at brown university · 2019. 12. 19. · Brown University Box 1985 Providence, Rhode Island 02912 at brown university Summer 2009 The Federal Role in Education: From the Reagan to

Non Profit Org.

US Postage

PAID

Providence, RI

Permit #202

Annenberg Institute for School ReformBrown University Box 1985Providence, Rhode Island 02912

at brown university

Summer 2009

The Federal Role in Education: From the Reagan to the Obama AdministrationGail L. Sunderman

Steady Work: How Finland Is Building a Strong Teaching and Learning SystemLinda Darling-Hammond

Federal Policies to Change the Odds for Children in PovertySusan B. Neuman

The Federal Role in Out-of-School Learning: After-School, Summer Learning, and Family Involvement as Critical Learning SupportsHeather B. Weiss, Priscilla M. D. Little, Suzanne M. Bouffard, Sarah N. Deschenes, and Helen Janc Malone

Urban Education Reform: Recalibrating the Federal RoleWarren Simmons

The Evolving Federal Role

Annenberg Institute for School Reform | Voices in Urban Education

Voices in U

rban Education The Evolving Federal RoleSum

mer 2009

this book is printed on environment® Paper. this 100 percent recycled paper reduces solid waste disposal and lessens landfill dependency. by utilizing this paper,• 21 trees were preserved for the future.• 14,735,600 BTUs of energy were conserved.• 60 pounds of waterborne waste were not created.• 978 pounds of solid waste were not generated.• 8,837 gallons of wastewater flow were saved.• 1,925 pounds of greenhouse gases were prevented from forming.

The Evolving Federal RoleNumber 24, Summer 2009

PublisherAnnenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown UniversityWarren Simmons, Executive Director

EditorRobert Rothman

Managing EditorSusan Fisher

Copy EditorMargaret Balch-Gonzalez

Production & DistributionMary Arkins Decasse

DesignGilbert Design Associates, Inc.

IllustrationCarolina Arentsen

Voices in Urban Education (issn 1553-541x) is pub-lished quarterly at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Articles may be reproduced with appro pri ate credit to the Annenberg Institute. Single copies are $10 each, including postage and handling. A discount is available on bulk orders. Call 401 863-2018 for further information.

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform was established in 1993 at Brown University. Its mis-sion is to develop, share, and act on knowledge that improves the conditions and outcomes of school-ing in America, especially in urban communities and in schools serving disadvantaged children. For program information, contact:

Annenberg Institute for School ReformBrown University, Box 1985Providence, Rhode Island 02912Tel: 401 863-7990Fax: 401 863-1290Web: www.annenberginstitute.org

© 2009 Annenberg Institute for School Reform

2 The Evolving Federal RoleRobert Rothman

6 The Federal Role in Education: From the Reagan to the Obama AdministrationGail L. Sunderman

TheReaganandGeorgeW.Bushadministrationstransformedthefederalroleineducation,andtheObamaadministrationislikelytomaintainthecurrentpath.

15 Steady Work: How Finland Is Building a Strong Teaching and Learning SystemLinda Darling-Hammond

Finlandoffersanexampleofhowanationbuiltacomprehensive“teachingandlearningsystem”thathasraisedachievementandclosedachievementgaps.

26 Federal Policies to Change the Odds for Children in PovertySusan B. Neuman

Theexperienceofthelastdecadesuggeststhatnewdirectionsinfederalpoliciesareneededtoimproveeducationaloutcomesforchildreninpoverty.

32 The Federal Role in Out-of-School Learning: After-School, Summer Learning, and Family Involvement as Critical Learning SupportsHeather B. Weiss, Priscilla M. D. Little, Suzanne M. Bouffard, Sarah N. Deschenes, and Helen Janc Malone

Byprovidingsupportforthelearningstudentsdooutsideofschool,thefederalgovernmentcanhelpbuildacomprehensive,complementarylearningsystem.

46 Urban Education Reform: Recalibrating the Federal RoleWarren Simmons

Federalpoliciesshouldaddresscommunityengagementandequityinordertobuild“smarteducationsystems”thatimproveoutcomesforurbanchildrenandyouths.

VUE’sWebsiteat<www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE>offersmoreinformationaboutVUE,includingexcerptsfrompreviousissues,audioandvideoclips,andorderinginformation.

AnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform | Voices in Urban Education


2 Annenberg Institute for School Reform

Fromalookatthecalendarofeventsinthenation’s

capital,Washingtonappearstobeahotbedofactivity

oneducationpolicy.Scarcelyadaygoesbywithout

somekindofforumorannouncement.Thenumerous

thinktanksthathavesprungupinthepastfewyears

areconstantlyputtingoutreports,andCongressional

hearingsarepacked.Andallofthatwasthecase

beforethe2009economicstimulusbilldramatically

increasedthefederaleducationbudget.

Itwasn’talwaysthisway.Formuchofthe

nation’shistory,thefederalgovernmenthadverylittle

todowitheducation.Withtheexceptionofafew

particularprograms,likevocationaleducationand

curriculum-developmentprojects,thefederalrolein

educationwasquitelimited,andlocalcontrolreigned.

TheElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct,

whichforthefirsttimeprovidedgeneralaidtolocal

schooldistricts,wasenactedin1965,andtheU.S.

DepartmentofEducationwascreatedasaseparate

cabinet-levelagencyin1979.Thisnewfederalatten-

tionfocusedonprovidingsupplementaryresources

toschoolsservinglow-incomestudentsandstudents

withdisabilities.Untilthattime,fewwouldhave

lookedtoWashingtonasacenterofeducationpolicy.

Thefederalroleinschoolreformexpandedin

1983withthepublicationofA Nation at Risk,the

reportthathelpedspurthenationalschoolreform

movementthatcontinuestothisday.Thereportitself

didnotcreateademandforgreaterfederalinvolve-

ment:itwasissuedbyanadministrationthathad


Robert Rothman is senior editor at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform and editor of VoicesinUrbanEducation.

RobertRothman

V.U.E. Summer 2009 3

pledgedtoabolishtheDepartmentofEducation,

andthereport’srecommendationsweredirectedpri-

marilyatstates.Yet,lessthanadecadelater,following

themomentumofthiscallforfederalinvolvement,

GeorgeH.W.Bushwascampaigningtobecomethe

“educationpresident,”andheandhissuccessorshave

puteducationhighontheiragendas.Andnowthat

PresidentObamahasuppedtheantewithalarge

infusionofdollars,fewbelievethefederalroleislikely

torecedetoitspreviouslevelanytimesoon–indeed,

manyexpectittoexpand.

Yetpreciselywhatthefederalroleoughttobe

andhowfederalfundsoughttobeusedremainsa

topicofheateddebate.Muchofthethink-tankactivi-

tiesandassociationreportsthatnowfloodthecapital

areaimedatrespondingtothosequestions.

In2008,tworeports,issuedcoincidentallyon

successivedays,helpedframetheissue.One,issued

byagroupknownastheEducationEqualityProject,

ledbyNewYorkCitySchoolsChancellorJoelKlein

andtheReverendAlSharpton,focusedonschools,

urgingstrongeraccountabilityandperformancepay

forteachers.Theother,byagroupcalledtheBroader,

BolderApproach,arguedthatschoolsalonecould

notensurehighlevelsoflearningforallstudents

andcalledforinvestmentsinearlychildhoodeduca-

tionandafter-schoolprograms,inadditiontoreforms

inschools.1

Althoughmuchofthemediaattentiononthese

twoproposalsattemptedtodrawasharpcontrast

betweenthem,thereismuchcommonground.In

fact,ArneDuncan,then-superintendentofChicago

PublicSchools,signedbothstatements.Now,asU.S.

SecretaryofEducation,heisinapositiontoimplement

1 TheAnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReformisasignatorytotheBroader,BolderApproach.


them.Andasthethink-tankreportsandforums

continue,hehasnoshortageofadviceonwhattodo.

ThisissueofVoices in Urban Educationoffers

someadditionalideas.Itexaminesthefederalrolein

educationfromavarietyofperspectives.

•GaleSundermanprovidesahistoricalperspective

byshowinghowthefederalroleshiftedduring

theReaganandGeorgeW.Bushadministrations

andwhatislikelyunderPresidentObama.

•LindaDarling-HammonddescribesFinland’s

educationsystemtoshowwhatacomprehensive

national“teachingandlearningsystem”would

looklike.

•SusanNeumandiscussessomeofthefailuresof

federalprogramsandarguesforinvestmentsthat

wouldchangetheoddsforchildreninpoverty.

•HeatherWeiss,PriscillaLittle,SuzanneBouffard,

SarahDeschenes,andHelenJancMalone

recommendfederalpoliciestosupportchildren’s

learningoutsideofschool.

•WarrenSimmonsconsiderswaysthefederal

governmentcouldsupportthedevelopmentof

“smarteducationsystems”thatengageschools

inpartnershipwithcommunitiestosupport

children’slearning.

Thesearticlesshowthatfederalpoliciesfocused

onequityandexcellencewouldtakeacomprehensive

viewandwouldaddressabroadrangeofissuesto

supportchildren’slearninganddevelopment.Theyalso

suggestsomepoliciesthatmightbeineffectiveand

thingsthatthefederalgovernmentmightdowellto

stopdoing.Forexample,asLindaDarling-Hammond

pointsout,thetestingprogramsinplaceintheUnited

Statesinthepastdecadehavenotworked,atleast

comparedwiththemoreinnovativetestingprograms

Finlanduses.

Yet,asWarrenSimmonsnotes,anynewfederal

policieswillonlybeeffectiveifthepeopletheyare

intendedtoservehavearoleindevelopingthem.


Thefearisthatarelativelysmallgroupisatthetable,

developingideasthatmightbeatoddswiththe

aspirationsandexperiencesofcommunitieswhowill

implementthem.Ifthatcontinues,thesepolicies

mightengenderoppositionandwillnotbesustained.

Thegoodnewsisthatthegrowingfederalrole

hasattractedtheinterestofamuchbroadergroupof

parentsandcommunityleaderswhoareeagertojoin

thetable.Overthenextfewyears,wewillseeifthe

nextevolutionofthefederalrolebecomesastransfor-

mativeasitcanbe.


Thefederalroleineducationhas

alwaysbeenasensitiveoneinAmerican

politics.Traditionally,thefederal

governmenthasplayedalimitedrole

andfederallegislationhas,normally,

containedprohibitionsagainstfederal

controlofeducation.Indeed,local

controlofeducationisdeeplyengrained

intherhetoricandpracticeofAmerican

politics,whereconcernsaboutlocal

controlandlibertyhavefaroutweighed

concernsaboutpolicyobjectives.

Suspicionaboutfederalpower

hasbeenparticularlystrongamong

conservatives.Conservativeviewsof

federalismemphasizetheprerogatives

ofstateandlocalgovernmentsasthe

legitimatesourcesofpolicyandsupport

thedevolutionofeducationandsocial

programstothestates(Nathan,Gais

&Fossett2003).Thisviewsupports

localdecisionmakingwithoutinter-

ferencefromthefederalgovernment

andassumesthatstateswillinvestfunds

inwaysthatwillachieveparticular

policygoals.

Gail L. Sunderman is a senior research scientist at the George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, where she is the director of the Mid-Atlantic Equity Center.

The Federal Role in Education: From the Reagan to the Obama Administration

GailL.Sunderman

The Reagan and George W. Bush administrations transformed the federal role in

education, and the Obama administration is likely to maintain the current path.

Othershavebeenlessopposedto

afederalrole.Civilrightsadvocatesand

researcherssupportedafederalrolein

endingdiscriminationanddesegregat-

ingpublicschools.Publiceducation

supportershavelongseenthefederal

governmentasameanstoimprovethe

educationofdisadvantagedstudents

andequalizefundingforschools.The

federaleducationprogramsenactedin

the1960sand1970sexpressedthese

aimsbyallocatingfederalfundsfor

theeducationofpreviouslyneglected

groupsofstudents.

Federalismisdeeplyengrained

intheU.S.,wheretherearefiftyinde-

pendentstateeducationsystemswith

15,700localvariationsatthedistrict

levelthatarelooselyregulatedbythe

states(U.S.CensusBureau2006).Even

so,thisrolehasbeenevolvingsince

theReaganadministration.Thisarticle

examineshowthefederalroleineduca-

tionhaschangedandtheforcesthat

havepressedtheUnitedStatestowards

greaterfederalinvolvementineducation.

Centraltounderstandingthis

evolutionaretheRepublicanadminis-

trationsofRonaldReaganandGeorge

W.Bush.AsRepublicanadministrations

gainedanunderstandingofthepoliti-

calsaliencyofeducation,theyexpanded

thefederalroleineducationtomeet


politicalandpolicygoals.Duringthe

Reaganadministration,thereleaseof

thereportA Nation at Riskwasinstru-

mentalinshiftingthepolicyagenda

fromequitytoexcellenceandproviding

theadministrationaplatformfor

advancingotherpolicypreferences

favoredbyconservatives(Sunderman

1995).WiththeNoChildLeftBehind

Actof2001(NCLB),theGeorgeW.

Bushadministrationreversedlong-held

conservativeprinciplesoflimited

governmentandapreferenceforlocal

decisionmaking.

Thearticleconcludesbyconsider-

ingtheimplicationsofthesepolicies

shiftsforthedirectiontheBarack

Obamaadministrationislikelytofollow.

Policy Shifts under the Reagan Administration: From Equity to ExcellenceTheElementaryandSecondaryEduca-

tionActof1965(ESEA)markedthe

creationofanintergovernmentalpolicy

systemwherethefederalgovernment

providedadditionalresourcestargeted

atparticularstudents.ESEAand

otherfederaleducationpoliciesthat

followedwereimportantinexpanding

thefederalgovernment’sprovisionof

sustainedcategoricalaidtoelementary

andsecondaryeducationandaddress-

ingnationalpolicyprioritiesthat,for

themostpart,hadbeenneglectedat

thelocallevel.Thesepoliciessoughtto

equalizeeducationalopportunity

throughintegrationandcompensatory

educationandtoredistributeresources

tostudentswhoweredeprivedorwho

hadbeendiscriminatedagainstunder

asystemfinancedandcontrolledby

stateandlocalgovernments.

Thesefederaleducationprograms

werebasedonNewDealassumptions

thatthegreatmajorityoftheunem-

ployedorimpoverishedwerenot

personallytoblamefortheirconditions.

Instead,structuralinequalities,resulting

fromracialdiscrimination,unemploy-

mentorunderemployment,lowwages,

lackofeducation,andinadequate

transferpaymentswereconsideredto

contributetothehighunemployment

andpovertyofaparticulargroupof

people(Kaestle&Smith1982;Kantor

1991;Levin1982;Thomas1983).

Differencesbetweentheeducational

experiencesofBlackurbanstudents

andtheirWhitecounterparts,forexam-

ple,wereseentoderivefromtheracial

isolationofBlackstudentsinurban

schoolsandfromtheunequalresources

availabletostudentsinurbanschools,

whichcontributedtohighdropout


1991).Arareexceptiontothiscollab-

orativeapproachwastheuseoffederal

powertoadvancecivilrightsinthe

1960s(Orfield1969).

TheReaganadministration

challengedboththeworkingsofthe

intergovernmentalsystemandthe

prevailingfederalideology.Consistent

withconservativeprinciplesofalimited

federalgovernment,theadministration

soughttoreducethesizeofgovernment

throughareductioninentitlement

spendinganddevolutionofresponsibil-

ityforservicedeliverytostateandlocal

governments.Called“newfederalism,”

theadministrationpolicysoughtto

replacecategoricalaid–underwhich

thefederalgovernmentdeterminedthe

wayfundsshouldbespent–withblock

grants,whichgavestateandlocal

governmentsmoreresponsibilityover

theuseoffederalfunds.Therewasan

emphasisonderegulationandon

weakeningguidelinesthatrestricted

stateandlocaldiscretionoverprogram

implementation.Decentralizationwas

coupledwitheffortstoreducefederal

aid,eliminatenationalprograms,and

cuttherateofgrowthineducationand

socialspending(Walker1986).Through

theseactions,theReaganadministra-

tionsoughttodecreasethefederalrole

ineducationpolicyandestablishaclear

divisionofintergovernmentalresponsi-

bility.Thecommitment,however,wasto

ashiftinauthorityratherthanarelease

ofitandreinforcedthetrendtoward

greaterstate-levelactivityinthegover-

nanceofeducation(Lowi1984).

Atthesametime,theadministra-

tionchallengedtheassumptionthat

structuralinequalitiescontributedto

socialandeconomicproblems.The

administrationdiagnosedtheproblem

asthelowoverallperformanceof

theschoolsratherthantheneedsof

particulartypesofstudents.Lowmorale,

rates,lowachievement,andunemploy-

mentamongBlackstudents(Carson

1962;CouncilofEconomicAdvisors

1964;Harrington1962).

Underthisparadigm,thefederal

governmentwasconsideredessential

inaddressingtheseproblems.Theuse

offederalauthoritytoremedysocial,

economic,andeducationproblems

gainedsaliencyinthe1960saspolicies

wereadoptedtoaddressanumberof

nationalproblems.Throughacom-

binationoffederalgrants-in-aidto

assistinthefinancingandprovisionof

educationalprogramsconsideredtobe

inthenationalinterest,nationalcom-

missions,andmediacampaigns,the

federalgovernmentsoughttopersuade

stateandlocalgovernmentstoaddress

thesenationalconcerns.Majorinterest

groupsandtheresponsiblestateand

localofficialswereactivelyinvolvedin

shapingfederalgrantprogramsand

indetermininghowtheywereimple-

mented(Feingold2007;Peterson,

Rabe&Wong1986;Ripley&Franklin

TheReaganadministrationsoughtto

decreasethefederalroleineducation

policyandestablishacleardivisionof

intergovernmentalresponsibility.The

commitment,however,wastoashiftin

authorityratherthanareleaseofit.

