By Jim Stergios
March 13th, 2010
In the past days, the announcements by Minnesota and Virginia that they are most likely not going to adopt the common core standards drove giant holes right through the wall of consensus that the CCSSO and NGA have tried to maintain.
Ze’ev Wurman, a high-tech executive in Silicon Valley active in developing California’s standards and assessments in the mid-1990s, and Sandy Stotsky, one of the nation’s top experts on academic standards, authored our research, Race to the Middle?, chronicling the numerous weaknesses in previous drafts of the common core standards drafts, as well as the soft conceptual underpinning for the whole effort.
In today’s Boston Globe, they come out swinging on the public comment drafts. This is a must read, as it encapsulates many of the major points. Look for more on this from Pioneer.
By Jim Stergios
March 12th, 2010
Seems our report and the release of the common core standards draft have set off a lot of interest in Massachusetts’ view, and especially in Pioneer’s take on the national standards effort. See Jay Greene’s blog for a long string of comments. Here is a bit of a longish overview of some of the issues we see in this from the Massachusetts and the national perspective. First, the Mass perspective:
1. Standards are the lifeblood of student achievement in public schools; and that includes even those site-based managed schools that are based on parental choice. You all know the stories of charters and voucher programs that don’t deliver the kind of transformational improvement we all want. In MA, our charters for the most part are of a higher quality than elsewhere and far outperform their district counterparts. In part that is because of the great upfront business planning/vetting and accountability/closure processes (yes, regulation), but it is even more because MA has set really high academic standards, assessments, and teacher testing. Charters are effective at attaining goals but you have to set high academic goals for them to be good schools with high-achieving students. Arizona, with its numerous but too often lower quality charter schools, take note.
2. The March common core academic standards drafts, notwithstanding improvements that we see on the math side and also on the ELA side, still fall way short of what Massachusetts or Minnesota have. We have systematically gone through the previous drafts and we have also gone through the latest drafts. We are not there, and not even close. There are lots of problems with specific ELA and Math standards, but there are also two larger points: (1) the wonderful lists included in the appendices are not binding, and (2) the end goal or frame for this whole exercise is the College and Career Readiness standards, which are skills-based gobbledy-gook. And the skills focus will govern the application of the ELA and math standards, and even more so the assessments.
Three broader points:
1. Checker Finn (see his comment on Jay Greene’s blog) is right to lament good-on-paper-only states, but the creation of new federal standards will not help move that any faster. In fact, the development of all new federal standards will likely slow or in fact reverse the process and gains in some states. Perhaps on that score some federal incentives to ensure implementation of state standards would be a more effective approach. After all, the changes entailed by standards are enormous, and they include local implementation by districts of the standards, assessments, and in most cases even teacher testing (which ought to be aligned with the new standards). Were the provisions of NCLB so quickly and so rigorously implemented? 
(Hate to say it, Checker, but federal officials have just as much grease in their hair as state officials.)
2. Why aren’t we moving forward based on an approach where the federal government sets a “floor” (basically minimum requirements, not “word for word” or 85% adoption of national standards as CCSSIers/ Duncan laid down) with, going forward, guarantees of flexibility for states to develop even higher standards? (See the comments of the NY Times’ Sam Dillon in this regard in a New American magazine article.) Or why not provide financial incentives for states to improve on NAEP scores and leave it to them to get it done? Massachusetts is not alone in finding that a much more comfortable fit, rather than letting decisions on standards move to Washington, where we know so much, ahem, good work goes on.
3. There are many reasons to think this is going to die of its own weight, but I’ll stick to two reasons:
a. There are so many jurisdictional trip wires on the path to moving forward that it is bound to blow up. The CCSSO, the NGA and USED have crossed into the jurisdiction of (1) Congress on the use of Title I funds in a coercive fashion; (2) many state legislatures which will want to review the intersection with key provisions of their respective statutory reforms of education; and (3) some boards of education, which will want to preserve their roles in education policy.
b. A number of states that have focused on standards (VA, CA, MN, and TX) have begun peeling off.
We certainly hope that we can list Massachusetts among the states who insist on higher standards than what the NGA/CCSSO have offered us.
By Jim Stergios
March 12th, 2010
Bob Stuart of the News Virginian reports that now
Virginia won’t jump onboard a push for national K-12 standards if it means dumping the state’s standardized test, the governor and other state officials said.
…
Some of the proposed English and math benchmarks already are partially embedded in Virginia’s standardized test, known as the Standards of Learning, or SOL, educators said.
While Gov. Robert F. McDonnell supports the idea of international benchmarks, he said he does not want to substitute the core English and math standards for the SOL’s.
“The commonwealth’s policies have demonstrated a significant commitment to accountability, benchmarks and positive education reform,’’ McDonnell said in a statement. “While we support the development of internationally benchmarked targets, we do not have a desire to substitute the common core standards for our Standards of Learning.”…
“We are 15 years into a successful standards-based reform,’’ Pyle said. “There is no discussion on the Board of Education about abandoning the Standards of Learning.”
The dominoes are starting to fall. See Pioneer’s recent report, Race to the Middle, on the recent draft of the proposed national standards. And look for an additional piece. Soon.
By Steve Poftak
March 12th, 2010
MIT’s Professor Peter Diamond, a well-regarded authority on employee benefits, spent some quality time last year on the Commonwealth’s Special Commission on Pension Reform. I went to every meeting and attempted to chronicle that effort.
One of the lowlights of those meetings was PERAC Executive Director Joseph Connarton’s crude mocking of the Professor at one point. It was all part of the odd dynamic in that room — the central conflict was between Connarton (who is appointed by a board that has several gubernatorial appointees) and Commission Chair Alicia Munnell and Professor Diamond (both appointed by the Governor).
Well, it seems that Diamond is going to be ok. Obama is going to appoint him to the Federal Reserve.
By Jim Stergios
March 12th, 2010
As Sam Dillon of the New York Times noted our opposition to the national standards effort because it would weaken the Massachusetts standards.
And now the opposition builds. Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota punched a hole in the life raft that the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association are drifting along on, together with all their fellow travelers, by refusing to join the national standards effort because it would entail weakening the state’s math standards:
“The math portion of the draft K-12 education standards unveiled today would water down Minnesota’s rigorous standards that require students to take algebra by eighth grade. In a hypercompetitive world, Minnesota should not adopt less rigorous standards than we currently have in place.”
Yup. Minnesota is important because it is, like Massachusetts, one of the nation’s leading educational systems. More states to come, and let’s hope Secretary Reville and Commissioner Chester stay true to their word and refuse to adopt anything less rigorous than our great standards.
By Maria Ortiz Perez
March 10th, 2010
After reading this article I thought to myself: “I am definitely in the wrong business”.
Serendipitously, I was reading this morning an article in this week’s
Economist* called “
Sharing the Pain” that talked about increasing budget deficits and our current inability to continue financing growth with debt. The article made the following point:
“[...] that leaves two other ways of closing the deficit. Spending must be cut or taxpayers must pay more. Many political battles of the next few years will be fought on these simple lines, with tax payers on one side and the beneficiaries of public spending on the other. One imminent battle will be between taxpayers and public sector workers.”
I can see how as a public employee I would want to fight for what I think I deserve. A former municipal employee myself, I know that the argument is that salaries in the private sector are always higher so you might as well enjoy the perks as a public servant.
But when I look on one hand at how much municipalities are paying its employees (i.e. a sick-leave buyback payment of $69,767 at retirement), and on the other witness pay cuts, furloughs and layoffs in the private sector, I cannot help but thinking “Aren’t we all in this together?”
To avoid the “imminent battle” between government employees and taxpayers, we must stop this “milking-the-fat-government-cow” mentality that public employees are displaying. How is this different from the greedy attitude in Wall Street that everyone is so offended by?
We are all -private and public sectors- going through tough times, and we all share the responsibility of getting out of this mess. Why aren’t our leaders putting an end to this “others got it, why can’t I?” attitude in government?
* The Economist March 6ht, 2010. Requires subscription
By Jim Stergios
March 10th, 2010
There is a reasonable accommodation that has to be made as regards the libraries in Boston. Here are a few facts that no one debates:
More and more information, and more and more books, are being viewed online;
There are specific areas and groups who have less access to online resources;
The libraries are currently understaffed, and that will be more so if no changes are made;
The library hours will need to be cut down if no changes are made.
The mayor deserves praise for raising this issue and noting that we have to change with the times. Does that mean shuttering all the libraries. Heck no. We need libraries as physical spaces where children and moms, people who are employed and looking for information, people who are unemployed who are looking to better themselves, and anybody who wants to walk through the stacks can go.
But we also need more resources dedicated to staff, to hours at branches, and to online options in order to keep up with a number of “customers”. The outcry about closing some library branches strikes me as way out of line. Why don’t we take a look at other cities and see how many branch libraries they have per capita. We may want to have more. But we should know what we are doing and deciding. For example, a quick look at Manhattan, a little bitty slice of land with almost 1.7 million people, has 44 branches.
Boston, with three times fewer people, has 26? Again, let’s talk rationally about these things.
We need to figure out what library users need and ensure that we serve all needs, but I think we can do that without all the halberds raised.
By Steve Poftak
March 9th, 2010
Got your attention? The State has put a wealth of disclosure from health insurers and providers up on the web. I lack the time and, frankly, the chops to really get at all the good stuff but I did find a few interesting pieces of disclosure.
In Partners’s disclosure, they note the rates they charge insurers could have been 18% lower in 2008, if government funded programs had covered their costs. (Yes, I am naively assuming that the insurers would pass that savings along to consumers.)
Put another way, Partners had negative operating margins of -33% on Medicare and -44% on Medicaid in 2009.
Also, floating around in the ether around the federal health care reform debate is a proposal to cut Medicare reimbursement by 21% (ah-ha, savings!). That’s not going to happen and if it did, it won’t help things.
So, the hospitals eat these losses and lose money, right? No, privately insured customers end up subsidizing the difference. Puts the “Medicare for All” argument in a different light doesn’t it?
So, am I advocating for a massive expansion of Medicaid and Medicare spending? No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that both these very expensive programs are also getting a hidden subsidy from private payers. Expanding either of them will increase that subsidy.
By Maria Ortiz Perez
March 8th, 2010
I applaud the initiative of state officials and the city manager in Lowell to investigate the alleged lack of integrity and professionalism displayed by DPW and Parks and Recreation workers in Lowell.
In a time of scarcity and aid cuts, municipal government should really exercise a “zero-tolerance” policy for the misuse of funds. And this issue also points to a bigger problem in local government, one of nepotism and corruption.
However, I would invite both state and local officials, and particularly DPW and Parks and Recreation bosses T.J. McCarthy and Thomas Bellegarde, not to focus their efforts on finding scapegoats. Yes, people who abused their authority should be held accountable. But looking at a bigger picture and from a managerial standpoint: what processes and systems can be put in place in order to avoid these issues in the future?
Data analysis, combined with some basic performance management tools such as measuring workers’ daily productivity could solve this issue. I – government- measure what my employees are accomplishing, I benchmark their results with my productivity goals, and I look for solutions that make them more efficient as workers and get me the best bang for my buck. And if someone wants to take a city owned vehicle for their purposes, I know right away, and can take action immediately.
Isn’t government (even local) a multi-million dollar operation? Why aren’t we demanding from our government to keep track of the outcomes municipal employees are producing like stakeholders demand reports from companies? It is OUR tax money, isn’t it?
By Jim Stergios
March 6th, 2010
The Senate is hard at work on its version of a rescue package for the city of Lawrence. Most people expect something quite a bit more directive – more power for an overseer – than what the House did, which was, to be blunt, irresponsible to the City and to the residents of the state.
I have to wonder how we got here. Sure, there are the charter issues, and the Senate would do a great service to all by insisting that the city council and the mayor, as a condition of the line of credit, revoke the entirety of Section 3.7 of the city’s charter, which ties the executive’s hands on department heads. Essentially the city council has to approve hires and fires. It’s made the quality of services uneven at best, and of terrible quality for the most part.
The House essentially required the city to go into GIC and to move Medicare eligibles off city rolls. More needs to happen in the Senate, like reining in muni employee salary and benefit enhancements, scrubbing the benefit rolls to ensure people are supposed to be on there, etc.
Lots of good things can happen there, but I kind of wonder why people external to the city did not see this coming. I mean if you look back at the city’s 2002 debt management policy statement, which was to guide its actions in important areas of finance, it looks pretty good.
You have a battery of experts they are trying to lean on, including the usual suspects, bond counsel, etc. I wish some reporter would dig into who these people were and question them. I mean, they must have opined that the city was managing itself well before creditors, right? So what would they say now? And where are they now?
Doesn’t anybody do investigative journalism anymore?
Previous Posts
