Next

What Arne Duncan did to American education and whether it will last

US President Barack Obama announces that education Secretary Arne Duncan will step down in December and John King, former State Superintendent in New York, will take his place during a press conference in the State Dining Room of the White House October 2, 2015 in Washington, DC, USA. Photo: Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA

“We can’t wait” was Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s frequent refrain. But as he leaves his post this December, his forceful strategy to push dramatic changes to the U.S education system is being tested.

The aggressiveness and urgency that defined his efforts to transform American schools alienated friends and could, in the end, be what derails his reforms.

During his tenure, one of the longest in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, Duncan made a deep mark on U.S. schools with a series of major efforts stretching from early education to college. The administration promised $1 billion in new spending on preschool; spurred states to adopt controversial K-12 reforms such as performance-based teacher evaluations and the adoption of the Common Core State Standards through its Race to the Top grant program and waivers to the No Child Left Behind law; significantly expanded the federal School Improvement Grant program to turn around low-performing schools; targeted for-profit colleges and attempted to increase accountability in the higher education sector; and pushed a proposal by the president to make community college free.

But Duncan’s resignation comes as Congress is deliberating over reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law and considering rewrites that would limit the ability of the education department to get involved in state policy, leaving many wondering whether Duncan’s seven years of intense reforms will stick. Politico reported that “just this week, Duncan said he thought the forthcoming resignation of House Speaker John Boehner would make it more difficult to get the law updated.”

“I can only think that our odds of having it pass now are worse, not better, which is really disappointing,” he was quoted as saying.

He’s also leaving as a bipartisan Senate bill and a Republican-backed House bill seek to limit the federal government’s role in public education and to take aim at policies Duncan pushed, such as teacher evaluations based partly on test scores and aggressive school turnaround strategies.

At the same time, many states are facing growing backlash over the increased emphasis on standardized testing and are slowing down plans to revamp teacher evaluation systems or retreating on Common Core (although some have adopted near replicas to replace it). And the data on the effectiveness of some strategies, including the School Improvement Grant program and new teacher evaluation policies, has been mixed.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan, left, speaks during a town hall meeting as President Barack Obama looks on Monday, Sept. 14, 2015, at North High School in Des Moines, Iowa. Photo: AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

Nevertheless, his supporters are praising him for his sense of urgency and forceful tactics. Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana governor, said he regretted deeply that Duncan is leaving.

“He has placed America’s children and their academic success at the center of his work every day of his tenure, often challenging the most intransigent and powerful special interests in our political system to do so,” Daniels wrote in a statement. “Those who succeed him in this administration and the next would be wise to emulate and extend his example.”

In 2009, Duncan and his department were given access to $100 billion for education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Often bypassing Congress, Duncan used the money to work directly with states, persuading them to adopt favored policies by providing incentives through Race to the Top, a $4.35 billion competitive grant program in which states were awarded points for adopting ideas such as performance-based teacher and principal evaluations, higher academic standards, and raising charter school caps. Two years later, the administration gave states the opportunity to apply for waivers that exempted them from a federal requirement under No Child Left Behind that 100 percent of American students be proficient in reading and math by 2014.

Most states bowed to the pressure. For example, 44 states and the District of Columbia adopted the Common Core, the “college and career-ready” standards created by states but promoted by Duncan.

But as new policies began rolling out, a backlash grew. Progressives protested the increased emphasis on tests. Conservatives balked at the administration’s role in promoting the Common Core standards, saying it was federal overreach that undermined state and local control of public education. And even supporters worried that tying teacher evaluations to student outcomes while rolling out difficult new standards was ill conceived.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is introduced by President Barack Obama, before speaking at Miami Central Senior High Friday, March. 4, 2011 in Miami Fla.Photo: AP Photo/Steve Mitchell

Most notably the national teachers unions — a significant force in the Democratic Party — turned on him. But other allies and even some critics say his reforms will last. “Arne Duncan was one of the president’s best appointments. He has a big heart, cares about children, and I have enjoyed working with him,” Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), one of Duncan’s occasional adversaries, said in a statement. “When we disagree, it is usually because he believes the path to effective teaching, higher standards, and real accountability is through Washington, D.C., and I believe it should be in the hands of states, communities, parents and classroom teachers.”

Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, applauded Duncan for his support of charter schools.

“His leadership on behalf of the federal Charter Schools Program has enabled the dramatic growth in the number of high quality charter schools, ensuring that hundreds of thousands more students now have access to better schools regardless of their family income or zip code,” she wrote in a statement.

Early education advocates were also grateful for the administration’s elevation of early education. “Secretary Duncan’s leadership and unwavering dedication to early childhood education has made an immeasurable difference in the lives of countless young learners,” First Five Years Fund executive director Kris Perry said in a statement. “He has harnessed what all of the research shows about the benefits of investing in early learning, and successfully incorporated it into the everyday mission and policy goals of the Department of Education. We are incredibly grateful to Secretary Duncan for being a champion of American’s greatest resource – its children.”

In higher education, Duncan pushed for income-based repayment of student loans, and recently claimed some success as default rates decreased.

Duncan also sought to protect Americans from for-profit colleges accused of taking advantage of federal funds, with proposed regulations that would stop the flow of funds to low-performing schools whose graduates don’t earn enough to repay their loans.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan (80), of the East team, brings the ball up as West’s Michael B. Jordan (45) trails the play in the first half of the NBA All-Star celebrity basketball game in New Orleans, Friday, Feb. 14, 2014.Photo: AP Photo/Bill Haber

“Higher education should open up doors of opportunity, but students in these low-performing programs often end up worse off than before they enrolled: saddled by debt and with few—if any—options for a career,” Duncan said in a statement last year.

President Obama has appointed John King Jr., a senior official in the education department and previously New York’s education commissioner who oversaw the roll out of Common Core there, to serve as interim education secretary for the duration of Obama’s presidency. King “is no stranger to controversy,” as Alyson Klein of Education Week put it, and will most certainly follow Duncan’s playbook.

Duncan had been widely expected to stay until the end of Obama’s second term and the president expressed his “regret and sorrow” that his friend and basketball partner is leaving. “I’ll be honest. I pushed Arne to stay,” he said in a televised press conference.

Duncan plans to return to Chicago to spend time with his family, according to The Associated Press, which was the first to report his plans to resign. He has not decided what his next move will be, but said he hopes to continue increasing opportunities for children in some capacity.

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

20
Dec 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Generation and technology Solutions.

Integrated next-generation technologies may equip students to continue their education their entire lives, and can address three goals: fortifying student skills, increasing education’s ROI, and enabling students to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Education technology providers will likely need to shift their focus from content to connections.

Dgital education 2.0 - graphic

The year is 2021, and 14-year-old Anna dreams of becoming an aerospace engineer. From the moment she wakes up, Anna begins communicating with her personal “wizard,” a phablet with advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive analytics features—both verbally and via smart glasses embedded with AI features such as gesture control, facial expression coding, motion tracking, and speech recognition. Anna’s wizard connects via the Internet to the education coordinator (EC) of a government agency dedicated to researching the universe.

“Without a broader vision of social change, new technologies will only serve to reinforce existing institutional goals and forms of social inequity. Many prior attempts to mobilize technology in the service of educational reform have failed because interventions have focused narrowly on the deployment of particular media or technologies, without considering broader social, political, or economic conditions.

“Connected learning is socially embedded, interest-driven, and oriented toward expanding educational, economic, or political opportunity. It is realized when a young person is able to pursue a personal interest or passion with the support of friends and caring adults, and is in turn able to link this learning and interest to academic achievement, career success, or civic engagement. Unlike efforts at educational change that focus on technology deployment or institutional reform, connected learning takes a networked approach to social change that aligns with our ecological perspective.”

– Mizuko Ito, professor in residence, University of California, Irvine.1

The EC is a computerized virtual assistant that helps groom prospective candidates such as Anna by providing job-readiness skills. The wizard shares Anna’s performance dashboard with the EC to create an individualized learning plan encompassing digital content and virtual reality games, experiential learning exercises, and interactive opportunities with professional aerospace engineers in her approved network. Anna’s parents are contacted by the wizard to approve the lesson plan and make any purchases and agreements for Anna to proceed.

