Taking Root - Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

Taking RootLessons Learned for Sustaining theCollege- and Career-Ready Agenda

About Achieve

Achieve, created by the nation’s governors and business leaders,is a bipartisan, non-profit organization that helps states raise aca-demic standards, improve assessments and strengthen account-ability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education,careers and citizenship.

About the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network

In 2005, Achieve launched the ADP Network—a collaboration ofstates working together to improve their academic standards andprovide all students with a high school education that meets theneeds of today’s workplaces and universities. The ADP Networkmembers—responsible for educating nearly 85 percent of all ournation’s public high school students—are committed to takingfour college and career readiness action steps:

• Align high school standards with the demands of college andcareers.

• Require all students to complete a college- and career-readycurriculum to earn a high school diploma.

• Build assessments into the statewide system that measurestudents’ readiness for college and careers.

• Develop reporting and accountability systems that promotecollege and career readiness for all students.

The world has changed, and high schools must change with it.The ADP Network is leading the charge in ensuring that all highschool students graduate with a degree that works.

To help state leaders build strategies for sustaining their education agendas overthe long run, Achieve has launched Taking Root: Strategies for Sustaining theCollege- and Career-Ready Agenda, generously funded by the GE Foundation.

Through this project, Achieve conducted research on state education policies thathave been sustained successfully to better understand the factors that had themost significant impact. Achieve focused on reforms in Indiana, Massachusetts,South Carolina and Texas because these states were able to sustain significant ed-ucation reforms over at least a decade. The focus of the research is not on the spe-cific policies passed but rather the processes and strategies the states employed tomake significant change last with an eye toward how other states might learn fromthose experiences.

The project includes:

• Four case studies that examine both governmental and non-governmental strate-gies that were effective in making reform last in Indiana, Massachusetts, SouthCarolina and Texas.

• A paper that draws on and synthesizes the case studies’ ten overarching statestrategies for sustainability.

• A tool that states can use in their own sustainability planning.

Achieve hopes this work will help state leaders, wherever they may be on their roadto reform, replicate successful strategies and accelerate systemic education reformin their own states, particularly around the college- and career-ready agenda. Allstates, no matter where they are in the college- and career-ready policy agenda,need to consider how they will sustain their efforts over the long haul. Achieve iscommitted to providing all states with the tools and guidance they need to engagein and successfully consider this critical issue as they move forward. For more in-formation see www.achieve.org/takingroot

Taking RootStrategies for Sustaining the

College- and Career-Ready Agenda

Taking Root: Lessons Learned for Sustaining theCollege- and Career-ReadyAgenda


IntroductionCollege and career readiness has become a unifying

principle for education reform leaders across thecountry. A majority of states have made it a top policypriority, with an increasing number of national founda-tions and education reform advocates supporting thiswork. More recently, the Obama administration has sig-naled its intent to make readiness a central principle ofits education agenda.

While some states have made real progress enactingambitious policies, such as raising standards and grad-uation requirements in high school, for these reforms tohave real impact they will need to be implementedthoughtfully and sustained over the long term. On thewhole, states do not have a great track record in theseareas, regardless of the focus of their reforms.

Historically, education reform has been difficult to sus-tain over time, and the forces working against sustain-ability in the states are both real and complicated.Education reform—and particularly the college- andcareer-ready agenda, which involves setting ambitiousstandards—can be a politically-charged issue and issubject to undergo continued scrutiny during politicalcycles. Turnover of governors, state education leaders,legislators and other high-level officials is unavoidableand can make sustaining the policies a challenge afterleading advocates leave office. These reforms also re-quire a significant, phased-in implementation timelineand then even more time before any measurable impactbecomes visible. Economic downturns, changes in fed-eral regulations and impatience over delayed results canall contribute to the sustainability challenge.

At a more fundamental level, the college- and career-ready agenda poses a particular challenge as it seeks toshake up the status quo and build an education systembased on high expectations for all students. College-and career-ready policies require a culture change inmany states and communities, one that acknowledgesthat students will need to meet higher expectations tobe successful in the real world, and that all students canmeet those standards. In addition, given the cross-sec-tor nature of college- and career-ready policies thatoften intentionally blur the line between K-12 and post-secondary systems, the agenda requires strong com-mitment from leaders across—as well as outside—thegovernment.

As an increasing number of states embark on the col-lege- and career-ready agenda, and as states prepareto take advantage of the unprecedented resources of-fered through the federal stimulus package, includingRace to the Top grants, it is vital that they take the longview and put the necessary pieces in place to ensurethat the policies can take root and be sustained overtime.

In an effort to help state and national leaders in thisarea, Achieve launched a research project with fundingfrom the GE Foundation to better understand whatmakes education policies sustainable. We first turned tothe research community for answers but found that verylittle has been done on the issue of sustainability. Whilewe found two studies1 on sustained education poli-cies—each of which explored different attributes of sus-tainability or the “keys to durability” in educationpolicy—generally the research base is thin and providesfew footholds for state leaders looking for strategies forsustaining the college- and career-ready agenda.

Our next step was to identify states that had success-fully sustained ambitious education reforms over at leasta decade, and unpack the strategies and conditions thatled to their success. The states we focused on—Indi-ana, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Texas—tookdifferent approaches to their policies, but each was suc-cessful in enacting, implementing and sustaining com-prehensive and bold reforms. Despite their differentapproaches and unique state contexts, a common setof ten sustainability strategies emerged from our analy-ses that we believe offer valuable insights into whatstates in the process of adopting and implementing col-lege- and career-ready education reforms need to con-sider in order to ensure their reforms are built to last.

This paper summarizes the lessons learned fromAchieve’s research in the four states and highlights exam-ples and promising strategies from those states and oth-ers. Achieve also published separate case studies foreach of the four states that go into greater detail on howtheir reforms were enacted and sustained. All of thesematerials are available at www.achieve.org/takingroot.

2

1 Grissmer, D. & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains inNorth Carolina and Texas.Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel;Kirst, M.W. & Meister, G. R. (1985). Turbulence in American SecondarySchools;What Reforms Last? Curriculum Inquiry, 15(2), 169-186.

Strong and Consistent Politicaland Education Leadership

Major reform efforts would not be possible without strong,visionary leaders to champion the cause. Strong leadersare necessary to conceptualize reforms, build the politicaland public support to get them enacted, and help createthe longer-term commitment necessary for sustainability.Their ability to convene, motivate and navigate the policyterrain is paramount in launching a comprehensive reformeffort, and is equally important in ensuring it is sustained.

Most successful education reforms are led by some com-bination of governors, state K-12 and higher educationcommissioners, state board members, and legislators.States need elected and appointed officials with thestature to make change happen and the courage to pushahead, even in the face of system inertia or resistance.These leaders need to have a keen understanding of thepolicy that undergirds reform and should be trusted bythose inside and outside the education field.

Reforms are much more likely to be sustained when politi-cal leadership is broad and bipartisan. A group of unitedleaders with a common vision and common goals will al-ways be stronger than any one individual, particularlywhen that group includes leaders from different politicalparties. When leadership is siloed, or resides with onlyone leader, reforms are often more vulnerable in the longrun. Even the most successful education governors canfind that their reforms are not sustained by their succes-sors if the policies are too tightly associated with their ad-ministration and they failed to establish sufficient bridgesto broaden ownership. Sustainable reforms survive politi-cal turnover because they do not depend on one individ-ual; after a political leader who championed the reformleaves office, there are other leaders, just as committed tothe policies, to carry the reform forward.

