Educators around the country tell me they aren’t optimistic about reform. Morale is low. They are overwhelmed by the present and anxious about the future. New evaluation systems, new tests from new consortia, and new curriculum from the Common Core are coming to classrooms everywhere whether teachers are ready or not. And many of them feel that they are not.

We are asking more of teachers than ever before. In theory, there is nothing wrong with this; asking more of people is a way of helping them discover that they can do more. But in practice, it only works if we give them more of what they need to do it. Teachers already feel they aren’t getting enough, so losing even a little hurts big.

The sequester is far from the financial debacle some make it out to be. But I think I understand why many educators and others are so concerned about it. When the camel carries a heavy load, it takes but a straw to break its back.

PD is the Key

Experts tell us that professional development is the key to Common Core success and the linchpin of this round of reform. But educators in the field that I know say they’re not getting the training they need. When they hear about budget cuts, it’s natural for them to assume that even less training will be available.

I have been corresponding about this with many colleagues. Justin Baeder, a former principal and now founder of Curriculum Study Groups, put it this way in a thread of e-mails he and I spun last week:

“The game has changed for teachers. The professional development we've always relied on is not up to the task of taking us to the next level. The Common Core sets a high bar for everyone. We can reach it, but not with a business-as-usual approach.”

In the business-as-usual approach, the amounts and types of training educators receive are not informed by the results these efforts achieve. But with new evaluation systems, educators are working in a results-based world. We demand that they deliver success. But the equivalent demand is not placed upon those of us who support them. That’s why so many educators are on edge and why the sequester makes them even edgier.

Inputs and Outputs

We have an input-output mismatch here.

On the input side, states, districts, and service providers soak up budget dollars whether the services they provide are successful or not. But on the output side, educators don’t have that luxury; they must show positive results under more challenging circumstances regardless of the quality of support they receive.

What we need is a new model for professional development that is also results-based, so that those who provide training—like me—play by the same rules as those who receive it.

Results-based PD would definitely NOT be business as usual. But it’s exactly the new business we need to be in.

What would results-based PD look like? Certainly not the traditional “dollars for days” model we use now. In this approach, people like me earn our fees simply by showing up and delivering services—services that do not include ensuring that our clients reach their goals.

So how do we do PD differently? Four things make sense to me: (1) Iterate rapidly through a larger number of smaller efforts; (2) Follow the rules of the research on change; (3) Avoid mass adoption; and (4) Switch from push systems to pull systems.

Iterate Rapidly

Smaller programs for fewer people executed over shorter periods of time reduce risk and increase opportunities for success. If one approach doesn’t work, ample time and resources remain to try another approach, and another and another, until we find something that does. If we think that only 15% of professional development programs will be successful, we should set ourselves up to try at least six or seven of them in order to be certain that we find one that works.

To make this many attempts, however, we have to make them quickly. That’s where rapid iteration comes in. The attempts we make must be small in scope, efficient in their execution, and targeted directly at specific hypotheses that can be easily evaluated and quickly confirmed or denied.

Follow the Rules

Dr. Everett Rogers began studying change in the late 1950s and repeated his research each decade thereafter until his death in 2004. He always got the same results.

Rogers may not be well-known outside of the social sciences but his term “early adopter” is known to almost all of us. Rogers’ work showed that within social systems like schools and school districts, to name just two of the dozens he studied, change occurs in a predictable pattern: a tiny group of innovators comes up with something new, then a small group of early adopters takes up these changes as well. Seeing the success of early adopters, a larger group, the early majority, comes on next. After that, it’s the late majority, and finally the laggards.

Even more compelling is Rogers’ idea of critical mass, that crucial inflection point of the adoption curve where change begins to accelerate on its own. Most people think they need 60% to 70% of a group to reach critical mass. But this isn’t even close.

Rogers’ work showed that change often rockets upward and breaks orbit at adoption rates well below 50%. This means we need only bring together the innovators, the early adopters, and a portion of the early majority to put a change initiative on the path to success.

Avoid Mass Adoption

In the business-as-usual model of PD in education, mass adoption is the most common approach. Services are thrown at everyone at the same time. We know from our experience and our own common sense that this doesn’t work. Rogers’ research tells us why: at the start of a change initiative, as much as 90% of our effort and resources are marshaled in support of people who aren’t ready yet, simply because it is in their nature to wait for others to go first.

The trick here is to identify early adopters accurately and then, in concert with innovators, to focus attention and resources on ensuring their success. There are many ways of doing this. Opt-in approaches are often the easiest because they encourage early adopters to self-identify. As long as we are clear about what we are asking them to opt into, this crucial group becomes self-organizing.

Targeting early adopters is almost always successful. Even better is the fact that this group is naturally inclined to bring the next group along, too. It’s no surprise, then, that when we follow Rogers’ rules of change, change becomes the rule and not the exception.

