Many of the Governor’s proposals have a solid basis in research and would help solve existing problems. Universal pre-school is one example. I don’t know the thinking or research behind full day kindergarten. The basic idea is that more time spent learning will increase achievement. My guess is that there is enough research and thinking out there to consider this issue. Increasing teacher training for teachers in mid-career also has seen research and thinking. I actually took a class in professional development during my doctorate.
Educational issues aside, managing such a sweeping agenda will be difficult, if not intractable. Patrick has left out specific details on the Readiness Project, but his description suggests a dilution of various interest groups. Given his success in appointing people, there is cause for concern. In addition to selecting members and managing this commission, Patrick will have to negotiate vociferous criticism from the Right and a risk tax averse legislature, which, even with the presentation of a perfect case for change, would have to be convinced to raise taxes or make major cuts somewhere.
Is it any wonder people don’t know what to say?
“I think it’s an impressive and ambitious agenda,” said Jeffrey Berry, a political scientist at Tufts University. “. . . Nobody expects that they’re going to come to fruition anytime soon.”
“I think politically he’s putting himself in a box,” said David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank. “He won’t get all this stuff through the Legislature, because the Legislature won’t raise taxes.”
Noah Berger, executive director of the [liberal] Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, said the feasibility of the governor’s plans is “a question of priorities and values.” He said that if the administration develops a thorough analysis justifying the spending, the state could choose to cut other programs, or identify new revenue to pay for Patrick’s plans.
“I think there’s certainly a tremendous amount of vision in the education plan, but I approach the financing side of it with a great deal of trepidation,” said Steve Poftak, research director for the Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank. “I think it’s going to be tremendously difficult to come up with the funds for each one of these initiatives.”
“I think the governor understands he’s not going to get everything he asked for,” said Thomas M. Finneran, the former House speaker and now the host of a talk show on WRKO radio. “But it’s part of his job to take that bully pulpit as governor and to point out the directions, plural, that the state needs to consider.”
Senator Stan Rosenberg: “I hope people will discuss Governor Patrick’s sweeping new education plan unveiled late last week. Entitled “The Readiness Project: From Cradle to Career – Education as our Competitive Edge,” the proposal lays out a plan for achieving exactly what the title says. As with any plan, the details are important and I am looking forward to learning more and engaging in the discussions that are sure to follow. I hope you are, too.” –From The Rosenberg Report
Governor Patrick seems to be asking us to give him the benefit of the doubt. His rhetoric has certainly been such to discredit those who would question his agenda. But the scope, the lack of specific detail, and most of all, the lack of a proposed method for funding (the burden for anyone proposing a policy change) for The Readiness Project, as well as the ignoring of stock issues of policy debate, ask for healthy skepticism. It’s a strange predicament to be in.
–Mark
I posted a more cursory review of Patrick’s speech and the way it has been covered in the media.
As you noted on your blog, a lot of this depends on who gets appointed to the commission doing the study, and what they do. Which priorities are they going to raise? What method of funding will they propose? Will the proposal also attempt to solve the other priority the governor elevated during the campaign and in recent speeches, that “the property tax isn’t working”? Will it seek to review the foundation budget to reflect raised standards since the foundation was established in 1993, or are the Pre-K, full-day K, and extended day initiatives an alternative to that review?
BTW, for what it’s worth; I think progressives are somewhat boxed in on balanced budgets. The 3% of GDP deficits we ran from 1945 to 1979 worked fine, but the demographics of the baby boom, combined with the choice to partially pre-fund Social Security, plus the large unfunded liability of Medicare relying in part on the same tax base as Social Security , more or less require advocating that general fund revenues pay for general fund expenditures, at least as long as SS runs a surplus. And the corrolary is that conservatives game is to try to make it politically impossible to honor the Social Security trust fund, which in affect results in a transfer of a few $Trillion of payroll taxes to high income individuals. Paygo right now is necessary because otherwise, the general fund will be left with insufficient revenue to cover its own expenses, much less to repay the accrued SS obligations.
I think the way for progressives to find more money for progressive causes is to hold the line on expiring tax cuts (If Bush didn’t intend for them to expire, why wasn’t that the way the law was proposed?), and stop throwing good money after bad in the middle east. And then for good measure, figure out how the USA can bring its medical costs down to the same fraction of GDP that our peers pay for equal or better outcomes.
I’m all for healthy skepticism, but don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a bit here? It’s still quite early in the Governor’s term, and is seems to me that it’s better to introduce a general vision to set the political foundation first, before submitting a laundry list of specific proposals that will obscure the bigger picture. Why not get people talking about the general ideas first, and then jump from that discussion to specific legislation?
