Congress Recognizes that the Department of Education's Turn-Around Options and More (SIG) Money are NOT Improving Schools or Student Outcomes
Dear Colleagues,
I hope you are warm and safe after all of the weather across the country this
past week. For my part, while we were snowed out of one two-day workshop
in the early part of the week, we worked with 100 educators from across
Arkansas the past two days discussing "Strategic and Intensive Social,
Emotional, and Behavioral Interventions for Challenging Students."
That followed a Wednesday consultation at a school where we are helping them
implement school-wide and effective Response-to-Instruction and Intervention
services, supports, strategies, and programs--alongside a new behavioral
accountability system that is part of their redesigned school-wide discipline
(PBSS/PBIS) program.
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Today's Topic: Outcomes
from the US Department of Education's Money and Mandates
Since
2009, the U.S. Department of Education has administered and awarded more than
$5 billion in federal funds (through the School Improvement Grant-SIG) to
schools that are among the lowest performing in the nation. Requiring schools
to choose one of four school improvement models, the results (see related Education Week story HERE) have been mixed:
- While more than two-thirds of schools entering the first program in 2010-11 saw gains in reading and math after two years in the program, another third of the schools actually saw student achievement decline.
- Critically, these "gains" only amounted to an 8% increase in math, and a 5% increase in reading.
- Even more significant: The schools entering the program in 2011-12 could not near duplicate the math and reading gains reported from the first cohort.
- Here, 55% of the schools showed gains in math (of just 2 points), while 38% of the schools declined and 7% showed no change. 61% of the schools showed gains in reading (of just 1 point), while 34% declined and 6% showed no gain)
Education Week quoted Robin Lake, the director of the Center on Reinventing
Public Education at the University of Washington, who said, "Given the
amount of money that was put in here, the return on investment looks negligible
at this point... I don't know how you can interpret it any other way."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Two of
the predominant problems with the Department's approach to school improvement
are (a) it does not front-load a diagnostic approach to identify the specific
reasons why students are not achieving so that strategically-targeted
capacity-building, professional development, curriculum and instruction, and
student-centered interventions are implemented; and (b) three of the four
models essentially involve firing administrators and/or instructional staff.
Relative
to the first problem--there is no struggling business in this country (I guess,
except for education) that would not conduct a "SWOT" analysis of its
strengths and assets, weaknesses and limitations, opportunities to maximize
resources and minimize barriers, and existing or future threats BEFORE
designing and implementing a multi-faceted, outcomes-based action plan-that, by
the way, involves a significant infusion of money, time, and effort.
Relative
to the second problem--why does the federal government assume that school
failure is a personnel problem of such significance that administrators and
teachers need to be immediately fired, or (at least) should work under the
threat of dismissal? Would a business immediately fire an administrator
(or release an entire sales force) before its SWOT analysis determined that
this was needed? Finally, assuming that many educators "do not know
what they do not know," why would we not use SWOT analysis results to
identify educator and student knowledge and skill gaps so that targeted
professional development and intensive coaching can be provided-rather than
untested, "tinkering-around-the-edges," and expensive school
improvement packages that are not based on valid diagnostic assessments?
Once
again, is this how a business--that wants to stay in business--would act?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Congress Listens and Acts
When
Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2014 budget last month on January 17, it
included language that added a fifth school improvement option called the
"whole school reform" model. This option allows schools to try
out interventions that have track records of success, but that are not included
in the current four options. Congress also extended the length of the SIG
grants for rural schools from three to five years. While "fifth
option" approaches still need to be approved by the Secretary of
Education, Congress clearly decided to vote in favor of competence rather
than just more cash.
As quoted
in Education Week,
Michele McLaughlin, an aide to lawmakers on the Senate education committee
stated, "Clearly, [lawmakers] have heard from the field. My interpretation
is that they view the four models, which are based primarily on personnel and
management changes, as too narrow."
How Can You Proceed
We believe that "the beginning of the new school year begins
in April." That is, in order to implement real changes on the
first day of the 2014-2015 school year, districts and schools need to begin
the strategic planning process now so that everything--curricular
(re)design, staff (re)organization and (re)deployment, professional
development, students status assessments and strategic instructional and
intervention placements--are done in May, June, and July. While many schools
think they do this, the question is,
"Do
all of your administrators, staff, and students have all of the knowledge,
skills, resources, services, and supports to ensure that every student's
academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs are met on the first day
of the new school year?"
If the
answer is "no"--then the planning process must start now.
To help,
we are making the webinar below (presented previously to a national audience)
available free. While it especially addresses the needs of Priority and Focus
schools, this webinar has been used by countless, successful schools and
districts that want to take their improvement "to the next level of
excellence."
For
Priority and Focus schools, this approach (which is the underlying school
improvement model written into the Arkansas Department of Education's approved
ESEA Flexibility process), may be the "fifth option" that you can
begin to use for your school(s) beginning next school year.
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Please feel free to share these and other materials
that you find on the Project ACHIEVE website with your colleagues, education
and community leaders, and parents across your district or state.
In order to take every school in the country
to "the next level of excellence," we need to use field-tested and
outcome-based strategies that identify the services, supports, strategies, and
programs that all students need to be successful. While well-intended,
politically-driven (as opposed to educationally-sound) federal and state
mandates and school improvement "options" have not produced the
desired results--because many of them violate underlying management,
pedagogical, and psychological principles and practices.
We can do better. And I hope that this is the beginning of a new way of thinking about how to approach--and actually plan and be successful on--this journey.
We can do better. And I hope that this is the beginning of a new way of thinking about how to approach--and actually plan and be successful on--this journey.
Best,
Howie
