You are viewing the EdNews Blog archives.
These archives contain blog posts from before June 7, 2011
Click here to view the new Voices section of EdNews

Archive for the ‘Alternative pathways’ Category

Fixing the education pipeline

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

This post was submitted by Dr. Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of the State University of New York and the co-creator of Strive.

I’ll say at the outset that as an outsider to Colorado politics, I am not an expert on the candidates who are running to be the next mayor of Denver. But as a lifelong educator who has studied urban school issues for decades and helped create and implement successful reforms in Cincinnati and other cities, I would offer this advice to start: Elect the candidate who can bring this community together on education reform.

This is not simply a matter of opinion. Rather, it is a growing national consensus and the thrust behind a data-driven, evidence-based movement that’s been gathering steam among educators in recent years: In order to have educated, successful adults, we need to construct a solid education pipeline that runs straight from cradle to career. I readily accepted the invitation to participate in this week’s Great Teachers for Our City Schools National Summit in Denver because I see it as an excellent opportunity to share inspiring data on what’s happening in a few cities around the country.

The first five years of a child’s life are crucial in building a strong foundation for lifelong learning skills like critical thinking, language development, and problem-solving and social skills. This naturally leads to the idea that children need to be guided into education very early in life, and be programmatically supported in and out of the school setting all the way along the pipeline to ensure that they are prepared to succeed every step of the way until they begin their careers.

What we are finding is that there is an answer to this dauntingly tall order, and it lies in adopting a collaborative approach to building and strengthening the pipeline. In short, there is no single answer, no Superman solution and no silver bullet when it comes to education reform. It takes time, and lots of hard work from invested and interested community stakeholders to effect positive change.

Enter the Strive framework for education reform, a collective-impact approach, that I helped create in 2006. Since then, Strive’s “cradle-to-career” networks have made remarkable advances in public school districts in greater Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. Measurable improvements include increases in the number of preschool children prepared for kindergarten, improved fourth-grade reading and math scores and higher rates of high school graduation. Even college enrollment among graduates from public high schools has gone up by 10 percent. And at Northern Kentucky University and the University of Cincinnati, graduation rates for students from the local urban area high schools have increased by 10 and 7 percent, respectively.

The success of the Strive approach is based on the commitment of its influential, motivated participants from different sectors—local government, business, school districts, universities and colleges and non-profit and advocacy groups—who have collaborated to solve a specific social problem—rethinking, reorganizing, and redirecting existing resources to promulgate systemic changes and new approaches to problem solving that works. The framework is not meant to be a cookie cutter; rather, it is meant to be adapted to local needs. This is the key to Strive’s success, as we’ve begun to see in Houston; Oakland; Portland, Ore., and parts of New York state, where the Strive approach is being used.

We can have all the valuable, brilliant resources in the world in place to make sure that pipeline is continuous and secure—but none of that will matter if we don’t have effectively trained teachers in our classrooms, successfully guiding and supporting students every step of the way.

It’s clear then that an essential aspect of education reform must be concentrating our efforts on teacher education and preparation, making absolutely certain that every teacher who enters the classroom is clinically prepared, both pedagogically and in subject matter, with the same kind of readiness we’d expect of a pilot in a cockpit.

Last year, I co-chaired the Blue Ribbon Panel convened by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) that, in itself, represented a largely unprecedented consensus. State officials, P-12 and higher education leaders, teachers, teacher educators, union representatives and critics of teacher education were all represented on the panel, which uniformly called for system-wide changes in how the U.S. prepares and supports its 4 million teachers.

A major recommendation of the panel was to move teacher preparation to a clinically based model. This will involve a major structural change, shifting responsibility and accountability for teacher preparation from solely that of higher education to a shared P-12/higher education model.

It makes sense. Teachers who serve districts rife with economic and social challenges that inevitably manifest themselves in struggling public schools not only require, but deserve, the most sophisticated, best quality clinical practice preparation if they’re going to be effective in the classroom. And teacher support can’t end with the awarding of a degree: higher education should be a constant resource for training and best practices for P-12 educators for the length of their careers.

It is a myth that one person or group can cure our education ills by themselves, no matter how visionary or passionate. Only by working together, by engaging public and private institutions of higher education, public schools, civic leaders and elected officials, will we see real, measurable, and sustainable results. Success in Denver—and in every U.S. school district—will rise or fall on collaboration, on how successfully we rally all stakeholders around a common effort to achieve our goals and implement meaningful reform.

