For this week’s BTCIK, I wanted to celebrate the close of another school year by shining light on a true school leader—someone who’s taught, supported teachers, supported schools, and run schools.

So we’re lucky enough to have as a guest Kaya Henderson, Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools.

Like so many involved in this work, she is a passionate advocate for the interests of kids in need. But she’s been able to turn that commitment into a number of groundbreaking accomplishments—growing TFA, launching TNTP, crafting and implementing IMPACT, and more.

There’s no doubt that were she to decide to hang up her ed-reform cleats now and apply her talents elsewhere—God forbid!—she’d be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

But there are quite a few of those in our business. What sets Kaya apart, at least in my book, are rare personal qualities that remain unseen unless you have the chance to spend some time in her company.

She’s a sophisticated thinker; you don’t achieve the professional successes she has through gumption alone. She’s courageous; though everyone knows her for her approachable style, warm disposition, and infectious smile, Kaya’s accomplishments are partly attributable to her titanium backbone.

Most importantly, though—and I wish I had a better word for it—Kaya is real. She has a remarkable, quiet confidence that enables her to be, well…, her at all times. What you see is what you get, and that is kind, decent, honest, and open.

You can see the ripples through the loyalty of her team. I know for a fact that other organizations routinely try to poach Kaya’s top brass. But they won’t budge; such is their devotion.

And I know from first-hand experience how magnanimous Kaya can be. Just imagine: I’ve written a book contending that the organization she leads will never be high performing. I talk about the failure of the urban district every chance I get! I’ve also publicly opposed a proposal she vigorously supports—giving DCPS the power to serve as a charter school authorizer. She has every reason to see me as a nemesis. But, instead, she treats me like a valued friend. In a professional world of big egos, turf battles, and petty grudges, Kaya is able to stay above it all.

She is exemplary company for education reform to keep.

You started as a Teach for America corps member, worked for TFA, and helped found TNTP, so human-capital issues must be very important to you. Are your roles in creating IMPACT, the landmark DCPS educator-evaluation system, and crafting the district’s groundbreaking union contract your proudest accomplishments? Or would you prefer your DCPS legacy to be something else—maybe Common Core or family engagement?

I’ve spent the better part of 20 years trying to figure out ways to get and keep great educators, so I’m very proud of the human capital accomplishments we’ve achieved here at DCPS. Just today, I got an email from a highly effective teacher who contemplated leaving after his 2^nd year, but because of the feedback and support he got from IMPACT, and the compensation and recognition he has received from A Standing Ovation, and LIFT, our educator career ladder, he is finishing his 5^th year in DCPS and wouldn’t dream of teaching anywhere else. That makes me very proud.

That being said, if I do my job well, my hope is that I can leave DCPS as a district where students are achieving at high levels no matter their backgrounds, families are choosing DCPS schools because of the world-class education we provide, and parents and community members feel like they’ve contributed to DCPS’ amazing successes.  That’s the legacy that I’d love to leave. 

You’ve been with DCPS for six years now, first as deputy chancellor to Michelle Rhee and now as chancellor. If you could go back in time and start your tenure over again from day one, what would you do differently? What lessons have you learned during your time at DCPS that have been most meaningful to you?

If I could start all over again, I’d rethink our approach to communications and engagement. We haven’t done a great job of consistently explaining what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, successes, challenges, and how our partners – families, community organizations, politicians, non-profit partners, the faith-based community, etc. – can help to advance the work.  We’ve been too busy doing the work to communicate and engage in a way that makes it sustainable over the long-term. This is an issue that I’m bound and determined to work on over the coming year. I know that if stakeholders—educators, families, community members, etc.—don’t feel ownership in moving DCPS to success, any wins will be short-lived. I want to create lasting, successful change, and I want to do it WITH our stakeholders.

You and I have a spirited debated going about my view that the urban district is broken, can’t be fixed, and must be replaced. Are there ever moments in your job when you think to yourself, “Dang, Andy might be right!”? Any particular moments when you smile and say to yourself, “No way, Andy’s all wrong!”?

I definitely have moments where each of those things crosses my mind. However, I’m less convinced than you are about the structural organization or governance of schools as the answer to educational improvement. There are great district schools, charters, and private schools, just like there are terrible district schools, charters, and private schools. For all of the dismantling of traditional central offices that many in the charter sector said were key to their ability to succeed, many of the highest-performing charter networks are actually recreating central office functions and roles.

The governance model is one of many factors that impacts outcomes, but it’s not the only one. I think great educational outcomes happen when you attract and retain great people, give them the resources and capacity they need to do their best work, and place them within environments and structures that allow them to soar. Many seem to be successful in doing this in one school building, or under a controlled set of conditions, or across a limited number of schools. However, the real challenge is producing a consistent level of quality educational experiences and outcomes across a system, at scale.

You have a tremendously demanding job, but you also have a wonderful family at home. How do you sustain yourself and strike a balance between work and life? Do you have a support group you rely on? Have you had strong female role models to show the way, or maybe you’ve found books/articles that help (Sandberg’s Lean In, Slaughter’s “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”)?

I’ve read all of the “Mommy Wars” books and articles, and I’ve come to believe that nobody can have it all.  Each of us makes sacrifices for the things that are important to us, and we find ways to make our lives work around our priorities. I have an amazing partner and great kids who understand that making schools excellent for all children is something that I’m passionate about. So they are willing to see me a little less and pick up some of the work at home, so I can do this job. I generally don’t work on weekends because that’s family time. It’s hard for people to accept, but it’s where I draw my line.  I also know that time with myself, and time with friends and family is really important to me, so I make time in my schedule to do those things that sustain me.

You have a rare combination of skills and experience. You’ve got a big brain and giant heart. You’ve held a high-level government job with enormous public scrutiny. You genuinely like people and people love you. Would you ever consider running for political office?

Wow!  What great compliments. Thanks, Smarick, but I don’t have any interest in running for political office. As a person who is determined to live my life on my own terms, politics just doesn’t seem to afford the opportunity to do that. The public scrutiny is also pretty off-putting, especially when you have a family.

I know you’re a big fan of President Obama. What most impresses or inspires you about him? Of the many other famous people you’ve met as chancellor, have any stood out as especially gifted in some way?

When I was little, my grandmother used to always tell me that I could be President of the United States, and I actually believed her. The longer I lived, the more I doubted that we would ever elect an African-American to the presidency.  His election (and subsequent re-election) has restored my sense of hope and possibility about our country. I’m so proud of us and of him! The first time I met President Obama, I was so filled with pride that I could hardly speak. I’m inspired by his living and leading by his values.

One of the best parts of my job is meeting lots of people who I’ve read about or admired from afar. I could go on for days about famous people I’ve met and the various impressions they’ve left on me. 

You’ve received two degrees from Georgetown University. Did you have any formative experiences related to the school’s Catholic (Jesuit) tradition? For example, did you come across any especially influential religious ideas or religious people while there? Any thoughts about the Catholic Church’s selection of its first Jesuit pope (Francis)?

I’ve actually received three degrees from Georgetown.  I was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters last spring. It was one of the highlights of my career!

Georgetown’s goal is to prepare “men and women in service to others.” That ethic of service was instilled in me/required by my parents, but developed more fully during my time at Georgetown. I joined service organizations at Georgetown because I saw injustice and inequity in the world. The diverse, socially active, Georgetown community helped me create my own path to addressing some of those issues.   

Why is Anguilla so special to you? Is it the beaches and weather, or is there more to it than that?

