21st Century Education and School Boards
This week Ken Kay completed a seven part series on Becoming a 21st Century School or District. At the core of the series is the identification of four skills to be fused with content and the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic). The four skills are:
- Critical thinking
- Communication
- Collaboration
- Creativity
The full reach of the model is portrayed in this graphic:
While it is counter intuitive, I would implore school boards to examine step one in this process. Given the dire fiscal circumstances facing all school districts this is the perfect time to reexamine your core values and create a new vision for your school district. The fiscal crisis is requiring all school districts to reevaluate everything so having a clearer picture of the future will help everyone make those painful decisions.
The New NCLB and School Boards
This week draft legislation for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act (also known as No Child Left Behind) was released. The reaction was mixed as civil rights groups were upset, teacher unions were okay with it. Most analysts agree that the proposed legislation is similar to the Obama’s administration proposals and chances of making it to the President’s desk are slim.
However, school boards would be wise to assess the common themes in the bipartisan effort to replace NCLB 2002 in order to prepare for the eventual adoption of a new NCLB. For me, three themes emerge:
- Pathways to College
- Teacher Evaluation
- Growth Model for Accountability
Looking back at the legacy of NCLB 2002, I would venture to say it was the development of data systems that identified the performance levels of groups of students. Looking forward, the proposed legislation will be focused on creating data systems to measure the effectiveness of secondary schools in preparing students for college and career, evaluate teacher performance and monitor the growth of student learning.
The challenge for school boards will be integrating the new focus on college and career readiness, teacher evaluations and student learning growth into their locally developed mission/vision. Instead of being reactive to adoption of new mandates, school boards and their communities should be proactive by examining their fundamental assumptions related to the correlation between the K-12 education they provide and success as adults in the real world.
Einstein and School Accountability
SB 547 would have created a new collection of indices called the Education Quality Index consisting of multiple indicators. Senator Steinberg sought to change how the state measures high school performance, including factors such as graduation and promotion rates and career readiness.
In his veto message of SB 547, Governor Brown questioned the timing the implementing a new set of measurements when California is in the process of implementing Common Core standards in 2014. In addition, Governor Brown cited a sign that hung in Einstein’s office: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
Related to Einstein’s sign is Campbell’s law which states: “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.”
What Campbell also states in this principle is that “achievement tests may well be valuable indicators of general school achievement under conditions of normal teaching aimed at general competence. But when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways.”
In closing his veto message Governor Brown threw out a suggestion on how to focus on improving the quality of schools. “What about a system that relies on locally convened panels to visit schools, observe teachers, interview students, and examine work? Such a system wouldn’t produce an API number, but it could improve the quality of our schools.”
The Handwriting on the Wall
The much anticipated announcement from the White House on the proposed waiver from No Child Left Behind sanctions came today. The immediate reaction for national associations representing school boards was positive.
National Reaction
The National School Board Association was encouraged and stated:
“The proposed NCLB regulatory relief plan is a positive step as it could provide much needed assistance to local school district efforts to improve student achievement,” said Anne L. Bryant, NSBA’s Executive Director. “However, the effectiveness of the plan will depend upon the details of the application requirements, the specific locally needed relief states ask for, and whether the merit of a state’s application is judged adequate by the U.S. Department of Education to receive the relief that it asks for.”
The National Association of State Boards of Education welcomed the announcement from the Obama administration.
“We want to thank the Administration for recognizing the hard work that states do under the leadership of their respective state boards of education to help make students college- and career-ready,” Welburn said. “The law passed 10 years ago no longer reflects the progress states have made preparing America’s students for life beyond high school. It is simply unrealistic and unrelated to the work of states today.
“We are pleased the waivers will be limited to two-and-a-half years, which should give Congress sufficient time to adopt a comprehensive new version of ESEA. The adoption of a revised law is critical to the work of state boards as the primary adopters of college- and career-ready standards, accountability systems, and teacher and principal standards in most states.
“Further, we believe any grants of waivers should be equitable for all states, especially rural and frontier states, and be done in a fair and transparent manner.”
My Reaction
When I first assumed office in 2003, I felt NCLB would ultimately disappear given its unrealistic approach in measuring and holding schools accountable for student achievement. However, the handwriting is on the wall as the public’s perception of the quality of public education has been forever changed. As a result, it is clear that linking teacher performance, student performance and school performance will be forever used in future conversations regarding resource allocation. Any increases in additional resources will come with strings attached. The good old days of investing in America’s youth for education’s sake is no longer possible.
For the past eight years I have heard educators indicate that the use of a single measurement is not appropriate. I would agree and I would urge school boards, administrators and teachers to develop meaningful multiple measures of quality public education to avoid having it imposed on us by State and Federal politicians. We have had close to ten years to create multiple measures and I have not seen much progress.
Ultimately I believe the type of data we need to accumulate includes perception data from students, teachers, school staff, administrators, parents, taxpayers about a community developed set of agreements on quality public education.
Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water
Filed under: Community Engagement, Curriculum, Finances
Over the past ten years, the American public has been given a new measuring stick for public schools. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) passed in 2001, (or affectionately called NCLB or No Child Left Behind) established a new system of measuring effectiveness of Federal dollars going public schools. For the past 24 months, Congress and the Administration have been attempting to reauthorize ESEA.
Now Republicans have introduced their vision for ESEA moving forward. While keeping annual testing schedule and requiring states to keep reporting on results for different groups of kids, the Federal government would focus on bottom 5% of low performing schools. The measure would basically let states decide how to label and intervene in the other 95 percent of schools.
Given the complete inconsistency between State and Federal measurements for identifying failing schools this could be a God send to all of the school boards dealing Program Improvement sanctions. However, school boards need to careful for what they wish for. The public wants accountability along adequate funding for public schools, so throwing out accountability measures need to be replaced with something the public trusts.
Conflicting Signals
Labor Day is almost here and the annual rituals of school opening have begun. Unfortunately, one of those rituals involves receiving a notification letter from their school district regarding something called “program improvement”.
Parents from over 3,000 schools (900+ newly designated schools this year) will be receiving “program improvement” letters. So what does this mean exactly? Well, under the federal government’s definition set by No Child Left Behind, if a school is not meeting a specified target of proficiency, a school is considered to be in “program improvement”. By 2014, all Title I schools will be designated as being in “program improvement” since the proficiency target will be 100%.
A closer look at the makeup of the 3000+ “program improvement” schools using California’s Academic Performance Index (API) reveals something strange. California has set “800″ as the target for a successful school. Over 500 schools designated as being in “program improvement” had an API score of 800 or higher. Clearly, the public and parents is confused by these conflicting messages. It is time to create a consistent accountability measurement system that sends one message to the community.
Escape Hatch or Trojan Horse
While everyone was following the ups and downs of the stock market, an announcement from the Obama administration will provide a process for states to seek relief from key provisions of NCLB, provided that they are willing to embrace education reform was issued last Monday.
At first blush, superintendents and school boards are excited about the prospect of escaping the Program Improvement stigma that will hit everyone by 2014. But a closer look will be necessary when the guidelines are issued next month.
Based on past actions of Secretary Duncan with initiatives like Race to the Top, state officials and local school officials would be prudent to carefully read the fine print. Rick Hess opined “but this whole plan for an RFP process and peer reviews sounds a lot more like a way to push desperate states to embrace the administration’s agenda than a way to provide regulatory relief from a law “forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don’t work” (the Department of Ed’s own words in its press release). In fact, the whole scheme sounds more like the framing of a back-door grant competition than anything else.”
Meanwhile, State Superintendent Torklanson has issued A Blueprint for Great Schools report.
Perhaps the problem is politicians have become so obsessed with accountability, that the chance for real innovation in public education will be forever lost.
Groups and Conversations
In its fifth year, the Dangerously Irrelevant blog has declared August 5, 2011 Leadership Day. It is a day where bloggers blog about whatever they like related to effective school technology leadership: successes, challenges, reflections, needs, wants, resources, ideas, etc. In 2010, the Dangerously Irrelevant blog received over 100 entries.
Groups and Conversation
After the invention of printing press and the assembly of books, the delivery of education has not changed much. The conversation was compromised of content contained in books with a group of students being led by one teacher. New forms of media like the telegraph/telephone, film/record and radio/television have not substantially changed the model of teacher, student and book. Ignoring the eventual migration of all prior forms of media being digitized and being delivered via the internet, the internet fundamentally changes the nature of groups and conversations. The internet supports both groups and conversations so content is free to take whatever form makes the most sense.
Communicate With the Natives
If we have learned anything about the emerging technologies of the last decade, they have the power to topple existing power structures. The ability to coordinate, communicate and collaborate has never been easier. Join groups of like-minded individuals who are committed to changing the conversation. Start conversations with the digital natives (students). Engage and empower students and they will enlighten us on how change the delivery of education. Amass your group of followers and demand a change to the educational conversation.
From my lofty perch high on top of the educational pyramid (school board trustee), I offer this observation to all of you who are committed to overthrowing me. Time is short and the 21st century will not wait. I look forward to the coming coup d’etat.
Common Core Standards California – Happy Birthday
Under item three on its August 2, 2010 agenda, the state School Board of Education approved the common core standards proposed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The initiative was sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
History
To improve their chances for September, 2010 Race To The Top funding, states had to adopt state specific common core standards by August 2, 2010. However, a year earlier, legislation for adopting instructional materials, including framework revisions, until the 2013-14 school year was passed (Subsequent legislation has moved the adoption to 2014/15).
In June, 2011, California joined 30 states to become members of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. Of those, California is one of 18 governing states, which allows decision-making participation.
Work of CORE
Seven school districts formed in October, 2010 to work on school district reform. The seven school districts are Clovis, Fresno Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco and Sanger districts or California Office to Reform Education (CORE).
In July, 2011, the Stuart Foundation has announced it will spend $1.55 million to support the work of CORE. The grant supports CORE’s priority work of sharing and using data to improve instruction; improving teacher preparation and recruitment; and creating formative assessments for and implementing the Common Core standards in English language arts and math.
2008/09 Dropout Data Released
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell released the annual report on dropout and graduation rates for the 2008-09 school year.
The 2008-09 data represents the third year of calculating student graduation and dropout rates by collecting student-level enrollment and exit data. Although this is the third year of using student-level data, this is the first year this data were collected through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). Right now the California Department of Education (CDE) is collecting the student-level exit data for the class of 2010 that will produce all four years of data necessary to transition from using aggregate rates to more accurate student graduation and dropout rates at the school level. By this spring, California will be able to calculate for the first time these longitudinal rates that are required by federal regulations.
Caution should be used when analyzing this first year of data through CALPADS. There is always some variance in the information gathered in the first year of using a new data system. Some LEAs struggled with submitting this first year of data because no specific resources were made available to LEAs to implement the more complex CALPADS data submissions. Fluctuations in the individual rates of schools and districts submitting their data are to be expected, considering this is the first year of CALPADS implementation and reliance on aggregate formula rates.
In reviewing the data for your district what governance issues for your District are raised?