Advocates Seek to Tweak EduJobs Bill

This from Politics K-12:

You may remember that Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, just released a bill aimed at helping states and districts avert a tidal wave of layoffs and programmatic cuts.

Education advocates are eager to see passage of the bill, which would include $23 billion in new state stabilization dollars. The U.S. House of Representatives has already approved similar legislation. Rumor has it the Senate bill could hitch a ride on an emergency spending measure aimed at military spending.

But folks have some ideas for changes that they say would keep more teachers employed. For instance, the Education Trust today released a statement saying the bill should encourage districts to move away from seniority-based teacher layoffs that don't take teacher effectiveness into account.

The organization cites a report released last year by the Center for Reinventing Public Education, at the University of Washington, in Seattle. It shows that more
people lose their jobs than necessary under a seniority based system, in part because the newest teachers are usually the lowest-paid. As a result, a district must lay off more of those newer teachers in order to achieve the same cost savings that it might get by laying off more-experienced teachers who earn higher pay, even if they aren't as effective...

Education Trust and the Battle for the Soul of Charter Schools

There is a battle going on

for the soul of charter schools.

It is very important who wins that battle.

--Kati Haycock

During Q & A at the end of this afternoon's presentation I was able to change the subject and ask a question on charter schools.

KSN&C: I know that you have written to advise the Obama administration regarding the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. What I haven't heard the Education Trust talk about, really, is charter schools - either pro or con. Are you all keeping hands off that topic for a reason, and if so, could you share that with us.

Haycock: It's a good question. When charter movement started, we basically said in our organization, 'that's kind of a side game.' The vast majority of low income and minority students - which is our focus as an organization - are educated in public school districts, so our energy is going to go toward helping those interests get better.

Over time, we have revisited that decision many times, mostly because, obviously, in some communities a large segment of low income kids are in charter schools, and because there are horrible variations in charter movement.

And there is a battle going on for its soul. In my view, it is very important who wins that battle.

There are people, as I suspect everybody knows, who are in the charter world primarily because they want to make a difference for kids, and the apparatus around traditional public schools makes that too hard. So they are in it to make things better for kids and there are wonderful examples ...of charter schools.

There are others in the charter movement who are just about freedom from regulations and whose results are worse than some of the worst traditional public schools.

So we think it matters who wins.

What I'm not entirely sure is, what an organization like ours - other than demanding accountability from all kinds of schools - we're not sure what we add. And because we're smallish, our tendency has been to say, 'this issue is really important to the kids we worry most about and nobody else is going to work on it, so we're going to work on it.'

You can't say that about charters right now.

For us it has not been a central purpose; not because we hate them, or that we adore them, but because they're a mixed bag.

Haycock's Bullet Points

KSN&C had a brief chat with Kati Haycock before her presentation. In a nutshell, she is concerned about the likelihood of NCLB reauthorization in present political climate.

EKU President Doug Whitlock introduces Haycock

Here are some snippets from Haycock's presentation:

• College-going is up in all sectors, but especially for whites. So while college-going is up for minorities, the gap between the rich and poor has grown.
• Low income students are less likely to graduate.
• Upper income kids graduate at 8 times higher rate. Is this a threat to democracy?
• Today's young folks are less educated than their parents..for the first time.
• We have turned the corner on closing gaps in elementary and middle schools but not in high school.
• Recent federal dollars have shifted toward more affluent students with reductions of pell grants which support poor students.
• More money has been channeled to non-need based aid.
• Colleges themselves - through the actions they take and don't take - contribute to this.
• Colleges have reduced institutional aid to low income students while increasing aid to affluent students.
• 60% of institutional support at 4-year colleges, goes to students with no financial need whatsoever.
• College results comparing schools with identical populations vary greatly.
• EKU graduation rate is low for 4year-1st year Frosh but has closed the income gap; males lag females.

"What we see in Georgia is

poor people buying lottery tickets

that go toward sending rich kids to college."

Roger Cleveland and Sherwood Thompson

Colleges that improve look at their data - and react.

• Schools that improve pay attention to their leading indicators.
• Lack of available course sections stalls too many students, frustrates them and some drop out.
• Pay attention to details...especially attendance.
• Pay attention to introductory courses...big enrollments that serve high percentage of students.
• Successful schools bring back the students they lose.
• Leaders make sure student success is a priority.
• Assign clear responsibility for student success.
• Do not hesitate to demand and require what students need to do.

Jim Rinehart (center) with Billy Thames and Bob Biggin (back right)

Haycock to Visit EKU Today

This morning at 10 and again at 1:30 PM, Kati Haycock will be addressing EKU faculty and students on the ways schools enhance student success according to national data. The 1:30 session is open to the public and will be held in SSB O'Donnell Auditorium.

