Tag Archive for 'Fordham Foundation'

Grading the Common Core Standards

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 8, 2009 in Assessment and Testing, Curriculum and Education News. 5 Comments

A new report from the Fordham Foundation gives a grade of “B” to the draft of the proposed “Common Core” standards in ELA and Math.

Fordham’s report, Stars by Which to Navigate: Scanning National and International Standards in 2009, asked subject-matter experts to review the “content, rigor, and clarity of the first public drafts of the ‘Common Core’ standards” as well as the reading, writing and mathematics frameworks of NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA.  How’d they do?

Common Core Reading/Writing/Speaking & Listening: B
Common Core Math: B
NAEP Reading/Writing: B
NAEP Math: C
TIMSS Math: A
PISA Reading: D
PISA Math: D

The executive summary (I have not read the full report, which was just released this morning) makes a couple of important points, explaining and justifying the “B” grade for the common standards:

The document properly acknowledges that essential communication skills must be embraced and addressed beyond the English classroom….These skill-centric standards do not, however, suffice to frame a complete English or language arts curriculum. Proper standards for English must also provide enough content guidance to help teachers instill not just useful skills, but also imagination, wonder, and a deep appreciation for our literary heritage. Despite their many virtues, these skills-based competencies cannot serve as a strong framework for the robust liberal arts curricula that will prepare young Americans to thrive as citizens in a free society. States adopting these standards must, therefore, be very careful about how they supplement them so as to achieve that goal.

 Hard to disagree with any of that, and the B grade sounds fair.  “The Common Core standards are off to a good start,” says Fordham’s Checker Finn, “though there’s room for improvement—and a sound English curriculum will require plenty more than the valuable skills set forth here.”

A Sobering Assessment of National Standards

Published by Robert Pondiscio on March 6, 2009 in Curriculum and Educational Policy. 12 Comments

The Fordham Foundation’s Checker Finn is a longtime proponent of national standards, but he sounds a strong cautionary note in the latest Education Gadfly.  “Evidence is mounting that those who take curricular content seriously may not like what we find at the end of this road,” Finn writes, ”and I worry that America could be headed toward another painful bout of curriculum warfare.” 

Checker details seven worries. He’s suspicious that unions, especially the NEA, are getting on board the bandwagon and the conflation of academic standards with “21st Century Skills.”  He also frets that if common standards is limited to English and math, “it may further narrow what’s seriously taught in school–with a malign effect on states that have a decently rounded curriculum that gives due weight to science, history, even art.” His biggest concern is what he calls institutional instability.

The United States of America in 2009 lacks a suitable place to house national standards and tests over the long haul. Who will “own” them? Who will be responsible for revising them? Correcting their errors? Ensuring that assessment results are reported in timely fashion? Nobody wants the Education Department to do this. There’s reason to keep it separate from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and its governing board. Yet the awkward ad hoc “partnership” now assembling to pursue this process could fall apart tomorrow if key individuals retire, die or defect, if election results change the make up of participating organizations, if the money runs out, or if their working draft runs into political headwinds like the “voluntary national standards” of the early 90s. This is no way to run something as important as national academic standards for a big modern country.

Can this idea be salvaged?  Yes, if we can figure out how.  “Use available tools and models to simplify and expedite this process,” Finn argues.  “The U.S. doesn’t need to start from scratch. Several states have fine standards.But don’t pretend to prescribe the whole curriculum….A common standard is the skeleton of learning, not all the flesh. It outlines the core skills and knowledge that young Americans need to acquire and should be accompanied by a reasonable assessment system to determine, at various grade levels, how well they’ve learned those things.”

A Path to National Standards Opens Up

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 26, 2009 in Education News and Educational Policy. 1 Comment

Ed Week’s David Hoff broke a significant piece of news over at NCLB: Act II the other day.  At the National Governors Association’s meeting last weekend members approved a policy statement that could lead to national education standards:

The statement hasn’t been released to the public yet. But governors told me that it advocates putting state leaders in charge of a national effort to establish a “common core” of standards defining what students should know.  The statement dovetails with the report released in December by the NGA, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve Inc., a group of governors and business leaders. That report called for a process of benchmarking the standards of high-achieving countries to determine what content they consider most important.