<
p>
You are correct that there is a question about, for example, what really prevents people from attending community colleges. Has the Governor’s proposal prevented that debate or facilitated it? I would argue the latter, since the focus is now on community colleges generally. And it great to have a complete debate by, as you suggest, hearing the opposition against “standards and accountability”, but what’s the point of convening a panel that argues that we should maintain the status quo?
<
p>
In short, I don’t see anything wrong with the Governor’s initial plan. In fact, it’s how a number of major changes in policy have occured — start with the theory first, and then move to specifics. I guess I just don’t see what the problem is here.
It’s odd to present such a bold agenda without any suggestion as how to pay for it. As I was trying to point out in my diary, there are certain issues that are implied by any policy change. I don’t think Governor Patrick addressed many of these. I didn’t harp on the obvious funding issue since everyone is doing so.
<
p>
One thing that impressed me in a March MassInc article was the that successful governors and presidents tend to tackle one or two issues at a time, in part because other issues will come up that aren’t part of his agenda setting. By challenging the entire K-14 educational system, the governor has taken on a lot of vested interests. That makes it harder, not easier to effect change.
<
p>
The Governor has been in office 5 months, and quite frankly, I think his administration lacks the experience and skill to handle a project of this size.
<
p>
I also objected to the Governor’s rhetoric suggesting that anyone who opposed or criticized his agenda would be letting down kids. An honest, democratic dialogue should not be held hostage to merely agreeing with a vision.
<
p>
Mark
I was disappointed that, at least in the media, the immediate focus was “how’s he going to pay for this?” rather than “does this sound like a good idea?” It was obvious to me that Patrick is setting a broad general goal, a vision, one which will need to be publicly discussed and vetted for years.
<
p>
In the blogs I frequent, the more conservative posters are actually opposed to a free college education, which is amazing to me.
<
p>
It shouldn’t amaze you. Nothing is free, the cost of the 2 year plan would come from higher taxes.
<
p>
One of the best investments anyone individual can make is in more education. It should remain a individual choice and cost. Also, and this is speculation not factually based, probably the failure to get a degree, 2 or 4 year, isn’t primarily financial.
<
p>
Agree or not, that’s the conservative take on the idea.
Mark Bail wrote:
<
p>
Um, exactly what are you claiming is unsupported by research? That students doing SAT test prep in a longer school day score better on SAT tests? That kids who get more writing help in a longer school day write better? That kids who join a science club in a longer school day miss fewer days of school than they did when the day was shorter…?
<
p>
Notwithstanding your misgivings about Gov. Patrick’s overall plan, you merely demonstrate your ignorance of extended day strategies and practices with such a sweeping, unsupported claim.
<
p>
Get the Facts:
<
p>
–> Extending the school day is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Schools across the country have lengthened their day anywhere from 30 minutes to a few hours, for all grades or for just some grades, based on their needs and available resources. Individual schools have experimented with using additional hours for a wide range of activities: tutoring, test practice, community service clubs, arts, athletics, career explorations, science classes, music study, college prep and more.
<
p>
–> Chris Gabrieli didn’t invent the concept of extended day. Educators, families and academics have been vigorously advocating the concept for two decades, including many leaders of the Charter School movement back in the 1980’s. Sure, Gabrieli has done much to promote extended day in MA, but he jumped on a bandwagon that was already moving… not to mention that dropping his name is irrelevant to whether or not extended day benefits students. You label extended day as Gabrieli’s “baby” to make what point, exactly?
<
p>
–>I’ve worked extensively in public elementary and high schools, including after-school settings, and the only backlash against “lack of leisure time” I’ve encountered is from readers of NYTimes Select in Newton.
<
p>
I haven’t encountered a single parent in the last decade –least of all a low-income parent of a child in a struggling school– who complained that their child was being “overscheduled” by their school (though I know of folks in Lowell who had safety concerns about a later-ending day).
<
p>
On the other hand, I’ve heard extensive, consistent complaints for twenty years about cutting music and sports programs, closing school libraries, poor SAT & college prep, a dearth of AP classes, and a lack of after school opportunities for kids whose school day ends at 2:30 PM.
<
p>
–>You say, “A longer school day may be the solution to the problems of some of our children, but it is by no means all.” Hello? Nobody is advocating extended day as a solution to problems of “all” our children. Indeed, no single education reform solves “all” of our children’s needs, so by your logic we shouldn’t invest in any of them… It’s such a bogus argument, it suggests you aren’t genuinely interested in determining how extended day can benefit any schools.
<
p>
Sorry if my tone is a bit snippy, but the tired-old gobbledeygook like, “parents would like to see two hours of free child care after school” is just that: tired-old gobbledeygook that has nothing to do with the benefits –some quite obvious– of extended day.