Gail L. Sunderman | V.U.E. Summer 2009 9

bureaucratization,andcentralization

ofthepublicschoolsystemandpoliti-

cizationofeducationalissueswere

identifiedasmajorcausesofeducational

deficiencies.Underthisorientation,

structuralcausesofeducational

inequalitylikeconcentrationofpoverty

andracialsegregationwerereplaced

withanemphasisonindividualand

culturaldeficienciesandthefailureof

educationalbureaucracies.Twothemes

–moralconductandtheintrusionof

governmentbureaucracyinthelivesof

Americans–wereconsistentthrough-

outtheadministration.Forexample,

Reagan’sdiscourseontheproblems

plaguingtheschoolsconcernedthe

moralityofconductwhere“learninghas

beencrowdedoutbyalcohol,drugs,

andcrime”(Reagan1985).

The Emergence of Educational ExcellenceEducationgainedgreaternational

visibilityafterthereleasein1983ofthe

report A Nation at Risk,whichprovided

momentumforshiftingtheeducation

debatefromequitytoafocusonexcel-

lence.Thisreportlinkedthenation’s

economicproblemstothepoorperfor-

manceoftheschoolsandarguedthat

educationplayedacrucialrolein

preparingstudentsfortheworkplace.

Itrecommendedabroadsetofpolicies

toimprovetheschoolsystemthatwere

aimedatenhancingeducationalpro-

ductivityandefficiency.Thesereforms

emphasizedincreasingachievement

testingtomeasurestudentprogress,

adoptingrigorousstandardsforall

studentscoupledwithincreasingthe

teachingofbasicskills,andimproving

theteachingprofessionbyrequiring

higherteacherstandardsandcompe-

tencytesting.Consistentwithconserva-

tiveviewsoffederalism,itidentified

stateandlocalofficialsashavingthe

primaryresponsibilityforfinancing

andgoverningtheschoolsandcalled

onlocalgovernmentto“incorporate

thereformsweproposeintheireduca-

tionalpoliciesandfiscalplanning”

(NCEE1983).

ThepublicresponsetoA Nation

at Riskimpressedontheadministration

theimportanceofeducationasa

politicalissue.Byinvokingeducation

asanissueofnationalconcern,the

administrationhelpedmobilize

supportforreformatthestatelevel

andhadaplatformtoadvanceitsown

policypreferences,whichincluded

supportfortuitiontaxcredits,vouchers,

schoolprayer,andareducedfederal

roleineducation.

Boththeadministration’sphilos-

ophyoflocalcontrolandthe

recommendationsofA Nation at Risk

contributedtoaneducationalreform

movementspearheadedbythestates.

Thiswastheunconventionalaspectof

theexcellencemovement–thatthe

stateswouldadoptfederallyestablished

policygoals.Thiswasareformmove-

mentwhere,withintwoyearsofthe

publicationofA Nation at Risk,most

stateshadinitiatedorenactedsome

oftheeducationalreformmeasures

suggestedinthereport–without

federalfiscalincentivesattached.This


andeconomicproblems(Sunderman

1995;Tyack&Cuban1995).

Thewidespreadadoptionofthe

excellencereformsalsoservedtorein-

forcetheroleoffederalpolicy-makers

indefiningandshapinganeducational

policyagendaandthecentralrole

ofthestatesineducationpolicy.As

such,ithelpedsetthestageforthe

developmentofaformalnational

educationagendaunderthefirstBush

administration.AlthoughtheReagan

administrationcontinuedtoadhereto

thetraditionalconservativeposition

ofalimitedfederalroleandsupport

forlocalcontrol,GeorgeH.W.Bush

pledgedtobeaneducationpresident

andmadeeducationacenterpieceof

hisdomesticagenda.In1989,President

Bushandthenation’sgovernorsmet

andformulatedsixeducationgoalsto

beachievedby2000.

Whilethiswasanationwideeffort,

thestrategywaslocalandfocused

onbringinglocalcommunitiesintoa

networktolearnaboutthegoalsand

howtomeetthem.Governorswere

instrumentalinadvancingtheconcept

ofeducationalgoals.WhenPresident

Clintontookofficein1993,theseini-

tiativescontinuedasGoals2000,which

encouragedstatesandschooldistricts

representedaseachangeinthenotion

ofpolicydiffusion.Untiltheexcellence

movement,therewastheassumption,

heldbybothpolicy-makersand

researchersalike,thatstatesresponded

tolocalconditionswithpoliciesthat

conformedtotheseconditions.Policy

diffusionacrossstateswasaslowpro-

cessthatcouldtakeyearsiftherewere

nofederalfiscalincentivesorsanctions

attachedtonewideas.

Theexcellencereformsgained

widespreadacceptancebecausethey

providedstatepolicy-makerswithaset

ofsolutionsthatwerecarefullyattuned

tothepoliticalandeconomicexigencies

ofthetime.Bylinkingtheexcellence

reformstoeconomicconcernsabout

thechangingpositionoftheU.S.inthe

internationaleconomy,jobsecurity,and

thefutureeconomicprosperityofthe

country,thereportprovidedapowerful

argumentthatthesepoliciescould

correcttheperceivedproblemsinthe

educationalsystemandrealproblems

intheeconomy.Thisargument,also

takenupbytheReaganadministration,

appealedtoapublicthathadlong

believedthateducationcouldsolvesocial

Thewidespreadadoptionoftheexcellencereformsservedto

reinforcetheroleoffederalpolicy-makersindefiningandshaping

aneducationalpolicyagendaandthecentralroleofthestates

ineducationpolicy.


tosethighcontentandperformance

standardsinexchangeforfederal

schoolreformgrants.Boththeseinitia-

tivesincludedtheideaofeducational

standardsbutreliedonlocaladoption

andimplementation(andincluded

federalincentivesforstatestodevelop

andadoptstandards).Theystrength-

enedthestateroleinregulating

educationbycreatingincentivesfor

statestointroducelawsandregulations

tomonitorlocalcompliancewithstate

requirements.Nevertheless,districts

hadconsiderablediscretioninimple-

mentingthestandardsandaligning

themwithinstruction.

ThepassageoftheImproving

America’sSchoolsAct(IASA)in1994,

whichreauthorizedESEA,provided

furtherfederalsupportforthestan-

dardsmovementbyrequiringstatesto

developandimplementstandardsfor

allstudents,alongwithrelatedassess-

ments,inexchangeforfederalaid.But

thelawleftituptostatestosettheir

ownstandardsandallowedstates

fullautonomytomakeinstructional,

governance,andfiscalpolicydecisions

tosupporttheiracademicandperfor-

mancestandards.Moreover,thelaw

wasweaklyenforcedandfewstates

madesubstantialprogressinmeet-

ingitsrequirements:asof2001,only

sixteenstateswerefullyincompliance

withIASA(Robelen2001).

Thesefactorspreventedwide-

spreadstateandlocaloppositiontoan

expandedfederalroleineducationand

permittedstatestomoldtherequire-

mentstofittheirlocalpolicypriorities

andthecapacityoftheirstateagencies.

AschronicledbytheEducation Week

yearlyreportQuality Counts,adoption

ofstrongstandardsandaccountability

systemsandtheextentofstatetesting

variedwidelyacrossthenation(Boser

2001;Orlofsky&Olson2001).

NCLB: An Expanded Federal Role in EducationWhilemanyoftheNCLBconcepts

werepresentinaless-developedway

underIASA,NCLBdepartsfromits

predecessorinsignificantways:itmarks

anexpansionoffederalauthorityover

programmaticaspectsofeducationand

raisestheexpectationsoffederalpolicy

byemphasizingequaleducational

outcomes.IncontrasttoIASA,NCLB

requiresstatestoadheretofederally

determinedtimelinesforidentifying

failingschoolsandimprovingstudent

achievement.Statesmustestablish

performancestandardsanddefine

adequateyearlyprogressgoalsthatall

schools,includingTitleIschools,must

meet.Insteadofreformstargeting

specialpopulations,statesarerequired

tobringallstudentsuptoastate-

definedproficiencylevelby2013–2014.

Byemphasizingequaleducational

outcomes,NCLBraisesexpectationsfor

whatschoolsmustaccomplish.Indeed,

animportantgoalofNCLBis,asthe

statutestates,toclose“theachievement


gapbetweenhigh-andlow-performing

children,especiallygapsbetween

minorityandnon-minoritystudents

andbetweendisadvantagedchildren

andtheirmoreadvantagedpeers.”

WithNCLB,theobjectivesof

Republicanreformerschangedfrom

limitingthefederalbureaucracyand

decentralizingdecisionmakingtothe

statestowardexpandingthefederal

rolewithanactivistbureaucracythat

assertivelypromotedparticularpolitical

andpolicygoals.TheBushadministra-

tionreversedlong-heldRepublican

doctrinesbyexpandingtheroleofthe

federalbureaucracyineducationbut

dodgedtheissueoflocalcontrolby

assertingthatthelawgiveslocalschool

districtsgreaterflexibilityintheuse

offederalfundsandbyarguingthat

thenewtestingrequirementsdonot

dictatewhatistaughtorhowitistaught

(Godwin&Sheard2001).

MuchliketheReaganadministra-

tion,theBushadministrationtookan

activistroleineducationpolicybecause

NCLBmettheadministration’s

politicalandpolicygoals.SinceBush

campaignedonaneducationagenda,

theenactmentofNCLBfulfilledhis

campaignpromise.UntilMedicare

reforminNovember2003,itwashis

onlydomesticpolicyaccomplishment

andanimportantissueofpoliticalsym-

bolism.Politically,NCLBallowedthe

administrationtosayitdidsomething

toimproveeducation,anissuethat

theAmericanpubliccaresabout.And,

muchastheReaganadministration

didduringtheeducationalexcellence

movementinthe1980s,byadopting

anissuethattraditionallywasdomi-

natedbytheDemocrats,theadminis-

trationwasabletoclaimeducationas

itsownissue.

SeveralprovisionsinNCLBalso

appealedtotheideologicalagendaof

theadministration’sconstituencies.

Supportforsupplementaleducational

servicesandpublicschoolchoicearethe

primeexamples.Thesepoliciesreflect

afaithinmarketapproachesthatisa

consistentthemeinconservativepolitics.

Therewasabeliefwithintheadminis-

tration,forexample,thatsupplemental

educationalservicesaregoingto“bring

schoolsoutofimprovementstatusas

studentachievementgoesup.”The

testingandaccountabilityprovisions

appealedtothebusinesscommunity,

anotherBushadministrationconstitu-

ency.Thebusinesscommunityhadbeen

advocatingstrongeraccountabilitysince

theReaganadministration,whenitwas

instrumentalinadvancingtheexcellence

reforms(Sunderman1995).

Finally,NCLBreinforcedtheidea

thatsocialandeconomiccausesof

povertycanbediscountedascauses

ofpoorperformance.Theideathat


economicandracialinequitiesare

connectedtoschoolinginequalitywas

replacedwitharhetoricthatstudents

ofallracial,ethnic,andclassback-

groundscanlearn.Insteadofaddress-

ingstructuralcausesofinequality,

NCLBsuggeststhatlowachievement

willimproveifstudents,teachers,and

schoolsworkharder.Whilethisrhetoric

maysuggestagreaterfocusonequal

educationalopportunity,itallows

policy-makerstomakeeducationthe

solesocialandeconomicpolicy(Kantor

&Lowe2006;Rothstein2004).

Direction of Education Policy under the Obama AdministrationOnonelevel,theObamaadministra-

tionhasrecognizedthatmanyparts

ofNCLBareunworkable.Butother

thantoarticulateaneedforbetter

assessments,Obamawassilenton

manyofthetoughissuesrelatedto

NCLB–suchasthe100percent

proficiencyrequirementandadequate

yearlyprogress–duringthepresidential

campaignandintheearlydaysof

hisadministration.Nonetheless,the

administrationhassignaleditscommit-

menttoaccountability,standards,and

assessmentsandhasadoptedrhetoric

thatlinkseconomicprogressand

educationalachievement.Ithasalso

advancedtheideathatoureducational

systemisindecline(Obama2009;

Duncan2009).Duringaperiodof

severeeconomiccrisis,thisapproach

inextricablytieseducationtosolving

socialandeconomicproblems.

Byallindications,theObama

administrationwillcontinueexpanding

thefederalroleineducation.Whileitis

unclearatthiswritinghowtheadmin-

istrationwilladdresstheissuesraised

byNCLB,otherindicatorssuggestthat

itwillexpandfederalpoweroveraddi-

tionalareasnowexclusivelyunderthe

controlofstateorlocalgovernments.

Twosourcesprovidecluesonthedirec-

tiontheadministrationplanstotake

–the2010budgetproposalandthe

AmericanRecoveryandReinvestment

Act(ARRA),orthefederalstimuluslaw.

Theadministrationisusingthefederal

stimuluslawtopushstatesanddistricts

toadoptparticularpoliciestheadmin-

istrationsupports.Stateswithrestrictive

charterschoollaws,forexample,have

beeninformedthatthismayhurttheir

chancestoreceivestimulusmoney

(Quaid2009).

TheObamaadministrationhas

alsovoicedstrongsupportforteacher

performancepay,anareatypically

decidedlocallybetweenunionsand

localschooldistricts(the2010budget

providesincentivesfordistrictsto

createpay-for-performanceprograms),

aswellassupportforalternative

pathwaysintoeducation(Obama

2009).Theadministration’ssupport

forcharterschools,performancepay,

andalternativepathwayssignalsawill-

ingnesstoconsidermarketapproaches

toeducation,evenwhenthereisalack

ofresearchontheireffectiveness.

Finally,whilethe2010budget

reflectssomechangesinfunding

priorities–additionalmoneyforTitleI

forschoolimprovement,anexpanded

focusonhighschoolreform,and

increasedfundingforeducational

research(Klein2009)–itdoesnot

representasignificantchangefromthe

Bushadministrationandreflectsa

continuationofthetrendsbegununder

theReaganadministration.Theshift

infederalpolicythatbeganaquarter

centuryagoislikelytocontinue.


References

Boser,U.2001.“PressurewithoutSupport,”Education Week20(January11):68–84.

Carson,R.1962.Silent Spring.Greenwich,CT:Fawcett.

CouncilofEconomicAdvisors1964.The Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisors.Washington,DC:U.S.GPO.

Duncan,A.2009.“SecretaryArneDuncanTestifiesbeforetheHouseEducationandLaborCommittee,May20,2009,”U.S.DepartmentofEducationWebsite,<www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/05/05202009.html>.

Feingold,R.D.2007.“FeingoldPartofSenateCoalitionCallingforImprovementstoNCLBTestingMandates,”U.S.SenatorRussFeingold,Winsconsin,Website,<http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/02/20070215nclb.html>.

Godwin,K.,andW.Sheard.2001.“EducationReformandthePoliticsof2000,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism31(Summer):111–129.

Harrington,M.1962.The Other America.NewYork:Macmillan.

Kaestle,C.F.,andM.S.Smith.1982.“TheFederalRoleinElementaryandSecondaryEducation,1940–1980,”Harvard Educational Review52,no.4(Winter):384–408.

Kantor,H.1991.“Education,SocialReform,andtheState:ESEAandFederalEducationPolicyinthe1960s,”American Journal of Education100,no.1(November):47–83.

Kantor,H.,andR.Lowe.2006.“FromNewDealtoNoDeal:NoChildLeftBehindandtheDevolutionofResponsibilityforEqualOpportunity,”Harvard Educational Review76,no.4(Winter):474–502.

Klein,A.2009.“Programs’FundingIsDebatedinLightofStimulusPackage,”Education Week28(May20):1,17.

Levin,H.M.1982.“FederalGrantsandEducationalEquity,”Harvard Educational Review52,no.4(Winter):444–460.

Lowi,T.J.1984.“RonaldReagan–Revolution-ary?”InThe Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America,editedbyL.M.SalamonandM.S.Lund,pp.29–56.Washington,DC:UrbanInstitutePress.

Nathan,R.P.,T.L.Gais,andJ.W.Fossett.2003.“BushFederalism:IsThereOne,WhatIsIt,andHowDoesItDiffer?”PaperpresentedattheAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement,Washington,DC,November7.

NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation.1983.A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation.

Obama,B.2009.“RemarksbythePresidenttotheHispanicChamberofCommerceonaCompleteandCompetitiveAmericanEducation,”

TheWhiteHouseWebsite,BriefingRoom,SpeechesandRemarks,March10,<www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-the-United-States-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce>.

Orfield,G.1969.The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.NewYork:Wiley-Interscience.

OrlofskyG.F.,andL.Olson.2001.“TheStateoftheStates,”Education Week20(January11):86–106.

Peterson,P.E.,B.G.Rabe,andK.K.Wong.1986.When Federalism Works.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.

