Teacher Voices: The VIVA Project

The VIVA Project is a new initiative that gives teachers an opportunity to collaborate, share ideas, and inform education policy and reform conversations at the state and national levels. VIVA stands for Voices, Ideas, Vision, Action.

The Goal of the VIVA Project is to identify ideas and opinions straight from the classroom, work together to create actionable policies to improve public education for classroom teachers and their students, and deliver them directly to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Teachers are encouraged to share their ideas in both the national and New York idea mines. Register today! And check out its Facebook page, too. You have until October 10, 2010 to add your voice to the conversation.

Other notables initiatives in a similar vein include Teach PLUS, the Teacher Leaders Network and the Hope Street Group's Policy 2.0.

The VIVA Project is a worthy addition to an education reform marketplace that too often ignores and discounts the thoughts and ideas of actual classroom teachers. Kudos to Secretary Duncan for being willing to listen.

Check out the embedded video to learn more about the VIVA Project:

You have read this article policy / reform / teacher / VIVA Project with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/09/teacher-voices-viva-project.html. Thanks!

'Education Does Not Begin Or End At The Schoolhouse Door'

A lot of us in education policy get lost within our own locus of control. In my case, it's all about teachers. After all, teacher quality is the strongest school-based indicator impacting student outcomes.

Sounds good, right? Yes, and no.

While it is inevitable that one focuses on what one can control professionally, it is important to have a sense of the bigger picture. That goes for us in education. After all, research has shown that the influence of schools on student outcomes pale in comparison to family and social factors outside of schools' direct control -- especially, but not only, in the early years of childhood. So while it is critical that we concentrate education policy efforts around attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, we also must attend to a variety of factors outside of schools that impact students' ability to learn and succeed.

This report (Promoting A Comprehensive Approach to Educational Opportunity) from Cross & Joftus, funded by the Mott Foundation, provides an important reality check to our typical tunnel vision. It also provides a series of recommendations to better coordinate a largely fragmented web of federal programs focused on children. It reminds policymakers and high-level government managers -- who have responsibility for interdisciplinary public policies -- that they need to think holistically and work in concert.

There are existing organizations and movements afoot -- Broader, Bolder, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Coordinated School Health Program, the Coalition for Community Schools, National Assembly on School-based Health Care, The Rural School and Community Trust, come to mind -- that take such a broader view of education and what it takes to fuel student success.

Some excerpts from the Cross & Joftus report:

The dominant assumption of American educational policy is that schools, by themselves, can fully overcome the impact of social and economic disadvantage on children’s development into thriving citizens.

The ... No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) ... perpetuated and gave further credence to the assumption that schools could fully mitigate the impact of low socioeconomic status on students’ achievement and that schools were also the chief cause of poor performance.

First, since at least 2000, there has been a broad scientific consensus that “virtually every aspect of early human development, from the brain’s evolving circuitry to the child’s capacity for empathy, is affected by the environments and experiences that are encountered in a cumulative fashion, beginning in the prenatal period and extending throughout the early childhood years.” As James Heckman, a Nobel Prize economist, wrote, “Life cycle skill formation is a dynamic process in which early
inputs strongly affect the productivity of later inputs [especially schools]. Put another way, “education” does not begin or end at the schoolhouse door, and the “education” that children receive before they enter school significantly affects their success after they go through that door.

Second, the evidence does not support the view that the substantial gap closing that had occurred by the mid-1980s was entirely the result of schools, though schools did indeed contribute.

Third, despite the ongoing debate about whether or not schools alone can level the education playing field, the federal government has long been engaged in a schools-plus approach.

Read Deb Viadero's blog post at Inside School Research on the study as well.

Image courtesy of University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension

You have read this article children / community schools / Education / policy / social policy / students with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-not-begin-or-end-at-schoolhouse.html. Thanks!

My Guv'nah Is Stronger Than Your Guv'nah

Governors are an interesting group. Always. They are not interchangeable spirits. Just think of some of the characters and personalities amidst their ranks: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rick Perry, Bill Richardson, Jennifer Granholm, Ed Rendell, Haley Barbour.

With regard to education, governors do not come to the job with equal chances to impact the policy agenda. I grew keenly aware of this when I worked for the National Governors Assoiciation (NGA) from 2001 to 2004. Some of this is due to personalities and individual capacities, such as whether they effectively use their bully pulpit and engage in policy conversations. And some is due to politics, such as whether they campaigned for office on education. But much of the reason for this variation is out of governors' control: It is due to widely varying nature of state educational governance systems.

This Education Commission of the States brief [summarized below] maps four models of state educational governance, present in 40 of the 50 states. (The other 10 states utilize hybrid models, furthering confusing the situation.) The most important fact is that ONLY 13 governors directly appoint the chief state school officer. That gives one pause in considering how empowered chief executive officers really are to tackle changes to public education. Most certainly cannot go it alone - and perhaps that's a good thing in certain ways, but it certainly doesn't produce direct reform trajectories.

Model One: The governors appoints the members of the state board of education. The state board, in turn, appoints the chief state school officer (variously called the State Superintendent, Commissioner, Education Secretary, etc.) Twelve (12) states utilize this model: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia.

Such state systems do not provide the governors much power over education governance. They accrue it over time as they appoint state board members -- usually with staggered terms -- and eventually gain a majority if they remain in office long enough.

Model Two: In this model, the state board of education is elected and the board appoints the chief state school officer. Eight (8) states utilize this model: Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

Clearly, this model generates extremely weak gubernatorial control over public education, although chief executives in these states still wield the power of the purse, vetoes, and the like.

Model Three: In this model, the governor appoints the members of state board of education. The chief state school officer is elected. Eleven (11) states utilize this model: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Wyoming.

Again, this is a governance blueprint for weak gubernatorial influence, although right-to-work states with histories of strong state influence over education -- such as North Carolina -- challenge this general assumption. Former NC Governor Jim Hunt has a lot to do with this, I believe. In his case, the power of personality transcended a weak governance structure. Differences also can be caused by differential continuums of power between state boards of education and chief state school officers.

Model Four: In this model, the governor appoints the state board of education and the chief state school officer. Nine (9) states utilize this governance model: Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

This would appear to be a template for strong gubernatorial control over public education, but of course it doesn't always turn out that way, depending on personalities, political choices made, and state education systems with a strong history of and preference for local control (here I'm thinking Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire). However, this group of states has certainly produced recent governors that were strong leaders in education -- Tom Kean of New Jersey, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mark Warner of Virginia, Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania are examples.

The remaining 10 states function under modified versions of the above four models. Models A (Louisiana and Ohio) and D (Texas) are relatively strong pro-governor structures, while Model B empowers state legislatures over governors in New York and South Carolina. Model E as implemented in Minnesota and New Mexico also provides those governors with significant power; not so much in Wisconsin, although the Badger State governor historically has had very strong veto powers. (Ever heard of the Frankenstein or Vanna White veto?)

A. Elected and Appointed State Board; Appointed Chief

In Louisiana, eight board members are elected and three are appointed by the governor. In Ohio, 11 board members are elected, while the governor appoints eight members.

B. Legislature Appoints State Board; Appointed or Elected Chief

In New York, the state legislature appoints the board members and the chief state school officer is appointed by the board. The South Carolina legislature appoints the board, but the chief is elected.

C. Joint Appointment of State Board; Appointed or Elected Chief

The governor, lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House appoint members to the state board in Mississippi. The state board appoints the chief state school officer.

In the state of Washington, the board of education is made up of 16 members ­—­ five of whom are elected by district directors (three for the western half of the state, two for the eastern); one at-large member elected by members of boards of directors of state-approved private schools; the superintendent of public instruction; seven members appointed by the governor; and two student members (non-voting). The chief state school officer is elected. Washington moved from a model whereby the state board was elected by district directors (local boards) to this model in January 2006.

D. Elected Board; Governor Appointed Chief

The governor appoints the chief state school officer who also serves as the executive secretary of the elected state board. Texas uses this model.

E. No State Board or Advisory Only; Elected or Appointed Chief

Minnesota and Wisconsin do not have a state board of education. New Mexico has an elected body (Public Education Commission), but is advisory only.

Minnesota and New Mexico – chief state school officer is appointed by governor

Wisconsin – chief state school officer is elected.

As Education Week's Alyson Klein reports, in this recent blog post about the just-completed NGA winter meeting, governors of both parties are AOK with the Administration's initial movement on ESEA reauthorization. NGA Chairman and Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, however, did invoke the word 'flexibility,' which is a tried-and-true part of the NGA mantra and which is being peddled far more aggressively by the NGA's sister organization, the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In today's meeting, which was part of the National Governors Association's Winter Conference, governors voiced "zero" concerns about federal intrusion in state business when it came to the Title I proposal, Secretary Duncan said in an interview with reporters outside the White House.

"This is being lead by the governors," he said. "We have to educate our way to a better economy. All of the governors understand this."

That's all well and good. But, the fact is, that some governors' opinions matter more than others, and some, while not wholly irrelevant, are hardly decisive actors. The fact that Race to the Top has empowered governors to take the lead in education reform conversations and to lead states' applications for these competitive dollars has changed the dynamic somewhat. Because they are not directly in charge of public education in most states, however, most governors cannot expedite change along the lines that the Obama Administration is calling for without attending to building relationships, cajoling, convincing, and achieving reform one step at a time.

You have read this article Education / Education Commission of the States / governance / governor / National Governors Association / policy with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-guv-is-stronger-than-your-guv.html. Thanks!

A Sociologist's Place in Educational Reform

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

On Friday the Sociology of Education section of the American Sociological Association held a small conference in San Francisco specifically focused on the role of the sociologist in educational reform. Organized by some of the section’s smartest young thinkers including Mitchell Stevens, Amy Binder, and Elizabeth Armstrong, the meeting was refreshingly thought-provoking. Not everyone in attendance was one of the usual suspects—for example, Tom Toch appeared to give a great talk on school reform.

Central to the day’s discussions was a topic near and dear to my heart: Can, and should, a sociologist of education conduct relevant educational research and try to have an impact on educational reform? Is the academic’s place in the academy, or in the schools? Even if a professor desires to become involved with policy and practice, is her voice welcomed? Considered? Or, as so many (but not all) seemed to suggest, are those efforts a waste of time given that economists appear to dominate policy discussions in ways we can't compete with? Are we simply better off sticking to addressing the "how and why" questions, leaving those questions of greater immediate importance—questions of causal impact, for example—to those who are professionally rewarded for applied research? Sociologists who want tenure, the more senior folks tended to say, need to bring education to sociology—to make contributions to their discipline. Others argued for the sociologist to focus on bringing that perspective to education—making contributions to educational reform.

Obviously the debate is moot if only one approach merits tenure—if the latter kind of work isn’t rewarded, those doing it cannot remain in the academy. So right now, it's most common for sociologists to make the academic work the center of their agenda, and do the more applied stuff on the side—like a hobby. But is it time for this to change? Can, and should, more applied sociological research on education be rewarded in the tenure and promotion processes? I can report there’s very little consensus among my colleagues in this regard, and that differences of opinion are not entirely explained by professional or generational status. However, what’s most remarkable is how impassioned grad students, assistant profs, and tenured professors all are about this issue. Strong opinions abound—and a willingness to engage in debate pervades. That, in and of itself, is exciting.

ps. If you'd like to read a graduate student's perspective on what transpired at that meeting, I encourage you to check out Corey Bower's blog (see the post I'm linking to, as well as ones before and after it).

You have read this article Education / policy / sociology of education with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/08/a-sociologist-place-in-educational.html. Thanks!

(Re)Focusing on What Matters

Last week I spoke at a meeting of the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream Initiative, a meeting of policymakers from 15 states all working to improve the effectiveness of community colleges. At one point, a data working group shared results of its efforts to create new ways to measure college outputs. This was basically a new kind of report card, one capable of reporting results for different subgroups of students, and enabling comparisons of outcomes across colleges. Something like it might someday replace the data collection currently part of the IPEDS.

While it's always gratifying to see state policymakers engaging with data and thinking about how to use it in meaningful ways, I couldn’t help but feel that even this seemingly forward-thinking group was tending toward the status quo. The way we measure and report college outputs right now consistently reinforces a particular way of thinking-- a framework that focuses squarely on colleges and their successes or failures.

What’s the matter with that, you’re probably wondering? After all, aren’t schools the ones we need to hold accountable for outcomes and improved performance? Well, perhaps. But what we’re purportedly really interested in—or what we should be interested in—is students, and their successes or failures. If that's the case, then students, rather than colleges, need to be at the very center of our thinking and policymaking. Right now this isn't the case.

Let’s play this out a bit more. Current efforts are afoot to find ways to measure college outcomes that make more colleges comfortable with measurement and accountability--and thus help bring them onboard. That typically means using measures that allow even the lowest-achieving colleges at least a viable opportunity for success, and using measures colleges feels are meaningful, related to what they think they’re supposed to be doing. An example: the 3-year associates degree completion rates of full-time community college entrant deemed “college ready” by a standardized test. We can measure this for different schools and report the results. Where does that get us? We can then see which colleges have higher rates, and which have lower ones.

But then what? Can we then conclude some colleges are doing a better job than others? Frankly, no. It’s quite possible that higher rates at some colleges are attributable to student characteristics or contextual characteristics outside an individual college (e.g. proximity to other colleges, local labor market, region, etc) that explain the differences. But that’s hard to get people to focus on when what’s simplest to see are differences between colleges.

It's not clear that this approach actually helps students. What if, instead, states reported outcomes for specified groups of students without disaggregating by college? How might the policy conversation change? Well, for example, a state could see a glaring statewide gap in college completion among majority and minority students. It would then (hopefully) move to the next step of looking for sources of the problem—likely trying to identify the areas with the greatest influence, and the areas with the most policy-amenable areas of influence. This might lead analysts back to the colleges in the state to look for poor or weak performers, but it might instead lead them to aspects of k-12 preparation, state financial aid policy, the organizational structure of the higher education system, etc. The point is that in order to help students, states would need to do more than simply point to colleges and work to inspire them to change. They’d be forced to try and pinpoint the source(s) of the problems and then work on them. I expect the approaches would need to vary by state.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to absolve any college of responsibility for educating its students. What I’m suggesting is that we think hard about why the emphasis right now rests so heavily on relative college performance—an approach that embraces and even creates more insitutional competition—rather than on finding efficient and effective ways to increase the success of our students. Are we over-utilizing approaches, often adopted without much critical thought, that reify and perpetuate our past mistakes? I think so.

Image Credit: www.openjarmedia.com

You have read this article Achieving The Dream / community college / data / higher education / Lumina Foundation / policy with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/07/refocusing-on-what-matters.html. Thanks!

Obama On Education

There are two stories in today's papers on Senator Obama's plans for education as the Democratic presidential nominee. (Has Clinton conceded yet?)

The first comes from the Washington Post. While the story is framed broadly around domestic policy and the headline ("On Policy, Obama Breaks Little New Ground") has a clear negative connotation, it offers up a hint of what's to come on education now that the campaign can see the light at the end of the tunnel:

Heather Higginbottom, who runs Obama's policy office at the campaign's Chicago headquarters, cited education as one area in which Obama offers ideas that are not traditionally Democratic, arguing that the problem is not all about schools or funding, but about parents who let their children watch too much television. She said his proposal to give teachers bonus pay if they receive special training or if their students score high on standardized tests is an idea that some liberal-leaning teachers unions oppose. And she said the campaign has brought "fresh thinking" on many issues, particularly on one of Obama's favorites: increased government transparency.

But Higginbottom said the campaign's emphasis is on practical solutions, not ideological points. "I know it's interesting from a political perspective to look left, right and center, but we want to put forward ideas that will move forward in Congress," she said. "And we have the potential to engage people in a way they haven't been engaged recently and give them the tools to participate."

David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, said that the campaign will devote more staff members to policy (there are now seven) and that the senator's speeches will increasingly highlight his proposals.

"The next six months is going to be about competing visions for this country," he said. "Obama is looking forward, and his policies will reflect that."

The second story comes courtesy of the Denver Post's coverage of an Obama campaign stop in Thorton, Colorado yesterday.

Obama used the town-hall event to tell about 400 people about his plans for education reform. He promised to fix the "broken promises" of No Child Left Behind, make math and science instruction a national priority, and encourage every child to learn a foreign language to better compete in a global economy.

While praising the goals of No Child Left Behind, Obama has criticized the program for not providing the funding to make it successful.

"We also need to realize that we can meet high standards without forcing teachers and students to spend most of the year preparing for a single, high-stakes standardized test," he said.

The Illinois senator said he would simplify the application process for financial aid for children going to college and give a $4,000 tax credit for students attending public universities and colleges. In return, the students would be required to do 100 hours of public service a year.

He also vowed to create a Service Scholarship program to recruit talented people into teaching and place them in overcrowded districts or struggling

"I will make this pledge as president to all who sign up: If you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education," he said to cheers.

For more on Obama's education policy plans, check out his official campaign web site here.

You have read this article Barack Obama / Education / policy with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-education.html. Thanks!

Teacher Leaders

Bess Keller offers up an interesting story in Education Week on teacher leadership. She profiles an initiative in Massachusetts that provides an opportunity for classroom teachers to influence education policymaking and hopes to create a means to retain younger teachers in the profession.

Last year the Cambridge-based Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy named 16 early-career teachers as its first class of Teaching Fellows. These educators are being trained as advocates to influence policy and they are exploring educational issues in greater depth. In the Ed Week article, Betty Achinstein, my colleague at the New Teacher Center who studies teacher socialization, praised this project for its work to groom teachers as change agents.

The voice of the classroom teacher is all too often missing from education policy conversations. If policymakers listened, they would discover that a teacher's voice is a powerful one and could help them better understand the likely impact of proposed policies. That's not to say that teachers always know best and policymakers don't. But if policy did a better job of learning from practice, policy choices would be better informed and the gulf between policy intent and implementation might well be reduced.

Interesting fact: Paul Reville, president of the Rennie Center, will begin as Secretary of Education in Massachusetts, on July 1, working directly for Governor Deval Patrick.

You have read this article Massachusetts / New Teacher Center / Paul Reville / policy / Rennie Center / teacher / teacher leadership with the title policy. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2008/05/teacher-leaders.html. Thanks!