Of the initiatives US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has undertaken, setting the stage for improving early learning, birth through 3rd grade, is one of the most significant. Duncan talks about education as cradle to career, birth up through post-secondary education, (as opposed to K12). Much of what he’s tried to do has reflected this thinking – albeit easier said than done.

Under Duncan’s leadership, the Department of Education has made strides toward better cross-agency collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services on early education issues. The Department of Ed included early learning in Race to the Top, Investing in Innovations and the Promise Neighborhoods competitive grant programs and championed the Early Learning Challenge, which was realized last year in partnership with HHS as a separate round of the Race to the Top program. Duncan appointed Jacqueline Jones former assistant commissioner for the NJ Division of Early Care and Education as his senior advisor on early learning and created the first ever Office of Early Learning, which is led by Jones. The Office of Early Learning brings together under one umbrella several early learning programs previously scattered throughout the Department.

The Department has made progress toward promoting early learning and PreK-3rd strategies, but most of the new early learning efforts have really focused birth through pre-K. Take the Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge as an example. States were asked to submit proposals to improve the coordination and quality of child care and preschool programs. However, developing plans for implementing PreK-3rd strategies such as improving the coordination of early learning programs with K-3, strengthening the communication and collaboration between elementary schools and preschool programs and the smoothing transitions from pre-K into kindergarten was included only as an “invitational priority.” The same was true for early learning in the Race to the Top K-12 program. Including early learning as more than an invitational priority would have sent a stronger signal for the importance of implementing preK-3rd strategies as a part of states’ and school districts’ reform agenda.

So there is still work for Duncan to do should he have the opportunity for a second term. The Office of Early Learning needs to have more of a role in the Department’s K-3rd programs, especially those that involve kindergarten. Kindergarten needs attention. It is part of the PreK-12 system, but it’s not treated the same as first grade – with respect to funding or time – in most states. School districts still need better guidance on how Title I and other federal funds can be used to support early learning such as Title II – for example, can preschool teachers participate in elementary school professional development? States need more support on implementing promising approaches to help children read by the end of third grade. (Because passing laws to hold students back won’t do it.)

Duncan has said that in a second term improving early learning would remain part of his agenda. Focusing more intently on the full PreK-3rd continuum – especially working with Congress to show how PreK-3rd strategies could be embedded in a new ESEA – is an area I’d hope to see Duncan emphasize next.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is engaging personally and professionally. As a superintendent, he honed his communication skills, so whether he was talking to a teacher, the union president or a parent, they all equally think he's on their side and committed to doing the right thing. He can shoot hoops with anyone, on or off the court. And he's received praise far and wide for being so, well, so good and so reform-minded. But having listened and watched him carefully now for four years, I'm seeing a pattern. It's the pattern of a disciplined player that knows how to get in the game, stay competitive, and never look like he's going to miss.

Duncan's basic formula is this: Speak to a group and mention all the things you know they are interested in; quality, charters, collaboration, we have to fix our schools, we can make them better, investment, accountability, choice, parents, engagement.... And in the process, we confuse activity with action, and policymaking with reform.

Duncan scores lots of points for reminding the nation that we have a problem and that there are many ways to solve the problem. A+ on that. And he’s tenacious in going places, meeting with people, speaking to people -- keeping the issue alive. Great moves, all of it. But when it comes to his efforts resulting in substantive change that impacts student achievement, I’m not seeing any. In fact, Duncan has created a perverse incentive system where states and districts now know that in order to get money, all they have to do is promise to play ball for whatever policy prescription is on the table. Common core, teacher evaluation, turn-arounds/turn-overs/collaborative-reinvestment-engagement schemes, charter schools (though it need not matter what kind of policy one is recommending and whether it works)… The average state or local grant writer knows that once the money comes, they can have the meetings, convene stakeholders, make plans and try to do what they said they’d do, and whether or how quickly new processes and plans and goals and outcomes are sketched, they’ll keep getting paid for students based on archaic formulas that have little to do with whether children are learning.

Meanwhile, the states that have accomplished the most with reform are those where teacher tenure was significantly reformed or removed, where educators have more flexibility, where schools are turned over without account for union collaboration and where schools are scored and parents have choices. Our top ten states for Parent Power provide a key to why some states are doing better than others, if you need more context. It’s no secret why Indiana comes out number 1.

To be fair, Education Secretary Duncan’s positive, affable rhetoric and embrace of change has helped keep education hot amidst a sea of other important issues, and has allowed more Democrats to embrace changes they may have never have endorsed if it were only the Rs who were in power. He’s used the Bully Pulpit well, and that’s a clear score. But inside and outside the Ed Department, Duncan has indeed confused caused many to think they’ve already achieved significant gains because of the policies they’ve embraced. It all sounds the same, and whether or not one did performance evaluations right doesn’t matter as long as they did them, period. That means they’ll probably not push more on that, or closing failing schools, or taking on the unions, or charters or tenure, or adopt new innovations like widespread online learning or real school choice! They can claim credit and move on to another issue, which tends to be the attitude of a lawmaker not particularly engaged in education reform once they’ve done something, anything others praise. And that, I'm afraid, may be the extent of the legacy Arne Duncan leaves.

There is no doubt that Duncan has had a big impact. Unfortunately, the policies and programs his Department have pushed mainly double down on NCLB’s failures. If he has a second term and continues to push the same agenda, he will leave a legacy of educational damage. Whether Congress can or will halt or change direction is the great unknown. The next President and the composition of the Senate are major factors, but whether Congress responds to growing resistance to high-stakes testing is also significant. If it does, then Duncan will face greater opposition, in addition to antipathy to the proposed major shift of Title I funding to competitive grants and mainly Republican concerns about federal overreach, as with Common Core and the multistate testing consortia.

Rates of improvement on NCLB have declined under NCLB in both subjects, all grades, for almost all groups. Causation is hard to establish, but at least this shows that test-centric “reform” is not succeeding, and it strongly suggests that the focus on testing is a major cause of the decline. Research, including that summarized by the National Academy of Sciences Board on Testing and Accountability, points to ongoing damage to curriculum, instruction and school climate. Rather than acknowledge real problems, Duncan’s Department has promoted Race to the Top and waivers, which maintain the harmful consequences of NCLB and compound the problems.

The waivers do not allow states to reduce testing, as Vermont found out. Both multi-state testing consortia plans call for more testing. This will eat up yet more instructional time with no evidence it will improve learning. It’s true: You really can’t fatten the pig by weighing it. Many districts will end up testing even more than required, as they already do in response to NCLB’s onerous requirements. The tests are unlikely to be more than a very modest improvement, once the testing companies crank out tens of thousands of mostly multiple-choice items. The costs will be enormous and largely not covered by Uncle Sam, so essential education programs will be cut to enable computer-based testing. The infrastructure demands are a big part of the costs, and it is not clear that many, or even most, districts will be able to cope.

The waivers and Race to the Top also require using student scores to judge teachers using so-called “value added” or “growth” techniques. These compound the limits of testing with highly erratic statistical procedures. Many competent, even excellent, teachers find themselves rated poorly because they choose to work with low-scoring children. The Chicago teachers strike expanded public awareness of this danger. The strike added to other forms of resistance, such as the 1,400 principals in New York who have signed a letter opposing state plans for ranking and sorting teachers.

Another Duncan legacy seems to be increased school closings. Many civil rights organizations, as well as large numbers of community organizations, parents and teachers have fought the closings. Moreover, while waivers allow for fewer schools to be labeled failing, the Department’s rigid “turnaound” procedures lack evidence they will succeed. Thousands of schools will not get the genuine assistance they need to improve. Duncan could choose a different direction for the federal role in education, such as following the recommendations of the Forum on Educational Accountability (which I chair) as well as other means to overhaul assessment.

Increased testing has fueled the resistance movement, including the 84% of Texas school boards that have signed a state resolution against high-stakes testing. The Florida and Pennsylvania school boards associations endorsed the National Resolution or a close variation, as have many local boards, parent and other organizations. Increasingly, parents are talking about opting their children out of testing.

Perhaps Duncan’s over-reach will produce one positive result: a larger movement by united parents, teachers and community groups insisting on high-quality public schools, not the test-prep centers that could be the major legacy of Duncan’s regime.

It is hard to argue against Colvin’s assertion that Arne Duncan has pursued one of the most far-reaching education reform agendas ever. Through ARRA, Duncan and his team created incentives to reform at every level: in states through Race to the Top, in local programs through i3, and in communities through Promise Neighborhoods. With waivers, Duncan has essentially rewritten NCLB to focus on a reform agenda aimed at college readiness through raising standards, improving teaching, and changing accountability to focus on student growth.

Duncan also created an environment in which charters have grown with a focus on quality. Almost half of states have significantly revised their charter school laws since 2009 and Maine became the 41st state with a charter law. Through appropriations vehicles, it created the Charter School Replication and Expansion program. Add in the Early Learning Challenge fund, and higher education regulations, Duncan’s Department has the most prolific since the agency’s creation 32 years ago.

Whether Duncan’s accomplishments will stand the test of time remain to be seen. Regardless of their merits, few members of Congress were involved in crafting them and may assert their authority if the President earns a second term or reverse his actions if Gov. Romney wins. What’s more, many of the new efforts (such as RTTT, i3, and Early Learning Challenge Grants) don’t yet have a firm constituency that is willing to trek to DC to lobby Congress for the appropriations in the future.

The success of the potential second term (and Duncan’s legacy) would hinge on the Administration’s ability to work with Congress to ensure that these reforms are either enacted through NCLB reauthorization or by solid oversight and implementation so that pundits, such as Checker Finn, Mike Petrilli and maybe even Rick Hess won’t be able to argue against their effectiveness.

Some of the best decisions are made during times of financial duress where leaders must make decisions around what works and what doesn’t and give financial support to those programs that generate the biggest bang for the buck and kill those that are ineffective.

In this respect, Duncan is well-positioned to make these tough calls not only in his own agency but also in discussions with OMB where one can argue that education spending should take precedence over a host of other programs in other agencies (with much larger budgets.) I can’t think of a better cabinet Secretary than Arne Duncan to get this done. If he succeeds, he will leave a lasting legacy.