Winners & Losers

Eduflack offers up a first-rate post today on the winners and losers in the education portion of the President's FY2011 budget.

Claus von Zastrow issues a wise caution regarding federal funding for professional development (UPDATE: as well as a second thought).

The New York Times's Sam Dillon and the National Journal's Eliza Krigman (hat tip: Eduwonk) have the scoop on implications for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.

The budget is just at the first step and Congress has yet to have its say. Likewise, I wouldn't bet on reauthorization this election year (yep, congressional elections are only nine months away!). 2011? 2012? Anyone? UPDATE: Here is what the Education Experts at the National Journal's blog think.

You have read this article Barack Obama / budget / ESEA / federal / No Child Left Behind / President / professional development with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/winners-losers.html. Thanks!

Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword?

The problem with Jay Mathews' defense ("Measuring Progress At Shaw With More Than Numbers") of a Washington, DC school principal who did not demonstrate student learning gains at his school after one year is that the principal operates within an accountability system that demands such a result. In this case, both Mathews -- and DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, as described in Mathews' WP column -- are right not to have lowered the boom on Brian Betts, principal of the DC's Shaw Middle School at Garnet-Patterson, based on a single year's worth of test scores.

The state superintendent of education's Web site says Shaw dropped from 38.6 to 30.5 in the percentage of students scoring at least proficient in reading, and from 32.7 to 29.2 in math.

But those were not the numbers Rhee read to Betts over the phone.

Only 17 percent of Shaw's 2009 students had attended the school in 2008, distorting the official test score comparisons. Rhee instead recited the 2008 and 2009 scores of the 44 students who had been there both years. It didn't help much.

The students' decline in reading was somewhat smaller; it went from 34.5 to 29.7. Their math proficiency increased a bit, from 26.2 to 29.5. But Shaw is still short of the 30 percent mark, far below where Rhee and Betts want to be....

Despite the sniping at Rhee, the best teachers I know think that what happened at Shaw is a standard part of the upgrading process. I have watched Betts, his staff, students and parents for a year. The improvement of poor-performing schools has been the focus of my reporting for nearly three decades. The Shaw people are doing nearly everything that the most successful school turnaround artists have done.

They have raised expectations for students. They have recruited energetic teachers who believe in the potential of impoverished students. They have organized themselves into a team that compares notes on youngsters. They regularly review what has been learned, what some critics dismiss as "teaching to the test." They consider it an important part of their jobs.

That's how it's done, usually with a strong and engaging principal like Betts.

Mathews' take -- including consideration of contextual factors, such as the fact that only 17% of the school's students had attended the prior year and the contention that school turnaround requires more than a single year -- is how the education world should work. Embrace the complexity of learning and trying to measure it! To do so would disallow the use of single-year changes in test scores for making high-stakes decisions about schools and individual school personnel. It would also remove the unrealistic pressure on school turnarounds to bear fruit in a single year. Test scores would be used responsibly in combination with other data and evidence to paint a fuller picture about individual school contexts and inform judgments about school leadership and student success.

But Michelle Rhee and other education reform advocates have publicly argued that student performance as measured by test scores is basically the be all and end all. According to this Washington Post story ("Testing Tactics Helped Fuel D.C. School Gains"), Rhee supports strengthening No Child Left Behind to "emphasize year-to-year academic growth." Such a stance creates a problem for such reformers when they are leading a district and staking their leadership on uncomplicated test score gains. Others will assess their leadership and judge their success by this measure -- an ill-advised one in its simplest form.

I would argue that, in addition to doing the right thing (as happened in this instance), reform advocates and school leaders like Rhee also have a responsibility to say and advocate for the right thing. They have a responsibility to be honest about the complexity of student learning and the inability of student assessments to accurate capture all of the nuance going on within schools and classrooms. While the reformers' challenge of the adult-focused policies of the educational status quo is often warranted, some reforms -- accountability, chief among them -- have been taken too far. Student learning, school leadership and teaching cannot be measured and judged good or bad based on a single set of test scores. Test scores must be part of the consideration -- and supporting systems such as accountability, compensation and evaluation must be informed by such data -- but they should not single-handedly define success or failure.

