Eduflack

Around the Edu-Horn, September 1, 2010

2010-09-01T21:34:00Z

So now edujobs $$ don't have to be spent on edujobs? blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaig… via @educationweek

How sad! Swing sets removed at some W.Va. schools, thanks to litigation http://yhoo.it/cqBPJa

First online-only public school in Massachusetts opens this week http://sbne.ws/r/5vCb (from ASCD)

RT @EdEquality CNN interviews award-winning teachers to get their advice on #edreform. "It's all abt the teachers." http://bit.ly/d1VK5z

U of Phoenix and paid media, promotions -- http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/01/phoenix

Online Learning in the Windy City

2010-08-31T14:52:00Z

At a time when we are asking school districts to do more and more with less and less, how do we maximize the resources and opportunities we currently have? While many folks may see online learning in K-12 as a great idea, but one they aren't willing to fully embrace in practice, Chicago Public Schools is showing us how online learning can be effectively used.

Over at edReformer, Eduflack has a new blog post post on how CPS is using online learning to supplement the learning process and improve high school grad rates in the process. As I say on edReformer, if we are serious about improving all schools for all students, we need to look closely at what Chicago is doing so we can maximize an instructional component like online learning, not minimize it.

Around the Edu-Horn, August 30, 2010

2010-08-30T20:50:00Z

RT @saramead I made a cool spreadsheet to help people analyze RTT results: Check it out here: http://bit.ly/c08k3L

Teachers blast L.A. Times for releasing teacher effectiveness rankings - latimes.com http://bit.ly/aQDOiX

RT @sgermeraad NY Times: #RTTT has shown that competitive grant programs can be a powerful spur to #edreform http://nyti.ms/bhIjUK

Growth of online learning in Chicago schools draws cheers, worries - chicagotribune.com http://bit.ly/b8GE7z

Education Secretary Duncan hits the road for reform http://flne.ws/25797129

Around the Edu-Horn, August 27, 2010

2010-08-27T19:08:00Z

Christie fired Schundler in NJ over #RTT loss -- http://tinyurl.com/2ff3n39

Progress slows in closing achievement gaps in D.C. schools: http://wapo.st/aFDVWV

Kindergartens see more Hispanic, Asian students http://usat.me/39861754

New NSDC study on teacher PD trends and challenges -- http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudytechnicalreport2010.pdf

RT @ewrobelen STEM education to get boost from Race to Top winners: http://bit.ly/b00r6R

Teachin' the Teachers

2010-08-26T12:24:00Z

For much of this year, the education community has gone back and forth on teacher quality and how we evaluate effective teaching.  Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times (with an assist from Hechinger Report) pushed the topic further than most, offering a comprehensive Grading the Teachers effort that tracked individual teachers to their students' test scores.

Without doubt, we will continue to look at such outcomes to see whether teachers are up to the job or not. Cities across the nation, led by municipalities like Denver, Houston, and DC, have strong teacher evaluation and incentive plans in place. And the 12 states (yes, I'll count DC in the state pool) that finished as Race to the Top winners all needed to focus on teacher quality issues (to varying degrees).

Such emphasis on outcomes is imperative. At the end of the day, we know our schools are improving when test scores go up. Other measures, particularly the qualifiable, are relatively meaningless to the average parent or the average policymaker if student performance does not improve. Scores go up, we're doing the job. Scores remain stagnant, we're advocating the status quo. And let's not even think about scores going down. Data is king. He with the highest test scores -- be you student, teacher, or school -- rules the kingdom.

But every once in a while, we need to think about the inputs that get us to those outcomes.  The logic goes that if we are measuring teachers based on the achievement scores posted by the kids in their class, we need to also look at the tools that educators have to effectively teach in those classrooms. What supports are teachers getting, particularly new teachers? What does an induction program look like? What sort of ongoing PD is offered? What intellectual weapons are we arming our classroom teachers with?

Today, the National Staff Development Council released a new report, Professional Development in the United States: Trends and Challenges, that provides a snapshot of the investment we are making into teaching the teachers how to be better teachers. Conducted by the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) at Stanford University (a center that Eduflack has been fortunate to work with since its founding), the NSDC study offers a state-by-state report card of 11 indicators important to professional development access. Such indicators include whether at least 80 percent of new teachers participate in induction, at least 80 percent of teachers report PD on content, at least 51 percent of teachers are getting 17 or more hours of content, and at least 67 percent of teachers reported PD on reading instruction.

How did the states do?  If a teacher wants to get the best professional development out there, they should be teaching in classrooms in either Arkansas or Utah. If you aren't in a classroom in either of those two states, you are doing pretty well if you manage a classroom in Colorado, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, or South Carolina. South Carolina and Utah also offer the best environment for new teachers, posting the best scores in induction indicators.

