The Green Cup

I listened yesterday to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on National Public Radio’s Talk of the Nation.

It was a live stream and I tried to get a question in, but no luck. If I’d gotten through, I probably would have pointed out that charter schools are an urban and suburban concept. Charter schools (which usually target students who are “at-risk”) are also a redundant idea in many of America’s poorer rural corners where in some cases the vast majority of kids qualify as being at-risk. Then I would have asked him if there wasn’t a model available to promote the innovation that charter schools engender, while staying within the current public school framework in impoverished rural areas.

I might also have asked him if it wasn’t time to reconsidered the “supplement, not supplant” provision of Title I. When that idea was made law there was a lot of room in the curriculum and in the school day for supplemental instruction. Today almost everything we do is done because it is required in some way, and the specialists who could do it best often work for Title I and often have their hands tied by that provision of the law.

Oh well, maybe I can catch him on another talk show…

It’s been a busy month so far for Secretary Duncan.

• On Wednesday (June 3rd) he was testifying before a Senate budget committee about the plan to move $1 billion from Title I grants to the Title I school improvement fund. He also “got grilled” (as on source put it) on a proposed increase in funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF).
  
• On Monday (June 8th) Duncan gave a speech to the Institute for Education Sciences. It was at their fourth annual conference, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. Among the messages: test scores should play some role in evaluating teachers. But what role? Maybe I’ll blog about that later…
  
• Yesterday, Duncan attended a policy breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Politico got him on video talk about playing basketball with the president. The CS Monitor did a story that day featuring Duncan on the topic of national education standards.

In between, he’s done a little traveling on his listening tour – mostly in New Jersey, I think.

Note: It’s nice to have a Secretary of Education with some personality. Arne Duncan makes it easy (for me, at least) to be interested in what going on in his office. That said, I’ll probably start to port somewhat regularly on what the Secretary of Education is doing…

Some red flags were raised this week on the status of special education at the Department of Education. One of the criticisms that emerged when Duncan was appointed to the Ed job was that special education had never really been on his radar during his tenure as head of Chicago’s schools. So people wondered whether that neglect of special education would come with him to DC.

Blogger Mark Miller talked yesterday about Duncan’s speech to the National Press Club on education reform.

In a speech intended to highlight the administration’s education priorities, his 4,720 words did not include “special education,” “special needs,” “disabilities,” or the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.” That seems odd to me…

You can watch the hour long video of the speech here.

To be fair, Duncan mentioned IDEA in response to a question after the speech and pointed out that it was receiving “unprecedented money” as part of the stimulus bills.

The slight that special education got in the NPC speech came even as Education Week was already questioning why the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services is still being run by a stand-in. Duncan’s office announced several appointees to major posts within his agency this week, but OSERS wasn’t on the list.

While special education might be a fiscal priority, the question remains: What’s the vision for special education as reform progresses? It’s a question I look forward to seeing answered.

I thought the poll at Edutopia was interesting. The question: Should special-needs students take high school assessment exams? These are exams that, in about half the states, students have to pass to receive a diploma. So far, 21% say “yes” (without any accommodations), 39% say “maybe” (and with accommodations) and 40% say “no.”

In addition to his appearance at the National Press Club, Duncan also went to Chicago this week to participate as a player in the Hoop It Up three-on-three basketball event. The Chicago event is a qualifier tournament. A national championship tournament gets played at the end of the summer, and Duncan’s team has won that national event in three of the last five years…

I have been very sick, and strangely grateful that if I just had to be that sick, at least it was over my school system’s Spring Break for the most part. I seem to be on my way to a healthy recovery…

A thought occurred to me this past week regarding longer school days and longer school years. We tend to talk about such things with one of two points of reference. Either more school makes sense because, well, China and Japan have more school than us, or more school makes sense because there’s just so much to get into the school day and we don’t have enough time.

Simple question: Does more school make sense because there’s research that says more school makes sense?

I think the answer to that is clearly yes when you talk about longer school years and/or year round schooling. I don’t have citations. Maybe I’ll look for some. But the concept of extended school year services for special education is based on that idea. And we all whine about how much regression takes place over the summer break.