Anna carries her wizard to a virtual learning center at her high school. There she works with other students on a two-hour spacecraft modeling simulation in a cloud-based environment, in which students learn by virtually building a life-scale model. This approach allows students globally to both compete and collaborate with each other at different phases, receiving points for speed, accuracy, and teamwork. When Anna has completed the spacecraft modeling simulation, the 3D printer at the learning center produces a miniature model for her. Anna’s science teacher, stationed at another learning center in the school, is connected to the wizard and has automated access to Anna’s work, scores, and activity patterns to offer feedback and guidance on the spacecraft model. Based on Anna’s eye movements, as tracked by her smart glasses, the wizard gauges and communicates interest level and focus to her teacher, who dynamically changes content and delivery depending on where Anna needs guidance. Leveraging the learning center’s adaptive learning system and the learning plan designed by the EC, Anna’s teacher reconfigures her performance dashboard on the wizard to reflect her progress.

Anna can change her learning objectives anytime, and her wizard’s dashboard will dynamically account for all prior work done and align with her new learning objectives. Anna can also share her learning progress with her friends and family via several social media interfaces. The wizard maps her progress and will continue to evolve throughout her journey from primary to secondary school to corporate learning.

THE IMPETUS FOR CHANGE

The “first wave” of digital education—almost 10 years in the making—focused on creating, sharing, and accessing instructional content in digital forms, including online courses, digital libraries, games, and apps. Digitizing educational content, bringing devices to school, and one-off stand-alone learning apps were basic steps in the drive toward bringing technology into classrooms.2 Despite the initial efforts to digitalize education, K-12 (elementary schools), higher education, and beyond still face three key issues: skills gaps; low return on investment (ROI); and the need for innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation.

1. Enhancing student job readiness and addressing skill shortages:

Graduating students increasingly find themselves underprepared to take on corporate positions. Emphasis on conventional methods of book learning and didactic lectures has resulted in a lack of practical and applied knowledge.3 The needs and requirements of employers are ever changing, further shortening the half-life of skills—acquired through primary, secondary, and graduate education—to five years, and schools and colleges find it challenging to keep pace.4,5 One solution developed has been the Common Core State Standards in the United States, expected to help raise student skill levels in foundational subjects such as basic math and English language.6 Though some schools have adopted Common Core standards, there is less certainty about the actual implementation across all schools by the end of 2015.7

2. Increasing ROI from K-12 and higher education:

Though the United States spends a greater proportion of its GDP on education than other OECD countries, it does not rank among the top 10 in terms of reaping the rewards of that investment.8 Research also shows that 80 percent of adults in the United States consider college education to have poor ROI.9 Rising education fees and the resulting student debt, coupled with the declining quality of graduates’ job readiness, undermine the perceived value of education in the United States.10 Personalizing learning more to the specific needs of each student will likely help generate better ROI from education.11

3. The innovation imperative in a global and competitive workplace:

Macroeconomic conditions have led to a decline in jobs and new firm growth, especially in high-wage industries in the United States.12 These trends are exacerbated by the competitive effects of a global workplace. Innovation and entrepreneurship are vital to driving job creation and economic growth, as exemplified by the life sciences industry.13 In this context, K-12 schools can design specialized education programs to help foster innovation and entrepreneurship at an early age, which in turn will help students create new jobs and carve their own career paths.14

MOVING DIGITAL EDUCATION FROM CONTENT (1.0) TO CONNECTIONS (2.0)

Is technology the answer, or at least part of the answer, to these problems? Many certainly seem to think it is, judging by the investment in educational technologies (“ed-tech”). US education spending doubled over the past 20 years to $1.17 trillion in 2013, and the fastest-growing segment of spending is digital education technologies, which is expected to rise from $23.6 billion in 2014 to $26.8 billion in 2018.15, 16, 17 Since the advent of the computer 35 years ago, learning across schools, colleges, and universities has systematically incorporated technology into the classroom. Businesses, especially, have embraced technology for employee training and development.

Ubiquitous access to learning content has only intensified the need for effective, efficient methods of delivery and utilization.18 Thanks to advanced technologies available today, it is possible to personalize and securely deliver instructional content. As a case in point, Khan Academy’s “anytime, anywhere” educational model delivers personalized learning to students worldwide and even provides diagnostics and dashboards to teachers.19 Some technologies can design adaptive learning methods to offer differentiated learning experiences.20 Nonetheless, merely adding technology to the classroom—which we saw in the first wave of digital education—is not enough to address the impetus for change.

With government, schools, and businesses now demanding connected learning, there will likely be a second wave of digital education.21Participants in the education ecosystem—school administrations, teachers, students, parents, ed-tech solution providers, and government educational agencies—will need to build stronger relationships to create learning environments like Anna’s. Integrated next-generation technologies will likely make it easier for students of all ages and backgrounds to continue their education their entire lives, both inside and outside the classroom.

These technologies can address the three drivers of change: fortifying student skills, increasing education’s ROI, and enabling students to be more innovative and entrepreneurial. To address these challenges, ed-tech solution providers will likely need to shift focus from content to connections.

SHIFTING GEARS: THE THREE CONNECTORS THAT DEFINE DIGITAL EDUCATION 2.0

Three “connectors” are widely viewed as fundamental to digital education:

Connector 1. An integrated digital education ecosystem: Parents, teachers, peers, and administrators, as well as individuals outside the formal educational system such as mentors and potential employers, form a collaborative network to deliver instruction to and guide the student at the center of the ecosystem.

Connector 2. An integrated student learning life cycle: To offer a continuous learning experience—right from K-12 to the workplace—educators and trainers should connect in-classroom and real-world learning in a way that is tailored to the needs, learning styles, passion, and potential of each student.

Connector 3. Integrated technology solutions: Ed-tech solution providers can draw upon their individual technology strengths and competencies to partner and offer integrated solutions.

Through specific case studies and examples, we present how the three connectors can transform the complete learning experience, with ed-tech solution providers acting as enablers.

Connector 1: Integrated digital education ecosystem

In Anna’s learning environment, her teacher, peers, parents, and real-world experts come together to provide a holistic learning experience. Similarly, the digital education model is rapidly evolving from transaction-based relationships to an integrated value chain (figure 1). With digital education 2.0, the education ecosystem continues to evolve around students, with their passions and interests at the center. Classrooms may extend virtually to encompass relationships with real-world experts in areas aligned with student interests; with the corporate world through internships and business-based projects; and external innovation hubs such as maker movement spaces, research labs, and business incubators and accelerators. The new ecosystem may also include peer-to-peer social learning platforms that promote open learning and enhance collaboration between students. For example, edX, a joint nonprofit online learning initiative by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, connects like-minded individuals through the latest peer-to-peer social learning tools; Udacity, a provider of online education courses, enables individuals of all ages to collaborate on projects and receive feedback from real-world experts.22

Digital education 2.0 - figure 1

CASE STUDY: HIGH TECH HIGH CHARTER SCHOOLS

Strong partnerships between education ecosystem participants augments student performance

High Tech High (HTH) operates 12 charter schools in San Diego and Chula Vista counties, including three elementary schools, four middle schools, and five high schools. The first charter school was founded in 1998 when top tech company executives partnered with civic authorities to address the skills gap in science, technology, engineering, and math.

HTH schools bring together students, teachers, administrators, and parents through “practical hands-on training, experiential learning, coupled with traditional academic education to prepare students for college in both technical fields and liberal arts,” says Ben Daley, chief academic officer and chief operating officer of the HTH Graduate School of Education.23 Each student is paired with a faculty advisor whose responsibility includes ensuring continuous interaction, monitoring academic progress, and facilitating career planning. The advisor also stays in close touch with the student’s family. To maximize connectivity, HTH employs PowerSchool, a web-based student information portal that allows teachers to record attendance and grades. Parents and students use PowerSchool to access real-time learning and performance information, communicate with teachers, and track assignments. Administrators interface with PowerSchool to create an efficient school schedule that accounts for multiple constraints such as room capacity, teacher preparation periods, and student scheduling priority.24 Another tool HTH uses is Naviance, which helps bring together core ecosystem participants.25

HTH’s connected learning initiatives showed positive results in student performance. HTH students have completed more than 1,000 experiential learning projects in over 300 community businesses and organizations, including Qualcomm and Fox News. Of HTH’s high school graduates, 98 percent attended college, while over 30 percent entered science or math fields.26

Connector 2: The student learning life cycle

For students like Anna, technology can play a role in integrating all the aspects of their learning life cycle. Connecting learning activities across the various stages of their schooling and careers can help students continually track their learning progress, receive real-time or longitudinal feedback, identify learning needs and gaps, reach out for assistance in a more risk-free environment, and ultimately build their competencies. Technology can help build and annotate an education history based on an individual’s competencies, using different heuristics at different life stages across various subjects and modules. This history can then be used to connect the student to meaningful real-world opportunities.