And where does NSDC and SCOPE find teachers struggling to get the PD deemed necessary? Indiana was the only state not to receive a single apple in the 11-apple indicator scale.    Single apples (out of 11) went to Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and WIsconsin.

While many aren't going to like to see such a report boiled down to a horserace (the folks at SCOPE actually list the states alphabetically, not in leaders to laggards order), such a comparison is important. Teacher quality was a key component of RttT, and worth a fair number of points in the process. Of the seven states recognized for their good work in PD access, only one, North Carolina, is a RttT winner. Three others (Colorado, Kentucky, and South Carolina) came close.

But of those NSDC finds lacking, we see four RttT winners (Georgia, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) in the 11 laggards. One would like to believe that some of these perceived deficiencies will be addressed as part of each state's RttT-funded teacher quality efforts; only time will tell.

What also becomes interesting are the indicators themselves. NSDC's Professional Development Access Index says that at least 51 percent of new teachers need to report 4 out of 5 induction support.s Only two states -- South Carolina and Utah -- actually do that. It says at least 67 percent of teachers need to report PD on student discipline and classroom management, but only one state -- Arkansas -- is doing that. Only three states -- Arizona, California, and Oregon -- are offering a majority of their teachers PD on ELL students. It begs the question -- how, exactly, do we know these indicators are non-negotiable when it comes to teacher PD if almost no states are doing it?

Regardless, NSDC's Professional Development in the United States report provides some interesting fodder for the ongoing teacher quality debate.  It forces us to go on record as to whether PD is important or not, opens the discussion on what good PD truly is, and allows states to see how their fellow states are doing (and what they can do to beat them).

No, we probably won't see a rush to invest in huge PD programs, particularly in this economy. But if states are serious about improving student achievement and measuring teachers by said achievement scores, we need to look at the inputs that go into instruction.  Teacher induction and ongoing professional development are inputs that just can't be ignored.

Win, Place, Show - 9 RttT Observations

2010-08-24T18:23:00Z

The Race is now over (at least until EdSec Duncan gets funding for the third leg of his proposed Triple Crown for school improvement). Some expected and some surprises standing in the winners' circle. Ten RttT Phase Two recipients in all, including (highest scores first): Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Florida, Rhode Island, District of Columbia, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio.

In the coming days, there will be significant electronic space dedicated to dissecting the scores, looking for hidden meaning in the rankings, and generally seeking out those elements that go bump in the night. But there are a few takeaways we can see immediately:

1) As all college basketball fans know, we live in an ACC/SEC world (just ask SportsCenter). The RttT winners list reinforces this, offering a who's who of East Coast states. One winner west of the Mississippi (Hawaii), and if you remove that outlier, the westernmost RttT winner is ... Ohio. While I'm not sure what that says about school improvement in the Midwest, Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and such, I know it offers some great hoops possibilities in that RttT bracket.

2) Oral defenses mattered this time around. In Phase One, most scores didn't move after presentations in DC. Delaware had the largest jump, winning it a Phase One check. But most Phase One states saw single digit changes, with some seeking just a fraction of a point difference. Phase Two was a completely different story. Six states (AZ, CO, DC, FL, NJ, and OH) all saw double-digit increases, thanks to their defense. It likely made the difference for at least two of the three winners (DC and OH).

3) There were a few surprises in the winners, particularly Maryland and Hawaii. Maryland sat out Phase I. Hawaii placed 22nd the last time around. The other eight were all finalists this time around, and were expected to do well this go around. And show me one person who thought New York would do that well (second place, really?).

4) The biggest surprises of those not winning everyone is talking about? Most seem to point to Louisiana and Colorado. In Phase One, Louisiana placed 11th and Colorado placed 14th. Colorado increased its points total nearly 11 points in this round, while Louisiana increased its point total about 18 points. So both improved (slightly) for the second round. It is just that others posted far more impressive improvements.

5) The biggest surprises of those not winning no one seems to be talking about? Illinois was 5th in Phase One, but fell to 15th this round. Pennsylvania was 7th in Phase One, falling to 18th this round (and actually losing points in the process). Kentucky was 9th in Phase One and slipped to 19th this round, losing six points.

6) Who just missed? Ohio was the 10th of 10 winners, scoring 440.8. New Jersey finished 11th, at 437.8. Arizona was 12th, at 435.4. And Louisiana came in 13th at 434.0. So 1 percent separated a winner from three left on the outside looking in.

