Around the Edu-Horn, July 21, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @cpylevdoe Virginia response to Fordham review of Standards of Learning: http://tinyurl.com/24tdeqq

RT @D_Aarons new @wallacefdn study: Learning From Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning http://bit.ly/cOwkPM

Competitive admissions for comm college nursing programs — http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/21/nursing 

No more writing proficiency in IL? http://tinyurl.com/2btxsbh 

The cost of buying school textbooks in AL — http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=12815296
 

Measuring Up to Common Core

Eduflack accountability, assessment, national standards

In recent months, we have been hearing a great deal about how individual states’ academic standards measure up to the Common Core.  Both Texas and Virginia have proudly proclaimed that their state standards are far superior to the proposed shared standards, and as a result they have refused to pursue Race to the Top and to sign onto Common Core Standards.  When California agreed to Common Core in principle last year, it did so only after proclaiming that the Golden State had the best standards in the union, and Common Core could cut out the middle man and just adopt California standards.  And this week in Massachusetts, many are trying to delay the adoption of Common Core, believing that the Bay State’s standards are better than where NGA and CCSSO landed earlier this year.

Well now the Fordham Institute has weighed in, offering up a state-by-state analysis of how current state standards measure up to the Common Core.  And what do they say?

* Overall, the math Common Core is stronger than the ELA Common Core.  With math, 39 states’ standards are inferior.  With reading, 37 states’ standards are inferior (but three are superior).
* Texas scores an A- compared to the reading Common Core, but only a C on math.
* Virginia scores a B+ on math and a C on ELA
* Massachusetts posts an A- on math and a B+ on ELA

Some of the more “interesting” findings:
* Washington, DC scores an A for both its current ELA and math standards.  Who knew that Michelle Rhee and company could claim they have the best standards in the nation, better than Massachusetts  or the rest?
* Indiana and California also scored As in both categories.  So according to Fordham, Cali, DC, and Indiana are the tops.  How many would get that right on Jeopardy?
* And some of the laggards?  Montana earned dual Fs.  Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin earned and F and a D each.  Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Rhode Island come in with Ds.  See any surprises in those lists?

How about our two Race to the Top Phase I winners?  Tennessee picked up an A- on ELA and a C on math.  Delaware an F on ELA and an B on math.

What does all of this tell us?  We still have a lot of work to do.  I don’t think that anyone truly believes that the strongest academic standards in the nation belong to Washington, DC.  Nor do we see the worst standards coming from states in New England or the Northeast.  

Fordham is offering up a great deal of food for thought here.  If anything, it shows why we need that common yardstick by which to measure student performance for all.  But I suspect this is just the first in a long list of analyses, points, crosspoints, and other discussions of standards, common standards, and what is to come.
  
   

Data in Education Storytelling

Eduflack Media, NCLB

How do we use data to better tell the local story?  That was the big question Eduflack was asked over the weekend speaking at the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media’s Harold W. McGraw Hr. Seminar for Reporters New to the Education Beat.