Is a longer school day supported by research? I’d have to see research targeted at grade levels. My guess is that research might eventually show that a longer school day for high school or middle school kids could increase educational outcomes. Intermediate grades? I’m not so sure. Primary grades? I’m even more skeptical…

My question is basic though. And as long as we’re talking about China and Japan, the issue is political, not educational. When someone starts ranting about more school because they think the research says we should have more school, and they put the research up front in the discussion – at that point the argument will seem more credible for me. Until then, it seems like political grandstanding.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says we need more school. I think I agree with him. I don’t know that every student in America needs more school, or even that every school needs more time in the classroom. But in most cases I think they do; the most common complaint I hear today is that there isn’t enough time to get everything done.

Here’s the quote from the Secretary Duncan:

“Go ahead and boo me,” Duncan told the students last week during his speech. “I fundamentally think that our school day is too short, our school week is too short and our school year is too short.”

“You’re competing for jobs with kids from India and China. I think schools should be open six, seven days a week; 11, 12 months a year,” he said.

Duncan made the statement on April 7th at a middle school in Denver, Colorado.

Reaction has been colorful. And I suspect that pleased Duncan. Some examples:

• “Presently, this proposal is a waste of time.

  Is more seat time really needed in today’s poor instructional environment? If you’re in the top third of the student distribution, you’re already forced to endure an instructional pace that is too slow, resulting in wasted time and opportunity and plenty o’ boredom. – by KDeRosa at D-Ed Reckoning.

• “First of all, you’re not going to win the blue ribbon at the county fair by leaving your apple pie in the oven longer. And secondly, why not grow oranges instead. Doesn’t a global market place need diversity of talents and skills — not everyone trying to best each other on the same narrow array of standards.

  But we’re not talking about fruit are we? We’re talking about our children. ..and let’s face it, we’re talking about nothing less than institutionalizing “child labor” to satisfy a failed belief that higher standardized test scores will reliably lead to a stronger economy, more prosperous citizens, and a vibrant democracy. What it leads to is boredom” – by David Warwick, at 2¢ Worth.

• “Real education reformers don’t blanket advocate for a longer school day and longer school year without noting that neither will make a difference if the school to which students are assigned lacks all rigor and accountability.” – by Edspresso.com

Now, I’m willing to give the Secretary of Education the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the “six days a week, 11 months a year” quote could be hyperbole. Maybe we’ll see a concrete proposal sometime soon to take us from a 180-day school year to a 280-day school year in one fell swoop. But I doubt it. Maybe Arne Duncan believes that more time in class, just by itself, will fix education in America. Maybe. But I doubt it.

Do I think Duncan believes that we need radical change? Definitely…

The Problem

I’m sure that face time with a teacher is not the only issue in need of attention in public schools. But (assuming it is at least part of the solution) increasing teacher-student face time will require overcoming some obnoxious hurdles.

America’s schools are filled with teachers who are on the verge of retirement, the edge of burnout, or both. Rapid change in curriculum standards, in accountability, and in laws on educating children with disabilities have all led to a degree of confusion and frustration. Specialization has led to more demanding teacher preparation requirements and an increasing need for teachers to continually update their skills and knowledge. And teacher shortages in math, science and special education mean that some of the most demanding jobs in the school are filled by long term substitutes with no real qualifications.

More time in school either means more teachers or better pay for existing teachers. It probably means both. And yet states and local governments have consistently opted to fund neither.

Fiscal conservatives are fond of mocking the idea that if we just throw money at a problem it will go away. And yet, the most expensive part of education is easily the cost of personnel. Local governments and voters would like to find a way to avoid a simple truth: you get what you pay for.

Until our values change so that we’re willing as a nation to fund education on a par with the results we want to demand, this simple, circular problem will continue to exist. Here it is:

What else is there to say?

Teachers generally view the idea of merit pay as impractical and insulting: impractical because no one can come up with a valid, reliable way to measure “merit;” insulting because it’s generally framed as something like motivational money, where the system would pay me extra to really do my job. Why is it surprising when teachers’ unions give this condescending and simplistic approach the middle finger?

On the other hand, many politicians and taxpayers seem to think that teachers are pampered, overpaid bureaucrats who get three months of paid vacation each year after working as glorified babysitters for 37.5 hours a week. As long as that’s the perspective of the people holding the purse strings, the prospect of improving the situation seems dim.

The only thing left to say is that any solution is going to tick off a lot of people. And yet there is going to have to be a solution.