Scott Stephens | The Forum for Education and Education Blog
November 15, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO -- Pedro Noguera has had plenty of access to Obama administration policy makers. In fact, he sat down with 50 people from the U.S. Department of Education, who listened to his thoughts for 90 minutes.
"Then I left and nothing changed," Noguera, a Convener with The Forum for Education and Democracy, said in an opening address last week at the Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum. "I realized that the Obama administration was staying the course not just in Afghanistan, but in education."
More than 750 educators, parents, policy advocates and others attended the Fall Forum, the 25th year it has been held. Participants came from 33 states, three countries and more than 200 schools. They attended three days worth of workshops and sessions that ranged from engaging parents through social media to allowing students to design their own learning experiences.
The coalition's new executive board president, George Wood, announced that the 2011 Fall Forum will be held next November in Rhode Island. Wood, executive director of The Forum for Education and Democracy, is principal at Federal Hocking High School in Ohio.
Noguera, a New York University professor and director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education, urged educators at the conference to continue to push for schools that matter for students, parents and teachers.
He suggested they should continue to push back against the forces that disparage public education and public school teachers. But he also warned against defending the status quo.
"I think we have to figure out how to respond," he said. "But we have to respond without appearing to defend the status quo. Our support can't be blanket support. It's got to be critical support. The way we've been doing business in many schools is simply not getting us the results we need as a nation."
As "critical friends," progressives in public education have to craft messages that include alternatives to the status quo, Noguera said. He said the notion of progressive education means nothing if it doesn't result in better schools for more students. Sometimes, those better schools are charter schools, he acknowledged. But because traditional public schools accept all children, they need to be our focus, he said. Not doing so will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots, he warned.
"The whole issue is what kind of country are we going to be," he said.
Before Noguera spoke, Gregory Peters of the San Francisco Coalition of Equitable Small Schools urged participants to think about what "schools that matter" means, who decides what it means and for whom is it intended. As a high school student, Peters was told he was too poor to attend college. As a college student, he was told his education didn't matter because he had not attended an elite university.
"I had heard that my education did not matter and that I did not matter," he said. "The work of education equity is urgent. We have no time to waste."
Meanwhile, Nancy Sizer told participants that her late husband, Coalition of Essential Schools founder Ted Sizer, would be gratified that his work continues to prosper. Nancy Sizer, an instructor at Harvard University and a Convener with The Forum for Education and Democracy, said her husband favored conversation and collaboration over rigid, top-down dogma.
"He never wanted a 'Sizer Plan' to be, as he would say, 'implemented,' " she said. "He called our school-reform work a conversation among friends. Even if you never met Ted Sizer, you are, each one of you, his most treasured colleague."
Showing posts with label Forum for Education and Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forum for Education and Democracy. Show all posts
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
What the NFL Draft Can Teach School Reformers
Excellent article! Makes you really think about how many gems slip through the gashing holes our current system has created. Thanks for another thoughtful piece, Sam.
-Patricia
Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy | Huffington Post
Posted: April 20, 2010
This Thursday marks the prime-time return of the NFL Draft -- an annual smorgasbord of possibility when each team fills out its roster with the best talent the college ranks have to offer.
I'm a huge football fan, so I'll be tuning in to see which players my beloved San Diego Chargers select to fill our current holes at running back and defensive tackle. I'm also a huge public education fan, so I confess that I wish the leading voices in my field -- from Arne Duncan to Michelle Rhee to Joel Klein -- would also tune in, and heed some of the most relevant lessons to be learned from the NFL.
In particular, I wish they'd pay attention to three truisms:
1. Don't Fall in Love with 40 Times - A generation ago, the draft was a low key, information-poor event. Today, it unfolds as prime-time drama in which every aspect of a player's performance -- from game tape to vertical jump to 40-yard dash times -- is intensely scrutinized and available to even the casual fan. The good news about this is that NFL teams are now data-rich when making decisions that can make or break a franchise. The bad news is that many teams lack insightfulness and use their information poorly, thus, they are just as likely to ignore the less easily quantifiable factors that make certain players great.
Case in point: Jerry Rice, the greatest wide receiver ever to play the game, was undervalued by most NFL teams coming out of college because his 40 time (4.71 seconds) was considered too slow for a receiver at the professional level. But one team, the San Francisco 49ers, paid attention to what really mattered -- how he performed in game situations, and aggressively moved up in the 1985 draft to take him. This August, he'll be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Unlike the 49ers of the 1980s, too many of today's reformers have fallen in love with the educational equivalent of a good (or bad) 40 time.
We judge a school's or a program's or a teacher's efforts based on a single, easily quantifiable measure: basic-skills test scores in reading and math. And we ignore or undervalue just about everything else.
In a previous Huffington Post column, I suggested a better way to evaluate success. But any sports fan can instantly see the illogic of the idea. After all, it's one thing to make a mistake on a single player on draft day. It's another to offer performance bonuses to every player on your team based on how fast they run during games. It would never happen. So why do we tolerate the illusion that tying teacher performance to a single measure of student success is any less foolish?
2. Know What You Don't Know - Although some NFL leaders refuse to adjust their long-held beliefs with new realities on the ground -- the Oakland Raiders' Al Davis comes to mind -- the majority of teams realize that all the data in the world can't create a foolproof system of evaluation. Take the uncomfortably high percentage of highly drafted quarterbacks who fail to become stars -- and the surprisingly high number of quarterbacks, like the New England Patriot's Tom Brady, who go on to lead Hall-of-Fame careers despite being lowly regarded out of college.
School principals face the same challenge as NFL executives. As Malcolm Gladwell has written, "There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they'll do once they're hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching."
Our current national attention on the teacher, and on teaching, is a huge development since so many of our past approaches - from evaluation to professional support to defining teacher effectiveness - have been insufficient at best. But why do some of the field's leading voices seem believe they've already figured it out? Last week, for example, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said, "We know how to do this" -- referring to systemic school reform -- moments after listing a number of examples of cities where students' 40 times - I mean test scores - had gone up.
Don't get me wrong: helping students improve their literacy and numeracy is important, just as helping NFL players run faster is important. But to cite a single metric while confidently stating you know how to do something as complex as education reform? That's a brand of hubris that's not just misguided -- it's dangerous.
3. Grow Your Own Talent -- Despite the growth of free agency, the most successful franchises develop and deepen their rosters gradually, and over time, via the draft.
Look at last year's Super Bowl champion, the New Orleans Saints. Their best player (quarterback Drew Brees) was a high-profile free agent pick up. The bulk of the remaining roster -- from Reggie Bush to Marques Colston to the anchors along the defensive line -- were homegrown draft choices who developed in the Saints system over time.
The logic behind this strategy is simple -- drafting good players and developing them yourself costs less than acquiring other teams' players at their peak. But there's another reason to build through the draft: developing players from within helps establish an organizational culture, identity, and clarity that can provide a sustainable competitive advantage.
I realize there isn't a teacher draft (although I have imagined what it would look like), but the same principle holds true for schools, which require a clear organizational identity, sustained support, and strong leadership to be successful at helping children learn. Why is it, then, that when we talk about teachers these days, it's as though there are only two types: the charismatic master teacher, or the union-protected laggard?
To be sure, both types exist, but of all the teachers in this country, I'd only attribute 5 percent or so to each category. That leaves the remaining 90 percent of our country's teachers, each of whom has the potential to slide up or down the effectiveness continuum, depending on how well -- or poorly -- s/he is evaluated, supported and challenged.
If we really want to see schools improve for the long haul, we should stop emulating the Washington Redskins -- who bring in high-profile free agents and coaches year after year, and then wonder why they can't seem to establish an organizational identity -- and start learning from the Indianapolis Colts, who have won twelve or more games each year for the past decade, and who consistently draft overachieving, undervalued players each April -- and then keep them for the duration of their careers.