Popularity: 43% [?]

2010 top education stories

Monday, January 10th, 2011

One of the whimsical pleasures in a New Year are the end-of-year lists.  These are often more for amusement than instruction, but do a reasonable job of measuring the sentiment of the previous twelve months.  So, in contrast to Van’s somewhat parochial approach to the Best of 2010 in ed reform, here is a different take on the top 10 education stories from 2010.

I chose it out of various options because I think it’s a more interesting list than most, both appropriately wonky (National Education Technology Plan) and topical (Rhee).  However I was drawn to some of the more unconventional choices:

At #5 is the Apple iPad, as a precursor to the way children, especially younger kids, will change their learning through the use of educational software and mobile devices.  Add to that this story in the New York Times about schools purchasing iPads and other devices.

I’m personally mixed – technology, like any tool, can be used well or poorly and is never a replacement for quality teaching — but in the hands of a supportive environment, I’m intrigued by the potential. And anyone who has seen a young child (like my three-year-old) use the touch screen and intuitive interface on an iPad (well before he can adapt to a keyboard and mouse) should recognize that the long-term implications here are considerable.

Numbers 6 (National Traditional Media Presence) and 7 (Entrepreneurship and New Media) are also outside the realm of much conventional thought.

The former notes that for many of (what’s left) of traditional media, education stories have assumed a more central role.  I would obviously extend that to the prominence of new sources (like EdNews Colorado) which are more than worthy substitutes for some of the holes left by the implosion of print media.

The latter notes the amount of entrepreneurial activity in education, with companies like Edmodo and venture-capital backed LearnBoost (on whose blog this list appeared) — both which bear watching. In fact, there has been a significant boost in venture capital investment in start-up companies in education — over 30 deals announced in 2010 alone, including companies like Moonshot, MyEdu, Zinch, Knewton, Everfi, Altius, and Denver’s own TopSchool.

One of the more interesting developments over the past decade in education is the rise of new ideas and services from outside traditional providers — everything from Teach for America, to charter schools, to Revolution Foods — and the marriage of this interest in services with technology and entrepreneurs holds a world of promise.


Postscript: another EOY list of Andrew Rotherham’s 11 education activists to watch for 2011, including Colorado’s Senator Bennet, Stand for Children (which has a terrific Colorado chapter) founder Jonah Edelman, and Revolution Food founders Richmond and Tobey.

Popularity: 13% [?]

A parallax view on SB 191

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

With Mike Johnston’s teacher evaluation bill headed towards a vote later today, the heightened rhetoric has now eclipsed the likely impact.  For while I wholeheartedly support this bill, I also think the fevered opinion has given it a prominence that overshadows its relative ability to produce significant change.

With the rising antagonism between supporters and opponents, both sides went for the jugular: CEA publicly attacking Commissioner Dwight Jones and flexing its substantial lobbying muscle, while supporters enlisted the cumulative wisdom of the past 36 years of Colorado governors as well as district superintendents from Mapleton, Harrison, Denver and Aurora. In order to pass/block the bill, both sides must argue to its greatest possible impact. The end result is to inflate SB 191 to an elevated importance that no single proposal could possibly merit.

For if the bill passes (without too much change), it is both unlikely to be either a panacea leading to better educational outcomes for students, or the sudden arrival of nuclear winter for teachers. In truth, SB 10-191 is only one part of the institutional changes we need concerning teachers in public education, and in my view is probably of lesser importance than some related areas.  If this is the only evolutionary step we make for education reform, we are unlikely to crawl out of our current muck and rise to our feet.

To improve the quality of teaching, we need three primary changes (and a lot of secondary ones): First, find a way to move bad teachers out of the classroom. Second, retain the outstanding teachers who voluntarily leave the profession.  And third, widen the pool of potential hires so that we can recruit the best possible candidates into the classroom. Now don’t misunderstand, there are a lot of other tasks — many of these district-related policies that prevent current teachers from being able to do their best work (I have long believed that we have better teachers than we have teaching, due to various impediments). But at a macro level, we need to address these three issues first.

