MBAE Executive Director, Linda Noonan, was at the American Diploma Project meeting when U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, announced that the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) would receive a $170 million grant to develop the next generation of assessments. PARCC is a consortium of states chaired by Massachusetts Commissioner Mitchell Chester, and led by a governing board of 10 states and the District of Columbia. Florida serves as the “fiscal agent” for the group, which will partner with Achieve, to develop assessments based on the Common Core State Standards.

Two different consortia received awards under the federal governments Race to the Top: Assessments Program. PARCC and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) will create comprehensive testing regimes with testing in grades 3-8 and at least one testing period in high school. While SBAC is engaged in perfecting the end-of-course exam through the use of adaptive computer testing, PARCC is using a combination of end-of-course exams and “through-course” assessments which will provide educators with information on student progress through the year. One of the goals, as expressed in PARCC’s grant application is for “Teachers [to] have an assessment system that provides as much for them as it asks from them.”

Participation in an assessment consortium was one way that states could garner points in the Race to the Top application. In the first round of Race to the Top six different consortia were joined by applicants, with some states participating in all six. Ultimately, only three consortia applied for funding, PARCC, SBAC, and the State Consortium on Board Examination Systems (SCOBES) which was competing for a smaller award which would fund solely high school course assessments.

While the main Race to the Top program stole the headlines and energized a nationwide education reform effort, the assessment competition is a critical part of ensuring that the reforms discussed today have a lasting impact in the future. Massachusetts’ Race to the Top plans envision an expansive and powerful teaching and learning system that will allow teachers to access near real time data on student progress and help better prepare students for life after high school. This effort hinges on having assessments that are integrated into courses, are anchored in college and career readiness goals, and do more than call on students to answer multiple choice questions and fill out bubble sheets.

The MCAS is an important tool for evaluating whether or not students have achieved proficiency in basic skills, but was not meant to serve as a test of college and career readiness, course mastery, or an interim measure of student progress. In it’s 2008 report, Educating a 21st Century Workforce, MBAE called for the creation of college and career benchmarked assessments, as well as a system of end-of-course assessments that would test subject matter mastery. We are hopeful that Massachusetts’ leading role in PARCC will allow Massachusetts to gain partners and funds to develop the next generation of assessments, while maintaining its strong commitment to rigorous standards and assessments.

So, when my colleague, Linda, referred to this as a cynical post, I’d like to think that it’s not because I’m an overtly cynical person, just that I’m too immersed in the details to be as swept up in celebration. Not to say that there isn’t cause for celebration. Massachusetts has announced over $400 million (between Race to the Top and EduJobs) in additional education funding just last week. Further, as a winning state, Massachusetts has a powerful  four year plan for education reform – with significant investments in data infrastructure and policy change that will outlast the four year grant.

Now, however, the focus is on winners, losers, and the future of the Race to the Top program. In Round 1, most losing states accepted reviewer criticism and looked forward to Round 2 where more grants would be awarded. Unfortunately, in Round 2 there’s not much looking forward, and a lot more controversy around the loss. Notably absent from the winner’s circle were Colorado and Louisiana, two states that had made newsworthy strides towards reforming their education systems. New Jersey’s Commissioner of Education has lost his job in the wake of an application error that cost the state 5 points and $400 million. These specific cases sidestep the overall eastern state bias of the results, with Hawaii, a state that opted for teacher furloughs to balance its education budget, the only winner west of the Mississippi.

None of the above should diminish the impact of the Race to the Top program which has achieved remarkable results from relatively limited funds. And, with any luck, it won’t. Multiple states have crafted education reform agendas, changed laws and regulations, and generally ‘enjoyed’ a resurgence of education reform advocacy.

It seems to me, however, that a third round of Race to the Top – or integration of an annual RTTT into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – is unlikely at best and a replay of the sweeping changes brought about by the ‘09-’10 competition – impossible. The winning states have got their money, and, as was the case for the Round 1 winners, are probably ineligible to compete in later rounds. The losing states fall into 2 categories – those that never entered the competition in the first place (and aren’t going to become fans now) and those that just got burned by the Round 2 results. Neither group is likely to back further competitive funding for states with better “grant writers”. With the passage of the EduJobs bill (which had a budget almost twice that of Race to the Top) states and schools have a clear example of an alternate route to the federal funds that everyone will be clamoring for as the stimulus money runs dry in FY11 and FY12.

