What Works and What Doesn’t in Education Policy?


– Good morning. My name is Crystal Brakke and I am a part of the
1999 North Carolina corps. It’s wonderful to see
all of you interested in this conversation
about education policy, current and soon to be corps members, alumni working inside
and outside of education and many special guests. I imagine that even with
the different lenses each of us brings to this discussion, many of us are often circling
around similar questions. For me today, as a newly
elected school board member in my community of Richfield, Minnesota the biggest question is how to cut through the competing and at times
contradictory research and efforts and initiatives that seem to emerge and disappear nearly every day. How can I understand and best advocate for policies that will
contribute to excellence and equity for our students, their families and for
our teachers and staff. I’m here to introduce the
person who’ll be leading us through this conversation
for the next 90 minutes, Andy Rotherham. Andy is the co-founder and partner at Bellwether Education Partners, a nonprofit organization
dedicated to supporting innovations in education
and improving educational outcomes for our country’s
under-served students. He is also a prolific writer. You may have seen his work as the Executive Editor
of Real Clear Education, as a Contributing Editor to
U.S. News and World Report or his own blog, Eduwonk. As a long time reader, I will put in a personal plug for Eduwonk. It’s a great source of the
latest in ed policy studies and meaningful opportunities in the field. We’re so please to have
Andy with us to moderate this discussion with the three
panelists you will soon meet. So please join me in welcoming them. (applause) – Thank you. We’re gonna have to, oh there we go, I though we were going
to use our teacher voice. Alright, how is everyone? Everyone rested, got to bed early? Sober? Good night’s sleep? Alright. Well we’re gonna try
to keep it a little bit more conversational and upbeat. I don’t know who would be
less fun for our panelists or you guys if you just got
talked at for 90 minutes so we’re gonna have a conversation and then we’re gonna leave plenty of time for questions and engage with you all. You can see there’s two mic stands. I’m gonna briefly introduce our panelists but I think over the
course of this conversation you’re gonna get a sense a little bit more of who they are. Right here immediately
on my right is Jon Shnur. Jon’s held a number of roles in education dating back two decades
in the nonprofit sector and in the public sector. Right now he advises
Bloomberg Philanthropies. He’s at American Achieves and he’s somebody who’s been an architect of a lot of the ideas and strategies that we’re gonna be talking about today. Hannah Skandera also a
veteran of the public sector and private and nonprofit sector. She’s in the public sector right
now as State Superintendent in New Mexico and you’ll be
hearing a bit more about that. Mike Johnston, also a
number of different roles. With Jon, co-founded New
Leaders for New Schools. He’s a State Senator in Colorado and has been really
instrumental there on education. And that’s the thing
you’ll pay attention to but also on a number of other issues. He’s had a fast state in political rise and a real impact in a relatively
short time in Colorado. So we’re gonna talk about, this is a tumultuous time in education as you all know. It used to be I think
when we got into this it was tumultuous nationally. It didn’t necessarily
percolate down to the classroom but what’s happening now, it affects everything, including affects what
goes on in classrooms. There’s real splits in
the education world. There’s real splits in what you might call the education reform world
about what’s working, where to go, new directions. There’s a lot of ideology. Some of this stuff is almost religion. But there’s also just a lot of unknowns and a lot of things
that people are learning and trying to figure out
the failures and successes. And that’s what we’re gonna talk about because I think today if you look, even the very best schools are not doing what we need them to do in terms of really getting all kids to where we want them to be. And we’re still faced
with this basic challenge of making what we know is possible, not only possible for
some kids but probable for many, many more
Americans than it is today. And so we’ve got just a
terrific group of people who’ve been across the political spectrum, have been involved in this, to have this conversation. But to start I’d ask you
guys to help orient us very briefly, just define the problem. Because I think different
people in the sector are actually trying to solve
potentially different problems. Like so Michael, start down here with you. Let’s come down like. When you work on education in your work, in your work now what is
the problem fundamentally that you are setting
yourself to try to solve? – Thanks Andy, it’s great to be here. Amazing crowd this morning so yes, we will keep it moving and lively. I think and we’ll talk a
little bit about looking back over what the successes
and maybe mistakes. When I think about what the problem is now or what the opportunity is now, I think it is a question of
deploying four key things in the same places at the same time. It’s an alignment question of people, of programs, of policies and of politics. What we’ve found is over the last 15 years we’ve built individual little oasis where we might be doing
one of those things right. We might have a good policy
framework in a given city but not a talent pipeline
of great teachers and principals to help execute it. We might have a couple of
highly talented school leaders but they’re working in a policy framework that makes it so impossible
for them to succeed they can’t fundamentally break through. And so I think the question now is about what can we do to make sure we have ecosystems that have
all those things aligned and have a strong talent line of people that have the right policy
framework to help them succeed, have world class programs meaning nonprofits and schools and the rest that are
building those proof points and have managed the politics so you don’t have two or
three years of great success and then you lose a school board election and the whole thing goes under water. And so for me it’s a question of alignment of those four things now and it’s a question of
execution on those four things. – [Andy] Terrific, Hannah. – I wouldn’t disagree with what you said and I would just add that it is, it’s connecting our dots and not throwing the baby
out with the bath water. I think we’ve learned incredible amount over the last decade or two when it comes to the reform movement and the propensity to overreact and actually miss all
the work that’s been done but to take what’s been done whether it’s the capital pipeline or the policies, etc. and bring them into alignment, yes. And not throw out what we’ve learned but build on it. – So first, thank you so
much for being here today. This is an amazing opportunity for people from across the country to compare notes, share ideas, improve what
you’re doing individually, what we’re doing collectively and it’s great to be a part of this. I’m really glad Andy,
you asked this question. Everyone in this room and everyone watching
this live stream I guess, and everyone goes into teaching, who work on education, everyone, virtually
everyone, everyone shares ultimately caring for children. We’re united by a sense of we’re here for what’s better and
best for our children and that unites us. What did we miss often, before we go to the
policies, which we’ll do. We don’t do it design thinking. Some of you know design thinking is actually an interesting field which says you know what, if you go right to solutions, you don’t carefully define the problem you’re trying to solve first. Of course helping our children, of course helping education but what’s the problem. You actually across the
board not even using the same language for
what your solutions are. And so I think I’ll share my view but I think for each of you and for every community in
every state across the country having a careful definition of the problem you’re trying to solve. Individually and talking
about that together is a crucial process step
before setting policy. That said, my view, but
have the discussion, is the big problem we face and the big opportunity we face right now related to
education is the following. The world has changed dramatically
in the last 10, 20 years and the pace of change is increasing. And we haven’t kept up
with the pace of change by equipping our youth with what’s needed in a vastly different economy, society, change filled world. And simply what that means is some people think in education, say the problem is we’ve
failed in our schools and failed in education systems. That’s not true. We haven’t failed. Some people say education’s fine. Well you know what, education
doing fine, good enough. Education’s not the vehicle
to improve opportunity. Education is not fine. And what’s happened is, is that we actually
have made in our country over the last couple
decades and it continues, improvements in education. We’re getting better than ever but we’re actually getting
better while falling behind the higher bar that’s been
created by a changed economy. Just very briefly what I
would say is that in 1973, one in four US jobs required
a post-secondary degree, one in four. The middle class, you get to middle class
by a high school degree. Today over two in three US jobs require a post-secondary degree and a higher level of skill. And by the way, good jobs,
a study came out showing that out of 2.9 million jobs,
good jobs and good salaries, the full benefits, full-time,
created since 2009, over 95% of those require some kind of post-secondary degree. And the level of skill’s gone up, in terms of not just rote
memorization but higher level. So we’ve made improvements. We were number one in the world, my last point for the problem definition. We were in the world in
1995 in the percentage of young people with getting college degrees. We were number one in the world. And we actually now have more young people getting college degrees and we’ve slipped to number 13. So we’re getting better but falling behind to some extent other countries, but more importantly the opportunity that education is
designed better youth for and the question isn’t how we fix failure it’s how we maintain status quo where we swing from one
side of the pendulum swing to the other. But how are we using the evidence how do we move forward so we help our young people keep
pace to change the world. That’s my definition of the problem. – Terrific, I wanna come back
in a little bit to something in terms of that, how
we’re thinking about this from design perspective and
the people who are leading and how they may be thinking about it. But to stay on sort of
getting us caught up to kind of where we are. Hannah, when you look back
like the last 10, 15 years, maybe to like No Child Left Behind, there was Clinton administration, you had charter schools, you had the begining of
accountability and standards and the national summit
when he was a governor but this current round I
think you can really trace to No Child Left Behind,
this current push for reform up through the Obama
administration and the present day. When you look at that, sort of writ large, what do you see as sort of you know, big spikes high where there’s been real success and progress and big spikes low where
things have failed? How do you sort of handicap
the field right now? – So I’m an optomist so I really believe incredible
things have happened. Not because they’ve been
accomplished perfectly. Not because there’s not
incredible things to learn but we’ve established a
baseline in my opinion when it comes to excellence and an expectation for our students, but also all the people
that make our students, that give our students the possibility. And so when I think about it, I believe that while they’re not sexy, the systems that are being talked about, creating lots of tension
across the nation today whether it’s a teacher evaluation, it’s new standards, a new assessment. These are pillars, they’re pillars and a
foundation that we can build on. And not because, like I said, we got there perfectly, but because we actually have them and the meaningfulness
behind them is incredible and I will take. Do I get three more seconds? – As they say in Washington, we’ll yield to the
gentle-lady from New Mexico. – Sometimes a pictures
worth a thousand words so here’s my picture. I have a little sister in the Big Brother/Big Sister Program. My little sister had a