As students work on real-life projects and link this learning to their formal institutional education, they can earn badges that become competency-based credentials. Personalized tools and techniques, such as PathSource and Pathbrite, can further help a learner manage the various types of content within a lesson plan and across one’s career.27

CASE STUDY: THE MET

Connected learning bolsters classroom learning with outside experience for school-to-career transitions

Big Picture Learning (BPL) envisions redesigning K-12 to adult education in the United States through the innovative use of personalized learning. The Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center (MET), the first BPL school, opened in 1996 in Rhode Island under the guidance of experienced educators Dennis Littky and Elliot Washor. They were given a mandate to design a ‘school for the 21st century’ that would impact the community by producing skilled graduates, lifelong learners, and responsible citizens.

Since its inception, the MET school has adopted Learning Through Interest (LTI) in which students spend two days per week engaged in learning outside of the classroom with a mentor, who is an expert in the students’ field of interest. Advisors meet with students and mentors at the LTI site, to help students develop real-world projects and build long-term personal relationships with their mentors—paving the way for lifelong learning. “The students don’t get credit necessarily for being in an internship, but they get credit for what they create while at an internship and how they present,” says David Berg, vice principal at the MET Sacramento High School in Sacramento, CA.28 With LTI, the MET gives academic credit for technology use, both inside and outside the classroom. “Students can develop deeper understanding by actually doing and making things and applying their knowledge rather than just gathering information online,” says Elliot Washor, codirector of Big Picture Learning.29

The LTI-driven personalized and connected learning approach has equipped MET’s students to transition from school to a career. The school has maintained a 98 percent college acceptance rate.30 As Elliot Washor highlights, a Big Picture alumni survey31 revealed that for over two-thirds of MET graduates, work-based learning and the opportunity to work with advisors at internship sites were important aspects that contributed to success in life after high school.32

Connector 3: Integrated technology solutions

Underlying both connector 1 and 2 is the third type of connector, the integration between diverse technology solutions to create better learning experiences for students—similar to Anna’s wizard. As a case in point, consider the customizable “toolkit,” a type of universal remote for the digitalization of education.

“Toolkits should allow teachers to address not just what is being taught but how it is being taught—which is different from class to class, from school to school, and from community to community,” says Antero Garcia, assistant professor at Colorado State University.33 “Teachers can use toolkits to cocreate and adapt content real-time to either bolster existing curricula or design a course from scratch, offering an enriched learning experience to students.” With toolkits, students can engage in blended learning: face-to-face classroom methods combined with computer-mediated activities that help students discover and pursue interests at their own pace.

As described by Philipp Schmidt, MIT Media Lab director’s fellow and cofounder of Peer 2 Peer University, “Technology does not replace the teacher but is the glue to connect isolated experiences in support of core values of learning: project-based, peer-supported, passion/purpose-centric, and play-oriented.”34 To that effect, ed-tech companies are collaborating (figure 2) to integrate elements of game-based learning and simulation, experiential learning, augmented reality, and interactive tools as part of their offerings.35 Some partnerships aim to improve the integrity, security, and flow of data between products.36 Others bundle hardware and software designed to help manage a “classroom of devices.”37 Many partnerships offer personalized learning experiences for students and assist in managing their learning goals.38 In addition, infrastructure providers play an important role in facilitating connections among core education ecosystem participants: students, teachers, administrators, and parents. For example, partnerships between cloud companies and learning management system (LMS) providers are helping students and teachers access and supervise learning content virtually anytime, anywhere, on any platform.39

Digital education 2.0 - figure 2

As our case studies have shown, the three connectors address the impetus for change: bridging the skills gaps, increasing ROI from education, and enabling students to be innovative and entrepreneurial. By adopting unique strategic positions with varying depth and breadth across the three connectors, ed-tech solution providers can become catalysts of change for students.

BRINGING IT TOGETHER FOR DIGITAL EDUCATION 2.0

Many educational institutions that benefit most from digital learning solutions are starting to move toward the cloud, upgrading their LMS, investing in network infrastructure, and leveraging social networks for education support and training—all to improve connections across education. In order to capitalize on building and supporting the integrated education ecosystem, executives—including CEOs, CTOs, and product and R&D heads at ed-tech solution providers—should choose a strategic position that captures the broadest possible role in the value chain while exploiting internal competencies or easily acquirable assets.

Ed-tech solution providers should consider the three core needs of an integrated education ecosystem:

  1. Infrastructure to provide the underlying foundation for connectors
  2. Content that is engaging and based on students’ passions and interests
  3. Evaluation and assessment tools to build personalized learning journeys

Ed-tech companies can consider three strategic positions that meet each of these needs, depending on their solution offerings, competencies, and role in the ecosystem. For each of the three strategic positions, we have identified specific strategic choices that companies can adopt to create value, as well as questions that executives should consider while selecting and implementing a chosen strategy. Our goal herein is to illustrate potential strategic options and related questions rather than providing definitive recommendations and an exhaustive survey, because each company will need to find its own highest-value strategic position.

Foundation builder

The foundation builder provides core technology infrastructure and services—the building blocks of next-generation education solutions. The role involves developing next-generation LMS and cloud-based services for efficient data storage, information retrieval, accessibility, and security, by integrating discrete elements such as core technology infrastructure, student information, instructional content, and learning technologies. Cloud technologies can be used dually: to create the base infrastructure and to enable connections. Foundation builders can also use virtual learning spaces, which facilitate the shift from a unidirectional education value chain to an integrated education ecosystem.

As you consider a strategic position within the foundation builder category, here are a few questions to consider:

  • What can foundation builders do to provide “anytime, anywhere” courses to students? For example, they may consider creating select connectivity solutions in partnership with learning analytics or content solution providers.
  • How can virtual learning spaces be used to provide a connected learning experience for students? Examples of infrastructure for such spaces include existing business incubators, innovation hubs, and maker spaces.

Content specialist

The content specialist delivers a combination of content creation, content aggregation, and customized delivery solutions on learning devices to ecosystem participants. Traditional content can be transformed into interactive, visualization-rich content to enable learning through experience, discovery, and exploration. Wearable devices can capture eye and body movement to facilitate cognitive learning. Cloud technologies can be used to pull content from diverse sources, curate it, and present it to students in a real-time and engaging way.

As you consider a strategic position within the content specialist category, here are a few questions to consider:

  • What are the opportunities for integrating wearables with health applications into classroom learning? For example, digital health data such as circadian rhythms can be used to determine “learning blocks,” or focused learning times when an individual is at his or her most productive both physically and mentally.
  • How can content weave practical and creative problem-solving aspects with existing learning solutions such as educational devices and digital classrooms to better cater to the individual needs of students and teachers? For example, in the Faulkes Telescope Project, students use real science data and reach out to astronomers, other scientists, and fellow students for advice when carrying out an experiment to solve real-world problems.40

Digital education 2.0 - figure 3

Learning customization provider

The learning customization provider focuses primarily on providing students and teachers with analytics, advanced learning, and assessment solutions. In the United States, venture capitalists are actively investing in ed-tech companies that offer analytics and LMS solutions, presenting a significant opportunity for these companies. An LMS solution can capture students’ competencies and help them manage their career paths over time in line with their lifelong learning needs. Personalized and adaptive learning solutions can humanize collaboration among ecosystem participants. Technology can be used to “gamify” the learning experience, with badges to reward interest-based learning. Next-generation technologies such as semantic analytics can be used to more closely understand student and teacher preferences, interests, and inhibitions.