Quaid,L.2009.“Duncan:StatesCouldLoseOutonStimulusCash,”Associated Press(May28).Availableonlineat<http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/05/28/duncan_states_could_lose_out_on_stimulus_cash?page=full&comments=true>

Reagan,R.1985.“RemarksattheNationalAssociationofIndependentSchoolsAnnualMeeting,”Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents21,no.9(February28).Washington,DC:U.S.GPO.

Ripley,R.B.,andG.A.Franklin.1991.Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy,5thedition.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.

Robelen,E.2001.“StatesSluggishonExecutionof1994ESEA,”Education Week21,no.13(November28):1,26–27.

Rothstein,R.2004.Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Sunderman,G.L.1995.“ThePoliticsofSchoolReform:TheEducationalExcellenceMovementandStatePolicymaking.”Unpublisheddisserta-tion,UniversityofChicago,Chicago,IL.

Thomas,N.C.1983.“TheDevelopmentofFederalActivisminEducation:AContemporaryPerspective,”Education and Urban Society15,no.3(May):271–290.

Tyack,D.,andCuban,L.1995.Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century Of Public School Reform.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

U.S.CensusBureau.2006.Statistical Abstract of the United States.WashingtonDC:U.S.CensusBureau.

Walker,D.1986.“TheNatureandSystemicImpactof‘CreativeFederalism.’”InThe Great Society and its Legacy: Twenty Years of U.S. Social Policy,editedbyM.KaplanandP.Cuciti,pp.197–208.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.


Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommon Professor of Education at the Stanford University Graduate School of Education.

Steady Work: How Finland Is Building a Strong Teaching and Learning System

LindaDarling-Hammond

Finland offers an example of how a nation built a comprehensive “teaching and

learning system” that has raised achievement and closed achievement gaps.

Inthisarticle,Ibrieflydescribe

howonenation–Finland–builta

strongeducationalsystemnearlyfrom

thegroundup.Finlandwasnotsuc-

ceedingeducationallyinthe1970s,

whentheU.S.wastheunquestioned

educationleaderintheworld.Yetit

createdaproductiveteachingand

learningsystembyexpandingaccess

whileinvestingpurposefullyinambi-

tiouseducationalgoalsusingstrategic

approachestobuildteachingcapacity.

Iusetheterm“teachingandlearn-

ingsystem”advisedlytodescribeaset

ofelementsthat,whenwelldesigned

andconnected,reliablysupportallstu-

dentsintheirlearning.Theseelements

ensurethatstudentsroutinelyencoun-

terwell-preparedteacherswhoare

workinginconcertaroundathought-

ful,high-qualitycurriculum,supported

Itisexhaustingeventorecountthestrugglesforequitablefundingin

Americanschools,muchlesstobe

engagedinthestruggles,yearafteryear,

or–muchmoredebilitating–tobea

parentorstudentwhoissubjectday

byday,weekbyweektotheaggressive

neglectoftenfosteredindysfunctional,

under-resourcedschools.

Onewonderswhatwemight

accomplishasanationifwecould

finallysetasidewhatappearstobeour

defactocommitmenttoinequality,so

profoundlyatoddswithourrhetoricof

equity,andputthemillionsofdollars

spentcontinuallyarguingandlitigating

intobuildingahigh-qualityeducation

systemforallchildren.Toimaginehow

thatmightbedone,onecanlookat

nationsthatstartedwithverylittleand

purposefullybuilthighlyproductiveand

equitablesystems,sometimesalmost

fromscratch,inthespaceofonlytwo

tothreedecades.

Theaim[ofFinnisheducationpolicy]isacoherentpolicygeared

toeducationalequityandahighlevelofeducationamongthe

populationasawhole.Theprincipleoflifelonglearningentailsthat

everyonehassufficientlearningskillsandopportunitiestodevelop

theirknowledgeandskillsindifferentlearningenvironments

throughouttheirlifespan.

—GovernmentofFinland,MinistryofEducation

Usedwithpermissionfromthepublisher.FromDarling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future, NewYork:TeachersCollegePress,©2010byTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.Allrightsreserved.Toordercopiesvisit<www.tcpress.com>orcall(800)575-6566.


The Finnish Success StoryFinlandhasbeenaposterchildfor

schoolimprovementsinceitrapidly

climbedtothetopoftheinternational

rankingsafteremergingfromtheSoviet

Union’sshadow.Oncepoorlyranked

educationally,withaturgidbureau-

craticsystemthatproducedlow-quality

educationandlargeinequalities,itnow

ranksfirstamongalltheOrganization

forEconomicCooperationand

Development(OECD)nationsonthe

ProgrammeforInternationalStudent

Assessment(PISA)assessmentsin

mathematics,science,andreading.The

countryalsoboastsahighlyequitable

distributionofachievement,evenforits

growingshareofimmigrantstudents

(NCES2007).

Inarecentanalysisofeducational

reformpoliciesinFinland,PasiSahlberg

(2009)describeshowsincethe1970s

Finlandhaschangeditstraditional

educationsystem“intoamodelofa

modern,publiclyfinancededucation

systemwithwidespreadequity,good

quality,largeparticipation–allofthis

atreasonablecost”(p.2).Inaddition

tothegainsinmeasuredachievement,

therehavebeenhugegainsineduca-

tionalattainmentattheuppersecond-

aryandcollegelevels.Morethan99

percentofstudentsnowsuccessfully

completecompulsorybasiceducation,

andabout90percentcompleteupper

secondaryschool(StatisticsFinland

2009).Two-thirdsofthesegraduates

enrollinuniversitiesorprofessionally

orientedpolytechnicschools.Andover

50percentoftheFinnishadultpopula-

tionparticipatesinadult-education

programs.Ninety-eightpercentof

thecostsofeducationatalllevelsare

coveredbygovernment,ratherthanby

privatesources(NCES2007).

Althoughtherewasasizable

achievementgapamongstudentsin

byappropriatematerialsandassess-

ments–andthattheseelementsofthe

systemhelpstudents,teachers,leaders,

andthesystemasawholecontinueto

learnandimprove.

WhileFinlandcontinuestoexperi-

enceproblemsandchallenges,ithas

createdamuchmoreconsistently

high-qualityeducationsystemforallof

itsstudentsthanhastheUnitedStates.

Andwhilenosystemfromafarcan

betransportedwholesaleintoanother

context,thereismuchtolearnfrom

theexperiencesofthosewhohave

addressedproblemsweencounter.

Asagepersononcenotedthatwhileit

isusefultolearnfromone’sownmis-

takesandexperiences,itisevenwiser

tolearnfromthoseofothers.Thisstory

isofferedwiththatgoalinmind.

Linda Darling-Hammond | V.U.E. Summer 2009 17

Strategies for Reform Becauseofthesetrends,manypeople

haveturnedtoFinlandforclues

toeducationaltransformation.Asone

analystnotes:

MostvisitorstoFinlanddiscover

elegantschoolbuildingsfilledwith

calmchildrenandhighlyeducated

teachers.Theyalsorecognizethelarge

autonomythatschoolsenjoy;little

interferencebythecentraleducation

administrationinschools’everyday

lives,systematicmethodstoaddress

problemsinthelivesofstudents,and

targetedprofessionalhelpforthose

inneed.(Sahlberg2009,p.7)

However,lessvisibleforces

accountforthemoretangibleevidence

visitorsmaysee.LeadersinFinland

attributethesegainstotheirintensive

investmentsinteachereducation–all

teachersreceivethreeyearsofhigh-

qualitygraduate-levelpreparation,com-

pletelyatstateexpense–plusamajor

the1970s,stronglycorrelatedto

socio-economicstatus,thisgaphas

beenprogressivelyreducedasaresult

ofcurriculumreformsstartinginthe

1980s–andcontinuedtogrowsmaller

andsmallerinthe2000,2003,and

2006PISAassessments.By2006,

Finland’sbetween-schoolvarianceon

thePISAsciencescalewasonly5per-

cent,whereastheaveragebetween-

schoolvarianceinotherOECDnations

wasabout33percent(Sahlberg2009;

NCES2007).Largebetween-school

variationisgenerallyrelatedtosocial

inequality,includingboththedifferences

inachievementacrossneighborhoods

differentiatedbywealthandtheextent

towhichschoolsarefundedandorga-

nizedtoreduceorexpandinequalities.

Notonlyistherelittlevariation

inachievementacrossFinnishschools,

theoverallvariationinachievement

amongFinnishstudentsisalsosmaller

thanthatofnearlyalltheotherOECD

countries.Thisistruedespitethefact

thatimmigrationfromnationswith

lowerlevelsofeducationhasincreased

sharplyinrecentyears,andthereis

morelinguisticandculturaldiversity

forschoolstocontendwith.Although

mostimmigrantsarestillfromplaces

likeSweden,themostrapidlygrowing

newcomergroupssince1990have

beenfromAfghanistan,Bosnia,India,

Iran,Iraq,Serbia,Somalia,Thailand,

Turkey,andVietnam;newimmigrants

speakmorethansixtylanguages.Yet,

achievementhasbeenclimbingin

Finlandandgrowingmoreequitable,

evenasithasbeendeclininginsome

otherOECDnations.


overhaulofthecurriculumandassess-

mentsystemdesignedtoensureaccess

toa“thinkingcurriculum”forallstu-

dents.ArecentanalysisoftheFinnish

systemsummarizeditscoreprinciples

asfollows(Laukkanen2008;seealso

Buchberger&Buchberger2003):

•Resourcesforthosewhoneed

themmost

•Highstandardsandsupportsfor

specialneeds

•Qualifiedteachers

•Evaluationofeducation

•Balancingdecentralizationand

centralization

Theprocessofchangehasbeen

almostthereverseoftheprogression

ofpoliciesintheUnitedStates.Over

thepastfortyyears,Finlandhasshifted

fromahighlycentralizedsystem

emphasizingexternaltestingtoamore

localizedsysteminwhichhighlytrained

teachersdesigncurriculumaround

theveryleannationalstandards.This

newsystemisimplementedthrough

equitablefundingandextensiveprepa-

rationforallteachers.Thelogicof

thesystemisthatinvestmentsinthe

capacityoflocalteachersandschools

tomeettheneedsofallstudents,cou-

pledwiththoughtfulguidanceabout

goals,canunleashthebenefitsoflocal

creativityinthecauseofcommon,

equitableoutcomes.

Meanwhile,theU.S.hasbeen

imposingmoreexternaltesting–often

exacerbatingdifferentialaccesstocur-

riculum–whilecreatingmoreineq-

uitableconditionsinlocalschools.

Resourcesforchildrenandschoolsin

theformofbothoverallfundingand

thepresenceoftrained,experienced

teachershavebecomemoredisparate

inmanystates,thusunderminingthe

capacityofschoolstomeettheout-

comesthatare,ostensibly,sought.

FinnishpolicyanalystSahlberg

(2009)notesthatFinlandhastakena

verydifferentpath.Heidentifiesaset

ofglobalreforms,undertakenespecially

intheAnglo-Saxoncountries,that

Finlandhasnotadopted,including


standardizationofcurriculumenforced

byfrequentexternaltests;narrowingof

thecurriculumtobasicskillsinread-

ingandmathematics;reducedusedof

innovativeteachingstrategies;adop-

tionofeducationalideasfromexternal

sources,ratherthandevelopmentof

localinternalcapacityforinnovation

andproblemsolving;andadoption

ofhigh-stakesaccountabilitypolicies,

featuringrewardsandsanctionsfor

students,teachers,andschools.Bycon-

trast,hesuggests:

Finnisheducationpoliciesarearesult

offourdecadesofsystematic,mostly

intentional,developmentthathas

createdacultureofdiversity,trust,

andrespectwithinFinnishsociety,in

general,andwithinitseducationsys-

tem,inparticular.. . .Educationsector

developmenthasbeengroundedon

equalopportunitiesforall,equitable

distributionofresourcesratherthan

competition,intensiveearlyinterven-

tionsforprevention,andbuilding

gradualtrustamongeducationpracti-

tioners,especiallyteachers.(p.10)

Equityinopportunitytolearnis

supportedinmanyways,inaddition

tobasicfunding.Finnishschoolsare

generallysmall(fewerthan300pupils),

withrelativelysmallclasssizes(in

thetwenties),andareuniformlywell

equipped.Thenotionofcaringfor

studentseducationallyandpersonally

isacentralprincipleintheschools.All

studentsreceiveafreemealdaily,as

wellasfreehealthcare,transportation,

learningmaterials,andcounselingin

theirschools,sothatthefoundationsfor

learningareinplace(Sahlberg2007).

Beyondthat,accesstoqualitycurricu-

lumandteachershasbecomeacentral

aspectofFinnisheducationalpolicy.

Improving Curriculum

Content and Access

Beginninginthe1970s,Finland

launchedreformstoequalizeeduca-

tionalopportunitybyeliminatingthe

practiceofseparatingstudentsinto

verydifferenttracksbasedontheir

testscores,alongwiththeexamina-

tionspreviouslyusedtoenforceit.This

occurredintwostagesbetween1972

and1982,andacommoncurriculum

wasdevelopedthroughouttheentire

systemthroughtheendofhighschool.

Thesechangeswereintendedtoequal-

izeeducationaloutcomesandprovide

moreopenaccesstohighereducation

(Eckstein&Noah1993).Duringthis

time,socialsupportsforchildrenand

familieswerealsoenacted,including

healthanddentalcare,specialeducation

services,andtransportationtoschools.

Bythelate1970s,investment

inteacherswasanadditionalfocus.

Teachereducationwasimprovedand

extended.Policy-makersdecidedthat

iftheyinvestedinveryskillfulteachers,

theycouldallowlocalschoolsmore

autonomytomakedecisionsabout

whatandhowtoteach–areaction

againsttheoppressive,centralizedsys-

temtheysoughttooverhaul.

Thisbetseemstohavepaidoff.

Bythemid-1990s,thecountryhad

endedthehighlyregulatedsystemof

curriculummanagement(reflected


form,emphasizingdescriptionsoftheir

learningprogressandareasforgrowth

(Sahlberg2007).Asisthecasewiththe

NationalAssessmentofEducational

Progress(NAEP)examsintheUnited

States,samplesofstudentsareevalu-

atedonopen-endedassessmentsatthe

endofthesecondandninthgradesto

informcurriculumandschoolinvest-

ments.Thefocusisonusinginforma-

tiontodrivelearningandproblem

solving,ratherthanpunishments.

Finlandmaintainsoneexamprior

toattendinguniversity:thematricula-

tionexam,organizedandevaluatedby

aMatriculationExamBoardappointed

bytheFinnishMinistryofEducation.

Whilenotrequiredforgraduationor

entryintoauniversity,itisacommon

practiceforstudentstotakethissetof

fouropen-endedexams,emphasizing

problemsolving,analysis,andwriting.

Teachersuseofficialguidelinestograde

thematriculationexamslocally,and

samplesofthegradesarereexamined

byprofessionalratershiredbythe

MatriculationExamBoard.Although

itiscounterintuitivetothoseaccus-

tomedtoexternaltestingasameansof

accountability,Finland’suseofschool-

based,student-centered,open-ended

tasksembeddedinthecurriculum

isoftentoutedasanimportantreason

forthenation’ssuccessontheinter-

nationalexams(Lavonen2008;FNBE

2007).

TheFinnishNationalBoardof

Educationdescribestheapproaches

usedforcurriculumandassessmenton

itsWebsite(FNBE2007).Thenational

corecurriculumprovidesteacherswith

recommendedassessmentcriteriafor

inoldercurriculumguidesthathad

exceeded700pagesofprescriptions).

Thecurrentnationalcorecurriculum

isamuchleanerdocument–featuring

fewerthantenpagesofguidanceforall

ofmathematics,forexample–which

guidesteachersincollectivelydevelop-

inglocalcurriculumandassessments.

Thefocusof1990scurriculumreforms

Therearenoexternalstandardized

testsusedtorankstudentsorschools

inFinland,andmostteacherfeedback

tostudentsisinnarrativeform.The

focusisonusinginformationtodrive

learningandproblemsolving.

wasonscience,technology,andinnova-

tion,leadingtoanemphasisonteach-

ingstudentshowtothinkcreatively

andmanagetheirownlearning.As

Sahlberg(2009)notes:

Rapidemergenceofinnovation-driven

businessesinthemid-1990sintro-

ducedcreativeproblem-solvingand

innovativecross-curricularprojects

andteachingmethodstoschools.

SomeleadingFinnishcompanies,

suchasNokia,remindededucation

policy-makersoftheimportanceof

keepingteachingandlearningcreative

andopentonewideas,ratherthan

fixingthemtopredeterminedstandards

andaccountabilitythroughnational

testing.(p.20)

Indeed,therearenoexternal

standardizedtestsusedtorankstudents

orschoolsinFinland,andmostteacher

feedbacktostudentsisinnarrative


specificgradesineachsubjectandin

theoverallfinalassessmentofstudent

progresseachyear.Localschoolsand

teachersthenusethoseguidelines

tocraftamoredetailedcurriculum

andsetoflearningoutcomesateach

school,aswellasapproachestoassess-

ingbenchmarksinthecurriculum.

AccordingtotheFNBE,themainpur-

poseofassessingstudentsistoguide

andencouragestudents’ownreflection

andself-assessment.Consequently,

ongoingfeedbackfromtheteacheris

veryimportant.Teachersgivestudents

formativeandsummativereportsboth

throughverbalandnarrativefeedback.