To sustain success in schools the way Colts have sustained success in the NFL, we'd need to place less emphasis on scorched earth policies like firing every teacher in a school, and more on helping current and future teachers improve the quality of their professional practice. We'd need to devalue test score data and the illusion of certainty it provides. And we'd need to stop assuming we already have the answers to all of the current questions, and start figuring out how to more strategically question all of the current answers.
Now that would be an effort worthy of prime time.
-Patricia
Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy | Huffington Post
Posted: April 20, 2010
This Thursday marks the prime-time return of the NFL Draft -- an annual smorgasbord of possibility when each team fills out its roster with the best talent the college ranks have to offer.
I'm a huge football fan, so I'll be tuning in to see which players my beloved San Diego Chargers select to fill our current holes at running back and defensive tackle. I'm also a huge public education fan, so I confess that I wish the leading voices in my field -- from Arne Duncan to Michelle Rhee to Joel Klein -- would also tune in, and heed some of the most relevant lessons to be learned from the NFL.
In particular, I wish they'd pay attention to three truisms:
1. Don't Fall in Love with 40 Times - A generation ago, the draft was a low key, information-poor event. Today, it unfolds as prime-time drama in which every aspect of a player's performance -- from game tape to vertical jump to 40-yard dash times -- is intensely scrutinized and available to even the casual fan. The good news about this is that NFL teams are now data-rich when making decisions that can make or break a franchise. The bad news is that many teams lack insightfulness and use their information poorly, thus, they are just as likely to ignore the less easily quantifiable factors that make certain players great.
Case in point: Jerry Rice, the greatest wide receiver ever to play the game, was undervalued by most NFL teams coming out of college because his 40 time (4.71 seconds) was considered too slow for a receiver at the professional level. But one team, the San Francisco 49ers, paid attention to what really mattered -- how he performed in game situations, and aggressively moved up in the 1985 draft to take him. This August, he'll be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Unlike the 49ers of the 1980s, too many of today's reformers have fallen in love with the educational equivalent of a good (or bad) 40 time.
We judge a school's or a program's or a teacher's efforts based on a single, easily quantifiable measure: basic-skills test scores in reading and math. And we ignore or undervalue just about everything else.
In a previous Huffington Post column, I suggested a better way to evaluate success. But any sports fan can instantly see the illogic of the idea. After all, it's one thing to make a mistake on a single player on draft day. It's another to offer performance bonuses to every player on your team based on how fast they run during games. It would never happen. So why do we tolerate the illusion that tying teacher performance to a single measure of student success is any less foolish?
2. Know What You Don't Know - Although some NFL leaders refuse to adjust their long-held beliefs with new realities on the ground -- the Oakland Raiders' Al Davis comes to mind -- the majority of teams realize that all the data in the world can't create a foolproof system of evaluation. Take the uncomfortably high percentage of highly drafted quarterbacks who fail to become stars -- and the surprisingly high number of quarterbacks, like the New England Patriot's Tom Brady, who go on to lead Hall-of-Fame careers despite being lowly regarded out of college.
School principals face the same challenge as NFL executives. As Malcolm Gladwell has written, "There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they'll do once they're hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching."
Our current national attention on the teacher, and on teaching, is a huge development since so many of our past approaches - from evaluation to professional support to defining teacher effectiveness - have been insufficient at best. But why do some of the field's leading voices seem believe they've already figured it out? Last week, for example, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said, "We know how to do this" -- referring to systemic school reform -- moments after listing a number of examples of cities where students' 40 times - I mean test scores - had gone up.
Don't get me wrong: helping students improve their literacy and numeracy is important, just as helping NFL players run faster is important. But to cite a single metric while confidently stating you know how to do something as complex as education reform? That's a brand of hubris that's not just misguided -- it's dangerous.
3. Grow Your Own Talent -- Despite the growth of free agency, the most successful franchises develop and deepen their rosters gradually, and over time, via the draft.
Look at last year's Super Bowl champion, the New Orleans Saints. Their best player (quarterback Drew Brees) was a high-profile free agent pick up. The bulk of the remaining roster -- from Reggie Bush to Marques Colston to the anchors along the defensive line -- were homegrown draft choices who developed in the Saints system over time.
The logic behind this strategy is simple -- drafting good players and developing them yourself costs less than acquiring other teams' players at their peak. But there's another reason to build through the draft: developing players from within helps establish an organizational culture, identity, and clarity that can provide a sustainable competitive advantage.
I realize there isn't a teacher draft (although I have imagined what it would look like), but the same principle holds true for schools, which require a clear organizational identity, sustained support, and strong leadership to be successful at helping children learn. Why is it, then, that when we talk about teachers these days, it's as though there are only two types: the charismatic master teacher, or the union-protected laggard?
To be sure, both types exist, but of all the teachers in this country, I'd only attribute 5 percent or so to each category. That leaves the remaining 90 percent of our country's teachers, each of whom has the potential to slide up or down the effectiveness continuum, depending on how well -- or poorly -- s/he is evaluated, supported and challenged.
If we really want to see schools improve for the long haul, we should stop emulating the Washington Redskins -- who bring in high-profile free agents and coaches year after year, and then wonder why they can't seem to establish an organizational identity -- and start learning from the Indianapolis Colts, who have won twelve or more games each year for the past decade, and who consistently draft overachieving, undervalued players each April -- and then keep them for the duration of their careers.
To sustain success in schools the way Colts have sustained success in the NFL, we'd need to place less emphasis on scorched earth policies like firing every teacher in a school, and more on helping current and future teachers improve the quality of their professional practice. We'd need to devalue test score data and the illusion of certainty it provides. And we'd need to stop assuming we already have the answers to all of the current questions, and start figuring out how to more strategically question all of the current answers.
Now that would be an effort worthy of prime time.
Privatization or Public-ization?
This is a great piece by Sam. Don't forget to pick up his book "American Schools: The Art of Creating a Democratic Learning Community"
-Patricia
Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy | Huffington Post
April 7, 2010
There's a lot of talk these days about the growing support for a privatization of America's public school system, and what it augurs over the long haul.
Typically, that's as far as the conversation gets before breaking down into myopic talking points that force people to pledge allegiance to one of two camps: these days you're either pro or anti-charter, pro or anti-union, or -- the most insulting -- pro-adult or pro-kid.
I can't predict how it's all going to play out, but I can see that these binary frames are misleading distractions that work great as sound bites, and prevent us from addressing the primary challenges we face as a nation. I can also suggest an illustrative tale worth paying attention to, on from the other side of the globe where the exact opposite push -- a public-ization of the school system -- is taking place.
The place is Australia, where I recently spent a week as the guest of an organization called the Foundation for Young Australians (FYA), and where, as FYA Research Director Lucas Walsh put it, "the promise of public education as a democratic project remains unfulfilled." As Walsh explained, "Across schooling in Australia students are increasingly segregated on the basis of educational achievement and family economic and cultural assets. Governance and funding are inconsistent, fragmented, and inhibited by policy scope that is limited through short-term political convenience."
Sound familiar? Yet Australia's school system differs mightily from ours in one major way: nearly one-third of its students attend private schools, which, remarkably, are eligible for public dollars.
The result of this system? A lionization of the individual right to choose which school your child will attend - alongside a deepening societal chasm between the haves and the have-nots; a rate of investment in private schools that is three times that of public schools -- alongside a disproportionate number of low-income and Aboriginal children who remain in the underfunded public option; and an ongoing celebration of the Australian notion that everyone deserves a fair go -- alongside the gradual development of a two-tiered, publicly funded education system that a growing number of educators and families refer to as "de facto apartheid."
In response, FYA and others are trying to engender a renewed commitment to the public-ization of Australia's school system. New funding formulas are being proposed, new efforts are underway to make financial and school performance data more transparent and readily available, and new campaigns are being launched to re-prioritize the unique role public schools play in a democratic society. As FYA Board member Ellen Koshland puts it, "More than ever, we need a whole of community commitment to education if Australia is going to lift its game internationally and prepare all of its wonderful young people for success in an uncertain future. The structure of government can either aid this or continue to inhibit it."
