Education Reform for the Digital Era

It has become increasingly clear to me that the way to reform public education is not to work within the existing system, but to rebuild it from the ground up.    Change cannot happen under the current framework.  My colleague Michael Horn at the Innosight Institute has it 100% right.   Disruptive innovation is the only way to get the system to change.   I am more convinced than ever that more money is not going to do anything for our children.   There is plenty of money; however, there is too much wasteful spending in our local monopoly-driven system.

I decided to title this blog post identical to a recent white paper I read from the Fordham Institute.   It is free to the world, and, contrary to what many people have labeled as a "conservative" point of view about education reform, it is nothing of the sort.   The extensive paper comprises well-researched policy recommendations on how we can reposition our public schools for success in a digital world.   How can our schools embrace technological innovation and digital learning?   The first paragraph of the introduction: Overcoming the Obstacles to Digital Learning,  provides an excellent lens into the objectives of the paper:

Digital learning is more than the latest addition to education reformers’ to-do lists, filed along with teacher evaluations, charter schools, tenure reform, academic standards, and the like. It’s fundamentally different: For digital learning to fulfill its enormous potential, a wholesale reshaping of the reform agenda itself is required, particularly in the realms of school finance and governance. But just as online education needs those reforms if it is to flourish, so does deep education reform need digital learning, which can provide valuable solutions to some of education’s greatest challenges—beginning with the basic obsolescence of its familiar delivery system.

The paper is comprised of five detailed, research-driven sections:

Chapter 1: Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction
Chapter 2: Quality Control in K–12 Digital Learning:
Chapter 3: The Costs of Online Learning
Chapter 4: School Finance in the Digital-Learning Era
Chapter 5: Overcoming the Governance Challenge in
                   K–12 Online Learning

There is some excellent guidance in the material about the promise of digital learning and why teachers should embrace it, not fear it.   However, the paper does a fine job at framing three significant barriers to successful implementation of digital learning in public education:

• Self-absorbed and self-serving groups that do their utmost either to capture the potential of technology to advance their own interests or to shackle it in ways that keep it from harming those interests.
• Issues of organizational capacity within our public education system, a system that has enormous
  difficulty accommodating and assimilating change—and the more wrenching the change the greater the difficulty.
• Core governance and financing structures of our K–12 system itself.

Teachers fear the "unbundling" of learning that digital learning promises.   Education is not bound by the walls of one classroom and one teacher.   How you train teachers and measure their effectiveness when they do not have full control over a child's academic development poses material challenges in our current education system that is run by local monopolies and teachers unions.   That is NOT a conservative or liberal perspective - that is REALITY.    You cannot leave local school districts in control of online learning, as it will retard innovation.  Let me leave you with one final excerpt from the paper, which again, I encourage all of you to take the time and read:

Now consider our agricultural-era devotion to “local control” of public education and ask how this arrangement can possibly work well—indeed, what it even means—when the delivery system itself is unbound by district, municipal, or even state borders. Who is really “in charge” when students assemble their education from multiple providers based in many locations, some likely on the other side of
the planet? Digital learning, like digital communications, lives on the Internet—often “in the cloud”—and knows no natural geographic or political boundaries. Sure, it can be inhibited by totalitarian regimes that fear websites or any communications that may loosen their grip. When left to flourish in the marketplace, however, digital learning will yield innovation, competition (affecting content, quality, delivery mechanisms, and price), and eventual economies of scale. And those will—and ought to—develop without regard to municipal boundaries.

I could write pages and pages of material about this work, so I ask you all to read it for yourselves.   Keep an open mind, and please share your insights with me after you've had a chance to read it.  

The road map is there, my friends - we just require the courage to change.  Lets do it for the sake of our children's generation.

Putting Georgia Public Education on Notice

I have finally had enough.

Every citizen of the state of Georgia - in fact, every citizen in the United States - should be OUTRAGED at the rapid deterioration of our public education system.    I will lump it into the same category as AMTRAK and the US Postal Service.  