The business-as-usual PD model, however, runs counter to Rogers’ work. The traditional mass adoption process in education is not research-based. This is one reason why even the best research-based methods so often fail.

No matter how good something is, when it is imposed upon an entire population over too short a time, only a few people pick it up. Mass adoption is not a good model for sustainable change. So it’s not a good model for professional development, especially now when resources are scarce and success is so important.

Pull Don’t Push

Business-as-usual means pushing out PD to large numbers of people whether they are ready to receive it or not. A better approach would be a pull system where those who are ready literally pull change through schools and districts to others beyond themselves.

This is both respectful and resourceful. It takes advantage of the fact that at any given time only a specific group of people will apply the training or support that is offered. Here again, opt-in approaches with explicit guidelines encourage self-identification and self-organization. The result: more change achieved with fewer resources expended—and much less conflict.

Pull systems allow teachers, not trainers, to drive change. If, and only if, early adopters reach success can the next round of people be pulled in—and the next round of funding kicked off. This encourages service providers to provide better service because they know up front that only results will be rewarded by re-engagement.

In a pull system, initial investments are safe because they are small. Best of all, only those changes that are successful get scaled up to the next slightly larger group, once again optimizing resource allocation by spending the fewest resources necessary to achieve the best results possible.

It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

If, as my colleague Mr. Baeder suggests, the game has changed, then playing by the rules of change will increase our success. Because Rogers’ work is well-established, and because most of us understand it intuitively even if we haven’t studied it formally, using it will be more agreeable to more people. More agreement means less friction and less waste.

Though predictions about the success of Common Core implementations have been largely negative, I am not. With a research-based approach to professional development, I am optimistic and excited about contributing to better results for students and their families, more satisfaction for teachers and principals, and sustainable growth for districts and schools.

As Mr. Baeder also wrote to me:

“We know all students can meet high standards because teachers across the country are getting it done. The challenge is making it happen everywhere. The solutions are out there, but our traditional approach of scaling exemplary practice isn’t up to the task."

Exemplary practice can only be scaled when the exemplars pull in their next most likely peers. Change doesn’t scale by force of will or fact of adoption. Change scales by force of nature—human nature.

Business-as-usual professional development doesn’t build change, it burns down budgets often before change takes root. Results-based professional development is more likely to be successful and more fiscally responsible.

Professional development can be done by states and districts or by outside service providers. It can be done in person, online, or through blended learning scenarios. But form must follow function. Results-based professional development, where part of providing it is showing that it works, ensures that change initiatives function as intended.

Results-based professional development is better than the business-as-usual approach because it aligns the interests of those who provide it with the interests of those who receive it. When interests are aligned, people are aligned. When people are aligned, change comes more easily. And alignment is what this next round of reform is all about.

Irresponsible Leadership That Goes Beyond Pinocchio's Noses

The Center for Education Reform wrote last week about the Chicken Little behavior this administration is leading on education, along with countless school leaders and association spokespeople. We are happy to have sparked a mini-debate on the subject! But what remains absolutely astonishing is that among all of these thousands of entities that spend and receive federal money, no one seems to know or to be even talking about how the almighty federal dollar flows.

NEWS FLASH -- there isn't a pool of money sitting in the Department of the Treasury with educational purpose just waiting to be cut. The reality is MOST OF THE MONEY FOR THIS YEAR - almost 90% of it -- has been drawn down or collected by states and districts!!! Some states -- like New Jersey -- already have all of their money for the year.

Of that which remains -- limited Title funds, some Head Start, for example -- between 5-8% of the remaining 10% will likely be reduced. That amounts to less a half a percent overall for the year!

I've personally called people who should know whether and how federal spending flows and what might be left that states need, yet they've been clueless. There is no public information available by the US Department of Education that shows what has been distributed to every state and district and what remains. Without data, no wonder school districts are in a tizzy!

It's easy to incite outrage when our leaders -- who the public presumes understand policy and budgets -- tell people they are going to lose their beloved teachers, the arts, after-school, food, early childhood and more.

The reality is that while school and school district bean counters most likely know for certain what money they have, what funds they might lose and how, the US Education Secretary clearly doesn't, and superintendents and school board officials aren't saying. After all, it's easier to create a problem than a solution.

That's plausible, some might say, but what about the fiscal year that starts October 1?

Well, Congress must contend with pending budget issues regardless of sequestration, and yes the uncertainly of spending levels absolutely affects the plans some may have had. Schools and districts should prepare for the kind of reduction that is often caused by natural enrollment fluctuations when student populations change, either due to birth rate impact, changes in regional composition, or even competition.

Financial fluctuations are a fact of life for most public enterprises. It's not new and it happens every few years for schools, regardless of who's in power. In the all-important enterprise of education, it's time we recognize that what we know and how we conduct ourselves is especially critical to the children and students whose lives we aspire to improve. We must demonstrate that truth, problem-solving, intellectual rigor and the ability to weather any storm are critical attributes worth having and worth learning, in and out of school.

