Everyone has a story about what was happening ten years ago, on that originally beautiful morning that soon turned into the nightmare we now know as September 11, 2001. I was watching live coverage of then President George W. Bush, who sat in a public school classroom in Florida, as he sought to mobilize people behind a consensus that our school crisis needed a major national initiative to ensure accountability for results at an unprecedented level.

After the tap on the shoulder from his chief of staff, the news people interrupted and the rest, as they say, is history. Weeks later, Bush would begin anew with the late Senator Edward Kennedy, House education chair John Boehner, house education ranking member George Miller and others as they forged a new consensus that money without strings, and without a requirement for student results, would no longer be the way our government conducted business.

As No Child Left Behind took hold over many contentious days and nights of negotiation, eventually, and in large part owing to the new found camaraderie that sprang out of the tragedy of 9/11, a new law was born.

Despite its many detractors and some flaws, NCLB then, as now, continues to shine sun on an outrage that should upset the American public at its core, on a regular basis. That outrage — that fewer than half of ALL of U.S. children are not proficient in basic, needed elements of education, and that children of color lag by another 30 percent — is something that we should approach not much differently than as if a foreign power was attacking us right here on our own soil.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we were reminded that generations of students lack a fundamental understanding of history. Evil acts aside, most Americans did not understand why anyone might find our country distasteful, why we are different, and how other nations and communities have not had the benefit of the freedoms that our founders fought to provide. From that day sprang important lessons that should be taught to generations of students across the country.

Today, while U.S. students continue to struggle in geography, civics, and American and international history, the events of 9/11 continue to offer students a chance to put history and world culture in context.

Two documents are critical to that context. The first, from a woman of much history in education herself, author and historian Diane Ravitch offered this just one year after the attacks: “U.S. public schools must reclaim their vital role preparing students to become informed citizens who will preserve and protect democracy.” She offered seven important lessons, from, “It’s OK to be patriotic” to the importance of students learning U.S. and world history. The second is from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and is their newly published, “Teaching about 9/11 in 2011: What Our Children Need to Know.”

“Those who do not know history are destined to repeat the past.” Today as we prepare for a weekend of commemorations and recollections over the loss of life, innocence and yes, some of our cherished freedom, we need to both learn and remember the values and the facts that make our country great, and yes, even superior.

That is a role for not only our families, but also all our institutions and most of all our schools. Without a solid proficiency in all core subjects, we cannot understand, nor fight against, the causes and results of 9/11.

I usually like this term. It means we might as well bend some rules, if the need justifies it, and normally, this term is associated with good deeds. But, Secretary Arne Duncan’s attempt to start creatively non-complying with NCLB may not be about good deeds, as much as he suggests it is. Throughout the weekend, news reports screamed that Duncan will be granting waivers to a law carefully and painfully put in place to guard against the kind of data abuses and lack of transparency that plagued the nation prior to NCLB’s enactment.

Secretary Duncan granting personal waivers.

Sure, NCLB is not perfect, and Congress and the past president made lots of mistakes. But the fact is that without NCLB, we simply don’t have a clue how schools or students are performing. We can argue some bars are lower and some higher, that some schools that get labeled do so unfairly. For the most part, however, it works. It shines sun on the dirty little secret of even the best schools that neglect their neediest students. And it captured our attention and put the establishment on the defensive. Most important, it gave parents a tool to use as a lever for change.

More “Creative Non-Compliance”

(Originally posted to the National Journal’s Education Experts blog.)

Perhaps it’s not so unusual that the same person who fought to get a waiver from NCLB’s tutoring requirement is the same person who is pushing a fast track for making the bill’s requirements more flexible. When some of Arne Duncan’s Chicago schools were failing kids, he asked then Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings for a waiver from the requirement that students be permitted to leave and take their tutoring money elsewhere. Arne Duncan thought he could do tutoring better than the private sector, so he sought to deliver tutoring rather than send the money out of house. There’s no data on whether it worked, and some in Chicago say not much changed during that period of time following NCLB, other than a heightened awareness of the problem and a tenacity by Duncan to pursue some modest, external reforms (charters, some contracting). Once a school superintendent, always a school superintendent. And while Duncan is not the issue, his brand of reform puts Superintendents and school boards in the driver’s seat. Problem is, last time they drove that car, it kept getting banged up.

But it was NCLB’s teeth - the threat of loss of money or worse - that got people motivated. The hard, fast consequences of accountability, and the spotlight on data, however challenged by differing vantage points, prevented the country from hiding the shameful state of education in our schools, from the world or ourselves…

Read the entire post HERE.

(*Image courtesy of yellowcloud)

More of the Same at Twice the Price

The National Education Association has prepared a vital tool for anyone interested in assessing the potential impact of the economic stimulus bill on education in the U.S. As major media figures have pointed out in the last several days, the stimulus bill is nothing more than additional funding for the education programs and structures that already exist, regardless of efficacy. And the NEA’s drawn up the charts to prove it. (Notice that reform efforts currently implemented at national and state levels, like charter schools and No Child Left Behind, are completely bypassed.)

Both Senate and House versions nearly double funding of all major programs, such as Title 1 – funding which flows to school districts, where it subsidizes existing staffs and programs. While this may help state and local administrators avoid laying off teachers, it is not tied to student achievement, ensuring that all monies spent simply prop up schools that exist, rather than boosting schools that succeed (NCLB links funding to results, but this pay out comes before the next meaningful achievement assessment, and thus is not tied to accountability). The same is true for the multi-billion dollar school modernization program, for special education and for myriad other program increases.

Also not lost on the status quo supporters of this bill is the fact that there are administrative set-asides at the federal, state and local level. What’s 1 percent of $100 billion? That’s right — government will grow by $1 billion, at the minimum, thanks to this effort. That doesn’t even take into account higher education stimulus funds, another $40 billion or so of which is included in this bill.

There’s also LOTS of money for researchers – the National Science Foundation gets several million more, as does the Institute for Education Sciences. Some discretionary funds (we call it play money) – about $340 million – are also in place for the Secretary to spend as he sees fit on “innovative” programs. But shouldn’t innovative or successful new programs simply draw funds equitably and directly from all federal appropriations (rather than being shunted through the federal-state-local system, with a little – or a lot - being siphoned off at each bureaucratic stop)? Why must “innovation” be separately accounted for in a slush fund, when such reforms are mainly responsible for all the achievement gains of the last decade? And as a result of a decade of reforms, the nation already knows how to succeed in educating children – we simply lack the political resolve to make the hard choices. So why more research in this time of economic crisis? Oh, that’s right. It’s about the jobs of adults, not the education of children.

Consideration of whether or not our current education programs work is missing from the creation of this bill altogether – when it should be the central concern. For years Washington’s representatives fought accountability. NCLB began to shed light in that dark corner. Subsequently ignoring the vetting of programs’ effectiveness before shelling out hard-earned taxpayer dollars is not the way to bring about change and fix failing schools. Which, not incidentally, is the long-haul, big-picture solution to getting – and keeping - our economy back on track for good.

Check out the NEA analysis yourself. We’re glad to finally make use of the taxpayer dollars we give them through mandatory dues payments to see where it’s all going – if the status quo has its way.

(from CER’s 2008 Education Reform Voter’s BLOG)

In response to our Candidate Scorecard released earlier this week to assess the degree to which candidates for the U.S. Senate support education reform, we have received a landslide of commentary from across the great state of Colorado suggesting that we were too hard on Bob Schaffer. Citing his strong record as a school choice advocate, the role he played in the formation of Colorado’s original charter school law, and the fact that “all five of his children have been educated in charter schools,” many have gone so far as to demand that we revise our scoring in his case and “correct your mistake in a public forum.” First, a quick overview of the facts:

More “Our take on Bob Schaffer”