The six-state New England region's population grew by a sluggish 3.8% between 2000 and 2010—while the nation's as a whole grew by 9.7%, according to U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 population figures released in December.

Among other highlights:

• United Van Lines, the nation’s largest household goods mover, classified four of the six New England ...]]> Updated May 2012 ...

The six-state New England region's population grew by a sluggish 3.8% between 2000 and 2010—while the nation's as a whole grew by 9.7%, according to U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 population figures released in December.

Among other highlights:

• United Van Lines, the nation’s largest household goods mover, classified four of the six New England states as “high outbound” (55% or more moves going out of the state) in 2011. They were: Rhode Island (56.3%), New Hampshire (56.1%), Connecticut (55.8%) and Maine (55.8%).

• It's not your grandfather's New England. Exhibit A: The first Somali families moved to Lewiston, Maine, in late Jan. 2001. Ten years later, nearly 10 percent of the city's population is Somali.

• The Massachusetts population grew by only 3.1%—and the state was the only one in New England to lose a congressional district. Massachusetts had 16 districts in the early 20th century, but will sink to nine in the next Congress.

• As the U.S. population seeks warmth, Texas will gain four seats and Florida two. New York and Ohio will each lose two. Michigan will lose one.

• The historical shift in population from New England to the South and West has gradually brought with it political power, research dollars and college enrollment.

For other trend data, visit Newslink and Trends & Indicators: Continually Updated Stats on New England’s Education and Economy.

Figure DEM 1: Resident Population of New England and the United States: 2010 and 2000 Census

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: U.S. data do not include Puerto Rico.
Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 2: Resident Population of New England and the United States: 1970-2010 Census

Fig. DEM 3: Percentage Change in New England and United States Population by Decades

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: U.S. data do not include Puerto Rico.
Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 4: Percentage Change in Population by Decades

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: U.S. data do not include Puerto Rico.
Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 5: Change in Population, 2000 to 2010, New England States and Other Regions

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: Middle Atlantic includes New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. East North Central includes Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin. West North Central includes Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas. South Atlantic includes Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. East South Central includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. West South Central includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas. Mountain includes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada. Pacific includes Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 6: Population of New England by Race, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: The above categories reflect the U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 7: State Projections of Population Aged 60 and Over

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 8: Racial Composition of Northern and Southern New England, 2011

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fig. DEM 9: Growth in the Number of Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in New England, 2000 to 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Homeland Security data.

Back to Trends & Indicators>>

In mid-June, we reported that Connecticut and Vermont had completed budgets in record time, followed by completions in Maine and New Hampshire. Now, Massachusetts and Rhode Island ...

Massachusetts Budget

To the consternation of labor leaders, Democratic lawmakers ...]]> All six New England states have completed the initial step in their budget processes in this very difficult fiscal year.

In mid-June, we reported that Connecticut and Vermont had completed budgets in record time, followed by completions in Maine and New Hampshire. Now, Massachusetts and Rhode Island ...

Massachusetts Budget

To the consternation of labor leaders, Democratic lawmakers in Massachusetts, who have had long had the support of organized labor, initiated changes in negotiating the cost of health insurance in cities and towns. The plan reduces the leverage of local unions in the collective-bargaining process and gives management more say at the table. Municipal leaders urged the Legislature to address skyrocketing health care costs at the local level, which have been instrumental in layoffs and budget shortfalls.

Eleven days into FY12, which began on July 1, Gov. Deval Patrick signed a $30.6 billion spending plan, which was balanced with a series of spending cuts and $185 million from the state’s rainy day fund. Facing an anticipated $2 billion gap in revenues and spending, Patrick and legislative leaders chose to cut local aid, higher education and Mass Health, as opposed to adding revenue-raising measures.

Among highlights, the Bay State budget:

• levies no new broad-based taxes
• cuts Mass Health, the state’s Medicaid program by $800 million
• cuts funding in half for adult day-care programs
• cuts annual clothing allowance for needy children from $150 to $40
• cuts public higher education by approximately $70 million
• reduces education aid/Chapter 70 funding from $4.47 to $3.99 billion
• reduces local aid to cities and towns by $65 million (which can be restored if revenues continue to come in above projections for the remainder of FY 2011)
• provides a 3% increase to retired state employees on the first $12,000 in pension benefits
• revamps the state’s public defender program by which will eliminate reliance on high-priced private attorneys

Restricting Collective Bargaining

The governor took steps to modify the health insurance reform passed by both branches of the Legislature for municipalities negotiating health insurance. The plan is expected to save cities and towns approximately $100 million in the first year. At the outset, labor officials were outraged and threatened to replace lawmakers who supported the plan. In the Commonwealth’s financially strapped cities and towns, skyrocketing health insurance costs have been taking their toll on local services and school budgets which in many instances resulted in the loss of public safety and teaching jobs. The plan passed by the House and Senate leaders provides local officials with greater leverage in controlling local health insurance costs.

To assuage the concerns of labor, Patrick proposed amendments to the Legislature’s plan, including:

• setting aside 5% of the savings to create a mitigation fund to address issues associated with changing the design/plan and the effect of such changes on retirees and low-income workers.

• establishing a threshold for unilateral decisions made relative to transferring subscribers into the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) , the government entity that provides health insurance for state employees, retirees, housing authorities and some municipalities. A municipality would have to demonstrate a 5% savings above what can be achieved by the current plan in a city, town. A city or town that transfers into the GIC would lose control over setting rates for local health insurance and would have to make a three-year commitment, as well as paying administrative fees.

• deleting a Senate section that would have required many cities and towns to increase contributions for retirees and replaces it with a two-year grace period for communities that implement a change in plan/design.

• clarifying the language regarding plan/design features which cannot exceed what is available in a plan under the GIC. Labor expressed concerns that municipalities could strip employees of basic coverage offered in health plans such as mental health services.

K-12 Education

Funding for school districts will be reduced by $82 million, which reflects in part, the loss of $221 million in federal stimulus dollars.

According to the Massachusetts Teachers Association, K-12 grant programs will see funds increase for:

• Special Education Circuit Breaker Program by $80 million with total funding of $213 million for FY12
• Regional School Transportation by $3 million over FY11 with total funding of $43.5 million for FY12
• Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) by $5 million with total funding of $9.5 million.

Full-day Kindergarten, Expanded Learning Time and the METCO program were all funded at 2011 levels.

Higher Education

The public higher education system will be funded at the FY11 state appropriation level. A total of $61.5 million in federal stimulus funds used in FY11 will not be available in FY12.

The University of Massachusetts approved a 7.5 % increase in student fees which will, according to University officials, help close a gap of $54 million. Of the $54 million shortfall, $38 million can be attributed to the loss of federal stimulus funds. Students will pay $800 more in fees. Retiring President Jack Wilson said that at least 30% of the fee revenue would be used for financial aid programs. In academic year 2011-12, and undergraduate students who are state residents will pay an average of $11,838 in tuition and mandatory fees.

Rhode Island Budget

Lawmakers worked with newly elected Gov. Lincoln Chafee to put together a spending plan that includes cuts in benefits for state workers, increases sales tax revenues and increases the cost of health care for many enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

The Rhode Island General Assembly and Chafee approved a $7.7 billion budget one day before the beginning of the new fiscal year. The budget eliminated a $186 million shortfall created by the absence of stimulus funding. The budget also cuts $100 million in state spending.

At the beginning of the budget process, the state faced a $331 million shortfall, which prompted Chafee to propose a reduction of the state’s sales tax from 7% to 6%, while adding a lengthy list of items currently not taxed. Legislators balked at the governor’s recommendations. In the meantime, revised revenue forecasts essentially cut the shortfall to $186 million.

Among highlights in the Rhode Island budget:

• Additional revenue will be raised by taxing non-prescription drugs, software and video downloads, smartphone applications and sightseeing tours which will have a 7% sales tax added Oct. 1. This is expected to generate approximately $17 million in new revenue.
• Families enrolled in Rite Care, the state’s Medicaid Program, who are above the poverty level with annual incomes of $33,000, will pay higher monthly premiums. Premiums will rise from $61 to $91 per month.
• School construction projects will be sidelined for three years.
• Automatic pay increases for state workers based on years of service will cease.
• Longevity payments for state workers will be eliminated when current contracts run out.
• A referendum on the 2012 ballot will ask voters to approve table games like poker, blackjack and roulette at the Twin River slot parlor.

K–12 Education

K-12 education will receive $17 million in additional dollars, which essentially endorses the new education funding formula.

Higher Education

Chafee proposed an additional $10 million in state funding for the state’s higher education system but the General Assembly slashed the $10 million to $4 million in increased funding. Rhode Island currently provides 15% of the funding for the state system and ranks near the bottom nationally in state appropriations to higher education. Officials at URI, Rhode Island College and the Community College of Rhode Island will need time to assess the impact of the final budget. CCRI was hardest hit in the budget and will be faced with reducing $5.6 million in operating expenses.

Legislators will return in October for a special session to take up pension reform.

Carolyn Morwick is a consultant at NEBHE and former director of the Caucus of New England State Legislatures.

The current snapshot of New England’s economy relative to other areas is favorable. The region suffered less decline during the recent recession than the national average, and the region’s recovery has ...]]> There is an exciting new opportunity for universities and colleges to advance the New England economy and at the same time help address environmental concerns.

The current snapshot of New England’s economy relative to other areas is favorable. The region suffered less decline during the recent recession than the national average, and the region’s recovery has been stronger than the national average. Neither of these were true for the previous three recessions. The problem is that having a relatively strong economy in these economic times is not very good. Unemployment rates in the region are still significantly higher than they were before the recession, and with the current rate of job growth, it would take over three years to recover the jobs lost in the Great Recession in the region.

After the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s, the region benefited from significant growth in growing technology industries. In the growth periods after the last two recessions, New England was one of the leading regions in the nation in the fast-growing, technology-based industries of those times. Coming out of this recession, the region has an opportunity to lead in a new technology-based industry: the so-called “clean tech” industry.

The term clean tech describes a group of emerging technologies that provide energy with minimum climate and environmental impact and use resources efficiently. Examples include wind power and solar energy and other new technologies in renewable energy generation and energy, materials and resource conservation.

In New England, the clean-tech economy is already evident and can be expanded. All the states in the region are relatively well-positioned in clean-tech industry development. The industry, however, is still very small compared with other sectors of the economy in New England, and it does not appear to be growing currently at a rate that would make it a very significant sector in terms of percentage of total employment anytime soon (e.g., over the next decade).

Five of the six New England states are among the top one-third of states in employment concentration in clean-tech using the frequently cited Pew Charitable Trust definition of clean tech. Maine leads the region and is second in the nation, behind only Oregon, in clean-tech employment concentration with 0.85% of total employment in clean tech. Massachusetts follows close behind, ranking third among the 50 states with 0.69% of total employment in clean tech, followed by Vermont with the 5th highest concentration (0.59%) in clean-tech employment in the nation. New Hampshire (12th) and Connecticut (16th) are also among the top third of states in clean-tech employment concentration. Rhode Island is the only state in the region with clean- tech employment concentration (0.42%) below the U.S. average overall of 0.49%. The regional average at 0.61% is 20% higher than the national average.

There are many initiatives across the region to try to build on the research oriented clean- technology base in the region to create jobs and enhance employment growth. This article reviews and updates information from a June 2010 New England Journal of Higher Education article on one novel effort, the Green Launching Pad (GLP) in New Hampshire, that has produced significant results in a short period of time and offers a model for other states to consider. It is university-created and based and suggestive of the role that colleges and universities can play in the next industrial revolution in the region.

To help further stimulate activity in clean-tech industries, in February 2010, University of New Hampshire (UNH) President Mark Huddleston and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch announced the start-up of the GLP project. Green Launching Pad is a strategic partnership UNH and the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. The GLP is a business acceleration program to commercialize clean technology. Ventures funded under the program are subject to a double-bottom line criteria. They are required to produce economic and environmental benefits. Faculty and students from UNH and Dartmouth and professionals from New Hampshire’s leading businesses including law firms, major utilities, manufacturing, and investment firms have been involved with the GLP.

Since its inauguration in February 2010, the GLP has selected 11 ventures to participate in the program from over 120 proposals. Selection is on a competitive basis and done by an advisory council of judges from industry and the nonprofit sector. The selection criteria include: 1) the potential for ventures to increase energy efficiency, reduce energy use and lower carbon emissions; 2) their potential to contribute to economic development—job creation and growth opportunities; 3) technology capability; 4) market feasibility; and 5) experience and capabilities of the leadership team. Winning teams consist of entrepreneurs, faculty, and students. Winners receive funding up to $100,000 each and receive accelerated business development assistance, including mentorship and coaching from experts in scientific, technical, business and legal areas.

In the first round of funding in 2010 (GLP 1.0), five winners were selected. They included a mix of companies applying a range of different clean technologies. All are based in the New Hampshire. Green Clean Heat in Newton Junction designs and builds fully-integrated “turnkey” efficient wood-fired heating systems for commercial and municipal facilities. EnerTrac in Hudson has developed low-cost smart metering technology and a corresponding monitoring service for propane gas and other uses that can reduce CO2 emissions by 30% or more. Revolution Energy in Dover develops renewable energy projects using third-party financing and creative incentive leveraging. Innovacene in Durham manufactures high-performing organic semiconductors for flexible organic solar cells and organic light-emitting diodes for lighting and displays. Air Power Analytics in Bedford improves energy efficiency of industrial compressed air systems, reducing electric consumption, and saving money while reducing upstream greenhouse-gas emissions.

The five first-round GLP companies have increased employment and developed business and marketing plans. Four of the five companies have begun to sell new products or services. All the companies have used student interns from UNH and Dartmouth. And all the companies are well-positioned for future growth and will be adding employees this year.

In April 2011, the second round (2.0) GLP funding competition was completed. Overall, the applicant pool was stronger than in the first round. There were six winning teams selected, again all New Hampshire-based, and again representing a diverse mix of clean tech.

SustainX in Lebanon provides a new non-toxic technology for low-cost scalable energy storage. The company’s new technology enables efficient storage of renewables (e.g., wind and solar) and can potentially be a game-changer in the economics of renewables. The energy storage technology is modular and allows for siting anywhere, from low-scale to grid-scale storage. Blue2green in Ashland will promote hydroelectric power production by restoring dams to produce renewable energy and attracting investors to suitable dams and mill-restoration projects. The revitalization of hydroelectric power in small- to medium-sized former industrial mill towns can help produce renewable energy, create jobs and preserve community history.

Holase in Portsmouth has developed self-contained, solar-powered LED traffic signal lights that are low-cost and easy to set up and operate. New England Footwear in New Market has developed a sustainable solution to footwear manufacturing and a way to revive shoe manufacturing in the region through new technologies that use organic materials, molds (instead of stitch and sew) and modular design to allow for easy replacement and re-use. ThermaPAVER of Exeter invented an invisible low-cost solar collector and heat exchanger with a diversity of potential applications. Applications include winter time melting of snow and ice off of roofs and summer time cooling pool side pavements and heating pools. Walker Wellington of Portsmouth has developed a hydrokinetic turbine power generation system which will capture and produce off-grid renewable energy for on-site use. Primary users will be municipal waste water treatment facilities and drinking water delivery systems.

The 11 wining GLP teams have generated a lot of excitement across the UNH campus and in the state of New Hampshire. The GLP has been mentioned in the last two state of the state addresses by Gov. Lynch and also highlighted in UNH’s new strategic plan. What is striking is that the excitement and potential for green entrepreneurship (and ventures launched with the GLP) remains high even with all the energy and environmental policy uncertainty in Washington and with the NH state legislature.

Looking forward with the Green Launching Pad and with similar types of efforts that might be undertaken elsewhere in New England what are the lessons from the GLP? First and foremost is that entrepreneurs are well along on the next industrial revolution and that the public sector in general is lagging behind. Many of these entrepreneurs are interested in profit making and also environmental impact (they are both a priority). This provides a significant opportunity for colleges and universities to work with private industry to be in the lead on clean-tech industry development and environmental entrepreneurship.

It is clear that with broadening concern about sustainability comes market opportunities and there are large numbers of entrepreneurs across the region and some with very good ideas for clean-technology business creation. A competitive grant program can help to identify and focus efforts on the highest quality ideas with the greatest market potential and positive environmental impact. What many clean-tech entrepreneurs, particularly those that are academic-based, lack are business know-how and connections, such as connections to legal and marketing advise to help them to identify and then to tap into market opportunities.

Finally, marketing and market development are very important for launching successful clean-tech ventures. Marketing is essential in creating new markets and customers. New clean-tech ventures require assistance in identifying target customers and figuring out how to convince them to buy products or services that they did not know they needed. Marketing assistance is an area in which business students and faculty can help tremendously and benefit from. Clean-tech ventures provide a near perfect opportunity for business students to apply what they learn and in turn learn through their experience working with nascent ventures about clean-technology business enterprise. They can learn about entrepreneurship and how clean technology can be applied by business ventures for profit making and to achieve desired social ends.

A focus on the commercialization of clean technology and ideas and social entrepreneurship, not just on breakthrough research or the invention of new technologies, is a role that many colleges and universities can engage in. It is not limited to the region’s top-tier research institutions. Engaging in clean-tech industry development, with initiatives such as UNH’s Green Launching Pad, can provide an exciting opportunity for students, faculty and others on college campuses across the region to work with private industry to help strengthen the region’s economy and help to address environmental concerns and to learn a lot while doing it.

You can visit the Green Launching Pad at www.GreenLaunchingPad.org
____________________________________________________________________________
Ross Gittell is the James R. Carter Professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Whittemore School of Business and Economics and A.R Venkatachalam is a professor in UNH's Decision Sciences Department, They are the co-directors of the Green Launching Pad.

The New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) will hold its ninth annual New England Higher Education Excellence Awards on Friday, March 11, at the Boston Marriott Long Wharf Hotel.

Each year, NEBHE presents Regional Excellence Awards to individuals and organizations that have shown exceptional leadership on behalf of higher education and the advancement ...]]>

The New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) will hold its ninth annual New England Higher Education Excellence Awards on Friday, March 11, at the Boston Marriott Long Wharf Hotel.

Each year, NEBHE presents Regional Excellence Awards to individuals and organizations that have shown exceptional leadership on behalf of higher education and the advancement of educational opportunity, and State Merit Awards to honor the innovative work of organizations, institutions or individuals in each New England state.

Please click the links below for more information on the individual awards and their recipients.

• The Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senator, Vermont (The Governor Walter R. Peterson Award for Leadership)
• Terrence MacTaggart, Former Chancellor, University of Maine System (The Eleanor M. McMahon Award for Lifetime Achievement)
• Eastern Connecticut State University & Quinebaug Valley Community College
  Dual Enrollment Program (The Robert J. McKenna Award for Program Achievement)
• Kimon Zachos, Trustee, Southern New Hampshire University (The David C. Knapp Award for Trusteeship)

• The Hon. Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of State and former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives (Connecticut State Merit Award)
• The Bernard Osher Foundation (Maine State Merit Award)
• The Hon. Steven C. Panagiotakos, former member of the Massachusetts Senate (Massachusetts State Merit Award)
• NHHEAF’s Center for College Planning (New Hampshire State Merit Award)
• Dennis Littky & Big Picture Learning (Rhode Island State Merit Award)
• Vermont Dual Enrollment Program (Vermont State Merit Award)

For registration information, click here.

In August 2010, nine openly gay college leaders met to form a first-of-its-kind collegiate organization, the LGBTQ Presidents in Higher Education. Among their ranks were three officials from New England: Ralph Hexter, past Hampshire College president and among the first openly gay presidents; Katherine Ragsdale, president of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge; and Theo Kalikow, ...]]>

In August 2010, nine openly gay college leaders met to form a first-of-its-kind collegiate organization, the LGBTQ Presidents in Higher Education. Among their ranks were three officials from New England: Ralph Hexter, past Hampshire College president and among the first openly gay presidents; Katherine Ragsdale, president of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge; and Theo Kalikow, president of the University of Maine Farmington. The group's intention was to create a proper caucus for non-heternormative officials in the realm of higher education and bring issues concerning this population to a larger audience.

Four months later, the group put out an introductory video on YouTube in which the presidents expound on their purpose and hopes for the future of the LGBTQ community in higher education. Now including 25 openly gay college presidents in the U.S., the LGBTQ Presidents in Higher Education will make its official debut with a panel presentation at the March 2011 meeting of the American Council on Education in Washington, D.C.

Martha Kanter, under secretary in the U.S. Department of Education, and dozens of higher education leaders will speak at the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) annual conference to be held at The Westin Providence in Providence, R.I., from Tuesday, Aug. 10 through Friday, August 13.

A lot of national attention was paid over the past few months to a situation in Central Falls, R.I., where the superintendent took the action of firing all the high school’s teachers. What started off as a small story about a labor dispute between the administration and the teachers’ union at the high school catapulted ...]]>

A lot of national attention was paid over the past few months to a situation in Central Falls, R.I., where the superintendent took the action of firing all the high school’s teachers. What started off as a small story about a labor dispute between the administration and the teachers’ union at the high school catapulted into the national education reform debate and had everyone talking from local and state leaders to pundits to the president of the United States. Some suggested it was indicative of the approach needed to reform schools. Other suggested it was a hostile attack on teachers.

I was bombarded with questions at events, in the elevator at work, and on weekends asking if the same thing could, or would, happen in Massachusetts. My message was firm and consistent and remains so, that without casting judgment on the situation in Rhode Island, it is my belief that a wholesale, undifferentiated firing of an entire faculty is unlikely to lead to the desired reform outcome of improved education for students. And recent updates to the story, with teachers regaining employment after making concessions on school time and in other areas, only help to illustrate why we think our approach in Massachusetts is more beneficial.

I want to be clear lest some try to take my comments out of context. In Massachusetts, we are deeply committed right now to turning around underperforming schools via a series of proven strategies and urgent new interventions. As a result: Schools will be restructured. Staffing changes will be made. We will need to move with greater urgency. Superintendents, school committees, principals and teachers will need to recommit themselves to the deep, challenging school turnaround work that lies ahead of us. However, turnaround work is about more than just personnel changes.

As the governor and I have said before, we do not believe that the primary cause of underperforming schools is incompetent teachers. In each ineffective school, we find a complex combination of factors impeding success. The Achievement Gap legislation Gov. Deval Patrick signed in January provides rules, tools and supports for leaders, teachers and students that will empower educators to devise action plans to remedy chronic underperformance. These plans will reflect not only tough decisions in assembling the right team of educators but also the intent to provide school leaders with the flexibility to act directly to improve the quality of teaching while offering more supports including health and human services to students so that they can arrive at school genuinely ready to learn.

For our turnaround efforts to be successful, we will need to identify and select high-quality, extremely expert, deeply committed teachers to staff our most challenged schools. We will provide those teachers with an aligned, challenging and engaging curriculum based on best practices garnered from our hard work and accomplishments of the first 17 years of education reform; improved and more targeted professional development; and additional supports ranging from coaching to expanded planning time to maximize their effectiveness.

We’re focused on improving teacher quality also through “Innovation Schools,” which provide a new, local opportunity for educators to take control of the management, curriculum, schedule and budget for a school enjoying much of the autonomy provided to our top performing charter schools, and “Readiness Centers,” located in six regions across the state that bring together educators from early childhood, K-12 and higher education with external partners to increase access to high-quality professional development, disseminate best practices and lessons learned on collecting and analyzing student performance data for improved instruction.

We are also expanding support for students.

In most of our poorly performing schools, not coincidentally, we see unusually high concentrations of low-income and at-risk youth. In fact, 87% of the 17,000 students in our recently identified underperforming schools are from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. These students face challenges in their non-school lives that frequently impede progress in school.

For example, we know there is a strong and obvious correlation between school attendance and achievement. Too many students, struggling with personal issues, often the consequence of poverty, fail to attend school at rates that would beget success. Addressing these and other issues are vital if we want high quality instruction to have the maximum impact on students.

So, we start with what is impeding these students from succeeding. The first nearly 17 years of reform have taught us that schools alone, as currently structured and operated, are not, on average, a sufficient intervention to overcome the disadvantages of poverty and guarantee achievement for all. The nation’s best standards and assessment have ensured great success with only some of our students. To realize the ultimate promise of education reform, we must improve teaching and simultaneously address the social, emotional and societal factors preventing educators and students from closing achievement gaps.

The new education bill does so by integrating health and human services into schools, recognizing that a child who is sick or hungry or has unattended mental health needs is simply not likely to be able to focus on learning. Education takes place outside of school too, and we must work harder and smarter to ensure students are prepared to learn when they enter our public school system.

We also recognize that the school day and school calendar need adjusting if we are serious about providing all students with the education they need to fully reach proficiency. Old ways of doing business with truncated days and school years must yield to new ways of building in extra time for learning in core subjects and access to physical education, exposure to the arts and enrichment programming. Today’s school schedule is not sufficient and that’s why it’s a key part of the legislation.

Finally, our work is centered on the ideal that all students should be prepared for continuing education after high school, and that principle includes a preschool-to-higher education strategy that connects students with the instruction and support they need to be successful. We are focused on expanding access to high-quality early education so we can start students on the right path. At the same time, we are equally committed to providing all students ready access to college.

Student achievement is our work. We will continue to improve our efforts to increase the quality of teaching and learning, address the outside-of-school needs of students, improve support and increase resources for teachers, all the while remaining committed to high expectations, challenging curricula and rigorous assessments. We believe that this combination of proven strategies coupled with urgent new measures will allow us to sustain our national school reform leadership and, more importantly, close persistent achievement gaps so all of our students, and all means all, will be ready for success.

_________________________________________________________________

Paul Reville is secretary of education in Massachusetts. He is the former president of the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy and a senior lecturer on educational policy and politics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.