Haycock is one of the nation's leading child advocates in the field of education. She currently serves as President of the Education Trust, a 501 (c) (3) public charity with approximately 50 employees. Established in 1992, the Trust speaks up for what's right for young people, especially those who are poor or members of minority groups. The Trust also provides hands-on assistance to educators who want to work together to improve student achievement, pre-kindergarten through college.

A 2006 study identified the Education Trust as America's 4th most influential education policy organization just behind Congress, the US Department of Education and the powerful Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a major benefactor of the Trust.

Most recently, Haycock commented on the latest NAEP scores saying,

Since 2007, all student groups and the nation as a whole made modest gains in reading at the eighth-grade level on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Some other results are troubling, however:

Performance among America’s fourth-graders—where the strongest and most consistent growth has occurred over the past decade—appears to have flattened.

Achievement gaps did not narrow at either the fourth-grade or eighth-grade level.

Only one state—Kentucky—improved its overall scores in both grades.

Fourth-grade scores in four states—Alaska, Iowa, New Mexico, and Wyoming—actually declined.

Given these trends—which are nearly identical to those from the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment—it is more important than ever for educators and policymakers to identify and scale up the strategies that powerfully improve student learning.

Haycock on Race to the Top:

The great promise of Race to the Top—and the unprecedented resources it will distribute—is the opportunity to drive meaningful and powerful change for students. That promise will be squandered if reviewers and federal officials aren’t willing to say, “Sorry, this plan just isn’t good enough,” to states that fail to focus squarely on equity for all students or that lack the capacity to implement a strong application. America’s students need and deserve the best education reform plans possible. Any proposals that don’t shoot for the moon need to be left in the dust.

More Accurate Reporting Won't Solve Dropout Problem

This from Ed Week, Cartoon by John Trever in the Albuquerque Journal:

America is now the only country in the industrialized world where young people are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were, according to a new study by the nonpartisan Education Trust. Two numbers illustrate this serious
challenge.

25 percent: That is the alarmingly large number of American high school students who quit before earning their diplomas.

50 percent: That is the extraordinary number of minority students in United States who do not finish high school on schedule. Even schools with otherwise commendable overall graduation rates can camouflage the poor graduation rates of minority or special-needs students...

Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate, Class of 2006

Overall - 73%

African American - 59%

Asian -90%

Latino - 61%

NativeAmerican - 62%

White - 81%

...As “The Silent Epidemic,” a report from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, showed, while there is no single cause for students’ dropping out, boredom and disengagement and the coursework’s perceived lack of relevance to their futures are major contributing factors...

Ed Trust calls for Better Support for Schools to Improve Graduation rates

I've got an idea. Let's cut even more funding to public education and see if we can't improve graduation rates.

Hey wait! On second thought, let's follow the Education Trust's advice and better support the schools so that they might accomplish the important goals that have been set for them.

This from The Education Trust:

An Agenda for State Leadership

THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY in the world in which today’s young people are less likely than their parents to have completed high school. This is a startling turn for our nation, which prides itself on extending educational opportunity to everyone. To sustain the promise of the American education system as a ladder to economic, social, and civic success, high school graduation rates must improve for all young people—especially for the growing numbers of students of color.

By 2020, the nation’s African-American population is expected to increase by 10 percent, the Latino population by a full third. Yet today, more than one in every three students from these fast-growing groups do not graduate from high school on time ...

Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), Class of 2006
Overall 73%
African American 59%
Asian 90%
Latino 61%
Native American 62%
White 81%

In 2005, the nation’s governors took an important step toward improving graduation rates by acknowledging that the inconsistent and often inaccurate ways states calculated graduation rates obscured the reality that far too few students were completing high school. Now, thanks to leadership of the National Governors Association (NGA), honest information about who is graduating and who is not is becoming more widely available as states begin to report their graduation rates according to a new, consistent, and more accurate calculation...

Ed Trust advises Governor Beshear to:

• Make raising graduation rates a high priority.
• Ensure the state budget protects current dropout-prevention programs and, if possible, adds funds to improve data quality, support for schools and students, and research and dissemination of successful strategies.

And to Joe Brothers and the State Board:

• Set rigorous and gap-closing graduation-rate goals and improvement targets.
• Establish policies that define and clarify student exit codes.

To Commissioner Draud:

• Provide professional development for district and school staff to ensure they understand coding policies.
• Establish quality-control mechanisms and audit protocols for graduation-rate data.
• Identify schools that have improved their graduation rates, celebrate and disseminate their successes, and commission research on their best practices.

To Berman, Silberman, Marcum and the rest of the state's superintendents:

• Perform school-level graduation-rate audits.
• Use graduation-rate data to deploy resources to the schools and students who most need support.