Anguilla is far, far away from my daily life, but it is home at the same time. My family is from Anguilla, and I spent every summer during my childhood on the island. For me, it’s a place of total relaxation and beauty, but also a place of deep personal connection. It feels like my own very special corner of the world. I try to get there at least twice a year, though this job sometimes foils my plans!

If you could magically construct the concert of your dreams—made up of any entertainers, living or dead—who would you choose to be on the bill, who would you take with you, and where would it be held?

I like too many different kinds of music to knit my favorite performers into one concert, so here’s what I’d do. I’d have a huge dance party on a beach somewhere (not Anguilla because I don’t want folks invading my personal slice of heaven). My personal DJ (yes, I do have my own personal DJ) would spin all the kinds of music I love - old school hip-hop, old and new R&B, soca, house, Motown, etc. I’d invite all of my friends and family members, and we’d eat, drink, and dance on the beach all day long. Oh, and there’d probably be some karaoke involved!

OK, if you had to choose just one, which would it be: Julianna Margulies in “The Good Wife,” Kerry Washington in “Scandal,” or Idris Elba in “Luther”?

Love Kerry, especially for the work she has done to support the arts as a strategy to turn around one of our most challenging schools in DC, but the answer is very simple:  Idris, Idris, and Idris!!

Arne Duncan will allow some states that have been awarded ESEA flexibility to postpone the stakes attached to teacher-evaluation systems for up to one year, in light of an outcry over holding teachers and principals accountable to student test scores aligned to the new Common Core standards before the standards had been fully implemented. (Politics K–12, New York Times, Education Week, Education Gadfly Show, Washington Post, and Teacher Beat)

For the first time in over a decade, New York’s United Federation of Teachers plans to throw its weight behind mayoral candidate; they are expected to announce their endorsement today. (New York Times)

In their latest report on charter quality, CREDO finds that, on average, charter school students in Illinois outperform their traditional public school peers in reading and math—but not in charters outside of Chicago. (Charters & Choice)

Governor Brian Sandoval has signed legislation that, for the first time, provides funding specifically for Nevada’s English-language learners. (Learning the Language)

Fordham’s Mike Petrilli argued the conservative case for the Common Core—and debunked some common anti–Common Core myths—yesterday on the Rod Arquette Show (KNRS-Salt Lake City). Among his points:

• Common Core is conservative. The Fordham Institute, which has been reviewing standards for fifteen years, found these standards to be more rigorous than those in three-quarters of the states—including Utah. The standards are solid, conservative, and traditional, said Mike.
• Accountability is conservative. Thirty years ago, A Nation at Risk started the modern education-reform movement—and put accountability and standards at the forefront of the conservative, Republican education platform. Today, Republicans shouldn’t be fighting these high standards; they should make the Common Core (and accountability to parents and taxpayers) a mainstay of the reform agenda.

Mike notes that there are a lot of misconceptions out there—and jumps to correct the record:

• Common Core was created by the federal government: False. Mike explained that the Common Core was created by governors and superintendents, but he did admit that conservatives should be angry at President Obama for overstepping his role and politicizing the Common Core.
• Common Core will have students reading technical manuals: False, once again. The Common Core promotes the reading of rigorous texts—both fiction and non-fiction—from classic American literature to our founding documents. This isn’t about manuals; it’s about preparing our students for college and careers.
• There is data-tracking in Common Core: Wrong again. Mike notes that he too is concerned with some of the databases under development, but also says these are completely separate from the Common Core

Listen to the full interview here (starts at minute 64:55).

"You just have to have a pulse and you can get into some of these education schools," said Mike Petrilli to the Associated Press. "If policymakers took this report seriously, they'd be shutting down hundreds of programs."

For Terry Ryan’s take, visit the Ohio Gadfly Daily. And stay tuned for a short review in Thursday’s Education Gadfly Daily.

A groundbreaking new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality, first of its kind and years in the making, delivers a scathing review of colleges’ teacher-education programs and their admission standards, giving just four programs top marks and placing 160 on a “consumer alert” list. (Miami Herald, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, and Education Week)

New York City’s graduation rate dipped very slightly—which Mayor Bloomberg hailed as a win, given that the class of 2012 was the first cohort to enter high school with tougher diploma requirements. (New York Times, SchoolBook, and Wall Street Journal)

The New York Times profiles William Sanford Nye—a.k.a. Bill Nye the Science Guy—and his recent efforts to defend scientific evidence on issues that have been polemicized, such as climate change and the age of the earth.

On Monday, a New Hampshire judge ruled that the state’s tuition tax-credit program violates the state constitution, on grounds that no public money can be used for religious school tuition. (Washington Post)

A new study finds that homeless, highly mobile children—considered arguably the most at-risk of any students—can persevere and recover academically once their living situations become more stable. (Inside School Research)

New Jersey Lawmakers have approved a bill that would allow those in the country illegally to qualify for in-state tuition at state universities and colleges. (Associated Press)

In this installment of the Education Next book club, host Mike Petrilli talks with Sarah about the successes and failures of New Orleans-style reform, and what it means for the rest of the country.

Additional installments of the Ed Next Book Club podcast can be heard here.

This piece originally appeared on the Ed Next blog.

Under a budget that the New York Times dubbed “draconian,” Philadelphia’s public schools have pink-slipped 19 percent of their school-based work force—including all 127 assistant principals and more than 1,200 aides—leaving principals worried about who will “answer phones, keep order on the playground, coach sports, check out library books, or send transcripts for seniors applying to college.” (Education Gadfly Weekly and New York Times)

Newark’s schools superintendent calls for a new common application, meant to close the divide between the city’s charter and traditional public schools. (Charters & Choice)

Based on student test data released last week, 8 percent of the 10,544 New York City teachers were rated “highly effective,” 76 percent were rated “effective,” and 10 percent were rated “developing”; test data will only count for 20 percent of teachers’ overall performance ratings. (Wall Street Journal and New York Post)

In China, businesses are “swamped” with job applications from college graduates—but prospects are bleak. (New York Times)

On Friday, Chicago School District officials confirmed that it would lay off over 850 teachers and staffers at closing and turnaround schools. (Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Huffington Post)

Amidst fears of gang violence, Chicago has hired 600 adults to help get children to their new schools along “safe-passage routes.” (Fox NY)

The Hechinger Report profiles the new GED exam—and its stiff competition.

• Those of you who read Robin Lake’s awesome BTCIK interview last week know that the Center for Reinventing Public Education is out with a new publication. Since 2005, CRPE has produced an annual Hopes, Fears, and Realities report on charter schools, a collection of similarly themed papers by a number of the field’s leaders. This year’s edition focuses on innovation. All four chapters are absolutely worthwhile; I’m especially partial to Ethan Gray’s piece on charter incubation and Jeffrey Henig’s contemplation of charters expanding to suburban and affluent areas. If you like charters, follow urban education reform, or simply really like CRPE (like me), check it out.

• If you’re interested in the educator-evaluation debate, you ought to take a look at Democrats for Education Reform’s recent report, Culture of Countenance. A number of groups have begun analyzing the consequences of the nation’s rapid overhaul of laws and regulations related to evaluations. DFER’s contribution is giving attention to the most overlooked aspect—observations. An underreported finding of the MET study is that observations may be the wobbliest leg of the new stool. This report builds on that, echoing one of the most important arguments in The Widget Effect—that the culture surrounding evaluations undermines the entire system, observations in particular.

