Investing in Proven Innovation

Eduflack i3, IES, RTT

The hits keep coming from the good folks down on Maryland Avenue.  Today, the U.S. Department of Education officially released its Investing in Innovation, or i3, grant RFP.  For all of those districts looking to get a piece of nearly $650 million in i3 dollars, the clock starts … NOW.  Full details on the grant process can be found here.  

Many will recall that ED circulated a draft i3 RFP for public comment back in the fall.  Today’s announcement very closely mirrors that which we say months ago.  We are still looking at three categories of grants — development, validation, and scale-up.  Development grants still come in with a max of $5 million per; validation with a max of $30 million per, and scale up with a max of $50 million per.
School district applicants still need to provide a 20 percent matching contribution from private sources (including those college/university partners).  Bonus points remain for early childhood focus, college access and success focus, ELL focus, and rural schools focus (with rural schools worth two extra points and the others worth just one).
Most importantly, the evidence requirements remain the same as they have always been.  What does this mean?  In this case, innovation not only means the introduction of something new or different; it also means that you have to prove that that new or different approach is proven effective.  The feds are seeking very real research to drive this innovation, even in the development grants.
Before the end of the month, our friends with the federal government will hold three information sessions for prospective applicants — in Baltimore, Denver, and Atlanta.  Those districts looking to apply for i3 should file a notice of intent within 20 days of the RFP being posted on the Federal Register (still hasn’t gone up, as of 11 a.m. today) and applications are due within 60 days of Federal Register posting.  ED is now saying they will award i3 grants in two phases.
Today’s official grant notice also offers some guidance on how many grants can be awarded.  But in the words immortalized by Barbie (the Doll) back in the late 1990s, “math is hard!”  For months now, Eduflack has been telling interested LEAs that we are likely only looking at 30 total winners.  With a $650 million pool (now down to $643 million), you are looking at eight or nine winners in each of the three categories, assuming districts get close to the max.  So $400 million for scale up (eight grants), $200 million for validation (10 grants), and $40-50 million or so for development grants (10 grants).  Then the pot has run dry.
But ED seems to have a different view of things.  Average grant awards are estimated at $3 million for development, $17.5 million for validation, and $30 million for scale up.  (This despite the realization that virtually every state that applied for Race to the Top funds exceeded the budget range that was assigned to their state).  Based on those ranges, ED estimates up to five scale up winners, and up to 100 winners each in both development and validation.  Obviously, the budget doesn’t allow anything close to that.  
Five scale up winners at $30 million knocks the total pool down to less than $500 million remaining.  A hundred validation grants at $17.5 million per would put us at $1.75 billion, more than three times the remaining pool.  And those up to 100 development grants at $3 million per adds another $300 million.  So if we top out on the estimates (realizing they are all generous ranges) ED is saying i3 could be up to nearly $2.2 billion.  I’m all for stretching the dollar, but that seems to be a little more than the $643 million currently available.
Why is this so important?  LEAs need to realize that competition for these grants is going to be significantly difficult and cutthroat.  With RttT, we had a sense for how many states would and can win.  Virtually every state applies, and based on the funding ranges, we can expect close to 20 states to win.  If we don’t spend the full RttT pool, then we will have fewer winners.
But with i3, we have the possibility of thousands of school districts and consortia applying for a piece of this money.   Some districts have been hard at work on their projects for years, and a scale up grant seems like a slam dunk (Eduflack has long said Chicago Public Schools and its Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, would be a slam dunk for i3).  Other districts have been focusing on their applications for months, even before the draft regulations came out.  Still others have been looking to partner with other districts, local universities, or nationally recognized non-profits, to strengthen their applications.  And then you have some who think that “innovation” in the title means it is supposed to fund technology programs.  Regardless, all want a piece of this.
So instead of 25 or 40 percent of states winning a RttT grant, we are looking at the possibility that far fewer than 5 percent of i3 applicants will get a taste of that federal nectar.  That means applications must be well written, on point, and based on research like few grant proposals have ever been based before (and unlike RttT, i3 applications can’t be more than 35-50 pages, depending on type).  Competition is going to be fierce.  The strength of both the research and the impact will be king.
And what does Eduflack expect to see?  First, many districts will be dusting off ye olde research protocols to ensure their proposed models match that offered by IES these past five or so years.  Second, rural schools are going to fair pretty well here, both because of the extra points and because of the realization that RttT doesn’t provide rurals the attention they may need.  And at the end of the day, we still should expect no more than 35 total winners.  Five scale up winners each coming in close the $50 million cap, 10 or so validation winners coming closer to the $30 million cap than the $17.5 million ED estimate, and another 10-12 development winners, most of which need more than the $3 million in expected seed money.
Good research and documentation is hard, and it doesn’t come cheap.  For months, we’ve been hearing that RttT is all about quality, not quantity.  The same needs to be true for i3.  The focus should be on providing a select group of school districts with the money to truly ramp up and further test a specific intervention that is boosting student performance and closing the achievement gap.  If we want these funds to have a real, true, and lasting impact, we need to spend wisely on the lowest-hanging fruit, investing in those ideas that have the greatest possible return on investment and using those results to inspire other districts to follow suit. 
    

