Bill Jackson is absolutely right that one key ingredient for successfully engaging the lowest performing schools in the country is public will. As many district leaders have found out to their chagrin over the years, parents and community leaders sometimes mobilize to defend even the lowest performing schools in their midst—and as I’ve witnessed myself in Connecticut’s cities, parents in some of the lowest achieving schools often paradoxically grade their own child’s school at the top of the scale even while panning a district’s performance overall. 

This is one set of real challenges that need to be overcome in order to realize the vision that Secretary Duncan has set forth for turning around the 5,000 lowest performing schools across the country (and he should be congratulated for proposing to put the weight of the Title I School Improvement funding stream behind this effort in the draft guidance published last week).

One model to look to in this regard is the Hartford, Connecticut school district, which has launched a comprehensive turnaround plan under the leadership of Superintendent Steve Adamowski over the past several years. The district is not a large one by national standards, just over 20,000 students and forty some schools, but as the second poorest city in the nation it has also historically been ground zero for Connecticut’s worst-in-the-nation achievement gap. 

Under Adamowski’s “All Choice” reform plan, the starting point has been the district’s ranking of all of its existing schools top to bottom on academic performance. Targeting the half dozen schools in the bottom tier, the district has actually employed three of the four turnaround models specified in the Duncan’s recently released guidance: “turnaround,” “school closure” and “transformation.” In practical terms this has meant that about 15 percent of the district’s schools have been closed for no reason other than abysmally low academic performance (e.g. fewer than 5 percent of 4th graders reading at grade level). Ordinarily, one might expect that this volume of neighborhood school closures would have prompted large-scale community protests. And while there have been some noisy parent forums along the way, the reality has been very different because the district has paired its closure strategy with an even greater wave of new school openings—16 new or totally reconstituted schools have sprung up over the same time period. As part of this effort, the district has adopted a portfolio management approach, welcoming in high-performing charter school management organizations like Achievement First, as well as fostering school management partnerships with the Core Knowledge Foundation, Montessori and others. 

In addition to the challenge of building public will, turnaround efforts at scale also require an explicit human capital strategy. In Hartford’s case this is very much a work in progress, but one key pillar so far has been the district’s recruitment of as many Teach for America corps members as it can get its hands on—just three years in, TFA now accounts for something approaching 5% of the total teaching staff district wide. Given the district’s pressing need for entrepreneurial leaders to staff out its many new schools, the district also aggressively pursued New Leaders for New Schools during its last national RFP, but came in runner up to Charlotte-Mecklenburg in that competition. Accordingly the district is now working with a local funder to create its own school leadership academy.

The results of all of this for student learning are certainly encouraging. There are now two years of student achievement data since the All Choice plan was implemented and the Hartford district has reversed a decade long decline and has posted performance gains that dramatically outpace the state for the past two years running. This past year, for instance, the percentage of elementary and middle school students performing at grade level on the state mastery tests increased 4 points—on top a 3 point increase the year before—a pace which will erase the achievement gap in less than a decade.

But it’s worth noting a caution from Hartford’s example: this kind of new schools driven turnaround strategy rests critically on the entrepreneurial zeal of the school leaders themselves, whose academic achievement gains now earn them increasing autonomy over their school budgets and staffing. Likewise, it rests in no small measure on a school board which is subject to mayoral control and unified by a shared reform as embodied in the superintendent’s own dynamic leadership style. These are conditions which are missing in all too many struggling schools and districts right now…

Collapse

What strikes me as so important about Senator Ted Kennedy’s work in education isn’t one moment or one story, but rather his willingness over many years to push his Democratic colleagues to embrace the concept of accountability for student achievement. He realized, before almost anyone else, that getting access to education for poor and minority students wasn't enough -- especially if the quality of that education was substandard. More money for kids, which he always fought for, wasn't enough either. To him, results mattered. 

Today, our national education policy focuses on results because Ted Kennedy insisted on it, reached within and across party boundaries to find the necessary allies, and continued to support it even when it would have been politically expedient to just do things they way they’ve always been done.

We educators and advocates working to close gaps in educational opportunity and achievement owe much to his courageous voice for simple justice. He stood with us well before our cause was popular. He recruited partners for the cause in some of the most surprising places. He supported us when the road was rough. But what may be most important is that he constantly pushed us, challenging all who serve America’s children to do better by them, especially the most vulnerable. 

Collapse

A few comments to finish "my half of the third inning" with Monty Neill, and then I propose we take our continuing battle offline!

The opponents of NCLB can't say in the face of all the evidence to the contrary that it's not working to improve student achievement for disadvantaged students. So, instead, they say that the pace of gains has slowed from the preceding period. The problem with this assertion is that it's based on an unjustified sleight of hand in the use of data. You have "to watch the magician's hands closely" to see the trick.

What these critics do is lump the very good 2003 NAEP scores into the "pre-NCLB" period in order to show that the "pre-NCLB" period was better than the "post-NCLB" period. The only problem here, of course, is that NCLB was passed toward the end of 2001!

I've talked with serious and objective statisticians and methodologists about how to count the 2000-2003 period, hoping that I could use it in the "post-NCLB" period to show NCLB gains. After all, two of the three years of testing came after NCLB became law. These experts have told me that it would be wrong to do that, just as wrong to put it in the "pre-NCLB" period, and probably wisest to exclude this crossover period in any pre-post analysis. I've followed that advice since, and I suggest Monty and his crowd do the same.

Finally, Monty wants to explain the fabulous gains from the late nineties to the present by attributing them to a flood of new money rather than the reforms states and the feds began to put in place in the mid-90s. Here are data on education spending, and it appears that percentage increases seem pretty uniform throughout the whole period. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_025.asp?referrer=report

It's a judgment we all have to make. But given the sudden and dramatically positive turn in the NAEP scores of minority students that I cited in my last comment, any decision to roll back the reforms would be done at our greatest peril.

Collapse

Jim Kohlmoos, president and CEO of Knowledge Alliance www.nekia.org/, submitted the following in relation to the college-readiness question:

Right now, we don’t know. 

 Little data, and therefore no significant knowledge base, exists to address the lack of college ready students. If college readiness is a public priority, the government should quickly mobilize the national research and development initiative to find research-based, innovative solutions to this pressing problem. Other sectors do it. Why not education?

To date, the issue has not been a focus of the What Works Clearinghouse or research centers. Federal and state governments have not adequately invested in research to uncover present problems of practice. In fact, only one twentieth of one percent of the federal research and development budget goes to funding education research and development. 

With an agenda to change those statistics, the White House aims to focus on and strengthen high schools through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by making “progress toward college and career-ready standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning.”

In addition to common college and career-ready standards, the Administration plans to help America “build a new foundation strong enough to withstand future economic storms and support lasting prosperity. That means having the best-educated, highest-skilled workers in the world …and investing in research and development,” Obama said.

Federal education policy has evolved in phases over the past 15 years in concert with the implementation of the elements of standards-based reform. The focus on standards and assessments in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s spawned major attention to the alignment of standards, curriculum, and assessments in the 1990’s which has led, in part, to the current emphasis on accountability in No Child Left Behind. The next logical step in the reauthorization of NCLB is to develop standards that raise academic expectations, combined with significant investments in R&D that gathers evidence of what works to prepare high school students for college and beyond. This will put us on the right path of ensuring that high school seniors are ready for college and our nation will remain competitive on the global stage.

Collapse

 Among my fondest memories of Senator Ted Kennedy are recollections of his keen attention whenever he heard an idea that he thought might improve education and transform children’s life opportunities, particularly for our most vulnerable students. Whether in private meetings or Senate hearings, he would fix that that intense gaze on you and lean forward with a contagious sense of urgency to learn everything possible about what might be possible to move the learning agenda forward. He would take in information at the speed of light, asking insightful questions that revealed the wealth of knowledge he had assembled over many years of caring about these issues, scribble notes, and often turn to his aides to follow up, punctuating his intentions with animated gestures. And follow up he did, leaving a legacy of ground-breaking legislation in his wake, moving the federal behemoth in the direction of stronger schools and teaching.