Again, the impact of Race to the Top on the education reform landscape has been monumental, and here in Massachusetts it has the potential to pay huge dividends – but for states that ran and lost, it will be quite some time before they’ll run again…

MBAE Executive Director Linda Noonan (second from R) joined Governor Deval Patrick and other education leaders at a press conference celebrating the state's Race to the Top designation.

MBAE has issued a statement  and congratulated state leaders at a State House press conference today.  Pictured from the left, behind Governor Patrick at the podium, Senator Robert O’Leary, co-chair of the Joint Committee on Education, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Chairman Maura Banta of IBM, The Boston Foundation’s CEO Paul Grogan, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Secretary of Education Paul Reville, Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, House Chair of the Joint Committee on Education Marty Walz, me,  and Superintendent of  Schools Carol Johnson each spoke about the work we have done to forge the winning proposal and the commitment we all share to making the most of this opportunity. 

Now that the results are official and the statements are going up on the web.  Links to Arne Duncan’s You Tube announcement as well as other Ed.Gov documents deliver the U.S. Department of Education’s message.  In the state’s press release,  members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation weighed in with their comments. 

Among the blog posts there is one from our partners at Associated Industries of Massachusetts  featuring a wise observation from AIM President and CEO Rick Lord, “The most important part of this win is not the money, welcome as that surely is.  Rather, it is the demonstrated commitment to ongoing improvement of our schools, and the willingness to take controversial positive steps, that made our victory possible.”

The analysis will surely continue and my own colleague, Brian Pingree, has a more cynical view of today’s outcome that he will share in a future post.  For today – only the good news!

There was disappointment and horror in the Bay State when Massachusetts, with a national reputation for high quality education, lost out to Tennessee and Delaware in Phase 1 of Race to the Top.  But, it provided the kick in the pants we needed to change a process-oriented laundry list into a more coherent vision setting specific goals to meet measurable outcomes. 

With the blogosphere and Twitter frenzy about the leaks, the rumors and the news, there is a lot more to come!  At the moment, it appears we may have gotten our full $250 million request. 

MBAE is most excited about those programs that hold the greatest promise for improving Massachusetts education systems to guarantee every child graduates ready for college, career and citizenship:

• MassCore, a comprehensive college/career preparatory curriculum that will become the default curriculum in the state’s high schools;
• Common Core standards and assessments supplemented with Massachusetts’ specific standards will ensure that our state’s are still one of the most rigorous in the nation;
• Educator evaluation and compensation systems capable of recognizing and developing effective teachers through appropriate use of student performance data and other measures;
• Dropout prevention programs, including an Early Warning Information System, to provide early identification and support that can lead to improved statewide practices;
• A Turnaround Corps of teachers and school leaders trained and committed to improving underperforming schools will provide targeted assistance to the schools most in need.

The Race to the Top program has created unprecedented energy and activity in education reform across the country.  Massachusetts should step up to a leadership role in this movement and take advantage of the momentum that can carry the state forward until every student in the Commonwealth gets a high quality education!

************

The U.S. Department of Education has announced 49 winners in its $650 million Investing in Innovation (i3) grant program. The i3 program, part of the larger American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), delivered three ‘tiers’ of grants:

• “Scale-up” grants of $50 million for programs that have the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of students and have strong evidence of success;
• “Validation” grants of $30 million are for programs with “good evidence” of their impact that are ready to expand and increase their evidence base; and
• “Development” grants of $5 million are available to support programs that have a high potential for success but need further study.

Over 2,000 organizations submitted letters of intent to apply, and the Department ultimately received 1,698 applications. Of these, only 49 applications were chosen as ‘winners’. This list of winners was leaked on August 4th and Education Week posted a list of the highest rated applications. There is some hedging around referring to these organizations as ‘winners’ because the i3 program requires all grantees to raise matching funds equal to 20% of the grant. The highest ranked applicants have until September 8th, 2010 to raise the funds or receive a waiver from the Department of Education.

There were only four winners for the largest, Scale Up, grants – Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), Ohio State University’s Reading Recovery Program, the Success for All Foundation, and Teach for America. In Massachusetts  five organizations received grants.  The President and Fellows of Harvard College have won a $12 million Validation Grant for Project READS. The Bay State Reading Institute, Boston Plan for Excellence, Achievement Network, and Plymouth Public Schools each qualified for a $5 million Development Grant.

You can find further information about the various applicants and applications on the Investing in Innovation Data page.

The answer is “yes” because the world has changed. In the U.S., the great majority of the most comparable institutions are styled “universities.” Many two-year institutions, once “junior colleges” or “community colleges,” are now simply “colleges,” or “state colleges,” or even “universities.” In the world at large, moreover, a college is not a degree-granting institution but a non-instructional learned body, a component of a university, or a secondary or trade school. (In Britain, a small degree-granting institution may be a “university college.”) Our state colleges are part of that world of learning; they seek and attract international students, and many of their graduates study or work nationally and abroad.

“Yes but” because, first of all, these institutions – comprehensive campuses at Bridgewater, Fitchburg, Framingham, Salem, Westfield, and Worcester that will now be styled universities, plus the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, Massachusetts College of Art and Design in Boston, and Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay – fulfill a differentiated role within the three-tiered structure of our public higher education system, along with the University of Massachusetts and the community colleges. They should continue to provide access to baccalaureate and masters programs in a limited range of liberal arts and career fields throughout the Commonwealth. They should neither become doctoral research institutions like the University (although faculty research is valued) nor offer open access to students of uncertain preparation like the community colleges (although access and student support are part of their mission).

“Yes but,” too, because this change of name really ought to carry some additional commitment to supporting and advancing these campuses. In these tight fiscal times, it’s considered a positive argument that the change involves no cost. There’s something disturbing, though, about taking this step at a time when Massachusetts is cutting its higher education appropriations, and relying on short-term stimulus funds, more than almost any other state. And even in better times the state colleges, in particular, have not been appropriately funded. For starters, if they are to be plausible universities in the long run, their graduate programs must be state-funded, like those of the University of Massachusetts (state college leaders have struggled with this issue). They are not doctoral institutions, but they are graduate institutions; and they cannot aspire to high quality within their missions unless their most advanced programs are fully integral to their operations.

One benefit of the “university” nameplate is that it should raise everyone’s expectations.

MBAE has been a strong supporter of the state’s application and, in our letter to U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan,  we pledge to “monitor and report on progress toward the goals and promises” found in the Commonwealth’s Race to the Top plan.

We will continue to provide information to the business community on the state’s progress, generating comparison charts and more detailed analyses, like our Budget Breakdown, which offer some insight on this complicated process.

You can find additional information on the state’s application, including the voluminous appendix, on the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top Resources page. Further, on the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education page, you’ll find further summaries of the state’s plan and a detailed comparison between the Round 1 and Round 2 applications.

While the debate over the Common Core has been notably contentious in Massachusetts, the public comments and Board deliberations were focused on substantive issues and the shared commitment to do what is in the best interests of our children and our state.

Our News page features  links to press coverage of the Common Core in Massachusetts, including my interview on NECN.   The full WestEd report, including the detailed charts comparing the standards, are available on our Resources page.

MBAE has a long history of advocacy for high standards and we approached this issue as we always have – maintaining high standards to ensure a high quality education system that is best for kids and for sustaining a vibrant Massachusetts economy.  The Common Core State Standards were developed by a 48 state consortium, in which Massachusetts played a key role that is reflected in the final results.  We concluded that the Common Core standards are at the least equal to those set in Massachusetts and meets the business community’s objective of enhancing the college and career readiness of our students.

Until now, much of the debate in Massachusetts has been based on opinions and conjecture.   To provide an independent research-based evaluation of how the Common Core compares to the standards Massachusetts would have been considering – the draft revised curriculum frameworks – MBAE commissioned an analysis by WestEd to determine the alignment between the two sets.  We’re pleased to share this with you and believe this will help inform and elevate the discourse in Massachusetts about this very important topic.

Please visit our Resources Page to view the full WestEd report, video from a recent MBAE Forum on the Common Core, and other informative materials.

Our new blog, Mass EdForum, will bring you news and views on education reform issues from the business community’s perspective.  In addition to MBAE staff, our Board members and others will be contributing.  Please contact us to let us know what you would like to discuss!