The complexity as presented by Mathews in his article -- and, more importantly, by existing research (such as by Robert Linn, Aaron Pallas, Tim Sass, and embedded within Sunny Ladd's RttT comments) about year-to-year comparisons of both overall test scores and test score gains -- strongly suggests that educational accountability systems should be designed more thoughtfully than they have been to date, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the direction that policymaking is headed at either the federal or state levels. Part of being more thoughtful is moving away from NCLB-style adequate yearly progress and toward a value-added approach, but thoughtfulness also requires not making high-stakes decisions based exclusively on volatile student data. Do I hear "multiple measures"? Sure, but Sherman Dorn offers some provocative thoughts on this subject in a 2007 blog post.

With regard to educational accountability, policymakers first should do their homework -- and then they clearly have more work to do in creating a better system and undoing parts of the existing system that aren't evidence-based and accomplish only in simplifying a truly complex art: learning.

-------------------

For those of you that have gotten this far, there's a related post on the New America Foundation's Ed Money Watch blog discussing a new GAO report that analyzes state spending on student assessment tests -- $640 million in 2007-08.

The increasing cost of developing and scoring assessments has also led many states to implement simpler and more cost-effective multiple choice tests instead of open response tests. In fact, although five states have changed their assessments to include more open response items in both reading and math since 2002, 11 and 13 states have removed open items from their reading and math tests, respectively over the same time period.... This reliance on multiple choice tests has forced states to limit the content and complexity of what they test. In fact, some states develop academic standards for testing separately from standards for instruction, which are often un-testable in a multiple choice system. As a result, state NCLB assessments tend to test and measure memorization of facts and basic skills rather than complex cognitive abilities.

------------

And here's a new story hot off the presses from Education Week. It discusses serious questions raised about New York City's school grading system.

Eighty-four percent of the city’s 1,058 public elementary and middle schools received an A on the city’s report cards this year, compared with 38 percent in 2008, while 13 percent received a B, city officials announced this month.

“It tells us virtually nothing about the actual performance of schools,” Aaron M. Pallas, a professor of sociology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, said of the city’s grades.

Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University, was even sharper: She declared the school grades “bogus” in a Sept. 9 opinion piece for the Daily News of New York, saying the city’s report card system “makes a mockery of accountability.”

But Andrew J. Jacob, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Education, defended the ratings, even as he said the district’s demands on schools would continue to rise next year....

The city employs a complex methodology to devise its overall letter grades, with the primary driver being results from statewide assessments in reading and mathematics, which have also encountered considerable skepticism lately.

The city’s grades are based on three categories: student progress on state tests from one year to the next, which accounts for 60 percent; student performance for the most recent school year, which accounts for 25 percent; and school environment, which makes up 15 percent.

Mr. Pallas of Teachers College argues that one key flaw with the city’s rating system is that it depends heavily on a what he deems a “wholly unreliable” measure of student growth on test scores from year to year that fails to account adequately for statistical error.

You have read this article Aaron Pallas / accountability / Assessment / Helen Ladd / Jay Mathews / Michelle Rhee / New York City / No Child Left Behind / reform / Robert Linn / Tim Sass / Washington DC / Washington Post with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/09/live-by-sword-die-by-sword.html. Thanks!

Cheerleading for NCLB

I guess my reaction to today's Washington Post shout out to No Child Left Behind ("'No Child' in Action") from former U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is a question: "If NCLB's accountability alone is such a silver bullet, then how come test scores at the high school level didn't improve?"

Although Spellings mentions that NCLB requires math and reading tests in grades 3-8, it is quite disingenuous of her not to mention that such tests were also required in high school. If the achievement gains aren't sustained through high school, what real difference does it make?

The wise Aaron Pallas offers his take on this issue ("Wishful Thinking"), calling into question Spellings's claims:

But what portion of those trends can be attributed to NCLB? Margaret Spellings refers to changes since 1999, which is convenient for her story, because there were sharp increases in grade 4 reading between 2000 and 2002, and in grade 4 and grade 8 math between 2000 and 2003. But NCLB was signed into law in January, 2002; the first final regulations dealing with assessment were issued in December, 2002; and initial state accountability plans were approved by the U.S. Department of Education no later than June, 2003. The 2003 main NAEP was administered between January and March of 2003. Is it realistic to claim that NCLB affected scores before the 2003 NAEP administration? I, and a great many other analysts, think not.