...The stakes could hardly be higher when it comes to raising the academic achievement of America’s young people. But far too often, state policies and actions can betray indifference to the issue and a lack of confidence in students and educators alike. To avoid this, states can do at least three things:

(1) support school and district efforts to accurately account for all students,

(2) hold schools and districts accountable for real improvement, and

(3) generate a statewide focus on improving graduation rates. Otherwise, states will continue to undercut their needs for a skilled and knowledgeable workforce and hinder young people in their desire to lead successful, productive lives.

Of course, such efforts alone will not improve graduation rates.

Educators and students need to work harder, and policymakers must provide greater support to the schools and students who need it most. One thing is certain: State leaders must be more assertive in setting the conditions and expectations for higher graduation rates. With progress on all fronts, all students can enjoy independence and success, both of which begin with a high school diploma.

The map is from AP by way of H-L using Department of Education data.

Report: Ohio, Ky., relatively fair in school-fund allocation

This from the Cincinnati Enquirer:

In most states, school districts whose students are predominantly low-income or minority get the least public funding, a new report says.

But Ohio and Kentucky in recent years are reversing that trend.

A study by the Education Trust, a Washington-based education think tank, shows Ohio and Kentucky bucking the national trend of short-changing disadvantaged public schools.

School districts across the country spent on average $938 less per pupil at high-poverty districts than at low-poverty districts in 2005, the most recent year studied. The funding gap has widened since 1999, according to EdTrust.

Similarly, high-minority school districts were funded at $877 less per pupil than districts with few or no minorities. That funding gap narrowed since 1999, the report found.

"Many of the school districts with the greatest needs often receive the least funding, begging the question of whether we're setting some students up for failure," wrote Carmen Arroyo, EdTrust research director.

EdTrust based its analysis on census reports and federal education statistics...

...Kentucky in 1999 spent $801 more per student in high-poverty districts than in affluent districts. By 2005 it improved that to $878 more per impoverished student.

The state also wiped out its gap affecting high-minority schools.

Haycock addresses Champions for Education in northern Kentucky

Kentucky education patterns mirror those nationally, which is to say that results are mixed and there is still much work to do.

That's the message prominent education expert Kati Haycock planned to share in her keynote speech at the Northern Kentucky Education Summit today.

Titled "Champions for Education: Focus Locally, Compete Globally," the event at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center is the first-ever regional summit on education issues, and a centerpiece of this year's four-day Northern Kentucky Education Week events.

Haycock is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Education Trust, a nonprofit organization that was established in 1992 and focused initially on the achievement gap among America's students by income and race.

In much the same way Kentucky education reform has expanded significantly in that time, so too has the Education Trust, with Haycock becoming a nationally prominent children's advocate in the field of education.

Prior to joining the Education Trust, Haycock served as executive vice president of the Children's Defense Fund, the nation's largest child advocacy organization.

"What the national data tells us, there are indications that, by and large, we're making more progress in elementary than in secondary (grades)," Haycock said Tuesday in an interview from her Washington office. "And with minority kids, we're not doing as well as we can. ... The data on Northern Kentucky reminded me of what we're seeing nationally."

That's no surprise to local educators. While the region's elementary schoolchildren continue to show improvement in standardized CATS and No Child Left Behind testing, students in middle schools and high schools still lag behind.

"Part of the problem is, Kentucky, like almost every single state, ... went from standards to tests, and we didn't stop at curriculum in between," Haycock said. "Kentucky has begun to step up to that." ...

This from the Cincinnati Post.

Education Trust or bust?

Mike Petrilli writes in the Fordham foundation's Education Gadfly blog this week about the Education Trust, it's influence in Washington and it's recommendations for changes in NCLB.

~

If history is a guide, there's every reason to believe that Congress will follow Ed Trust's lead. After all, its president (and recent Fordham excellence-in-education prizewinner), Kati Haycock, was voted the most influential individual in American education save for President Bush and Secretary Spellings (see here). She and her organization are respected by many Republicans and worshipped by lots of Democrats. Their pronouncements are taken seriously. But should this one be?

Let's start with the good part. Education Trust has finally admitted that "every child proficient in reading and math by 2014" is much better as a slogan and aspiration than as the operating principle for a serious accountability regime. It's the classic overreach, the epitome of excess. This pronouncement-cum-policy has encouraged states to play games: mucking around with "n-sizes" and "confidence intervals" to avoid the "every child" component, racing to the bottom with their definitions of "proficiency," and back-loading their timelines in the expectation of a miracle in the last year or two before the 2014 deadline.

Ed Trust appears to have gotten the picture. Regarding "every child," its proposal would allow states with high standards (those that indicate readiness for college and work) to aim for 80 percent of students in every subgroup achieving proficiency rather than 100 percent. (Ninety-five percent of students would have to achieve a "new basic" level, "indicating preparation for active citizenship, military service, and entry into postsecondary education or formal employment training.") Furthermore, it would differentiate between those schools that miss their performance targets by a mile and those that fall short by a few inches.