• The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice recently released results from its most recent public opinion survey. This one focused primary on “school moms,” mothers of school-age kids. Big takeaways include the following: school moms are more optimistic than other Americans about the direction of our schools (but even their overall support is tepid); most Americans (including these moms) view dimly Uncle Sam’s role; Americans underestimate what we spend on schools; and a plurality of moms would pick a private school first for their children. There are lots of other important results related to charters, vouchers, and parent triggers. If you like data and polling, definitely take a stroll through the numbers.

An expansion of pre-K will likely mean an expansion of private pre-K providers. (New York Times)

The Montgomery County Board of Education has proposed a policy change that would make it more difficult for parents to transfer their kids to out-of-district high schools. (Washington Post)

A study questions whether or not school districts utilize technology investments effectively. (New York Times)

Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson has proposed combining district and charter admissions, aiming to quell criticisms that charters “skim” the good students, leading to higher test scores. (Wall Street Journal)

Goldman Sachs and a private-equity investor are lending money to a Utah preschool program for disadvantaged students by way of a novel “ social-impact bond”—which means he will only get paid back if the kids who are most behind end up doing well in elementary school. (Wall Street Journal)

A study questions whether or not school districts utilize technology investments effectively. (New York Times)

Peter Meyer emphasizes the distinction between standards and curriculum with regards to the Common Core. (IdeaLab)

A report from an alliance of retired military leaders urges policymaker to support early childhood education. (Inside School Research)

Poverty is a lot like global warming.

It's been a real joy to join you in dialogue these past six weeks. I very much appreciate the opportunity and hope we can continue the discussion in other forums in the months ahead. (Well, maybe after a summer break!)

Let me use my last correspondence to introduce one new idea and summarize some of the others we've explored—to determine just how far we've come in bridging our differences.

The new idea is this: Poverty is a lot like global warming.

As a Whole Foods Republican, I acknowledge that global warming is real, that it's a major threat, and that it's caused (at least in part) by human activity. Here the science is overwhelming.

But unlike most progressives, I'm not yet convinced that we know how to stop it. Will curtailing our carbon output halt climate change? Or is it too late at this point? Here the science is inconclusive.

Yet many environmentalists argue that we should take drastic actions to limit carbon production anyway, even though such actions are likely to wreck the economy, which would drive millions (if not billions) of people into poverty. That's not a price I'm willing to pay for policies that may prove to be nothing more than symbolic or a salve for our guilty conscience.

So it is with childhood poverty. We know that it matters—a lot—when it comes to achievement in school and in one's life chances as an adult. There's no serious debate about that, in the social sciences or in the public dialogue. Where agreement breaks down, though, is regarding what to do about it. As with climate change, we don't really know how to fix it. And what many progressives advocate that we do about it amounts to—in my view—mostly symbolic actions—a salve for our guilty conscience. And some of these actions might make things worse.

The most obvious way to "fix" it is to provide "income supports" to poor parents (via welfare, tax credits, a higher minimum wage, etc.). By definition this will reduce income poverty. But as we both agree, Deborah, this won't fundamentally alter the life trajectory of poor children. (I would also argue that some of these policies can also do real harm, by reducing the incentive to work, by infantilizing adults, by increasing taxes which slows economic growth, etc.)

Other anti-poverty programs—the kind that seek to develop the social and intellectual capital of low-income children—are more promising. But even here we must be modest. High-quality preschool, for instance, has great potential, but we don't really know how to scale up the kinds of programs that have gotten dramatic long-term results. Our efforts at scale (like Head Start) have been almost universally disappointing. (Almost: Recent results out of New Jersey and Texas provide glimmers of hope.)

What else might we do? Curb teenage pregnancy; provide quality prenatal care; offer home visits for expectant mothers; eradicate lead from every American home; keep fathers out of prison by reforming our criminal-justice system. Each of these is worth pursuing, and each could help at the margins.

But I will repeat my supposition that to make the biggest difference for the most children growing up in poverty, what we must do is offer them incredible schools—schools that help them to build the vocabulary, content knowledge, "non-cognitive skills," aspirations, confidence, and relationships to "climb the mountain" to college or a middle-class career.

As for what those schools actually do, you and I agree and disagree. We agree that school-level professionals need a significant degree of autonomy—which is why we've both been involved with charter schools, I imagine. We both agree that there needs to be some sort of external accountability, too—and that test scores are hardly perfect arbiters of quality. You posit that a progressive education can provide children, including low-income children, with experiences they will need to succeed in our democracy (and economy). I'm more optimistic that a purposeful program that builds vocabulary and content knowledge (and much else, of course) will provide disadvantaged children the best chance to beat the odds. Let's follow students from both types of schools into adulthood and see who's right, OK? (Maybe we're both right—maybe both paths work as long as the schools are "great" enough.)

Let me finish with one last parting thought. Fundamentally I'm a policy wonk, so I can't stop without leaving a policy recommendation. It's one I first floated a few weeks ago, and I think it could change the terms of the school-reform debate—maybe even end the school reform wars. It's the Opt-Out.

Let schools opt out of the current testing-and-accountability regime (and the soon-to-be Common Core–testing-and-accountability regime) if they can propose alternative, rigorous metrics for which they are willing to be held accountable. State boards of education are probably the right entities to approve these opt-out requests; the boards' job is to make sure that the alternatives really are rigorous. Some metrics would qualify automatically—long-term outcomes such as college-going and graduation rates and employment outcomes. Others would deserve more scrutiny, such as portfolios of student work or improvements in school climate. If done right, schools would view the opt-out not as a way to "escape" accountability but as a way to mesh accountability with the school's own vision, principles, and beliefs.

Allowing for such opt-outs would require changes to federal and state law, for it would mean moving away from the "single statewide system" of accountability currently required by the ESEA.

But it would be worth it. It would serve as a release valve of sorts for educators and parents with legitimate grievances with today's system. Do you hate testing and the way it warps schools? Measure long-term student outcomes instead. Are you leery of the Common Core? Can you show progress against the A.P. or I.B. tests? Great. Are you a career-tech academy with lousy test scores but great long-term impacts? Prove it.

What do you say, Deborah? Are you ready to opt in to opt out? (Which also means opting in to the default—Common Core?) Here's hoping.

Over and out.

This post originally appeared in Ed Week's Bridging Differences blog.

In what Politics K–12 dubbed a “predictable party-line vote,” the Senate Education Committee sanctioned Senator Harkin’s NCLB-reauthorization proposal; both Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander want to see the bill reach the floor of the Senate. In the meantime, House Republicans have filed their own bill. (Politics K–12 and Washington Post)

After a swell in the number of Americans graduating from college, the share of the nation’s population with college degrees has hit an all-time high. (New York Times)

Eva Moskowitz argues that suspensions are sometimes necessary in order to build a positive, safe school environment. (New York Post)

Anthony Weiner, former U.S. Representative and current NYC mayoral candidate, indicated support for a form of merit pay for teachers. (Wall Street Journal)

Now that NYC finally has a new teacher-evaluation system, administrators and teachers have three months to figure out implementation. (Education Week)

Following the passage of a new law allowing charter schools in New Zealand, an undisclosed number of charters will break ground in 2014–15; thus far, thirty-five proposals have been submitted to the Education Ministry. (Charters & Choice)

This is the Administration's plan to get an enormous new social entitlement through Congress? Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography

This is the Administration’s plan to get an enormous new social entitlement through Congress? Stage events with GOP governors and urge them to pressure Congressional Republicans into passing a tobacco tax? They can’t possibly be that naïve, can they?