Happy Anniversary, Me!

Eduflack Uncategorized

We pause from our regular missives on education agitation to take a moment to celebrate Eduflack’s anniversary.  It is hard for me to believe that we launched this blog three years ago.  At the time, I anticipated readership in the zero mark (not even my mother or my wife were regular readers in the early days).  I started Eduflack because I found the writing cathartic.  As originally envisioned, this blog was going to focus on how well we are communicating on key education issues.  As these pages have grown, we’ve also spent a lot of time talking about the policy and the research itself, trying to mix things up, pick fights, and spur some different thinking on the ideas on which we are so focused these days.

In that time, we’ve written close to 1,000 entries.  And, unfortunately for Eduflack readers, my posts are far longer than your average bear blog posts.  I’ll admit, I can be a little verbose, but I continue to try to provide content that is relevant to readers.  I’ve learned over the years that I really do have readers.  Sure, the blog statistics show me who is visiting and how that is increasing, but I am particularly surprised when I hear from real people that they read this site.  I know how much content is out there on the Web, so I take it very seriously when people say they read this stuff.  It puts the pressure on to continue to write, to continue to be relevant, and to continue to be of some sort of value.  You’ve definitely raised the stakes for me, and push me to do better.
That’s one of the reasons why we added the @Eduflack Twitter feed.  During a good week, I can turn out four or five essays on the education news of the day.  But there is much, much more that I wish I could write about.  So each day, I offer up 10-15 Tweets relaying those articles and studies that are catching my eye.  And the good think about the @Eduflack Twitter feed is it is relatively opinion free.  Just lots and lots of links to the issues and topics of importance to me and, hopefully, Eduflack readers.
As I reflect on the last three years, I have to both start and end with huge thanks to those readers and supporters out there.  Everyone who reads it.  Everyone who cites Eduflack or links back to it.  Those who comment on posts.  Those who send me story ideas or take issue with the story ideas I select.  This blog has value because of the ongoing input I receive.  Without such input I really am truly just writing for myself, and that does no one any good at this point.
But there are also a few important notes I would like to point out, based on some recent feedback, items that I believe are worth highlighting:
* Eduflack is not a journalist, and I sure hope I don’t try to portray myself as one.  I have a great deal of respect for journalists and for the ethics that govern their profession.  Real journalists are out there gathering the full story, interviewing parties on both side, and providing a balanced approach to a topic.  That isn’t my job.  At best, I am a commentator.  If you are looking for the news, there a number of sites I can and have directed people to for the best in education information.  I will link to many of those stories in my posts.  But Eduflack is not a journalist, despite the number of media releases that end up in my inbox each day.  I write opinion.  The point of this blog is to provide my critique and my analysis of the education issues of the day.
* That also means that I have a day job.  For the past dozen years, ever since I left Capitol Hill, I have spent most of my time as a consultant, working with a great number of organizations and individuals.  As a general rule, I have always tried NOT to write about my clients.  When I have, I have disclosed those relationships.  But obviously, what I write about is what I am focused on during the day.  The focus on RF came out of all the years I spent shepherding the National Reading Panel.  A recent focus on high school graduation rates and the achievement gap sprung from my work with the National Governors Association and its Honor States initiative.  So while I have always tried to disclose when I have a direct business interest in a post, it is safe to say I have an intellectual interest in everything I write.
* I am an amateur when it comes to research.  Over the past 10-plus years, I have been fortunate to work with a great number of education researchers, particularly those who fall into the non-squishy variety.  I have learned a great deal from them, and, from time to time, feel these wise individuals have provided me an informal graduate education in such research issues.  But whether it be my analysis or virtually anyone else’s analysis of the data, it is always best to trust, but verify.
* I don’t shy away from criticism.  I’m always surprised when folks want to engage in a lengthy debate on a topic with me, but take such debates and critiques offline and private.  I enjoy the public debate.  And I am more than willing to open up these pages to others who may want to take issue with a particular post or may have a different perspective.  If you want to take dear ole Eduflack on, just drop me a line and we can make it happen.
I look forward to another interesting and thought provoking Eduflack year.  We have RttT, common core standards, and i3 coming down the pike.  ESEA reauthorization is waiting.  And, perhaps more importantly, we are starting to move into a closer look at how these new federal actions are affecting our states and localities (particularly on the implementation side).  Lots to write about, lots to commentate on, lots to stir up the pot with.
Thanks, all, for making the past three years so much fun!  Here’s to another year (and hopefully more) of offering an intersection for education policy, research, and communications.
 

