Tweets
Contributing Editors

Search
From the Blogs
DISCLAIMER

The information on this site does not constitute legal advice and is for educational purposes only. If you have a dispute or legal problem, please consult an attorney licensed to practice law in your state. Additionally, the information and views presented on this blog are solely the responsibility of Justin Bathon personally, or the other contributors, personally, and do not represent the views of the University of Kentucky or the institutional employer of any of the contributing editors.

Entries in Policy-NCLB (95)

Thursday
Aug152013

Common Core (Predictably) Falling Apart

Politico reports today that Georgia has become the fifth state to withdraw from the Common Core standards project after fully understanding the additional expenses involved in administering the new standardized tests, as well as realizing the enlargment of the federal role in education that will come along with adoption of the Common Core.  Considering that other states are already considering opting out (including Florida, home of former Governor Jeb Bush, a big Common Core supporter), and counting the four states that chose at the beginning not to be part of the Common Core (which included Texas, the great driver of textbook content for the nation), the list is approaching death-spiral territory. 

I predicted this a while ago.  Essentially, the Common Core is "NCLB-light."  Great taste: The standards, from what I can tell, are consistent with the better state standards that exist.  The tests, also from what I can tell, seek to go beyond the overly formulaic and reductionist forms of testing that exist in most states today.  Less filling: But none of this matters.  Why?  Because teaching a more rigorous curriculum is harder, and therefore more expensive.  And testing in more authentic ways is more labor-intensive, both on the test-administration side and on the test-scoring side, and therefore much more expensive.  At present, standards development and test development are funded, but not test administation, scoring, and reporting, let alone teacher training.  And most importantly, no existing state education funding rides on the decision whether to adopt the Common Core or not. 

Putting aside its many, many flaws for a moment, NCLB's main successes (and it was successful in causing many school districts to finally start paying at least some attention to disadvantaged and minority students' test scores) came from the fact that it was enacted mostly as an amendment to Title I, meaning that the failure to adhere to NCLB would (at least theoretically) put at risk federal Title I funding, which is very substantial.  Many states hated NCLB (really, most states hated it), but they went along with it because there were consequences for noncompliance--the potential loss of lots of funding.  Not so with the Common Core, which is supported only by a (relatively small) set of grants, most of which have gone to the testing/textbook companies and their agents which have developed the standards and tests.  It is very easy to see why states are now beginning to say "No thanks."  This is a new set of more rigorous demands on instruction and assessment, decoupled from any real consequences for the states themselves for noncompliance.  I'm actually amazed that more states have not opted out yet. 

Standardization of curriculum and assessment (whether at the state or federal level) requires a coercive mandate.  In federal education legislation, that means coming up with a big enough pile of money to induce the states to act in the way desired in exchange for the money.  Congress is broken today, so I don't see that happening.  Common Core was probably the best that could have been done in this environment, and having a set of well-developed standards at least gives the states something they can adopt, adapt, and draw from, but I doubt it will go much farther than that when the other costs become apparent.   

Monday
Aug152011

Gambling on Education - Collectively Doubling Down on our Great American Bet

When I was in my first semester of my first year of law school, the professor I disliked the most (since retired, thankfully) said something that has always stuck with me deeply: "There are 2 investments that always pay off: Land and Education." To first year law students, law professors are like Gods. Especially one so willing to squeeze as he held our legal lives in his hand. 

Obviously, with not only this in mind, I invested heavily in education to the tune of two doctorates, a masters, and around $80,000 in debt (the only reason it is that low is that I did community college and public schools). Later, when I get a chance, I plan to try the other half of his formula. So, keep in mind that not only did I personally invest heavily in higher education, I have seen the promised good returns at least so far.  

But, at some point, even the safest "investment" becomes a gamble. I think education is crossing that border. New data from the Wall Street Journal and Federal Reserve today show that while America has tightened our belts in every aspect of spending, we as a group are continuing to individually double down on education.  

As an educator, and a direct beneficiary of America's (particularly Kentucky's) higher education habit, I am somewhat honored that America continues to put their trust in us to bring them worthy returns. But, at the same time, I am also cautious of an individual betting too heavily on this investment and bearing all of this risk. 

America's great national bet has always been on our people. We have invested and put our trust in our people and we have shown good returns time and again. In particular, we have bet on our youth. If we pour resources into our youth, generation after generation will reward the investment. I know I am personally planning to pay off every cent invested in me twice over or more - and I am building that same responsible passion into my children. Thus, it is on this gamble, that we have built not only a strong middle class, but a strong country - generation after generation. 

From an economic standpoint, there is nothing more productive than an educated and motivated population. If anything, we need to continue to push more higher education (and better P-12 education) out to the general public (and I'm fine with demanding better returns, also). But, at some point, we have to question just how much debt Paul Q. Public can sustain and still return profit on his or her investment not only for himself, but for us generally.

Therefore, I think we need to be asking ourselves quickly whether or not it is economically sensible to continue to pass the vast majority of that cost into future debt payments from the very students we are entrusting with building our future. 

I am more and more convinced that as a nation, we must bear more of this cost. I still want each person (at least each middle and working class person) to have to pay back debt. There is something motivating about that prospect and makes me work later nights than I otherwise would have. But, for many people the "investment" is appearing more and more as a personal gamble - and rightly so. It is closing off access to higher education to many in society who simply cannot fathom taking on a hundred grand in debt when they come from a family that lives on thirty thousand a year hourly wages. Not only is their potential productivity reduced, but their understanding of the great American gamble on all of our people is also reduced.  

As this debt "super committee" is considering all the options, I hope many of them were told the same investment story as my law professor bestowed on me. Adding new taxes should certainly be on the table, but those taxes should not go toward highways or space shuttles or even more crazy lab research at higher education institutions (no offense to my colleagues). We just need as a country to reinvest in our future - our young people - as generations before us have done. We need to make sure that our young people understand that this is a country where you can gamble big on learning - as long as you are willing to reinvest your knowledge and skills back into our collective group over your lifetime.

We are passing off our economic mistakes onto our youth, not just figuratively through national debt debates, but extremely directly and personally (look again at the chart above). We need to stop it, quickly. Our's can not be the generation that loses sight of the gamble that got us to where we are today. My law professor may have been a jerk (and believe me he was), but he passed down the knowledge of the generation before him: land and education. Let's not lose sight of that. 

Monday
Aug082011

Diffusing the NCLB Bomb: A Final Conservative Federal Education Expansion

Today was inevitable, really. And, everyone knew it. Washington's plan was simply untenable. It could never work the way it was written. 

(No, not referring to the debt crisis and downgrade and, well, the plunge today (don't get me started, just go here, please)).  

Everyone knew NCLB's accountability provisions were a ticking bomb. They were never going to work. While some speculated that the bomb was intentional to blow-up public schools in favor of private and other options, that there was a hidden bomb in NCLB was unquestioned by even those with cursory knowledge of the law. 

Lately states, such as mine, were getting tired of the inevitable countdown to 0 (as in the total number of passing schools on the accountability indexes). The grumbles were growing louder, yet nothing happened in Washington (they were too busy messing with our credit score). In reality, there was never so much as serious talk of a NCLB reauthorization timetable. Reauthorization may still be two or more years away and by then the bomb might actually explode. 

So, today, the U.S. Department of Education took a big step. A unilaterial step. Perhaps an unauthorized step. Relevant quote:

The administration’s plan amounts to the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s. 

This is a complicated issue, so please don't think we are going to cover it all in this blog post. But, there are a few critical factors worth explaining:

1. This limits the role of the federal government. States, like Kentucky, will probably get to write their own accountability systems again. This brings the federal role more in line with the Tenth Amendment and the general concept of federalism in education. 

2. This expands the role of the federal government. Yes, contradictory I know. Even though an individual state will get to write their own plans, the federal government has sign-off authority. As was shown with Race-to-the-Top, the Feds are not above using that kind of authority for coercion. Already in their public statements on this change, it is very clear that this will be a coercion mechanism to get the kind of reform Washington wants. Coercing states is more in line with the spending power of the Constitution, but much less in line with the Tenth Amendment.  

3. The biggest expansion of the day, though, was of the power of the U.S. Department of Education. They are now front and center for education reform in this country. Many would argue (probably including me) that this is not their place not only under the Tenth Amendment, but also under generally understood principles of administrative law authorized by Article II (today was a possible infringement on Article I (ultimately, Article III might have to resolve this ... confusing enough for you?)). 

What does all this mean? I don't know. The federal role in education is probably expanding, but it is doing it through the back door. As such, few people are really noticing and those that do have few options because they are already in the house. Federal expansion is a bit of a bell that cannot be unrung. That the federal role is expanding ... is likely inevitable. Today was just a different route toward doing so that positioned the Department of Education (and not Congress, nor the States) as the central accountability mechanism for education in the United States. 

That they expanded today by actually helping states diffuse the bomb ... was creative and interesting. Because of that, a serious constitutional challenge might be avoided. In the next few weeks, we will likely see bills filed in Congress and new committee hearings and some pomp and circumstance against this - but, I would be surprised if this plan is not implemented and that this is not the framework for a reauthorization, whoever gets elected president next time. 

So, today the NCLB Bomb was largely diffused. Good. It needed to be. But, in doing so, the federal government's role was expanded once again. A final, ironic chapter in the conservatively sponsored NCLB Act.

Monday
Apr042011

New Title IX Guidance

The DOE has released new Title IX guidance. Here is the official DOE Page.

Just from a quick scan, the thing that stands out to me is the focus on the language "sexual violence" instead of "sexual harassment."

 Sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. In order to assist recipients, which include school districts, colleges, and universities (hereinafter “schools” or “recipients”) in meeting these obligations, this letter explains that the requirements of Title IX pertaining to sexual harassment also cover sexual  violence, and lays out the specific Title IX requirements applicable to sexual violence.  Sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. In order to assist recipients, which include school districts, colleges, anduniversities (hereinafter “schools” or “recipients”) in meeting these obligations, this letter1explains that the requirements of Title IX pertaining to sexual harassment also cover sexual violence, and lays out the specific Title IX requirements applicable to sexual violence.

I'm not sure the purpose of this, whether this was just meant to cover a small component of Title IX, or to try to redirect the broader discussion (hopefully just the former). Either way, I don't really like the move. Title IX is much broader than just what comes to mind when we hear the term "sexual violence." Additionally, I think more clarification is needed on the harassment part than on the violence part. I feel practitioners are pretty good at distinguishing and punishing violence, but not so good at distinguishing and punishing harassment. There is far too much sexual violence, don't get me wrong, so focusing on that is a worthwhile endeavor and much of the guidance seems aimed at prevention procedures. But, I hope this is not going to take the spotlight away from the harassment and bullying components of Title IX - which still need a lot of clarification. 

Thanks to Jason Block (who you will be hearing a lot more from over the next couple years) for the tip. 

You can see some of our comments on the last DOE guidance on bullying here - plus, why I love ELA.

Monday
Sep062010

P20 Website & Next Generation Learning Summit

So, we launched the P20 website over the weekend. I know some of you have been wondering about it, so the new one is now out and there is space for feedback and whatnot. I'll have more news in the coming weeks about the companion network that is also launching and how to participate in it. Let me know any thoughts you have about the site. 

More importantly, though, tomorrow is a statewide superintendent summit on next generation learning. The Stupski Foundation really stepped up to the plate and worked with us to make this happen, so a big thank you to them. Also, KDE staff have been the chief organizers - even through a transition - so it really took a lot of pressure off of us at UK. Also, we also have to acknowledge the leadership of CCSSO, especially in merging the interests of Kentucky, the national priorities and the priorities of the Stupski Foundation. 

Kentucky is pretty much going all in on Next Generation Learning ... to the extent that all the new positions at KDE have it in the title. They even have a new director of innovation, David Cook, who is our primary partner in Frankfort. Our Governor, Steve Beshear, is even getting behind the effort. And, our former Commissioner who is now in Washington, Gene Wilhoit, is helping to guide the Kentucky effort. Kentucky might have been passed over by Washington, but we know what we can do here ... and we are going to do it with or without outside support. There are so many good people, so many innovators, that the surprise to me would be if Kentucky doesn't substantially move the innovation needle.  

So, tomorrow I'll be tweeting with the hashtag #kynxgl if you want to follow along and ask questions. 

Glad to get this ball rolling ... we'll see where it goes. 

Wednesday
Aug252010

Picky, Picky, Picky ... Really?

So, guess you heard New Jersey missed out on Race to the Top because they didn't follow the directions properly? The Gothamist (a site I sort of like) has a good overview and the Star-Ledger has the actual reviews. Had New Jersey provided the right budget years, they may have received an additional 4+ points in their application. It turns out that they missed the last funded slot by ... 3 points - a potential 400 million dollar error. 

So, my question is why be so picky. Yes, it was a dumb (or ill-conceived) move by New Jersey's Department folks, but why punish the kids in New Jersey over a technicality? There is probably more to the story, but I think it is indicative of a larger point worth considering through this Race to the Top process.

The Fed. was just flat too picky. Normally, being picky and accountable is a good thing, so I hate to complain about it, but I do think in this instance the DOE was too rule-bound in granting the points to grant the awards.

The whole concept of awarding "points" for different components in a state plan struck me is childish. This is not a math test. Nor was this a research grant. There are no necessarily right or wrong answers in educational innovation. Even charters (which wound up doing us in here in Kentucky) have not been proven to be a right answer. So, when we here in Kentucky say we have a waivers system or other charter-like concepts ... there was no credit even though for all we know our answer was just as right as any other answer on this concept.

Lines have to be drawn somewhere and due process demands procedures be established, so I understand the argument for the process they established. But, nothing required them to be so picky in assigning the points. The pickiness wound up being a punishment for many children in the US. 

Update: Now, some speculation that one particular judge scored some proposals low and it may have impacted some states. For instance: 

Further review of KY RTTT scores today shows combination of 0 points on charter and low scoring judge impacted rank. Similar issue for COless than a minute ago via web

 

P.S. - Yes, some of this post is a result of sour-grapes ... I'll admit it. [Grumble, grumble] But, there is a legitimate point in there somewhere, I hope. 

Wednesday
Jun022010

Legal Issues with Test Score Based Teacher Evaluation: A Response to Bruce Baker

Bruce Baker, a professor at Rutgers and one of the best educational statisticians in the country, wrote a fascinating post today about potential legal issues arising from the movement to base teacher evaluations on gains on student assessments. This post is based on that one, so please go read it first if you plan to continue ... 

Being a fellow blogger in the CASTLE blogging network, he asked for my feedback, so I wrote this in reply: 

 

Bruce, 

You are exactly on point. Both are legitimate legal problems, with the disparate impact being more of the slam dunk in my opinion. The disparate impact numbers would be off the charts and states would have a very difficult time establishing that it is a neutral policy. You start tying that in with school finance stats and other characteristics like age of school buildings and the picture is going to get very dark, very fast (no pun intended). This would have to be a disparate impact case, though, not a disparate treatment case (http://bit.ly/GpQJp) and since it is disparate impact, a class would likely be formed -- i.e. someone would need to invest money on the front end of this case to organize it - thus, the NAACP or some kind of organization like that would probably get involved. 

The Due Process argument would be a harder (and much less profile) case, but it could be brought individually ... so we might start seeing a whole lot more of these. Your identified problems in the statistics I think are great, but you are one of the best statistical minds in the education field. Your average joe-blow lawyer would have a really tough time making that case. And, as long as these cases stayed at the district court level, that case would have to be made over and over and over again by lawyers in each distinct community within each distinct state. If those cases rose to the level of the Circuit courts or the Supreme Court, that would save lawyers some work, but it would still be a costly case to put together and perhaps not worth it to the teachers. Anyway, I think you are right on with the legal analysis, but I think a lot of things in the US don't make statistical sense, but the legal system is just not competent enough to always tease that out.

Another legal problem this would create is that if teacher evals were 50 or 51 percent based on test score improvements ... it would make it even more difficult legally to get rid of bad teachers whose student test scores happened to go up. You can put a bad teacher in front of an AP class, and those kids are still going to excel on the test. If that bad teacher has a bad personality, treats parents badly, or any other negative qualitative component for which she would otherwise be dismissed or non-renewed, the test score based evaluation just gave that teacher a silver bullet in court. Probably like your law person there at Rutgers, I teach my principals to not give a reason to pre-tenure teachers when RIFing, because if you give a reason, then you have to defend it in court. These polices not only give a reason, but they give a reason that is largely outside of the principal's control. Even if it winds up that courts still think that 40% negative qualitative evaluation is enough to still RIF or dismiss a teacher, the number of lawsuits is likely to go up dramatically.       

Generally, all this is what happens when you start forcing statistics in the legal system - which is not built for that at all. The legal system is a very qualitatively oriented system, making decisions mostly based on evidence obtained through interviews and the like. The jury, even, is a qualitative system that collectively makes a decision based on all the evidence presented. Statistics throw a wrench in all that because people react differently to numbers. They think numbers don't lie (although, of course, we know that they can and do). That's why generally, I don't love policies that seek to make decisions based solely on numbers - these kinds of things are the result.

 

Thursday
Feb042010

"National" Standards and the Art of Cat Herding

“Standardizing” anything without a forceful mandate is like herding cats. 

In the “national standards” movement, this appears to be what is being attempted.  The entities developing the standards have been hard at work over the past year, and they have recently released drafts of the standards for Language Arts and Math.  As I predicted months ago, the first questions out of the mouths of the state school board officers who have signed on with their intention, in principle, to adopt the standards is, “To what extent do we have to adopt them.”  The answer?  “Lock, stock, and barrel.”  So far, so good.  We can’t call them “standards” if they are not “standardized.”  But I do not see them remaining that way once the cats get loose. 

First, if you read the Education Week article linked above, you can get a sense that the state school board officers (at least out West) have already discerned that the wholesale adoption of standards promulgated outside the state is going to be . . . difficult to sell locally.  We have a strong tradition of local control of education in this country (or at least we think we do), and external mandates are always viewed as inherently suspect. 

The DOE's solution?  Take away the mandate—make it “optional” to adopt the standards.  In theory, we do this all the time in education.  You see, Congress has no constitutional authority to directly legislate in the area of education—the word does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and Congress may only legislate in areas where the Constitution specifically grants it authority to do so.  However, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to tax and spend to  ". . . provide for the General Welfare of the United States.”  The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to allow Congress to offer the states money, and attach conditions to such money—what we refer to as “conditional spending.”  By using conditional spending, Congress can induce states to “contract” with it to adopt certain policies that Congress could not directly enact.  Conditional spending, for example, is the constitutional foundation for NCLB and the larger ESEA that it amended, along with IDEA, FERPA, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc. 

Most importantly, because conditional spending amounts to a “contract” between a state and the federal government, if a state fails to perform its end of the “bargain,” a remedy readily presents itself—the federal government may simply claw back the funds (like rescission of a normal private party contract).  Because each state theoretically has a “choice” as to whether to accept the funds (and the conditions) in the first place, this arrangement does not offend federalism, so the theory goes.  This all sounds logical in the abstract, but in the real world, it’s complete nonsense.  If a typical state were really to reject federal funds in education, it would be reducing its education funding statewide by an average of seven percent—no state has done this in modern times.  Thus, conditional spending legislation is a powerful tool—the functional equivalent of direct legislation—and it is quite useful where Congress would like to mandate and standardize a practice nationwide (like educating disabled kids, for instance). 

However, we are emphatically not using this tried-and-true process for adoption of the “national” standards.  States are essentially free to choose to adopt them or not, and they will lose no existing funding if they refuse (although they may lose a few points in the “race to the top” competition).  If the state officers already have significant reservations after seeing only a draft, and if the official position on adoption is an inflexible “all or nothing,” though, then I predict that we will get either limited compliance or “lip service” compliance, and states will go back to their varied approaches pretty quickly.  I fail to see what will be “standard” about that. 

It is a familiar axiom that the only way to herd cats is to move their food.  In conditional spending—money is food.  We should probably move it if we really want “national standards.”

Saturday
Jan092010

Why Charter Schools Bother Me

This case really illustrates why charter schools fundamentally bother me. Here is a summary of it (I did this for the School Law Reporter, and since I am putting this one out for free, do me a favor and consider joining ELA):

Northern Kane Ed Corp v. Cambridge Lakes Educ Ass'n, 914. N.E.2d 1286 (Ill. App., 4th Dist., 2009). A teacher union’s ability to organize and represent the teachers of an Illinois charter school was at issue in this case. Reversing the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, the appellate court found that the charter school authorizing statute excluded the provisions giving bargaining rights to public school teachers. The court interpreted the statutory provision reading, “[a] charter school is exempt from all other state laws and regulations in the School Code” as including the provisions of the Education Labor Act, while the union argued that the Education Labor Act was a distinct law from the School Code. The Court did note that Illinois subsequently passed a separate law providing coverage of the Education Labor Act over charter schools, but that the law could not be applied ex post facto to the school district.  

So, a legislature, in this case Illinois, writes a law saying "exempt from all other state laws in the School Code" without really defining anything else.

Um ... then what?

Actually, I'll tell you what comes next ... a whole bunch of lawsuits like this one. And we're just at the tip of the iceberg on these charter school lawsuits. This is going to be an enormous mess legally.

Here are the questions, for instance: Did the legislature intend to give charter school teachers bargaining rights? Did it not? What's the legislative history say? Should we pull out some statutory interpretation rules? What does public policy prefer? Should judges be making these policy decisions in the first place? And, does it stop there? What about due process elements for teachers? What about tort immunity laws? What about workplace safety laws? What about, what about, what about ... it's sort of endless.

Basically, courts (largely ignorant when it comes to sound educational policy) are left to guess and fill in all the holes because a legislature got ahead of themselves in writing these charter laws. It has taken us a hundred years to fill in the details of school law in the United States (fifty times over, in fact). To try and just sweep that away in one fell swoop is irresponsible at best. Sure, that 100 years of law is an enormous bureaucratic hurdle and it hampers educational innovation. I get that. But, every single one of those laws (even crazy ones like this one, see section c) is there for a reason to protect some kid, some teacher, some parent, some administrator and the schools themselves. If you don't like those rules, change them. Tweak them. Reform them. But, don't just try and get rid of them... all ... at once. 

I get that everyone wants to blame the law. It's an easy and politically expedient target. I get it. But, the law is not the problem most of the time. The law is not what is holding our schools back. There is a lot of flexibility already built into the system. Certainly enough to make massive changes as a school leader and there is flexibility in our democratic system that we can change the laws when they get out of date. 

Charter schools are a quick fix, a cop out in some ways, and like any other quick fix they frequently cause more problems (and litigation) than just putting in the hard work to fix the law in the first place would have done. This case is just one small example of what is likely to continue to be a growing trend.

Monday
Nov092009

21st Century Teachers are Those that Pass Tests? 

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ... yes. 

In their latest education report card, what they deem a report card on educational effectiveness, they have 9 different subjects on which they are reporting. One of those subjects that the states are graded on is "21st Century Teaching Force." I figured that would be a bit difficult to measure, so I checked out their methodology in determining whether a state is preparing 21st Century Teachers. 

It turns out, they have 4 factors. If you have all 4, you get an A, 3 a B, and so on. And what are these outstanding factors that determine whether a state is creating a 21st century teaching force ... testing and alternative certification. Here they are: 

 

  1. Teachers must pass basic skills test. 
  2. Teachers must pass subject knowledge test. 
  3. State has alternative cert. program. 
  4. State tests alternative cert. teachers. 

 

Maybe I am missing something, but what in the heck does that have to do with preparing 21st Century Teachers? Seriously. If someone knows, please tell me. 

Tell you what, though, they have a really fancy chart. It's cool even. The take-away here is not that the U.S. Chamber is doing great research ... they are not. Mostly, they seem to be borrowing off other people's research even. The point is that they know how to present research. And, if it looks cool people tend not to play with the details. 

Friday
Oct232009

Liveblogging ELA - Charles Rose's Conservative General Session

Small "c" conservative. But, conservative nevertheless. I would imagine that the General Counsel to any organization (Rose is the General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Education) is probably not your most motivational speaker, but Charles' presentation was, let's say, fact filled. He seems the kind of guy you charge with a huge project, and trust that it will get done. He has a lot of details and impresses me with the depth of his knowledge on education.

But, that said, I am not walking out excited about the federal government's role in education. Rose almost seemed content to keep the status quo and let innovation happen outside the DOE framework with some support through grants and whatnot. Now, constitutionally, you could argue that is the right position for the federal government. But, right now they are sitting on billions of dollars that could fundamentally alter the basic structure of our education system. But, that kind of change takes leadership and part of leadership is inspiration.

Now, you probably wouldn't think a bunch of lawyers really need inspiration, but, honestly, we need more inspiration than others because of our inherently conservative positions (protecting schools usually involves keeping the status quo). The Gen. Counsel of the DOE should be seen as one of our leaders. The potential power inherent in a room full of educational lawyers is enormous - but, Rose made little effort to tap into the large potential pool of resources and change.

Anyway, it was an informative presentation and I look forward to seeing what the US DOE can do with the current President, Secretary and Congress.  

Friday
Oct232009

Liveblogging ELA - Cyber Charters

Okay, the best session of the conference so far (for me at least) was 2 presentations on cyber charter schools. It has me so stoked that I sort of want to write my own article about it. But, let me review their work first.

Brady, Umpstead & Eckes presented on the legal issues that might arise from Cyber-Charters. They think there are about 100,000 students in cyber-charters right now in about 25 states with authorizing statutes. For the most part, they identified both a lack of research on these "schools" and a lack of guiding statutes and regulations - but tried to use the existing legal structure to outline what they think should be the legal boundaries. This is an article well worth reading when it comes out. 

Belinda Cambre took a more local view of cyber-charters in New Orleans as they responded to Hurricane Katrina. They are expanding greatly and have 3 more applications under consideration in Louisiana right now. But Belinda too noted the lack of oversight and the lack of clarity regarding how such schools must operate. Synchronous for asynchronous requirements, for instance, are not clarified at all. Nor are how such schools supposed to interact with existing brick and mortar schools and/or homeschooling. 

Bottom line here are that we are legally flying blind on regulation of these cyber-charters. It is sort of a perfect storm of lower regulatory rigor on charters and lack of understanding of virtual - resulting in almost no oversight. Belinda even cited a school in Maine that, for a fee, will read your transcript and grant a diploma that is accepted at many universities. Clearly, we have not considered that kind of interaction of schools in one state granting diplomas to students in another state without the student ever visiting Maine. 

The REALLY CRAZY thing here is that this kind of interaction between schools and students basically blows up the entire model of public education in the United States linked to boundaries. Money is generated by boundaries. Students are assigned to schools based on boundaries. Teachers are certified based on boundaries. But, these boundaries are not necessary anymore and, while tech. folks like Scott M. have been preaching the possibility of this, this cyber-charter concept is the first potentially truly boundary breaking implementation of this. So, the boundaries are falling, but the law has almost no legal structure built to compensate for this change. 

Anyway, before today these concepts to me were mostly abstract. Anyone that understands the Internet could conceptualize such possibilities, but such concepts were mostly left to imaginary implementation. No more. Cyber-charters are pushing ahead and filling the possible space because they are literally almost operating in a legal vacuum.

Just an outstanding presentation, and, I think, a good example of why organizations like ELA are so important. Young researchers like these can get the legal mechanism moving, hopefully soon, to assure that schools are in touch with our democratic structures as expressed in law. Schools simply left to pure market mechanisms are dangerously out of touch with the American system. We can democratically handle this transition in schooling, but we are going to need a whole lot more presentations like this one. Bravo.  

Wednesday
Oct212009

Catching Up With Cases

Also, thanks to the Rose timedrain, I have been lax in putting out some important cases that have come down lately. So, let's get them out. 

First, last Friday Pontiac v. Spellings en banc came out of the 6th Circuit. Mark's got the details. It came down in a split decision, meaning the dismissal was affirmed. But, WOW, how close was that? We came 1 6th Circuit judge short of a Supreme Court case directly on NCLB - who knows, with the split decision, maybe the Supreme Court will think about taking it (although I doubt it because they probably collectively like the current result - although surely Scalia and Thomas will push for it). Anyway, this is an important case and I look forward to getting more details out about it soon. Gina, who I discussed this case with earlier in Edjurist TV, will be at ELA and we are planning to discuss the outcome. 

Also, the Colorado Supreme Court saved a school finance suit and sent it to trial in Lobato v. State. Here are some details and here is a analysis from Joshua Dunn at Education Next. This is not a victory for the plaintiff's, but it at least signals that the Supreme Court is interested in having this case heard on the merits. So, we'll see where that goes. 

Tuesday
Oct132009

The Elephant and the Dragon ... A Review

This weekend I managed to squeeze in (between the celebrations of my sister being named homecoming queen! Yeah!) another of Dr. McLeod's recommendations

Today: The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What it Means for All of Us, Robyn Meredith, 2008, $10.85 on Amazon (but buy through CASTLE as our non-profit gets a little of the proceeds). Here's the book's website

The Bad:

  1. Capitalist Ideology. At times, it's a little over-the-top and feels like it was written by a wall-street tycoon. This is not too annoying, but it is certainly noticeable at times (yes, i know I am picky as in the last one I complained about the socialism).   
  2. A little heavy on history. I think most of it is relevant, but if you are not concerning about mid-twentieth century Indian and Chinese history you might want to skip the first few chapters. The part about eating kids was sort of especially gruesome. 
  3. Slightly repetitious. This is something that many books in this genre suffer from, but I did notice it a few times in this one as well. 
  4. Could have a few more citations, but that is probably just the scholar in me complaining. 

The Good

  1. Well researched. You can clearly tell that the author, despite her young age, has gone to great lengths to gather facts and details. I appreciated that. I am sure it is still surface-level for geopolitical scholars, but for your average reader it contains a lot of great information. 
  2. Not built to scare. A lot of books in this genre are built to scare people. For instance, even in The World is Flat I came away with a sense that Friedman thought scaring people might be effective. This book doesn't have any of that fear-mongering element. 
  3. Not a lot of opinion. The author did a good job sticking to the facts and using facts to make points, as opposed to having opinions and then finding facts to support them. I thought this was a better approach than I have seen in a lot of books in the genre. 
  4. Respectful. Because of the lack of opinion, there was little demonizing of either Indians, Chinese or Americans (or for that matter anyone else). 

Points Worth Mentioning

  1. Education is America's immediate answer. Obviously I am going to love this point, but it was as clear as a church bell on a still Sunday morning. Like Fareed Zakaria, Meredith makes the point that education is one of America's last great advantages (heck, China closed all of its universities in the past century - some of since been reopened). And that education can spur innovation and economic activity into the next century. 
  2. Outsourcing is real, but limited. Things that are easily outsourced ... have already been outsourced. So while we did lose the entire toy industry, most of the garment industry, most of the tech. manufacturing industry and many, many others (including my wife's old accounting job to India), many of the remaining jobs today will continue to remain in the United States because they are not as easily outsourced.
  3. America is a net beneficiary from both outsourcing and China and India's increased relevance. Leaving geopolitics aside, just economically we benefit in two ways: (1) we save lots of money at Walmart as prices are deflated because of the cheap manufacturing costs; and (2) our 401k's and portfolios make money because American companies have profited substantially from the influx of cheap labor and new markets. So, while we complain about losing jobs, the vast majority of us are seeing real benefits from globalization. 
  4. India and China are not Peers (yet). While there are billions of people and cities sprawling into the skyline and the countryside, neither China nor India are yet America's or Europe's peers. They are behind in almost every measure, have enormous societal welfare issues, spend less on almost everything, have an absurdly low standard of living, are still heavily illiterate, etc. Their sheer purchasing and production power because of the numbers makes them especially worth keeping an eye on, but they are no where near the American way of life (for better or worse). 
  5. Economies Intertwined. But, while they are still playing catch-up and will be for many more decades, their economic impact on the global economy makes them impossible to ignore. It is not just that China holds a ton of dollars, but American companies will suffer enormously if China or India's economies stumble - and that will affect all of us by driving down the market, home prices, raising inflation, etc. They are part of our economy now (for better or worse). 
  6. Education is our competitive advantage. There are lots more points, but you get the gist. However, I wanted to again return to education. Public schooling was our great competitive advantage during the post-War industrial build and it can be our great competitive advantage during the post information revolution reorganization. But, our current system was built for the industrial era, not the information era - and for education to again be our great competitive advantage, we have to adapt our schools.  

Recommendation: I loved this book. It was fabulous and I enjoyed every minute of it. It was well written, readable, fact-filled, and intelligent. It is probably a necessary read for most professors and a highly recommended read for most school administrators. Get it and enjoy it. 

Monday
Sep142009

Utah & Feds Just Can't Get Along

One of the reasons I really like Utah is its open defiance of the federal government on some issues. Today, for instance, the Department of Education slapped a penalty on Utah's Office of Education for failing to use the right test in a couple districts. Not a huge deal, but indicative of the frequently contentious nature of the relationship. Just like a classroom, with 50 states you know one of them is going to act out from time to time. Who knew it would be such a conservative, religious and normally quiet state. 

h/t - @markkerr

Monday
Sep142009

A More Benign Use of the Spending Power

Is it just me or is anyone else sort of liking the Obama Administration's usage of the spending power in education. Now, granted, I sort of dislike any use of the spending power related to schools, but compared to the flashy, demanding, annoying law that NCLB was with deadlines and sanctions and public fights between the Fed. and states, the usage of the stimulus money in the Race to the Top fund has been sort of benign (but perhaps no less effective in creating policy changes?).