In classic Team Obama style, Duncan explains resistance to his boss’s plan as Congressional dysfunction. Yet Republican members of Congress are “functioning” just at they’re supposed to. They promised voters that they would rein in spending, limit the size of government, and keep taxes low. Duncan admits that he wants “a massive influx of resources” in order to “dramatically expand access.” I’m sorry, but that’s not what Republicans were elected to support.

What’s needed isn’t a fancy campaign, complete with a “war room” and “outside-in” strategy, but a real negotiation.*  Republicans might support high-quality preschool for poor kids, but not if it means a whopping new tax. What are Democrats willing to give in return?

I see opportunities in Duncan’s admission that “we spend all this time and money trying to catch [disadvantaged kids] up. And we wonder why we have an achievement gap.”

That’s true—so how about cutting some of the money that’s being spent further downstream—ineffectively, as Duncan acknowledges—and investing it in preschool, instead? Consider these options:

• Cut the TRIO programs, which (as a recent Brookings paper shows) don’t work at preparing disadvantaged high school students for college. That’s $1 billion a year.
• Cut Title II of ESEA, which is a big slush fund for school districts to spend on “teacher stuff” and class-size reduction—with no evidence of results. $3 billion a year.
• Cut Pell grants, many of which are flowing to remedial-education courses from which disadvantaged students never escape. Introduce some minimal standards so that only students who are college-ready—a very low bar for community colleges, it turns out—can receive the aid. I bet you could shave $5 billion a year easy—a big chunk of it currently landing in for-profit universities.

There, I just found $9 billion a year. Ask Republicans to pitch in $1 billion in new money and you’ve got $10 billion a year for preschool.

Now that’s how you get the deal done, Mr. Secretary—that is, if you’re serious.

 * President George W. Bush didn’t get No Child Left Behind through Congress by jawboning or staging events—he let top Democrats write key parts of the law. Granted, that resulted in crazy-quilt legislation and some really bad ideas (ahem, thank you Chairman Miller for Highly Qualified Teachers), but that’s the way our democracy works.

Yes, they’re better than the standards that many states are currently using—indeed, at least a little better than half the states and clearly superior to sixteen of them. On the other hand, five states (plus D.C.) earned grades of A or A- from our reviewers. So did the NAEP and TIMSS frameworks. Another seven states earned B’s. Check out the map and table below.

Yes, students and teachers in a bunch of states would be somewhat better off if their curriculum, instruction, and assessments were geared to NGSS rather than their abysmal present standards. But they’d be far better off if they Xeroxed (and faithfully implemented) South Carolina’s excellent science standards or if they constructed new ones around the commendable assessment frameworks of TIMSS and NAEP.

What’s the problem with NGSS? To be fair, it’s better in several important respects than its early drafts (on both of which our reviewers provided extensive feedback and recommendations for improvement.) It handles some topics and issues quite well, even elegantly, particularly in the earlier grades.

We recognize, too, that the drafters faced tough choices in pursuit of their goal of K–12 science standards that are “fewer, clearer, and higher.” The failure to make such choices can lead to “kitchen sink” standards that prove essentially impossible to implement. Our own understanding of good academic standards has benefited from the NGSS (and Common Core) efforts to set priorities, prune, and focus. Plaudits to NGSS and its authors (as well as the National Research Council that developed the framework on which NGSS is based) for facing up to the challenge of deciding what is most important for children to learn.

Still and all, the final NGSS suffer from five significant shortcomings.

1.   Science standards should integrate and balance necessary content with critical “practices” through which students can extend learning and deepen understanding. The NGSS fail to achieve this balance; they too often gloss over or omit entirely the content that students need to make practices both feasible and worthwhile.

2.   While ostensibly aimed at preparing all students to be “college and career ready,” the NGSS omit essential prerequisite content that would lay the groundwork for high school physics and chemistry, much less for college-level science. And the newly released “Appendix K,” which offers suggested “course sequences” for middle and high school, implies that the NGSS include the essential content that IS the foundation for high school physics and chemistry courses. They do not.*  

3.   Too often, the NGSS standards assume that students have mastered essential prerequisite content that was never actually spelled out in earlier grades. Good standards clarify and prioritize what content and skills are essential at each grade level—and build cumulatively so that expectations at every level have been adequately prepared for in earlier levels.

4.   The NGSS incorporate “assessment boundaries” in some standards that are meant to limit the scope of knowledge and skills to be tested on state assessments, but will likely have the unintended effect of limiting curriculum and instruction, particularly for advanced students. What’s more, often the content that is excluded is grade appropriate and part of the necessary foundation for future learning.

5.   NGSS fail to include much math content that is critical to science learning, especially at the high-school level, where it is essential to learning physics and chemistry. The Fordham reviewers note that the standards “seem to assiduously dodge the mathematical demands inherent in the subjects covered”— a missed opportunity as many states prepare to implement higher math standards under the Common Core.

Where do states go from here?

We at Fordham have long favored high-quality, multi-state, even “national” academic standards, so long as they originate with and are voluntary for states. We’re bullish, for example, about the Common Core English language arts and math standards because they are substantively strong and truly state owned.

There are definite advantages to “common” standards, including comparability, portability, and some economies of scale. Textbooks, for example, need not be customized to each state’s idiosyncratic standards and shared assessment instruments should be more economical than separate single-state procurements. The tests may be better, too—and yield results that can be compared across state lines, even internationally.

But “common” standards are not inherently superior to the work of individual states—and improved standards can come from multiple directions.

We advise state leaders seeking to improve their science standards to look to—and borrow from—other states that have developed clearer and more rigorous standards, as well as from sound national and international models and frameworks. We’re particularly positive about places like South Carolina and the District of Columbia, both of which are thorough as to content (without falling into the “kitchen sink” temptation) and serious as to rigor but also do a fine job of amalgamating well-thought-out practices with that content. Moreover, they’ve developed strong support materials that, if implemented well, will drive curriculum and assessment development and instruction.

One more key concern: Regardless of the quality of a state’s existing science standards, or the improvements the NGSS (or a different change) might bring, state leaders would be wise to consider whether they presently have the capacity to overhaul science expectations while they are still working to faithfully implement the Common Core standards for English language arts and math. If we’ve learned anything from the Common Core experience, it’s that implementation (including preparation of educators and the public) is vastly more challenging than adoption. It’s fruitless to adopt any new standards until and unless the education system can be serious about putting them into operation across a vast enterprise that stretches from curriculum and textbooks to assessment and accountability regimes, from teacher preparation to graduation expectations, and much more. Even the finest set of standards is but a hollow promise, absent thorough and effective implementation.

 * The NGSS team says it will be releasing another appendix—there are already a dozen!—that will discuss college and career readiness. For now, we must assume that what’s actually in—and missing from—NGSS is intended to yield readiness for advanced study of science, including college-level science.

I’ve known Mashea Ashton on and off for almost a decade. We’ve done charter school stuff together and crossed paths in various other pursuits. I always liked and respected her a great deal. In my mind she was good people.

But through a fellowship program, I got to know Mashea even better. And for that I’m eternally grateful. Seldom will you come across someone with so much ability and yet so much humility. She is reflective and kind to the core, and she does this work with a quiet passion.

As you’ll see in the questions, Mashea has just about done it all. She’s worked for some of the most influential ed-reform organizations, and she’s currently leading a major effort in one of America’s most prominent ed-reform cities.

But you’ll also see in her answers how she manages to avoid the limelight: by simply being decent and modest and giving others credit.

And that is why I love doing these interviews: to show why our movement is so strong and to draw attention to those who so richly deserve it.

Ladies and gentlemen: the wonderful Mashea Ashton.

