Thanks to the Fordham Foundation's Flypaper blog (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/) we now have a good sense for the great minds advising expected Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain on education policy.  As to be expected, it is an impressive bunch.  Their challenge, though, will be to get education issues to stand out on the Arizona Senator's proposed domestic policy agenda.

No, McCain is not known in DC circles as one of the Senate's leaders on education.  But that doesn't mean he can't rise to the occasion.  The presidential bully pulpit is a strong one, and education remains a top five domestic policy issue for most.  If you can't figure out how to fix the economy in the short term, you certainly can focus on education for the long-term economic benefit.

More than a year ago, Eduflack offered a top-five list of education ideas for the Republican nominee to think about when constructing an education platform.  A lot has changed since then.  The latest State of the Union seemed to de-emphasize the future of vouchers.  Research still isn't sure the long-term impact of charter schools.  And the expected Democratic presidential nominee has been known to talk about merit pay for teachers. 

That said, let's take a look at those March 2007 recommendations:

"1.  National standards benefit the nation.  Such standards don't mean we are denying local control.  They empower our local districts to remain competitive in their state, across the nation, and throughout the world.  National standards, both for students and teachers, are the only way today's students can succeed in tomorrow's global economy.

2. Invest in education R&D.  We all understand the value of investing in medical or technology R&D.  Now is the time to invest in research focused on improving our schools and educational quality in our classrooms.  Such investment is key to triggering true innovation at the state or national level, leading to improved economies, better jobs, and better lives.

3. Respect the practitioners.  It is easy for some to say our schools have failed because our teachers have failed.  If any Republican wants to engender change in our schools, they need to respect the teachers delivering the curriculum.  They are on the front lines.  Without their support, reform will fall flat, destined for a garbage heap of good but failed ideas.

4. Don't fear additional spending.  NCLB scared off many a Republican, particularly with increased federal education spending.  The feds are still only responsible for about 8 cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education.  Additional funding is good for the system, as long as we are spending it on research-proven instruction and improvements we know will boost student achievement.

5. Focus on what works.  For decades, our schools have been bombarded with the latest in snakeoils and silver bullets.  Today's educators want to see what works in schools like theirs, with kids lke theirs.  NCLB is all about replicable school reforms.  Now is the time to spotlight what is going right in your hometown or your home state, and use it as the model for why we need to continue federal education reforms.  Many of today's improvements are directly tied to NCLB efforts.  Take credit for it."

Interestingly, these reccs ring as true today as they did 15 months ago.  But I'd offer a few caveats to Arizona's senior senator:

* Don't hitch your wagon to NCLB, attach yourself to the intent.  It isn't about "NCLB" the proper, it is about doing what works and funding what is proven effective.  Forget the title of the law.  Focus on the outcomes.  The federal government has a role in public education.  Claim that role, focusing on the future and expected goals.

* Don't forget, you were a teacher too.  As a leader in the Navy, you instructed and taught.  You molded and trained young men.  It may not have been the ABCs or the quadratic equation, but you understand the importance of good teaching.  Remind us of it.

* Shine your education agenda through the filter of economic opportunity.  Too often, we view education in a vacuum.  We can't afford to do that in today's economy.  Education policies should be positioned as opportunities to better prepare today's kids for the opportunities of tomorrow.  That doesn't mean turning our K-12 schools into trade schools, but it does mean an education that is relevant to both the student and the world.

* Borrow (and steal) from the Arizona experience.  As you are looking at what is relevant, take a close look at what your Governor has been doing.  Her focus on innovation and STEM education shows what we need to be thinking about in education reform.  Speaking from the Arizona experience, you can let the home state serve as a model for others in need.  You come from a state that gets it.

Eduflack isn't naive.  I recognize that education is not going to be a primary discussion topic for you between now and November.  I don't expect it will be an issue for a keynote speech during the Minneapolis convention.  But I know it is a basic bread-and-butter issue that can play well in the blue states and with independent voters. 

The days when a GOP president wanted to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education are over.  Now, you have the opportunity to strengthen the Department, making it more efficient and better focused on the end result.  You have a team of advisors who understand data, how to use it, and the importance of measurement and assessment.  Take advantage of it.  Improve the system.  Reject the status quo.

And please, Senator, don't lose sight of recc #1.  It may not be popular with some, but national standards are worth a good, long look.  Someone, some day is going to adopt national standards.  And it will result in a legacy many seek, but almost none achieve.

Just my three cents (inflation, after all).  Feel free to crib from, improve, or adopt wholesale.

Yesterday, a who's who of the education blob gathered to discuss the future of education research.  Hosted by Education Sector, AED, AIR, and the Knowledge Alliance, folks gathered for "Towards 2014: Education Research on the Leading Edge of School Improvement?" 

It was an opportunity to soak in all that Checker Finn, Russ Whitehurst, Rick Hess, Mike Smith, and the like have to say about the state of education research.  The forum was a follow-up to a similar event hosted by similar organizations back in 2002, when we were all just learning to let scientifically based research roll of our tongues (and before IES was even part of our vocabulary).

For those who missed it, you can get the main thrust from Knowledge Alliance President Jim Kohlmoos' guest blog on edbizbuzz — http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2008/05/friday_guest_column_is_educati.html#more.

What is particularly interesting is how little seems to have changed over the past six years.  Yes, we are all now aware of what SBR is, and why it is important.  But we seem to still struggle in two key areas, agreeing on what SBR is and applying it to practice.

For many, SBR is like the popular definition of pornography — we know it when we see it.  Ask us to define scientifically based research (as it applies to education) and we grasp for words.  Show us a recently completed research study or a journal article, and we can tell you whether it makes the cut or not.  Isn't diagnosing SBR after the fact what has gotten us in the trouble we're in?  Shouldn't we know if a study meets the scientific standards BEFORE we have spent millions of dollars on its execution?  Without a firm understanding of methodologies and research models, we risk a system where we simply slap an SBR label on the outcomes we happen to like.

We don't seem to have this problem in medicine.  We know what are scientifically based studies and what are surgically enhanced fluff.  So why is education so different? 

Some will use the statistic Russ Whitehurst uses — that the research portion of the U.S. Department of Education's budget is less than one half of one percent of the total budget, where Health and Human Services is spending nearly 42 percent of its budget on research.  Doesn't that mean it is even easier for ED to ensure that its research dollars are wisely spent?

I'll be the first to advocate for additional spending on educational research.  In many urban school districts — those with schools branded as dropout factories — we are spending $10,000, $12,000, even $15,000 per student on education.  As taxpayers, we have a right to know our money is well-spent.  As parents, we have a right to know that our kids are getting effective instruction.  As members of our social community, we have the right to know our schools work.  Research is the cornerstone to all of that.

Which gets us back to the previous issue — we're still struggling to put SBR to use in the classroom.  We understand the power of the buzzword, and are quick to describe our ideas or solutions as research-based or proven-effective.  But have we really studied what is happening the classroom?  Are we really measuring the effectiveness of specific interventions over the long term?  Are we really looking at the comprehensive research base available before deciding on a textbook or supplemental material?  Are we making sure what works is what we are using?

Unfortunately, "no" seems to be used an awful lot to answer those questions.  And it doesn't have to be that way.  At the forum, Checker Finn called for one-stop shops on educational research, where we all have more access to statistical information.  Add to that the means to train teachers, administrators, and decisionmakers to both understand and apply SBR, and we may have a real winner here. 

Data is important, but it is also dangerous.  Put it in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what they are looking at (or worse, thinks they do when they don't), and you can do far more damage than just maintaining the status quo.  As part of our ed R&D investment, we should be training a cadre of educator scientists who help practitioners distill the facts, identify what works, and move that research into practice.  That was the goal, six years ago, with NCLB and SBR.  And that should still be our goal today.

Yes, Eduflack knows he is a cynic.  But after this forum, he is cautiously optimistic.  SBR is no longer a punchline to a status quoer's ed reform joke.  We all seem to understand the importance of sound, replicable research.  Now, we are starting to break it down and see what makes the cut and what hits the trash.  With luck (and real commitment), we should see some wholesale understanding and implementation by 2014.  Let's just hope we're all there to see it (and still give a damn about it).

     

Earlier this week, Eduflack recommended anyone with an interest in reading instruction should check out the www.ednews.org interview with Reid Lyon.  In recent days, the links back to that interview have grown and grown.  While I'd like to think it is my influencer, I know it is simply the value of the information Reid provides.  It doesn't hurt that these are Reid's first read comments on RF since leaving NICHD nearly three years ago.

Yes, the interview is an interesting one.  But if you checked it out at the start of the week, you've missed out on the comments that are now attached to the piece.  Those of us who write on the internet expect comments to be a sentence or two, either bouquets or brickbats.  Those who have read Reid's interview have provided some interesting in-depth opinion.  Real thoughts from real practitioners and real researchers.  How novel!

Check it out — http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largest-concerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html.

It doesn't matter if your are and SBRR disciple or you've drunk the whole language kool-aid.  It's worth a read.

The cyclone that hit southeast Asia this past weekend was truly a tragedy.  But it does provide us both a teaching moment and a learning concern.

Every year, we hear how poorly U.S. students perform when it comes to geography.  Many are lucky to find Canada on the map, forget southeast Asia.  We tell ourselves geography isn't so important any more.  Our kids have more important things to do than to study maps and memorize capital cities.

So when an event like the cyclone hits, and it dominates the news, it provides us a real teaching moment.  It lets us bring out the maps and find the affected country.  It lets students study the region, and learn about its geography, its history, and its government.  It allows us to use breaking news as a hook for learning.

But that's where we start getting into trouble here.  Pick up most major newspapers — including The Washington Post and USA Today (both of which are delivered to the Eduhouse) — and we read about the cyclone that hit Burma.  Listen to TV news or read some of the coverage on the Internet, and the people of Myanmar were hit by a cyclone Saturday.  It's enough to confuse even the most well-intentioned of student.

We don't expect all media outlets to use the same style guidelines.  Back in the 1980s, there was massive disagreement on the spelling of the dictator of Libya.  Just a few years ago, we had multiple spellings for bin Laden's first name.  And let's not even touch those classroom globes that still have Czechoslovakia printed on them.

Social studies and geography teachers, help me out here.  How do we teach children the nations of the world if we can't even agree on the names on their "Welcome to ..." signs?

If teachers go above and beyond the call of duty, and their students' achievement benefits from it, should those teachers be rewarded?  What if teachers seek out additional training to improve their craft?  What if teachers commit to increasing curricular rigor ... and their students demonstrate improvement?  Is there ever a time when superstar teachers should be rewarded?  Does it matter if the incentive comes from the school district's annual budget or third-party grant funding?

These are questions that school districts have been grappling with for years.  And the issue of teacher incentive pay is only going to grow more and more heated.  Programs like Denver's ProComp have figured out how to make it work.  Incentive programs in Minnesota, though, decided to simply reward every teacher in the school.  And we're still waiting to see the impact of the U.S. Department of Education's Teacher Incentive Fund.

But recent developments in Seattle have Eduflack scratching his head.  The National Math & Science Initiative provided schools in Washington more than $13 million to boost AP math and science courses.  As part of the grant, teachers would be paid for time they spent in training and could be financially rewarded for how well their students performed on AP exams. 

The grant has been scuttled.  Pay for Washington State teachers can only be determined in negotiations between the union and the school district.  NMSI wanted to pay the teachers directly (representing less than a quarter of the full grant).  Since that violates the state CBO, these AP math and science incentives are now history.  The full story is here, with kudos to Fordham's Flypaper for drawing attention to it — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004394554_grants06m.html.

Rules are rules, I get that.  And the unions should play a role in determining how some of this money is used, particularly in terms of professional development and training.  But by denying groups like NMSI an opportunity like this only hurts the teachers and the students they teach.

The Washington Education Association says they can't allow outside groups to reward teachers.  Why not?  If I own the largest company in the state, and I depend on a steady workforce pool with science and math skills, why can't I reward those teachers or those schools that are helping to fill my jobs?  If I find out a specific physics or algebra teacher is responsible for my top performers, why can't I reward her, and even pay her to train other teachers to do it her way?

We continually hear that teachers are underpaid.  We seek out ways to get businesses and outside interests to assume a role, usually financially, in the process.  Is it really so far out of the realm of possibility to provide a teacher incentives outside of the school district budget?  Shouldn't we be looking for more ideas like this to reward teachers and honor achievement?  Shouldn't we be looking for innovations to get more good teachers in the classroom and keep them there?  Shouldn't we be doing more, rather than putting up barriers to protect the status quo?

Next week, Ed in '08 will be hosting an education bloggers summit.  It is shaping up to be a very interesting day, both for the professionals and the amateurs (with Eduflack firmly in the latter).

As part of the summit, Ed in '08 will award its 2008 Ed in '08 Blog Award.  The finalists list is now out, and <INSERT SHAMELESS PLUG HERE>, Eduflack is on the list.  I know, I have no idea how I possibly made the cut either, particularly when I see who else is on the list.  But those folks at Ed in '08 must know what they are doing.

Voting is open all week.  Readers can cast their ballots at http://edin08.com/bloggersummit/bloggerpoll.aspx.

With all of those great blogs on the list, I propose you think of Eduflack as your compromise candidate.  If you can't choose between X, Y, and Z because they are all on your must-reads, go ahead and choose Eduflack.  I'm definitely better than "None of the Above," and a vote for me won't result in a brokered convention.

Vote early, vote often!



 

These are definitely reading days.  Don't believe me?  Check out the front page of today's Washington Post.  Jay Matthews brings us the latest data from Accelerated Reader, an online reading program from Renaissance Learning.  Looking at its student usage data from more than 63,000 schools nationwide, AR has identified what books today's students are reading ... and how often they are reading them.

The full Matthews story is here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/04/ST2008050402168.html?hpid=topnews.  The AR study can be found here — http://www.renlearn.com/whatkidsarereading/ReadingHabits.pdf?sid=ST2008050402168.

The results are both interesting and disturbing.  Some of the top titles are to be expected.  "Green Eggs and Ham" is tops for first graders.  "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing" for fourth graders.  "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" was most read for second graders.

All of these are fun, well-written books that can be found in most independent reading collections for those grade levels.  But we're also seeing a number of "required" reading titles on the list, particularly with the older grades.

"The Outsiders" was tops for seventh and eighth graders.  Eduflack remembers that as required reading in middle school.  And for high schoolers, "To Kill a Mockingbird" was the most-read book.  The Harper Lee classic has long been a mandatory read in ninth or 10th grade classes throughout the country.

Such data is interesting.  The most popular titles today, for the most part, were popular titles when Eduflack was in school decades ago.  What's disturbing, though, is the amount of reading these students are doing.  We all keep hearing about the Harry Potter effect, and how kids are reading more today than they used to (due, in part, to the tri-wizard champion).  But AR's data seems to tell a different story.

The average seventh grader is only reading seven books a year.  Take away the required readings like "The Outsiders," and it is probably safe to say these junior high students are only reading two or three books independently each year.  Even more disturbing are high schoolers.  The average 12th grader is reading four books a year, meaning after books assigned in English class, the only thing seniors are reading is the back of a cereal box.

If we've learned anything during the RF era, it is that good reading comes in two parts.  Students need to gain the instructional building blocks identified under the law — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.  Then they need to practice it.  They need to read in class and outside of it.  They need to continue to develop those skills.  They need to become readers for life.

Reading is like any other skill.  If you want to play golf, you can get instruction on how to tee off, how to chip, and how to putt.  You can learn how to read the greens and choose your clubs.  But if you aren't out there knocking out a few buckets a week and playing on real courses, you will never be a good golfer (though completing those tasks is no guarantee of success, trust me).  Developing skills requires practice, practice, practice.  And reading skills are no different.

This data also helps us see the need to prioritize independent reading in our schools and homes.  And that is due to the continued importance of statewide assessments.  When it comes to ELA, the assessment is one big independent reading test.  Think about it.  The test may include an excerpt from "Charlotte's Web," but it isn't a test on how much you know about spiders and pigs. Assessments are independent, cold reads.  We test a student's ability to comprehend what they read. Do they know the vocabulary?  Can they read and process it in the requisite period of time?  Can they reach conclusions based on what they read?

Now, we must see what we can do with this data from AR.  How do we use it to get good books in the hands of good students?  How do we set goals to increase book consumption among students of all ages?  How, exactly, do we build the reading skills of all students?

Lots of questions.  In RF and in successful schools throughout the nation, we can find the answers.  We just need to look.  And we need to know how to read the signs.

Last week, the education reform community was abuzz with discussion on IES' interim report on Reading First's effectiveness.  There's been a great deal of good talk on the topic, particularly from Mike Petrilli and the folks over at Fordham Foundation.

Today, we've got a great interview on Educationnews.org with Reid Lyon.  If you're bothering to read anything on RF, then you have to know who Reid is.  I won't try to summarize the interview, for I couldn't do it justice.  Instead, I'll just forward the link.

Be warned, it is long.  But it is chock full of good information and good opinion.  Definitely worth the read.  And it begs the question — what is the other $140 million set aside for RF assessment/evaluation being used for? 

http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largest-concerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html

Happy reading!

This month, Washingtonian Magazine did a two-page spread on who Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would select for their Cabinet, should they take ownership of the big desk in the Oval Office.  Lots of interesting names to ponder and fuel cocktail party discussion. 

But one thing troubled Eduflack greatly.  There is no mention of the U.S. Department of Education.  After all of the money and attention spread by Ed in 08.  After the dogged pursuit of the issue by Richard Whitmire and EWA.  No mention of who would lead federal education in this NCLB 2.5, merit pay, voucher/charter whack-a-day world.

So Eduflack is going to take it upon himself to fill the Washingtonian's holes.  Let's set aside the campaign advisors that Alexander Russo so kindly provides on his Campaign 08 wiki.  Let's forget the whispers Eduflack has heard over the last year, mentioning everyone from UFT/AFT Randi Weingarten to Eduwonk Andy Rotherham to even NLNS CEO Jon Schnur.  All good fun, yes, but who do we really think will be heading ED in a Democratic administration?

Eduflack's narrowed his choice down to a top three ... and a dark horse.

Candidate A - NC Gov. Mike Easley.  Gov. Easley is one of the top education governors out there.  He gets it, and speaks passionately about key issues, particularly school-to-work concerns.  Sure, he is a lawyer by trade, but not everyone is perfect.  One could see him in the Secretary Riley model, a strong southern governor who knows how to lead and motivate.  The downside, as a NC governor, he will always be in Jim Hunt's shadow on education issues.  And he has endorsed Hillary in advance of the NC primary, which could hurt him with Obama later on.

Candidate B — Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  Cut from the same cloth as Easley, Granholm is smart, articulate, and a true motivator.  She's also made major education moves in Michigan, from PreK programs to instituting a comprehensive reform to high school graduation requirements.   The downside, we still time to see the effectiveness of her reforms and Michigan's test numbers are still waiting to see the Granholm bounce.

Candidate C — NYC Chancellor Joel Klein.  He has the results, he has the national recognition, and he is ripe for a new challenge.  What more is there to do in NYC.  He's won the Broad Prize and test scores are up.  NYC is now the model for urban reform.  Let's see what he can do on the national stage under a reauthorized NCLB.  The downside, another lawyer who may try to run ED like he ran his department at Justice.  Who at ED is up for that?

The Darkhorse — Rep. George Miller.  We seem to look to governors to serve as EdSec.  Just look at Lamar Alexander and Richard Riley.  Many would say the superintendent experiment with Rod Paige didn't work (Eduflack doesn't believe that.  In fact, Eduflack finds Paige to be one of the brightest, thoughtful educators he has had the pleasure of working with (post ED).  It's unfortunate that DC saw an overly scripted EdSec, courtesy of DPC, and not the real and true Paige.  Paige has gotten a raw deal these past few years, in my opinion).  NCLB needs reauthorization.  ED needs someone who understands Congress.  Who better than a co-author of the original NCLB law, an ed reform champion, and one who has stood up to the status quo.  Let's give the keys to Miller and let him enforce the spirit of the law he helped write in 2001.  The downside, of course, is why would he want to give up the Ed Committee Chairmanship to run a tough agency during a difficult time?

Let's see Washingtonian and the whispering class chew on these names for a while, and see what they think.  If not these four, then who? 

And don't worry, Senator McCain, Eduflack has a few names for you as well.  As you confer with Lisa Graham Keegan on ed issues, try floating names like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (if you don't choose him for VP) or Congressman Buck McKeon.  Heck, in another year, Paul Vallas may be ready for another challenge too.  He could be McCain's token Democrat in the Cabinet.

Today's big education news story seems to be the IES study on the effectiveness of Reading First.  For those who have missed the IES announcement of the study, or the USA Today or NY Times piece, or the countless blog entries, the good researchers over at IES determined that Reading First has been ineffective, to date.  Looking at elementary schools implementing RF programs, the researchers found that teacher behavior has changed, but student performance still has not improved.

Some are already questioning the methodology, asking if the type of poor-performing school studied by IES impacted the outcome.  And more criticisms are sure to come.

Ask Eduflack, and he thinks it is still too soon to know the true effectiveness.  If you ask a good educational researcher, they'll tell you it typically takes at least five years to see the effectiveness of a reform.  RF was signed into law in 2002, with state grant applications soon following.  That means the earliest checks were likely cut for the 2003-04 school year.  So if we're lucky, IES has looking at year three, maybe year four of implementation.  So let's give it another year or two before we eulogize Reading First.

The bigger issue, though, is the implications of the study.  Many will use this to reinforce the IG findings and to validate the attacks that RF has faced from the beginning.  Think about it — if the implementation was bad, the awards were skewed, and the impact non-existent, the law must be no good.  Right?

But we're truly missing the bigger picture.  The IG investigation and the recent Sol Stern/Fordham Foundation report have reached similar conclusions.  RF is a well-intentioned and well-conceived program.  The flaw was in the implementation.  The feds, the SEAs, and the LEAs have not followed the true letter or spirit of the law.  Some cut corners.  Some skipped sections of the law.  And some simply didn't understand it.

Read Stern's report closely.  Talk to the brains behind the law — the Reid Lyons and the Bob Sweets of the world — and they will tell you the same thing.  The law is strong.  We need to better enforce it.  We need to better follow it.  We need to better live it.  

Instead, we let the status quoers use RF funding to support non-SBRR programs.  We let schools continue so-called balanced literacy programs.  And we failed to ensure that "what works" was really getting into the classroom.

I'd still like to believe that RF can be saved.  We have the technology to rebuild her.  If the IES study tells us anything, it is that we need to enforce RF with greater fidelity. We need to follow both the letter and the intent of the law.  If we don't, we may hasten the death of RF and the implementation of SBRR.  And that's no good for the teachers who have already changed their practice and for the kids who need to be reading at grade level.