• Strong and consistent political and educationleadership

• External champions pushing for change

• A coalition of supporters

• An open and transparent policy process

• Strategic communications and outreach

• Investment in implementation and capacity-building

• Monitoring progress and making mid-coursecorrections

• Well-integrated policies that promote P-20alignment

• Highly functional “quasi-governmental”entities

• Data collection and use

Ten Strategies for Sustaining theCollege- andCareer-ReadyAgenda

Taking RootLessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

3

Reforms are much more likely to besustained when political leadership isbroad and bipartisan. A group of unitedleaders with a common vision andcommon goals will always be strongerthan any one individual, particularlywhen that group includes leaders fromdifferent political parties.

The need for broad, cross-sector leadership is partic-ularly important around the college- and career-readyagenda, which, by definition, is relevant to the K-12,higher education and business communities. Thestates that have been most successful in this workhave had visible, committed leaders in all three sec-tors working as a team.

While the focus is usually on the top leaders in gov-ernment, ownership and commitment need to extenddownward to the people responsible for carrying outthe day-to-day work for reforms to be truly sustain-able. From Department of Education and legislativestaffers to district superintendents, a host of potentialchampions at the state and local level have roles toplay in making sure the reforms are implemented withfidelity and adequately meet the needs of the stu-dents. States that have been most successful in sus-taining their reforms have cultivated these leadersfrom the beginning and given them important respon-sibilities for both shaping and executing the reforms.These individuals become long-term advocates forthe reforms and often remain in influential positionsafter governors or state superintendents are no longerin office.

Broad-Based Leadership in TexasThroughout the long history of Texas’ standards-based reform efforts, there has been a consistency ofleadership, but it has been not from any one leader orany one branch of the government. Perhaps the mostimportant lesson to be learned from Texas is thatleadership can, and should, come from a variety ofpeople across the state.

Both political and education leaders—along withmembers of the business community—have played amajor role in shepherding, implementing and protect-ing the reforms over time. From 1984 to today, gover-nors, lieutenant governors, state legislators andcommissioners of education have supported eachother in those responsibilities. As a result, many ofthese leaders also have felt shared ownership overthe reforms and their successes.

The best example may be from 1995 when the stateLegislature passed SB1, rewriting the Texas Educa-tion Code. The final piece of legislation drew fromthree separate drafts written by the chair of the HousePublic Education Committee (a Democrat), the chairof the Senate Education Committee (a Republican)and the state commissioner of education (appointedby a Democrat), with buy-in from the state’s educa-tion and business communities and the full support ofthe speaker of the house (a Democrat), the lieutenantgovernor (who was the president of the Senate and aDemocrat) and the governor (a Republican). Thatpiece of legislation was potentially the most dramaticeducation overhaul in Texas’ history and continues tobe the foundation for the state’s education system.

Leadership at All Levels in South CarolinaWhile there is little question that governors and theirkey education, policy and political staff are typicallythe crucial drivers of large-scale reform, South Car-olina benefited from a broader and deeper commit-ment level from many government actors. Specifically,a number of Department of Education staffers andfairly young legislators provided critical leadershipduring both the adoption and implementation ofSouth Carolina’s Education Improvement Act (EIA).This can largely be attributed to the ownership theseindividuals felt around this reform.

A group of younger legislators volunteered to divvy upthe reform act and be trained as “experts” on differentsections—not just the formal provisions but also thereasoning and evidence behind them—so they couldexplain them in detail to their more hesitant col-leagues. Working with the governor’s office, thesechampions managed to get fellow members to con-sider the merits of the substantive proposals sepa-rately from funding, finding that once a legislatoragreed to the reforms in principle, it was easier toconvince him or her of the need to fund it.

The growth of these legislative champions had bothshort- and long-term benefits. Running up to the EIA’sadoption, they could credibly explain why each provi-sion was necessary, the research behind it, how it

4


was priced out and other relevant facts to opponents. Inthe longer term, when some aspects of the bill’s imple-mentation became contentious or were misunderstood,these legislators could explain the justification for andmechanics of that component over and over again.

After the reform was passed, the state superintendentof education, Charlie G. Williams, dedicated about 20of his staff to ensure that the bill was implementedsmoothly and successfully, in alignment with his othereducation priorities. While some of these employeeswere hired specifically to implement the EIA, others hadbeen key players in getting the bill enacted. Having ahandful of non-political appointees remain engaged onthe implementation of a bill they had worked hard to getpassed helped keep the momentum moving forwardand the message and goals consistent. It was theseDepartment of Education staff members who proposedand built support for the creation of regional implemen-tation forums.

KeyQuestions toAskAbout Your State’s Leadership• How strong is cross-sector leadership in your state(from sectors such as the governor’s office, K-12 de-partment of education, legislature, higher educationsystem, etc.)? Is it bipartisan?

• To what extent has each sector made college andcareer readiness a top priority?

• Is there a well-defined core group of senior staffcommitted to working on college- and career-readypolicies? If yes, have these people been working con-sistently on the agenda over time? Do they representa cross-section of government and non-governmentagencies/organizations?

• Has support for the college- and career-ready agendapenetrated mid-level staff at state agencies (i.e.department of education, higher education commis-sion)? Do these staff members feel ownership overthe agenda?

• Has support for the college- and career-ready agendapenetrated to the district/school level? Do district andschool leaders feel ownership over the agenda?

• How are your current leaders developing and/or re-cruiting the next generation of education reform lead-ers to sustain the college- and career-ready agenda?

• Does the state have a transition plan to address main-taining the college- and career-ready agenda in lightof any upcoming/expected leadership turnover?

External ChampionsPushing For Change

States with sustained reform efforts can all point to thepresence of external advocates as a major condition oftheir success. Outside advocates can make the caseand push for change, apply pressure to policymakerswhen the effort is stalled, and make sure reforms are im-plemented despite setbacks or changes in key electedleaders or majority political parties.

A number of external leaders can play a major role in thecollege- and career-ready agenda including, but not lim-ited to, members of the business, civil rights or philan-thropic communities; teachers or principals; and leadersfrom community-based organizations. Each type ofstakeholder likely has his or her own agenda and grass-roots network, both of which may help strengthen thestructure of and support for systemic reform in the longrun. The most effective external champions are thosewho have influence—be it political, financial or withbroad membership—and are willing to use that influ-ence to impact change.

Across the four states Achieve researched and otherstates throughout the nation, members of the businesscommunity are typically the most prevalent, visible andproactive stakeholders in helping to champion and sus-tain standards-based reforms. The business community


5

6

is a natural ally of college and career readiness policies,since they are best positioned to describe changingworkforce demands and what it will take for the state tobe economically competitive. In a number of states, itwas the business community—the chamber of com-merce, business roundtable or a group of CEOs—thatgot the college- and career-ready movement off theground and onto the agendas of state political leaders.

Whether it is the business community or other advo-cates, our research shows that the role of externalchampions becomes more important as time goes on.Non-elected leaders in a state are a vital ingredient toensuring the college- and career-ready reforms are notdismantled when political leadership changes or whenhigher standards begin kicking in and people start feel-ing the heat. Experience shows that as implementationplays out, the challenges inherent in transformingschools and getting students ready for college and ca-reers become more real to educators, which can thenlead to stronger opposition than when the reform wasinitially passed.

