U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has less than two years left in office with the Obama administration, and lots of initiatives in the middle of implementation, including school turnarounds, teacher evaluation through student outcomes, and鈥攐h, yeah鈥攁 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act.
Both halves of Politics K-12 sat down with him this week. One big take-away? Duncan is really excited that and that . In fact, he brought up the good grad rate news in answer to just about every question we asked him, whether it was on the federal role in education, NCLB waivers, school turnarounds, or Race to the Top. (We edited much of that out, for brevity. But it鈥檚 clearly something he wants to hammer home as folks start to take stock of whether NCLB, and the Obama administration鈥檚 K-12 policies, have been effective.)
What follows is an edited and condensed transcript of our conversation. (A few lines have been slightly paraphrased for clarity):
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act turns 50 next month. What do you think we鈥檝e learned over the past 50 years about the federal role? Where do you see it going forward?
Yes, it鈥檚 an education law, but it鈥檚 a civil rights law. That is at the heart of what this thing is. ... The things that I think make sense for the federal government to be doing ... I think, are one, just a focus on equity. ... For me, that means we would love to see more focus on early-childhood education. ... We would love to increase resources for Title I children. ... We want to continue to be able to turn around underperforming schools. ... [Also] this focus on innovation and sharing best practices and putting resources behind what鈥檚 working ... And so [among] those ...a focus on equity and a focus on innovation and a focus on excellence, I think are very appropriate, I would even say critical, for the right federal role.
You鈥檝e mentioned, , that increased aid for Title I and a new investment in prekindergarten are your top priorities for ESEA. But both of these ideas seem unlikely to be embraced by Republicans who are eager to slim down the federal role. So some folks, when they saw those comments said, 鈥淥h, the administration isn鈥檛 really interested in reauthorizing this law.鈥� Is that fair? Is that what you were trying to get at?
I just disagree with the premise, because I look at Republican governors all over the country who are putting huge resources behind early-childhood education. And New Mexico, Nevada, Alabama, you go right down the list. ... This is an absolutely bipartisan issue, in the real world. If there wasn鈥檛 a demand for this, I wouldn鈥檛 be trying so hard to meet that demand ... I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a partisan issue, I mean, I know it鈥檚 not. ...We have more Republican governors investing in early-childhood education than we do Democratic. ... The real world is working on this stuff, and we just want to get folks in Washington to look at the real world and meet that need.
The waiver renewals you鈥檙e working on now will extend beyond your administration, and I know you鈥檙e hoping for a reauthorization of the law. But are you worried, if that reauthorization doesn鈥檛 happen, that you have opened the door to the next administration coming in and putting their priorities in place in exchange for getting out of the mandates of NCLB鈥攆or instance, expanding school choice?
We have tried to put our best thinking forward. ... I know we鈥檝e done this imperfectly, but I think we鈥檝e done a really good job. ... We try to, as best we can, have the principles of being very tight on goals, but much looser on how we get there, and we鈥檙e learning every day how to be a good partner. ...
The easiest [thing] to do would have been to not do waivers. And just [to have] lived with a broken law and our jobs would have all been a lot easier here. But we would have hurt kids, and we came here to help kids, and we feel really proud of what we鈥檝e done. ... Again, the law needs to be fixed. And if somehow the law isn鈥檛, then you hope the next administration builds upon things we did well and corrects some things, does some things better. ...
Obviously, during your first term, standardized tests really formed a backbone of your agenda in policies like teacher evaluation and dramatic school turnarounds, and now you鈥檙e talking about paring back the number of tests. Did you have a change of heart here?
I think you鈥檙e, I want to say, misremembering. A big thing we did in the waivers from the start was to reduce the focus on a single test score. ... What we did was move away from proficiency, we moved to growth and gain, and what you see in so many state accountability systems is going way beyond a test score and looking at improvements in graduation rates and reductions in dropout rates. Some states look at college-going rates. ... And so, I think, we鈥檝e been actually pretty consistent from day one that, assessing kids annually, we think is important, but it should be a piece of anything and just a piece, and these longer-term indicators we think are hugely important.
But you were the first administration to have a federal mandate to require teacher evaluation through test scores, and so that鈥檚 obviously taking high-stakes tests to another level.
I think, again, you鈥檝e got to look at the context. We think the goal of great teaching is to have students learn; and to have student learning be a piece of teacher evaluation, I think, actually gives the profession the respect it deserves. ... Anyone who says that student learning shouldn鈥檛 be a part of teacher evaluation actually demeans the profession. ... And again, different states have done this different ways, so we鈥檝e never said there is one way to do this but, yes, we have absolutely said that student learning is the goal of great teaching and great teachers, and that that should be a piece of [evaluations]. ... The real point is better support and feedback for teachers.
Race to the Top was obviously your signature program in your first term. But in some places it鈥檚 become a somewhat tarnished brand. Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina have either rethought or changed their standards or tests. And some states are making changes to teacher evaluation, Tennessee being an example. How much influence do you think the administration has in states that got this money, how much influence do you continue to have?
Influence isn鈥檛 the goal here. The goal here is increased student achievement, and you see, what I鈥檝e said from day one, is that you see as much reform and progress in states that didn鈥檛 get a nickel as states that got hundreds of millions of dollars. .... The goal is raising the bar for all kids and seeing those gaps close.
But I would push back on that to say that scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP in half the states that won Race to the Top have stayed level, stagnant, although half of them have gone up. ... I鈥檓 wondering if you feel the program has made a difference everywhere.
It鈥檚 made a different amount of difference in different places. Some of the places where it鈥檚 had the biggest impact is where they didn鈥檛 get any money. ... The lesson for me鈥攁nd we didn鈥檛 really understand this going in鈥攚hile I don鈥檛 want to say the money was unimportant ... it was really just creating space and the opportunity for people to do things that they knew were right, but that [were] hard to do or maybe politically difficult, whatever.
You鈥檝e talked a lot about the federal role in turning around low-performing schools. Do you think there has to be a specific percentage of [schools states must identify as needing extra help]? And I鈥檓 also wondering when the [third year of the School Improvement Grant] data is coming out?
I don鈥檛 know when the SIG data is coming out. ... We need to not just label the problem, we need to not just admire the problem ... we need to do something about it. ... Some [schools] have done an amazing job with [turnarounds]. Some we haven鈥檛 seen as much as improvement as we鈥檇 like. But at least we鈥檙e trying. At least people are in the game. And to be clear ... we did 5 percent [a reference to the percentage of schools the education required states to identify for dramatic turnarounds]... there鈥檚 nothing magical [about that percentage]...whether it鈥檚 4 percent or 6 percent ... we鈥檙e open to those conversations. ... We鈥檙e open on models ... you have to have evidence-based stuff. ... But let鈥檚 not just stand by. I promise you we would not be seeing these improvements in dropout rates, in graduation rates, if we just watched or observed or really didn鈥檛 do anything about it.
Last question (asked off the cuff, after the official conclusion of the interview): You going to stick around for the end of the [Obama administration]?
(Laughs). Day at a time, baby, day at a time.
Photo: Education Secretary Arne Duncan looks at Attorney General Eric Holder, right, as they meet with the news media following their tour of the Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center in Alexandria, Va., last December.
-Cliff Owen/AP-File