Education Report December 3, 2010
The Education Report
DECEMBER 3, 2010
Della Cronin, Editor
dcronin@wpllc.net
The Education Report, a weekly publication of WPLLC, provides an executive summary of
public policy issues affecting American education. Please use the bookmarks below to
navigate to your area of interest:
- Budget and Appropriations
- In Brief
- New Publications
- In the News
- About WPLLC
- Budget and Appropriations
The week-long Thanksgiving recess and a two hour bi-partisan meeting at the White House
resulted in a very brief cooperative respite on Capitol Hill. For a few hours this week, it sounded
like Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and the President had found a path
forward to resolve a few critical issues during what was to be a brief lame duck session.
The week began in the Senate with a vote on an amendment by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
that called for a three year moratorium on all earmarked federal spending. That proposal failed
on a vote of 39-56 with five Senators not voting. The hope had been that the vote would clear
the way for consideration of an omnibus spending plan for FY 2011 and consideration of
expiring tax cuts, which are items that must be addressed before the 111th Congress adjourns.
Instead, with no agreements on spending in sight, the House and Senate passed yet another
continuing resolution with an expiration date of December 18th. The House also passed a bill
that would extend the tax cuts for the middle class, allowing cuts for higher income earners to
expire, a move that infuriated Republicans. On a more positive note, a reauthorization of the
Child Nutrition Act did get adopted and sent to the President for his signature.
In the Senate all 42 Republicans sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid on Wednesday stating their
unwillingness to consider any legislation during the lame duck session until all the pending tax
cuts are extended and a budget for FY 2011 is resolved. This drama unfolded as the Majority
Leader and the White House were joining forces in a campaign to bring the Dream Act
legislation to the Senate floor. This is a bill that would offer students and military personnel who
as children were brought to the United States without documents access to higher education and
a pathway to citizenship. The bill previously enjoyed bi-partisan support. In the current partisan
atmosphere, however, the bill is likely to get a lively debate, but the sponsors are not optimistic
about passage.
2
The next two weeks will be comprised of efforts to complete work on the FY 2011 budget and
resolve the question of tax extenders. The three options for the budget are: 1) the passage of an
omnibus bill; 2) passage of a continuing resolution for a full year; or 3) kicking the can down the
road once again with a continuing resolution that would expire sometime in the next
congressional session. Education advocates will be working hard next week to convince
legislators that an omnibus bill is the best way to support critical domestic programs.
Back to top.
- In Brief
SIX INTERVENTIONS AID STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ACROSS THE GLOBE
On Monday, McKinsey & Company unveiled a new report titled, How the World’s Most
Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better, which explains how school systems can make
significant gains from any starting point—from low-performing to high-performing. The report
details the journeys taken by 20 school systems across the globe to improve the education
outcomes of their students. In order to be included in the report, the school systems had to
exemplify significant, sustained (for five years or more) and widespread (throughout grade levels
or subjects) improvement, explained Dr. Mona Mourshed, Co-author of the report and Partner at
McKinsey. Aiming to provide a broad representation of what significant improvement looks like
and how it can be achieved, the report also identifies school systems with “promising starts” in
developing nations with three years of sustained improvement rather than five. Aspire (a US
charter school system), Boston (Massachusetts), Ghana, Hong Kong, Jordan, Latvia and Madhya
Pradesh (India) are among the 20 school systems analyzed in the report. The findings show that
there are six interventions critical to the success of these schools, including improving
professional development for teachers and school leaders; assessing students; improving data
systems; introducing effective policy and laws; revising standards and curriculum; and “ensuring
an appropriate reward and remuneration structure for teachers and principals.” The same
interventions were implemented by each school system, but the focus of each intervention
evolved as each school system progressed from low-performing to excellence. More
specifically, interventions implemented by school systems that went from “poor” to “fair”
focused on achieving basic literacy and numeracy; those that went from “fair” to “good”
performance levels implemented foundational changes; those who went from “good” to
“excellent” performance levels focused on teacher quality; and lastly, those systems that went
from “great” to “highest performing” levels emphasized “learning through peers and
innovation.” Mourshed highlighted that “there is a shift from central guidance to school-based
collaboration and self-evaluation as performance levels increase.” The findings also emphasize
that school leaders can inspire support of reform and that “leadership continuity” is critical
throughout a school system’s progression. It is also clear that there is no “cookie-cutter”
approach to follow. The six key interventions provide instructions for how to improve, but not
what specific actions are necessary to see gains, as that depends on the specific needs of the
school systems. For more information, go to:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Educat...
