This week President Obama announced he “will seek an additional $1.35 billion in next year’s budget to expand the Race to the Top competition.” As states rush to submit their 1st round Race to the Top applications, let us pause for a moment and reflect on some lessons learned from this first round.

With the proposed Investing in Innovation (i3) rules release, we have an even deeper insight into how much Secretary Duncan values data. As proposed, the amount of possible grant funding that an applicant may be awarded is tied directly to the strength of evidence supporting their application. What struck us as particularly interesting in this approach is that many innovative programs may, by their very nature, be short of deep evidence.

The US Department of Education is uniquely focused on performance measurement as they consider education funding through the stimulus package. As we review the metrics that have been offered for comment for both the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grant applications, we think it critical that the department tie the data requests to specific outcomes.

During a recent Race to the Top guidelines reading marathon, I came across some of the clearest thinking I have seen about measuring teacher effectiveness. I have read countless articles and papers addressing why measuring teacher effectiveness is so difficult and how it could cause more harm than good. Yet, I have refused to believe most of these claims through shear experience. We have managed to determine what a successful doctor, lawyer, NFL quarterback, pilot, mechanic, psychologist, plumber, relief pitcher, alpaca farmer, and regional quick lube chain president look like and there is no reason we should not do the same for teachers.

Arne Duncan promoted a national vision for school turnarounds which would involve reconstituting 1,000 failing schools each year.  This mirrors the rhetoric of the education stimulus spending which requires states to make assurances that they will turn around failing schools.  Since the inception of NCLB, several schools have been deemed to be failing according to NCLB standards but hardly any concrete steps have been suggested to remedy these situations.

The McKinsey Social Service Office has released a report which highlights the academic acheivement gaps present in the US.  Below is the summary of the article from their site.  You can download the report here."McKinsey's report, The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America's Schools, examines the dimensions and economic impact of the education achievement gap. While much controversy exists on the causes of the gap and on what the nation should do to address it, the full range of the achievement gap's character and consequences has been poorly understood.

The National Governor's Association recently published a guide titled, Building a High-Quality

Three bills are making their way through Michigan’s state legislature that would enable the state to take over failing schools.  The provisions of the bills would enable school takeovers in situations where schools have failed to make progress for four consecutive years according to NCLB and fewer than 35% of students score proficient or better on the math and reading portions of the state test.  Michigan’s actions demonstrate their strategy for adhering to the education stimulus assurance that they will take steps to turn around failing schools. EdWeek article here.

A New Partnership to Measure Impact: Learning Point Associates and Mission Measurement are two organizations paying close attention to the types of assistance states will need in order to identify metrics that will demonstrate the appropriate return on investment to both their funders and their community. It is clear that there must also be complementary tools and resources to guide state and local decision makers as they navigate this critical work of implementing programs that both stimulate economic conditions and move the education system closer to excellence for all students.

Learning Point Associates and Mission Measurement interviewed more than 50 education leaders to determine how they are defining successful implementation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. We explored what these leaders expect in terms of the impact of this funding on the educational system. In response to our findings, we offer considerations for building metrics to monitor success and impact. Read the full report.