External champions, however, can take the long viewand keep pressure on new candidates and elected offi-cials to “stay the course” on ambitious policies whenothers begin to soften under the pressure that inevitablyaccompanies a drive for higher standards.

Massachusetts’ Business ChampionsIn Massachusetts, the business community got the ballrolling and kept pushing—for nearly two decades. TheMassachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) of 1993would likely not have been conceived, enacted or sus-tained if not for the state’s business community. Whatthe business community brought to the table was pres-sure for change and the stature to get leaders to pay at-tention. Most notably, the Massachusetts BusinessAlliance for Education (MBAE), the Massachusetts Busi-ness Roundtable (MBRT), and Mass Insight Educationand Research Institute (Mass Insight) did the work thatis critical to the success of any reform effort, including:

• Creating early interest and establishing urgency: Bytying reform to global competitiveness and the need tokeep up with a changing world, MBAE was able tomake the case for education reform in Massachusetts.

• Bringing diverse stakeholders to the table—and serv-ing as a trusted convener—to develop the plan forchange: MBAE purposefully chose to include thosewho traditionally might align against major reformefforts, such as school boards and teachers’ unions,concluding it was better to engage them at the frontend than to fight them at the back end. While it didnot completely ward off opposition from certaingroups once MERA was passed, it did allow for im-portant conversations to occur from the beginning.

• Spreading the word to constituents: By traveling thestate and talking to community, business and educa-tion groups, business leaders were able to make theircase for reform and explain the specific componentson the table to a broad cross-section of stakeholders.Outreach efforts began during the early 1990s, as thereform plan was being shaped and enacted, and con-tinued throughout the implementation of the law.

• Keeping the flame alive: The Massachusetts businesscommunity began the reform effort and stuck with itlong after the package had passed through the Legis-lature—refusing to go away, be quiet or quit pushing,even when things got challenging.

KeyQuestions toAskAbout Your State’s ExternalChampions• Does your state have strong external champions (ei-ther organized in a coalition or acting as individuals)who are highly committed to the agenda and highlyeffective at influencing policy and public opinion?How have they helped ensure passage and implemen-tation of key reforms during and after politicalturnover?

• How, if at all, do state leaders rely on/engage withexternal champions and coalitions to move and sustainthe college- and career-ready agenda in your state?


• How strong is the state’s business community’s com-mitment to the college- and career-ready agenda?

• How strong is the state’s education community’scommitment to the college- and career-readyagenda?

• How do your external champions from different sec-tors collaborate? Does your state have a mechanismfor bringing external leaders together, such as a busi-ness-education partnership?

ACoalition of SupportersWhile individual organizations or champions may be in-fluential independently, when diverse groups—such asbusiness and education leaders—collaborate and advo-cate as one, the effect can be exponential. Regardlessof whether these stakeholders join together to form asingle coalition, advocate from separate organizations,or form a “coalition of coalitions,” having a broad baseof supporters with a common goal and common mes-sage is a key element of sustainability.

A coalition of supporters can build and sustain the casefor reform by leading or promoting communications andoutreach efforts, building partnerships and fostering col-laboration among key organizations and actors, influ-encing policy and implementation, and finding ways toleverage new and existing programs or funds to supportthe reform efforts. If designed right, these coalitions canalso live on well after key politicians leave office, thusbecoming the long-term owners and drivers of reform.

It is important to note that no two coalitions will look ex-actly alike. Some coalitions are incorporated as non-profit organizations, others are loosely affiliated groupsof individuals or organizations, and others are offshootsof more formal organizations. Yet the specific organiza-tion of the coalition of supporters is not nearly as impor-tant as its shared agenda around college and careerreadiness for all students, clear and consistent voice,

diversity of members, and ability to reach and win overindividuals at the state and local levels.

The most successful coalitions have a small but stronggroup of core drivers who exercise leadership and keepthem active and focused. Moving out from the coregroup, it is important to recruit organizations or individu-als who represent key stakeholders; have significant in-fluence with policymakers, educators and the public;and share common goals and visions for educationreform. It is then important to reach out to a broadergroup of stakeholders, even individuals and groups whomay be expected to oppose the college- and career-ready reform, to determine if and where there may becommon ground.

Too often, coalitions do not attempt to recruit beyondthe obvious supporters, leaving potential allies un-tapped. Some of the most interesting and successfulcoalitions include unusual bedfellows who bring diversebackgrounds, political viewpoints and grassroots sup-port to the table. In addition, one consequence of notreaching out to certain groups, such as local boards ofeducation or teachers unions, is that they may feel asthough they were intentionally left out of the loop.Therefore, they may be more likely to oppose thereforms during passage and implementation.


7

The specific organization of the coali-tion of supporters is not nearly as im-portant as its shared agenda aroundcollege and career readiness for allstudents, clear and consistent voice,diversity of members, and ability toreach and win over individuals at thestate and local levels.

8

As with any policy change, all coalitions face hardcore“opposition.” Knowing the opposition and its argumentsis important to making the case for college and careerreadiness, but states shouldn’t spend precious time try-ing to change the mind of outright opponents. It is abetter use of time and resources to strengthen andbroaden the existing base of support.

Coalition-building and outreach is work that is neverdone. As we noted with external champions in the previ-ous section, the role of coalitions becomes more impor-tant as time goes on. As higher standards andaccountability metrics kick in, policymakers will startfeeling pressure to slow down or roll back the reforms.Coalition leaders need to continually engage new stake-holders and, at times, re-sell the reform to already en-gaged or previously engaged stakeholders. Withcompeting priorities—in education and other policyareas—it is imperative that coalitions have ongoing out-reach and communications strategies to maintain thelevel of public support necessary to sustain reform.

The TennesseeDiploma ProjectIn 2007, a consortium of government, business and ed-ucation leaders from across the state—including thegovernor, the K-12 and higher education commission-ers, and key business executives—launched the Ten-nessee Diploma Project (TDP) to build public andstakeholder support for raising education standards andcurriculum to the college- and career-ready level.

The first major action undertaken by the TDP was a se-ries of regional roundtables—hosted by the governorand supported by the Tennessee Business Roundtableand Hyde Family Foundation—during which stateCEO’s and business leaders were asked for their obser-vations on the state’s current high school graduates’skills and knowledge. Overwhelmingly, these businessleaders called for stronger math and science skills,stronger communications skills, and a greater ability ofgraduates to work in teams and think critically, givingthe agenda a sense of urgency.

In 2008, the TDP achieved its first success as the StateBoard of Education adopted standards and graduationrequirements aligned with the expectations of the post-secondary and business communities. Despite the earlysuccess, the TDP has not relented in its advocacy andoutreach, in particular to educators and employers. TheTDP continues to have the support of the TennesseeBusiness Roundtable, the Tennessee Chamber of Com-merce, the Tennessee State Collaborative on ReformingEducation (SCORE) and the philanthropic community.

A core group of Tennessee’s most powerful and influen-tial private-sector and philanthropic leaders will belaunching a third-party education reform organization,the Public School Forum, aimed at sustaining the Ten-nessee Diploma Project and positioning the college-and career-ready agenda as the fundamental drivingforce for education reform in Tennessee. The organiza-tion will build its agenda around three critical issueareas: higher standards for teaching and learning,teacher quality, and accurate and useful assessments.

