Cheatin’ on Peach Tree Street

Eduflack accountability, assessment, AYP

The big edu-news of the week has to be the ever-evolving cheating scandal down in Atlanta.  The allegations had already brought down a superintendent of the year, one who was once rumored to be on the short list for U.S. Secretary of Education.  The report released by the Georgia governor notes cheating in 80 percent of the schools reviewed, with 178 teachers and 38 principals named in the scheme.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has the full story here.

Critics are quick to use this scandal to condemn testing and accountability in general, stating that our high-stakes, AYP era made these educators act the way they did.  They had no choice.  With high expectations, they had to use any means necessary to demonstrate student proficiency.  If that meant erasing a number of bubbles in the name of APS’ reputation, then so be it.
And it isn’t like this is the only incident of district-wide cheating we’ve heard of in recent years.  There is the current investigation in Baltimore.  And who can forget the huge expose that USA Today did on potential cheating in Washington, DC.  
There is a difference, though, beyond the scale of the allegations.  In DC and Baltimore, folks were quick to condemn the leadership for taking shortcuts.  And we were quick to remind people that those districts were headed by upstart “reformers” looking to change the way we teach.  So in their quest to demonstrate their model works, of course they would do whatever it took to post student gains, right?
But Atlanta paints a very different picture.  Superintendent Hall is the very model of a status quo superintendent.  Her tenure in Atlanta surpasses just about any current urban superintendent.  She’s part of the old guard, and was regularly put forward as an example that one doesn’t have to blow up the central office and preach reform to generate the sort of student achievement numbers most urban districts only dream about.  So if there is some malfeasance, it must be the devil’s work.  It must be the doing of that dear ol’ mephistopheles known as NCLB/AYP. 
There is never a good reason why a school or district should engage in systematic cheating on assessments.  Even with the best of intentions, such actions only serve to destroy the lives of educators and embarrass the students.  Such actions only undo the good changes and improvements that may be happening in a district.  And such actions only throw more fuel on the fire regarding public perceptions of failing schools and incapable educators.  Instead of everyone winning by some short-term student gains, everyone — particularly the students — loses when details and stories such as these go public.
Yes, we feel better when it is one isolated teacher or school that engages in such behavior, versus an entire district that uses rubber gloves to eliminate fingerprints and allegedly handed out cheat sheet transparencies to make changing answers that much easier.  We don’t want to believe that such actions can be systemic.  Now Atlanta has shown us otherwise.
What comes next?  We are already hearing of potential criminal charges and calls for the denial of pensions and benefits down in Atlanta.  But such does little to help those students who were positioned as part of the Atlanta “miracle” only to find they aren’t quite as proficient as they once believed.  The students are the real victims here, and punishing individual teachers does little to make them whole or to fix the underlying issue.  In what will clearly be “I was just following orders” defense, a few administrators will take the fall, with the rest left to pick up the pieces.
But it begs an important question — what if all of that time and effort was put into actually teaching the students?  What if instead of the “changing parties” educators used the time for additional tutoring or instruction for the students?  
Then again, Atlanta could have always done what so many other states and districts did during the NCLB era — just lower its standards.  It is much easier to just lower the bar, year after year, rather than look for way to enhance performance through answer-changing methods.  I guess lowering the bar is just so 2005.
 

A-Twitter About Edu-Tweeting

Eduflack Marketing, Media, PR, Social media

Can one really have an impact discussing education policy in 140 characters or less?  That seems to be the question that Michael Petrilli (@MichaelPetrilli) asks over in the most recent edition of Education Next (@educationnext).  Following up from his piece on influential bloggers, Petrilli takes a close look at the edu-Tweeters, looking at Klout scores and total followership to determine a Top 25 Education Policy/Media Tweeters and a Top 25 Educator Tweeters.

