Around the Edu-Horn, May 17, 2010

Eduflack Edu-horn

When I first started this blog more than three years ago, the intent was to comment on how well the media was covering education policy issues.  And while the content found on this site may deviate from that original mission, it is still very much a concern of dear ol’ Eduflack.

I regularly try to refocus on this core mission, asking questions about whether the media is covering key issues, if the messaging is right, and how effective the engagement may be.  Each day, I reflect on dozens of stories, announcements, and reports to see what might tickle my fancy for a particular post.  Unfortunately, most of those items that tickle my fancy never make it onto the blog.  There just isn’t enough time in the day for me to write about everything I find of interest.
But all that time doesn’t go to waste.  Much of it gets posted up to my Twitter feed (@eduflack).  I can’t tell you how much I appreciate all those who follow me on Twitter, and how much I enjoy engaging with those of like minds.  This past weekend at Education Writers Association, it was incredible to meet all those reporters I’m “friends” with on Twitter, but whom I had not previously met.  
For a few months now, Alexander Russo began posting his “greatest hits” Twitter posts on his This Week in Education blog.  Starting today, Eduflack is going to “borrow” the practice.  At the end of each day, we’ll be posting up the top five or so links made available that day on Twitter.  Hopefully, some will find it useful.  And, also hopefully, none will find it repetitive.  
So now, the inaugural edition of Around the Edu-Horn:
GA’s Kathy Cox to lead new national ed org to help states with RttT goals — http://www.deliveryinstitute.org/index.html
Mark Schneider asks some tough questions of OECD — http://blog.american.com/?page_id=13698
RT @tvanderark NJ hosting debate on role of private enterprise in edu — http://bit.ly/9VKsbD
RT @hechingerreport In Central Falls, Rhode Island, looks like fired teachers will all be re-hired — http://bit.ly/byb4Mg
RT @eduflack: Asking of the strength of the term “ed reform” on @edReformer — http://tinyurl.com/25k2xrg

Is Ed Reform a Meaningless Term?

Eduflack edReformer

If you haven’t seen it yet, there is a new education social networking site on the block — edReformer.  Brought to us by Vander Ark/Ratcliff and originally incubated by New Schools Venture Fund, edReformer describes itself as “a community of advocates, innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors seeking to improve student learning worldwide” and “as a catalyst for innovation in the education sector by encouraging entrepreneurship and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms.”

In contributing to the dialogue, the good folks at edReformer are offering up news, information, interviews, and opinion on all things education policy, while utilizing blogs, Twitter (@edReformer), Facebook, and similar tools at our disposal to spread their gospel of education “excellence and equity through innovation.”
After some strong weeks of rich and interesting content, edReformer may have taken a major step back today.  They asked dear ol’ Eduflack to offer up a guest post from this year’s Education Writers Association conference.  The agitator that I am, I jumped at the chance, providing edReformer a post here building off of EWA attendee concerns that the term “education reform” has really lost its meaning.
Sounds like me, huh?  Going on a platform called edReformer and saying that the term ed reform has jumped the shark.  I must be looking to have my guest blogger invite pulled before the electronic ink is even dry.  But my thesis stands.  Because so many players new to the dance are misusing the term (just as we saw seven or eight years ago with scientifically based education research), then those who understand the term and are working toward real improvement, like edReformer, will get the short end of the stick.  If real reformers are going to be taken seriously, we need to restore honor to the term, while having a broader swath of education stakeholders understanding what we mean and working together to bring the meaningful improvement we seek.
Go and check out edReformer (and my ed reform post).  Personally, I think edReformer has the possibility of becoming a Huffington Post for education improvement and innovation, a place where a wide range of voices gather, learn, speak, and advocate.  I just hope Tom, Bennet, and Doug realize I don’t hate the playa, I hate the game.  And I’m hoping that efforts like edReformer are going to restore my faith in the game.
 

The Future of Education Media

Eduflack Media

What is the future of education journalism?  For the past several years, we have been hearing how national and regional newspapers have either dramatically reduced or downright eliminated their education news teams (with the most recent being the Associated Press’ plans to no longer have a single national K-12 education reporter, and instead distribute education responsibilities across a team of six great reporters who already have other responsibilities).

A reduced education reporter pool undoubtedly leads to reduced education coverage.  Last year, at a time when all in the education sector were abuzz about Race to the Top, i3, teacher quality, teacher layoffs, and general education reform, Brookings released its Invisible report, finding that only 1.4 percent of the national news in the first three quarters of 2009 was about education.  (A caveat, though, there are many who raise questions about Brookings’ methodology, particularly its decision that “education reporting” only counted if it was on the front page of the A section of a newspaper.  By the same measure, sports also didn’t score highly, but we all know that virtually every newspaper in the country has an entire daily section dedicated to athletics.)
Earlier this week, Brookings released a follow-up to Invisible, Re-Imagining Education Journalism.  This latest report provides some very interesting insights as to the future of education journalism, including a look at how news is delivered (news aggregators, blogs, etc.) and alternative business models (subsidized content, public support, etc.)  Eduflack waded into a similar discussion a little more than a year ago.
Such discussions are not merely academic.  Case in point — the launch of the Hechinger Report.  For those who have not yet checked it out this week, it is definitely worth your time.  A product of the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media at Teachers College Columbia University and the brainchild of Hechinger leader and former LA Times ed reporter Richard Lee Colvin, the Hechinger Report is the future of education media TODAY.  In its first week, Hechinger is offering original news articles, opinion pieces, analyses, and blogs.  It is focusing content on the full educational spectrum — early childhood education, K-12, community colleges, and higher education.  And it is doing it with real, professional journalists (as opposed to citizen journalists like Eduflack).
News outlets are free to use Hechinger content, as long as they credit Hechinger.  And Team Colvin is also working with national news outlets to use the experienced Hechinger team to supplement existing education news coverage, particularly when it comes to investigative pieces.  
While it too early to see the full impact Hechinger Report may have on education news and education policy, the potential couldn’t be greater.  By tapping into experienced education journalists, Hechinger offers a level of quality and knowledge that is unmatched (particularly in the education space).  By taking the time to investigate, analyze, and generally look at issues at greater length, they are filling a role that is unfilled by newspapers that are just looking for eight-inch stories on the latest school board meeting.  And by pushing out a significant amount of high-quality content, they are reminding all of us of the relevance of good education news coverage.
Personally, I think Colvin is really onto something here.  While Hechinger Report may never become an education AP (and it is not intended to become so), it does stand a real chance of becoming an education-focused ProPublica.  It’s not looking to replace existing coverage; it is focused on enhancing and supplementing current work.  It makes a publication’s education coverage better, providing richer analysis and exploration than a daily newspaper grind may allow.  And no pressure, I believe that means the Pulitzer for investigative journalism is due to Hechinger in 2013 or 2014 by ProPublica’s measure then.  
If we are serious about focusing more attention on education improvement, we must broaden the dialogue and expand the discussion on the key issues of the day.  And that happens by supporting efforts like Hechinger Report.  Go ahead, steal Hechinger’s content.  I’m sure Colvin won’t mind!
        

The Ed Policy/Social Networking Nexus

Eduflack technology

When it comes to the education sector, what is the future of social media and networking?  That was the question that dear ol’ Eduflack addressed at a presentation yesterday to the Knowledge Alliance.  But it is an issue that I hear a great deal about, and no one is quite sure what to do with.

Education seems to be one of the last sectors to “join the party” when it comes to what is new and cutting edge.  We were late comers to the Internet and websites.  We were slow to embrace blogs (though it is important to note how sites like Eduwonk were quite cutting edge, for both education and other sectors).  And we’ve been dangerously tardy on on social media opportunities, including Facebook and Twitter.
The latter may be due to the fact that we aren’t quite sure how to use these tools.  In a perfect world, social networking sites are designed to help education organizations and educators do a number of things.  We share information.  We receive information.  We start grouping ourselves with like-minded organizations.  We engage in discussions, ask questions, and, yes, network.  Social media tools are meant to be more than just glorified RSS feeds, where we push out the latest press release or research study.  They are mean to encourage dialogue and interaction.  No one way communication here, please.
But doing so requires us to give up some of the control.  It means opening ourselves up to negative comments (far more than one does by allowing comments on a blog).  It means letting others shape our discussions.  It means giving our competitors a closer look at what we are doing.  And it means holding ourselves up for public scrutiny, where we can be called out for what we post, what we don’t post, and everything in between.  
So instead of addressing the future of social media in education, isn’t the more appropriate question really how education can better adopt our current social networking platforms?  For instance:
* Facebook — At this point, we are all on FB.  But is this really the tool to promote our organizations?  Over the past year, Eduflack has noticed more and more of his friends cutting back on their FB access, trying to restrict it to family and friends, and cutting the professional components out.  Many individuals don’t want to be friends with their boss, and they certainly don’t want their employer to see those photos from last weekend’s bar crawl or last summer’s Cabo outing.  And as much as we want to be “fan” of the organization that cuts our paychecks, what is going up on that FB feed that we don’t already get from our website, intranet site, and company-wide emails.
Yet we see a lot of groups building those Facebook pages and working to boost their “fan” numbers into the hundreds or the thousands.  To those doing it, mazel tov.  But Eduflack urges you to do it for the right reasons.  Simply posting all of your press releases up there is not maximizing FB.  You need to use the fan page to engage and start conversations.  Don’t just push information out, solicit information.  One of the great examples of this on Facebook is Edutopia, which is regularly asking questions and soliciting opinions.  They are using FB to truly build a social networking community, and I believe they are seeing the results.
* Twitter — Ah, Twitter, one of @Eduflack’s favorite places.  I admit it, I love to play on Twitter.  I probably post 10-20 things a day on my @Eduflack feed.  But when I started Tweeting last year, I set a few ground rules.  I don’t Tweet personal information.  I try not to Tweet personal opinion.  I use my feed to share all of the education policy news articles, research studies, events, and general activities that I find interesting.  So while it goes through that personal filter, I use Twitter to serve as a personal clearinghouse for all things ed policy and ed reform.
But I also make sure I am regularly reTweeting items from others that I trust or generally adore.  I will engage in discussions or ask questions of others on Twitter.  I show appreciation for the #FF and other notes.  I may not be perfect at Twitter, but I am trying to use it for the networking tool it is intended to be.  And in a shameless plug, follow me @Eduflack.  And check out my “top-ed-feeds” list, including great Tweeters like @Drynwyn, @alexanderrusso, @tvanderark, @edequality, and all of the blog feeds coming from @educationweek.
That becomes the challenge for many organizations.  Do you just push out your own information?  Do you tweet about competitors’ work?  Can an organization state an opinion or engage in a conversation?  In working with the American Institutes for Research, we’ve been investing some time in building up a Twitter presence.  To do so, we’ve set forward with a basic goal — serve as a one-stop show for high-quality social and behavioral research.  And that will mean more than just AIR’s work.  It is in the infancy stage, but @AIR_Info is starting to head in the direction Twitter intended.
Twitter also offers some unique advocacy opportunities for an organization.  This week, the education technology community utilized Twitter to raise attention to the fact that ed tech programs in general, and EETT in particular, are not part of the current budget negotiations.  So yesterday, the ed tech community hosted a Tweet for #edtech day.  They urged everyone in their communities to Tweet on the importance of ed tech and the need to restore $500 million in funding for EETT.  At the end of the day, organizations like SETDA, CoSN, and ISTE (whom Eduflack has long had a relationship) secured thousands of Tweets with an identified hash tag (like #eett or #edtech).  If one factors in the non-hash tagged posts, the number of ed tech tweets yesterday probably doubled, demonstrating a strong, singular voice for a particular education policy issue.  Now that is the power of social networking.
* LinkedIn — We don’t often think about LinkedIn as a education organization networking tool, but it has value.  For larger organizations, you can see a significant number of employees and former employees who all list the organization as an employer.  That gives you a base for engagement.  But LinkedIn’s true value is the use of the discussion groups.  One can start a discussion group on a given topic, then start inviting participants.  You build a small community to focus on an issue.  Each day, you get a email in your inbox updating you on the latest contributions to the discussion thread.  For those of us who use LinkedIn passively (meaning we only visit when we get a request to link in), the daily discussion reminders can do wonders to help us engage.
Ultimately, though, there is no magic bullet when it comes to education and social networking.  it doesn’t cost a lot of money, but it does require the investment of time and the commitment of the organization.  It can be tough to quantify the ROI for a CEO.  But if used successfully, it can really help with message, engagement, and discussion.  And isn’t that the point? 

High Standards By What Measure?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment

Since the introduction of AYP measures more than eight years ago, we have heard many a tale of states accused of “cooking the books” in order to look strong under the latest school evaluation tools.  The most common tale is that of states that continually drop their state standards, hoping to demonstrate the sort of continuous student gains the federal law was seeking.  Instead of improving instruction, states simply lowered expectations.  Each year, more students on the fringes would hit proficient.  But what, exactly, did proficient mean?

Now that the U.S. Department of Education has taken up reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, issued a rallying cry for common core standards, and encouraged a strengthening of such standards through Race to the Top, the subject has taken on even greater importance.  And now Education Next has offered up some startling statistics startling statistics regarding where states — including those seen as the leading reformers — really stand when it comes to good, hard standards.
According to Paul Peterson and Carlos Xabel Lastra-Anadon, we see that only two states — Massachusetts and Missouri — are at the top of the class when it comes to the strength of their state standards.  Meanwhile, Tennessee is at the very bottom of the list, with Nebraska, Alabama, and Michigan nipping closely at the Volunteer State’s heels.
To get at the true “strength” of each state’s standards, the study compared state standards with NAEP standards.  So it should be no surprise that Massachusetts, historically the top-performing NAEP state, is at the top of the pack.  What is so disturbing, though, is how few states can truly match up with the NAEP standards.  In eighth grade, only seven states scores above a C for reading standards.  And only 13 managed to score above the mid-mark for math.
This very topic was also the subject of testimony testimony heard by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee last week.  Dr. Gary Phillips, VP and Chief Scientist at American institutes for Research and former head of the National Center for Education Statistics, went right into the lion’s den to tell the HELP Committee, including Tennessee’s Senator Lamar Alexander, that we have real problems when it comes to state standards, particularly in Tennessee.  It should be noted that Senator Alexander, the former U.S. Education Secretary, graciously accepted the fact that Tennessee has struggled, in the past, with establishing high standards.  But the Volunteer State is now committed to fixing the problem.  
In his remarks, Phillips pointed out:

The most significant thing wrong with NCLB is a lack of transparency. The severe consequences of failing to meet AYP had the unintended consequence of encouraging states to lower, rather than raise, their own standards. The law inadvertently encouraged the states to dumb down their performance standards to get high rates of proficiency. The fact that states dumb down their performance standards can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 in this document. The “percent proficient” in these tables represent what was reported by NCLB in Grades 4 and 8 in mathematics in 2007. In my remaining remarks I will use Grade 8 to illustrate my points. In Grade 8 we see that Tennessee is the highest achieving state in the nation while Massachusetts is one of the lowest. If parents were looking to raise a family in a state with an excellent track record of success based on NCLB data, they should move their family to Tennessee. However, there is something wrong with this picture. We know that NAEP reports exactly the opposite with Massachusetts the highest achieving state and Tennessee being one of the lowest achieving states. 

Phillips notes that we not only have that ever-present achievement gap looming over us, but if we look at NAEP and international benchmarks like TIMSS and PISA, we have an even more ominous expectation gap hovering.  In his analysis, Phillips noted that there is almost two standard deviations of difference between Massachusetts and Tennessee.  So what does that mean for the average layman, the average parent, or the average policymaker?  It is pretty simple, and pretty scary.  if we look at what the average eighth grader in Tennessee is expected to know and be able to do, at least with regard to reading and math, that is what the average sixth grader in Massachusetts is doing.  Yes, two standard deviations means almost the equivalent of two grade levels.
So why is that so important?  To use a bad phrase, you do the math.  If there are essentially two grade levels of difference between standards in one state versus the other, what happens when the clock runs out?  Those things to be learned and measured in 11th and 12th grade are never gained.  States graduate kids who are at a disadvantage for college, in theory knowing less and being able to do less than fellow students from other states.  And at a time when we are saying a college education is the name of the game, having students from a majority of states starting college behind — at least when it comes to proficiency in math and reading — is hardly the starting point we want for that non-negotiable of postsecondary education.
Obviously, this is why the common core standards are so important.  If every state is measured by the same yardstick, it becomes much harder to cook those books.  Yes, we will still have states looking to exempt certain student populations (like ELLs and special education) from the final calculations.  But hopefully that bar is the same for every student to clear.  It means a proficient student in Massachusetts is the same as a proficient student in Alabama is the same as a proficient student in Arizona.  That high school diploma has common meaning.  And those entering college are, hopefully, starting with the same core toolbox of skills and knowledge.
As the rewrite of ESEA begins, this is a issue to which Congress and the Administration have to give very clear, strong, and specific attention.  How do we strengthen standards across the board?  How do we ensure continued accountability for those standards, as we have under AYP?  And most importantly, how do we ensure that students are both learning and able to utilize the very skills we expect everyone to have at fourth grade, eighth grade, or upon high school graduation?
Lots of questions, yes.  But from reading Education Next, hearing Gary Phillips, and following the many others that are now keying in on this issue of meaningful standards, it is a topic we are now taking seriously.
  
(Full disclosure, Eduflack works with the good folks over at AIR.)

Eduflack, School Board Member

Eduflack Parents

First off, I’d like to apologize for the dearth of Eduflack postings these past few weeks.  As some of you may know, back in the winter, dear ol’ Eduflack decided to run for school board.  With two kiddos that will soon be entering the public schools, I saw it as an opportunity to ensure that my kids (as well as others in the city) have the best public education possible.  It was a chance to put my money where my mouth is, to take all of that backbench education policy agitation found on Eduflack and actually put it to use in the local school system.  And with local elections yesterday, time has been tight in recent weeks.

When I first started this journey, I pledged to work toward four goals:
* Guarantee families have access to a high-quality, globally competitive public K-12 education
* Equip all students with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in both postsecondary education and careers
* Provide all children with high-quality teachers equipped with the education, knowledge, and support necessary to ensure the highest levels of student performance
* Ensure that, in these difficult budget times, our education dollars are being spent on those priorities that are proven effective in boosting student learning and achievement
After spending the past three months on the campaign trail, I am amazed by how little I knew getting in, and how generous stakeholders are with their time and their commitment.  I learned so much from teachers and administrators, paraprofessionals and business partners, parents and community leaders.  I heard about hopes and worries going door to door, talking to folks across the city.  And it wasn’t just about one’s self interests, it was about a community looking to come together to improve their schools and improve their city.
Yesterday, May 4, was election day in my little city.  My neighbors elected four members to the City Council and four members to the School Board.  Eduflack is honored and humbled that his fellow residents placed their trust in me, and elected me to the School Board.  And for this novice politician, I can also feel the enormity of the responsibility on my shoulders, having received the second highest vote total of anyone running for public office in my municipality last evening.  (It was also a tremendous learning experience for my four-year-old son, who quickly understood that daddy has “won” but didn’t understand why some of dad’s friends, who he got to know on the campaign trail, did not.)
I officially take office in July.  The challenges will be “interesting.”  We need to build a new high school.  We have a changing student population, where nearly 10 percent of our students are ESOL.  And we have an incoming kindergarten cohort that may be larger than anyone intended.  All of these present a tremendous opportunity for me to learn, both as an education professional and as a parent/citizen.
I have no intention to blog on these pages about my experiences as a school board member.  It isn’t fair to my fellow board members, my superintendent, the teachers in the schools, or anyone else in the school system to see our issues or decisions hashed out on this blog.  That also isn’t the intent of Eduflack.  But I want all to be mindful of the new lens through which many of the issues I analyze, criticize, and antagonize may be viewed.  Come the summer, I am now a local school board member.  While I will continue to write about the national education policy debates, I can’t help but realize my new focus will be on how reforms, changes, and policies will now affect those of us at the LEA and the school level.  Personally, I think that is just going to improve my worldview.  But stay tuned …

Profits, Pell Grants, and College Degrees

Eduflack accountability, higher ed

Do for-profit businesses have a legitimate role in ensuring more Americans secure that college degree that is quickly becoming a non-negotiable in today’s economy?  With commercials for the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University on what seems like a constant loop on television, it is a question few ask.  We seem to assume, in today’s day and age, that for-profit institutions of higher education are a permanent part of the landscape, quickly becoming no different than distinguishing between public and private colleges.

Discussions of academic quality, growth, and such was left to the regional accreditation bodies.  Yes, we’ve targeted the diploma mills who exchanged checks for diplomas.  But if a for-profit could convince a team higher ed officials (most from traditional NFPs) that they had a legitimate plan, they were in business.  Some focused on a particular state or geographic region.  Others, like Phoenix, went national.  And some have focused exclusively on online education (though, interestingly, it can be more difficult to get accreditation from the online authorizing body than from a regional accreditor).

Yesterday, though, Bob Shireman — U.S. deputy undersecretary for education — changed the game.  As reported here by Inside Higher Education, Shireman took issue with growing enrollments at for-profits, increased profit margins at such institutions, and a flawed regulatory process that doesn’t necessarily protect the rights and needs of the student.  He even went so far as to suggest that higher education could be headed the way of Wall Street, with some gaming the system.

Shireman’s comments have been a long time coming.  A champion of affordable education for low-income students and a strident opponent of unnecessary college loan debt, Shireman has long been a leading advocate for the consumer — the adults or young adults who are seeking to better their lives with postsecondary degrees.  And he knows better than most that the approval systems for college approval — at the federal, regional, and state level — are seldom focused on academic quality or return on investment.  Instead, they are often the playground of lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants.  (And that is true for for-profit and not-for-profit institutions alike.)

Over the past year, Shireman and company fought hard to increase funding for Pell grants and make college generally more affordable for all.  Those outside of the system expect that these additional dollars are likely going to State U and local community colleges.  But Shireman pointed out a funny thing has happened between intent and execution.  Corinthian Colleges’ revenue from Pell grants has increased 38 percent in the first three quarters of the fiscal year.  DeVry has seen their share jump 42 percent.  Similar gains have been posted by ITT, Strayer, and others.

His remarks touched on the three legs of the higher ed stool — the feds, the states, and the regional accreditors — to work together to ensure quality and efficiency.  But after spending some time in the for-profit higher ed field years ago, Eduflack would like to add one more box to check on the ol’ forms.  That box is ROI.

With Pell grant dollars increasing even in difficult budget times, we should all be committed to ensuring that these precious dollars are actually yielding return on investment.  If the objective is to break down financial barriers and get more kids into college, then the ultimate goal should be to ensure that those kids are actually leaving school with a degree in hand.  The experience of higher ed is important, but leaving school halfway through is a lost opportunity for both the student and the Pell grant system. 

We shouldn’t have an issue with Corinthian and DeVry and the rest if they are enrolling more students and more students are thus earning an accredited college degree.  We should, though, take major issue with colleges and universities who are reaping huge financial benefits from the system, but aren’t actually educating the customers they are serving.  And at the end of the day, that education is measured by degree completion.

This is not just an issue for for-profits, it should be true for any institution operating in the postsecondary space.  Doesn’t matter if you are a NFP research university, state college, community college, private liberal arts school, or a career college, a degree is a degree.  Students enroll in college to earn a degree.  They earn a degree to secure a job.  When they secure a job, they can then pay off those student loans and generally contribute to the economy and society.  And so is the circle of college life, as those loans are repaid and the money given to the next generation of students.

Last month the American Enterprise Institute released a new report showing that just over half of Hispanic students earn a bachelor’s degree six years after enrollment.  That means nearly half of all Hispanic students who go on to college spend their money, family funds, scholarships, grants, and loans on an education that never offers the ultimate ROI.  They may finish up with some great stories, good friends, and wealth of experiences, but what does it mean without the degree?

If Shireman and company really want to change the way higher education does business and ensure that the interests of the customer — the student — are truly addressed, they would find a way for at least one of the stool’s three legs to factor in graduation rates as part of their evaluation and approval process.  Those schools that take Pell grants should make sure that Pell students are graduating with degrees.  If they aren’t, why not?  And if they aren’t, should we really allow them to increase their profit from these federal grants, if they are failing to live up to the expectation that such grants (and loans) are intended to help students earn college degrees?
 

RttT Part Two: This Time, We’re Serious

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, RTT

Now that the dust is settling on the recent Race to the Top Phase One announcement (go Tennessee and Delaware!), the remaining states in the union are starting to get serious about their Phase Two apps.  In the last day or so, we’ve now seen that Kansas has decided to opt out  of the Phase Two process, while Phase One finalist Colorado is making additional legislative changes  to look more appealing to judges. 

When the two winners were announced last month, Eduflack (and others) wondered how much help the two winning applications could provide to those seeking Phase Two dollars.  With unique demographics, political situations, and hungers for school reform, there are few states that could just do a “search and replace” with apps from either the First State or the Volunteer State and expect to win the day.

While a great deal has been written about the Phase One apps, particularly, the two winners, the folks over at The New Teacher Project (a org that is in both of the winning apps, I believe) has provided a solid analysis of what the applications can really tell us.  The full analysis can be found here .

Among the most interesting of TNTP’s findings are its seven lessons learned:
* Reform must reach statewide and beyond the four-year grant period (so we must have a continuity plan after the federal dollars dry up)
* Implementation must be certain (no contingencies allowed; it is all or nothing)
* Plans must be clear (this was particularly clear in the Minnesota critique)
* Local advantages are key (the cookie-cutter reform effect doesn’t work)
* Points can be won and lost in unexpected places (with insufficient progress on data systems and lack of a STEM plan singled out)
* On Teachers and Leaders, bold policies are rewarded (but it doesn’t carry the day, as TNTP notes with both Louisiana’s and Rhode Island’s particularly strong and bold teacher plans)
* Borrow concepts, do not cut and paste (with Eduflack still waiting to see if there were perceived Phase One content similarities between applications prepared by the same consulting companies) 

The TNTP analysis also offered a few cautions for judges and the U.S. Department of Education when it comes to Phase Two reviews.  Based on its analysis of the Phase One finalists, TNTP voices real concern over four issues: 1) lack of differentiation of scoring; 2) inflated scores; 3) deviation from scoring guidance; and 4) excessive influence of outliers.

When EdSec Arne Duncan announced the Phase One winners, he made clear that RttT was going to be an exclusive club for a select number of states.  That’s why states like Kansas have already opted out of the second running, and while other states are likely considering the same.  And it has to have many states, particularly those who didn’t make the finalist cut first time around, wondering if it is worth the time and effort to comprehensively overhaul their plans for this go-around.

Whether one was a finalist in Round One or not, each and every state preparing a Phase Two app needs to ask itself a few key questions.  Are we committed to real, substantive, and long-term change and improvement?  Are we prepared to pay for such improvement, both now and in the out years?  Do we have the relationships, partnerships, and promises to truly change the tires on a racecar going 195 miles an hour?  Do we have the legislative support for what will likely require more changes?  Do we have the intestinal fortitude to follow through on our plans?  Are we willing to be truly bold?  Are we willing to stand behind what is right, even if it may be unpopular?  Are we able to continue these plans, even if we have a change in governor, state legislature leadership, or with the state board?  Are we able to demonstrate our plan has been effective, and to measure that effectiveness based on student test scores?  Are we truly ready to lead, without the cover of other states doing the exact same things?

If a state can answer yes to all of the above, without hesitating, it is likely on the right track.  If not …
 

Building a Better Performance Assessment

Eduflack accountability, assessment, RTT

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education officially announced that $350 million designated under the Race to the Top program would be made available to several consortia to develop student assessments aligned with the common core standards states are expected to adopt later this year.  The big question many of those watching the assessment discussions are now asking is how different will these next generation assessments be compared to the state tests that have governed the NCLB/AYP era.

Even before taking office, President Obama often expressed frustration and dismay with “bubble tests.”  A little over a year ago, as part of his education transformation agenda launch, the President stated: “I am calling on our nation’s governors and state education chiefs to develop standards and assessments that don’t simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity.”

So now that that $350 million is about to hit the streets, what exactly does moving beyond the bubbles on the test look like?  That was one of the questions that the National Academy of Education and the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) asked at a policy forum yesterday titled, “What Do We Know About High Quality Performance Assessment?”

The forum spotlighted a series of new research papers released by SCOPE as part of a Ford Foundation-funded effort to focus on the performance assessment issue.  The full documents can be found here .
 
The takeaways from the SCOPE papers focused on three key issues researchers recommended that next-gen performance assessments needs to address:
* Careful task design based on a clear understanding of the specific knowledge and skills to be assessed and how they develop cognitively
* Reliable scoring systems based on standardization of tasks and well-designed scoring rubrics
* Methods for ensuring fairness based on the use of universal design principles

While NAEd and SCOPE were all about the research, perhaps the most provocative part of the forum was the policy discussion.  Jack Jennings, the long-time President and CEO of the Center on Education Policy, suggested that accountability efforts should be put on hold for the next three or five years until we have a better understanding of what we know and what we need (particularly coming out of the AYP era).  Jennings suggested piloting a range of assessment strategies (the inspectorates advocated by the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education, next gen AYP tests, portfolios, performance assessments, etc.), letting states try one, and then evaluating where we are after a few years.

Chris Cross, the President of Cross & Joftus and former Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, quickly noted that the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to testing and assessment, and the only choice is to continue moving forward.  And Cross is right, taking a step back or shuffling sideways provides no value at this stage of the school improvement game.  The game is all about improving our testing and assessment efforts, not providing a cooling off period for folks to ease up on accountability.

So where does this leave us?  First, we need to recognize that all of these issues found in ESEA, RttT, and other federal programs are not islands unto themselves.  If we are serious about building a better performance assessment system, that means finding stronger ways to integrate curriculum, teacher development and supports, standards, and tests.  

Second, we need to pay more attention to how such assessments are scored.  There is tremendous work currently being done with regard to innovative, machine-scored items on fixed and adaptive forms.  Such work needs to be central to the assessment consortia and their plans for our coming common core world.  At the same time, we need to spend greater effort getting actual classroom teachers in on the scoring, using it as professional development tool.

Perhaps most importantly, though, we need to recognize that we don’t have much time to wait here.  The flaw in Jennings’ model is that waiting three or five years means losing an entire generation of students to gaps, cracks, and failures.  Instead, we should be accelerating our efforts to get better tests, aligned with common standards, into our states, districts, and schools as quickly as possible.  Build off of what is working and those pockets of promising practice.  Move from bubble sheets to computers (complete with open-answer questions).  Figure out how we go from just knowing the right answers to knowing what to do with the right answers after test day is done.  Act now, with a commitment to continuous improvement.

(Full disclosure, Eduflack has helped Stanford University School of Education with the launch of SCOPE.)

Come Together …

Eduflack AFT, NEA, teachers

A lot of paper tends to pass over Eduflack’s desk in a given week, and these past few days has been no exception.  One thing that caught my eye was from the Coalition for Community Schools, promoting its 2010 National Forum up in Philadelphia this week.  Full information can be found here, at the Coalition’s site.  (And the good news is that the video is still accessible, particularly if you can get beyond the hair removal commercials at the beginning.)

The issue of community schools, including the integration of issues like health, safety, and general public welfare, is always an interesting topic.  It is also one that gets lost in the current era of test scores and accountability.  But the holistic approach to education is not what caught my attention, no.  Eduflack was a little taken aback to see that NEA President Dennis Van Roekel and AFT President Randi Weingarten joined together to speak in one voice on the importance of community schools and the conditions needs for effective teaching and learning.
On most issues, we tend to see NEA and AFT pitted against each other.  NEA, the larger, is the voice of the status quo.  AFT, thanks to the Al Shanker reputation, is the rebel or the boat rocker.  AFT is more willing to compromise with the “opposition.”  NEA stands firm on its ground, no matter the opposition.  AFT is seen as the representatives of urban teachers, NEA of the suburban.  Fair or no, we are regularly comparing the two teachers’ unions, looking for differences, splits, disagreements, and other perceived chasms in the land of teachers.
But here they really did seem to speak with a united voice, so much so that one can remember the good ole days when Bob Chase and Sandy Feldman were trying to merge the two organizations into one superpower.  One supposes that threats of eliminating teacher tenure, throwing aside past collective bargaining agreements, and reconstituting views of teacher effectiveness can really help sharpen an understanding of who one’s friends are.  
From Weingarten: “Especially in these tough economic times, schools must be places where children can be nurtured and educated.  We know that teachers can’t do it all, but through partnerships with other groups and agencies, community schools can address out-of-school factors like poverty and stability at home that research shows affect two-thirds of student outcomes.”
And from Van Roekel: “As educators, we know that the development of the whole child extends beyond the walls of the classroom.  We must harness the coordinated power of social services, parental engagement, service learning opportunities for students, extended learning and afterschool programs to ensure our children’s successes.”
Regardless, it is worth watching the Weingarten/Van Roekel session, if for no other reason than to see the kumbaya.  They both remind you of Helen Lovejoy, the famed voice of reason on the Simpsons … “won’t someone please think about the children!”  
So congrats to the Coalition for Community Schools for bringing the two together with a shared voice (and if I am wrong about how often the two join together in chorus, please let me know).  Now if only we can find similar common ground on teacher incentives measures or ESEA reauthorization …