‘My Only Goal is Success’
Capitol Ideas Interviews Education Secretary Arne Duncan
By Mary Branham
The Obama administration is taking steps to engage the states in a new dialogue to address issues facing education in the U.S. today. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a former Chicago school superintendent, is leading the charge to spark reform in the nation’s schools. He’s open to anything that will address underperforming schools and close the achievement gap, and that includes altering the way education funding is awarded, as well as supporting changes states are already making. “My only goal is success,” he said.
What do you see as the proper federal role in education policy?
“Our role in Washington is to support reform by encouraging bold approaches to addressing underperforming schools, closing the achievement gap, strengthening the field of education, reducing the dropout rate and boosting college access and success. Historically, the department has been an agency that monitored compliance with federal regulations. I want the department to become an engine of innovation. I want the department to provide powerful incentives to states, districts, and nonprofits to innovate—but at the same time leave most of the entrepreneurship for achieving our common goals in local hands. People want national leadership but not at the expense of local control.”
What are the lasting legacies of No Child Left Behind—both the positive and negative consequences?
“No Child Left Behind helped to expose the achievement gap by requiring reporting of test scores by all students and all subgroups. It made sure that schools were accountable for the performance of all students, including those that were previously excluded from accountability. It required that we measure our efforts to improve education by looking at outcomes and it helped create a national conversation about student achievement.
“On the other hand, NCLB unfairly labeled many schools as failures even when they were making progress. It placed too much emphasis on standardized tests, and didn’t account for students’ academic growth in its accountability system.
“NCLB’s biggest mistake was that it didn’t encourage high learning standards. By letting each state define ‘proficiency,’ it encouraged states to lower standards. The net effect is that we told parents and kids they were succeeding when, in fact, they were not.”
“ESEA needs a fair system of accountability that—instead of labeling schools as failing but not providing support to improve—will focus the most intensive interventions and resources on the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools and those with persistent achievement gaps. Rather than dictating one-size-fits all solutions—we want to give the vast majority of schools flexibility to improve. We want to reward schools that accelerate student achievement, and identify and reward outstanding teachers and leaders. We also want to support students most at risk in low-performing schools and schools with large, persistent achievement gaps. But we need to focus on turning around the bottom 5 percent of schools so they give students the world-class education they deserve.”
You said in your “Quiet Revolution” speech that the Race to the Top competition “unleashed an avalanche of pent-up education reform activity at the state and local level.” Why do you think the limited funding in the grant program ignited the reform efforts in the state?
“States have responded to the financial incentive of Race to the Top to build their capacity for reform. In 46 states and the District of Columbia, governors, educators, parents, union leaders and community activists worked together to create bold, comprehensive plans for reform. Every state that applied will benefit from this consensus-building process. They have bold plans for reforms with statewide buy-in. Beyond Race to the Top, other federal dollars will support their plans to raise standards, improve teaching, and use data more effectively to support student learning and turn around underperforming schools.”
Do you expect those changes to last, even in states that don’t receive the grant funding?
“I have often said this isn’t just about the money. Real change is driven by people willing to give their lives to a cause. States, districts, teachers and school leaders are fed up with schools that don’t work. They know that changing our schools is about working together and putting the needs of children ahead of everyone else. The entire process has moved the nation and already dramatically accelerated education reform. I’m confident that our nation’s leaders are committed to continuing reforms.”
Are there any plans to expand the Race to the Top funding to states?
“President Obama has indicated that he wants to keep the momentum of Race to the Top going. He is proposing to make Race to the Top a permanent part of the department’s budget—requesting $1.35 billion in fiscal 2011.
“In our ‘Blueprint for Reform’ of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we have proposed expanding Race to the Top to include both state- and district-level competitions.”
You have also awarded several School Improvement Grants to help states turn around persistently low performing schools. How would you like to see states use these funds?
“Through the Title I School Improvement Grants program, states are identifying almost 5,000 schools that need to be turned around. They have been chronically underperforming and need to be fundamentally changed.
“With grants from this program, we are supporting local efforts to adopt proven turnaround strategies. These schools will need to make tough choices about improving their leadership and teaching to accelerate student achievement.
“I have seen this work in Chicago. In one of the toughest neighborhoods, we replaced a high school where only 4 percent of incoming freshmen were at grade level and 60 percent never graduated—with Urban Prep, an all-male, all black charter high school. Their success made national news. They just graduated their first class—107 graduates who are headed off to four-year colleges and universities. That's what happens when we raise expectations. That is the kind of thing states can do with their grants.”
Some state officials are concerned that competitive grants will replace formula funding. Why is it important to have these two mechanisms to award funding?
“We don’t want to get sidetracked in a false choice between competitive and formula funding—we need them both. Formula programs provide important foundational support for the education of students with unique needs, such as disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. Competitive programs provide incentives for reform that will help all students and they will reward proposals that give priority to high-need students. Our Blueprint and our 2011 budget request both call for maintaining funding formula programs. In our proposed 2011 budget, 80 percent of the funding for K-12 programs is formula funding.”
The Common Core State Standards Initiative http://www.corestandards.org/ has garnered support from many states, and 34 of them have adopted the standards thus far. What can common academic standards bring to education in the U.S.?
“In America, we have had 50 different standards and 50 different goal posts. In basketball the basket is always 10 feet high. In football the field is always 100 yards long. A three-pointer is always worth three points and a touchdown is always worth six. Only in education do we have 50 different goalposts. When parents are told their children are ‘meeting a state standard,’ they assume that their child is on track to be successful. But in states with low standards, that’s not true. The state-led effort to adopt common standards that are designed to prepare students for college and careers, will give parents an honest report of their children’s progress.”
For years, K12 and higher education have often worked in silos, not communicating what it means to prepare a student to be college- or career-ready. With adoption of the Common Core State Standards, and consortia prepared to develop common state assessments, how do you think we can mobilize these initiatives to create the intentional dialogue which will align K-12 systems and postsecondary education?
“Collaboration and linkages between early learning, K-12, higher education and adult education can be game-changing for our children and our country. Their mutual self- interest will drive the development of rigorous standards, enhance the profession of teaching, and improve the data systems that will drive reform. Three areas are ripe for collaboration: the development of rigorous, college- and career-ready standards; rethinking teacher preparation programs and professional development; and developing comprehensive cradle-to-career data systems that incorporate strong safeguards to protect student privacy.
“To reach the president’s goal that America should once again have the highest college graduation rate in the world by the end of the decade, K-12 and higher education must become synergistic—working together to accomplish much more than working apart. If they continue to expand their collaboration, align their work and share their resources, they can produce meaningful agreements that have the authority to impact the way the education system actually works.“
You are a proponent of charter schools, and yet the jury is still out on whether charter schools are the answer. What makes a charter school successful, and why do you think there are those that still face challenges?
“Charter schools are public schools. They serve our children with our money. They are accountable to taxpayers—just as traditional public schools are. One big difference is that they have more autonomy. The best of them go beyond the regular school day and provide social services such as parenting classes for young moms. They stay with students every step of the way—from pre-K through college. I have said repeatedly that I am not a fan of charters—but I am a fan of good charters—just as I am a fan of good traditional schools. My only goal is success.”
Urban schools face special challenges. As a former Chicago school superintendent, how do you think the federal government work with states and local districts to address these challenges?
“Our urban schools need to accelerate student achievement. But we know from the data that all of our schools need to improve. People across the country need to work together to create the schools that all of America's children deserve, regardless of their income, race, religion or ZIP code.
“We have to make success the norm. Two obstacles stand in the way of taking success to scale—the first is the belief that poverty is destiny. The second is the trap of the blame game. I learned in Chicago that school turnarounds are tough work. I cannot think of a more urgent step in the struggle for equal opportunity than remaking our nation's dropout factories and the elementary schools that feed them. Unfortunately, we find about half of our failing schools in big cities, but wherever they are, our work is to eliminate the excuses and hold ourselves accountable.”
Higher education has gotten out of reach for many middle class families. How will the changes in higher education funding backed by the Obama administration help those families better afford higher education?
“President Obama has said that a person’s success in life will depend more and more not on a high school diploma, but on a college degree, on work force training and on a higher education. So we have to make college more affordable for people of all income levels. The federal government is tripling our investment in tax credits for our middle class families. We’re increasing Pell Grants. We’re also allowing borrowers to pay back students loans based on their income, so students across the country don’t graduate with massive loan payments they can’t afford. And for people who are teachers or work in other forms of public service, if they base their student loan payments on their public service salary, after 10 years making payments any remaining balance on their loans will be forgiven.”
Civics education is dwindling in the U.S. and there is no national effort for civic education. As politicians suffer from historically low approval ratings and the public fails to understand the tradeoffs and costs to government programs, are there any plans at the federal level to tackle this issue?
“A well-educated student must be exposed to a well-rounded curriculum. The study of history and civics helps students make connections and empowers them to reach their full academic and social potential. Unfortunately, many schools today aren’t providing a content-rich curriculum. Under our new ESEA proposal, high-need districts, and states and nonprofits in partnership with high-need districts, would be eligible to apply for grants through the Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education program, which would place a priority on cross-subject learning. At the same time, we would increase access and funding for college-level, dual credit, and other accelerated courses in high-need schools to support not only a well-rounded, but a rigorous curriculum. Finally, our proposed accountability system would relieve most schools and districts from the pressure they have felt under NCLB to focus on year-to-year test scores in just reading and math, giving them the flexibility and support they need to ensure all their students receive a college- and career-ready, well-rounded education.”
