Creativity and Accountability

Yong Zhao is back in receptive Seattle this week preaching his gospel of edu-innovation.  The anti-standards, pro-creativity Zhao is a Chinese-born prof at Michigan State.  Here’s his thesis in a nutshell:

In my new book Catching Up or Leading the Way, I mostly focus on issues facing education in the United States noting that the current education reform efforts, with their emphasis on standards, testing, and outcome-based (read test score-based) accountability, are unlikely to make Americans “globally competitive.”

Zhao and I like the same schools and probably share a similar vision for what a good education looks like and the benefits it provides students.  We both agree that bad standards and tests badly applied is bad for kids.

But his anti-standards mantra strikes me as a bit irresponsible in the sense that he doesn’t grapple with accountability.  We have NCLB because states were not fulfilling the good school promise—they ignored generations of chronic failure.  The Department of Education is now grappling with a new accountability framework, one that is tight on goals and loose on means.

The challenge is how to promote creativity and accountability—to ensure that every American student has access to at least one good school and a rich engaging series of learning experiences that focuses on big questions not little test bubbles.   This is no easy task, but a new generation of adaptive and content embedded assessment holds the potential for making testing far less intrusive and far more constructive for teachers and students.

I’m worried that most of the state consortia winning grants from the upcoming $350 million RttT pot will create some consistency around the Common Core but do little to advance the field of assessment—a big missed opportunity.  A few states will propose a comprehensive assessment system that incorporates adaptive assessment (e.g., online quizzes and feedback from learning games), performance assessment (e.g., essays and science projects), as well as end of course exams.

This is also why states need a special purpose charter authorizer for innovative schools—a potential test bed for new instructional models and assessment systems.  Innovative school models that combine personalized online learning with onsite application and support have the potential to promote creativity and accountability—something Dr. Zhao and I can both celebrate.

You’ve Got to be Kidding

Charter advocates blast the ridiculous Civil Rights Project report claiming that charters segregate students on the National Journal blog this morning.  My response follows:

This report is almost too ridiculous to comment on. None of us want segregated schools, but to criticize charters for serving low income minority communities is unproductive and unfair. The best thing that has happened in education in the last ten years is the development of high performing urban CMOs serving high need communities with uncompromising quality. The breakthrough performance of the No-Excuses schools outlines the path forward not just for education but as the most powerful antidote for chronic poverty in historically under-served neighborhoods.

The concentration on high need communities is a function of the charter school founder’s mission but also steering from funders and authorizers. Given growing penetration in many urban areas, these groups along with community organizations can and should begin to plan for a wider ring of influence–a new round of schools that are more integrated in every way. This conversation is beginning in metro Newark, Washington DC, Houston, New Orleans and LA. With a reputation for quality, top school operators are positioned to open schools that will attract suburban as well as urban kids.

This perceived problem will work itself out, but it’s a shame that CRP is shooting at folks doing the best work in the sector for the kids most in need.

People on the Move, etc

Good to see:

• Garth Harries, former NYC portfolio manager, thriving as Assistant Superintendent in New Haven, CT
• Hosanna Mahaley Johnson supporting school systems working with Wireless Generation after doing great working Atlanta and Chicago
• Ben Linquist from Charter School Growth Fund opening innovative charters in MN (taking a page from the Kolderie playbook)
• Dan Change from Green Dot going to MLA Partner Schools to drive LA’s Promise Neighborhood
• Laura Smith joining David Steiner’s team at NY SED (she worked with Matt Maloney on Bersin’s Blueprint in SD)
• Steve Barr still stirring the pot in CA

Upcoming books:

• Rick Hess encourages edu-entrepreneurship
• Andy Smarick provides a formula for urban reform

Busiest folks in American:

• Bridgespan, Parthenon, Mckinsey teams in Dec-Jan.  Nice to have some capacity in the sector (wasn’t the case 8 years ago)
• ED folks preparing to read RttT, rollout i3, and reauthorize ESEA

Did you know:

• Edvisions has 70 innovative personalized schools? (40 in the network and 30 affiliated).  AHSI members have 290 sites total
• New Visions is planning blended charters in NYC?

Chief Academic Officer Opportunities:

• MLA Partner Schools runs two big high schools (6000 kids) in Los Angeles and plans to support feeder middle schools (mmcgalliard@mlapartnerschools.org)
• City Prep Academies plans to develop and support innovative high schools in New York and surrounding states (admin@cityprepacademies.com)

RttT Plans: Detailed, Compliant, Insufficient

I spent the last two days reading Race to the Top plans.  Here’s a few observations:

1. The plans are comprehensive and detailed.  They all slavishly follow the Department of Education scoring rubic.  As I’ve repeatedly said, RttT is a great program, but this isn’t ‘loose on means’.

