October 2010 Perspective
October 2010 Perspective
October 2010 Perspective
Commentary
While many political pundits and analysts will likely be focusing on which party
controls Congress in the upcoming mid-term elections, for those interested in the
future of education reform, the many state-level elections are just as critical to
watch. With 37 gubernatorial seats and many important down ballot races up for
grabs, the results will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future of
reform.
Over the past 18 months there have been many encouraging developments on
the college- and career-ready front. With 40 states having adopted the Common
Core State Standards, nearly every state committed to at least one of the two
common assessment consortia, and the Race to the Top (RTTT) competition
inspiring reform across many states – including those who did and didn't win
awards – strong and committed state leadership has been and will continue to be
crucial to the successful adoption, implementation and sustainability of college-
and career-ready reforms in the years to come.
There is little question that political turnover can make it difficult for a state to
sustain its education reforms, as history has proved time and time again. When
leading reform advocates – governors, state education leaders, legislators or
other high-level officials – leave office, their policy legacies may face scrutiny and
be subject to changing priorities or even reversal. At a minimum, a transition can
mean critical reforms slow as new leadership is sworn in and appointed.
Gubernatorial transitions, particularly, can have a direct impact on other
leadership roles within the education arena. In most states, a combination of
Chief State School Officers (CSSO's), State Board of Education members and
State Higher Education Executives (SHEEO's) are appointed and may have term
limits set in place by the governor. This creates deeply connected lines of political
leadership, which may have consequences post-election.
So what does this all mean for the future of the college- and career-ready
agenda, including common standards, common assessments, next-generation
accountability and other policies and programs designed to ensure all students
graduate high school ready for their next step?
If you believe every student should graduate from high school ready for
postsecondary success then now is the time to get involved. There is much work
to be done after votes are cast and newly elected officials prepare to take office;
this is the critical transition time when agendas get set and key personnel are
chosen. Now is the time to make sure that the impressive efforts over the past
few years are continued and built upon. Not sure where to begin? Connect with
your state's education advocacy community – organizations such as the ones
represented within the PIE Network are a good place to start – to see how you
can get involved. And remember, Achieve is always here to help you make the
case for the college- and career-ready agenda with research and advocacy
materials for all audiences.
"We are thrilled to have Allison join Achieve," said Michael Cohen, Achieve's
President. "His knowledge of higher education and deep experience working with
K-12 to implement college readiness policies and programs will be a huge asset
as we embark on an historic effort to build common college-ready assessments
across 26 states. As we know from over a decade of experience at Achieve, the
promise of college and career readiness for all high school graduates is only
possible with true postsecondary involvement every step of the way. Allison has
been a national leader in this area." Read the press release.
• A new report from the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) urges
states to place a major focus on increasing the numbers of students who
earn college degrees and career certificates to meet the goal of 60 percent
of working-age adults earning some type of high-quality credential by the
year 2025. No Time to Waste: Policy Recommendations for Improving
College Completion challenges states to become national leaders in
increasing college completion. It includes 10 major policy
recommendations for states to pursue including setting specific and
ambitious goals for raising the numbers of each degree type and
graduation rates at each institution, system, and statewide; using better
measures of progress to show education attainment levels and how
various groups of students are faring; more attention to college costs and
targeted financial aid, high school students' readiness for college-level
work, institutional practices that can help more students succeed; bringing
many more adults back to college who did not finish degrees and
certificates, and more.
• State Test Score Trends Through 2008-09, Part 1: Rising Scores on State
Tests and NAEP, a study by the Center on Education Policy, analyzes
whether trends in NAEP reading and mathematics results contradict or
confirm trends in state test scores. The study compares trends between
2005 and 2009 at grades 4 and 8 in the percentage of students scoring at
or above the proficient level on state tests and the percentage scoring at
or above the basic level on NAEP, focusing on the 23 states with
comparable student-level data over that time period. In general, the
majority of states with sufficient data showed gains on both their state
test and NAEP, demonstrating there may be more agreement between
trends on state tests and NAEP than is commonly acknowledged. The size
of the gains, however, tended to be larger on state tests than on NAEP.
• The American Institutes for Research (AIR) has recently released a report
that similarly highlights the issue of the wide range of proficiency
standards employed by states across the nation. International
Benchmarking: State Education Performance Standards uses a "chain-
linking" approach to link state assessments to NAEP to the international
assessments TIMSS (2007) and PIRLS (2006) in order to compare the
proficiency standards in each state with international benchmarks. The
report lends further support to the assertion that NCLB perversely
incentivizes states to set low proficiency expectations on their state
assessments in order to meet AYP goals: states with high levels of student
proficiency are strongly correlated with low performance standards. The
Massachusetts and South Carolina performance standards were most
comparable to international competitors' performance standards in 4th
and 8th grade assessments, while many other states saw large decreases
in the percentage of their students that would have been deemed
proficient using a common standard.
• Across the country, legislative and policy changes have led to the rapid
expansion of dual enrollment programs in recent years, which provide
high school students with the opportunity to take college classes and
simultaneously earn both high school and college credit. Concerns about
dual enrollment course quality often follow periods of growth and
expansion, particularly as many states embark on initiatives to raise the
rigor of the high school experience. The National Alliance of Concurrent
Enrollment Partnerships has released Promoting Quality: State Strategies
for Overseeing Dual Enrollment Programs, which documents the strategies
six states employ to ensure that college courses offered to high school
students are of the same high quality and rigor as courses offered to
matriculated college students. The report also highlights states'
approaches to encouraging colleges and universities to align their dual
enrollment programs with state and national standards. This report aims
to help states identify ways to ensure the quality of these courses, a
necessary factor to achieving states' goals to raise the rigor of the high
school experience, increase access to college for students who are
underrepresented in higher education, reduce the amount of remedial
college coursework, and increase college completion rates.
• Fordham Institute's Now What? Imperatives & Options for "Common Core"
Implementation & Governance addresses the questions of what needs to
be done now that the Common Core State Standards have been
developed and adopted, and who needs to do it. Two dozen education
leaders were asked about implementation and governance of the new
common standards. With the feedback they received, the authors lay out
the ten major activities they believe are key elements to robust
implementation. They then frame three possible models for governing this
implementation process. In the end, they recommend a step-by-step
approach to coordinate implementation of the new standards, and related
policies and programs.
Career Opportunity
Achieve seeks a Sr. Associate, English Language Arts. For more, go here.
Connect with Achieve on Facebook
Perspective readers are invited to 'Like' Achieve's Facebook page. This page
includes the latest Achieve blog updates on the Wall as well as photos from
events.
If you received this e-mail from a friend and would like to subscribe, click here.
If you would like to comment, click here.