7) Only two states lost points between rounds -- Arkansas and Pennsylvania. Most states posted huge gains, including a 195-point gain from Arizona, an 87-point gain from California, a 64-point gain from New Hampshire, and a 60-point gain from Massachusetts. So credit to virtually all for learning from Phase One (or from benefiting from a more lenient judge pool).

8) Delaware would have come in 4th place in Phase Two, following Massachusetts, New York, and Hawaii. Tennessee would have been 9th this round (10th if Delaware was in), coming in less than four points higher than Ohio.

9) And the most interesting fun fact? Utah gained just fourth-tenths of a point in Phase Two. Now that is consistency at its best.

Stay tuned for the conspiracy chatter. What states lost because of lukewarm support from the unions (I'm looking at you NJ and LA)? Were data systems a problem (can't be, based on NY's strong showing, right)? Did Common Core State Standards play a tipping point between the haves and have nots? Would Romanian skating rules judging have changed the order? What really happened in Colorado? Inquiring minds need to know.

Acting on Common Standards

2010-08-24T14:02:00Z

Two-thirds of states have now signed onto the Common Core State Standards Initiative, pledging to adopt the K-12 English/language arts and math standards framework officially released in final form by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers back in June.

Without doubt, CCSSI is a necessary step forward in our national school improvement effort. One, singular set of academic standards is a non-negotiable if we are to truly improve our performance on national assessments such as NAEP and if we are to make ourselves more competitive on international benchmarks such as PISA and TIMSS. CCSS offer the promise that, in the near future, we will actually know the answer to the question, what should a fourth grader know when it comes to math? Or what does it mean to be ELA proficient in the 7th grade. Doesn't matter what state or district a student is in (unless they happen to reside in Texas or Virginia), standards will soon actually be standard.

As states are moving to formally adopt the CCSS, the federal government is already beginning the process of developing the assessments that will accompany such standards. In the coming weeks, we should hear about hundreds of millions of dollars being sent to various consortia to develop a standard assessment to go with the standards. But an important question remains. How do we move these K-12 standards frameworks into real instruction?

Often, school improvement efforts get bogged down in this question. We offer up a "great idea" but have little notion of how to operationalize it. So those great ideas wither on the vine. We all sign onto the concept, but we never fully put it into practice.

Last week, a comprehensive set of K-12 ELA "curriculum maps" were released for public review and comment. The maps are a product of Common Core (which despite the name is not actually a part of or affiliated with CCSSI).  According to the folks at Common Core (a group Eduflack has been fortunate to work with):

Common Core’s Curriculum Maps in English Language Arts were written by public school teachers for public school teachers. The maps translate the new Common Core State Standards for Kindergarten through 12th grade into unit maps that teachers can use to plan their year, craft their own more detailed curriculum, and create lesson plans. The maps are flexible and adaptable, yet they address every standard in the CCSS. Any teacher, school, or district that chooses to follow the Common Core maps can be confident that they are adhering to the standards. Even the topics the maps introduce grow out of and expand upon the “exemplar” texts recommended in the CCSS. And because they are free the maps will save school districts millions in curriculum development costs. The draft maps are available for public comment until September 17.

There has been a great deal swirling around the blogsphere the past week on these Curriculum Maps. One thing seems certain. Like CCSSI itself, these Maps are a necessary first step toward moving the standards into real instruction. Do they answer each and every question one has about implementing CCSS? Of course not.  But it does put us on a real path toward teaching English according to what is expected from CCSS. And it does so on a platform that was constructed on the standards themselves (rather than being tailored from old, existing materials or simply claiming alignment even if one is not there).

Perhaps most importantly, though, is that these standards were "written by public school teachers for public school teachers." We've been hearing a great deal, of late, about how most education improvement efforts seem to exclude teachers from the process. We bring them the final product, asking them to implement, but we don't give them any practical input into the development. These Common Core Curriculum Maps seem different. Educators developed and reviewed these drafts. Teachers are now being asked to provide public comment and input on the drafts. And those teacher inputs will be factored in before the Maps go final later this fall.

Such maps only live up to their potential, though, if folks provide valuable feedback and actionable recommendations. Both the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation processes were strengthened because of a robust public comment period. Same goes for the Common Core State Standards themselves, which went through comprehensive review and public comment before we saw the final product in early June.

So for all of those who worry how to implement the standards, now is the time to offer public comment. For all of those who worry that teachers have been ignored in the school reform process, now is the time to offer public comment. For all of those who have first-hand, real classroom experience to provide, now is the time to offer public comment. And for those who want to improve both teaching and learning, particularly in ELA, now is the time to offer public comment.

As the first to market, these Common Core Curriculum Maps have the potential of wielding significant impact on the future of instruction in our public school classrooms. If we are going to start from the strongest footing possible, we need teachers and administrators and policymakers and the like to take the time to review the maps and offer their views on how to strengthen the recommendations and improve the tools that will be provided the educators throughout the nation.

Around the Edu-Horn, August 19, 2010

2010-08-19T20:57:00Z

RT @JoanneLeeJacobs A new curriculum map for new standards http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/08/a-new-curriculum-map-for-new-standards/

Report calls for overhaul of low-performing Buffalo, N.Y., schools http://sbne.ws/r/5pxk (from ASCD)

RT @USChamberICW Summary of #RttT phase 2 finalists, including detailed look at major changes in apps since phase 1: http://bit.ly/cyX8k2

Fenty's political fortunes tied to success of D.C. school reforms: http://wapo.st/dpAO6o

RT @Dyrnwyn High School diplomas and black grad rates in NJ are of questionable value: http://www.nje3.org/?p=3129

If You Don't Know Where DCPS is Starting ...

2010-08-19T13:02:00Z

By now, most realize that the DC Public Schools has become a central issue to next month's DC mayoral primary. Since taking over DCPS in 2007, Mayor Adrian Fenty has put the schools front and center. After hiring Michelle Rhee as his schools chancellor, Fenty has regularly touted DC test score improvements and other measures to show that the schools have improved over the last two or three years.

So how does it all really measure up? In this morning's Washington Post, Bill Turque offers up

a terrific analysis of current benchmarks and measures for DC's schools. (And for those who aren't paying attention, Turque regularly offers up some of the best insights on the continued schools evolution in our nation's capital.) Among the highlights are massive achievement gaps across the wards, including a 51-point reading proficiency gap between the poorest ward (Ward 8) and the wealthiest (Ward 3) and similar achievement gaps between black and white students, including a math achievement gap that has now widened to 58 points.

Perhaps most interesting, though, was the detailing of DC high school graduation rates. We all know that grad rates are now the big dog in accountability. We've shifted from middle school AYP to college and career ready, with the latter being measured by graduation and college-going rates.

According to Turque:

"Graduation rates: Fenty points to data showing that 72 percent of students graduated in 2009, up nearly three points from the previous year. Officials attributed the gains to stronger intervention programs and closer scrutiny of transcripts to make certain students have the credits to finish.

But the Office of the State Superintendent of Education uses what many experts call a flawed method for calculating high school completion. The formula divides the number of graduating seniors by that same number plus those who have dropped out in the previous four years. Analysts say a better way to track graduation rates would be to measure the percentage of ninth-graders who graduate within four years. D.C. officials say they are planning to switch to the more widely accepted "cohort" method. That would probably show a less-rosy picture. Education Week this year estimated the District's 2007 graduation rate at about 59 percent."

Eduflack must admit it. I was floored to read the formula that OSSE uses to determine high school grad rates. How can one calculate graduation rates by first EXCLUDING the number of students who have dropped out of high school? Eduflack doesn't have to be a statistician to know that DC is simply calculating the on-time graduation rate. Of those students who remain in high school for four years, 72 percent earn their diploma in that time. It is presumed that others will earn a diploma in five or even six years. Laudable, indeed, but it is not the graduation rate.

You've heard it here before, but I'm going to get back up on my high edu-horse. Back in 2005, the National Governors Association got every single state to sign onto the Graduation Counts Compact and a common graduation rate formula. The formula is simple. Look at the number of ninth graders enrolled in school. Four years later, look at how many students earned a regular or advanced diploma. Divide A by B, and you have the graduation rate. Rinse and repeat.

We always seem shocked by the great disparities in high school grad rates, depending on who is reporting what. Urban districts like DC tend to paint far rosier pictures than doom-and-gloomers like Jay Greene. But can anyone really question the need for one, single, common graduation rate formula? As we try to evaluate school districts and states and determine ROI for our school investments, don't we need a single measure that let's us compare apples to apples?

Yes, DC can point to improvement. Test scores have increased. Enrollment levels have stopped dropping. The city is investing in facilities and in improving special education options. But one can't adequately address progress if one doesn't have a clear starting point.

Earlier this month, Eduflack congratulated Detroit for pulling back the curtain and showing their true schools data, warts and all. Perhaps it is time for Fenty, Rhee, and DCPS to do the same. There is a huge difference between a stated 72 percent grad rate and a likely actual 59 percent graduation rate.

Years ago, baseball philosopher Yogi Berra wisely said, if you don't know where you are going, you might not get there. That sage advice couldn't be more true for school improvement. Equally important is knowing where one is starting. You can't get to your destination if you don't know the true starting point.

