On Thursday, September 24, US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan discussed his hopes for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, speaking at a monthly NCLB stakeholder meeting (2009, . Scheduled for reauthorization in 2007, NCLB has been the target of controversy, criticism, and calls for revision or outright abandonment by educational scholars and stakeholder groups.
While acknowledging NCLB’s flaws, including problems with its testing and school accountability provisions, Duncan believes NCLB has successfully focused the nation’s attention on achievement gap issues, stating he will continue to press forward to increase student achievement and equitable outcomes for students.
In addition, he commented, "The biggest problem with NCLB is that it doesn't encourage high learning standards. In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when they are not."
Duncan’s comments are sure to stir more controversy and comment from policy makers, researchers, and educators alike. For a more complete accounting of his speech, go to the Department of Education’s press release at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/09/%2009242009.html. This site also includes video and print links to his speech.
For an interesting presentation of opinions for and against NCLB’s planned reauthorization, Diane Ravitch and John Chubb discuss their views in a forum reported in Education Next (Summer, 2009). This thought-provoking debate may be accessed online at http://educationnext.org/
the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/
What are your thoughts? What do you see as the implications of NCLB’s reauthorization for schools?
References
Ravitch, D., & Chubb, J. (2009). The future of No Child Left Behind: End it? Or mend it? [Electronic
version]. Education Next, 9(3), 1-10. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://educationnext.org/the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Secretary Duncan says rewrite of 'No Child Left Behind' should
start now; Reauthorization can't wait. [Press release]. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://
www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/09/09242009.html
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Common Core State Standards: An Opportunity for Improved Educational Equity, or Another Step Away From State and Local Control of Public Schools?
An Education Week online article (Cavanagh, 2009) reported today that a revised version of the “Common Core State Standards” have been released for public comment. The draft standards constitute “college and career ready expectations” (CCSI, 2009), intended to define academic expectations for language arts and mathematics.
For those unfamiliar with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI, 2009), it is spearheaded by the National Governors’ Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, in partnership with major players in college preparation including Achieve, ACT, and the College Board. The purpose of the Common Core State Standards is to improve implementation of consistent, high quality academic standards and equitable opportunities for students to learn across the country.
The Common Core State Standards hold tremendous implications for public education. States currently establish their own standards, which can be problematic when content standards and tests differ from state to state. This not only muddles the picture of student achievement from state to state, making it difficult to evaluate how individual state systems, districts, schools, and students are performing, but it also means students’ opportunities to learn and prepare for postsecondary education and employment may be dramatically different (Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani, 2009).
If you’re thinking this probably won’t affect you, think again. To date, 48 states are participating in the Common Core State Standards Initiative (Cavanagh, 2009). CCSSI literature emphasizes states may voluntarily choose to adopt the standards, but if they elect to do so, they must ensure the core standards comprise 85 percent or more of their state standards in language arts and mathematics. In addition, states competing for federal grant monies under the “Race to the Top” initiative may earn priority status if they choose to adopt the Common Core Standards.
As you might expect, not all scholars agree national standards are a good thing (Zhao, 2009). Some educators and citizens deplore the loss of creativity in schools, along with decreased state and local control over curriculum content, they say is sure to result if national standards are implemented by states. Proponents of national standards claim this fear is unfounded, based on their studies of countries implementing national standards (Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani, 2009).
Work on the Common Core State Standards continues. In December 2009, a set of draft language arts and mathematics standards for grades K-12 are scheduled for release.
What does this mean for educational leaders and teachers at the local level? It is highly probable states will strongly consider aligning their standards to the Common Core State Standards. It may just be a matter of time. Educational leaders will need to anticipate the implications for their districts and schools.
