Seven Innovative Ideas for PreK-3rd Education: Will These Projects Be Funded?

With nearly 1700 school districts and non-profit organizations vying for the U.S. Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation (i3) grants, it’s encouraging to see that 384 of them are putting a focus on early learning -- and at least seven of them are proposing programs that recognize the continuum of learning from birth or pre-K up through third grade.

The grants come from $650 million provided to the Education Department after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The i3 program emphasizes the same priorities as the Race to the Top grant program:

• Effective teachers and leaders,
• Use of data,
• High standards and high-quality assessments, and
• Persistently low-performing schools.

It also identifies several competitive priorities—giving applicants an extra point or two if they adequately address the priority. One of i3’s “competitive” priorities is early learning, which earns applicants an extra point. (Race to the Top included early learning as an “invitational” priority, meaning no extra points were awarded for states that included it.) According to the application guidelines, the Department is looking for projects that improve outcomes for high-need children, birth through third grade. It requires applicants to focus on:

(a) improving young children’s school readiness (including social, emotional, and cognitive readiness) so that children are prepared for success in core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA);

(b) improving developmental milestones and standards and aligning them with appropriate outcome measures; and

(c) improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early learning programs that serve children from birth to age three, in preschools, and in kindergarten through third grade.

We surveyed the i3 applications that incorporated early learning as a priority and were pleased to see some applicants proposing to develop or validate Pre-k – 3rd grade approach or birth to 3rd grade approaches. We have talked about the positive impact of this type of education reform and have recommended it include voluntary universal pre-kindergarten programs, full-day kindergarten, and high-quality standards and curriculum for pre-k through the third grade, coupled with parental engagement and highly qualified teachers who share data and connect professional development within and across grade levels.

Seven applicants appear to be using this approach. (There were many other interesting projects too with focuses on literacy, school readiness, and teacher quality. If you are interested, you can search all of the project descriptions here.)

• The Hartford School District in Connecticut requested $3,354,073 to develop the Betances Early Reading Lab Prek-3 Lab School, which would “create an innovative learning community by joining together two powerful components.” The first component of this project is the Pre-k – 3rd school structure. The second piece is the establishment of an early literacy professional development center, housed in the school, that would foster a learning community of teachers and staff who use data collaboratively and effectively to maximize student learning.
• The New School Foundation in Seattle submitted an application for $20,760,468 in collaboration with Bremerton School District, located in a working-class town; Toppenish School District, a predominantly Latino and Native American district; and Seattle School District, the state's largest district to validate its Pre-K-3rd Quality and Alignment Model (P3QAM). According to the project’s description, P3QAM links preschool programs to elementary school programs by using aligned high standards, curricula and instruction combined with high quality assessments. The applicants intend to validate that this approach increases third grade academic achievement, accelerates academic growth in the Pre-K - 3rd years, reduces achievement gaps, reduces supplemental services for students and improves the social/emotional status for children.
• The Bank Street College of Education in New York submitted an application in partnership with the Memphis City Schools for $3,951,419 to develop the Project Teacher Leaders for the Pre-K Continuum (Project TLC). The project’s goal is to support improved outcomes for all pre-K - 3rd grade children attending school in the district, with more intensive efforts in the city’s lowest-performing (striving) schools. Project TLC includes six activities: 1) a comprehensive and intensive teacher advisement program in striving schools; 2) on-site support for school leadership teams; 3) on-site and online professional development for teachers & leaders in striving schools; 4) visitations to higher performing (Paragon) schools; 5) a professional development video library and guide for district-wide use; and 6) annual citywide conferences.
• Building Tomorrow's Scholars Today is a project proposed by the Bridgeport Public Schools in Connecticut. The district requested almost $5 million to build on an existing Early Reading First Project. This pre-K – 2nd grade literacy initiative comprises a job-embedded coaching model and targeted professional development for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. A multi-disciplinary literacy team, including a speech/language pathologist, would provide regular support to teachers and students as well as parent trainings. Additionally, teachers would be trained to work with parents to establish home-school connections intended to support children’s language and literacy development. Teachers who participate in the project would also have the opportunity to take three on-site graduate level courses delivered by Fairfield University.
• The Life Services System of Ottawa County in Holland, Michigan – in partnership with eight school districts – submitted a proposal to validate its project Parents and Communities United for Success. They requested $21,938,400 over five years. According to the project summary, this birth to 3rd grade initiative combines several strategies that create a continuum of support for children and their families from birth through 3rd grade. Strategies include extending learning time for core academic content; integrating support services; parent engagement activities; establishing a protocol for schools and parents to work together on an educational plan for their student/child; and securing the private sector's support and understanding of the importance of early childhood learning.
• McMinnville School District in Oregon submitted a proposal requesting about $3 million to develop a Birth through 3rd Grade Project. MSD’s plans is to build a bridge to graduation and postsecondary completion by increasing school readiness and ensuring that every child enters kindergarten with skills at or above age five, fostering early school success, and increasing the percentage of students performing at or above grade level in reading and math by the end of third grade. MSD would establish a mobile child development center to provide curriculum resources, modeling, and coaching to parents of high-needs young children. MSD would also provide preschool for high-needs children; Kinder-Plus (enrichment) for high-needs students; and an extended day/year and supplemental support for high-needs students in kindergarten through third grade.
• ServeMinnesota, along with a consortium of several schools, submitted a validation proposal for its Age 3 to Grade 3 Reading Proficiency: A Scalable Model for Individualized Interventions Harnessing the Power of Americorps to Deliver Accelerated Results. The applicants requested $20,232,904 over five years to validate the potential for AmeriCorps to “serve as the vehicle for implementing the use of an individualized data based problem solving model as a proven, effective methodology for helping age 3 to grade 3 children achieve reading proficiency by 3rd grade on a national, unprecedented scale.”

