In the world of school reform’s marketplace of ideas and policy proposals, there is a surplus of two kinds of suggestions. One kind is the sweeping, revolutionary idea that promises to produce dramatic and widespread change for large numbers of kids (and that might actually succeed in doing so), if only it had a snowball’s chance in the Bahamas of being enacted. The second kind of idea we see all-too-much of is the politically expedient, sound-bite idea that is big on style points but low on substance, yet which finds its way into plenty of political speeches and campaign plans. In the former camp, one could count all those who propose to eradicate the current system of public education as we know it and replace it with a pure private-provider system. Whether or not such an idea would do well by children is decidedly less important than the reality that such a proposal is a virtual impossibility. In the latter camp are throwaway refrains like, “No Child Left Behind has become No Child Left Untested”—lines that may rally a base but do precious little to actually solve the problems in our schools.

The lack of strong, common-sense middle ground ideas between the two extremes noted above has led to recent election cycles that have been relatively devoid of intelligent debate on important education ideas. When good ideas are impractical and unpopular, politicians will naturally revert to bad ideas or non-ideas that sound good. We saw t his in the ’04 presidential, where the education debate came down to an argument over whether and by how much NCLB had been under-funded—a tough sell for the Senator Kerry given that the President had increased education spending over the course of his first term by a substantial amount, 35%. So as the presidential campaign trails kick up and candidates stake out their ground on the education issue, one could reasonably ask whether this year will be more of the same.

If the early trends mean anything, there is reason for hope this year that the sound-bites we hear may actually have value if implemented. The first data point is the behavior of some of the candidates on the trail, particularly of Senator Barack Obama, who made waves in Iowa earlier in the month at a rally where we spoke openly about the need for a pay-for-performance bargain with teachers, a position that is an immediate red flag with old guard and rank-and-file union supporters. That Obama is willing to break from the mold and not just bash NCLB funding levels is a promising sign that the candidates may be interested in progress, and not just politics.

A second data point is a new report released last week by the Education Sector, a non-partisan and highly respected education policy think tank in DC. The report, aptly titled “eight for 2008”, is a collection of realistic, yet potentially politically palatable ideas that the candidates could stake out positions on in the coming months. The ideas range from a “New Deal” for teachers to increasing access to pre-K, to college access reform, to new school programs in low-income neighborhoods. If you’re curious to see whether the candidates heed the group’s advice (or if you’re running for office yourself), we encourage you to check it out!

Posted by Aaron Tang at 01:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s a common refrain among educators and parents that the current tack of education policy in America, with its increased focus on standardized testing, has come at a high cost. These sorts of critiques, which are especially common from stakeholders in higher performing suburban districts, lament the loss of arts and music programs and the erosion of history curricula (since these topics not among the subjects required for testing in NCLB); chastise elected officials for replacing “critical thinking skills” with “rote memorization” in classrooms; and complain that character, social, and civic education has been subverted by a set of academic-achievement-only blinders.

From a historical perspective, as prominent education historians such as David Tyack and Larry Cuban and others have long reported, this common refrain is nothing new. The wheel of education reform, so to speak, goes around. Over the past centuries American educators have alternated in focusing on moral / civic education and on academic achievement like clockwork, and with each turn reformers, policy makers, teachers, and parents find themselves harkening for the alternative. When we focus only on character education we worry about international competitiveness and achievement gaps. When we focus on achievement, we worry that our young people are growing up rudderless and without a sense of right, wrong, and responsibility.

An editorial in the USA Today presents an argument for how the two notions may be a false dichotomy. Referencing a successful example of character education used by a group of educators at Ridgewood Middle School in Arnold, MO, the authors talk about how a complete transformation took place in the school over a five year period.

Three things stand out about the example that is cited here, and which have implications for policy makers and educators who wonder where to fall on the character ed vs. academic achievement fence (if such a fence exists at all). First, it certainly seems possible for schools to implement specific, meaningful practices into curricula to encourage character education without taking too much time away from other important academic tasks. Using a "teachable moments" approach, the Ridgewood educators have students write fairy tales with positive moral lessons, and then donate their stories to a local children's hospital; put on an event for veterans and their families on Veterans Day to learn more about service and history; have regular student meetings with adult mentors; and even have a student-led semester long class on ethics. I would add to their body of evidence the success stories represented by the KIPP charter schools which do not spend as much time on explicit character education but rather inforce character and strong values among children throughout their five pillars of successful schooling. In any case, even when character ed practices do take time away from core academic subjects, Berkowitz and Haynes submit that they actually "enhance academic performance", not hurt it.

Second, there seems to be something of a measurement problem for those who fall squarely into the character ed advocacy camp. How do we know when character education is working? The authors cite recent corporate scandals, steroids abuse among sports stars, and statistics on drug use and cheating in school as evidence of the problem, but these kinds of trends have long existed without any real relationship to the amount of moral and character education being taught in schools. Many of the lobbyists and corporate big whigs caught in 21st century scandals are a product of a 1970s and early 80s school system that re-emphasized "values education", after all. Indeed, even within the op-ed, Berkowitz and Haynes seem to suggest that the proof of the character education pudding, so to speak, is found in increased achievement, school attendance, and parental involvement in Ridgewood. Not that this is bad thing, by any means, but it's always a complicating matter when the fruits of a particular policy suggestion are different than the problems that one cites as evidence that the policy needs changing to begin with.

