Shanahan Blog Entry on IRA Site
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Shanahan Blog Entry on IRA Site
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
In fact, that most recently happened on Friday when I was in Franklin, TN.
I always give pretty much the same answer. I don't believe the test-based teacher evaluation schemes are ready for prime time, if it were my choice, we wouldn't make this many big changes at the same time, etc.
Today the New York Times issued an editorial along the same lines that you might find helpful.
I have no problem if the accountability parts of this slow down (not stop, but slow down). Let's digest one big reform before we take on another. There is nothing more primary to kids' learning and teachers' teaching than the curriculum, so starting there makes great sense.
The kids' testing should follow that, and while it makes sense to develop tests that are consistent with the curriculum, it does NOT make sense (and it will never make sense) for teachers' to teach to the test. Not in reading comprehension or in writing anyway.
After those things are firmly in place, stitching those into a rigorous teacher evaluation system will make sense, but that is a way off. It is a good idea to include evaluations of student learning in teacher evaluations. I just wish we really knew how to do that.Maybe we will by then.
Thank you, New York Times Editorial Board.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
In the past, perhaps, that different states had different educational goals militated against any kind of joint response to students' educational needs. Now, with common standards in place, states could more powerfully pool their talent and resources to enhance their response. The only areas this has been happening so far have been in the writing of the standards themselves and in the development of new tests--both of which were "easy" for the states because these efforts were paid for and orchestrated by someone other than the state departments of education. Now we need this kind of sharing in areas like professional development for teachers and principals, curriculum materials selection, public information, and so on... but nary a joint initiative in sight. Instead, leaders seem foggy about the impending changes or dedicated to business as usual.
If you are interested in this topic, here is the powerpoint:
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
When you listen to the political class nattering over earmarks, they rarely provide examples of the earmarks they are against. Oh, there was the “bridge to nowhere,” of course, and most everybody is against that kind of boondoggle.
But are earmarks good or not? I admit the earmark idea bothers me as it seems to run against fiscal discipline (I bear Scottish blood on my mother’s side). I wonder why all programs don’t run through the same budget process, and, yet, yesterday when Congress could have turned off the earmark spigot, I found myself rooting for the defense. (The country has been deeply divided and now I am.)
The National Writing Project, an effort to provide high quality professional development for teachers is an earmark. Reach Out and Read, which gives books to children through their pediatricians, is another one (full disclosure: I serve as an unpaid member of the board of directors of ROR). Reading is Fundamental makes books available to school-age kids in low income areas, and it, too, is an earmark. I support all of those earmarked programs as I think they are good for the nation.
Presidents usually are not big fans of earmarks. Presidents Clinton and Obama, for instance, both tried to wipe out several of these earmarked literacy programs. It isn’t that they don’t want poor kids to get books, but earmarks ultimately reduce their power. You see, earmarks are not necessarily the budget busters that the press has made them out to be.
For example, if Congress and the Obama Administration agree on funding the Department of Education at $5 billion, and then someone adds an earmark, let’s say for a $10 million for book distribution program, that doesn’t increase the budget by $10 million, but the President does lose control of $10 million of the $5 billion that he was going to spend anyway. The more such earmarks the less power for the President.
Presidents recognize that if they can rid themselves of enough of these earmarked responsibilities they will end up with $50 or $100 million to spend on something that they want.
Think about the bridge to nowhere and about the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota. If transportation funds were not being nibbled away by earmarks, there would be more money to fix existing bridges. But what if the Department of Education is betting its budget on expensive accountability systems not likely to improve reading achievement? Then, earmarks for books or professional development, might be a darn good alternative investment.
It just comes down to whether you want all those spending decisions in the hands of the presidents or whether you want Congress to have any specific say so about spending priorities. Some earmarks are stupid (the easy ones to be against), and some are pretty local: For example, Arne Duncan once had me draft a request for an earmark for reading programs in the Chicago Public Schools. We didn’t get it, but the millions that would have come to Chicago wouldn’t have benefited New York or Los Angeles or anyone else. However, literacy earmarks, like RIF and ROR, provide book distribution nationwide to any community that wants to participate. If making books available to children is a priority—and I think it should be— then earmarks for organizations like RIF or ROR are a good way to go in terms of cost, quality, and local control.
So I give a resounding cheer for literacy earmarks… sort of.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
For the past several months, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association have been beavering away at developing new college and career readiness standards in the English language arts (including reading and writing). I've been a part of that process.
These are the standards are that 46 states have signed onto, and that Arne Duncan has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to test. They aren't complete, but today, the organizations have provided the first official public draft of the standards. Once these are finalized, they will start backmapping down from here to Kindergarten, detailing what will need to be accomplished to get students to this point when they leave high school.
If you want to weigh in on these, you can do so at www.corestandards.org by October 21.
