More of a delayed response than a bombshell: The Administration has finally responded to calls for the Department of Education to take action on behalf of students, teachers, and schools being unnecessarily harmed by NCLB requirements while Congress delays the full reauthorization of ESEA. Parents and educators' have pleaded for months for the DOE to use its authority over the Law's faulty implementation, including a letter from the 16-member Learning First Alliance just over a month ago.

The Ed Department had balked at resorting to regulatory relief, hoping that the public outcry would push Congress toward a speedier reauthorization, and one that included more of the Administration's goals as outlined in its Blueprint. Now, faced with continued political inertia, Duncan has gone to what he calls "Plan B," the issuance of waivers for some of the NCLB penalties. The plan (details of which are still very fuzzy) may help some students and schools get a respite from the NCLB axe; but it is far from being a solution.

What appears to be a just another partisan stalemate over reauthorization may actually be the latest rumblings of long-simmering political and social disagreements over our commitment to public education. When taken in context with the increasing denigration of teachers, demonizing of teacher unions, and the desecration of the ideal of quality public education for every child, the current reauthorization quandary points back to how and why the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was necessary.

Some critics have pointed to the glacial legislative progress as another reason why the Federal government should not be involved in public education policy, along with renewed calls for eliminating the Department of Education itself. In the face of such overreaction, it's important to remember that Federal education policies, such as NCLB, do not affect all schools---but primarily those whose children depend on Federal funding and oversight to compensate for continued inequitable, incompetent, or indictable allocation of educational resources at the state and local levels. The Federal government's role in education policy increased as citizens turned to it for protection and redress that could not be obtained at the local level. Cuts in state budgets, such as those in North Carolina--long considered an educational leader among Southern states--highlight both the continued need for Federal role and the larger need to break the link between local property taxes and public education. Public education should be as much of a legislative and budget priority as national defense.

As I've noted before:

President Obama has asserted more than once that a child's zip code should not determine the quality of his or her education. While I understand his point of reference, and cheer the concept, the reality is as long as school funding in our nation is still heavily dependent on local property taxes, poor children will always be underserved and those who work with them will continue to expend precious energies trying to make up for unnecessary gaps in resources and services.  Even long-standing programs such as Title I, have not come anywhere close to bringing educational services in high-poverty districts to parity with their middle-class counterparts within most states. Has the fact that most of what we now label "failing schools" are also the schools that have been historically underfunded and under-resourced registered on those who promote wholesale staff replacements as the key to turning those schools around?

For all our talk, as a nation, about the importance of education, it remains to be seen whether we will bring our policy and our budgets into alignment with our words.

Cross-posted at National Journal.com

As a country, we value the education of some children more than we do that of others. And the kids know it.

When I was in junior high school in Detroit (long before its current meltdown), my classmates and I were taken out to the public high school of one of the wealthiest suburbs for an “exchange visit.”  We were stunned to see carpeted, well-stocked libraries, working restrooms with warm water and hand towels; real science laboratories; and a gym building with indoor track and swimming pool. We were never told what the purpose of the trip was, but its net effect was to confirm that we were worth—less than rich people’s children.

According to the recently released second part of the 2010 MetLife survey,  48% of students felt their teachers expectations of their academic performance matched their own. In fact, 38% of students, especially those who get lower grades in school, think their teachers have expectations that are too high. This is a significant improvement over the 2009 results in which the majority of students did not believe their teachers even wanted them to succeed.

Pair that result with another from the 2010 survey: That an even larger percentage of students at lower performing schools believe that their schools could be better at equipping them with the skills and abilities needed to succeed in college or careers. The students are perceptive enough to make the distinction between their teachers (those folks with the high expectations), and the school conditions in which they and their teachers must work and learn.  They recognize, as my classmates and I did, that the schools which serve them are of lower quality than those serving their suburban or cross-town peers.

The students and teachers who have the most to accomplish are historically and continually expected to do it with fewer resources than those who do not have an “achievement gap.”

