A conversation with… J. Michael Ortiz

J. Michael Ortiz is a member of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind.

J. Michael Ortiz is a member of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind. This independent, national blue-ribbon panel was established in 2006 to conduct a high-level review of the federal government’s signature education law, which is currently up for reauthorization in Congress. The commission issued its final report earlier this year but continues to monitor education policy.

The president of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, since 2003, Ortiz has served in administrative and teaching positions in the CSU system for more than a decade and has 25 years of experience in other higher education posts. He holds a doctorate in early childhood special education from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

More than five years in, what do you feel has been the greatest success and the greatest failure of NCLB?

I think that the greatest success has been the transformation of educational policy from a focus on compliance with rules and regulations to more of a focus on accountability and results for all children. I think that No Child Left Behind’s powerful notion of reporting academic progress by subgroups—disadvantaged, African Americans, Hispanic English language learners, students with disabilities, etc.—has really unmasked the achievement gap and forced schools to be accountable for the learning gains of all those students. In other words, we’ve created an environment where there are really no invisible children.

The biggest challenge has been to effectively identify struggling schools and actually turn them around. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done in this area. Another challenge is to look at how we assure that eligible students are able to take advantage of things that are being provided to students in failing schools, such as supplementary educational programs, and the option to transfer to a school that met proficiency. I think that 17 percent of students have taken advantage of the supplemental educational system and 1 percent has been able to transfer to a high performing school.
In addition, we have to do a better job of steering schools that reach the improvement and restructuring phases to undertake a more significant and effective intervention. Quick fixes and the path of least resistance just won’t do it. We have to turn the schools around. We need to work and undertake proven, comprehensive reforms that are designed to improve instruction and learning.

How did the Aspen Commission conduct its work, and what kind of input did you receive at the commission’s hearings?

The commission actually spent over a year traveling around the country, talking with people who were really responsible for implementing this law on a daily basis, to get their views on what was working and what was not. We conducted six hearings around the country—the first hearing was focused on teacher quality and was actually held on our campus—and six public roundtables in Washington, D.C. The commission heard from 86 witnesses, including governors, state and district representatives, state and local board representatives, legislators, teachers, principals, advocates, parents and researchers. We then conducted numerous meetings with stakeholders from all sectors and received testimony and comments from nearly 10,000 people on the Web site that we had up. So, we had a significant amount of input that was presented in terms of what we were trying to accomplish.

Do you recall any specific comments or testimony from local school board members?

One thing that struck me as quite interesting in that discussion was that most people that we spoke to, with regard to No Child Left Behind, agreed that it was something that needed to be done. Every one of them had particular comments about how it would be more effective, but no one that we spoke to said that it was not a good piece of legislation, nor that the goal of NCLB was not a good goal. Probably the most significant and most consistent response was that the data needed to be on a growth model, rather than an adequate yearly progress model. The schools needed to have a method for demonstrating how schools were actually making positive gains as opposed to looking at how they were not meeting the proficiency requirements of the legislation.

Do you see any way to reconcile California’s Academic Performance Index, which is a growth model for measuring student achievement, with NCLB’s adequate yearly progress yardstick?

Yes. California’s model really fits into the recommendations that we are making with regard to growth models. NCLB really didn’t allow for looking at the progress that schools were making on a regular basis. Each state was allowed to establish its own standards. It was clear that there were some states whose standards were not of the same rigor. Therefore, their schools were meeting performance expectations given what their standards were but would have not met expectations looking at other states’ standards. I think that there is a concern about whether or not we have the correct instruments for measuring.

Of course, California established its standards before NCLB was passed. I wonder if you feel that California is being penalized for having set up these high standards by the federal standards that came afterwards.

Not really, considering other states have created standards that arguably exceed California’s—Massachusetts being one. California was not disadvantaged, but I do think that, given the gap between California’s standards and some of the other states’ standards where the expectations were significantly lower, there is a disadvantage to California in terms of the ranking on adequate yearly progress. But again, there are schools that would rank above California in terms of their rigor, so you might say that they’re disadvantaged in comparison to what California’s standards are.