_Highlights/How%20School%20Systems%20Get%20Better.aspx.
CATO INSTITUTE HOSTS POLICY FORUM ON FOR-PROFITS AND REGULATION IN
AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION
On Tuesday, the Cato Institute hosted a policy forum titled, “Profiting from Ivory Towers,” to
discuss the role of for-profit institutions in American higher education and whether or not
regulation can help improve these programs. Ben Miller, Education Sector Policy Analyst,
asserted that for-profit institutions should be regulated due to the low percentage of students
3
graduating successfully; the high student borrower default rates; and the growing concerns about
programmatic quality. “Accrediting bodies are financially beholden to colleges,” Miller claimed.
He added that regulating for-profit institutions would be best conducted by states and the federal
government, stating there is a “fiduciary responsibility because $7 billion in Pell grants are going
to for-profit institutions.” Robert Bishirjian, President of Yorktown University, discussed the
accreditation and licensing difficulties his internet-based, for-profit institution has faced. Since
Yorktown exclusively offers courses online, its students are located in multiple states, so
Yorktown must seek licensure in nearly every state in the union. Bishirjian also made reference
to a speech given several months ago by former Department of Education Deputy
Undersecretary Robert Shireman to state regulators who oversee for-profit colleges. During his
comments, Shireman made recommendations regarding changes to the accreditation and
regulation of for-profit institutions. Bishirjian said there has been “pressure” on his institution
following Shireman’s speech, and he added that “licensing and other regulations for
accreditation are designed to protect the brick and mortar schools.” Robert Shapiro, Chairman
and Co-founder of Sonecon, LLC, offered an explanation based on economics. He explained
that the demand for post-secondary education in the last 15 years has increased 37 percent, and
“the market’s response to this increase,” Shapiro stated, “brought private for-profit institutions
into the fold.” Using data from a recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study,
he showed for-profit institutions use less federal funds than their counterparts, and additionally,
the amount of direct federal spending paid to these institutions accounted for less than the total
share of their federal taxes. Neal McCluskey, Associate Director of the Cato Institute’s Center
for Educational Freedom, challenged President Obama’s recent claim that community colleges
are the nation’s “unsung heroes,” pointing to the 40 percent completion rates among community
college students. He declared that any attempt to regulate for-profit institutions is “politically
and ideologically driven” since all institutions of higher-education are “awash with waste.” He
acknowledged the “huge growth” in aid per pupil but proposed to cut off aid and subsidies to all
institutions. McCluskey emphasized that prices for college wouldn’t go up if you did this
“because aid drives up prices.” The panelists were asked to comment on his proposal, and
Shapiro stated that “education is a classic example of a market failure,” but Miller challenged
this claim. “You must view the externalities, so in economic terms,” he explained, “the subsidies
and aid for education are mutually beneficial to both taxpayers and students.” For more
information about this forum, visit: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=7606
CAP HOSTS EXPERT PANEL CALLING FOR COHERENT COMPETITIVENESS STRATEGY
On Wednesday, the Center for American Progress (CAP) convened a forum, “The Need for a US
Competitiveness Strategy,” that featured an esteemed panel of government, industry and labor
representatives and provided an opportunity for CAP to promote a new report titled, “What’s the
Best Way to Promote Our Future Competitiveness?” Retiring House Science and Technology
Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), former US Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky, former Commerce Secretary William Daley, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
and former AFL-CIO President Mark Anderson joined CAP President and CEO, John Podesta,
and CAP Executive Vice President, Sarah Rosen Wartell, to discuss the report and the issues it
raises. The “competitiveness” policy conversation is one claimed by many different industry and
policy sectors—manufacturing, research and development, education, trade, labor and
environmentalists, to name a few—and while the panelists each touched on their particular
expertise, they all noted and criticized the lack of a coordinated “competitiveness” strategy or
agency in the US. In contrast, other countries facing the same challenges and global
competitiveness are better organized to develop and implement such strategies—to the detriment
of the US’s relative standing in the world. To address what the report asserts is a shortcoming, a
4
number of new federal initiatives are recommended, including: a Quadrennial Competitiveness
Assessment; a Biannual Presidential Competitiveness Strategy; an Interagency Competitiveness