parent teacher conference I got to go to, which was awesome. And so I listened, she’s amazing. She was 95’s and 100’s in
everything she’s doing. So we’re closing, her
mom’s proud, I’m proud, she’s proud. And I said, I just one quick question, is she on grade level? And the answer was no. And she was third in her entire school by the way in her spelling contest and she’s not the top grade. I mean she is knocking it out
of the park at her school. But in that very moment, we had the opportunity, we had a standard. Her mom immediately went, wait a minute. Her mom engaged, she asked for options. She asked for choices. So in 30 seconds in a
parent teacher conference, the conversation we were able
to have within the last year, could have never been had a decade ago. So my little sister is now in
a charter school I might add. Where her mom was able to advocate. She knows where she stands and knows the gaps and where she’s going. Her mom is engaged and
empowered to be a part of that. Never before would we
have had that opportunity. So as I look at where are we today, oh we’ve got a ton to do, right. But let’s not forget also
what we’re building on and make sure that we
steward that, refine it, not leave it behind. – [Andy] Mike would you, so what would you add to that and how do you, how’s the last 10, 15
years when people ask you? What do you say, are we doing a good job, a mixed job, a poor job, where are we? – So I think the two fundamental things we’ve tried to accomplish over
the last 10 to 15 years are, one, can we get better
information about how everyone in our system is doing? About how students are doing,
how teachers are doing, how principals are doing, period? And the second is can we make informed decisions
without information? I think those two are
fundamental building blocks that every educator has to have. Every responsible high performing
teacher I’ve ever observed does an exit ticket on the way out every day or every other day, why? Because they wanna know where each of the 25 kids in that room are so they can know where
to start the next day. So I think that’s the success. I think the debate is all about what information do you gather, and what decisions do you make afterwards. And I think those are valid debates. I think there’s a lot of
us who will say, you know, I have three kids of my own, I care deeply that my kid
can read on grade level. I also care deeply that my
kid is a good human being and is kind and treats
other people with respect. And so I would be the first to say that the entire measure of a child is not gonna be their math performance, but I also believe that
one of the core things we ought to offer as educators as somebody who looks at the state budget where we spend almost 50
cents of every dollar in K-12. We do it because we believe
the most significant investment we make is
in helping prepare kids to lead our state for the next generation. And they both have to be
good human beings to do that, they also have to have
the literacy and math and the critical thinking to do it. So I think that’s where
the debate is healthy. Right now is we know we need information, we know we have to make
decisions on information. The question is just what
information for what decisions. – [Andy] Jon, what would you add, you’ve looked at this
over the last 15 years from a couple of different
vantage points, right. Where are we, what’s working in general? We’re gonna get down
to specifics on some of these policies but in general,
what’s working, what’s not? – I think you can look
at any period of change, whether it’s the country
level, the state level, the school level. I think first you, I think
it’s important to look at outcomes for the youth that we’re caring about investing in here. And secondly in terms of more of the policies or the strategies. And often people go right
to the policy or strategy without saying what’s working. Be open minded, people
get attached to policies because they believe
in them ideologically. We should do things
because they work for kids and if they don’t then it ought to change. So from an outcome perspective, I just want to briefly start, across the last 15 years, 15, 20 years, the data will show, on not just on test scores
which is only one measure, we’ll talk about testing. But on other measures,
high school graduation, college enrollment, access
to rigorous classes. Data actually shows that
there’s been some progress in the country over the last 15 years. High school graduation
rates reached a record high this year of 82%. Drop out rates have been
reduced significantly, especially for African American youth and Latino youth. We’ve had improvements in the percentage of our young people in numbers
of people going to college. Achievement levels have actually, particularly for kids of color and low income kids and youth gone up. Sometimes the gaps closing,
sometimes it’s not. So actually there are positive trends. I think it’s really
important for all the people working in the classrooms, in the schools and communities to know that the efforts are paying off some. And that’s really important to know. And by the way, there’s
some real bright spots that have actually shown
even greater success. That said, the opportunity gap, I think there’s evidence to show the opportunity gap is actually growing. And that’s part because of
the rising bar of the economy and the wage differential,
the employment differential, between getting a high
school degree or not, and the skill level or not, means you’re getting somewhat better, it’s not keeping up particularly
for those youth in need so what it means is
that we have to look at what’s working, deepen and broaden. We have to look at our schools but we also gotta look at early childhood, we gotta look at college, we gotta look at heathcare, we gotta look at a bunch of things in order to make sure, housing, to make sure we’re
helping lift our youth up. So that’s the outcomes. Very briefly on terms of
what you’re asking about on the policy side, on what the last 15 years have been. Just briefly, I think
three things I pick out that have worked well
and have been important and three things that I
think have been mistakes that I think should be
learned from in my view, this is one person’s view. Number one, in terms of what’s worked, I think the county over
the last 15, 20 years has focused on the achievement
and opportunity gap for low income kids and kids of color in a way the country had not before. It simply wan’t part of the conversation honestly before the mid 1990’s. Where are low income and kids of color were in terms of actual achievement that would equip them for opportunity. No Child Left Behind
with all of its faults and I can go into all the
faults, there are many. But I think the idea
of shining a spotlight nationally and by state on
to where our kids of color, our kids of low income,
kids of special needs, weren’t up to where they needed to be was very important. Number two, I think we then
had a period of kind of dumbed down tests which led
to high standards in the last, we actually raised our
standards, critical thinking, problem solving skills,
setting the standard, not necessarily getting kids there. And I think the third thing
is we’ve got growing numbers of schools, classrooms
even a few school systems showing success is possible that you really can make
progress, not perfection, but progress in schools and actually some school systems
with different strategies. Three mess ups I would
say or three mistakes in my view it’s important to be candid. Any of us that are involved in things you gotta say what works, what hasn’t. Number one is, I think there was an effort in the last 15 years to focus on standards and accountability without deep investment
in scaffolding and support for both students and educators. Everywhere there are places
that do and the successes do it, but for a policy level. I was in a classroom last week and it was an amazing classroom where the teacher had a
really high math standard for the kids but she was
giving scaffolding bit by bit. The kids were solving these math problems on their own and building on it and saying now let’s
build on each others ideas so we can actually understand actually what the meaning
of 37 times 17 is. Similarly at the adult level
we need more scaffolding, curricula, instructional leadership, time, support for educators to
work on higher standards. That was one mess up. Second, I think there’s a
quote from Michael Barber I think is very important. Michael Barber worked for Tony Blair, the prime minister of England doing reforms in the UK in the 1990’s. And he has a quote saying, you can mandate improvements but can only unleash greatness. My addition to that would be you can mandate improvements and you only can expect, invest in, and then unleash greatness. I think too many policies
across this spectrum have mandated prescription as opposed to empower
people at the local level, that needs to be balanced. And then the third and
final mess up I think is that there has been an
excessive focus on testing. We need better tests
and we’ll use testing. It’s one important measure,
it’s not the only one. I think we’ve gotta do a bit
of a course correction on it. – [Andy] And I see you itching to edge in. – I don’t disagree with you at all but I’d put maybe a few
finer point and/or additions. One, I look at this room and one of the things I think has happened in the last 10, 15 years that is a product of some of the things you’re
talking about is people. There are people all over this nation now that have an incredible. And this is the unleashing piece, right? You’re the unleashers. And at the end of the day
I think we have succeeded in the sparking the fire of and the possibility of our teachers, our school leaders and
focused on that in a way that we have no idea what’s
coming in the best sense. Secondly I would also just to push a little bit on what you said, I agree that obsessive focus
on testing and everything isn’t a mis-hit in some ways. But I question, sometimes
you’ve gotta do the foundation so you can have the other conversations. The conversation, the luxury
of sitting this chair, you sitting in your chair today, it’s a luxury. It’s a luxury because we have a baseline and a foundation of things to talk about and build on and talk about
how do we unleash greatness because we know what greatness is. We have a standard. So I think part of the piece for me is at the end of the day
you’ve gotta have one, to be able to have the
conversation about the other. And I’m excited because
we’re starting to have the conversation and the other to me is a lot about human capital and unleashing that greatness. – [Andy] So I want to, before
we dive into specific policies, I want to pick up on
one thing that was said. So these sort of various
thrusts and what was done and how they were designed. This design thinking idea
that Jon put on the table and Mike, I wanna ask you to start everyone leading this and Hannah talked about the
people in the chairs out here, the people in the chairs up here. Everyone in this movement
in an influential position was almost overwhelmingly,
not exclusively, but almost overwhelmingly
was good at school, enjoyed school, was good at it, succeeded at it in various ways. And that’s sort of true of our
education system in general and yet we’re trying to essentially, the data Jon was talking about, like help a population that traditionally has not gone as far in school, go much further and succeed. And you were a principal and I know just talking with you about so your experiences, your experiences now in the
community with work that you do. We’re trying to solve a
problem for a lot of people who don’t enjoy school and in many cases for very good reason because schools can be very unpleasant the way it’s presented. Who aren’t necessarily good
at school who are struggling so I guess the blunt way
to ask this question is are we exactly the
wrong people to be doing the design thinking around this? And sort of more generally, how much of that has
maybe created blind spots over the last 10 or 15 years
in some of these approaches that have created backfire potential. – So I don’t think we are for
a couple of powerful reasons. So in my mind, not knowing that you’re sick
doesn’t make you well, right. So I think there’s the only world in which you would believe that is a world in which you believe someone had a terminal illness. The only world in which
you wouldn’t tell someone that they had a need or a
malady was a world in which you believe they had a terminal
illness that was incurable. There’s nothing I can tell you that will help you