KeyQuestions toAskAbout Your State Coalition(s)• Does your state have a clearly identified coalition (be ita non-profit organization, an offshoot of a more formalorganization or a more loosely affiliated group of indi-viduals or organizations) that is a key champion forthe passage and implementation of the college- andcareer-ready agenda?

• Does your coalition(s) have broad membership, in-cluding representation from the business community,political and education leadership, higher education,local educators, community-based organizations, andthe philanthropic community?

• Is your state’s coalition institutionalized and sustain-able? Does it have a formal mission, charter and gov-ernance structure? A secure funding stream?

• Is there a recognized leader(s) of the coalition withsome level of authority to ensure visibility and consis-tent efforts?



9

AnOpen and TransparentPolicy Process

To adopt and sustain a college- and career-readyagenda that is supported widely across the state, stateleaders must be careful to communicate early and oftenabout the proposed changes and the process throughwhich those changes will be implemented. State lead-ers, particularly political leaders, need to be open andclear about the reform’s goals and why college and ca-reer readiness for all students is a priority for the state.They also need to reach out to key constituencies andengage them in dialogue about how to best structurethe reforms. It is essential that teachers, administrators,local school boards, parents and students do not viewthe reform agenda as something being done to them butrather for them and with their input.

This is in part about a communications strategy, de-scribed in the next section, but it is also about a moretransparent policy development process. The policy-making process should not be viewed as something thatis occurring behind closed doors, but rather as an openprocess with opportunity for real input. As informationmoves faster and to more people than ever before, thereis little to gain in trying to shield the process from theeducation community or the broader public. In fact,there is much to lose in terms of their support and confi-dence. Transparency alone won’t lead to successful col-lege- and career-ready reforms, but it is part and parcelof any policy change that lasts.

The benefits of engaging education stakeholders andcommunity members throughout the reform process—and even the reform planning process—considerablyoutweigh any of the costs (such as a slower process orthe fiscal cost of outreach). By communicating with keystakeholders at the earliest stages of reform, throughsuch strategies as open meetings, forums, roundtables,focus groups and surveys, leaders can craft college-and career-ready policies that best meet the needs of

the state; find advocates to rally the cause in their com-munities; identify other local and state leaders who maybe able to provide important services or guidance as thereform efforts move forward; and better understand, andtherefore be more prepared to address, roadblocks toprogress. In many cases, just having a dialogue withcommunity members can go a long way toward gainingtheir support.

This is not a one-time effort, however. At key transitionpoints in the college- and career-ready reform’s imple-mentation, states should communicate with the publicabout the impending changes and provide new opportu-nities for public comment and discussion. If there isdissention in the field or at the local level, it is better forstate leaders and their supporters to address it head on.

South Carolina’s Regional ForumsVery early on, then-Governor Richard Riley and his sup-porters committed to a grassroots strategy to developsupport for and buy-in around the Education Improve-ment Act (EIA). They wanted to ensure the proposal hadwide stakeholder agreement and quickly realized thatthe most effective way to sway legislators was to haveconstituents support it. By engaging early, and often,through forums, site visits and a wide-scale public serv-ice announcement campaign, South Carolina was ableto build support from the ground up, among parentsand local education leaders, and get the state on boardwith the idea of sweeping education reform.

It is essential that teachers, adminis-trators, local school boards, parentsand students do not view the reformagenda as something being done tothem but rather for them and withtheir input.

Over the course of two months in 1983, the state heldseven regional forums with two overarching strategiesto garner support and shared ownership: (1) provide adata-driven and well-grounded rationale for the recom-mended plan and (2) offer community members the op-portunity to voice their own priorities and concernsabout the reform agenda. The forums featured presen-tations by top leaders, including Gov. Riley and keylocal education and business leaders, which were fol-lowed by small-group discussions led by speciallytrained facilitators. Each forum generated a report on itscommunity’s priorities, which were shared with all of theforum participants and the state committees.

About 13,000 people participated directly in the eveningforums and approximately 40,000 people total partici-pated in activities related to the “forum days” in someway. Many of the volunteers from the education andcivic groups who helped mount the forums were leftwith a deeper investment in the reform effort because oftheir effort to make it a success. According to a surveyreleased in 1988, 52 percent of South Carolina citizenswere familiar with the EIA compared to just 25 percentof citizens from six other southeastern states, each ofwhich had also enacted a highly visible reform packagein the mid-1980s.

Two years after the EIA was passed, the Department ofEducation launched a second round of regional forums,focused on implementation, providing an opportunity forthe state to explain the lack of results in the short term,maintain local engagement and garner explicit feedbackfrom those on the ground.

KeyQuestions toAsk to Ensure anOpen PolicyProcess• Has your state provided key stakeholders with an op-portunity to learn about, vet and provide input beforeand during the policy development process?

• Does your state engage in open communication aboutprogress being made on the reforms and on the im-pending policy changes?

• Were there efforts to build on-the-ground consensusfor the college- and career-ready agenda with educa-tors, school administrators, parents, students andlocal leaders?

Strategic CommunicationsandOutreach

Strategic communications and outreach are criticalthroughout every step of the policy process and areessential components of any sustainable reform effort.Without ongoing, strategic communications, states willoften feel like they are always playing defense.

One of the most frequent mistakes states make withtheir communications efforts is to limit their time horizonto obtaining passage of the reforms. Building supportto ensure adoption of policies is important, but moreimportant is keeping the goals, the rationale and theprogress of the reforms high on the radars of the public,educators and opinion leaders so that support remainsstrong when the going gets tough.

The first step a state can take towards building a com-munications strategy is to develop a communicationsand outreach plan, focused on the college- and career-ready agenda. Leaders should take the time up front toidentify their key goals, key audiences, key messagesand the channels through which the state will reachthose audiences with those messages. For example, if astate believes students should be one of their target au-diences, the state may craft messages around the per-sonal benefits of taking more challenging courses andgraduating ready for college and careers, and may relymore heavily on new media, such as Facebook and viralvideos, as a vehicle to deliver those messages.

It is important to note that a strong communications ef-fort is not dependent on a big budget or the ability tobuy media; many communications and outreach strate-gies are low to no cost. More important to the effort isleadership, organization, outreach to key players andconsistency of message.

10



11

In many ways, the college- and career-ready agenda’ssuccess requires a shift in public attitudes and percep-tions about what students can and should be able to learnand do in high school. The only true way to sway publicattitudes is by keeping lines of communications open, en-gaging the public in the process, and using powerful andconsistent messages to help them understand what op-portunities the college- and career-ready agenda can af-ford them and their children. If a state can build a cultureof college and career readiness, the college- and career-ready agenda will effectively sustain itself.

Hawaii’s College- andCareer-Ready CommunicationsStrategyIn 2008, Hawaii adopted a more rigorous, optional col-lege- and career-ready diploma—the Board of Educa-tion’s Recognition Diploma, recently re-branded as theStep Up Diploma. Hawaii has focused and coordinatedits communications and outreach efforts to ensure morestudents enroll in and complete this curriculum.

Hawaii’s strategy began with a research-based commu-nications and outreach plan for how to best engage stu-dents around this new diploma. In crafting its messagesand strategies, Hawaii continually evaluated what mes-sages—and what messengers—would best resonatewith high school students. The state also evaluated howexisting projects could bolster these efforts.