Task Force; and a Presidential Competitiveness Advisory Board. The report also suggests the
creation of a “Department of Business, Trade and Technology” that would reorganize existing
offices at a number of agencies under this new umbrella. During the discussion among panelists,
Chairman Gordon was asked to comment on the challenges of formulating legislation that
addresses the country’s competitiveness. He pointed to the development of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, passed by the 111th Congress, as a model. That process brought
together 25 agencies and the private sector to great benefit, in his opinion. A challenge for
competitiveness policy is the diversity of the issues it encompasses, which is exacerbated by
increased partisanship on Capitol Hill. Gordon said that the legislation his Committee worked
on, including the America COMPETES Act, are sound interventions, but immigration, the
regulatory environment, trade issues and corporate taxation are just a few of the other issues that
must be addressed. And, while complimentary of CAP’s report, he referred to the countless
reports that have been written on this subject and said, “We already know what to do…Let’s get
on with it.” K-12 education and STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)
education policy did not feature prominently in this conversation, although Microsoft’s Smith
lamented the state of the country’s elementary and secondary education system. Gordon also
pointed to the importance of nurturing interest and talent in the STEM fields. As the panelists
turned to what is arguably a crucial missing element in this conversation—a common sense of
purpose among the public, policymakers and business—they spoke wistfully of the motivation
provoked by the launch of Sputnik in the 1960s and President John F. Kennedy’s call to send a
man to the Moon and its effect on the country’s competitiveness. While Gordon cited energy
independence as similarly urgent, the panel did not clearly latch on to that campaign as one that
would resonate with or motivate the public. For more information on this event and the report,
visit: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/focus_on_competitiveness.....
CAP RELEASES REPORTS ON VALUE-ADDED MEASUREMENT AS AN EFFECTIVE
TOOL FOR TEACHER EVALUATION
The Center for American Progress (CAP) held a thought-provoking discussion that launched the
release of two policy papers on Wednesday titled, “How Can Student Performance Inform
Teacher Workforce Decisions?” Dan Goldhaber, Director of the Center for Education Data &
Research and Professor in Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington-
Bothell and author of one of the papers released, advocated for the use of value-added
measurement and presented statistically significant research demonstrating value-added
measurements provide more accurate indicators of student achievement than current ubiquitous
teacher evaluations. Goldhaber presented his research acknowledging many concerns regarding
bias and error when using value-added measurement; however, “the current system of teacher
evaluation is broken” and this is a tool to inform better practices and policies when working to
change “the current human capital systems for developing an effective teaching workforce.”
Presenting the paper which reviewed five school systems that are currently implementing value-
added measurements, Jennifer Steele, Associate Policy Researcher at the RAND Corporation,
outlined the five policy recommendations in the report: 1) Create comprehensive evaluation
systems that incorporate multiple measures of teacher effectiveness; 2) Attend not only to the
technical properties of student assessments but also to how the assessments are being used in
high-stakes contexts; 3) Promote consistency in the student performance measures that teachers
are allowed to choose; 4) Use multiple years of student achievement data in value-added
estimation, and, where possible, use average teachers’ value-added estimates across multiple
years; and 5) Find ways to hold teachers accountable for students who are not included in their
value-added estimates. During the panel discussion that followed, Angela Minnici, Associate
5
Director of Educational Issues Department at the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
described “teachers’ reform fatigue” which includes value-added measurements that are
perceived by the teacher workforce as another means of narrowing the curriculum, but if
implemented, “teachers must be involved and involved early.” Teachers struggle with
comprehending the value-added measurement and so it’s best presented in its most simplified
form, Minnici stated, but the conundrum is that the most accurate format of value-added is in its
most complex form. Every panelist agreed that teacher buy-in is a critical step in
implementation; however, Scott Palmer, a Partner and Co-founder of EducationCounsel LLC,
explained this support must include the acceptance that this model will change every year in
order to improve accuracy and efficiency. For more information, visit:
http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/12/performance.html.