Regarding "proficiency," it would provide incentives for states to boost their standards and require those with particularly weak-kneed definitions of "proficiency" to get at least 50 percent more of their kids to the "advanced" level. Plus, it would count as "proficient" those students who are "on a trajectory to meet proficiency in three years"--an acceptance of student growth as a cornerstone of any sensible accountability system.

As for the 2014 deadline, Ed Trust would allow high-standards states to reset NCLB's 12-year timeline, giving them until 2019 to achieve the law's goals.

NCLB: Ed Trust recommendations for NCLB reauthorization

Education Trust made recommendations relative to the reauthorization of NCLB...including...

State longitudinal data systems must incorporate:
(1) A unique, statewide student identifier that remains stable over time;
(2) Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation
information;
(3) The ability to match individual student’s test records from year to
year;
(4) Information on untested students, including why they were not tested;
(5) Information on student attainment in high schools, including firsttime
grade-level enrollment, grade-level retention, verified transfer status,
drop-out status, receipt of standard diploma, receipt of non-standard
diploma, receipt of GED, incarceration, and death;
(6) A statewide audit system to ensure the validity and reliability of data
in such system;
(7) A unique statewide teacher identifier that remains stable over time
and matches student records to the appropriate teacher;
(8) Teacher elements, including grade levels and subjects of teaching
assignment, major and minor of undergraduate study, preparation
program participation, certification status, and professional development
program participation. Such teacher elements must be linked to a stable,
unique statewide teacher identifier.
(9) Student-level transcript information;
(10) Information on student participation in and performance on college
admissions and/or college-level assessments;
(11) Ability to link information from K-12 to data systems in higher
education, and to gather information on college enrollment, placement,
persistence, and attainment; and ability to link data systems to data from
workforce development, unemployment insurance, and military services
information systems.


The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provisions should be modified to account for the growth in individual students’ academic achievement from year to year.

• Allow states to replace the current status model of AYP and implement a growth model that gives schools credit for students who are on a three-year growth trajectory toward proficiency by a date certain or by the last state assessment, whichever comes first. This calculation should be based on the growth of individual students over time. Growth models must establish growth targets for all students, including students who are already proficient or advanced.
• Accountability determinations should continue to be based on results for each group represented in the school/district/state in addition to overall results.
• Establish minimum standards regarding data systems and data quality for states to implement a growth model, including the ability to match test records of individual students from year to year and the ability to measure growth at the classroom and school level.
• In order to implement growth models, states must have had a stable assessment in place for at least 2 years, and/or provide documentation of the ability to equate scores from year to year.
• In order to use growth calculations for high school AYP determinations, states must administer assessments in multiple high school grades in mathematics and Reading/Language Arts.
Limit group size for school accountability determinations (i.e., N-size) to no more than 30 students with a confidence interval that does not exceed 95%.

EdTrust Response to Education Week’s "Quality Counts 2007"

Focus is necessary. Tunnel vision isn't. Part of understanding how much teachers have done for students is understanding how far they have come - as opposed to the improvement of students whose parents may have enriched their children's lives well beyond the school's best hope.

Demographics aren't destiny. But let's be real. Let's put all the data on the table. Closing the achievement gap will require a comprehensive approach and educators ought to be part of that conversation as well.

~
This from Education Trust:

Demographics Aren’t Destiny: What Schools Do Matters

...Now, please don’t get us wrong. In a country as rich as ours, it is an outrage that we allow so many children to live in poverty or grow up with inadequate health care. And all Americans, educators and otherwise, should be pressing policymakers to DEAL with these problems.

But our main job as educators is a different one: it’s about teaching those children, no matter their background. And this Commission--had it thought to ask principals in its own highest performing, high-poverty schools for advice--would have been told that in no uncertain terms...

“...Some of our children live in the most dire circumstances,” [a principal testified]. “But we don’t dwell on that because we can’t change that. We focus, instead, on what we can do to take these children where they need to go.”

Principals at high-performing, high-poverty schools all over the country say exactly the same thing: We focus on what we can change, not on what we can’t. They want to be judged not by the characteristics of the students coming in, but by what they do for them.

On the one hand, [Quality Counts] took some important steps forward by including, for example, indicators on pre-school participation and on postsecondary results. After all, what we do at all these levels matters. And it’s right to remind policymakers, like the Casey Foundation has in its annual Kids Count reports, that if they are serious about developing their states’ young talent, it is insane to ignore the huge contribution that better health care and better family supports can make.

That said, the masthead, if we're not mistaken, says Education Week, not Sociology Week. Yet the researchers created a “Chance for Success Index” that essentially said to states: If you have large numbers of poor or undereducated adults, just forget it. In so doing, Quality Counts diminished the critical role of educators and public schools in preparing young people to become contributing citizens despite the obstacles they face outside of school.