Tuesday
Sep082009

We survived it. 

Now, was that so bad ... 

It was dull (hello, not a campaign speech?), but I actually sort of liked it. I hope he does it every year and it becomes a tradition for all Presidents.  

Thursday
Aug272009

Should We Trust the Numbers? Good Question.

Iowa State is holding a symposium on Sept. 11 titled: Should We Trust the Numbers? A Workshop on Philosophy, Mathematics and Statistics in the Court of Law. What a just flat out awesome idea for a symposium. While the program is a bit philosophical for my tastes, the question nevertheless is extremely important and one that scholars across the country are wrestling with as more and more legal scholars are also being trained as researchers (ex: myself, Scott B., Neal, Scott M., Jon Becker, and that's just the tip of the educational iceberg that my readers are likely to know). What impact that mixing of traditional research with legal decision-making is likely to have is anyone's guess, but certainly one could argue that a very large percentage of the most important cases related to education in the last-half century have used research data to support the legal arguments (Brown v. Board, all the ed. finance cases, etc.). So, all of you Midwesterners that can make it to Ames, should attend and let's hope we see more of these types of formal discussions in the future.

Monday
Aug242009

California as the Prototype

If you haven't noticed, California is gearing up the wheels of education reform. The Governor has even called a special session to work on reforming some laws that conflict with the Obama Administration's demands for federal "Race to the Top" dollars. 

What I see happening here is that the Obama Administration intends to use California as a prototype for the kinds of education reforms that they want to push through in the coming years. The typical arguments that you hear from the federal government these days (merit pay, charters, transfers, tying performance data to evaluations) are the same kind of policies that are in the California reform package.

Of course, California also has the same kinds of teacher's union prevalent across most of the country, so how the fight plays out in California will be a precursor to how the flight will likely play out across the U.S. if the Obama Administration continues with their reform ideals. In fact, don't be surprised if the national unions begin devoting a lot of their time and resources to the California fight.  

So, long story short ... keep an eye on California over the next few months because how the national debate will play out will probably reflect the California prototype. 

Thursday
Jul092009

"National" Standards--Part III

Okay, now it seems that we MAY get a "national" assessment to go along with our "national" standards.  According to this article in Education Week, it appears that the Department of Education has "set aside" up to $350 million dollars that is apparently earmarked to assist the states in developing "common assessments" (though talk is indeed cheap in this context).  No information yet as to how these "common assessments" will be developed, but the process for developing the standards themselves might shed some light.

Under the process as currently conceived, the National Governors Association and the Council for Chief State School Officers are jointly coordinating the effort, but they have named several other parties to do the initial drafting, including the College Board, Achieve, Inc., and ACT, two of which are actually testing companies, as mentioned in my prior post.  Once the initial drafting is done, the standards will be critiqued by a panel of designated experts, including representatives from academia, state school leadership, and the national professional organizations for both math (NCTM) and language arts (NCTE).  There is also a new website allowing one to follow the process. 

That's the good news.  The bad news (if you are into centralization of education policy) is that four states have already stated that they will not adopt the standards (see here--subscription required).  This is before any content of the standards is known.  Once the content of the standards comes out, it seems likely to me that several other states will have problems with one or more portions of the standards, either due to over- or under-inclusiveness.  You know the old joke that a camel is a horse built by committee?  Standards are never promulgated in any other way.  It is the states' prerogative whether or not to adopt the standards, and nothing except a "memorandum of understanding" prevents any state from opting out after seeing the standards. 

It seems that the same will be true for any "common assessment" developed in this manner.  Do we really think that states performing poorly on any common assessment will not find a way to get out of it?  Which brings me back to my original point, which is that a set of standards that is not binding through a requirement in positive law that states abide by them, or through pegging state supplementary funding to results on a common assessment, is merely a set of suggestions, not standards. 

If we are really serious about this, isn't it time to start thinking about getting Congress involved?  That is, if it is a good idea to have common national standards and a common national test, it seems that federal law is the best way to accomplish it.  No person who supports "national" standards could possibly object on "local control" grounds to federal standards.  The process could even occur in much the same way (with the NGA and the CCSSA, as federal designees, spearheading and the already named experts developing and critiquing the standards). 

However, the end result, once passed into law, would not be a set of suggestions, but a set of actual standards--the binding kind.  The kind we actually have to meet.  These would be federal standards, AND national standards.  If backed up by a rigorous federal test (mandatory NAEP anyone?), we could then make meaningful comparisons of state outcomes, and we might even save the states a lot of money that would otherwise go to test development.  To me, this would be a vast improvement over the extremely expensive (and yet underfunded), confusing, and frustrating half-measures of NCLB.