Only in Margaret Spellings’ world can NCLB affect NAEP scores for the four years before the law was passed and implemented. Now that’s wishful thinking.

UPDATE -- Diane Ravitch comes to similar conclusions in her blog post.

Thus, when one looks at the patterns, it suggests the following: First, our students are making gains, though not among 17-year-olds. Second, the gains they have made since NCLB are smaller than the gains they made in the years preceding NCLB. Third, even when they are significant, the gains are small. Fourth, the Long Term Trend data are not a resounding endorsement of NCLB. If anything, the slowing of the rate of progress suggests that NCLB is not a powerful instrument to improve student performance.

Caveat emptor.

You have read this article Aaron Pallas / accountability / Assessment / data / Margaret Spellings / NAEP / NCLB / No Child Left Behind with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/cheerleading-for-nclb.html. Thanks!

Federal Funding for Teacher Quality Innovation?

This is a follow-up to my post of two weeks ago about the use of Title II, Part A funding under NCLB. In these tight economic times, it is inevitable that the focus will move from spending more money on education to spending existing dollars more wisely. Currently, most school districts are not using these federal dollars in particularly innovative, let alone effective or impactful ways.

An article by Stephen Sawchuk ('Grants in NCLB to Aid Teaching Under Scrutiny') was published in this week's edition of Education Week. In part, it discusses the findings of a recent Education Sector report on this topic.

For those of you who aren't Ed Week subscribers and may not be able to access the story, here is a peek at the story:

The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund—better known as Title II, Part A of NCLB—is the federal government’s second-largest K-12 investment, after the Title I grants for disadvantaged students. Ninety-five percent of the funds flow to school districts, and they come with few strings attached.

Although the fund has promoted some promising local practices, Title II, in general, “is not especially aligned with leading-edge [teacher-quality] efforts, and it’s the federal government’s big entry in this sweepstakes,” said Andrew J. Rotherham, the co-director of Education Sector, a Washington think tank, and the report’s author.

...

In his paper, Mr. Rotherham stakes out one conceptual approach that Mr. Obama and legislators could consider when they revise the program as part of the reauthorization of the NCLB law: to transform Title II into a fund for seeding innovations to the education human-capital continuum, and to disallow a handful of currently authorized activities, including class-size reduction.

...

Nationally representative U.S. Department of Education survey data show that districts in 2007-08 spent 6 percent of their Title II funds on professional-growth initiatives—such as mentoring programs or incentives for teachers to pursue certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards—and 4 percent on recruitment, including performance-based pay and teacher loan-forgiveness programs.

More than three-quarters of districts’ Title II allocations subsidize professional development and smaller class sizes. In his paper, Mr. Rotherham deems those activities “low leverage” because they typically lack quality-control mechanisms and reinforce traditional human-capital structures, rather than altering them.

You have read this article Andy Rotherham / Education Sector / Education Week / ESEA / No Child Left Behind / teacher effectiveness / teacher quality / Title II with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/12/federal-funding-for-teacher-quality.html. Thanks!

Teacher Quality and Title II

Education Week published an incredibly important story this week by Stephen Sawchuk ("Spending On Federal Teacher-Quality Funds Questioned") and Education Sector issued an incredibly important report (Title 2.0: Revamping The Federal Role in Education Human Capital) on Title II, Part A dollars in No Child Left Behind. The notion of better utilizing existing resources is especially critical in light of the economic downturn and budgetary challenges which will make new resources harder to come by.

As I wrote in two recent posts ($29 Billion Buys You A New Education System? and Will The New President Support New Educators?), it is abundantly clear that Title II, Part A's $3 billion are not flowing toward the most impactful initiatives in schools and districts. Most are going to class-size reduction and professional development (of questionable quality).

In a nutshell, Education Sector recommends shifting "the federal government’s role from enabler of existing activities largely irrespective of quality to a driver of reform through strategic investments in new initiatives, institutions, and policy schemes to recruit, train, support, and evaluate and compensate teachers."