Inquiryisamajorfocusoflearning

inFinland,andassessmentisusedto

cultivatestudents’activelearningskills

byaskingopen-endedquestionsand

helpingstudentsaddresstheseprob-

lems.InaFinnishclassroom,itisrare

toseeateacherstandingatthefrontof

aclassroomlecturingstudentsforfifty

minutes.Instead,studentsarelikelyto

determinetheirownweeklytargets

withtheirteachersinspecificsubject

areasandchoosethetaskstheywill

workonattheirownpace.Inatypical

classroom,studentsarelikelytobe

walkingaround,rotatingthroughwork-

shopsorgatheringinformation,asking

questionsoftheirteacher,andworking

withotherstudentsinsmallgroups.

Theymaybecompletingindependent

orgroupprojectsorwritingarticles

fortheirownmagazine.Thecultivation

ofindependenceandactivelearning

allowsstudentstodevelopmetacogni-

tiveskillsthathelpthemtoframe,

tackle,andsolveproblems;evaluate

andimprovetheirownwork;andguide

theirlearningprocessesinproductive

ways(Lavonen2008).

Anorientationtowell-grounded

experimentation,reflection,and

improvementasadynamiccyclefor

individualandorganizationallearning

characterizeswhatstudentsareaskedto

dointheirinquiry-basedlessons,what

teachersareaskedtodointheirprofes-

sionalproblem-solvingandcurriculum

development,andwhatschoolsare

askedtodointheirdriveforcontinual

progress.Sahlberg(2007)notes:“A

typicalfeatureofteachingandlearning

inFinlandisencouragingteachersand

studentstotrynewideasandmethods,

learnaboutandthroughinnovations,

andcultivatecreativityinschools,while

respectingschools’pedagogiclegacies”

(p.152).

Improving Teaching

Greaterinvestmentsinteachereduca-

tionbeganinthe1970swithexpecta-

tionsthatteacherswouldmovefrom

three-yearnormalschoolprogramsto

four-to-five-yearprogramsofstudy.

Duringthe1990s,thecountryover-

hauledpreparationonceagainto

focusmoreonteachingdiverselearners

forhigher-orderskillslikeproblem

solvingandcriticalthinkinginresearch-

basedmaster’sdegreeprograms.

IanWestburyandcolleagues(2005)

suggestthatpreparingteachersfora

research-basedprofessionhasbeen

thecentralideaofteachereducation

developmentsinFinland.

Prospectiveteachersarecompeti-

tivelyselectedfromthepoolofcollege

graduates–only15percentofthose

whoapplyareadmitted(Buchberger

&Buchberger2003)–andreceive

athree-year,graduate-levelteacher-

preparationprogram,entirelyfreeof

chargeandwithalivingstipend.Unlike

theU.S.,whereteacherseithergointo


debttoprepareforaprofessionthat

willpaythempoorlyorenterwithlittle

ornotraining,Finland–likeother

Scandinaviancountries–madethe

decisiontoinvestinauniformlywell-

preparedteachingforcebyrecruiting

topcandidatesandpayingthemtogo

toschool.Slotsinteachertrainingpro-

gramsarehighlycovetedandshortages

arevirtuallyunheardof.

Teachers’preparationincludes

bothextensivecourseworkonhow

toteach–withastrongemphasison

usingresearchbasedonstate-of-the-

artpractice–andatleastafullyearof

clinicalexperienceinaschoolassoci-

atedwiththeuniversity.Thesemodel

schoolsareintendedtodevelopand

modelinnovativepractices,aswellasto

fosterresearchonlearningandteaching.

Teachersaretrainedinresearchmeth-

odssothattheycan“contributetoan

increaseoftheproblem-solvingcapacity

oftheeducationsystem”(Buchberger

&Buchberger2003,p.10).

Withinthesemodelschools,stu-

dentteachersparticipateinproblem-

solvinggroups,acommonfeaturein

Finnishschools.Theproblem-solving

groupsengageinacycleofplanning,

action,andreflection/evaluation,which

isreinforcedthroughouttheteacher

education.Thisprocessis,infact,a

modelforwhatteacherswillplanfor

theirownstudents,whoareexpected

toconductsimilarkindsofresearch

andinquiryintheirownstudies.

Indeed,theentiresystemisintendedto

improvethroughcontinualreflection,

evaluation,andproblemsolving,atthe

leveloftheclassroom,school,munici-

pality,andnation.

Teacherslearnhowtocreatechal-

lengingcurriculumandhowtodevelop

andevaluatelocalperformanceassess-

mentsthatengagestudentsinresearch

andinquiryonaregularbasis.Teacher

Teachertrainingemphasizeslearning

howtoteachstudentswholearnin

differentways,includingthosewith

specialneeds.TheegalitarianFinns

reasonedthatifteacherslearntohelp

studentswhostruggle,theywillbeable

toteachallstudentsmoreeffectively

and,indeed,leavenochildbehind.


trainingemphasizeslearninghowto

teachstudentswholearnindifferent

ways,includingthosewithspecialneeds.

Itincludesastrongemphasison

“multiculturality”andthe“prevention

oflearningdifficultiesandexclusion,”as

wellasontheunderstandingoflearn-

ing,thoughtfulassessment,andcurricu-

lumdevelopment(Buchberger&

Buchberger2003).TheegalitarianFinns

reasonedthatifteacherslearntohelp

studentswhostruggle,theywillbeable

toteachallstudentsmoreeffectively

and,indeed,leavenochildbehind.

Mostteachersnowholdmaster’s

degreesinboththeircontentandin

education,andtheyarewellprepared

toteachdiverselearners–including

specialneedsstudents–fordeep

understandingandtouseformative

performanceassessmentsonaregular

basistoinformtheirteachingsoit

meetsstudents’needs(Laukkanen

2008;Buchberger&Buchberger2003).

Teachersarewelltrainedbothin

researchmethodsandinpedagogical

practice.Consequently,theyaresophis-

ticateddiagnosticians,andtheywork

togethercollegiallytodesigninstruc-

tionthatmeetsthedemandsofthe

subjectmatteraswellastheneedsof

theirstudents.

InFinland,likeotherhigh-

achievingnations,schoolsprovide

timeforregularcollaborationamong

teachersonissuesofinstruction.

TeachersinFinnishschoolsmeetat

leastoneafternooneachweekto

jointlyplananddevelopcurriculum,

andschoolsinthesamemunicipality

areencouragedtoworktogetherto

sharematerials.Timeisalsoprovided

forprofessionaldevelopmentwithin

theteachers’workweek(OECD2005).

AsistrueinmanyEuropeanandAsian

nations,nearlyhalfofteachers’school

timeisusedtohonepracticethrough

school-basedcurriculumwork,collec-

tiveplanning,andcooperationwith

parents,whichallowsschoolsand

familiestoworkmorecloselytogether

onbehalfofstudents(Gonnievan

Amelsvoort&Scheerens1996).This


comparestoonlythreetofivehours

perweekavailabletomostU.S.teach-

ersforlessonplanning–conducted

independently,withoutthebenefitof

colleagues’thinking.Theresultisthat:

Finnishteachersareconscious,critical

consumersofprofessionaldevelop-

mentandin-servicetrainingservices.

Justastheprofessionallevelofthe

teachingcadrehasincreasedoverthe

pasttwodecades,sohasthequality

ofteacherprofessionaldevelopment

support.Mostcompulsory,traditional

in-servicetraininghasdisappeared.In

itsplaceareschool-ormunicipality-

basedlonger-termprogramsand

professionaldevelopmentoppor-

tunities.Continuousupgradingof

teachers’pedagogicalprofessional-

ismhasbecomearightratherthan

anobligation.Thisshiftinteachers’

learningconditionsandstylesoften

reflectswaysthatclassroomlearningis

arrangedforpupils.Asaconsequence

ofstrengthenedprofessionalismin

schools,ithasbecomeunderstood

thatteachersandschoolsarerespon-

siblefortheirownworkandalsosolve

mostproblemsratherthanshiftthem

elsewhere.TodaytheFinnishteach-

ingprofessionisonaparwithother

professionalworkers;teacherscan

diagnoseproblemsintheirclassrooms

andschools,applyevidence-basedand

oftenalternativesolutionstothem

andevaluateandanalyzetheimpact

ofimplementedprocedures.(Sahlberg

2007,p.155)

Thefocusoninstructionandthe

developmentofprofessionalpractice

inFinland’sapproachtoorganizingthe

educationsystemhasled,according

toallreports,toanincreasedpreva-

lenceofeffectiveteachingmethodsin

schools.Furthermore,effortstoenable

schoolstolearnfromeachotherhave

ledtowhatMichaelFullan(2005)calls

“lateralcapacitybuilding”:thewide-

spreadadoptionofeffectivepractices

andexperimentationwithinnovative

approachesacrossthesystem,“encour-

agingteachersandschoolstocontinue

toexpandtheirrepertoiresofteaching

methodsandindividualizingteach-

ingtomeettheneedsofallstudents”

(Sahlberg2007,p.167).

AFinnishofficialnotedthiskey

lessonlearnedfromthereformsthat

allowedFinlandtoclimbfroman

inequitable,mediocreeducationsystem

totheverytopoftheinternational

rankings:

Empowermentoftheteaching

professionproducesgoodresults.

Professionalteachersshouldhave

spaceforinnovation,becausethey

shouldtrytofindnewwaystoimprove

learning.Teachersshouldnotbeseen

astechnicianswhoseworkistoimple-

mentstrictlydictatedsyllabi,but

ratherasprofessionalswhoknowhow

toimprovelearningforall.Allthis

createsabigchallenge. . .thatcertainly

callsforchangesinteachereducation

programs.Teachersarerankedhighest

inimportance,becauseeducational

systemsworkthroughthem.

(Laukkanen2008)

Thefocusoninstructionandthe

developmentofprofessionalpractice

inFinland’sapproachtoorganizing

theeducationsystemhasled

toanincreasedprevalenceofeffective

teachingmethodsinschools.


References

Buchberger,F.,andI.Buchberger.2003.“ProblemSolvingCapacityofaTeacherEducationSystemasaConditionofSuccess?AnAnalysisofthe‘FinnishCase.’”InEducation Policy Analysis in a Comparative Perspective,editedbyF.BuchbergerandS.Berghammer,pp.222–237.Linz,Austria:Trauner.

Eckstein,M.A.,andH.J.Noah.1993.Secondary School Examinations: International Perspectives on Policies and Practice.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

FinnishNationalBoardofEducation.2007.“BackgroundforFinnishPISASuccess,”(November12),<www.oph.fi/english/SubPage.asp?path=447,65535,77331>.

Fullan,M.2005.Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

GonnievanAmelsvoort,H.W.C.,andJ.Scheerens.1996.“InternationalComparativeIndicatorsonTeachers,”International Journal of Educational Research25,no.3:267–277.

GovernmentofFinland,MinistryofEducation.n.d.“ObjectivesandProgrammes,”MinistryofEducationWebsite,EducationPolicy,<www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutuspolitiikka/linjaukset_ohjelmat_ja_hankkeet/?lang=en>.

Laukkanen,R.2008.“FinnishStrategyforHigh-LevelEducationforAll.”InGovernance and Performance of Education Systems,editedbyN.C.SoguelandP. Jaccard.Dordrecht,Netherlands:Springer.

Lavonen,J.2008.“ReasonsBehindFinnishStudents’SuccessinthePISAScientificLiteracyAssessment.”Conferencepresentation.Helsinki,Finland,UniversityofHelsinki.Availableonlineat<www.oph.fi/info/finlandinpisastudies/conference2008/science_results_and_reasons.pdf>

NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.2007.Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context.NCES2008–016.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences.Availableonlineat<http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016>

OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.2005.Education at a Glance:OECD Indicators.Paris,France:OECD.

Sahlberg,P.2009.“EducationalChangeinFinland.”InInternational Handbook of Educational Change,editedbyA.Hargreaves,M.Fullan,A.Lieberman,andD.Hopkins,pp.1–28.Dordrecht,Netherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

Sahlberg,P.2007.“EducationPoliciesforRaisingStudentLearning:TheFinnishApproach,”Journal of Education Policy22,no.2:147–171.

StatisticsFinland.2009.“MatriculationExaminationAttainedbyNearly90PerCentandVocationalQualificationorTertiaryDegreeAttainedbyover70PerCentofStudentsWhoStartStudies,”StatisticsFinlandWebsite(May15),<www.stat.fi/til/opku/index_en.html>.

Westbury,I.,S.-E.Hansen,P.Kansanen,andO.Björkvist.2005.“TeacherEducationforResearch-BasedPracticeinExpandedRoles:Finland’sExperience,”Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research49,no.5:475–485.


Looking broadly, what would you say

are the parameters for the federal role in

education?

Clearly,there’saninterestinimproving

standardsandmakingthemmorerig-

orous.Aswe’veseenwiththeNational

GovernorsAssociationandtheCouncil

ofChiefStateSchoolOfficers,there’s

anefforttostandardizethosestandards

acrossstatesandtomovetoamore

singularmeasureofachievementand

proficiency.That’sonekeyissuethat

thefedsarevery,veryinterestedinpro-

motingandencouraging.

Asecondissueisteacherquality.

There’sagreaterefforttofocuson

performancepayforgreaterachieve-

ment,andthey’regoingtousevarious

mechanismstoensurethatwillhappen.

Ithinkthereisanotheremphasis

onentrepreneurship.Whatyou’llsee

withthe“RacetotheTop”dollarsisan

emphasisoninnovationandchange

andschoolimprovementandmultiple

modelsforschoolimprovement.

Anotheremphasiswillbeon

reformingandimprovingstates’ability

togatherlongitudinaldataandensure

thatallkidsarecountedingraduation

Susan B. Neuman is a professor of educational studies at the University of Michigan School of Education.

Federal Policies to Change the Odds for Children in Poverty

SusanB.Neuman

The experience of the last decade suggests that new directions in federal policies are

needed to improve educational outcomes for children in poverty.

Inthecurrentdebatesoverpoliciestoimproveeducationaloutcomes,par-

ticularlyforlow-incomechildren,SusanB.Neumanoccupiesararepositionas

botharesearcherandapolicy-maker.AttheUniversityofMichiganSchoolof

Education,wheresheisaprofessorofeducationalstudies,shedirectstheMichigan

ResearchProgramonReadytoLearn.Previously,shedirectedtheCenterforthe

ImprovementofEarlyReadingAchievement,focusingonearlychildhoodpolicy,

curriculum,andearlyreadinginstruction,pre-kindergartentograde3.

From2001to2003,shewasAssistantU.S.SecretaryofEducationforelemen-

taryandsecondaryeducation.There,shehelpedestablishtheReadingFirstand

EarlyReadingFirstprogramsandtheEarlyChildhoodProfessionalDevelopment

Program,andshewasresponsibleforadministeringNoChildLeftBehindinits

initialstages.

Hermostrecentbook,Changing the Odds for Children at Risk(PraegerPublishers,

2008),outlinessevenprinciplesforimprovingoutcomesforlow-incomechildren.

NeumanspokewithVoices in Urban EducationeditorRobertRothmanabout

thefederalroleinimprovingeducation.


rates.[There’sanefforttoimprove]

theabilitytocollectmoredatathan

everbefore.

From your experience in the federal

government and your work elsewhere,

do you think these are appropriate areas

for the federal government to be involved

in? Or is it overstretching its capacity or

appropriateness?

Ithinksomeofthesethingsareawaste

oftime.Idon’tthinkthatimproving

standards–makingstandardsmore

rigorous–isgoingtoreallyaffect

achievementorimprovethequalityof

instruction.Idon’tthinkinternational

benchmarkingisgoingtodothatatall.

Ithinkthefederalgovernmentismiss-

ingthemarkfocusingonthesekindsof

issueswherethey’rereallynotcapable

offollowingandmonitoringthemvery

well.Wehaveexamplesoftheirlimita-

tionsintryingtoimplementsomeof

thelawinNoChildLeftBehind.Thisis

onlygettingmoreinvolvedinlocalmat-

tersthaneverbefore.

There is a consensus that the federal role

has expanded with No Child Left Behind,

and now there is an interest in doing even

more, as you mentioned. Do you think

the genie can be put back in the bottle

and the federal government could take on

a humbler role, more akin to what it was

doing before?

Idon’tthinkso.Whatwe’reseeingis

aconsensusonbothsidesoftheaisle,

DemocratsandRepublicans,feeling

thatschoolshavefailedourchildren,

thatwearenotuptointernational

standards,andthatwehavetoimprove

significantly.

IftheRepublicanshadtheirway,

theywouldhavestrongeraccountability

systemsandallowlocalsandthestates

tohavegreaterinnovation.Aslong

astherewasastrongaccountability

system,theywouldallowforgreater

Idon’tthinkthatimprovingstandards

–makingstandardsmorerigorous–

isgoingtoreallyaffectachievement

orimprovethequalityofinstruction.

Idon’tthinkinternationalbenchmark-

ingisgoingtodothatatall.


test;aswellasacredential.Oneofthe

thingsIquestionedwasthetheoryof

action:whetherthosethreecompo-

nentsactuallydefinedwhatisahigh-

qualityteacher.

Theyspentanenormousamount

ofmoneyandenormousamountsof

redtapeonthis.Attheverybegin-

ningoftheBushadministration,they

sortofignoredthiseffort,preferringto

workontheissueofaccountability.But

theDemocraticCongresseventually

caughtupwiththemandsaid,you’re

notimplementingthisthewayitwas

intended.Andsotheybecamemore

rigorousintheirimplementationstrat-

egy.Theywenttostates,theytriedto

figureoutstatecredentialingguidelines,

andtheygotintotheweedsofvarious

stategovernmentstrategiesforcreden-

tialingwhatconstitutedknowledge.