Around the Edu-Horn, August 18, 2010

2010-08-18T20:20:00Z

RT @dorieturner AP: Ga.'s Perdue orders special probe into test cheating: http://bit.ly/bfz3qm

High-school students in S.D. district trade notebooks for MacBooks http://sbne.ws/r/5oWy (from ASCD)

ACT scores show slight gains and persistent achievement gap http://sbne.ws/r/5oWr (from ASCD)

RT @SchlFinance101 Rob Manwaring thoughts on LAT VA analysis: http://t.co/hQHIBLe

Around the Edu-Horn, August 17, 2010

2010-08-17T20:11:00Z

RT @dorieturner AP: Cheating scandal roils Atlanta Public Schools http://bit.ly/90m4fj #education

N.J. schools chief favors more school time, charter expansion http://sbne.ws/r/5ojA (from ASCD)

RI toughens high school graduation requirements -- http://tinyurl.com/28jhpjw

RT @EdEquality New report on Black males released. Out of 50 states 1/2 have grad rates below nat'l avg. http://bit.ly/aYMOA1

Toilet paper, the latest must-have school supply -- http://www.cnbc.com/id/38711521

The Drumbeat for Mayoral Control

2010-08-17T12:22:00Z

Do mayors run better urban school systems? That is the question the Wall Street Journal asked yesterday as it used Rochester (NY) Mayor's Robert Duffy's bid to take over his struggling city schools as a launching pad to discuss the merits of mayoral control.

Duffy is lobbying the New York Legislature to take over his schools, seeking to dissolve the current elected school board and replace it with a board appointed by himself and the city council. The pressing demand? The need to close failing schools and reopen new ones better aligned with student needs and learning expectations.

For those that read the WSJ's education coverage, this is a regular drumbeat. Back in March of 2009, the Journal wrote (and Eduflack opined on) an interesting piece on the growing embrace of mayoral control, riffing off of the notion that President Obama and EdSec Arne Duncan were advocating for mayoral takeovers in order to implement their aggressive school improvement plans. As it did 17 months ago, the Wall Street Journal cites successes in New York, Boston, and Washington DC to make its case for giving the keys to the schools to the municipal leader.

Interestingly, yesterday's article by Joy Ressmovits seems to note there has been no mad rush to add to the powers of our nation's mayors. Despite last year's declarations, we are not seeing huge numbers of urban districts turning to mayoral control. Despite efforts in cities like Detroit and Milwaukee, such moves seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Why?

First, there is no clear "mayoral control" model for which one can buy the playbook and just implement the plan. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg had a particular plan in place, and he and Chancellor Joel Klein have implemented it step by step. In our nation's capital, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee have tried to crib from NYC and build a NYCDOE South in DC. But leaders in Boston have behaved very differently, both in leadership style and in organization. The same can be said for Chicago.

Second, because there is no one-size-fits-all model, there is no guarantee of success. Just look at Cleveland, where student performance on NAEP has actually declined since the mayor's office took control of the schools. Or look at NYC, where despite an historic increase in test scores, many still believe that the current regime isn't working, even seizing on the recent realignment of the state assessment to discredit recent gains. And in DC, after two years of real gains, this year's scores seem to have flatlined some.

Third, there are real political ramifications for taking over the schools. Case in point here is Washington, DC, where Fenty is in the re-election fight of his life this fall. One of the central issues to the campaign? Control of the schools. Fenty's chief opponent, City Council Chairman Vincent Gray, has made major issue of how the DC Schools are run. So much so, in fact, that he has strongly suggested one of his first orders of business when elected mayor would be the removal of Rhee as schools chancellor. Who would have thought a superintendent would be a major campaign issue for an urban mayor?

If we just look at the NAEP, clearly mayoral control is not the answer to school success. The top districts (including Charlotte, NC and Austin, TX) on the NAEP TUDA are those run by school boards. Mayoral control superstars like NYC and Boston are still posting scores below the national NAEP average (though above the large city average).

In hearing Mayor (and hopeful NY LG) Duffy tell his tale, one has to believe there has to be a middle ground. Can't we adequately deal with failing schools without needing to seize control of the district? Can't school boards be held to the same accountability as we expect of the superintendent and the principals? Aren't there incentives (beyond the current federal dollars) to get school districts to make the necessary changes to turn around histories of failure? Aren't there ways to bring in the reforms Duffy seeks without having to go to the state legislature and ask for the nuclear option to deal with the schools? And as we assess our ability to turn around struggling districts, what measures should we use, besides NAEP, to determine success?

Lots of questions. But who has the answers?

