Swift & Change Able

What Corzine's Defeat Means for Education Reform in New Jersey

Charlie — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:03:48 +0000

It’s a bit of a stretch to make sweeping generalizations about what yesterday’s election results mean for President Obama’s overall policy agenda, let alone what they mean specifically for education. Not that it will stop people from trying.

Last week, Erik Robelen of Education Week speculated that a Corzine defeat might bode ill for Obama’s education reform initiatives such as merit pay.

But last night’s results probably have very little to do with education or Obama. Still, there may be some lessons. Some points to consider:

● Obama remains popular in New Jersey with an approval rating of 62%, well above his current national average which has been hovering in the low 50’s.

● Corzine’s approval rating has been stuck in the basement all year, and was already low even before Obama took office - high 30’s to low 40’s since mid-2008. Corzine never went above about 40% in pre-election match-ups with Republican candidate, now Governor-elect, Chris Christie. The race became close only because Christie’s numbers went down after a barrage of negative ads, disappointment with Christie’s highly unspecific policy agenda, and the entry of independent candidate Chris Daggett.

● Corzine’s education policies were 180 degrees from Obama’s proposed education reforms. Other than presiding over what is arguably the best early childhood education program in the nation, Corzine’s education policies were astonishingly stale and regressive. His most visible and self-touted "reform" in recent memory was a change in the state funding formula, which shifted money away from high-poverty urban districts to high-growth suburbans. The latter didn’t notice, and community leaders in the former were not appreciative. Bad policy, bad politics.

● Corzine let a number of other weak points in the state education system - especially in high schools - fester (see our review: here). For many observers, the Governor’s neglect of these issues crossed over sometime during his term from failure-to-notice to refusal-to-act.

● Corzine alienated key Democratic constituencies (on issues like the environment as well as education, jobs, and taxes), and at the very least his failure to address deplorable conditions in high-poverty, high minority schools in Democratic strongholds did not help. In the primaries, Corzine only garnered 70% of the Democratic vote in places like Camden, home to some of the state’s worst schools, against candidates who were neither well-funded nor well-known. County-by-county turnout results which will emerge over the next few days will provide further clues.

● As recently as a week ago, Christie bragged about the fact that on issues like charter schools and merit pay, his policies were closer to Obama’s than were Corzine’s. If one really wanted to really go out on a limb, one could say that Corzine’s defeat was if anything an endorsement of Obama’s education policies, rather than a rejection of them.

● Democrats in New Jersey now have time to regroup and figure out how to come up with a fresh education agenda that addresses the state’s shortcomings and appeals to voters. Smart money says that agenda will be much more reform-oriented than the one state Democrats have embraced the last 4 years.

———————

On twitter, @Dyrnwyn aka Derrell Bradford of E3 put it this way: "I’d argue that Corzine’s ed reform failure is 1 of embracing the adults over the kids…it’s that simple."

Reforming Teacher Prep: Let's Keep it Real

Charlie — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:14:40 +0000

Last Thursday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a strongly worded speech on the need for better teacher preparation.

The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education responded in a fairly constructive fashion, but some of their members were somewhat defensive, and AACTE released a set of talking points that seemed to feed that.

Among these talking points was this bullet: "Let’s talk about tomorrow, rather than the past."

But, as philosopher/poet/novelist George Santanaya said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Re: this, a few points:

- People have been talking about these same problems for almost a century.

- Self-admonition has proved to be, to say the least, ineffective. Without real action that qualitatively departs from previous tinkering, nothing will change.

- While, as AACTE points out, there are promising reform efforts taking place, history indicates that the field has been resistant to wholesale and fundamental systemic change.

Some of the strongest criticisms of teacher prep have, and continue to, come from within the field. Change, however, largely has not.

See if you can guess the source of the following quotes (answers in comments #1). Hint: not all of them are Duncan’s.

And, given that, consider: what will U.S. policymakers have to do differently this time around to effect real change, rather than a few more islands of excellence and another decade (or century) of talk?

1. "The training of teachers is a highly significant part of the making of the nation. A more serious conception of the place of the teacher in the life of the nation is both necessary and timely." [I urge] "changing the systems that support poorly trained, paid and esteemed teachers." [Teachers should be prepared with] "the power of critical analysis in a mind broadly and deeply informed."