Even rough numbers should help us gauge relative importance.  Colorado hires between 6,500 and 7,000 new teachers annually.  Of these, roughly 50 percent do not progress beyond their 5th year.  In contrast, the number of teachers who are likely to be “evaluated” out of the classroom is far smaller than the number of either better candidates that we might attract, or retaining the best teachers who leave. For without the ability to replace bad teachers with better ones, evaluating teachers out of the classroom will accomplish virtually nothing. While SB 191 may be a substantial change to the teaching profession, by itself it is unlikely to have significant change on educational outcomes for students.

SB 10-191 — laudable and important as it is — only directly tackles the problem of removing bad teachers (although it might help marginally with retention).  Now we all know there are teachers who should not be teaching, but in comparison to recruitment and retention, I think these numbers are fairly small.  My guess is that even if this bill is applied as aggressively as possible, the percentage of teachers affected will be in the small single digits. The impact of SB 10-191, by itself, is unlikely to move the needle of student achievement across the State.

What else should we do?  I’d posit two approaches.

To retain the outstanding teachers who leave the profession, we need to start by abolishing the collective bargaining agreement’s single salary schedule.  In no other profession are the best performers in an industry confined to being compensated at the same rate as their average (or below-average) peers. Most of the people testifying in support or against 191 have achieved professional distinction, and are both recognized and compensated for their accomplishments.  We need to extend to our best teachers the same respect. SB 10-191 may help us better recognize these top performers, but they are unlikely to remain in the profession without accompanying incentives (and this should start with, but not be limited to salaries).

In addition, we need to phase out teacher certification, which serves primarily as an artificial barrier that discourages potential teachers and diverts resources that could be better applied.  Programs like Teach For America and the New Teacher Project have shown no substantive difference between traditional teacher certification and alternative (and usually far less extensive and expensive) methods.

Other avenues of preparation should be offered – both TFA and NTP programs, and expanded teacher residencies, which provide hands-on experience and mentoring. The requirement for teacher certification, and the related increase in pay for advanced degrees with no correlation with teacher quality, primary results in tuition dollars and a transfer of wealth to schools of education that provide little to no value to K-12 students.  While it has been a few years since Art Levine’s seminal report on teacher education, little has changed.

Funding these changes will be hard, but not impossible.  Districts spend considerable amounts on new hires; reducing attrition will eventually have a positive impact on budgets.  But to start, redeploy the salary dollars we have away from fixed raises for seniority and professional certification to instead recognize outstanding teachers as determined by school leadership (which would incorporate, but not be limited by the evaluation procedures in SB 10-191).

Secondly, pursue policies that shift the substantial dollars provided to schools of education into residency and alternative training programs.  Meaningless academic educational programs – most at private universities — suck millions of dollars in tuition and valuable time directly from teachers.  This is a billion-dollar industry that provides limited value — a remarkable waste of resources in the struggle to improve public education.

Prospective teachers should be given a choice between paying for these programs – often highly expensive, particularly given teacher starting salaries – and contributing to residency and other programs (which would also provide jobs upon successful program completion).

So, in the heightened shadow of SB 10-191, here is a modest proposal: migrate teacher preparation from mandatory certification to alternative and residency programs, shifting tuition dollars that enrich private universities to public school systems.  Abolish the single salary structure, using the premium formerly paid for advanced degrees to reward outstanding teachers for the achievements in the classroom.

And in the wake of what I think will be the successful passage of a mostly-whole SB 10-191, do not, for one minute, think that the effort to improve public education in Colorado has taken more than a small step forward, with a long distance still to travel.

Popularity: 12% [?]

College one-two punch

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

Two fascinating articles.  The first is a futuristic view of online higher education:

In less than two months, she had finished four complete courses, for less than $200 total. The same courses would have cost her over $2,700 at Northeastern Illinois, $4,200 at Kaplan University, $6,300 at the University of Phoenix, and roughly the gross domestic product of a small Central American nation at an elite private university. They also would have taken two or three times as long to complete.

And if Solvig needed any further proof that her online education was the real deal, she found it when her daughter came home from a local community college one day, complaining about her math course. When Solvig looked at the course materials, she realized that her daughter was using exactly the same learning modules that she was using …

The second is a harsh reminder of why the first might not be so bad after all:

If you were going to come up with a list of organizations whose failures had done the most damage to the American economy in recent years, you’d probably have to start with the Wall Street firms and regulatory agencies that brought us the financial crisis. From there, you might move on to Wall Street’s fellow bailout recipients in Detroit, the once-Big Three.