How did those of us on the soapbox do?  Top ed policy/media Tweeter is Diane Ravitch (@dianeravitch), posting a Klout score of 73.  She is followed closely by Education Week (@educationweek) at 72, and then the U.S. Department of Education (@usedgov) at 65.
And what about dear ol’ Eduflack?  Well, I clock in at 23rd on the list, with a Klout score of 53 and total followers of 7,014 (more than Arne Duncan, I might add).  Obviously, these numbers are a snapshot from a particular moment in time (noted to be last month).  As of this morning, @Eduflack has a Klout score of 57 and 7,146 followers, which would place me 13th on the list, just ahead of the National Education Association StudentsFirst, and Randi Weingarten of the AFT.
Perhaps the more interesting list, though, is Petrilli’s compilation of the top 25 Educator Tweeters.  Here, he looks at those honest-to-goodness practitioners in the field who are sharing information, best, practice, and encouragement with other educators.  Vicki Davis (@coolcatteacher) tops the list with more than 20,500 followers and a Klout score even Ravitch would want (75).  She’s followed closely by Tom Whitby (@tomwhitby) who has a 74 Klout score.  An Eduflack fave, Larry Ferlazzo (@larryferlazzo), comes in at number 6.
Particularly intriguing about the educator list is how many followers so many of the educators have.  Breaking 5,000 followers seems to be a monumental achievement for many of the policy folks, but it is common place for the majority of the educators.  Why is that significant?  It means they have the ability to get information out to a wider range of people, and to those who may actually put it to use.
And for those critics?  Yes, the Klout score isn’t the only measure of Twitter strength, but it is a pretty damned strong one.  And while some may run numbers now, saying that they should have made the list based on today’s Klout scores, we need to remember that this was a snapshot from a particular date in June, reflecting general trends.  The NEA’s numbers, for instance, will have spiked this week, due to its annual convention in Chicago.  Same is true for those ed tech teachers that were particularly active at last week’s ISTE conference.  
Regardless, such lists are useful in better understanding who is using social media and how they might be using it.  And Klout helps you see that, explaining the type of Tweeter an individual is.  For instance, @Eduflack is a specialist.  It means I focus on “a specific topic or industry with a focused, highly engaged audience.”  Sounds about right.
So thanks to Education Next and Petrilli for their analysis.  Hopefully, folks will visit the two lists and follow the 50 Tweeters highlighted.  
But let’s start a little East Coast/West Coast here.  Who wants to develop a dueling Twitter list, with different measurements?  Anyone?

College Print Isn’t Dead Yet

Eduflack higher ed, polls, Students, technology

I’m not so far removed from my time at the alma mater that I can’t remember the highs and lows of college textbooks.  The excitement of the book list for new classes.  The dilemma of whether to buy new or used.  The challenge of lugging a stack of books back to the dorm.  And then the roulette-like feeling of finding out how much those textbooks were worth a mere three months after buying them (and knowing that the spines of many of them may not have been cracked during that time).

But I am also a 21st century consumer of information.  And I’m enough of a geek that the highlight of my week — so far — has been discovering that the 2011 AP Stylebook is available as an iPhone/iPad app (and is now proudly downloaded on my electronic devices, with my old, ratty 2001 edition of the AP writing guide now officially retired).
So Eduflack was quite surprised to see the info-graphic on the front page of today’s USA Today.  The question — What kind of textbooks do college students prefer?  The answer, determined by Harris Interactive speaking with more than 1,200 students on Pearson Foundation’s behalf?  Print textbooks are preferred by 55 percent of college students surveyed, with 35 percent choosing digital (tablet, e-reader, or computer).  We’ll forget about the 10 percent who have no preference, a now requisite number for most surveys, it seems.
In an age where we live on our smart phones, print textbooks are still by a sizable margin.  In an era of Kindles, Nooks, iPads, and netbooks, print remains king (at least in the eyes of today’s college students).  And a time when dollars are tight and college costs are rising, those expensive print textbooks still rule.
Maybe I’m alone in this, but I was incredibly surprised by the data.  I can understand such numbers coming from professors, many of whom want to see students purchase their teachers’ textbooks.  And I can see it from the colleges and universities themselves, who depend on college bookstores as revenue centers.  But just a third of today’s college students prefer digital textbooks?  Really?
So I pose a few questions for the two-thirds of college students choosing to diss the e-text?  Do you still subscribe to print newspapers?  How many slick magazines are delivered to your mailbox each month (assuming you still have a box receiving snail mail)?  When was the last time you bought an actual, paper book for leisure reading?  Do you still keep a printed phone book in your dorm or apartment (instead of using the web)?  Just curious, is all.
This survey response really has Eduflack scratching his head.  Is the problem that current electronic book experiences don’t stack up?  Are professors down on the e-book, and students are feeding off that?  Has classroom instruction not caught up to the times, as we still deliver 20th century instruction that doesn’t warrant 21st century tools?  Or do we just like that payoff for selling back those used textbooks at the end of the term for a fraction of the purchase price.
Someone, anyone, please help me out here.  What are the motivations for the college student, in the year 2011, having such a strong preference for a print textbook?  
  