My teachers and most of those with whom I have taught here in the Mississippi Delta have done amazing work under often disgraceful conditions. I wondered then and now, how much more they could have done if they had the resources and support of their better situated colleagues?  Shouldn’t ending this longstanding inequity be a top priority of education reform and ESEA reauthorization?

How can we seriously address determining which teachers are or are not effective when even the best teachers in poor schools are forced to work under conditions that limit both them and their students? How ironic is it that some of the same political forces that have planned and perpetuated this inequity are now among the loudest criers for giving poor parents the choice to send their children to other schools? How encouraging is it when parents and students recognize that it’s often not the teachers, but the lack of resources or political leadership that is putting their children at educational disadvantage.

Accountability, by definition, includes power.

One can only fairly be accountable for those things over which s/he has a comparable degree of control. Contrary to media myth, for American public school teachers, the aspects of our work over which we have any control has increasingly shrunk over the past 30 years. That decline parallels the perceived drop in student academic performance both across the country and between the U.S. and other countries.

As a veteran highly accomplished, highly effective teacher, I see at least two major problems with the current education accountability models. First, those systems, based largely on results of standardized testing, are neither rigorous nor comprehensive enough to hold teachers truly accountable for student learning or for the full range of professional duties required of a highly effective teacher. When I was still full time high school English teacher, the state test only covered about 1/3 of what I was responsible for teaching under the state curriculum. [Later, the curriculum was modified in an attempt to better fit the costly assessment]. Meanwhile, as fellow TLN blogger, Dan Brown, reminds us the tests only cover the work of about 30% of America's teaching force. The situation is akin to attempting to determine someone's blood pressure with a ruler. Nothing wrong with the instrument, but it's not designed for that task. Sure, some creative thinker might be able to rig up something that looks as if it might work (e.g., value-added measures), but the better plan is to use the right tools for the job. And even the Administration admits those tools do not yet exist.

Second, to share accountability, our evaluations must also include the work of those who are responsible for providing the working conditions and resources teachers need in order to teach effectively. In 1996, The Commission on Teaching and America's Future declared: "School reform cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating the conditions in which teachers can teach, and teach well" (10). Fifteen years later, a group of my TLN colleagues in a report on Teacher Working Conditions conclude:

The next question is whether the systems in place in our schools and districts support our efforts to be fully effective teaching professionals. In many cases, the answer is unfortunately "no." Despite access to Title I dollars, we tend to have fewer material resources available to us in our schools, including less well-kept and modern facilities. Most important, we frequently lack the human resources we need to reach a "tipping point" for success with our students.(7)…The national conversation about educational accountability must and will continue—but it should broaden to include accountability for administrators and education officials at every level (24).

This is not an attempt to throw off that part of the accountability that belongs to teachers, but thousands of teachers have helped their students make incredible gains in learning, despite consistent inequity in how educational resources are allocated in this country. The poorest children in the nation shouldn't have to pin their hopes for the future on the poorest schools in the nation.

In a recent series of blogs, another TLN friend, Bill Ferriter, helped by constructive pushback from some thoughtful school principals, helps us figure out that it is a waste of good energy to engage in a "them-vs-us" arguments between teachers and local administrators, and I agree. The current deplorable state of working conditions for teachers and learning conditions for students, particularly in high-needs schools are the harvest of a long series of bad decisions on many levels, including the persistent refusal of the federal government to fully fund IDEA so that special needs students can get all the services and supports which they have been promised in order to be successful. However, that does not stop the Feds from penalizing schools when those students are not successful on those same inadequate state tests I mentioned earlier, and courts have ruled that NCLB overrules IDEA when it comes to how those students are tested. It's a cruel circle of errors that ends up hurting our most vulnerable students.

Thankfully, we have many examples of local schools that have successfully worked to bring most of the educational stakeholders together in mutually respectful ways. The results have been schools that truly serve all children well, without costly, ineffective so-called turnaround strategies such as mass firings. Sadly, it seems turning these local examples into representatives of a cohesive, coordinated national education policy is, as my Mississippi friends say, "too much like right."