As you consider a strategic position within the learning customization provider category, here are a few questions to consider:

  • How can existing analytics and data mining capabilities incorporate predictive analytics solutions? For instance, gamification and badging could be standardized to complement existing certifications and become part of next-generation analytics and assessment solutions.
  • What technologies can humanize assessment solutions? As an example, holographic technology—such as the recreation of Michael Jackson at the 2014 Billboards Music Awards—can create “avatars” of teachers, mentors, and real-world experts.

Connectors can enable individuals, organizations, and technologies to meet the dynamic needs of new-generation students like Anna. In the coming wave of digital education 2.0, ed-tech solution providers can transform their roles in the value chain from technology providers to solution partners who can help create and foster an integrated education ecosystem. Ed-tech solution providers looking to establish a differentiated position should consider factors such as the standardization of learning platforms, technology security, data privacy, content life-cycle management, and a changing education ecosystem. The choice of a company’s strategic position depends on its role in the ecosystem, core competencies, and optimal business model. Solution providers who consider all these and explore the latest technology trends can capitalize on the imminent wave of digital education 2.0.

 

Endnotes

  1. Mizuko Ito (professor in residence, University of California, Irvine), interview with the authors, September 23, 2014.
  2. Kirsten Edwards and Ryan Mahoney, New rules, new schools, new market, ThinkEquity Partners LLC, May 26, 2005, <http://www.educationindustry.org/assets/thinkequity-k12-report.pdf>.
  3. Out of 1.8 million high school graduates who took the ACT in 2013, only 26 percent reached the college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects—meaning roughly only one in four was academically capable to take up college coursework in the four key subject areas. Source: “ACT, The condition of college and career readiness 2013,” 2013, <http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr13/pdf/CCCR13-NationalReadinessRpt.pdf>; William D. Eggers and John Hagel III, Brawn from brains: Talent, policy and the future of American competitiveness, Deloitte University Press, September 27, 2012, <http://52.7.214.27/articles/brawn-from-brains-talent-policy-and-the-future-of-american-competitiveness/> Nancy Hellmich, “Survey: More employers plan to hire new college grads,” USA Today, April 30,2014, <http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/04/24/college-graduates-jobs-careerbuilder/8017155/>.
  4. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd., “Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Not disruptive yet, but the future looks bright,” 2014, <http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-2014prediction-MOOCs.pdf>; Marie Bjerede, “The dilemma of authentic learning: Do you destroy what you measure?,” O’Reilly Radar, March 7, 2012, <http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/03/education-making-testing.html>.
  5. National Center for Education Statistics’ June 2012 issue of Digest of Education Statisticsnoted that more than 1 million children drop out of US schools every year. The percentage of 16–24-year-olds who were not enrolled in a school and have not earned a high school credential was reported to be 7.1 percent in 2011.
  6. Developed by education chiefs and governors in 48 states, Common Core State Standards were designed to help students prepare for the demanding needs of colleges and businesses. These standards offer a set of clear guidelines for K-12 math and English language proficiency requirements, as well as critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills needed for entry-level careers and corporate training programs. Using the standards, teachers can more easily track and assess student progress throughout their school years and academic careers. Source:  Common Core State Standards Initiative, “What parents should know,” <http://www.corestandards.org/what-parents-should-know/>, accessed October 17, 2014.
  7. Roberto M. Robledo, “Test expert: Most schools not ready,” Californian, May 7, 2014, <http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/education/2014/05/14/not-ready-common-core/9085155/>, accessed June 3, 2014.
  8. US higher education spending, as percentage of total spending, increased from 1 percent in 1962 to 3 percent in 2012, according to “Not what it used to be: American universities represent declining value for money to their students,” The Economist, December 1, 2012; Associated Press, “U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows,” CBS News, June 25, 2013, <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/>.
  9. Lawlor Group, Ten trends for 2013: How marketplace conditions will influence private higher education enrollment—and how colleges can respond, 2013, <http://www.sumsem.com/testing/2013_trends.pdf>.
  10. “Not what it used to be,” The Economist.
  11. Darby Carr, “Online school perspective: Student focused learning,” AdvanceEd, October 7, 2013, <http://www.advanc-ed.org/perspectives/online-school-perspective-student-focused-learning>.
  12. Annie Lowrey, “Recovery has created far more low-wage jobs than better-paid ones,”The New York Times, April 27, 2014, <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0>; MaryBeth Matzek, “Fewer businesses get out of the starting gates,” WisBusiness, May 16, 2014, <http://bizopinion.wisbusiness.com/2014/05/marybeth-matzek-fewer-businesses-get.html>.
  13. Ian Hathaway and Robert E. Litan, Entrepreneurship and job creation in the U.S. life sciences sector, Brookings Institution, June 11, 2014, <http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/06/entrepreneurship-job-creation-life-sciences-sector-litan>.
  14. For example, see Blue Valley School District’s CAPS program, which helps high school students to become next-generation scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Source: Blue Valley Schools, “Blue Valley’s CAPS program announces new Executive Director,” August 12, 2014, <http://www.bluevalleyk12schools.org/assets/files/2014/CAPS%20announces%20ED.pdf>.
  15. National Center for Education Statistics, “Table 106.10. Expenditures of educational institutions related to the gross domestic product, by level of institution: Selected years, 1929–30 through 2012–13,” Digest of Education Statistics, February 2014, <http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_106.10.asp>.
  16. The segment includes educational devices, software, games, and apps; and related IT services, connectivity, and data center solutions.
  17. Rishi Sood, Rika Narisawa, Anurag Gupta, and Katell Thielemann, Forecast: Enterprise IT spending for the government and education markets, worldwide, 2012–2018, 2Q14 update, Gartner, July 18, 2014.
  18. The Deloitte-Brandeis University joint survey conducted in November 2013 focused on understanding demographic preferences regarding learning: how students and professionals absorb, retain, and use knowledge. The survey aimed to ascertain interest in prospects of individualized learning, experiential learning, online learning, collaborative learning spaces, and game-based learning. It covered a total of 130 students and working professionals globally.
  19. Peter High, “Salman Khan, the most influential person in education technology,” Forbes, June 1, 2014, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/01/06/salman-khan-the-most-influential-person-in-education-technology/>.
  20. Phil Hill, “Differentiated, personalized and adaptive learning: Some clarity for EDUCAUSE,” e-Literate, October 15, 2013, <http://mfeldstein.com/differentiated-personalized-adaptive-learning-clarity-educause/>.
  21. For example, in June 2013, President Obama launched the ConnectED initiative to provide high-speed broadband and wireless connectivity to all schools within five years. Besides providing connectivity, he emphasized bringing educational technology into classrooms, into the hands of teachers, and training them on using ed-tech solutions. See White House, “President Obama unveils ConnectED initiative to bring America’s students into digital age,” June 6, 2013, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/06/president-obama-unveils-connected-initiative-bring-america-s-students-di>.
  22. edX, “How it works,” <https://www.edx.org/how-it-works>, accessed October 17, 2014; Udacity, “The Udacity course experience,” <https://www.udacity.com/course-experience>, accessed October 17, 2014.
  23. Ben Daley (chief academic officer and chief operating officer, High Tech High Graduate School of Education), interview with the authors, August 15, 2014.
  24. High Tech High, “Parent/student access in PowerSchool,” <http://dp.hightechhigh.org/~jwade/syllabus/Parent%20PS%20Instructions2.pdf>, accessed October 17, 2014.
  25. Naviance, “Case study: High Tech High,” <http://www.naviance.com/resources/case-studies/high-tech-high>, accessed October 17, 2014.
  26. High Tech High, “Results,” <http://www.hightechhigh.org/about/results.php>, accessed October 17, 2014.
  27. PathSource, “What we do,” <http://www.pathsource.com/about>, accessed October 17, 2014; Pathbrite, “About us,” <http://pathbrite.com/about-us/>, accessed October 17, 2014.
  28. David Berg (vice principal, The Met Sacramento High School), interview with the authors, August 21, 2014.
  29. Elliot Washor (cofounder and codirector of Big Picture Learning), interview with the authors, August 19, 2014.
  30. The Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center, “College transition,” <http://metcenter.org/about-us/one-student-at-a-time/college-transition/>.
  31. Survey conducted by third-party evaluator.
  32. Elliot Washor (cofounder and codirector of Big Picture Learning), interview with the authors, August 19, 2014.
  33. Antero Garcia (assistant professor at Colorado State University), interview with the authors, August 25, 2014.
  34. J. Philipp Schmidt (MIT Media Lab director’s fellow and cofounder of Peer 2 Peer University), interview with the authors, August 19, 2014.
  35. Pearson announced a partnership with GlassLab, a group of institutions focused on game- and simulation-based learning and assessment. (Source: Pearson, “Pearson and GlassLab: Game on!” December 2012.) In March 2013, McGraw-Hill Education launched the McGraw-Hill Practice, a suite of hands-on, experiential learning games that provides digital and personalized learning experiences. Government in Action is one such game, which McGraw-Hill Education developed in conjunction with Muzzy Lane Software. (Source: McGraw Hill Education, “McGraw-Hill Education enters higher education gaming market with launch of McGraw-Hill Practice line of simulations at SXSWedu,” March 2013.) Pearson collaborated with augmented reality provider Layar to allow parents, teachers, and students to instantly launch interactive instructional content directly from a textbook page. (Source: Pearson, “New app makes print textbook pages come to life on a mobile device,” October 2013.)
  36. PRWeb, “Blackboard and Pearson collaborate in effort to better support K-12 schools,” February 12, 2014, <http://www.blackboard.com/news-and-events/Press-Releases.aspx?releaseid=122714>.
  37. D. Frank Smith, “Samsung’s first K–12 tablet strikes the right balance for the classroom,”EdTech, May 16, 2014, <http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/05/samsungs-first-k-12-tablet-strikes-right-balance-classroom>.
  38. Knewton, “Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Knewton announce pioneering partnership to deliver adaptive learning solutions to K–12 students,” June 6, 2013, <http://www.knewton.com/about/press/houghton-mifflin-harcourt-and-knewton-announce-pioneering-partnership/>.
  39. Canvas Network, “Box builds ecosystem to modernize collaboration in education,” August 8, 2013, <http://www.instructure.com/news/press-releases/box-builds-ecosystem-to-modernize-collaboration-in-education>.
  40. Faulkes Telescope Project, “Research-based learning,” <http://www.faulkes-telescope.com/education/rbl_approaches> accessed October 17, 2014.
19
Dec 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Future Ready update adds new resources and PD for leaders

