About Those i3 Matching Funds …

Eduflack i3

By now we’ve all seen the list of the big Investing in Innovation (i3) winners.  Nearly 1,700 contestants entered the squared circle, and only 49 emerged as “winners,” with the survivors now left to prove that their research-based innovation is the best damned innovation in the entire education land. 

(Bear with Eduflack, I’m trying to build up the hype here.  I’m amazed by how little excitement or enthusiasm has come from the announcement of $650 million in i3 grants earlier this week.  This should be a much bigger deal than it is.)

When I first saw the list on Wednesday afternoon (thank you Michele McNeil and Politics K-12 for giving us the list a day before we all expected it), I was taken by a few things.  The first was the absence of the Chicago TAP program from the list.  For the past year, I have been all but certain that TAP would win one of the $50M biggies.  Perhaps the recent study on TAP’s effectiveness was more damaging that most expected.

The second was how few school districts actually won i3 grants.  Throughout the process, most talked about how these were LEA based.  We all knew that some non-profits and institutions of higher education would win.  In fact, we expected that some of the larger grants would go to reform-minded non-profits (as it did).  Yes, I am surprised so many IHEs put in winning applications.  But I am more surprised how the list seems to say that innovation is coming from outside influences, and not from the entities (the districts) entrusted with educating our children.

Yesterday, I (and I’m sure much of the free world) received an email from the good folks over at the NewSchools Venture Fund, as it congratulated nine “NewSchools supported ventures” that won i3 grants.  And it got me really thinking.  This week’s 49 winners all need to find a 20 percent match to actually receive their oversized checks from the US Department of Education.  I assume that these nine NewSchools groups (including Teach for America and KIPP) will be able to find the outside funding necessary.  But what happens to those orgs that may not be able to secure a few million in outside funding in short order, in this economy?

When applications were solicited, it was made clear that such outside funding did not have to be lined up to win.  Securing that third-party funding could be done after selection, meaning you only needed to hustle for the dollars if you actually needed the money to close the deal.  So we now have 49 innovative education programs scurrying to secure $130 million in matching funds to qualify.  Once the Gates Foundation puts money down on the horses it is going to back, and other large foundations do the same, who is going to pick up the slack for the many remaining groups, particularly those in the “validation” category?  Will we see dollars coming from local foundations?  In-kind contributions of staff and benefits?  Creative book keeping to hit the magic mark?

It all raises a bigger question.  How many of the 49 selected applications will fail to meet all of the requirements (meaning the 20 percent private funding match) by September 8?  Will today’s winners be denied their checks tomorrow?  Personally, I’m willing to bet at least five of the winners will have to seek waivers and extend their private-sector fundraising efforts. 

Without question, those writing the checks want to put their money on winners, particularly in the education space.  And these 49 are as sure a bet as there is.  But 49 groups scurrying for $130 million in 34 days, including five weekends (one of them a holiday) is asking an awful lot, even for innovators like this lot.
      

The Case for Quality Online Learning

Eduflack High School, Online Education

Eduflack is back on his edReformer soapbox today, offering up the latest thinking of online K12 learning and the misperceptions surrounding it.  A decade ago, we watched colleges and universities struggle with transitioning from bricks and mortar to online.  Now, we are starting to see the same challenges in K12.  Check it out over at edReformer, as well as a wealth of other posts and streams on e-learning and online instruction.

  

Around the Edu-Horn, August 3, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @TeacherBeat CCSSO Unveils Draft Teaching Standards: http://bit.ly/9BSB4o

RT @edReformer edReformer: Breaking News: Dept of Ed Puts Hundreds Millions Into Early Childhood http://bit.ly/cK7L3V

The problems with alt cert in MI — http://tinyurl.com/2ce9zkv

Caperton and the education deficit — http://tinyurl.com/22p3ksq

MN opts out of math common core — http://www.twincities.com/ci_15655121?nclick_check=1

Dual Enrollment for All!

Eduflack Achievement gap, AP, High School

When most discuss the merits of dual-enrollment programs in our high schools, thoughts immediately turn to those classic over-achievers who are looking to earn a high school diploma along with two or three years of college before they turn 18.  We talk of how K-12 systems and higher education systems struggle to work together.  And sometimes, we even discuss how we shouldn’t rush our kids and deprive them of a “traditional” high school experience.

Meanwhile the high school dropout rate has remained steady for decades (and Eduflack is one who believes that the dropout rate is, unfortunately, close to one-third.)  Drop-out factories remain prevalent in many of our urban and rural communities.  Too many students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds do not have access to college prep high schools (with AP and IB classes).  Yet we continue to talk about how every student should be college ready when the odds are against at-risk students to even get through high school.

So what is one to do?  A new study from the Blackboard Institute finds that dual enrollment programs could be the great equalizer.  In the report, Columbia University’s Elisabeth Barrett and Rutgers University’s Liesa Stamm found that dual enrollment can benefit all students, not just those on the fast track.  Specifically, the found dual enrollment offers all students benefits such as:

* Enhancing the academic rigor of high school curricula
* Providing students with a broader range of academic and career-oriented courses and electives
* Offering students the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school
* Introducing high school students to college academic expectations and preparing them for college-level study
* Making education more interesting and relevant, to the extent that students can take courses that relate to their interests or career goals
* Facilitating the transition from high school to college
* Improving student prospects during the college admissions process as a result of college credits earned
* Accelerating progression to college degree completion
* Reducing the costs of college education by enabling students to earn college credits while in high school that are generally tuition-free

Of course, these are all arguments we have heard before.  But the study’s authors also point to the significant role that dual enrollment can play in helping at-risk students … if they are provided the right support services.  Such services include academic supports, course re-configurations, college preparatory initiatives, career exploration, and mentoring.

Perhaps most interesting, though, was the discussion of online dual enrollment.  First, the statistics.  According to the report, 70 percent of school districts had one or more students enrolled in a fully online or blended course.  Nearly 70 percent of those enrolled in online learning do so at the high school level.  Nearly two thirds of school districts expect growth in their fully online courses and 61 percent see growth for their blended courses.  

Despite popular opinion, these online courses are not being used to help accelerate those already far ahead.  Yes, they are being used to supplement AP offerings.  But school districts also reported they are using online to assist students who need extra help or credit recovery, to let students who failed a course take it again, to get around scheduling conflicts, and to offer courses not offered at the school.  It becomes particularly important to rural school districts, serving as “a cost-benefit mechanism for small rural school districts to provide students with course choices and in some cases even basic courses that would not otherwise be available to them.”

So why is all this important?  If we are serious about improving high school graduation rates and having those high school diplomas serving as more than just a glorified attendance certificate, we need to do things differently.  When one-third of students fail to earn a high school diploma, our high schools are failing.  When half of those going on to college need remediation, our high schools are failing.  And when too many students — particularly those from historically disadvantaged communities — don’t see the value of staying in school, our high schools are failing.

If we truly intend to make each and every child “college and career ready” after leaving high school, we need radical changes to how we teach in high school.  A rearrangement of the deck chairs simply won’t do.  We need to teach new courses in new ways.  We need to personalize instruction.  We need to emphasize the value.  We need all students to see what they are capable of.  And we need to recognize that different students learn in different ways.

The Blackboard Institute report reminds us a robust dual enrollment program can be key to transforming a high school.  And it highlights that online learning — and online dual enrollment programs — can be a core component to a high-quality, 21st century high school.  Need more?  Such dual enrollment and online programs are beneficial for all students, not just those on the Most Likely to Succeed list.  Dual enrollment for all!
  

 

Testing Throwdown in NYC

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, national standards

When are lower student achievement scores a good thing?  That seems to be the question thrown about up in New York City this past week, where Big Apple officials have been grappling with the reality that city students’ performance on the state’s math and reading proficiency tests fell after a newer (and harder) exam was put into place.

As always, it is most fun to read the evolution of such stories in the New York Post, which first reported on the plunge, and then editotrialized on the issue twice — first on Thursday praising the new “truth-telling” and then again today, condemning the United Federation of Teachers for jumping on the test score drop to “discredit all education standards.”  

It should be no secret that state standards — and the tests that measure those standards — have been a problem for some time.  Since the introduction of NCLB, we’ve witnessed states lowering their standards so that they could continue to demonstrate “adequate yearly progress,” regularly reducing the bar so the number of students hitting proficient increased year after year after year.  In this educational shell game, it meant reducing the standards again and again to keep up.

The NY Post refers to the problem as “junk tests” but the real issue seems to be the standards behind them.  Tests are only as good as what we are expected to measure.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Did anyone really believe that more than three-quarters of NY students were proficient in reading and math?  Of course not.  But New York State’s definition of proficient and a common sense definition of the same are quite different.  How else do you explain such strong proficiency numbers at a time when half of students require remediation?

One can’t fault the NYC DOE for playing the hands it has been dealt.  When taking the old state proficiency exam, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein posted some long-term gains.  Year on year, test scores increased.  That is progress.  Now that they have a new test aligned to new standards, the game starts anew.  These scores serve as the year one baseline.  Next year, we expect to see gains.  And the year after that, more of the same.  Rince and repeat.

But those looking to discredit the improvements in NYC based on this one test are going to be sorely mistaken.  Just take a look at the other measures around us.  On the NAEP exam, the Nation’s Report Card which offers one standard measure for all students across the nation, NYC has seen gains in student achievement (while the rest of New York state has remained flat).  And as Eduflack wrote earlier this year, Chancellor Klein has shown real improvement on high school graduation rates.  So at a time when the teachers’ unions are calling for multiple measures to evaluate teachers, we are seeing that multiple measures support claims of NYC schools improvement.

Ultimately, while this makes for some lovely rhetorical skirmishes in the city that never sleeps, it doesn’t negate a very simple truth.  Over the last decade, NYC schools have come a long way.  But they still have a long way to go.  At no point do I remember hearing Klein declare mission accomplished.  Progress has been made, but there is still much to do, particularly in addressing achievement gap issues in New York.  The new test provides a clearer, stronger view of the challenges before NY educators.  And the pending adoption and implementation of Common Core standards offers a clearer picture of where one has to go.  

Instead of using the latest round of test scores to throw recent reforms out the window, improvements on measures such as NAEP and grad rates should show what is possible, and the growing need to redouble current reform efforts.  If anything, these scores demonstrate that more must be done.  
 

Around the Edu-Horn, July 29, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @edfunding Murkowski amendment- increase Denali commission by cutting IES programs by $63 million. http://myloc.me/9Tpsu

RT @EdEquality @TNTP: Transcript of Obama’s #edreform speech at the National Urban League today: http://bit.ly/dtK4nV #education

RT @cathgrimes Gov. McDonnell said schools are getting $18 million more, thanks to the state surplus http://fb.me/sMhdFMvT

Turning around schools in the “least disruptive” ways — http://tinyurl.com/2afxgjk 

Obama vs. teachers? http://www.politico.com/arena/ 

Around the Edu-Horn, July 28, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @usedgov Duncan highlights ED’s civil rights agenda, promises to advance civil rights by addressing inequities . http://go.usa.gov/OMH

FL adopts the common core — http://tinyurl.com/2dfsndk

RttT and the “quiet revolution” — http://tinyurl.com/36ggcys

RT @Education_AIR AIR to merge with Learning Point Associates; Learning Point CEO Gina Burkhardt named AIR Executive VP http://ow.ly/2hhKr

DC teachers union to sue over teacher performance firings — http://tinyurl.com/29a96jr

Duncan and mayoral control of Detroit Public Schools — http://tinyurl.com/32cyk57

Around the Edu-Horn, July 26, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @usedgov Fifteen teachers from around the country selected as Teaching Ambassador Fellows for 2010-11. http://go.usa.gov/Ooz

RT @PoliticsK12 Blog: Race to Top Finalists Unveiled Tomorrow: Who Makes the Cut? http://bit.ly/bmucMH

RT @Larryferlazzo Civil rights groups skewer Obama education policy” Wash Post http://bit.ly/bragUt

Renting college textbooks — http://tinyurl.com/34zogyg

Test prep for kindergarten? http://tinyurl.com/22pbc4q

The Pollsters Respond: More on ESEA as a Voting Issue

Eduflack ESEA, NCLB

Earlier this month, Eduflack opined on a survey released by the Alliance for Excellent Education about reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the need for focus on high schools, and the role both topics may play on this November’s upcoming congressional elections.  While I found the findings interesting, I worried that we were reading a little too much into the numbers, giving the average voter a little too much credit for what they think they know about ESEA and its future direction.

I offered up the counterpoint to the data originally compiled on the Alliance’s behalf by Lake Research Partners.  The good folks over at Lake Research Partners — namely Celinda Lake and Chris Matthews — wanted to set the record straight and ensure that we (and I mean that collectively, dear ol’ Eduflack included) don’t misconstrue the findings.  So I’m going to yield the rostrum to Lake and Matthews to offer that clarification.  So without further ado …

“Eduflack made some assertions and questions about the recent AEE poll that we would like to respond to:

1. The poll finds that 8 in 10 voters want to see NCLB changed in the reauthorization of ESEA, while 11 percent say NCLB should be left as it is. Eduflack questions this finding, asking: “Are we to believe that virtually all likely voters recognize that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year; and that 80% understand the components of the current NCLB bill well enough to know that the current law needs to be altered?”

The findings of the poll should not be construed in this way at all. The poll does not indicate that voters know that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year. As AEE and the pollsters asserted at the press conference introducing the poll, if we had to guess, we would agree with Eduflack and say that most voters don’t know this. However, we certainly can say from this survey that when ESEA is introduced to voters in the survey, with concise and accurate information, that ESEA reauthorization is seen as important to voters. And when it comes to NCLB, nearly 90 percent of voters in the survey have an opinion on the NCLB policy: 47% have a favorable opinion and 44% an unfavorable opinion. We agree with Eduflack, in that most voters do not fully understand all of the intricate components of the current NCLB bill, we see in this in the focus groups we conduct throughout the country. Yet, this research shows that they do have a base of knowledge about NCLB, which combined with their own experiences and views that public high schools are in urgent need of improvement, lead us to be confident that voters can weigh-in on whether NCLB should be changed or just reauthorized as it is.

So, to answer Eduflack’s question on whether the survey findings “assume an education policy knowledge among likely voters that is far out of whack with reality” — they do not. We can say with confidence that the survey met voters where they were in terms of knowledge, gave them a small, neutral, and unbiased amount of information about ESEA, and then asked voters to evaluate and make a choice based on that information as well as all the other knowledge and experiences they already have about public education and NCLB.

2.Eduflack also questioned whether “education could really takeover the economy as a key voting issue in November.” AEE and the research team of Lake and Bellwether have not made that assertion, and we would not make it as education does not rank before the economy right now in any polls we have seen. The new AEE poll does allow us to say, however, that education is an important issue and when voters do focus on the issue it is seen as important factor in how they will evaluate Congressional incumbents this fall. The AEE poll also shows that voters link the quality of public high schools and the state and progress of the national economy and our ability to compete in the global economy as well.”

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Around the Edu-Horn, July 23, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @Larryferlazzo Check-Out Who Applied To Be A “Promise Neighborhood” http://bit.ly/c2ZUJb

National registry would consolidate digital education materials http://sbne.ws/r/5dhl (from ASCD)

Edujobs are out of the spending bill — http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40137.html

RT @gtoppo LAUSD superintendent Cortines to retire in spring 2011. http://bit.ly/cS9TTh

U.S.: From leaders to laggards in college grad — http://tinyurl.com/22lr4n3