Eduflack

Jobs and Ed, Ed and Jobs

Eduflack — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:14:50 GMT

One has to be living under a rock not to recognize that that education and jobs share a strong bond. As we look for ways to rebuild our economy and create new jobs, it is clear that reforming our K-12 education systems, ensuring all students have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to perform in our future economy, is a non-negotiable.

Over at National Journal's Education Experts Blog, this is the question of the week. On those electronic pages, dear ol' Eduflack opines on both the need for education reform and our failures to address the skills gap we now have.

From National Journal:

It’s shameful that we can’t fill open jobs in an economy like this. And it is deplorable that one’s ability to get a strong public education depends, in large part, on race, family income, or zip code. We have no excuse for not preparing our kids, all of our kids, to meet the demands of a 21st century economy. Education is an economic development strategy – the best one that’s out there. We should be redoubling our efforts to ensure that policy makers see economic development and education as two sides of the same coin, and look to them to guide states, localities, and the nation toward meaningful reforms that will prepare all of our kids for college, career, and a productive life.

Happy reading!

SOTU MIA

Eduflack — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:23:00 GMT

Earlier today, Eduflack examined the educational highlights of President Obama's State of the Union address. The Cliff Notes version -- strong on effective teachers, keep every kid in high school until age 18, college is expensive. But what is equally interesting is what was NOT included in the SOTU, particularly as a lead-up to the presidential campaign.

What was missing?

Race to the Top -- No mention whatsoever of the crown jewel of the Obama education reform platform. No talk about the progress states like Delaware and others are making. No discussion of the new world order likely coming out of the first few rounds of RttT. (But there was that veiled reference to RttT driving states to adopt the Common Core, but only the insideriest of insiders will have caught the "for less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards ...")

Early childhood education -- Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the Obama administration just awarded to the winning states in the RttT Early Learning edition, there was no mention of ECE or the importance of ensuring all kids are ready to learn when the hit kindergarten.

Principals -- In the President's focus on effective teachers, he seemed to forget that a great principal is just as important -- if not more so -- in improving student learning and turning a school around. Using "educators" is the common catch-all phrase, but Obama decided to focus just on teachers.

ESEA -- No call to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. No sense of urgency to act, as we have heard in previous years. Have we officially determined this is a 2013 activity now?

Parental engagement -- In one of his earlier SOTUs, Obama got all Bill Cosby on us and called for greater parental involvement in the K-12 process. This year, nothing. If we are serious about real reform, it can't all be on the backs of the teachers Obama singled out. It requires involved and committed parents, clergy, business leaders, and community voices too.

Choice -- Embracing the entire public school infrastructure -- traditional publics, public charters, magnets, and technicals -- used to be a part of the President's educational stump speech. But when talking about the need for all kids to finish high school, there was no mention of ensuring all of those kids actually have access to good high schools.

Competitive Grants -- Similar to the failure to mention RttT, we saw no mention of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund, no discussion of the impacts of recent educational budget "consolidations," and no teaser on ARPA ED. Are competitive grants moving to the back burner?

What else are we missing? Anyone? Anyone?

"Teachers Matter"

Eduflack — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:23:02 GMT

Last evening, President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation. The speech focused on the four pillars the President and his team see as necessary for turning around the United States and strengthening our community and our economy. No surprise for those following the pre-game shows, education stood as one of those four pillars.

Five paragraphs committed to education. One pointing out our states and districts are cutting education budgets when we should be strengthening them. One on the importance of teachers. One on high school dropouts. Two on higher education and how we fund a college education. (We have a sixth if you include the President's call to do something to help hard-working students who are not yet citizens.)

So let's go ahead and dissect what the President offered up last evening.

"Teachers matter."

Absolutely. No question about it. We cannot and should not reform our K-12 educational systems without educators. Teachers (and I would add, principals) are the single-greatest factor in education improvement. They need to be at the table as we work toward the improved educational offerings the President and so many other dream of.

"So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones."

Sign me up. As the son of two educators, the last thing I want to do is bash a teacher (I'll get in trouble with my mom if I do). As I've said many times on this blog, teaching -- particularly in this day and age -- is one of the most difficult professions out there. Most people aren't cut out to do it, or at least do it well. We need to make sure our precious tax dollars are being directed at recruiting, retaining, and supporting great teachers. We should reward classroom excellence with merit pay and other acknowledgements. But the President is also right in noting we cannot defend the status quo. We can no longer debate whether reform is necessary. Reform is necessary. The discussion must now shift to how we change how we teach, not whether we change.

"In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn."

Yes, yes, yes. Great educators know how to help virtually all kids learn. They know to tailor their instruction based on data and other research points. We should be encouraging that and empowering teachers to do so each and every day. But we can't lose sight of that last clause (and many may have missed it last night over the cheap applause line of not teaching to the test). We must "replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn." In our quest for a great educator in every classroom, we must also realize not everyone is cut out to teach. We need serious educator evaluation systems that ensure everyone is evaluated, everyone is evaluated every year, and those evaluations are based primarily on student learning. And, like it or not, student performance tests still remain the greatest measure we have for student learning. So if we can't get struggling educators the professional development and support necessary to excel in the classroom, we need to be prepared to transition them out of the school.

And lastly, President Obama's "bold" call to action to ensure every student is college and career ready.

"I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen."

And here we have the President's big educational swing and a miss. This is a process goal, not an outcomes goal. Based on AYP figures and recent on school improvement and turnaround, we know that far too many kids -- particularly those from historically disadvantaged populations -- are attending failing schools. This is particularly true of secondary school students.

Why force a student to stay in a school that has long been branded a "drop-out factory?" Why keep a kid in school until he is 18 when he only reading at the grade level of an eight-year-old? Why stick around for a high school diploma when it also requires massive remediation to attend a postsecondary institution?

No, the call should not be to require students to stick around a bad situation, giving us nothing more than a process win. Instead, we should be focused on improving the outcomes of high school. How do we demonstrate the relevance of a high school curriculum? How do we engage kids? How do we provide choices for a meaningful high school education? How do we show the college and career paths that come from earning that diploma? How do we make kids see they want to stick around, and don't have to be mandated to do so?

At this point in time, we all realize that a high school diploma is the bare minimum to participate in our economy and our society. For most, some form of postsecondary education is also necessary. Until we improve the quality and direction of our high schools -- and help kids see that dropping out is never a viable option -- that mandatory diploma will be nothing more than a certificate of attendance. We need to make a diploma something all kids covet ... not a mandatory experience like going to the dentist.

"Choice Can, Should, and Must Inform"

Eduflack — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:41:46 GMT

It is School Choice Week! Of course, that means yet another debate focused on whether schools of choice should play a role in our K-12 public education infrastructure. By now, you would think such a debate would be unnecessary, yet the beat goes on.

Over at National Journal's Education Experts Blog, the question of the week is "Is school choice a useful tool to fuel common ground on education policy?" First up to offer a resounding "yes" to the question is dear ol' Eduflack.

As for the continued question at hand, I opine:

It is unfortunate that, in 2012, we must continue a debate about whether all students should have access to high-quality school options. It is unfortunate that too many children don’t have the opportunity to attend public schools that can change their destinies. And it is truly unfortunate that we continue to look for excuses and justifications for denying students access schools that are proven to be effective when it comes to addressing all students’ learning needs and preparing all kids – regardless of race, family income, or zip code – for college and career.

And in answer to the question of the week:

Choice can, should, and must help inform the entire education policy agenda. Ultimately, our goal must be to provide great public schools to all students, no excuses. Public school success, regardless of the wrapper it might wear, serves as the exemplar for driving change. We should be agnostic about where solutions come from, as long as they are real, effective solutions that work for our kids. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything less.

Happy reading!

Take the Test? Me?

Eduflack — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:17:00 GMT

When we talk about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we usually like to focus on the freedom of speech part. Some of us (including us former reporters) like the freedom of the press thing. The recent Occupy movement has given us new-found interest in the right of peaceable assembly. And come election time, we often hear about freedom of religion.

But what about that fifth First Amendment right? How often do we give attention to our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances?"

This week, clause five takes on special significance for dear ol' Eduflack. Courtesy of the good folks over at Change.org, I am now the target of an online petition.

For those unfamiliar, Change.org is a terrific site where folks can post their grievances on any topic you care about. Oppose the war in Afghanistan? Wanna stop the Keystone pipeline? Demand the return of tan M&Ms? Doesn't matter, Change.org is your site. Post up a petition, spread the word, and work toward that goal of 100,000 signatures. When you hit the magic number, great things will come to the petitioners.

This week, a petition was posted opposing the use of standardized tests in K-12 education. Using standard language of attacking those dreaded "bubble exams," the petitions note:

Students are put under pressure like never before to meet high expectations on Standardized Tests. Not only that, but teachers are held accountable for these tests scores, putting just as much pressure on teachers all over the United States. Ultimately, destroying the true purpose of school and education. Basically, it doesn't matter how much a teacher helped a student go from a struggling reader to a student now never seen without a book in his hand. It doesn't matter that the teacher inspired and motivated the student to want to graduate high school instead of dropping out on her 16th birthday just 2 months away.

The petition's call to action? Before subjecting our kids to more of those dreaded bubble sheets, the politicians responsible for such horrific measures of accountability should first take those standardized tests themselves. "If you are in a position of power in the education system and think the tests are good and valuable, the theory goes, then you should feel comfortable taking them yourself and sharing how you performed," the petitioners write.

The petition is addressed to nine parties. The U.S. Senate, which is working to enact ESEA reauthorization, is target one. It is followed by folks like CA Gov. Jerry Brown, NJ Gov. Chris Christie, PA Gov. Tom Corbett, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, CT Gov. Dannel Malloy, and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But wait, there are two other targets on the list. The first is former DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee, now the head of StudentsFirst. The second? Patrick Riccards, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack.

For the record, I do think student tests are good and valuable. I believe that the ultimate measure of our public education systems should be outcomes. If we are serious about improving student learning, we need to enact some measures to ensure that is happening. Standardized tests may be far from perfect, and they may not be the only measure of student learning, but they are an important component to determining our success. Like it or not, we need quantifiable measures of student progress and school achievement.

Sure, technically I'm not "the Government." But folks should feel free to bring me their redress of testing grievances. Will I take the test? I'd be happy to. But as the head of an education advocacy organization, I'd like to have some of those voices defending the status quo and chanting "all is well" when we talk about improvement in the testing room right there with their own No. 2 pencils.

Sadly, we are only up to 27 signatures on the petition. When we hit the magic number, I'm ready for my bubble sheet.

Flackin' for School Districts

Eduflack — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:17:00 GMT

The world has clearly changed for school districts. While we are hearing more about test scores and teacher contracts these days, we are just as likely to hear about social media, editorial board meetings, and a superintendent's "message."

While some may see this as a troubling sign for what is to come in our schools, I would argue it is actually a strong signal of the increased importance of K-12 education in our social landscape and our community priorities. LEAs, particularly those in urban areas, now need communications professionals (if they do their jobs properly) to ensure that information and data is properly shared, community stakeholders are effectively engaged, and transparency and sunshine rule the day.

Diane Orson, over at WNPR in New Haven, CT, has a terrific piece on the topic (and not just terrific because it includes dear ol' Eduflack.) In her "The Changing Role of School Spokesman," Orson tells the story of why school district communications is important, and what we should expect from the role.

As I note in the piece:

"And I think as we look at how we talk about what's happening in the schools, it really has to be a data driven discussion. We’re no longer just writing about spring break and how local sports teams are doing. This is now a very deep dive discussion into performance measures and data. And that requires a sophistication we’ve haven’t seen in education communications in the past."

Some of you may have already heard it on NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered. But if not, it the piece is well worth the listen.

Educator Eval ... With a British Accent

Eduflack — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:27:08 GMT

Over at Education Sector, there is a new report out focused on accountability efforts in England. The Report, On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service, offers an interesting look at how expert "inspection teams" can evaluate the success of local schools and local teachers.

Riffing off EdSector's new report, dear ol' Eduflack has a guest blog post on Quick and the Ed, examining what we might be able to learn from the British inspectorate and how those lessons could be applied to current U.S. efforts to key in on educator evaluation. The most important point? British evaluations are all about the kids, with the vast majority of their multiple measures focused on students and student learning.

By now, we all realize that effective educator evaluation requires multiple measures. While many want to focus on just the inputs that go into teaching – what our educators are bringing to the classroom – it is equally, if not more, important for us to focus on student achievement. And England makes clear that student learning is the most important element to its evaluation system.

Definitely some food for thought as SEAs look for the most effective ways to build effective evaluation systems and determine the best ways to measure educator effectiveness.

The Importance of Good Teachers

Eduflack — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:11:25 GMT

Most of us can point to that one educator who truly affected our lives -- both in and out of the classroom. We remember the one teacher who really pushed us to achieve. Or the instructor who refused to let us take the easy way out. And while we may not remember much about that year in the seventh grade, say, we definitely remember that educator from that year.

Which is why it is always so interesting when you hear folks arguing that "good teachers" can't be measured in terms of student performance. Yes, there are multiple measures that need to go into determining educator effectiveness. Yes, there are inputs a teacher brings to the classroom that need to be factored in. But at the end of the day, those teachers who likely left their marks on our lives also left their marks on our GPAs.

This morning, we have two interesting pieces out there reflecting on the importance of good teaching and good teachers. The first is from Nicholas Kristof in today's New York Times. Kristof is reflecting on last week's mega-study which showed the impact a strong teacher can have on the life of a student. As Kristof notes:

What shone through the study was the variation among teachers. Great teachers not only raised test scores significantly — an effect that mostly faded within a few years — but also left their students with better life outcomes. A great teacher (defined as one better than 84 percent of peers) for a single year between fourth and eighth grades resulted in students earning almost 1 percent more at age 28.
Suppose that the bottom 5 percent of teachers could be replaced by teachers of average quality. The three economists found that each student in the classroom would have extra cumulative lifetime earnings of more than $52,000. That’s more than $1.4 million in gains for the classroom.

To complement Kristof's keen analysis of an important piece of research, we have a new study coming from Education Trust. In typical EdTrust fashion, EdTrust-West looks at more than 1 million students and 17,000 teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District. One of the major takeaways? Good teachers in LAUSD can close the achievement gap for Black and Latino students. The disappointing reality? Historically disadvantaged students in the City of Angels often have the worst instructors.

We should all be able to agree that all teachers should be evaluated every year to determine the sort of job they are doing. We should all be able to agree that good teachers have a demonstrable impact on their students, including on student achievement measures. We should all be able to agree that those good teachers are particularly important levers in the lives of low-income and minority students. So with all of this agreement, why do we fight teacher effectiveness measures with such gusto? Why do we fear outcomes being part of educator evaluation?

Research such as that reflected on by Kristof and released by EdTrust makes a few facts clearer than ever. Good teachers are essential if we are to improve student learning and close the achievement gaps. We can determine who those good teachers are, and we can use test scores to help get there. We need to do everything possible to determine who those good teachers are and ensure they are where they are needed the most. And while it is not in the research, we need to properly pay and support those teachers that are making the sort of differences we expect to see in our classrooms.

Enough for today's lesson. Class dismissed.

Happy Birthday, Nicklebee!

Eduflack — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:14:47 GMT

Yes, we are now smack in the middle of celebrating the 10th anniversary of our beloved No Child Left Behind. As we should expect from something that has been on the "out" list the past three or five seasons, many of the birthday wishes are focusing on the failures or shortfalls of the law. Yes, shocker!

So over at the National Journal Education Experts Blog, Eduflack focuses on some of the strengths of the law -- those positive specifics that we must continue to improve and build on. Accountability. A strong focus on achievement gaps. A commitment to evidence-based decision making. Choice. All made enormous steps forward in the NCLB era, and all are essential if we are to improve public education in the post-NCLB era. After all:

At the end of the day, NCLB will best be remembered as an unfinished legacy, one with great promise, but real challenges in delivering on those promises. But we cannot deny that NCLB succeeded in moving K-12 education away from a discussion of process and inputs (as it had been for so many iterations of ESEA before it) and towards a focus on outcomes. We have started to see students and families as the customers in the process, with providers (the public school system) improving the quality of their product. And now, parents can look at test scores and other achievement measures to determine the return on investment for their local education dollar.

Enjoy!

Setting Aside the Vitriol in School Improvement

Eduflack — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:16:40 GMT

If we know anything, it is that we have much work in front of us if we are serious about providing all students -- regardless of race, family income or zip code -- access to truly great public schools. There are no quick fixes here, nor should we be foolish enough to think one entity has all of the answers to just do it alone.

Yet we continue to see extreme vitriol permeating our discussions about school improvement. Instead of focusing on the merits of ideas and the importance of outcomes, we continue to personalize the fight and resort to name calling and bullying to try and protect a status quo that we all realize cannot remain.

Over at the CT News Junkie this morning, Eduflack has a commentary on why real school improvement efforts require a team effort. It is a valuable read that is applicable to virtually any state working toward reform.

For us to be truly successful, we must engage the entire educational “village” – the village we saw firsthand at last Thursday’s education reform summit. From the teachers unions, to superintendent and board of education groups, to think tanks, to community organizations, to advocacy groups, we’re all in this together. And as the adults in the village, it’s our job to focus on the kids. We must stop with the name-calling and the feigned procedural concerns. When we look back in 20 years and ask “What became of the Year for Education Reform?” the worst possible thing would be to say that this unprecedented moment was hijacked by a few status quo defenders who won out by making everyone feel icky. What a disappointment that would be. Can’t we do better, Connecticut?

A "Sensible Fix" for the Achievement Gap

Eduflack — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:59:44 GMT

It is no secret that our nation's achievement gap is significant. The odds that a white or upper class student succeeds in public schools is significantly higher than the odds of an African-American, Latino, or low-income student receiving the same benefits. And as frightening as the size of the gaps may be, the persistence of such gaps are even more damaging.

Over at The Washington Post, Jay Mathews points us in the direction of a "startlingly sensible achievement gap fix." Mathews writes about the specific efforts undertaken by Arlington (VA) Public Schools starting pre-NCLB (1998) and running through the end of the true NCLB era (2009).

As Mathews notes:

From 1998 to 2009, the portion of black students passing Virginia Standards of Learning tests in Arlington rose from 37 to 77 percent. For Hispanic students, the jump was from 47 to 84 percent. The gap between non-Hispanic white and black passing rates dropped from 45 percentage points to 19. Between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites, the gap shrank from 35 points to 12.

Now those are the sorts of numbers we are all looking for when we talk about closing the gaps and providing great public schools for all students. The full work of the Arlington team is available in a new book, "Gaining on the Gap: Changing Hearts, Minds, and Practice." But Mathews offers a clear view on what Arlington, and its then superintendent, did:

He insisted on measuring each major ethnic group, plus low-income students, students with disabilities and students learning English, on: the percentage passing first-year algebra with a C or better by the end of eighth grade; the percentage passing advanced courses in grades six through 12; the percentage completing the third year of a foreign language by the end of grade 11; the percentage of sixth- through eighth-graders taking electives in art, music and theater, the percentage meeting or exceeding criterion levels on the Virginia Wellness-Related Fitness Tests, and several other measures.

And this is in addition to the requirements under NCLB/AYP and the Virginia SOLs.

For all those that say student data and achievement numbers are not a fair measure of a school and its success, Arlington County, Virginia is providing them wrong. By effectively collecting and utilizing data, Arlington was able to confront the problem of the achievement gap and target real solutions for fixing it. And the results speak for themselves.

Mathews' piece is definitely worth the read, as is the book by the Arlington leadership team. We cannot keep ignoring the achievement gap, nor can we discount its significance. Arlington and other places demonstrate there are real solutions out there, even sensible ones.

It Takes an Educational Village ...

Eduflack — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:26:34 GMT

In years past, we used to talk about how it took a village to truly improve public education. It wasn't just up to teachers to do what they do behind the schoolhouse doors between the hours of 8 and 3. Parents needed to take a more active role. Local policymakers needed a greater understanding. Community leaders -- from youth groups to churches -- needed greater connection. And even the business community needed greater focus on skills and outcomes.

Oh, how the times have changed. In our post-NCLB environment, we are now hearing more and more vitriol about those "outside forces" trying to influence what is happening in our public schools. We have rallies and blogs and media coverage on how school improvement should be left exclusively to the trained, certified educators in the system. All others should watch from the sidelines, being told, in the words of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, "Stay calm! All is well!!"

But we know all is not well. From third-grade reading proficiency levels to high school graduation rates and all measures in between, all is not well in our public schools. Yet another generation of students has fallen through the cracks, leaving school either less than proficient or without a high school diploma all together.

The point of this is not to place blame. There is plenty of blame to go around. Our struggles are team struggles. Parents, teachers, administrators, community leaders, elected officials, business community, and students themselves all bear significant responsibility for where we stand today, and play an important role in where we need to head tomorrow. (And as a parent, a taxpayer, a former school board chairman, and an advocate, Eduflack is right in the middle of those who bear responsibility.)

Which is why it was so disconcerting to read the December 23 Wall Street Journal. In the print edition (sorry folks, somehow it got edited out of the online version), the WSJ reported on the hire of Chicago/Philly/Recovery District Supe Paul Vallas as the new head of Bridgeport (CT) Public Schools. The article noted that the hire was made possible, in part, because of philanthropic contributions to help the academically and financially struggling district bring in a talent like Vallas.

In the piece, the reporter spoke to a leader at the Bridgeport Education Association, who referred to those local Connecticut philanthropists as "robber barons," and questioned the legitimacy of their contributions.

We will forget, for a moment, the philanthropic support that Bridgeport Education Association and its parent National Education Association receive. While those dollars may come from a different "clan" of philanthropic and corporate support, there is not question that NEA and BEA are beneficiaries of similar outside support, and that such support is serving a real public good when it comes to teacher effectiveness and improved instruction.

But it was yet another example of the venom with which some speak when discussing the role of public/private partnerships and the growing philanthropic interest in improving our public schools. Local community members, who want to see their local schools improve and have the financial means to help jumpstart a reform process, are now "robber barons?" Really?

A century ago, our public schools (both K-12 and higher ed) were hardly the models to write home about. We lacked the educational resources offered by libraries, museums, and the performing arts. We saw our medical schools take a significant step forward because of folks like Carnegie. Libraries benefited from people like Ford. General education and research supported by the likes of Rockefeller.

There is now an entire literature dedicated to the role of corporate philanthropy and the societal benefits that derived from such giving. Today, we see large foundations the result of those original "robber barons," foundations that are committed to improving children's health, education, and society as a whole. They do so without a profit motive, just hoping to make a difference with the resources the have available.

Ultimately, we are doing our kids, our schools, and our community a disservice when we try to run off well-meaning philanthropists with name calling, insinuation of ulterior motives, or promoting a general sense of "ickiness" because the private sector wants to get involved in our public schools. Instead, we should be embracing such involvement. No, I'm not saying all those involved in ed reform are Carnegies and Rockefellers, nor am I saying that some do not come to the table with a specific agenda. But for all of those who argue that additional resources are needed in our public schools, yet must acknowledge that beloved tax base doesn't allow for it, there are alternative paths. Through private support, we can invest in technology or STEM or improved teacher support or the arts or a plethora of other areas that individuals, foundations, and companies want to get behind.

So where do we go from here? To start, we need to turn down the rhetoric a little and realize there is a role for many at the school improvement table. For educators, we need to realize it ultimately becomes an all or nothing bargain; we can't say this outside funding is OK, but this isn't. Either we believe in public/private partnerships, or we don't. We depend on philanthropic support, or we don't.

And what about those business types and educational philanthropists? First off, be transparent in your giving and proud of your support. Be vocal about your giving -- who you are giving to, why you are giving, and what your expected outcomes are. And don't let others define your motives.

Ultimately, it really does take an educational village to improve our public schools. Teachers, parents, community leaders, policymakers, taxpayers, the business community, and students all have a vested interest in seeing our schools improve and our kids succeed. And all have a potential role they can play in the improvement process. Now is not the time to say I can do this myself, and try to walk the road alone. We need all the help we can get.

An Ed Reform Gov in a Blue State?

Eduflack — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:32:26 GMT

For the past few decades, we often talk about who the latest "education governor" is, particularly among Democrats. In the late 1980s, Bill Clinton of Arkansas tried to take the mantle from the esteemed Jim Hunt of North Carolina. For a bit, it shifted over to Gaston Caperton of West Virginia, as he emerged from a devastating state-wide teachers strike. And most recently, it was Virginia's Mark Warner, who ushered in the 21st century in the Old Dominion by focusing on high school reform.

But recent history points primarily to Republicans as the "education governors." Lamar Alexander in Tennessee. George W. Bush in Texas. Jeb Bush in Florida. Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Republicans seem to have the upper hand when it comes to conditions for pushing forward with reforms. And while many may question the final outcomes, it is those Republican state leaders, be they in red or purple states, that stand as leaders in education.

This week, we may have seen the start of a major shift in the "education governor" formula. A true-blue Democrat, in one of the truest of blue states boldly laying out an ambitious set of priorities for education reform. The leader? Dannel Malloy, the governor of Connecticut.

Governor Malloy was sworn into office this past January, elected in a 2010 cycle that wasn't particularly friendly to Democrats. Much of his first year has been spent focused on natural disasters and an unmanageable budget. He addressed the latter in the most unusual of ways for a governor -- he both cut spending and raised taxes. Connecticut is now looking at a potential budget surplus for the year, and that's following some significant investment in economic strength and jobs creation in the Nutmeg State.

Through it all, Malloy pledged that 2012 would be the "year of education reform." He recognized the important that strong public schools played in strengthening the state's economy. He knew he couldn't give it the full attention it needed in year one of his administration. But in year two, it would be game on.

Yesterday, Malloy threw that first pitch of that ed reform game in Connecticut. In a bold pronouncement to the state's legislative leaders, Malloy offered six key principles that would guide the 2012 legislative session. He urged leaders to act on these six issues -- six topics that are intertwined and interconnected to ensure progress. And he tasked his new Education Commissioner with presenting specific proposals in the next month or so to address these themes.

So what is Connecticut's new education agenda?

1) Enhance families' access to high-quality early childhood opportunities

2) Authorize the intensive interventions and enable the supports necessary to turn around Connecticut's lowest-performing schools and districts

3) Expand the availability of high-quality school models, including traditional schools, magnets, charters, and others

4) Unleash innovation by removing red tape and other barriers to success, especially in high-performing schools and districts

5) Ensure that our schools are home to the very best teachers and principals -- working within a fair system that values their skill and effectiveness over seniority and tenure.

6) Deliver more resources, targeted to districts with the greatest need -- provided that they embrace key reforms that position our students for success.

Expanding school choice. Removing red tape. Valuing educator effectiveness over years on the job. Focusing resources on the students who need them the most. This is not a status quo agenda from a typical Democratic politician. This is the start of an audacious plan focused on actually improving public education for all students, whatever it takes. These principles can serve as the very model for how a post-NCLB governor of a blue state can take real action steps that get to the heart of what ails our public schools.

Obviously, the devil is in the details. Connecticut must now look to its State Department of Education to offer up specific policy proposals that ensure effective teachers and principals for all students. The SDE must move forward ideas on how to fix a school funding formula that has been broken for decades. And it must do all of this under the reality that there may not be buckets of new money to spend, and we need to expand choice and provide more direct interventions simply by spending existing dollars better than we have in past years.

While Connecticut is still a long ways from solving its achievement gap crisis and ensuring that all students have access to great public schools, Malloy's announcement is an important step forward for Connecticut's students, schools, and the state as a whole. He has signaled that a Democratic governor in a strong union state can get serious about statewide education reform. And he has done it in a way that builds on what we have learned from similar efforts in other states, building on the successes and hopefully avoiding the pitfalls.

Yes, Connecticut, we can have an ed reform governor with a real ed reform agenda.

Reconnecting McDowell County, WV

Eduflack — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:04:00 GMT

Readers of Eduflack know I often speak of my roots and connections to West Virginia. I am a proud graduate of Jefferson County High School in Shenandoah Junction, WV (Go, Cougars!) But I am particularly privileged to have served on the staff of one of the greatest U.S. Senators in our nation's history, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd.

Working for Senator Byrd, I was able to see much of what makes West Virginia and the nation great. I had the ability to travel the Mountain State's 55 counties, from its beautiful ranges to its research universities, its large cities to its company towns, its river rapids to its coal mines. Yes, West Virginia has much to be proud of. But it is also a state with communities ravaged by poverty, poor health, and struggling schools.

Which is I was so taken by an announcement made last week by the American Federation of Teachers. On Friday, the AFT officially launched "Reconnecting McDowell County," a "comprehensive, long-term effort to make educational improvements in McDowell County the route to a brighter economic future."

Reconnecting McDowell County has an impressive list of partners, including WV Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, the WV Congressional Delegation, Benedum Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of West Virginia, College Board, Safe the Children, WV AFL-CIO, and the West Virginia State Police, just to name a few.

The effort's Covenant of Commitment is a particularly interesting read. The effort is focused on six key issues: 1) education; 2) services for students and their families; 3) transportation, technology, and other issues; 4) housing; 5) jobs and economic development; and 6) the McDowell Community. In the Covenant, the partners note:

We understand that there are no simple solutions -- no easy answers or quick fixes. Together, we are striving to meet these challenges, but we know we won't accomplish that in a day, a month, or even a year. We will find ways to measure our progress, and we believe that the changes we propose and implement must be judged by rigorous standards of accountability. We accept that this will be a long-term endeavor, and we commit to stay engaged until we have achieved our goals of building the support systems the students need and helping the residents of McDowell County to take charge of their desire for a better life ahead.

Yes, I realize that McDowell County is not alone its history, its current challenges, or its desire to change. Across the nation, we have counties, cities, and communities that face similar struggles. What makes this interesting is that Reconnecting McDowell is committed to demonstrating the demographics do not equal destiny. Old industrial towns, even old coal towns, can be reborn in the 21st century. We can rebuild currently struggling schools around a new culture of improving instruction, greater accountability, and rising student performance. And we can work together to put all of the conditions -- from housing and health to education and jobs -- in place for achievement and success.

We should all keep an eye on Reconnecting McDowell, looking at its metrics and watching its progress. And we should be asking why we aren't launching similar efforts in other states, in other counties, and in other communities across the nation. The principles laid forward by Reconnecting McDowell are universal.

Saving American Education

Eduflack — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:05:33 GMT

So how do we "save American education?" As a nation we obviously spend a great deal of time diagnosing the problems, while offering a few targeted solutions. But what does comprehensive treatment of the problem really look like.

That's actually the question that Jay Mathews of The Washington Post recently posed to Mark Tucker, the head of the National Center for Education and the Economy. And Tucker's answers may surprise some. His top five solutions?

1) Make admissions to teacher training programs more competitive

2) Raise teacher compensation significantly

3) Allow larger class sizes

4) End annual standardized testing

5) Spend more money on students who need more help getting to high standards

It is an interesting collection of recommendations, which Tucker and NCEE offer based on observing what other countries have done to improve their educational offerings. But it begs an important question -- are these reforms that the federal government should be leading, or reforms that need to be driven by the states? Can the United States of America really follow the lead of Singapore, a nation no larger than Kentucky?

Yes, it is important we focus on educator effectiveness. That starts with getting the best individuals into our teacher training programs and continues with ensuring schools are able to recruit, retain, and support those truly excellent educators. And yes, we should pay those teachers better, but only after we have developed teacher evaluation systems focused on student achievement measures.

And you will get no disagreement from Eduflack on the need to spend more money on the students who need the most help. The time has clearly come to overhaul our school finance systems to ensure that scarce tax dollars are going where they are needed the most. We shouldn't be funding schools based simply on an historical perspective, doing what we do because it worked a few decades ago. We need to fund our schools in real time, recognizing that all schools -- be they traditional public, magnet, technical, or charter -- are treated fairly and equitably when it comes to funding formulas and per-pupil expenditures.

But eliminate testing? While I like Tucker's idea of three national exams that identify student performance at the end of elementary school, 10th grade, and 12th grade, do we really believe that is enough? Is one test between kindergarten and high school really sufficient, particularly when we know a third of our elementary school students are reading below grade level and the real trouble spot for our schools is the middle school years?

Instead of cutting back on the number of tests, we should first look to use our testing data more effectively. Empower teachers with formative and summative assessment data to tailor their instructional approaches to meet student needs. Let the data guide what happens in the classroom. We need to change the mindset that the test is the end product. It needs to be the starting line, providing educators with a strong diagnosis for how to proceed with the work at hand for a given school year.

That's how we can save American education. Data-driven decision making. Evidence-based instruction. By better understanding and applying the research, we have the power to focus on effective teachers, getting the resources where they are most needed, and actually improving student achievement. Without it, we will just continue to feel our way in the dark.

The Strangest of Bedfellows on Ed Reform

Eduflack — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:09:44 GMT

This morning's New York Times Opinion page headline says it all -- "How to Rescue Education Reform." No, this isn't the first time we have tried to diagnose the ed reform movement nor is this the first (or last) effort to talk through how ed reform can drive the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

What makes the NYT piece so interesting is who shares the byline. The most recent piece on how to rescue education reform is co-authored by AEI Education Policy Director Rick Hess and Stanford University Professor Linda Darling-Hammond. While not exactly the Burns and Allen we'd expect to see on education reform, Hess and Darling-Hammond offer an interesting and refreshing perspective on public education's needs. The fact that it comes from two individuals who most would believe couldn't agree that the ed world is round or that it rotates around the sun makes the reccs even more interesting.

And what, exactly, do the dynamic duo offer up? After agreeing that the federal government "should not micromanage schools, but should focus on the four functions it alone can perform," Darling-Hammond and Hess point to these four functions:

* Encouraging transparency for school performance and spending, noting that "Without transparency, it's tough for parents, voters and taxpayers to hold schools and public officials accountable."