 Many of you have probably already heard about this recent piece of legislation highlighted in a recent EdWeek article:

Reps. Polis, Davis Introduce Educator-Evaluation Bill - Teacher Beat - Education Week.

This is a bill to watch. Though it probably won't advance on it own, it is a marker for language that could get wrapped into an ESEA rewrite—or added as an amendment to that larger vehicle. Remember, both Polis and Davis are on the House Education Committee that will take the lead in shaping that chamber's revision of the ESEA.

Why are these two politicans (with the blessing of the Administration apparently) pushing out this portion of the Blueprint/RttT ahead of everything else; even ahead of full reauthorization? Why attempt to legally bind the funding of our neediest schools to teacher evaluation systems that don't even exist yet in many places (some are only now in the process of being developed; and the promise was that they would be developed jointly with teachers)? Why preempt that work by requiring over 50% of the weight be assigned to test results and/or still statistically unstable, and pedagogically unsound VAM calculations?

The wording of the EdWeek report suggests that the bill's authors believe the most important skill of teachers at high needs schools should be the ability to raise test scores (since teachers who can't do that would be barred from those schools, but presumably free to teach at others). If I'm misreading the intent of the bill, please correct me. Perhaps, they have not been listening to those who do, in practice, work in high needs schools and have consistently produced academic excellence among their students. If they had, they would surely have learned this is probably the least effective way to get that done or to get more quality teachers at those schools. 

Those of us at TLN and Center for Teaching Quality, along with many others, have looked closely at the issue of high quality teachers in high needs schools {News Flash: There are already some great, high quality teachers who have committed ourselves to working in these schools].  To be a truly effective teacher for students in these most under-resourced, highly challenging schools requires a unique set of skills. Our federal and state reform efforts might be more successful if they were aimed at supporting the conditions which allow those skill sets to develop and flourish.  Consider examples such as Mitchell Elementary School in Arizona where 20 of the 34 teachers went through National Board Certification process together. Other schools have tried this approach as well. Creating environments in which teachers can grow in competence and expertise, and where they are not only allowed but encouraged to use that expertise in ways that really help students has to occur simultaneously (or maybe even prior to) developing of truly effective evaluations. Otherwise, we simply continue putting good (potentially great) teachers into dysfunctional settings.  Linda, a commenter on my last blog post put it well:

    How do we attract better quality applicants? I was a top student and what attracted me to the profession was autonomy, the chance to be creative in a lot of different areas, and a schedule that would help me parent my kids. I took a break from teaching while my kids were young and when I came back I did not even look at being a public school teacher- creativity and autonomy are gone there. I work at a charter school now where they treat me like a professional who can make sound decisions about educating my students. Why would a smart, highly educated person want to be told what to do and when to do it every day, whether or not it makes sense in the context of the situation? You couldn't pay me enough to do that.

Teachers, through groups such as Teachers Letters to Obama and the various meetings and conversations hosted by the Department of Education, and other channels have been trying for months to get the Administration to seriously re-think some of its positions on education reform as outlined in the ESEA Blueprint and the Race for the Top. For the most part, our concerns were dismissed, almost paternalistically, as already being addressed in the Blueprint. At times it appeared we were not making much headway in moving towards a serious consideration of these issues, but we persisted for the sake of our students and what we know is right.

Thankfully, some other influential voices are now being raised and real discussion of these points can no longer be avoided. A coalition of major civil rights organizations has issued a report titled, "Framework for Providing All Students an Opportunity to Learn Through Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act." As I read the document, I am encouraged that many of the concerns I have had about the proposals put forward by Secretary Duncan are also being flagged by other thoughtful stakeholders. Like the authors of the Framework, I applaud the Obama Administration for wanting to move our educational system forward. To do that, however, we need to take a much closer look at what has been proposed, and where it not only falls short, but could actually do more harm to already suffering children and communities.

