Maria Echaveste Joins the American Bar Association’s Inaugural Task Force for American Democracy

Mary Smith, the new president of the American Bar Association has appointed Maria Echaveste to the ABA’s inaugural Task Force for American Democracy, formed to look at ways to improve public trust in the U.S. election system. Maria joins a cohort of thought leaders, lawyers, former elected officials, and business leaders who represent a bipartisan group of recognized national leaders with expertise in American government, democracy, and the rule of law.

The Task Force for American Democracy will focus on:

• Depoliticizing the administration of elections

• Educating the public on the principles of our democracy and driving ownership of those principles into the American culture

• Identifying and advancing improvements and innovations in our systems of elections that will address the root causes of the current politicization and lack of trust in our elections and in our democracy.

“Public education is essential for a functioning democracy and key to fulfilling the promise of America, yet continues to be under attack,” said Maria Echaveste. “The recent measures taken in states to radically restrict students’ curriculum, especially regarding our country’s history regarding race, is dangerous. Our 247-year-old experiment with democracy has only truly included all of its citizens since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and even now regressive forces continue to try to limit and limit access to the ballot. I’m honored to join the ABA Task Force and will work to ensure that all understand that a thriving democracy requires an educated citizenry.”

The American Quilt and the “Other” CRT

By Maria Echaveste

On May 14, California and the country lost a trailblazing Latina and public servant– Gloria Molina, former Los Angeles County supervisor among many other groundbreaking roles. (Full disclosure and absolutely dating myself, I volunteered on her first campaign in 1982 when she successfully won a seat as the first Latina in California’s State Assembly.) As people remembered her ferociousness and commitment, many also commented on her deep love for quilting.  She founded the East Los Angeles Stitchers, as a way of sharing her love for sewing and quilting with her community.  It’s a powerful example that no one is just one thing, whether you are a public official or a working class mother trying to take care of your children.  As individuals, we all have our own experiences, cultures and interests.  Indeed, Gloria’s passion for quilting provides an inspiring metaphor. In case you are not familiar with the textile arts, a “quilt” is a piece of cloth made by sewing together multiple layers of fabric often in complex designs, but also in personal, autobiographical and even political forms.  Think the AIDS Memorial Quilt that once draped the National Mall, or the work of Faith Ringgold, Bisa Butler or Sara Trail who founded the Social Justice Sewing Academy.  You might even have one in your closet or bed made by a parent or grandparent.

The metaphor of an American “quilt” and whether we can truly create one “quilt” out of all of our different backgrounds and experiences is irresistible in this current national moment of division and polarization.  Many of us are wondering if enough of us are still committed to joining and connecting these different pieces into one American fabric, or whether the pieces have grown too far apart to ever become one. 

Of course, how we answer this question depends on how we start the discussion, and whether we’re starting in good faith. For example, much ink has been spilled about “Critical Race Theory,” or “CRT” - a buzzword in the news and on social media with its origins in legal scholarship and only passing relevance to the administration of our K-12 schools or what is actually taught in these classrooms. Manufactured political controversies over this “CRT” are overshadowing the “other” CRT - culturally responsive teaching. This CRT provides a better starting place for discussions about how we connect to our students and how we support our young people to develop their cognitive and critical thinking skills necessary for creating an American quilt that can last through the generations.

“Culturally responsive teaching” is an approach that considers, integrates, builds on, and reflects the backgrounds and communities of students in schools. Evidence shows that all students stand to benefit from culturally and linguistically sustaining practices– an approach that values the experiences, assets and backgrounds the students bring with them to school.  Research has revealed that human beings organize the world through the lens of cultural beliefs, norms and practices–it’s how we make sense of the world. Our cultural connection to new learning enables us to focus, stay actively engaged, and consciously process new information. When learners can see themselves, their families, communities, and ways of life in the classroom in ways that are positive and meaningful, learning happens in ways that can be sustained and impactful.

From a policy perspective, we have a wonderfully diverse student body with a complex set of experiences and needs. On the other hand, we have an education system that was built on longstanding and ongoing inequities along lines of race, gender, income, and abilities.  For so long our education systems have seen our students as fundamentally empty or even flawed vessels that must be force-fed knowledge or even reshaped, with little understanding or respect that our students come in with knowledge and experiences that can be assets.  We can approach our students from an asset-based perspective, helping them to develop with an eye to building from the areas where they are strong.  

From the perspective of educational practice, culturally responsive teaching pushes educators and adults to advance learning by working closely with families to understand their core beliefs and worldviews. At a minimum, educators should be prepared to plan and teach lessons that demonstrate respect for students’ lived experiences. This means identifying themes across cultures and valuing distinctions among them.  

Scientific evidence has repeatedly shown the centrality of positive relationships and cultural inclusivity to learning. Books, videos, field trips, and curricula that reflect various cultural backgrounds send the message that these cultures are valued and helpful in learning the content. This approach builds relationships among teachers and students, and supports learning.

If we view public education as one of the connecting pieces that hold the American quilt together, then our communities must be able to see themselves and their interests within our public schools. If we seek to prepare all of our youth to access the full range of opportunities in postsecondary education, work, and life, then we must do a better job of fully engaging young people of color and those from low-income backgrounds.   Our future as a country - socially, politically, economically - depends on our ability to see the value of the other CRT–helping to deliver a successful and fulfilling education for all. 

 At OI, we have been working on a myriad of issues related to addressing the inequities that stand in the way of building an educational system that delivers a high quality education for each and every child. OI, of course, is not alone in this effort–many of you are working on educational equity in varying and different ways.  But, as quilters know all too well, more is accomplished with multiple hands working together, each of us bringing our unique perspectives and experiences to this work.

Science, State Budgets, Educational Equity

By Guy Johnson and Winsome Waite

Whether in times of budget surplus or budget deficit, educational equity requires allocating public resources to support learning and thriving for every young person based on need and on what scientific findings have shown about how youth learn and develop. Political, economic, and social circumstances vary across states, but brains work the same everywhere. Even considering specific contextual differences, state investments in public education must come with clearer support for effective practices. It is just as important for political leaders  - whether in New York, Georgia, or elsewhere - to have the knowledge and courage to articulate what practices need to stop because they are at odds with science and evidence. In that spirit, we write today to give recent examples of equity-focused, science-informed approaches to policy and practice by close partners in two very different places: Albany, New York and Gwinnett County, Georgia.

In New York, there is interest among state and community leaders and money in the state budget to advance greater educational “resource equity” and ensure that under-resourced schools and communities have what they need. In Georgia, a surplus in the state budget has been coupled with a very different approach: rather than invest the funds in schools, the state is issuing tax refunds of $250-500 per household and the Governor is expected to sign a bill that would mandate annual active shooter training in schools and create an “anti-gang license endorsement” for teachers and certified personnel. 

Over the last two decades, in Albany and across the state, the Alliance for Quality Education (AQE) has been fighting for high quality public education for New Yorkers. A good portion of their work has focused on the “Foundation Aid Formula,” a statewide system of funding for schools that was enacted in 2007 to distribute school aid equitably across the state, according to student needs and available resources. With full funding of the formula finally arriving with the FY24 budget, AQE and State Senator Lea Webb recently organized a panel to discuss the future of the Foundation Aid Formula and how to more effectively allocate public funds to ensure a robust and equitable education for underserved students.

For the discussion, OI’s Winsome Waite joined a diverse group that included State Senator Robert Jackson, New York State Education Department (NYSED) Commissioner Betty Rosa, Sean Giambattista, Director of State Aid at NYSED, Kaliris Salas-Ramirez, neuroscientist at CUNY School of Medicine, and Jasmine Gripper, executive director of AQE. The panel discussed chronic inequities in New York’s public education system, the persistence of deep poverty, and various related challenges. 

Winsome focused on a more holistic approach to learning, with particular emphasis on investments in adolescent-aged youth and practices and policies aligned with science of learning principles. Science has established that a dynamic interplay between brain development, positive relationships, and supportive environments fosters learning. Because the middle-school and high-school years are key developmental periods, it is particularly important for our schools to engage these learners in high-order academic and social-emotional learning and provide experiences that build strong peer relationships with support from adults. There are many “strategies” and “programs” that meet this criterion, and plenty of good reasons to replace outdated and unimpactful approaches.

The understanding that some investments of public funds are actually counterproductive also informed OI’s recent participation on a multidisciplinary panel in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Guy Johnson joined the Hon. LeRoy Burke III (Ret.), senior judge for the Chatham County juvenile court, Pamela Perkins Carn from the Ending Mass Incarceration Georgia Network (EMI-GA) coalition, and parent advocate Bisi Jackson for a conversation about the “out-of-school-to-prison” pipeline. The talk was hosted by The Gwinnett Parent Coalition to Dismantle the School to Prison Pipeline (Gwinnett SToPP) as part of its annual “Legislative Advocacy Day,” and included reflections from the panel about how Georgia’s recent efforts around “school safety” are similar to legislative efforts in other states. Gwinnett SToPP was formed in 2007 to lead a parent-driven, community-centered partnership approach to dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline in Gwinnett County. The mission of Gwinnett SToPP is to build and strengthen relationships with the community in two ways: parent/community advocacy training and policy-change facilitation.

Against this backdrop, the panel in Georgia talked about how stressful school climates, traumatic experiences, and exclusionary school discipline practices contradict what science of learning principles show are the necessary conditions for success: supportive learning environments where students feel a sense of belonging. Investments in punitive practices and programs that isolate students - e.g, out-of-school suspensions and academic remediation that does not address current grade-level content - are contrary to scientific findings about learning and development and have a proven track record of simply not being effective. 

By now, we certainly know what does not work for children. Productive investments are those that ensure greater access and support for every learner and help to accelerate learning in safe and supportive environments. They provide a greater number of students with more rigorous courses, more high-dosage, high-quality grade-level tutoring, mentorships, work-based learning experiences, and after-school activities rooted in experiential learning. These kinds of investments support students broadly in their development and their ability to learn and thrive.

At this point the alternatives are, honestly, perverse: wastefully pouring public money into fundamentally regressive practices or standing by and remarking upon inequities without taking meaningful action. This is why we applaud the efforts of AQE and Gwinnett SToPP to advance equity-focused, multi-disciplinary conversations about how we should be investing public funds to support the “whole child.” In very different settings, they have been working on issues of education equity for decades, using community organizing and parent and community empowerment to help inform and advance changes in policies and practices. 

Moving forward means demanding, as our partners do, that our educational and policy leaders articulate the core elements of an equitable approach to public education, in terms of both policies and practices. The responsible and effective use of public funds requires putting equity at the center and proceeding from scientific findings about how children develop and learn.

Black History Month—The Work Continues

By Maria Echaveste

Close to Logan Circle in Washington, DC is the Carter G. Woodson Memorial Park, a small triangle of grass and concrete that prominently features a metal sculpture of the famous historian. Almost 100 years ago, Dr. Woodson, one of the first scholars of African-American history, identified the second week of February as "Negro History Week," in part because it connected the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln on February 12 and Frederick Douglass on February 14. Here we are decades later—Black History Month is now nationally recognized and presents an opportunity for learning and reflection.  This is especially important now as some voices seek to limit, censor or otherwise manipulate learning about our collective national history.

The Opportunity Institute (“OI”) works primarily in education because we see it as the best driver of social and economic mobility and racial equity, and equally important, as the key ingredient for a thriving and strong democracy. As Dr. Woodson wrote “The mere imparting of information is not education. Above all things, the effort must result in making a man think and do for himself.” Education is key to realizing one’s potential and self-determination. 

So why am I talking about democracy during Black History Month? Schools have the ability to foster an engaged democratic citizenry and drive substantial and inclusive economic growth. But historic inequities can hinder progress. The state of Mississippi, where OI has been working for several years, including its current Adolescent Learning and Development Project, has a painful history with its economy dependent on slavery for so long— its resistance to change after the Civil War; its embrace of Jim Crow; its violent opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. All this provides clues to the origin of the continuing challenges facing the entire country.  Moreover, understanding history helps put in context current legislative efforts in Jackson, the state capital of Mississippi. Those efforts raise questions about how well representative democracy is working in Mississippi. 

Jackson, Mississippi is a city where roughly 80% of the residents self-identify as Black or African American. There are troubling, and deeply historically rooted inequities at play in Jackson that resonate in many communities across the country and bring to mind the concerns with education, civic participation, and self-governance that motivated Dr. Woodson roughly 100 years ago to formalize a holiday that links Douglass and Lincoln.

You have likely heard about the continuing lead-tainted water emergencies in Jackson. Adding to the challenge, in rural parts of Mississippi, hospitals are closing their doors and aspects of an already fragile healthcare system are teetering on the brink of collapse. So it was puzzling to learn that the Mississippi legislature was busy passing House Bill 1020, rather than tackling the water and health care issues facing Jackson and the state. The bill would give power to the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court to appoint two judges to oversee cases in the district; to the Attorney General of Mississippi to appoint four prosecutors; to the Mississippi Public Defender to appoint public defenders; and to the Mississippi Public Safety Commissioner to have authority over an increased Capitol Police force that would cover an expanded amount of territory.  All of this in the immediate aftermath of the shocking murder of Tyre Nichols by the Memphis police, only a few miles from the Mississippi border.

Right now, all of the key state officials to receive augmented power from House Bill 1020 are white. Not surprising that 74 of 76 white legislators in the House voted in favor of the bill, while  36 of 38 Black legislators voted against it. Current projections are that House Bill 1020 has the votes to pass in the Senate and that the state’s governor is inclined to sign it into law. That governor, by the way, has been connected to a massive fraud scandal relating to the corrupt misuse of public funds intended for low-income people in the nation’s poorest state. 

The seeds for House Bill 1020 were planted a few years ago, with the publication of a new Capitol Complex Improvement District Master Plan, utilizing lessons learned from historical redlining and community displacement. And let’s not forget, of course, the gerrymandered electorate in Mississippi that ensures only one out of the 4 members of Congress is Black, though the African-American population was more than 37% in 2021. And last but not least, the governor and legislative leaders have pushed for repealing the personal income tax, which would have serious consequences for state investments in education, especially for low-income and rural residents of the state.  

As we celebrate Black History Month, we would do well to understand the historically-rooted challenges to equity and democracy. Frederick Douglass and Carter Woodson were both alive during Reconstruction. That era was also the last time a Black person held statewide office in Mississippi. We need to recommit ourselves to strengthening our democracy so that our ideals come closer to reality for every American, wherever they may reside.  

It’s time for an honest conversation about California’s structural budget problems

For anyone concerned about the state of K-12 education funding in California, it's critical that we keep talking about the fiscal elephant in the room - Proposition 13. In a new op-ed with EdSource, Erin Heys (Policy Director and Senior Researcher at the Institute for Young Americans), the Opportunity Institute’s Director of Resource Equity and Public Finance, Patrick Murphy, talk about the link between Proposition 13 and the unstable revenue structure supporting schools. They emphasize that the possibility of an economic downturn, and growing cost pressures for districts, mean that it will be crucial for districts that the state find new, stable sources of revenue for schools. Read the full commentary online.

Are We Building a Tower of Babel for Indicators?

By Maria Echaveste

As the country emerges from COVID restrictions, I’ve had the privilege of participating in several meetings and discussions which give me some optimism– at least with respect to the determination of various government, civil rights, and community leaders to ensure that our more vulnerable students and young people return to classrooms and schools that are reimagined and transformed.  What gives me hope and optimism are the stakeholders working together to prepare young people so they can realize their full potential.  On the other hand, the proliferation of various efforts to collect data and develop indicator systems ostensibly to support this transformation, makes me worry about whether we will actually see our systems change. 

As students across the country return to their schools and classrooms, we are not returning to business as usual.  The pandemic revealed all the inequities in our society and, as so many of us warned, our more vulnerable students – whether from low-income or rural backgrounds, from elementary to college students would pay the price.  They struggled with inadequate internet access, were unable to find quiet places to log onto their classes, took on the role of caretaker for their younger siblings, and some even dropped out of school to work to support their families.  And students (as well as everyone else) from all income levels suffered emotional and mental health challenges caused by this disruption to regular life. 

No one should be surprised that federal and state required student testing, after a pause, revealed serious and severe gaps in educational attainment especially for our more vulnerable students and families. The California Department of Education initially delayed releasing test scores, but after pressure, they will be releasing results next month.  Across the country we are seeing disturbing and alarming drops in student academic progress outcomes. Still I remain optimistic. 

There is a growing movement across the country to reevaluate and redesign measurement and indicator systems, whether for education accountability, to measure progress on equity, to break down silos among bureaucracies, to measure children’s well-being, or understand key milestones from early childhood to workforce participation.  What these various efforts reflect is the recognition that to improve educational and life outcomes for all children, especially low-income and vulnerable students, relying solely on high stakes testing of reading and math proficiency is wholly inadequate, ineffective, and unjust.

For example, beginning in January 2022, the Aspen Institute’s Education and Society program focused on developing Opportunity to Learn Principles. The program brings together a diverse and bipartisan group, including elected and appointed state-wide education leaders, whether commissioners or superintendents of education, state legislators, and governors’ policy advisors. The goal was to review research and evidence, examine values and reflect on shared views of what are essential principles for ensuring true opportunities so that all students learn and thrive.  Opportunity to Learn, Responsibility to Lead, issued last month, includes principle 9 that notes: “States must strategically collect and use data to illuminate the extent to which schools are providing all students with opportunities to learn.”  

The foregoing principle leaves open the question of what data should be collected and used. Fortunately, others have been working on evidence-based indicators and measurements that can accelerate progress towards more equitable educational and life outcomes. For example, in May 2022, the Data Quality Campaign and the National Academy of Sciences convened several local and state education leaders from Tulsa, Oklahoma to the state of Maryland.  The starting point was reviewing the NAS’s 2019 Monitoring Educational Equity and 2020 Building Educational Equity Indicator Systems. This work focused primarily on inputs and opportunities that impact educational achievement and are limited in scope, though there is one indicator relating to access to out-of-school mental and emotional services and other supports. Participants in the May meeting shared the ways in which they, at both the state and local levels, were adapting and incorporating evidence-based relevant metrics, all to address equity issues and better allocate resources. Tulsa, for example, shared that in addition to education-focused data, the district was also looking at community level data to provide a fuller picture of their students’ environment and context.

Another effort is the August 2022 release of the Education-to-Workforce Indicator Framework: Using Data to Promote Equity and Economic Security for All.  Mathematica developed this framework on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I had the privilege of participating in an advisory committee beginning in the fall of 2021 along with community and equity advocates from around the country.  One aspect of this framework that I am particularly pleased with is the clearly articulated commitment to equity and the effort to incorporate not just individual student indicators, but also identify school and community indicators that impact student and life outcomes.  Additionally, this framework also details various evidence-based interventions which can address disparities in access and opportunities.  The one drawback is that the list of indicators is rather lengthy, but that may be a benefit as individual districts and communities look to adapt the framework for their purposes.

More recently, on September 13,  the National Urban League and Unidos US, along with other partners, unveiled an effort on Accountability, Assessment, and Equity.  Entitled Broadening Perspectives, this work involved 42 listening sessions and 21 interviews with youth of color, parents, youth development specialists, educators, and many others concerned with improving equitable academic and life outcomes for all young people, but especially low-income and vulnerable children. The goal is “to reimagine K12 assessment and accountability” at the federal and state levels. The initial report identifies agreement on the following  four pillars:

• Our education system(s) consistently implements broadened definitions of success

• Our education indicators and assessments, no matter the setting, are grounded in continuous improvement and accountability

• Our systems of support are strengthened to enhance shared accountability that centers equity and promotes transparency and continuous, targeted improvement

• Historically marginalized communities/families/youth have greater voice and ownership in assessment and accountability

In addition to this work, there are other efforts underway, including one spearheaded by the UCLA Center on Children, Families, and Communities to develop measures of children’s well-being. Others are looking at developing indicators of economic mobility connected to schools, though that effort is just beginning. There is also ongoing work in states like California, which is standing up its cradle-to-career data system, and in Illinois, where efforts are underway to implement equity indicators to help districts better understand the work they need to do.  And let’s also not forget that California’s Governor Newsom recently signed AB2832 that requires the state to develop a framework of categories essential to the well-being of children 0-8, including developing an equity tool that will utilize data to identify indicators that address disparities.  

As even this brief overview demonstrates, these are positive trends–from the growing awareness of the need for a “whole child equity” approach to the importance of community context and voice. There is, however, a risk of duplication and lack of coherence and alignment as various bureaucracies, especially our education systems, are asked to collect all sorts of data. And there is a continuing fear of “accountability” rather than using data for continuous improvement. It feels like we are building a 21st-century Tower of Babel—this time focused on data and indicators. Absent some serious effort at collaboration and coordination, we may find ourselves, like those in the old story, unable to understand each other.

 Here at the Opportunity Institute, we are exploring ways in which we can support efforts to incorporate and build upon the NAS Educational Equity Indicator report in ongoing efforts to improve current data systems.  We are also working on an initial landscape analysis of California’s data collection efforts measured against the NAS report, as well as an overview of various other California efforts to build data and indicator systems. We plan on sharing this inventory to spur discussions among advocates and policymakers, not just in California but nationally, on how we can work together to build and adapt data systems that will be value-added, and not just another isolated, siloed initiative.