What makes you most proud of the Newark Charter School Fund?

I’m most proud of the ability the charter sector and our partners in the district have shown to put aside our differences and commit to the shared goal of creating a system of great schools. Both the charter school sector and the district have worked hard to put aside the “us vs. them” mentality that plagues many other systems and create a truly collaborative environment. While we may have our differences from time to time, our end goal is the same: to ensure that every child in every ward in Newark has access to a high-quality school that prepares them for college and the competitive world beyond.

The CREDO report on New Jersey charters said Newark has one of the highest-performing charter sectors of any city that organization has studied. What did Newark, the state, funders, and operators do right?

The first thing we did right was make clear our relentless focus on quality.  You have to start with the question. “Would I want my child or my best friend’s child to attend this school?” Second, I think the collaborative spirit we share with the district goes a long way toward ensuring that public charter schools exist in an environment where they can thrive. The public charter sector has also committed to accountability and transparency, which goes a long way toward building trust and engagement with parents.

One area of simmering tension in the charter movement is the CMO vs. “Mom-and-Pop” debate. It contains the challenging issues of race, class, philanthropy, politics, policy, and more. Do you have any particular thoughts on this matter?

Our main goal, in collaboration with the district schools, is to expand students’ access to high-quality schools, whether they’re district schools or public charter schools. The portfolio approach we use in Newark means we have both CMO and unaffiliated public charter schools. Public charter schools come in all shapes and sizes, and there are definitely benefits to both models. Parents want a school that respects them, their children, and the community. As long as they’re serving students and families well, we’re happy.

What’s it like working in a town with a rock-star famous mayor, a hard-charging superintendent, and the shadow of the $100 million Zuckerberg donation? I could imagine feeling exhilarated and claustrophobic all at once.

That’s a good way to put it! It is exciting to see such strong growth of the public charter sector in Newark, and such fantastic support from all fronts. Mayor Booker has been a great supporter, as has Gov. Christie, and we’re grateful to have a partner in Superintendent Anderson, who shares our commitment to strengthening all schools in Newark so we can improve access to high-quality education for all students.

Not to make you blush, but you have a really impressive résumé. In addition to leading NCSF, you’ve been an executive with KIPP, New Leaders, and the NYCDOE. You’ve also been a board member of leading organizations, including BAEO and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Where is your professional path leading you?

I’ve seen a lot in my years in the education-reform movement and the charter school sector, and I don’t think I’ve ever been more excited about the work than I am here in Newark. But while we’re seeing truly great progress in supporting the quality growth of the public charter school sector, there’s still a lot of work to be done here in Newark.

If you could talk to the twenty-somethings now cutting their teeth in education reform who will someday lead this work, what would you tell them?

The kind of partisanship that seems so popular in Washington does not work in the real world. Get it out of your heads now. If you’re going to be successful, you’ve got to work together.

I’m told that you really like to buy books for people you care about. What books have influenced you the most? Which books do you most like to give as gifts and why?

The two books I give away the most are probably Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity, by David Allen, and The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, by Michael Watkins. I have also personally enjoyed Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America, by Paul Tough, and Master of the Senate, Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson.

You’re a twin AND you’re the mother of twins. How have those experiences formed you? How do you balance being an organizational executive and a mom of double toddlers?

Being a twin taught me firsthand how to collaborate and work as a team to achieve more. My sister was my first teammate. In addition, especially for those of us in the field of education, children put why we do what we do in perspective. Becoming a mom has helped motivate me to be unapologetic about the children-first approach we’re taking in Newark. I think all parents feel the same way I do: that our children are more important than politics, more important than one person’s profile or legacy, more important than unions or special interests. If we’re going to make real progress in providing children with access to high-quality education, we have to put those things aside and commit to doing whatever it takes.

I’m told that you’re a huge fan of Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Now, I’m of the mind that the finest professional moment of each actually occurs in the same song: 2003’s “Crazy In Love.” It won a bunch of Grammys, VH1 named it the best song of the 2000s, and—my Lord!—in Jay’s verse, he name-checks Tony Soprano, Ringo Starr, Nick Van Exel, and a chinchilla! Are you with me, or do you think they have better songs?

I love every Beyoncé and Jay-Z song out there, so you can’t make me pick one! Don’t get me started!

On Tuesday, the Kansas state board of education joined those of Rhode Island and Kentucky in adopting the Next Generation Science Standards (though Kentucky’s adoption remains conditional upon a regulatory process to come). (Associated Press and Curriculum Matters)

Governor Perry signed a bill that reduces the number of state tests students are required to take prior to graduation from fifteen to five. (Education Gadfly Weekly, Curriculum Matters, and Huffington Post)

Starting next month, a Colorado school district will try out a controversial new teacher-pay system: Different categories of teachers—based on the subject and grade level taught—will be on different pay scales. (Reuters)

A Los Angeles Times op-ed contemplates why, even as American women make educational gains, American men are falling behind, dragging U.S. educational competitiveness down with them—and how to fix the problem.

The Hechinger Report profiles the New Haven teacher union’s cooperation with their school district on achievement-based teacher evaluations.

With transitions to the Common Core on the horizon, states consider whether all students need to take Algebra 2. (Education Week)

The 1970s left education in shambles. Photo by ajari

First, a bit of history: In the 1970s, U.S. education policy was all about “equity,” inclusion, and funding and its reformist zeal came from the left, save for noble but isolated exceptions such as Milton Friedman.

Few deny that the equity agenda did some good, especially for disabled and minority youngsters, but the concomitant neglect of academic achievement proved costly. Though the College Board didn’t acknowledge it until 1975, SAT scores had peaked a decade earlier and were in free fall. Every newspaper seemed to bring word of another teacher strike. Adult authority was in decline, goofy curricular schemes were ascendant—and Jimmy Carter decided that his top education priority would be creation of a new federal agency to reward the NEA for its support in the ‘76 election.

In the blunt words of chronicler Tom Toch (then with U.S. News, now with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching), “the 1970’s left public education in a shambles.”

Fast-forward just three years to A Nation At Risk (1983), which powerfully stated that American K–12 education was tanking. Ronald Reagan concurred. And by then, a series of governors, many of them Republican, many in the South, had reached the same conclusion on their own. They understood that the future vitality of their states depended on a major overhaul of their education systems. Alexander, for example, proposed his “Better Schools Program” to the Tennessee legislature months ahead of the national commission report—and, as chairman of the National Governors Association in the mid-eighties, had that organization embark on a comprehensive, multi-year commitment to school reform.

In Washington, meanwhile, occupying the top post in the new Education Department, Bennett encouraged the reformers and took serious steps to equip them with the research findings and data they needed to bring rigor, comparability, and choice into their work. (He proposed, for example, changes in the National Assessment of Educational Progress that made possible the first valid state-to-state comparisons of academic performance.)

The initial impulse of many of these conservative ed-reformers was to raise standards for the system as a whole, which began with tougher graduation requirements, “minimum competency” exams and fewer electives of the basket-weaving variety. They also pushed to create additional school choices for families. Minnesota enacted statewide “open enrollment” in 1988 and two years later Wisconsin began the country’s first modern voucher program.

Toughening standards, however, was easier said than done, because it was easy for districts and state education departments to game such requirements: “You want three years of math instead of two? Fine, we’ll just spread out the same content.” What the system needed were true external standards—statements of what students should know and be able to do, a clear definition of the desired endpoint, and tests by which to determine how many kids and schools were getting there.

