education rhetoric has grown stale, with us saying the same things to the same audiences with limited impact.  After all, what truly unique discussion can we have on topics like ARRA spending guidelines or RttT guidance.
But last week was one of those true exceptions.  Last Tuesday, before a packed house at the National Press Club, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten unveiled “a serious and comprehensive reform plan to ensure great teaching, taking on systems that have been ingrained in public education for more than a century.”  The full speech can be viewed here.
Over the last week, the field has seen some terrific analysis and critique of Weingarten’s remarks.  Eduflack is not going to add to the chorus.  Instead, we want to take a look at the “Weingarten Doctrine” as a communications vehicle, effective or not.
MESSENGER: From her days leading the UFT, Weingarten has cultivated a reputation as a reformer, one not set on defending the status quo.  While she may not be the most eloquent of public speakers, she is passionate about her issues and a true believer.  Since arriving in DC a year ago to take over the national union, she has laid relatively low.  She hasn’t made headlines and she hasn’t truly rocked the boat.  That changed on Tuesday.  Channeling both the late AFTer Al Shanker and the Randi of her early UFT days, Weingarten was a truly effective messenger on a topic (teacher quality and effectiveness) that has been longing for a strong voice from one of the two teachers’ unions.
MESSAGE: When we wait long enough for a strong voice on an important issue, our expectations get higher and higher.  Even with those sky-high expectations, Weingarten was able to deliver.  She didn’t seek an expected middle ground on the issue.  She didn’t try to defend the way things have always been.  She didn’t run interference for the status quo.  At a time when many think that teachers’ unions are the biggest obstacle to meaningful school improvement, Weingarten made clear that AFT is prepared to lead on the issue.
AUDIENCE: The AFT speech was delivered to a collection of the education blob, as membership organizations, advocacy groups, and those who influence (or pretend they influence) education decisionmakers.  By delivering this speech to this audience, Weingarten sought to reposition the AFT in the current ed improvement debate.  Most in attendance remember the days when the AFT fought the status quo.  This speech informed those stakeholders that the AFT of old is re-entering the game.
VENUE: To reach those stakeholders, AFT hosted the speech at the National Press Club.  This was probably the least visionary of AFT’s decisions.  This speech was to gain media attention, regardless of where it was held.  And while the NPC is a convenient venue for the DC chattering class, it provides a generic setting for a groundbreaking speech.  With school reform, we often forget the true customer — the student.  The backdrop of this speech would have been far more effective at a public school in the DC area.  And extra points could have been awarded for going out on a limb and talking about the new AFT at a charter school (a market that AFT covets for future membership).  Yes, you run the risk of using kids as props, but it is a powerful visual nonetheless.
POSITIONING: AFT was able to position the speech well with the media and key stakeholders alike.  The day before, AFT provided embargoed copies of the speech to select reporters, providing strong media coverage the morning of the speech.  Those pieces drove additional coverage that day, particularly within the ed blogger community.  So in a media environment that can be difficult to wrangle, AFT did a strong job of maximizing a speech, and a vision speech at that (since there was no news or results to really talk about).  Moreover, the AFT strategy seemed to box NEA out of the story, with the nation’s largest teachers’ union offering a “no comment” in the advance stories, assuring limited focus in the day-of coverage.
POLICY IMPACT: Without question, Weingarten’s speech made clear to the Obama Administration (and Duncan specifically) that Weingarten is ready, willing, and able to be part of the solution.  She all but endorsed the EdSec’s four pillars of ed reform, expanding his tent and grading the road ahead just a little bit.  It should be no surprise that the speech was delivered as the AFT (and the NEA) officially communicated to their states and localities that the unions were supporting Race to the Top in general, allowing the local unions to sign onto RttT application MOUs and have an impact on state ed improvement efforts in the coming years.
PRACTICAL IMPACT: Here we begin to see the unexpected consequences of rhetoric.  Immediately following the speech, the new superintendent of Houston ISD in Texas sought to use Weingarten’s words to alter the dynamic of his negotiations with the local union on measuring teacher effectiveness.  And Eduflack would be shocked if Michelle Rhee isn’t plotting the same thing in DC, using the speech to end her long stalemate with the Washington Teachers Union and seeking to do away with teacher tenure in our nation’s capital by moving Weingarten’s words into quick practice.  Those carefully crafted words could come b
ack to haunt some in the teachers’ unions.
THE LONG TERM: Ultimately, speeches are rhetorical devices. They are not hard-and-fast policy, nor are they promises we are often held to.  Weingarten’s remarks, in particular, lay out a vision for where we as a nation can go with regard to teacher quality and school effectiveness.  Addressing issues such as professional teaching standards, standards for assessing teacher practice, implementation benchmarks, and classroom supports, Weingarten has offered a blueprint for how teachers and teaching fit in the current school improvement environment.  But moving those words into the “Weingarten Doctrine” requires buy-in from federal, state, and local policymakers, from school leaders and practitioners, from business and community leaders, and from parents and teachers.  This is no small feat.  Delivering the speech is easy.  Moving the rhetoric to practice is hard.  Weingarten has planted the flag, now she needs to protect it and have others rally around it.  
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: And that leaves us with the “what nexts?”  How with NEA respond?  Will ED and the policy community see this as a starting point for negotiation or simply meet AFT as is and adopt these reccs as their own policies?  How will the rank-and-file teachers react to this shift in policy?  How will school districts beyond Houston seek to use this to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements and contracts?  Does this end the debate on linking student achievement to teacher evaluation, or does it simply turn up the volume?  Is this the prelude or the climax to the teacher quality discussion?  
Regardless, Weingarten (and her speechwriters) deserve kudos for a well-executed “event.”  The remarks moved AFT to the front of the discussion.  It positioned the union as part of the solution, as an organization committed to school improvement.  And it captured the attention of the chattering class, if even for only a news cycle or two.  Will it change the future of ed reform, no.  But it gives us some hope regarding the rhetoric, news, and ideas that may be possible in the near future.