References:
Cavanagh, S. (2009, September 21). Revised draft of ‘core common standards’ unveiled. Educational Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/21/05standards.h29. html?%20tkn=MRNFfLYaFeV2Ha1ZQU2h%2Fh9lgl8xksHZsO%2F4
Cavanagh, S., & Gerwertz, C. (2009, July 23). Draft content standards elicit mixed reviews. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/07/23/37standards.h28. html? tkn=QPQC4Oj%2FZs1REcT5okIoLAQUbfvPubCGhyzu
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2009). Common core state standards initiative [Executive summary]. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
For those unfamiliar with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI, 2009), it is spearheaded by the National Governors’ Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, in partnership with major players in college preparation including Achieve, ACT, and the College Board. The purpose of the Common Core State Standards is to improve implementation of consistent, high quality academic standards and equitable opportunities for students to learn across the country.
The Common Core State Standards hold tremendous implications for public education. States currently establish their own standards, which can be problematic when content standards and tests differ from state to state. This not only muddles the picture of student achievement from state to state, making it difficult to evaluate how individual state systems, districts, schools, and students are performing, but it also means students’ opportunities to learn and prepare for postsecondary education and employment may be dramatically different (Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani, 2009).
If you’re thinking this probably won’t affect you, think again. To date, 48 states are participating in the Common Core State Standards Initiative (Cavanagh, 2009). CCSSI literature emphasizes states may voluntarily choose to adopt the standards, but if they elect to do so, they must ensure the core standards comprise 85 percent or more of their state standards in language arts and mathematics. In addition, states competing for federal grant monies under the “Race to the Top” initiative may earn priority status if they choose to adopt the Common Core Standards.
As you might expect, not all scholars agree national standards are a good thing (Zhao, 2009). Some educators and citizens deplore the loss of creativity in schools, along with decreased state and local control over curriculum content, they say is sure to result if national standards are implemented by states. Proponents of national standards claim this fear is unfounded, based on their studies of countries implementing national standards (Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani, 2009).
Work on the Common Core State Standards continues. In December 2009, a set of draft language arts and mathematics standards for grades K-12 are scheduled for release.
What does this mean for educational leaders and teachers at the local level? It is highly probable states will strongly consider aligning their standards to the Common Core State Standards. It may just be a matter of time. Educational leaders will need to anticipate the implications for their districts and schools.
References:
Cavanagh, S. (2009, September 21). Revised draft of ‘core common standards’ unveiled. Educational Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/21/05standards.h29. html?%20tkn=MRNFfLYaFeV2Ha1ZQU2h%2Fh9lgl8xksHZsO%2F4
Cavanagh, S., & Gerwertz, C. (2009, July 23). Draft content standards elicit mixed reviews. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/07/23/37standards.h28. html? tkn=QPQC4Oj%2FZs1REcT5okIoLAQUbfvPubCGhyzu
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2009). Common core state standards initiative [Executive summary]. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
New Research Findings on Teacher to Teacher Learning: Policy Implications
Can teaching and learning improve when teachers observe effective colleagues at work? According to a recent Education Week online article (Viadero, 2009), a new study slated for publication in the October issue of the American Economics Journal: Applied Economics indicates effective teachers may help to significantly improve the practice of their colleagues, resulting in increased student achievement. To most educators, this finding resonates with what we’ve learned from constructivist learning theory, which posits that learning is socially mediated through interactions with knowledgeable peers (Palincsar, 1998). This flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the purported isolation of teachers working alone in their classrooms, unaffected by what is happening in neighboring classrooms, but this is good news, right?
When it comes to building instructional capacity and improving student achievement, the answer is unequivocally “yes.” The “spillover effects” of placing “high quality” teachers with average teachers, described by researchers C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann, appear to be significant. Critical consumers of research will want information on the study methodology and results, elaborated in the upcoming article, before reaching their own conclusions regarding the validity and reliability of the researchers’ claims. However, the idea of teachers picking up on the effective practices of talented colleagues has intuitive appeal.
