Back to College

UW-Madison students are happy students, as we recently learned from the Huffington Post. This high ranking of our institution is a coup when it comes to attracting more applications, and since we rise in rankings by rejecting more applicants (and rightly care about happiness), this will likely be seen as a good thing.

Of course I'm delighted that our students are happy. Pleased as punch that they rate our sports culture and political activity highly (a 9 and an 8 out of 10 respectively), and the opportunities for things to do "endless."  It's wonderful-- they are spirited, free-thinking, and enthusiastic, and as all of my students well know, I love to teach them.

But with love (yes, really) I need to offer a little constructive critique. We have some things to work on and they directly pertain to the educational mission (and indirectly the affordability mission) of our school.   In that same set of rankings we scored just a 6 on "professors accessible" and a 7 on "intellectual life."  Maybe I'm hopelessly old-fashioned, but those are the things that students and families are purportedly paying tuition for-- courses and learning.

Or not.  I suppose, really not.  If you take a look at the latest video produced by the UW-Madison Administration, apparently my framing is not theirs, and a high-quality education offered by professors is not the message Madison seeks to attract and retain students with.

Here is WELCOME BACK to UW-MADISON.  It's definitely maximizing the sports culture rating. But I'll buy you a scoop of Babcock ice cream if you can glean any sense of an academic message about school from it.

Focus On Developing Teachers, Not Simply Measuring Them

This cross-posted item is from a piece I wrote for the Silicon Valley Education Foundation's TOP-Ed blog.

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

Amid the current flurry of state policy reform activity around teaching, I've been thinking about what's missing. My conclusion: A focus on teachers as learners....

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

To read more, visit the TOP-Ed blog post.

Baking Bread Without The Yeast

Among my son's favorite books are the ones in Richard Scarry's Busytown series. In What Do People Do All Day?, Able Baker Charlie puts too much yeast in the dough, resulting in a gigantic, explosive loaf of bread that the bakers (and Lowly Worm) need to eat their way out of.

The opposite problem -- a lack of yeast -- is present in Michelle Rhee's recent op-ed in Education Week. In it, she limits her call to "rethink" teaching policy to "how we assign, retain, evaluate, and pay educators" and to "teacher-layoff and teacher-tenure policies." (And she casts the issue of retention purely as one about so-called "last-in, first-out" employment policies rather than about school leadership, collaboration or working conditions.)

The utter absence of any focus or mention of teacher development either in this op-ed or in her organization's (StudentsFirst) expansive policy agenda leaves me wondering if Rhee believes that teachers are capable of learning and improving. If Rhee indeed does believe that new teacher induction and career-long professional development have value, then why does she consistently ignore it in her public statements and in her organization's strategic priorities? The alternative, of course, is a view that teachers are static beings, incapable of improvement. They are either born effective or ineffective. "Mr. Anderson's value-added score is an 18, thus he is an ineffective teacher and should be fired because his inability to teach cannot be ameliorated." We, of course, know this not to be the case. This alternative view also involves a strategy of simply trying to hire and fire our way to success. From research and international exemplars, I think most of us understand such a narrow approach to be ineffectual, albeit politically attractive in some quarters, especially among the Republican governors that Rhee is assisting exclusively.

High-quality development opportunities for teachers are like the yeast that helps the bread to rise. Comprehensive teacher induction has been shown to accelerate new teacher effectiveness and increase their students' learning. Likewise, personalized and purposeful professional development also can strengthen teaching skills and classroom impact.

It seems to me that a stated policy goal should be to ensure that as many as teachers as possible successfully pass educator evaluations being developed across the nation. Too many advocates such as Rhee appear to be eager to fire more teachers rather than make investments and restructure schools to maximize their effectiveness. A critical role for policy then would be to re-define teacher development in a way that raises the quality bar and invests public dollars in programs and approaches shown to have the desired impact on teaching and learning. Isn't that something we all can agree with?

Teachers are tremendously influential -- and we should do everything we can to unleash their full power. On teacher effectiveness, I'm unwilling to settle for half a loaf.

ESEA Come, ESEA Go

The chatter among the education cognescenti this week is about what is and what isn't in the bipartisan ESEA draft released by Senate education chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ranking member Mike Enzi (R-WY).

Let me repeat my prior contention that, politically, ESEA reauthorization is an issue for 2013 -- not 2011 or 2012. The Republican-led U.S. House is not going to give President Obama any kind of a political victory, despite the solid compromise put forth by the Senate HELP Committee. For that reason, the work currently underway is in part about laying the groundwork for a future compromise, in part a genuine attempt to get something done (despite the House), and in part political cover.

The bill itself represents a sensible step back from a pie-in-the-sky accountability goal of 100% proficiency in favor of annual state data transparency, continued data disaggregation among subgroups, and greater state flexibility over educational accountability. Personally, I am not an accountability hawk and am unswayed by spotty evidence and advocates such as former Florida Governor Jeb Bush who contends that it was Florida's accountability system (rather than its major investment in literacy and other interventions) that fueled student test-score gains. Chairman Harkin nails it by saying that the bill "focuses on teaching and learning, not testing and sanctioning." Amen to that.

Seeing as I have a day job that doesn't allow me to analyze the entirety of 800-page bills, here is my quick take on a few elements in the draft bill:

Positives

• Accountability: Eliminates AYP. Requires states to identify 5% lowest-performing schools and 5% of schools with the largest achievement gaps.
  
• CSR: Tightens up the use of Title II, Part A for class-size reduction to ensure that those dollars are directed at research-based implementation of smaller class sizes. [UPDATE: This could potentially free up some Title II, Part A dollars for teacher professional development and new teacher support.]
  
• Teacher & Principal Training & Recruiting Fund: This Fund would support state & local activities that further high-quality PD, rigorous evaluation and support systems, and improve the equitable distribution of teachers. The bill's language significantly strengthens existing federal policy language regarding the elements of comprehensive, high-quality educator induction and mentoring.