Taking the Pole Position on Race

Eduflack Gates Foundation, RTT

Those Phase One Race to the Top finalists have now been announced.  As we all know by now, the 16 jurisdictions that will now vie for the honor of being the first three or four states to win a RttT grant include: Colorado, Delaware, Washington DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

For Eduflack, the only real surprise here is Washington, DC (which is a pleasant surprise).  The remaining 15 are all states that have been on most lists for some time.  While a few may be surprised by Illinois, those doubters should read the proposal.  It was one of the strongest in the pool.  And while some may question South Carolina, the state has been touting it has the best application in the pool.  So no major surprised there.

Now let’s take a look at some of the interesting facts.  Back in the summer, the Gates Foundation provided $250,000 grants to 15 states to help with the development of their Race grants.  Fourteen of those states submitted for Phase One (Texas was the holdout), and 10 of those 14 made the cut — Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  And of the remaining six finalists, four of them received later assistance from Gates, after NGA and CCSSO urgings.  Only Delaware and South Carolina did the heavy lifting themselves.

The four Gates-funded states who didn’t make the cut?  Arkansas, Arizona, Minnesota, and New Mexico.  (Along with the Republic of Texas, of course.)

Only one of the 16 states — Colorado — is west of Mississippi.  That seems a bit surprising, but the scoring rubric didn’t take geography into account.  The South is particularly well represented, which some could see as a sign of the region’s willingness to embrace education reforms and others may see as the value of right to work states and weaker teachers’ unions/organizations.

And for you history buffs, eight of the original 13 colonies made the cut!  Condolences to New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia.

According to the US Department of Education, each of these states scored at least 80 percent — or 400 points — on the reviewer scores.  States will be coming to DC in a week and a half (without their consultants and outside proposal preparers) to orally defend their proposals.  And states will either gain or lose points based on the interview and swimsuit competitions.

If academic achievement is the name of the game, it is a surprising mix of states.  Looking at eighth grade NAEP reading performance (one of the best measures of actual student academic success), of the 16 finalists, only Massachusetts is in the Top 10 for eighth grade NAEP reading scores.  And only four of the states — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado — rank in the top 20.  Five of the finalists (Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, and DC) are in the bottom quartile. 

While Eduflack has read his share of RttT applications, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the nuance and the details (though I will continue to pretend to be to amaze people at forums and cocktail parties).  The finalists appear to be a strong mix of states with a good track record, states with a strong plan for the future, states that have made major legislative changes to qualify for RttT, and some states that really need the dollars.  But don’t take my word for it.  Check out what others are saying.

The US Department of Education’s formal announcement and supporting materials can be found here.  Politics K-12 has great analysis here, while Eduwonk weighs in here, Andy Smarick here, with Tom Vander Ark here.  Who else wants on the carousel of RttT fun?
     

Democratic Learning, With a Little D

Eduflack national standards, NCLB

As the battle lines continue to be drawn with regard to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), some continue to remind us that the discussion is more complex than it seems.  K-12 isn’t just about student achievement on math and reading exams, they contend, and true education improvement is about more than just accountability.

One such voice is Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy.  Reflecting on his past experiences as both a classroom educator and the founding director of the Five Freedoms Project, Chaltain recently released a new book offering a bit of a different framework for classroom instruction.  American Schools: The Art of Creating a Democratic Learning Community serves as that call to arms.

Often, we see these sorts of books chock full of ideas, but with little practice or real life to back it up.  In American Schools, Chaltain offers up both the theory behind his reccs and specific practice where those ideas have already taken hold.  The theory is based on five basics organizational points — reflect, connect, create, equip, and let come.  He then offers some real classroom experiences in California, South Carolina, and New Hampshire where those common theoretical words are put to practice.

Over the weekend, The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss looked at American Schools vis-a-vis survey data on the Pledge of Allegiance and how well we are preparing our students to be productive citizens.  Such a discussion line becomes particularly interesting when we reflect on some of the proposed education budget “consolidations” being proposed this year, including specific programs focusing on civics and U.S. history. 

At a time when closing the achievement gap and boosting student achievement across the board is the name of the game, is there room in the debate for a more holistic look at K-12 education and an emphasis on the qualitative measures of classroom education?  Time will tell.  As budgets continued to get stretched and we continue to demand more and more of our classroom educators and our school leaders, it becomes harder and harder to add teaching democracy skills to the list of performance measures we expect to see coming out of our public schools.  But as we begin focusing on what it means to be “college and career ready,” perhaps it is a line of discussion we should be having as we talk about the knowledge and skills all students should possess to contribute to their community.

Regardless, some of the case studies, rubrics, and examples that Chaltain offers up in American Schools are worth a read (and may be worth showing to folks like U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander and Robert Byrd to remind then of the role civics and history can play in ESEA reauthorization). 

And for those in Washington, DC looking to engage Chaltain on the concept, he’ll be over at Busboys and Poets at 14th and V Streets NW in the District tonight at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the democratic learning premise.  Eduflack is sure Sam would be up for a good ole debate on the topic.

Mark Your Ed Reform Calendars

Eduflack national standards, NCLB, RTT

To paraphrase from edu-son’s favorite band, Black Eyed Peas, this week’s gonna be a good week … at least for those in the education reform community.  We have core standards, and RttT, and ESEA, oh my!

According to Education Daily, National Governors Association officials are now saying that the much-anticipated draft K-12 common core standards (reading and math) will be released next week.  Assuming protocols hold, we’ll all then have 30 days to respond, react, and critique under the public comment period.  It seems NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers is still working toward finalization of the K-12 and college/career ready standards by June, so that states can adopt them by July (as called for under Race to the Top).

And speaking of the great Race, EdWeek’s Michele McNeil is reporting at the Politics K-12 blog that Phase One RttT finalists will be announced Thursday, March 4 (that’s tomorrow, folks) at 11:30 a.m.  The list of nominees will be announced online by ED’s communications office.  Those finalists will then be coming to DC to put on a nice little Ides of March show for the judges, with initial awards slated to come before we’ve played a full month of baseball.

Of course, this AM EdSec Arne Duncan is slated to testify before U.S. Rep. George Miller’s House Education and the Workforce Committee.  The session will focus on the President’s budget and ESEA, with some believing today’s hearing may not be the love-fest that the EdSec has enjoyed on the Hill to date.  The House Ed Committee is always great about getting testimony and webcast of the hearing up quick, so if you aren’t in DC, be sure to check it out later here. 

For those keeping score, it looks like U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin and the Senate HELP Committee are starting to get in the mix on ESEA reauthorization as well.  Harkin has slated the Senate’s first hearing on reauthorization for next Tuesday, March 9, at 2 p.m.  No word on who will testify or the specific topics yet.  Regardless, it sounds like we are going to be getting a lot of ed reform talk to start churning through again!

Race Prognostications

Eduflack RTT

Even those who pay modest attention to national education reform issues realize that, this week, the U.S. Department of Education is slated to reveal it list of finalists for Phase One Race to the Top recipients.  Once the double-secret, blue ribbon, expert RttT review panel names the states on its list, each jurisdiction will be scheduling flights to the nation’s capital to defend their Race “dissertations” and make clear to judges and ED officials why they are best positioned to earn the title of Race to the Top state.

In recent days, we’ve had some top-notch analyses of which states may make the final cut.  Tom Carroll has a terrific analysis over here at City Journal, where he awards the top three slots to Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee (naming them very competitive).  He then has four states — Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, and Michigan — as competitive.  Give or take another mid-sized or two small states, that would serve as Carroll’s handicapping of how the $4 billion in initial RttT moneys will be spent.

Over at EdWeek’s Politics K-12, Michele McNeil and Lesli Maxwell have teamed up here to provide a March Madness-style bracket of the RttT competition.  They winnow it down to five winners — Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.  Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, and Rhode Island just miss McNeil and Maxwell’s bracketology victory. 

Most seem to agree that Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee are locks for RttT, most likely in Phase One this spring but in Phase Two for sure.  But we can’t just give RttT grants to states in the Southeast (and these frontrunners could make life difficult for states like Georgia and North Carolina).  So how does the rest of the field play out?

Eduflack was pleasantly surprised to see Politics K-12 give Illinois the nod.  Personally, I thought the Land of Lincoln wrote an incredibly impressive proposal, more thoughtful than most expected.  While they could get caught up in the politics of the grant (it wasn’t so long ago that Florida was denied an initial Reading First grant because we couldn’t possibly give the first RF check to the President’s brother), one would like to believe that 100 percent of the RttT decisionmaking is being made on merit and strength of plan, not on such political considerations.

And as I’ve raised with Carroll, I agree that Michigan has put forward a strong plan for what it will do in the future should it win a grant.  But we can’t forget that 52 percent of a RttT proposal score is supposed to be based on past performance.  So states like Michigan (along with Delaware and Rhode Island to lesser degrees) may get dinged on their success to date scores. 

On the flip side, it seems that more than a handful of those who should be in the know believe that Colorado’s proposal wasn’t as strong as the rhetoric surrounding it.  Personally, I thought it was a strong proposal, but doesn’t knock any socks off.

If Eduflack were headed out to Vegas this week to put my money on the RttT field, my “can’t miss, take this to the bank” locks, as of March 1, would be Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Depending on the states that make it to the swimsuit competitions in DC, I could see Pennsylvania taking Ohio’s place.  Colorado is a likely Phase Two.  I also expect another Tier One state (either California or New York) taking home the prize.  Then I could see Delaware, Michigan, or Rhode Island (with my money on Deborah Gist and RI getting the nod if they can overcome the union implications of firing an entire high school) winning for the best of intentions.

Barring any real surprises in the interview stage, I’m going with California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Rhode Island.  How does that fare against the $4 billion pool?  Cali and Florida will account for $1.4 billion.  Ohio picks up $400 million.  Indiana and Tennessee get $200 million apiece.  Colorado and Louisiana split $300 million.  Rhode Island gets $50 million.  That’s $2.55 billion on the first eight states.

For months now, I’ve been saying that there are likely only six to eight states that will cut the muster and earn RttT designation.  But we aren’t going to leave $1.45 billion on the table, particularly when the U.S. Department of Education is asking for Phase Three RttT dollars in the FY2011 federal budget.  So I’d disperse the remainder as follows: New York ($500 million), Illinois ($200 million), Georgia ($200 million), Arizona ($150 million), Kentucky ($100 million), Minnesota ($75 million).  That leaves us with $200 million in the wallet to be split between Delaware, New Mexico, West Virginia, and possibly DC.

We’ll see how the first cut comes this week.  Our finalists will be the most likely winners.  The remaining states will take the time to regroup to put forward a stronger application for Phase Two.  McNeil and Maxwell are right.  Who needs NCAA March Madness when we have RttT?  Too bad they won’t be televising the finalists’ interviews.

Eliminating Rainy Day Funds in NJ Schools?

Eduflack stimulus

Last fall, when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was suffering through one of its worse budget stalemates in modern memory, one of the debates was how deep should the state dip into its “rainy day” fund to balance the current budget.  Do you completely deplete your reserves to get a budget many can live with?  Or do you hold back some of that rainy day fund, with the fear that 2010 or 2011 may not be particularly sunny either?

Ultimately, Pennsylvania (like a lot of states in similar situations) decided to tap the vast majority of those reserves to keep the state moving forward.  Such funds are established to help navigate those doomsday budget scenarios, and those dollars, along with the billions coming through the feds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, help many a K-12 state school system stave off disaster.

With the federal stimulus money nearing sunset, we are starting to see those doomsday scenarios coming back to the forefront.  In Eduflack’s home state of Virginia, new Gov. Bob McDonnell is proposing a $731 million cut in K-12 education.  Details are still in the works, but it seems clear that most public school systems — urban, suburban, and rural — will face the butcher’s knife before the coming fiscal year’s budget is complete.  Many feared that cuts were coming, but few expected them to be as deep as McDonnell is currently proposing.

More interesting, though, is what is happening in New Jersey, where equally new Gov. Chris Christie has also declared that the public schools will face massive cuts.  In many ways, the Garden State is in an even more dire financial situation than the Old Dominion, with higher unemployment rates, a bigger budget deficit to overcome, and a generally dimmer light at the end of the tunnel.

For nearly two weeks, communities in New Jersey have been abuzz about the impact of the cuts.  The Christie Administration has told all districts to prepare for the possibility of at least 15 percent reductions, with virtually every school district now talking about $1 million-plus reductions to the money they receive from the state.  And it comes at a time when local taxes are also unable to pull out from their downward spiral.

But what makes New Jersey so thought provoking is what Christie is actually proposing.  If Eduflack is reading the proposals forward, New Jersey’s governor is particularly targeting those school districts that have established their own rainy day funds.  Those LEAs that have been reasonably good stewards of their tax dollars, and have established reserves to plan for their own Armageddon, are being asked to zero out those reserves and use them to fund the coming year’s operations.  Those districts that have no reserves, and essentially have always eaten what they killed, will be funded at levels comparable to what they typically receive from the state.

Honestly, Eduflack isn’t sure what to make of all this.  I was surprised to learn that so many school districts had more than a million dollars socked away in a coffee can in case the financial monsoons came.  Like many, I assumed that districts live (financially) from year to year, and spend every dollar they can get their hands on on their operating budget (particularly important since 80-90 percent of a school system budget can go to the salary and benefits one has to pay for each and every year).  So in these tough economic times, it seems it many be time for those saver school districts to dip into those accounts if they want to keep instruction and services at the levels we expect.

But at the same time, should we be penalizing school districts for being financial prudent?  And with so many districts in NJ following such a rainy day policy, should we be rewarding those school system “squirrels” who did not save their nuts for winter?

So which seems more reasonable, a Virginia approach where most districts are going to be asked to share the pain or a New Jersey approach where those who can most afford to sacrifice are the first to do so?  Definitely no winners here, but can one path make a school district less of a loser?   

UPDATE: For those looking for more info on the New Jersey debate, check out NJ Left Behind here for a discussion on the “surplus drill-down,” with a critique from Rutgers University’s Bruce Baker here on how such a policy actually hurts the poorest districts the most.

AFT Policy Talk … and Walk?

Eduflack AFT, Arne Duncan, teachers

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

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

Doubting ESEA Reauthorization

Eduflack accountability, AYP, charter schools, HQT, NCLB

My name is Eduflack, and I am a natural-born cynic.  All day, I have been reading the unbridled optimism that folks seem to have for a quick and easy reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  In this morning’s Washington Post, House Education and Labor Committee members boldly declare their intentions to begin work on reauth next week.  For Chairman George Miller (CA) and company, it is now full steam ahead.  But I still have my doubts.

Congressional leaders are to be commended for moving forward in a bipartisan fashion.  Last year, few thought we would see Miller and John Kline (MN) work together to move this important issue forward.  Today, House Democrats and Republicans signaled it is time to improve No Child Left Behind and better align the federal law with the priorities and issues that have been moving forward over the past year.  Issues like common core standards, the next iteration of AYP, teacher quality, and charter schools will likely take center stage right quick.
But how realistic are we being in saying that this will get done now, on the express timetable many are expecting?  All parties involved have made clear this needs to be done by summer, in advance of the House of Representatives having to head back home and stand for re-election in November.  This is particularly true of Democrats, many of whom may have to vote for a law that makes life a little tougher for the teachers’ unions that help get them elected every two years.
But let’s be frank about timing.  First off, today’s big announcements are only coming out of the House of Representatives.  We have yet to hear a similarly ambitious agenda from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee or from Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) and Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY).  If we learned anything from issues such as climate change and health care, it is you need both sides of the Hill working in tandem to actually move legislation forward.  The House can have the best of intentions, but unless the Senate is planning the same rapid reauthorization, this bill is going to get bogged down over on the senior circuit.
Second, let’s look at the calendar.  Back in 2001, President George W. Bush made ESEA reauthorization priority number one.  It was his first piece of legislation out of the box and he immediately enlisted the help of folks like Senator Ted Kennedy to move it.  Despite the bipartisanship and the quick movement of both the House and Senate, it still took a full year to get NCLB through.  Granted, 9-11 forced congressional priorities to change in the fall of 2001.  But that team couldn’t get NCLB through in those first eight months.  It is now the second half of February.  Eight months puts us into October, which is completely untenable, particularly since congressional campaigns will begin in earnest come Labor Day.  Can we really reauthorize ESEA in four or five months this time around?  And can we do it when Congress is grappling with healthcare reform, a jobs bill, banking reform, climate control, and the full complement of annual appropriations bills?
Eduflack doesn’t want to be the skunk at this particular garden party, but I do want to be realistic.  I would love to see Congress reauthorize ESEA by summer.  I hope they are able to.  But I also know that the Hill calendar is working against such an effort, particularly with other major issues still pending.  I know that some in Congress may not have the stomach to pass an ESEA that will likely come with increased spending.  I know there are the continuing debates between rural districts and the perceived urban thrust of the last year.  And I know that many of the major issues involving ESEA — standards, AYP, data systems, Title II, and other issues — are not simple ideas that will be fixed in a hearing or two.  So this takes real work.  
Can Miller and Kline get such a bill out of committee by the end of spring?  Yes, absolutely.  Can it be voted out of the House, possibly.  But will we see all of that, along with Senate action and conference committee, happen before our final trip to the beach in September?  I just can’t see it … yet.
So that leaves me with one big question.  Are we talking a wholesale reauthorization of ESEA and all of its Titles or are we talking targeted legislation that focuses on a couple of the big issues?  Are we talking full-blown open-heart surgery or triage?  Are we swinging for the fences or playing small ball?
If it is the former, we may be in for a tough stretch.  If we are working toward the latter, and targeted amendment to NCLB, we could be in business.
 
    

Teacher Quality Showdown in Houston’s Corral

Eduflack accountability, AFT, HQT, teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


 


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


 


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


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



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

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


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


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


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

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

Act locally and opine nationally!