Jeanne Allen, President, Center for Education Reform

While Education Secretary Arne Duncan may have been loose in his remarks on sequestration last week, the education community should not respond-in-kind when it comes to the very real threat of budget shortfalls, school closings and “pink slips” that can devastate our children and communities. This is especially true for our youngest learners, who will ultimately decide the fate of our nation and economy.

Without hyperbole, here are the facts.

As sequestration takes effect, more than 70,000 children nationwide will lose access to Head Start and Early Head Start and approximately 14,000 Head Start personnel are set to receive pink slips. These are instrumental programs that yield lifelong benefits for vulnerable children by providing the building blocks for cognitive and character development. They also provide families with stable, secure care for their children, making it possible for parents to work, earn a living and contribute to their communities.

In a time of impending austerity, we must find ways to stretch tax-payer dollars and cast a wider net of American prosperity for future generations. Early childhood development is one of our best bets. As economist and Nobel Laureate James Heckman has shown, investing in high quality early childhood education from birth to five is one of the most cost effective methods for improving education, health and economic outcomes in both the short- and long-term. Every $1 invested in quality early learning programs for disadvantaged children can yield a 7 to 10 percent return – per child, per year ­– through increased school achievement, healthy behaviors and adult productivity. At this critical juncture, we should be using this and other groundbreaking research to inform where we invest, where we cut back and how to set effective policy.

But don’t just leave it simply to the researchers: more than two-thirds of Americans agree that early childhood is a game changer. In a recent survey of more than 1,000 adults, the First Five Years Fund found that 67 percent of Americans support public funding for quality birth to five educational programs, much like the one President Obama laid out in his State of the Union address. The message for lawmakers is loud and clear: in the face of broad-reaching budget cuts, we must be smarter in how we educate our citizens. Specifically, that means greater investment in quality early learning from birth to five, especially for disadvantaged children.

The adverse effects of sequestration on students and teachers should not be dismissed simply because the Education Secretary misspoke on its details. Nor is confusion on when, where and how it will it hit an excuse for inaction. If politicians decide to shortchange early childhood, they shortchange America’s future.

Let's see. Sounding a lot like an anguished teen, Secretary Duncan has suggested that a 5.3% cut in federal education programs (which account for about 10% of K-12 spending) is devastating. Now, as memory serves, this is the same guy who (falsely) claimed in 2010 that districts had been slashing spending, "through muscle, to bone" since 2003. It's also the guy who brags that the feds provided more than $60 billion in K-12 stimulus in 2009, and another $10 billion or so in 2010 EduJobs dollars. To me, it all feels a bit like a lovelorn teen, gyrating from hysteria to euphoria.

K-12 has gotten north of $75 billion in borrowed stimulus funds in the past couple years...and is now faced with trimming about $3 billion a year in federal outlays. Horrors. How should K-12 officials respond to the need to cut a fraction of one percent of K-12 spending? Like adults. They should recognize that the feds can't keep spending borrowed funds at the rate we have been, appreciate the wad of federal cash they got in Obama's first term, and pledge to trim spending in smart ways. By the way: if K-12 leaders focus on making it clear that they're committed to using limited funds wisely and well, they may be pleasantly surprised by the response.

The problem with the Sequester is that no one ever thought that it would happen. It is $85 billion in cuts without rhyme or reason. Indiscriminate cuts made regardless of program demand or effectiveness that will, by virtue of its poor design, hurt those that can least afford it.

Last June AASA held an event at the Capitol, concerned that no one in Washington was paying attention to the Sequester. No one seemed to be listening. Throughout the Presidential campaign no one paid attention to the Sequester. It will never happen, was the response we always received. Guess what, it happened.

After pressing the Department of Education for more information on the impact of Sequestration, last July Secretary Duncan sent a letter to the state chief school officers advising them that Sequestration would not immediately impact school districts, but it would affect school budgets for the 2013-2014 school year. There was a discernible sigh of relief from superintendents around the country that were concerned with having to make cuts half way through this school year. That, in essence, is the problem that the administration is having in raising the alarm on the education cuts. Other than for districts receiving Impact Aid, school districts around the country will not be affected until next September, six month from now. AASA’s survey of superintendents show that for districts affected, those receiving Federal aid, an average of 4.8 teaching jobs will be eliminated. Parents will not become agitated until later this Spring when school districts begin the budget process for next year and announce the cuts that will be made as a result of losing 5.2% of their federal funding.

The school districts most hurt by Sequestration are the ones that can least afford it. It will be the districts with a high percentage of children on free and reduced lunch who receive the highest amount of federal aid. It will be districts with a high concentration of children with special education students who will see a 5.2% cut in their IDEA funds. School districts will have six months to plan for the cuts, but the results in September will not be pleasant. Not after five years of significant reductions in budgets, personnel, and services.