Concerns

• Equitable teacher distribution: The bill would require states to ensure that high-poverty and high-minority schools receive an equitable distribution of the most effective educators as measured by new teacher evaluation systems that must include four performance tiers. Sounds good and fair. But given that teacher working conditions significantly impact an individual educator's ability to be effective in the classroom (and garner a "highly effective" rating [see DC]), wouldn't this just create a massive game of musical chairs and major disruptions in the teaching pool unless a determined effort were mounted to improve the often poor teaching and learning conditions present in high-poverty schools?
  

Good Coverage & Analysis

Alyson Klein - Politics K-12 - Education Week
Joy Resmovits - Huffington Post
Stephen Sawchuk - Teacher Beat - Education Week
The Quick and the Ed (Education Sector)

It Rhymes With 'Tool'

UPDATED, 8/11/2011, 1:10 pm



Thursday morning in Washington DC -- the only city that could host such a vacuous, inane event -- the Thomas B. Fordham Institute is hosting (the hopefully one-off) "Education Reform Idol." The event has nothing to do with recognizing states that get the best results for children or those that have achieved demonstrated results from education policies over time -- but simply those that have passed pet reforms over the past year.



It purports to determine which state is the "reformiest" (I kid you not) with the only contenders being Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin and the only judges being: (1) a representative of the pro-privatization Walton (WalMart) Family Foundation; (2) the Walton-funded, public education hater Jeanne Allen; and (3) the "Fox News honorary Juan Williams chair" provided to the out-voted Richard Lee Colvin from Education Sector.



With the deck stacked like that, Illinois is out of the running immediately because its reforms were passed in partnership with teachers' unions. Plus it has a Democratic governor. Tssk, tssk. That's too bad, because Illinois represents the most balanced approach to education and teaching policy of the five states over the past year. And the absence of a state like Massachusetts from the running is insane. It has the best NAEP scores of any state and has a long track record of education results from raising standards and expectations, not by attacking teachers or privatizing our schools. But that's not the point here, of course. This is ALL politics. [UPDATE 8/11/2011: Yes, all politics. Mike Petrilli of Fordham says that "the lesson of Education Reform Idol" is --- ba-ba-ba-baaah ... ELECT REPUBLICANS. "When Republicans take power, reforms take flight."]



So I digress.... The coup de grace of ridiculousness for me is the inclusion of Wisconsin among the list of "contenders." What exactly has Scott Walker and his league of zombies actually accomplished for education over the last seven-and-a-half months OTHER THAN eliminating collective bargaining rights, a historic slashing of state school aids, and a purely political expansion of the inefficacious school voucher program?



What's even worse than the inclusion of Wisconsin among the nominees is the case made by Scott Walker's office for the 'reformiest' award. As a policy advisor to the former Wisconsin governor, I am amazed by the brazenness and spin from Walker's office. I would expect nothing less from a political campaign. But someone's gotta tell these folks that while they theoretically represent the public trust, the content of their arguments suggests we can't trust them as far as we can throw them. And here in cheese curd land, that ain't very far.



A quick look at Walker's argument reveals an upfront invocation of Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin's version of Ronald Reagan) to pluck at Badgers' heart strings and make them long for the good old days of the 1990s (when the rich paid their fair share in taxes). It is soon followed by the refuted and refuted claims that Walker's deep education cuts "protect students in the short term" and give districts "tools" to manage the fiscal slaughter. Just read the well-respected Milwaukee school superintendent's opinion of such "tools." Then there's this gem: "Districts immediately began to set aside more time for teacher collaboration as well as money for merit pay." I'd LOVE to see the data behind this claim because as I am aware there is no state survey that measures collaborative time for teachers for starters. Walker's staff probably lifted it from a single school district's claims detailed in this Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story -- claims trumpeted by dozens upon dozens of right-wing bloggers such as Wisconsin's own Ann Althouse -- claims which since have been exposed as "literally unbelievable".



The irony is that this event is taking place in DC just two days after the recall elections of six seemingly vulnerable, incumbent Republican state senators. The repudiation of Walker's slash-and-burn policies will be testament enough to the destructiveness of his leadership both for public education and for the Badger State as a whole. In Wisconsin, recall would appear to be a far more effective 'tool' than the tools tentatively running the show under the Golden Dome in Madison.



[UPDATE 8/11/2011: For anyone who cares ... Indiana apparently is the "reformiest" state. By reformers' preferred metrics, I believe this means that Indiana will have the top NAEP scores in the nation next time 'round. Right?]





Image courtesy of Democurmudgeon

The New Normal

Too many Americans appear willing to accept the hand they're dealt. Most shockingly, many of our political, educational and civic leaders seem to have fallen into the same trap. "The New Normal," they call it. Like Death and Taxes. Etched in stone. Undefined, yet not re-definable. Inevitable.

Fortunately, there are those among us willing to demand a new deck of cards -- and a new dealer!

We've seen the rise of the Forces For Fairness in states like Wisconsin where there is no disguising the unsubtle, in-your-face, anti-democratic, vitriolic, bought-and-paid-for policies of Governor Scott Walker, the Brothers Fitzgerald, ALEC, the Koch Brothers and their yes men and women (even the few remaining Republican moderates - if they still can be called such - who should know better). In the Badger State, tens of thousands took to the streets of Madison and are now actively participating in recall efforts to change the equation and prevent Wisconsin from being turned into a place totally unrecognizable.

Nationally, I see a rising consciousness and an emerging consensus that congressional Republicans have one-upped their Gingrichian colleagues from the 1990s in overreaching on fiscal matters. Voters do not like the draconian cuts being pushed through by House Republicans, the intransigence and obstructionism practiced as a religion by Senate Republicans, the GOP's willingness to hold America's bond rating and our economic recovery hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and an adherence to a baseless and extremist anti-tax philosophy. In a recent CBS News poll, 71 percent of Americans are opposed to the way the Republicans are approaching the debt limit debate. As well they should be.