Ted Kennedy’s personal investment in the welfare of those he sought to help was evident; his genuine outrage at injustices was matched only by his infectious joy at evidence of progress. He greeted each ally in the journey with that warm smile and large handshake that pulled along thousands in the quest to a better America. 

With the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, America has lost a great fighter for equity, fairness, and the great American Dream. Let us hope that in remembering him and honoring his legacy we will take up his mission with renewed energy and focus.  There is much to do to rectify the inequalities that are deeply embedded in our system of education, and we will need to marshal both the irrepressible energy and the great spirit of bipartisanship toward common goals that Senator Kennedy personified.   

Collapse

Senator Ted Kennedy led a tireless crusade advocating for the sick, the poor, the disabled — the under-privileged. For forty years Kennedy fought for our children, demanding universal access to quality education and advancing legislation to reform and strengthen schools across the country.  He was a devoted volunteer in local D.C. and Massachusetts schools, teaching the value of public service in tackling the dropout crisis and strengthening our education system.

While I didn't know the senator personally, every major education law passed since the 1960s has borne Kennedy's imprint, from Head Start to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Language in the No Child Left Behind Act — a law he helped to reauthorize — emphasizes parental involvement as one of the key factors for student success, a cause I'm fostering through my work at GreatSchools.  Empowering and guiding parents to become effective champions of education at home and in their communities will give our children a greater opportunity to succeed.  As Kennedy stated at the memorial of his brother Robert, "Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation."

Let's remember him best by following in the footsteps of the senator's legacy and working together to bend history itself.

Collapse

For me the two questions on the table this week actually converge.  Preparing students for college is an issue to which Senator Kennedy devoted much of his life. Like some of my colleagues, I admired him because he was unflinching in his resolve and commitment to get accomplished what he believed needed to be done, and he did not back off – ever – from trying to solve this country’s education crisis. Even though many of his approaches to doing so were not and are not mine, he was an example for all of us.  Kennedy’s statesmanship didn’t cause him to compromise his values, but to respect and acknowledge differences. Notice, however, that Kennedy never conceded a point he didn’t believe just to be agreeable. He accepted less than the ideal only when he won most of what he wanted.  For my part, nowhere is that more clear than in negotiations over No Child Left Behind.  I credit Ted Kennedy with helping to end the long-standing invisible ban on discussing quality issues in the same breath as federal funding of education. Until NCLB, the federal policy dialogue was limited to issues of how much, not how good. The conventional wisdom was that money was the only answer, and that schools could not be expected to be good when they had to serve so many children coming to school with so many deficiencies. It’s hard to believe that only a few short years ago this was the case, and anyone that suggested otherwise was considered anti-public education.

Kennedy broke down that wall and I had one chance to tell him that, though he looked at me rather quizzically when instead of doing the typical Washington handshake offering plaudits and accolades, I simply said “Thank you, sir, for allowing quality in education to be seriously debated for the first time in Congress, ever.”

That for me is his real legacy, and it’s noteworthy because NCLB really did undo the tide of conventional wisdom he helped create up until that point that focused on money, not reform. Indeed, I would have liked the chance to find out from the distinguished Senator why – as F. Scott Fitzgerald would say, at 2 o’clock in the morning in the darkness of your soul -- he really did not believe that children stuck in failing schools should not have access, with public support, to private and parochial school options. Perhaps he would have told us that it was a devil’s bargain he struck with the unions long ago.  Whatever the case, it is one of the many contradictions Kennedy’s life represented.

Speaking of contradictions, preparing kids for college is really not as complicated as the dialogue this week suggests.  We really do know what it means to be well educated, whether you measure it in as an accomplishment of literature, arts, sciences or vocations. The learned person knows much (including what she doesn’t know), can articulate it, can demonstrate it under the most challenging of circumstances and has a broad, robust portfolio of knowledge that expands over time about matters relating to history, the arts, the sciences and the world.   We need to start speaking about preparation in terms of learning (in the way that both Thomas Jefferson in the past and E.D. Hirsch in the present have clearly articulated) rather than in a way that suggests we are simply conveying a tangible battery of skills and steps to follow.  Indeed our best K-12 schools already do this, as do our best universities.  They need no additional oversight from pundits or politicians.
 

Collapse

UNCF joins the nation and the world in mourning the passing of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. For his entire forty-seven-year career in the United States Senate, he stood with us and with all friends of education in the fight to see that all Americans have the opportunity to get the education they need and that the nation needs them to have. He was an early and stalwart supporter of the fight to outlaw legalized discrimination of every stripe--race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability and age—in every facet of American life: voting rights, public accommodations, medical care and, closest to our hearts, education. 

But he was also among the earliest to understand that the legal right to an education means little if access was made difficult or impossible by financial barriers. In recent years, he sponsored increases in Pell Grants, the largest federal student financial aid program, of which he had been an original sponsor in 1972.   He championed last year’s College Cost and Reduction Act, which invested $170 million in historically black colleges and universities. And even during his final illness, he remained engaged and active during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.  

He also understood that access to the education system is of limited value if the education given, especially in low-income and minority neighborhoods, does not prepare students for college or work. As always, he followed his convictions, even crossing the partisan divide to support Bush administration legislation to improve the education our public school systems give their students.

The commitment to education that Sen. Kennedy and UNCF shared was part of a Kennedy family commitment that reaches back more than a half-century and continues today. It was fifty years ago this year that Sen. Edward Kennedy’s brother, then-Senator John F. Kennedy, addressed the 1959 Convocation of UNCF in Indianapolis, Indiana. “It is no exaggeration,” he said on that occasion, “to say that there are few educational drives more important or of more vital significance than that of the United Negro College Fund.” “In this world of crisis,” he said, education is “an urgent requirement of national security.”

Both John and Edward Kennedy referred often to the torch of leadership. President Kennedy spoke in his inaugural address of the torch that had been passed to a new generation of Americans. Last year, supporting the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, Sen. Kennedy said that “the torch will be passed again to a new generation of Americans."  

The torch that the Kennedy family carried for so long has also been passed to the next generation. Last March, President Kennedy’s daughter Caroline accepted UNCF’s President’s Award for her work on behalf of elementary and secondary education. “All my family, my uncles and my mother,” she recalled, “believed in the power of words and ideas to change the world and change lives. And UNCF makes that change possible for the future leaders of our country. A college education is the key to opening the door to the American dream and the global economy, and no one has opened that door for more young Americans than UNCF.”

Almost thirty years ago, Sen. Kennedy captured the way so many of us feel today, as we mourn his passing and pledge to complete the work that he helped us with for so many years. “For all those whose cares have been our concern,” he said in1980, in words that still resonate today, “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

Collapse

The loss of Senator Edward M. Kennedy signifies the end of an era for this country. His unwavering commitment to education, civil rights and health care reform serves as a lasting blueprint for successful leadership. Through his words and actions, Sen. Kennedy reinforced the message that
education can be a great equalizer, regardless of race, class or gender.

In my 10th year as superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools, I have seen students meet and exceed expectations when given the proper tools. I have shaken the hands of graduates who never envisioned attending college, but proudly plan to pursue master’s and doctoral degrees.

The seeds for their success were planted on Capitol Hill, with support from individuals like Sen. Kennedy. He truly understood the challenges — and
the rewards — of supporting urban school reform.    

His voice and commitment will be sorely missed.

Service to others and the simple but powerful principle that education was an essential right were cornerstones of Senator Kennedy’s life, and his work on behalf of those ideals has made an immeasurable difference in the lives of millions of children, youth and families. We at America’s Promise Alliance mourn the passing of Senator Kennedy but we celebrate his legacy and say “thank you” for the tremendous work he did to make America’s educational system and the children it serves a top national priority.

The Alliance has been fortunate to have had the support of Senator Kennedy since our inception in 1997, and when we launched our Dropout Prevention Campaign more than a year ago, we knew we could not execute a national initiative on an educational crisis like this without him. To that end, each of our 105 Dropout Prevention Summits begins with a powerful video about the dropout crisis. Without fail, every time Senator Kennedy’s passionate plea that “Every day we delay we’re failing our children and our country,” comes on the screen, summit attendees understand just a little better the importance of our work and why we need to act.