Easy stuff, right?

You have read this article budget / Education Sector / Education Week / ESEA / NCLB / No Child Left Behind / teacher quality / Title II with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/11/teacher-quality-and-title-ii.html. Thanks!

Wither Education?

An article ("Obama is Expected to Put Education Overhaul on Back Burner") in today's Wall Street Journal that reads more like an opinion piece than a new story suggests that President-elect Obama will not prioritize education in the face of other policy challenges.

I disagree with the likes of the Brookings Institution's Tom Loveless (my grad school professor) whose comments alone basically provide the article's headline. Loveless says that "he expects Mr. Obama to sidestep most major issues involving public schools and instead focus on small, symbolic initiatives in the mold of former President Bill Clinton's promotion of school uniforms as a way to instill discipline in classrooms." Obama has shown a deep personal commitment to issues involving schools and urban communities as a U.S. Senator and in his prior life. Despite the economic and foreign policy challenges he faces, I don't see Obama walking away from this commitment and interest to focus on marginal educational pronouncements. Deep engagement and substantive proposals may not be offered in his first 100 Days -- a concept that should be left to history books -- or even in his first year in office, but Obama WILL expend political capital on education reform during his presidency.

The wise Jack Jennings of the Center on Education Policy gets it right on this one. He suggests that Congress will likely take the lead -- especially on contentious issues related to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (AKA NCLB) -- and that President Obama will wait for them to hash out a consensus before acting. In talking to a key Hill staffer in Washington, DC yesterday, however, it is clear that congressional Democrats are looking for signals from an Obama Administration to inform their work. Some core principles from the President will help to influence congressional action and provide structure to an eventual compromise that must win passage in both houses of Congress and earn the president's signature.

You have read this article Barack Obama / Education / ESEA / Jack Jennings / NCLB / No Child Left Behind / Tom Loveless / Wall Street Journal with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/11/wither-education.html. Thanks!

What's Next?

Let the prognostication begin!!!

So how does President-elect Obama (boy, that sounds good!) move forward on education given the twin obstacles of a bad economy and a ballooning federal deficit -- along with opportunities presented by the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (AKA NCLB) in 2009 or 2010 and a Democratic-controlled Congress?

It seems that education will inevitably take a back seat to economic recovery and foreign policy issues (Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, etc.). However, the good news is that some amount of deficit spending on infrastructure and investments in areas such as education will likely occur. I expect to see ESEA reauthorization as the primary vehicle for enactment of many of Obama's k-12 education reform ideas. In addition, Obama will likely rhetorically link education to economic revitalization and future American competitiveness. Aspects of his proposed focus on math and science will find a policy niche here.

A major question, of course, is who will be the next Education Secretary. Easy answer: Probably not someone from Texas. Hard answer: Who exactly from the other 49 states? Well, in my opinion, the likely candidates might include Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, former West Virginia Governor and president of the Alliance for Excellent Education Bob Wise, former New Jersey Governor (a Republican) and Drew University president Tom Kean, former South Carolina Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum, New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, and Paul Vallas, New Orleans superintendent and former Chicago Public Schools chief.

(UPDATE: Scratch Vallas off the list - he has agreed to stay in New Orleans through the 2009-10 school year. Scratch Napolitano as she has been tapped as Homeland Security secretary.)

I'm not basing these possibilities on any special inside knowledge (c'mon, I live in Wisconsin now -- wadda I know?!?!)-- just an educated guess. So it means that the next Ed Secretary will be someone NOT on this list. Other education leaders who probably won't be appointed Secretary but who are likely to play a important leadership role in the U.S. Department of Education or more broadly in the Obama Administration include Linda Darling-Hammond, Danielle Gray, Heather Higginbottom, Michael Johnston, Andy Rotherham, and Jon Schnur.

OK, that's the Obama side. What about the Republicans? I agree with Eduwonk that the Republican Party is probably headed for what he terms possibility #2.