Some conservatives saw standards and choice as conflicting, but in fact they’re complementary, even (in today’s argot) codependent

In 1989, the governors—all of them—met with President George H.W. Bush in Charlottesville and emerged with a set of ambitious (and ultimately unworkable) “national education goals” for the year 2000. This was followed, during the Bush père and Clinton years, by an abortive attempt at setting federally inspired, subject-specific education standards for the country. After this flopped badly, the standards action moved back to the states, where it’s been ever since, albeit with various forms of encouragement (and harassment) from Washington. Early adopters of rigorous statewide standards, including Texas and North Carolina, showed that this approach—combined with suitable tests and public results—could lead to significant achievement gains. Other states, including Jeb Bush’s Florida and Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts, followed suit, with even better results. (Massachusetts is now the sole state whose educational performance rivals the highest-achieving countries of Asia and Europe.)

At the same time, the push for parental choice gained oomph as Minnesota passed the first charter school law (1991), followed swiftly by California and Colorado, then dozens more. Other forms of public-school choice have burgeoned, and vouchers and tax credit scholarships have spread, too, to some sixteen states today.

Some conservatives saw standards and choice as conflicting, but in fact they’re complementary, even (in today’s argot) codependent. Standards do a good job of clarifying the public’s expectations for schools and signaling to parents and taxpayers whether the campus down the street is educating its students poorly or well. But standards-based reform has never had a suitable answer for failing schools. It can identify them but has had little success turning them around.

Choice, on the other hand, is great at creating new school options, places that can replace the failures and give needy kids decent alternatives. Yet market-based reform needs reliable consumer information for it to lead to strong outcomes—information that standards and tests are excellent at providing.

Sticky wickets remain, to be sure, such as the vexed question of accountability for schools of choice where tax dollars are involved. Market-minded reformers tend to argue that satisfying the “customers,” in this case parents and kids, is all that’s needed. We’ve argued, on the other hand, that since education is a public as well as a private good, choice schools—when the public is covering their costs—should also be accountable to the public for student learning. (Wholly private schools are a different matter.) Besides, we’ve seen too many examples of parents who consider everything except academic performance when selecting schools for their kids.

There’s also been much debate among conservative ed-reformers about Washington’s role. While any Republican governor worth his salt pushes for both standards and choice at the state level, it’s tough to know what Uncle Sam should or should not do. George W. Bush moved federal policy to a more aggressive stance with his No Child Left Behind act. A dozen years later, and with ample cause and provocation, Republicans in both the House and Senate are moving to roll back almost all of that. Meanwhile, for better and worse, President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have embraced key items on what had been mostly a GOP reform agenda, including charter schools, rigorous teacher evaluations, even performance-based pay. During the last election, just about the only singular education policy (at the K–12 level) that Mitt Romney could claim as his alone was vouchers.

Enter the Common Core

Though few ordinary folks have ever heard of the “Common Core,” it has emerged in recent weeks as the biggest education flashpoint among state-level GOP policymakers and in the conservative coalition generally. Prompted by Tea Party activists, a couple of influential talk-radio hosts and bloggers, some disgruntled academics, several conservative think-tanks, and a couple of shadowy but deep-pocketed funders, in April the Republican National Committee adopted a resolution blasting the Common Core as “an inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children.” Several states that previously adopted it for their schools are on the verge of backing out. It’s been a major hot button in Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Alabama.

Why all the fuss?

Heretofore, states set their own academic standards. A few did this well but most, according to reviews undertaken by our Institute and others, faltered badly, putting forth vague expectations that lack content and rigor, are unhelpful to teachers and curriculum directors, and often promote left-wing dogma. Even the good ones differ so much from state to state that school and student performance cannot be compared around the country, much less with other lands.

Public education is indisputably the responsibility of states—embedded deeply in their constitutions—but preparing young Americans to succeed in a mobile society on a shrinking and more competitive planet calls for some uniformity of basic education expectations across the land, expectations that, if met, truly prepare young people for college and good jobs and prepare the U.S. workforce for the twenty-first century.

Public education is indisputably the responsibility of states, but preparing young Americans to succeed in a more competitive planet calls for some uniformity of basic education expectations

Many state leaders understand this and, beginning five years ago, the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers (to which most “state superintendents” belong) launched a foundation-funded project called the “Common Core State Standards initiative,” which gave birth (in 2010) to a set of commendably strong standards for English and math from kindergarten through high school. Our Institute’s reviewers found them superior to the academic expectations set by three-quarters of the states—and essentially on par with the rest.

But would states actually embrace them—and give up their own? This was—and remains—totally voluntary, but decisions grew more complicated when the Obama administration started pushing states toward such adoptions by jawboning, hectoring, and luring them with dollars and regulatory waivers.

Whether it was the standards’ intrinsic merit, administration pressure, or the potential advantages of commonality, forty-five states plus D.C. and the Pentagon’s school network signed on. (Texas and Virginia remain the big exceptions.) The top-priority education initiative in most of those places today is preparing teachers, parents, and others for these demanding standards—and for the likelihood that scores will plummet on the tougher tests that are due to be launched in 2015.

Then came the backlash. Some arose on the left from longtime foes of testing and from teacher groups wary of being evaluated against sterner criteria. Some arose from parents and educators fretful that heavier emphasis on English and math will eclipse music, art, civics, health, and the remaining components of a balanced curriculum.

The heavy artillery, however, came from the right. Much of it focused on what was presented, Tea Party style, as a federal plot—worse, an Obama plot, in cahoots with the Gates Foundation, maybe even the United Nations—to take over American schools, end local control, undermine state sovereignty, and vanquish school choice.

Some decried the Common Core as a lowering of standards because, for example, it doesn’t mandate algebra in the eighth grade. (Never mind that few eighth graders study real algebra today.) Others prophesied that Jane Austen and Mark Twain would be replaced by close study of auto-repair manuals. (The list of recommended readings that accompanies the Common Core is excellent—but bad choices by teachers or curriculum directors can subvert any standards.)

The critics’ best-founded beef, however, is with the Obama administration, not with the Common Core

Critics of the Common Core would, of course, like all states—especially their own—to repudiate these “national” academic standards. Writing on this website, directors at the Boston-based Pioneer Institute lamented what they said was Common Core’s obliviousness to the sources of the Bay State’s (genuine) academic progress. Several California think-tankers insist that the Golden State’s school standards are superior to the new ones. And it’s true that those states are among those that our analysts deemed “too close to call” when they reviewed the Common Core alongside state-developed standards. (Little good can be said, however, about actual achievement in California—further evidence that even solid standards gain traction only when well implemented.)

The critics’ best-founded beef, however, is with the Obama administration, not with the Common Core, which was state developed and remains state owned—and voluntary. The White House and Education Department erred when they created federal incentives for states to take the plunge—and erred again when, in this year’s State of the Union address, the president claimed credit for “convinc(ing) almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards.” By tying a blue ribbon around the Common Core, he made it more problematic in red states.

Still, the fact that Obama thinks well of it doesn’t means there’s anything (else) wrong with it. This is understood by the many respected conservatives who back the Common Core, including such scarred veterans of the education-reform wars as Jeb Bush, Bill Bennett, John Engler, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Sonny Perdue, Bobby Jindal, Rod Paige, and Mitch Daniels. They realize that academic standards are only the beginning, setting out a destination but not how to get there. They understand, however, that a destination worth reaching beats aimless wandering—and a big modern country is better off if it knows how all its kids and schools are doing against a rigorous set of shared expectations for the three R’s.