Sadly, the voice of children is often muted in the legislative process. That’s why the Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged Act and Graduation Promise Act—two key pieces of legislation that Senator Kennedy helped design that put young people and the graduation crisis on the radar screen of the federal government—are so important. 

We can’t forget the recent Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which will most certainly go down as one of his shining legacies. We know that service is about more than “doing good;” it’s about the power of citizens to change society. We see its impact firsthand with young people where those who are engaged in service are much more likely to graduate high school. 

Senator Kennedy’s work has touched the lives of all our partners, but his understanding that the health of our communities hinges on the well-being of our children was what made him special. We will continue to forge ahead on the trail that he helped to blaze to ensure that every young person has access to the best education available and the ultimate opportunity to live up to their potential.  

Collapse

I was about to respond to the college discussion today with some comments about the need to broaden the conversation about post high school education to include the kinds of education that are more likely to be needed by 60% or more of graduates who will probably not go to a four year college.

 But I am glad we are changing the conversation to focus on Senator Kennedy. I have 2 personal memories of the Senator.

The first was April, 1960, in Hinton, West Virginia. The West Virginia primary was a few weeks away and the Kennedy machine came to my town—all three brothers and Jackie and a sister or two were there. I was 16, editor of my high school newspaper, and in love with politics. I was not an immediate fan of any of the Kennedy family.

But, goodness, they were charismatic. As Ted Kennedy’s stood in front of Jack’s Restaurant trapped in a mob, shifting from foot to foot, he looked like he wanted to be somewhere else. I got close enough to ask him something, trying to be a real reporter. He turned on that incredible smile and I forgot being a reporter and asked for his autograph.

In 1980, I was working in Cleveland on school desegregation and school finance issues. My office was in the Old Arcade in downtown Cleveland, a glorious building whose first big political rally was for William McKinley (I think). Carter had the delegate numbers to win but the UAW and other unions decorated every inch of the exquisitely shined brass railings on four floors with those baby blue Kennedy signs. The town turned out and filled the entire arcade. He stood atop the cigar stand on the first floor and gave one of those roaring, red faced, arm waving rants about how this country could do better and he should lead the Democrats in that quest. The crowd responded in full throated roar as well. It was the best political rally I have ever witnessed. I was sorry he did not win the nomination but came to believe it was a blessing that he remained in the Senate to fight and win many battles for good policy.

Much will be said in the days ahead about the Senator’s achievements for education. And they are many. He was simply the greatest Senator of his time. One sadness for me this day is that he will not be around to make a better federal education law. He settled for what he could get in NCLB and thought he had made a bargain for substantial new federal investments in education. We got the tests and the rules but only a pittance of additional money. In places in rural America where millions of poor children reside and taxable wealth is limited, only a very generous federal government can close the resource gap that will guarantee strong teachers and excellent schools. Those children, indeed all whose cares have been his concern, have lost a champion.

Collapse

The death of Senator Kennedy is a great loss for everyone who knew him and all the Americans whose lives he touched. Ted came from a wealthy family and he could have chosen a life of leisure, but instead he chose a career of hard work in public service and was one of the most dedicated and informed senators I ever met. He believed his job was to protect human dignity and whether it was issues of health, education, pensions or other issues important to our families, he was a fiercely determined advocate.

We worked together often on education issues, particularly during the Head Start Reauthorization in 2007. Through our work together over the years, he and I became friends and he often came to my hometown of Flint, Michigan. He particularly enjoyed visiting Buick UAW local 599 where he was always welcomed with tremendous enthusiasm and where he always felt comfortable and very much at home.

I have a lot of acquaintances in Congress and many friends, but one who I really felt close to and whose company I really enjoyed was Ted Kennedy. His death is a great loss for the entire country, but I am hopeful that in his death, we will be energized to pass the health care reform that he fought so tirelessly for throughout his life.

I'll respond to Monty's latest post tomorrow, reserving today for reflections and memories of Senator Kennedy.

Senator Edward Kennedy was a true American hero—a stalwart defender of the values and ideals upon which this country was founded. He was also a principled and unflinching advocate who worked tirelessly on behalf of all Americans, black and white, democrat and republican. I saw these qualities in action on many occasions, but was particularly impressed by his passion when we worked together to achieve bi-partisan unity in passing the No Child Left Behind Act. The Senator cared.

My first up close and personal encounter with Senator Kennedy came when President-Elect George W. Bush nominated me as the 7th United States Secretary of Education. The nomination process required that I meet with each member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), including its formidable chairman, Senator Kennedy, himself.  The Senator was clearly a very liberal Democrat, and I was the nominee of a very conservative Republican President-Elect.  I can still recall my stomach churning when I first walked into his office.

I was caught up in the moment when suddenly, from behind me, a strong voice rang out, saying: “Dr. Paige, Good morning. Thank you for your visit.” I turned and found myself looking directly in the eyes of the Lion of the Senate. It was a momentous occasion but he was quick to put me at ease.

My fears of getting embroiled in partisan politics were quickly put to rest as our conversation turned into a discussion of the needs of the country and its children. It became clear that this was a man who, like me, wanted desperately to find solutions to America’s educational challenges. We agreed on some points, we disagreed on others, but at the end of the meeting we both understood that we needed to work together to achieve the change America needed. I left the meeting feeling “I like this guy.”

During my four years as Secretary of Education we talked often. In fact, on several occasions he called to advise in advance that he was going to take positions in opposition to Administration positions. It was a courtesy that was typical of his style and well appreciated. My position afforded me the opportunity to meet and interact with many member of Congress who I grew to admire and respect. But I can say without reservations that Senator Kennedy was my idea of a great United States Senator.

I wish to express my profound sympathy to the entire Kennedy family on the passing of a true American Statesman, Senator Edward Kennedy. He was by any account a special human being. 

Collapse

I will be brief in my response to Sandy's latest post on NAEP. He and I do agree that people should examine those results carefully in light of other evidence on the impact of NCLB.

First, score gaps closed dramatically and scores increased greatly from the introduction of NAEP until the late 1980s. In some cases, the gaps have never been closer. That was, as the Civil Rights Project has pointed out, primarily the legacy of desegregation. As desegregation faded, scores declined and gaps widened.

Second, scores have again risen and gaps closed since the late 1990s. Sandy attributes this to high-stakes testing. However, this was a period of a booming economy with substantial investments in education. That scores rose does not mean high-stakes testing or more testing caused it. Many states started to improve their NAEP scores while only testing in three grades and with low or no stakes for schools, as ESEA then mandated.

Third, Sandy does not want to recognize what nearly every trend in NAEP scores shows: since the introduction of NCLB, with more tests and higher stakes, the rate of improvement on NAEP has declined, and many score gaps are now not closing. Sandy wants to lump pre-NCLB and NCLB into an undifferentiated mass and then give credit to NLCB high-stakes accountability for improvements that occurred prior to NCLB, often under far lower stakes systems.

What appears to be happening is that the overly intense focus on boosting state scores is actually slowing down the rate of real improvement. A modest does of accountability may have added to increased funding and other factors in leading to some improvements at least in basic skills. (Some research suggests that is actually the area in which the math gains have mostly occurred.) More intense test-and-punish accountability has turned counter-productive, and certainly will not produce the high-quality schools, teaching and learning all our children deserve. For that, we need a very different approach, as recommended by the Forum on Educational Accountability.

Collapse

FairTest and I deeply appreciate Sen. Kennedy's decades of national leadership on education, his focus on equity, commitment to adequate federal funding, the top-notch staff with whom we often worked, and more.  FairTest recognizes that schools alone will not improve education, and Sen. Kennedy was a vital force for improving communities, job opportunities, health care and many other factors that can help or harm student learning. We disagreed with him on NCLB and the political and educational strategy which has resulted in the current mandates, but for nearly five decades Kennedy was an important force for progressive education reform.

I also was deeply impressed with the Senator's command not only of the broad contours of legislation, but also the details. In discussing what became NCLB, he could recall key points down to specific language.

He was also respectful of our disagreements, seeking to find areas where we concurred as well as clarify where we did not. For example, we agreed on the need for major improvements in assessment, but he did not think he could get such proposals through the Congress in 2001.