We could see a return to the slash and burn and culture war approach of the 1990s (or its last gasp). Sarah Palin hasn’t been hostile to public schools in Alaska but if she sees these sorts of politics as a way to a political future in 2012 it’s hard to imagine she wouldn’t turn on a dime and others wouldn’t follow. This would mean a lot of ideas to effectively eviscerate the federal role in education, cut spending, devolve authority to the states and so forth. In a tight fiscal climate state “flexibility” can have a siren-like appeal because it gives states more flexibility around using federal dollars to plug other budget holes. The likely lack of Republican moderates on the Hill will only add to this dynamic.

But, if the experience in some states as well as the likely composition of the House and Senate after the dust settles is any guide, I’d bet on the second option. That means a lot of theater, but not good news if you want to see a serious national debate about ideas for improving our public schools.

Don't expect to see a major national debate about education, but probably modest changes to existing policies (a lessening of NCLB's rigid accountability provisions and an increased emphasis on value-added methodologies), some targeted investments (early childhood education, differentiated teacher pay, teacher professional development & support, dropout intervention), a focus on higher education (a college tax credit, financial aid simplification, student success at 2- and 4-year colleges), and, if the economy permits in a couple of years, some greater across-the-board investments.

My overall bet is that education policy will not transform itself nearly as much as some other policy areas -- health care, environment, energy, foreign policy -- under Obama's watch. While I think that Jay Mathews's take on this question in last Friday's Washington Post is a bit strong -- certainly the headline is ("Why The Next Education President Will Be Like Bush") -- he's definitely on the right track.

But the devil is in the details, and I predict that many important changes will be made to improve public education in general and ESEA specifically, enhance the quality of teaching, and create more successful and sensible pathways to higher education over the next four years.

Optimism, indeed, is back.

You have read this article Andy Rotherham / Barack Obama / Education / Eduwonk / Jay Mathews / Linda Darling-Hammond / No Child Left Behind / presidential campaign / Secretary of Education / U.S. Department of Education with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-next.html. Thanks!

Reaction to McCain's Speech

As seems to be typical in this presidential campaign, education got short shrift in John McCain's speech to the Republican National Convention this evening. Here's what he had to say:

Education -- education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained, but what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice. Let's remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work. When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parent -- when it fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have the choice, and their children will have that opportunity. Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucrats. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will.

Yawn.

The education portion of McCain's speech served up the same boring, rehashed Republicanism as the rest of his speech. Basically, it's all about choice and competition--and firing bad teachers. You always need an enemy. News to John McCain: The No Child Left Behind Act already has provisions for school choice. The trouble is that federal law doesn't allow children who attend failing schools in failing districts (where there aren't enough good schools to go around) to choose a school in a different district. For example, a Chicago Public Schools student can't choose to attend school in Evanston; a District of Columbia Public Schools student can't attend school in Montgomery County, Maryland or Arlington County, Virginia. And so on.

Unless McCain is willing to take a stand and allow largely urban, low-income students to storm the barracades of suburban schools (school districts where lots of wealthy Republicans live), then his hankering for more choice and competition in education ain't straight talk--just more empty rhetoric.

You have read this article Education / John McCain / No Child Left Behind / Republican National Convention / school choice with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/09/reaction-to-mccain-speech.html. Thanks!

"Illusory" Test Score Gains

Here is a neat little story from today's Washington Post that puts my recent post about Maryland test scores into some context.

Recent reports from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and [Bruce] Fuller's group, Policy Analysis for California Education, have concluded that most recent gains on state tests are illusory, reflecting better test-taking skills or lower standards rather than increased knowledge. Another study, from the Center on Education Policy, concluded that the gains seemed genuine but did not necessarily reflect greater learning.

You have read this article adequate yearly progress / Assessment / AYP / Maryland / NCLB / No Child Left Behind / Washington Post with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/07/test-score-gains.html. Thanks!

Student Achievement in Maryland

In Maryland, the glass is half full ... or is it half empty?

From 2007 to 2008, the share of students statewide who were judged proficient or better rose six percentage points in reading and four points in math, to 82 percent and 76 percent, respectively, on the Maryland School Assessments.

But

State reading and math tests taken by Maryland students were shortened and tweaked this year, leading some critics to question whether the shifts contributed to surprisingly strong gains in achievement.