ameliorate your situation. If that’s the belief we have about kids who are low performing or have learning disabilities
or who are challenged, it makes a statement
about our belief about the permanence of their capacity. – [Andy] Right but is that the question or is the issue more like we’re designing schools that work
well for people like us. – I think the school design
question is another question. I think this is an assessment
of information question which is if you had a sixth grader who’s reading at the second grade level, would you want to do that? Would you want to know that? And what actions would you take? I have three kids now and I have some kids that do far better
academically than others. And that makes it a harder
and different conversation for the child that struggles
than the one that doesn’t. But I find that when you look
around wealthy communities in America, they still are
sending 90% of kids to college. They’re not saying I have one child who doesn’t do as well in school and so I’m not going
to send them to college knowing that 90% of the jobs require college degree or post-secondary degree. They’re saying I will find a post-secondary environment
that fits for you. And it might cost $50,000 a
year and that’s a challenge. But I think what we do in most cases, is the expectations we
have for our own kids, our own families are you
may have certain weaknesses, you may have certain strengths, but I’ll build a program
around your strengths. And so I think what we have now is the reason why this
information is so important is it allows parents and families to say build a system around your strengths. And then I think we as
school designers, teachers, school leaders have the
responsibility to make sure there’s a real broad portfolio of options, that wouldn’t just appeal
just to the type of school I would have wanted to go to but the type that all of our
kids would want to go to. – [Andy] Hannah, do you worry some days like you’re designing
a school system to work really well for people
like you but may not, does that? – I can say that, since
we’re having a conversation, I’ve certainly been accused
of that on multiple levels. I get to work in New Mexico and 60% of our kids are Hispanic, 12% are Native American and I’m obviously, I have
been called Skandetto as my last name but it’s Skandera and I’m very white. And I’ve been, the
question is are you really, do you really understand, right? And I guess going to the core of why I do what I do and do I believe we can do better and all those things, absolutely. But I think part of the
conversation we should be having around the reform movement
in answer to your question, yes, I do believe we’re the
right people to be in it. We just need so many more. And part of our charge in this moment, is to look if we’re running a race and we’re carrying a baton, are we making sure we’re running in a way that we can pass the baton? And/or run alongside and how many more runners are we
bringing into the race. It’s not should I step out. It’s how should I run
and who am I running with and how many more can we bring. And I think that’s, there’s attention there. And we’re probably not
walking it out perfectly but I firmly believe that there’s room for everyone. Not just one person or another because of whether it’s race, color
or economic status. I think that’s part of
our charge right now and something we’re challenged with and don’t do it very well. – So we’ve been talking
for almost 20 minutes. That was Hannah’s first running metaphor which I think is a record for those of you who know her. Jon, what do you think about
this design thinking question? – I was this week talking with a group of students on
the west side of Chicago. And I learned a lot from
them as all of us do when we spend time with students. And there was an eighth
grade African American boy who I asked what do
like about this school. And he said he liked history. My son loves history too. So I said what do you like? He said, well you know what in history we’re learning about the
Civil Rights Movement. We’re not only learning
about Martin Luther King, who was amazing and gave these speeches
to fire up the leadership but we’re learning all these people we’ve never heard of who actually played a crucial role in
the Civil Rights Movement. And he said, the names aren’t know and they like do their thing and they make progress and they
don’t get all the way there and then the people that come behind them take it up the next level. He’s like in our school we do the same. We’re working and we do a project and this year we don’t get all the way, but then the next grade comes behind us and builds on that. And my view is that is very relevant to this work in education. I think the people who’ve
been doing the work in education including leadership roles, Hannah and Mike and
leaders around the country and you all people have been leading improvement and change, are heroes for what we’ve done. And the question is, and there’s kids and parents and community leaders who have but what I will say is, that there hasn’t been I would say enough real,
there’s been progress, and the pendulum should
not swing back this way, we can’t throw away progress. It’s real important progress
with great leadership. But I think there’s a
sense in this country, ultimately founded on the
idea of self-determination and there’s theories about this for kids but if the country, for communities. And I do think there’s a need to build on the good work that’s been done but including in the very
definition of what success is, to have much broader
involvement across communities, across racial lines, across ages, across every vantage point, say what really is
meaningful for us in terms of what we want for success in our schools. So we’ll get to that kind of maybe that policy discussion
on ESSA’s accountability. But my view is there
should be some important threshold goals and having
academic achievement that actually tests, that
measure whether kids can read deeply, write effectively,
use math to solve a problem, crucial. Graduate from high
school, enroll in college. But I think there can be room
in the accountability systems that relate to this for how
in a very differential level. If there are a few things
that effect everyone across the state, can
communities come together and say what’s really important to us. Let’s really talk about it. Let’s have things that might
ought to have been designed by somebody in the legislature or by somebody in this room or the panel, but in the end we come to a
few of these things matter, while most of the accountability
system ought to focus on the small number of
outcomes across schools. I think there’s room to define a supplementary set of
things that are different and I think the process
of people being involved in defining what a success is will create much more ownership and sense of momentum towards
accomplishing all these goals. – That’s terrific. And let’s dive down into
some specific policies. And I think a really illustrative
one over the last decade or so it teacher evaluation where the field essentially went from basically evaluating no one to deciding we were
gonna evaluate everybody and the new teacher project
had a lot of data on this. It was very influential. The Obama administration
made it a key component of the Race to the Top. And it’s become a thrust. It’s also become very controversial. And it ties together a
number of these themes. Mike’s point on we’re
trying to get information people want to know, that’s important. Hannah’s point on sort of
people and people matter and good people want to be
evaluated and want feedback. And your point Jon, on sort of we’ve just gotta
substantially up our game. But it’s been contentious,
it’s been kind of diverse. You guys have all played a role. So let’s talk about teacher evaluation. Kind of where are we now and what are some of the broader lessons that
we should draw from that. And Mike you championed
landmark legislation in Colorado on this,
so I’ll start with you. – I was just thinking,
for all of you youngsters in the crowd, when I came
into TFA back in the day, I was talking to my girl Jen
Crawford, who’s somewhere. But when I came into the corps in ’97, now you have all these fancy
like Sue Lehmann Awards and everyone has their
growth measures each year. When I came into the corps in ’97, the way you knew who the
awesome teachers were, were who the teacher was who had lead the class trip
to France the previous year. Like if you had like fund
raised a trip to France and taken 10 kids to France you were it. You were like oh man, you must
have an amazing classroom. And that gives you a sense for, like even in our self proclaimed innovative educational approach, we had no information to
base how well you were doing when the door closed with
your kids in that classroom than anybody else did. We just thought if you were
charismatic or friendly or kids came and hung out
in your room after class you must be great. And what we found and Jim Collins founded Good
to Great long before that, is that often those two things have no relationship to each other. How charismatic you are
sitting in a teacher interview or how friendly you are at happy hour, may have nothing to do
with the relationship you have with your kids and
the content you can deliver. And so I think the change for us and for us the whole purpose
of evaluation is improvement. The reason why you want better information is you need information to know how to improve your practice. And so our goal is always
can we get this data on what teachers are doing, what are our rock star teachers doing to get dramatic results with kids and can we then use that to ask them to sit down and unpack their
brilliance in their brain for the rest of us to share. And so the reason why we wanted every teacher evaluated every year, the reason we wanted linked
to student growth metrics, is we wanted to be able to say are the things we’re
observing subjectively matched by what we’re seeing
objectively in the data. And if not, is the data wrong or is our subjective evaluation wrong or is there someplace in between. But until you start to ask that question, we had early Jaime Escalante like calculus AP exam success. But until you start to ask the question what makes that instruction successful and how can you replicate it, we can’t get to scale. So I think that part of the conversation has been really, really successful. It drives better professional development, better mentoring and peer
support, better selection. I think the challenge is how do you, what is the perfect balance of what amount of data goes
into a teacher evaluation. Should it be 40% student growth, 50%, 20%? Should it be three
measures of student growth, should it be seven? Should it be locally developed, teacher developed, state developed? What we’ve done in Colorado
is said, yes and yes and yes. You should have one part of our outcomes have to be linked to how well, how much students improve
from the day they start in your class to the day they leave. And that measure ought to
have multiple measures. It should never be one test, one day. It should be a portfolio of assessments and that should be part of what you use to measure
impact but not all of it. And at the end of the
day our evaluation system always leaves the decision
on hiring or firing someone in the hands of their supervisor. Our law never forces the
firing of a single teacher or a single principal. It does say we will make transparent what that person’s performance is and then if you know they’ve
lost their husband this year and it was a tough year, you have the decision to say, hey here’s how we can help you get better. What we wanted to insist
on was the clarity and the consistency of that data with the idea that that data was what you could use to help
yourselves get better. – [Andy] And what would
you do differently, looking at this now. So there’s been some changes
as it was implemented. Like what are your big take-aways as we think about the
next generation of reform. How should your experience there and the experience Colorado has, how should that inform us? – One of the best things we
did which was not my idea. Was we really went slow in implementation. So we passed our bill
almost five years ago. This year is the first year of full statewide implementation because we spent two years
with a team of teachers helping design what our
evaluation system would look like. What does it look like
to be a good teacher? We spent several years
piloting those assessments in small districts and then larger groups. We spend one year deploying
the evaluation system statewide but without the consequences attaching to them. And so we really inched into can you really build