HOUSE PASSES CHILD NUTRITION REAUTHORIZATION
The long, arduous journey to reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act concluded Thursday with a
vote in the House of Representatives of 264-157 to approve the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
(S. 3307), which the Senate unanimously passed in August. It is now on its way to the
President’s desk for his signature to become law. Improving child nutrition has been an effort
championed by many in both chambers of Congress as well as the White House and is one of the
few bipartisan achievements in the 111th Congress. One point of contention shared by
Congressmen on both sides of the aisle is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) offset. The bill finally won support only with a promise from the White House and
Congressional leadership to restore the funding to this program as soon as possible. While no
legislator claims the law-to-be is perfect, it is the largest overhaul of child nutrition in over 30
years and will improve direct certification; provide healthier meals and snack options in schools
and child care by implementing nutrition standards; increase subsidies to schools offering
healthier meals; and provide the first “real increase” in the Federal reimbursement rate in 30
years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), original sponsor of the House version of the bill
and Chair of the Education and Labor Committee, stated, “With this vote, today we make a
commitment to the neediest children in our country, to the future of our country and to the
millions of families who rely on the federal child nutrition programs as a nutritional safety net.”
Representative John Kline (R-MN), Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee,
opposed the legislation due to concerns of “saddling our children and communities with bigger
government, higher spending, and more mandates,” and stated, “This isn’t a debate about healthy
and affordable school meals. It is a debate about the proper role of the federal government and
the unsustainable level of government spending.” Many in the education community applaud the
passage and also urge that efforts remain strong to fix the SNAP cuts. Others have lasting
concerns that, while the bill aims to create a path to healthy living for all students, an unintended
result will be “additional burdens and unfunded mandates at a time when our school districts are
facing severe budget shortfalls,” as Anne Bryant, Executive Director of the National School
Boards Association, stated. For more information, visit:
http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2010/12/houses-passes-sweeping-child-n....
FORDHAM INSTITUTE EVENT DISCUSSES REFORMS TO TEACHER
PREPARATION AND EDUCATION SCHOOLS
On Thursday, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute hosted an event titled, “Are Education Schools
Amenable to Reform?” to discuss the possibilities for reforming teacher preparation programs.
Steve Farkas, President of Farkas Duffett Research Group and Co-author of the recently released
Fordham study, “Cracks in the Ivory Tower? The Views of Education Professors Circa 2010,”
6
presented the report’s findings. He explained there is a broad openness to change and that
professors of education often support education reforms, such as alternative routes to teaching
and weakening of tenure protections. Although professors recognized that “not all is well with
their field,” they remain very attuned and sensitive to the desired reforms. James Cibulka,
President of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), discussed
how the “teacher supply equilibrium is off-balance” because not enough teachers serve in high-
need districts, as well as problems with teacher efficacy. In addition he noted that too many
teachers leave the profession within three to five years. Referencing NCATE’s Blue Ribbon
Panel’s recent study, Cibulka explained that teacher preparation “needs to move toward a clinical
model.” Kate Walsh, President of the National Council on Teacher Quality, praised the NCATE
report and said it “goes a long way to address the problems,” but she expressed concern about the
lack of selectivity in education schools. She discussed the need for states to have more
information about what is happening at the 1,410 schools of education. Walsh said there is
absolutely a place for state regulatory authority, but with a lack of information, “states are
inadequately prepared to make reforms right now.” David Imig, President Emeritus of the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, discussed the need for subject matter
understanding. He suggested new partnerships with local districts and education schools across
the country but with teacher licensure a state level responsibility, Imig asserted that the power of
who who is hired “is vested in the state agencies and state boards.” Deborah Loowenberg Ball,
Dean of the University of Michigan’s School of Education, acknowledged the unprecedented
agreement in both the NCATE and Fordham reports that teachers are fundamental to the quality
of student outcomes. She praised the 41 states who have agreed to adopt Common Core
Standards and said “when there is agreement on the curriculum, you can begin to link this to
what we have to teach.” At the University of Michigan, she discovered that teachers’
mathematics scores could predict student achievement gains. “This particular form of content
knowledge,” she shared, “is a unique piece of data that shows a drastic effect for student
outcomes.” The discussion concluded with all panelists in agreement that the quality indicators
for evaluating schools, teachers, and programs need drastic improvement, and the panelists
suggested common core standards for states and teachers. For more information about this event
or to view a copy of the Fordham study, visit:
http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/event.cfm?event_id=22&id=316
Back to top.