Finally, there is a bigger, more over-arching lesson to be gleaned if one reads between the lines and discerns what was truly the lever of change in Ridgewood (and in the vast majority of high-achieving schools like it across America). Isn't what really happened in Ridgewood an example of tremendous individual leadership by the two principals who took on the failing system, got rid of low-performing and deadbeat faculty members, encouraged buy-in and ownership among new teachers, involved parents, and created a culture of respect, achievement, and caring in the school? The same kinds of heroic principal and teacher leadership have been recorded in many a previously low-achieving school, and not all of them required character education as part of the turnaround. In fact, many have focused on increased time on math and reading at the exclusion of other topics like arts and music and, at times, overt character ed. Without the transfusion of new energy and dedication that the new principals brought to Ridgewood, who's to say any reform of practice or policy would have made a difference?

In other words, while character education cannot be forgotten in our schools, isn't it the folks, and not the strokes, so to speak, that matter first and foremost?

Posted by Aaron Tang at 04:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I got an email the other day from a student who expressed the concern that efforts like Our Education and the newly launched Prepare The Future, may be wrong-headed, especially to the degree that they seek donations and contributions from the citizens we seek to mobilize. The student wondered whether the 10-year, $250 million plan that Prepare The Future intends to implement in order to mount sustained pressure on elected officials for improving public education (provided the test period works) is the most effective method and use of resources, or whether that money would be better spent on direct services to the youth in question who need the most support.

Here is how I replied. I'd love to hear what you think about the discussion!

Dear ______ Thanks for your very thoughtful message and concerns!

2 – The alternative that we are suggesting is similar to the notion of the civil rights movement. Instead of asking donors to give five, twenty or fifty bucks at a time to impoverished African Americans back in the 50s and 60s, what Martin Luther King Jr. and others sought to do was leverage those resources to push for systemic change—changes which only elected officials had the capacity to make in a sweeping scale. In other words, if we believe that children ought to represent more than just 2% of the entire US Federal Budget, and we can convince legislators of the same thing, each percentage point increase is equal to $30 billion dollars more a year for our children (or 1,200 times more per year than the $25 million it would cost Prepare The Future to fight for those changes).

The downside with advocacy, of course, is that there are a couple of potential risks:
1.) If an advocacy group does not succeed in its efforts, the money would indeed have been more wisely spent on direct service to those in need.
2.) If an advocacy group actually hinders the chances of a cause to see improvement (for instance if a group uses wrong-headed and controversial tactics, adopts poorly conceived goals, etc.) then that the stakeholders in question (students) would actually be better off without the group at all, to say nothing of the money being spent more effectively on direct service provision.

Our Education and Prepare The Future both aim to avoid both of the above, pitfalls, obviously, and build effective, impactful, and positive movements. But our ability to do so will depend on citizens like you and I to keep our values and the best interests of children in mind!

Posted by Aaron Tang at 01:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Public policy is responsorial, this much we know for certain. Just what interests and constituencies politicians choose to respond to is what is up in the air, and the answer to this question has the power to determine nothing less than the well-being and future of our democracy, economy, and society writ large.

Political pundits and a handful of politicians have charged for some time now that the driving force behind our nation’s current precarious plight—a plight exemplified by continuing federal budget deficits; stagnant real wages for a shrinking middle class; troublesome poverty, high school dropout, and health insurance rates; and an unsavory choice looming between tax increases or benefit cuts to bedrock entitlement programs that make up our social safety net—is what one can only describe as a paradigm shift in the interests and constituencies that politicians respond to most when setting public policy. Whether you love them or hate them, commentators like Lou Dobbs, Paul Krugman and others point to increased lobbying power and influence held by special interests at the expense of what is best for ordinary Americans.

For our part, American citizens have struggled to rise to the challenges presented by this increased influence wielded by special interests because more often than not our answers have themselves been shaped and overtaken by partisan politics. Too often, citizen-based efforts to restore proper priorities to our leaders in DC have turned into (or were from the get go) nothing more than bitter, oppositional vendettas. Rather than stand up together for the middle class, our children, and our future, people in both parties have grown obsessed with pointing fingers and declaring how if only this party or this individual were out of office everything would be made right.

The problem with this, of course, is that public policy is still responsorial, no matter who is in office and who has control of the Congress. In other words, until citizens can send a unified, common-sense message to our leaders—whoever they might be—our fractured voices will continue to be shouted down by thousands of finely-tuned (and well-greased) special-interest lobbying machines.

Amidst this stark picture, there is hope. An organization named Prepare The Future was launched just today with the goal of organizing ordinary citizens, across the country, in a national movement to put first things first: our children and the future that they represent. Rather than trying to rally citizens on the basis of partisanship and electoral politicking, Prepare The Future is working to bring people together in pursuit of common values: trust, fairness, responsibility, and caring communities.