Putting the R&D Back in Education

Eduflack teachers, technology

Without question, educators and policymakers alike are using the term “innovation” more today than they ever have.  If we look at the dictionary definition of the word, we are asking for “something new or different introduced.”  If we look at programs such as the Investing in Innovation, or i3, program, we are expecting “something new or different” that is proven effective, offering some sort of research base behind it, some sort of data to support it.

Throughout such discussions, conversations on education innovation are likely to focus on the use of education technology in the classroom.  It is an obvious avenue to pursue.  Most of us equate technology with innovation. From flat-screen TVs to iPhones to interactive whiteboards to search engines like Google, we see technology as innovation.  And for educators, moving that technology into the classroom is a likely extension of the innovation debate.
Over at ISTE Connects (www.isteconnects.org), the good folks at the International Society for Technology in Education are rolling out their Top Ten in ’10, a list of the most pressing education technology issues facing U.S. classrooms today.  In one of the most recent postings, they raise the issue of education R&D.  In calling for increased investment in ongoing research and development, ISTE notes that “solid investment in education R&D, particularly if focused on innovation in teaching and learning, ensures that we remain a global leader.”
Loyal readers of Eduflack know that this issue of education R&D has long been near and dear to my flickerin’ little heart.  When you compare education to other industries, particularly healthcare, our investment in research and development is but a microfraction.  We look to teachers and schools to innovate, but we don’t necessarily have the resources to do the all-out research to determine what innovations are the most effective, with what audiences do they work, and what are the most effective uses.  And unlike healthcare, we surely don’t have researchers out there developing instructional interventions for one issue, only to find that it works for something completely different.  So our R&D process becomes more like faith healing than Mayo Clinic.
Groups like the Knowledge Alliance (formerly NEKIA) have long fought to increase federal spending on education R&D.  And since the establishment of the Institute of Education Sciences six-plus years ago, we’ve seen greater attention focused on the research side of the R&D house.  In the last decade, we’ve made incredible progress in increasing the visibility of and the need for education R&D.  But we still have miles and miles to go before we can sleep.
Over the years, Eduflack has seen some truly incredible education R&D work, including the effective use of MRI scans to track a student’s literacy abilities.  For those who say that education is more art than science, all you need to do is check out an MRI as part of reading skills acquisition.  You can actually see brain activity change as students learn and gain proficiency.  It is absolutely incredible.
I recognize that reading instruction may be a little passé these days, so let’s look at topics such as teacher quality.  We have a wealth of research on the necessary components for effective teacher education programs.  It doesn’t matter if they are traditional or alternative routes, we know the skills, knowledge, and support that aspiring teachers need to be effective in the classroom.  So how do we take that research, continue to extend it, and apply it to current efforts to boost teacher quality and incentivize good teaching?  How do we ensure that research, a familiar topic in education, is actually connected with development, be it policy or instruction?
And equally important, how do we use the R&D process to ensure that those latest and greatest technologies are being effectively used in the classroom?  As I wrote earlier this week, EdWeek’s Kathleen Kennedy Manzo had an interesting piece on the use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, and whether they actually improve learning.  So what does it take to move the research on how such technologies can improve both teaching and learning into the hands of those teachers and educators who receive the technology?  How do we use the R&D process to ensure that ed tech comes with the “manuals” necessary so that the end users can be most effective?
As part of its Top 10, ISTE (a group Eduflack has been fortunate to work with) is soliciting feedback from its members and other interested parties on how closely the ISTE list crosswalks with the concerns and needs of the field.  R&D has always been a tough sell to education practitioners.  They can see it as taking funds away from instruction or turning their classrooms into Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory.  But at a time when we are asking more and more of our schools, when resources are at a premium, when it is demanded we innovate, and when the teaching and learning opportunities offered by new technologies have never been greater, education R&D has quickly become a non-negotiable.  

Whiteboarding “Uneven” Learning

Eduflack teachers, technology

Too often, we preach technology for technology’s sake in education.  Not wanting to be the last industry sector to adopt the latest toys or shiny playthings, we rush out to acquire that which we may not understand or appreciate.  As a result, we have that which is cool or cutting edge (at least for the next 10 minutes), but we often lack the training, support, and expertise to truly put it to use in the classrooms that need it the most.

Case in point — interactive whiteboards.  Over at Education Week, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo has this piece on the impact of interactive whiteboards in K-12 classrooms.  Asking the impact of such technology on teaching, Manzo has come back with a disturbing answer — “uneven.”  For some, such technology is a godsend, an ability to bring 21st century tools into a 21st century learning environment, helping better integrate student interests and inclinations into a learning style that can maximize outcomes.  For others, these pricey investments are used as nothing more than glorified chalkboards, reducing the latest bells and whistles to a 21st century reincarnation of Little House on the Prairie learning.

So why are such tools and technology “uneven” when it comes to improving teaching and learning in the classroom?  From the cheap seats, there are two major differentiators between those who are utilizing such technology effectively and those who might as well be banging rocks against those expensive whiteboards — integration and expertise.

From Manzo’s piece and from tales of good education technology across the nation, we know that teachers who effectively integrate technology into the wants and needs of both students and society are the ones who succeed.  To put a finer point on it, it isn’t what we teach, but rather how we teach it.  Putting Chaucer’s or Dickens’ greatest works on a Kindle does not teach handheld technologies. It uses handheld technology to deliver some of the greatest literature the world has ever read.  It provides content in a way that many of today’s students are better used to dealing with, opening their minds with great tech so we can feed them time-tested technology.

In far too many schools, we still “de-skill” students, unplugging them from the mediums they are most comfortable with to teach through methods contemporary to the buggy whip.  We unplug our students, believing that laptops, iPods, cellphones, and even whiteboards have no real place in teaching the three Rs.  As a result, students fail to see the relevance of their education as they judge the delivery and not the content.  In our quest to boost high school graduation numbers and build a more educated workforce, we should be doing everything and anything we can to better connect students to those learning and opportunity pathways.  That not only means technology, but it means well-integrated tech.

That leaves us with expertise.  We can’t simply install a new whiteboard in a veteran teacher’s classroom and expect her to use it like the salesperson originally demonstrated.  If we are to utilize ed tech effectively in the classrooms, we need to provide all teachers (and not just those designated tech teachers or affiliated with the business departments) with the skill and support to use available tools.  That not only means supporting ed tech “experts” in the schools, like we would reading or math experts, but it also means ensuring that all teachers have a basis of understanding and know how for how to put new tech to use in their old classrooms.  From interactive whiteboards on down, technologies can impact reading to foreign language, math to science, history to theater.  But we can’t make teachers walk the path alone.  We need to support them.  And we need to make clear that technology is the tool, and not the teacher itself.

In past years, schools across the nation have turned to federal programs such as the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program to provide the funds and guidance necessary to seed technology professional development in the classroom.  But at a time when ed tech has never been more important to the future success of our schools and our students, programs like EETT have all but been discarded like an eight-year-old operating system.  When the program was originally envisioned less than a decade ago, Congress intended for EETT to provide approximately $1 billion a year in PD support.  A small drop in the bucket when it comes to federal education spending, but the earth, moon, and stars for the ed tech community.  EETT never reached that intended target, and today the program only receives $100 million in federal support.  That’s one-tenth the funding to support thousands of schools at a time when technology, innovation, and turnaround has never been more paramount.  And one-tenth the intended funding at a time when supporting, encouraging, and developing qualified and effective teachers has never been a greater priority. 

Are whiteboards the solution to our struggling schools?  Of course not.  They are just the latest example of what technology has to offer.  We asked this question of one-to-one computing a decade ago.  We’re starting to ask it of options like iPhones and Twitter today.  The point is not the technology itself, but how well positioned our schools and educators are to receive the latest and greatest industry can produce.  Those teachers who understand (and are supported in) how to use technology to make instruction more relevant and interesting to the student will always thrive.  Those schools that are regularly providing educators the professional development and ongoing support to adapt and thrive in an ever-changing learning environment will always succeed.  

When we invest in our classrooms, our ROI should never be defined as “uneven.”  At a time when technology in education is the quickest path to meaningful improvement, we must make sure we are investing in the people and conditions to ensure success.  Interactive whiteboards alone can’t do it.  Teachers who understand the full power and reach of those whiteboards (along with the next big three things to come down the pike) can.