Is this uptick in student achievement in Maryland legit? Or is this another example of a state gaming the system [see here and here] when it comes to NCLB's adequate yearly progress requirements?

Ed Week's David Hoff provides a nice summary of the trickery employed by states in this blog post from November 2007.

--------------

ADDED: Read Eduwonk's take on this.

You have read this article adequate yearly progress / Assessment / Maryland / NCLB / No Child Left Behind with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/07/student-achievement-in-maryland.html. Thanks!

Musings on Kennedy, Obama

Not that I think that this means that NCLB will be reauthorized this session, but what a tremendous sight it was to see Senator Ted Kennedy walk into the U.S. Capitol yesterday to cast a vote on Medicare legislation.

On the presidential front, Dan Balz tries to put Obama's ideology into context in today's Washington Post ("Obama's Ideology Proving Difficult To Pinpoint"). All in all it's a pretty flat article. William A. Galston, a former Clinton White House domestic policy adviser, gets it mostly right:

Galston cited three strands that he regards as helping to define Obama-ism. First is an "all of us together" approach that rejects "diversionary interests and short-term gains." Second is an effort to bring people together across partisan lines. Third is his effort to broaden participation in politics and his use of modern technology to do so. This appears to be a marriage of Obama's roots in community organizing and his willingness to tap the power of technology to open the processes of government to more than the traditional cadre of experts.

What does this mean for education? There's been lots of chatter in the blog-o-sphere about whether Obama is a traditionalist or a reformer when it comes to education policy. With issues such as teacher pay, it is clear that Obama is willing to push the envelope and challenge union orthodoxy. The real question is whether he can and will prioritize these issues should he be a resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.

As an unnamed Clinton White House official was quoted in the Balz piece:

"His tone is very much post-partisan and post-ideological. The challenge will be coming up with the ideas to go with it. If you drop the same agenda into the same Washington petri dish, you'll get the same results."

You have read this article Barack Obama / NCLB / No Child Left Behind / Ted Kennedy with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/07/musings-on-kennedy-obama.html. Thanks!

$29 Billion Buys You A New Education System?

On Wednesday the Forum for Education and Democracy released a proposal to "transform the federal role in education." The conveners are a group of high-profile academics and educators, including Linda Darling-Hammond, John Goodlad, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Deborah Meier, and Ted Sizer.

The cynic in me might call this a $29 billion spending proposal which would result in a 75 percent increase in federal education spending ... but I'm an optimist, so I'll call it a proposed investment. And, in many ways, it is. There are many policy ideas worthy of consideration. I'm not sure it's transformational however.

First, the bad news: What it is, is a tough sell politically. The authors were aware of this, and noted that its cost is equivalent to the monthly price tag of the war in Iraq. But they could have done much more to suggest ways to use current educational resources more efficiently. For instance, what about all the federal funds squandered on spray 'n' pray professional development? Gotta be some savings there. And it would drape at least a paper-thin cloak of fiscal austerity over an otherwise jaw-dropping spending proposal.

Now, the good news: The report is right to call for additional federal investments to build human capital--particularly in so-called hard-to-staff and low-performing schools. In my opinion, the No Child Left Behind Act's biggest failures are (1) its lack of a serious focus on developing highly effective teachers and (2) its focus on punitive sanctions for 'failing' schools and districts rather than the provision of capacity building assistance to turn those schools around.

Let's stipulate two things. Number one, teacher quality is the most important school-based variable impacting student success. Number two, educational accountability is not a silver bullet.

(1) The 'highly qualified' teacher requirement is a meaningless designation. In most states, every teacher is highly qualified. What NCLB lacks is a coherent and sustained vision to enhance teacher development during the initial years in the profession and beyond. To the Forum's credit, it offers up some worthy ideas to move us off the dime: induction programs and teacher residencies as well as stronger school leadership preparation.

New educator support programs currently are allowable uses of NCLB's Title II, Part A dollars, but few of those monies are spent in such impactful ways. In 2006-07, U.S. school districts received nearly $3 billion under Title II, Part A--but 79 percent of the funds were used either to reduce class sizes (47%) or for professional development (32%). [See U.S. Department of Education Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A (July 2007)]

(2) Educational accountability alone cannot transform schools. As one of my colleagues like to say, "You don't know what you don't know." Indeed. But the inherent presumption in educational accountability is that educators need a kick in the pants--and kids will learn. This--plus school choice--was W's and many social conservatives' primary argument for NCLB. But that's not how it works.