Fordham Foundation President Chester Finn said the commission report “fixes a few flaws but mostly just piles more mandates on top.” How would you respond?

I would disagree with that statement, because I really think that the commission’s recommendations actually refocused existing policy in more productive ways. For example, when we recommend highly qualified, effective teachers, it shifted the focus from the skills a teacher brings into the classroom to actually what happens when the teacher is in the classroom with his or her students. I think that’s one example of how we’re taking No Child Left Behind and actually improving it, based upon recommendations that were made.

Another example is what we’ve been talking about, and that is the use of growth models and trying to determine adequate yearly progress for students. That will be much more useful for the schools, as well as to the teachers as they move forward in working with students. We have, in fact, made a recommendation that the federal government invest $400 million over four years to assist states in developing and implementing a longitudinal data system to track individual student progress from year to year. In addition to that, we’ve also realized that such a data system would be necessary in order to implement growth models and also to be utilized to provide information necessary to measure teacher effectiveness.

It was a very prestigious panel. I wonder how you were selected for it and if you can generally characterize the other people that were on the panel. What were their qualifications?

Well, I was called upon by the Aspen Institute and asked to participate as a member of the NCLB Commission. There could have been a number of reasons that resulted in that taking place, one of which might have been my educational background and my experience in the field. Another might have been that I had been named as one of the 100 most influential Hispanics in the country by “Hispanic Business” magazine. Third would have been that we are a large producer of teachers at Cal Poly at Pomona; therefore, we are certainly impacted by the statute itself in the preparation of our students. Finally, the commission attempted to address at least some of the concerns that came up in the statutes because of the institutions of higher education that are preparing the teachers. I think all of those things probably led to the selection or the request that I serve on the commission.

The other members of the commission, I think, were very well qualified. We had school board members, teacher federation presidents emeritus, other university representatives. We had a retired superintendent, as well as individuals who are currently involved in education at different levels. Dr. Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, and Ed Rust, Jr., CEO of State Farm, were members, so I think that overall it was a very balanced group. The commission was co-chaired by former Wisconsin Gov. and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and his co-chair was Gov. Roy Barnes from Georgia, so there was also a bipartisan leadership.

Gene Mullin, who is chair of the Assembly Education Committee and a lifelong educator, recently told CSBA that his primary concern about NCLB is the focus on testing, which has led to a narrowing of the curriculum. Do you agree with that assessment?

I don’t agree with that. I believe that the assessments themselves are really vital tools. At Cal Poly Pomona, we have institutionalized a learning-centered environment. Assessment is at the core of learning-centeredness, This assessment feeds back into what we’re doing as an institution to improve the things that we’re doing,  so assessment for us is an ongoing way of life. [Assessments] represent concrete measurements of progress towards the expectations of NCLB. In order that we provide students, parents, administrators and others with an impression of how well students are progressing, we have to do this. The commission itself has actually spoken about increasing the assessments themselves to include the assessment of science.

If you look at the issues that are surfacing in the national debate on competitiveness and how competitive we are in a global environment, I think that competitiveness doesn’t start at the college level—it begins in elementary school—so determining how proficient and how well we’re doing at that level and all the way up is a significant piece of what we need to be doing in order to address that competitiveness issue.

The primary goal of NCLB is that 100 percent of students will be proficient by 2014. It is widely understood that this is not achievable and that as a result, every school and every school district in the country will be identified as being in need of improvement at that time. What purpose would be served by this, and what do you think is the appropriate balance between praiseworthy goals and achievable policy objectives?

We discussed this at great length. We always came back to the same position, and that is that we really didn’t feel we could back away from the goal in terms of reaching proficiency by 2014. Our recommendation, taken as a whole, will really accelerate progress towards meeting that goal, but we need to keep the goal in place in order to keep people focused and the pressure on and moving them in a steady direction.

One question  that we would constantly fire back at people who said, “This is not adequate” or “This is not an appropriate target given where we are at the present time” was, “If you were going to reduce it from 100 percent, who would you reduce? What 15 percent would you remove or rule out?” And there was never a good answer to that.