2. School improvement is complicated work.  After acknowledging that failing schools signal district problems, the New York application notes all of the variables that need to be addressed in school improvement:

To improve student achievement, persistently lowest-achieving schools must typically address most, if not all, of the following: low academic standards, inadequate instructional leadership, curriculum deficiencies, ineffective instructional methods, many inexperienced teachers, lack of alignment between professional development and staff needs, assessment data not used to plan instruction, inefficient use of time, lack of parent and community involvement, ineffective classroom management practices, lack of strategic social supports and effective college goal setting with students.

3. RttT represents an aggregation of good ideas within the current frame—to some extent, it’s an overlay on a dysfunctional underlying system under severe financial stress.  It won’t change the anachronistic American education governance labyrinth.  It will make things better, it won’t give us the schools our kids deserve.

4. Executing these plans will be a monumental challenge for state departments of education with little capacity.  Most applicants have done a pretty good job of stringing together temporary capacity but usually reporting to a Rube Goldberg-like matrix.

5. RttT pushes big challenges to districts; at the top of the list is renegotiating labor contracts.  As NY Commissioner David Steiner summarizes, their new evaluation system is largely a suggestion:

To ensure that every student is well taught, teacher evaluation must be transparent, fair and demanding. We propose that teachers’ unions and district administrators use student growth, among multiple measures, in performance- based teacher evaluations.

6. Scoring these will be a challenge.  There’s lots of room for judgment.  There are lots of promises and lots of verbs like “develop” and “create” that imply a great deal.  The mostly insider mystery judges have their work cut out to attempt to validate and score the compendiums of competing claims.

Time is Running Out

After traveling Asia by high speed train and lounging in spectacular airports, it’s always disheartening to return to JKF or LAX.  Bob Herbert makes the case that Time is Running Out for America to build the transportation, energy, and education infrastructure of the future.

Quoting that great philosopher Alanis, “Isn’t it ironic” that Bob’s piece dropped on the first day of the Tea Party convention.  I get being pissed off about taxes (I just dropped a big check in the mail) but where’s the “I’m mad as hell about crumbling roads and bridges party?”  Where’s the “our kids are going to get their butts kicked in the global competition” party.  Where’s the “avoid fiscal suicide and fix social security” party?

We used to have a pro-growth party but now just have a No party (except for earmarks and wars).  I hear the Tea Party keynoter will quote Yankovic, “Dare to be stupid.” They will close with another prayer, “Please let 45 million people continue to remain uninsured.”

Come on folks, if we stop playing games, we can figure this out.  The angry mob is right that taxes need to be low to remain competitive and boost job creation.  But we also need to invest in infrastructure and innovation.  To do both, we’ll need real entitlement reform, public employment reform, and we need to stop fighting stupid wars and policing the world.   Maybe we need a MAC party—Make America Competitive—with the courage to take on tough issues and well-funded interests.  Bob is right, time is running out.

New Frame for ESEA: Half Right, Big Risk

Message refined, Secretary Duncan is doing the morning show circuit socializing a proposal for the reauthorization of federal education policy.   He’s attempting to assemble the first bipartisan coalition of the Obama administration to address a major piece of legislation.  It won’t be easy and it probably won’t happen this year but he’s landed on a rhetorical frame that could work.

On NPR this morning, Duncan gave No Child Left Behind credit for shining a spotlight on the achievement gap by requiring that states use individual student data rather than relying on averages to judge school quality.  But he quickly criticized the bill for being squishy on goals and tight on means and suggested that we should “Flip NCLB on its head.”

NCLB focused on reading and math in grades 3 to 8 and allowed states to use their own standards and set their own goals.  Duncan is pushing college and career ready graduation as the goal—a great idea but tricky to measure.  This is the most important statistic for cities and states but we haven’t been able to measure it (grad rates are complicated and so is defining college ready).

Here’s an example of why this shift is important: most of the roughly 70% of American kids that graduate from high school attempt college.  A placement exam at a local community college typically determines if they are ‘college ready’ not the better-known SAT or ACT exams.  This hidden gateway throws half of the students into remedial courses where they pay to learn what they should have learned in high school.  It’s ridiculous and tragic.  Duncan is right, we need a common ‘college ready’ goal that tells students when they’re ready to earn college credit and allows us to measure education systems on the most important outcome.