some data tests on these and make sure you improve
the practice along the way. I think to Jon’s earlier point, the best thing we did which
a nonprofit in Colorado did, is we spent in a number of districts, we spent a great deal of time working with teachers and principals to train them on how to use those evaluation
tools and what they meant and modeling classroom
walk-through’s together. And those are the places that by far have the strongest feedback and strongest success early on. So I think I’d agree with Jon, that if we had done
more investment early on at the state level in
professional development, support and training. I think we did a great job
including teachers is the design. I think we needed to include more of them in the initial training. – [Andy] And how has that
effected the politics? So this sort of slower
rollout you’re talking about, initially it was very controversial, there was a lot of resistance. Has that slow rollout helped ameliorate some of the politics or essentially it’s just the politics
are gonna be the politics? – I think it has helped
in a significant way. One of the most significant ways it happened which is interesting is when we had the debate in our state as we did in a lot of
places about rolling back the standards or rolling
back the assessments. There was a lot of political
battle around that. One of the loudest voices of
folks who came to the capital and said don’t change the standards and don’t change the assessments. We just spent three years training ourselves to use them better, were the teachers. Who said, to you this might be some sort
of political football. To us, we’ve invested a great
deal of our time and energy in learning these standards, being prepared to deliver them and then feeling like we have an assessment that fairly measures them. And so I think there’s
been a deeper demand from educators to want that alignment than if we had pushed it more quickly. – [Andy] And Hannah, I wanna
hear about New Mexico’s experience but Jon, Race to the Top, which you were there helping to design, obviously incentivized this a great deal. Human capital is a major part
of the point scoring systems, the states went after this. And Colorado, even
states that didn’t end up ultimately being Race to the Top winners were still making big changes. It sparked a great deal of change. – [MIke] We won round three,
known as the booby prize. – [Andy] The door prize, yes. Colorado got its door
prize in round three. It incentivized a lot of action. Had a serious weighting on
standardized test scores as part of teacher evaluation that some states have maintained, some states have walked
away from and so forth. It undoubtedly catalyzed change but when you look at that how do you think about what happened and did it over weight
standardized test scores and create a backlash that
might not otherwise have been there or were those politics
gonna happen regardless? – That’s a good question. One small factual correction and then on to the broader question. Which is the Race to the
Top didn’t actually weight standardized test scores. The weighting was determined
at the state or local levels. There wasn’t actually a
weighting of the test scores in teacher evaluation,
that’s a smaller point. – But it emphasized using
standardized test scores as your substantial measure? – The Race to the Top competition had one of the components
was do you have a teacher, do you have a strategy to get more well prepared teachers
to high need schools including a teacher evaluation system of which one measure needed, in the interest of guidance needed to be standardized test scores. So in terms of your question
about what happened. I think President Obama
deserves tremendous credit in my view for leadership
in late ’08, early ’09. I was working with him
through the end of ’08 and the first few months of ’09 as this stimulus package
was getting passed. We were about to head, potentially into the second great depression. We lost a million jobs in the country over the course of six months and the president not
only had the leadership to invest in stimulation of the economy which I think prevented the
second great depression, but he and I was involved. He was willing to, as part of this which people were. I remember when he said he would do this and what people in the congress said. He wanted to invest 100 billion dollars as part of the stimulus
package, in education. And I remember the congressional
leader hearing that, people were a little shocked. Some of the Democrats who liked education didn’t think about education being a big focus of the stimulus package. Some of the Republicans who
might have liked education but didn’t think about dollars for that. And the proposal was to put
in money, which got passed, to prevent layoffs of hundreds
of thousands of teachers at a time when the economy was crashing to invest in greater Pell
Grants, invest in Head Start, expand education opportunity or at least protect
funding around the country. And then a part of that which
was the 5 billion dollars or 4 billion dollars
around the competition for Race to the Top and the
Invest Innovation funds. He said you know what, we’re
gonna give a lot of funding but we’re also gonna support states who want to take up the
opportunity to lift standards, invest in teaching, drive
continued improvement. And in terms of my view of
the outcome of all of that, I think I’m biased being present and part of great leadership. I think had that not happened, we would have had 300,000
teachers lose their jobs. We would have less
opportunity for college. And without Race to the Top
I actually think we would not have nearly the momentum
that is in the country. I think the most important thing is to lift the standards for our kids. As Mike said in Colorado they
fought hard to make sure, in New Mexico and elsewhere, there really are rigorous standards and much higher quality assessments that actually reflect
problem solving skills, critical thinking skills, the skills that our kids
really need to succeed. And aren’t the dumbed down fill in the bubble multiple choice tests but have much better assessments with performance tasks and writing tasks. I mean that’s been really
a very important step in the country that was
accelerated in my view by the Race to the Top
component of the package. On teacher evaluation specifically, my view is that in terms of the way that kind of the federal policies ended, I think there have been
some places which have done teacher evaluation as part
of a comprehensive strategy to invest in teachers well. And when you think about a system that develops teachers
and supports teachers, gives feedback for teachers ensure fair accountability. I think there are some
places that have used Race to the Top funding to do that. Not only the policy but
invested the dollars in doing that really well. But I also think in my
view that in general there was a momentum across the country where it went too far, too fast. Too many places that actually didn’t have the capacity to really invest
in the supports for teachers. People who didn’t have the wisdom, if there wasn’t capacity right away, the wisdom in Colorado to say you know what, let’s wait a few years. Let’s actually invest in our
teachers and principals first. And I think that there
were places that moved too far, too fast without the support. And that I think was real fallout not only for teacher
evaluation is a lesson learned. People developing this
good systems keep going but I think for any effort that
any of you are involved in, when you see a really good idea, there are no quick fixes
and it’s not easy to scale. So right now one example is STOP, but on education technology for example. There’s a ton of effort
on education technology, computers in classrooms. Actually schools were tremendous. There were schools that transformed what’s happening for kids. But I think people are taking it and they want a computer
in every classroom, a laptop for every kid. The don’t have a strategy
for how it’s actually, not replacing good teaching but matched with a deep
investment in teaching. You put all this investment. You take a good idea that over 20, 25 years could
become transformational and you go to too many places too fast. And most places it’s not working. I think that there is some of that lesson from teacher evaluation. We shouldn’t eliminate
it, we can move forward. Give teachers feedback, give them support. But I think there’s a lesson learned. Have a smaller number of places thoughtfully try it
with the right timeline before taking any good idea
you’ve got in policy making to full state level scale
or a national scale quickly. – [Andy] So Hannah, you’ve heard sort of Colorado’s experience that Mike
laid out on how they did it, Jon’s take on Washington and this point of it may
have been too much, too fast and have created some problems. We can talk more about that, I’m sure we’ll get to that during Q&A. How does that dovetail, like you live this in
New Mexico and lead it, how does that fit with your experience? – So I think before
answering that question, I think if I’m sitting in your chair and when I sit in mine
everyday the first question you have to ask is what’s
the context I’m in. I know we’re talking about
the national context, but I’m going New Mexico because when you ask that question the next question asked is in what generation of reform am I in. There’s a first generation
where you’re probably breaking a lot of things
because you’re changing systems. It’s not comfortable, it’s awkward. There’s usually lots of battles. That might even be a
nice characterization. And then there’s the
embedding and the transition to a next generation. I think about states like
Louisiana or Tennessee, DC, where there’s a baseline and then there’s the
implementation over time, etc. New Mexico, so I’m gonna disagree based on the generation
that New Mexico is in. We’re a first generation. We’re 49th in the nation in almost every student achievement measure. We have been for decades. So we can talk about slow and process and I don’t disagree. There’s a time and a place
for determining that. But in New Mexico I fundamentally believe there is no wiggle room for wait. So yes in the last six years
we’ve changed standards, assessments, teacher evaluations, school grading versus AYP, high school expectations for graduation that aren’t eighth grade, cause they were, new teacher prep programs, new pay performance for teachers. I mean go down the list, the ecosystem around teachers, students and school leaders has
fundamentally changed on every level. And you know what, it is rocking the boat. And at the end of the day
I fundamentally believe not because it’s been perfect, but the pace, we didn’t
have a choice on our pace. Every little kiddo that goes through and we were sitting as a state going, you know, there was no expectation. We had to establish the
bar and then aim high. So I think there’s a place and a timing around implementation. And we implemented teacher
evaluation in a single year. It was painful, not gonna lie. But we also now have a baseline where we can support our teachers in ways we never supported before. Yes, the local decision
for hiring, firing, etc, it’s still at the local level, I fundamentally believe in that. But we had to have information
to actually support. We didn’t have that before on any, whether it was our students, our teachers, our school leaders. And we did break a little glass. And I don’t have regrets that there was some breaking because we needed to break through. And I fundamentally believe that’s what’s happening in New Mexico. – [Andy] I wanna stay on this and I know you wanna jump in because there’s a tension here, right. Which is we talk about the urgency, 9% of low income kids
getting a bachelors degree by the time they’re 24. What other countries are doing. Jon, the data you talked about. The really serious tectonic
shifts in our economy and the skills and education you need to actually have opportunity. And then we also worry about the pacing. So is there a counter argument here that we didn’t go fast enough. To put it in the stimulus, any basic principle of federal budgeting is any dollar you spend
ends up out there somewhere. So at some level if you
take the values out of it there’s no difference between buying tanks and paying teachers, that’s money going to the economy. You just have to make choices. So we spent most of the
money on saving jobs, some of it on reform. Is there an argument that in fact, it should have been much
more weighted towards reform and we should have gone much faster and that more states are basically in the condition that Hannah’s at. I’d love to hear all three of you cause as we think about it informs this question of so