In the current policy context, there are additional implications of teacher to teacher learning, raised by Jackson and Bruegmann. With growing national attention and press for 1) placing strong teachers in “high-needs” assignments and 2) merit-pay systems to reward effective teachers, both proposed as policy levers intended to increase student achievement, the picture becomes more complicated. What happens if merit-pay is awarded to individuals rather than whole schools? Does this threaten teacher collaboration, negating the effects of intentionally placing successful teachers with others who could benefit by the informal mentoring that occurs in a less competitive context?
These questions take on new importance given the U.S. Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” educational grant initiative, which will award funds to states with competitive applications over the next year. “Racing to the top” for funds is an arduous process, requiring significant documentation from states on continuing educational reform efforts. Among other criteria, a state without institutionalized barriers to prevent connecting teacher evaluation to student achievement (including the possibility of implementing a merit-pay system), may have a better shot at getting a grant than a union-strong state, for example. It’s like “Survivor” for states that can muster the best arguments (while quelling the swarms of buzzing political beehives) for getting their hands on the honeypot.
What should be of no surprise is that once again, we return to the economic narrative underscoring so much of human and organizational behavior. No one is immune to the lure of money, whether it is teachers looking to increase their income, or states and districts hoping for resources to assist with mounting performance expectations and growing expenses.
Nonetheless, we should be very, very careful in deciding what we privilege in education: professional collaboration or garnering financial resources for educating students. In today’s complex policy environment, pressing on one issue may mean unintended negative consequences for another. This is just one facet of a much larger picture, but it illustrates the difficulty of implementing national reform agenda composed of seemingly contradictory elements, especially given the conflicts they pose at the state and local levels.
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.
Viadero, D. (2009, September 1). Top-notch teachers found to affect peers. Education Week, 29(3). Retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/01/03 peer.html?tkn=QUQFVJpXrDlvhXsozMi8Wp9YtJjTusvyLwv9&print=1
When it comes to building instructional capacity and improving student achievement, the answer is unequivocally “yes.” The “spillover effects” of placing “high quality” teachers with average teachers, described by researchers C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann, appear to be significant. Critical consumers of research will want information on the study methodology and results, elaborated in the upcoming article, before reaching their own conclusions regarding the validity and reliability of the researchers’ claims. However, the idea of teachers picking up on the effective practices of talented colleagues has intuitive appeal.
In the current policy context, there are additional implications of teacher to teacher learning, raised by Jackson and Bruegmann. With growing national attention and press for 1) placing strong teachers in “high-needs” assignments and 2) merit-pay systems to reward effective teachers, both proposed as policy levers intended to increase student achievement, the picture becomes more complicated. What happens if merit-pay is awarded to individuals rather than whole schools? Does this threaten teacher collaboration, negating the effects of intentionally placing successful teachers with others who could benefit by the informal mentoring that occurs in a less competitive context?
These questions take on new importance given the U.S. Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” educational grant initiative, which will award funds to states with competitive applications over the next year. “Racing to the top” for funds is an arduous process, requiring significant documentation from states on continuing educational reform efforts. Among other criteria, a state without institutionalized barriers to prevent connecting teacher evaluation to student achievement (including the possibility of implementing a merit-pay system), may have a better shot at getting a grant than a union-strong state, for example. It’s like “Survivor” for states that can muster the best arguments (while quelling the swarms of buzzing political beehives) for getting their hands on the honeypot.
What should be of no surprise is that once again, we return to the economic narrative underscoring so much of human and organizational behavior. No one is immune to the lure of money, whether it is teachers looking to increase their income, or states and districts hoping for resources to assist with mounting performance expectations and growing expenses.
Nonetheless, we should be very, very careful in deciding what we privilege in education: professional collaboration or garnering financial resources for educating students. In today’s complex policy environment, pressing on one issue may mean unintended negative consequences for another. This is just one facet of a much larger picture, but it illustrates the difficulty of implementing national reform agenda composed of seemingly contradictory elements, especially given the conflicts they pose at the state and local levels.
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.
Viadero, D. (2009, September 1). Top-notch teachers found to affect peers. Education Week, 29(3). Retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/01/03 peer.html?tkn=QUQFVJpXrDlvhXsozMi8Wp9YtJjTusvyLwv9&print=1
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Preparation for Educational Leadership
There is a paradox implicit in educational leadership practitioner programs. The paradox is that while universities award degrees and certificates to individuals, effective educational leaders do not “do leadership unto others.” It is time we moved well beyond the “heroics of leadership genre” (Spillane, 2007) in understanding and building capacity for educational leadership. Let’s take a closer look at this paradox by examining what effective educational leaders do, how this is related to the concept of “distributed leadership” (Spillane, 2006), and who leads in educational settings.
First of all, what does the research tell us about what effective educational leaders actually do? In an influential report for the Wallace Foundation, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom (2004) distilled the work of educational leaders into three cogent categories:
Setting Direction:
• Constructing, selling, and sustaining a vision.
• Getting cooperative commitment for organizational goals.
• Setting and maintaining high expectations.
Human Development:
• Monitoring instruction and progress.
• Developing teachers’ knowledge and skill, both individually and collectively.
• Providing encouragement, recognition, and support.
• Developing a sense of accountability for performance.
Organizational Development:
• Adapting and modifying standard operating procedures (routines, tools, structures) to support instructional improvement.
• Building a culture that de-privatizes classroom practice, supports collaboration among teachers, and maintains high expectations.
• Procuring and distributing resources.
• Handling disturbances/creating and maintaining an orderly work environment.
Consider this list carefully. Is it likely a leader can enact these functions alone? When using this lens for viewing leadership, it brings the importance of shared or distributed leadership into sharp focus. The Distributed Leadership framework shifts the emphasis from individual leaders acting alone to leadership stretched over multiple leaders, followers (who in turn influence leadership practice), the unique context or situation in which leadership is practiced, and the interdependencies between them.
This brings us back to the relationship between leadership preparation and practice. While we accept, enroll, and grant credits, degrees, and certificates to individuals, it is important to situate student work within practice, implicating a whole host of “others” with whom you work in your leadership preparation.
What do you think? How does this affect how you view your leadership preparation experiences and your “real” work?
References
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation Report. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.wallacefoundation. org/KnowledgeCenter/
Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J.P. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective: School leadership & management [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/dls/ publications/presentations/
First of all, what does the research tell us about what effective educational leaders actually do? In an influential report for the Wallace Foundation, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom (2004) distilled the work of educational leaders into three cogent categories:
Setting Direction:
• Constructing, selling, and sustaining a vision.
• Getting cooperative commitment for organizational goals.
• Setting and maintaining high expectations.
Human Development:
• Monitoring instruction and progress.
• Developing teachers’ knowledge and skill, both individually and collectively.
• Providing encouragement, recognition, and support.
• Developing a sense of accountability for performance.
Organizational Development:
• Adapting and modifying standard operating procedures (routines, tools, structures) to support instructional improvement.
• Building a culture that de-privatizes classroom practice, supports collaboration among teachers, and maintains high expectations.
• Procuring and distributing resources.
• Handling disturbances/creating and maintaining an orderly work environment.
Consider this list carefully. Is it likely a leader can enact these functions alone? When using this lens for viewing leadership, it brings the importance of shared or distributed leadership into sharp focus. The Distributed Leadership framework shifts the emphasis from individual leaders acting alone to leadership stretched over multiple leaders, followers (who in turn influence leadership practice), the unique context or situation in which leadership is practiced, and the interdependencies between them.
This brings us back to the relationship between leadership preparation and practice. While we accept, enroll, and grant credits, degrees, and certificates to individuals, it is important to situate student work within practice, implicating a whole host of “others” with whom you work in your leadership preparation.
What do you think? How does this affect how you view your leadership preparation experiences and your “real” work?
References
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation Report. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.wallacefoundation. org/KnowledgeCenter/
Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J.P. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective: School leadership & management [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/dls/ publications/presentations/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)