Senator Kennedy was a legislative giant. We had little in common ideologically, but his reputation as an honest broker and effective leader is one to which lawmakers of all stripes can aspire. In the years I’ve spent on the education committee, Senator Kennedy’s indelible mark could be seen on all the legislation he touched. I send my deepest condolences to his family for their loss.

Sen. Ted Kennedy was a strong, courageous leader in protecting the basic right of all students to attend great public schools. The NEA’s 3.2 million members recognized his work with our highest honor, the Friend of Education Award, for his leadership.

He was a longtime advocate for teachers and students, and he left an indelible imprint on every major education law passed since the 1960s, including Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, direct student loans and the Class Size Reduction Act. More than any single person, he shaped the modern landscape for public education. His contributions are as numerous as they are lasting. 

Sen. Kennedy’s legislative legacy affects all working Americans and their families. He set an example for all lawmakers by consistently working across the aisles on critical policies, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, COBRA, and health care.

His leadership and lifetime of experience are needed now more than ever, and he will be greatly missed.

Senator Kennedy’s legacy in education is unparalleled. With more than four decades in a leadership role in the United States Senate, his impact has been far reaching – from the Head Start program to graduate education. He was a strong supporter of access to higher education for the poor and underserved populations and, at the same time, he was always challenging higher education. He understood far better and more clearly than many others that the benefits of higher education are broad, that both the individual and society benefit enormously from investment in higher education. He could see that those outcomes are important for our economic well being, our social cohesion and our democracy.

His leadership, even this year with the significant education proposals from the Obama administration, has helped define and shape the debate. His passing will create a vacuum as he was always willing to work in a bipartisan way and that will be sorely missed.

The American Federation of Teachers mourns the passing of one of our own, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was sometimes nicknamed “the senator from AFT.” He earned that playful moniker by virtue of our substantive and long-lasting partnership. Several years ago, we made it official by bestowing upon him an honorary lifetime membership in the AFT.

Ted Kennedy was an incomparably passionate, persuasive and persistent advocate. The causes he championed were some of the most urgent of our time—extending healthcare to those who lacked access, raising the minimum wage to lift hard-working people out of poverty, and pursuing the promise of public education and the labor movement as America’s great equalizers.

Ted Kennedy was a man of gravitas and great accomplishments, yet he wore himself lightly. He was the standard-bearer for progressive policies, yet forged close alliances with opponents to ensure that the right thing became a reality. He built coalitions, and he saw the humanity in all people.

Sen. Kennedy will always be a part of the AFT family. And we will honor his memory by continuing his life’s work—his passion for social justice, his special concern for the most vulnerable among us, and his belief that government can and should be a force for good. There is so much left to be done, but we will pursue our shared goals with the commitment and courage that Sen. Kennedy brought to every cause he championed.

We extend our deepest sympathies to his family and to all those who worked so closely with him. They are in our thoughts and prayers.

Collapse

Thank you, Eliza, for turning our attention to Senator Kennedy. I know he's on all our minds today.

I could fill up more than my share of space with memories of the unforgettable time I was blessed to spend with this extraordinary man during negotiations over NCLB. But I will try to be disciplined in leaving just a few impressions.

He cared so deeply about making a difference for poor children. Like no legislator I've ever known, he spent tremendous amounts of his own time and energy and wisdom in the work, though he had the best staff on the Hill.

He took such good and loving care of his Democratic colleagues' needs. I've seen many fine legislators in my day, including Long and Bentsen. None was better at having the members of his own party involved and "tended to," not because of his name or reputation or power, but rather because of his diligence in making sure their stamp was on  legislation.

I know of no other legislator who did a better job of reaching out to the other side. He respected Republicans' positions on education. He would smile off any attempt at vouchers - to be sure. But everything else was on the table to get to a deal. That respect meant a lot, and there will be a lot of stories this week about it. I remember Kennedy devoting his own time and that of his staff, for example, to making sure supplemental services was done right, and that wasn't even a priority of his. He was so smart.

But, more than anything, I remember his laugh, the ease with which he brought to meetings with lessers such as myself to make others feel comfortable with him, the interest he took in others' lives and interests, and how intimate and personal he could be while also being the most serious person in the room.

He was one of a kind. It will be a long time before another like him passes our way. And, though he wouldn't want us to think it, it's a lot lonelier today for all of us who care about the education of poor children. Perhaps we could, in tribute to him, try  harder to find our way to common gound, and act on it, on the issues we face.

Let's continue on in his spirit.

Collapse

More than anyone else who comes to mind in American public life, Edward M. Kennedy ascended from reprobate to icon, from an object of criticism, even ridicule, to statesman. He made many lasting marks on our policies and politics and just about everyone came to admire and like him. Generations of devoted and able staffers. Fellow Senators and Presidents of both parties. (This list could be extended for miles.) Many tributes and accolades will pour forth in the hours to come. I simply want to recall one episode from 1988.

He was a veteran Senator, a powerhouse in education policy (and many other fields), and pretty much in charge of what was then the latest reauthorization of E.S.E.A. (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). I worked in Ronald Reagan’s education department. Most of our policy proposals found little traction with EMK and his colleagues on the Hill. But the time had come to reinvent the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and Kennedy (and his able staff) understood this. Though the specific proposals to reshape NAEP into approximately its present-day form (with independent governance, state-level data reporting, etc.) emerged from a Bill Bennett-appointed panel—chaired, as it happens, by then Governor, now Senator, Lamar Alexander—and from the Reagan team, Ted Kennedy improved and breathed legislative life into them. Not just in the Senate. He persevered through conference with a less visionary House. And it came to pass. America is the better for it. That’s one small example of his enormous legacy. He’ll be deeply missed. He already is.

Collapse

 We need to begin with the assumption that every student has the potential to be successful in college.  That shouldn’t be a radical statement, but there are still a number of people who quietly believe that not every student can attend college.  

I think Andy is right with his suggestion that states and schools make college prep curriculum the default curriculum for all students.  Achieve’s American Diploma Project (ADP) offers a particularly interesting opt-in model that includes at least four years of English as well as four years of math, including Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, and statistics – core building blocks that help prepare students for college-level work.  

Encouraging students to take more rigorous college-level courses, such as Advanced Placement (AP), is also an important part of a college ready strategy.  Not only do students benefit, but the quality of instruction for general curriculum is also raised as a result of the additional professional development provided to AP teachers.  Studies have shown that AP participation can have a positive effect on students pursuing and completing college.  For example, one study found that students who earned a 3 or better on AP Exams were not only more likely to attend college but also graduate in less than five years.  Another study examined data from five graduating high school classes in Texas - 1998 to 2002 - that totaled more than 300,000 students.  The researchers found that students who took AP courses and exams significantly outperformed similar students and had better GPAs, credit hours earned, and four-year graduation rates.  The National Math and Science Initiative's focus of replicating the AP Training and Incentive Program is driven in part by an evaluation that found students passing AP exams are three times more likely to earn a college degree than students who do not pass. The first year results are impressive including passing scores by African American and Hispanic students increasing by an average of 71 percent and by women by 55 percent.

Searching and applying to college is a daunting exercise for many students and some need extra help to navigate the process.  Education entrepreneurs are helping lead the way in this area by developing new solutions to help inspire students to pursue college.  For example, Naviance is working with districts and states to create individualized student “success plans” which helps students understand prerequisites, links courses to career clusters, and reviews their plans of study against college entrance requirements.  Students are also given a “GPS” of sorts to help navigate and manage the college admissions process, including submitting applications, transcripts, and recommendations. Teachers and administrators can use the reporting tools to track which students haven’t applied to college yet, haven’t been accepted, or who is at risk of not meeting graduation requirements.  Other reports track longer-term outcomes like college placement and the need for remediation.  

NCLB reauthorization offers an opportunity to provide districts and states with incentives to adopt these sorts of approaches, much in the way Race to the Top is encouraging states to change their charter laws, improve their data systems, and enhance their teacher quality initiatives.  

Collapse

Monty Neill wants the evidence of academic gains since 1999. Here it is.

I encourage readers to read this data very carefully. It's a lot easier to read prose than a long recitation of numbers, I realize. But, in this case, the numbers tell all. They are powerful evidence of the success of the standards based reform movement in producing significant gains in academic achievement for poor students and students of color in the elementary and middle grades.

Monty and I have discussed elsewhere the issue of NCLB's impact. We disagree on it, and I'll spare the reader our debate. The main point I am making is that the reforms made in the states beginning in the early-mid 90s and extending through NCLB have made a huge difference in improving the academic results of elementary and middle school students. And we must, among other things,  build on that progress by extending the principles of these reforms more pervasively through middle and high schools.

The data that follow come from the following sources: trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 9-year-old students, by race/ethnicity; trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 13-year-old students, by race/ethnicity; trend in NAEP reading average scores for 9-year-old students, by race/ethnicity; and trend in NAEP reading average scores for 13-year-old students, by race/ethnicity.

And, while we look at this data, let’s remember a lesson I once learned from Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, the former head of the federal Institute of Education Sciences, that a gain of approximately 10 scale score points is roughly equivalent to a grade level.

From 1990 to 1999, scores for black 9-year-olds were essentially flat, going from scale scores of 208 to 211 in math. From 1999 to 2008, these students gained more than a grade level, with scale scores going from 211 to 224.

From 1990 to 1999, black 13-year-olds’ scores in math were also flat, moving only from 249 to 251. Yet from 1999 to 2008, they, too, gained more than a grade level, going from 251 to 262.

From 1990 to 1999, scale scores for Hispanic 9-year-olds in math went down, from 214 to 213. From 1999 to 2008, they went up: a miraculous jump from 213 to 234. The gap with non-Hispanic whites closed here, from 26 points to 16 points. Indeed, Hispanic 9-year-olds are now performing as well in math as non-Hispanic whites were at the end of the 80s.

From 1990 to 1999, Hispanic 13-year-olds’ math scores went from 255 to 259. From 1999 to 2008, they went from 259 to 268.

Here are the reading data.

From 1990 to 1999, the scores of black 9-year-olds went from 182 to 186. From 1999 to 2008, they went up: from 186 to 204. This represents a closing of the white-black gap from 35 points to 24 points and represents the best growth ever, alongside that of the 1970s.

From 1990 to 1999, black 13-year-olds saw their scores actually go down, from 241 to 238. From 1999 to 2008, they went up, from 238 to 247.

Hispanic 9-year-olds’ scores were flat in reading from 1990 to 1999, going from 189 to 193. But from 1999 to 2008, they gained virtually a grade level and a half, going from 193 to 207.

So, while black and Hispanic reading and math results were virtually stagnant in the 1990s, these students gained a full grade level, and sometimes more, in both reading and math, from 1999 to 2008.

Standards-based reform works. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked. We need fixes (not weakening), and we need to make important next steps. But before we listen to those whose failed policies have not worked in the past telling us to kill NCLB, let’s be very, very careful. That would be the absolutely wrong move for our children, particularly poor children and children of color.

Collapse

Students must develop academic, financial and social skills and capacities to ensure their success in education beyond high school. Each is critically important, but combined there is much more benefit than simply addressing these skills and capacities independently. Put more plainly, if we only emphasize the academic skills of students in preparing for college, we will have missed an important chance to deal with the complex realities and barriers facing today’s students.

In striving to achieve a big goal for the nation of increasing the percentage of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by 2025, Lumina Foundation has directed its resources to three critical outcomes – and student preparation is one of those three. Some key preparation strategies include:

·         Promoting the alignment of K-12 and higher education systems.

·         Expanding national postsecondary access outreach and action campaigns.

·         Supporting the expansion of sustainable, high-quality student service and advocacy networks.

·         Advocating for policies and programs that support low-income students.

·         Supporting research on innovative approaches to support low-income students, including state and federal tax- and asset-based programs.

We also need states working to align K-12 and higher education standards and assessments. We need policy change that directs more state and institutional support to need-based financial aid programs and significantly promotes the awareness of these opportunities in society, especially to low and moderate income families. Let’s continue to support simplification of the financial aid application process and advocate for vehicles that encourage low and moderate income students and families to save for college. Through innovative and wide-scale implementation of successful strategies, we can bridge the social gaps for underrepresented students and move toward reaching that big goal.

Collapse

Alarmed that 75% of the ACT test-takers score below "college-ready"? Less than 10% of African American and Latino students in 11th and 12th grade score college-ready in all subjects (www.act.org).   Even if we just consider math, only about a quarter of juniors and seniors of color are college-ready – and that's after a third of them have already dropped out of high school.

It's a challenge that starts early: by 4th grade, African American and Latino students are, on average, close to three grades behind their white or Asian counterparts. By high school, students of color are woefully behind their peers and unprepared for college-level work. At the end of high school, the average African-American or Latino student has math and reading skills that are virtually the same as those of 8th grade white students (www.edtrust.org).

When college preparation is viewed through the lense of socioeconomic class, the results are even more stark. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) finds only 9% of students at Tier I colleges (the 146 most selective schools) are from the bottom half of the income distribution. 9%.

These grim realities are not the result of one or two misguided policies; they are the indicators of a decades-old failing public education system. This is a national disgrace and a national crisis. It is our collective challenge to solve it.

The solutions are easy to name and hard to implement: a good teacher for every student, and a good school for every family. To get there we need college-ready standards; accountability from the classroom to the White House; equitable options for students and families regardless of race, wealth, or geography; and encouragement and support for all young people to pursue rigorous careers. Fortunately, we have a President and Secretary of Education committed to this agenda.

The reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) presents a real opportunity to address the problem that few high school graduates are prepared for college and that a large percentage drop-out. Preparation for college actually begins in the early grades, where NCLB is primarily focused.  An NCLB reauthorization, even with tweaks and fixes, will not by itself undo the decades of systemic decay that have robbed our students – particularly low income and minority students – of an education that properly advances them from kindergarten to college. NCLB is neither the problem nor the quick fix.

We need systemic change – revolutionary change – and a determined focus on policies and practices that eliminate the achievement gap. (The Education Trust does an excellent job of analyzing these policies: www.edtrust.org.) We need to reject substandard teaching in our public schools. We need meaningful accountability and standards to measure and asses our progress or lack thereof. We need to focus on lifting the barriers to innovation that thwart new educational ideas and discourage creative leadership. These are the solutions to the problem of a system in disrepair. NCLB, like Race to the Top and its complementary funding program, is only part of what we need to remake our educational system to serve all children equitably and effectively. 

Collapse

Sandy Kress wants to dismiss my arguments as 'silly and gratuitous,' but to do so requires avoiding real evidence. He asserts that "Poor and minority students are far closer to grade level in the earlier grades today, as measured by NAEP, than they were in 1999 when the poilcies of these "experts" were in place." Well, my policy proposals were not in place, but more to the immediate point is Kress' selection of the comparison date, 1999.

Black NAEP age 13 long-term trend reading results in 1988 were statistically indistinguishable from the 2008 scores. Black scores declined, then came back up – but the rate of improvement was faster before NCLB than since. Hispanic scores for age 13 were actually two points higher in 1999 than in 2008 (not statistically significant). The data is somewhat better in math. But if you look at trends on both long term and main NAEP in both reading and math, most of the lines show the rate of progress for elementary and middle has slowed since NCLB took effect. Go check for yourselves in the various NAEP compilations, or search Fairtest's site for NAEP as we summarize many of the numbers.

Sandy believes that somehow NCLB only matters to elementary schools. Tell that to all the teachers in grades 5 – 8 that suddenly saw the appearance of massive testing as ESEA tripled its testing requirements. Even Checker recognizes that NCLB affected middle school.

NAEP on some levels is just another standardized test. But if the rate of improvement on NAEP has declined even as the amount of testing in reading and math has greatly increased – and both are true – then the only rational conclusion is that one should look carefully at NCLB's requirement of more tests with more consequences. Far more extensive evidence of the consequences of NCLB is what has persuaded such unlikely bedfellows as Checker, Diane, myself, the NEA, Richard Rothstein and many more that the law needs not intensification but to be radically overhauled. Of course, we may not agree on what the new law should look like.

Collapse

According to ACT, less than 25 percent of graduating high school seniors are college ready.  In order to improve the preparedness of students for higher education, we must begin long before they ever set foot in the hallways of their high school. 

Only by providing a full and rigorous schedule of academic courses before and throughout high school—and by motivating students to challenge themselves in such classes—can we hope to effect real change in how well students are prepared for college.

ACT’s data indicate that those students who take a core curriculum, defined as at least four years of English and at least three years each of mathematics, social studies, and natural sciences, are more likely to meet the College Readiness Benchmarks and complete a college degree.

The American Council on Education has partnered with the American Diploma Project (ADP), an initiative of Achieve, Inc., to mobilize the higher education community in support of ADP’s goal of improving college readiness.  As ADP notes, “Young people tend to achieve what's expected of them. The problem is, we're just not asking enough. According to a recent poll, 88 percent of students said they would work harder if their schools demanded more of them, set higher standards and raised expectations.”

Urging students to take the tough classes is a central message of KnowHow2Go (KH2G), a national college access campaign launched in 2007 by the American Council on Education, Lumina Foundation for Education, and the Advertising Council.  This effort seeks to raise awareness among low-income and first-generation students in grades 8 through 10 about preparing for college and what it takes to get there.

Department of Education data indicate that eight out of 10 students expect to achieve at least a bachelor’s degree.  In order to turn these students’ college dreams into action-oriented goals, KnowHow2Go urges them to follow four steps: seek out mentors, take a demanding high school course load, research the type of program and institution that best fits their career goals, and seek out the many sources of need- and merit-based financial assistance. 

The Obama administration has set a bold goal of returning the U.S. to the top tier of nations in college attainment.  Unless we ensure that students are academically prepared for college, this goal cannot possibly be achieved.

Collapse

Bill Jackson wrote:

<And finally, a question for Monty: If standardized tests like NAEP are so meaningless, why do we care about NAEP results anyway? Why would we look to them to assess whether NCLB was “working” or not?’>

Standardized test results are not necessarily meaningless, but they are of quite limited value. One of the areas where they do have use is as a snapshot of some useful aspects of student learning. For this purpose, sampling is quite sufficient. Which is what NAEP does, and it provides some useful information.

There is much in reading, math and other subjects that NAEP tests don't assess, so we should not over-interpret the meaning of those results (as we do with state exams). And with only two tests regularly reported, that contributes to downplaying the rest of the curriculum. Still, at a large aggregate level, it makes sense to have tests as one source of information. FairTest has long supported legislative efforts in Massachusetts to create a true '' Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System" that would include limited large-scale testing, an inspectorate, with the most detailed evidence of student learning at the school and district levels, some of which can be obtained so as to contribute to large-scale data.  

Still, as Richard Rothstein, most prominently, has argued, NAEP should be greatly improved (see Chapters 6 and 8 in his "Grading Education") and a short version in his recent Education Week Commentary. Partly this means going back to NAEP's roots, and partly it means learning from decades of work in assessment to improve on the original NAEP procedures. An improved NAEP would include exercises and surveys to provide descriptive information about student learning across a wide variety of areas that the public has indicated it views as important.  

So, yes, we can tell a little from test scores, and that little can be obtained efficiently. That's very different from pretending they can tell us what we need to know about education, never mind giving them such high stakes that they control and deform schooling.

Collapse

There is one straightforward change that policymakers in every state could make to help improve not only college readiness but more general post-secondary readiness as well:  Make the college prep curriculum the default curriculum for all students.  

Under this model, instead of having to try to get their children into more challenging classes parents would have to opt them out – after being informed of the consequences – and vocational education and other pathways would augment, not substitute for the core curriculum.   Of course, even though college graduation is the most effective social mobility strategy we have, not all students will go to college.  But, when you look at the college prep curriculum relative to other postsecondary preparation it’s clear that while other pathways can preclude a student from enrolling in many college programs (or requiring them to take a large number of non-credit bearing remedial classes once they arrive), the college prep pathway doesn’t preclude students from other postsecondary paths whether the military, vocational, two-year colleges, and so forth.   Besides, asking 16 and 17 year olds to make life-determining choices doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Giving them the option to change course a few years after high school – because they have the preparation to do so – makes a lot more sense.

In other words, making college prep the default curriculum does no harm but today’s status quo with its low-expectations, constraining choices, and often weak curriculum does.

Collapse

As I read over the responses of my colleagues, I notice that much of the dialog can be summarized as follows: We either need more NCLB-like reforms or less NCLB-like reforms. I think this choice represents a false dichotomy.

As the old saying goes, “There are two sides to every story.” Except when there aren’t. Often there are more than two. And I’d like to share one here.

Our new American Dream rests fundamentally on education. A high school diploma is not likely to get you a house, a car, or a secure and comfortable retirement. So we’ve developed the value that everyone must go to college.

If we simply taught this value, we’d be far more successful in moving kids on to higher education. Instead, we teach many kids, especially poor ones, that this value does not apply.

I have worked with poor kids, most of them black or Hispanic. Most do not go to college. But the ones who do aren’t necessarily any smarter than the ones who don’t. The advantage they have is the value of going to college. This value is usually instilled and maintained at home. And, when it’s strong enough, it can make up for bad schools, poor teachers, and the absence of peer group support.

I went to college for two reasons: my parents wanted me to go and all my friends were going. Today’s kids are no different. If they get the value from home, and they get the value from school, most will make their way into some form of higher education – even if they lack the financial means to pull it off.

So what does instilling the value of going to college look like? At home it looks like homework and strong support for high quality participation in school. Kids who’s parents want them to go to college don’t spend a lot of time skipping school, blowing off classes, or hanging around the principal’s office. But then, poor people don’t care if their kids go to college, right? Wrong. And strangely enough, I’ve found that the people who hold this view have never asked a poor parent about the issue. Most have never even engaged a poor parent in the discussion.

I have. And I find that the educational aspirations poor people hold for their children are suspiciously similar to everyone else’s. Yes, they may see money as an obstacle, along with the low-quality of schools, and the negative influence of their children’s peers. But they still want their kids to go to college; the value exists throughout our country; its pervasiveness cannot be denied.

What we are in denial about, however, is how we express the value of every child going to college in our schools.

In school, instilling this value is more complex. It starts with the notion that every high school is a college preparatory school. We’ve had college prep schools for generations; we know what they look like; we know how to make them. When middle schoolers enter a high school that clearly describes its mission as preparing its students for college, they pick up the idea before they even enter the door on the first day of class.

Next comes college prep curriculum. And here, too, we’re well aware of what is required. The fact that many of today’s students can not handle college prep curriculum simply means we have more work to do at middle and elementary school – something no one disputes.

Finally, as always, teachers are the key. Like parents, they must work to explicitly instill the value of a college education in all of their students. And they must teach well enough to educate college-ready kids.

Test scores and standards don’t help kids get to college. They may not hurt much either. The false dichotomy we argue about arises out of a fundamental myth I call the Myth of Information. It goes something like this: If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Testing is the hammer. The myth says that if we can just hammer enough information into every child, they’ll all go to college.

Unfortunately, the problem is not just about information, it’s also about transformation. Testing and standards promote an informative view of school. But they don’t do much for to foster the transformation of the nearly half of our students who currently don’t want to go to college or who don’t think they can for want of money or ability.

Ask anyone who was raised in a family that immigrated to the US since the Depression. Or any soldier who took advantage of the GI Bill to further their education. Those who chose college and graduated will tell you how having a degree transformed their lives. Is learning information important? Sure it is. But to what end? If kids don’t hold the value of going to college in the first place, they aren’t likely to see much value in high school no matter how good it is.

Given that we hold the value of a college education as being vital to a good life in our country, we must begin adding to the informative infrastructure of testing and standards an equivalent infrastructure of transformative experiences that change the way kids see themselves and their educational aspirations. In taking school beyond the informative to the transformative, we assure that kids don’t just come out smarter, they come out different and better.

Right now, I can walk into 90% of the high schools in America and find two groups of kids: those tracked to college and those tracked to nowhere. If we’ve decided that only one of these tracks matters, we have a lot of work to do, especially in the areas of instructional quality, administrative quality, and school culture.

If we want every kid to graduate from college, we must start by inculcating the value of going there. When kids enter school at kindergarten or pre-K, we must tell them, “You are on your way to college.” When they hit high school, we must say, “Here is the path to higher education – and we promise that none of you will be left behind.”

 

Collapse

In his address to Congress earlier this year, the President asked “every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training” and set a goal that “by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” By setting these ambitious goals, the President recognized that a postsecondary education is integral both to individuals’ future success and our nation’s collective strength. 

The Fast Track to College Act, which I introduced in March with Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), will help us make great progress toward those goals. The bill, H.R. 1578, establishes new early college high schools and other dual enrollment programs, and provides support to existing programs that already are achieving results. These programs enable students, especially those underrepresented in postsecondary education, to earn an associate’s degree or up to two years of transferrable college credits at no cost to their families, while still in high school. These programs also reduce dropout rates, keep students engaged, and provide a seamless transition to college.

A college education today is as vital as a high school diploma was a generation ago. Students leaving high school must be prepared for some kind of postsecondary education or training. Yet as the question notes, just a fraction of graduating high school seniors are prepared to succeed in traditional higher education. This translates to remediation and attrition, problems plaguing institutions of higher education and making a college education more expensive for students.

However, I’m skeptical of the question’s premise that  the answer lies entirely with reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB was crafted on the hypothesis that states – not the federal government – would establish curriculum and achievement targets, along with the assessments to measure them. Yet even today, many school leaders believe NCLB is too involved with day-to-day decisions about what is taught, and how, and when. At the same time, there are those who argue NCLB doesn’t control enough, leaving wide disparities among states. Proposals to expand NCLB into our high schools were met with hostility a few short years ago, and I have no reason to believe things would be any different today, especially since no one believes we’ve “gotten it right” in grades 3-8.

Rather than breeding animosity toward more federal intrusion, we should be looking toward proven strategies for a more seamless transition from high school to college. The business and philanthropic communities have invested millions in programs aimed at improving academic achievement. AP, IB, and dual-enrollment programs allow high school students to earn college credit – giving them a genuine understanding of why achievement in high school matters.

Unfortunately, as with most challenges in education, there is no simple, bloggable answer. What works for some students won’t work for others. What works in some communities won’t work in others.

And so, while we don’t know all the answers, a natural starting point is to realign our expectations – to view postsecondary education today as we viewed high school when I was young. We need to have more conversations like this one, in which we explore different teaching strategies, curricula, and opportunities for K-16 alignment. And we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is a single, federal solution. In other words, moving the dialogue beyond NCLB is a good first step.

Collapse

Susan Traiman, public policy director at Business Roundtable who manages the Education, Innovation and Workforce Initiative, submitted the following:

After the Washington Redskins lost their preseason opening football game, head coach Jim Zorn said the Redskins played soft.  Despite the fact that preseason games don’t count, Zorn’s frustration at the 23-0 loss and lack of effort by the players was palpable. 

But ultimately it’s just a game (although fervent fans might disagree).  What does it have to do with the recent release of ACT test scores that once again make clear that far too many students are graduating from high school unprepared to succeed in college and the 21st century workplace? 

After more than 25 years of education reform initiatives since A Nation at Risk was released in 1983, the U.S. has made incremental progress in improving student achievement and some states have made significant gains.  However, overall as a nation we are “playing soft.”  We are not taking the competition seriously enough and we are not putting in the necessary effort to win the “race to the top.” 

With the infusion of education funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there is an opportunity to focus with greater intensity on ensuring that high school seniors are ready for college and work.   This will require ramping up proven preK-16  reforms, spurring  innovation – particularly in middle school and high school,  and aligning local, state and national education policies with the same objective – college and career readiness. 

As we move forward, policies need to adjust based on three lessons from implementation of No Child Left Behind:    (1) gains in the elementary grades are not sustained if they are not built upon in middle and high schools,  (2) there are likely to be unintended consequences if we don’t get incentives and accountability systems right for policymakers, educators and students, and (3) fifty different sets of standards and assessments do not add up to an internationally competitive education for U.S. students.

It is time for states to adopt common, internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that are based on an expectation that students graduate from high school college- and career-ready.  As difficult as that may be politically, it also is time to move on to the much more challenging changes needed in curriculum and instruction.  That will require renewed attention to teaching and leadership in our schools, with every current assumption about customary practice open to debate. 

And finally, we have to be honest with American students.  Learning should be much more engaging, but we cannot make everything in school fun and interesting.  Hard work also is essential to mastering the content and skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century.  If American students are too “soft” to demonstrate a strong “work ethic,” even the best public policies will not be enough to help them compete with their peers around the world.

Collapse

I won't spend any time with the silly and gratuitous comments of Diane and Monty. Poor and minority students are far closer to grade level in the earlier grades today, as measured by NAEP, than they were in 1999 when the poilcies of these "experts" were in place.

NCLB, as Checker says, was largely geared, as have been most of the reforms of the past decade or so, to the earlier grades. We need a major initiative to move from the current and stronger foundation we have in place to getting youngsters from adolescence to a meaningful credential.

Here is a short list of some of the most important steps we should take. It begins with the basic notion that the accountability we have built and expected for elementary schools must be extended to the secondary schools. To the critics of NCLB, I would say loudly that we need MORE accountability for secondary schools, where we have had too little, not LESS. Secondary schools have been largely unaffected by NCLB and similar reforms. That's the problem!

First, we need clearer, higher, and more focused k-12 content and performance standards, especially in the middle and higher grades, leading to postsecondary readiness. This movement does not substitute for current expectations and accountability for continued progress for youngsters far below the level of today's standards. Rather we must aim higher over time - largely with new "carrots" added to expectations in accountability - and do the hard work of aligning what we do in education to these new and higher standards.

Second, we must be sure that all students are high school ready academically when they enter the 9th grade. So many students have never been, and many aren't today. Getting students who enter high school two or more grade levels behind to college-ready at graduation is very difficult, if not impossible. We must diagnose very carefully beginning in middle school, use proven interventions with better prepared teachers and coaches in math and reading, and dramatically increase the number of students who can read complex text and at least be ready for algebra in the 9th grade. These are higher goals than we have ever had for ALL our children. Yet, if we are to do better, we must set them and achieve them.

Third, if we ramp up the demands of high school in standards and curricula, we need an aggressive effort to get more qualified and more effective high school teachers. That means mostly that our teachers need to be richer in content mastery in the higher level courses we will require.

Fourth, we need an aggressive attack on dropouts. The IES practice guide gives us very practical places to begin. We must remember that the ACT data show just the tip of the iceberg of our problem. Roughly 30% of our young people are no longer around to take the ACT!

Fifth, we need asssessments, either end of course or ACT-like,  that will show us the gap at the end of the 11th grade between where the students are in their knowledge and skills and  postsecondary-ready. " (Earlier assessments must be aligned to these new high school assessments as well.)

The 12 grade must be used more effectively to close that gap. The ideas that Dave Spence and the Cal State folks developed are useful models here.

The next round of ESEA must indeed be devoted to this challenge of getting all our youngsters ready for postsecondary success.

Collapse

Monty Neill makes a case that, so far, the NCLB regimen of standards and assessments has not produced major gains on NAEP. I agree with that assessment.

Clearly, more work is needed. “You can’t fatten a pig by weighing him more often.”

When it comes to actually working on the problem, I think the Obama Administration has a pretty good list of priorities.

First, let’s make the standards “fewer, clearer and higher” and then let’s improve the tests that measure student achievement relative to those standards. Second, let’s give educators good data so they know where their students stand. Third, let’s put a major focus on improving teacher quality, since we know that teachers matter so much. And finally, let’s try a variety of innovative and aggressive ways to turn around our lowest-performing schools – a task that has been shown to be really hard, especially at the high school level.

The ACT data, interestingly, showed significant differences in college readiness by subject. More than two-thirds of test takers are ready for college-level English composition, but only 28% are ready for college biology and only 42% are ready for college algebra.

In a blog posting the other day, Scott Biddle over at Public Agenda pointed out a big obstacle for improvement in the realm of math and science: Parents think their children are getting the preparation they need to be ready for college. “Public Agenda's Reality Check surveys have found that most parents believe their child is doing all right in school. Nearly seven in 10 say they believe their child will have the skills needed to succeed in college,” he wrote.

This is a big problem. Someone has to figure out how to convince American parents that their children are NOT doing “alright” in math and science. Any ideas out there?