For those who don’t know (and you really should), the Hechinger Institute is a terrific outfit being run out of Teachers College, Columbia University.  Back in May, Eduflack wrote about Hechinger’s new efforts in education reporting.  But at its core, Hechinger is about supporting members of the education media, providing the technical assistance and support necessary to support a strong and effective cadre of education reporters across the nation.
In talking with a terrific group of new education reporters (though not necessarily new to reporting) about how they can use education to localize stories, it begs an important question — what can those of us who engage with the education media to do the same.  And for this question, Eduflack has a top five list to guide the discussion:
1) Personalize the story — The most effective stories we can tell are those that are personal.  The individual who is affected by a new policy.  The student who has succeeded under a new curriculum.  The teacher who is raising student achievement scores.  We all like to hear a story.  Facts and figures and data can then be used to help fortify the story.  Trying to pitch a story on teacher incentives?  Paint a picture of that real, individual teacher who can be a case study.  Depict the teacher and her classroom.  Then strengthen the piece with the data, the state test scores and related data points that demonstrate teacher achievement, both for the individual and for the school/district in particular.
2) Know your data sources — There is more to the tale of the tape than simply student test scores on the state assessment.  In offering up a policy story, know which data sources to direct to.  What can we find at the national level?  What can we find at the state level?  What can we find at the local level? 
3) Capture the continuum — Once you identify the data sources, know how they connect and support each other.  If you’re pitching a state or local education story, be able to show the data that substantiates the pitch from the local level all the way up to the national level.  The data shows it works, and the continuum shows it works on a large or a small scale.
4) Acknowledge not all data is created equal — For the last decade, reporters have been hounded with “data.”  Since NCLB, everyone has “research” proving their point.  Unfortunately, much of the third-party “research” circulated out there is little more than marketing collateral for those promoting the policy.  There is good research, and there is bad research.  Reporters ultimately have to distinguish between the two.  But if you are selling bad or squishy data to a reporter, you lose credibility very quickly.  Want to tell an effective story, do so with the strongest data possible.
5) Think beyond the data — Data helps sell the story, but most of the time, it isn’t the story itself.  Long gone is the era when education media would write full stories on the latest research study to cross their desks.  Too much research on too many topics just makes such an approach untenable.  Instead, more and more reporters are looking for good data to enhance stories on the key themes they are covering.  So be prepared to position specific studies on how it can impact the discussion of teacher quality or turnaround schools or a host of other issues that reporters are being asked to cover.  While the data may not be the headline, it can definitely serve as a foundation for a good education news article.

Is ESEA a Voting Issue?

Eduflack ESEA, NCLB

For years now, we have heard how “education” is a top-five political issue for most Americans, usually falling behind the economy, jobs, and healthcare in terms of importance.  Despite its standing, though, most election results have shown that K-12 education issues simply are not deciding factors when one steps into the voter booth, particularly when we are casting votes for offices like U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator (and, of course, President).

As much as we may want education to be a voting issue on the national level, it simply is not (and the good folks at Ed in ’08 can back us up here).  Education is perceived by many to be a local issue, a topic best controlled by local school boards, city councils, and mayors.  We may need some state legislatures and governors to weigh in, particularly with the checkbook, but education simply is not seen as a national issue.  Even during the height of No Child Left Behind, we simply didn’t see national elections decided, or even influenced, by education issues.

Will 2010 be any different?  Yesterday the Alliance for Excellent Education released data from a recent survey conducted by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research insinuating that the upcoming congressional elections could be different.  In reporting on public sentiment on high schools and ESEA reauthorization, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and her team found:
* Those surveyed believe “the nation’s public high school are in urgent need of improvement”
* The quality of high schools through ESEA reauthorization is a voting issue for more than 80 percent of voters, with half saying failure to act this year will impact their vote in the 2010 congressional elections
* One in four surveyed gave our high schools an excellent (A) or good (B ) grade, with 20 percent giving them a D or F
* We think our local high schools are doing better than the national average
* Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed say a high school diploma isn’t enough to get a good job
* Two-thirds say high school drop outs have a significant impact on the nation’s economy
* A majority say Congress isn’t paying enough attention to high schools

These are interesting findings, and virtually all speak to the need for ESEA reauthorization and ESEA reauthorization now.  And it helps justify the recent buzz that NCLB will be renamed the College and Career Readiness Act when ESEA finally does come up for a congressional vote.

But Eduflack has to take issue with one of the findings.  According the public summary released by the Alliance yesterday, Lake says:

Eight in ten voters want to see No Child Left Behind (NCLB ) altered in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), while just 11 percent say NCLB should be left as is.  Reauthorizing ESEA this year in a way that improves public high schools is personally important to three-quarters of voters.  Overall, voters give mixed reviews to NCLB.