- New Publications
“How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better” (November 2010)
http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/EducationBookNov23.pdf
“Charter School Laws Across States: Ranking and Scorecard” (November 2010)
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/ranking_chart.pdf
“Building a Grad Nation: Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic
(November 2010) http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Grad-
Nation/~/media/Files/Our%20Work/Grad%20Nation/Building%20a%20Grad%20Nation/
Building%20a%20Grad%20Nation_FullReport_FINAL%2011-30-10.ashx
“ARRA Investments in Technology, Innovation, and K-12 Reform: The Digital Education
Funding Cliff” (November 2010)
http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=299&name=DLFE-...
7
“Innovate to Educate: System [Re]Design for Personalized Learning” (November 2010)
http://siia.net/pli/presentations/PerLearnPaper.pdf
“A Focus on Competitiveness” (December 2010)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/pdf/competitiveness.pdf
“When the Stakes are High, Can We Rely on Value-Added?” (December 2010)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/pdf/vam.pdf
“Incorporating Student Performance Measures into Teacher Evaluation Systems” (December
2010) http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR917.pdf
Back to top.
- In the News
“Education Reform: Have Business-Savvy Officials Improved Big-City Schools?” Christian
Science Monitor (11/29/10)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/1129/Education-reform-Have-b...
savvy-officials-improved-big-city-schools
“State Grants Waiver for Schools Chancellor” New York Times (11/29/10)
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/state-grants-waiver-for-sch...
chancellor/?ref=education
“U.S. School Graduation Rate is Rising” New York Times (11/30/10)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/education/30graduation.html?_r=1&hpw
“New D.C. Teachers Union Chief Says He’ll be More Aggressive” Washington Post (12/1/10)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106313.html?nav=mbot
“Investing in Science Education” Wall Street Journal (12/1/10)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870459480457564914163646436...
WORDS=education
“House to Vote on Child Nutrition Bill Championed by First Lady” Washington Post (12/2/10)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120201083.html?hpid=moreheadlines
“More Schools Targeted to Close in Hub” Boston Globe (12/2/10)
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/12/02/more_schoo...
_close_in_boston/
“Charter Schools and Public Ones Align in Valley” New York Times (12/2/10)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03ttteach.html?ref=education
“Rhee to Advise Florida Governor-Elect” Washington Post (12/3/2010)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120205030.html
Back to top.
8
- About WPLLC
For over 30 years, the principals and staff at WPLLC have specialized in the field of education, making sure the voices of
associations and nonprofit organizations are heard—on Capitol Hill and in the media. As a full service government affairs and
public relations firm, we work in strong partnership with our clients to position them for the greatest success now and in the
future. Working as a team, relationships are structured to maximize the strengths of each client; the client’s mission is our driving
force as we help them clarify needs, set goals and craft and implement successful strategies. WPLLC provides expertise in a
variety of services:
• Government Relations
• Public Relations & Communications
• Policy Research and Analysis
• Strategic Planning
• Grassroots Activities
• Association Management
• Meeting and Conference Planning
For more information, please call us at 202.289.3900 or visit our website at wpllc.net.
• • •
This publication contains links to Internet sites for the convenience of World Wide Web users. Washington Partners, LLC is not
responsible for the availability or content of these external sites, nor does Washington Partners, LLC endorse, warrant or
guarantee the information, services, or products described or offered at these other Internet sites.
Copyright 2010. Washington Partners, LLC. Redistribution of this memorandum or its content outside the immediate
organization of the intended recipient without the express prior permission of Washington Partners, LLC is prohibited. Readers
are encouraged to send comments about this publication to Della Cronin at dcronin@wpllc.net or call 202.289.3900.
Printer-friendly version