You might say I'm not telling you what you don't already know.   Well, at a briefing last week of the GA Public Policy Foundation, attendees were given a very detailed spreadsheet.   It contained ALL expenditures, by category and graduation rates for every school system in the state of Georgia.  And I was totally mortified at what I saw.  A few tidbits:

• Atlanta Public Schools:   $15,239 per pupil, with a 52% graduation rate!  And they spend nearly $3K per pupil for central admin costs!
• Gwinnett County (received a Broad Foundation grant - 162K+ students):  1 in 3 students NOT graduating!
• One small district has a 40% graduation rate!

Educators, parents and policy-makers - you should be ashamed of yourselves.   How and why did we allow public education to stay stagnant while the entire world has changed around it?  And how many of these graduates are truly ready for college, when professors complain about the significant amount of remedial work they need to teach their students?

When will our electorate realize that public education is NOT a democrat or republican issue?  It's about our children, and we are failing them.  It's not about the money.   Heck, for $15K a year, you could almost send your child to private school!  As you can see, this is what happens when you allow local monopoly power in education.   Redundancy, wasteful spending, and lack of innovation.  

And yet, our teachers unions and other factions are afraid of any kind of change.   Charter schools are not the magic bullet, but they offer a chance at innovative approaches to education.   Digital learning needs to be given a chance to flourish.  Recently, the Fordham Institute released a free white paper entitled, "Education Reform for the Digital Era."   While I am still reading the content, it is very interesting and an invaluable resource for anyone who wishes to reform our education system.   Having looked at the data, I am now more convinced than ever that money is not the problem.  We need to rebuild our education system from the ground up, for the sake of our children!

The status quo is unacceptable, so those of you who are complacent and passing the buck to others, it's time you spoke up!   Let's reinvent education in America, before it's too late!

We Need To Teach Ethics In K-12 Education Before It Is Too Late

Something has been really bothering me recently.   I had this epiphany after observing the salacious material being cirulated through social media regarding the scandal surrounding former Arkansas Head Football Coach Bobby Petrino.    It seems to me we have a growing ethics problem in the United States, and here's why:

• The Petrino scandal demonstrated that winning football games is more important than setting the right example for our students.    The University of Arkansas knew full well that they were getting a coach who cared more about himself, and winning, than teaching his students how to conduct themselves responsibly.  Even before this scandal broke, why would you have sent your son to play for a coach whose past behavior was reprehensible, especially how he walked out of a contractual commitment with the Atlanta Falcons.
• Technological innovation has always been a double-edged sword.  In the case of Petrino, reporters were leaking tons of text messages and other material, that, quite frankly, should not have been made available to the public.   How do we explain this situation to our children, and in this case, were we really using social media for the right reasons?    Unfortunately, there is something called "free will," and inventions will be used for both good and evil purposes, sad to say.
• What are we teaching our children when we see college coaches pick themselves up and leave to go to other schools, even when they're under contract?  We saw shameful behavior from USC Coach Lane Kiffin and former Pitt CoachTodd Graham who let their student-athletes down, one who sent them a note via Twitter!   Why does the NCAAA allow college coaches to be poached from schools when they're under employment agreements?  What does this tell our students about the importance of commitment?
• I have this running debate with a friend of mine about this "One and Done" situation with college basketball players.   Why should we allow college Freshmen to leave school three years early?   This sullies the definitation of a student-athlete - in this case, maybe the terms should be flip-flopped?  Should the NBA create a developmental league for basketball players, rather than creating a situation where a student is really not attending college to get a degree, only to get drafted in one year.   These students have no intention of staying to complete a degree, and it is far less likely these athletes will go back to complete 3 years of college versus one year.   Maybe MLB has it right when they say you either get drafted out of high school, or you stay at college three years?