It was with these ideas and challenges in mind that I returned from Australia to the States, and re-entered the current climate in which we celebrate the limitless promise of charter schools -- schools that are released from bureaucratic regulation in order to experiment and innovate to find new ways to educate children -- while ignoring the limited opportunities for innovation that exist throughout the rest of the public education system. And I re-entered a climate where the current push is to use federal policy to pit schools and states against one another in a competitive contest that identifies a small number of winners, instead of mandating that all federal funding come with a requirement that any public school (charter or otherwise) share its most promising practices with an eye towards improving the entire system.
In this atmosphere, it's almost heresy to suggest that there's anything wrong with the three C's; charters, choice and competition. But before you categorize me too quickly (Is he a reformer or a status-quo-er? Is he for or against choice?), let me be clear: I love the fact that the charter movement has created new space for innovation, experimentation, and increased choices for low-income families. I love the fact that the Obama administration has stated unequivocally that a high quality public education is a civil right. And I love the fact that we now pay attention to the achievement gap between groups of students that was previously hidden in state and district reports.
I also worry about our refusal to ask some tough questions: How do we create space for innovation without unintentionally creating a two-tiered system of schooling that may serve more children, but still leaves too many behind? If authority becomes more and more centralized - via mayoral control, private management of schools, and the eradication of school boards, how will we ensure that families and community members are engaged, valued, and involved in meaningful decision-making? And what do we need to do now, so we don't find ourselves, a generation out, wondering how to reclaim the public purpose of public education?
Look to our friends Down Under to get a sense of what might happen if those questions remain unasked.
-Patricia
Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy | Huffington Post
April 7, 2010
There's a lot of talk these days about the growing support for a privatization of America's public school system, and what it augurs over the long haul.
Typically, that's as far as the conversation gets before breaking down into myopic talking points that force people to pledge allegiance to one of two camps: these days you're either pro or anti-charter, pro or anti-union, or -- the most insulting -- pro-adult or pro-kid.
I can't predict how it's all going to play out, but I can see that these binary frames are misleading distractions that work great as sound bites, and prevent us from addressing the primary challenges we face as a nation. I can also suggest an illustrative tale worth paying attention to, on from the other side of the globe where the exact opposite push -- a public-ization of the school system -- is taking place.
The place is Australia, where I recently spent a week as the guest of an organization called the Foundation for Young Australians (FYA), and where, as FYA Research Director Lucas Walsh put it, "the promise of public education as a democratic project remains unfulfilled." As Walsh explained, "Across schooling in Australia students are increasingly segregated on the basis of educational achievement and family economic and cultural assets. Governance and funding are inconsistent, fragmented, and inhibited by policy scope that is limited through short-term political convenience."
Sound familiar? Yet Australia's school system differs mightily from ours in one major way: nearly one-third of its students attend private schools, which, remarkably, are eligible for public dollars.
The result of this system? A lionization of the individual right to choose which school your child will attend - alongside a deepening societal chasm between the haves and the have-nots; a rate of investment in private schools that is three times that of public schools -- alongside a disproportionate number of low-income and Aboriginal children who remain in the underfunded public option; and an ongoing celebration of the Australian notion that everyone deserves a fair go -- alongside the gradual development of a two-tiered, publicly funded education system that a growing number of educators and families refer to as "de facto apartheid."
In response, FYA and others are trying to engender a renewed commitment to the public-ization of Australia's school system. New funding formulas are being proposed, new efforts are underway to make financial and school performance data more transparent and readily available, and new campaigns are being launched to re-prioritize the unique role public schools play in a democratic society. As FYA Board member Ellen Koshland puts it, "More than ever, we need a whole of community commitment to education if Australia is going to lift its game internationally and prepare all of its wonderful young people for success in an uncertain future. The structure of government can either aid this or continue to inhibit it."
It was with these ideas and challenges in mind that I returned from Australia to the States, and re-entered the current climate in which we celebrate the limitless promise of charter schools -- schools that are released from bureaucratic regulation in order to experiment and innovate to find new ways to educate children -- while ignoring the limited opportunities for innovation that exist throughout the rest of the public education system. And I re-entered a climate where the current push is to use federal policy to pit schools and states against one another in a competitive contest that identifies a small number of winners, instead of mandating that all federal funding come with a requirement that any public school (charter or otherwise) share its most promising practices with an eye towards improving the entire system.
In this atmosphere, it's almost heresy to suggest that there's anything wrong with the three C's; charters, choice and competition. But before you categorize me too quickly (Is he a reformer or a status-quo-er? Is he for or against choice?), let me be clear: I love the fact that the charter movement has created new space for innovation, experimentation, and increased choices for low-income families. I love the fact that the Obama administration has stated unequivocally that a high quality public education is a civil right. And I love the fact that we now pay attention to the achievement gap between groups of students that was previously hidden in state and district reports.
I also worry about our refusal to ask some tough questions: How do we create space for innovation without unintentionally creating a two-tiered system of schooling that may serve more children, but still leaves too many behind? If authority becomes more and more centralized - via mayoral control, private management of schools, and the eradication of school boards, how will we ensure that families and community members are engaged, valued, and involved in meaningful decision-making? And what do we need to do now, so we don't find ourselves, a generation out, wondering how to reclaim the public purpose of public education?
Look to our friends Down Under to get a sense of what might happen if those questions remain unasked.
Friday, February 05, 2010
The Big Picture on School Performance
This is a great piece by Sam. I would encourage you all to read his latest book: American Schools: The Art of Creating a Democratic Learning Community. Here's a short review and commentary from Kenneth Bernstein.
Also, check out the work being done by the Forum for Education and Democracy in general -- included are videos of their recent capitol briefings; one of which includes our own, Dr. Angela Valenzuela.
-Patricia
Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy
Huffington Post
February 3, 2010
On Feb. 1, President Obama vowed to toss out the nation's current school accountability system and replace it with a more balanced scorecard of school performance that looks at student growth and school progress.
I love the idea. Mr. Obama and education secretary Arne Duncan have repeatedly criticized the No Child Left Behind Act for keeping the "goals loose but the steps tight." On their watch, both men aspire to introduce a new law that keeps the "goals tight but the steps loose."
With that more flexible standard in mind, I have a scorecard to propose: the ABC's of School Success. It provides both structure and freedom by identifying five universal measurement categories -- Achievement, Balance, Climate, Democratic Practices and Equity -- and letting individual schools chose which data points to track under each category.
1. ACHIEVEMENT
If there is a bottom line in schools today, it's that educators must do whatever it takes to help close the achievement gap and improve student learning. To do so effectively and fully, schools must expand their measures for determining student achievement. After all, "achievement" isn't only about student test scores; it's also about other factors. The following are all critical to achievement:
• Teachers and administrators are skilled in their use of data to improve student learning and engagement.
• The school has identified aspirational "habits of mind and being" for students, and adopted assessment measures to track student development of these habits over time.
• The school uses assessments that require students to conduct research and scientific investigations, solve complex real-world problems in mathematics, and defend their ideas orally and in writing.
• The school provides learning support programs that address individual student needs and ensure that all students succeed.
• The school has developed a curriculum that is challenging, experiential, accessible, well-rounded, and relevant to a diverse student population.
If each school identified between three and 10 different data points (including, but not limited to, test scores) to assess their overall learning environment, we might start to see "achievement" as a broader set of measures, and evaluate the full extent to which we are supporting the young people we serve.
2. BALANCE
We all seek balance in our lives. The search for it is a fundamental part of the human condition. Imagine how much more enjoyable -- and effective -- our schools would be if we assessed them, in part, through this prism?
As part of its Whole Child Initiative, ASCD promotes the development of children who are healthy, safe, engaged, supported and challenged. Additionally, I would urge schools to consider the extent to which:
• Students have sufficient opportunities for enrichment activities like dance, art, physical education, etc.
• Effective vehicles are in place to help the school routinely communicate with its parents and the larger community.
• Effective vehicles are in place to help parents and the larger community routinely communicate with the school.