In 2009, the P-20 Partnerships launched Step Up, a“multiyear community awareness and action campaign”tied directly to the new Step Up Diploma. The new cam-paign includes videos targeted at students and commu-nity members featuring students making the case forrigorous high school preparation through data and cleverparodies. Step Up also has a companion program, Proj-ect Step Up, which asks middle and high school stu-dents to commit to the new diploma.

Critically, the Hawaii P-20 Partnerships for Education co-ordinates the state’s communications efforts, includingboth Step Up and Hawaii’s Gaining Early Awareness andReadiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).GEAR UP is a statewide campaign that provides crucialinformation about college preparation, access and finan-cial aid and offers a number of programs and services,such as preparation for college placement tests; a col-lege awareness month; and the GEAR UP Scholar pro-gram, which encourages middle school students to takea rigorous curriculum in high school. Having these activi-ties coordinated by the P-20 Partnerships allows for aconsistent message and broader reach across the state,as well as a dedicated funding stream for the state’s col-lege- and career-ready communications strategy, asGEAR UP is partially funded through a federal grant.

KeyQuestions toAskAbout Communications andOutreach in Your State:• Does your state have a communications plan? Whodeveloped it? Who is responsible for implementing it?

• Can you identify your state’s 3-5 key messages aroundcollege and career readiness? Are they used consis-tently by state leaders across sectors? Is there a publicperception that the college- and career-ready agendais a shared agenda by state leaders?

• Is there a process in place for keeping opinion leadersand other key stakeholders (such as district leaders) in-formed about the college- and career-ready agenda?

• Does your state publicly report student-level data onindicators of college and career readiness as part of itsadvocacy and communications efforts?

• How will your state continue to communicate with keystakeholders during implementation to maintain sup-port?

Investment in Implementationand Capacity-Building

Any major reform effort will require some investment orredistribution of resources to build capacity; facilitateimplementation; and provide students, teachers andschools with the necessary supports they need to beprepared for the new reform requirements.

The college- and career-ready agenda presents stateswith a particular set of implementation challenges in afamiliar set of areas: teacher effectiveness, curriculumdesign, instructional materials, student supports and in-terventions, etc. Planning for these implementation chal-lenges should begin during the policy developmentprocess, and resources should be allocated when thepolicy is passed to ensure the policy goals can be met.Poor implementation, either because resources weren’tallocated or because thoughtful plans weren’t laid, is thesurest way to kill a major reform effort.

The ultimate goal of college- and career-ready policiesis to get more students through a rigorous curriculum inhigh school so they graduate well prepared for collegeand careers. Given that goal, states will need to workthrough a range of implementation issues such as:

• How to ensure an adequate number of teachers areavailable to teach more rigorous courses in highschool and how to make sure all schools and studentshave access to those highly-qualified teachers;

•What additional training teachers will need to effec-tively teach rigorous courses to new and larger groupsof students;

• How to make sure all schools have access to high-quality curricula aligned to the state standards, with aparticular eye toward curricula that present rigorouscontent in more relevant, applied ways;

• How to build early warning indicators into the statelongitudinal data system to target dropout preventionand remediation and recovery programs to the stu-dents who are off-track from graduating ready for col-lege and careers;

• How to provide extra time and support to studentswho need it in order to succeed; and

• How to structure differentiated supports and interven-tions for high schools, if college- and career-readygraduation is the goal for which they are being heldaccountable.

When it comes to funding major reforms, some stateshave been able to invest new money, often through a“grand bargain,” based on the theory that if the state isgoing to require higher expectations, it must provide theappropriate resources and support for schools and stu-dents to meet those expectations. Massachusetts,Texas and South Carolina all did this as they embarkedon major new reforms.

However, not all states that have been successful haveallocated a lot of new money to implement their reforms.Indiana implemented its college- and career-ready poli-cies with limited investments of new money. States thathave significant budget constraints will want to exploreother avenues, such as re-allocating funding from inef-fective or unnecessary programs or looking to partner-ships—with community-based groups, philanthropic

12


Poor implementation, either becauseresources weren’t allocated or be-cause thoughtful plans weren’t laid,is the surest way to kill a majorreform effort.


13

foundations or other service providers—to help supple-ment state budgets and services. All states should alsotake advantage of the federal stimulus resources overthe next one to two years to support the implementationof their college- and career-ready policies.

Massachusetts’ Grand BargainThe Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) es-tablished a broad range of new policies, includingstatewide academic standards; assessments based onthe standards; accountability systems for students,schools and districts; management flexibility for superin-tendents; new educator certification and training rules,including teacher testing; and charter schools. In orderto ensure all of these policies would be implemented ef-fectively—and to right a wrong in the state’s educationfunding system that led to low-wealth school districtshaving less money than wealthier districts—MERA alsoinjected nearly $2 billion of additional funds into publiceducation over the course of a decade.

Specifically, a new “foundation” funding formula wasenacted in statute, which distributed as much as $350million in new dollars to poorer districts each year. Anact of the Legislature is required to override the formula.In addition, as much as $100 million in targeted supportfor Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System(MCAS) remediation was allocated over a five-year pe-riod. These dollars helped school systems provide inter-ventions such as double doses of literacy and math,before- and after-school academic support, teacher-ledextra academic support, and online tutoring for studentsnot meeting the standards.

All in all, this “grand bargain”—reform with resources—enabled significant changes in the Commonwealth’sschool systems. Today, Massachusetts is one of the fewstates in the country that spends more on students inpoor districts than students in wealthy ones. It is alsoone of the highest achieving states on both national andinternational assessments.

Indiana’s Careful BudgetingAlthough Massachusetts, Texas and South Carolina allprovided new funding streams while upping their expec-tations for their education systems, Indiana did not ex-plicitly tie a new major pot of money, at least not at theonset, to the Core 40 reforms. The General Assemblydid provide some funding to support the EducationRoundtable and to assist in the implementation of thethen-voluntary Core 40 curriculum throughout the 1990sto ensure all students had access to the curriculum andan adequate supply of teachers, but nothing like the $2billion spent by Massachusetts or the $200 millionraised by the penny tax in South Carolina at the onset ofits reform.

In addition to the modest increase in the general assem-bly’s education funding the state also shifted resourcesto support the Core 40—as well as the teachers andstudents facing the new curriculum—and looked forpartners to share costs. For example, the state refo-cused some of its existing professional developmentinto more targeted support for teachers shifting intoCore 40 courses and developed a set of classroom andinstructional materials that better clarify the state’s aca-demic standards and expectations. Indiana also tiedfinancial aid to completion of the curriculum (requiringno new expenditure of Core 40 funds) and providedfinancial incentives to schools for every student whoearns the Core 40 with Academic Honors diploma, byre-working the school funding formula. In addition, inone early grant project—focusing on the role of guid-ance counselors in the Core 40’s implementation—Indiana relied on the Lilly Endowment, an Indiana-basedphilanthropic foundation, to fund summer institutes forcounselors.

This mix-and-match approach of carefully targeted stateand private resources allowed Indiana to implement arange of interlocking reform policies without a massiveinfusion of new state money. It has proven to be suc-cessful, as more students each year complete the Core40 curriculum and enroll in college.

14


KeyQuestions toAskAbout Implementation andCapacity-Building• Does your state have an implementation strategy forthe college- and career-ready policies?

• What agencies, departments, offices and individualswill be responsible for overseeing the implementationof the reform, and what needs to be put in place toempower them to lead the implementation?