But I would suggest that the list should also include a less obvious nominee: public universities.

Is this latter article based on work by some radical subversive half-wit?  Try William Bowen, former President of both Princeton and the Mellon Foundation.

I don’t know that anyone can predict the future of Higher Ed, but I’m guessing it will change more substantially than K-12 over the next 50 years.

Popularity: 2% [?]

One R2T upgrade as easy as A-B-C(-T-E)

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

Hey, I’m a “social studies” guy, but it’s no mystery that STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics) education is a pressing issue, and one that should figure into Colorado’s policy innovations as we try to Race to the Top. The recent National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) / Piton Foundation report (PDF) includes emphasis on improving STEM teaching as one of its “Creative Bets” for winning R2T funding:

Colorado should develop a coherent state strategy to address the difficulty school districts face in attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of qualified STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) teachers. The state’s strategy should tackle this issue from many different angles, recognizing that there is not going to be any single source of great teachers for teaching these subjects, with the need particularly acute in the areas of mathematics and physical science. Multiple pathways are needed for qualified individuals to enter the profession, and multiple strategies are needed to keep them.

While our state works to focus on the four higher priority suggestions in the report, they would do well not to lose track of the specific NCTQ/Piton suggestions surrounding STEM. As American Board (more…)

Popularity: 1% [?]

Of master’s bumps, training and incentives

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Last month I testified before the Long-Term Fiscal Stability Commission about the need to overhaul the current school finance system. One example I offered of misplaced incentives is the common practice of providing a salary boost for earning a master’s degree.

Days before I gave the testimony, the Center on Reinventing Public Education released a report by Marguerite Roza (PDF) on the academic worthlessness and tremendous cost of “master’s bumps”. In 2004 Colorado spent $138 million (1.76 percent of its total K-12 expenditures) on these bumps. Study after study shows no impact on improved student learning.

The problem isn’t teachers earning master’s degrees per se. The problem is treating all master’s degrees (more…)

Popularity: 3% [?]

Teaching no “fallback” career

Monday, April 20th, 2009

A great series of perspectives on the NY Times blog.  A few random highlights:

Some years ago I read the following quote: “No one, not even a farmer, works as hard as a caring teacher, but there is nothing lazier than an uncaring one.” I felt both intimidated and comforted by this — I had the option of working hard and being socially ranked just above farmer or I could be lazier than a pillow tester.

Today more than five million newly unemployed may find themselves contemplating these options. They should be encouraged to try teaching but should also realize that there is no way of knowing if they’ll be any good at it, the statistics say there is a big chance that they will quit within five years, and the president of the United States may try to get them fired.

and (more…)

Popularity: 2% [?]

Why do some insist on setting kids up for failure?

Friday, May 30th, 2008

There always has to be someone who says it. I got to the bottom of the Rocky article on the Obama visit… Eureka!

While the speech – and the several questions afterward – generated applause, one area that Christina Eyre said Obama didn’t sufficiently address was vocational training.

The 39-year-old Denver resident and Obama supporter since the February caucus said it is a mistake to think every high school student is suited for college. She said more should be done to allow those teens to learn trades.

"We’re always going to need people that are auto mechanics or in other trades," she said. "When we think every kid should go and graduate from college, we set some of them up for failure."

Could we please get past this? Please? Please? There are somewhere around 800,000 auto mechanics in this country (.5% of the workforce) making about $16 an hour.  That’s what? Maybe $30,000/year? To top it off, if that would-be mechanic doesn’t go to college, his or her kids are less likely to go, regardless of their intelligence. I’m not the first to regurgitate the research that parents’ education level has more effect on children’s achievement and attainment than almost anything else.

Who’s setting who up for failure?

 

Popularity: 2% [?]

A case for Life Skills Center

Thursday, February 21st, 2008

Back in the early days of this blog, I wrote a post blasting the state Board of Education for pressuring Denver Public Schools not to close the Life Skills Center, a low-performing charter school. The Denver school board had wanted to close the school, but bowed to the pressure and let it reopen for this school year.