Americans are NOT opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy to address our national debt. A recent Reuters poll found that 52 percent of Americans believed that "a combination of spending cuts and tax increases was the best strategy to reduce deficits." Republicans are so constrained by anti-tax pledges that they even believe a repeal of ANY tax cut or the closing of ANY tax loophole (even those for corporate jet owners!) would result in Grover Norquist gagging them with a mouthful of tea bags and ordering them to a permanent political purgatory.

If more Democrats had shown the courage to stand up sooner and establish the terms of the debate, this emerging consensus could have been precipitated. The likes of Vermont's Bernie Sanders have had it right for some time in the call for "shared sacrifice." Others, including President Obama, appear to be catching up to the reality that was evident to Sanders and other Progressives: Congressional Republicans are economic extremists willing to drive the American economy into the ground in order to assuage the Anti-Tax God (don't let it go to your head, Mr. Norquist).

"The Rock and the Hard Place on the Deficit", an op-ed in last Sunday's New York Times, written by Christina Romer, is one of the best articles I've read that puts the substance of this issue into context. For the benefit of you non-Times subscribers, here are some key highlights:

The economic evidence doesn’t support the anti-tax view. Both tax increases and spending cuts will tend to slow the recovery in the near term, but spending cuts will likely slow it more. Over the longer term, sensible tax increases will probably do less damage to economic growth and productivity than cuts in government investment.
...

There is a basic reason why government spending changes probably have a larger short-term impact than tax changes. When a household’s tax bill rises by, say, $100, that household typically pays for part of that increase by reducing its savings. Its spending tends to fall by less than $100. But when the government cuts spending by $100, overall demand goes down by that full amount.

Wealthier households typically pay for more of a tax increase out of savings, and so they reduce their spending less than ordinary households. This implies that tax increases on wealthy households probably have less effect on the economy than those on the poor or the middle class.

All of this argues against any form of fiscal austerity just now. Even some deficit hawks warn that immediate tax increases or spending cuts could push the economy back into recession. Far better to pass a plan that phases in spending cuts or tax increases over time.

But if federal policy makers do decide to reduce the deficit immediately, reducing spending alone would probably be the most damaging to the recovery. Raising taxes for the wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment.

The politics behind this issue is another matter. But it has huge implications for issues like education. Too many educational advocates, policy types, and yes, even elected leaders seem all too willing to accept "The New Normal" -- and even pontificate about it -- as opposed to fight for a new deal and attempt to redefine the debate. President Obama too often appears to allow congressional Republicans to define the terms of the conversation, such as tying long-term deficit reduction to the debt ceiling, as Robert Reich noted over Twitter yesterday.

There's a time and a place for acknowledging political realities and accepting half a loaf. The problem is we've entered the second coming of the Robber Barons where the rich are hoarding their loaves of bread and too many Americans aren't getting a chance to get their hands in the dough at all. Until we address the historic economic inequality in this country and put spending power back in the pockets of working families, there is a tremendous likelihood that the economy will never fully recover. Never. That requires us -- and our elected leaders -- to speak out and act.

The time is now. Reality is what we make it. More of us have got to be willing to step up and say, "Enough!" I've witnessed Democrats and independents get energized in Wisconsin. We need a similar dynamic to take hold nationally. My guess is that it will build in time. But will it be enough to change the equation?

The forces of fiscal lunacy had better listen to the American people now or my guess is that they'll be hearing from the silent majority of sensible Americans at the ballot boxes in 2012 -- and even sooner in states like Wisconsin. If the "Republican Revolution" in the 1990s is any signal, past is prologue.

Happening This Week

Dear readers,

I want to personally invite you all to attend two terrific events happening on the UW-Madison campus this week. I will be speaking at both and hope to see many of you there.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Department of Educational Policy Studies will be holding its annual conference. The topic is The Obama Education Agenda: Principles, Policies, and Prospects.

The speaker for the opening session, Tuesday night at 7 pm at the Union Theater, is none other than Diane Ravitch. (You can bet Liam is excited!) She will be talking about "The Future of Public Education."

On Wednesday there will be several panels and a lunchtime session featuring former Wisconsin congressman David Obey. You might've seen the video of Dave attempting to get into the Wisconsin State Capitol building recently -- I sure hope he talks about that. Take a look at the full agenda, and note that the title for my talk has been revised -- I will now be speaking on Saving Public Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: The Case for Pragmatic Idealism.

In addition, Wednesday night there will be a teach-in about the New Badger Partnership-- Chancellor Biddy Martin's vision for our public flagship. It will take place from 7-9 pm in Humanities room 2650. Panelists include: Steve Stern: Associate Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff Programs, Chad Goldberg: Associate Professor in the Sociology Dept. and Vice President, United Faculty & Academic Staff (UFAS), AFT 223, and Ben Manski: Executive Director of the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution.

There's plenty to do around here and a great need to get involved. Come join us!

GOP Spending Cuts Follow Tax Cuts For The Rich

Just as I said.

Republicans now controlling the House promised Thursday to slash domestic agencies' budgets by almost 20 percent for the coming year, the first salvo in what's sure to be a bruising battle over their drive to cut spending to where it was before President Barack Obama took office.

"Washington's spending spree is over," declared Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who announced the plan.

The White House says the GOP effort could cause widespread furloughs of federal employees, force vulnerable people off subsidized housing, reduce services in national parks and mean less aid to schools and police and fire departments.

Popular programs such as health research and federal aid to school districts appear likely to take a hit when lawmakers write the spending bill for the departments of Education, Labor and Health and Human Services.

