I was meeting with the good folks at the National Council on Teacher Quality yesterday, and Sandi Jacobs, its V.P. and a former NYC teacher, reminded me of the norms of niceness within our education system. The rule goes something like this: when offering criticism to colleagues, or parents (about their children), or students, first say as many positive things as you can about their performance, before mentioning the item or two where "perhaps they could show some improvement."
So in that spirit...
Both Team Obama and the career civil servants at the Department of Education deserve oodles of kudos for getting out a massive amount of guidance on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in a very short amount of time. I know from personal experience how these sorts of things can take eons, so the couple-of-month turnaround was quite impressive. They also deserve credit for communicating so frequently with the field, via letters, town hall meetings, conference calls, and more. That's not to say that there aren't still a million unanswered questions--that's inevitable. But clearly the Department is responding to queries as quickly as humanly possible. And no doubt, Arne Duncan is talking about "reform" every chance he gets. I don't doubt his sincerity that he wants to use the unprecedented influx of federal funds to accelerate the pace of educational improvement.
Yet, is this really all the American taxpayer can expect from "investing" $100 billion in our schools? A few "assurances" from governors that they will work on improving their standards, and data systems, and teacher quality, and interventions in failing schools? And the receipt of a few new dabs of data about states' progress (or lack thereof) towards those objectives?
To see what I'm referring to, read this letter to the governors, particularly the "Program Components" section. There will you will a list of "data metrics" that states will have to provide. (Not that these metrics will be used to determine who gets the second wave of stimulus funds. The letter explains that "we are only asking states to ensure that states have in place systems to report on final metrics that are developed through rulemaking so that parents, teachers, and policymakers have clear and consistent information about where our schools and students stand.")
These metrics include:
1. ??The number and percent of LEA teacher and principal evaluation systems that require evidence of student achievement outcomes.
2. ??Whether all teachers in mathematics and ELA in tested grades receive timely data on the performance of their students and estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement, in a manner that informs instruction and includes appropriate benchmarks.
3. ??The number of schools in restructuring status that have demonstrated substantial gains in student achievement, closed, or consolidated within last three years.
Let me save everyone the trouble and fill these in for the vast majority of states. Number 1: zero. Number 2: no. Number 3: zero.
So what's the point? Yes, this will "shame" states but as Eduwonk Andy and Swifty Charlie (both Obamamaniacs) explain, so what? As Andy says, "Anyone who still thinks that shining a light on states is enough to get them to dramatically improve their schools hasn't been paying attention--for??decades."
Both Andy and Charlie are right that the real question now is whether Duncan will push hard on the $5 billion "race to the top" fund. The theory of action, as I understand it, is that states that make progress on the "metrics" (by, say, creating serious teacher evaluation systems, or getting rid of laws that disallow the linkage of student achievement data with individual teachers, or raising charter school caps) will be rewarded with some of this largesse. We shall see.
In the meantime, we've got to admit that we're shelling out 12 figures for the school system and getting almost nothing in return, except for some "data" that a couple of us think tanks could cobble together ourselves in the matter of a few days.
So Arne and Company: you are doing a GREAT job communicating, and the timeliness of the guidance was nothing short of remarkable. And we like everything you're saying about reform. But perhaps you could show just a little bit of improvement when it comes to the substance of the stimulus? I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news: this one deserves an "Ice Cold." Do you agree? Cast your vote below.
( surveys)
And yes, this stuff is important; I rank it an 8 on a scale of 1-10.