• Teachers from different disciplines communicate with, work together and support each other's professional practice on a regular basis.
• Teachers, on average, spend no more than 20 percent of their time providing lecture-driven instruction.
• Teachers incorporate both formative (instructional) and summative (evaluative) assessments into their evaluations of student progress.
• Teachers routinely solicit, listen to, reflect upon, and integrate student feedback into their work.
The measures in this category would probably lean heavily on attitudinal surveys, although other existing data points could be useful as well, such as staff absenteeism rates (healthy schools have high faculty attendance), time in the schedule allocated for faculty planning time, etc. The point is not to dictate the individual measures, but to observe what schools discover as they start to experiment with the scorecard.
3. CLIMATE
"For almost a hundred years," explains Jonathan Cohen, director of the Center for Social & Emotional Education (CSEE), "educators have appreciated the importance of school climate -- the quality or character of school life. We can all remember childhood moments when we felt particularly safe (or unsafe) in school, when we felt particularly connected to a caring adult (or frighteningly alone), when we felt particularly engaged in meaningful learning (or not). However, school climate is larger than any one person's experience. When people work together, a group process emerges that is bigger than any one person's actions."
Clearly, a school's overall climate is an essential indicator of its overall health. So let's start insisting that all schools measure it. One possibility would be to use the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (CSCI), a research-based needs assessment that provides immediate feedback on how students, parents and school personnel perceive their school's overall environment for learning. Other useful measures would clearly emerge over time as well. And then in this and the other categories, an ongoing role of the federal government would be to share insights about measurement and the use of the scorecard across states and communities, so information could be funneled back throughout the system and create a reciprocal flow of information that improves the quality of all schools.
4. DEMOCRATIC PRACTICES
In a school setting, cultivating democratic practices doesn't mean turning the asylum over to the inmates. To create a climate where people feel both empowered and protected, you don't start by just telling everyone that they're free. You do, however, make helping people learn how to exercise freedom responsibly a foundational goal.
Before that vision can become a reality, we must encourage educators to ensure that the central elements of our social covenant are also in place in our schools: a clear sense of structure and shared identity on one hand, and an unwavering commitment to individual freedom on the other.
To help create such environments, we should gauge the extent to which our schools are equipping young people with the understanding, motivation and skills they need to become active, visible contributors to the common good.
Schools can do so by measuring the extent to which:
• Administrators have established structures and/or accorded meaningful roles in decision-making to students, parents, staff and community members.
• Students are routinely encouraged throughout the curriculum to agree and disagree honestly and respectfully.
• The school encourages people to model democratic principles, practices and policies in their daily work and interactions with others.
• The school's mission statement clearly addresses the democratic purposes of education.
• The community is committed to ensuring that religious liberty rights are protected for persons of all faiths and none.
• Students understand how to participate in the political process and institutions that shape public policy.
• Students take public action on personally meaningful issues and concerns.
Some may say this issue is not worthy of its own category. And yet our public school system is the only institution we have that is guaranteed to reach 90 percent of every succeeding generation, that is governed by public authority, and that was founded with the explicit mission of preparing young people to be active and responsible citizens in a democracy. Isn't it time we started evaluating the extent to which our schools are fulfilling their civic mission?
5. EQUITY
To ensure greater equity - by which I mean reducing the predictive value sociocultural and economic characteristics have on student achievement - we must improve the performance of our public schools and strengthen the effectiveness of our civic activism at the same time.
These challenges are interdependent, and will remain so. Indeed, the poorest and least fortunate in our country are not just the least likely to succeed academically -- they are also the most disenfranchised from our political process.
Therefore, to measure their commitment to equity (of resources and opportunity), school leaders should consider tracking the extent to which:
• The aspirations, strengths and weaknesses of each student are known by at least one member of the school staff.
• The school actively collaborates with its students' families as partners in the students' education.
• The school's pupil nondiscrimination policies and complaint procedures are comprehensive and effective.
• Staff and students are aware of these policies and complaint procedures and act in accordance with them.
• Teachers know and can use a rich variety of strategies to identify and accommodate individual learning styles and strengthen each student's ability to learn in diverse ways.
• The school provides its students with equal access to well-qualified teachers; strong curriculum opportunities; books, materials, and equipment (including science labs and computers); and adequate facilities.
• The school believes passionately in empowering students, families and community members to be contributing participants in their education, their community and the diverse society in which we live.
Fifty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education captured the most hopeful strains of the American narrative: working within a system of laws to extend the promise of freedom, more fairly and fully, to each succeeding generation. "In the field of public education," the unanimous Court wrote, "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place," and the opportunity to learn "is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."
I believe President Obama is sincerely committed to fulfilling the decades-old promise of the Brown decision. He can't do anything, however, until we as a nation invest in a clear, flexible and balanced system for evaluating and improving our nation's schools.
I think this scorecard would be a great place to start. What do you think?
Also, check out the work being done by the Forum for Education and Democracy in general -- included are videos of their recent capitol briefings; one of which includes our own, Dr. Angela Valenzuela.
-Patricia
Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education and Democracy
Huffington Post
February 3, 2010
On Feb. 1, President Obama vowed to toss out the nation's current school accountability system and replace it with a more balanced scorecard of school performance that looks at student growth and school progress.
I love the idea. Mr. Obama and education secretary Arne Duncan have repeatedly criticized the No Child Left Behind Act for keeping the "goals loose but the steps tight." On their watch, both men aspire to introduce a new law that keeps the "goals tight but the steps loose."
With that more flexible standard in mind, I have a scorecard to propose: the ABC's of School Success. It provides both structure and freedom by identifying five universal measurement categories -- Achievement, Balance, Climate, Democratic Practices and Equity -- and letting individual schools chose which data points to track under each category.
1. ACHIEVEMENT
If there is a bottom line in schools today, it's that educators must do whatever it takes to help close the achievement gap and improve student learning. To do so effectively and fully, schools must expand their measures for determining student achievement. After all, "achievement" isn't only about student test scores; it's also about other factors. The following are all critical to achievement:
• Teachers and administrators are skilled in their use of data to improve student learning and engagement.
• The school has identified aspirational "habits of mind and being" for students, and adopted assessment measures to track student development of these habits over time.
• The school uses assessments that require students to conduct research and scientific investigations, solve complex real-world problems in mathematics, and defend their ideas orally and in writing.
• The school provides learning support programs that address individual student needs and ensure that all students succeed.
• The school has developed a curriculum that is challenging, experiential, accessible, well-rounded, and relevant to a diverse student population.
If each school identified between three and 10 different data points (including, but not limited to, test scores) to assess their overall learning environment, we might start to see "achievement" as a broader set of measures, and evaluate the full extent to which we are supporting the young people we serve.
2. BALANCE
We all seek balance in our lives. The search for it is a fundamental part of the human condition. Imagine how much more enjoyable -- and effective -- our schools would be if we assessed them, in part, through this prism?
As part of its Whole Child Initiative, ASCD promotes the development of children who are healthy, safe, engaged, supported and challenged. Additionally, I would urge schools to consider the extent to which:
• Students have sufficient opportunities for enrichment activities like dance, art, physical education, etc.
• Effective vehicles are in place to help the school routinely communicate with its parents and the larger community.
• Effective vehicles are in place to help parents and the larger community routinely communicate with the school.
• Teachers from different disciplines communicate with, work together and support each other's professional practice on a regular basis.
• Teachers, on average, spend no more than 20 percent of their time providing lecture-driven instruction.
• Teachers incorporate both formative (instructional) and summative (evaluative) assessments into their evaluations of student progress.
• Teachers routinely solicit, listen to, reflect upon, and integrate student feedback into their work.
The measures in this category would probably lean heavily on attitudinal surveys, although other existing data points could be useful as well, such as staff absenteeism rates (healthy schools have high faculty attendance), time in the schedule allocated for faculty planning time, etc. The point is not to dictate the individual measures, but to observe what schools discover as they start to experiment with the scorecard.