• Are your state’s budget priorities consistent with itspolicy priorities? How does the state plan to pay forimplementing and sustaining the reform—throughnew funds, the re-allocation of existing funds, grants,partnerships, or a combination thereof?

• As part of its implementation strategy, has your stateevaluated whether it will need new high-quality teach-ers to teach college- and career-ready courses (and, ifso, how many and in what subjects) or whether exist-ing teachers can be re-allocated from lower-levelcourses and/or other schools?

• As part its implementation strategy, has your state in-vested in relevant supports and necessary capacityaligned with the reform (e.g. curricula, classroom re-sources, professional development, remediation andrecovery programs, dropout prevention, etc.)?

• Does your reform require a phase-in (and, if so, overwhat time period)? What sort of support for studentsand educators is being provided during the phase-in?

Monitoring Progress andMakingMid-Course

CorrectionsNew reforms often need to be sufficient in scope tokindle interest and challenge the status quo, but theyshould not be so rigid that they cannot evolve as cir-cumstances do. Successful states have built on theirreforms incrementally over time and made mid-course

corrections at key points so that the reforms can evolveand be sustained over time.

It’s not always easy to balance the need to stay thecourse and the need for mid-course adjustments. Thereare some goals and some policies that states will wantto consider non-negotiable because they are the back-bone of the reform. It is important to hold firm on thoseelements while being flexible in other areas that allowthe reforms to evolve and take root over time.

In addition, reforms aiming at significant, system-widechange typically prove to be very difficult to implement allat once. States should take into consideration whetherthe college- and career-ready reforms should be adoptedincrementally; determine whether they require a phase-in(and, if so, over what time period); identify what needs tobe put in place beforehand (such as research and devel-opment, professional development, new data systems,etc.); and create milestones to monitor progress on theimplementation and impact of the reform agenda. A“steady as it goes” approach—building up and buildingon reforms incrementally over time—provides stakehold-ers with an opportunity to adjust to the new college- andcareer-ready reforms gradually. The more states canbuild up and build on these reforms, the more sustain-able those reforms may become.

In order to be positioned for success, it is critical thatstates carefully monitor their reforms to ensure they arehaving their intended impact without unintended conse-quences. By regularly taking stock of progress and hav-ing an ongoing dialogue with district leaders andeducators in the field, states will be better positionedto re-allocate resources to address the most substantialneeds, respond to legitimate concerns that couldthreaten the success of the reform and make changesin the policies as needed to keep the reforms on track.

Successful states have approached this task in differentways. Some created legislative oversight committeesthat monitor progress, others established agencieswithin or outside state departments of education, andothers gave the responsibility to quasi-governmental or-ganizations (see section below). In addition to allowing


15

leaders to keep their fingers on the pulse of the reformsand make necessary adjustments, creating these moni-toring processes and making the information public pro-vides an additional level of transparency, credibility andaccountability to the reform process that will becomecritical to sustainability.

Massachusetts’ CompromisesWhen the first results from the then-new, high-stakesstandards-based assessment required by the MERA—the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System(MCAS)—were posted in 1998, they were disappointing.Opponents took this opportunity to stress that a high-stakes test was unfair, especially to students in low-wealth districts, when so few students were passing it.This opposition may have been successful were it not forstrong leaders throughout the state and their willingnessto make compromises that did not undermine the reform.

The Board of Education made thoughtful, reasonablepolicy choices around the use of the test for graduation.Compromises were struck that ensured the reformswould keep moving forward: Students were required topass tests in English and math, while the science andhistory requirements were delayed. The original passingscore was set at the “needs improvement” level, ratherthan the “proficiency” level and the state put in place fo-cused retakes and a thoughtful appeals process for stu-dents who had difficulty with the pencil-and-paper test.

While adjustments were made to respond to legitimatechallenges, state leaders, including the commissioner ofeducation, the chair of the State Board of Education andthe governor, did not back down under the intense pres-sure that was applied to delay the testing requirement ordo away with it altogether. Urban superintendents alsostood by the reform. And their tenacity paid off: Studentachievement on the MCAS has improved greatly andMassachusetts’ students consistently are among topscorers on national and international assessments.

Texas’ Incremental ReformsOver the course of twenty-five years, Texas passed anumber of interrelated standards-based reforms thatcontinually, but incrementally, raised the bar for stu-dents, schools and the system as a whole. Each reformbuilt on the last and tried to improve the balance be-tween state and local control and between finance andaccountability. This steady process has been key to thereforms’ sustainability; the progression of policies andphilosophies on accountability was deliberate and, byand large, reasonable.

For example, since 1979, Texas has required four differ-ent assessments (not including the new end-of-courseassessments set to come online in 2011-12). As eachnew test came online, each with greater alignment tothe curriculum and measuring more rigorous content,the proficiency standard for school accountability wasreadjusted and then raised incrementally each year. Thegoal was to keep it one step above where the system—or average school or district—was.

By regularly taking stock of progressand having an ongoing dialogue withdistrict leaders and educators in thefield, states will be better positionedto re-allocate resources to address themost substantial needs, respond to le-gitimate concerns that could threatenthe success of the reform and makechanges in the policies as needed tokeep the reforms on track.


16

The state consciously made the decision to do it in“baby steps,” especially once a new accountability sys-tem came online in 1993, which upped the stakes fordistricts, schools and students. Leaders knew that get-ting too far ahead of students and schools could lead toa revolt and threaten the reforms’ sustainability in thelong run. Equally important was that this strategy wasarticulated broadly and often so no one ever felt blind-sided by the new requirements. One result: Texas expe-rienced a steady improvement in achievement across allstudent groups over this time.

KeyQuestions toAskAboutMonitoring andMid-Course Corrections• Does your state have an oversight mechanism—be itgovernmental, quasi-governmental or independent—to monitor the implementation of the reform and pro-vide recommendations on ways in which the reform’simplementation could be improved upon?

• Has your state identified interim benchmarks to en-sure the policies are being implementing efficiently(e.g. reaching its intended targets)?

• Is your state positioned to make necessary mid-course corrections along the way? Has your stateidentified what elements of your reform are funda-mental and therefore “non-negotiable?”

Well-Integrated Policies ThatPromote P-20Alignment

Reforms are strongest when they are aligned with otherreforms and thus become part of a larger whole. Piece-meal efforts are relatively easier to “pick off” and rollback than reforms that have hooks and tentacles acrossa state’s policy landscape. And more important, policiesare more effective when they are connected coherentlyto others and are well integrated within the state’s policyenvironment. Policy coherence is achieved by promot-ing mutually reinforcing policy actions across agencies,departments and systems in alignment toward a com-mon goal.

To achieve true policy integration, state leaders shouldhave a good understanding of the current scope of edu-cation policy and reform in their states and how the newcollege- and career-ready reforms fit into that land-scape. All too frequently education reforms are siloed bylevel of education (e.g. early education, elementary, sec-ondary, higher education, etc.) or by the student popu-lations they aim to serve, often to the detriment of thestate’s full P-20 education pipeline.

This is especially relevant to the college- and career-ready agenda, which seeks to strengthen the alignmentof K-12 and postsecondary systems. As such, it is par-ticularly important that K-12 and higher education poli-cies are aligned and mutually reinforcing to ensuresmooth transitions for students and the sustainability ofthe agenda. For example, states could:

• Align their high school assessment and graduationrequirement policies with their state higher education’sadmissions, placement and financial aid policies.

• Align their college- and career-ready academic stan-dards with their professional development standards.

• Develop a coherent dual enrollment policy thatstreamlines funding and transfer of credit for students.

• Align their dropout prevention programs with thecollege- and career-ready reforms.

• Develop programs to improve the middle to highschool transition, such as bridge programs, that areanchored in college- and career-ready expectations.

The more policies fit together in a coherent fashion—with all sectors signaling the same expectations—theeasier it is to communicate policy changes with stu-dents, parents and the public at large, and the moredurable the reforms will become.

More broadly, after any major reform has been passed,as new policies come online, there should be a con-certed effort to make sure they are aligned—or, at aminimum, not in conflict with—the reform. For example,if a state puts a new set of graduation course require-ments in place, any subsequent changes to the high


17

school assessment system should be planned with aneye toward their relationship to the graduation require-ments. Or if a state is planning a new low-performingschools initiative or policy, leaders should consider howcollege and career readiness will be factored in whendetermining which schools are meeting their targets andwhich need extra help.

KeyQuestions toAsk to Ensure Policy Integration• Did your state conduct a review of existing policies todetermine how the new reform would impact, overlapor conflict with them? Has it given clear direction onhow all policies fit together and on the state’s goals?

• How have college- and career-ready policies inten-tionally been “linked” with other K-12, higher educa-tion or workforce policies, initiatives or incentives?

• When other state education reforms are introduced,are efforts taken to determine how they may align withor reinforce the college- and career-ready policies?Are similar efforts taken to leverage federal reformsand resources?

Highly Functional “Quasi-Governmental” Entities

One of the most significant challenges in sustainingreforms is ensuring that they have broad enough owner-ship so that they can continue to thrive when key leadersleave office. Some of the strategies described earlierspeak to the importance of cultivating a broad array ofgovernment and non-government leaders to serve aschampions of the reforms. Some of the most successfulstates have created quasi-governmental (public-private)organizations made up of key cross-sector leaders andhave given those organizations overarching responsibili-ties for monitoring and guiding the implementation of thereforms. This can be a very effective way to broaden

ownership and hold the state and other key actors ac-countable for results.

The most successful and highly functional quasi-gov-ernmental entities are typically those that are institution-alized or recognized officially by law or executive order,have real decisionmaking authority, and have broad po-litical support to enable them to survive gubernatorialturnover. Successful quasi-governmental entities alsotypically include both natural allies and unexpected sup-porters, as well as stakeholders from both inside andoutside of the government, to facilitate open debate andhelp competing interests find common ground.

P-20 councils are an example of quasi-governmentalorganizations that many states already have in placethat could serve this role with college- and career-readypolicies. The advantage of these groups is they includeleaders from K-12, higher education and workforce de-velopment, each of which is very important for the col-lege- and career-ready agenda. The challenge with P-20councils is that few of them have the necessary author-ity to make policy design or implementation decisions;instead they provide a forum for conversations andsometimes may simply make policy recommendationsfor others to act on.

The more policies fit together in acoherent fashion—with all sectorssignaling the same expectations—theeasier it is to communicate policychanges with students, parents andthe public at large, and the moredurable the reforms will become.

18


Indiana’s Education RoundtableIn the mid-1990s, informal conversations about Indi-ana’s education system began between leaders of keyconstituencies, including business, K-12 and postsec-ondary leaders. These informal, yet facilitated discus-sions, began to chip away at a long-standing stalematebetween business and educators (especially the stateteachers’ union), who had a history of squaring off re-peatedly on opposite sides of any issue. These discus-sions were endorsed by Governor Frank O’Bannon in1998 when he created the Indiana Education Round-table, which included leaders from K–12, the businesscommunity, higher education, the Legislature and thecommunity.

When the General Assembly formalized the Roundtablein state law in 1999, it charged the entity with importantrule-making responsibilities, including the developmentof a P–16 plan and the adoption of new “world class”K–12 standards. From its inception, the Roundtable wasboth impressive in its membership and bipartisan in itswork, with Governor O’Bannon (D) and State Superin-tendent Suellen Reed (R) acting as co-chairs.

In 2004, the Roundtable came together in support ofmaking Core 40—then a voluntary college- and career-ready curriculum—the requirement for all of Indiana’shigh school students. The Roundtable offered theirplan—to make Core 40 both the default requirement forhigh school graduation (with an “escape clause” toallow families and students to knowingly opt out of thecurriculum) and the minimum admissions requirementfor Indiana’s four-year higher education institutions – tothe Legislature.

Although the vote in the legislature wasn’t a slam dunk,by all accounts the Roundtable’s endorsement and itspublic deliberations to reach its recommendation pavedthe way and dampened opposition; in 2005, Core 40was adopted as the default high school curriculum forall students and as the minimum admissions require-ment for Indiana four-year institutions, both effective be-ginning with the class of 2011. As one Roundtable

member observed, “When there are disparate voicestelling them what to do, legislators can make excusesnot to act. When the Roundtable spoke with one voice,the Legislature had no other way to go.”

More than ten years (and two new governors and astate superintendent of education) later, the EducationRoundtable continues to meet regularly and play a rolein the state’s education reform. In March 2009, for ex-ample, the Roundtable passed a resolution recom-mending that the State Board of Education adopt thelatest version of the state’s academic standards inmathematics, certifying the quality and external validityof the standards.

South Carolina’s Institutionalized EntitiesSouth Carolina’s Education Improvement Act (EIA) wasremarkable in a number of ways, but it was particularlyinnovative in that it institutionalized a number of govern-mental and public-private entities to monitor and pro-vide feedback on the implementation and evolution ofthe law.

For one, the EIA institutionalized a version of the blue-ribbon committees first formed by Governor Riley toconceptualize an education reform package. The stand-alone, independent Business-Education Partnership andCommittee on Financing Excellence were required underlaw to convene at least once annually to review the im-plementation of the act and recommend improvements.In 1989, these quasi-governmental, public-private com-mittees were reconstituted as the Business-EducationPartnership for Excellence in Education and its standingBusiness-Education Subcommittee. The Business-Edu-cation Subcommittee, in particular, played a significantrole in reviewing state plans and progress reports to en-sure any new or existing programs were being imple-mented efficiently and effectively.

The bill also created a Select Committee—a legislativelyformed, yet independent entity that included political,business, education and civic leaders—tasked with re-viewing and monitoring the implementation and evalua-tion of the EIA programs and funding. The Select

18


19

Committee was composed of state leaders or their de-signees, including the speaker of the house, chairmen ofthe house and senate education committees, state su-perintendent of education, chairman of the commissionon higher education and others. The Select Committeewas largely responsible for issuing annual reports to theGeneral Assembly, State Board of Education and publicon the progress of the programs and their impacts andmaking recommendations about necessary funding orprogrammatic changes.

In 1998, when the Education Accountability Act waspassed, the Select Committee was replaced with theEducation Oversight Committee (EOC) and re-tasked tofocus on overseeing the provisions of the new law, al-though the EOC still has a subcommittee dedicated tothe EIA and improvement mechanisms.