what’s for the next decade as people think about moving more towards the vision of organizations
like Teach For America. Should we be speeding up,
going slower, the same? – There’s a finer point to your question, I thought I’d help as the moderator. – Go. – So should we speed up. Who are we talking about, are we talking about
the federal government? Are we talking about the state? Are we talking about the district level or are we talking about the classroom? And I fundamentally, I think that question is really important. I said I practiced my response and pushed back on timing because from my view, I then articulated where New Mexico is. We have to ask where we are. If you’re in your classroom, that’s your sphere of influence. You’ve gotta own and name what generation you’re in with your kids, right? With a baseline. If you’re leading a district,
if you’re leading a state, if you’re leading a nation, there’s the larger movement question and then what sphere are you influencing. And I do think that matters. – [Andy] I think so but
let’s for the purpose of this conversation, I think there’s more New Mexico’s than there are Massachusetts’s when you look at education
outcomes in this county. So there’s a problem of some severity, reasonable people can disagree
on this issue of pacing and that’s what I want to talk about. I think there’s more states
that closer to the situation you’re describing than are further along. So Jon, how should we
be thinking about that for the next ten years? Should we have been more aggressive? Should we be more
aggressive going forward? – So I know we’re gonna a
little bit later in the panel, go more toward the future
but I will just say. – I’m giving you an opening to go now. – The transition is that this is the federal policy that just passed, that opens up state policy making across the country over
the next couple years. It represents a huge opportunity at the state and local level. People ask what do you
thing of the new law? Well I don’t know yet because
ultimately what it’s gonna depend on is what’s gonna happen in states and communities across the
country in making decisions. So I think your question
is a good question, it’s not just an academic question. And it’s also not a national, federal question per se, in my view. It is a question now that’s very relevant for everyone across the country, in states and communities making decisions about what comes next
including the pace of change. And I think there are benefits to that and there are risks to that because of the decisions historically that some states have
made that have left kids with the most need behind. That said, on this particular issue, when I say I think that there, one of the lots of great
things that have happened and I think some lessons learned. When I say too far, too fast, I don’t mean that about
every state and district. I think that some places
actually going fast is really important. Massachusetts right now
is the highest performing. Massachusetts is the highest performing state in the country. It compares quite well globally. When the initial reforms were put in place in Massachusetts they were going fast and there was intense pushback. I mean when you, change is hard. This is hard work. We’re preparing kids for a new generation. Hard, change is always hard. No one like change usually
when it’s happening. Massachusetts went through a period where people were rejecting it. On the other side it came out and now Massachusetts is one of the best states in the country. Sometimes going fast is important on teacher evaluation. Tennessee also went fast
on teacher evaluation as a component of a broader strategy. And now there’s data
showing the overwhelming number of teachers in Tennessee think that actually the feedback they get from improvement is incredibly helpful. That it actually helps improve
achievement for their kids and the retention data
is actually quite good for higher performing teachers, not as good for low performing teachers. I think there’s data showing
that after some real challenges that you can go fast and have it succeed. Washington DC, is another example. Washington, DC, moved fast as part of a paying teachers much more,
investing in teachers and evaluation was one component of that so I think going fast in a thoughtful way where you’ve got a systemic approach, investing in the capacity
of the kids can be good. I also think some times
you say, you know what, let’s not go slow because it’s hard, let’s go slow politically, let’s go slow because we need some time to build what’s needed. I think that’s also good. So I think the key question if you were in states across the
country debating this. There is a risk that people
are saying, you know what, this was hard, fast,
let’s slow this all down, let’s actually not have higher standards, not have accountability, let’s eliminate teacher
evaluation systems altogether. I think the pendulum in some
ways is sort of swung here and throughout American history we go back between the pendulum swinging
this way and that way and this way and that way. I think the key thing is to look at, OK what’s worked, what hasn’t and then come back to the middle and say, alright for each state, what’s the right approach
that’s really gonna solve a very important pressing
problem for kids in our country. And go somewhere in the middle and not go all the way
back there that way. And I think there’s a
risk when you go too far. And I think it’s a very
state and local decision which is live in the next year or two. – [Andy] So Mike, let’s put this in very, everybody on this panel
has served in public roles at the federal level,
the state level or both in a couple of our cases. But I think you’re the
only person on the panel who’s ever had their name on a ballot. Which is different, right? It’s just a fundamentally
different exercise. The rest of us have all been appointed so like you’re much more dialed in to the political tensile strength
of your district, your state, even nationally. How should we be thinking
about this question, how fast can we go, how fast is too fast? In a leadership role like yours how do you think about that? – So for me the closest example is actually my work as a school principal. I think about it exactly
the same as what I feel now as an elected official. So I think for us it’s not a
question of fast versus slow. It’s a question of the parity between expectations and support. And so what we used to
say as a team of teachers running our school was, if you bring kids in and
set really high expectations with very low levels of support, you set kids up for failure. And if you bring in a ninth grade reading at the second grade level and say here’s War and Peace, go for it. I’ll talk to you in three weeks. Probably not gonna go well. The reverse is also true. If you come in with very low expectations and very high levels of support, sort of we’ll baby you through everything and if you just write
a couple of words down we’ll feel so great about it, you set kids up for mediocrity, right. The only real way you
set them up for success is really high expectations coupled with a really
high level of support. We’re gonna expect you to
accomplish impossible things, but we will be here first
thing in the morning when you get here, we’ll be here at lunch, we’ll be here after school, whatever resources you need
we’ll deploy against it. And so I think the question
of the slowness or the speed is a question of how strong can you deploy the support to match the
pace of your expectations. If you’re expecting dramatic
overall change in expectations, you’re gonna need dramatic
overall deployment of support to make that succeed. The question is not the inputs of what policies you can pass, it’s the outcomes of what
results you can change. And I think you can get
policies passed quickly with high expectations and low support. I don’t think you’re
gonna get dramatic change in classroom and student behavior without some parity between
expectations and support. So we knew we didn’t have the resources to deploy the support as fast as we could
deploy the policy change. And so we had to taper it until we had the support that could match it. – [Andy] That’s terrific. I wanna bring the audience
in so if you wanna start coming up to the mic’s you
can go ahead and do it. There’s one in each aisle so
we can get some questions. You can start doing that. It’s gonna take a little while
to work through questions so I don’t know that
everybody wants to do that or you may be standing for a while. But there are the lines, you can start. While people are lining up let’s stay on this question of support. Very briefly, have we done enough? One thing you don’t hear a
lot of conversations about in the reform world is school finance. There’s some people that
do some great work on that. But you don’t hear as much about it. – You’re bringing back my PTSD Andy. – And there’s two issues. There’s sort of overall spending levels which we spend a lot of time talking about here in town, in this town. But then there’s also this
issue of these tremendous inequities that exist within states, to some extent between states, but especially within states, often even within school districts, that systematically disadvantage
certain kinds of students relative to other students. Like the support piece, where are we? What do we need to be
doing around that supportt? And I realize the support
piece is broader than money but let’s talk about money because that’s a key component of it. – I will jump in here. This is my one piece of
homework I’m gonna give you. This is my failure that
you can learn from. I think I’ve spent the last
almost 20 years of my career in education trying to figure out like how is it that America
so perfectly propagates inequality generation over generation. Like how is it that we
have built an architecture of poverty that seems
impenetrable in this country. And it took me two years to figure it out. I would say if you want to know
the answer to that question go home and study your
state’s school finance act. Cause I will bet you it is
almost the most perfect formula for propagating inequality
that you can find. One quick example, in Colorado, I didn’t know this
until Damien who’s here, and I spent a year and a half learning it. In Colorado, we spend statewide
on students who are at risk, low income kids, 200 million dollars. That targets the seven poorest counties, highest population of low
income kids and kids in poverty. We also have in our
formula a weight called the cost of living adjustment. Which is an adjustment
we make for districts where it’s expensive for teachers to live. Which means that variable goes entirely to the seven wealthiest
counties in the state. It goes to Aspen and Telluride and Boulder and Cherry Creek and all those
places you would imagine. 200 million dollars statewide
for low income kids. Statewide the size of the formula that goes to the
wealthiest seven counties, 1.2 billion dollars a year. That is state law in the formula. So we tried to pass a ballot amendment to eliminate that 1.2 billion and spend it on kids that needed it most. It didn’t go so well. – [Andy] That’s where
the political power is. Is your pot windfall gonna
give you guys money to? – No, no, unfortunately. Even if you all come to Colorado and smoke a lot of pot
it is not gonna solve. You can do that anyway. But the great myth is
that it’s gonna solve our education funding problem. It only raised about 35 million
dollars a year of funding. And I’m especially bitter
because our school finance equity issue was on this
same ballot as the pot tax. The pot tax passed with
55%, we lost by 66%. And so folks are willing
to fund sin taxes. We couldn’t make the case
well enough, it was our fault, to convince them to that if
you fundamentally want to change equity and outcomes you have to look at not just the amount of dollars you spend but how those dollars are
spent and where they go. And our big bet was to say take the kids who need you
the most, low income kids, kids who are learning
English as a second language, and double down your bets on those kids. So under our new formula
every kid got $7000. The kid that walked into
your class in October, four grade levels behind, a recent immigrant who
doesn’t speak English, that kid would have
brought $15,000 with him which means you start this market where now schools and
principal and teachers fight to get the kids
that need us the most as opposed to try to
turn them out the door because they don’t bring the resources you need to support them. – [Andy] Briefly Hannah,
Jon, this resource question. – I think, talk about pendulum swinging, I feel like there was a time when everyone talked about inputs
as being the game changers. We had a pendulum swing
and everyone said no, it’s the outcomes that are going. And I fundamentally
obviously fall a little bit on that pendulum swing. And I think the next season
that we’re headed into is once again bringing those
together in a balanced way. Mike started by talking
about connecting some dots around human capital
in programs, policies. I mean it is time to
find the right balance because we haven’t had it. – The United States, when you
look at global comparisons, spends more money on education
than most countries do. When you compare the United States to most countries on equity spending, the United States is one of
the few countries in the world that spends much more
on our wealthier kids that our kids who are not wealthy. Many countries that get it
right say, you know what, if our kids are further
behind let’s actually give them more resources. We’ve kind of done the reverse. Now I’m not suggesting
we move resources from the wealthy communities to
the non-wealthy communities. I think we need an
expansion of the pie overall and we need more funding as we see in some of the highest
performing countries for schools that need it most and I think it’s really crucial. I agree with Hannah in
this pendulum swing. For a while they’re talking about inputs. You got cities around the country that have huge amounts of
funding going to those cities with no focus on
expectations and standards and improvements and support for teaching, getting instructional leadership, all the things that make a big difference and you saw no outcome. So funding alone does
not make a difference. At the same time, given that rising demand in this changing world
that I talked about earlier and the pressures that
everyone in this country that works in education is under because of the changed economy, to help our kids succeed more. That when you do just the
standards and the expectations without the investments in funding, one, it’s not right and it makes it much, much harder. You can’t get as much progress and it’s harder on all
the people doing it. So I think the answer needs to be both higher expectations and
define broadly in standards, including academic
achievement more broadly and also investment of more dollars and more equitably distributed dollars. – [Andy] Terrific. Alright, it’s gonna be
great to bring you guys into the conversation. These are questions, and
since we’re in Washington, I do have to, a question is an interrogative. And it’s setting up an answer and so often in Washington, particularly if you watch capital hill. We’re very good in this
kind of asking questions that are more expository, potentially in nature and so we’re gonna stick
to the interrogative and I will interject so please. And second these lights are brutal and so please be kind to all of us if you’re a Sir and we call
you Ma’am or vice versa. Be kind because we can literally, we can barely see, you’re
all silhouetted to us. So over here at this microphone over here. – [Voiceover] Good
morning, my name is John and I am a social studies
teacher in Tennessee. And one, yeah, one, a lot of policy levers have been discussed this morning. And policy is just a selection of levers. Which one do you wanna push,
which one do you wanna pull. No one’s brought up a lever that appears to be abandoned in America
and that’s desegregation, both with race and with SES and I feel as though that it was just seen as hard. And in the 60’s it was
hard and everyone was like, OK we’re done with this
and we don’t do it anymore. Desegregation that is. Now that the power’s
going back to the states in a lot of capacities
on policy and levers. Like where do we go from here? What is the next step because it’s a proven tool to get increased results
for children of all types and all backgrounds to succeed but no one seems to have
the political will to do it. – [Andy] So you guys,
who wants to take that, also in the context of it’s
getting harder to desegregate schools cause the share
of white students overall is declining and so that’s one reason you’re seeing the numbers
skew the way they do. So with those kinds of politics and the demographics how do we do this? – I’ll jump into this. I deeply agree with you. I think it is, when you remember
the I Have A Dream speech it was not that all of my kids would be able to go to a
great school that’s all black. It’s that one day my children
will be able to hold hands with little black boys
and little white girls. And so I think that
part of the conversation has been lost from American civic life in a really profound way. As I said there are some challenges, on is the United States Supreme Court, which there were Seattle and Louisville tried these innovative
student assignment plans. You probably know they were struck down. Some places have struggled to
find ways to get around that. I think the places that are doing it well and I do think Denver is one example. Is deploying two things at once together. One is a strong choice climate. What we know right now is
school demographics matter, patterned after neighborhood demographics and so the fact that will still have deeply segregated neighborhoods means you still get
deeply segregated schools. So that means school choice
creates the opportunity for you to create that integration if you’re intentional about it. But only if you also do the second part, which is being deliberate about where and how you deploy schools and how you try to
balance those populations. So some of the charters in Denver, like Denver School of
Science and Technology. When they opened they intentionally said our goal is to have a
diverse student body. And so they established and have kept two separate lotteries. They do a lottery for low income students and they do a lottery for everybody else. So when the school became the number one high school in the state and
all the sudden white families were lining up around the block to get in, you didn’t overwhelm all
the families of color in that neighborhood who
still wanted to go there. And so I think the combination
of choice and that balance. Denver has also done a great
job of saying you want to, when you have really strong brands, great charters and great district schools that are replicating. You want to open those
in the neighborhoods that have the highest need. So you don’t have that
dynamic you have now which is all the best schools are in the wealthiest neighborhoods and everyone’s trying to get in. Now we have a lot of places
where a lot of our best schools in the city are in some of our
lowest income neighborhoods. And you have this great
phenomenon of families from the wealthiest sections of town trying to get in to Northpark Hill, which I think creates
a more flexible dynamic of kids are moving everywhere. It’s not all kids racing
to get to one place. But I’m so glad you raised that. I think it’s a huge issue for this generation of
the movement to solve. – [Andy] Anything you guys
wanna add on this question? – I completely agree. There’s one small thing I think that starts to get at this in addition to what you said Mike. One of the things we’ve looked at in fact the US Department of
Education required every state to have an equity plan
around teacher quality and where are your teachers, your best teachers and
what schools are they in. And low and behold, shocker, in New Mexico completely, we’re in complete disservice to our kids that need great teachers the most. And so I do think there’s
a lever in addition to the ones you talked about as far as where are we placing our talent. And I think that we would be surprised what kind of movements we might see when we actually incentivize and see our best teachers in our most struggling schools. – [Andy] And Hannah, are
you also using that data, cause you’ve got a lot of
schools that are integrated on paper if you look at the percentage of different kinds of students, but in fact inside the school they operate in a fairly segregated way in terms of course access. Are you guys using that data
to try to get at that as well? – We are and have begun
to look at multiple. We submitted a plan, yes we did, on multiple pathways to really look at how do we get the right teachers in, not just the right
school but to your point, in the right classrooms as well, and the equal access at the same time. – I just have to very quick story. I couldn’t agree more
with you about the purpose and the values you’re
talking about I think of diversity but from a moral perspective, kind of a national identity perspective and from an educational perspective. When I went to high school in Wisconsin, the Short High School. And I was the sports editor
of our high school newpaper and I met a girl who had come
from the Milwaukee City School comes to ninth grade and wanted to write a story for our paper and she’s brilliant and says great. She submitted an article and she couldn’t complete a
grammatically correct sentence. My editorial board laughed. How Jon, do you think
somebody quote, like this, could be a reporter for our paper. And I said she’s so
brilliant, what had happened. And so I worked with her. We got her to write an
article for the paper. I got obsessed so I started doing stories. I went into the Milwaukee
public schools to look at desegregation efforts in Milwaukee when I was in high school in the 1980’s. Where there was supposedly effort to desegregate the schools was just being talked about. The schools supposedly were integrated but I went in. They were completely
segregated within the school. And there were low
expectations for kids of color who were separate from
the higher expectations from most of the white more
affluent kids in the school. Now that propelled me on my entire journey of wanting to work in education. So I couldn’t agree with
you more on the purpose. I’m not gonna have time to
go into my policy levers. Mike’s addressed those. But I will say that
policy is just one lever. So for those of you who
are teachers in schools, community leaders, I think one way to think
about this is what’s the 20 or 30 year arc and I think we actually need more schools, individual schools, that exemplify racially
diverse high quality schools that actually cherish and
invest in their diversity that actually can even point to more and more schools deliberately doing that to create more of a movement
in community support for some of the harder
policy issues over time. So you can’t change the policy on this. You can be part of an effort
to create more schools that do this well and model it. I think that’ll be a big contribution to the purpose and the policy over time. – [Voiceover] Thank you very much. – [Andy] Thank you, great question. And also thanks for identifying yourself. Can you guys be sure
when you ask a question to identify yourself over here. – [Voiceover] Absolutely. My name is Corey Linahand and I’m a 2012 Saint Louis alum and I’m curious about
something kind of specific. Often when we’re looking
at a given policy lever, like desegregation or
a different challenge, there are multiple procedural options that we can take to drive change and so the legislative
process, initiatives, regulatory rule making
or impact litigation. And I’m curious when we
have multiple options for pursuing a particular lever, how you think about matching
the right procedural process or the most appropriate and
effective procedural process to that challenge. – [Andy] Mike, why don’t you, you’re actually a real lawyer. – This is a great question. This is another great folks,
thing for folks to realize. Because you get a lot of
times people will come to the legislature and lobby me to change their district’s
compensation system. I’m like, I don’t have that capacity because that’s a district function so I think your point is extra important. First you have to understand what levers are available at what level of government. So if you want changes to Title One you can’t come ask me and
you certainly can’t ask your school board member
or your principal. So I think for folks to think about, when you thing about the
change you wanna make, think about first identify
what’s the level of government that’s in charge of that decision. And then what’s your capacity
for making a difference. I think this is really important because I think you tend
to sometimes in government think that the solution to every problem must be a bill and often it’s not. Often it’s a nonprofit. We wanted to do better strategies
for teacher recruitment and retention and we decided
to incubate a nonprofit to do that rather than to
pass a bill to mandate it. And so I think normally the two questions we ask ourselves are what lever gives you the most likelihood of the longest term success
on that change you want. And then what lever is the
most politically feasible. Alright, so I think, and in that order. You wanna first say what
gets you your best impact. So there are times where
you can change regulations by going to the department
of education directly and Hannah can change
them through her staff without you having to pass a bill and that’s more effective and often more directly
related to the field. If you wanna make a constitutional change impact litigation tends to
be your more better angle and so we try to take a look at what’s the impact you seek, what lever’s likely to most
directly touch this impact for the longest and most
sustainable amount of time and what’s the most feasible. – [Andy] Let me ask two
follow up questions on this. One is are we gonna see more court cases? I mean so the Supreme Court, there’s a major teacher’s
union case that’s been argued and now is pending a decision,
the Frederick’s case. You’ve got this Vargara
situation in California and some other legislation,
litigation like that. Like are we gonna see, do you think, the courts as more of a vehicle for educational reform legislation and more, to the gentleman’s question, more a lever going forward? – I think what you’re gonna see
is in places like California where the legislature
was not a viable option because they knew they
didn’t have the votes to pass policies like that. Then the option becomes the courts. So it’s a minority, majority question. If there are coalitions with
the political will to pass it I think people will go
towards legislatures. In places where there’s a minority that feels like they have needs that can’t be addressed
by the political process they’ll try the courts. So I think you’ll see more of that. – [Andy] And that actually
tees up the second part. Have we failed as a movement, if you will, to create sort of a sustainable politics. So we talk about these different levers but people tend to come to Washington or they look to the
courts cause there’s just not sort of a sustainable
politics of education reform. Is that a failing of this movement? – I’ll take a stab at that. I would say we failed at creating, and Mike started this conversation and your first comment, the ecosystem. I’m a little bit slower
to say fail as much as we better do it. In the sense of we can have good policy, we can have all the things
that we’re talking about but if we don’t build an ecosystem. And this is very real for me. I’ve got eight years. When I walked in the door
I thought I only had four. That’s a short amount of time when you’re trying to really move change and it’s definitely not
where you wanna end, right. You gotta have an ecosystem outside of whatever role you get
to play that continues. And I don’t think we’ve done a great job across the board and across the nation and in the movement of creating ecosystems but I think we’re on a path to do that. – You made it sound
like you were sentenced to four to eight and
you didn’t get let out for good behavior after four. – All of that. – Jon, as people come to Washington, that’s the one level where sort of reform has more levers consistently. And at the state level it’s
tough and the local level. Have we sort of failed to
create a sustainable politics? – I actually think if you
look at the next year or two, I think it’s indicative of
what matters in education for the most part, it’s not
the presidential campaign. It’s the campaigns for
governor, for school boards, people who’ll be state superintendent, local superintendent. I think there is a federal
role and it’s an important one but the real shift in the decision making within certain important
federal frameworks especially around equity are gonna be at the state level over
the next couple years in a very real way. And I think in the question on policy, I would just say that I think some lessons learned, there are three adjectives I would use to describe how I would
think about pollicy especially at the state level where this is gonna come together over the next couple of years. Starting point, define what
success is in the first place, what problem we’re trying to solve and see if you can get
some unity with many voices around what you’re trying to accomplish. Then often people take the step on policy without saying what’s important. I do think the accountability
discussion at the state level is an important, not the economy alone, but here’s what’s really
important to us in the state. Then I would it’s gotta be focused policy. It’s gotta be coherent
across policy levers and you gotta be humble about it. And by focused I mean people
often in policy making just write all these things
that they have ideas about. And think you just write a piece of paper it’s just gonna happen somewhere. That’s not how the world works. Michael Barber was talking about you mandate improvements but you unleash greatness. Now again I think you invest and expect, invest in and unleash greatness, but you can’t mandate a lot of this stuff. You gotta be focused on
a few things that matter. Second, coherent. I think people often do the
court case or the state policy or the local policy and it’s not coherent. And what matters most is
the interaction between kids and teachers in schools at least, in classrooms everyday. When you got this
proliferation of policies from different places, it’s incoherent and that’s a huge problem. Like on testing, I don’t think we have too
much testing in this country and you might say well
didn’t you say before there’s excessive focus on testing. I think we have an excessive focus part because it’s not coherent. The issues not amount, it’s
actually making coherent. You have to be coherent
about your policy making that’s really important. And third is be humble. I think that again often
people have big aspirations for how much you can
accomplish through policy. I think if you focus on the few big things that matter to you that you can as long as you
know the policies ultimately gonna be about enabling
work at the local level, so I’d be humble about what you use policy for as a
lever to try to accomplish. – Terrific. And the second quote from Michael Barber and it sounds even better
when Michael says it, cause he’s British so
it sounds really smart but it’s well worth reading. It’s a good, if you’re interested
in how this stuff works, Michael’s thought about this deeper than almost anybody else. Yes sir. – [Voiceover] OK, I’m Greg Burrel and I am a 1996 Baltimore alum. (applause) Alright. So, first of all thank you
all for what you’re doing but especially Andy, thank you for these great
questions you’ve been asking. My question today is about magnet schools and charter schools which is
the way Baltimore was set up. You know, at first they
seem like a great idea but they tend to have the effect of segregating the students whose parents can navigate the system and bureaucracies, the lotteries to get their kids into them. And feel free to push back on my assumptions in the question. Do you feel that considering the inadequacy of education funding, is segregating all the
student with savvy parents the best we can do to educate our youth? – I’m happy to go first. – [Andy] Jon, you and I were
just talking about Baltimore the other day so I know it’s someplace you’ve taken a look at. – I was at a Baltimore
school a few weeks ago talking to kids there. And again I just think on an aside, I just think you all do it but the insights that all these questions. Whenever I ask a kid about it, a student, I get more learning
than anybody else I ask so I ask these questions
to kids in the city, both in charter schools
and district schools too. But here’s what I would say. Again we have these pendulum swings. Kind of go over here and then over here. And you have kind of these debates, this point and this point. I think there’s a book that was called, it’s written by Jerry
Porras and Jim Collins, called Built To Last. And there’s a chapter in it called the genius of the and versus
the tyranny of the or. And I think often too
much we have these debates between this or that. I think in this case it’s
the genius of the and. First of all, anybody who
focuses on charter schools in my view, without focusing
on the entire system and how every kid in that
system and community will do is really, it’s the tyranny
of the or first of all. But it’s shortchanging most
of the kids in the system. That said, if you’re in a system or state where you’ve got really
high quality organizations that are delivering teachers and educators who’ve got great options for
kids through charter schools and you know what, we just wanna focus on
the school district. Let’s not make room for
high quality charter schools and for educators to create opportunities that can be R&D and push the system. I think that you’re missing that too. So I think it’s a both and,
and then more specifically, I think if you ask me what I think about charter school policy
it’s a little bit sometimes about what you think about trade policy. Depends what country policy. And I think that there
are different policies in charter schools in
states and communities across the country which
are very, very different. So in some places it leads to
some very high quality schools with attention to how it’s
done in a way that doesn’t undermine education for
kids across the system. And in other places I think
you’ve got charter schools which essentially are a proxy for markets where it’s kind of
insta-school and you don’t care about the implications to the system. I think going into specifics
of the charter school policy in a way that you
actually leverage the fact that some of the highest
achieving urban schools in the country right
now, not all of them are, but some of them are from charters and there’s a lot to learn from that, how you kind of create that supply going and give more opportunities
for communities and educators to greet them. At the same time, if
you don’t pay attention to the impact on things
like enrollment policy and discipline policy and funding throughout the whole system. So I think it’s how you
craft it at the state level that matters a lot for kids. – [Andy] What would you guys add, I mean when charters
were sort of a side show, these questions were more marginal. We’re in a city where over 40% of the kids are in charter schools. We have multiple cities now in the country where they’re majority charter and one case, pretty much all charter. And so these question become, as this grows how do you all
think about this question as the charter sector’s evolved and grown? – Quick response and thank
you for the question. My own personal experience with that is unfortunately sometimes
it’s far too fair. Both of my kids lost the charter school lottery two years in a row, even though my best
friend was the principal. So it turns out unfortunately there is no rigging the system in Denver. But the benefit is I do think Jon’s right. For us what was key is, cause I ran a district school. I was a district school principal and I had friends who
were running charters. And one of the things that
was so frustrating to me was when you are a
district school principal and I’d go to my charter school friends who were doing culture building week for the first four days of school. And they take their
kids out of the lottery, they all come in for the first four days, you put them through boot camp. They learn all the values and for the rest of the year you’re set. Well we did that but then
you have five more kids that enrolled the next Monday, then the next Tuesday
and the next Wednesday and by the end of our year, we have turned over our
entire freshman class twice. So in a class of 100 kids
we’ve enrolled almost 220. And that is a totally
different challenge, right. How do you build culture
every single day of the year. And so our charters have
changed their policies now in Denver where they operate
their attendance zones like any other neighborhood school. So if you move into that neighborhood because your family lost
their job in Nebraska and you move in in March, you walk in the door
of that charter school and register the same way
you would into my school. And so I do think Jon
is right that it depends how you build policies. I’m really encouraged
that in Denver we have some charters now who are really saying hey, let’s make all the things that we do, the enrollment, the
registration, the admission, the same as every other school just allow us some autonomies. And so I think we’re
graying the line now between what it means to be a
charter or a district school. And I think that will help
kids in the long term. – [Andy] Let me stay over here. – [Voiceover] Hi, my name is Cindy Garcia and I’m a third year teacher