3. CLIMATE
"For almost a hundred years," explains Jonathan Cohen, director of the Center for Social & Emotional Education (CSEE), "educators have appreciated the importance of school climate -- the quality or character of school life. We can all remember childhood moments when we felt particularly safe (or unsafe) in school, when we felt particularly connected to a caring adult (or frighteningly alone), when we felt particularly engaged in meaningful learning (or not). However, school climate is larger than any one person's experience. When people work together, a group process emerges that is bigger than any one person's actions."
Clearly, a school's overall climate is an essential indicator of its overall health. So let's start insisting that all schools measure it. One possibility would be to use the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (CSCI), a research-based needs assessment that provides immediate feedback on how students, parents and school personnel perceive their school's overall environment for learning. Other useful measures would clearly emerge over time as well. And then in this and the other categories, an ongoing role of the federal government would be to share insights about measurement and the use of the scorecard across states and communities, so information could be funneled back throughout the system and create a reciprocal flow of information that improves the quality of all schools.
4. DEMOCRATIC PRACTICES
In a school setting, cultivating democratic practices doesn't mean turning the asylum over to the inmates. To create a climate where people feel both empowered and protected, you don't start by just telling everyone that they're free. You do, however, make helping people learn how to exercise freedom responsibly a foundational goal.
Before that vision can become a reality, we must encourage educators to ensure that the central elements of our social covenant are also in place in our schools: a clear sense of structure and shared identity on one hand, and an unwavering commitment to individual freedom on the other.
To help create such environments, we should gauge the extent to which our schools are equipping young people with the understanding, motivation and skills they need to become active, visible contributors to the common good.
Schools can do so by measuring the extent to which:
• Administrators have established structures and/or accorded meaningful roles in decision-making to students, parents, staff and community members.
• Students are routinely encouraged throughout the curriculum to agree and disagree honestly and respectfully.
• The school encourages people to model democratic principles, practices and policies in their daily work and interactions with others.
• The school's mission statement clearly addresses the democratic purposes of education.
• The community is committed to ensuring that religious liberty rights are protected for persons of all faiths and none.
• Students understand how to participate in the political process and institutions that shape public policy.
• Students take public action on personally meaningful issues and concerns.
Some may say this issue is not worthy of its own category. And yet our public school system is the only institution we have that is guaranteed to reach 90 percent of every succeeding generation, that is governed by public authority, and that was founded with the explicit mission of preparing young people to be active and responsible citizens in a democracy. Isn't it time we started evaluating the extent to which our schools are fulfilling their civic mission?
5. EQUITY
To ensure greater equity - by which I mean reducing the predictive value sociocultural and economic characteristics have on student achievement - we must improve the performance of our public schools and strengthen the effectiveness of our civic activism at the same time.
These challenges are interdependent, and will remain so. Indeed, the poorest and least fortunate in our country are not just the least likely to succeed academically -- they are also the most disenfranchised from our political process.
Therefore, to measure their commitment to equity (of resources and opportunity), school leaders should consider tracking the extent to which:
• The aspirations, strengths and weaknesses of each student are known by at least one member of the school staff.
• The school actively collaborates with its students' families as partners in the students' education.
• The school's pupil nondiscrimination policies and complaint procedures are comprehensive and effective.
• Staff and students are aware of these policies and complaint procedures and act in accordance with them.
• Teachers know and can use a rich variety of strategies to identify and accommodate individual learning styles and strengthen each student's ability to learn in diverse ways.
• The school provides its students with equal access to well-qualified teachers; strong curriculum opportunities; books, materials, and equipment (including science labs and computers); and adequate facilities.
• The school believes passionately in empowering students, families and community members to be contributing participants in their education, their community and the diverse society in which we live.
Fifty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education captured the most hopeful strains of the American narrative: working within a system of laws to extend the promise of freedom, more fairly and fully, to each succeeding generation. "In the field of public education," the unanimous Court wrote, "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place," and the opportunity to learn "is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."
I believe President Obama is sincerely committed to fulfilling the decades-old promise of the Brown decision. He can't do anything, however, until we as a nation invest in a clear, flexible and balanced system for evaluating and improving our nation's schools.
I think this scorecard would be a great place to start. What do you think?
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Hold On, ESEA Reauth is Coming
Nice short summary of recent developments in the reauthorization of NCLB from the EduFlack blog.
Here's the link to stay on top of the great work being done by Sam and the members of the Forum for Education and Democracy as well as the link to The Forum's Statement on ESEA Reauthorization mentioned below.
-Patricia
Likely one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, DC, the U.S. Department of Education is now hard at work on draft language for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. EdSec Arne Duncan started the ball bouncing last week, bringing together the education blob to talk about his reauth priorities, including increasing funding for key NCLB components, taking some of the nastiness out of the current law, and codifying some of the policies that have been moved forward under the stimulus package.
As Eduflack has heard from many folks this week, the plan is to introduce ESEA reauthorization in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in January 2010. The goal will be final passage of the federal ed law before the Memorial Day recess. House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) will likely serve as the lead dog moving the bill through Congress in Q1 of next year.
Why is this significant? For months now, those opposed to NCLB have been wishing, hoping, and projecting that reauthorization wouldn't move until 2011. They offered up a host of reasons for this misguided belief, most of which aren't worthy of dissection here. The simple fact is that NCLB opponents need reauthorization to be put off until 2011 because they simply aren't ready to fight the good fight on federal ed policy in a few months. The "loyal opposition" is not gathered around a few key points. They haven't adopted a common language of change. They don't necessarily have reccs on how to improve the law to meet their needs. They know they don't like NCLB, and likely won't like NCLB 2.0. They know what they are opposed to, but don't necessarily know what to stand for ... at least not yet.
Most presume that the new ESEA will not be a major change from the current law. The new bill will still emphasize accountability and student achievement, but will provide greater flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to achieve it. The stick of AYP will be whittled down to a nub before all is said and done. Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) will be redefined, focusing on the effective teachers emphasized in Race to the Top and de-emphasizing the checklist of what is needed simply to enter a classroom. New Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will ensure that special education, RtI, and IDEA will get greater attention than in the previous iteration. Charter schools will continue to remain strong. Teacher incentives will see increased funding. And we may even see Reading First transformed from an elementary grades program to a more comprehensive effort focused on middle and secondary students. While the law will most likely be bucketed around the priorities of standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround, the details will be a reorganization of NCLB components, not a reinvention.
When the EdSec outlined these priorities (and emphasized the need for equity in public education) his remarks were well-received in most corners of the education community. The strongest voice of opposition came from the Forum for Education and Democracy, who took Duncan to task for seeking to narrow the curriculum, lacking details on real teacher quality, and staying true to current accountability provisions. The comments from Forum head Sam Chaltain were even distributed under the header, "you can't just invoke MLK, Jr. - you have to really address fairness and equity." So it is clear where they shake out with regard to the future of ESEA. And at the end of the day, the Forum speaks for more than itself (at least in terms of philosophy).
National Education Association's strong response to the draft Race to the Top RFP guidance still serves as the best primer for those who want to make significant change to ESEA, particularly if they want to move the law back to where it stood in the 1990s. In fact, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel upped the ante yesterday when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he called for a better distribution of exemplary teachers in struggling schools (with additional pay for such moves likely to be the second shoe to drop in his noble pursuits).
Barring the completely unforeseen, Chairman Miller is going to get this reauthorization through before this time next year. And if I were taking bets, the current line is that the draft legislation dropped in January is going to be pretty darned close to the final that will be passed (with some additional dollars thrown into the mix for some to swallow the policy priorities). If folks think they are truly going to influence ESEA and shape federal education policy for the next decade, now is the time to act. Now is the time to have voices heard at ED and on the Hill about priorities and lines in the sand. Now is the time to make clear what support or opposition will be based on. Now is the time to form those alliances and determine what the truly make-or-break issues may be.
ESEA reauthorization is going to be a fast-tracked affair. The first five months of 2010 are going to be spent winning folks over to the proposed law, not looking for alterations, changes, and overhauls to months of work at ED and in Chairman Miller's office. Those waiting to engage after the draft legislation is introduced will likely miss the show before the curtain is even raised.