We felt it was important to keep an eye on where we wanted to go, even if we knew that it was going to be a challenge. Even if we knew we may not get there by 2014, we felt that if we kept it at that point, we would be closer to reaching that goal and would reach it in the future, much sooner than if we were to alter the goal itself.

I think that we have addressed some of the concerns in terms of flexibility that the growth model provides, which allows the states to identify, for AYP purposes, those students who were on track to proficiency. But I think that the goal itself was something we didn’t feel we could change without having a negative impact on the purpose of the law itself.

Of course, NCLB leaves it to the 50 states to define just what “proficiency” is, and that results in vast differences among the states—as well as a high hurdle for the world-class academic standards that California set for its students well before the federal law was enacted. Do you see a need for the state to revisit its standards in view of NCLB?

One of the instruments that the commission looked at in terms of performance nationally was the NAEP, or National Assessment of Educational Progress. There was a significant gap, in some states greater than others, between their performance on the NAEP and their performance on the instruments used within the state. I do think that we need to regauge what standards we’re testing to determine whether students are prepared to succeed in higher education or in today’s workforce.

California is generally credited for having challenging standards. It’s one of the states with less of a gap between the NAEP and the standards—but there still is a gap. We need to examine whether the expectations we have for our children will sufficiently prepare them for success after high school and to compete in the global economy.

The commission really has two significant recommendations in this area: The first recommendation is that all states, in partnership with higher education and business communities, undertake an analysis of whether their standards are sufficient to prepare students for future success. This analysis is to be completed in one year and would culminate in a national summit convened by the secretary of Education to discuss findings and to report to the American people where the states have sufficiently high expectations for their students.

Second, the commission recommended the creation of a model of national standards and tests in reading, mathematics and science. The commission believes the adoption of these standards and tests should be created, but could be voluntary. We recommend three options for the states once these tests are created: adopt the national model standards and tests as their own for accountability purposes; create their tests based on the model national standards; or improve their existing tests and standards. Whichever option is chosen, it’s important for the public to know how they compare to each other and the national model.

With your extensive background in special education, do you feel the commission’s recommendations would provide sufficient flexibility to allow the academic achievement of special ed students to be measured using specialized instruments?

I believe that would happen. I think the commission has made a number of recommendations that tighten the accountability requirements where necessary and provide flexibility and resources to ensure that students with disabilities are treated appropriately in accountability systems. Some of these include restricting the minimum subgroup size to no more than 20 with a waiver of 30 if states can justify it. Another recommendation is to maintain the U.S. Department of Education’s policy of allowing 1 percent of children—those with the most severe cognitive disabilities—to be assessed against an alternate achievement standard.

Yet another recommendation is amending the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed policy of allowing an additional 2 percent of students with disabilities to be assessed against modified achievement standards by reducing the cap to 1 percent; then, strengthen the procedures used for determining which children are included in the category and improve the tools and training available to Individual Education Plans.

As I mentioned earlier, we also recommended the redirecting of existing federal appropriations for the development of state standards and tests, which is currently at nearly $400 million annually, to create appropriate alternative assessments for students with disabilities and other important improvements. Since these assessments and standards have already been developed, that money could be redirected.

In its report, the Aspen Commission stated that teachers should demonstrate their effectiveness in the classroom rather than just their qualifications for entering it. The CSU system prepares 60 percent of California’s teachers; how would you see this impacting teacher preparation?

I think that it would support the approaches that are being utilized across the CSU. For a number of years now, even prior to NCLB, we have been focusing on models that examine pupil performance as a measure of teacher competence. We’ve been attempting to create models that will allow us to measure performance within the classroom for our own students before they are granted a degree, as well as after they’ve completed the degree.

With that model, I believe that classroom effectiveness is the direction that the CSU has been focused on for some time now. I think the commission would support the direction we’re heading in, but it would also provide significant encouragement, you might say, for us to move forward as rapidly as possible.