<
p>
There is plenty of empirical evidence showing academic and other benefits to a longer school day –provided the extended time is well-planned and offers quality learning opportunities. It’s not a panacea for every educational ill, but your glib, out-of-hand dismissal is not supported by the real world experience of schools in MA, across the country and in other industrialized countries.
<
p>
Talk about glib.
<
p>
I was referring, obviously unclearly, to where I thought Deval Patrick came up with the idea for longer school days. What the Mass 2020 site lists as empirical research is, in a word, weak. I’d be glad to review any research you forward.
<
p>
One of the problems with Patrick’s educational agenda is its lack of specifics. Having read Globe articles and finally the press release that took a while to be made public,it looks like everyone gets an extended day.
<
p>
I’ve been teaching for 15 years, working on my doctorate for 4, and living in a blue-collar community for 43. I hear mothers complaining about the amount of homwork kids get, much of which is difficult enough to present a problem for people with limited education, and the lack of free time kids get. I know people who would appreciate and already pay for 2 hours of day care.
<
p>
“Quite obvious benefits”? How about empirically researched and broadly implemented program benefits?
<
p>
Mark
Again, to think that Patrick got the idea for longer school days from Gabrieli requires ignoring decades of vigorous advocacy and experimentation in MA and around the country. You seem to suggest Patrick heard some new idea from Gabrieli, decided “yeah, what he said!” and therefore the idea itself has less merit.
<
p>
While I agree there is an unsettling lack of specifics in the Governor’s plan, that is a separate issue from the merits of extended day.
<
p>
Extending the school day has been advocated for many years to address not only academic improvement, but also issues of public health, safety and community. Measuring academic benefit empirically can be complicated, since there are so many variations in extended day and the schools in which it is implemented: how long a school extends its day, what they do with the extra time, which students participate, the quality of existing teachers, the facilities, etc.
<
p>
That said, I think the recommendations from groups like Education Sector are reasonable and realistic. They conclude that extended day only benefits academics if additional time is spent on academic study (as opposed to enrichment or recreation).
<
p>
They note, among other things, that there is a need to collect better data on how time is spent in schools to determine the optimal use of any extended hours.
<
p>
By “quite obvious benefits” I’m referring to schools using a longer day to institute things like supervised study halls –a practice elite private schools have employed for generations. Schools that offer study halls during the day have significantly less homework delinquency, since students are able to work on assignments before going home and when a new lesson is still fresh in their minds.
<
p>
I believe you when you say you hear mothers complain about the amount of homework, but I honestly have not encountered this at all. Have you not heard far more complaints from parents about lack of AP classes, college prep., tutoring resources or days that end way too early?
<
p>
Regards,
<
p>
~TP
I did/do think Patrick got the idea from Gabrieli, though I have nothing to support that. I don’t know who advises the governor.
<
p>
My post which was organized around the idea of stock issues was glib when I transitioned to ELT. Of course, I can see a lot of things to do with extra time. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems like it has been suggested as universal. If the Governor were to fund schools that applied for extended learning time, I would suppport that. But I still think, as you may, that different communities have different problems. I would support my tax dollars going to fund such programs for communities that chose them.
<
p>
On a completely philosophical level, I have reservations about with the way the Governor is selling his agenda appealing to guilt and fear. Guilt with “how can anyone look into the eyes of these children… (and deny my educational agenda) and our “the future of our state and civilization is at stake.” Fear and guilt are not progressive values as far as I’m concerned.
<
p>
Also philosophically, I object to the degree to which the state is worming its way into our personal lives and using fear to do so. Maybe I’m too like Thoreau in this regard, but I believe children deserve free, unprogrammed time. The increase in testing has increased homework in my town. I know this from my own children, my nieces and nephews, and my sisters who have had to deal with it.
<
p>
Unglibly (I hope),
<
p>
Mark
<
p>
I see extended day programs like many other pilot, choice, and research programs in the past – there has been some success in trial and small-scale settings. Many programs have reached this phase, many less have then been broadly implemented with the same level of success as in the research setting.
<
p>
The price tag alone is enough to give pause when contemplating universal extended day. If these are to be paid for by the state – which is a reasonable assumption, given that “the property tax isn’t working”, that would require increasing state level K-12 funding by about one-third. Many school districts and towns are likely to have different ideas about the best way to deploy new resources on that scale; as is the state, and as are advocates for various other means of education reform; not to mention those who would fight against raising new tax revenues.
<
p>
It does seem ripe for implementation in a somewhat broader context, and where the students and teachers participating are not self-selecting an extended day program. Perhaps in a couple of small cities, one facing 4th or 5th year NCLB sanctions, and another in the middle of the standardized test results pack.