2. "In performance-based programs, goals are specified and agreed to in rigorous detail in advance of instruction. The student preparing to become a teacher must either be able to demonstrate his ability to promote desirable learning or establish behaviors known to promote it.

"He is held accountable, not for passing grades but for attaining a given level of competency in performing the essential tasks of teaching; the training institution is itself held accountable for producing able teachers. The emphasis is on demonstrated product or output. Acceptance of this basic principle has program implications that are truly revolutionary."

3. "Recently efforts have been made to establish performance-based teacher certification. In other words, teacher certification would be more closely related to demonstrated teacher competency rather than to the completion of specific courses, as has been the case historically. Performance-based certification is likely to be related to performance-based teacher-education programs."

"Although much remains to be done to bring about performance-based teacher-education programs and, subsequently, performance-based teacher certification, the concepts have merit and will probably be implemented in some form in the next few years."

4. "America cannot afford any more teachers who fail a twelfth grade competency test. Neither can we afford to let people into teaching just because they have passed such simple, and often simpleminded exams."

5. "Unhappily, teaching and teacher education have a long history of mutual impairment. Teacher education has long been intellectually weak; this further eroded the prestige of an already poorly esteemed profession and it has encouraged many inadequately prepared people to enter teaching."

6. "Taking and passing college and university courses is no guarantee that the material has been learned. Thus, all instructors should also pass a written test in each subject they will teach prior to certification. They should be sufficiently difficult so that many college graduates could not pass."

7. "The undergraduate education major must be abolished in our universities. For elementary teachers, this degree has too often become a substitute for learning any academic subject deeply enough to teach it well. These teachers are certified to teach all things to all children. But few of them know much about anything because they are required to know a little of everything. No wonder so many pupils arrive in high school so weak in so many subjects."

8. "American universities know quite well how to provide outstanding professional education. The best professional education in medicine, public affairs, business, and law that can be found in the world can be found here in the United States. There is no doubt that our universities can do an equally outstanding job for teachers. They only question is whether they will."

9. "By the standards of other professions and of teacher education in other countries, U.S. teacher education has historically been thin, uneven, and poorly financed. Although some schools of education provide high-quality preparation, others are treated as “cash cows” by their universities, bringing in revenues that are spent on the education of doctors, lawyers, and accountants rather than on their own students.

"As a result, teachers do not always have adequate disciplinary preparation in the fields they teach or adequate knowledge and supervised practice to enable them to use effective teaching strategies."

10. "In most European and Asian countries, teachers are highly respected, well compensated, and better prepared. They receive much more extensive training in content and pedagogy before they enter teaching, and they have much more regularly scheduled time for ongoing learning and work with their colleagues."

11. "Of the nation’s 1,300 graduate teacher training programs, only about 100 [are] doing a competent job; ‘the others could be shut down tomorrow.’"

States' Race to the Top: Where Are They Now? - with Michigan update

Charlie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:14:21 +0000

There has been spike in state action for Race to the Top qualification in recent weeks. Final regulations aren’t due until sometime in November. Still, states are moving on what they know now, and using RttT as an opportunity to pursue the broad overlap between reform strategies with a strong track record of success and the 19 priority areas laid out under the draft regulations published in late July.

The list here is not comprehensive, but it does reflect action in states where reform efforts have been pursued or spotlighted in the public sphere. There are sure to be sleeper states preparing plans or taking actions that have yet to emerge, so keep an eye out, and feel free to forward any significant info. on anything we’ve left out.

We also highly recommend that you consult The New Teacher Project’s report "Interpreting Race to the Top" which was updated in early September. A color chart handicapping state competitiveness according to TNTP’s estimation is reproduced below.

Here’s a rundown (in alphabetical order):

California. California is a key state to watch. It is used to getting the federal green light for education funds no matter what its policies look like, and state officials seemed to be taken by surprise as the President and the Secretary stayed firm throughout the year on their pledge to invest only in those states ready, willing, and able to undertake fundamental reforms. To its credit, it has sprung into action like at no time in recent memory.

Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation on October 11th that would tear down the state firewall between student achievement and teacher evaluations. But all this did was allow the state to meet one of the two RttT eligibility criteria. Moreover, by no means does it represent a proactive effort to undertake rigorous teacher evaluations at the state level.

Senator Gloria Romero, the Democratic Chair of the Senate Education Committee from East L.A., would like to take it a lot further. Any state leader looking for a Race to the Top game plan could do no better than to start with the opening statement she gave in August, where she struck all the right rhetorical themes and drilled down to state law provisions around teacher evaluation that the state has simply been pretending aren’t there (you really have to wonder why other elected leaders, and policy experts at the state’s prestigious universities, have been so unwilling to be similarly candid).

The Sac Bee editorial board spoke glowingly about a recent State Senate hearing, and urged the state to aim high on a litany of issues. On Sunday, the Sac Bee published an interview with Arne Duncan in which he outlines areas where he thinks state policy changes are most needed; in an earlier interview with Politics K-12 reporter Michele McNeil, Duncan suggested that even with lifting the firewall, California still had a long way to go.

Keep an eye out to see if California makes a case for special treatment given its severe budget woes. No one can doubt that their state budget could use a huge infusion of cash to prevent further cuts to vital state programs like health care for children and massive teacher layoffs. But when it comes to education, California has been shortchanging its schools for decades (see this report on California’s pre-recession spending on education relative to its wealth, and this piece by a former Sacramento insider who blames special interest tax breaks for CA’s education funding woes).

So does California need budget help? Yes, that’d be great. Do they deserve to siphon education reform funds away from other states if they don’t develop an ambitious plan simply on the basis of their economic need? Seems a tough case to make given their reform and budget history and the small amount of RttT money relative to the gigantic nature of their state budget problems.

Colorado. Colorado arguably has the biggest head start and the most momentum. (see CO’s RttT website: here). Lt. Governor Barbara O’Brien, who is leading the RttT effort, has been convening meetings for months. CO sessions are scheduled through the end of October on each of the four RttT criteria.

Education Commissioner Dwight Jones has been on the road drumming up support, and was in District 51 (Durango, Montrose, Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs) Monday and Steamboat Springs yesterday.

Delaware. Delaware stakeholders are holding a daylong session at the University of Delaware on October 27th. From the agenda, it looks like they are serious.

Delaware has huge assets compared to other states because of the existing "Vision 2015" project, comprised of a broad range of players. Given that comprehensiveness is one of two eligibility criteria under the draft regs, Delaware would seem to have exactly what the Department of Education says it’s looking for.

Kentucky. Kentucky, like 10 other states, has no charter schools now because it has no state authorizing law. But that could be changing.

Two bills to create charter schools or "public school academies" have been filed at least in part as a result of the state’s RttT aspirations.

Support is said to be growing, but the politics will be tricky. Gov. Steve Beshear says "all options are on the table." Teachers unions are vowing to lobby against the bills, on the basis that they are "anti-public school." Supporters include an odd, but increasingly common across the country, alliance of "a group of black Louisville pastors and the Bluegrass Institute, a conservative education think tank."

Louisiana. Louisiana is one of the states that lifted its charter school caps in response to RttT in June. And it was one of only two states (the other being Florida) to receive the top rating of "highly competitive" under TNTP’s analysis.

A "unified group" of education and community-based organizations launched a statewide effort in August. In a personal communication, Tom Vander Ark says a phase 1 RttT grant is "Louisiana’s to lose."

One potential glitch: Louisiana’s superintendent of education Paul G. Pastorek warned at the end of September that the state’s "career diploma" may not pass muster due to questions about its rigor, an issue heightened in the context of the common core standards initiative.

Maine. Maine is one of 11 states without a charter school law. Attempts to pass a state charter school law failed earlier this year, though many observers think the climate for charters in Maine is getting better with each passing day.

At a conference in Augusta last week, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary Scott Pearson of U.S. DOE said the lack of a state charter school law would put Maine at a disadvantage in competing for RttT funds, adding that while “’by no means do we believe charters are the silver bullet’ to excellence, their ability to innovate added an important tool to the educational package."

Massachusetts. At a widely publicized event in July, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick appeared with Secretary Arne Duncan to announce a big expansion (27,000 new seats) of charter schools. It was seen as particularly significant because key state leaders previously had not been charter school supporters.

Here’s one quote: "Formerly a charter-school critic, [Boston Mayor Thomas] Menino said he is fed up with opposition from the Boston Teachers Union. ‘I’m just tired of it. We’re losing kids.’"

This was just a proposal, and since then there has been some back and forth about the specifics, but the push does seem to be gaining some grass roots traction. The Boston Foundation and Stand for Children are spearheading a coalition effort to develop a comprehensive proposal. Keep an eye on it.

Michigan (Update): Legislation to create a "smart cap" for charter schools was introduced yesterday in Michigan by Democratic State Senator Buzz Thomas of Detroit. According to Senator Thomas’ website:

"[The] proposal would remove caps for “schools of excellence” that have demonstrated success in Michigan or other states. A limited number of original charters could still be awarded each year to aspiring charter school founders that have a sound plan to meet the needs of students, but have not operated charter schools to date."

Smart caps were among the proposals recommended by Democrats for Education Reform in its RttT memo to Secretary Duncan back in February.

Hat to @saramead for tweeting the link.

Nevada. Politics K-12 reported last week that Nevada does not seem inclined to tear down its firewall between student data and teacher evaluation. If the criteria for RttT qualification stand in the final regs that are released in November, Nevada is out.

New York. Conservative education activist Thomas Carroll accused Governor Paterson of having no education reform plan in a recent Huff Po piece. It’s hard to argue with him.

On the most visible issue to date, the state firewall between student data and teacher evaluation, the state seems to think it can slip under the wire based on discussions with the U.S. Department of Education. This is in part because such data can be used in "some" evaluations ("just" not tenure; I argued against this reasoning here). But the fact that state legislators and UFT President Randi Weingarten have signalled their willingness to let the firewall expire next year and that a new teacher evaluation system is in the works for New York City seem to be providing mitigation.

Lifting the firewall would merely allow the state to qualify under the draft regs. But there are signs of proactive school reform starting to emerge.

On Monday, Assemblyman Sam Hoyt introduced a bill to raise the state’s charter school caps. It got a good amount of press coverage, and while Paterson has not come out on favor of it, he reportedly told Hoyt to "go for it."

While comments by state leaders earlier this year led many to believe that New York planned to rest on its self-perceived laurels and reputation, and more or less phone-in its RttT application, more recent comments by Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch suggest that the state may try to be more ambitious in its proposals. I saw Tisch speak on Saturday at the New York State Charter Schools conference and, if I heard right, she is upping the ante in terms of changing state policies in line with the priorities set out under Race to the Top saying "everything is on the table."

Look for a role by David Steiner, who was voted in as State Education Commissioner in July, and was involved at Hunter with, among other things, creating what looks to be a high-quality alternative teacher preparation program - Teacher U - in collaboration with Uncommon Schools, KIPP, Achievement First, TFA, and others.

Secretary Duncan is giving a big speech on teacher prep tomorrow at Teachers College, Columbia (not known as a bastion of support for the types of reforms President Obama and Duncan are pursuing). Perhaps we’ll hear more there.

Ohio. Ohio is one of the states rated "competitive" by TNTP but they have several apparent problems.

One key problem is the state’s charter school caps, the result of a longstanding political impasse between "charters by all means necessary" proponents, and Democratic charter school opponents, for whom Republican support for even low-performing charters has provided easy political fodder.

A second is that Democrats in the state are not known for bold education reforms. Governor Strickland signaled earlier in the year his desire to compete, perhaps as part of a consortium, but there has been little in the way of public hearings or coalition building. The state website says RttT FAQ’s "are still in development."

On their blog, State Board of Education member Susan Haverkos and former State Board member Colleen Grady say:

"Ohio may fall short on grant criteria in several areas including:

disparate treatment of charter schools in funding and facilities assistance
existing cap on charter school expansion
failure to utilize student achievement data in teacher and principal evaluations, licensure, compensation, tenure and dismissal,
P-20 coordination in light of the recent elimination of the Partnership for Continued Learning
more alternative licensure pathways including options that do not involve institutions of higher education, and
rigorous evaluation of teacher and administrator preparation programs."

Conversely, last week Republican state legislators unveiled a Race to the Top proposal although, playing to type, it only emphasizes charters and e-learning.

Rhode Island. The state just announced yesterday that it would be receiving assistance from three foundations, totaling $245,000, to prepare a reform strategy.

Rhode Island was one of the states that responded early to the Race to the Top challenge. At the end of June, the state approved funding for "mayoral academy" charter schools. The first such school, Democracy Prep Blackstone Valley, opened this Fall with 76 kindergarten students from surrounding districts. The school has a longer school day (8-4) and year (190 days rather than 180) and innovative staffing and salary policies. The official "ribbon cutting" took place on October 6th. There are already over 100 students on the waiting list for next year.

Rhode Island Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, who has stressed the importance of teacher quality and data systems, has assembled a Race to the Top steering committee which met for the first time in September and plans to convene subsequent meetings in November.

Utah. The state unveiled a budget proposal last week that would disproportionately cut funding for charter schools and cause 18 charter schools to close (no non-charters would be closed, natch). State leaders say they didn’t intend for this to happen and want to try and fix it. Oversight or not, Utah does not seem to be on top of the things it needs to do to compete, at least in phase one.

Wisconsin. Governor Jim Doyle, who does not have a record of pushing big education reforms, has been rolling out his plans issue by issue. Wisconsin got some notoriety earlier this year, both because of its student-teacher data "firewall" which would automatically disqualify it under the draft regs; and, when the National Center for Education Statistics reported that Wisconsin earned the distinction of being one of the states with the biggest Black-White achievement gap in the nation.

Yesterday, Doyle made a big announcement on the need for more learning time. Previously, he had pitched plans for "overhauling student testing, making student test scores a factor in teacher evaluations, creating new data systems." The Governor reportedly is also serious about pushing for mayoral control of Milwaukee schools. Observers report that there are some signs that teachers’ unions are more amenable to reform now than they had been previously because of the tremendous pressure to qualify the state for Race to the Top funds.

Duncan to NASBE: Balancing Fed, State, and Local Roles in Education Reform

Charlie — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:04:22 +0000

Arne Duncan will deliver a speech to the National Association of State Boards of Education in Ohio today in which he continues to flesh out some of the themes the Administration has been sounding on school reform via Race to the Top, I3, and ESEA reauthorization.

He’s speaking before a somewhat skeptical audience. In its "Race to the Top" comments, NASBE basically argues that all states should get RttT grants, which flies in the face of RttT’s entire premise, summed up by President Obama’s comments at Race to the Top’s official roll-out in June:

“I’m issuing a challenge to our nation’s governors, to school boards and principals and teachers, to businesses and non-for-profits, to parents and students: if you set and enforce rigorous and challenging standards and assessments; if you put outstanding teachers at the front of the classroom; if you turn around failing schools – your state can win a Race to the Top grant that will not only help students outcompete workers around the world, but let them fulfill their God-given potential…

“We’re saying this is voluntary. If there are states that just don’t want to go in this direction, that’s their prerogative."

The difference goes beyond the 50 state entitlement perspective of NASBE and others.

The word "teacher" appears only 3 times in NASBE’s RttT’ comments. The word "effective" appears only 2 (other synonyms like "outstanding" don’t appear at all). Never does any word like "effective" or "outstanding" etc. appear together with the word "teacher," even though NASBE’s comments generically acknowledge the state role in setting "standards" for certifying teachers.

You can do your own word finds on other issues (hint: don’t bother with "turnaround" either), but suffice it to say that the President’s and the Secretary’s priorities are not closely aligned with the stated concerns of state school boards, at least not with those represented by NASBE.

In his speech, today, Duncan will elaborate on the themes President Obama set out in June, which appear to be in response to criticisms that RttT is "overly prescriptive," a term which those opposed to change have somehow deftly applied to a $5 billion competitive and voluntary program that follows a $95 billion fed to state education "freebie."

After a short history on the role of federal government extending back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Duncan goes on to sketch out a nuanced policy for the fed-state-local role: giving adults freedom to succeed, but taking urgent action to free students from schools that are clearly and unequivocally failing:

"Now that I am in Washington, it’s even clearer to me that education reform starts locally…. I want to be a partner in your success, not the boss of it…

"But I’m not willing to be a silent partner who puts a stamp of approval on the status quo. I plan to be an active partner…

"We need to find a way to give state and local officials the freedom to intervene in schools that aren’t achieving their goals..But I want to be clear that when we see dropout factories, when we know that in some schools that students are falling behind every year – I don’t want the federal government to be a silent partner…

"In cases where children are being underserved or neglected, we have a moral obligation to intervene, and we won’t allow fear of over-reaching to stop us. Kids have only one chance for an education. They can’t wait years or decades for reforms to take hold."

There’s lots more in the speech, and it’s recommended reading for clues as to where the Administration is heading on its broad and ambitious education reform plans. Two things are clear: it’s full speed ahead, and it’s still about the kids whose lives aren’t going to be put on hold while adults argue (yet again) for another decade.

ESEA Reauthorization in 2010?

Charlie — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:49:46 +0000

Last week, Eduflack (Patrick Riccards) reported that the Department of Education is hard at work on an ESEA reauthorization bill and predicted that ESEA reauthorization would begin in earnest in January, and be wrapped up by the end of the 2010 legislative year.

Tom Vander Ark cautioned that this may not be the best scenario for reform, especially given the other education balls (e.g., RttT and I3) that the Administration has in the air.

Riccards is a seasoned Beltway insider but I am not sure it is going to be as straightforward as he made it sound. There are some potentially faulty assumptions in his reasoning, and some key considerations he leaves out. In the end, Vander Ark may well get his wish. But since it’s pretty clear the public process will start in January, and almost certainly have a lot of twists and turns, we may not know until a year from now.

First, I don’t think there is as much consensus on how to revise the 2002 reauth as one might assume from current chatter. It’s the loudest and most vociferous, those who want the biggest and most regressive changes, who currently dominate the public discussion.

But those who want to maintain the general approach of bright lines and ambitious goals of ESEA 2002, and at the same time bring the law in line with some of the successful reforms undertaken in the interim at the state and local level, will likely not enter the fray until things get going. In short, there are latent political dynamics that have yet to activate.

Regarding bright lines and ambitious goals - notably those having to do with accountability, teacher quality, and the equitable distribution of teachers - it’s important to keep in mind that those things did not come out of nowhere in 2001. For a mile-high view, see the paper I did for Democrats for Education Reform (2007) which traces the 40-year trajectory (here). There is a strong current, one that runs independent of all the day to day histrionics created by the disruption that transparency and the resulting pressure for reform have caused, that will play a larger role in shaping the next ESEA than many people are aware of or care to acknowledge.

Regarding latent political dynamics, there are a number of players that will re-enter the debate once it begins in earnest. One need look no farther than last year. The Walz-Graves bill to suspend NCLB, supported by the school boards and the NEA, was considered a slam dunk, because the loudest public chatter was largely against the law. But it turned out to be far from a slam dunk. In fact, it backfired.

Every major civil rights group in the country rose up to oppose the Walz-Graves NCLB suspension bill. In a strongly worded letter to members of Congress, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said:

"LCCR believes that NCLB is a civil rights law, and that some of the requirements of NCLB constitute, in essence, the rights of children to obtain a quality education. The NCLB Recess Until Reauthorization Act calls itself a ‘temporary suspension’ of those same requirements. Even a temporary suspension of a civil rights law, and therefore of the civil rights of our children, is unconscionable."

Yes, NCLB is a tainted brand. Yes, it’s imperfect, and even the civil rights groups want changes. But it’s working to affect improvements for segments of the population for whom previous reform efforts resulted in virtually nothing. And those folks won’t give up that leverage if they can help it.

Last but not least, are the social issues. The controversies generated by the extreme right this year over Obama’s speech to students and over Kevin Jennings’ work prior to his being director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools are likely previews of coming attractions.

Many big-picture political analysts see 2010 as very much like 1994, and there are some broad parallels (Democratic Congress, Democratic President; post-bruising health care debate fatigue; high stakes election for Congressional seats; possibility of party change of power).

On education, these dynamics led the GOP to pull out of a bipartisan ESEA reauthorization at the 11th hour in 1994, and to use the legislative process on ESEA and other education issues to churn its base:

• An amendment by George Miller to require all Title I teachers to be "certified" (yep, it goes back that far) was demagogued by Dick Armey and Phyllis Schlafly into a federal attempt to shut down home-schooling (fake issues like this are bread and butter fund-raising opportunities for groups like the Eagle Forum).

• Clinton’s School to Work initiative was portrayed as a big brotherish conspiracy between government and industry akin to corporate slavery.

• Efforts to expand family literacy programs were spun as covert attempts to have "federal agents" invade private homes (We saw Chuck Norris trial-balloon this black helicopter theme earlier this year).

The wild card in how this will play out between the two parties is John Boehner. In 1994, he was a bomb-throwing minority member who ginned up issues like the 1994 Congressional check-bouncing "scandal." In 2001, he was the Chair of the Education Committee and the key Republican responsible for shepherding through ESEA. Now he is minority leader whose primary goal is winning as many House seats as possible next November.

But anyone who has spent any time with him or seen him speak on education knows it’s an issue he cares deeply about, and is willing to work on across party lines. He has not freed his members to work with Democrats on anything substantive so far in the 111th Congress. And ranking Education Committee member Kline is no John Boehner. But if there were one issue on which Bohener might make an exception to partisan intransigence, education reform is it.

Given all of the policy and political considerations, I wouldn’t bet my life savings on the outcome next year of the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization push. If I were laying odds, I’d say 2:1 against. Either way, it’s sure to be complicated, fluid, and lively.

Standardization is Not a Four-Letter Word

Charlie — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:28:09 +0000

Hat tip to Alexander Russo for posting this morning on an article in the L.A. Times about Douglas Reeves’ work on "subjective grading."

Here is a summary of Reeves’ work excerpted from the LAT:

"Reeves asked teachers and administrators in the United States, Australia, Canada and South America to determine a final semester grade for a student who received the following grades for assignments, in this order:

"C, C, MA (Missing Assignment), D, C, B, MA, MA, B, A.

"The educators gave the student final semester grades from A to F, Reeves said.

"Why? Because, he said, teachers use different criteria for grading."

Note that the L.A. Times doesn’t even get into the issue of the subjectivity that went into assigning each of the individual letter grades in the first place.

Imagine how biases about students affects the directionality of subjectivity. Do students who "act" smarter get the benefit of the doubt and get higher grades? Do teachers’ biases about poverty and race play a role? Do a students’ non-academic activities - whether or not he or she plays sports or is a behavior problem - tip the scales?

A large body of research says the answer to each of these questions is a resounding "yes."

This, in fact, is one reason why over the last 20 years we have come as a society to embrace "standardized" testing. But because most of the tests that are out there now are narrow and of poor quality, the term "standardized" has become a bad word, even though standardization is aimed at eliminating the types of biases reflected in Reeves’ work.

In attempts to make assessments work better, both for the purposes of evaluating individual students and school systems, it’s important that we not return to practices that rely on determining student achievement via a system in which the grade a student receives has more to do with the idiosyncratic grading biases of his or her teacher than with the student’s actual academic progress.

In the book "The Big Test" (2000) Nicholas Lemann grappled with the promise and shortcomings of testing in grading students based on their achievements, as opposed to assigning them college slots based on their family’s social status, as the U.S. did up until a half century ago, or by merely assigning post-secondary slots based on historical disadvantage, as is done through affirmative action. The book raises as many questions as it answers, but is nonetheless worth a re-read as we consider how testing under ESEA reauthorization can best serve the competing goals of maintaining fairness, rewarding success and hard work, and redressing historical education inequities.

NEA on Teacher Quality and Equity: Crossroads or Another Blind Alley?

Charlie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:33:51 +0000

The House Education Committee’s hearing on teacher quality yesterday is being hailed as some sort of landmark in the ongoing struggle to make sure poor and minority children are not shortchanged when it comes to teacher effectiveness and subject matter competence.

In his testimony NEA President Dennis Van Roekel committed to:

"address barriers in collective bargaining agreements by requesting that every local NEA affiliate enter into a compact or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its local school district to waive any contract language that prohibits staffing high-needs schools with great teachers. These compacts should also add commitments that would enhance this goal." [the emphasis in "bold" is NEA’s, not mine]

I hardly gave this statement any notice. I am so used to rhetorical and even written commitments made by the NEA on teacher quality and equity issues that are at best never followed through on and at worst completely at odds with what they are doing on the ground and behind closed doors, that it blew by me like a falling leaf.

But they are playing this as a sea change and some observers are taking them at their word.

Jay Mathews gave it a headline and a few paragraphs yesterday in the Washington Post, based on reporting by Nick Anderson who was at the hearing. Mathews updated the post with a strong statement of support for the NEA’s "shift" from the AFT. It’s notable that Jay’s dispatch from Anderson stands right alongside his reporting from June about efforts by AFT’s affiliate in Baltimore to reverse a collective bargaining agreement waiver for KIPP Ujima Village charter middle school which is working to the benefit of both students and teachers in that school.

The Wall Street Journal gave NEA’s announcement headline treatment as well, but also quoted a skeptical Checker Finn who said: "I will be a little surprised if any locals allow districts to assign teachers willy-nilly."

Hopefully, Van Roekel is sincere, and this would be a significant change from his predecessors who, frankly, have not been. Chairman Miller made sure to mark the moment, stating that he was treating Van Roekel’s commitment as NEA being on record, and said he was encouraged.

It didn’t take too long, though, to realize that taking the NEA at its word is tricky business. Over at Teacher Beat, Stephen Sawchuk reports on how in the same hearing Van Roekel mischaracterized the Administration’s policies on teacher effectiveness, claiming that Obama and Duncan want to base teacher ratings "on a single test score" even though all the Administration wants to do is make sure test scores aren’t excluded. Miller corrected Van Roekel, who had little to say and visibly shrunk in his seat in response. As Sawchuk notes, these kinds of exchanges between the Chairman and the NEA President are nothing new.

It’s this kind of wordplay, cleverness and, let’s face it, dishonesty, that is going to make it very difficult to know what the NEA meant yesterday by "committing" to address collective bargaining agreements, let alone make sure they and their locals actually do something. There’s rarely someone around who’s willing to ask the tough questions, and push for real action, and you didn’t need to look any farther than most of the Democrats on the Committee who spent the better part of their limited time with the witnesses kissing Van Roekel’s, uh, ring as if teacher quality and equity back in their districts was not really a problem.

Most policy analysts with an eye on the bigger picture predict that, sooner or later, teacher work contracts will look more like those of their peers in other professions and that parents of those students being shortchanged under the current system will either get a better deal or reach the critical mass necessary for them to persuade their elected officials to let them take their per pupil allotment elsewhere, as they have done in Milwaukee and, kinda, in D.C.

How those dynamics unfold over time is really up to the NEA and the AFT, who throughout this debate have acted like the current system is a meteoroid that dropped on their heads yesterday from outer space, rather than a very high wall that stands between students and quality teaching that they themselves have constructed.

Common Core Standards, Round 1

Charlie — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:40:00 +0000

The Common Core Standards Initiative released the first draft of the first stage of its work on Monday.

Few were screaming bloody murder so it seems like the political needle is being threaded, more or less, for now.

The real questions, as always, revolve around what happens in classrooms: who teaches, what’s taught, which instructional materials are used, what is measured, and how well.

Also, if the focus is on career and college readiness, my discussions with students - in both suburban and urban schools - of late indicate that there needs to be much better and more frequent counseling. Ask a high school freshman or sophomore what they know about college pre-reqs, financial aid, and when they last met with a guidance counselor, and you’ll see what I mean.

I presented my take on the larger picture last month at a conference sponsored by America’s Choice and ACT, on a panel with reps from NGA and CCSSO, who are leading the CCSI. You can view it on C-Span: here.

Education Trust has been around the "standards" block more times than I have (this is my 3rd) and so you may want to seek their wise counsel: here.

Robert Pondiscio did a nice quick overview. Keep a close eye out for later posts by Robert et al. for additional perspectives. I am not quite the purist that the Core Knowledge folks are, but they have their finger on pulse of this and don’t pull any punches in trying to keep the debate honest and aspirations high.