Here are my thoughts on some of the ideas in the Framework:

1. Equitable Opportunities

"We believe the age of establishing outcome standards without making input investments to achieve these outcomes must end."

1A. I support the call for Common Opportunity Standards and the proposal for "independent audits of state and district education expenditures…whenever historically disadvantaged subgroups persistently fail…."

1B. I also wholeheartedly agree with the criticism of putting most of the new federal dollars into competitive grants. As the report states, "If education is a civil right, children in 'winning' states should not be the only ones who have opportunity to learn in high quality environments." They correctly point out that such policies would roll us back to pre-civil rights days in many places.

2B. Paul Vallas, Superintendent of New Orleans, stated in a PBS report that he sees nothing wrong with having a teaching force of 50% short-term staff from programs such as Teach for America, and 50% veteran or career teachers. He thinks that's a great balance. On our TLN Teacher Solutions 2030 team we also envision in the very near future that teaching will be a much more fluid and vibrant profession with people entering and leaving at different points, as well as much more movement within the profession in the form of hybrid roles. The problem, as the Civil Rights groups note, is and will be the distribution of those teachers. Currently, minority and high needs schools are more likely to get the short-term or less qualified staff; and experience much higher teacher turnover rates than higher performing schools. Those two facts are not unrelated. High teacher or administrator turnover destabilizes a school and its community. A better strategy is to establish a critical mass of stable, highly accomplished teachers who serve as mentors and anchors for the more transient staff. This gives the schools both the flexibility and the stability to maintain consistent educational quality.

2D. I have questioned the Administration's limited support of Promise Neighborhoods in the absence of correcting some other inequities already mentioned. If basic school funding inequities and distribution of teachers and resources is addressed, then the idea of comprehensive schools with wraparound services becomes not only logical but possible.

2E. The groups' caution about school closure as a turnaround strategy needs should be seriously heeded by the Administration. Some of the same political forces that have perpetuated resource and other inequities for the schools that serve poor and minority children have also used closure and consolidation to further harm our most vulnerable populations.

3. The need for more public and civic engagement on the front-end of education decisions is long overdue. It is ironic that while some deride poor parents for their seeming lack of concern over their children's education, the policies which were supposed to ensure and encourage their involvement have been underfunded and unenforced. Case in point: Parents at many Title I schools have had their expressed wishes and even votes for how Title funds should be used in their schools ignored or invalidated. As a parent and as an educator I have been among those effectively disenfranchised by policies and maneuvers that meet the letter of the law, but clearly gut its intent.

4. I also support the Framework for urging the federal government to do more to ensure safe learning environments in many of our schools. There is a correlation between the overuse of exclusionary discipline policies and low academic performance. I'm not saying that those who are a physical danger to peers or teachers should be allowed to remain in school. However, there is overwhelming evidence that these policies are used with much greater frequency and severity towards Black and Hispanic students, especially males, than they are for white students, even those who have committed identical offenses.

5. While I agree with most of the points made in the section on Diverse Learning Environments, the insistence on Right to Transfer provisions has always been problematic for rural communities. Sending our children to another town or county should not be the best or only way for taxpayers to obtain our educational civil rights. The groups actually make this point under Section 6.

6. It is necessary to take very deliberate steps to ensure the protection of hard-won civil rights for all of America's schoolchildren. While the report is right to condemn the awarding of federal education grants to states (or districts for that matter) where inequity has been established, we should also remember the lessons of the "massive resistance" movement that followed the Brown decision. During that period, some state and local bodies chose to deliberately violate the civil rights of Black citizens precisely so that federal funding would not reach those same citizens. Thorough monitoring and listening to the voices of parents and the community will help distinguish where there might be procedural but not substantive accountability.

I'm not sure we need a summit, a panel, and another commission as called for at the end of the Framework to get these things done; perhaps we do. It is a big job and a big country. I am sure that these points needed to be raised and addressed if our country is going to keep its promise to all of its citizens. For that I thank these organizations for once again standing up for what is right.