Of course, these are just snippets from each applicant’s dense proposal—it is difficult to tell which ideas are the best and which applicants are the most apt. We would love to review them in their entirety, but the full applications for these proposed projects are yet to be posted. So, while we can’t delve into the particulars, we can get a snapshot of the kinds of projects that might get funding.

We here at Early Ed Watch would like to see at least one of these projects selected. They all incorporate, in one way or another, a promising approach that eliminates the artificial divide between early education and K-12 education and focuses on effective practices such as teacher collaboration, early literacy, vertical alignment, and parental engagement. They also would avoid what some pre-K critics call the “fade-out” problem -- the potential for the benefits from pre-K and full-day kindergarten to lessen over time if not sustained with high-quality instruction year after year. With the pre-k – 3rd approach, young students are more likely to maintain and build upon early gains because their early education experiences are aligned to kindergarten and kindergarten is aligned with the early elementary grades.

We know the competition is fierce—about $ 13 billion in proposals. However, if quality projects using the pre-K – 3rd approach are selected as i3 grantees, it would provide an excellent opportunity to study and learn about the approach, the impact it has on students as they move through the education pipeline, and how it can be replicated in more schools and districts.

We anticipate winners to be announced sometime this summer. Stay tuned for more on whether or not any of these proposals were selected.

P.S. Over at Ed Money Watch, colleague Jennifer Cohen delved into the data and shared what she found about who submitted, for what type of grant they applied, and under which absolute priority. You can also learn more at the new website: data.ed.gov.

Cross posted on Early Ed Watch at the New America Foundation.

After News of Fraud, HHS Plans Unannounced Visits to Head Start Programs

Unannounced reviews are coming soon to Head Start centers around the country in the wake of a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office. It found several instances of Head Start centers accepting families with income levels too high to qualify -- with employees sometimes encouraging them to hide their earnings.

With a few exceptions, Head Start is designed to be available only to families at or below the federal poverty line.

Prompted by two calls to GAO’s FraudNet hotline, in 2008 and 2009, the agency investigated those two sites. It also launched a sting operation at additional centers, sending employees to pose as parents who were hoping to enroll their children in Head Start.

Carmen R. Nazario, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, responded to the GAO’s report yesterday by declaring that her agency would start conducting unannounced monitoring visits to Head Start grantees.

The fraud problems come on the heels of scrutiny of Head Start programs over the last several years. Yesterday, the House Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on GAO’s findings.

In brief, here’s what the GAO learned after following up on those hotline calls:

• One Head Start grantee in Texas had nine of 28 centers with more than the allowed 10 percent of over-income families.
• In one center 44 percent of the families were over-income, with two families reporting income of more than $110,000.
• Head Start staff at some centers encouraged families to say they were homeless, making them automatically eligible for Head Start services.
• A Midwest Migrant and Season Head Start program was moving children from one center to another center, leaving children on the rolls at both centers to make it appear that both centers had reached full enrollment.

Realizing that these types of dishonest activities could also be taking place in other locations, the GAO conducted undercover tests at different centers in six states and the District of Columbia, chosen because they had open slots. In eight of 13 eligibility tests, the fictitious families were not only told that they were eligible, but also were encouraged to misrepresent their eligibility.