State policy-makers are in the process of digesting the contents of 23 research studies that will provide the background for a statewide conversation about the funding and efficiency of our public schools. One of the studies concludes that California’s intention to raise student achievement and reduce the achievement gap requires investments in leadership, and it calls for the cultivation of principals’ capacities to lead instructional improvement and to design schools and invest resources in productive ways. What role do you see the CSU system playing in contributing to the development of such leaders?

I believe the CSU is finally in a position to be able to address that. Along with the commission recommendation that we should have highly effective principals, as well as effective teachers, the CSU has been granted the authority to award the doctorate of education, which is commonly identified as the degree for individuals involved in leadership positions in the public schools as well as the community colleges. I think the programs, as they develop and focus on the strengths that are necessary in that environment, will really evolve into a strong relationship between the CSU doctoral program and the K-12 environment, which I believe is going to be very positive for the leadership in that segment.

Before he became CSBA’s executive director, Scott P. Plotkin spent nearly 20 years as a legislative advocate for the CSU system at the same time he was a school board member. Scott has commented on the ups and downs in the relationship between K-12 and higher ed. How would you characterize that relationship as it currently stands?

I believe that the relationship between K-12 and higher education is improving on an ongoing basis. We have formed partnerships across a number of different areas. For example, on our campus we have partnerships in the K-12 environment establishing professional development schools. Our students and faculty are actually assigned to the schools, as opposed to being on our campus. They’re very much integrated into the operations of the school and become a part of that school environment while the training process is taking place.

We’ve been engaged in a program across California called the Parent Institute for Quality Education. This particular organization has partnered with the CSU. PIQE delivers a program to individual schools which prepares the parents to become more effective advocates for their own children in the schools. It also provides the teachers in the schools with the information that they need in order to work more effectively with the parents. It helps establish consistent information flowing from the homes into the schools. This last year, here at Cal Poly Pomona, we had over 1,100 parents graduate from this program, and statewide we had over 6,200 parents graduate from the program. That was in its first year of implementation, and we are continuing to reach out.
We have been focusing on creating support for “a through g” as the basic requirement for graduating from high school. We believe that college-ready is work-ready, and so we’ve been working with the public school systems in trying to evolve that position.

We are also engaged in the Early Assessment Program, where students who are seeking to attend the CSU can extend their testing day from the graduation examination and to further determine their college readiness. Once the results are completed and sent back to the student and the school, it allows the students to then determine what they need to do in order to be college-ready. The schools themselves are partnering with us to say, “OK, we can assist in this process.”

We have also put online a math and a writing class in which the students can participate if they haven’t met the college-ready requirements for the CSU. We have EAP directors at each of our campuses, and those individuals are working with the teachers in the schools to ensure that the students that are going through the pipeline seeking admission to either the CSU or the UC understand what their level of college readiness is through the use of the Early Assessment Program. These are just a few examples, but I think the K-12 and the university systems are closer now than they’ve ever been in trying to address these issues.

Is there any way you see that the K-12 system can help to foster or advance this partnership?

I would say one thing: Encourage all students to participate in the EAP. I think that would be a significant piece of the puzzle and would allow students to really gauge where they are in relation to being effective in a college environment. There’s a standard for graduation, and there’s a standard for what we call college-readiness, and trying to bring those two together, I think, is something that we can continue to work toward. K-12 can certainly play a significant role in that.

What do you wish local school board members understood better about what CSU does?

I believe that if I were to talk to local school board members I’d want them to know the CSU is very, very interested in working with the school districts in order to ensure that the students realize their educational goals, whether it is a college education or work. We’re there to try to be partners in the process so that, as we move forward, we really are better preparing a population that’s going to be more engaged in their communities. They’re going to be more efficient in addressing their own educational needs and will end up being more effective citizens for the state of California, and we certainly want to be partners with the schools in that regard.

Is there anything more that you wish local school board members understood about NCLB?

NCLB is designed to assist students to succeed in the classroom. Decisions made in relationship to the implementation of this legislation should be made with the children’s best interest in mind. This was the foundation upon which the commission developed its recommendations.

Brian Taylor is the managing editor for California Schools.