Hoff sees the stament as newsworthy because “it adds momentum to the move toward national standards” and notes it “sailed through the NGA without any controversy or significant debate.”  Fordham’s Flypaper thinks Hoff’s exclusive would have been front-page news were it not for the economy.  “Think about it,” says Mike Petrilli, “the governors are open to throwing out their own standards—the heart of their education accountability systems—in favor of frameworks that would have reach from coast to coast. This is a big deal!”

Location, Location, Location

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 19, 2009 in Research and Reports and accountability. 1 Comment

The real estate agent’s mantra — location, location, location — also works for schools.  Just as an identical home can fetch different prices in different places, an identical school can make AYP in some states, but not in others. 

That’s the upshot of a terrific new report by the Fordham Foundation, The Accountability Illusion, which looked at 36 actual schools (18 elementary, 18 middle schools) and determined whether each one would make AYP under the accountability rules of 28 different states.  No, they would not. 

In Massachusetts – a state that ensures students have to score high in order to be considered proficient and one with relatively challenging annual targets and AYP rules – only one of 18 elementary schools was projected to make AYP. In Wisconsin, with lower proficiency standards and more lenient annual targets and rules, 17 schools were projected to do so. Same kids, same schools – different states, different rules.

“In short,” the report concludes, ”how a school is labeled under NCLB depends largely on the state in which it’s located. This can demoralize educators in states with tough AYP rules while letting under-performing schools in lenient states slip under the accountability radar screen. It also creates the illusion of a national accountability system where there isn’t one.”

Here’s the executive summary of Fordham’s report, and here’s a video interview with Checker Finn about it.  And if you are one of those who prefers to laugh rather than weep in the face of outrage, Mathew Ladner of Jay Greene’s blog turns this whole miasma into a parody of the Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” ad campaign.  “Here’s to you, Mr. Wisconsin No Child Left Behind compliance guy!” Hilarious.

Can we now officially say that accountability as currently conceived and practiced is a joke?  A bad school in Massachusetts is a good school in Arizona. Failure in Nevada is magically redefined as success when it moves to Wisconsin.  Our crazy quilt of accountability systems only breeds cynicism about the whole enterprise (why improve schools when you can lower the bar?) and makes it baby simple to evade responsibility and all but impossible to reach informed conclusions about your child’s school. 

One standard, one yardstick, or else don’t bother.  Instead of location, location, location, let’s try transparency, transparency, transparency.

“Mr. President, Don’t Forget Catholic Schools”

Published by Robert Pondiscio on January 28, 2009 in Educational Policy and Opinion. 2 Comments

If President Obama wants to address the crisis in America’s urban schools, he could start by acknowledging the contributions of Catholic schools.  In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn notes America’s Catholic schools are in the midst of a crisis, with enrollment less than half what it was at its peak. Though doing a heroic job, he notes, they are closing their doors at an alarming rate.

Catholic schools are not for everyone, and they are not the answer for all that plagues our cities. But they are an answer — one answer that is real, less costly, and working for many families desperate for the opportunities these schools provide. With a little imagination, these schools could reach many more such children.

McGurn notes the President spent more time in Catholic school as a child than JFK.  “Simply by acknowledging Catholic schools as a national treasure that should be preserved,” he writes, “Mr. Obama would give them a badly needed shot in the arm.”

The Fordham Foundation weighed in on this issue last year with their report, “Who Will Save America’s Urban Catholic Schools?”

Reform Realism

Published by Robert Pondiscio on December 18, 2008 in Educational Policy, No category, Opinion and accountability. 5 Comments

In the year that this blog has been observing and commenting on the passing education scene, we have often favored the sensible center–understanding the need and urgency behind genuine education reform, but clear-eyed about the unintended consequences and deleterious effects of various accountability efforts and reform schemes.  Thus it’s heartening to see one of the 800-pound gorillas in ed reform, the Fordham Foundation, issuing an open letter to the incoming administration advocating “reform realism” — a “vigorous but realistic” federal role in education. 

In a refreshing step away from the tendentious “reformers vs. status quo” argument that has characterized much education debate of late, Fordham sees three camps, not two.  1)  “System Defenders” who believe that public education is fundamentally sound but needs additional resources in order to be more effective; 2) ”The Army of the Potomac” which Fordham argues has “generally sound instincts about reform” but suffers from its “boundless faith in Washington’s ability to accomplish significant positive change in K-12 education”; and 3) “Local Controllers” who want the Feds to ”butt out of K-12 education-but to keep sending money to states and districts.”

Fordham is calling for a fourth approach, dubbed ”Reform Realism,” which favors, among other things common standards and tests, high-quality data and solid research, and protecting the civil rights of individual students and educators.   Advocating a “first do no harm” approach to ed reform, “Reform Realism” also favors eliminating federal oversight of state testing and reporting systems, and mandated school sanctions, as well as loosening rules on teacher credentials. 

As Reform Realists, we favor a vigorous but realistic federal role that respects what is best done from Washington and for the entire nation while dismissing federal programs, policies and practices that have not and cannot succeed,” said Fordham president Chester E. Finn, Jr. “We hope others will join our small but feisty band.”

There’s a lot to like here, even if the open letter is not perfect.  For example describing one camp as “System Defenders” is needlessly antagonistic. It’s a nuance-averse take that does a disservice to many (not just unions, but frontline teachers) who can and do play an important and productive role in school reform.  Likewise, I wonder if it’s fair or accurate to describe the “Army of the Potomac” as occupying the political center, as Petrilli does in a video on Fordham’s blog.  What unites these groups, I think, is a laserlike (if sometimes too rigid) focus on accountability and measurable results, which both defies and transcends political labels. 

Indeed, my only misgiving about Fordham’s smart and welcome contribution is framing it terms of left, center and right.  As Alfie Kohn’s recent piece in The Nation unwittingly demonstrated, it’s not that simple. Efforts to assign particular reform elements to political parties hinder progress. There are Democrats who favor charters, vouchers and muscular accountability, for example.  There are conservatives who welcome national standards.  There is a broad tradition in American politics that says in times of crisis, partisanship stops at the water’s edge.  Perhaps the time has come to ask – even demand –partisanship to stop at the schoolhouse door.

The View From Inside

Published by Robert Pondiscio on November 21, 2008 in Opinion and School News. 0 Comments

Nice to see this honest and clear-eyed post over at Fordham’s Flypaper about the minute-by-minute stress of trying to be effective in a high-needs school.  Eric Osberg describes his recent behind-the-scenes visit (as opposed to the typical VIP dog-and-pony show often given to visitors) to a friend’s “new paternalism” school.

It was amazing how many problems my friend encountered in the hour I was there – we must have been interrupted 20 times by students needing discipline, teachers needing guidance about discipline, others needing observation while they worked with a struggling student, etc. It was a whirlwind, and it was tiring just to watch. It gave me a deeper appreciation for the special talent, constant hard work, and unwavering attention to detail that it takes to run one of these schools.

I’m cheered to see this on Flypaper for no other reason than it’s nice to see policy types speak candidly about just how hard this work is.  Teachers often feel that policy types don’t get it, so credit to Osberg for merely reporting what he saw instead of writing a prescription.   “My friend confessed her fear that the ‘model’ of such hard work and long hours won’t be sustainable,” Osberg concludes.  “That principals and teachers who exert that kind of energy day after day will inevitably burn out. From my vantage point, it was hard to disagree.”

Handmaid Ladling Norm?

Published by Robert Pondiscio on November 20, 2008 in Educational Policy. 1 Comment

For months, Democrats have been squabbling back and forth as to what Barack Obama really believes on education.   Is he a reformer?  Is he for school choice, charters, accountability?  Or is he a traditional democrat, who will echo the teacher’s unions positions on NCLB, merit pay and other issues?

The whole ”reformers vs. status quo” meme is a bit tired and something of a false dichotomy.  You can favor accountability and still think NCLB is doing harm.  There are legitimate reasons to oppose merit pay without being labeled a defender of the status quo.  That said, those who thought Barack Obama was something new in the Democratic firmament are having an “uh-oh” moment with word that Linda Darling Hammond is Obama’s choice as his lead education advisor. 

Fordham’s Mike Petrilli wonders if Obama will kill education refrom.  Liam Julian, writing in National Review Online, looks at the appointment of the “self-described advocate of progressive education” and concludes that “so far, it seems, tradition trumps change.”  American Prospect blogger Dana Goldstein calls the selection of LDH a conservative choice.

Not ideologically conservative, but rather, conservative in terms of what it says about Obama’s plans for education. Groups like Democrats for Education Reform – which favor charter schools and merit pay — have been hoping for Obama to embrace their agenda. And indeed, early in the primaries, Obama was booed at a teachers’ union event for saying he supported merit pay. But since he clinched the nomination, Obama’s statements on education have been more circumspect. The appointment of Darling-Hammond, a teacher quality expert who opposes merit pay and is more critical than supportive of NCLB, signals that Obama wishes to avoid a fight with the unions. He’ll spend his political capital on energy and health care instead.

My internet time waster of choice is the anagram server.  Type in a name and in seconds it will summon up every conceivable acronym.  It’s great for cheating at Scrabble.  On a lark, I typed in Linda Darling Hammond.  At the top of the list, it came up with:  “Handmaid Ladling Norm.”

Time will tell.

Reasons To Be Cheerful

Published by Robert Pondiscio on November 6, 2008 in Educational Policy. 1 Comment

Checker Finn and Mike Petrilli at Fordham survey the new education landscape under Obama and find reasons to cheer.  “In a year when the Democratic nominee was practically guaranteed to win the White House, the most reform-minded Democratic candidate won,” they note.  “Barack Obama’s positions on charter schools, merit pay, and even No Child Left Behind point toward a thoughtfulness and willingness to buck the status quo that were strikingly different from the postures of his closest competitors.”  They also note that the unions were not major players in the victory, so in theory he’s not beholden to them and can pursue programs they may not support.

As the first African-American president, Obama will be uniquely positioned to use his bully pulpit to exhort parents, particularly minority parents, to uphold their responsibilities to foster their children’s moral and intellectual development. Done right, this could be a powerful complement to whatever formal policies he puts forward.

On the hand, given what else is going on in the world, “education is likely to loom no higher on Washington’s agenda than it did during the presidential campaign,” say Finn and Petrilli.  Meanwhile tout le monde has a take on who is going to be the next ed secretary.  Lots of interesting names, but this strikes me as a lot of anxiety looking for a place to affix itself, as folks with various agendas look for proof that the new President is on their side.

Checker Finn Buries the Lead

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 31, 2008 in Education Practice. 3 Comments

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

The Fordham Foundation’s Checker Finn looks at the budget austerity facing U.S. schools in the new Education Gadfly, and the conventional wisdom that any reductions are bound to damage the quality of schooling. He lays out and skewers a half dozen arguments typically used to combat cuts:

We see signs of the “Washington Monument gambit,” i.e., the threat by the National Park Service that, if it doesn’t get more money, it won’t be able to keep one of the Capital’s foremost tourist attractions open for visitors. Its counterpart in public education is to say that, if we have to cut our budget, we’ll have to (take your pick) eliminate sports, increase class size, abbreviate the school year, scrap gifted education, end after-school programs, curb college counseling, close the school library, etc., etc. That’s how school systems think about budgets: in terms of “programs” and “services,” not efficiencies, productivity, or such tradeoffs as personnel versus technology.

The kicker comes at the end, when it’s revealed that Finn’s essay is a barely updated version of a previous piece he wrote five years ago–the last time there were widespread budget cuts.