I feel like our country, to some degree, is losing its "moral compass."   Contrary to what former NBA Star Charles Barkley thinks about role models - public figures ARE fole models.   Thus, I truly believe that a partnership between parents and teachers must be forged to ensure that we are teaching ethics as early in a child's development as possible.    I'm really afraid that we are letting this ominous legendary quote from Vince Lombardi rule the day:

"Winning isn't everything.   It's the ONLY thing."

Lets reinvent education by ensuring we teach ethics to our students as part of their academic requirements.   This may be the most important life skill they receive.    I, for one, try and live by the ideals of the following quote from famous author C.S. Lewis:

"Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching"

What an Atlanta Newspaper Has Taught Us About Data Reliability

I am done with my public bashing of the Atlanta newspaper that spread misleading research about standardized test scores around the nation.  However, what we have seen as a result of this debacle is that as part of "Reinventing Public Education," we need to do some serious reinventing of data analysis generated by our public school system.  

The Georgia Department of Education released a statement yesterday that disclosed a new formula for calculating the state's graduation rate.  Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the restatement brought last year's graduation rate down nearly 14 points, from nearly 81 percent to just over 67 percent.  No one really thought the 81 percent figure was a reliable figure.   So what does this all mean?

This indicates the great challenge in researchers trying to compare data across states and localities.   It is common knowledge that the public school system is the last bastion of society mired in the analog age, and for public education to be able to be reinvented to succeed in a digital world, the entire infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.  This is EXACTLY why you can't "cram" technology into schools, as my friend Michael Horn (co-author of Disrupting Class) has pointed out so eloquently.  The challenge of obtaining data that is comparable across states is laborious and tedious at best, if not impossible to complete.   As you saw in Georgia, what appears simple as asking for a "graduate rate" is clearly not so simple.

This is symptomatic of the inherent conflict between Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism.  We need the federal resources to compel states to report data using the same formula, but even in this case, Georgia obtain a waiver to calculate the graduation rate using a 5-year, not 4-year cohort.   I am not lobbying for one methodology over another, but think about all of the disclaimers a researcher will have to annotate because states are not calculating a graduation rate the same way.

What this example has shown this blogger is that we need to be VERY skeptical of education data in the public domain.   How un-nerving for citizens to know that reported data may not be what it seems.   This is one of the many challenges faced in education reform efforts. 

We should all be worried about this one.

Did An Atlanta Newspaper Un-Nerve Public Education And Sway Public Opinion With Flawed Research?

While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions."

 - Stephen R. Covey 

Let me start out by saying that my blog is about reinventing public education in the United States and the world.  I typically apply the framework of disruptive innovation theory, because that is the lens that one should look through in order to understand what conditions are required in order to successfully innovate our learning methods for the digitally-driven 21st century work environment.   But I also possess more than 20 years of media industry experience, and some of those lessons are quite relevant to the following post which I felt compelled to write after the chain of events that have transpired since March 25, 2012.

Last weekend, I picked up the Sunday Atlanta Journal-Constitution ("AJC") and was completely mortified by the cover story, which was titled, "Cheating Our Children: Suspicious School Test Scores across Nation."  It seems that my local newspaper has made an aggressive, pre-emptive strike against standardized test scores around the nation.  A few years ago, the newspaper analyzed test scores in Atlanta Public Schools, and the anomalies identified in the results triggered the investigation leading to the largest cheating scandal in the history of American K-12 public education.   Their objective was to extend this work, analyze test scores in hundreds of districts around the United States, and ascertain whether similar cheating activities occurred on a national scale.   They claim that there are "suspicious" test scores in roughly 200 districts, including many of our nation's largest urban centers, and these "irregularities" resemble those that entangled Atlanta Public Schools.   The story was picked up by all of the major news outlets.  In addition, several public figures added their verbal "fuel" to the findings, even before verifying its credibility.   These included Education Secretary Duncan, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, NEA Head Randi Weingarten, and Diane Ravitch, the latter who is perhaps the most visible protector of the status quo.  It has sought to un-nerve the system of administering standardized tests in public education.

