Achieve, Inc.  The "Clear Skies" of Education?
Fred Barton

A while back Michigan’s governor Jennifer Granholm partnered the state with the American Diploma project, the brainchild of Achieve, Inc. According to their Web site, Achieve was “Created by the nation's governors and business leaders, [and] is a bipartisan, non-profit organization that helps states raise academic standards, improve assessments and strengthen accountability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, work and citizenship.” Currently 22 states are part of the Achieve network.

Michigan has always been a strong local control state so this partnering with what some saw as a front group for the Business Round Table was cause for concern by some educational professionals around the state. Some pointed out the appearance of a conflict of interest as Governor Granholm sits on the Board of Directors of Achieve. Others mentioned that partnering with an organization co-chaired by Ohio Governor Bob Taft who in August of last year pleaded no contest to charges that he violated state ethics laws, and became the first governor in that state's history to be convicted of a crime, wasn’t exactly the best message to be sending to the citizens and students of the state.

Still, the biggest concern was who would in fact decide on what would compose the new high school standards. Not to worry we were told by our State Department of Education. Michigan standards would be developed and implemented by Michigan educators. Achieve was merely “a research and consulting firm that provides help to build public understanding and support, convenes state leaders, provides occasional advice and analysis, and mobilizes resources.”

It wasn’t explained why we needed “a research and consulting firm that provides help to build public understanding and support.” That sounded suspiciously like a PR task, and with all the attention being put on education these days, it raises the question of why we would need an outside consulting firm to convince people to support quality public education.

The phrase “convene state leaders” was also puzzling. Who were these “state leaders” and for what purpose would they need to be “convened?” Wouldn’t the governor have the authority to do any convening she saw necessary? Do we really need an outside organization to do event planning for us?

Aside from their public relations and organizational services though, we were told that Achieve also “provides occasional advice and analysis.” Well, two heads are always better than one, as they say, but how much is that word “occasional” going to cost a state who, even by the governor’s own admission, has two more years to go before it clears its current recession?

Finally we were told Achieve will “mobilize resources.” If Michigan has resources we would certainly want them mobilized, but wouldn’t the professionals in the state be in a better position to recognize and activate those resources than an outside organization? And again, what price do we have to pay to get these resources mobilized by Achieve?

There were, as you might suspect, still some concerns after the state Department of Education’s explanation. Those concerns were only heightened by Achieve itself, which states it “has helped nearly half the states benchmark their standards and tests against the best examples in the United States and abroad.” And from where does Achieve draw those standards and benchmarks? Apparently from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. As they say on their Web site, “With the release of the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress results, Achieve has compiled a series of charts showing that the Proficient standard on most state tests is set at a level closer to Basic on NAEP.” The point, while not articulated, is obvious.

To say that the NAEP is a problematic assessment tool is probably an understatement, just ask Gerald Bracey. Recently, he wrote: “Actually, it is NAEP that is out of line. Its achievement levels—basic, proficient, and advanced--are ridiculously high. For instance, in TIMSS 1995, American 4th graders were third in the world in science among 26 countries, but NAEP declared only 26 percent of them “proficient” or better.” (www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/Dear%20Public%20Editor.pdf)

Later in the same piece he wrote. “In fact, the Government Accounting Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, and the Center for Research in Evaluation, Student Standards and Testing, have all evaluated the NAEP achievement levels, found them wanting, and said, in polite language, “These things are no damn good.”

Hence the concern of those on the Standards writing team here in Michigan. As one of the primary author’s said recently, “[T]hey (Achieve) have their own standards, written as grade-level-by-grade-level…Having looked at other states that have worked with Achieve, none of them have standards as flexible or as theory-informed as the ones [Michigan is] proposing. All have grade-level-by-grade-level expectations.”

What’s wrong with standards tied to specific grade levels? Well, aside from the fact that students aren’t widgets that proceed along the educational conveyor belt at the same pace, and teachers aren’t Instructional Technicians delivering content much as assembly line workers bolt on parts, not much.

Inflexible standards tied to grades, are designed more for the efficient operation of schools than the development of children. In addition, the philosophy behind the standards/grade level connection reflects a worldview that belongs to  members of the (mostly white) privileged classes and does not accurately reflect the learning environment in which children—particularly minority and poor children—live.

Certainly standards are important, but they are only as good as their ability to be adapted to the needs of children. As the author above implies, flexibility is the key to their successful application in the classroom. And who is responsible for making the decisions about how, when, and in what manner to apply these standards? The classroom teacher. The one who knows the student’s skills and needs best.

These are two elements of increasing the “rigor” of schools that seem to have escaped the attention of the executives and politicians at Achieve. A team of educators from across the state worked on creating the new high school standards with representatives of Achieve. Now those standards are off at the Achieve office in Washington and, as one of the authors said, “I am very concerned that these standards are going to be greatly modified to become over prescriptive, grade-level-by-grade-level, and so on in line with what has happened in other states.”

The representatives of the state Board of Education tell us Achieve doesn’t have “veto power” over our standards, yet the Achieve Web site says participation in the American Diploma Project “requires commitment to a common policy agenda.” If that “common policy agenda” connects standards to grade levels, then where does that leave those who created Michigan’s standards?

According to “Improving High School Graduation Requirements In Michigan” a list of questions and answers put out by the Michigan Department of Education: "State expectations and benchmarks will be assigned to classes—specifically math and science.” So right now English is not targeted for this grade-level by grade-level industrialization of curriculum, but how long can we expect to avoid being included?

How will this be paid for? (The state says it won’t cost anything) and where are all the teachers going to come from? (The state says we have plenty) are also questions still to be played out, but as we look around at the other states that have joined with Achieve, we are not encouraged. Those of you who haven’t yet been approached by Achieve might do well to remember a paraphrase of an old saw, “Hi. I’m from the business world and I’m here to help.”

http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/Home?OpenForm