A main reason why educators in low-performing schools are unsuccessful is because they don't know how to work better or work differently--not because they're lazy or feckless. Changing this requires not just strengthening individual knowledge and skills but also organization-wide transformations in the conditions and culture of teaching and learning. Some of the Forum's ideas would move us in that direction.

Harvard's Dick Elmore makes this point quite cogently in a 2002 Education Next article:

"The working theory behind test-based accountability is seemingly—perhaps fatally—simple. Students take tests that measure their academic performance in various subject areas. The results trigger certain consequences for students and schools—rewards, in the case of high performance, and sanctions for poor performance. Having stakes attached to test scores is supposed to create incentives for students and teachers to work harder and for school and district administrators to do a better job of monitoring their performance.... The threat of such measures is supposed to be enough to motivate students and schools to ever-higher levels of performance.

This may have the ring of truth, but it is in fact a naïve, highly schematic, and oversimplified view of what it takes to improve student learning.... The ability of a school to make improvements has to do with the beliefs, norms, expectations, and practices that people in the organization share, not with the kind of information they receive about their performance. Low-performing schools aren’t coherent enough to respond to external demands for accountability.

The work of turning a school around entails improving the knowledge and skills of teachers—changing their knowledge of content and how to teach it—and helping them to understand where their students are in their academic development. Low-performing schools, and the people who work in them, don’t know what to do. If they did, they would be doing it already.

Test-based accountability without substantial investments in capacity ... is unlikely to elicit better performance from low-performing students and schools."


In sum, I don't begrudge the Forum for setting forth these ideas for improving American public education. I just don't think that federal policymakers or presidential candidates are in the market for something with a $29 billion price tag. Targeted investments to strengthen teacher quality in high-need schools and districts--such as those proposed in U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman George Miller's TEACH Act or in U.S. Senator Jack Reed's School Improvement Through Teacher Quality Act--are much more likely to pass the political smell test and find their way into a reauthorized NCLB.

Further, during NCLB reauthorization (now likely to move forward in 2009-2010), one can hope that federal policymakers look toward capacity building strategies (such as those proposed in this report) to replace punitive sanctions and the use of external supplemental service providers. We have a good sense of what is takes to transform struggling schools and districts -- but it's gonna take more than cajoling, demanding and hoping to get the job done. It's going to require a financial and intellectual investment in strengthening the teaching profession and redesigning school leadership.

UPDATE: U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings's proposed rules for NCLB utterly ignore the capacity building needs I have articulated above. It's more of the same old-same old accountability and contracting out of services without support. This will not address the capacity of districts or schools to improve. See Education Week story here.

You have read this article Education / Forum for Education and Democracy / George Miller / Jack Reed / leadership / Linda Darling-Hammond / NCLB / No Child Left Behind / Richard Elmore / teacher / Ted Kennedy with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/04/29-billion-buys-you-new-education-system.html. Thanks!

Teaching To The Test

Thursday's Christian Science Monitor ran a provocatively titled op-ed--"Good Teachers Teach to the Test." In it former Los Angeles teacher and UCLA lecturer Walt Gardner contends that teaching to the test is "eminently sound pedagogy." That's educator-speak for "it's the right thing to do."

In the era of No Child Left Behind, many educators and observers have bemoaned teaching to the test. Gardner makes the case that teaching to the test in the right way is about much more than teaching kids to fill in tiny bubbles and master only basic skills and knowledge. Sadly, that does happen in some schools.

If a test measures what we want and expect students to learn and be able to demonstrate, then why not teach to the test? Flying in the face of conventional wisdom, Gardner argues that it's entirely possible for a highly skilled educator to design an assessment integrated with their lesson plan and the overall curriculum.

You have read this article Assessment / No Child Left Behind / teacher / Test with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/04/teaching-to-test.html. Thanks!

Education Missing in Latest Presidential Debate

Tom Shales wrote a spot-on column ("In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC") in today's Washington Post slamming moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News for their performance in last evening's presidential debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. Shales chastized Gibson and Stephanopoulos for dwelling on "specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed," rather than ask substantive questions about important policy issues like education.

Their efforts resulted in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's name being mentioned 16 times during the debate. From the way-way-backkkk machine, even the Weather Underground was mentioned twice. I expected Timothy Leary to jump out from behind the curtain at any moment.

Fascinating. Don't believe me? Read the debate transcript.

What discussion was there of education? Not much amidst the inane questions, parries and thrusts about stark raving mad pastors, imagined sniper fire, flag lapel pins, and bomb throwing radicals who were pardoned by President Clinton and who sit on nonprofit boards in Chicago.

In her opening statement, Senator Clinton vowed to "make our education system the true passport to opportunity." Later on, she called herself "a strong supporter of early childhood education and universal pre-kindergarten" and said she would "end" No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Early childhood is worthy of greater investment, but what exactly would she replace NCLB with?

Senator Obama framed some of his comments about education around the issue of tax fairness, saying that "those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries." Obama went on to say that "investing in our schools" and other national priorities can't be done "for free." If I were a Republican, I'd call him "a tax and spend liberal." Of course, after 8 years of W, that seems like a breath of fresh air. Let's line up the millionaires and let them pay their fair share for a change.

You have read this article Clinton / Education / No Child Left Behind / Obama / Tom Shales / Washington Post with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/04/education-missing-in-latest.html. Thanks!

The Education of Obama

Over the past several weeks, three particularly interesting articles have been written about Barack Obama and education policy. The Huffington Post ran the first on March 14, the New Republic ran the second on March 26, and Slate ran the third on April 4.

In the Huffington Post, Michelle McNeil opined, "Would Obama approach education reform with a centrist frame-of-mind if he had the full power of the Presidency behind him, and wasn't fighting it out for the nomination?" I don't know about a 'centrist frame-of-mind', but I honestly believe he would approach it with a problem-solving mentality and not just kow-tow to the status quo much as I believe Senator Clinton would.

In the New Republic, Josh Patashnik writes: "There's at least one issue ... on which Obama's record puts him sharply at odds with the party's liberal establishment: education. Obama has long advocated a reformist agenda that looks favorably upon things like competition between schools, test-based accountability, and performance pay for teachers. But the Obama campaign has hesitated to trumpet its candidate's maverick credentials. As an increasingly influential chorus of donors and policy wonks pushes an agenda within the Democratic Party that frightens teachers' unions and their traditional liberal allies, Obama seems unsure how far he can go in reassuring the former group that he's one of them without alienating the latter. And this is a shame, because Obama may represent the best hope for real reform in decades."

Undoubtedly, I believe Obama is playing it safe by not emphasizing his education reform ideas within the context of a Democratic primary. That's smart politics, but it's made easier by many others issues--from the economy to Iraq--that are trumping education as priorities among the mass of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers.

In Slate, journalist and blogger Alexander Russo offers a more critical take on Obama and his "lackluster record" on education. Russo writes that as an Illinois state senator from Chicago, Obama failed to evidence leadership and choose sides in a debate between Chicago Public Schools (the school district) and local school councils over local control versus centralized accountability. The same dynamic is playing out around No Child Left Behind (NCLB), says Russo, but "it's hard to imagine [Obama] taking charge of the continuing debate over whether and how [NCLB] should be renewed."

Indeed, sometimes the past is prologue, but I'm not sure it would be true in an Obama administration. As US Senator, Obama has offered some very substantive proposals on teaching quality within the context of NCLB. He has supported policies such as educator induction and urban teacher residencies that would get to the root of building stronger capacity within troubled schools and districts. He has shown a personal commitment to these issues. I can see him staking out a "mend it, not end it" position on NCLB reauthorization and working with Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman George Miller to work these proposals into a legislative package. Only time will tell.

What say you, Pennsylvania?

You have read this article Alexander Russo / Education / Huffington Post / NCLB / New Republic / No Child Left Behind / Obama / Performance Pay / Slate / teacher with the title No Child Left Behind. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/04/the-education-of-obama.html. Thanks!