On to the next big idea: rewarding excellence.  Duncan wants to “learn from it, replicate it, reward it.”  All sounds very bipartisan.  This framed incentive philosophy is reflected in the Race to the Top competition and is an important change strategy that I supported in a previous post.  It’s in keeping with the ‘tight on goals, loose on means’ approach.  However, efforts to build a bipartisan bill around ‘loose on means’ approach could walk away from two key civil rights advances embodied in NCLB: the good teacher promise and the good school promise.

We have NCLB because states and cities were not addressing chronic school failure.  The most important component of NCLB, what almost everyone now hates, is a school accountability framework based on Adequate Yearly Progress.  There were lots of problems that never got fixed, but it was an attempt to promise every American family access to a good school.  NCLB also attempted to promise every student access to a good teacher (but in the absence of data, used some bad proxies for quality).

The New York Times, which has been spot on for a year, summarizes the view of education equality advocates:

But it will be no less important to protect what is good in the law and resist pressure from powerful forces — teachers’ unions, state governments and other groups — that may seek to weaken it. In particular, the administration and Congress need to preserve and strengthen provisions that hold states accountable for placing a qualified teacher in every classroom and closing the achievement gap between poor children and their wealthy contemporaries.

Finally, it’s worth noting a subtle difference in public responsibility vs. public delivery.  Duncan is a pragmatic public school guy: make the system work for kids, do more of what works.  His support for charter schools is more about adding good seats to the system than expanding parent choice.  When the public system failed, NCLB attempted to insert choice and tutoring services.  It reflected a multi-provider philosophy that, in small ways, encouraged private investment and entrepreneurship.  It now appears that Education will remain the only branch of the federal government to hold at bay private investment and involvement.

We’re entering the most dynamic period in history where anyone can learn anything anytime anywhere.  While our education conversation drifts back toward the ‘one-best system’ philosophy, new tools and new schools are springing up in emerging economies where rapidly evolving education sectors are hotbeds of innovation supported by public and private investment.  We’re rehashing a 2002 fight while the rest of the world is thinking about 2020.

The least we owe American kids is the promise of a good teacher and a good school.  The next version of federal policy must improve on that pledge.  But we can do so much more to launch a learning revolution.  It doesn’t sound like we’ll have that conversation.

The School Choice Debate in India

HYDERABAD.  After three weeks with Gray Matters Capital, I realized that I landed in India at a very dynamic time of education reform—a very different version than is occurring in the US—perhaps not really reform, but a rapid evolution of a multi-provider system of education with 500 million eager customers.

The soup of conversation surrounding government schools and private schools is as rich as masala. Vinod Raina asks “Nowhere in the world has universal elementary education been achieved through private schools — how can India be an exception?”

Within the last few years there has been a rise of what is called Affordable Private schools, which can range from Rs 100- 600 or $2-13 a month (what is considered affordable is a debate within itself). According to Credit Suisse, something like 950,000 of the schools in India are funded and ran by the government, while the other 75,000 are aided private schools recognized and unrecognized private schools. There are 90 million students in the 75,000 private schools and 129 million in public schools.

Government ran schools, what we call public schools in the US, are extremely dysfunctional. In many areas, parents only send their kids to government schools if they absolutely cannot afford a low cost private school. One of the unfortunate factors is that the teachers are actually qualified (attended University and training) but are not accountable, they are paid big salaries and can come to school not teach because they have job security for life.

The government just passed the Right to Education Act and believes that all children ages 6-14 deserve an education (the quality of education is not mentioned). The issue is that they are attempting to make education mostly government ran or at least strictly enforced. Three years after the act has passed, private schools will be forced to admit 25 percent of students from within their neighborhoods and the government will reimburse them for the amount of the kids. Advocates of the government ran schools would say that this is their promotion of common school integration. The government is very bureaucratic and not efficient enough to pass funds on in a timely matter to their own schools, let alone to a school with low importance to them.

My views of the public-private debate have been influenced by my own education.  I attended public schools K-12 and attended a private university. My education in the US gives me some hope for public education and what it offers many socio-economic groups but also value what a small private institution can offer. I am not nearly as hopeful about government run education in India.

At one government school in Delhi, the headmistress was enthusiastic, but had to battle the bureaucracy of the government daily: a 20% shortage of teachers, chronic absenteeism of the teachers she had, a locked library because the government has not replaced the librarian, a deteriorating infrastructure, and the classrooms look like jails. Teachers in government institutions have obligations within the government and community. They will leave for a period of time to fulfill these duties rather then actually be present in the classroom.