Finally, the law established a new Division for Public Ac-countability “for the planning and development of theimplementation of the Education Improvement Act,”which was housed in the Department of Education, butmaintained a level of autonomy. This decision wasmade to ensure the Division was neither adversarial tothe Department nor absorbed into it, could access thenecessary data, and didn’t lose credibility with outsidestakeholders. This “special unit” was mandated to existonly until 1991 to plan, monitor, and review programsdeveloped under the EIA and provide information, rec-ommendations, and an annual assessment of the Act tothe governor, Select Committee, and Business-Educa-tion Subcommittee.

Between 1984 when the EIA first passed and the mid-1990s while the Division for Public Accountability, Busi-ness-Education Partnership and Business-EducationSubcommittee were all still in existence, the combinedpresence, authority and visibility of these entities madeit very difficult for anyone to undermine the EIA.

KeyQuestions toAskAboutQuasi-GovernmentalMechanisms• Does your state have a quasi-governmental entity? Ifso, is it “highly functional,” i.e. has some level of deci-sionmaking authority, is institutionalized officiallyand/or has survived gubernatorial turnover?

• Does your state’s quasi-governmental entity provide aforum for key stakeholders to plan for, implement andsupport the college- and career-ready reform agenda?

• If your state doesn’t have a quasi-governmental entity,are there plans to create one to support the college-and career-ready agenda?

Data Collection andUseIt is critical that states develop a P-20 longitudinal datasystem that regularly matches student-level data acrossthe K-12 and postsecondary systems to monitor stu-dent progress and transitions. Just as postsecondaryinstitutions require detailed information about the aca-demic preparation of applicants and incoming students,it is also important for high schools and teachers toknow the extent of their graduates’ postsecondarysuccess to better prepare future cohorts of students.States need to collect a broad array of college- and ca-reer-ready indicators—including student course-takingand achievement data, an accurate graduation measure,postsecondary remediation and persistence rates, andcollege- and career-ready assessment data—to have arobust data system capable of evaluating student transi-tions out of high school and into college and careers.

The use of data can be a powerful tool in building,maintaining and sustaining support for the college- andcareer-ready reforms over time, clearly illuminatingweaknesses or failures of the existing education system.States can use student-level achievement, access andattainment data to justify and rally people around the

20

college- and career-ready agenda. Disaggregated datathat demonstrate equity gaps between disadvantagedstudents and their more advantaged peers are particu-larly compelling in making the case for change. Eco-nomic and workforce data can also be powerful whenexplaining the need for graduating all students ready forcollege and careers. States, for example, may evaluatethe outlook for future jobs and whether their educationsystem has been producing enough qualified workersto meet the areas of growing demand.

After college- and career-ready policies have been im-plemented, collecting and sharing data remains a criti-cal component of maintaining support. Often the firstround of data collected after a new reform is institutedis discouraging (i.e. the first administration of a newexam may yield low achievement levels across theboard), but can be very effective at demonstrating whythe new reforms were so necessary in the first placeand help spur more action. Even if the data are notpositive, it is critical to share as much data as often aspossible to demonstrate the continued need and main-tain a transparent and open process.

Most importantly, only data can let states know accu-rately whether the reforms are having their intendedimpact. Plus, many state longitudinal data systems in-clude financial data, allowing policymakers to evaluatewhich programs or policies are the most efficient or themost wasteful and then make adjustments as necessary.

Access to student-level achievement data gives teach-ers the information they need to tailor instruction forstudents and gives administrators important informa-tion to manage their resources and staff effectively.States need to develop technical training so that anyand all relevant stakeholders can access the data anduse them in meaningful ways.

KeyQuestions toAskAboutData Collection andUse

• Does your state have a functioning P-20 longitudinaldata system; i.e., does your state currently matchstudent-level records from a K-12 longitudinal datasystem with student records in the postsecondarydata system(s) at least once annually?

• Does your state collect and report student-level data,including course-taking, achievement and attainmentdata? Does it use the data to support your advocacyand communications efforts? To monitor the imple-mentation and impact of the college- and career-ready reforms?

• Has your state developed the technical capacity andprovided the necessary training for school-level per-sonnel to access and use student-level data in theclassroom?

• Is your state using relevant workforce (e.g. workforcegrowth projections) and postsecondary (e.g. remedi-ation rates in two- and four-year institutions) data toinform policy, advocacy and communications efforts?

ConclusionFor any education reform to take root and produceresults, it needs to be implemented thoughtfully andsustained over time. This is especially true of policiesdesigned to ensure that all students graduate ready forcollege and careers. Unfortunately, implementation andsustainability planning is not typically high on the listfor policymakers and education leaders when design-ing ambitious reforms.

While conventional wisdom suggests that educationreform is notoriously difficult to sustain in the long run,Taking Root: Strategies for Sustaining the College- andCareer-Ready Agenda demonstrates that sustainabilityis not only possible, but also attainable. Achieve’s re-search in Indiana, Massachusetts, South Carolina andTexas shows that there are a core set of elements thatdistinguish sustainable reforms from those that do nottake root. With the proper attention to these issues, webelieve all states—those that are just embarking oncollege- and career-ready reforms and those that havealready put ambitious policies in place—can dramati-cally increase their chances of success.


21

AcknowledgementsAchieve would like to thank the individuals and organizations whocontributed to Taking Root: Strategies for Sustaining the College- andCareer-Ready Agenda.

Achieve would first like to thank the GE Foundation for the generousfunding they provided for this project and for all of their support overthe past four years.

In addition, this report would not have been possible without the co-operation and assistance of individuals across the four states studied(Indiana, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Texas) who agreed to beinterviewed and provided valuable feedback for this project. For a fulllist of interviewees, see the individual state case studies.

Achieve would like to thank the members of its staff for their hard workon this report: Kate Blosveren, senior policy analyst, who served as theproject director for Taking Root; Matt Gandal, executive vice president,who provided the overall leadership for the project; Sandy Boyd, vicepresident, strategic communications and outreach, who served as theproject’s senior advisor and editor; and Alissa Peltzman, associatedirector, state leadership and policy development, and StephaniePorowski, research assistant, who provided additional support.

Achieve also would like to thank Jennifer Vranek, Bill Porter and theteam at Education First Consulting, and Craig Jerald of Break theCurve Consulting, for their invaluable policy and research expertise.

Finally, Achieve would like to thank Gregg Burrage, Suzanne Benoit,Marjorie Tucker-Pfeiffer and the team at Rings Leighton Design Groupfor their editorial and design contributions.

Michael Cohen

President

Achieve

AchieveBoard of DirectorsCo-ChairsGovernor Tim PawlentyState of Minnesota

Craig R. BarrettChairman of the BoardIntel Corporation

Board MembersGovernor Jennifer GranholmState of Michigan

Edward B. Rust, Jr.Chairman & Chief Executive OfficerState Farm Insurance

Governor Donald L. CarcieriState of Rhode Island

Mark B. GrierVice ChairmanPrudential Financial, Inc.

Governor Phil BredesenState of Tennessee

JeffreyWadsworthPresident & Chief Executive OfficerBattelle

Governor Dave HeinemanState of Nebraska

Governor Deval PatrickCommonwealth of Massachusetts

Chair EmeritusLouis Gerstner, Jr.Former Chairman& Chief Executive OfficerIBM Corporation

PresidentMichael Cohen

TreasurerPeter SayreControllerPrudential Financial, Inc.

Achieve, Inc.

1775 Eye Street NW, Suite 410 • Washington, DC 20006

P 202.419.1540 • F 202.828.0911 • www.achieve.org

Taking Root - Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

Documents

Transcript of Taking Root - Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda