Eduflack

Bracketology, through an Academic Performance Lens

Eduflack — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:05:00 GMT

This week marks the second greatest annual sporting experience -- March Madness (Eduflack is still a purist and believes nothing can hold a candle to baseball's Opening Day). Later this week, 65 of the supposed best Division One men's basketball teams will square off to see which is the best (or the luckiest) basketball team of the year. And then, on my birthday this year, we will crown a national champion.

The top four seeds are the top teams we typically expect to see -- Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse, with Kansas designated the number one number one. As in most years, we see lots of teams from the major conferences, and a good mix of mid-major programs that have done their institutions proud on the hardwoods.

The annual brackets often lead some to begin discussing athletics versus academics at Division One colleges and universities. Those who follow men's college basketball (it is very different for women's college basketball) are no fools. We realize that the majority of players, particularly those who start, will never earn that sheepskin from the IHE providing them with a free, four-year ride to a top college. Many play a year or two, then seek their fortunes in either the NBA. Those who can't make the NBA cut will often head to overseas leagues, hoping it will provide them a pathway back to the NBA. And many will fail to take advantage of the opportunities that scholarship can provide, particularly in the face of the realities of how few college ballers actually make it to play professionally with LeBron, Kobe, and company.

For the fifth year in a row, the good folks over at Inside Higher Education offer up their "Academic Performance Tournament," a similarly bracketed tourney that looks at how those teams playing for that "one shining moment" on April 5 would fair if they were judged based on the NCAA's Academic Performance Rate (that looks at academic standing and simply staying enrolled in school) instead of just the number of points one can put up during a game. And the results are always fun to look at.

Sometimes, we do see the actual winner match up with the academic winner. It happened last year when the University of North Carolina won. But this year's Academic Dance offers up some great upsets. Ohio U over Georgetown. Vermont over Syracuse (which has actually happened in the Tourney before). North Texas over Kansas State. Cornell over Temple. Montana over New Mexico. Siena over Purdue.

IHE offers its Final Four as Kansas, Duke, Texas, and BYU, with Kansas winning it all on April 5. Syracuse loses its first game. Number one seed Kentucky doesn't make it into the round of 16. But IHE still sides with chalk, choosing the number one number one seed to win it all, a real possibility both academically and athletically.

The folks at IHE use the NCAA Graduation Success Rate to break ties. Eduflack wonders what the brackets would look like if we picked winners based solely on their ability to graduate the players they enroll as "student-athletes." The results would likely be shocking.

UPDATE: ESPN is also reporting a new report provided by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, which focuses on the graduation gap between white and black players on the 65 teams found in the bracket. According to the Institute, 45 teams graduated 70 percent or more of their white players, but only 20 teams could hit the same mark for their black student-athletes. The study used graduation success rates, looking at six-year grad rates for freshmen.

Swingin' for the ESEA Fences

Eduflack — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:59:00 GMT

In yesterday's initial analysis of the US Department of Education's ESEA reauthorization blueprint, I noted I was "whelmed" by the plan as a whole. (And for the record, I am a strong proponent of using the word whelmed. If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I certainly can be whelmed. It's not like having to choose between North and South Dakota.) Since then, I've received a number of questions as to why, particularly since so many people seem to see this as a strong step forward in improving No Child Left Behind.

My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin', knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered. When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape. Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered). The term "scientifically based research" was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike. And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were. These were all but twinkles in Sandy's, Margaret's BethAnn's, and Reid's eyes before the reauthorization process began.

But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET. Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. So what were once big ideas -- Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards -- are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days. We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now. We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.

The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB's Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec Margaret Spellings' Teacher Incentive Fund, and the teacher requirements included in RttT. Even in addressing the persistent problem with low-performing schools, this blueprint simply evolves from NCLB's two-tiered evaluation with a new three-tiered system, as reported here by Greg Toppo. And while that extra tier may really help at addressing those 5,000 lowest-performing schools, it hardly wins hearts and minds.

To be fair, Eduflack realizes you don't always need some new shiny toy or a jaw-dropping new idea to move forward solid legislation. In fact, in a perfect world, I would hope we'd never need such gimmicks. But with short attention spans and even shorter understanding curves, one often needs that hook, that big idea, to help gain attention and start winning over the necessary converts. When ESEA was reauthorized back in 2001 (and signed into law in early 2002), we not only gave it a new name (NCLB ), but we offered some new ideas and programs to show this was not your father's version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Working from the existing blueprint, Eduflack sees a few potentials for both some smallball ideas as well as some bases-clearing longballs. What am I thinking?

* Immediately include strong pieces of congressional legislation in the plan. I'm thinking things like U.S. Sen. Patty Murray's (WA) LEARN Act focused on K-12 reading instruction, Chairman George Miller's (CA) plan for high school improvement, or even the recent legislation offered by U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI) and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (CO) establishing a federal definition for teacher professional development.

* Get personal on teacher quality. Teacher quality is now clearly a central point of the debate, with even Obama calling out the teacher education sector for not living up to expectations. So let's get personal here. As part of your data system work, ensure that we are able to track teachers (both leaders and laggards) back to their originating program, be it a college of education or an alt cert program. Then be prepared to name names when it comes to those institutions that are not delivering the long-term results sought under the new law.

* Invest in parents. The day after Obama was elected, Eduflack opined that the EdSec should establish a family engagement office (at the assistant secretary level) so that the Administration could focus on the role of families in school improvement. To date, the Administration has talked a good game. But with the pending elimination of Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC) grants, there is a gaping hole for engaging families. NCLB tried to do this, with mixed results. Building off of the Obama campaign's success in 2008 and recent activities around healthcare reform, one can build a strong, effective multi-touch effort to really involve parents and families in school turnaround and improvement efforts.

* Kill the bubble sheet. Under ESEA reauthorization, this administration has the power to do away with the dreaded "bubble sheet test." Proudly proclaim that new assessments coming out of common core standards will be required to be smart computer-based exams. Bring testing into the 21st century while allowing for a more-comprehensive assessment than can be captured by guessing which one of five bubbles may be the most correct.

* Require online learning. I applaud the commitment to improving high schools and working to boost graduation rates. Let's add a little 21st century relevancy here. Learning from states like Florida and Alabama, let's require that, by 2020, every student in the United States must take at least one virtual course in order to graduate from high school. Not only does it introduce more relevant coursework into the classroom, it clearly promotes that learning happens beyond what happens between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. behind the traditional schoolhouse doors.

Those are just five ideas to get the discussion started. The legislative pieces could be endorsed by EdSec Duncan during Wednesday's hearings. Teacher quality could be done this summer when NCATE's anticipated report is released. A Family Engagement Office could be started immediately. And killing the bubble sheet and folding virtual education into state requirements can be done now as stimulus money is used to invest in a range of ed reform ideas. Regardless, we should be taking this opportunity to continue to move forward big, bold thoughts. Real ed improvement can't be limited by those ideas moved during year one. Not to mix my sports metaphors, but this game goes at least four quarters. We need to maximize all opportunities.

Finally, an ESEA Blueprint from the Feds

Eduflack — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:18:00 GMT

After months of anticipation, we finally have the official blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act form the Obama Administration. The plan was teased in some news articles yesterday (Saturday) morning and was previewed during President Barack Obama's weekly radio address on Saturday morning. The official plan, found here, was officially released on Saturday evening at 8 p.m.

At first glance, I found the plan to be whelming. On the whole, I thought it was entirely solid and relatively thoughtful. But as I read it (and it shows you what type of life Eduflack lives when he spends his Saturday night reading the Administration's ESEA blueprint, but for what is was worth, I was also watching West Virginia University beat Georgetown), I was surprised by how little I was surprised with. As we used to write about two years ago, this was clearly NCLB 2.0. Much of the last iteration of ESEA remains intact. Some needed improvements are being made. And the priorities emphasized in Race to the Top are being codified, hopefully, into the new law.

The highlights? The plan is grouped under five key principles (not to be confused with ED's four pillars). The principles include: college and career-ready students, great teachers and leaders, raise the bar and reward excellence, equity and opportunity, and promote innovation. These principles break into the following tasks:

College and Career-Ready Students -- Raising standards for all students, better assessments, a complete education (meaning a well-rounded curriculum beyond the common core standards)
Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School -- Effective teachers and principals, our best teachers and leaders where they are needed the most, and strengthening teacher and leadership preparation and recruitment.
Equity and Opportunity for All Students -- Rigorous and fair accountability for all students, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and greater equity.
Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence -- Fostering a Race to the Top, supporting effective school choice, and promoting a culture of college readiness and success.
Promoting Innovation and Continuous Improvement -- Fostering innovation and accelerating success, supporting recognizing and rewarding local innovations, and supporting student success.

See, nothing that exactly shakes the K-12 education earth. As I read the blueprint, I am seeing much of the original intent of NCLB, mixed in with the goals of RttT, a heavy, heavy influence of common core standards, and a strong dash of the principles advocated through the Schott Foundation's recent Opportunity to Learn (OTL) campaign (primarily the equity planks). A little something here for everyone, but not enough that any one party is quite swooning at this point.

I'll be honest, the timing of this release as Eduflack completely puzzled. This blueprint was released as if ED was trying to dump it so no one noticed it. In PR, the general rule is you never release something of importance over a weekend. And you certainly don't do it at 8 p.m. on a Saturday night. Many of the leading reporters got an advance briefing of the blueprint (as evidenced by The Washington Post coverage here, which notes an expected 16 percent spending increase in the federal education budget), but it is clear from the early comments that this release was not maximizing the interest in the topic. We have 16 states coming over to ED this week to plead their case for RttT, with this blueprint now stepping on that significant reform story. Yes, Duncan is slated to speak before the Senate HELP Committee this Wednesday, but with all of Washington focused on healthcare reform, this blueprint is likely to go undernoticed in the coming days and weeks.

But from the look and feel of the blueprint, it is clear that neither Capitol Hill nor the media is in the intended target here. Since the beginning of the calendar year, we have been hearing how Assistant ED Secretary Carmel Martin was preparing an ESEA blueprint for legislators on the Hill. But this document, from its design to its word choices to its bulleted focus of key concepts, is designed to deliver talking points and marching orders to the education blob. This "blueprint" is designed to move the discussion at member organizations, forums about town, and cocktail parties and gab sessions. In that way, it isn't so much a blueprint as it is framing document for debate.

A few things are crystal clear. One, EdSec Arne Duncan is going all in when it comes to common core standards. The execution of this blueprint requires the adoption of the proposed standards across the country. Anything short of 80 percent adoption within the year is going to severely hamstring much of what is proposed in this plan.

Two, those who were expecting accountability (and AYP) to be weakened are going to be severely disappointed. Yes, we no longer use the term AYP. But accountability remains alive and well in this document. Localities are not being granted the flexibility many had hoped they may receive. And while we are changing some of the rubrics (again, aligning them with those core standards) it is clear that continued improvement of student achievement remains the name of the game. Even more so when it now appears that states, districts, schools, and teachers will be judged by how good a job they do getting more kids to graduate from high school.

Three, the teachers unions have been put on notice. Obama's remarks last week about the situation in Rhode Island were quite an intentional statement against the teaching status quo. This blueprint strengthens the call for closing low-performing schools, addressing teachers who aren't making the cut, and holding school districts, administrators, and teachers far more accountable for student achievement than even NCLB did.

Four, rural education is not going to be happy. After seeking to improve its lot under NCLB, rural ed is almost an afterthought in this blueprint, inserted in a list of specialty audiences AFTER Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education interests. Hardly the sort of focus that Senate HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY) and House Education Committee Ranking Member John Kline (MN) are hoping to see. And Eduflack would quibble with what is labeled as "A New Approach," as many of these bullet items do indeed read like the rhetoric surrounding NCLB intentions back in 2001 and 2002. But looking to bullet out the takeaways (and distinguish between new and continued approaches) is always useful to those who will be asked to opine on this blueprint now and in the future.

And what's missing? No real discussion of anticipated plans of eliminating the current Title II (focused on teachers) and replacing it with new language aligned with the last year's activities (though I suspect that's what the effective teachers section is intended to address). No real emphasis on plans to eliminate traditional, guaranteed block grants and replace them with competitive grant programs a la RttT and i3, particularly at the school district level. And most importantly, no crosswalk of dollars with priorities. WaPo may be pointing to a major spending increase under the reauthorization, but it simply isn't part of the plan that has been shared with the at large chattering class. We're being asked to buy into big ideas, with specific dollars, programs, and line items available on a need-to-know basis at a later date.

So what now? From early reports, AASA (which was a strong opponent to NCL seems happy. Teachers unions are upset. And most simply didn't realize this was dropped late last night (and announced proudly on Facebook for those who are Fans of the US Department of Education). While this gives both the House and Senate committees additional information to consider as they hold their ESEA hearings, it is clear that Chairman George Miller (CA) is moving forward with his own plans, and this blueprint may very well be tossed onto the pile with other recommendations coming in to Miller from across the sector.

Timing? Eduflack loves those cock-eyed optimists who are still talking about reauthorization by this summer. It ain't happening. If the intent is to re-bucket ESEA around this proposed blueprint, we are looking at spring 2011 at the earliest, assuming we don't have significant shifts in congressional makeup this November. But at least it gives us more to talk about than just RttT!

"Teacher Preparation: Who Needs It?"

Eduflack — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:00 GMT

Without question, teacher quality is one of THE hot topics in education reform these days. Logically, we recognize that teachers are the ones primarily responsible for boosting student achievement in the classroom. Programs like the US Department of Education's Teacher Incentive Fund have thus been designed to reward those teachers whose students demonstrate success. It is a simple equation, outcomes result in rewards.

But what about the inputs that result in that achievement? What do teachers need to know, be able to do, and experience before they ever become a teacher of record? Those are the sorts of questions that the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) is trying to tackle with a new series of policy briefings it launched today, titled "Teacher Preparation: Who Needs It?"

In today's episode, AACTE offered up The Clinical Preparation of Teachers: A Policy Brief, a document that provides some of the history, the research, and the vision for how to best address clinical preparation. Chief among the recommendations -- all prospective teachers, regardless of their pathway, need at least 450 hours of clinical training (or a full semester).

Full disclosure, Eduflack has worked with the folks over at AACTE for years. Regardless, today's briefing offered some interesting recommendations for the federal government, state government, and those preparing the next generation of teachers, including:

For the feds:

Revise the “Highly Qualified Teacher” definition within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to require that teachers must establish not only their content expertise, but their ability to teach it effectively, as measured by their actual performance in classrooms, following extended clinical experience;
Invest in the development of a National Teacher Performance Assessment that would parallel the development and adoption of Common Core Standards;
Maintain the Teacher Quality Partnership Grants, with a specific clinical preparation focus, in the Higher Education Opportunity Act while increasing funding for the program;

For states:

Require a minimum of 450 hours, or one semester, of clinical experience during pre-service teacher preparation;
Ensure that all teacher preparation routes, regardless of pathway, include the same clinical preparation requirements;
Require a high-quality teacher performance assessment of all teacher candidates;
Collaborate to agree upon common clinical experience requirements;
Offer incentives to schools that act as clinical settings for teacher candidates;
Support the expansion or replication of successful teacher residency programs;

And for providers of teacher preparation:

Ensure school districts and universities work jointly to design and supervise strong clinical practice collaborations;
Provide all teacher candidates substantial and appropriate clinical preparation prior to becoming “teacher of record” in their own classrooms;
Train clinical teachers and other teacher mentors to help and support novice teachers;
Require all clinical teachers to have at least three years of teaching experience; and
Assist our nation’s public schools and teacher preparation programs to jointly adopt standards for newly redesigned clinically based teacher preparation programs.

As part of the formal presentation, the crowd heard from U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (RI), who is quickly becoming THE Senate voice on education in general and professional development in particular. In his remarks, Senator Reed praised President Obama for adding funds to the Teacher Quality Partnership program as part of last year's economic stimulus package, but took issue with Obama eliminating the program as part of his budget recommendations last month. Reed urged all those in attendance to reach out to their Senators and Congressmen to ask that TQP be restored, as the program is essential to ensuring our colleges and universities are working toward developing the high-quality, effective teachers our schools need so badly.

With a greater and greater focus on effective, results-based instruction, the issue of teacher preparation isn't going to go away. Even as part of its Quality Counts study, Education Week recently highlighted those states that are leaders and laggards when it comes to the clinical experience. Content may be king these days, but pedagogy is quickly gaining stature.

Investing in Proven Innovation

Eduflack — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:23:00 GMT

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

Many will recall that ED circulated a draft i3 RFP for public comment back in the fall. Today's announcement very closely mirrors that which we say months ago. We are still looking at three categories of grants -- development, validation, and scale-up. Development grants still come in with a max of $5 million per; validation with a max of $30 million per, and scale up with a max of $50 million per.

School district applicants still need to provide a 20 percent matching contribution from private sources (including those college/university partners). Bonus points remain for early childhood focus, college access and success focus, ELL focus, and rural schools focus (with rural schools worth two extra points and the others worth just one).

Most importantly, the evidence requirements remain the same as they have always been. What does this mean? In this case, innovation not only means the introduction of something new or different; it also means that you have to prove that that new or different approach is proven effective. The feds are seeking very real research to drive this innovation, even in the development grants.

Before the end of the month, our friends with the federal government will hold three information sessions for prospective applicants -- in Baltimore, Denver, and Atlanta. Those districts looking to apply for i3 should file a notice of intent within 20 days of the RFP being posted on the Federal Register (still hasn't gone up, as of 11 a.m. today) and applications are due within 60 days of Federal Register posting. ED is now saying they will award i3 grants in two phases.

Today's official grant notice also offers some guidance on how many grants can be awarded. But in the words immortalized by Barbie (the Doll) back in the late 1990s, "math is hard!" For months now, Eduflack has been telling interested LEAs that we are likely only looking at 30 total winners. With a $650 million pool (now down to $643 million), you are looking at eight or nine winners in each of the three categories, assuming districts get close to the max. So $400 million for scale up (eight grants), $200 million for validation (10 grants), and $40-50 million or so for development grants (10 grants). Then the pot has run dry.

But ED seems to have a different view of things. Average grant awards are estimated at $3 million for development, $17.5 million for validation, and $30 million for scale up. (This despite the realization that virtually every state that applied for Race to the Top funds exceeded the budget range that was assigned to their state). Based on those ranges, ED estimates up to five scale up winners, and up to 100 winners each in both development and validation. Obviously, the budget doesn't allow anything close to that.

Five scale up winners at $30 million knocks the total pool down to less than $500 million remaining. A hundred validation grants at $17.5 million per would put us at $1.75 billion, more than three times the remaining pool. And those up to 100 development grants at $3 million per adds another $300 million. So if we top out on the estimates (realizing they are all generous ranges) ED is saying i3 could be up to nearly $2.2 billion. I'm all for stretching the dollar, but that seems to be a little more than the $643 million currently available.

Why is this so important? LEAs need to realize that competition for these grants is going to be significantly difficult and cutthroat. With RttT, we had a sense for how many states would and can win. Virtually every state applies, and based on the funding ranges, we can expect close to 20 states to win. If we don't spend the full RttT pool, then we will have fewer winners.

But with i3, we have the possibility of thousands of school districts and consortia applying for a piece of this money. Some districts have been hard at work on their projects for years, and a scale up grant seems like a slam dunk (Eduflack has long said Chicago Public Schools and its Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, would be a slam dunk for i3). Other districts have been focusing on their applications for months, even before the draft regulations came out. Still others have been looking to partner with other districts, local universities, or nationally recognized non-profits, to strengthen their applications. And then you have some who think that "innovation" in the title means it is supposed to fund technology programs. Regardless, all want a piece of this.

So instead of 25 or 40 percent of states winning a RttT grant, we are looking at the possibility that far fewer than 5 percent of i3 applicants will get a taste of that federal nectar. That means applications must be well written, on point, and based on research like few grant proposals have ever been based before (and unlike RttT, i3 applications can't be more than 35-50 pages, depending on type). Competition is going to be fierce. The strength of both the research and the impact will be king.

And what does Eduflack expect to see? First, many districts will be dusting off ye olde research protocols to ensure their proposed models match that offered by IES these past five or so years. Second, rural schools are going to fair pretty well here, both because of the extra points and because of the realization that RttT doesn't provide rurals the attention they may need. And at the end of the day, we still should expect no more than 35 total winners. Five scale up winners each coming in close the $50 million cap, 10 or so validation winners coming closer to the $30 million cap than the $17.5 million ED estimate, and another 10-12 development winners, most of which need more than the $3 million in expected seed money.

Good research and documentation is hard, and it doesn't come cheap. For months, we've been hearing that RttT is all about quality, not quantity. The same needs to be true for i3. The focus should be on providing a select group of school districts with the money to truly ramp up and further test a specific intervention that is boosting student performance and closing the achievement gap. If we want these funds to have a real, true, and lasting impact, we need to spend wisely on the lowest-hanging fruit, investing in those ideas that have the greatest possible return on investment and using those results to inspire other districts to follow suit.

Happy Anniversary, Me!

Eduflack — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:11:00 GMT

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

In that time, we've written close to 1,000 entries. And, unfortunately for Eduflack readers, my posts are far longer than your average bear blog posts. I'll admit, I can be a little verbose, but I continue to try to provide content that is relevant to readers. I've learned over the years that I really do have readers. Sure, the blog statistics show me who is visiting and how that is increasing, but I am particularly surprised when I hear from real people that they read this site. I know how much content is out there on the Web, so I take it very seriously when people say they read this stuff. It puts the pressure on to continue to write, to continue to be relevant, and to continue to be of some sort of value. You've definitely raised the stakes for me, and push me to do better.

That's one of the reasons why we added the @Eduflack Twitter feed. During a good week, I can turn out four or five essays on the education news of the day. But there is much, much more that I wish I could write about. So each day, I offer up 10-15 Tweets relaying those articles and studies that are catching my eye. And the good think about the @Eduflack Twitter feed is it is relatively opinion free. Just lots and lots of links to the issues and topics of importance to me and, hopefully, Eduflack readers.

As I reflect on the last three years, I have to both start and end with huge thanks to those readers and supporters out there. Everyone who reads it. Everyone who cites Eduflack or links back to it. Those who comment on posts. Those who send me story ideas or take issue with the story ideas I select. This blog has value because of the ongoing input I receive. Without such input I really am truly just writing for myself, and that does no one any good at this point.

But there are also a few important notes I would like to point out, based on some recent feedback, items that I believe are worth highlighting:

* Eduflack is not a journalist, and I sure hope I don't try to portray myself as one. I have a great deal of respect for journalists and for the ethics that govern their profession. Real journalists are out there gathering the full story, interviewing parties on both side, and providing a balanced approach to a topic. That isn't my job. At best, I am a commentator. If you are looking for the news, there a number of sites I can and have directed people to for the best in education information. I will link to many of those stories in my posts. But Eduflack is not a journalist, despite the number of media releases that end up in my inbox each day. I write opinion. The point of this blog is to provide my critique and my analysis of the education issues of the day.

* That also means that I have a day job. For the past dozen years, ever since I left Capitol Hill, I have spent most of my time as a consultant, working with a great number of organizations and individuals. As a general rule, I have always tried NOT to write about my clients. When I have, I have disclosed those relationships. But obviously, what I write about is what I am focused on during the day. The focus on RF came out of all the years I spent shepherding the National Reading Panel. A recent focus on high school graduation rates and the achievement gap sprung from my work with the National Governors Association and its Honor States initiative. So while I have always tried to disclose when I have a direct business interest in a post, it is safe to say I have an intellectual interest in everything I write.

* I am an amateur when it comes to research. Over the past 10-plus years, I have been fortunate to work with a great number of education researchers, particularly those who fall into the non-squishy variety. I have learned a great deal from them, and, from time to time, feel these wise individuals have provided me an informal graduate education in such research issues. But whether it be my analysis or virtually anyone else's analysis of the data, it is always best to trust, but verify.

* I don't shy away from criticism. I'm always surprised when folks want to engage in a lengthy debate on a topic with me, but take such debates and critiques offline and private. I enjoy the public debate. And I am more than willing to open up these pages to others who may want to take issue with a particular post or may have a different perspective. If you want to take dear ole Eduflack on, just drop me a line and we can make it happen.

I look forward to another interesting and thought provoking Eduflack year. We have RttT, common core standards, and i3 coming down the pike. ESEA reauthorization is waiting. And, perhaps more importantly, we are starting to move into a closer look at how these new federal actions are affecting our states and localities (particularly on the implementation side). Lots to write about, lots to commentate on, lots to stir up the pot with.

Thanks, all, for making the past three years so much fun! Here's to another year (and hopefully more) of offering an intersection for education policy, research, and communications.

Taking the Pole Position on Race

Eduflack — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:48:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Learning, With a Little D

Eduflack — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:38:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Your Ed Reform Calendars

Eduflack — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:39:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Race Prognostications

Eduflack — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:28:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliminating Rainy Day Funds in NJ Schools?

Eduflack — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:24:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFT Policy Talk ... and Walk?

Eduflack — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:32:00 GMT

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

The first stroll of such a challenge took place deep in the heart of Texas earlier this month, when Houston ISD Superintendent Terry Grier tried to use Weingarten's rhetoric to get his teachers' backing for a new teacher quality initiative that allows the school district to remove teachers with lagging student test scores. Grier's Houston experiment was unanimously supported by the Houston ISD School Board, but was loudly opposed by local teachers and by the national AFT. Eduflack reflects on the Houston showdown here, while the National Journal's Education Experts Blog provides some terrific insights and views here.

Coming out of Houston, there were many an education agitator wondering if AFT is indeed serious about being part of the reform agenda. After all, AFT is in the business of promoting teachers' jobs and boosting their benefits. The reform agenda is now focusing on teacher incentives and so-called quality issues, which leads quickly to a discussion of bonuses for some (but not all) teachers and the removal of teachers who are deemed ineffective. (Though Eduflack recognizes the rubric for effectiveness is one of the biggest sticking points in the game right now). So while AFT may be for reform and for teacher quality, can it ever really get behind any plan that will call for the removal of educators from the classroom or the professional entirely, particularly when they are dues-paying members protected under an AFT-negotiated collective bargaining agreement? How does the reform rhetoric translate into action?

While I'm not sure if AFT has figured out how it truly positions the union on the teacher quality issue (other than knowing that there are few in DC with the knowledge and experience on the issue with the ability to take real action like the AFT's Rob Weil), it is clear that AFT is not content in simply serving as the "loyal opposition" to the current education reform wave. Yes, AFT is going to do its share of criticism on policies such as Race to the Top, proposed budget cuts, and the expected ESEA reauthorization, but recent actions signal that AFT may also be looking for some common ground where it can move the needle, make a difference, and be a part of real reforms.

Case in point, earlier this week, Weingarten convened an off-the-record discussion with U.S. EdSec Arne Duncan, WV Gov. Joe Manchin, and 25 or so other business leaders, academics and advocates (supposedly from both the left and right) to focus on the issue of career and technical education, or CTE. For those not paying attention, CTE is one of those key issues to strengthening our educational pathways, improving high school graduation rates and ensuring more students are ready to enter the workforce with the skills and knowledge needed to succeed. But it is an issue many stay away from, believing that the current version of "vo tech" isn't sexy or innovative enough to warrant the spotlight. So bringing business leaders and educators and politicians and researchers together to discuss how to improve CTE is an important step to move CTE closer to the forefront of the discussion.

Eduflack is told the CTE discussion is the first of many "invitation-only" discussions that Weingarten and the Albert Shanker Institute has planned for the next year. By hosting a series of salons on what are perceived as the important education topics of the day, AFT is clearly seeking to move issues beyond RttT, i3, and reauth into the education policy spotlight.

Personally, I'm all for such discussions. The more we discuss such issues, and the more people who discuss it, the better prepared we are to have real, serious, and meaningful policy discussions. But as usual, the devil is in the details. Beyond the invitation-only events of the usual suspects, how do we engage a broader discussion with those whose voices are rarely heard in such debates? And more importantly, what do we do after these discussions are held? What are the policy reccs that will come out of these meetings? What are the action steps? What is the call to arms? Those answers will ultimately determine where we are just talking or adding a little strut behind AFT's words.

Doubting ESEA Reauthorization

Eduflack — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:00:00 GMT

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

Congressional leaders are to be commended for moving forward in a bipartisan fashion. Last year, few thought we would see Miller and John Kline (MN) work together to move this important issue forward. Today, House Democrats and Republicans signaled it is time to improve No Child Left Behind and better align the federal law with the priorities and issues that have been moving forward over the past year. Issues like common core standards, the next iteration of AYP, teacher quality, and charter schools will likely take center stage right quick.

But how realistic are we being in saying that this will get done now, on the express timetable many are expecting? All parties involved have made clear this needs to be done by summer, in advance of the House of Representatives having to head back home and stand for re-election in November. This is particularly true of Democrats, many of whom may have to vote for a law that makes life a little tougher for the teachers' unions that help get them elected every two years.

But let's be frank about timing. First off, today's big announcements are only coming out of the House of Representatives. We have yet to hear a similarly ambitious agenda from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee or from Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) and Ranking Member Mike Enzi (WY). If we learned anything from issues such as climate change and health care, it is you need both sides of the Hill working in tandem to actually move legislation forward. The House can have the best of intentions, but unless the Senate is planning the same rapid reauthorization, this bill is going to get bogged down over on the senior circuit.

Second, let's look at the calendar. Back in 2001, President George W. Bush made ESEA reauthorization priority number one. It was his first piece of legislation out of the box and he immediately enlisted the help of folks like Senator Ted Kennedy to move it. Despite the bipartisanship and the quick movement of both the House and Senate, it still took a full year to get NCLB through. Granted, 9-11 forced congressional priorities to change in the fall of 2001. But that team couldn't get NCLB through in those first eight months. It is now the second half of February. Eight months puts us into October, which is completely untenable, particularly since congressional campaigns will begin in earnest come Labor Day. Can we really reauthorize ESEA in four or five months this time around? And can we do it when Congress is grappling with healthcare reform, a jobs bill, banking reform, climate control, and the full complement of annual appropriations bills?

Eduflack doesn't want to be the skunk at this particular garden party, but I do want to be realistic. I would love to see Congress reauthorize ESEA by summer. I hope they are able to. But I also know that the Hill calendar is working against such an effort, particularly with other major issues still pending. I know that some in Congress may not have the stomach to pass an ESEA that will likely come with increased spending. I know there are the continuing debates between rural districts and the perceived urban thrust of the last year. And I know that many of the major issues involving ESEA -- standards, AYP, data systems, Title II, and other issues -- are not simple ideas that will be fixed in a hearing or two. So this takes real work.

Can Miller and Kline get such a bill out of committee by the end of spring? Yes, absolutely. Can it be voted out of the House, possibly. But will we see all of that, along with Senate action and conference committee, happen before our final trip to the beach in September? I just can't see it ... yet.

So that leaves me with one big question. Are we talking a wholesale reauthorization of ESEA and all of its Titles or are we talking targeted legislation that focuses on a couple of the big issues? Are we talking full-blown open-heart surgery or triage? Are we swinging for the fences or playing small ball?

If it is the former, we may be in for a tough stretch. If we are working toward the latter, and targeted amendment to NCLB, we could be in business.

Teacher Quality Showdown in Houston's Corral

Eduflack — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:18:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act locally and opine nationally!

Backbenching the Prez' Ed Budget

Eduflack — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:53:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding Value in The Flat World and Education

Eduflack — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:44:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEP 2.0

Eduflack — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:16:00 GMT

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

Today, though, we see that the work has just begun. This morning, EEP announced three new co-chairpersons for the organization. The Reverend Al era is over. As of today, EEP is now co-led by NYCDOE Chancellor Joel Klein (a founder of EEP), UNCF President and CEO Michael L. Lomax, and Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza. (And, of course, the workhorse Ellen Winn remains as director of the organization.)

Why is this important? For two reasons. First, during the Al and Newt show, many discounted EEP for being all hat and no cattle. They could do a great media event, but the group lacked the true substance necessary to truly move policy. In other words, Al and Newt could grab you a headline or put a good segment on Meet the Press, but they weren't the sort to roll up their sleeves and get changes to ESEA agreed to by legislators. While it may have been an unfair criticism (particularly since Sharpton and GIngrich weren't actually running the group, but were really just spokespersons), it was a criticism that stuck. The three new co-chairpersons have both the sizzle and the steak necessary to capture attention and actually move the ball forward.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the new leadership at the board reminds us of the mission of the group and its origins. We can forget what EEP stands for and we can discount what "education equality" actually means. But the gravitas of the trio of co-chairpersons moves front and center the EEP mission of eliminating the racial and ethnic achievement gap in public education. Lomax and Murguia are national leaders for empowering the black and Hispanic communities, respectively, on education issues. UNCF and La Raza are at the top of the game when it comes to such issues. And whether folks like it or not, Klein's tenure in NYC has been committed to closing the achievement gap and providing greater learning opportunities to historically underserved populations in the Big Apple. So if these three are going to throw their intellectual heft and personal commitment behind the issue, we may see some real movement.

That movement, though, is going to be determined by the specific priorities EEP moves forward. Some groups, particularly those who engage in educational civil rights and achievement gap concerns, often throw everything but the kitchen sink into a debate, fighting a noble fight but triggering few actual changes because they are asking for the sun and the moon. If EEP can avoid that trap, and focus on the two or three specific issues that are most important to closing the achievement gap in our urban centers and increasing opportunities for students for historically disadvantaged students, have their membership hammer on those two or three without rest, and engage their advocates and third-party partners to support those issues as well, we may actually be able to move one or two of those topics to the front of the debate. Without that focus, we may just be looking at another well-meaning group in a collection of well-meaning groups.

Klein, Lomax, and Murguia are definitely the folks who can lead such a focused advocacy campaign. And Winn and company have proven particularly adept at using shoe-leather relationships, new media and social networking to spread the EEP message and effectively engagement of the stakeholders that matter the most. The time is now to see if there is some real cattle behind that EEP hat.

ED Budget Winners and Losers

Eduflack — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:46:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading Between the SOTU Lines

Eduflack — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:49:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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