Enforcing a Safe and Drug-Free School

Eduflack Education Debate, Students

Just how important is providing all students a safe and secure learning environment?  While drug searches in our schools have been around for decades, and the case law empowering local school districts to do so seems quite clear, such searches can divide a community, resulting in some very heated rhetoric and accusations.  Are we really taking issue with zero-tolerance drug policies in the schools and questioning the right to a safe and drug-free learning environment?

That is the question I explore over at Education Debate — The Trouble with Puppies: How Invasive are Drug-Sniffing Dogs?   The question becomes even more interesting considering the U.S. Department of Education’s decision this week to restructure the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools following a near 40% cut in the Office’s budget.
Check it out.
 

There’s Edu-Gold in Them Thar States?

Eduflack accountability, stimulus

For the past three years, we have heard a great deal about the financial cliffs our states were falling off, particularly with regard to education funding.  When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed in early 2009, the promise was additional dollars to the states for K-12 education, all in the name of ensuring that programs and service levels were not slashed as a result of the economic downturn.

Today, states and school districts are forced to confront the next “new normal,” a normal where the stimulus dollars are gone, state economies are still fragile and hurting, and schools are being asked to do more with far less.  District after district notes we’ve long passed the point of cutting school budgets to the bone.  We’re now at the marrow.
An interesting new report from Education Research Strategies offers an interesting take on the “cupboard is bare” reality facing so many school districts.  In Restructuring Resources for High-Performing Schools: A Primer for State Policymakers, ERS authors Karen Hawley Miles, Karen Baroody, and Elliot Regenstein note that changes in education policies could free up billions of dollars in needed funds to address the specific ails of our districts.
Among their recommendations:
* Increase student-teacher ratios — By boosting such ratios by an average of one student per teacher, districts could free up $6 billion nationwide.
* Reduce specific special education funding — By having states currently spending above the national average lower sped spending to the national average, $3 billion nationally could “freed up” to improve results for all students.
* Eliminate spending buckets — By combining smaller funding streams and thus reducing the costs of compliance and reporting for each individual program
Now there is thinking outside the box and then there is thinking OUTSIDE the box.  No one is ever going to accuse ERS of just rearranging the deck chairs.  Tackling special education, for instance, by saying we need to reduce the dollars spent on the specific population to “spread the wealth” across all students is not what one typically hears.  But there is no denying these are real ideas for shaking up the system and freeing up dollars to focus on the new priorities and mandates that are coming from the feds.
Are there states rushing to adopt these reccs or pilot one or two of the specific ideas offered by ERS?  Probably not.  Is there merit to the economies of scale argument that bucket consolidation could reduce administrative, evaluation, compliance, and reporting costs?  Absolutely.
Like it or hate it, the ERS report is an interesting, provocative read.  There is something refreshing about some new ideas, no matter how far from the box they may be.

Waivering on NCLB

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

How do you solve a problem like ESEA?  Last week, Eduflack opined on how ESEA reauthorization didn’t seem to be moving as scheduled, and how EdSec Arne Duncan and company could make due with NCLB with a few changes.  Based on Duncan’s remarks over the weekend, reported superbly (as always) by the Associated Press’ Dorie Turner, it looks like Eduflack was doing a little more than just whistlin’ in the wind.   

On the pages of Politico yesterday, Duncan made one final attempt to jumpstart ESEA reauthorization.  Otherwise, he may be forced to resort to “Plan B,” using his waiver powers to provide school districts and states some relief from those NCLB mandates that many want to see reversed, such as the accountability provisions.
Now folks have been talking about NCLB waivers and executive powers for years now.  Former EdSec Margaret Spellings made some adjustments to the law in 2008 through the powers invested in her, including adopting a common graduation rate formula.  And many have been waiting for Duncan to take similar action, expecting changes and adjustments since his confirmation in early 2009.
Of course, Duncan initiated talk of Plan B without going into specifics on what would be waived and what would be reconsidered.  And why should he?  The EdSec (and the President, for what it’s worth) has made clear he both wanted and needed a reauthorized ESEA by the start of the 2011-12 school year.  Just as he wanted a revised ESEA in 2009.  Just as he needed it in 2010.  And just as he wanted it earlier this year.  
And Duncan has made clear what he wants. More discretionary funding for programs like Race to the Top and i3.  Codifying RttT priorities such as educator quality and school turnaround.  A revised outlook on accountability, with an emphasis on college and career readiness (and those lovely common core standards).  Some flexibility for rural schools.  And a little more this, and a little more that.
He’s offered, time and again, to play Let’s Make a Deal with Congress.  Three years running, he’s had his people ready to work with congressional leaders on a new ESEA.  More than a year ago, he issued his ESEA Blueprint to provide Congress a map to get to the shared destination.  Yet here we are, more than four years after ESEA was supposed to be reauthorized, with the same NCLB and no new whole cloth legislation to consider in its stead.
So why not threaten to take your ball and go home?  At this stage of the game, why not offer Plan B, with details to come at a later date?  
Almost reminds me of the climax of Major League, when Pedro Cerrano is desperate for the game-winning home run, talking to his “spiritual guide, Jobu.  “Look, I go to you.  I stick up for you.  You don’t help me now.  I say *@&#*$ you, Jobu.  I do it myself.”
Duncan and his team have gone to Congress.  They’ve stuck up for Congress and many of the leadership’s priorities.  If Congress isn’t going to help them now, Duncan can just do it himself.
The remaining question now is whether Congress intends to step to the pitcher’s rubber on this one, or just let Duncan hit it off the tee.

Whither ESEA Reauth?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB, RTT

Earlier this year, President Obama and EdSec Arne Duncan made it perfectly clear.  We absolutely, positively needed ESEA reauthorization before the start of the 2011-2012 school year.  As we are now less than three months from that benchmark, how close are we?

Similarly, we heard promises from some in the U.S. Senate that a new ESEA bill would be offered to those on the senior circuit by Easter 2011.  The ears have been eaten off of virtually all the chocolate bunnies, and there is nary a stale jelly bean left.  But still no ESEA.
Unfortunately, it looks like we are no closer to reauthorization than we we last year, or in 2009, or even in 2007 (when it was originally due).  In fact, we may be further away than it seems.  Eduflack has said it before, and he’ll say it again.  In all likelihood, ESEA will be reauthorized in the first half of 2013.  (Yes, that isn’t a typo.  2013.)
Why?  Let’s take a look at things.  Round 3 Race to the Top and Round 2 Investing in innovation details went over like a lead balloon last week.  About a billion dollars in new spending for states and districts was discussed, yet few paid it much attention.  And those that did seemed to criticize it.  Too much money for early childhood education.  Too little money for Round 2 RttT finalists.  Yet another round of proposals, applications, and reviews for those seeking i3.  The ed reform merry-go-round continues, with heavy rhetoric but light financial incentive, at least by most perspectives.
Other than a Labor Day wish, we’ve seen little from the U.S. Department on Education regarding reauthorization.  No updated blueprint.  No new recommendations.  Just proposed program cuts and consolidations in the President’s budget, and the promise of more competitive grantmaking and investments in innovative ideas.  And some are already chattering that the folks on Maryland Avenue are going into “hunkering down” mode, just hoping to make it through the elections a mere 17 months away.
So let’s move to Capitol Hill.  On the House side, we have an Education Committee Chairman following Ohio State’s old “three yards and a cloud of dust” philosophy.  The House is moving incrementally, moving individual bills on individual issues to “fix” or “improve” NCLB.  Chairman John Kline (MN) has made his agenda clear, and the Committee will take things piece by piece.  Assuming the Senate acts on the House bills, we could have a nice little ESEA patchwork quilt by 2013, anchored by the original NCLB and enhanced by the patches and flourishes developed by the House committee.
And on the Senate side?  Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) has been resolute in his intention to bring ESEA reauthorization forward.  But in the absence of a final, complete piece of legislation, gossip has filled the void.  Is there a full piece of ESEA reauth, based on the components that have been floating around for months?  Will the chairman bypass the usual process for moving legislation forward, and instead just move to a multi-day, full committee markup of the NCLB law?  Or will the Senate follow the Kline model and start picking off important issues like special education, ECE, rural ed, and accountability?  
Only time will tell which path we actually head down.  But it begs one important question.  Do we really need ESEA reauthorization right now?  Short of the EdSec acting to address the AYP pitfalls coming in 2014, are there other necessary changes to enact in ESEA?  RttT and i3 can continue without being codified in ESEA.  Tweaks to teacher quality can proceed, as can much of the turnaround efforts.  And we can continue to focus on data systems and assessment models and even common core without making changes to ye olde ESEA.
Assuming Duncan and company can secure the dollars for their agenda in the upcoming budget, 2013 doesn’t seem so bad after all.  Sure, you don’t get the bounce in your step from passing “landmark legislation,” but you have little preventing you from enacting your plans and policies.
 

Edu-Media Pitching: Class is in Session

Eduflack AFT, higher ed, Media

Today, boys and girls, we are going to learn a little lesson.  Professor Eduflack is going to go back to his roots and discuss some issues of media outreach, knowing your audience, and maximizing the factors of the technology available to you.  Our teaching tool today is a case study.

Yesterday, a well-meaning and earnest PR consultant sent out an email on behalf of a client (and yes, for the purpose of this story, I see no reason to name the specific client caught up in this).  The email arrived under the subject line: “Urgent: Gainful Employment Rule.”  The sender tried to be a little self-deprecating, noting he was sending a “dreaded pitch email.”
The email went on to say:
In the next 10 days, the Department of Education will issue a rule on “Gainful Employment” – a rule that would cut off federal funding options for students attending for-profit colleges (for example, Kaplan Higher Education, American Career Institute, ITT Technical Institute, Stratford University, and New Horizons) unless the colleges could demonstrate certain graduation rates or levels of student debt.

These rules would be unique to these colleges (no public or private schools would be required to meet the same standards) and would significantly adversely affect students of color in particular, as these colleges educate a disproportionate percentage of minority students.

I know what you’re saying.  What’s the big deal?  Typical pitch from a typical PR firm.  The for-profit colleges (or another group, in this case) write a check to gin up some attention for this battle and to hopefully gain some sympathetic media coverage.  In this case, the flack notes that the rule is harmful to African-Americans, the U.S. Department of Education has miscalculated the issue, the law is being pushed by those dreaded “short sellers” on Wall Street, and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. himself is opposed to the proposed Gainful Employment regs.
But here is where the wheels came off.  The email pitch was sent to a veritable case of thousands, mainstream media reporters and bloggers alike.  Those bloggers included both “media” bloggers, those individuals representing legitimate media organizations and bloggers like Eduflack, who write about opinions far less than facts and preach rather than interview PR company clients to write thoughtful and balanced pieces.  And it meant including advocacy groups and the rest on the same pitch as the MSM.
How do I know?  That’s the real problem we’ll talk about this morning, class.  That entire list was included in the CC field of the email.  Instead of putting us all in the BCC field, where no one knows who was a recipient, we were all put on a list.  And that’s where this “failure to communicate” truly occurred.
The first shot across the bow came from Sherman Dorn, the Florida college professor who blogs under the same name.  He noted, for the entire group to read, that “I’m firmly in favor of the gainful-employment rule.  You’re ignoring the fact that our taxes are going to support loans that go into your client’s pockets, and often it’s students who have to pick up the tab after dropping out.”
Then we all heard from Craig Smith of the American Federation of Teachers.  Smith was a little less kind, starting with a sentence noting that the flack’s “email below contains several inaccurate statements and implications.”  He continues that “the most egregious is the statement that the gainful employment regulation applies only to for-profit colleges.  Not true.”  He then notes Congressman Jackson actually “voted AGAINST an amendment in the House to block the gainful employment regulation.”  And wraps up by writing, “In fact, to describe the minority community as split is a total misrepresentation.”
One of the most interesting exchanges, though, came from Whitney TIlson, the managing partner of T2 Partners LLC.  Tilson is presumably on the list because of the terrific email listserve he puts out on education reform issues (and really just on K-12 education issues, I might add).  Tilson begins by noting, “As one of the founders of Democrats for Education Reform, it’s not often that I agree with the AFT on something, but this is certainly the case here.  This industry exploits low income and minority citizens just like the subprime housing industry did (And, yes, I’m one of the nefarious short sellers…)”  Then he provides a nice little compendium of recent coverage and discussion in the MSM on this very topic.
Why is this important?  What started as a typical media pitch aimed primarily at the MSM (at least based on the distribution list) quickly became a street corner debate on the issue of gainful employment, with all the powerful personalities siding against the original pitch.  It devolved so much, because of the failure to hide recipients, that a member of the MSM finally asked to be removed from the exchanges, considering the back and forth “spam.”  And for those members of MSM thinking about covering, they heard some strong opinions why the original pitch carried no water.
So what are the lessons learned here, at least for those flacking for others?  A few come to mind:
* Learn about the media you are pitching — The majority of the reporters, both MSM and bloggers, are K-12 focused.  Most of them have never written about issues such as gainful employment.  This was probably not how you wanted to introduce it to them.  So take the time to tailor the pitch.  Show us how this debate links to K-12 accountability discussions … or high school graduation rates … or something.
* A cigar sometimes isn’t just a cigar — You need to pitch the MSM differently than you pitch bloggers.  As an independent blogger, I get pitched several times a day. I now have enormous empathy for those reporters I used to bug regularly with faxes (yes, faxes, I’m that old) and emails.  Show me you have actually read a post of mine, and not just pulled my name off a media database that IDs me as someone who writes about education.  Personalization goes much, much further than a mass email, particularly with some of us bloggers, who are even more cynical than your typical reporter.
* Tell a story — This pitch lacked a story.  It was a string of facts, many of which were disputed over the spam of six or so hours.  When one starts a pitch noting that the issue is “controversial, and urgent” it usually means it isn’t.  If you have to tell me a topic is important, because I don’t realize it myself, it says something.
* Don’t offer to guest blog — Please, don’t offer to provide a guest blog from your client.  Again, read the blogs you are targeting.  Do we even post guest blogs?  If not, don’t offer a list of more than a hundred a guest blog, particularly when those MSM blogs are written by the reporters themselves, and many of us “other bloggers” write with a distinct opinion and through our own voice.
* Use the BCC — Please, please, please use the BCC field when doing a media distribution.  I find it fascinating to know who was pitched as part of this little experiment.  But for the good of your client and for the good of the reputation of the firm you work for, please don’t turn a basic media p
itch into a faculty senate discussion.
Class dismissed. 
 

No Excuses

Eduflack accountability, ELL, teachers

No deep policy discussion today, folks.  But I do need to share an interesting (or disturbing, depending on your perspective) story that I heard earlier this week.

As the merriment of commencement commences, a parent went in for an end-of-the-year conference with her child’s teacher.  It was intended to be the typical check-in.  Is my child on track?  Anything to work on before the start of the new school year?  Tips for summer activities?  The usual drill.
In the discussion, the teacher began by focusing on math skills, talking about successes and areas that needed work.  As part of the conversation, the teacher made an off-handed comment.  In reflecting that the student did not enjoy doing a specific math assignment, she noted, “maybe he would do it in Spanish, though.”
Did I mention that the student in question is Hispanic?  No, he’s not ESOL.  He doesn’t work from an IEP.  Doesn’t come from a low-income household.  But his ancestors also did not come over on the Mayflower.  As a result, the teacher’s failure to connect with the student must be a cultural thing.  It must be a language thing.  It can’t be a breakdown in teaching or instruction, it must be a Spanish thing.
If this was the first time the teacher had made such a remark to the parent, it would likely have been dropped, and I wouldn’t be telling the tale here today.  Unfortunately, it seems this isn’t the first comment like this.  A month or so, when reflecting on the same student’s ELA abilities, the same teacher told the parent (albeit the father this time), that the male student’s reading wasn’t quite up to where some of the girls in class were.  So the teacher’s inquiry, “perhaps it is because of the Spanish language at home.”
I’m willing to write this off as an isolated incident from an ignorant teacher.  From my experiences with teachers in the classroom — be it the educators I deal with as part of my business day, those terrific ones I interact with through my school board service, and those who actually taught me — I never heard such comments, nor do I suspect they would even think it.
But I also realize that much of teaching is learned behavior.  The teacher in question asks such questions because she was either taught it, or she has learned it from colleagues or mentors.  She decided to diagnose students without the benefit of data, information, or common sense.  And in trying to justify her own struggles in connecting with a particular student (or class of students), she managed to even inject a little bit of racism into the student evaluation process.
I feel for both the student and the parents in question.  They deserve better, and can just look forward to a new teacher in a new classroom with a new approach and fewer stereotypes come September.  But I feel for those students who will be passing through said teacher’s classroom in the years to come.  Surely, with a rising Hispanic population, this won’t be the last “Spanish” issue in such a class.  And if she is so quick to make such comments with parents (typically protective, even downright helicopterish) who is to say she isn’t making similar comments in the classroom, comments that other students are picking up and using themselves to drive divisions between “us” and “them?”
We should have high expectations for all students … and all teachers.  We tell our students they can’t make excuses for not demonstrating proficiency or not passing the state exams.  We tell parents they can’t make excuses for their kids not attending school or not doing their homework.  And we certainly should tell our teachers that they can’t make excuses — particularly racially discrimenatory ones — when they fail to connect or properly educate a child.
Ningunas excusas.  Debemos esperar mas de nuestros estudiantes, de nuestras familias, y de nuestros maestros.

