EducationCounsel is a mission-based education consulting firm that combines experience in policy, strategy, law, and advocacy to drive significant improvements in the U.S. education system.
This memo responds to the Trump Administration’s announcement of its intention to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program over the next 6 months. That action, which is expected to be challenged in court, does not in any way undercut the clear legal rights of undocumented students to attend K-12 public schools free of impediment and harassment. This memo outlines the settled rights of students, regardless of immigration status, to equal access to public education.
Advancing ESSA’s goals – equity and excellence – will require as much attention to teaching and leadership as to accountability, standards, and assessment. Learning Forward and EducationCounsel’s new toolkit, A New Vision for Professional Learning, helps states use ESSA to establish learning systems in schools that transform educator practice and improve student learning. The toolkit includes an overview of ESSA’s provisions on professional learning, checklists for states aligned to the five conditions states must establish to improve professional learning, and a number of new tools to establish a state vision for professional learning, examine current investments, and write a question in ESSA local plans that gets at the heart of professional learning that works.
Secretary Riley joins bipartisan group of former Secretary’s of Education asking Congressional leadership to quickly act to protect those in the DACA program.
In the 1940s, Russia developed a prototype of a new military advancement called the Antonov A-40. It was an ambitious, seemingly innovative leap forward that would provide battlefield support and overwhelming, agile deployment. It was also, quite literally, a flying tank. For reasons that seem obvious in retrospect—weight and inefficient transportation chief among them—it was not functional in practice and thankfully never produced at wide scale. However, the lessons learned regarding its design ultimately provided beneficial advances to future military developments.
Federal lawmakers would be wise to heed the lesson that all ideas—particularly those with billions of dollars at stake—should not be rushed into wide-scale production. Many of them seem eager to open the $130 billion per year of taxpayer funding to new ways of providing higher education instruction without any assurance that these programs provide quality outcomes to their students. It’s still too early to tell if these innovative models will turn out to be the Antonov A-40 or the (significantly more effective) Chinook helicopter of higher education, but it’s not hard to see the potential damage—for both taxpayers and students—of going into “mass production” at this early stage, without assuring that the quality, design, and outcomes of such innovative programs are well understood.
Because Congress and the Trump Administration have signaled enthusiasm to opening Federal student aid to shorter term and other nontraditional providers, it is critical to develop quality assurance models that can meet the needs of these new learning delivery methods. It isn’t clear that accreditors—the traditional arbiters of quality more focused on inputs such as course catalogs than on outcomes like employment, earnings, and aptitude—are the right fit for newer learning models that focus more on building a skill set for adults looking to gain an additional certification for their next job. The bad news is that currently, there is no consensus and little evidence for what such a quality assurance regime would look like. The good news is that a little-known Federal experiment known as EQUIP—Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships—is in the early stages of making Federal funding available to test whether such quality assurance providers could serve as a backstop for ensuring students are getting a superior education in exchange for their taxpayer-funded Federal grants and loans. The time is ripe to enable such innovation, to evaluate whether these quality assurance models can ensure that both taxpayer and student investments would be sufficiently protected.
I’ll never forget the first lessons I witnessed as a student teacher in a 4th grade classroom that, already in elementary school, embodied the notion of college and career ready preparation. The classroom had a mix of students of all abilities and backgrounds, including many students with disabilities and many who had just arrived in this country. These fourth graders were learning about geography, topography, and how to read maps – a set of lessons designed to help them master rigorous state and district standards. Desks were clustered in groups around the classroom — some at computers, some at art stations, some around maps, and some around writing materials – all different ways to engage with, learn, and apply geography concepts.
Students who needed it received more individualized supports and instruction from the teacher, including in evidence-based peer interaction techniques and academic supports. As students learned the concepts, they also had to figure out how to collaborate, create, and write-up their projects together. There was no sitting at desks and memorizing geographic terms for a quiz – but, by the end of the unit, these students all demonstrated their deep knowledge of geography and map skills in a meaningful way. And that’s not all they knew. They had practiced working with each other, testing and communicating their ideas, peer editing, and problem-solving – doing the things people are expected to be able to do on the job and in life today.
Get EducationCounsel E-Updates.