Chamber Participates in Free Community College Discussions in D.C. and Tennessee

The Indiana Chamber was recently asked to attend a meeting with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Obama administration’s plan for free community college, modeled after Tennessee Promise. Secretary Duncan reached out to seven states and Indiana was the first to participate in this forum.

Thirty leaders from Indiana – from the business community, higher education and community foundations – came to the White House to discuss the plan as well as the environment for such a plan being brought to Indiana. At this point in time, the Indiana Chamber has no position on the President’s proposal, but we would like to ensure that students have some sort of “skin in the game” and have significant questions on how this program would be funded.

The Chamber was then invited to a follow-up meeting in Chattanooga, Tennessee this past week to learn more about Tennessee’s successful program – Tennessee Promise – which provides two free years of community college to all Tennessee high school graduates. This program involves a significant mentoring and service program with substantial buy-in from the employer community across the state. The group visited Chattanooga State Community College, the Volkswagen Training Academy, the Walker Institute, as well as met with faculty and administration representatives from Tennessee community colleges, legislators and agency heads to discuss higher education issues in their state.

Report Card Coming for Teacher Prep Efforts

19293579Teacher preparation programs have been the subject of much scrutiny in recent years. It appears Washington agrees with the need for some evaluation and measurement.

Governing reports:

The federal Department of Education announced preliminary rules requiring states to develop rating systems for teacher preparation programs that would track a range of measures, including the job placement and retention rates of graduates and the academic performance of their students.

In a move that drew some criticism, the Education Department said the new rating systems could be used to determine eligibility for certain federal grants used by teacher candidates to help pay for their training.

Critics have long faulted teacher training as inadequately preparing candidates for the realities and rigors of the job.

In a conference call with reporters, Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, said that far too many education programs set lower requirements for entry than other university majors.

“The last thing they want or need is an easy A,” Mr. Duncan said. “This is nothing short of a moral issue. All educators want to do a great job for their students, but too often they struggle at the beginning of their careers and have to figure out too much on the job by themselves.”

The proposed rules will be subject to public comment for 60 days. If they are adopted, states will be given a year to develop the rating systems, with alternative programs like Teach for America also subject to the rules.

Keeping Up With the Digital Learning Curve

Former governors Jeb Bush (Florida) and Bob Wise (West Virginia) are the architects behind the Digitial Learning Council. The goal is to help legislators and policymakers make their way down the new and changing path of learning opportunities — including advanced technologies in traditional settings, online and virtual courses and more.

The Council released an informative report last week that focuses on quality and opportunity. It can be found here. The Fordham Institute provides some brief analysis.

Over the past decade, digital learning at the K-12 level has exploded — from a national enrollment of 40,000-50,000 in 2000 to an estimated 3 million in 2010. And this trend line is sure to get steeper, way steeper, in coming years. But what sort of policy environment will greet this development, which cannot be stopped but can surely be bungled?

The Digital Learning Council has released policy recommendations for the future of virtual and hybrid education in America’s K-12 classrooms, in conjunction with the Foundation for Excellence in Education’s high-profile, well-attended and generally first-rate national summit. This manifesto highlights 10 elements of high-quality digital learning that every state should put into place. These non-negotiables include access to digital learning from multiple, high-quality providers and customizable content for all students.

Although it stays at the 30,000 foot level, the paper’s release at the FEE summit has quickly put it in the hands of governors, state education secretaries, school superintendents, and a myriad of other folks in attendance—including Secretary Duncan. And the Council (and FEE) will be back in October with a scorecard on how states are doing in relation to these recommendations. Up, up, and away!

Leaders Say Schools Need to Adjust Financial Plans

The good news is that education reform has been high on the agenda for a pair with the power to help do something about it. The bad news is that the duo has, at least in some respects, adopted the "throw more money at the problem" approach.

We’re talking about current U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan (he has the power of policy behind him) and that Microsoft guy named Bill Gates (using part of his personal fortune to help improve schools and educational opportunities for young people).

But many in the education world have been stressing that more dollars are not the answer. Economic realities have reinforced that point. Nationally, the Fordham Institute and the American Enterprise Institute combined on a report titled Stretching the School Dollar. They take pride in recent comments from Duncan and Gates.

For the past two years, as Congress dished out more money to education through the stimulus and Edujobs bills, Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, along with the Fordham Institute’s Chester E. Finn Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, have been sounding the alarm on the need to improve school productivity and spend school dollars more wisely and efficiently. Recently, two powerful voices lent their support to this effort.

In a speech at AEI last week, Secretary Duncan said that, for the next several years, educators are likely to face a “new normal” of having to do more with less but that this challenge “can, and should, be embraced as an opportunity to make dramatic improvements” to the productivity of the educational system. And on Friday, in a speech before the Council of Chief State School Officers, Gates said school leaders should rethink some basic assumptions that impact budgets, including class sizes and the way teacher pay is structured.
 
In their comments, both of these education superstars referenced the newest AEI-Fordham volume, which touches on many of these same themes. The book explains forcefully how school leaders can, and must, not only survive the current economic storm but also fundamentally restructure their schools to save money and improve efficiency.
 
“The bottom line is that, in the next five years, leaders seeking to make a difference will have to find the dollars they need from existing sources—they can no longer count on fresh infusions of funding to fuel their improvement efforts,” said Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy studies at AEI and co-editor of Stretching the School Dollar. “Our school leaders will need political support in the challenges ahead. By stepping up to speak frankly and offer bold solutions, Secretary Duncan and Bill Gates are making it much easier for state and local leaders to make tough but necessary decisions.”
 
“Instead of tinkering around the edges, we need to fundamentally rethink the way we deliver education, compensate teachers, and organize our schools,” said Michael J. Petrilli, executive vice president at the Fordham Institute. “We’re glad to hear these two powerful education leaders talking about these issues. We see great opportunity for change here, and we hope this is the start of a bold new era in education productivity.”

School Leaders Offer Promising Reform Message

This will likely be the longest blog post you will find on these pages. But that’s OK, because it probably is the most important.

It’s a message about fixing schools, something you’ve seen and heard plenty of times in the past. But on this occasion the authors are 16 superintendents or other leaders of major school districts across the country. One of the 16 is Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Eugene White.

These are some of the reforms needed to save our schools and, more importantly, the young people who are our future. Read this, pass it along to others and do what you can to help make a difference.

As educators, superintendents, chief executives and chancellors responsible for educating nearly 2 1/2 million students in America, we know that the task of reforming the country’s public schools begins with us. It is our obligation to improve the personal growth and academic achievement of our students, and we must be accountable for how our schools perform.

All of us have taken steps to move our students forward, and the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program has been the catalyst for more reforms than we have seen in decades. But those reforms are still outpaced and outsized by the crisis in public education.

Fortunately, the public, and our leaders in government, are finally paying attention. The "Waiting for ‘Superman’ " documentary, the defeat of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million gift to Newark’s public schools, and a tidal wave of media attention have helped spark a national debate and presented us with an extraordinary opportunity.

But the transformative changes needed to truly prepare our kids for the 21st-century global economy simply will not happen unless we first shed some of the entrenched practices that have held back our education system, practices that have long favored adults, not children. These practices are wrong, and they have to end now.

It’s time for all of the adults — the superintendents, educators, elected officials, labor unions and parents — to start acting like we are responsible for the future of children. Because right now, across the country, kids are stuck in failing schools, just waiting for us to do something.

So, where do we start? With the basics. As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents’ income — it is the quality of their teacher.

Yet, for too long, we have let teacher hiring and retention be determined by archaic rules involving seniority and academic credentials. The widespread policy of "last in, first out" (the teacher with the least seniority is the first to go when cuts have to be made) makes it harder to hold on to new, enthusiastic educators and ignores the one thing that should matter most: performance.

A 7-year-old girl won’t make it to college someday because her teacher has two decades of experience or a master’s degree — she will make it to college if her teacher is effective and engaging and compels her to reach for success. By contrast, a poorly performing teacher can hold back hundreds, maybe thousands, of students over the course of a career. Each day that we ignore this reality is precious time lost for children preparing for the challenges of adulthood.

The glacial process for removing an incompetent teacher — and our discomfort as a society with criticizing anyone who chooses this noble and difficult profession — has left our school districts impotent and, worse, has robbed millions of children of a real future.

There isn’t a business in America that would survive if it couldn’t make personnel decisions based on performance. That is why everything we use in assessing teachers must be linked to their effectiveness in the classroom and focused on increasing student achievement.

District leaders also need the authority to use financial incentives to attract and retain the best teachers. When teachers are highly effective — measured in significant part by how well students are doing academically — or are willing to take a job in a tough school or in a hard-to-staff subject area such as advanced math or science, we should be able to pay them more. Important initiatives, such as the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, are helping bring great educators to struggling communities, but we have to change the rules to professionalize teaching.

Let’s stop ignoring basic economic principles of supply and demand and focus on how we can establish a performance-driven culture in every American school — a culture that rewards excellence, elevates the status of teachers and is positioned to help as many students as possible beat the odds. We need the best teacher for every child, and the best principal for every school. Of course, we must also do a better job of providing meaningful training for teachers who seek to improve, but let’s stop pretending that everyone who goes into the classroom has the ability and temperament to lift our children to excellence.

Even the best teachers — those who possess such skills — face stiff challenges in meeting the diverse needs of their students. A single elementary- or middle-school classroom can contain, for instance, students who read on two or three different grade levels, and that range grows even wider as students move into high school. Is it reasonable to expect a teacher to address all the needs of 25 or 30 students when some are reading on a fourth-grade level and others are ready for Tolstoy? We must equip educators with the best technology available to make instruction more effective and efficient. By better using technology to collect data on student learning and shape individualized instruction, we can help transform our classrooms and lessen the burden on teachers’ time.

To make this transformation work, we must also eliminate arcane rules such as "seat time," which requires a student to spend a specific amount of time in a classroom with a teacher rather than taking advantage of online lessons and other programs.

Just as we must give teachers and schools the capability and flexibility to meet the needs of students, we must give parents a better portfolio of school choices. That starts with having the courage to replace or substantially restructure persistently low-performing schools that continuously fail our students. Closing a neighborhood school — whether it’s in Southeast D.C., Harlem, Denver or Chicago — is a difficult decision that can be very emotional for a community. But no one ever said leadership is easy.

We also must make charter schools a truly viable option. If all of our neighborhood schools were great, we wouldn’t be facing this crisis. But our children need great schools now — whether district-run public schools or public charter schools serving all students — and we shouldn’t limit the numbers of one form at the expense of the other. Excellence must be our only criteria for evaluating our schools.

For the wealthiest among us, the crisis in public education may still seem like someone else’s problem, because those families can afford to choose something better for their kids. But it’s a problem for all of us — until we fix our schools, we will never fix the nation’s broader economic problems. Until we fix our schools, the gap between the haves and the have-nots will only grow wider and the United States will fall further behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, rendering the American dream a distant, elusive memory.

The authors: Joel Klein, chancellor, New York City Department of Education; Michelle Rhee, chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools; Peter C. Gorman, superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (N.C.); Ron Huberman, chief executive, Chicago Public Schools; Carol R. Johnson, superintendent, Boston Public Schools; Andrés A. Alonso, chief executive, Baltimore City Public Schools; Tom Boasberg, superintendent, Denver Public Schools; Arlene C. Ackerman, superintendent of schools, the School District of Philadelphia; William R. Hite Jr., superintendent, Prince George’s County Public Schools; Jean-Claude Brizard, superintendent of schools, Rochester City School District (N.Y.); José M. Torres, superintendent, Illinois School District U-46; J. Wm. Covington, superintendent, Kansas City, Missouri School District; Terry B. Grier, superintendent of schools, Houston Independent School District; Paul Vallas, superintendent, New Orleans Recovery School District; Eugene White, superintendent, Indianapolis Public Schools; LaVonne Sheffield, superintendent of Rockford Public Schools (Illinois).

A Different KIPP Story

A recent Indianapolis Star story on charter schools found that the city’s KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) charter is falling well short in its performance in regard to student testing. The story accurately pointed out that charter performance, like that of other public schools, relies on strong teachers and solid leadership.

On a national level, 22 KIPP middle schools are part of a long-range study and have been lauded for strong achievement in an interim report.

According to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute:

Though KIPP schools have been the focus of previous research, this is by far the largest and most rigorous study to date. And the results are encouraging. Using matched student achievement data from 22 middle schools that had been open since at least 2005-06, Mathematica analysts found statistically significant impacts on reading in 15 of the 22, and on math in 18. Conversely, just two schools had a significantly negative impact on reading, while one school had a significantly negative impact on math (in year 1), which actually reversed into a positive impact by year three. These positive effects are sizable, especially in math. After three years in a KIPP school, a student will have made on average 4.2 years of growth in math and 3.9 years of growth in reading.

This was true even though KIPP included in its treatment group all students who were ever enrolled in a KIPP school during the study, including those who spent just one year at KIPP and subsequently left, as well as the results for two schools that lost their KIPP affiliation during the study and subsequently closed. That means these results are probably conservative in terms of students who remained enrolled at KIPP all four years of middle school because they hold KIPP accountable for students who actually were not at KIPP for the majority of their middle school years. Though KIPP surely deserves praise for these results, it should also be applauded for subjecting itself to such a rigorous assessment. 

The 116-page report is here.

Education Secretary Duncan Calls Foul on NCAA

While driving into work, I listened to ESPN’s "Mike & Mike in the Morning" show relay that U.S. Education Secretary (and former Harvard basketball star) Arne Duncan has proposed NCAA teams who don’t graduate 40% of their players should not be allowed to compete in the postseason. A New York Times blog explains:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan took another swing at the National Collegiate Athletic Association and top college basketball programs Wednesday, reiterating a call he made in January to ban from postseason play teams that fail to graduate at least 40 percent of their players.

If Duncan’s proposal were to be carried out, 12 teams in the N.C.A.A. men’s tournament would be barred from competing, including Kentucky, a No. 1 seed, which has a graduation rate of 31 percent, according to a study released earlier this week by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida. Six institutions (Brigham Young, Marquette, Notre Dame, Utah State, Wake Forest and Wofford) achieved a 100 percent graduation rate.

“If a university can’t have two out of five of their student-athletes graduate, I don’t know why they’re rewarded with postseason play,” Duncan said in a telephone conference call. His remarks were nearly identical to ones he made in a speech in January at the N.C.A.A. convention in Atlanta, where he told a crowd of athletic directors and university presidents that leaders in college sports aren’t doing enough to graduate basketball players.

ESPN’s analysts agreed the concept was well-meaning, although the logistics of such legislation would end up becoming convoluted because so many factors play into graduation rates (e.g. transfers, players who go to the NBA early, etc.). Jay Bilas also offered that coaches should not be punished for kicking a student off the team who can’t handle the academic load, since most would agree that’s the correct thing to do. He also opined that these are more than just basketball teams, they are institutions of higher learning, and they are equipped to handle these matters themselves.

What do you think? Fair or foul?

A Tie Between Testing and Tenure

Education changes are underway in many places — possibly including New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to use student test scores as one factor in teacher tenure decisions.

The fight with the teachers’ union is expected to be bitter. But Bloomberg makes an excellent point in the closing quote below, as reported by the New York Times:

The city already uses test scores in evaluating the system: to determine teacher and principal bonus pay, to assign the A through F letter grades that schools receive and to decide which schools are shut down for poor performance. The mayor is now putting even more weight behind those scores by using them to decide which teachers should stay and which should go.

The Bloomberg administration contends that it already has the power to use test scores in tenure decisions. But, he said that the Legislature should require all districts in the state to evaluate teachers and principals with “data-driven systems,” one of the factors Education Secretary Arne Duncan will use in deciding which states will receive Race to the Top grants.

The mayor also said the state should allow teacher layoffs based on performance rather than seniority, as they are now.

“The only thing worse than having to lay off teachers would be laying off great teachers instead of failing teachers,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “With a transparent new evaluation system, principals would have the ability to make layoffs based on merit — but only if the State Legislature gives us the authority to do it.”
 

Coach Duncan, We’re Ready to Play

We shared some of President Obama’s encouraging education words in this space on Wednesday. In follow-up calls with reporters, Education Secretary Arne Duncan says his vision for education reform includes a few selected states in a "race to the top."

The criteria: not settling for the status quo, being willing to adopt existing reforms and offering a few new ideas. Specific proposals will be sought later. Performance pay for teachers, expanded charter schools and longer school days/years will undoubtedly be part of the mix.

Sounds like a program that progressive states — those wanting to make sure their young people and their workplaces of the future are competitive — need to sign up for. Here’s one vote for Indiana to answer the call.

The Detroit Free Press account of Duncan’s message notes that Michigan has been in a "race to the bottom." Indiana has made some progress, but probably been stuck in neutral too long. Again, if the action lives up to the promise, Indiana needs to be in the game.

Words to Cherish: ‘Aren’t Radical Enough’

In now nearly 11 years at the Indiana Chamber, one of several consistent battles that has taken place on the policy stage is the fight for education reform. A number of other local and state players have come and gone, but the Chamber has been there with research, advocacy, pilot programs and much more.

Many of our board members are passionate about the issue. They rightfully realize that today’s education is critical to assembling tomorrow’s workforce — one that will not only be competitive but hopefully world class.

There have been victories along the way for sure, but also more than a few setbacks. The "let’s not rock the status quo" mentality that we see far too often is frustrating. But for those interested in true reform, it doesn’t stop them from fighting the fight.

This is all a prelude to a noteworthy Fordham Institute analysis about charter schools, vouchers and comments by new Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The quick take: Duncan isn’t sure vouchers are the answer in D.C. because they "aren’t radical enough."

Wow! Hope is renewed. Read the full story.