Sobytheendofagreatdeal

ofeffort–eightyearsofeffort–essen-

tially,theycouldsaythatmoreteach-

ersabidedbywhattheydefinedas

highlyqualifiedteaching.WhatI

suggestisthatthere’snoevidence

thatteacherqualityhasimproveda

smidgen.There’snoevidenceinterms

ofthenationalassessments;there’s

noevidenceintermsofanyanecdotal

informationthatteacherqualityis

betternowthaneverbefore.Icallthis

afailedeffort–spendingenormous

amountsofdollars,enormousnumbers

ofresources,makingteachersdothings

thatwerenotterriblyhelpful,andI

don’tseeanybenefitinthelongrun.

Is there an appropriate federal role

in setting guidelines for teacher quality,

and what might that be?

Iquestionedwhetherthiswasan

appropriatetheoryofaction.Ithink

mostofuswhodealwithteacher

educationwouldsaythatthesethree

componentsdonotconstitutegood

entrepreneurshipinmanyways.Ithink

theDemocrats,however,traditionally

wanttocreatenewlawsandnew

programstoensurethat[improve-

ment]happens.

Ithinkthattheyaregoingto

findthatthisisextremelydifficultto

implement.They’llhavetofailbefore

theyrealizethatitcannotbedone.I

knowthatsoundspessimistic.

Teacher Quality: Choosing the Right Levers

Let’s look at one example of something

you were involved with: teacher quality.

No Child Left Behind, for the first

time, set federal guidelines for teacher

quality. You have argued that this was,

if not a failure, an effort that did not

achieve its goals. Why do you think that

this happened?

Numberoneisthedefinition[of

teacherquality].Theyhadtofocuson

policyleversthattheycouldcontrol.

Thethreepolicyleverswere:ateacher

wouldhavetohaveaBA;shewould

havetohavesubject-matterexpertise,

whichtheydefinedaseithercourse-

workorsomekindofabilitytopassa

Sobytheendofagreatdealofeffort,

moreteachersabidedbywhatthey

definedashighlyqualifiedteaching.

There’snoevidencethatteacher

qualityhasimprovedasmidgen.

Susan B. Neuman | V.U.E. Summer 2009 29

teaching.Sothenwehavetoask,what

doesconstitutegoodteaching?We

havesomeevidenceindicatingthat

teacherswhoareveryeffectivecreatea

climatethatsupportschildren’slearn-

ing.Theyareinteractional–involved

withtheschool.Theytaketheirprofes-

sionveryseriously.Ithinkoneofthe

thingswehavetoquestioniswhether

thatisalever–apossiblelever–and

Isuggestperhapsno.Itwouldbevery

difficultforafederalguidelinetosug-

gestwewantthislevelofclimateand

makeithappen.

IsuggestthatthegoalofNo

ChildLeftBehind’steacherquality

provisionwasreallyaboutensuringthat

high-povertykidsgotthesamequality

ofteacherthatmiddle-classandupper-

middle-classkidsget.Idon’tthink

thosecomponentsthatarecurrentlyin

thelaworwhat[President]Obama

and[SecretaryofEducation]Arne

Duncanareproposingactuallywill

improveteacherqualityforchildren

whoareinpoverty.

Therearesomeleversthatwould

attractteacherstohigh-povertycom-

munities.Mostofuswhoareteachers

reallywanttoimprovechildren’s

achievement.We’dlovethechallenge

ofbeingabletogosomewhereand

actuallyincreasechildren’sscores.

Thewaytodothatistoimprovethe

climateforteacherstogointothose

high-povertysettings.Thatmeansthat

oneoftheleverscouldbe,forexample,

schoolfacilities.Manyoftheschoolsin

high-povertyareashavefallenapart.

Theirroofsleak;teachersareteaching

inthebathrooms;there’snospace.So

oneofthestrategiestoattractteachers

wouldbenottonecessarilygivethem

performancepay–Idon’tseehow

that’sgoingtowork–buttogivethem

betterfacilitiessothattheycando

theirwork.

Asecondlevercouldbetogive

themmorecontrol–toallowteachers

toactuallyhavecontroloftheirschools.

Soiftheydotheirjob,someofthe

redtapethattheyhavetogothrough

wouldbewaived,recognizingthatwhat

theyaredoingisgood–almostlike

what[Chancellor]JoelKleinhadpro-

posedforNewYork.


[Athirdwouldbeto]makeschools

intellectuallyvibrant:givethemprofes-

sionaldevelopmentfundssothat

teacherscanlearnfromotherteachers.

Supportcoachingandmentoringso

thatteacherscangetthekindsofpro-

fessionaldevelopmentthatwillreally

enablethemtodotheirworkbetter.

Anotherstrategyistomake

schoolssmallerandallowclasssizeto

diminishsothatteacherscantalkto

childrenandinteractmore.

Iseethoseaspossibleleversfor

teacherquality[thatwill]ensure

thatteacherswillgointoschoolsof

challenge,ratherthanissueslikeperfor-

mancepayorthecurrentteacherqual-

ityinitiatives.

Improving Supports Outside of School

You’ve been involved in developing the

Broader, Bolder Approach framework.

That idea suggests that focusing on

schools alone is not sufficient to ensure

high levels of student learning. What

should the federal government be doing

to advance that agenda?

BoththeBroader,BolderApproach

andmybook,Changing the Odds for

Children at Risk (Neuman2008),

basicallyarguethattheaveragedayfor

childreninourschoolsisonlysixhours.

Theyhaveninemonths,withlotsof

vacation.Ifwe’rereallytochangethe

oddsforourchildren,wehaveto

ensurethattherearesafercommuni-

ties,thatthere’smoreparentalinvolve-

mentandfamilysupport,thatweget

otherinstitutions,likeearlyeducation

andafter-schoolprograms,working

togethertoensurethatthesekids

getamore360[-degree]surroundor

intervention–anintensiveintervention

withahighdosagethatmakesthis

allpossible.

WhatI’drecommend,andthere

isalittlebitinPresidentObama’s

budget,isacommunity-basedinitia-

tivethatsupportsagreaterconnection

betweentheseservices.Asyouknow,

forchildrenwhocomefromhigh-

povertycircumstances,theseareoften

very,verydisconnected.Youhaveto

applyforeachoneindividually.When

Iwasdoingmybook,Ifoundthat

somechildrenhadseventeendifferent

services,allrequiringdifferenttypesof

criteriaandrequirements.SoIthink

oneofthestrategiescouldbetohave

acommunity-basedinitiativewhereall

oftheseservicesbegintoworktogether

followingsimilarstandards,similar

mechanismsofdefiningaccountability,

andworkingtogethertoensurekids’

achievement.

It’simportantthatwehavean

alignedsystem–thatwedon’tthinkof

schoolsasseparatefromcommunities

andfamiliesseparatefromschools,that

weworktowardahorizontalandverti-

calalignmentofprograms.

Susan B. Neuman | V.U.E. Summer 2009 31

That would begin with early childhood,

right?

Absolutely.ButIevenstartearlier.The

early-childhoodprogramsareobviously

imperative,butoneofthethingsI’m

absolutelydelightedPresidentObama

isfundingisEarlyHeadStart.That

reallyworkswithparentsinutero.It

helpsthemmakesurethattheyget

healthyservices,thattheygototheir

doctors,thattheygetpreparedfor

havingchildren,preparingthemfor

thekindsofcognitivestimulationkids

reallyneed,aswellasthesocialinterac-

tionthat’ssoimportant.

Istronglybelievethatparentswant

todotherightthing.Butsomany

environmentalconstraintsoccurfor

familiesinpoverty,sogettingthemthe

familysupports–thenurse–family

practitionerprogramandsomeof

thoseotherprograms–toensurethat

theygetofftoagoodstartisevery

bitasimportantasearlychildhood

education,whichoftenkicksinatages

threethroughfive.

Reference

Neuman,S.B.2008.Changing the Odds for Children at Risk: Seven Essential Principles of Educational Programs that Break the Cycle of Poverty.Westport,CT:Praeger.


Thedominantassumptionbehind

muchcurrenteducationalpolicyand

practiceisthatschoolistheonlyplace

whereandwhenchildrenlearn.This

assumptioniswrong.Fortyyearsof

steadilyaccumulatingresearchshows

thatout-of-school,or“complemen-

tarylearning”opportunitiesaremajor

predictorsofchildren’sdevelopment,

learning,andeducationalachievement.

Theresearchalsoindicatesthat

economicallyandotherwisedisadvan-

tagedchildrenarelesslikelythantheir

more-advantagedpeerstohaveaccess

totheseopportunities.Thisinequity

substantiallyunderminestheirlearn-

ingandchancesforschoolsuccess.To

solvethisproblem,wemustimagine

whatthesolutionwouldlooklike.

The Vision: A Continuous, Comprehensive, Complementary Learning SystemImaginethefollowingscenario,with

thehypotheticalstudentMarcusand

hismotherMaria.

Marcusisseventeenyearsold.He

livesinapublichousingdevelopment

withhisyoungersisterandhismother,

Maria,whomakesminimumwage

cleaninghouses.Whenshewaspreg-

nantwithMarcus,Mariawenttoher

communityhealthclinicandtoldher

doctor,“Iwanttobeabetterparent

thanmymother.Iwantmykidstogo

tocollege,butIdon’tknowanybody

whowenttocollege.HowdoIhelpmy

kidsgetthere?”

Maria’sdoctorreferredhertothe

localcommunitycenter,whichhad

strongpartnershipswiththehealth

clinicandthelocalschooldistrict.At

thecommunitycenter,Mariaenrolled

inaparentingclass.Althoughinitially

nervous,shelikedtheinstructorand

thestrategiesshelearnedforhelping

Marcuslearn.Shebeganreadingto

himandtakinghimtothechildren’s

museum.Shealsoreceivedhomevis-

itsfromeducatorsatthecenter,who

showedhereffectivedisciplinestrate-

gies.Thebiggestbenefitofthecenter,

shethought,wasmeetingotherparents

toshareinformation,stories,andambi-

tionsfortheirchildren.

WhenMarcuswasalmostthree,

afamilyliaisonfromthelocalschool

districtcametothecommunitycenter

totalktoparentsabouttheimportance

ofpre-kindergartenclassesandtell

parentsabouttheschoolwheretheir

childrenwouldattendkindergarten.

“Wehavethesamegoalyoudo–to

The Federal Role in Out-of-School Learning: After-School, Summer Learning, and Family Involvement as Critical Learning Supports

By providing support for the learning students do outside of school, the federal govern-

ment can help build a comprehensive, complementary learning system.

Heather B. Weiss is founder and director of the Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE). Priscilla M. D. Little is associate director of HFRP and leads its out- of-school-time research efforts. Suzanne M. Bouffard is a post-doctoral researcher at HGSE. Sarah N. Deschenes is a senior researcher at HFRP. Helen Janc Malone is a doctoral student at HGSE.

HeatherB.Weiss,PriscillaM.D.Little,SuzanneM.Bouffard,

SarahN.Deschenes,andHelenJancMalone

This article is based on a longer paper written by the authors for the Center on Education Policy, as part of a series entitled “Rethinking the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education.” It is excerpted and reprinted with the per-mission of the authors and CEP. The complete paper is available at <www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction= Page.viewPage&pageId=536&parentID=481>.


helpyourkidssucceedallthewayto

college,”shesaid.Afterthefamilyliai-

son’svisit,MariaenrolledMarcusinthe

center’sHeadStartprogramandbegan

volunteeringonceamonth.Theschool

district’sfamilyliaisonbecamearegu-

larpresence,stoppingbythecenterto

provideinformation,answerquestions,

andreferparentstotheschooldistrict’s

ownparentingseminars.

Thesummerbeforekindergar-

ten,thefamilyliaisonandtheschool

principalledatourofthelocalpublic

schoolandsetupameetingwith

Maria,Marcus,astaffmemberfrom

theschool’safter-schoolprogram,and

Marcus’sadvisor–anotherteacher

whowouldadviseMarcusthroughout

hiselementaryschoolyears.Together,

theydevelopedaplanforgetting

Marcusallthewaytocollege.Theplan

–theycalleditalearningcompact–

explainedwhateachpersonwoulddo

tohelpMarcussucceed.Everysemester

fortherestofelementaryschool,the

groupwouldmeettoreviewMarcus’s

grades,discusshisprogress,andassess

whethereachpersonwasfulfillinghis

orherresponsibilities.

Maria,whohadneverhadgood

relationshipswithherownteachers,

quicklywarmedtotheteachersand

otherstaff.Whentheprincipalsawher

attheschoolonemorning,heperson-

allyinvitedhertovolunteerandshe

gladlyaccepted.Theprincipalalsotold

herabouttheschool-basedhealthclinic

andMariabeganschedulingimmuniza-

tionsandregularvisitsforMarcus.

AfterMarcus’s(andMaria’s!)

successfultransitiontokindergarten,

Marcusthrivedinelementaryschool.

Duringoneofthelearningcompact

meetings,theafter-schooldirector,

whohadnoticedMarcus’stalentfor

singing,encouragedhimtosinginthe

churchchoirandhelpedhimapplyfor

andwinascholarshiptoasummerarts

program.SheandMarcus’sreading

teacheratschoolalsoworkedtogether

tohelphimwritesongsbasedonthe

bookshewasreadinginclass.

BeforeMarcusmovedontomid-

dleschool,thelearningcompactteam

introducedMarcusandMariatohis

newmiddleschoolteam,aprocessthat

wasrepeatedbeforeheenteredhigh

school.Ineighthgrade,theteambegan

discussingMarcus’sgoalofbecoming

amusicprofessor,includinghowto

applytoandsucceedincollege.They

discussedwhatMarcuscoulddoafter

schoolandduringthesummerstohelp

achievehisgoals.Mariaalsoattended


a“financialaid”nightcosponsoredby

theschool,localuniversities,andthe

after-schoolrecreationprogram.

Nowinthespringoftwelfth

grade,Marcusisreadytograduateand

hasbeenaccepted–withscholarships

–atfourdifferentcolleges.Witha

lifelongnetworkoflearningsupports

inplace,hispathtocollegeandcareer

iswideopen.1

Core Features of a Complementary Learning System Toaccessthelearningopportunities

andapathwaytoeducationalsuccess

asdescribedinourstoryofMarcus

andMaria,childrenlikeMarcusneed

acontinuous,comprehensive,and

complementarylearningsystem,the

componentsofwhichhaveashared

visionforlearningandeducational

success.Theindividualservicesand

programsdescribedabovealreadyexist,

butparentslikeMariamayfindtheir

highexpectationsfortheirchildren

frustratedbytheirlackofexperience

innavigatingtheeducationalsystem.

Apiecemealapproachincreasesthe

chancesthattheywillfallthroughthe

cracksandwillnothaveaccesstoallof

thelearningsupportsnecessarytomax-

imizesuccess(forexample,after-school

andsummerprograms).Inourstory,

MariaandMarcusfoundandfollowed

apathwaytocollegebecausetheir

communityhadintentionallycreated

acomplementarylearningsystemto

connecttheexistingstepping-stones.

Complementary learningrefers

totheideathatasystemicapproach,

whichintentionallyintegratesboth

schoolandout-of-schoollearningsup-

ports,canbetterensurethatallchildren

havetheskillstheyneedtosucceed

inschoolandinlife.Asinourstoryof

MariaandMarcus’scommunity,com-

plementarylearningsystemsrequire

thatstakeholderscometogethertocre-

ateasystemwithasetofcorefeatures.

1. A commitment to ensuring access to

complementary learning for disadvan-

taged children and their families

Currently,disadvantagedchildrenand

theirfamilieshavelessopportunityto

experiencecomplementarylearning

thantheirmore-affluentpeers.Thus,

theydon’texperiencetherichsetof

learningopportunitiesthattheresearch

suggestsisessentialtopositivelearning

anddevelopmentaloutcomes,thusfur-

1 Thevisionofaneffectivecomplementarylearn-ingsystemdescribedinthisstoryisinspiredbytheworkofEdmundGordononsupplementaryeducation,DenniePalmerWolfattheAnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform,andPaulToughoftheNew York Times;TheSchoolTransitionStudy;TheHomeVisitForum;schoolsandteachersnationwide;andlocalandnationalprogramsthatprovidethekindsofservicesmentionedhere.

Heather B. Weiss et al. | V.U.E. Summer 2009 35

therwideningachievementgaps.Thisis

truebothforfamilyinvolvement,where

weseedifferentialpatternsininvolve-

mentbasedonsocio-economicfactors

aswellaseducatoroutreach,andfor

accessandparticipationinafter-school

andsummerlearningprograms,where

weseedifferencesinparticipation

basedonsocio-economicstatus.

2. A systemic approach to supporting the

role of families in learning.

Parentswhoareinvolvedearlyand

throughouttheschoolyearshavechil-

drenwhoaremorelikelytoenter

schoolreadytosucceedandtogradu-

ateandgotocollege.Further,families

playacriticalroleinaccessingandsus-

tainingparticipationinanetworkof

qualitylearningsupports.Manyfamilies

lackthesocialandpoliticalcapitalnec-

essaryeventoknowaboutlearning

opportunitiesfortheirchildren,let

alonemaketogoodchoicesamong

theseopportunities.Thus,asystemic

approachtofamilyinvolvementisone

thathelpsfamiliesunderstandthe

valueofcontinuouslearningofall

kindsandoffersthenetworkofsup-

portsnecessaryforthatlearning.