The effort is being led by David Hornbeck, the former superintendent of Philadelphia schools, former Maryland state superintendent of instruction, and retired chair of the Childrens’ Defense Fund. Over the next six months, the group hopes to demonstrate that the potential exists to build an infrastructure of hundreds of thousands, even millions of supportive citizens from all backgrounds who care deeply about the values of trust, fairness, responsibility, and caring communities and want politicians to do the same by ensuring all children in America have access to quality educational opportunity. The strategy being used to prove this idea is crucial, as it is based on personal, one-to-one conversations that citizens like you and I can engage in about the things that matter most.

Our Education is pleased to be hosting one of the first six “action trees” that are working together to show that the concept can work, which will provide the basis for a coalition of funders to support the project in full down the road. If you are interested in this values-based education agenda and want to be involved in the earliest stages of this effort, you can learn more about the campaign and join now at www.preparethefuture.org/OurEducation/register_initial.php. And if you decide to join you could be eligible to win a new iPod Nano (or cash) in one of our weekly drawings!

Posted by Aaron Tang at 06:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The founder of Teach For America, Wendy Kopp, who is one of the education reform field's most renowned and successful entrepreneurs, was on the Colbert Report earlier this week on comedy central. The interview, which can be seen here, was an unusual mix of humor and serious reflection on educational inequity. You hear doctors talk about how they have to have a sense of humor in order to get through some of the toughest parts of their jobs, well the same is true for those who deal on a daily basis with the deep and at times heart-wrenching challenges that face millions of American children in school each day.

A couple highlights of the interview (before a more pertinent reflection on what we've learned from Teach For America over the past decade):
- Colbert's opening "good Kopp, bad Kopp?" throw-in,
- the "school of hard knocks" that Colbert retorts is more important than 'bookworm' education (before admitting that he himself, of course, attended Dartmouth College)
- Colbert's proposal to eliminate all educational inequality by eliminating schools altogether (a silly idea, of course, but it does force a relevant question which is, what level of inequality are we willing to tolerate in educational opportunity? We'll never be able to totally level the playing field since affluent families will always have access to resources and environments that we wish we could, but simply cannot, provide to all children)
- The end of the interview zinger (you'll have to watch the video for this one!)

The most important reflection to be made, of course, is that it is an unqualified good thing for the field of education reform and for those passionate about closing the achievement gap when bold leaders like Wendy have time in the spotlight, and I'm glad she accepted the interview with Colbert because of how many millions of young people she can reach that way. Wendy has been a role model to numerous young educational entrepreneurs--hundreds of charter school starters, and the staff at Our Education included--and she deserves high praise for how the model that TFA has built and the impact they've had over time.

Regardless of what people think about the actual classroom impact of TFA teachers (and there are experts on both sides of this debate - pro-TFA here and anti-TFA here), there are al least a few good things that cannot be argued with. First, the program does create access for thousands of talented college graduates to a field that is otherwise very hard to enter without a teaching certificate that can be cumbersome to obtain for one who is interested in other subject areas in a liberal arts education. And the benefits of these experiences may indeed be critical as TFA teachers emerge as leaders in numerous other fields over the next decade. Second, the program has pushed the conversation forward among ed reformers on the teacher certification track in general. For if highly motivated college grads without a four year school of education preparatory experience can do on average just as well as traditionally prepared teachers, what value does the certificate hold, and what should the implications be on our current operating theory (high barriers, low accountability - as opposed to low barriers, high accountability) in staffing the field? Third, the program reinforces a notion that is often lost among policy makers: at the end of the day, the problem we are dealing with is a people problem, a human capital problem first and foremost (as opposed to a technology problem, etc.). Students tend to all agree on this simple point, which is part of TFA's most optimistic premise: if every child had a great teacher in every classroom, that would make all the difference in the world.

What are your thoughts on TFA? Would love to hear from potential applicants, current corps members, casual observers, anyone!

Posted by Aaron Tang at 04:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recently I have taken classes and been involved with extra-curricular work that deals with the study of the civil rights movement. I think that as we talk about educational equality and quality in this country, civil rights is something that we have to keep in mind.

A renowned Harvard study published in January 2003 as part of The Civil Rights Project at Harvard, found staggering evidence of resegregation spreading far and wide across the United States. In some measures, segregation is back to levels at which it existed prior to Brown vs. the Board of Education, the famous court case of 1954 that found ‘separate but equal’ institutions, particularly schools, to be inherently unequal and unconstitutional.

At the time, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the following, as part of the landmark decision:

“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Today, “the foundation of good citizenship” is yet again being systematically denied to African-Americans. Study after study finds huge achievement gaps between black and white students (National Center for Education Statistics). This lack of an equally high quality education leaves black students at a great disadvantage. Without an equal education, black students are unable to attend college at the rate of white Americans, to attain jobs that will support their families, and to fulfill their potential as human beings throughout the course of their lives. Indeed, the fight for high quality education is intimately linked to the civil rights struggle, and provides even more motivation and impetus for fighting for educational quality and equality.

Posted by Stacy Tolos at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)