Nor are the standards’ rigor the sole consideration—or the only reason that conservatives should favor them. The Common Core can save dollars while enhancing accountability, hastening the development of powerful instructional technologies, strengthening American competitiveness, reducing remediation in college, boosting the country’s shared civic culture, and (by supplying parents with better information about school performance) advancing school choice.

Some states will surely withdraw from the Common Core, and others will only go through the motions of implementing it. Even in jurisdictions that take it seriously, implementation is apt to be uneven from district to district, and more political rapids lie ahead, when results from new tests begin to arrive, almost certainly showing far fewer young Americans to be “college and career ready” than elected officials will be comfortable with.

Yet none of this means that conservatives should come unglued over the Common Core. Rather, they should maximize the good it can do and minimize its potential harm. Here are three useful steps:

• Draw a bright line between the standards and the federal government. (Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley is onto one approach with his proposal to ban any further federal spending related to the Common Core.)
• Overhaul No Child Left Behind as proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander and House education committee chairman John Kline, in effect rolling back the regulatory regime that has turned results-based school accountability into Uncle Sam’s business. (The tighten-the-screws alternative advanced by Senate Democrats would entangle Washington even further with states’ standards and accountability systems—as well as much more mischief.)
• Continue to push aggressively in dozens of states for more school choice, both public and private—and allow voucher schools (and maybe charters, too) to opt out of their states’ standards and tests (Common Core or otherwise) if they can present alternatives that are just as rigorous. (Disclosure: the coauthors of this piece are still tussling over this one!)

Actions such as these might not restore harmony to American conservatism—and education most definitely is not the only hot issue—but they’d be a worthy start. Meanwhile, it's worth examining the Common Core standards with one's own eyes. (You can find them online here.) We predict that you will be impressed by their rigor, thoroughness, solidity, and ambition—even their “conservative” nature. You may just agree that the United States would be better off if more of its high school graduates possessed these skills and knowledge.

This piece originally appeared in the Weekly Standard.

So if your to-read pile has dwindled, here are a few to add to the top of the stack. Actually, there are so many, I’ve broken this post into two. I know it’s a lot to get through, but, c’mon, what else were you going to read at the beach?

• If you follow NCLB reauthorization or ESEA waivers, you should consider this new Education Sector report a must-read. Authors John Chubb and Constance Clark do three invaluable things. First, they show that during the NCLB era, there were enormous differences in the gains states made in student achievement. Second, the authors show that those states that did well over the last decade have very different waiver applications than the states that lagged far behind. Third, they explain what this means for the Department’s waiver policy and for reauthorization. This is top-notch stuff.
  
  

• A very good companion piece to Ed Sector’s report is this new paper by Thomas Ahn and Jacob L. Vigdor, which argues that NCLB—despite the ritualistic political thrashings it gets today—deserves some credit. It helped raise test scores, showed that tough love for troubled schools has benefits, and more. The paper also argues that the choice/SES provisions (as well as “corrective action”) were less successful. Its conclusion about the “bubble-kid effect” is interesting. Overall, the paper’s findings should inform the reauthorization debate and temper some of the exaggerated claims by the law’s many antagonists.
  
  

• One of the best compliments a musician can bestow is, “I wish I had written that song.” It’s an admission that someone else conjured up an idea and executed it superbly—before you and maybe better than you could’ve done. That’s how I feel about this tome about revitalizing Milwaukee’s reform landscape (edited by Rick Hess and Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj). It’s a collection of essays by some of the business’s best brains; each tackles one element of the city’s reform environment, analyzing conditions and making recommendations. My favorites are Neerav Kingsland’s on the RSD model, Mike Petrilli’s on quality control, and Ranjit Nair’s on human capital. I have quibbles with each piece and a couple bigger beefs with a few, but taken in total, this is a great contribution. If time’s an issue, you can find the synthesis here.
  
  

• Smart, right-thinking young scholar and all-around good dude Mike McShane has been publishing a series of posts under the heading “Dispatches from a Nervous Common Core Observer.” They cover all of the major angles of the new standards—materials, professional development, politics—and are well informed and occasionally provocative. If you want to get up to speed on the state of play or dig into a particular part of the debate, you ought to give these a look.

The piece conflates standards, which are agreed-upon expectations for what children should know in certain subjects by certain ages, with curricula, which are the materials and the approaches that teachers use to help kids learn. It also confuses assessments, which are tests to determine what students know, with accountability, which are systems of tracking student performance, determining which schools and teachers are succeeding or struggling, and providing support or intervening where necessary.

They open with an anecdote about some parents opting out of a new test in New York City as an indication that Common Core may face a broad national backlash. But the backlash—to the extent it exists—is about testing, not standards.

The authors wrongly suggest that the “uniformity of the standards” is what appeals to Common Core supporters. Actually it is the richness and rigor of the standards that appeals to supporters. The uniformity is a bonus. No one really expected forty-six states to adopt.

In their attempt to portray serious debate around the issue, they quote conservative pundit Glenn Beck (who is paid to stir the pot) to counter conservative education scholars (who are paid to actually think it through and get it right).

They suggest that Tea Party resistance to the Common Core comes from the fact that a “radical curriculum—one that has the potential to affect more than fifty million children and their parents—was introduced with hardly any public discussion.” Again, Common Core is a set of standards—not a curriculum—and a simple Google search confirms there has been plenty of public discussion. There is little indication that the curriculum schools and teachers are choosing to help students meet these new standards is “radical.”

Moreover, as the Washington Post recently reported, Tea Party resistance to Common Core has more to do with the mistaken belief that the federal government created and imposed “national” standards on the states. In fact, they were created by states and adopted voluntarily, as the authors correctly point out. They also correctly point out that the federal government gave states incentives to do so.

Then comes the real zinger, as they lament the “Invisible Empire” that is Common Core, a reference notable for its infamous antecedent, the Ku Klux Klan.

They cite one year of declining test scores on a new and more rigorous test in Kentucky to conclude that many American kids will not rise to the challenge of higher standards, adding ominously, “The new standards may well deepen the nation’s social divide.”

They go on to suggest that today’s dropout problem will be made worse by raising standards, when most educators agree that higher expectations boost learning outcomes. They imply that common standards across states are somehow a less even playing field than the wildly variable standards they are replacing.

Although many, if not most, teachers support Common Core, the authors manage to cast the whole issue in an anti-teacher light. They lament teacher scapegoating and call for professionalizing the teaching field, which pretty much puts them in the same camp as prominent supporters of high standards they reference: Arne Duncan and Bill Gates.

They close with the hope and expectation that the introduction of Common Core standards across the country will trigger broader public debate. They could have helped the cause by more clearly distinguishing among the issues of standards, curricula, assessments, and accountability.

For anyone still confused, a track-and-field metaphor might help: The standard is the bar that students must jump over to be competitive. The curriculum is the training program coaches use to help students get over the bar. The assessment is the track meet where we find out how high everyone can jump. And the accountability system is what follows after its all over and we want to figure out what went right, what went wrong, and what it will take to help kids jump higher.

Thankfully, states all across America realize that raising the bar is a critical step in helping our children “jump higher.”

Peter Cunningham is an independent communications strategist based in Chicago and a former assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education.

To every thing there is a season. Photo from the Wikimedia Commons

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven

- Ecclesiastes 3:1

For more than four years now, we at the Fordham Institute have been arguing for a federal education policy of “Reform Realism”—one that is reform-oriented but also realistic about what Washington can effectively achieve. It’s a compromise position of sorts, putting us between the “Army of the Potomac” (lefty reformers who have never glimpsed a problem that Uncle Sam can’t solve) and the Local Controllers (Tea Party types who want zero federal role in education, thank you ma’am). We further fleshed out our vision two years ago with our ESEA Briefing Book and list of 10 recommendations to imbue that key federal law with Reform Realism.