Here are the ELA standards:
Monday, May 11, 2009
On May 7, President Barack Obama told the press that he was attempting to negotiate $17 billion in program cuts. Among the programs that he slated for abolishment are the National Institute for Literacy and Even Start, a family literacy program.
A senior administration official announced on May 6, that Even Start was ineffective in improving the literacy levels of young children:
"And then finally as another example of a program that the administration supports the goals of but that the evidence suggests is not working very well -- Even Start. Even Start is a early education -- early childhood education program -- and obviously the President and the administration feel very strongly that early childhood education done in a high-quality way is crucially important and have provided additional funds both through the Recovery Act and in the budget that we will be releasing tomorrow for early childhood education.However, a variety of studies of Even Start have suggested that that program does not work well. The most recent evaluation, for example, found out of 41 outcomes that were measured between families in the program and families that were not, that there was only a difference in outcomes on 38 out of -- I'm sorry, there was no difference on 38 out of the 41 outcomes.So we are proposing that Even Start be eliminated even while we are investing in other programs that do work, including Early Head Start and Head Start."
On May 7, the President himself made the following remarks as the explanation for ending the National Institute for Literacy:
"Some programs may have made sense in the past -- but are no longer needed in the present. Other programs never made any sense; the end result of a special interest's successful lobbying campaign. Still other programs perform functions that can be conducted more efficiently, or are already carried out more effectively elsewhere in the government....
"Another example is the National Institute for Literacy. Now, I strongly support initiatives that promote literacy -- it's critical -- but I oppose programs that do it badly. Last year, nearly half of the funding in this program was spent on overhead. So we've proposed cutting the $6 million for this program in favor of supporting literacy efforts within the Department of Education which use tax dollars more effectively and wisely."
These are just proposals, of course, but along with the recent cuts to Reading First, literacy education has been taking it on the chin. Obviously we'll have to wait to see if these latest proposals lead to real budget losses in reading. President George W. Bush tried to do away with Even Start for the same reasons, and Democrats in Congress howled about his lack of caring for the needs of adults and children living in poverty. Of course, they won't cast Obama as a Grinch for doing exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean they'll give him the cuts he wants either (Congressional Democrats haven't really gone along with the Obama agenda at all, except when it has overlapped with their own).
The NIFL cuts are different. It doesn't provide funds for program delivery to students, and without a full-time director (and a board whose terms have expired--including mine), it has neither constituents nor supporters likely to step up to save it. Originally, proponents of NIFL put it into the law so that there would be a coordinating agency for the diverse efforts of the federal government. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with programs like those offered by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE); too many people not reached by the programs, too much overlap between federal programs, and among federal and state programs, etc. The idea was that NIFL would study the system, monitor the delivery, and provide leadership since it was to be operated directly under the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. It was even required to report directly to Congress.
Sadly, NIFL never took on the duties envisioned for it and ended up doing odd jobs on literacy (some of them good, some not so good, but no real programmatic responsibilities like those envisioned for it in the enabling legislation). They recognized that no one wants a watch dog looking over their shoulder, so they gave into the resistance and just didn't bother.
The Clinton administration tolerated NIFL, as long as it didn't try to do it's job. Although NIFL is supposed to have a board of advisors with staggered terms, the Clintons left office with all of the advisor posts open making sure that no continuity could be accomplished.
The Bush administration both made it better and worse. In NCLB, Bush expanded NIFL responsibilities giving it duties for getting research-based literacy information to the schools and the public. It carried out those duties spectacularly well, showing an ability to do high caliber work without as much overhead and bureaucracy as the departments themselves. (This was useful because NIFL could respond more quickly and do some things the departments couldn't do.) It's finest hour came when it resisted great administration pressure to release misleading information to help those who were corrupting Reading First.
But the Bushies did some things that kept NIFL from ever righting itself. Instead of having NIFL continue to report to the Secretaries as it was supposed to, they kicked it to OVAE. Yes, that's right: the major agency that was supposed to be watched by NIFL was the one that NIFL had to gain approval from. NIFL couldn't even release its report to Congress without OVAE liking the report. Then Bush, too, left office, without making sure that NIFL either had a director or an operating board. Obama could rebuild it, of course, but that would take effort, and so Obama wants to dump it. Why would he want a watchdog agency causing problems within his administration.
The problems that NIFL was supposed to address still exist. Adult literacy programs continue to be funded by Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, the Bureau of Prisons, and Homeland Security. These programs are failing to address the needs of most older Americans who have inadequate literacy skills. There is no coordinated policy to ensure that these programs, along with those funded by the states, are making a dent in the nation's adult literacy needs.
Despite massive and unprecedented increases in government spending, including in educational spending on Title I and other programs with poor track records, Obama and Congressional leaders have continued to hack away at federal support for literacy. Let's hope that in the next version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that some of that money will be put back. Fingers crossed.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The next version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is going to be quite different from “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). That’s both good since real changes are needed, but it’s a little scary, too, because NCLB represented a remarkable and positive break with past federal education policy.
