Swingin' for the ESEA Fences
In yesterday's initial analysis of the US Department of Education's ESEA reauthorization blueprint, I noted I was "whelmed" by the plan as a whole. (And for the record, I am a strong proponent of using the word whelmed. If I can be overwhelmed and underwhelmed, I certainly can be whelmed. It's not like having to choose between North and South Dakota.) Since then, I've received a number of questions as to why, particularly since so many people seem to see this as a strong step forward in improving No Child Left Behind.
My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin', knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered. When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape. Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered). The term "scientifically based research" was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike. And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were. These were all but twinkles in Sandy's, Margaret's BethAnn's, and Reid's eyes before the reauthorization process began.
But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET. Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. So what were once big ideas — Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards — are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days. We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now. We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.
The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB's Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec
My biggest issue with the blueprint is there is no big, stinkin', knock-you-off your-seat big idea offered. When we were introduced to the wonderful world of NCLB a little over nine years ago (can we all believe it has been that long?), we were immediately embraced by some huge ideas that almost immediately changed the education policy landscape. Before the ink was even dry on the legislative drafts, we all knew what Annual Yearly Progress was (and the potential dangers it offered). The term "scientifically based research" was quickly added to the vocabulary of wonk and practitioner alike. And Reading First was a new program where the Administration was putting their proverbial money where their mouths were. These were all but twinkles in Sandy's, Margaret's BethAnn's, and Reid's eyes before the reauthorization process began.
But this time around, we have no great new big idea YET. Part of the problem is that the Duncan regime has been hard at work on ed policy for the past 14 or 15 months, moving ideas well before they moved this blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. So what were once big ideas — Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, common core standards — are now ingrained as part of the ed reform status quo these days. We are looking to codify that which we have debated for more than a year now. We expected all of that in this blueprint, thus it is hardly something designed to knock us off our barstools.
The teacher quality component, which could have provided some real fodder for a sock-knocking idea, seems to be a finetuning and improving over NCLB's Highly Qualified Teacher effort, former EdSec
Bracketology, through an Academic Performance Lens
This week marks the second greatest annual sporting experience — March Madness (Eduflack is still a purist and believes nothing can hold a candle to baseball's Opening Day). Later this week, 65 of the supposed best Division One men's basketball teams will square off to see which is the best (or the luckiest) basketball team of the year. And then, on my birthday this year, we will crown a national champion.
The top four seeds are the top teams we typically expect to see — Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse, with Kansas designated the number one number one. As in most years, we see lots of teams from the major conferences, and a good mix of mid-major programs that have done their institutions proud on the hardwoods.
The annual brackets often lead some to begin discussing athletics versus academics at Division One colleges and universities. Those who follow men's college basketball (it is very different for women's college basketball) are no fools. We realize that the majority of players, particularly those who start, will never earn that sheepskin from the IHE providing them with a free, four-year ride to a top college. Many play a year or two, then seek their fortunes in either the NBA. Those who can't make the NBA cut will often head to overseas leagues, hoping it will provide them a pathway back to the NBA. And many will fail to take advantage of the opportunities that scholarship can provide, particularly in the face of the realities of how few college ballers actually make it to play professionally with LeBron, Kobe, and company.
For the fifth year in a row, the good folks over at Inside Higher Education offer up their "Academic Performance Tournament," a similarly bracketed tourney that looks at how those teams playing for
The top four seeds are the top teams we typically expect to see — Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse, with Kansas designated the number one number one. As in most years, we see lots of teams from the major conferences, and a good mix of mid-major programs that have done their institutions proud on the hardwoods.
The annual brackets often lead some to begin discussing athletics versus academics at Division One colleges and universities. Those who follow men's college basketball (it is very different for women's college basketball) are no fools. We realize that the majority of players, particularly those who start, will never earn that sheepskin from the IHE providing them with a free, four-year ride to a top college. Many play a year or two, then seek their fortunes in either the NBA. Those who can't make the NBA cut will often head to overseas leagues, hoping it will provide them a pathway back to the NBA. And many will fail to take advantage of the opportunities that scholarship can provide, particularly in the face of the realities of how few college ballers actually make it to play professionally with LeBron, Kobe, and company.
For the fifth year in a row, the good folks over at Inside Higher Education offer up their "Academic Performance Tournament," a similarly bracketed tourney that looks at how those teams playing for