* Ensuring that basic constitutional protections -- such as civil rights and special education -- are respected.

* Supporting basic research, particularly that which "asks fundamental questions."

* Providing "voluntary, competitive federal grants that support innovation while providing political cover for school boards, union leaders and others to throw off anachronistic routines."

On the latter, it is important to note that the authors don't necessarily see Race to the Top as that innovation, noting that RttT "tried to do some of this, but it ended up demanding that winning states hire consultants to comply with a 19-point federal agenda, rather than truly innovate."

And what shouldn't the federal government do? According to the newest Batman and Robin of education, the feds shouldn't focus on making schools and teachers improve. Too much is simply lost in translation as we take it from the Feds down to the schools and districts that need to put it to use. "The federal government can make states, localities and schools do things -- but not necessarily do them well," Hess and Darling-Hammond write.

So what say you, education community? Are Linda and Rick onto something? Have we been over thinking and over planning ESEA reauthorization? Do we need to focus on a few core principles and not try to be everything for everyone? Or can we not get beyond the shock of this partnership and thus fail to see the merits of the argument?

Applauding Public School Successes and Progress

Eduflack — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:17:54 GMT

In education reform, it is often easy to focus on the negative. A third of all kids are not reading proficient in third grade. No coincidence, the high school dropout rate is also about a third. We have stagnant test scores, even as state standards were reduced. We are slipping in international comparisons. And even the U.S. Secretary of Education says four in five public schools in our nation are likely not making adequate yearly progress.

But today I am here to praise some of our public schools, not bury them. In schools across the nation, educators are recognizing there are serious problems and there are real, productive solutions for addressing those problems. And in those schools and those communities that are fortunate enough to have superintendents, principals, teachers, and other educators enacting those solutions, the kids are reaping the benefits.

Today's case in point is up in the Nutmeg State. Yes, Connecticut has the largest achievement gaps in the nation. But we are seeing pockets of success and progress in elementary, middle, and even a few high schools across the state.

Today, ConnCAN (or the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now) released its annual report cards on the state's public schools. For the last six years, ConnCAN has provided a simple, yet effective, report card for grading every school and every school district in the state. Using state test scores, ConnCAN ranks all public schools on how they are doing with regard to four measures -- 1) overall performance, 2) student subgroup performance (low-income, African-American, and Hispanic), 3) performance gains, and 4) achievement gap. Each school receives both a ranking (relative performance) and a letter grade (absolute performance). The complete set of 2011 ConnCAN report cards can be found here.

In addition to scoring more than 1,000 schools this way, ConnCAN also provides a list of Top 10 schools (elementary, middle and high school) based on many of the above measures. And to top it off, the not-for-profit offers up a list of 2011 Success Story Schools. Each of these Success Stories are at least 75 percent low-income and/or minority. And in each of these schools, at least one subgroup (low-income, African-American, or Hispanic) outperforms the overall average for the state at that school level (elementary, middle, or high school).

While the staff of ConnCAN deserves real credit for undertaking this effort each year, the intent of this missive is not a self-congratulatory pat on the back. No, the purpose is to put the spotlight and the plaudits where they belong -- on those schools that are making real progress, particularly when it comes to addressing the achievement gaps.

So here's to the Worthington Hooker School in New Haven, where 86 percent of low-income students are at or above goal. To Jefferson Elementary in Norwalk, where 67.5 percent of African-American students are at or above goal. To the Mead School in Ansonia and the Ralph M.T. Johnson School in Bethel, both of which have more than 80 percent of their Hispanic students at or above goal. And to the AnnieFisher STEM Magnet School and Breakthrough 2, both in Hartford, and Fair Haven School in New Haven, all three of which posted improvement in excess of 20 percentage points from last year.

These -- and all of the others on ConnCAN's 2011 Top 10 and Success Story Schools Lists -- are examples of what is possible. They signal that change, while difficult, can happen. They show that all students -- regardless of race, family income, or zip code -- can have access to great schools. And they demonstrate the power and impact truly great educators can have on the achievement of our young people.

These schools also teach us there is no one solution, no one magic bullet, and no one enchanted elixir for improving our schools. It takes hard work. It demands commitment. It requires a true student focus. And it calls for learning from and modeling after schools like those recognized by ConnCAN on this year's lists.

So congratulations to those public schools on ConnCAN's Top 10 and Success Story Schools Lists and to other public schools posting similar progress in other states across the country. Kudos to those administrators, teachers, and staff who are making it happen. And applause to those students and their families who are making clear that terms like dropout factories and achievement gaps can become nothing more than urban legend.

(Full disclosure, Eduflack not only works with ConnCAN, but he also runs the organization.)

Healthy Foods, Successful Students

Eduflack — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:11:00 GMT

For those who believe we have survived the economic downturn of 2008 and have righted the ship, today's New York Times offers a very different perspective. Sam Dillon reports on the increase in the number of students now receiving free lunches from our public schools, noting a whopping 17-percent increase in the numbers over the last five years. According to the NYT, thanks to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, 21 million kids received free school lunches last year through a program that was once seen as a safety net for the poorest of the poor.

What's even more startling is that "Eleven states, including Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and Tennessee had four-year increases of 25 percent or more, huge shifts in a vast program long characterized by incremental growth."

This seems to be the part of public education that we often don't talk about, or don't talk about enough. We acknowledge that poverty is a problem in achieving a high-quality education, but usually align such a discussion with per-pupil expenditures, the presence of white boards, and the general accumulation of "stuff" in our schools. Schools with "stuff" succeed, those without it struggle. But all the "stuff" doesn't do you a lick of good if students are coming to school hungry and leaving even hungrier.

Fortunately, this is a topic that some are looking to bring front and center. Earlier this month, the Virginia School Boards Association (of which Eduflack is a member) announced its Healthy Foods Initiative. Led by new VSBA President Joan Wodiska, school districts across the state are beginning to work together to address the childhood hunger issue in the state. Wodiska's video announcing the new initiative can be found here. VSBA is also in the process of creating a Healthy School Meals Database, highlighting some of the best practices that are being used to address the issue. This includes the work that Eduflack's own Falls Church City School Board undertook to tackle this problem (which earned the city's schools the prestigious NSBA Magna Award for its school meal efforts).

While I realize that Virginia is not alone in addressing this issue, the push now coming from VSBA is an important step. While we all recognize that student achievement is the ultimate goal, we must realize that many factors -- effective teachers, research-based instructional materials, proper assessments, meaningful accountability, and, yes, healthy meals -- all contribute to a student's ability to succeed.

The statistics reported by Dillon and The New York Times are important. Of greater importance, though, is what we do with them. Do we act, or do we make excuses? Fortunately, places like the Old Dominion are choosing the former.

"My Bright Future"

Eduflack — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:59:26 GMT

Frequent readers of this blog know that Eduflack can best be described as a pessimist. My pop icon hero is Eeyore. And as I've often said, it isn't even a glass half full/empty issue for me, I want to know who stole my damned water.

But sometimes even I can be moved by true positivity and commitment. And today is just one of those sorts of moments. This morning, I had the honor of attending the dedication of the new Amistad Academy facility in New Haven, Connecticut. Founded in 1999, Amistad was the first charter school launched in the Nutmeg State. And this new campus, just blocks from Yale University, was a project many, many years in the making.

As impressive as the facility is, it pales in comparison to the kids enrolled in the facility. There is an enthusiasm, an embrace for learning, and a commitment to success at Amistad that is too often lacking in many other public schools - urban, suburban, and rural. There is a sense of community and family in the building, from the administrators and teachers to the students and families to the community at large.

What is even more impressive, though, are the results. Amistad is the cornerstone of non-profit Achievement First's efforts in Connecticut. At a time when Connecticut is suffering through the worst achievement gaps in the nation, Amistad and its fellow AF schools are demonstrating real results. On the 2010 Connecticut Mastery Test of 4th grade reading, math and writing, AF students are passing at 75.2 percent rate. That is a higher passage rate than the state as a whole, and it is a passage rate more than double that in the cities in which they operate.

We see the same for 8th grade performance on the 2010 Connecticut Mastery Exam. AF posts a 79.5 percent passage rate, again higher than the overall Connecticut average and nearly double that of the cities in which they operate.

Those trends continue. Looking at the 2011 state scores, 93 percent of AF 10th graders are proficient in all subjects tested by the state, 10 points higher than the state average and 36 percent higher than the proficiency levels in their host districts.

No, it isn't all about the test scores. It is also about every single kid at Amistad intending to go to college. It is about schools like Amistad working with other public schools in the host district to improve instruction across the board. And it is about demonstrating the cycles of failure and the absence of opportunity that have long dominated too many of our urban centers can be broken and populated.

Too often, we hear the criticism that charter schools somehow do damage to our public schools. Such urban legend overlooks the fact that charter schools ARE public schools. When we see the successes and the energy in schools like Amistad Academy, we are reminded of what is possible in public education. We are reminded of the network that comprises effective K-12 public education -- traditional public schools, charters, magnet schools, and technical/vo-tech institutions. And we see how such institutions can work together to fulfill the social compact we have extended to offer all children -- regardless of race or zip code -- access to excellent public schools.

At today's event, Paige Leigh Brown, a 7th grade scholar at Amistad, presented her poem, "My Bright Future." Her poignant words said it all:

You look before you and what do you see?
A bright scholar shining beautifully.
I see myself reflected.
My voice in society projected.
I see myself getting a degree

We should seek such insight and sentiment from every single student who passes through our public schoolhouse doors, whether they be traditional, charter, magnet, or otherwise. All students should see a bright future.

Against the Grain

Eduflack — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:22:44 GMT

Yesterday, I was on the road, driving back from edu-Grandma's 94th birthday party. Such drives are usually the ideal time for Eduflack to reflect, plan, and think through those "big ideas." It also gives me the time listen to some of those personal theme songs that litter my iPod.

Every year or so, I like to repost the lyrics to my favorite -- Garth Brooks' "Against the Grain." The song is from Brooks' 1991 album, Ropin' the Wind. Unfortunately, it doesn't get nearly the attention it should. But it seemed appropriate this day, this week, this year ...

Folks call me a maverick
Guess I ain't too diplomatic
I just never been the kind to go along
Just avoidin' confrontation
For the sake of conformation
And I'll admit I tend to sing a different song
But sometimes you just can't be afraid
To wear a different hat
If Columbus had complied
This old world might still be flat
Nothin' ventured, nothin' gained
Sometimes you've got to go against the grain
Well, I have been accused
Of makin' my own rules
There must be rebel blood
Just a-runnin' through my veins
But I ain't no hypocrite
What you see is what you get
And that's the only way I know
To play the game
Old Noah took much ridicule
For building his great ark
But after forty days and forty nights
He was lookin' pretty smart
Sometimes it's best to brave the wind and rain
By havin' strength to go against the grain
Well, there's more folks than a few
Who share my point of view
But they're worried
If they're gonna sink or swiim
They'd like to buck the system
But the deck is stacked against 'em
And they're a little scared
To go out on a limb
But if you're gonna make a difference
If you're gonna leave your mark
You can't follow like a bunch of sheep
You got to listen to your heart
Go bustin' in like old John Wayne
Sometimes you got to go against the grain
Nothin' ventured, nothin' gained

Sometimes you've got to go against the grain

Happy Monday!