Last Thursday, The United States Department of Education held an event at the White House unveiling the 2016 National Education Technology Plan and celebrating the one-year anniversary of the Future Ready initiative. There, along with several partner groups, they announced several new commitments and initiatives to help schools become more digitally capable.

The main theme of the event was connectivity, but that extends far beyond merely connecting students to technology. Instead, the idea of connectivity envisioned for the future is that technology will serve as a means to connect students to teachers, and allow all students to experience the same access to their interests regardless of demographics.

“There’s an answer for every challenge out there,” said Daryl Adams, Superintendent of the Coachella Valley Unified School District, who attended the event. “United in purpose and mission, we can do anything.”

One of the major new commitments from the Office of Educational Technology for Future Ready moving into 2016 will be a set of professional learning resources to help district superintendents and their principals and teachers most effectively transition to digital learning. The main feature of this resource is a personalized playlist of bite-sized videos that will focus on the specific needs of a district. The videos highlight ideal, peer-based stories and practices from a wide range of Future Ready districts across the nation.

Additionally, the Alliance for Excellent Education has launched a new, independent website that will be a one-stop resource for ongoing Future Ready efforts, including ongoing professional learning opportunities such as workshops, partner events, online chats, mentoring and topic conversations all aligned to Future Ready Framework. All of this will be centered on a free online planning tool called the Future Ready Planning Dashboard which helps district leadership teams assess readiness, identify gaps, choose research-based strategies and create a customized digital learning action plan.

During the past year, more than 2,000 superintendents around the country have signed the Future Ready pledge and committed to sharing what they have learned with others. Additionally, more than 44 national and 12 regional partner organizations have committed to helping states, districts and schools become Future Ready. A total of 17 statewide Future Ready initiatives are set to launch as well.

Future Ready coalition partners have been asked to contribute resources that align to the four key focus areas of the initiative, which are Collaborative Leadership, Robust Infrastructure, Personalized Professional Learning, and Personalized Student Learning. Many partners are also launching extension programs such as webinars, workshops, mentoring programs, courses and toolkits to provide support for districts and states.

The Department of Education will also hold five regional summits for Future Ready district leadership teams in 2016, located in Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Madison, Wisconsin; Seattle, Washington; and Tampa, Florida. Corporate partners Google, Microsoft, Apple and McGraw Hill have committed to provide support for 2-day regional summits and at least four 1-day dashboard training workshops.

“Through collaboration, a robust infrastructure and personalized learning, Future Ready district leaders are shaping the vision for how technology can transform learning for all students,” said Delegated Deputy Secretary of Education John King.

The national plan

The National Education Technology Plan is the flagship educational technology policy document for the U.S. Previously, it was updated every five years, but starting with this year’s plan, the online version will feature comments sections and will be updated over time in order to ensure that examples and language remain relevant.

The main principles outlined by the plan include equity, active use and collaborative leadership to make learning possible anywhere and at any time.

The plan includes guidelines for helping all students, regardless of background or location, stay connected to technology both inside and outside of the classroom. In order to create more money for this, the plan suggests a move away from traditional textbooks towards high quality open license education materials that will stay consistently up to date.

Indeed, even though there is still a need for greater equity of access to technology itself, the department took care to note that it was more important for educators to work to ensure equity of access to transformational learning experiences enabled through the technology.

“It is critical that we embed technology in everything that we do,” said Karen Sullivan, Superintendant of Indian Prairie School District 204. “We need to bring unique experiences to all students, not just families who have the means.”

Thus, one of the commitments most stressed by the report, as well as by many of the Future Ready superintendents in attendance, was the need to better support professional development for educators so that they can use technology to provide personalized learning experiences to students. This means shifting from a single technology course to thoughtful use of technology throughout a teacher’s preparation in order to set minimum standards for higher education instructors’ tech proficiency.

The White House event came just three hours after President Obama’s signing of the Every Student Succeeds Act, representing what the administration considers “unprecedented” alignment amongst federal education initiatives.

“Technology has the potential to bring remarkable new possibilities to teaching and learning by providing teachers with opportunities to share best practices, and offer parents platforms for engaging more deeply and immediately in their children’s learning,” said outgoing U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

“This year’s update to the National Education Technology Plan includes a strong focus on equity because every student deserves an equal chance to engage in educational experiences powered by technology that can support and accelerate learning.”

18
Dec 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Better L.A. Unified schools would be best weapon against charter push

Editorial

The gloves are off between charter school supporters and the Los Angeles Unified school board. And so far, their clash shows all the calm maturity of a playground shouting match.

Charter schools in L.A. got higher scores on a recent round of standardized tests than traditional district schools, the state’s charter school association pointed out. Oh, yeah? L.A. Unified replied. Our magnet schools outscored your charter schools.

But you included the magnet schools for gifted children, the charters retorted. Uh-huh, said the district, but even taking out those programs, the magnets beat you.

Neener-neener.

This tacky exercise in one-upmanship follows the recent disclosure of a dramatic, $480-million expansion plan to double the number of district students attending charters. It’s not surprising that such an in-your-face move by charter school supporters — who want half of all L.A. students to be in charters in eight years — has set off a wave of anxiety among the district’s teachers and officials. They have legitimate reason to worry: Charters draw more-motivated and higher-achieving students, so they often leave traditional schools worse off, with less money to serve more students with behavioral problems and disabilities.

Hence the aggressive response. Board member Scott Schmerelson recently characterized the planned charter expansion as “an insult” to teachers and “an attack on democratic, transparent and inclusive public school governance….” His colleague Steve Zimmer called it a “hostile takeover.”

But if the district really wants to fend off a charter incursion, its best bet is not to ramp up the angry rhetoric but to create and build the kinds of public schools that attract and keep students. Parents whose children are happily enrolled in orderly, well-run neighborhood schools, or exciting magnet schools, have little reason to switch.

The expansion plan is not an insult to anyone. It’s a boon for kids and their parents, who will have new and, we hope, better choices. The district has its own stable of outstanding magnet schools — and some regular public schools that are showing signs of major improvement — and charter supporters should not be trying to diminish their reputations. As with charter schools, there are waiting lists for district magnets. So why isn’t the district, which still has too many underperforming schools, rapidly expanding its popular magnet program?

To his credit, Zimmer tried to do exactly that with an expanded Mandarin-language program in Mar Vista, but NIMBY forces shut down his plan.

Earlier this year, when he was running for school board, Schmerelson had this to say: “Charter schools are here to stay. Let’s not fight them, let’s embrace them…. My goal is to build up our traditional public schools to the point that parents and students would have a difficult time in deciding between a charter and a traditional public school.”

That’s a smarter philosophy than his recent slam.

17
Dec 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

National Education Technology Plan outlines best classroom practices

http://tech.ed.gov/netp/

The National Education Technology Plan is the flagship educational technology policy document for the United States. The 2016 Plan, Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education, articulates a vision of equity, active use, and collaborative leadership to make everywhere, all-the-time learning possible. While acknowledging the continuing need to provide greater equity of access to technology itself, the plan goes further to call upon all involved in American education to ensure equity of access to transformational learning experiences enabled by technology. The principles and examples provided in this document align to the Activities to Support the Effective Use of Technology (Title IV A) of Every Student Succeeds Act as authorized by Congress in December 2015.

17
Dec 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , ,

NCLB is now Every Student Succeeds Act

The newest proposed version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—dubbed the Every Student Succeeds Act—is almost over the congressional finish line, with votes in both chambers of Congress imminent.

So how would accountability work under the ESSA, if approved? And how does it compare to No Child Left Behind Act, Classic Edition, and the Obama administration’s waivers?

Your cheat sheet here. Top-line stuff on accountability first, then some early reaction. Scroll down further if you want the nitty-gritty details on accountability.

And scroll down even further if you want more details on other aspects of the deal (an update of past Politics K-12 cheat sheets, including some new information on which programs made it into the agreement and which are on the chopping block, thanks to this helpful fact sheet from the Committee for Education Funding).

The top-line stuff: The ESSA is in many ways a U-turn from the current, much-maligned version of the ESEA law, the No Child Left Behind Act.

•States would still have to test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and break out the data for whole schools, plus different “subgroups” of students (English-learners, students in special education, racial minorities, those in poverty.)

But beyond that, states get wide discretion in setting goals, figuring out just what to hold schools and districts accountable for, and deciding how to intervene in low-performing schools. And while tests still have to be a part of state accountability systems, states must incorporate other factors that get at students’ opportunity to learn, like school-climate and teacher engagement, or access to and success in advanced coursework.

And, in a big switch from the waivers, there would be no role for the feds whatsoever in teacher evaluation.

• States and districts will have to use locally-developed, evidence-based interventions though, in the bottom 5 percent of schools and in schools where less than two-thirds of students graduate. States must also flag for districts schools where subgroup students are chronically struggling. The School Improvement Grant program is gone, but there are resources in the bill states can use for turnarounds.

The deal goes further on accountability than either the House- or Senate-passed legislation. And, in a win for civil rights groups, it appears there are no more so-called supersubgroups. That’s a statistical technique in the waivers that allowed states to combine different categories of students for accountability purposes.

There are definitely some “guardrails” as one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., would say. (More on just what those are below.) But the education secretary’s authority is also very limited, especially when it comes to interfering with state decisionmaking on testing, standards, school turnarounds, and more.

So there’s some real ambiguity here. That will be something to watch going forward.

It’s still unclear just how the accountability or “guardrails” provisions of the bill vs. limits on secretarial authority dynamic will play out in regulation and implementation. But it’s possible lawyers and lobbyists may have walked away as big winners here. (Even Democratic and Republican aides see certain aspects of the bill differently.)

Put another way, there are definitely provisions in this deal that state and district leaders and civil rights advocates can cite to show that states and schools will have to continue to ensure equity. But, it will be hard for the U.S. Department of Education to implement those provisions with a very heavy hand, without at least the threat of lawsuits.

So what happens from here will be largely up to states. (More on the potential regulatory fights, and lawsuits, ahead in this story from Friday.)

“What can the secretary do and not do? I think that’s where the lawsuits will be,” said Chad Aldeman, an associate partner at Bellwether Education, who served in the U.S. Department of Education under President Barack Obama.

Early Reaction 

Civil rights groups say they’re waiting for real, live legislative language, not just a framework, before weighing in.

But, already, other accountability hawks are not happy campers.

“States are being given license to create systems that are significantly not based on student learning. That’s a problem,” said Sandy Kress, an original architect of the NCLB law. “This pretty much eliminates any kind of expectation for closing the achievement gap.” (Another take from Chad Aldeman at Bellwether Education Partner’s blog Ahead of the Heard.)

But some state chiefs say there’s no way that’s happening. After all, it didn’t under the NCLB waivers.

“I’m bothered when I hear people say that school chiefs won’t hold schools accountable,” said Brenda Cassellius, Minnesota’s education chief. “That’s not been evident with the waivers. … We’ve supported our schools and we’ve held them accountable. I hope America can see that.”

The nitty-gritty details on accountability, based on an analysis of a late-stage version of the framework:

Plans: States would still have to submit accountability plans to the education department. These new ESSA plans would start in the 2017-18 school year. And a state could get a hearing if the department turned down its plan.

Goals:

  • No more expectation that states get all students to proficiency by the 2013-14 school year, as under NCLB Classic. (That ship has sailed, anyway). And no more menu of goals, largely cooked up by the department, as under the waivers.
  • Instead, states can pick their own goals, both a big long-term goal, and smaller, interim goals. These goals must address: proficiency on tests, English-language proficiency, and graduation rates.
  • Goals have to set an expectation that all groups that are furthest behind close gaps in achievement and graduation rates.

What kinds of schools will states have to focus on? 

  • States have to identify and intervene in the bottom 5 percent of performers, an idea borrowed from waivers. These schools have to be identified at least once every three years. (That’s something many states already do under waivers. And some, like Massachusetts, do it every single year.)
  • States have to identify and intervene in high schools where the graduation rate is 67 percent or less.
  • States, with districts, have to identify schools where subgroup students are struggling.

What do these accountability systems have to consider? The list of “indicators” is a little different for elementary and middle schools vs. high schools.

  • Systems for Elementary and Middle Schools:
  • States need to incorporate a jumble of five indicators into their accountability systems.
  • That includes three academic indicators: proficiency on state tests, English-language proficiency, plus some other academic factor that can be broken out by subgroup. (That could be growth on state tests, so that states would have a mix of both in their systems, as many already do under waivers.)
  • States also have to somehow figure in participation rates on state tests (schools with less than 95 percent participation are supposed to have that factored in, somehow.)
  • And, in a big new twist, states must add at least one, fifth indicator of a very different kind into the mix. Possibilities include: student engagement, educator engagement, access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate/safety, or whatever else the state thinks makes sense. Importantly, though, this indicator has to be disaggregated by subgroup. States are already experimenting with these kinds of indicators under the waivers, especially a cadre of districts in California (the CORE districts). Still, this is new territory when it comes to accountability.
  • Systems for high schools:
  • Basically the same set of indicators, except that graduation rates have to be part of the mix.
  • So to recap, that means for high schools: proficiency on tests, English-language proficiency, graduation rates, plus some other indicator that focuses a little more on whether students have the opportunity to learn, or are ready for post-secondary work. And also, test participation has to be incorporated in some way.

How much do each of these indicators have to count? It depends on who you ask. Everyone agrees that those academic indicators (tests, grad rates, English-language proficiency) have to weigh more, as a group, than that non-traditional indicator that gets at a students’ opportunity to learn (school climate, etc.)

From there, Democratic and Republicans aides have different takes.  A Republican aide said the academic stuff just has to be at least 51 percent of the system, and the other factor, or factors, can be up to 49 percent. A Democratic aide said the regulations might turn out differently, when all’s said and done. (In this aide’s view, the department could set a range for each individual indicator, ultimately giving the academic factors as a group significantly greater weight than the other factors.) More here. It’s also unclear whether the test participation indicator, which states can weigh however they want, will throw a monkey wrench into all of this. More here.

How do interventions work? 

  • For the bottom 5 percent of schools and for high schools with really high dropout rates:
  • Districts work with teachers and school staff to come up with an evidence-based plan.
  • States monitor the turnaround effort.
  • If schools continue to founder for years (no more than four) the state is supposed to step in with its own plan. That means states could take over the school if they wanted, or fire the principal, or turn the school into a charter, just like they do under NCLB waivers now. (But, importantly, unlike under waivers, there aren’t any musts—states get to decide what kind of action to take.)
  • Districts could also allow for public school choice out of seriously low-performing schools, but they have to give priority to the students who need it most.
  • For schools where subgroups students are struggling:
  • These schools  have to come up with an evidence-based plan to help the particular group of kids who are falling behind. For example, a school that’s having trouble with students in special education could decide to try out a new curriculum with evidence to back it up and hire a very experienced coach to help train teachers on it.
  • Districts monitor these plans. If the school continues to fall short, the district steps in. The district decides just when that kind of action is necessary, though; there’s no specified timeline in the deal.
  • Importantly, there’s also a provision in the deal calling for a “comprehensive improvement plan.” States and districts to take more-aggressive action in schools where subgroups are chronically underperforming, despite local interventions. Their performance has to look really bad though, as bad as the performance of students in the bottom 5 percent of schools over time.

What kind of resources are there for these interventions? The School Improvement Grant program, which is funded at around $500 million currently, has been consolidated into the bigger Title I pot, which helps districts educate students in poverty. But states would be able to set aside up to 7 percent of all their Title I funds for school turnarounds, up from 4 percent in current law. (That would give states virtually the same amount of resources for school improvement as they get now, through SIG.) However, the bulk of those dollars would be sent out to districts for “innovation”, which could include turnarounds.  It would be up to states whether to send that money out by formula, to everyone, or competitively, as they do now with SIG dollars. (More in this cheat sheet from AASA, the School Administrator’s Association, which has been updated on this issue.) Bottom line: There are resources in the bill for school turnarounds. But some of the money could also be used for other purposes, if that’s what districts and states want. 

What about the tests? The testing schedule would be the same as under NCLB. But in a twist, a handful of states could apply to try out local tests, with the permission of the U.S. Department of Education. And importantly, these local tests aren’t supposed to be used forever—the point is for districts to experiment with new forms of assessment (as New Hampshire is doing with performance tasks) that could eventually go statewide and be used by everyone. That way states don’t get stuck with the same old assessment for years on end.

What’s more, the framework allows for the use of local, nationally-recognized tests at the high school level, with state permission. So a district could, in theory, use the SAT or ACT as its high school test, instead of the traditional state exam.

Also, computer adaptive testing would be easier. More here.

What about that supersubgroup thing mentioned higher up? Supersubgroups are a statistical technique used in the waivers that call for states to combine different groups of students (say, students in special education, English-language learners, and minorities) for accountability purposes. By my reading of the bill, it would seem that’s a no-no. States now have to consider accountability for each subgroup separately. States liked the flexibility of supersubgroups. But former Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and civil rights groups said they masked gaps. The deal appears to eliminate the use of supersubgroups.

What about the rest of the bill?
Scroll down for information on English-Language Learners, students in special education, school choice, teachers, and funding provisions.

English-Language Learners

Where does deal land when it comes to when newly arrived English-language learners must be tested? (Background on this issue here). States would have two choices.

  • Option A) Include English-language learners’ test scores after they have been in the country a year, just like under current law.
  • Option B) During the first year, test scores wouldn’t count towards a school’s rating, but ELLs would need to take both of the assessments, and publicly report the results. (That’s a switch from current law. Right now, they only need to take math in the first year). In the second year, the state would have to incorporate ELLs’ results for both reading and math, using some measure of growth. And in their third year in the country, the proficiency scores of newly arrived ELLs are treated just like any other students’. (Sound familiar? It’s very similar to the waiver Florida received.)

The compromise would shift accountability for English-language learners from Title III (the English-language acquistion section of the ESEA) to Title I (where everyone else’s accountability is). The idea is to make accountability for those students a priority.

Students in Special Education

The legislation mirrors a recent federal regulation when it comes to assessments for students in special education, saying, essentially, that only 1 percent of students overall can be given alternative tests. (That’s about 10 percent of students in special education.)

Opt-Outs

The bill largely sticks with the Senate language, which would allow states to create their own testing opt-out laws (as Oregon has). But it would maintain the federal requirement for 95 percent participation in tests. However, unlike under the NCLB law, in which schools with lower-than-95 percent participation rates were automatically seen as failures, local districts and states would get to decide what should happen in schools that miss targets. States would have to take low testing participation into consideration in their accountability systems. Just how to do that would be up to them.

For a deeper look at this particular topic, check out this blog post on opt-outs in the ESEA reauthorization deal.

On Programs

There’s more consolidation of federal education in the compromise than there was in the Senate bill.

  • The legislation creates a $1.6 billion block grant that consolidates a bunch of programs, including some involving physical education, Advanced Placement, school counseling, and education technology. (Some of these programs haven’t federal funding in years.)
  • Districts that get more than $30,000 will have to spend at least 20 percent of their funding on at least one activity that helps students become well-rounded, and another 20 percent on at least one activity that helps kids be safe and healthy. And part of the money could be spent on technology. (But no more than 15 percent can go to technology infastructure.)
  • Some programs would live on as separate line items, including the 21st Century Community schools program, which pays for after-school programs and has a lot support on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
  • Other survivors: Promise Neighborhoods, and a full-service community schools program. And there’s a standalone program for parent engagement. There are also reservations for Arts Education, gifted education, and Ready to Learn television.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. got the early-childhood investment she wanted—the bill enshrines an existing program “Preschool Development Grants” in law, and focuses it on program coordination, quality, and broadening access to early childhood education. But the program would be housed at the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Education Department as some Democrats had initially hoped. The Education Department would jointly administer the program, however. (The reason: HHS already has some early-education programs, like Head Start. Expanding the education department’s portfolio was a big no-no for conservatives.)

That new research and innovation program that some folks were describing as sort of a next-generation “Investing in Innovation” program made it into the bill. (Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., are big fans, as is the administration.)

On School Choice

No Title I portability: That means that federal funds won’t be able to follow the child to the school of their choice.

But the bill does include a pilot project allowing districts to try out a weighted student funding formula, which would also essentially function as a backpack of funds for kids. The program would allow 50 districts to combine state, local, and federal funds into a single pot that could follow a child to the school of their choice. It is said to be a more workable alternative to Title I portability, which looked more dramatic on paper, but which few states would likely have taken advantage of because of its complexity, experts said. Importantly with this pilot, participation would be entirely up to district officials. And the language would give them a chance to better target funds to individual school needs.

Teachers

The headline here is that states would no longer have to do teacher evaluation through student outcomes, as they did under waivers.And NCLB’s “highly qualified teacher” requirement would be officially a thing of the past.

There’s also language allowing for continued spending on the Teacher Incentive Fund—now called the Teacher and School Leader Innovation Program—which doles out grants to districts that want to try out performance pay and other teacher quality improvement measures. And there are resources for helping train teachers on literacy and STEM. Much more from Teacher Beat.

Funding and Other Issues

No changes to the Title I funding formula along the lines of what the Senate passed that would steer a greater share of the funds to districts with high concentrations of students in poverty. But there were some changes to the Title II formula (which funds teacher quality) that would be a boon to rural states.

The agreement would keep in place maintenance of effort, a wonky issue we wrote about recently, with some new flexibility added for states. (Quick tutorial: Maintenance of effort basically requires states to keep up their own spending at a particular level in order to tap federal funds.)

There was some chatter that the bill would also incorporate changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. That’s not part of the agreement.

The framework would only “authorize” ESEA for four more years, as opposed to the typical five. That gives lawmakers a chance to revisit the policy under the next president, should they choose to do so. And its overall authorization levels are largely consistent with the most recent budget deal. 

 

For a full read of the act…. Every Student Succeeds Act 2015

 

01
Dec 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Ultimate Education Reform: Messy Learning & Problem Solving

 

via Powerful Learning Practice

Have you ever gone to the doctor with a rather vague problem? The kind of problem that has no obvious solution?

“Doctor, my elbow hurts.”

“Doctor, I have a runny nose.”

“Doctor, look at this rash.”

From that ambiguity, we expect our physicians to narrow down something that could have a thousand origins to the one specific cause, then make it all better with one specific treatment. It is not just physicians that we expect to have uber-problem solving skills either. Many of the people we run into in life are asked by us to solve our hazy dilemmas.