in eastern North Carolina. And the question I have is about the level of respect given
to the teaching profession. Many teachers I know are friends of mine and many other teachers I’ve met are just really disillusioned and angry about the level of respect given
to the teaching profession. So I wanted to know what
types of policies or steps should be taken or what
types of policies and steps are working that are elevating
the teaching profession and whether it’s raising teacher pay or tying teacher evaluation to test scores? – Hannah, I want you to start
this with your experience in New Mexico and sort of the
evolving relationship there. – Yeah, so great question. So I said earlier I don’t use
the word failed very often. I think we’ve failed in this in creating and continuing actually to honor the teaching profession in the midst of incredible change. And the fine point I’d
put on that failure, I actually think it’s a
communications failure. And that sounds so like cheesy and PR and all that kind of
stuff but I just wanna… We have not communicated well
in the midst of the change. I actually believe the
changes that are taking place whether it’s teacher eval
and aligning the pay to that or new teacher preparation programs that have a completely
different orientation that really do equip our
teachers to be successful which we’ve failed on that
by the way in the past. I actually believe we
have not communicated well in the midst. I think the changes that
are happening do bring more esteem and respect to
the profession over time. But we have to bridge that over time and one of the biggest
challenges in my role is this communication piece. How do you impart that. – So I think that it’s a great question. Andreas Schleicher who was
leader on education of the OECD when I was Premier Global
analyst on education. Says that the countries that
have done well investing in the teaching profession, have not done so because
people think oh the culture of the country does value
teaching and therefore. And he said, well what was
actually changed in those places are actually the policies of the country that actually make teaching a more attractive profession to go into. So I do think this is a
communications question is very important. I also think a policy
question is very important. And I think what’s interesting on this and it’s crucial. What I said earlier at the
beginning of the panel, the world’s changed, the
level of skills our kids need to succeed in today’s
economy is much higher. The standard rightly so are
much higher to equip our kids. The job of the teacher in
that is unbelievably hard and I was doing a great classroom and teacher of the year
in Chicago last week. And it was a work of art
to see what she was using. It was incredible, very, very hard. So how do you professionalize teaching, I think the evidence
is actually in systems, there’s good data coming out of places like right here in Washington, DC. or in Tennessee where if you, DC, obviously the salary’s gone up a ton. There has been a comprehensive approach to identify the teachers,
develop the teachers, instructional leadership and there’s been teacher
accountability as well. Where there’s research
that came out this week showing that’s been an effective component of an overall system
investing in teachers. The data shows now that in DC there’s more people who
want to be teachers. In DC teaching is a more
attractive profession, here in DC than before
those policy changes. Now I think there have
been midcourse corrections along the way, there need to be more. But I think the principles of
investing in high salaries, investing in teaching as a profession, reducing prescription, giving scaffolding like good curricula, good personal development and instructionally support teachers. Those policies, I think
are proven to actually elevate the profession. We need more of those across the country. – [Andy] Mike, what do you want to add? – I just wanna add for a quick aside, I do think part of this is
about reflective practice and owning where you’ve failed and this is a place where I’m
very aware that I’ve failed. Which is the thing that
I was most excited about and which had very little press in our teacher evaluation law, was when we passed the
teacher evaluation law I said the purpose of
evaluations is improvement. So we were most excited
about was when you have this data on who are our best seventh grade math
teachers across the state, what we wanted to do was
to use that to create career ladders for teachers
so we could identify those folks and not pay them $5000 extra because they taught well. But say could we pay
you $5000 extra for you to share the genius that is in your brain. Would you become a master teacher? Would you become a lab teacher? Would you become an instructional coach? But all of those required
resources, right. And so we passed
legislation with the policy. The policy included career ladders but we didn’t have the funding to fund the career ladders. So what happened was a
bill that was meant to be about investment and evaluation and investment in the
expertise we could get from identifying those folks, became about accountability
and not about support. That was when we went back to the ballot two years later to try to
pass this school finance initiative which also included the funding to support the career ladders and we failed at that. So I think what we really need deeply in the evaluation conversation is an opportunity to really
identify and celebrate the folks that are amazing in
this work and elevate them. We have this idea of creating
a click-through system where you could download
sample lesson plans from our best teachers and they would get paid
for every download, right. So you had create viral rock
stars of our best teachers so you know, hey did you hear about Miss Smith’s lesson from Fort Collins. Cause I think the real opportunity
here is in dramatically elevating the voices of
our best practitioners and having them be the one
that you pay as a consultant to come and do your
professional development, not the random drive by person who hasn’t been in a
classroom in ten years. – Is there a chance
though guys, that this is, you always hear these conversation yet. A couple of data points, this county produces far
more teachers than it needs. So people still want to go into the field. If you look at good comparisons
and good questions that aren’t cooked on surveys
about job satisfaction, teacher job satisfaction
compares incredibly favorably with any other field in this country. I’m not discounting that there’s problems, that’s usually been disrespect. I mean honestly, I’ll
interject myself here, like you listen to their leaders, their teachers union leaders
talk about the field, that’s a dystopian view of
like what teaching is about. You’re hard pressed to find anybody who’s sort of more gloomy. But when you actually look at the data and you look at all these
things that are happening, do we beat ourselves up too much and to Jon’s point, is some of this just any time you have an industry in transition
it’s really rough? – I think we had at least for Colorado, in Colorado we had two
competing narratives that hit at the same time
that were really difficult. One was we had a lot of
statewide conversation around standards and
assessments and evaluations and now we had to do more evaluations and make sure our schools
were doing better. At the same time we
had massive budget cuts for three or four years in a row. So you had both this we’re gonna ask you to do a lot more and we’re going to do a
lot more with a lot less. So now you’re gonna have
fewer instructional coaches, fewer assistant principals, fewer mentoring and supports. – [Andy] That is when satisfaction
on the job surveys dipped was in the height of the downturn when there was real budget cuts happening. – Yeah, it was like ’09, ’10, ’11. So I think it was the
confluence of those things. If we had said, hey we’re
gonna ask you to do a lot more but we’re gonna be there
to support you doing it I think folks would have been fine. I think it was us asking
them to do a lot more then asking them to do it with a lot less was the hard conversation. – [Andy] I’m gonna ask you,
we’re getting short on time. So I wanna ask you guys, lightening round because you’ve got a lot of people. Everybody in this room is
committed to social change. They wouldn’t be here. They wanna make the world a better place. That’s why they do the work they do. You guys have been at
this for two decades. None of us are getting any younger. What’s your big, like
lightening round, 30 seconds. What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned, the thing that you wish
you knew when you were earlier on, that you
learned and you know now? Michael, I’ll start with you. – I was hoping you weren’t
going to start with me. OK 30 seconds. My two big takeaways are, the best policy is
informed by deep practice and so if you wanna have a
more of an impact on policy, go deeper into the work you’re doing as a teacher and principal because you’ll find all the
best lessons there, I think. The second is the corollary to that is I actually find in the
legislature right now, there’s not often a
shortage of political will as much as there is a
shortage of big ideas, at least at the state level. It’s very possible that
local school boards and state legislatures can make an impact. What you don’t have are visionary types of leaders like you all all the time who have done the work, learned the lessons, wanna make an impact. And say, you know what,
you all have probably ten four-year stints of
your career ahead of you, you got 40 years of decisions to make. I would say absolutely take
one of those four-year stints and run for state legislature or serve on your local school board. Take the knowledge you’ve accumulated, the work you’ve done and find a way to shape
the policy environment and then come back. Cause I think the better we get at this is the closer we bring the
worlds of policy and practice together, the more likely you are to have policies that work for practitioners and practitioners who
can drive good policy. – [Andy] Hannah, 30
seconds, your biggest ah-ha that you wish you knew
then, that you know now. – It’s two-fold. One is sitting in the seat
I’m sitting in right now, I woefully underestimated human capital and the importance of it and how important people are in the mix. I thought I knew that and I really, really
didn’t get how important and so my plug is come to New Mexico, you’re welcome, we need
more great leaders. And then secondly I would say, I said it a minute ago, communications. The importance of being able to get ahead, there are competing messages out there and if you aren’t in the game
on talking and communicating about what you’re doing you can have the best policy in the world and not reach to your teachers who end up frustrated. – [Andy] OK Jon, you’ve
got 15 seconds for what’s something you wish you knew in the ’90’s that you’ve learned, you know now? – I think I go back to
my first comment I guess. Is that the pressures that are on everyone working in education and kids, come from the fact that world has changed and that what’s expected
of our young people now has gone up dramatically because of the changes in the work force and country and the pace of information and the pace of change and that our schools are neither
failing nor they’re fine. Sometimes this failing schools metaphor, it’s wrong and it’s demoralizing. It’s not true, we’ve gotten better. But then there’s this reaction that our schools are just fine and there’s a resistance to change no matter what the change is. Whatever the change is
let’s wipe the change away and go back to some sort of placid state. But that’s also wrong. I think what I’ve learned is the pressures are real, our young people are gonna succeed but not particularly our low
income kid and kids of color, whose lives depend even
the most on improvement and the question is how do we
actually get better faster, innovate in a few
places, get better faster to make sure that we actually just keep up the constant improvement as opposed to figuring we have to fix
some entrenched failure which is not true nor
protect the status quo. And that’s the opportunity
the next couple years including at the state policy level for all those of you who
are creating proof points of success in classrooms and
schools across the country. – Alright, first of all, thank you all for what you do. Thank you for your attendance. And thank you for those great questions. And please help me, join
me in thanking our panel. (applause) Thank you very much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *