Backbenching the Prez’ Ed Budget

Eduflack reading, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

It has been a little over a week since President Obama officially submitted his FY2011 budget.  Depending on who you speak to, it was the best of times/worst of times for the education sector.  Overall, the Administration is seeking to raise the federal commitment to education spending by more than 7 percent.  But that increase comes with a new set of priorities, a new grouping of funding streams, and some eliminations of long time, cherished programs.  You can see Eduflack’s original thoughts on the budget here.


During the original scrum, we heard from many of the groups we expected to hear from — including oldies but goodies like the NEA and AFT and the growing number of education “reform” organizations seem by many to benefit the new “consolidation.”  But Eduflack thought it would be interesting to see what some other organizations have been saying about the budget reccs, particularly those who are focused on the issues IDed in my original analysis.  Unsurprisingly, most comments come from those unwilling to throw a big bear hug around the proposed budget.

On the issue of teacher quality and preparation, we have Dr. Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (ISTE) opposing the elimination of programs such as the Teacher Quality Partnership saying: 

Across the nation, colleges and universities are playing an indispensable role in supplying our schools, particularly hard-to-staff schools, with effective teachers who intend to serve as classroom leaders for decades to come.  Through the federal budget and new programs such as Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, the U.S. Department of Education should be supporting and incentivizing those teachers colleges that are blazing a trail when it comes to strengthening instructional standards, effective use of data systems, improving teacher quality, and turning around low-performing schools. Programs like TQP are essential to ensuring preservice teacher preparation is part of our improvement agenda.


Over at NSDC, policy advisor Rene Islas had a very different take on the future of teacher preparation, stating:

What does this framework say about teacher effectiveness? The president is beginning to adopt NSDC’s language. The budget request outline a new program called “Excellent Instructional Teams.” Sound familiar? Taking it to the next step, the new program description includes the following statement: “promote collaboration and the development of instructional teams that use data to improve practice.” I count that as a significant victory.


And what about education technology and its consolidation into the overall ESEA framework (and the elimination of specific grant programs funding ed tech at the state or district levels)?  The following was offered by Don Knezek, CEO of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE):

We cannot and must not lose sight of the value and impact of education technology in our classrooms. As ISTE noted in its Top Ten in 2010 just last month, education technology is the lifeblood of lasting school improvement. Working from best and promising practices in the field, we must continue to use technology as the backbone of school improvement. We must ensure technology expertise is infused throughout our schools and classrooms—particularly through programs like EETT—and that we are continuously upgrading educators’ classroom technology skills as a pre-requisite of ‘highly effective’ teaching. We must boost student learning through real data and assessment efforts. And we must work together to leverage education technology as a gateway for college and career readiness so that our K-12 systems can help fulfill the President’s pledge to make the United States tops in the world when it comes to college-completion rates. We cannot and must not deny policymakers and educators the resources they require to provide all students with the globally competitive education they so desperately need.  

And we saw similar words coming from the ed tech community at large in a joint statement from ISTE, State Education Technology Directors Association, and the Consortium for School Networking:

While there are elements of the President’s proposed budget that are laudable, we remain extremely concerned that the Administration has elected to defund EETT in its FY11 Budget Proposal and urge the Administration and Congress to restore adequate funding for this critical program. Congress and the President included EETT as a core provision of the current ESEA law in recognition of the importance of driving the next generation of innovations in teaching and learning, assessment and continuous improvement, and cost-efficiency in coordination with other federal, state and local school improvement strategies. We fear that years of investments through EETT and the E-Rate, coupled with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act investment, may be devalued or lost entirely without adequately funding EETT or a successor program.


Carol Rasco, the president and CEO of Reading is Fundamental, was far more direct on RIF being eliminated (and not consolidated) from the President’s budget:

Without this federal funding, over 4.4 million children and families will not receive free books or reading en
couragement from RIF programs at nearly 17,000 locations throughout the U.S.

Unless Congress reinstates $25 million in funding for this program, RIF will not be able to distribute 15 million books annually to the nation’s children at greatest risk for academic failure. RIF programs in schools, community centers, hospitals, military bases, and other locations serving children from low-income families, children with disabilities, homeless children, and children without adequate access to libraries. The Inexpensive Book Distribution program is authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEC.5451 Inexpensive Book Distribution Program for Reading Motivation) and is not funded through earmarks. It has been funded by Congress and six Administrations without interruption since 1975.


Interestingly, many of the so-called reform groups didn’t issue public statements (or at least haven’t put them up on the web for discerning minds to review).  Nothing from Teach for America.  Nothing from American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence.  Nothing up from New Leaders from New Schools.  Nothing posted from the National Council on Teacher Quality.  (And, in fairness, Eduflack realizes that public statements are often issued but are slow to get up on the websites, as seems to be the case with groups like the Committee for Education Funding, which released a statement that can’t be found on its website.) 

The priorities identified in the President’s proposed budget demonstrate which groups and individuals have the greatest sway over on Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues.  What’s left to be seen is who will have real impact on Capitol Hill.  Anyone who is ready to leave RIF for dead, for instance, is underestimating Rasco’s passion and the power of the national RIF network.  The President’s budget is merely the first hand in what is going to be a long and expensive game of poker.  Those players who have been around the table many, many times before are likely to be the ones with chips still on the table when all is said and done.

(Full disclosure, I have done work with both AACTE and ISTE in recent years.)

Finding Value in The Flat World and Education

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, teachers

This week’s Presidential budget is further raising attention on pressing education issues such as teacher quality, closing the achievement gap, and ensuring our communities have the systems in place to drive the levels of improvement we are so desperately thinking.  With all of the rhetoric, both this week and in recent years, we seem to be focusing on promising ideas without necessarily looking for the research, evidence, proof, and data that should be separating the good ideas from the great ideas.

While Eduflack seems to spend a great deal of my time talking and opining, every so often I do find the time to actually read and learn from others.  And even more infrequently, I actually find what I read to be of the sort of import that I want to make sure others are aware of it, positioning the latest book or article so it is influencing the current policy discussions.  Today is such a day.  The book is “The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity WIll Determine Our Future.”  And The Flat World and Education is brought to us by dear Eduflack friend Linda Darling-Hammond (who really needs no introduction).

In this latest volume from the Multicultural Education Series and Teachers College Press, Dr. Darling-Hammond offers up a clear and compelling primer for comprehensive school system improvement.  Rather than looking at incremental reforms or boutique solutions that address just a sliver of the students who are in such need of real, lasting efforts, the book provides a detailed blueprint of how to create high-quality and equitable school systems, with emphases on student achievement and teacher quality (those terms that far too many think are owned by the so-called “reformer” community.)

Some of the statistics Darling-Hammond presents are startling (yet all too familiar).  One one in 10 low-income kindergartners ever earn a college degree.  Our nation’s graduation rate (listed at an optimistic 70 percent) has dropped from first in the world to the bottom half of the rankings for comparable nations.  And we won’t even get into how U.S. students on the whole (let alone those from historically disadvantaged groups) stand up against their international counterparts on tests like TIMSS, PERLS, and PISA.

Darling-Hammond provides one of the strongest and most passionate discussions regarding the opportunity gap in the United States and the downright destructive impact it is having on both educational quality and long-term value of our public schools.  Fortunately, it is not all doom and gloom.  The book provides specific action steps we can take (at a federal, state, or even local level) to implement the sort of comprehensive systemic reforms that may be required to truly address the opportunity gap problem, including:
* Implementing stronger induction programs for teachers — We can’t ask new teachers to row our children to the promise land while only giving them half a broken oar.  New teachers entering the classroom need strong pedagological background and even stronger clinical training.  Believe it or not, we can learn a great deal from our global competitors about how to properly prepare a teacher candidate, ensuring they have the knowledge, skills, and direction necessary to succeed in even the most challenging of classrooms.
* Supporting quality teachers — Teacher quality is not just about financial incentives for those who are boosting student test scores.  New teachers (even the best of them) need mentors and a strong support network.  School districts and states need to use tools like National Board Certification to both identify quality instruction in their classrooms and share that best practice with other teachers in the building, the district, and the state.
* Designing effective schools — School structure does matter.  In the current reform agenda, we aren’t spending as much time talking about systems as we probably should.  When we look at the problems — resource inequities, getting good teachers in the classrooms that need them the most, and providing the necessary targeted interventions (particularly for ELL and special needs populations) — we need to create and support the school structures that are most effective in serving 21st century students.

By looking to establish strong professional practice in all schools and promoting equitable and sufficient resources across the board, Darling-Hammond IDs a clear route to ensure that all students — including low-income students, students of color, and English language learners — have the teachers, curriculum, and level of resources necessary to achieve … and to make sufficient gains to begin to close that daunting achievement gap.

Does The Flat World and Education provide all of the answers?  No, and it shouldn’t.  This book provides some important lines of inquiry and thinking that should be front and center as we discuss implementation of new funding streams like RttT and i3 and the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  As EdSec Arne Duncan and his team look to completely reinvent Title II (both under ESEA and the Higher Education Act), Darling-Hammond’s data and conclusions on teacher induction and ongoing teacher support need to be central to the discussion.  They may not be adopted whole cloth (and probably shouldn’t) but if they aren’t part of the debate, we are missing a central point to meaningful education improvement.  These aren’t just good ideas, but they have the data and the real-life case studies that can be pointed to to demonstrate true impact.

I recognize that many may be quick to discount Linda Darling-Hammond, fearing this is just the latest defense of the status quo.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  We forget that the role that Darling-Hammond has played in the charter school movement in California and her work in both building and supporting effective charter schools in Northern California.  We overlook her commitment to common core standards and her commitment to accountability, albeit a more comprehensive and broader approach to measurement.  And we are quick to discount that everything and everything she does seems to be in the name of the student, particularly those low-income and minority students who have been perpetually caught in the opportunity gap vortex.  For those who want to get caught in such urban legends, forget who the author is.  Just read the book.  It will still prove worthy.

Eduflack recognizes he is a bit of an advocate for dear ol’ LDH.  And after reading The Flat World and Education, I am reminded why.  Too often, we talk about education reform as if it is a lab experiment where we can substitute one ingredient for the next, and just move on the next test.  Darling-Hammond reminds us that teachers are at the core of our public schools, both good and bad, and need to be central to any school improvement effort.  More importantly, though, she makes clear that we are not operating in an experimental vacuum.  There are very real children who are effected by our decisions and those kids impacted the most are the ones that are neglected in the decisionmaking far too often. 

We may not realize it now, but ultimately the education reform parade is going to have to head down the street LDH is paving if we are going to have the sort of impact we are looking for.  Better to give this primer a close look now and see what can be implemented in the current environment than discounting it in its entirety and then needing to play catch up when ESEA rolls back around in another decade.  Happy reading!

EEP 2.0

Eduflack Achievement gap, Chancellor Klein

Some still don’t quite know what to make of the Education Equality Project, or EEP.  When it was launched in 2008, we assumed it was another “reformer” group preparing to ride the Obama wave.  Then we had the strange bedfellows experiment of Rev. Al Sharpton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich the “faces” of EEP, showing EdSec Arne Duncan some of the major issues facing urban education.  Along the way, we’ve had the logical “comparison” to the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education and then the partnerships with Education Trust, Democrats for Education Reform, and Center for American Progress on critiques of Race to the Top and other federal ideas.  And Eduflack even remembers a time last year when critics were saying EEP was closing shop, having run out of funding and “accomplished” its goal but getting like-minded reformers in the Duncan regime.

Today, though, we see that the work has just begun.  This morning, EEP announced three new co-chairpersons for the organization.  The Reverend Al era is over.  As of today, EEP is now co-led by NYCDOE Chancellor Joel Klein (a founder of EEP), UNCF President and CEO Michael L. Lomax, and Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza.  (And, of course, the workhorse Ellen Winn remains as director of the organization.)
Why is this important?  For two reasons.  First, during the Al and Newt show, many discounted EEP for being all hat and no cattle.  They could do a great media event, but the group lacked the true substance necessary to truly move policy.  In other words, Al and Newt could grab you a headline or put a good segment on Meet the Press, but they weren’t the sort to roll up their sleeves and get changes to ESEA agreed to by legislators.  While it may have been an unfair criticism (particularly since Sharpton and GIngrich weren’t actually running the group, but were really just spokespersons), it was a criticism that stuck.  The three new co-chairpersons have both the sizzle and the steak necessary to capture attention and actually move the ball forward.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the new leadership at the board reminds us of the mission of the group and its origins.  We can forget what EEP stands for and we can discount what “education equality” actually means.  But the gravitas of the trio of co-chairpersons moves front and center the EEP mission of eliminating the racial and ethnic achievement gap in public education.  Lomax and Murguia are national leaders for empowering the black and Hispanic communities, respectively, on education issues. UNCF and La Raza are at the top of the game when it comes to such issues.  And whether folks like it or not, Klein’s tenure in NYC has been committed to closing the achievement gap and providing greater learning opportunities to historically underserved populations in the Big Apple.  So if these three are going to throw their intellectual heft and personal commitment behind the issue, we may see some real movement.
That movement, though, is going to be determined by the specific priorities EEP moves forward.  Some groups, particularly those who engage in educational civil rights and achievement gap concerns, often throw everything but the kitchen sink into a debate, fighting a noble fight but triggering few actual changes because they are asking for the sun and the moon.  If EEP can avoid that trap, and focus on the two or three specific issues that are most important to closing the achievement gap in our urban centers and increasing opportunities for students for historically disadvantaged students, have their membership hammer on those two or three without rest, and engage their advocates and third-party partners to support those issues as well, we may actually be able to move one or two of those topics to the front of the debate.  Without that focus, we may just be looking at another well-meaning group in a collection of well-meaning groups.
Klein, Lomax, and Murguia are definitely the folks who can lead such a focused advocacy campaign.  And Winn and company have proven particularly adept at using shoe-leather relationships, new media and social networking to spread the EEP message and effectively engagement of the stakeholders that matter the most.  The time is now to see if there is some real cattle behind that EEP hat. 
   

ED Budget Winners and Losers

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NCLB, teachers, technology

The President’s FY2011 budget is out, and we’ve now had a day to digest the toplines and find out if our pet programs are on the chopping block or slotted for additional support.  Not surprisingly, ED is reorganizing its budget around priorities similar to Race to the Top, leaving some clear winners and losers.  (The full breakdown of the budget reccs can be found here.)

As a former Capitol Hill rat and appropriations staffer, I find it important to note that yesterday’s document is a starting point, and not the final deal.  Programs that have been eliminated or consolidated are bound to be reinstated once their constituency speaks up.  Additional money is likely to be found to fund those reinstatements.  (And as a former Byrd scholar, Eduflack, for one, is hoping that funding for the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship is reinstated immediately).  But the new parameters and programmatic headers offered in the President’s budget is likely to hold, standing as our new organizational strands for future spending and ESEA reauthorization.

So who are the winners?  Who are the losers?  Let’s take a quick look, shall we.

Winners
* Arne Duncan — The EdSec has put his personal brand on both discretionary and non-discretionary spending, while imposing his own “brand” on the future of federal education dollars.  The current budget demonstrates that Duncan’s four pillars are not a one-time RttT deal, and instead are the buckets by which federal education policy will be governed for years to come.
* Reforming School Districts — The new budget likely provides another $700 million to LEAs under an expanded RttT and another $500 million for i3 (more than doubling our current i3 investment).  For those districts that are focusing on teacher/principal quality and school turnaround and research-proven innovation, the coming years may be profitable ones (as long as there aren’t too many good districts who can walk the walk).
* Teach for America — At first glance, some would say that TFA being “consolidated” is a bad thing.  But take a closer look at the budget.  The meager federal funds going to TFA now are being consolidated with a host of other teacher development funds to create a significant fund that can support TFA expansion and alternative certification pathways.  Wendy Kopp’s plans for scalability may be coming into clearer focus.
* Low-Performing Schools — Following a decade of NCLB and AYP, many thought RttT was going to focus on the turnaround of our lowest-performing schools.  Then the RttT scorecard came out, and it seemed turnarounds were being minimized.  But yesterday, he new budget proposed a 65 percent increase for turning around our 5,000 lowest-performing schools.  And this is in addition to support LEAs can get through Race to the Top.  It is a good time to be a school district with nowhere to go but up.
* STEM — No surprise here, based on the amount of attention the White House has been paying to STEM.  But by consolidating math and science moneys, we are now increasing our STEM commitment by 66 percent while focusing on high-need schools.  Interestingly, it seems we are shifting from a notion of all students needing to be STEM literate to using STEM to train the next generation of scientists and engineers.
* U.S. Sen. Patty Murray — Senator Murray’s inclusion here may surprise some.  But the President just strengthened her hand for her LEARN reading act.  the budget eliminates a lot of reading programs, including Even Start, National Writing Project, and Striving Readers, moving the money into a general literacy fund to support both PD and instructional materials.  But the proposed K-12 commitment to reading is only $450 million, well below the more than $1 billion a year that was recently spent under Reading First to move K-4 reading instruction.  Throwing another $500 million toward Murray’s bill and the support of middle and secondary school literacy (and the PD and support that goes with it) seems like more of a no-brainer now, either as a stand-alone piece of legislation or rolled into ESEA. 

Losers (at least for the time being)
* Education Technology — The proposed budget essentially eliminated all of the targeted ed tech dollars coming from the federal government, with the promise that technology would be integrated into core ESEA activities.  But here in DC, dollars are king.  In an era focused on school improvement and innovation, how can we zero out ed tech funding?  In a 21st century education, how can we eliminate funding for teacher development and support in the technology arena?  While the notion of integration may look good on paper, ED is going to face a real fight from the education community on the future of ed tech investment.  This is the one decision that really makes the least sense, in light of all of the rhetoric.
* Teachers Colleges — Perhaps the most interesting piece of the budget (at least to Eduflack) is the fact that Teacher Quality Partnership grants have been zeroed out, less than six months after ED awarded huge sums to colleges and universities across the nation under the TQP initiative.  By focusing teacher quality and development dollars on alternative certification pathways and programs focused on student outcomes, ED has all but said that our colleges and universities are playing little, if any, role in developing the next generation of high-quality teachers.  This is a big shift from Duncan’s remarks up at TC this fall and draws a real line in the sand between higher education and K-12.
* Teacher Incentive Fund — Back in the good ol’ Margaret Spellings days, a little program called TIF was created to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to incentivize effective teaching.  While few have seen the end result of TIF, the program was viewed as a core component of Duncan’s teacher quality efforts.  But now TIF has been zeroed out, with the dollars going to establish a new “Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.”  While ED claims the new fund will be built on TIF’s strengths, it is clear the Administration is clearly the deck of most programs and initiatives associated with the previous regime.
* AYP — Though not explicitly spelled out in the budget priorities, AYP is now going the way of the do-do bird.  Adequate Yearly Progress, as measured by middle school proficiency in math and reading, is now going to be replaced by the college/career-ready common core standards developed by CCSSO and NGA.  State assessments tied to the middle grades reading and math standards will now be replaced.  NAEP now looks stronger, some of the accountability measures from the 1990s are losing a step, and we are clearly entering a new world order when it comes to student achievement, with the term AYP quickly expunged from our vocabulary.
* Beloved Pet Programs — As part of the consolidation efforts, funding for a number of beloved programs is being eliminated to make more money available for the streamlined priorities.  Federal commitment to the National Writing Project, Close Up, and Reading is Fundamental have been placed on the chopping block.  Javits G&T is soon gone, as is AP funding (unless College Board and Tom Luce can find a way to save it).  And it makes no sense to pick on the Byrd Scholarships again, particularly when we know the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee will find a way to restore funding. 
While many of these programs will ultimately get some dollars back, it is a sign of changing times.  And this may very well be the true end of the “Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners” effort, an ED program that collected $5 million in federal funding last year. 

And other surprises?  LEAs seem to be favored over the states.  Competitive funding is quickly replacing the block grants the sector has grown to depend on.  The Promise Neighborhoods initiative may finally focus on the role of family and community in education improvement.  The $1 billion bonus to pass ESEA remains in play.  And the significant funds found in both ESEA and HEA Title II appears to be in the cross hairs of the reform agenda.

Regardless of one’s personal preferences, the coming months are shaping up to be a “fun” debate on education funding  I just hope Chairman Harkin, Chairman Obey, and the rest of the approps gang are up for the challenge.

Reading Between the SOTU Lines

Eduflack NCLB, Obama

Earlier today, Eduflack was hopeful that P-12 education would garner three or four paragraphs in the State of the Union, just enough space to lay out a bold call to action and a focus on real, lasting change.  As the final speech was delivered this evening, P-12 got little more than a paragraph (while higher education and student loans got far greater attention).

Following is the full text of the SOTU P-12 focus:

“This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform – reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.”

Personally, Eduflack really likes that first paragraph (and will note that I made some similar recommendations in my previous post.  But there isn’t a lot to analyze here.  No mention of early childhood education.  No mention of Race to the Top or i3 or common core standards.  And we don’t even know that reforms we are expanding to all 50 states under ESEA reauthorization.  And we didn’t even go as far as to say, when we renew ESEA this year.  All we know is that school is important, community colleges are equally important, and we need to take steps to make postsecondary education more affordable and manageable.  

So what does this mean for ESEA reauthorization in 2010?  Hopefully, no one is holding their breath or has big money wagered for a quick bill.  President Obama made clear that a jobs bill is priority number one.  Then we need to get healthcare finished.  And if we can get to education, it is focused on student loans and affordability.  We only have so many months and so many priorities, and tonight’s speech makes clear that reworking ESEA is not a top priority right now.

Eduflack supposes it makes sense.  EdSec Arne Duncan and company can focus on Race and i3, using some of his executive powers to tweak portions of NCLB to make it a little easier to work with.  But at the end of the day, I suppose we are generally happy with the current parameters of NCLB, or at least can live with it for now.  Sure, there is that $1 billion performance bonus for getting ESEA passed (akin to paying our kids for earning straight As I suppose), but it looks like the 2010 era of reform without an overhaul to our national K-12 law.  I could be wrong, but I suspect I’m not.
 

Some Ed Thoughts on the SOTU

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, assessment, Obama

Tonight is the State of the Union address.  Across the nation, folks are looking at this speech to either make or break President Obama’s Administration (no pressure there).  And while Eduflack continues to hear those in the education community expect that education reform will be front and center in tonight’s speech, I have my doubts.  With an hour-long time slot likely to be interrupted by applause (and hopefully no more “you lies”), there is a lot to talk about.  We have wars and national security.  Jobs and the economy.  Healthcare and Haiti.  At best, I suspect education will get a few paragraphs about two-thirds of the way through the address.

So what do we do with those few paragraphs?  We’ve already heard that Obama intends to freeze all discretionary non-security funding for the next three years.  And while many say there is wiggle room to exempt some of our new education funding streams, we need to be practical.  Any mention of education, no matter how small and large, is not likely to be about dollars.  It is going to be about vision, hope, and promise.  If past Administrations are any indication, staff is scurrying today to make final edits to the draft, ensuring that it reflects the latest news and the most promising ideas.
Eduflack can’t let such a time pass without offering a few of his own thoughts on the “education section” for tonight.  If I had my speechwriting shingle hanging in the West Wing these days, hears what deal ol’ Eduflack would be looking to get on the teleprompter for this evening:
“My fellow Americans, I know these are uncertain times wrought with worry and concern.  The value of our homes continues to slide.  For those fortunate enough to hold a job, wages are stagnant and benefits have likely been reduced.  For families who have weathered the economic rollercoaster of the past few years, many still wait for that steady climb back up, hoping beyond hope that the pains we, as a community, are struggling with now will not be felt by our children in years to come.
In times like this, it is often easy to overlook the most important asset Americans possess.  It is not real estate or 401Ks or any such material goods.  No, the greatest asset the United States offers is a strong public education.  It is a promise we make to all people, whether they be descendants of those who came over on the Mayflower or those just arriving on a boat from Haiti in the past weeks.  A strong education is with us for ever.  It continues to appreciate and gain value.  It is portable, and comes with us from job to job and residence to residence.  And it, more than anything else, is key to the opportunity and hope we promise each new generation.  Those with a strong educational foundation are on the path to success.  There is no question about it.
During the past year, my Administration has taken great steps to ensure that more students receive access to a truly strong public education.  States across the nation have improved their laws and enacted new policies to ensure more students gain access to an effective and equitable education.  Through Race to the Top, our nation is now focused on issues such as teacher quality and turning around low-performing schools.  The bold steps taken by state legislatures around the nation to address our educational priorities are to be applauded.  Ultimately, the success of Race to the Top is not be measured by the handful of states that win federal grants, but rather by the millions of American students who will now have better schools and more opportunities because of the commitments made by states and school districts over the past nine months.
With such a focus on Race to the Top and its grant program, let me make one thing abundantly clear.  Money alone does not improve our school systems.  More dollars do not guarantee that a student is taught by an effective teacher or does not have to attend a drop-out factory.  Even today, we see communities with some of the highest per-pupil expenditures with the lowest test scores, and towns with low expenditures turning out some of the most promising results.  Increased spending does not directly result in improved quality.  If we are truly committed to improving all of our public schools and giving all students, particularly those from historically disadvantaged groups, the chance to live the American dream, we must change our approach to and our expectations of public education.  I am not here today to announce new funding programs for education, no.  Instead, I am here to secure a national commitment to the issues that have a direct impact on whether our school systems can truly improve over the long term.  We need to invest our intellectual capital in school improvement, and not just our financial capital.
First, in the economically uncertain times, we must ensure that all students see the need for and the relevance of a strong education.  We must strengthen the linkages between school today and jobs tomorrow.  We must demonstrate how the classes taken today lead to the jobs of tomorrow.  And we must make clear that dropping out is never an option, no matter the situation.  In New York City, for instance, Chancellor Joel Klein has made real progress in improving the city’s high school graduation rates, and has done so while closing the graduation gaps between white and African-American and white and Hispanic students.  Those are the sorts of efforts all of our cities should be modeling.  Last year, we committed to having the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by the year 2020.  We cannot get there if one-third of our students continue to drop out of high school and never have that option of college.  We must make clear that a high school diploma is the first step to true citizenship.  And it falls to every parent, every local business, every community leader, and every house of worship to make sure our kids value their education and gain that necessary diploma.  
Second, we must redouble our efforts to provide both a high-quality and an equitable education to all students.  For decades now, we have talked about the achievement gap while pumping more money into failing school systems.  In that time, we have done little to close the chasm between the haves and have nots.  Access to AP classes or veteran teachers should not be determined by one’s zip code or the color of one’s skin.  We need to take immediate steps to get our best teachers in the classrooms that need them the most.  We need to ensure that Title I and other funds from state and local governments are going to ensure that historically disadvantaged students have up-to-date textbooks and the latest instructional materials.  And we need to invest in early childhood education, particularly in our urban centers, so all students are equipped with the foundational skills to maximize their public educations.
     
Third, we must be committed to both high-quality teachers and high-quality teaching.  There are few jobs as challenging as teaching, and there are few that have the impact of educating young people.  Neither our schools nor our children can succeed without a well trained, well supported, and effective teacher standing in front of their classroom.  We need to make sure that every teacher goes through a rigorous training program that includes both clinical training and the demonstration of content knowledge.  We need to make sure that every one of our teachers gets the ongoing support, training, and mentoring to succeed in their classrooms.  We need to reward effective teaching, while having our exemplary teachers assist and support those who are struggl
ing.  We need to give our educators all of the tools for success, knowing that not everyone is cut out to be a teacher.  But if we expect our teachers to be held accountable for student achievement in their classrooms, we need to equip them with the skills and knowledge to manage their classes and deal with the challenges that cannot be planned for in a workshop, an institute, or a textbook.  We need to empower and cultivate our teachers, much like the TAP program in my hometown of Chicago does.
And finally we have the issue of accountability.  Let there be no mistake, my Administration is committed to educational accountability.  Working with Secretary Arne Duncan, I have made clear that we expect all students to learn.  We expect that learning to be measured.  I know that many of you have had concerns with accountability measures in the past.  Those worries were well-founded, but they do not justify scrapping our commitment to assessment and measurement.  Ultimately, our problems are with unequal measures of accountability.  Today, I am happy to report that our states are hard at work identifying common core standards for all grades.  Soon, proficiency in eighth grade math will mean the same thing in Massachusetts, Alabama, Wisconsin, and California.  We can, will, and must hold our teachers, schools, states, and even the federal government accountable for the quality and effectiveness of public education.  The task before us now is to improve on our current accountability measures, so they more accurately measure the effectiveness of our systems.  We need to do a better job of testing students, a better job of measuring what they are learning, and a better job of applying those results to improve classroom practice.  But we need accountability.  On this issue I will not bend.”
God bless and good night.
    

The NYC HIgh School Improvement Experience

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Broad Prize, Chancellor Klein

Whenever Eduflack writes about the “successes” of New York City’s school improvement efforts under Chancellor Joel Klein, I get publicly flogged by some audience or another.  Most take significant issue with my conclusions that NYC Department of Education has improved the quality of the public schools.  Others take issue with giving Klein (and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg) credit for such school improvement.  And even if I can get the opposition to acknowledge an uptick in student achievement in NYC, they will immediately retort that the gains are minimal, and not nearly enough to declare turnaround efforts in New York a success.

My responses to such criticism have been relatively simple.  The test scores, at least on New York’s state exams, do show gains in both reading and math in NYC.  If you don’t believe the final tallies coming from Albany, you should at least acknowledge that NYC has won the Broad Prize, and that Broad similarly crunched the numbers and found academic gains across the city.  And if the gains aren’t big enough for you yet, first, give it time.  Then remember how large the NYCDOE truly is.  Upticks in a system that size are worthy of praise.
 
Always a glutton for punishment, Eduflack is going to raise the NYC achievement flag again.  Today, we’re going to reflect on a forum hosted yesterday by the Alliance for Excellent Education.  Offering a multi-hour symposium yesterday under the banner of “Informing Federal Education Policy Through Lessons from New York City,” the Alliance also put a spotlight on a new report it has released, “New York City’s Strategy for Improving High Schools.”

So let’s take a look at the most recent set of numbers, namely four-year high school graduation rates.  The Alliance took a look at four different calculations of NYC graduation data from 2002 to the present.  By NYC’s own calculations, grad rates rose more than 29 percent from 2002 to 2008, from 51 percent to 66 percent.  According to the state calculation, rates increased nearly 52 percent, from 40 percent to 61 percent.  EdWeek has the number increasing 35 percent from 2002 to 2006 (37 percent to 50 percent).  And Jennifer Jennings and Leonie Haimson have the grad rates lifted nearly 18 percent from 2002 to 2007 (40 percent to 47 percent).

Let’s set aside, for a second, the fact that no one started with the same 2002 baseline.  (yes, we still have problems with data collection and such)  Even if we throw out the top score and the bottom score (in the Olympic tradition), we are still looking at a gain in NYC’s high school graduation rates of nearly 33 percent from where we started in 2002.  In an era of drop-out factories and rising dropout rates, such numbers in NYC are worth paying attention to.

Whether you like the rhetoric coming out of NYCDOE or not, you can’t deny that the Klein plan has had a real impact, and an impact for the good.  As other urban centers struggle to deal with graduation rate challenges, NYC has found real solutions.  And it has done so applying a four-year graduation rate formula (a calculation many fear because it offers a lower grad rate than many want to admit.) 

Moreover, NYC has been able to apply its high school reforms to help close the achievement gap.  According the Alliance, “since 2005, the black-white and Hispanic-white [graduation rate] gaps have narrowed by 16 percent and 14 percent respectively.”

New York City may still be a work in progress, but aren’t these the sorts of numbers we are working toward?  Klein and company offer a clear plan for how they are going to fix the problems (a plan so clear that it draws a with us/against us line).  They take the necessary steps to implement that plan, regardless of the “friends” it may create.  And then they have the data to demonstrate effectiveness, with both test scores and graduation rates rising.  Isn’t that our ultimate end game?  And if it isn’t shouldn’t it be?
  

My Daughter Is a Lone Star Marxist?

Eduflack reading

Who knew?  When I woke up this morning, I thought that edu-daughter was the all-American girl.  She’s fun, she’s chatty, she loves to laugh.  She a little precocious, a lot sassy, and quite a bit alpha dog.  She is also my princesa, a two-and-a-half year old who can do no wrong in the eyes of her daddy … until today.

Thanks to the Texas State Board of Education, I now learn that my daughter is also a Marxist.  I had no idea.  Now I know better.  Thanks to the information posted by Robert Pondiscio of the Core Knowledge Blog here, my daughter has been branded a Marxist.  Karl Marx.  Friedrich Engels.  And now Anna Riccards.
Why?  It seems that some of the Lone Star State’s state board of education decided that Bill Martin, Jr.’s works simply cannot be taught in a Texas public school.  And one can see how the work of noted Marxism scholar Bill Martin may be inappropriate fare for the average young student.  After all, who wants to find Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation on the bookshelves between One Fish, Two Fish and I Love You, Stinky Face.
The problem, of course, is that there may be more than one Bill Martin, Jr. in the history of these United States.  And there may actually be more than one Bill Martin who has actually penned a book.  In fact, we know there.  A Bill Martin, Jr. is also the author of beloved toddler book, Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?
And it is that Bill Martin who was banned by the Republic of Texas.  Brown Bear was put on the “do not read” list because of the supposed political leanings of its author.  Texas thought they were banning the author of Ethical Marxism.  Instead, they put the scarlet letter on a popular children’s author.  And that’s a cryin’ shame. 
But maybe Texas sees something we don’t.  After all, the first thing the brown bear sees is a “red bird,” clearly an endorsement of communism.  Brown Bear doesn’t seem to distinguish between the classes, with all animals being equal in the grand “seeing” scheme.  And then, of course, we have the full menagerie of animals who are ultimately looking at the kids, clearly a bold attempt to issue the call for a proletarian revolution.  
It’s a shame that some narrow, poorly researched, and downright incorrect thinking has resulted in banning what is a terrific little book for a pre-reader.  But better safe than sorry, I suppose.  It is just a slippery slope from Brown Bear to Cat in the Hat to a biography of Che Guevara.  I could be ruining my daughter’s political future before she ever gets to run for first grade class president!  No more questionable children’s books for her.  From this point forward, we’re going to stick to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
  

Driving GDP Growth Through Our Classrooms

Eduflack Achievement gap, assessment, international benchmarking

We are hearing more and more these days about international benchmarking.  Maybe it is because of the increased focus on assessment generated by the common core standards movement.  Maybe it is because we are finally starting to recognize that while our NAEP scores hold steady, our students’ standing on international tests such as TIMSS and PISA continues to slip.  Or maybe it is because of the economy, as we grow more and more mindful of both the globalization issue of the past five or eight years or the more recent worries about jobs just evaporating, particularly for those without 21st century skills.

Whatever the reason, international benchmarking is standing as a hot topic.  Not only are we aware of those tests where our kids compete against their peers in Singapore and Sweden, but we now seem to pay more attention to groups like Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, (even though the Obama Administration eliminated the U.S. Department of Education’s official liaison to OECD last year) and are perking up when we hear about test scores, teacher training, and seat hours in classrooms across either ocean.

Today, the Alliance for Excellent Education released a new report from OECD focused on the economic benefits of school improvement.  The full report, co-authored by Hoover Institution/Stanford University’s Rick Hanushek, can be found here.  In revealing the new study, All4Ed President Bob Wise said, “This report provides powerful evidence that educational improvements make an important and lasting impact not only in the lives of students, but in the livelihood of nations.”

Such is a comment that should be common sense to most, but if often overlooked by far too many.  Despite all of the talk and the pleadings, far too many still view education (and even education reform) as something that happens in a vacuum.  We make classroom changes and figure their impact are limited to the classroom.  When we make changes related to curriculum or instructional materials or technology or teacher training or funding in general, we don’t necessarily see the ripple effect.  We often fail to see how classroom changes impact what is happening in the home or in the local community.  And most certainly, we fail to appreciate the impact it has on our nation, our economy, or our sense of global competitiveness.

The OECD study offers three examples of how education improvement (here measured by how our kids do on PISA) can have a direct and positive impact on our GDP, including:
* Increasing average scores on PISA by 25 points over 20 years would result in an increase in the U.S. GDP of $40 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010.  (And the Alliance notes that Poland was able to achieve such gains in just six years.)
* Bringing the United States to Finland’s level on PISA (meaning a 50-point gain) would increase the GDP by $100 trillion over the lifetime of a child born in 2010.
* Bringing all U.S. students up to a minimum level would add $72 trillion to the GDP over the lifetime of a child born in 2010.  (Currently 19 percent of U.S. students before below the PISA minimum level.)

Every few months, it seems like we are presented with yet another study tying school improvements to economic success.  How many more of these studies do we need to see before it truly takes hold in our psyche?  How many of these studies do we need before state departments of education join forces with economic development and labor departments to develop a long-term education effort that reflects the learning and skills needed to meet our workforce pipeline demands?  How many more toplines do we have to read before we see that sociologists, psychometricians, and economists need to work together to develop the long-term improvements necessary?  How long before we all realize that true education improvement does not happen in a vacuum? 

 

This Year’s Top Ed Tech Issues?

Eduflack assessment, High School, technology

Over the last week, Eduflack has been teasing out a few of the key issues the education technology community has identified as top priorities for 2010.  Interestingly, many of these topics are not limited to ed tech, but are applicable to the entire eduworld.  So I thought it was worthwhile to take a look at the full list from the folks over at ISTE (www.isteconnects.org):


1. Establish technology in education as the backbone of school improvement. To truly improve our schools for the long term and ensure that all students are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve in the 21st century, education technology must permeate every corner of the learning process. From years of research, we know that technology can serve as a primary driver for systemic school improvement, including school leadership, an improved learning culture and excellence in professional practice. We must ensure that technology is at the foundation of current education reform efforts, and is explicit and clear in its role, mission, and expected impact.


2. Leverage education technology as a gateway for college and career readiness. Last year, President Obama established a national goal of producing the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by the year 2020. To achieve this goal in the next 10 years, we must embrace new instructional approaches that both increase the college-going rates and the high school graduation rates. By effectively engaging learning through technology, teachers can demonstrate the relevance of 21st century education, keeping more children in the pipeline as they pursue a rigorous, interesting and pertinent PK-12 public education.


3. Ensure technology expertise is infused throughout our schools and classrooms. In addition to providing all teachers with digital tools and content we must ensure technology experts are integrated throughout all schools, particularly as we increase focus and priority on STEM (science-technology-engineering-mathematics) instruction and expand distance and online learning opportunities for students. Just as we prioritize reading and math experts, so too must we place a premium on technology experts who can help the entire school maximize its resources and opportunities. To support these experts, as well as all educators who integrate technology into the overall curriculum, we must substantially increase our support for the federal Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program.  EETT provides critical support for on-going professional development, implementation of data-driven decision-making, personalized learning opportunities, and increased parental involvement. EETT should be increased to $500 million in FY2011.


4. Continuously upgrade educators’ classroom technology skills as a pre-requisite of “highly effective” teaching. As part of our nation’s continued push to ensure every classroom is led by a qualified, highly effective teacher, we must commit that all P-12 educators have the skills to use modern information tools and digital content to support student learning in content areas and for student assessment. Effective teachers in the 21st Century should be, by definition, technologically savvy teachers.


5. Invest in pre-service education technology. Teacher preparation is one of the most important aspects of a world-class 21st Century system of education and learning.  A federal investment in a new, technology-savvy generation of teachers is critical. To ensure their success in the classroom, pre-service teachers must be prepared to use technology and integrate it into the curricula before their first day as a teacher of record. By fully funding programs such as Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners (PTDAL), we can ensure that the United States produces the most technologically savvy educator workforce in the world.


6. Leverage technology to scale improvement. Through federal initiatives such as i3 grants, school districts across the nation are being asked to scale up current school improvement efforts to maximize reach and impact. School districts that have successfully led school turnaround and improvement efforts recognize that education technology is one of the best ways to accelerate reform, providing the immediate tools to ensure that all teachers and students have access to the latest innovative instructional pathways. If we are serious about school improvement, we must be serious about education technology.


7. Provide high speed broadband for all. The connectivity divide may be the most critical aspect of both our digital divide and our learning divide over the next decade. We must continue our national commitment to ensuring broadband access for all students through initiatives such as the E-Rate program.  Today’s classroom applications require significant bandwidth that many schools lack. Students who don’t have Internet access at home face a significant hurdle to participate in school assignments and produce high quality schoolwork—and their parents are hindered in school-to-home communications. We must provide high-speed bandwidth to our nation’s classrooms and focus on the school-to-home connection so that all students can succeed.


8. Boost student learning through data and assessment efforts. In schools across the nation, teachers, principals, and district administrators are increasingly discovering the benefits of real-time instructional and curriculum management systems. To maximize these efforts, we must provide educators with the systems, knowledge, and support they need to effectively tailor their teaching strategies and better meet the individual needs of each learner. Teachers’ capabilities to use data to improve instruction are equally important to contemporary data and assessment systems.


9. Invest in ongoing research and development. With the current push for both innovation and school improvement, it is essential that we, as a nation, invest in the research and development necessary to identify what is driving increased student achievement and why. Increased investment in education R&D, particularly with regard to innovation in teaching and learning, ensures that we remain a global leader in education. By stimulating meaningful, broad-based research and the dissemination of such research, we can ensure that the quality of teaching and learning in our classrooms keeps up with the goals and expectations we set for our students.


10. Promote global digital citizenship. In recent years, we have seen the walls that divide nations and economies come down and, of necessity, we’ve become focused on an increasingly competitive and flat world. Education technology is the great equalizer in this environment, breaking down artificial barriers to effective teaching and learning, and providing new reasons and opportunities for collaboration. Our children are held to greater scrutiny when it comes to learning and achievement compared to their fellow students overseas. We in turn must ensure that all students have access to the best learning technologies.

So we are seeing the full rodeo here.  We have school improvement issues, including boosting high school graduation rates.  We have relevant instruction.  We have teacher quality and support, both preservice and inservice.  We have data systems and improvement.  We have global competitiveness.  And we touch on issues related to ESEA reauthorization, RttT, i3, and most points in between.

In years past, it seemed like ed tech was an island unto itself.  But if this list is an indication, it looks like ISTE is working to position its members as a core part of the school improvement infrastructure.  This is a necessary move if we are to truly maximize the resources and opportunities available to both our teachers and our students.  But the big unanswered question is a relatively simple one.  Is the traditional K-12 infrastructure prepared to accept ed tech as a non-negotiable in the school improvement/student achievement movement?