I’ll completely give you the last point.  For those that know about NCLB, it will always get mixed, at best, reviews.  But the rest of the point has me scratching my head.  Lake and company surveyed 1,000 likely voters through a telephone survey last month.  The data was weighted to reflect actual population (age, education, race, political affiliation, and marital status).

Based on this finding, we are to believe that virtually all likely voters recognize that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year (or know that it was supposed to have been reauthorized years ago).  And we are to believe that 80 percent of likely voters understand the components of the current NCLB well enough to know that the current law needs to be altered to better emphasize the role of high schools in the education continuum.  

Do we honestly think that virtually every likely voter in the upcoming elections is aware of NCLB, ESEA reauthorization, and the priorities that are being debated?  Last year, Brookings released a study showing that only 1.4 percent of national news coverage in the first three quarters of 2009 focused on education issues.   And I’m willing to bet that NCLB/ESEA was but a fraction of that 1.4 percent.  So where are we getting our information?

I’m not saying that the findings are wrong.  I just worry that those surveyed are telling us what we want to hear.  We all want to say that education is an important issue.  We all want to say that we need to do a better job with our schools, particularly our high schools when we hear about drop out rates.  But aren’t we assuming an education policy knowledge among likely voters that is far, far out of whack with reality? 

Yes, we all should believe that federal policy should be changed to help improve our high schools.  But we also need to know that real improvement only comes when state and local policy, and buy in from practitioners, is part of the equation.  Policy itself does improve education.  It merely serves as a blueprint.

Perhaps I am wrong, and this November there will be an outpouring of votes cast because of ESEA and Congress’ inability to reauthorize the law.  But I doubt it.  I’d love to be wrong, but we have never enjoyed a year when congressional elections were decided on education issues.  And with the economy and healthcare still swirling, do we honestly think this is the year education moves from fifth to first place?

Around the Edu-Horn, July 14, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @ewrobelen As of today, half the states have OK’d the new common standards. S.C. is the latest to sign on: http://bit.ly/9MabsW

Teaching principals to save schools — http://tinyurl.com/285ba7n

For-profits, e-learning, and K12 schools, oh my! http://tinyurl.com/2amxxez

DC elementary school test scores decline; middle, high schools rise — http://tinyurl.com/2a6olr8

Are Latino students being shortchanged? http://tinyurl.com/2fonv8r

Continued Thoughts on Higher Ed ROI

Eduflack edReformer, higher ed

Last week, Eduflack opined on Businessweek’s efforts to put some meaning around the topic of college degrees and return on investment.  The discussion led me to wonder if we are looking at the right roadmarkers in determining ROI (and whether we are even looking at the right institutions when we do it).

So over at edReformer, I have a new post on the need to broaden our view on higher ed ROI.  You can read the full post here.  And while you are at it, check out some of the other posts over at edReformer.  There are some interesting discussions happening over there.

   

Around the Edu-Horn, July 13, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @wpnick WP’s Turque has it first: D.C. elementary scores declined this year under #edreform star #Rhee.http://bit.ly/b3CC1L


RT @markkerr Draft Framework for ‘Next Gen’ Science Standards Issued http://ow.ly/2azFs


The myth of teacher tenure? http://tinyurl.com/2do2rm8

RT @jeneps Harkin takes #4profit battle to the oped page of the LA Times. “The threat of a new bubble…”http://bit.ly/d4tKfx


Can Gates Remake K-12 Education?

Eduflack accountability, Gates Foundation

Yesterday, Nick Anderson offered up a front-page story in The Washington Post on the influence and impact the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is having on education reform in the United States.  For many, this was not new news (particularly since Libby Quaid and the Associated Press did a similar story about two years ago), but the size and scope was bound to attract attention.  When we start to see the number of grants awarded, the total dollars doled out, and the influential individuals who have moved from Gates into either government or practitioner roles, and you start to see the possibility of the Gates Foundation and education improvement.