We tell the mechanic: “My car is making a funny noise, can you fix it?”

A quarterback asks: “What’s the best play to run, coach?”

We might ask a decorator: “I need help redoing this room. What can be done with it?”

We might ask friends: “What do you think is the best car for me to buy?”

Some of our ambiguous problems are mundane: “What toothpaste should I use?” or “What should I have for dinner?” On the other hand, some of our conundrums are much more life changing: “Should I get married?” which leads to “Whom should I marry?” which leads to “Should we have children?” which leads to all kinds of other ponderables. Mundane or life changing, they are all problems to be solved.

The better we are at problem solving, the better chance we have at making a proper decision when the time comes and being successful in both our personal and career pursuits.

From our first activity in the morning until the last thing we do before we visit dreamland each night, we are constantly engaged in a series of problems to solve — some easy, some hard. Problem after problem after problem. Question after question after question. Simply put, life is a series of ambiguous questions to be answered. The better we are at problem solving, the better chance we have at making a proper decision when the time comes and being successful in both our personal and career pursuits.

Some of the questions we have pretty much solved long ago and have placed them into our routine of daily life: The best route to drive to work each morning, the team we should root for, even the types of food we like to eat and how much time we watch TV. But even the most routine of things that we do each day were at one time, problems to be solved. That route to work that you drove this morning was at one time a question for you to answer. Should you drive this way or that? What were the advantages of each route? This route may be shorter, but there is always a morning back-up. This route is longer, but traffic flows more smoothly. I think I will go this way. Problem solved.

So what’s this got to do with school?

Problems like these are not like problems we give our students to solve. Problems we traditionally give to students have a single correct answer (think multiple choice, true and false, and fill in the blank). We spend, an inordinate amount of time teaching students how to find the the “single-answer-that-is-the-correct-answer.” While that might be good in the short term, and easy to grade, in the long term I believe we are doing them a terrible disservice.

As one of my colleagues once stated, we might be practicing educational malpractice. By not teaching and pushing our students to develop problem solving skills, we fail to prepare them adequately for life outside of school. We are “preparing” them, in fact, for a world where the questions and answers are pre-packaged and easy to bubble in. And that world does not exist.

Problems like the ones I’ve mentioned above are called “messy problem” by some educators and “ill-structured problems” by others. Messy problems have no single, certifiably correct answer. There is no “one right way” to solve a problem like “should I get married” or “what should I study in college?” The answer is the goal, but the answer can manifest itself in many correct ways and lead to a lot of unexpected learning along the way. Ambiguity envelopes us. It begins at birth and follows us through to the last days of our lives. Start to finish, life is messy.

I love ill-structured problems. When offered in a classroom setting, they present students with real life situations and devilish dilemmas. Problem based learning, a methodology begun in the late 1960’s in medical schools in Canada (and expanded into K12 education in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s) was developed after medical experts in teaching hospitals could not understand why otherwise excellent interns froze up when real life humans were placed in front of them with real life problems (there might even be panic and bleeding).

After long investigation, if became clear to instructors that while the students were “book smart” and could recite page after page of diagnostic information from memory, most patients did not present their symptoms in a way that matched the book: “You know Doc, my elbow hurts just like the description on page 354 of the Jensen Ortho text,” said no patient ever.

We need to move away from the pedagogy of the single answer and move towards teaching the messy problems of Problem Based Learning. This is different than Project Based Learning (as I wrote about here), where the end goal is already known (and thus a single correct answer is reached in many cases). Life does not work so much like a project; human development is pretty much Problem Based Learning. The best outcome or solution is usually not known when the problem is presented. Sometimes it is, but not often.

In pursuit of the messy answer

Moving towards messy answers to messy problems is not just a matter of shifting the way we test (although that’s a messy problem in itself). It’s first and foremost a shift in the way we expect our teachers to teach and our students to learn. We cannot in all honesty think that students can possibly be prepared to solve life’s messy problems when for years all they have been taught to do was look for the single best answer on the standardized test. (Watch out for those distractors!)

I love ill-structured problems. When offered in a classroom setting, they present students with real life situations and devilish dilemmas.

Consider these current very messy problems now facing the nation:

How should education be reformed? 

What is the best way to handle gun violence?

What should be done about how the government spends money?

What should be our response to global climate change?

And on and on and on…

We have seen what happens when groups of people have little or no problem solving skills: Nations go to war. Religions fight. Congress cannot talk to the President. Gun owners cannot talk to gun control advocates. Husbands cannot talk to wives. Students bully each other. All of these snarls and snafus are directly the result of a pervasive lack of problem solving skills among the populace.

When problem solving (and its twin sister critical thinking) isn’t business as usual, then charlatans and conmen can easily manipulate a situation. If you don’t believe that this is true, consider the current highest rated show on cable’s History Channel, “Ancient Aliens,” a program that is neither historically accurate nor even close to being scientifically factual. Yet millions watch this show which, somehow, every week, links obscure cave drawings, religious texts, nut job theories and tin foil conspiracies into stories of how our ancestors were the spawn of human/alien mating. (Great-great grandma was a Klingon. Get used to it.)

As our students grow up and enter adult life and work, those with a lack of problem solving skills will be at a distinct disadvantage to those who can solve problems and detect flimflam and flummery. And those who realize there are many “correct” ways to solve problems will have a great advantage over those who believe there’s a single answer for each and every question.

Let’s start reform here!

Education reform — a topic that we have now been discussing since forever, according to education-historian-turned-reform-skeptic Diane Ravitch — must actually begin somewhere. I suggest this: Let us take a good hard look at the curricula and standards that are now out there. Let us agree on a common set of goals, and let us at least consider the idea of making true problem-based learning part of the standard curricula for grades K to 12 and beyond.

Yes, it’s messy and harder to teach. Yes it takes more time. But if you truly believe that clichéd phrase hanging on the wall in your school somewhere about preparing students for the future, and how they will be future leaders, then you have to know, deep down, that just teaching kids to take tests is not preparing them for anything other than just taking tests. Nobody will pay you for that for too long.

If we can teach kids to solve messy problems before they graduate, they might not have such a hard time solving messy problems when they start running the world. Or trying to figure out what is wrong with my elbow.

(And they will start running the world, you know. That’s one question we can be pretty sure has a single answer.)

20
Sep 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Tragedy of Student Loans

 

One of the big scams going around right now is student loans for individuals attending for-profit universities. It goes something like this: Heavy advertising for pain free, at-your leisure online or on-site degrees—encouraging students to take on a large debt load to pay for their studies—and then frequently little (if any) support for students, inadequate classes, and difficulty transferring credits to other institutions. The dropout rate is typically substantial. Personal student debt is growing at a staggering rate.

Here’s the thing though—students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults.

A study by The National Bureau of Economic Research, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, suggested that students who attend for-profit education institutions are more likely to be unemployed, earn less, have higher debt levels, and are more likely to default on their student loans than similar students at non-profit educational institutions. Although for-profits typically serve students who are poorer or more likely to be minorities, these differences do not explain the differences in employment, income, debt levels, and student loan defaults. The Government Accountability Office has also found that graduates of for-profits are less likely to pass licensing exams, and that poor student performance cannot be explained by different student demographics.

For-profits have higher completion rates for one- and two-year associate’s degree programs, but higher dropout rates for four-year bachelor’s degrees. However, studies have suggested that one- and two-year programs typically do not provide much economic benefit to students because the boost to wages is more than offset by increased debt. By contrast, four-year programs provide a large economic benefit.

An investigation by the New York Times suggested that for-profit higher education institutions typically have much higher student loan default rates than non-profits. Two documentaries by Frontline have focused on alleged abuses in for profit higher education.

The following infographic from Collegestats.org will give you a good visual of what’s going on with student debt. Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve always thought that the fundamental purpose of an educational institution should be to educate, not to turn a profit.

 

The Tragedy of Student Loans

19
Sep 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Future of Education

future-of-education-730x2821

19
Sep 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

YouTube Sensations….Then and Now

youtube1

18
Sep 2015
POSTED BY Jeff
POSTED IN

Articles

DISCUSSION No Comments
TAGS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Page
Next Page »