Halfway through 2013, we find ourselves examining another set of ESEA bills, with another series of ESEA mark-ups in front of us. And after highlighting the ridiculous prescriptiveness of the Senate Democrats’s proposal, I find myself under attack from my friends on the left for abandoning Reform Realism and joining the Local Controllers. Have I drunk the Kool-Aid—er, tea?

Granted, it’s harder for me today to find much of anything that I’d want Congress to mandate—or that I wouldn’t want the Department of Education to be able to waive. But I submit that an explicit stance of federal humility is precisely what’s called for at this time—for the causes of reform and realism both. (To every thing there is a season.)

That’s for two main reasons:

1.   A strategic retreat from an overweening federal role will help to protect the Common Core, the jewel in the standards-based reform crown—and it’s good for other reforms like school choice, too.
2.   Substantively, an aggressive federal role has been discredited—and threatens to discredit the entire reform effort along with it.

Regular readers know I’m bullish on the Common Core. I believe that these rigorous standards have the potential to dramatically improve the quality of instruction in the typical American classroom—to move teachers far beyond the test-prep and bubble-kids obsessions of the No Child Left Behind era. If implemented faithfully (a big if), I predict we’ll see significant gains on national and international exams (at least in math and literacy) and, over time, a decline in the number of students in remedial education at college. Employers will find more Americans worth hiring for skilled jobs. All of this will be good for our young people, our system of higher education, our economy, and our shared cultural fabric.

To be sure, any set of rigorous standards could set off this positive chain of events, just as Massachusetts’s standards did in the Bay State. But it’s not inevitable, as we have learned from other states with high standards but lackluster achievement (Indiana and California, especially). It all depends—on the quality of the associated tests, the position of the “cut scores,” ancillary efforts to prepare teachers, and more.

Then there are the ancillary benefits of “common,” rather than state-by-state, standards. First among them: the creation of a nationwide market of textbooks, digital materials, professional development, teacher training, etc., all built upon the common “platform” of the Common Core. Plus assessments that will help parents know how their kids’ schools are doing—and how the school of choice down the road is doing—not just against the state’s own standards but against those of the country and the world.

I could be wrong, of course. Common Core implementation might be half-hearted or lead to wrong-headed instructional practices. But if we want to let it play out, we have to beat back the political efforts underway to push states to un-adopt the standards.

What that means for the federal role is to set strict limits on Uncle Sam’s involvement in standards, testing, and accountability systems—because the cri de coeur of Common Core opponents is that these standards and their companion tests represent a federal effort to micromanage our schools (and the minds of our children) from Washington. Let’s not promote new laws that would make that claim true.

Thus the wisdom of the bills written by Senator Lamar Alexander and Representatives John Kline and Todd Rokita, which explicitly prohibit the Department of Education from getting within 100 miles of the Common Core or anything like it.

And thus the illogic of Senator Tom Harkin’s approach, which—though making faint attempts to clarify that the content of standards is up to the states—proceeds to micromanage state accountability systems in myriad ways. The following are among the most significant:

• Mandating that school ratings consider achievement and growth. (Why not let states use growth alone if they want?)
• Mandating that school ratings consider the progress of English language learners in attaining English proficiency. (What sense does that make for schools with a tiny proportion of ELL students?)
• Mandating that states set performance targets that aim for every school to attain the current “achievement level of the highest-performing 10 percent of schools in the state” (or something equally challenging). (Is this setting up a lot of schools to look bad?)

But it’s not just politics and optics. The last twelve years of hyperactive federal policymaking have gotten a few things right but more things wrong. Take, for instance, the following:

• The command to get “all students” to proficiency encouraged states to keep the definition of “proficiency” exceedingly modest.
• The structure of “Adequate Yearly Progress” encouraged schools to focus on students just below the proficiency bar, rather than students at the middle or top of the achievement spectrum, too.
• The “highly qualified teachers” mandate resulted in a vast paperwork-compliance exercise, while creating new hurdles for alternate route programs (like Teach For America) and charter schools.
• Race to the Top’s enthusiasm for rigorous teacher evaluations led states to adopt “growth measures” in non-tested subjects (like P.E.) that don’t pass the laugh test and are helping to fuel the backlash to testing and accountability writ large. (It’s also impeding principal autonomy in charter and district schools alike.)

Proponents of a strong federal role like to claim that we can’t trust the states. But an equally legitimate question is whether we can trust the feds. They’ve been wrong a lot lately.

Reform Realism Circa 2013

So how can Washington promote reform without making things on the ground worse? What would a humble federal approach entail? Try these two principles.

1.   “Transparency” rather than “accountability.” It’s true that federal taxpayers spend tens of billions of dollars a year on ESEA (and other) programs; they should get something in return. A fair trade is more information about schools, especially their performance and their finances. While the Harkin bill goes overboard in its enthusiasm for new “reporting requirements,” Alexander and Kline/Rokita probably don’t go far enough. On the other hand, the Army of the Potomac needs to give up on its quest to repair inequitable school spending via Title I’s comparability rules—and focus on requiring accurate school-level fiscal data, instead.
2.   Competitions rather than mandates. If Congress cannot help itself and must promote particular reforms, it should do it via competitive grant programs rather than universal mandates and formulas. This isn’t a perfect solution (see Race to the Top and teacher evaluations) but it’s better than the alternative. This is a good bet for new preschool programs (and related regulations); efforts to curb the “school-to-prison” pipeline; and initiatives to encourage a more equitable distribution of effective teachers.

These principles can’t “assure” that states will promote forceful and smart education reforms—though I would posit that no federal mandate can do that. (Repeat after me: The federal government can force states and districts to do things they don’t want to do, but it can’t force them to do those things well.) But the reform movement is better equipped than ever to win political battles at the state and local levels—a better approach than taking the shortcut of federal rulemaking.

None of the ESEA bills are likely to go anywhere anyway, but the outcome of the next few weeks of policymaking will reset the terms of the debate. May the word “humility” be on the minds and lips of members of Congress in the days ahead.

After two decades out of favor, ability grouping is re-entering elementary school classrooms, according to a NAEP analysis. (New York Times)

As federal lawmakers consider NCLB-reauthorization proposals, computer-adaptive testing is gaining popularity. (Politics K-12 and Digital Education)

The New York Times profiles special-education students’ use of camera-and-Internet-enabled robots to enable them to attend class virtually.

Segun Eubanks, the NEA’s director of teacher quality, will be Prince George’s County public schools’ new school-board chairman. (Teacher Beat)

The New York Post noted that schools that graded their own 2012 Regents test results scored higher than schools whose tests were graded outside the school. (New York Post and Wall Street Journal)

In the wake of several critical reports, the pressure is on teacher-preparation programs. (Hechinger Report)

On Saturday, teachers and their supporters attended a union-organized rally in Albany against the “misuse of standardized tests.” (Wall Street Journal)

Kentucky’s state board of education voted unanimously to provisionally adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, making it the second state to do so. (Curriculum Matters)

Despite a state takeover last year, the Inglewood school district has continued to decline. (Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday night, the Louisiana legislature found a new funding stream for the state’s beleaguered voucher program. (Charters & Choice)

Mayor Vincent Gray sent a proposal to the D.C. Council on Friday that would grant Chancellor Henderson charter-authorization powers. (Washington Post)