Around the Edu-Horn, August 16, 2010

2010-08-16T21:07:00Z

L.A. district to launch first full-time online school http://sbne.ws/r/5nxO (from ASCD)

RT @edfunding CA first to file edujobs fund app. Using its own state formula to distribute $ to districts. http://myloc.me/aFp5Z

RT @PoliticsK12 Read @TeacherBeat for his take on the value-added debate heating up in LA after big Times' story: http://bit.ly/bUGMq4

Saving $$ by resizing, consolidating MI schools -- http://tinyurl.com/3xn7dmm

Is Obama the biggest bully in education? http://bit.ly/aVoaNP

From @hechingerreport, great video interviews asking if we should do ed reform in a recession -- http://tinyurl.com/2al2u4l

Straight Talk on Detroit Schools

2010-08-09T10:05:00Z

Sometimes, it can be near impossible to get straight talk on education statistics. Just talk a look at a simple topic like high school graduation rates. Most urban school systems, those that are homes to many of our dropout factories, will say their official graduation rates are in the 80 - 90 percent range (offering a convoluted formula of who counts, who doesn't, and such). Talk to high school critics like Jay Greene, and those same grad rates will be 20 - 25 percent lower. Same data, different formulas, severely different results.

Over at Fortune magazine, the editors are profiling the "visionaries" of the rebirth of Detroit. One of the Motor City stars highlighted in the piece is Carol Goss, head of Detroit's Skillman Foundation. The profile on Goss and what she is trying to do in the city is interesting. But what is even more interesting is the sidebar of Detroit education statistics offered with the piece (a sidebar found in August 16 edition of Fortune magazine, but not on the web version.)

According to Fortune, Detroit Public Schools has:

* 84,600 students enrolled in 2009, compared to 167,000 in 2000

* The 2008-2009 graduation rate for high school seniors was 60 percent

* The new high school graduation rate target for DPS is 90 percent

* Currently, 2 percent of Detroit public high school students are prepared for college-level math

* 11 percent of high school students are prepared for college-level reading

* 35 percent of Detroit's high school students are accepted to postsecondary institutions

Eduflack does not repost these numbers to embarrass Detroit, its schools, or its teachers. To the contrary, I offer up these very frank and honest numbers as hopeful inspiration for school improvement across the nation. The President of the United States has set a national goal of producing the highest number of college graduates per capita by 2020. The US Department of Education is pledging to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act so that is ensures that each and every child is college and career ready. And virtually every education reformer has promised to improve graduation rates, while boosting student achievement across the board.

Real change cannot happen if we don't have solid, reliable baselines to know exactly where we are starting. These startling numbers of Detroit's college readiness show all where the city's schools truly are starting from. As an honest starting line, it allows Detroit to document real progress. Instead of using inflated grad rates and soft measures of proficiency, Detroit tried a new approach for K-12 public education. Brutal honesty. Shock us with the truth, and we may just trust your progress in the out years.

Eduflack has long been a fan of the improvements Robert Bobb has tried to make in Detroit. And I'd love to believe Fortune that Goss "has the money and credibility to win people over." So let's remember these numbers when Detroit offers up its progress reports in a year or three (particularly after Michigan has implemented Common Core Standards). And let's start the watch to see if other other urban districts are willing to perform a similar statistical strip show, offering up ever blemish. Only then will we ever be able to truly declare mission accomplished in our communal quest to improve our public schools.

Around the Edu-Horn, August 6, 2010

2010-08-06T20:11:00Z

Measuring MT student success after high school -- http://tinyurl.com/389bau3

RT @hechingerreport Should we try to reform education during a recession? http://bit.ly/bzZGsi

RT @alexanderrusso This Week in Education: Innovation- Success For All's Overnight Success http://bit.ly/dfQFKu

New education data website from ED -- www.eddataexpress.ed.gov

Florida says outside audits show test results are accurate http://sbne.ws/r/5iR7 (from ASCD)

About Those i3 Matching Funds ...

2010-08-06T13:06:00Z

By now we've all seen the list of the big Investing in Innovation (i3) winners. Nearly 1,700 contestants entered the squared circle, and only 49 emerged as "winners," with the survivors now left to prove that their research-based innovation is the best damned innovation in the entire education land.

(Bear with Eduflack, I'm trying to build up the hype here. I'm amazed by how little excitement or enthusiasm has come from the announcement of $650 million in i3 grants earlier this week. This should be a much bigger deal than it is.)

When I first saw the list on Wednesday afternoon (thank you Michele McNeil and Politics K-12 for giving us the list a day before we all expected it), I was taken by a few things. The first was the absence of the Chicago TAP program from the list. For the past year, I have been all but certain that TAP would win one of the $50M biggies. Perhaps the recent study on TAP's effectiveness was more damaging that most expected.

The second was how few school districts actually won i3 grants. Throughout the process, most talked about how these were LEA based. We all knew that some non-profits and institutions of higher education would win. In fact, we expected that some of the larger grants would go to reform-minded non-profits (as it did). Yes, I am surprised so many IHEs put in winning applications. But I am more surprised how the list seems to say that innovation is coming from outside influences, and not from the entities (the districts) entrusted with educating our children.

Yesterday, I (and I'm sure much of the free world) received an email from the good folks over at the NewSchools Venture Fund, as it congratulated nine "NewSchools supported ventures" that won i3 grants. And it got me really thinking. This week's 49 winners all need to find a 20 percent match to actually receive their oversized checks from the US Department of Education. I assume that these nine NewSchools groups (including Teach for America and KIPP) will be able to find the outside funding necessary. But what happens to those orgs that may not be able to secure a few million in outside funding in short order, in this economy?

When applications were solicited, it was made clear that such outside funding did not have to be lined up to win. Securing that third-party funding could be done after selection, meaning you only needed to hustle for the dollars if you actually needed the money to close the deal. So we now have 49 innovative education programs scurrying to secure $130 million in matching funds to qualify. Once the Gates Foundation puts money down on the horses it is going to back, and other large foundations do the same, who is going to pick up the slack for the many remaining groups, particularly those in the "validation" category? Will we see dollars coming from local foundations? In-kind contributions of staff and benefits? Creative book keeping to hit the magic mark?

It all raises a bigger question. How many of the 49 selected applications will fail to meet all of the requirements (meaning the 20 percent private funding match) by September 8? Will today's winners be denied their checks tomorrow? Personally, I'm willing to bet at least five of the winners will have to seek waivers and extend their private-sector fundraising efforts.

Without question, those writing the checks want to put their money on winners, particularly in the education space. And these 49 are as sure a bet as there is. But 49 groups scurrying for $130 million in 34 days, including five weekends (one of them a holiday) is asking an awful lot, even for innovators like this lot.

The Case for Quality Online Learning

2010-08-04T15:08:00Z

Eduflack is back on his edReformer soapbox today, offering up the latest thinking of online K12 learning and the misperceptions surrounding it. A decade ago, we watched colleges and universities struggle with transitioning from bricks and mortar to online. Now, we are starting to see the same challenges in K12. Check it out over at edReformer, as well as a wealth of other posts and streams on e-learning and online instruction.

Around the Edu-Horn, August 3, 2010

2010-08-03T20:18:00Z

RT @TeacherBeat CCSSO Unveils Draft Teaching Standards: http://bit.ly/9BSB4o

RT @edReformer edReformer: Breaking News: Dept of Ed Puts Hundreds Millions Into Early Childhood http://bit.ly/cK7L3V

The problems with alt cert in MI -- http://tinyurl.com/2ce9zkv

Caperton and the education deficit -- http://tinyurl.com/22p3ksq

MN opts out of math common core -- http://www.twincities.com/ci_15655121?nclick_check=1

Dual Enrollment for All!

2010-08-03T17:13:00Z

When most discuss the merits of dual-enrollment programs in our high schools, thoughts immediately turn to those classic over-achievers who are looking to earn a high school diploma along with two or three years of college before they turn 18. We talk of how K-12 systems and higher education systems struggle to work together. And sometimes, we even discuss how we shouldn't rush our kids and deprive them of a "traditional" high school experience.

Meanwhile the high school dropout rate has remained steady for decades (and Eduflack is one who believes that the dropout rate is, unfortunately, close to one-third.) Drop-out factories remain prevalent in many of our urban and rural communities. Too many students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds do not have access to college prep high schools (with AP and IB classes). Yet we continue to talk about how every student should be college ready when the odds are against at-risk students to even get through high school.

So what is one to do? A new study from the Blackboard Institute finds that dual enrollment programs could be the great equalizer. In the report, Columbia University's Elisabeth Barrett and Rutgers University's Liesa Stamm found that dual enrollment can benefit all students, not just those on the fast track. Specifically, the found dual enrollment offers all students benefits such as:

* Enhancing the academic rigor of high school curricula
* Providing students with a broader range of academic and career-oriented courses and electives
* Offering students the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school
* Introducing high school students to college academic expectations and preparing them for college-level study
* Making education more interesting and relevant, to the extent that students can take courses that relate to their interests or career goals
* Facilitating the transition from high school to college
* Improving student prospects during the college admissions process as a result of college credits earned
* Accelerating progression to college degree completion
* Reducing the costs of college education by enabling students to earn college credits while in high school that are generally tuition-free

Of course, these are all arguments we have heard before. But the study's authors also point to the significant role that dual enrollment can play in helping at-risk students ... if they are provided the right support services. Such services include academic supports, course re-configurations, college preparatory initiatives, career exploration, and mentoring.

Perhaps most interesting, though, was the discussion of online dual enrollment. First, the statistics. According to the report, 70 percent of school districts had one or more students enrolled in a fully online or blended course. Nearly 70 percent of those enrolled in online learning do so at the high school level. Nearly two thirds of school districts expect growth in their fully online courses and 61 percent see growth for their blended courses.

Despite popular opinion, these online courses are not being used to help accelerate those already far ahead. Yes, they are being used to supplement AP offerings. But school districts also reported they are using online to assist students who need extra help or credit recovery, to let students who failed a course take it again, to get around scheduling conflicts, and to offer courses not offered at the school. It becomes particularly important to rural school districts, serving as "a cost-benefit mechanism for small rural school districts to provide students with course choices and in some cases even basic courses that would not otherwise be available to them."

So why is all this important? If we are serious about improving high school graduation rates and having those high school diplomas serving as more than just a glorified attendance certificate, we need to do things differently. When one-third of students fail to earn a high school diploma, our high schools are failing. When half of those going on to college need remediation, our high schools are failing. And when too many students -- particularly those from historically disadvantaged communities -- don't see the value of staying in school, our high schools are failing.

If we truly intend to make each and every child "college and career ready" after leaving high school, we need radical changes to how we teach in high school. A rearrangement of the deck chairs simply won't do. We need to teach new courses in new ways. We need to personalize instruction. We need to emphasize the value. We need all students to see what they are capable of. And we need to recognize that different students learn in different ways.

The Blackboard Institute report reminds us a robust dual enrollment program can be key to transforming a high school. And it highlights that online learning -- and online dual enrollment programs -- can be a core component to a high-quality, 21st century high school. Need more? Such dual enrollment and online programs are beneficial for all students, not just those on the Most Likely to Succeed list. Dual enrollment for all!

Testing Throwdown in NYC

2010-08-02T12:51:00Z

When are lower student achievement scores a good thing? That seems to be the question thrown about up in New York City this past week, where Big Apple officials have been grappling with the reality that city students' performance on the state's math and reading proficiency tests fell after a newer (and harder) exam was put into place.

As always, it is most fun to read the evolution of such stories in the New York Post, which first reported on the plunge, and then editotrialized on the issue twice -- first on Thursday praising the new "truth-telling" and then again today, condemning the United Federation of Teachers for jumping on the test score drop to "discredit all education standards."

It should be no secret that state standards -- and the tests that measure those standards -- have been a problem for some time. Since the introduction of NCLB, we've witnessed states lowering their standards so that they could continue to demonstrate "adequate yearly progress," regularly reducing the bar so the number of students hitting proficient increased year after year after year. In this educational shell game, it meant reducing the standards again and again to keep up.

The NY Post refers to the problem as "junk tests" but the real issue seems to be the standards behind them. Tests are only as good as what we are expected to measure. Garbage in, garbage out. Did anyone really believe that more than three-quarters of NY students were proficient in reading and math? Of course not. But New York State's definition of proficient and a common sense definition of the same are quite different. How else do you explain such strong proficiency numbers at a time when half of students require remediation?

One can't fault the NYC DOE for playing the hands it has been dealt. When taking the old state proficiency exam, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein posted some long-term gains. Year on year, test scores increased. That is progress. Now that they have a new test aligned to new standards, the game starts anew. These scores serve as the year one baseline. Next year, we expect to see gains. And the year after that, more of the same. Rince and repeat.

But those looking to discredit the improvements in NYC based on this one test are going to be sorely mistaken. Just take a look at the other measures around us. On the NAEP exam, the Nation's Report Card which offers one standard measure for all students across the nation, NYC has seen gains in student achievement (while the rest of New York state has remained flat). And as Eduflack wrote earlier this year, Chancellor Klein has shown real improvement on high school graduation rates. So at a time when the teachers' unions are calling for multiple measures to evaluate teachers, we are seeing that multiple measures support claims of NYC schools improvement.

Ultimately, while this makes for some lovely rhetorical skirmishes in the city that never sleeps, it doesn't negate a very simple truth. Over the last decade, NYC schools have come a long way. But they still have a long way to go. At no point do I remember hearing Klein declare mission accomplished. Progress has been made, but there is still much to do, particularly in addressing achievement gap issues in New York. The new test provides a clearer, stronger view of the challenges before NY educators. And the pending adoption and implementation of Common Core standards offers a clearer picture of where one has to go.

Instead of using the latest round of test scores to throw recent reforms out the window, improvements on measures such as NAEP and grad rates should show what is possible, and the growing need to redouble current reform efforts. If anything, these scores demonstrate that more must be done.