Here's the link to stay on top of the great work being done by Sam and the members of the Forum for Education and Democracy as well as the link to The Forum's Statement on ESEA Reauthorization mentioned below.
-Patricia
Likely one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, DC, the U.S. Department of Education is now hard at work on draft language for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. EdSec Arne Duncan started the ball bouncing last week, bringing together the education blob to talk about his reauth priorities, including increasing funding for key NCLB components, taking some of the nastiness out of the current law, and codifying some of the policies that have been moved forward under the stimulus package.
As Eduflack has heard from many folks this week, the plan is to introduce ESEA reauthorization in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in January 2010. The goal will be final passage of the federal ed law before the Memorial Day recess. House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) will likely serve as the lead dog moving the bill through Congress in Q1 of next year.
Why is this significant? For months now, those opposed to NCLB have been wishing, hoping, and projecting that reauthorization wouldn't move until 2011. They offered up a host of reasons for this misguided belief, most of which aren't worthy of dissection here. The simple fact is that NCLB opponents need reauthorization to be put off until 2011 because they simply aren't ready to fight the good fight on federal ed policy in a few months. The "loyal opposition" is not gathered around a few key points. They haven't adopted a common language of change. They don't necessarily have reccs on how to improve the law to meet their needs. They know they don't like NCLB, and likely won't like NCLB 2.0. They know what they are opposed to, but don't necessarily know what to stand for ... at least not yet.
Most presume that the new ESEA will not be a major change from the current law. The new bill will still emphasize accountability and student achievement, but will provide greater flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to achieve it. The stick of AYP will be whittled down to a nub before all is said and done. Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) will be redefined, focusing on the effective teachers emphasized in Race to the Top and de-emphasizing the checklist of what is needed simply to enter a classroom. New Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will ensure that special education, RtI, and IDEA will get greater attention than in the previous iteration. Charter schools will continue to remain strong. Teacher incentives will see increased funding. And we may even see Reading First transformed from an elementary grades program to a more comprehensive effort focused on middle and secondary students. While the law will most likely be bucketed around the priorities of standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround, the details will be a reorganization of NCLB components, not a reinvention.
When the EdSec outlined these priorities (and emphasized the need for equity in public education) his remarks were well-received in most corners of the education community. The strongest voice of opposition came from the Forum for Education and Democracy, who took Duncan to task for seeking to narrow the curriculum, lacking details on real teacher quality, and staying true to current accountability provisions. The comments from Forum head Sam Chaltain were even distributed under the header, "you can't just invoke MLK, Jr. - you have to really address fairness and equity." So it is clear where they shake out with regard to the future of ESEA. And at the end of the day, the Forum speaks for more than itself (at least in terms of philosophy).
National Education Association's strong response to the draft Race to the Top RFP guidance still serves as the best primer for those who want to make significant change to ESEA, particularly if they want to move the law back to where it stood in the 1990s. In fact, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel upped the ante yesterday when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he called for a better distribution of exemplary teachers in struggling schools (with additional pay for such moves likely to be the second shoe to drop in his noble pursuits).
Barring the completely unforeseen, Chairman Miller is going to get this reauthorization through before this time next year. And if I were taking bets, the current line is that the draft legislation dropped in January is going to be pretty darned close to the final that will be passed (with some additional dollars thrown into the mix for some to swallow the policy priorities). If folks think they are truly going to influence ESEA and shape federal education policy for the next decade, now is the time to act. Now is the time to have voices heard at ED and on the Hill about priorities and lines in the sand. Now is the time to make clear what support or opposition will be based on. Now is the time to form those alliances and determine what the truly make-or-break issues may be.
ESEA reauthorization is going to be a fast-tracked affair. The first five months of 2010 are going to be spent winning folks over to the proposed law, not looking for alterations, changes, and overhauls to months of work at ED and in Chairman Miller's office. Those waiting to engage after the draft legislation is introduced will likely miss the show before the curtain is even raised.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
New campaign questions reliance on testing
Great work, Sam!
-Patricia
USA Today
9/8/2009
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — If public schools were baseball teams, says Sam Chaltain, Americans wouldn't have a clue who should be in the playoffs.
That's because our current rating system relies heavily on a single set of test scores for nearly 50 million students, showing how a sample of them perform on a one-day math or reading test each spring.
Sam Chaltain of the Forum for Education & Democracy says that "testing is overvalued."
To Chaltain, director of the Washington-based think tank Forum for Education & Democracy, that's like picking playoff teams based on one game's box score.
As Congress gears up to reauthorize No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the 2002 law that spells out how federal, state and local governments rate schools and spend billions of dollars, Chaltain is leading a new and unlikely campaign to shift the USA's education conversation away from one-day tests and toward a larger one, focused on "powerful learning and highly effective teaching."
The forum, along with a handful of education and civil rights groups, launches an online campaign today, asking Americans to write in with personal stories about how and when they got excited about learning — did a teacher get you interested in dinosaurs when you were 9? In politics when you were in middle school? The forum will present it to lawmakers as they rewrite the law.
In its current incarnation, NCLB, which uses the tests to prod improved achievement of low-income and minority students, requires virtually all students in grades 3 through 8 (and one grade in high school) to take annual, state-approved math and reading tests. Based on the percentage of students who score "proficient" or higher, schools get ratings that affect how they can spend federal dollars and whether teachers and administrators keep their jobs. Other factors, such as attendance and graduation rates, matter to a lesser degree.
The new effort aims to change the focus of the reauthorized law.
"We're not saying that testing is bad," Chaltain says. "We're just saying that testing is overvalued."
Chaltain, 39, an author and former teacher who spent five years with the Freedom Forum, a non-profit free-press foundation, says he wants to create "a true marketplace of ideas" open to thinkers of all persuasions.
The group is already talking to lawmakers about research-based revisions to NCLB that shift the focus away from testing toward longer-term measures of learning.
"Most countries around the world do this already," he says. "We're one of the dinosaurs."
ARNE DUNCAN'S STORY
A new campaign will collect personal stories of "powerful learning." Here's an excerpt from a story submitted by U.S Secretary of Education Arne Duncan about his mother's after-school program:
"Everyone was challenged to do their best, every single day. … Everybody was teaching and learning. Ten-year-olds taught five-year-olds, and fifteen-year-olds taught ten-year-olds. You were expected to continue to learn and improve, but you also were expected to help others."
The campaign's website is RethinkLearningNow.com.
-Patricia
USA Today
9/8/2009
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — If public schools were baseball teams, says Sam Chaltain, Americans wouldn't have a clue who should be in the playoffs.
That's because our current rating system relies heavily on a single set of test scores for nearly 50 million students, showing how a sample of them perform on a one-day math or reading test each spring.
Sam Chaltain of the Forum for Education & Democracy says that "testing is overvalued."
To Chaltain, director of the Washington-based think tank Forum for Education & Democracy, that's like picking playoff teams based on one game's box score.
As Congress gears up to reauthorize No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the 2002 law that spells out how federal, state and local governments rate schools and spend billions of dollars, Chaltain is leading a new and unlikely campaign to shift the USA's education conversation away from one-day tests and toward a larger one, focused on "powerful learning and highly effective teaching."
The forum, along with a handful of education and civil rights groups, launches an online campaign today, asking Americans to write in with personal stories about how and when they got excited about learning — did a teacher get you interested in dinosaurs when you were 9? In politics when you were in middle school? The forum will present it to lawmakers as they rewrite the law.
In its current incarnation, NCLB, which uses the tests to prod improved achievement of low-income and minority students, requires virtually all students in grades 3 through 8 (and one grade in high school) to take annual, state-approved math and reading tests. Based on the percentage of students who score "proficient" or higher, schools get ratings that affect how they can spend federal dollars and whether teachers and administrators keep their jobs. Other factors, such as attendance and graduation rates, matter to a lesser degree.
The new effort aims to change the focus of the reauthorized law.
"We're not saying that testing is bad," Chaltain says. "We're just saying that testing is overvalued."
Chaltain, 39, an author and former teacher who spent five years with the Freedom Forum, a non-profit free-press foundation, says he wants to create "a true marketplace of ideas" open to thinkers of all persuasions.
The group is already talking to lawmakers about research-based revisions to NCLB that shift the focus away from testing toward longer-term measures of learning.
"Most countries around the world do this already," he says. "We're one of the dinosaurs."
ARNE DUNCAN'S STORY
A new campaign will collect personal stories of "powerful learning." Here's an excerpt from a story submitted by U.S Secretary of Education Arne Duncan about his mother's after-school program:
"Everyone was challenged to do their best, every single day. … Everybody was teaching and learning. Ten-year-olds taught five-year-olds, and fifteen-year-olds taught ten-year-olds. You were expected to continue to learn and improve, but you also were expected to help others."
The campaign's website is RethinkLearningNow.com.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Forum for Educ. and Democracy: Democracy at Risk
I somehow forgot to get the news out on this report by the Forum for Education and Democracy to which I belong.
Here's a link to the press release (also see below).
To read the full report, go to: http://www.forumforeducation.org/upload_files/files/pressrelease.pdf. A recording of the April 23rd press conference at the National Press Club is available here.
Portions of the event are available as video on John Merrow's site.
Democracy at Risk
Press Release Contact: Robert Johnston (202) 955-9450 rjohnston@communicationworks.com
Beth Glenn (202) 372-7684 bglenn@forumforeducation.org
EMBARGOED UNTIL APRIL 23, 2008, 9:00 a.m. EST
Calling Federal Role in Education “Inconsistent and Shortsighted,”
Education Innovators Propose Alternative Agenda
Report Urges Nation to Pay off Education Debt, Introduce Marshall Plan
For Teachers, and Invigorate Research and Community Involvement
WASHINGTON – Federal education policy is “inconsistent and shortsighted,” despite 25 years of
education reform sparked by the release of A Nation at Risk -- and has left the United States further
behind than it was in 1983. A report released today by the Forum for Education and Democracy says that
we need to transform the federal role in education to meet longstanding student achievement and equity
goals. This new role should include fully funding federal commitments to low-income students, investing
in a “Marshall plan” for teachers and school leaders, refocusing research on educators’ needs, and
deepening community ties to their schools.
The report, Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education, was written by
prominent educators and policy experts who have launched effective alternative schools, charter schools,
and school improvement networks. It notes that the United States’ education system and democracy are
even more at risk than at the release of A Nation at Risk.
Today, the United States ranks 21st of 30 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
countries in science and 25th in mathematics. The nation has fallen from first to 14th in higher-education
participation. Precipitous declines also have taken place outside of school. The report cites research
showing that more students live in poverty and lack health care than 35 years ago, and that democratic
engagement measured by voter knowledge, trust among citizens, and the strength of social networks is
declining.
The report is intended to be a road map for federal policy, to guide a new president, secretary of
education, and Congress as they debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It builds on
lessons learned from other nations and innovative schools created by local educators and community
members. Confronting old constraints, communities across the nation have developed new curricula,
teaching, and assessment strategies; changed how schools operate; and created learning communities
that could drive ongoing improvement. Under federal policy today, these kinds of schools are constrained
rather than enabled, the report challenges.
“While other countries have made strategic investments and transformed their schools to produce results,
we have demanded results without investing in or transforming schooling,” says Linda Darling-Hammond,
Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, who is a convener of the Forum and
served as a co-author of the report. Other authors include notable education scholars and innovators.
(See list of Forum Conveners attached.)
Democracy at Risk
2
The report argues that many promising initiatives have been developed recently, but a long-term policy to
take them to scale has been absent. A new strategy would require intensive and highly focused research
and development; a skilled teaching and leadership force; support for new organizational designs; and
investments in low-wealth schools to ensure they have the capacity to maintain productive strategies.
“Checklists and sanctions do not help communities develop each student’s unique potential,” said George
Wood, the Forum’s executive director and principal of Federal Hocking Middle School in Stewart, Ohio.
“This report is about empowering every community to provide a world-class education to every student.”
Key Recommendations
Paying off the education debt. “Just as questionable fiscal policies have saddled our young people with
an enormous monetary debt, our nation faces a huge educational debt resulting from hundreds of years
of unequal educational and economic opportunity,” the report says. By underfunding the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and other statutes, the federal government has reneged on its commitment to
advance equity. The government pledged to fund 40 percent of the extra costs of educating students with
additional needs, but currently only funds 17 percent. In addition to meeting this obligation, the
government should link state funding to increases in equity, create an “opportunity index” that evaluates
school resources, alongside reports of student progress. It also should invest in out-of-school learning
supports, including health care for children and early learning opportunities.
Investing in a new “Marshall plan” for teachers and school leaders. For $4 billion, the government
could underwrite the preparation of 40,000 teachers annually, as well as seed 100 top-quality urban
teacher education programs, ensure mentors for every new teacher hired, and dramatically improve
professional learning opportunities for teachers and principals. The report also calls for the creation of a
national school leadership academy, a West Point for education leaders.
Supporting education research and innovation. The federal government needs to become much more
actively involved in gathering and sharing promising educational practices to help educators. Federal
assistance can support states’ development of innovative assessments that measure problem-solving
and critical thinking skills. It should return the National Assessment for Educational Progress to its original
form, as an open-ended performance assessment. The federal government also should give sustained
attention to helping educators’ better serve English-language learners and special-needs students.
“We need to restore the balance between research that tells us how we are doing and research that tells
us what we can do to improve education,” said Sharon Robinson, president of the American Association
of Colleges of Teacher Education and a former assistant secretary of education. “With the federal
government’s support, we can do a much better job of trying to evaluate good ideas and share them with
educators.”
Engaging and educating local communities. The federal government should engage in a coordination
offensive, making schools true hubs of communities and gateways to social services for students and
community members. It can provide incentives for community-directed experimentation and participation
in school change, urge employers to give parents a day of leave each year to meet with teachers and
participate in school life, and provide much-needed resources, such as school translators for parents.
A Net Savings for the Nation
Taking lessons from successful nations and our own recent past, Democracy at Risk documents what it
would take to provide high-quality teaching and eliminate equity gaps. It provides data indicating that
equity gaps were nearly eliminated in the 1970s, and can be again.
The report’s proposals can be funded for a total of $29 billion annually, or less than one month in Iraq or
10 percent of the cost overruns indentified in federal weapons programs. The spending will more than pay
for itself in increased economic activity and reduced spending on remediation programs.
Democracy at Risk
3
Lost wages and taxes and increased social service costs for dropouts cost the nation $200 billion
annually. Deficits in basic skills for high schools graduates cost the nation another $16 billion in
remediation and lost productivity. In the long run, these proposals would save far more than they cost.
# # #
With offices in Amesville, Ohio and Washington, D.C., The Forum for Education & Democracy is an
education think tank dedicated to renewing America’s commitment to strong public schools. The Forum
works for school revitalization efforts and policies that prepare young people for lifelong learning
and engaged, thoughtful democratic participation. The Forum's vision for American education is
grounded in support for our schools and policies that build schools’ capacity to provide a world-class
education for every child.
Conveners of The Forum for Education and Democracy
The Forum for Education and Democracy is composed of nationally recognized educators who have
founded schools and school networks, pioneered new techniques, and been influential voices in
education research and policy debates. Following is a list of the Forum’s conveners:
Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director, Advancement Project;
Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education, Stanford University;
Carl Glickman, committee member, national campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools;
John Goodlad, president, Institute for Education Inquiry;
Gloria Ladson-Billings, professor, Urban Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison;
Deborah Meirer, senior scholar, New York University Steinhardt School of Education;
Larry Myatt, headmaster-on-assignment, High School Initiative in Boston Public Schools and founder,
Fenway High School;
Pedro Noguera, professor, New York University Steinhardt School of Education;
Wendy Puriefoy, president, Public Education Network;
Sharon Robinson, president and CEO, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and
former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education;
Nancy Sizer, lecturer of education, Harvard University;
Ted Sizer, founder and chair, Coalition of Essential Schools and professor, Brown University;
Angela Valenzuela, associate vice-president, University School Partnerships, University of Texas at
Austin; and
George Wood, director of the Forum and principal of Federal Hocking High School in Stewart, Ohio.
http://www.forumforeducation.org/upload_files/files/FED_ReportRevised415.pdf
Here's a link to the press release (also see below).