Tax cuts for the rich prioritized over all else.

I note that former Labor Secretary and current Berkeley professor Robert Reich, in his Twitter feed (@RBReich) today, backs up a point I made about these proposed tax cuts being a precursor to Republican efforts to launch an assault on domestic spending and entitlements -- using the federal budget deficit made so much worse by these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires as their rationale.

I said: "I recognize that this issue isn't specifically about education, but it is inexorably linked. Given President Obama's apparent unwillingness to go to the mat for Democratic principles (and his own campaign pledge!), Republicans have succeeded in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- not just for the first $250,000 or $1,000,000 of their income, but all of it up to infinity. The total cost of all the proposal's tax cuts is $900 billion. Republicans' likely next step is too take off their "tax cutter" hat and don their "deficit hawk" cap, saying that the federal government is living beyond its means, and will fire away at domestic spending. You don't think education will avoid being in their crosshairs at that time, do you? You know that this is more than simply a ploy to line the pockets of rich Americans, right? It's part of a plan to bleed government dry and then argue that government programs need to be reduced, eliminated or privatized."

Reich wrote: "$900 b tax cut w/ lion's share for rich explodes deficit and makes future domestic discretionary spending sitting duck for R cuts."

Yes, folks. This isn't just about tax cuts for the richest Americans. This is but a front in the war to reduce the size of government regardless of its collateral damage to Americans who need government the most.

Economic inequality is already at an all-time high in this country -- even higher than prior to the start of the Great Depression. Our educational system only has a finite amount of power to overcome such overwhelming inequities. If these forces are left unchecked, it may become an impossible job, especially as education programs themselves may fall victim to all-too-easily-predictable budget cuts.

At least the House Republicans can say that they kept this promise. This proposal shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Sailing A Ship With Half A Crew

Andy Rotherham pens a smart column in this week's TIME Magazine ('States' Rights and States' Wrongs On School Reform'). In it, he deals with the oft-ignored issue of the capacity of state departments of education to implement education reforms or engage in strategic policymaking.

Today's state departments of education are good at compliance, but with few exceptions, they are not good at strategy or leading systemic change. That's why competition is so fierce for talented individuals who are willing to work in state education agencies....

Rotherham loses me a bit with his proposed solution, glossing over the fiscal difficulties that would prevent a strengthening of state departments of education.

So what to do?

States need better bureaucrats. In some places, this means hiring new people. In others, it means making sure the right people aren't focusing on the wrong activities.

Hey, I'm all for trying to work smarter. But the problem is that the likelihood of state departments of education hiring any new people, strengthening their talent pool and increasing their capacity to do this work over the next several years is practically nil. Between state hiring freezes, furlough days, incentivized retirements, and frozen or reduced salaries, there is little incentive for talented individuals to take such jobs except perhaps at the highest levels. But then those folks are trying to sail a ship with half a crew.

If the federal government is clear-headed about devolving more authority to the states and committed to actually seeing reforms work and outcomes improve, then it needs to pay attention to states' implementation capacity. Perhaps there is a need to fund more positions within state departments with federal dollars given states' unwillingness to staff their agencies and politicians' willingness to target state workforces for additional cuts. So many state departments of education have been eviscerated that, despite the many talented folks at the helm and in the ranks of senior management, there simply aren't enough capable hands on decks to do the work and to do it well.

A similar concern has to do with policy reform itself. As I've written in the past, too many advocates and reformers seem to consider passing a law or reforming a policy as an end in itself. Increasingly, however, there is much more talk and attention to the importance of implementation and, in some quarters, collaboration and stakeholder buy-in as well. (Others, of course, would be happy to run certain stakeholders over with a truck. I recall someone influential saying "Collaboration is overrated." Hmmm.) The work does not end with a law's passage, but state departments of education play a critical role in communicating it, implementing it, evaluating it, and making sure it can succeed in a variety of school and district settings. That is not easy work. Sure, there is a role for outside consultants, but I would argue that there needs to be someone on the ground shepherding the work day in and day out. In too many state departments of education, the people with the talent, capacity and know-how have walked out the exit door, and there may be no one immediately available to replace them. That's a concern that cannot be swept under the rug. And it doesn't seem to be a concern that is being raised amidst the numerous proposals in states across the country to shrink the state workforce and make state service a much less attractive career.

rheeForm

Proposed education reforms that do not imagine that current and beginning teachers can become more effective while on the job should be considered null and void. This postulation, if accepted, would direct Michelle Rhee's new StudentsFirst agenda to the nearest paper shredder.

To be blunt, it is just plain naive and short-sighted to think that we can maximize teacher effectiveness purely by firing more teachers and marginally changing the cadre of incoming teacher candidates. Is supporting and strengthening the teaching practice of our veteran educators not worthy of our focus and investment?

StudentsFirst's "Elevate Teaching" policy objectives are limited to evaluating teachers and principals, reforming teacher certification laws, reforming teacher compensation, "exiting" teachers, and eliminating teacher tenure. Specifically, the objectives are:

• State law must require evaluation that is based substantially on student achievement. Evaluation tools should measure at least half of a teacher's performance based on student achievement, using a value-added growth model. The other aspects of a teacher's evaluations should derive from measures that align with student results, including high-quality observations and student evaluations of teacher practice.
• To avoid all teachers being ranked as effective without meaningful assessment, evaluations must anchor effectiveness around a year's worth of growth.
• State law must require principal evaluation that is based on student achievement and effective management of teachers. Districts should evaluate at least half of a school administrator's performance based on student achievement, and the remaining portion should mostly relate to their ability to attract, retain, manage, and develop excellent teachers.
• State law should give districts the autonomy to develop teacher evaluation systems apart from the collective bargaining process. Evaluations should be a matter of district policy.
• States must reduce legal barriers to entry in the teaching profession, including complicated credentialing or certification schemes that rely upon factors that do not clearly correlate with teacher effectiveness.
• State law should not be structured to penalize districts financially for recruiting teachers from alternate certification programs.
• States should adopt a clear process by which alternative certification programs are authorized, continually evaluated, and decommissioned if not producing high-quality educators.
• State law must facilitate digital learning by allowing certification for online instruction and modifying or eliminating mandatory "seat time" laws.
• State law must require pay structures based primarily on effectiveness. Teacher contracts must allow for individual performance-based pay.
• State law and district policy should not mandate higher salaries for master's degrees or additional education credits.
• State law should require staffing decisions (transfers, reductions, placements) be based on teacher effectiveness.
• State laws must prohibit forced placements and allow district control in staffing. Districts should ensure that teacher contracts require mutual consent placements. Districts should have the flexibility to offer defined grace periods, severance, or other options for teachers who have effective ratings, but do not find a mutually agreeable placement. Teachers rated ineffective should be exited from the system.
• State law should not grant, implicitly or directly, tenure or permanent contracts for PK–12 education professionals.

There is evidence (from sources such as IES and AIR) that shows that high-quality approaches to new teacher induction and professional development pay dividends in terms of student outcomes. Why would a "student first" agenda utterly ignore initiatives that work in favor of some that have a paltry or non-existent research base?

To keep it brief, please read some of my most relevant past posts arguing why a focus on teacher support and development makes sense and why it should be at the centerpiece of every education reform agenda.

• Teacher Quality: What You Need To Know
• Adding Value To The Value-Added Debate
• Positive Effects Of Comprehensive Teacher Induction
• State Teacher Policies Suck!
• Race To The Top: Under The Hood
• Research: Attracting New Teachers To Urban Schools
• Thoughts On Equitable Teacher Distribution
• Measurement Is Not Destiny
• Does Mentoring Improve New Teachers?
  

With regard to the StudentsFirst plan, to use a Twitter construct, #edreformfail.

A New Year

We hope all our readers enjoyed relaxing holidays and have returned refreshed for the new year. While our family and professional lives continue to make it difficult to blog with great frequency, we hope you'll continue to read our infrequent commentary and join in the discussion during 2011.

A few thoughts to start the new year...

(1) Outcomes First? If outcomes are what really matter in education, it is interesting that so many advocates, commentators and policy organizations seem to count adoption of favored policy reforms as ends in themselves. We are all guilty of this to some degree. It is only when there is a research base to suggest that specific reforms and programs work that there is a strong argument to be made. Examples might include targeted class size reduction in grades k-3, high-quality early childhood education, and comprehensive, multi-year induction support for new teachers. But, at a macro level, certain arguments fall apart when there is no evidence to back them up, such as teachers' unions being a wart on the ass of progress. Take Massachusetts, for example, a strong union state. It leads the nation in TIMMS scores in spite of the fact that the Massachusetts Teachers Association looms large in state politics.

(2) Teachers, Teachers: One of the best developments of 2010 was an increased focus on teachers and on teacher effectiveness in particular. This focus was not always for the better, as in the case of the Los Angeles Times' decision to publish value-added scores for individual teachers or the misleading, union-bashing documentary Waiting For Superman. But an overall focus on the outcomes of teaching is the right policy conversation to be having. However, that conversation must lead to solutions that create comprehensive structures and systems to maximize benefits for all involved -- students, teachers, parents, etc. Regular feedback about teaching is critical for educators, not just summative data or annual evaluations that don't provide actionable feedback. A key goal around improving teacher effectiveness should be the development of schools and districts as communities of practice that make teaching more of a collective endeavor and support all educators to strengthen their individual practices and skills.

(3) ESEA: I am increasingly of the mind that something -- but not much of anything -- will happen with regard to reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2011. If successful, reauthorization will primarily serve as a token of bipartisanship that both parties can carry into the 2012 elections to say "we can work together to get things done." If accomplished, it may be one of the few significant bipartisan accomplishments of this Congress. Look for substantive tweaks to the No Child Left Behind Act rather than a wholesale overhaul of it. More flexibility around AYP. Attention to the needs of rural districts. More local control. Perhaps a stronger focus on teacher performance pay, charter schools and school choice options -- some elements of the Obama Blueprint combined with priority issues for Republicans like John Kline and Lamar Alexander. And level funding, at best.

(4) Exclusivity: One of my wishes for the New Year is that the DC echo chamber would become less and less influential in conversations about education policy. I am constantly amazed at how regularly the usual suspects parrot, squawk about and retweet the comments and ideas of the other usual suspects, especially those with whom they have personal or proprietary relationships. And how the same usual suspects are quoted saying the same usual things by the mainstream and educational media. This dynamic plays out, too, in conversations within multiple exclusive fiefdoms within education that generally have little to no intersection with fiefdoms with competing worldviews or different policy priorities. As someone who once worked in DC and who now works for a non-DC-based national non-profit organization that has relationships with all sides of the education community, I am especially cognizant of this dynamic in which voices outside of the Beltway 'influentials' are not heard.

One alternative stream recently profiled by Rick Hess and Jay Greene are academics doing policy-relevant research and cutting a high profile in policy conversations. We need more of that type of intellect in play -- and not just from economists. Another is the rise of state-based reform groups like Stand for Children, the PIE Network, Delaware's Rodel Foundation and Oregon's Chalkboard Project. Finally, the voice of actual teachers is too often missing from policy conversations. Fortunately, there are numerous efforts afoot to remedy this. Two, in particular, worth checking out are Teach PLUS and the VIVA Project. My organization, the New Teacher Center, in conjunction with the College Board, recently profiled real-life teachers in a publication about the importance of teacher mentoring.

One way or another, 2011 undoubtedly will be an interesting year for education.

Fili-Bernie

I've officially given this blog over to Bernie Sanders. Well, not really. But I can't think of an issue more fundamental in defining who we are as Americans and more important to our nation's economic and educational future than what Bernie discussed in his old-school, non-filibuster filibuster on Friday. Economic justice -- along with sensible tax policy -- is something too few on Capitol Hill and too few Americans care to consider. But it's centrally related to the future educational outcomes of our people -- research shows that socioeconomic factors are more important even than teacher quality, a frequent topic of my posts and a central feature of my professional work.

I note that former Labor Secretary and current Berkeley professor Robert Reich, in his Twitter feed (@RBReich) today, backs up a point I made about these proposed tax cuts being a precursor to Republican efforts to launch an assault on domestic spending and entitlements -- using the federal budget deficit made so much worse by these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires as their rationale.

I said: "I recognize that this issue isn't specifically about education, but it is inexorably linked. Given President Obama's apparent unwillingness to go to the mat for Democratic principles (and his own campaign pledge!), Republicans have succeeded in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- not just for the first $250,000 or $1,000,000 of their income, but all of it up to infinity. The total cost of all the proposal's tax cuts is $900 billion. Republicans' likely next step is too take off their "tax cutter" hat and don their "deficit hawk" cap, saying that the federal government is living beyond its means, and will fire away at domestic spending. You don't think education will avoid being in their crosshairs at that time, do you? You know that this is more than simply a ploy to line the pockets of rich Americans, right? It's part of a plan to bleed government dry and then argue that government programs need to be reduced, eliminated or privatized."

Reich wrote: "$900 b tax cut w/ lion's share for rich explodes deficit and makes future domestic discretionary spending sitting duck for R cuts."

Yes, folks. This isn't just about tax cuts for the richest Americans. This is but a front in the war to reduce the size of government regardless of its collateral damage to Americans who need government the most.

Economic inequality is already at an all-time high in this country -- even higher than prior to the start of the Great Depression. Our educational system only has a finite amount of power to overcome such overwhelming inequities. If these forces are left unchecked, it may become an impossible job, especially as education programs themselves may fall victim to all-too-easily-predictable budget cuts.

The rich, on the the other hand, will continue to party like it's 1929. Only the party's even better this time 'round. So much for the national economy being a collective good.

Silver Linings

It's probably no surprise to regular readers of this blog that I'm a Democrat. That said, in my professional life, I have worked for non-partisan and non-profit organizations committed to working with public officials of all political persuasions. And I think that both political parties -- as well as political independents -- are potential partners in improving pubic education. Nonetheless, I can't honestly say that November 2010 was an uplifting month from my (electoral) perspective.

But this is the Education OPTIMISTS blog, right? I guess I'm a little self-aware in that I recognize that a majority of my posts grouse about something or other and too few are offered in a truly optimistic vein. So here is my attempt at weaving a silk purse from an elephant's(?) ear.

Newly elected Republican governors and state legislators have opportunities to improve education in ways that some of their Democratic counterparts may not. They may be more politically willing and able to take on certain vestiges of the education status quo that may not be research-based, may not be working, and may be not be in service of student outcomes. I'm talking about things like the traditional steps-and-lanes teacher salary schedule, the length of the school day and year, and largely purposeless teacher evaluation systems. They may be able to construct new human capital systems and reform outdated school practices and processes. Certainly, these opportunities will vary depending upon numerous contextual factors, including state systems of educational governance, the intellectual and policy foundations for such work, the existence of non-governmental advocates and thought partners, existing vehicles for collaboration (such as p-16 councils), etc.

A number of past Republican governors emerged as leaders, or so-called "education governors." Some that immediately come to mind are former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, former Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, outgoing Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, and former Tennessee Gov. (and current U.S. Senator) Lamar Alexander (who also served as U.S Education Secretary under President George H.W. Bush).

That said, here's where my pessimism takes over. There are certainly members of the current Republican gubernatorial circle that are certainly not in the running for such an earned label, such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. With less than a year in office, he has moved in a decidedly confrontational direction. His actions and rhetoric makes him better suited for talk radio than as a collaborative education governor who needs to work with a Democratic-controlled state legislature and, yes, with teachers. Christie is casting himself as a modern-day Archie Bunker and is relishing the attention and headlines he is getting. The sad fact is that such rhetoric is what garners attention in today's media rather than the dogged policy work that actually changes the equation for students and teachers.

Christie seems to think that leadership consists of rhetoric rather than results. And that's dangerous if our collective goal is the creation of meaningful reform as opposed to simply talk or threats of it. Christie has attacked his own state's relatively good educational performance in order to further his demonizing of the state teachers' union, which appears to be his primary priority. He fired his first education commissioner who dared to strike a compromise with teachers around New Jersey's aborted Race to the Top application. That former commissioner said that the Governor "placed fighting with the state teachers unions and his persona on talk radio above education reform." Good luck to those who seek to thrust him upon America as a 2012 candidate for President.

My fear is that there those within the ranks of new Republican governors that are more likely to fashion themselves in the style of Christie than as "old school" education governors. Texas Governor Rick Perry's ascension to head the RGA probably doesn't help either.

With the exception of the 12 Race to the Top winners, one challenge that these new office holders of both parties will face is the distinct lack of new resources to inject into the educational system, either from state or federal sources. They won't be able to buy reforms by increasing education funding or refashion teacher pay with a major infusion of cash.

My hope is that governors of both parties will seek to work with educators to accomplish their policy objectives rather than force their desires onto them. There is good evidence to suggest that collaboration leads to more resilient and relevant policies that are likely to trickle down to actually change practices and processes within classrooms and schools. That's where the real work gets done.

I am hopeful that some quiet leaders will emerge.

The Manifesto, Income Inequality & Credibility

On Friday, I wrote a blog item ('Misleading Manifesto') chiding a group of urban superintendents for misstating educational research in a 'manifesto' published in Sunday's Washington Post. Teacher quality *is* important -- but it does not matter MORE THAN family income and concentrated poverty.

I am convinced that too many educational reformers are happy to 'spin' the truth for rhetorical purposes. I think this is exactly what we saw in this manifesto. While this may help to simplify messaging, target solutions at a more narrowly construed problem, and focus in on what education leaders have direct control over, it carries an inherent policy danger along with it. That danger is two-fold: (1) teacher policy reforms may be set up for failure by overstating their potential impact; and (2) more comprehensive strategies desperately needed to combat rising income inequality and growing poverty in our nation may be discounted and ignored.

For me, this isn't an issue of setting low expectations for children from poverty. We must train and support our teachers to have high expectations and develop the potential in all children. But, from a policy perspective, which is the world in which I work, to not even discuss poverty and inequality -- even though the research evidence points to its preeminence -- is akin to taking it off the table as a policy priority.

Nor it is a lack of belief in the ameliorative benefits that sensible teacher reforms can have on student outcomes by expanding the recruitment pool of teacher candidates, improving initial training and on-going support of classroom teachers, improving teaching and learning conditions within schools, providing differential compensation to teachers for leadership roles, difficult assignments, shortage fields, and demonstrated effectiveness, and more....

For teacher quality specifically, as I argued in my previous post, playing fast and loose with the facts isn't necessary. There is a powerful argument to be made based on the fact that teachers are the most important school-based influence on student learning. That's exactly what my colleagues at the New Teacher Center have done. We've made careful and honest declarations about teacher quality being the most critical within-school variable, but haven't framed the issue in a way that would make us education-industry Pinocchios.

And this leads us directly to the question of credibility. While I am personally inclined to support elements of what the superintendents' manifesto calls for -- and inclined to support elements of broader education and teacher reform agendas -- I am disinclined to associate myself with a clarion call that is dishonest on its face and misserves the national need for a critical conversation and accompanying set of public policies to address issues of economic inequality. That need extends well beyond the education system and requires responses much broader than merely strengthening the teaching profession and overhauling human capital systems.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently has been banging the drums challenging policymakers -- and Democrats, in particular -- to address our nation's historic levels of income inequality and rising levels of poverty. As reported by the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein, since 1976 "virtually all of the benefits of economic growth have gone to households that, in today's terms, earn more than $110,000 a year." Further, UNICEF reports that the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty among 24 OECD nations -- over 20% -- and the second-worst rate (barely ahead of bottom-dwelling Great Britain) of childhood well-being in the industralized world. Further, as Walt Gardner recently noted, a September 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report showed that the percentage of Americans below the poverty line in 2009 was the highest in 15 years. And the rise was steepest for children, with one in five affected. Think this has any bearing on U.S. students' relatively poor performance on international student assessments? Uh-huh.

So, let's talk about how to strengthen teaching and its central importance to student outcomes. But let's not fence ourselves in with self-serving rhetoric. Let's be honest in our communications and expansive in our thinking about policies needed to improve the lives of American children.

It's about education -- and a whole lot more.

Misleading Manifesto

I'm sorry, but the "manifesto" published in today's Washington Post really pisses me off because it is built upon a false premise. It is authored by a number of urban school superintendents, including Chicago's Ron Huberman, New York City's Joel Klein, Washington DC's Michelle Rhee, and New Orleans' Paul Vallas. And it -- intentionally? -- misstates educational research.

"[T]he single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income -- it is the quality of their teacher."

No. That is patently false.

Now, listen here. I work for a teacher-focused, non-profit organization, the New Teacher Center (NTC). Wouldn't it be powerful to go out and say that teachers matter more than ANYTHING else? But they don't. In terms of school-based variables, they do. But in terms of all variables that impact students, they simply do not. No research says that. In our messaging at the NTC, we are always careful to say that teacher quality is the most important school-based variable for student achievement (examples here and here (on page 4)). That's accurate, honest and powerful in its own right.

So why not make the case for improving teaching in a honest fashion? There is an incredibly strong case to make that improving teaching quality is a critically important and policy amenable part of the solution to increasing student achievement and closing achievement gaps for disadvantaged students. But it's only part of the answer which requires solutions beyond the educational system. Let's not lose sight of that.

At the Shanker Blog, Matthew Di Carlo explored this same issue last month and took journalists to task for making similar claims. Back in July, he summarized existing teacher quality research.

September 16, 2010:

The same body of evidence that shows that teachers are the most important within-school factor influencing test score gains also demonstrates that non-school factors matter a great deal more. [emphasis added] The first wave of high-profile articles in our newly-energized education debate not only seem to be failing to provide this context, but are ignoring it completely. Deliberately or not, they are publishing incorrect information dressed up as empirical fact, spreading it throughout a mass audience new to the topic, to the detriment of us all.

Even though the 10-15 percent explained by teachers still represents a great deal of power (and is among the only factors “within the jurisdiction” of education policy), it is nevertheless important to bear in mind that poor educational outcomes are a result of a complicated web of social and economic forces. [emphasis added] People have to understand that, or they will maintain unrealistic expectations about the extent to which teacher-related policies alone can solve our problems, and how quickly they will work.

July 14, 2010:

But in the big picture, roughly 60 percent of achievement outcomes is explained by student and family background characteristics (most are unobserved, but likely pertain to income/poverty). [emphasis added] Observable and unobservable schooling factors explain roughly 20 percent, most of this (10-15 percent) being teacher effects. The rest of the variation (about 20 percent) is unexplained (error). In other words, though precise estimates vary, the preponderance of evidence shows that achievement differences between students are overwhelmingly attributable to factors outside of schools and classrooms (see Hanushek et al. 1998; Rockoff 2003; Goldhaber et al. 1999; Rowan et al. 2002; Nye et al. 2004).

Let's take Di Carlo's and Joe Friday's advice. Just the facts, please.

Witchy Woman

What an eerie coincidence. It turns out that 1969 gave birth both to the Monty Python comedy troupe as well as to Christine O'Donnell, Tea Party darling and Republican nominee for one of Delaware's two U.S. Senate seats.

What do Monty Python and O'Donnell have in common? Why, witches, of course!!!

One of the highlights from the Pythons' 1975 feature film, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is a scene that employs a scientific method -- one that I can easily see some Tea Party candidates employing in public policy if given the chance -- to determine whether a woman is, in fact, a witch.



In one of the most bizarre beginnings to a political advertisement EVER, 2010 Senate candidate O'Donnell announces that "I am not a witch."



O'Donnell, as you may have heard, admitted in 1999 on Bill Maher's ABC show, "Politically Incorrect," that she had "dabbled in witchcraft" and had a date "on a satanic altar." Whether or not it's actually true, it is just downright bizarre, especially when considered alongside her other wacky quotes. In addition -- to bring it back to education -- O'Donnell has repeatedly lied about her education credentials, claiming falsely that she studied at Oxford, claiming that she was taking graduate classes at Princeton University, and claiming for years that she was a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Delaware Republicans must be so proud, having thrown a well-respected, long-serving congressman Mike Castle under the bus, for a woman, who even Karl Rove admits says "a lot of nutty things."

Is it just me or has this political year brought out some of the craziest -- and, in certain cases, dangerous -- assortment of public officials ever? The likes of Michele Bachmann, Ken Cuccinelli and Jim DeMint already represent some Americans. The likes of Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and Carl Paladino would like to.

Happy Halloween!

The Education Buzz

The latest edition of the Education Buzz, hosted by the blog Bellringers (like us, another Washington Post best for 2010), is now available. Bellringers is the brainchild of Carol Richtsmeier, a high school teacher and former Dallas Morning News reporter.

The next edition is posted on October 13th -- submissions due on October 9. So if you're an education blogger who wants to share your posts with a wider audience, consider submitting to the Education Buzz.

Race to the Top's Dropouts

UPDATED 5/28/2010

The deadline for state applications in Phase Two of the Race to the Top (RttT) competition is next Tuesday, June 1st. Only two states, Delaware and Tennessee, succeeded in winning funding in Phase One. The U.S. Department of Education has estimated that 10-15 states will win funding in Phase Two.

With the higher stakes -- more states will be funded this go 'round and this could be the final competition (despite the Obama Administration's request for a third round of RttT funding) -- more skirmishes have broken out, particularly between would-be reformers and teachers' unions. The nastiest of these disputes appears to have been in Minnesota, which apparently scuttled its application as a result. Just check out these quotes:

Governor Tim Pawlenty, 2012 Republican presidential aspirant: "Unfortunately, the DFL-controlled Legislature in Minnesota refuses to pass these initiatives because the they are beholden to Education Minnesota, which is the most powerful interest group in Minnesota. What we saw in this session should be an embarrassment to the DFL-controlled Legislature. They continue to put the interests of union members ahead of the interests of schoolchildren and education accountability."

Education Commissioner Alice Seagren charged that the state had been "bought and sold" by Education Minnesota, the state teachers' union and made "legislators afraid to step up."

Education Minnesota teachers union president Tom Dooher said that Pawlenty was doing "a great disservice to the state of Minnesota" by deciding not to apply for the second-round grants. "The problem with the governor is that if you disagree with him about policy he calls you an obstructionist. Tim Pawlenty has had eight years to do something about eliminating the achievement gap. Now, given one last chance, he does nothing."

Aggressive policy action has occurred in an attempt to win Phase 2 funding. Colorado's new teacher tenure and evaluation law has been widely heralded as a potential model for the nation. Florida's simplistic, poorly designed legislation, which would have based half of a teacher's evaluation and salary on a single test score, was wisely vetoed by Charlie Crist, the state's Republican governor and now-independent candidate for U.S. Senate.

Other states where notable policy changes have passed, potentially boosting Phase Two competitiveness, include Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland (although on-going disagreements and lack of union support may hurt), North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Legislative efforts continue at the eleventh hour in states like Kentucky, New York (5/28 update), and Pennsylvania. The District of Columbia's IMPACT teacher evaluation system and recent teachers' contract agreement could help its chances, but the lack of support from the Washington Teachers' Union and contentious relationship between the WTU and DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee won't help.

All states are busy gathering stakeholder support for their applications. The deal struck in Rhode Island to save the jobs of teachers in Central Falls should boost that state's chances in Phase Two; the recent announcement that more local teachers' unions as well as the state AFT chapter will sign onto the state's application also bodes well. The New Jersey Education Association, which opposed the state's Phase One application, announced its support for Phase Two. [6/1 Update: Apparently, Governor Christie undid this compromise at the 11th hour today.] Other states that have announced greater stakeholder support than in Phase One include Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Others have set this week as a deadline for districts and unions to support the state application.

Let's look at which states are -- and aren't -- competing in Phase Two. In total, 38 states (and DC) expressed an intent to apply in Phase Two, but by my count 35 states and DC will actually submit an application by the due date (ID, MN and WV filed intents but have since pulled out). By my count, six states which did not submit an application in Phase One are applying in Phase Two: Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada and Washington.

Here's the full breakdown:

OUT (13)
Phase One Applicants (9)
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Minnesota
Oregon
South Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

Phase One Non-Applicants (4)
Alaska
North Dakota
Texas
Vermont

IN (36)
Phase One Applicants (30)
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California (applying in partnership with only six large urban school districts)
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts (state education commish has suggested state may not apply)
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
Wisconsin

Phase One Non-Applicants (6)
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
Washington

PHASE ONE WINNERS (2)
Delaware
Tennessee

'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