Let me be clear.  These are SERIOUS allegations leveled by a local newspaper.   Instead of having direct evidence of cheating, they are saying, "Here's some data we compiled - it's not conclusive, but we think you should look into it."  And instead of reviewing this privately, they took this directly to the public to sway public opinion before the facts could truly be corroborated.    The report has sent shock waves through the education system and caused politicians and other education figures to comment prematurely.  No one wants to look like they are 'soft" on security around testing, and Georgia's politicians were not going to throw the AJC "under the bus."   It has raised the rhetoric around testing, distracted the nation from the real systemic problems with our public education system, and will undoubtedly force educators to take excessive time to review this study.   There is a domino effect here, and the question is:   has there been a rush to judgment, and was this research thorough, conclusive, and valid?

Let me again reiterate that my opinion is that testing is given FAR too much weight in this country, or any country for that matter.  Tests are supposed to be an indicator, only an indicator, of student achievement.  This author would NOT have been admitted to an Ivy League university if the overriding emphasis was on one day's test performance over the body of work spanning a student's entire academic career.  Fortunately, the school chose to look at other factors, such as GPA, class rank, leadership activities, and other intangibles that provide a far more comprehensive picture of a student's ability than the performance on one test, whose integrity gets challenged and ridiculed on a regular basis.   Many students just don't test well.

Before I comment further, let me provide an important analogy.    Back in the late 1990s when I was working at Turner Broadcasting, the research department embarked on an explosive, breakthrough project titled "Media at the Millennium."  This was the period in the history of cable television where cable network distribution reached "critical mass" in terms of household penetration and was nearing parity with broadcast television.  However, advertisers were still purchasing cable as a low-cost, high frequency medium and were not getting their fair share of advertising dollars even though some networks were starting to achieve parity in terms of not only reach, but also certain daypart ratings. Turner's research department developed a comprehensive data model that proved unequivocally that an advertiser could purchase cable WITHOUT sacrificing reach.   Turner's researchers looked at every single angle of the analysis, anticipated all questions it would receive from ad agencies, media buyers and competitors.  It checked its methodology several times and ensured it was "bulletproof."   Once they completed the extensive, robust quality control process, they released the presentation and underlying methodology to the general public.  It was a MAJOR success, and resulted in an estimated $1 Billion of ad dollars shifting from broadcast television to cable television.  This analysis helped transform the media value chain and turned cable and broadcast into a "one television world."  If they had erred in their quality control, Turner would have not only ostracized itself from the advertising industry, but it would have materially damaged its brand because it could not be trusted to deliver accurate data analysis to its stakeholders.  These were some of the brightest minds I have ever worked with in my professional career, and they were wise to take the time to do all necessary quality checks before putting their reputations on the line and releasing such an explosive research study.

So what does this have to do with the AJC study?  The AJC came out with its findings, paraded out several independent researchers who reviewed and endorsed the validity of its methodology, and created "sensationalist" headlines while burying disclaimers such as "this does not prove that cheating occurred."   It then hired a marketing firm to tout its investigative story on testing data from several large school systems despite being informed of numerous flaws in its methodology and analysis.  Let us summarize what has taken place since the newspaper unveiled its story:

• The best synopsis I have seen can be found here.  It gives the complete inside story of the back and forth between Dr. Miron (see below) and the AJC.  It is QUITE revealing, to say the least.
• To no one's surprise, several of these districts came out with statements that appeared somewhat "caught off guard" and "defensive," including Houston's school district.   Typically one would surmise that when you act "defensively", you are likely guilty of some transgression.   It is likely that certain states may quietly start to conduct more detailed investigations and look further into the data to see if any of it is indicative of unethical behavior (i.e., cheating).
• Gary Miron, a respected professor at Western Michigan University who is well regarded for his work on education policy and reforms, had reviewed the study prior to its release and was commented in the Washington Post about his serious concerns about its methodology, including the fact that the AJC did not use student level data and erasure data as had been done in a study conducted by USA Today a year earlier.  Miron was heavily involved in that study, and the newspaper went back and got the extra data needed to conduct a more thorough analysis.   This data would have allowed student mobility to be factored into the equation, because you wouldn't know if you were looking at the same students or not.
  • Dr. Miron aired his concerns, and the AJC was quick to respond to them.   Their response barely touched the surface, and was a superficial attempt to not only discredit Dr. Miron, but also respond only to the mobility issue, and not the other issues raised by Dr. Miron.
  • As quoted by AJC Editor Kevin Riley:  "Had we waited for absolute proof before publishing news about alarming scores in Atlanta, the investigation would have likely never happened."  
  • The AJC was forced to remove all references to Nashville's Two Rivers Middle School from the original story.   Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools did not only defend their data, but levied a detailed, persuasive rebuttal that took all of the air out of the AJC methodology, and showed that the AJC released data with no understanding of the Nashville district and its demographics.  You can read the full analysis here.  Their assessment is validated by notable researchers:  Dr. Dale Ballou, associate professor of Public Policy and Education with Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education; and Dr. Brian Jacob,  Walter H. Annenberg Professor of Education Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and University of Michigan.  A few key highlights:
    • The AJC study does not take into account student mobility, and in Nashville, these rates are 35-40%
    • Obvious errors in data provided where children who were absent from testing were assigned a “zero” rather than being excluded from the analysis - resulting in average scores that were below the minimum score possible
    • The AJC methodology will automatically identify 5% of the cases/classes analyzed statewide, but schools with changing populations (see previous bullet) or higher than usual numbers of highly effective or highly ineffective teachers (research supports that teacher effectiveness make the greatest difference in test score gains) are likely to have higher percentages
    • Analysis of test gains of MNPS middle school math teachers over three years (2006-07 through 2008-09) by Dr. Brian Jacob of the University of Chicago, on behalf of Vanderbilt University, did not show any unusual or suspicious patterns.
    • And many other factors you can read at the link above.
  • From a blogger who clearly has a background in statistical research:  "I’m at least equally curious about why the AJC analysts used simple linear regression at a statewide level. This implies that the issues traditionally considered barriers to learning, such as free/ reduced participation, limited English proficiency, mobility, special education, ethnicity and race are homogenous at a statewide level. Extremely unlikely. And it’s fairly easy to show that such differences between school districts, schools, and even classes within a school have a statistically significant, even substantial influence on predicting the mean scaled score on a benchmark exam."  He goes further to say,
    • "Some states also use criterion referenced tests for measuring growth. This means that the 3rd grade test focuses on 3rd grade curriculum standards. 5th grade tests focus on 5th grade standards. While not an excuse for settings in learning, it does counter the journalist’s statement that learning rarely disappears. That may be true, but learning multiplication tables by rote doesn’t always adequately prepare a student who has limited English skills to solve word problems or do algebra. We hope — and even expect — that a strong early performance in literacy or math translates into sustained strong learning. But I’ve seen too much student data to believe that’s true across the board, especially when the standards (necessarily) shift to expecting higher level thinking skills in 6th or 7th grade."
  • From the Texas Education Agency: "The story raises questions, but we do have a concern about their methodology. The newspaper tracked test scores by school, not by student, which we found can "have up to a 20 percent variance."  They take testing security seriously, but they have determined that the analysis was not sufficient enough to warrant any further investigation.  Based on their own review of the analysis, one Texas Superintendent called the report "reckless and irresponsible at best" because they correctly noted that the Atlanta paper's examination flagged classes for large gains and large losses, which wouldn't be associated with cheating. And the report examines scores for groups of students rather than individual students.  With many urban districts in Texas and elsewhere having a very high mobility rate, you simply cannot ascertain from their methodology whether you're looking at the same students or not.
    
    Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/extra_credit/2012/03/weatherford-school-officials-respond-to-cheating-report.html#storylink=cpy
  • A spokesman for the Indiana Department of Education told the Washington Post that "a study of erasures on Indiana’s ISTEP-Plus exam, performed last year by the testing contractor at the state’s request, turned up “very few areas of concern statewide.”

These references are merely a few that have risen to the surface over the past week.  I have no doubt that there will be more.   A few of my own questions are below:

• Shouldn't the AJC have been prepared for these questions about its methodology? 
• Why didn't they consult with the US Dept. of Education first, rather than try and besmirch the reputations of several out-of-state school districts?  Why does the AJC get the right to claim that other states may have potentially similar issues as Atlanta Public Schools without conclusive, irrefutable evidence? 
•  How should Secretary Duncan have responded?  Did he have any other choice but to say, “These findings are concerning.  States, districts, schools and testing companies should have sensible safeguards in place to ensure tests accurately reflect student learning.”
• Can a reasonable person surmise that the AJC was not only doing this to sell newspapers, but also doing it, in part, to exonerate the Atlanta Public Schools by claiming that rampant cheating is happening in other cities across the nation?
• If you read the op-ed published by AJC Editor Kevin Riley, where he defends and celebrates the "journalism" of his reporters, shouldn't we be concerned about their true intentions?
• Note that the Atlanta Public Schools have been conspicuously silent here.  I'm sure they would rather not have this report made public because they are trying to rebuild the public trust, only to have this story create lingering sentiment and focus on the APS Cheating Scandal, which was the most pervasive cheating incident in the history of K-12 public education.  APS had nothing to gain (or lose) here, and if they were asked to speak on the record, they would have probably said that "this doesn't pertain to APS and you should speak to the various districts identified in the AJC analysis."
• Why does Riley feel so strongly that if they waited, there would likely have never been an investigation?  Why the rush, and why now?  Is it because the CRCT exams are taking place this month?

Let us look at what the consequences were of releasing a study that was far from bulletproof.  The reference links above talk about the fact that more than 300 news outlets around the country picked up the story, including the Huffington Post, ABC News, CNN, the Washington Post, NBC Nightly News and MSNBC  This is one instance where media outlets exacerbated the problem by airing the story without making CLEAR disclaimers about the credibility of the underlying content.   This was an explosive report, with serious consequences if proven true, and the media felt comfortable with promoting a story that had serious methodology concerns.  This article from the American Journalism Review  is certainly well-timed, given the circumstances we are dealing with here.  I may not agree with all of its contents, but it certainly makes me VERY skeptical about how the media is covering public education in the United States.  Like just about every other issue our country is dealing with, I come at it from the perspective that it is never as good, or as bad, as one is led to believe.

As an American citizen who cares about education, as well as a resident of Atlanta, I felt that it was my duty to provide a "fuller account" of the activities of the past week related to this news story.   When you release research, even a hint of a methodology flaw could materially damage its credibility and should make one consider delaying its release.  In my opinion, from what I have reviewed to date, it is clear that my local newspaper has wrecked havoc and instilled great fear in our nation's public schools, without conclusive evidence.  They have used the media to sway public opinion and shift the focus back to the overemphasis on high stakes testing. 

Cheating on tests is a serious issue, and this author believes that our schools are taking appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy of its test results.   To paraphrase another reporter’s assessment:  “The analysis may not be entirely invalid, but the irregularities uncovered require the newspaper to do some SERIOUS explaining.”  If the newspaper is able to successfully address every material concern about the methodology, I will be the first person to update my post and acknowledge my error in judgment.   HOWEVER, that scenario seems far from likely.

 NOTE: Special thanks go out to education blogger Audrey Watters who contributed reference material to support this story.

The views expressed in this post are those solely of Al Meyers, and do not represent the views of any organizations affiliated with Mr. Meyers.