Tonight, the board votes on whether to let Life Skills, and several other low-performing charters, stay open for another year. Having visited Life Skills, I’ve changed my mind on this one, and hope the board will let it keep operating.

My superficial impression of Life Skills is that it’s not a great school. It’s probably not even a particularly good school. Still, I find myself at odds with my own thinking from last August, when I wrote:

DPS did its homework on this one. Life Skills was failing its students. But here’s (state school board member Bob) Schaffer, as quoted in the Rocky Mountain News: “The bigger question is, how does the school compare to the street? Because that is the option being weighed and compared here.”

Of course the street is a lousy option. But if that false dichotomy is played out to its logical extreme, then we should just abandon all quality standards for schools serving at-risk kids. That’s not going to get us very far, and certainly Schaffer knows that.

Why the change of heart? Simple. Life Skills Center is a last-gasp chance for young people who have already dropped out of school to reengage and get a diploma. DPS wrote into the school’s charter contract that it could recruit only those prospective students who had dropped out of school, and had been out of school for at least 60 days.

That’s a tough crowd to engage. So one would expect a high rate of failure, low attendance, and a lot of attrition. And that’s exactly what happens at Life Skills.

But something else happens as well. At least some kids apparently learn a significant amount, and go on to graduate. Some 80 percent of the school’s 260 students are in line to graduate within a year.

And according to Measures of Academic Progress, a national assessment Life Skills uses,  students have been making over a year-and-a-half’s worth of growth in reading for each academic year. Since all Life Skills students read at far below grade level, they have to make these kinds of gains if they are ever to catch up.

Of course in math, students are making less than half a year’s progress each year, and in language just under a year. So the news is decidedly mixed.

Attendance rates of just over 50 percent also are nothing to brag about. But again, given who these kids are, the fact that many hold down multiple jobs, and that the attendance rate two years hovered around 40 percent, 50 percent looks like progress to me.

If DPS had a viable alternative for these kids, one that was being drained by the existence of Life Skills, I’d favor shutting down the school. But these are kids DPS has given up on, and vice-versa. What possible harm is there in giving them another chance, even if it’s less than ideal?

DPS needs to close a low-performing charter or two. After all, the school board has begun closing its own low-performing schools. There’s no reason to treat bad charters differently than bad district schools. But I now believe that Life Skills Center is a special case.

 

Popularity: 2% [?]

Post-secondary options sides aren’t far apart

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

In Rona Wilensky’s article in the most recent HeadFirst e-newsletter, she makes a number of great points, warning us not to create an education system that shoehorns all kids into the expectations of a traditional four-year liberal arts education.  Our policy discussions seem to be swinging back and forth wildly, between a “college for all” focus and an emphasis on the differing needs and interests of kids who may or may not want to go to college. 

Guess what – everyone is right, to a point.  Our education system must guarantee that kids who want to go through a traditional college experience are prepared for it, and that includes those kids who are usually subject to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” (can’t believe I just quoted Geo. Bush) and those kids who decide as seniors that maybe college is the place for them after all. 

Yet our education system must also guarantee that there are many different and challenging pathways that accommodate the interests and dreams of kids who don’t want that four-year academic experience.

We can do this.  We know how – it’s just hard to implement, and it’s going to take time to figure out how to avoid the mistakes of the past.  Take a look at the report from UCD’s Center for Education Policy Analysis on career and technical education in Colorado for examples of schools that are combining academic rigor and real-world relevance and creating meaningful choices for students. 

Career and technical education should not be the only path either, but the field’s current reform efforts as it struggles to be both meaningful and rigorous are a useful example for education reform as a whole.

As Rona rather subtly points out, we have a lot of people looking at P-20 education reform right now:  the P-20 Council, whatever the governor’s plan turns out to be, the HB 1118 graduation guidelines council, CDE’s revision of standards, and so on.  It’s an embarrassment of riches that is starting to make a lot of people nervous about who’s leading the parade. 

What if we agreed on a simple guiding principle as everyone does their work:  the education system in Colorado needs to prepare students for successful futures using multiple pathways that are equally rigorous and have safeguards to ensure that students make intentional and positive decisions about their futures and don’t fall between the cracks. 

Anybody have any problems with that?

 

Popularity: 2% [?]

Colorado Health Foundation Walton Family Foundation Daniels fund Pitton Foundations Donnell-Kay Foundation