But Eduflack is struck by the same thinking that has dogged him for years.  Anderson’s well-written piece portrays the current K-12 public education environment and how the Gates Foundation needs to work within the confines of that system.  It continues to be about refurbishing existing homes, not about tearing down and building new.  And if anything was clear from the Anderson article, it is that Gates is in a position to do it its way, and not simply as we have always done.

So it had Eduflack going back into the archives to look at some past writing.  In March of 2009, I opined on this topic as well, riffing off another WaPo piece, that time from Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, on how Bill Gates could repair our schools.  Rather than reinvent the wheel, let’s look at how smart Eduflack appeared nearly a year and a half ago:

“So who says Gates has to play by the rules and the confines of the current system?  After all, this is a man who released a box full of mosquitoes as an international conference so all could feel the possible threat of malaria.  This is a man who built a global corporate giant out of his garage by refusing to abide by mores and by never hearing the word no.  This is a man who is investing significant wealth into American public education, despite so many people telling him it was a lost cause and he was throwing his money into a pit that will never yield a return.

To date, the Gates Foundation is thinking about the right issues.  School structure.  Teacher training and support.  Rigor and relevance of instruction.  Connections between K-12 and the workforce.  Pay structures that reward success.  Student assessments and standards.  Return on educational investment.  The Foundation has tried to implement these issues in a number of ways, trying pilot projects across the nation, looking for promising practice, and hoping to find real solutions that can be adopted at scale across the United States.
The latter is the most important point for reformers.  How do we adopt proven solutions at scale?  To date, we are tinkering around the edges.  We can point to achievement gap solutions in Ohio, early college successes in the JFF network, and virtual options in Texas, for instance.  These issues have come, in large part, from working within the system, as Gates seeks to supplement existing efforts and provide the funding to do more within the current system, essentially layering potential solutions on top of systems that may well be broken at their core.
More than a year ago, Eduflack reflected on this same issue.  How can Gates get more bang for its buck?  How can it move from tinkering to dropping a brand-new engine into our public schools?  How does it move from supplementing what is broken to supplanting?  How does it use its power, vision, and checkbook to literally build that better mousetrap.
In recent months, Bill Gates has laid out his vision for what our schools need to improve.  That vision is reflected in Hiatt’s piece this morning.  Flexibility in structure, evidenced by a greater need for charter schools.  Flexibility in human capital, evidenced by new formulas for training, hiring, and rewarding teachers.  Strong standards by which all students are measured, ensuring all students are embracing both the relevance and rigor of 21st century education.  And an unwavering commitment to success, whereby dropout factories are a thing of the past and dropping out is viable option for no student and no family.
So it has me back to my original thinking.  Forget about supporting existing school districts and trying to layer new programs on top of old, failed efforts.  Now is the time for Gates to be bold and different.  Now is the time for the Gates Foundation to chart a different course.  Now is the time for Gates to reject the status quo, and chart a completely new path for K-12 education in the United States.
It is a simple one.  Gates needs to get in the business of empire building.  Instead of investing in urban school districts and trying to overcome decades of problems that have become ingrained on the schools’ DNA, Gates needs to begin building alternative school districts.  That’s right.  Forget charter schools, we need charter districts.  If the current model is broken, as Gates claims, the answer is not to fix.  The true answer is to create a better one.  Move into an urban center and set up a K-12 charter district.  Determine the most effective, research-proven curriculum.  Train, hire, and support the best teachers.  Reward those teachers properly.  Apply strong standards to every student, accepting no excuses and demanding proficiency and success from all.  Better align our elementary, middle, and secondary school programs.  Engage students early on, so they see the relevance of their academic pursuits.  Offer internships and externships so all students see the career opportunities before them.  Build the buildings, implement the learning structures, acquire the technology and learning materials, and do what is necessary to get us to success.  No boundaries to prevent us from doing what is necessary.  No excuses to fall back on.  
These new school districts can build on the successes of Gates programs to date.  They can take the best of Early College High Schools, of the Ohio High School Transformation Initiative, and of Green Dot Schools.  They can also build on the efforts of KIPP and Teach for America and even from school districts like NYC that are truly thinking outside the box.  They can borrow and steal from the very best in school reform, community engagement, corporate innovation, and some of the news ways of thinking coming from small, nimble not-for-profits.
Then take this new system and provide families the choice.  Those who wish to remain in the traditional school district that has served their family for generations can do so.  Those who are seeking new options, those who are seeking new opportunities, those seeking more choice can opt for the Gates route.  It is about providing options and choice.  If implemented properly, such choices not only offer a strong Gates model, but the competition forces traditional school districts to act differently, improve, and meet the demands of their current customers — the families.  If done well, the rising Gates tide would lift all schools — traditional publics, charters, and privates alike.
I know what many are thinking — what an absolutely ridiculous idea.  Funders don’t do such a thing.  They provide resources to support the current infrastructure. They fund new projects and new ideas.  They supplement, they don’t compete.  Yes, that may have been the way we have traditionally worked, but does it need to be that way?  Do philanthropies need to simply serve as advisors, consultants, and checkbooks, or can they get more active?
When Bill Gates built Microsoft, his mature business model was not to simply advise IBM on the operating software they needed.  He determined the status quo — both in terms of hardware and software — weren’t cutting it.  He tried working as part of that system, and it just didn’t work.  So he turned the industry on its head, positioning software as the driver in the technology industry.  Microsoft became Microsoft because he offered consumers a choice, and he offered them a better one.  After a while, it was no choice at all.  If one wanted to succeed in business, one had to use Microsoft products.
So why can’t we do the same in education?  Why can’t Gates use its investment to build a better school district?  Take all of those great minds that have been assembled at the foundation, and do it differently and do it better.  From the top down and the bottom up, build a school structure that is both student and teacher focused, geared toward real results, and not beholden to the status quo or the ways we used to do it simply because that is how we used to do it.
Could this path be a complete failure?  Absolutely.  The Foundation could get into the middle of it and find that curriculum selection, teacher training, and CBAs are far more difficult than they ever envisioned.  They could discover that managing buildings or dealing with operational issues is not what they want to do.  They could realize that human capital management is simply too difficult a nut to crack, particularly if they are not in charge of the pre-service education that delivers the teachers to their door.  They could even find that the first or second generation of this experiment is a failure, and they have to keep changing and adapting on the fly to meet goals and deliver on their promises to the community.  And, shudder, they could even find themselves lapsing into models and behaviors far too similar to the school districts they are trying to change and offer an alternative to.
Or it could just work.  Gates could pick a four or five cities, invest significantly in those cities and demonstrate how district-wide change can happen at the city, school, classroom, and student level.  They could identify those best practices that can indeed be replicated at scale in districts throughout the nation.  They can find a way to build better pathways and make real opportunities available to more students in need.  They can truly build a better learning environment, particularly for those who have been dealt a bad hand for far too long.
Let’s face it.  If anyone can do it, Gates can do it.  And at this point of the game, not trying is far worse than the risk of failure.  If the EdSec is going to stake a number of school districts with the funds to Race to the Top, why can’t Gates do the same?  We let ED fund internal improvements designed to improve current districts.  Gates funds the construction of new school districts focused on 21st century needs and expectations.  And we see who provides a better education, and a better ROI.  Let the best model win.”

Doesn’t seem so foolish after all, now does it?

Around the Edu-Horn, July 12, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

RT @AndresHenriquez 

Draft of “next generation” framework for science standards. EdWeek: http://bit.ly/bEKqbl 


RT @LuminaFound: VA Gov asks state #highered to create 100,000 new college degrees. Tx to VA helping us to our goal: http://bit.ly/a5iyU7

RT @ewrobelen A federal institute has just awarded $10 million to create a new math center run by WestEd:http://bit.ly/dvNGyH

School districts still slow to tap stimulus $$ —http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15493941