3. Access to an array of quality compre-

hensive and complementary supports

from birth through adolescence.

Complementarylearningstartsatbirth

andcontinuesthroughadolescence.

Homevisitingandearlychildhoodpro-

gramssetchildrenonapathtoschool

readiness;participationinafter-school

andsummerlearningprogramsaffords

childrenandyouthaccesstocrucial

developmentalsupportsandoppor-

tunitiesthatpreparethemforlater

successinlife.Healthandeconomic

supportsarealsonecessaryprecursors

tochildren’sbeingpreparedtolearn.

Throughoutthechild’sdevelopment,

familiesremainacoreout-of-school

learningsupportthatshouldinterface

withallothers.

4. Focus on a range of academic, social,

and behavior skills.

Frombirththroughadolescence,

accesstoanarrayofout-of-school

learningsupportspromoteslearning

bothdirectlyandindirectly,building

skillsandknowledgeaswellasthe

conditionsforlearning(forexample,

motivationandengagement,social

skills,andhealth).Theyhelptoaddress

achievementgapsandthechallenges

thatlivinginpovertyposeforchildren’s

educationalandlifeoutcomesand

buildtheskillstheyneedtobecome

successfulcitizens,parents,andworkers.

5. Alignment and connection of out-of-

school supports to schools and to each

other to maximize learning and devel-

opmental outcomes.

Acrossachild’sdevelopment,aligned

andconnectedsupportsaidimportant

educationaltransitionsandensurethat

childrenandyouthgetonandstayon

pathwaystolearningandlifesuccess.

Theindividualservicesandprograms

alreadyexist,butparentsmayfind

theirhighexpectationsfortheir

childrenfrustratedbytheirlackof

experienceinnavigatingtheeduca-

tionalsystem.Apiecemealapproach

increasesthechancesthattheywill

fallthroughthecracks.


6. Recognition that there are multiple

ways by which localized complemen-

tary learning approaches can be

implemented.

Approachestoimplementingcomple-

mentarylearningcanandshould

varydependingontheneedsand

resourcesofanygivencommunity.

Leadershipforcomplementarylearning

canbehousedwithinaschool,ina

community-basedorganization,or

acrossacommunityintheformof

educationcouncils,buteffortsto

developcomplementarylearningneed

tobeco-constructedamongalleduca-

torsandprovidersinacommunity.

The Federal Role in OutofSchool LearningAtthefederallevel,policiesandlegisla-

tionplayanimportantroleinenabling

suchcomplementarylearningefforts.

Yethistorically,andmovingforward,the

workofimplementingout-of-school

learninghasbeenandwillcontinueto

betheresponsibilityoflocalschools,

districts,andcommunities,withmoney

fromdisparatefundingstreamspassing

throughthestatestothem.

Thus,theroleofthefederalgov-

ernmentincomplementarylearning

isnottoimplementprograms,but

rathertoenablelocalinnovation,show

leadership,supportaccountabilityand

quality,anduseotherlegislativeand

regulatorytoolstoensurethatcomple-

mentarylearningoccurslocally.Some

recentfederallegislation,suchasthe

Full-ServiceCommunitySchoolsAct

andtheproposedEducationBeginsat

Home(EBAH)Act,enablesstatesand

communitiestoimplementcomple-

mentarylearningeffortsthatbestsuit

theirlocalneeds.

Keyfeaturesofalignmentinclude:

•commonlearninganddevelop-

mentgoalsamongallpartners

•informationsystemstoensure

thatinformationaboutstudentsis

sharedacrosssupports

•sharedbestpracticesandprofes-

sionaldevelopmentopportunities

•sharedaccountability

•multilevelrelationshipsthatcross

localanddistrictschoolleadership

•formalizedmechanismsfor

communication

•sharedgovernancestructures


The Need for a New Era

of Federal Leadership

Withthepassageofthehistoric

ElementaryandSecondaryEducation

Act(ESEA)of1965,thePresidentand

Congressdeclaredthatitwasinthe

nationalinterestforthefederalgovern-

menttotakeonnationaleducational

leadershipandfundingrolestoensure

equaleducationalopportunityfordis-

advantagedchildren(Jennings2001).

Asthenameoftheactindicates,the

assumptionwasthatelementaryand

secondaryschools,unassisted,would

managetoleveltheplayingfieldfor

disadvantagedchildren.Butmore

thanfortyyearsofresearchsinceESEA

confirmsthatAmericawillnotachieve

itsnationalgoalsofequaleducational

opportunity,leavingnochildbehind,or

preparingitsworkforceandcitizenry

fortwenty-first-centurychallengeswith-

outaddressingtheinequitiesinout-of-

schoollearningopportunitiesasamajor

componentofeducationreform.

Asin1965,nationalleaders

shouldusethebullypulpit,aswellas

federalleverageandfunding,toenable

states,counties,andcommunitiesto

maketheshifttowardmorecomple-

mentarylearning.Thisleadershipcan

capitalizeongrowingnational,state,

andlocalmomentumandreadiness

toshifttoabroadereducationreform

strategythatredefineswhatlearningis,

whoenablesit,andwhenandwhereit

takesplace.Whethertheydescribeitas

a“broader,bolderapproach,”“anew

dayforlearning,”orcomprehensive,

extended,orcomplementarylearning,

numerouseducationalorganizations,

nonprofitandprofessionalgroups,

electedofficials,andbusinessandciti-

zengroupsarecallingforinclusionof

thesebroadereducationalopportuni-

tiesandsupports.

Investing in a Systemic and

Aligned Approach to Learning

Therecommendationsthatfolloware

intendedtomovethecurrentfederal

roleinout-of-schoollearningfrom

investmentsinindividualout-of-school

supportstoinvestmentsinsupports

thatarenetworkedandalignedwith

schoolsandthentoafullvisionof

complementarylearning,whichcalls

forseamlessdeliveryofcomprehensive

learninganddevelopmentalsupports

acrosstheday,acrosstheyear,and

acrossachild’sdevelopmentfrombirth

throughadolescence.

Collectively,thesefiverecommen-

dationscomprisethefederalrolein

developing,implementing,andtesting

anationalstrategyforcomplementary

learning.Theyleadtoafinalrecom-

mendation:draftingandpassageofthe

Theroleofthefederalgovernment

incomplementarylearningisnotto

implementprograms,butrather

toenablelocalinnovation,showlead-

ership,supportaccountabilityand

quality,anduseotherlegislativeand

regulatorytoolstoensurethat

complementarylearningoccurslocally.


Immediateactionsuchasthe

creationofahigh-levelpositioninthe

U.S.DepartmentofEducationwith

responsibilityforallout-of-school

learninganditsalignmentwithschools

wouldsignaltheimportanceofthis

change.Newlegislationandmodifica-

tionsofNoChildLeftBehind(NCLB)

allowingflexibilityintheuseofTitle

I,SupplementalEducationalServices

(SES),andotherfundingstreamsfor

complementarylearningservicesand

linkagesisalsonecessary.Inaddition,

newandexistinghigher-education

legislationshouldtakeintoaccount

bothimmediateandlonger-termneeds

forprofessionaldevelopmentforall

thoseinvolvedincomplementary

learning,includingteachers,adminis-

trators,andafter-schoolandsummer-

learningproviders.

2. Promote innovation to implement

continuous, comprehensive,

complementary learning systems

at the local level.

Thetypesofchangesenvisionedhere

willrequirethefederalgovernmentnot

justtoserveasregulatorandagent

ofaccountability,butalsotostimulate

andfundinnovation.Marginalchange

isinsufficienttoenablestatesand

communitiestomakethenecessary

fundamentaltransformationsinhow

wedefineandorganizelearning.

Arguingthattheresearchanddevelop-

mentinfrastructureforschoolimprove-

mentiscurrentlyweakandthatthis

constitutesacaseof“marketfailurefor

educationalinnovation,”AnthonyBryk

andLouisGomez(2008)recommend

thatinnovationsbeco-developedby

interdisciplinaryresearchers,practi-

tioners,andsocialentrepreneurswitha

commitmenttocontinuousimprove-

ment(p.182).Theysuggestthatinno-

vationsmustbeco-developedby

PathwaystoEducationalSuccessActof

2009,confirmingfederalleadershipand

supportforaneweraofeducational

innovationandreform.

1. Use federal leadership, the bully

pulpit, funding, and leverage to pro-

mote equitable out-of-school learning

opportunities and integrate them into

the center of the education reform

discussion; enact and fully fund

legislation that will enable states and

communities to implement more

continuous, aligned, and systemic

efforts to educate all children.

Usingitsleadershiprole,thefederal

governmentcanshiftthenational

mindsetaboutwhereandhowchildren

learntowardanunderstandingthat

schoolsareacore,butnotsole,con-

tributortoeducationalsuccess.Federal

leadershipthatputsthenational

spotlightontheimportanceofout-of-

schoollearninganditsalignmentwith

schools,thatsupportsinnovationin

theareasoflearningandaccountability,

andthatbuildsalong-termstrategyto

achievecomplementarylearningwill,

inturn,leveragesustainablestateand

localchange.

Marginalchangeisinsufficientto

enablestatesandcommunities

tomakethenecessaryfundamental

transformationsinhowwedefine

andorganizelearning.


researchersandpractitionerswithina

continuous-improvementapproach.

Bothresearchersandpolicy-

makersapplaudtheemphasison

research-basededucationalpolicyand

programs.However,theyareincreas-

inglyrecognizingthelimitsofexisting

researchalonetosolveourmost

pressingeducationalproblemsandare

callingonthegovernmenttofund

innovativenewapproachestoensuring

thatmanymorechildrenreach

proficiency(Joftus2008).Inorderto

promoteinnovationtoimplement

continuous,comprehensive,comple-

mentarylearningsystemsatthelocal

level,werecommendthatthefederal

governmentdothefollowing.

•Developastrategicnational

research,development,andinno-

vationagendaandleverageprivate

andphilanthropicdollars,aswell

aspublicfunding,tosupportit.

•Usefederalleadershipandleader-

shipdollarstoencourageand

supportstateandlocalinnovation

totestnewcomplementarylearn-

ingapproachesandevaluateexist-

ingoneswithinaframeworkof

learning,continuousimprovement,

andaccountability.

•Useresearchactivelytosupport

moreeffectivepolicyandpractice.

Sharelessonsfromongoinginno-

vationstosupportlearningand

continuousimprovementacross

statesandcommunities;continue

todisseminateinformationabout

effectiveinitiativesandprograms

throughmechanismssuchas

theWhatWorksClearinghouse

(www.whatworks.ed.gov)aspart

ofthenationalcommitmentto

learning,continuousimprovement,

andaccountability.

3. Support accountability across all

components of a complementary

learning system, including schools and

out-of-school learning supports.

AccountabilityisnowpartofAmerican

education.ThepassageofNCLBin

2001broughtaclearemphasison

outcomes,explicitrequirementsfor

standardsandassessmentsystems,and

moretransparentaccountability.Indoing

so,itsignificantlyraisedexpectations

forstates,localeducationagencies,and

schools:allschoolsarenowexpected

tomeetorexceedstatestandardsin

readingandmathby2014.

Whiletherehasbeenmuch

debateaboutthemeritsofNCLBas

aneducationreformstrategy,there

issomeconsensusthatitsemphasis

onaccountability–which,intheend,

revealedthatmanyschoolswerefail-

ingtomeetadequateyearlyprogress


standards–hasbeeninstrumentalin

shapingtherealizationthat“schools

can’tdoitalone.”Inthatsense,NCLB

hascontributedtocurrentthinking

abouttheimportanceofout-of-school

learningascomplementarytoschool-

improvementstrategies.Thus,any

neweffortstoreformeducationmust

becoupledwitheffortstoreformand

strengthen–notshyawayfrom–an

accountabilitysystemthatcantarget

improvementstrategiestospecific

schoolsanddistricts,aswellasidentify

thelocalizednetworkofout-of-school

supportsthatcanbestcomplement

thoseschoolsanddistricts.Inorder

toreformourcurrentaccountability

system,werecommendthatthefederal

governmenttakeleadershipthrough

thefollowingactions:

•Broaden the frame of accountability

to include twenty-first-century

skills.Unlikethecurrentaccount-

abilitysystem,withitsnarrow

focusonmathandreading,an

accountabilitysystemforcomple-

mentarylearningneedstotake

intoaccounttheattainmentof

proficiencyinabroadersetof

skills,beyondthe“ThreeRs,”to

includeassessmentsofcritical

thinking,civicengagement,and

teamwork.Thisislargelyuncharted

territoryforthefederalgovernment

andwillrequiredifferent,and

broader,thinkingaboutdesired

outcomesforchildren.

•Expand methods of assessment.

Expandingtheframeofaccount-

abilityrequireschangingthe

waysinwhichprogresstoward

outcomesisassessed.Alternative

assessments,suchasportfolios

andmeasuresofschoolclimate,

canaugmentmoretraditional

approachestoassessmenttopro-

videamorecompletepictureof

whatispossibleinacomplemen-

tarylearningenvironment.

•Integrate data systems across learn-

ing supports to ensure progress on a

shared vision for learning.Disadvan-

tagedchildrenandyouthhave

inequitableaccesstoout-of-school

supports,andpartofthefederal

roleistoensuregreateraccessto

them.Ifthefederalgovernmentis

toknowifitsinvestmentsinout-

of-schoolsupportsarereaching

thechildrenwhoneedthem,local

out-of-schoollearningsupports

thatreceivefederalresources

musthavesystemsfortracking

participationacrossthefullarray

ofavailablesupportsinthe

community.Onlyinthiswaycan

progresstowardequitybemoni-

toredandassessed.Inadditionto

monitoringforequityandaccess,

datasystemsshouldbelinkedin

ordertobetterunderstandthe

wholerangeofservicesachild

receivesandhowthisaffectsthat

childinthelongterm.

Thoughthefederalroleininte-

gratedlocaldatasystemsisextremely

limited,thefederalgovernmentcould

showleadershipinthisareabysup-

portingthedevelopmentofintegrated

datasystemsaspartofitsinvestments

inresearch,demonstration,andinno-

vationsites.Mechanismsthatbring

multiplecommunitystakeholders

togetherforregularprogressupdates


andactionplanningalreadyexist(see,

forexample,McLaughlin&O’Brien-

Strain2008).Theseshouldbeexamined

andscaledtosupportbetterintegration

ofdatainplacesattemptingtoimple-

mentcomplementarylearning.

4. Use legislative and policy tools to

enable complementary learning.

Sustaininginvestmentinafter-school,

summerlearning,andfamilyinvolve-

mentisvitaltothesuccessofthefed-

eralroleinsupportingcomplementary

learning.Butthereareseveralother

waystobemoreintentionalabout

support.Thefederalgovernmentcould

makeiteasiertocreatelinkagesand

leverageitsinvestmentstopartnerwith

otherstosupportprogramsandinno-

vation,thusfacilitatingthecreationof

complementarylearningsystems.We

recommendacombinationofsome

realignmentofexistingfundingandthe

creationofnewsourcesoffunding,both

ofwhichwouldhaveanimpactatthe

federal,state,andlocallevels.Specifically,

werecommendthatthefederalrole

includethefollowingaspects:

•Provide incentives for communities

to create linkages with existing

resources.Becausecomplementary

learningworkisfundamentally

local,communitiesthemselvesneed

accessandencouragementtouse

fundstolinkandalignsupports.

Thefederalgovernmentcanpro-

videfinancialincentivesforcom-

munitiestocreatelinkagesatthe

districtorcitylevelandwaiversthat

willenablecommunitiestouse

existingfundingstreamsforthem.

•Allocate new resources and develop

new incentives for communities to

support connections among out-

of-school supports and schools.It

iscriticaltohavenotonlyseed

moneyorinnovationgrantstoget

theseinitiativesofftheground,but

also“gluemoney”tofosterand

maintainpartnerships.Because

programfundingusuallydoesnot

comewithsupportforpartner-

shipwork,thefederalgovernment

couldplayalargerroleinprovid-

ingthefinancingandflexibility

thatwillmaketheseconnections

happen.Federalfundingcouldalso

buildinrequirementsforlinkages

atthelocallevel,particularlyfor

connectionswithfamilies.

•Enable communities and districts to

pool big funding streamssuchas

21stCenturyCommunityLearning

Centers(CCLC),SES/TitleI,and

ChildCareDevelopmentFunds

toprovideapercentageoffunds

forstablelocalafter-schooland

summerlearningprograms,aswell

asearlychildhoodsupports.Use

thesepooledresourcestodevelop

individual365/24/7learningplans

thatconsiderparticipationina

Anaccountabilitysystemforcomple-

mentarylearningneedstotakeinto

accounttheattainmentofproficiency

inabroadersetofskills,beyondthe

“ThreeRs,”toincludeassessments

ofcriticalthinking,civicengagement,

andteamwork.


rangeofout-of-schoollearning

opportunitiesfrombirththrough

highschoolgraduation.

•Encourage transparent state budgets

and provide incentives.Thefederal

governmentcouldalsoencourage

greatertransparencyinbudgeting

forchildrenandyouthbyoffer-

ingincentivestostatestocreate

children’sbudgets.Thesebudgets

wouldindicatetothepublichow

moneyisbeingspentoneduca-

tionacrossagenciesandwhat

effortsarebeingmadetoadvance

complementarylearning.There

hasbeenarecentproposalto

dothisinthefederalbudgetby

SenatorRobertMenendez(www.

menendez.senate.gov),butsituat-

ingthispracticeatthestatelevel

wouldbringitclosertothepoint

ofservicedeliveryandmightalso

highlightdifferencesinspending

acrossstates.

•Use federal infrastructure to create

leadership for out-of-school supports

at the national level.Infrastructure

isanotherpowerfulwayforthe

federalgovernmenttocommuni-

catetheimportanceofreframing

learning.Forexample,anassistant

secretaryforout-of-schoollearning

attheDepartmentofEducation

wouldservetocoordinateefforts

acrossagenciesandleveragethe

workhappeningindifferent

departmentstocreateamoreinte-

gratedapproachtoeducation.In

addition,therehasbeenrenewed

interestinfundingtheFederal

YouthCoordinationAct(FYCA),

whichwassignedintolawin2006

buthasyettoreceivefunding.In

thesummerof2008,theinclusion

of$1millionfortheFYCAina

Houseappropriationsbillshowed

renewedmomentumforFYCA.

5. Explore and build public–private–

nonprofit partnerships to scale and

assure the quality of out-of-school

supports.

Overthepastfiftyyearsoffederal

investmentinout-of-schoollearning

supports,public–privatepartnerships

haveplayedasmallbutimportantrole

inaugmentingandleveragingfederal

investmentstosupportquality.For

example,whenthe21stCCLCgrants

Privatesupportofpublicinvestmentswillbeneeded

toensureequitableaccesstoqualitycomplemen-

tarylearningopportunities.


programwasestablished,theCharles

StewartMottFoundationseizedthe

opportunitytopartnerwiththeU.S.

DepartmentofEducation.Thepartner-

shipensuredthatelementsthatthe

governmentcouldnotsupportatthe

time–technicalassistance,publicwill,

seedingevaluation,promisingpractices,

policydevelopment,andcommunica-

tion–weresupportedasneededto

ensurethesustainabilityandexpansion

ofthegrantsprogram.

WhileMott’spartnershipefforts

maybeexceptional,thiskindofprivate

supportofpublicinvestmentswillbe

neededtoensureequitableaccessto

qualitycomplementarylearningoppor-

tunities.Todevelopsuchpartnerships,

werecommendthatthefederalgovern-

menttakethefollowingactions:

•Reachouttofoundationsto

partnerwiththemtosupport

out-of-schoollearning.Giventhe

largephilanthropicinterestinand

supportofthebetterintegration

ofschoolandout-of-school

supportsforlearning,thetimeis

ripeforthefederalgovernmentto

partnerwithfoundationstobuild,

testthevalueof,and,ifappropri-

ate,expandintegratedreform

effortsandensurethattheyareof

sufficientqualitytoachievepositive

outcomesatscale.

•Provideincentivesandrequire-

mentsforstateandlocalgrant

recipientstomatchfederaldollars.

Manyfundingstreamscurrently

havealocal-matchrequirement.

Thisapproachtofederalgrant

makingstimulatespublic–private

partnershipsbyrequiringthat

out-of-schoollearningsupports

connectwithotherfunders.Such

anapproachalsocontributesto

sustainabilitybybroadeningthe

fundingbase.


Leading a New Era of Innovation and Education Reform: Proposing the Pathways to Educational Success ActResearchshowsthatout-of-school

learningcontributestoand,infact,

isnecessaryforpositivelearningand

developmentaloutcomes.Itistime,

therefore,forthefederalgovernment

toinnovateandexperimentwith

extendedlearningopportunitiesand

timetoensurethatallchildrenareon

apathwaytosuccess,definedashigh

schoolcompletionandpost-secondary

trainingsothattheyhavetheskills

necessarytosucceedinthetwenty-

firstcentury.

Weacknowledgethatsomefed-

eraleffortstodosoarealreadyunder

way,suchasthenewFullService

CommunitySchoolsActandtheTime

forInnovationMattersinEducation

(TIME)Act.Butweconcludethatthese

arenotsufficienttopushcomplemen-

tarylearningfromtheshallowsintothe

mainstreamofeducationreform.

Thus,ourfinalrecommendation

istoestablishanewfederaleducation

policy–thePathwaystoEducational

SuccessActof2009–whichwould

enabledistrictsandschoolstowork

withcommunitiestodevelopand

testnewlocal,complementarylearning

systemsthatoffertheelements

thatresearchindicatesarenecessary

forchildrentosucceed,withinaframe-

workofsharedaccountabilityfor

betteroutcomes.

Thenewlegislationshouldrequire

anearly,continuous,comprehensive,

andcomplementarylearningapproach

implementedbylocaldistrictsinpart-

nershipwithcommunity-basedand

faith-basedorganizationsandshould

includethefollowingprovisions:

•thecreationofaplace-basedimple-

mentationplanforacomprehen-

sivelearningsystemthatincludes

pre-K;schools;out-of-schoollearn-

ingsupports;andhealth,mental

health,andeconomicsupportsand

thatarticulateshowthesesupports

willworkwitheachotherandwith

familiestosupportlearning;

•flexibilityinthespecificsofthe

approachtoenablecommunities

totargetareasofneedandbuildon

existingresourcesandstrengths;

•community-levelgovernance

andaccountabilitywithshared,

integrateddatasystems;

•demonstrationofpublic–private

partnershipstosupportthe

complementarylearningsystem.

Thisnationalstrategyforcomple-

mentarylearningwillrequiresupport

frommultiplestakeholdersatthe

federal,state,andlocallevels,including

educators,teachers,early-careprovid-

ers,after-schoolandsummerlearning

providers,andfamilies.Weofferour

Failuretoredefinelearningandwhere

andwhenittakesplace–andto

followupwithinnovationsthatenable

communitiestomovetoacomple-

mentarylearningapproach–will

preventthecountryfromreachingits

nationalgoalofeducatingallchildren.


frameworkandrecommendationsto

informthesestakeholders’effortsto

redesignourcurrenteducationsystem

toincludenotonlyexcellentschools

butalsotheprovisionofhigh-quality

complementarylearningsupports,

particularlyfordisadvantagedchildren

andyouth.Fourdecadesofconsistent

researchevidencemakesclearthat

failuretoredefinelearningandwhere

andwhenittakesplace–andtofollow

upwithinnovationsthatenablecom-

munitiestomovetoacomplementary

learningapproach–willpreventthe

countryfromreachingitsnationalgoal

ofeducatingallchildren.

References

Bryk,A.S.,andL.Gomez.2008.“ReinventingaResearchandDevelopmentCapacity.”InThe Future of Educational Entrepreneurship: Possibilities for School Reform,editedbyF.Hess,pp.181–206.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.

Jennings,J.F.2001.“TitleI:ItsLegislativeHistoryandItsPromise.”InTitle I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads; Sociocultural, Political and Historical Studies in Education,editedbyG.D.Borman,S.C.Stringfield,andR.E.Slavin,pp.1–24.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Joftus,S.2008.“Innovate,Regulate,orConjugate?TheFederalRoleinEducation.”PaperpresentedattheKnowledgeAlliance(formerlyNEKIA)PolicyForum“UsingEvidenceforaChange,theFederalRoleinEducation:InnovatororRegulator”(May13).Availablefordownload(“CommentarybyScottJoftus”)at<www.nekia.org/Forums.html>

McLaughlin,M.,andM.O’Brien-Strain.2008.“TheYouthDataArchive:IntegratingDatatoAssessSocialSettingsinaSocietalSectorFramework.”InToward Positive Youth Development: Transforming Schools and Community Programs,editedbyM.ShinnandH.Yoshikawa,pp.313–332.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.


Urban Education Reform: Recalibrating the Federal Role

Federal policies should address community engagement and equity in order to build

“smart education systems” that improve outcomes for urban children and youths.

Warren Simmons is executive director of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

WarrenSimmons

Thebriefeconomicboomof1990s

broughtaninfusionofhopeand

energytourbancommunities.The

well-beingofchildrenandfamilies

inurbanAmericawerebuoyedbyan

expanding,thoughincreasinglystrati-

fied,labormarket,housingredevelop-

ment,andtheentrepreneurialspirit

broughtbyanewimmigrantsfrom

Africa,CentralAmerica,theCaribbean,

andtheremnantsoftheformerSoviet

Union.Duringthe1990s,federaland

statepoliciesalsobegantotreatcit-

iesmorelikecatalystsforsocialand

economicdevelopment,asopposedto

indigentkin.Asaresult,urbancommu-

nitiesexperiencedabriefrenaissance

markedbydecliningratesofteenage

pregnancy,infantmortality,crime,and

violenceandrisingincomesandpopu-

lationgrowth.

Publicpolicyduringthatperiod

wasmarkedbyanalliancebetween

thepublic,ontheonehand,andthe

political,financial,andbusinessestab-

lishments,ontheother.Together,these

groupspushedanagendathatempha-

sizedthewisdomandeffectivenessofthe

privatesectorwhiledismissingthebene-

fitsofgovernmentandthepublicsector.

Thepursuitofexcellencewasextolled

overthepursuitofequityineverysector,

includingeducation.Moreover,individual

(private)accomplishmentwasprivileged

overcommunity(public),withthelatter

perceivedasanimpedimenttoinnova-

tionandgrowth.

Therecenteconomicbusthas

effectivelydestroyedthepublic’strust

intheestablishmentandcalledinto

questionthesepublicpolicyassump-

tions.Thenationhasnowexperienced,

ifnotcompletelylearned,theharsh

lessonsofindividualgainuntethered

fromcommunitywell-being,aswe

witnesshomeforeclosures,joblosses,

witheredpensions,andanuncertain

futurethatonceseemedfilledwith

promise,evenifitwasonlyattainable

forafew.

Therecenteconomicrecession–

forthepoor,it’sadepression–threatens

toslowthepaceofimprovementin

centralcitiesthatwerebeginningto

reestablishthemselvesasfountsfor

economic,cultural,andcommunity

renewal,wherefamiliesseekingoppor-

tunityandinspirationjoinedwithothers

totransformtheirlivesandtoforgea

newsociety(AnnenbergInstitutefor


SchoolReform2001).Asthisrecession

haspainfullyrevealed,thetransforma-

tivepowerofurbanlifeistappedmore

deeplybysomeandremainsbeyond

thegraspoffartoomany.Highpropor-

tionsoflow-incomeAfricanAmerican

andLatinoyouthinurbanareascon-

tinuetohavetheirprogressimpeded

byhighratesofincarceration,displace-

mentcreatedbygentrification,andthe

lostopportunitycausedbybeingon

thewrongsideoftheachievementgap,

thenew“track”demarcatingthefateof

privilegedanddisadvantagedcommu-

nities.Theseforcesweakenandobscure

thepathwaystosuccessavailablefor

disadvantagedyouthastheyseekto

becomemoreproductiveandengaged

membersofsociety,ataskmademore

dauntinginurbanschoolsystems,whose

haltingprogressinclosingtheachieve-

mentgapisthreatenedbythelossof

taxrevenuecausedbythedownturn.

The Standards Movement: Reshaping the Federal RoleA Nation At Riskengenderedasignifi-

cantshiftinthefederalroleineduca-

tioninamannerunseensincethe

landmarkBrown v. Board of Education

decisionin1954.TheBrowndecision,

whilegroundbreakinginsignificance

forAfricanAmericans,followeda

historicalpathofassertingfederal

involvementtoaddressequitybyelimi-

natinglegalbarrierstoaccessand/or

byallocatingresourcestosupport

specificgroups.Traditionally,thefederal

governmenthasleftdecisionsabout

educationalqualityforallstudents,

suchasacademicstandards,assess-

ment,curriculumandinstruction,

andschooldesign,largelyuptostates

andschooldistricts(Ogletree2005;

Fuhrman&Lazerson2005).TheBrown

decision,afterall,mandatedintegration

withtheexpectationthatgreateraccess

toschoolswouldensuregreaterquality.

Butthedecisionstoppedwellshortof

requiringthegovernmenttoensurethat

equityfosteredquality,astheinterven-

ingyearsdemonstratedsostrikingly.

A Nation At Riskchangedthat

dynamic.Itinspiredthestandards

movement,andthefederallegisla-

tionitspawned(e.g.,Goals2000,the

ImprovingAmerica’sSchoolAct,No

ChildLeftBehind)usedfederalTitle1

fundsandotherresourcesasleverage

explicitlytoimprovequalitybyencour-

agingstatestoadoptvoluntarynational

standards;embedthesestandardsin

accountabilitysystems;andintervene

infailingschoolssothatallstudents

wouldreceivethesupportstheyneed

tomeetnationalgoalsandstandards.

Whilethedeadlineformeeting

thesegoalsandstandardshasshifted

fromtheyear2000toNCLB’s2014

deadline,theemphasisonallhas


social,andculturalvacuum,asifcom-

munitiestakeupreformsbasedon

clearandobjectiveresultsalone.This

beliefthatsuccesssellsitselfrepresents

whatPaulHillandhiscolleagueswould

calla“zoneofwishfulthinking”–an

impliedassumptionthatisusuallyheld

despiteabundantevidencetothecon-

trary(Hill,Campbell&Harvey2000).

Thisbeliefthatsuccessfulresults

compelwidespreadadoptionhas

underminedtheefficacyoftoomany

research-baseddesigns/strategies/

programsandWhatWorksclearing-

housestonamehere.Coburn’s(2003)

seminalarticleonscaleemphasizedthe

importanceofbuildingownershipboth

insideandoutsidethesystemasakey

ingredientfortakingreformtoscale–a

pointunderscoredinPaulHillandcol-

leagues’casestudiesofdistrictswhose

reformswereweakenedorundoneby

leadershipinstabilityand/oropposition

fromforcesthreatenedbychange(Hill,

Campbell&Harvey2000).Ifstatesand

districtspursuetheagendaoutlinedin

ARRAbutignoretheneedtogarner

communityownership,theywillfind

themselvesvulnerabletoresistanceor

remainedconstant,whileacceptance

ofanincreasedfederalrolehasgained

wideracceptance.Thedebateinstead

hasturnedtohowthefederalgovern-

mentshouldexertitsinfluence,not

whether or notitshould.Moreover,

withtherecentpassageoftheAmeri-

canRecoveryandReinvestmentAct

(ARRA),thefederalgovernmenthas

takenunprecedentedstepstoincrease

fundingforstatesanddistrictsasit

reshapesitsapproachtohowthefunds

shouldbeused.

Gaps in the National Agenda: Community Engagement and EquityARRA’sincentivegrantsfocusonkey

leversforchange–educatorquality,

datasystems,innovation,technol-

ogy,morerigorouscorestandards

andassessments,andimprovement

oflow-performingschools.Yet,this

comprehensivetechnicalagendahas

twotroublingoversights–alackof

attentiontotheneedforcommunity

engagement,coupledwithanimplied,

ratherthanexplicit,emphasisonequity.

Community Engagement

DespitePresidentObama’sbackground

asacommunityorganizer,thestrategies

outlinedinARRAproceedasthough

educationreformoccursinapolitical,

Warren Simmons | V.U.E. Summer 2009 49

skepticismsparkedbypoorcommu-

nicationandafailuretoobtainprior

involvement.Predictably,thisresistance

oftencomesfromgroupsthatthe

reformisintendedtohelpthemost

–communitieswhosestudents’per-

formanceliesonthewrongsideofthe

achievementgap.Theirconcerns,how-

ever,areoftenleftoutofearlyplanning

anddecision-makingtableswherethe

agendaisset,asopposedtoannounced.

Undoubtedly,ARRA’spriorities

wereguidedbyresearchandinformed

byextensivemeetingswithelected

officials,commissionersandsuperin-

tendents,researchers,unionleaders,the

philanthropiccommunity,andleaders

ofWashington-basedthinktanksand

advocacygroups.And,giventhecon-

strictedtimelineformovingfromplan-

ningtoaction,littleeffortwasdevoted

togarneringknowledgeandowner-

shipbeyondcivicandpoliticalelites

toinvolvethosemostdependenton

urbansystemsfortheirchildren’sand

community’swell-being:low-income

families,AfricanAmericans,Latinos,

andrecentimmigrants.

Asaresult,asusual,thesecritical

constituencieswillbeaskedtosupport

reformsdesignedby“others”rather

thanparticipateintheirdevelopment

(Stoneetal.2001;HirotaandJacobs

2003).Thefrustration,lackofknowl-

edge,anddistrustproducedbythis

engagementgappositionspoor

parentsandcommunitiesofcoloras

anuntappedandvulnerableresource

thatcanbemobilizedtooppose

promisinginnovationbasedonpoor

politicalexecutionandunintended

consequencesoverlookedbyelites

lackingin-depthknowledgeandexperi-

enceofthechallengesandassetsthat

existinthesecommunities.

Equity – Where Art Thou?

Inadditiontodiminishingpolitical

supportandoverlookingvaluable

assets,shortchangingtheengagement

oflow-incomefamiliesandcommuni-

tiesofcolorinthereformofschool

systemstheirchildrenattend,ARRA

alsorepeatsthereformmovement’s

mistakeofpursuingsolutionsintended

toworkforallstudents.Thisapproach,

whileadmirable,obscuresthefactthan

urbandistricts,inparticular,needhelp

indelineatinganddevelopingsupports

thatworkforparticulargroupsofstu-

dentsthatarepresentinlargenumbers

–Englishlanguagelearners,students

withdisabilities,recentimmigrants,

over-ageandunder-creditedstudents,

andstudentschallengedbyearlypar-

enthood,childcareandworkresponsi-

bilities,previousincarceration,violence,

Ifstatesanddistrictspursuethe

agendaoutlinedinARRAbutignore

theneedtogarnercommunity

ownership,theywillfindthemselves

vulnerabletoresistanceorskepticism.


healthconcerns,andotherfactorsthat

contributetotheachievementgapand

alackofengagement.

WhilesomeoftheObama

administration’sagendareflectsan

understandingoftheparticularlyneeds

ofurbancommunities–especiallythe

“PromiseNeighborhoods”initiative,

modeledaftertheHarlemChildren’s

Zone–theneedfordifferentiatedsup-

portsshouldbeapriorityratherthan

anafterthoughtineffortstoredefine

standards,designnewassessments,

andturnaroundfailingschools.Rather

thanlyingontheperiphery,equityas

wellasexcellenceshouldbeadesign

principlethatguidesworkbothonwhat

RichardElmorecallsthetechnicalcoreof

education–curriculum,instruction,and

assessment–andonthesupportsstu-

dentsneedtodevelopthesocial,cultural,

andotherformsofcapitaltheyneedto

becomeactiveparticipantsintheirown

learning(Gordon&Bridglall2005).

Unfortunately,thefailureto

addresstheboththeengagementand

equitygapshasbeenarecurringtheme

inrecentaccountsofreformsindis-

trictssuchasBoston,Philadelphia,and

NewOrleans–communitieswhose

districtsareoperatingamixorportfolio

ofschools,withsomebeingoperated

andsupportedbythedistrict(and/or

state,inthecaseofNewOrleans),and

someoperatedbyorganizationswith

chartersoragreementswaivingsome

districtpoliciesandpractices(Aspen

InstituteandAnnenbergInstitute

2006;Goldetal.2007;Cowen

Institute2008).Grassrootsandcivic

leadersinthesecommunities,aswell

asmanyeducatorsintheschools,often

lamentthelackofattentionpaidto

localvaluesandtraditionsinthedesign

ofnewschoolsandprograms.They

alsoexpressconcernsthatthenew

approachesreplicatepreviouspatterns

ofprivilegeduetoafailuretoconsider

basicissuessuchastransportation,

accesstoinformation,anddifferentials

inpower,status,andfiscalresource

that,ifleftunaddressed,reinforceold

inequities.

Eachofthesereportsunderscores

theimportanceofdealingwithequity

andcommunityengagementasatop

prioritytoensurethatsystemimprove-

mentsorreinventionshavethecapacity

toprovidesupportsthatcanbedif-

ferentiated–forexample,moretime

forgreateroutreachtoinformplanning

anddecisionmaking;targetedinter-

ventionsforstudentswithdisabilities,

Englishlanguagelearners,andover-age/

under-creditedstudents;supportsfor

struggling,aswellashighlyeffective

educators;andcurriculathatembrace

localaspirationsaswellasnational

ones.Forinstance,theabsenceof

resourcesandstrategiestosupportarts,

culture,andcommunityservicearea

prominentcritiqueofexistingreforms,

afaultthatARRAseemstosharerather

thanameliorate.

Equity, Excellence, and Community Engagement: Interdependent FactorsTheinterdependenceamongequity,

excellence,andcommunityengage-

mentisdemonstratedinOrganized

Communities, Stronger Schools,an

AnnenbergInstitutereportsummariz-

ingtheoutcomesoforganizingefforts

insevencommunities(Mediratta,

Shah&McAlister2008).Theresults

ofthisseminalstudyofferpromising

signsthatorganizingfostersimproved


studentoutcomesbyincreasingyouth

engagementandaspirations;build-

ingaclimateoftrustamongstudents,

parents,educators,andadministrators;

andinformingdistricteffortstodesign,

target,anddistributefiscalresources,

newfacilities,curriculumsupports,data

indicators,andprofessionaldevelop-

mentefforts,amongothertools.

TheAnnenbergInstitute’ssup-

portfortheCoalitionforEducational

JusticeinNewYork,theUrbanYouth

Collaborative,andcommunityefforts

toanalyzetheefficacyofcentraloffice

policyandpracticefurtherprovides

anexpandingportfolioofexamplesof

elite–grassrootspartnershipsthatspan

thegapsbetweenresearch,policy,and

practicewhilestrengtheningreformby

buildingpoliticalwill.

Inadditiontobuildingpoliti-

calwill,broadeningparticipation

inresearch,planning,anddecision

makingtoincludecommunitieswith

studentsenrolledinurbanschool

systemsalsocorrectsaflawinherent

inapproachesthatrelyontheperspec-

tivesandvaluesofelites.Toooften,the

eliteviewfocusesalmostexclusively

ontheneedtoredesignthenation’s

educationsysteminordertoprepare

studentsforcollegeandtheworkplace.

Fewwouldarguethattheserepre-

sentprimarygoalsofoureducational

system,butthroughoutournation’s

historycommunitieshavealsoargued

andfoughtforschoolsthatprepare

studentsto:

•contributetociviclife;

•formandstrengthenfamilies;

•valueandcontributetothearts;

•respectlocalcultureandtraditions

whilebecomingpartofthemain-

stream.

Policy-makingandreformtables

dominatedbyelitesoftenfailtohear

voicesthatemphasizethesegoals.

Toooften,theeliteviewfocuses

almostexclusivelyontheneedto

redesignthenation’seducation

systeminordertopreparestudents

forcollegeandtheworkplace.


Worse,asthepoliciesgeneratedby

elitesreachlocalcommunitiesthat

aremorediverse,complex,andchal-

lengedthanoriginallyperceived,the

gapsbetweenpolicyandlocalcapacity

underminethecredibilityandimpact

ofnationalgoalsandstrategies.For

instance,NCLB’s2014deadlinefor

gettingallstudentstomeetstandards

inanerawhenurbanschoolshave

beenchronicallyunderfundedbythe

verystatesresponsibleforintervening

infailingschoolsanddistrictspres-

entsacontradictionthatmightbe

clearerwhenviewingeducationfrom

thebottomupthanitiswhenlook-

ingandplanningfromthetopdown.

Similarly,policiesthatexhortdistricts

andschoolstomakeannualimprove-

mentsinliteracyandmathtestscores

incitieswhilebeingsilentaboutrising

unemploymentandeconomicstratifi-

cation,increasingyouthviolenceand

homicide,andincreasingproportions

ofnewimmigrantsaretantamountto

plantingpowerfulideasingroundthat

lacksessentialnutrients.

WhiletheAnnenbergInstitute’s

workoverthepasttenyearsdem-

onstratesthaturbanschoolsystems

canandshoulddomoretoredesign

schoolsandcentralofficesupportsto

advancelearninganddevelopment

andthattherearenumerousschools

andschooldistrictsthatbeattheodds,

manyofthegroupsthatinformour

workaskwhytheoddsmustcontinue

tobesogreatagainstlow-income

studentsandcommunitiesofcolor.

IfARRAfailstohelplocaleducation

reformersandadvocates–particularly

thoseworkingindiverseandrapidly

changingurbancommunities–

developpartnershipsthatfosterexcel-

lencewhilealsoaddressingequity,the

resultsproducedbythisunprecedented

infusionoffiscalandintellectual

resourceswillonceagainfallshortof

thegoal.

Inourview,community-centered

educationreformcanprovidethepoliti-

cal,social,andmoralcapitalrequiredto

counterforcesthatderailanddelaythe

successionofreformstriedsinceBrown

v. Board of Education.Theexistenceof

thestandardsmovementhasclarified

oneimportantaimforcommunity

engagement–thatis,communities

shouldacttoensurethatallstudents

andschoolsreceivethesupportsneeded

tomeethighacademicstandards.In

additiontothiscentralaim,webelieve

thateffectivecommunity-centered

educationreformshouldbeguidedby

thefollowingtenets.


•Effortstolinkeducationreform

andreinventiontocommunity

engagementanddevelopment

schoolbeguidedbyresearchand

evidence-basedpractices.

A Smart Education System Theseprinciplesrequireasignificant

shiftinthinkingabouturbanschool

districtsandtheirrelationshipto

thesettingsinandaroundthem.

Acommunity-centeredapproachto

reformunderscorestheneedforschool

systemstodevelop“community”

withinschools,amongschools,andin

relationshiptotheneighborhoodsand

citiestheyrelyontosupportstudents’

learninganddevelopmentnotjust

fiscally,butsocial,physically,culturally,

andmorallyaswell.Thisapproach

representsadeparturefromstrategies

thattreatfamiliesandneighborhoods

narrowlyasclientsorsimplyassources

forhomeworksupport,butaspart

ofwhattheCharlesStewartMott

•Thespecificneedsofstudents,

schools,andfamiliesarebest

understoodandaddressedwhen

thelocalcontextistreatedasa

potentialresourcefordevelop-

mentratherthansolelyasaneu-

tralornegativecondition.

•Buildingcapacityforincremental

orradicalreformrequires,but

goesbeyond,securingadditional

fundingforschoolsorgaining

supportfornewschool/district

policiesandpractices;italso

entailsrevitalizingcommunitiesso

thatfamiliesandentireneighbor-

hoodscanofferthesupportschil-

drenandyouthneedtoachieve

thefullrangeofpositiveoutcomes

(e.g.,academic,health,emotional,

social,spiritual).

•Broad-basedcoalitionsof“com-

munities”areformednotjustto

increaseparticipationinthework

ofeducationreform,butalsoto

engenderaproductiveecologyfor

schoolreform.Thus,theinclu-

sionofunderrepresentedgroups

becomesaprimaryobjectiveand

notasecondaryoutcome.

•Enhancingthecapacityof“com-

munities”toaccomplishtheir

workinvolvesanexamination

offundamentalissuesofpower,

race,class,anddiversitythathave

traditionallyunderminedtheeffi-

cacyofurbanschoolreformsand

mutedthevoicesofstudentsand

theirfamilies.

•Researchers,practitioners,and

advocatesmustacknowledgethe

multidisciplinarynatureofschool-

ingandexploretheintersections

ofteachingandlearning,com-

munityengagement,youthdevel-

opment,economicrevival,and

collegereadiness.

Community-centerededucation

reformcanprovidethepolitical,

social,andmoralcapitalrequiredto

counterforcesthatderailanddelay

thesuccessionofreformstriedsince

Brown v. Board of Education.


Foundation’sTime,Learning,andAfter

SchoolTaskForcecalledaNewDay

forLearning(MottFoundation2007).

Intheirview,thiswouldrequiresystems,

families,andcommunitiesto:

•expandthedefinitionofstudent

successtoincorporatetwenty-first

centurycompetenciesthatempha-

sizecreativityandproblem-solving,

amongotherskillsanddispositions;

•useresearch-basedknowledgeto

designandintegratenewlearning

supports;

•provideeducatorswithnewoppor-

tunitiesforleadershipandprofes-

sionaldevelopment.

Tomeettheseaims,webelievethe

resourcesfurnishedbyARRAshould

beleveragedtoconvertdistrictsinto

organizationsthatfunctioninconcert

withmunicipalagencies,culturalorga-

nizations,businesses,higher-education

institutions,community-basedorga-

nizations,andadvocacygroups,rather

thaninisolationfromorinopposition

tothisbroadnetworkofpotential

partnersandresources.ARRAcould

encouragestateandlocaleducation

agenciestobecomepartofwhatwecall

asmarteducationsystembyemphasiz-

ingtheneedforstateeducationagen-

ciesandlocaleducationagenciesto:

•maintainmultipleandsubstantial

cross-sectorpartnershipsthatpro-

videabroadrangeofsupportsto

youngpeopleandtheirfamilies;

•achieveabroadsetofpositiveout-

comes–including,butnotlimited

toacademicachievement–forstu-

dents,families,andcommunities

andgatherevidenceofprogress;

•developindicators,measures,

andprocessesthatfostershared

accountabilityacrosspartnerorga-

nizationsandgroups;


•createasystematicapproachfor

bringingtheworktoscale;

•developstrategiesformanaging

powerdifferentials,forexampleby

creatingmeaningfulrolesforall

stakeholdersandshiftingpartner

relationsawayfromthestandard

grassroots–grasstopsconventions.

WhileARRAissupportiveofNew

DayforLearningandsmarteduca-

tionsystemprinciples,theytendtobe

implicitratherthanexplicitthemesin

theprioritiesoutlinedinARRA,with

theexceptionofthecallforPromise

Neighborhoods.However,Promise

Neighborhoodsaretreatedmore

likeademonstrationprojectthanan

overarchingstrategyforrebuildingthe

nation’seducationsysteminurban

areas.Elevatingtheconceptualunder-

pinningsofPromiseNeighborhoods

fromaprojecttoamajorstrategy

wouldenhancethecoherenceofan

arrayofinitiativesandmaketheirwhole

greaterthanthesumoftheirparts.To

furtherthisaim,theDepartmentof

Educationitselfmustalsoexaminehow

tointegrateandalignthefragmented

bevyofprograms,offices,andfunding

streamsthatreinforcetheprogram-

maticdividesbetweenequityandexcel-

lence,schoolandafter-school,school

andcommunity,pre-KandK–12,and

lower–andhigher–adulteducation.

Simplysaying“pre-Kto16”doesn’t

createasystemthatmakesithappen

withoutconcertedeffortacrossthe

layersofinstitutionsandagenciesthat

supportthelearninganddevelopment

ofournation’schildrenandyouth.

Therecenteconomiccrisisand

thepainithasbroughthavecreateda

briefunityoffocus.Asweconsidernew

waystotransformthenation’seco-

nomic,housing,health,transportation,

andfiscalinfrastructure,wemustnot

forgettheneedtocreateaneweduca-

tioninfrastructureaswell.

References

AnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform.2001.The Promise of Urban Schools: In Search of Excellence.Providence,RI:BrownUniversity,AnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform.Availablefordownloadat<www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/district_thinking.php#Promise>

AspenInstituteandAnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform.2006.Strong Foundation, Evolving Challenges: A Case Study to Support Leadership Transition in the Boston Public Schools.Washington,DC:AspenInstitute.Availablefordownloadat<www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/BostonCaseStudy.php>

Coburn,C.2003.“RethinkingScale:MovingbeyondNumberstoDeepandLastingChange,”Educational Researcher32,no.6:3–12.

CowenInstitute.2008.The State of Public Education in New Orleans: 2008 Report.NewOrleans,LA:TulaneUniversity,ScottS.CowenInstituteforPublicEducationInitiatives.

Fuhrman,S.andM.Lazerson.,eds.2005.The Institutions of American Democracy: The Public Schools.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Gold,E.,E.Simon,M.Cucchiara,C.A.Mitchell,andM.Riffer.2007.A Philadelphia Story: Building Civic Capacity for School Reform in a Privatizing System.Philadelphia,PA:ResearchforAction.

Gordon,E.W.,andB.L.Bridglall.2005.“TheChallenge,Context,andPreconditionsofAcademicDevelopmentatHighLevels.”InSupplementary Education: The Hidden Curriculum of High Academic Achievement,editedbyE.W.Gordon,B.L.Bridglall,andA.S.Meroe.Lanham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield.

Hill,P.T.,C.Campbell,andJ.Harvey.2000.It Takes a City: Getting Serious about Urban School Reform.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.

Hirota,J.M.,andL.E.Jacobs.2003.Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public School Reform.NewYork:AcademyforEducationalDevelopment.


Mediratta,K.,S.Shah,andS.McAlister.2008.Organized Communities, Stronger Schools: A Preview of Research Findings.Providence,RI:BrownUniversity,AnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform.Availablefordownloadat<www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/Mott.php>

C.S.MottFoundation.2007.A New Day for Learning: A Report from the Time, Learning, and Afterschool Task Force.Flint,MI:C.S.MottFoundation.Availablefordownloadat<www.edutopia.org/new-day-for-learning>

Ogletree,C.2004.All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.

Stone,C.N.,J.R.Henig,B.D.Jones,andC.Pierannunzi.2001.Building Civic Capacity: The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools.Lawrence,KS:UniversityPressofKansas.

Non Profit Org.

US Postage

PAID

Providence, RI

Permit #202

Annenberg Institute for School ReformBrown University Box 1985Providence, Rhode Island 02912

at brown university

Summer 2009

The Federal Role in Education: From the Reagan to the Obama AdministrationGail L. Sunderman

Steady Work: How Finland Is Building a Strong Teaching and Learning SystemLinda Darling-Hammond

Federal Policies to Change the Odds for Children in PovertySusan B. Neuman

The Federal Role in Out-of-School Learning: After-School, Summer Learning, and Family Involvement as Critical Learning SupportsHeather B. Weiss, Priscilla M. D. Little, Suzanne M. Bouffard, Sarah N. Deschenes, and Helen Janc Malone

Urban Education Reform: Recalibrating the Federal RoleWarren Simmons


Annenberg Institute for School Reform | Voices in Urban Education

Voices in U

rban Education The Evolving Federal RoleSum

mer 2009

this book is printed on environment® Paper. this 100 percent recycled paper reduces solid waste disposal and lessens landfill dependency. by utilizing this paper,• 21 trees were preserved for the future.• 14,735,600 BTUs of energy were conserved.• 60 pounds of waterborne waste were not created.• 978 pounds of solid waste were not generated.• 8,837 gallons of wastewater flow were saved.• 1,925 pounds of greenhouse gases were prevented from forming.