At seven of the centers, the GAO reports, employees knowingly disregarded portions of fictitious families’ income to enable over-income families appear to be under-income, and at four centers, applications were doctored by someone to show the families were under-income. GAO investigators recorded conversations between the fictitious families and employees, which can be heard here.

It is difficult to say how widespread these activities might be; but, it is likely that in some centers, families who need Head Start services the most aren’t getting them. This is the real tragedy of the GAO news.

Gregory D. Kutz, managing director for forensic audits and special investigations at GAO, testified at yesterday’s hearing and said that one of GAO’s major concerns is that under-income children are put on waiting lists while over-income children are enrolled. Of the 550 Head Start centers the GAO contacted, only 44 had open slots. According to the report, in Florida alone, 8,000 children are on waiting lists for Head Start programs. It is clear that there is a need for more Head Start programs to serve the extensive demand.

There is also a need for better oversight of existing programs to make sure eligible children are accepted. Kutz said the system is vulnerable to both grantee and beneficiary fraud, in part, because income documents are not verified and grantees are not currently required to keep copies of source documents.

Nazario of HHS pledged to take several measures to strengthen federal oversight. In the coming weeks, she said, HHS will:

• Conduct unannounced monitoring visits to Head Start grantees;
• Create and publicize a web-based hotline that will allow those with information of impropriety to report it to her office;
• Develop new regulations that address verification requirements and staff training on eligibility criteria and procedures;
• Increase oversight, particularly of grantees with identified risk factors; and
• Require grantees to recompete for their grants when questions arise about whether they are offering high-quality services or have management lapses.

She said the recompeting regulations, which are required under the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act (and are already late according to the law’s deadlines), would be issued this summer for public comment. Nazario said they will articulate which grantees will be required to compete for continued Head start funding. (We’ll have the coverage here on Early Ed Watch.)

Expect a flurry of coverage about the GAO’s findings in the media this week. Unfortunately, this will cast a pall over the federal government’s only preschool program for poor families – a program that has been shown in independent research studies to lead to gains in health, literacy and social-emotional development for young children. (While the recent Impact Study showed that the academic gains no longer show up when children exit the first grade, we have argued here that the quality of the elementary schools and the lack of alignment between Head Start and those schools could be a likely culprit.) We hope that this news and the coming reviews, though clearly needed, do not lead to a reduction in federal investments for high-quality early learning programs.

With better federal oversight of Head Start grantees, we can be sure that the children who will benefit from Head Start programs get them.

For more coverage on the GAO’s findings read here and here.

Cross posted on Early Ed Watch

Pushed Out

Before I moved to D.C., I worked for the City of Orlando on an initiative called the Parramore Kidz Zone (PKZ). (Read more about it here.) Parramore is a small neighborhood in downtown Orlando where about 2,100 kids live. The poverty rate in the neighborhood is high; educational attainment is low.

There are lots of older youth and young adults, aged 16-24, who roam the neighborhood looking for a way to support themselves and for someone to care. They are creative, bright, and curious, but many are on a dangerous, unhealthy path. Why? Many of these young people were "pushed out" of high school.

In Florida, students must pass the FCAT, the state standardized test, to graduate from high school. The FCAT is also used to grade schools. Using an A-F scale, schools are assigned a grade and given financial rewards based on the number of students that pass the FCAT. In high school, students take the FCAT in 10th grade. If they don't pass, for graduation purposes, they can try again in 11th and 12th grade.

All too often, some students, as early as their tenth grade year, are encouraged by their school to enroll in alternative education programs (technical education programs or GED programs). Students are told they lack too many credits or are too far behind. They are told technical education or getting their GED would be better for them the school says. But students and their parents are not told the long-term consequences of their decisions. The decision is often made quickly, and is presented with the school's best interest in mind, not the student's. Schools are passively encouraged to do this. They don't intend to harm students.

But, if the students that are so far behind have enrolled in other alternative options when test day comes around, they won't bring down the school's grade. In addition, they don't count as dropouts, because technically, they haven't "dropped out." They have been pushed out. Our public education system has failed these students and led them down a path that will likely hurt their long-term chances of being successful in life.

PKZ finds these students and helps them find a better path. PKZ also helps connect younger children and their families to the opportunities and supports they need so they never get that far behind. Read one promising story here.

Cross posted on http://blog.rethinklearningnow.com/.

What's the Matter With Florida?

For better or worse Florida and Texas have long been pioneers in education reform. Unfortunately, the trail the states have blazed – with the exception of Florida’s excellent data collection system – are not ones that other states should follow. From the establishment of voucher programs and school grading systems to making the history curriculum more conservative (Texas) and tying students’ test scores to teacher pay, these states’ efforts are not improving public education—they are dooming it.

Last week in Florida a bill was sent to Governor Charlie Crist for signing that according to Valerie Strauss, Washington Poster blogger, would:

• Make Florida the first state to eliminate tenure for new teachers, putting them all on one-year contracts for the first five years.
• Eliminate class experience and advanced degrees (in most cases) as factors in teacher evaluations and pay increases.
• Require that at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, and pay increases, be based on standardized test scores.
• Require the creation of a slew of new standardized tests for every subject, in every grade that is not already assessed.

The most damaging portion of the bill, in my opinion, is the creation of more standardized tests and the notion of tying 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, and pay increases, to their students’ test scores. Standardized tests are not the best measure of whether students understand and can apply what they are learning—Florida’s students don’t need more of them. Further, placing such enormous weight on the scores will likely only encourage teachers to focus only drilling the subject matter they believe will be tested, especially in the schools where students struggle the most—say goodbye to instilling a love of learning in students and hello to more test preparation.

Students need to be assessed by multiple, diverse measures that determine what they really know and are able to do rather than if they are good at memorization or good test-takers. Standardized tests can be part of the mix, but not the only measure of student achievement and certainly not such a significant measure for determining teacher effectiveness.

The teacher tenure bill before Governor Charlie Crist continues Florida’s trek down the wrong path when it comes to education. It will not improve student achievement or teacher effectiveness in Florida. Instead it will cause good teachers to leave the profession or leave the state.

Why Vouchers?

Simply attending a private school does not guarantee access to more effective teachers, equitable learning opportunities, or a better education. Not all students can obtain vouchers. Vouchers do not cover the full cost of tuition and fees at all participating private schools.

So, why are voucher programs, in some states, not only gaining momentum but also winning bipartisan support?

It makes more sense to invest in solutions that level the playing field for all children. States and school districts need to ensure every child has an effective teacher. States need to make school funding systems more equitable, meaning schools serving children who live in poverty get more funding. Schools should enter into partnerships with local organizations to make sure all children get the supports they need to be successful: health care, academic enrichment, tutoring, mentoring, etc. Schools need to provide all children with a challenging, engaging, relevant, and experiential learning environment.

This is what will improve outcomes for all children.

Opportunity to Learn?

Earlier this week the Governor McDonnell unveiled Virginia’s “opportunity to learn” agenda. Knowing what the Schott Foundation’s Opportunity to Learn (OTL) Campaign encompasses, I would’ve expected Virginia’s legislation to include the following essential elements: access to highly effective teachers, early childhood education, college preparatory curricula, and equitable instructional resources.

But it doesn’t. Virginia’s “opportunity to learn” legislation establishes provisions for:

• the expansion of high-quality charter schools;
• Virtual schools; and
• College partnership lab schools.

Are these bad ideas? Not necessarily, but they don’t guarantee equitable opportunities for all children, which is what OTL is all about. It’s based on research that states when a child has the essential elements mentioned above, that their performance outcomes are both higher and more equitable.

If state governments are serious about ensuring ALL students have the opportunity to learn, they should focus investments in: improving teacher preparation, recruitment, and retention; funding quality early learning opportunities for children birth to five; ensuring students have access to a rigorous, well-rounded curricula, and ensuring that schools and teachers have the resources needed for all students to learn at high levels.

Cross posted at Rethink Learning Now.

Race to the Top and ESEA

In a conversation on To the Point, Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute and Peter Cunningham, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Education’s Office of Communications and Outreach, discussed the Race to the Top (RTTT) competition.

Rothstein raised concerns about the fact that provisions in RTTT do nothing to address the major problems brought about by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). He said, and I would agree, that one of the most significant consequences is curriculum narrowing.Because NCLB holds schools accountable only for student achievement (based on state tests) in math and reading, many have responded by focusing on basic math and reading skills as well as test preparation. And, in too many states the tests are one-dimensional—poor measures of what students have learned and are able to do.

RTTT does the same thing— student achievement based on reading and math scores on state tests is what matters. Cunningham agreed that narrowing is a “very real issue.” But, he also states that RTTT was not an attempt to solve this problem. Cunningham says we need to reauthorize ESEA to do that. He also repeated things the Department has said before: we need to incentivize states to develop better types of assessments and to encourage a diverse curriculum.

But if RTTT is the frame the Department intends to use for its ESEA proposal, as it has been suggested, will these much-needed modifications be left behind?

Cross-posted on: http://blog.rethinklearningnow.com/