And finally, a question for Monty: If standardized tests like NAEP are so meaningless, why do we care about NAEP results anyway? Why would we look to them to assess whether NCLB was “working” or not?

Collapse

Checker Finn correctly notes that No Child Left Behind does virtually nothing to hold high schools accountable for helping students attain legitimate college-ready standards. Yet both Monty Neil and Diane Ravitch see the ACT results as an indictment of the NCLB test-based accountability approach generally. If NCLB had actually identified high schools where students aren't fully prepared for college and responded with labels, interventions, etc., that would be one thing. But it's strange to denounce the law for failing to reach a goal it never tried to achieve. NCLB has been primarily focused on improving elementary reading and math. And to the extent that we see improvement in American education, as measured by NAEP, it's in elementary reading and math. Perhaps this isn't a coincidence. 

Ravitch also characterizes the ACT results as follows: "Three-quarters of the class of 2009 are not ready for college, and only 23% are likely to be able to earn a C average." This is incorrect. The ACT study found that only 23 percent of of students met all four ACT benchmarks, defined as having a 50 percent of chance of earning a "B" or a 75 percent chance of earning a "C." Most of the students in the 77 percent who didn't reach all four benchmarks reached some of the benchmarks. 67 percent were ready in English, 42 percent were ready in mathematics, and 53 percent were reading in reading. Science is the killer subject here--since only 28 percent reach that benchmark, far lower than the other three, the percent who reach all four benchmarks can only be lower than 28 percent. But the percent of the class of 2009 likely to earn a C average overall is much higher than 23 percent, as evidenced by the fact that three-quarters of American college students aren't on academic probation every year. It's important to characterize research accurately in these conversations.  

In terms of what to do about this problem, I can't imagine any solution that doesn't at least begin with an honest and public accounting of which high schools are truly preparing students to succeed in college. And the good thing is that with the rapid development of longitudinal data systems, spurred by both philanthropic investment and stimulus funds, the time is soon coming when we won't have to use proxy measures--we'll actually know whether a given high school's students succeed in college, as measured by enrollment, remediation rates, grade point averages, eventual graduation, and a variety of other measures. 

Collapse

 High school graduation is the most important step toward college preparation. American graduation rates remain low especially for low income and minority students. Young people should have the choice of several engaging and supportive high school options that provide a pathway to college and careers. Every student should have an advisor that, with the guardian and student, takes responsibility for academic success.  Kids need to work hard to be college ready, and we need to do a better job of creating a portfolio of options that will motivate and support students through graduation. 

The second most important factor is participation in a college prep curriculum with strong academic supports for struggling students. Middle grade math remains a key barrier including the often mysterious process for accessing algebra in 8th grade.

Third, it’s frustrating that we still don’t have a metric for the most important system goal—college ready graduates. We create proxies with test scores and credits but could use better measures. 

NCLB focused on elementary grades. The next ESEA reauthorization should make college ready grad rates a priority, and strengthen school improvement/replacement provisions to ensure that all students have access to quality high school options. 

Collapse

The release of the ACT results is yet another demonstration of the woeful inadequacy of No Child Left Behind, which has focused every school on low-level tests in reading and math. Three-quarters of the class of 2009 are not ready for college, and only 23% are likely to be able to earn a C average. Yet we know that about 60% or more of the class will indeed go to some institution of higher education, where many will need remediation in reading, writing, and mathematics.

    Students will be well prepared for college not by endless test prep and testing in basic skills, but by studying history, literature, foreign languages, the arts, geography, civics, and the sciences. If they do not have a broad liberal arts preparation, they will be bewildered by the language in their textbooks and the lectures of their professors. The vocabulary of their texts and their teachers will be beyond their understanding.

    Sadly, the ACT results show that our students are not even well prepared in reading and math, the very skill subjects that NCLB emphasizes. Until we break the grip of test-based accountability and return to the ingredients of a meaningful education, we will continue to see the same pathetic reports about our students' poor education.

Collapse

In its current form, NCLB is practically irrelevant to college readiness. Its mandates and sanctions pretty much quit in 8th grade, and efforts by the GWB/Spellings team to extend it to high school got nowhere on Capitol Hill. The Obama team hasn't yet signaled its intentions in this regard--but they ARE obviously backing the "common core" standards project underway with the governors and chiefs, and that venture is plainly devoted to building high-school exit standards that are aligned with college readiness. Of course, it is doing so only in reading/writing and math, whereas the ACT--quite legitimately--also regards science and English (including literature, not just reading/writing) as indispensable elements of such readiness.

We have a bit of germane experience with this via the American Diploma Project, which did a good job of framing end-of-high-school standards (again, just in English and math) that, if attained, would signal readiness to undertake credit-bearing (i.e. college-level) academic work in college. ADP's challenge was getting traction on the ground, first with regard to actual state-imposed high-school exit standards and, second, with regard to college admissions standards. That challenge is apt to plague the new "common core" project, too. Despite solemn pledges, statements of intent, and professions of goodwill, in reality most states are loath to set their high-school exit requirements high enough to equal college preparedness--they're afraid too many young people will fail to get diplomas, which is why most current high-school exit tests are pegged at something more akin to 8th or 9th grade curricula. And the colleges are loath to surrender their "sovereignty" in regard to admissions and placement; to admit that readiness for College A might (or might not) be the same as readiness for College B; and to take the risk that truly rigorous entry requirements may reduce their enrollments (and revenues) and/or put their remedial/developmental departments out of business.

These problems deserve solutions but it'll take someone a lot smarter than I am to suggest how federal policy and programs could effectively tackle them. (Please note: I said EFFECTIVELY.)

Collapse

Stagnant scores on college admissions exams, such as the ACT and SAT, provide further evidence that the test-and-punish regimens of the federal “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) law and many state assessment programs, some of which include graduation tests, are failing to meet their primary goals.

High-stakes exam proponents have long claimed that attaching sanctions to mandatory annual tests would markedly improve educational performance, increase readiness for higher education and close racial achievement gaps. But college admissions exam scores have remained generally flat over the past five years. Little progress has been made in college readiness or in reducing historic differences in test results among White, African American and Latino students.

High school graduates in the class of 2009 have experienced the test-driven approach to “school reform” since they were in fifth grade, when NCLB was signed into law. Yet, they are not better prepared for college or the workforce according to admissions exam scores. Over the same period, the racial achievement gap has not narrowed.

The admissions testing trend data confirm recent results from the federal government’s own National Assessment of Educational Progress. Progress has actually slowed since NCLB and many state testing programs were implemented. Complementary research has found that high school exit tests fail to improve college or employment readiness, while disproportionately damaging our most vulnerable students.

Too many of our nation’s classrooms have been turned into drill-and-kill test preparation centers. Untested subjects, from science and history to the arts, have been crowded out of the curriculum. Both school quality and equity have suffered.

Instead of continuing to pursue a flawed high-stakes testing agenda (or intensifying it, as some politicians have proposed), the nation needs to rethink its fundamental approach to educational policy. In place of top-down, one-size-fits-all mandates, we need a system that accurately assesses the strengths and weaknesses of individual schools and students, then supplies the specific resources needed to enhance performance.

Assessment must be overhauled so that it supports high quality teaching and learning instead of undermining these important goals. Several years ago, Reps. George Miller and Buck McKeon, chair and ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, released a draft reauthorization of NCLB. The draft authorized funding for 15 states to transform their assessment systems to include performance assessments (such as essays, experiments, research projects, and exhibitions) and the use of local and classroom-based evidence of learning. Such an approach should be part of the Race to the Top fund as well as NCLB reauthorization.

Real reform requires upgrading the capacity of districts and states to support ongoing educational improvement. The Forum on Educational Accountability, supported by major national civil rights, education reform, disability, civic and labor groups, has included assessment reform as a key component in its proposals for improving the capacity of all schools to serve their students well. FEA recently released “Empowering Schools and Improving Learning,” which lays out fourteen components of a new vision for the federal role in public education. State policies need similar reforms, including a halt to the use of high-stakes graduation tests.

Without major changes along these lines, a country in which all students are ready for college, the workforce or effective citizenship will remain little more than a hollow promise.

Collapse