To read the full report, go to: http://www.forumforeducation.org/upload_files/files/pressrelease.pdf. A recording of the April 23rd press conference at the National Press Club is available here.
Portions of the event are available as video on John Merrow's site.
Democracy at Risk
Press Release Contact: Robert Johnston (202) 955-9450 rjohnston@communicationworks.com
Beth Glenn (202) 372-7684 bglenn@forumforeducation.org
EMBARGOED UNTIL APRIL 23, 2008, 9:00 a.m. EST
Calling Federal Role in Education “Inconsistent and Shortsighted,”
Education Innovators Propose Alternative Agenda
Report Urges Nation to Pay off Education Debt, Introduce Marshall Plan
For Teachers, and Invigorate Research and Community Involvement
WASHINGTON – Federal education policy is “inconsistent and shortsighted,” despite 25 years of
education reform sparked by the release of A Nation at Risk -- and has left the United States further
behind than it was in 1983. A report released today by the Forum for Education and Democracy says that
we need to transform the federal role in education to meet longstanding student achievement and equity
goals. This new role should include fully funding federal commitments to low-income students, investing
in a “Marshall plan” for teachers and school leaders, refocusing research on educators’ needs, and
deepening community ties to their schools.
The report, Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education, was written by
prominent educators and policy experts who have launched effective alternative schools, charter schools,
and school improvement networks. It notes that the United States’ education system and democracy are
even more at risk than at the release of A Nation at Risk.
Today, the United States ranks 21st of 30 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
countries in science and 25th in mathematics. The nation has fallen from first to 14th in higher-education
participation. Precipitous declines also have taken place outside of school. The report cites research
showing that more students live in poverty and lack health care than 35 years ago, and that democratic
engagement measured by voter knowledge, trust among citizens, and the strength of social networks is
declining.
The report is intended to be a road map for federal policy, to guide a new president, secretary of
education, and Congress as they debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It builds on
lessons learned from other nations and innovative schools created by local educators and community
members. Confronting old constraints, communities across the nation have developed new curricula,
teaching, and assessment strategies; changed how schools operate; and created learning communities
that could drive ongoing improvement. Under federal policy today, these kinds of schools are constrained
rather than enabled, the report challenges.
“While other countries have made strategic investments and transformed their schools to produce results,
we have demanded results without investing in or transforming schooling,” says Linda Darling-Hammond,
Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, who is a convener of the Forum and
served as a co-author of the report. Other authors include notable education scholars and innovators.
(See list of Forum Conveners attached.)
Democracy at Risk
2
The report argues that many promising initiatives have been developed recently, but a long-term policy to
take them to scale has been absent. A new strategy would require intensive and highly focused research
and development; a skilled teaching and leadership force; support for new organizational designs; and
investments in low-wealth schools to ensure they have the capacity to maintain productive strategies.
“Checklists and sanctions do not help communities develop each student’s unique potential,” said George
Wood, the Forum’s executive director and principal of Federal Hocking Middle School in Stewart, Ohio.
“This report is about empowering every community to provide a world-class education to every student.”
Key Recommendations
Paying off the education debt. “Just as questionable fiscal policies have saddled our young people with
an enormous monetary debt, our nation faces a huge educational debt resulting from hundreds of years
of unequal educational and economic opportunity,” the report says. By underfunding the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and other statutes, the federal government has reneged on its commitment to
advance equity. The government pledged to fund 40 percent of the extra costs of educating students with
additional needs, but currently only funds 17 percent. In addition to meeting this obligation, the
government should link state funding to increases in equity, create an “opportunity index” that evaluates
school resources, alongside reports of student progress. It also should invest in out-of-school learning
supports, including health care for children and early learning opportunities.
Investing in a new “Marshall plan” for teachers and school leaders. For $4 billion, the government
could underwrite the preparation of 40,000 teachers annually, as well as seed 100 top-quality urban
teacher education programs, ensure mentors for every new teacher hired, and dramatically improve
professional learning opportunities for teachers and principals. The report also calls for the creation of a
national school leadership academy, a West Point for education leaders.
Supporting education research and innovation. The federal government needs to become much more
actively involved in gathering and sharing promising educational practices to help educators. Federal
assistance can support states’ development of innovative assessments that measure problem-solving
and critical thinking skills. It should return the National Assessment for Educational Progress to its original
form, as an open-ended performance assessment. The federal government also should give sustained
attention to helping educators’ better serve English-language learners and special-needs students.
“We need to restore the balance between research that tells us how we are doing and research that tells
us what we can do to improve education,” said Sharon Robinson, president of the American Association
of Colleges of Teacher Education and a former assistant secretary of education. “With the federal
government’s support, we can do a much better job of trying to evaluate good ideas and share them with
educators.”
Engaging and educating local communities. The federal government should engage in a coordination
offensive, making schools true hubs of communities and gateways to social services for students and
community members. It can provide incentives for community-directed experimentation and participation
in school change, urge employers to give parents a day of leave each year to meet with teachers and
participate in school life, and provide much-needed resources, such as school translators for parents.
A Net Savings for the Nation
Taking lessons from successful nations and our own recent past, Democracy at Risk documents what it
would take to provide high-quality teaching and eliminate equity gaps. It provides data indicating that
equity gaps were nearly eliminated in the 1970s, and can be again.
The report’s proposals can be funded for a total of $29 billion annually, or less than one month in Iraq or
10 percent of the cost overruns indentified in federal weapons programs. The spending will more than pay
for itself in increased economic activity and reduced spending on remediation programs.
Democracy at Risk
3
Lost wages and taxes and increased social service costs for dropouts cost the nation $200 billion
annually. Deficits in basic skills for high schools graduates cost the nation another $16 billion in
remediation and lost productivity. In the long run, these proposals would save far more than they cost.
# # #
With offices in Amesville, Ohio and Washington, D.C., The Forum for Education & Democracy is an
education think tank dedicated to renewing America’s commitment to strong public schools. The Forum
works for school revitalization efforts and policies that prepare young people for lifelong learning
and engaged, thoughtful democratic participation. The Forum's vision for American education is
grounded in support for our schools and policies that build schools’ capacity to provide a world-class
education for every child.
Conveners of The Forum for Education and Democracy
The Forum for Education and Democracy is composed of nationally recognized educators who have
founded schools and school networks, pioneered new techniques, and been influential voices in
education research and policy debates. Following is a list of the Forum’s conveners:
Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director, Advancement Project;
Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education, Stanford University;
Carl Glickman, committee member, national campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools;
John Goodlad, president, Institute for Education Inquiry;
Gloria Ladson-Billings, professor, Urban Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison;
Deborah Meirer, senior scholar, New York University Steinhardt School of Education;
Larry Myatt, headmaster-on-assignment, High School Initiative in Boston Public Schools and founder,
Fenway High School;
Pedro Noguera, professor, New York University Steinhardt School of Education;
Wendy Puriefoy, president, Public Education Network;
Sharon Robinson, president and CEO, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and
former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education;
Nancy Sizer, lecturer of education, Harvard University;
Ted Sizer, founder and chair, Coalition of Essential Schools and professor, Brown University;
Angela Valenzuela, associate vice-president, University School Partnerships, University of Texas at
Austin; and
George Wood, director of the Forum and principal of Federal Hocking High School in Stewart, Ohio.
http://www.forumforeducation.org/upload_files/files/FED_ReportRevised415.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)