Much of my time in Hyderabad has been spent in the APS. Although the facilities are much smaller then government ran school properties and do not leave me necessarily optimistic, there is much more to be excited about. These schools are willing to be rated by Gray Matters Capital and M-CRIL.  In return, they can access services like management training, capacity building, teacher training, curriculum building, English training, or finance training by companies like the Indian School Finance Company.  The teachers are actually present in the classroom, the kids are learning multiple languages, and interacting with one another rather then only reading and copying from a textbook.

Regarding both government run schools, Parth Shah, President of the Centre of Civil Society puts it best, “Fund students, not schools!”  Families should have the choice of schools for their children. Dr. Shah asks the question, “Does the ownership of the school relate to the quality?” CCS would like to create a scholarship system, so that instead of the 25 percent of government sponsored kids attend the private schools, 75 percent of the other poor students would have similar choices. The CCS would call this the Right to Education of Choice, and would be a way to create quality education for all.

If the government were truly concerned about providing quality education for everyone from ages 6-14, then they would work to provide that regardless of who owned the schools. Also, if they were to look at the long-term social impact for their country, they would see that friendly competition between government schools and private schools would only improve the education and the strength of the future generations.

Katherine Vander Ark

Thoughts for Charter School Authorizers

Dear Charter Authorizers,

1. Some of you are becoming school districts–bureaucratic and directive.  What happened to ‘autonomy for accountability’?   Reading some of your renewal reviews, it’s like having a boss all over again.

2. Timelines are so long and apps are so big and expensive to prepare,  you’re shutting people out especially minority operators.

3. Non-renewing low performing schools is tough, but it’s your job–it’s the charter bargain.

4. Some of you have outlawed innovation by requiring same-old-same-old.  Ol’ fashioned prep schools get it done for some kids but there’s a new world of opportunity out there including learning online.

5. Time to check in with your state’s RttT team, you’ll want to update your process to accommodate the conversions/restarts contemplated in the plan.  In fact, you’ll probably want to work with the Chief to define a two step process to 1) identify conversion/restart partners and 2) match them with local opportunities.

6. Local rejectors (districts that will never approve an app) are torturing folks; create an expedited denial process or give applicants the ability to apply directly to the state.

7. Create a ‘Rapid-Pass’ for high performers that want to expand.

8. Where there is likely to be a large number of public or private schools converting to charter, suggest to the legislature that a separate niche authorizer be formed to deal with these unique circumstances.

9. Be thoughtful about location, transportation, access, and facilities; you’re often the portfolio manager.  We need equitable choice focused on, but not limited to, the highest need areas.

NY could learn some things from LA too

Margaret Raymond’s LA Times piece suggested that LA could learn from NY.  That’s true in some areas of school reform, but I think there may be problems with some of her assertions and her timing.

1. She references her study which had obvious flaws regarding matching (i.e., first years schools against mature schools) and the conclusions it drew (e.g., kids do better the longer they are in charters).

2. Her observations about the rich/supportive environment in NY compared to CA seem thin (it’s not all that rosy in NY, and it’s not that bad in CA)

3. I doubt that her CA figures for charters reflects LA performance; LA has a bunch of great operators that probably outperform CA averages for charters

4. She didn’t talk about the impact of facilities, but many NY charters get facilities and about $13k which CA don’t and squeak by on $7k.

Let’s get specific about differences; when folks talk about NY charters they are primarily referring to Achievement First and Harlem Success–fantastic elementary operators.  There are very few charter high schools in NY because they were up against the cap for so long.  LA is blessed with great high school operators like Green Dot, Alliance, Bright Star (and Aspire which has elementary schools and soon will have high schools)–most of which benefited from a relationship with New Schools Venture Fund.

Given all that, I just don’t think the op-ed worked and believe charter supports like Parent Revolution should stay peddle-to-the-metal in LA to improve options for kids.  Raymond’s timing during the week of votes on public school choice in LA seems more than a coincidence–it is misleading and unfortunate.

Lomax & Murguia join Klein as EEP Co-Chairs

The Education Equality Project announced  today that Michael Lomas of UNCF and Janet Murgia of NCLR have joined New York City Chancellor as co-chairs.

EEP “is leading a civil rights movement to eliminate the racial and ethnic achievement gap in public education by working to create an effective school for every child.” With over 100 leading education reformers and political leaders as signatories, EEP gives voice to the voiceless in the education debate.

EEP Director Ellen Winn said of the co-chairs, “Their talent and leadership is essential during a year in which  the nation’s education policy will be set for the next decade and beyond  as the U.S. Department of Education and Congress begin to debate ESEA reauthorization.  To have three national leaders from education and civil rights commit themselves wholeheartedly to closing the achievement gap is exactly the type of leadership we need to get this done.”