Racin’ on Preschool Legs

Eduflack Arne Duncan, early childhood education, RTT

In an announcement far less anticipated than previous rounds, EdSec Arne Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education today announced the parameters for Round Three of Race to the Top.  After Congress agreed to throw another $700 million in the RttT kitty as part of the FY2011 CR budget deal, most expected they knew how the current round would be distributed.

Original word around town was that ED would simply move down the list of Round Two finalists, making dreams come true.  So New Jersey, which finished less than three points (on a 500-point scale) behind the final Round Two winner, Ohio, was seen as a shoo-in (and a potential recipient of hundreds of millions of federal dollars).  Then came Arizona, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Illinois.  Presumably, the $700 million wouldn’t even last long enough for Illinois to line up for its check, leaving the full boat to be distributed among four states (and four states run by Republican governors, coincidentally).
But a funny thing happened on the way to today’s announcement.  Instead of funding, or nearly funding, the remaining plans that scored the highest, ED determined it best to share the wealth across all of the Phase Two finalist states.  So now we can add California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky to the list.  Nine states sharing RttT dollars, with all likely getting just a fraction of their ask, yet all of the red tape, bureaucracy, and expectation to go with it.
Why?  Because Duncan threw the education community a curve ball.  Of the $700 million going to RttT Round Three, only $200 million of it will go to these nine states.  The remainder, a whopping $500 million, will now go to fund a new Race competition for early childhood education.
If you’ll recall, last month Eduflack wrote about a key change to the RttT law — the addition of early childhood education as a new priority to Race.  At the time, I wondered whether this was finally a real commitment on behalf of the Administration to invest in ECE, or whether this was more rhetoric, without the teeth of real dollars to back it up.
That question was answered loudly and clearly today by Duncan.  Five hundred million dollars to go to a competitive grant program to fund the improvement of early childhood care and education, and it will now carry the Early Learning Challenge moniker.  Half a billion dollars to support preK programs.  Some of the specs released today include:
* State-based award focused on comprehensive plans for early learning
* Emphasis on coordination (presumably with K-12), clearer learning standards, and “meaningful workforce development”
The statement from ED is unclear on some of the larger issues, though.  It notes that just 40 percent of four-year-olds are in preK.  So is the intent to improve preK programs or boost enrollment in existing programs?  At a time when states are reducing their own investments in preK (just look at the Pew numbers), is $500 million spread across the nation enough to jumpstart a universal preK movement?  And when we again challenge the innovation community, this time to get involved in ECE, what role do we see for the private sector and the edu-prenuers to be playing in early childhood education?
On the K-12 side, we see a few other issues.  So now those nine RttT finalist states can recompete for $10-$50 million grants, needing to develop new applications (with ED’s help, of course).  One only needs to do the math, though, to realize we are looking a lot more like a number of $10 million grants than a handful of $50 million ones.  Is $50 million even enough to enact real improvement in a state like California, Illinois, or Pennsylvania?
Most importantly, though, is this an indication that we’ve already given up on RttT?  When it was originally announced, we heard all about how it was most effective when a few states were given big dollars to enact real changes (Former Duncan advisor Mike Smith originally hypothesized there should only be two or three total RttT winners for the original $4 billion prize).  Now that we move to Round Three, we are shifting to small checks for a large number of states, now for targeted activities.  When Delaware and Tennessee received more that they were originally slated to gain in Round One, do we really expect the nine expected to benefit here to be able to do real work and enact real improvements with a fraction of what they asked for (and presumably need)?  Time will tell …
UPDATE: Make that eight.  South Carolina has already pulled out of the RttT3 competition, according to Education Week’s Politics K-12 blog, with its State Superintendent, Mick Zais stating RttT is “offering pieces of silver in exchange for strings attached to Washington.”