A quick pre-2000 history lesson: At the federal level, Republican and Democratic views of education had evolved into an unfortunate stalemate. Republicans usually opposed federal education spending for Constitutional and budgetary reasons. Their argument was that education was the responsibility of the states, and that Uncle Sam should keep his cotton-picking fingers off of local schools. That approach often meant that the Republican answer to educational programs was no, but it also meant that they worked hard to protect local control, to ensure that federal educational initiatives didn’t get very specific about curriculum, teacher preparation, or assessment, and that there could be nothing like national standards.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have been very pro-education spending. They Democrats have usually pushed for increased funding for Head Start, Title I, IDEA, and so on.
Sounds like the donkeys and the elephants’ positions were pretty antithetical. But that really wasn’t the case. The Democrats, despite their support for education dollars, were not particularly committed to trying to improve education. That’s why they weren’t worried about the constitutional problems: Democrats didn’t seek to fix schools as much as to use schools as a reason for moving federal bucks to local communities and to increase educational opportunity (more slots and more stuff), but within the existing universe of education.
What that meant until 2000 was that the Democrats and Republicans “conspired” to make sure that federal dollars wouldn’t affect educational quality. NCLB was remarkable because it broke that stalemate and increased funding towards improving educational quality. I might not agree with all of the NCLB specifics, but I strongly support the principle.
Back in the 1940s when the GI bill paid tuitions for soldiers to go to college, the quality of the colleges was not the issue (just the access). In the 1960s, when Head Start was set up, the idea was to get kids from low-income families into preschools and to provide them with meals and health care, and the assumption was that any preschool would be okay. The problem, in 2009, is that increasing access is insufficient. Making sure that more African American boys have the money to go to college is great idea, except that most will flunk out during freshman year because of their inadequate elementary and high school preparation.
Change NCLB by all means, but keep trying to use that federal increment to boost quality and effectiveness. Candidate Obama campaigned on increasing educational access. Let’s hope that President Obama changes that emphasis to trying to increase quality, too. Our kids need to read better than they do now; more access alone won’t solve that.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
This week Congress will approve the Obama stimulus plan and soon schools will get a big pile of new money for their Title I programs and Special Education programs. How they’ll spend it will depend on current rules and regs, because the stimulus bill doesn’t seem to carry any new guidance.
Of course, those of us in education should be pleased as this new money should mean fewer layoffs for teachers. However, I suspect there will be a couple of problems with these dollars. The first is that I doubt that this assistance will do much for kids. The money isn’t targeted on any improvements, so there probably won’t be any. Schools will be tripping over themselves to push these bucks out the door, and that is not exactly the scenario for quality improvement.
The other big concern is that I will be surprised if this money really represents more dollars for the schools. I think states and cities will reduce the amount of tax support that they are now providing to these institutions and will use the savings to pay for their other responsibilities. In other words, I think the schools will still get cut, but the new arrangement will mean that a larger proportion of school budgets will be coming from the feds. In cities like Chicago, most of the money that they spend already comes from the U.S. government, and this will increase that imbalance.
Two things about federal funding for education: down the road it will likely mean more federal regulations for schools, something that has been a big point of contention under NCLB, and local governments tend to worry less about quality when it comes to programs funded by the feds. Transferring the responsibility for funding schools to the U.S. government means local school systems will worry less about quality control than they do when using local money (that’s part of the reason large urban districts are often of lower quality than suburban schools—on average school systems get about 9% of their support from the feds, while in places like NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles, the federal portion is well over half).
We’re not talking about small amounts of money either. When I was director of reading in Chicago, the school budget was $3.5 billion for 437,000 kids; the Bush administration pumped lots of new federal money into the schools, so now Chicago gets about $5 billion for 430,000 kids. And that staggering figure could go up dramatically if the stimulus plan was additional money. What will happen instead will be that the city and state will try to anticipate the amount that the feds are about to add to the mix (and then, they’ll cut their contributions by at least that amount—allowing them to protect their other construction, health and welfare programs).
This will be like the bankers last fall. They got the new money, but didn't increase their lending. The school systems will get this new money, but they're not likely to be in any better position to educate children. Just pumping money into the system won't protect education; you have to have some rules about how that money has to be spent--something that the leadership apparently won't provide.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
These are sure tough money times. The credit markets are frozen harder than the Chicago River right now. States are scrambling to cut billions from their current education budgets. It isn't clear how much will be lost yet, but schools are about to go through a time of shrinking resources like we've never seen during any of our careers.
Despite these problems, some policymakers are doing their best to preserve literacy programming and to make sure that the great efforts of the past several years are not entirely lost. Just last week I was invited to Florida to speak with a group of school superintendents, legislators, and other leaders. My job was to sketch out what was essential and needed to be preserved (even if cut back), and what could be done to make sure as much support was maintained as possible.
The responses have been great, so here is a copy of the powerpoint that I used to make the presentation.