With new federal interest in ‘flexibility,’ EEP will help ensure that the reauthorization of ESEA strengthens rather than weakens the promise that every American family deserves a good school and every student deserves a good teacher.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EDUCATION EQUALITY PROJECT ANNOUNCES ELECTION OF NEW BOARD CHAIRS

Joel I. Klein, Michael L. Lomax, and Janet Murguía Unanimously Chosen To Lead Board of Directors

NEW YORK, February 3, 2010 – The Education Equality Project (EEP), a leader in the civil rights movement to eliminate the racial and ethnic achievement gap in public education, today announced that Joel I. Klein, Chancellor, New York City schools; Michael L. Lomax, Ph.D., President and CEO of UNCF; and Janet Murguía, President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza were unanimously elected as Co-Chairpersons of the EEP Board of Directors.  Klein, Lomax and Murguía are all recognized as national leaders in advocating for education reform, working to provide equal access to a college education for low-income students and students of color, and advocating for civil rights and opportunity for all Americans. Together, the three bring an unparalleled commitment to ensuring equity in education.

“Our nation has yet to live up to the promise of equal educational opportunity for every child established in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education,” said Joel I. Klein, Chancellor, New York City schools. “I am honored to join with Michael Lomax and Janet Murguía in the Education Equality Project’s efforts to eliminate the racial and ethnic achievement gap by creating an effective school for every child.”

“President Obama has committed the nation to regain world leadership in the percentage of citizens with a college education,” said Michael L. Lomax, Ph.D., UNCF President and CEO.  “And we can’t create that strong pipeline of college graduates without starting early, on the first day of pre-school, to make sure every child has an education that isn’t complete until the day they graduate from college.  It is that strong foundation that will enable the next generation of doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and teachers to get the college degrees they need–and that our nation needs them to have to help America compete globally.”

“It is important that the educational system uses its resources to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all of its students,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO.  ”The EEP brings together diverse stakeholders committed to addressing the educational needs of primarily low-income students of color and seeks policy solutions to make sure that these students can reach their potential.”

The Education Equality Project focuses on closing the achievement gaps that separate low-income students and students of color from other youth. To accomplish this, EEP focuses its advocacy on education reforms that:

·       Ensure an effective teacher in every classroom, and an effective principal in every school, by paying educators as the professionals they are, by giving them the tools and training they need to succeed, and by making tough decisions about those who do not;

·       Empower parents by giving them a meaningful voice in where their children are educated including public charter schools;

·       Create accountability for educational success at every level—at the system and school level, for teachers and principals, and for central office administrators;

·       Commit to making every decision about whom to employ, how money is spent, and where resources are deployed with a single-minded focus: what will best serve our students, regardless of how it affects other interests;

·       Call on parents and students to demand more from their schools, but also to demand more from themselves;

·       Have the strength of our convictions to stand up to those political forces and interests who seek to preserve a failed system.

###

About Education Equality Project

The Education Equality Project (EEP) is a bipartisan advocacy organization that believes education reform is the most pressing civil rights issue of our generation.  EEP is building a movement of elected officials, civil rights activists, educators, business and public policy leaders, parents, students, teachers, and concerned citizens dedicated to closing the racial and ethnic achievement gap in U.S. public education.  Our mission is to close the education achievement gap for low-income and minority students in U.S. public schools and to increase academic opportunities and improve achievement for all students.   For more information, go to www.edequality.org or http://twitter.com/EdEquality.

About UNCF

UNCF—the United Negro College Fund—is the nation’s largest and most effective minority education organization.  To serve youth, the community and the nation, UNCF supports students’ education and development through scholarships and other programs, strengthens its 39 member colleges and universities, and advocates for the importance of minority education.  UNCF institutions and other historically black colleges and universities are highly effective, awarding 18 percent of African American baccalaureate degrees. UNCF administers more than 400 programs, including scholarship, internship and fellowship, mentoring, summer enrichment, and curriculum and faculty development programs. Today, UNCF supports more than 60,000 students at over 900 colleges and universities across the country. Its logo features the UNCF torch of leadership in education and its widely recognized motto, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”^® Learn more at www.UNCF.org

About NCLR

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations, (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. www.nclr.org

For more information:

Melissa Ratcliff

VA/R for the Education Equality Project
melissa@varpartners.net
310.429.2778

Joye Griffin

UNCF Press Secretary

Joye.Griffin@uncf.org

703-205-3480

Sherria Cotton

National Council of La Raza

scotton@nclr.org

202.785.1670

Posted: February 3rd, 2010 | Author: Tom Vander Ark | Filed under: Ed Dept, ESEA, RttT, i3, Ed Reform, Politics | No Comments »