Children First is an Organization Dedicated to Wisconsin's Children
Children First of Wisconsin

Children First Wisconsin will research and release information on Wisconsin student proficiency results as well as the responsible investments made in public education through School Taxing Districts. It is critical that all of us in the greater community of Wisconsin, begin the dialogue as to ‘How to Put Children First in the State of Wisconsin

U.S. Ranks 28th Out of 34 OECD Countries Among Students with at Least One College-Educated Parent

(Reposted from

Is it true that the only problem with America’s schools is too many poor kids raised in less-educated families? According to a new study, from researchers Eric Hanushek (Stanford University), Paul Peterson (Harvard University), and Ludger Woessmann (University of Munich), the answer is a clear no.

Parental education has long been shown to be the best family background indicator of a student’s readiness to learn at school, and the United States’ comparatively low proficiency rates are often attributed to the large numbers of students who come from disadvantaged families, such as those where parents do not have a high school diploma. However, a new study appearing in Education Next finds that U.S. schools do as badly at teaching those from better-educated families as they do at teaching those from less well-educated families.

U.S. Students from Educated Families Lag in International Tests: It’s not just about kids in poor neighborhoods” is available now on

Watch or attend an event to discuss this new research

Paul Peterson will present findings from this study and will be joined by Mitchell D. Chester, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Massachusetts for the discussion portion. Gerard Robinson, Vice President of Partnerships, UniversityNow, will participate as a moderater.

When: Today, May 13, 2014, 12:00-1:45 PM (Eastern)

Watch Online: Launch the Livestream event

Attend In Person: Center for Government and International Studies (CGIS)– South
Room 050 (Lower Level), 1730 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

For more information contact:  or (617) 496-5488

About Education Next

For more information about Education Next, please visit:


Is Our Stagnant School System Endangering our Nation's Future Prosperity?

Stagnant School System(Reposted from

Event Agenda

Introduction and Moderator:
Alice M. Rivlin
Director, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform
Brookings Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Overview: Endangering Prosperity
Eric Hanushek

Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Paul E. Peterson
Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, Harvard University
Ludger Woessmann
Professor of Economics, University of Munich and ifo Institute

Chris Cerf

Commissioner of Education, New Jersey
Isabel V. Sawhill
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families, Budgeting for National Priorities Brookings Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

About the Event:

The association between student math performance and subsequent economic grow is very strong. It suggests that if the United States could lift its performance to the level achieved by Canadians, the average U. S. paycheck might increase by 20 percent.  In order to achieve this growth the U.S. will have to perform substantially better at the advanced level.  Over 13 percent of the students in both Germany and in Canada are high flyers, while only about the 7 percent in the U.S. perform at the advanced level. In Asia, the percentage of advanced students escalates upward--to 16 percent in Japan, 20 percent in Korea, and 30 percent in Singapore.

This event will explore why the United States must do better if it wishes to enhance its economic strength.

Registration Information:
Event is open to the public.  Webcasting information will be available at

September 12, 2013
12:30 PM – 2:30 PM ET

Brookings Institution
Falk Auditorium
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Hosted By
Brown Center on Education Policy

Related Book
Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School

2013, Eric Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson and Ludger Woessmann
Foreword by Lawrence H.  Summers
Prosperity: A Global View of the American School ... Endangering Prosperity is a wake-up call for structural reform.


School Choice Prompts Positive Reactions, Motivation in Traditional Public Schools

Evidence shows constructive district reactions to presence of charter schools in urban districts (Reposted from

School ChoiceCharter school enrollment in urban areas has increased by 59 percent in the past 6 years, and their presence is inducing traditional public schools to respond, innovate, and look for improvement. Although some districts still try to forestall the spread of charter schools, authors of a new study find that the urban school districts they examined made significant changes in policy or practice in response to the presence of charter schools in their district, indicating that school districts are choosing to emphasize the strengths of their own public schools and benefit from school choice in their areas.

After reviewing 8,000 media reports from the past five years regarding 12 different urban areas, authors Marc J. Holley, Anna J. Egalite, and Martin F. Lueken identified 132 pieces of evidence of competition awareness and constructive or obstructive responses, an average of approximately 11 per city. The authors then assessed how districts responded to competition from charters. Each news story was coded according to the “types of responses by public school officials.” The article, “Competition with Charters Motivates Districts: New political circumstances, growing popularity,” will appear in the Fall 2013 issue of Education Next and is currently available on the web at

In Boston and New Orleans, the authors found evidence that traditional public schools were supportive and innovative in response to the introduction of charter schools to their district. For example, both districts collaborated with local charters, showed support for pilot and innovation schools (as did Denver), and expanded and improved their own school offerings. Even Atlanta, a district that was “previously relatively unwelcoming to charter schools” has showed willingness to collaborate with KIPP schools.

In urban areas in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West where at least 6 percent of students attended choice schools, the authors found evidence of significant changes in the policies and practices of schools within districts where school choice had been introduced. The most common reaction to the presence of charter schools was one of “district cooperation or collaboration with charter schools.” Positive responses included partnerships with CMOs or for-profit school operators, replication of successful charter school practices, and increased efforts on the part of traditional schools to market their services to students and families.

According to the authors, “where school districts once responded with indifference, symbolic gestures, or open hostility,” they found “a broadening of responses, perhaps fueled by acceptance that the charter sector will continue to thrive, or by knowledge that many charters are providing examples of ways to raise academic achievement.”

While there were some instances of negative reactions in specific districts, such as challenging or delaying charters’ access to unused school buildings in Los Angeles and the District of Columbia, the authors say those instances were visibly fewer than those of positive change.

The authors conclude, “This evidence suggests that while bureaucratic change may often be slow, it may be a mistake to underestimate the capacity of these bureaucratic institutions to reform, adapt, and adjust in light of changing environments.”

About the Authors
Marc J. Holley is evaluation unit director at the Walton Family Foundation and research fellow in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, where Anna J. Egalite and Martin F. Lueken are doctoral academy fellows.

About Education Next
Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to careful examination of evidence relating to school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, part of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. For more information about Education Next, please visit:


Proficiency School Administrators Benefit the Most from Teacher Pension Plans

Pension PlansBeginning teachers subsidize handsome payoffs to superintendents, guardians of the public interest (Reposted from

The costs of retiree benefits for educators, including benefits for previous retirees, are consuming a large and growing share of public spending on K–12 education. Between 2004 and 2012, pension costs for public educators rose from 11.9 to 16.7 percent of salaries. Unfunded pension liabilities of state and local governments are estimated to be roughly $1 trillion. But that trillion-dollar number, as vast as it seems, understates the true liabilities, which more than double if calculated using standard methods in financial economics.

In spite of the need for pension reform as evidenced by Detroit’s recent bankruptcy filing, pension reform is unlikely, in part because administrators in charge of the system reap the largest benefits from it. The authors of a new Education Next study find that while superintendents contribute 53 percent more to pension plans over their career span than senior career teachers, their expected benefits upon retirement are 89 percent higher than those of teachers.

Authors Cory Koedel, Shawn Ni, and Michael Podgursky point out that using salary levels from the last three years of service to determine retirement benefits, “combined with the career-cycle timing of teachers’ promotions into administrative positions, results in senior management in K–12 education enjoying the largest net benefits from these plans.” Educators’ defined-benefit plans typically provide retirees with guaranteed lifetime benefits, with the annual payout based on the number of years of service and annual salary in the final years of active employment. The article, “The School Administrator Payoff from Teacher Pensions” can be found on and will appear in the Fall 2013 issue of Education Next.

In Missouri and other states, the authors note, “the pension system transfers wealth from lower-income professionals to higher-income professionals. Beginning teachers are subsidizing a handsome payoff to better-paid administrators, who are the appointed guardians of the public interest in the education system.” For example, a principal’s contributions are only 14 percent higher than those of senior career teachers, but their expected benefits are 37 percent higher. At the opposite end of the spectrum, because of turnover and mobility, a young teacher can expect to contribute 30 percent of what typical career teachers contribute, but he or she can expect to collect only 18 percent of the benefits.

As senior-level administrators are both the stewards of the pension system and the recipients of the highest net benefits, the authors conclude, “There is no reason to expect school administrators or their organizations to support reforms that would provide a more modern and mobile retirement system for young educators” and suggest that districts could be recruiting young teachers more effectively by putting money in upfront salaries rather than in end-of-career pension benefits.

About the Authors
Cory Koedel is assistant professor of economics, and Shawn Ni, and Michael Podgursky are professors of economics at the University of Missouri, Columbia. The authors are available for interviews.

About Education Next
Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to careful examination of evidence relating to school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, part of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. For more information about Education Next, please visit:


Despite Common Core’s Call for Increased State Standards, 26 States Lower Proficiency Bar

(Reposted from

peterson_table1CAMBRIDGE, MA –Recently, states’ definitions of what makes a student proficient in math and reading have been changing—in some cases for the better, in others for the worse. In a new Education Next article, “Despite Common Core, States Still Lack Common Standards,” authors Paul Peterson and Peter Kaplan find that even though 37 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) received a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education as incentive to join the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) consortia and raise their standards in 2009, standards still declined in rigor in 26 states and D.C. between 2009 and 2011. In the remaining 24 states, standards increased in rigor. In the period since 2007, there has been little change in state standards overall.

Comparing the percentage of students who were identified by state assessments as proficient in math and reading in 4th and 8th grade with the percentage of students from the same state who were proficient on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the authors were able to see the variations in state standards across the country. The authors then assigned grades A through F to the states based on the strength of their standards relative to all other states.

The authors explain in the study that a high grade “indicates that the state’s definition of proficient embodies higher expectations for students. It is best thought of as a high grade for ‘truth in advertising.’” A full list of the states’ grades and trends over time can be found in Table 1 of the article, on

The CCSS were established by a national consortium sponsored by the National Governors Association.  The U.S. Department of Education has waived the requirements established by the federal law, No Child Left Behind, for states that promise education reforms including the adoption of CCSS, which commits the state to set common standards with high expectations for student performance. So far, 45 states have officially adopted CCSS.

The data indicate that some states, like Tennessee, have raised the proficiency bar. Between 2009 and 2011, Tennessee’s grade rose from an F to an A. Other states that improved their standards in that time frame by a full letter grade include West Virginia (C to a B+), New York (D to a B), Nebraska (F to a C), and Delaware
(C- to a B-).

However, these gains are offset by significant drops in proficiency standards between 2009 and 2011 in New Mexico (A to a B), Washington (A to a B), Hawaii (A to a C), Montana (B to a C), and Georgia (C- to an F).

Additionally, the authors found that 8th-grade reading and math standards have converged among the states since 2003. The authors explain that this could be seen as positive news for those looking to decrease disparity in standards across states, “were it not for the fact that 8th-grade standards also declined between 2003 and 2011.”

Paul E. Peterson,, Harvard University
Ashley Inman,, 707 332-1184, Education Next Communications Office

About the Authors
Paul Peterson is professor of government and director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Peter Kaplan is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in government at Harvard University. The authors are available for interviews.

About Education Next
Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to careful examination of evidence relating to school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, part of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. For more information about Education Next, please visit:



Education reform advocacy group StudentsFirst, led by school choice champion Michelle Rhee, has released their State Policy Report Card. This report card was designed “to evaluate the education laws and policies in place in each state.” The study used three forms of criteria for evaluation to find states in which schools: Elevate teaching, Empower Parents, and Spend Wisely & Govern Well. This study shines a light on education reform, and people are taking notice. With high-ranking states trumpeting their success and low-ranking states in spin-control overdrive, it’s clear that the states know the public is waking up to education reform and accountability. 

The states which fared well have been touting their success in this report as a way to highlight the strengths of their education systems. John White, state superintendent of Louisiana, said their high rank was an “indication of the boldness and the courage that our governor and our legislators and our people have shown in supporting policies that don’t accept the status quo.” Those in the low-ranking states were singing a different tune, however.

They simply decided to discount the study. California’s chief deputy superintendent, for example, told the New York Times that their F ranking was “A badge of honor,” and questioned the credibility of the group. Rhee fired back, saying “Mr. Zeiger may call that a badge of honor, but I call it a social injustice.”

The attention on this report card is also important because the data correlates to other school achievement data in interesting ways. The states which fared best in the StudentsFirst report card have some of the weakest teachers’ unions in America.

Meanwhile, states such as California and Montana, which received an F grade, are among the strongest. Robust school choice also correlates with higher rates of graduation, adding another layer of correlation with educational data. As more studies emerge, a clearer picture of American education is coming together. 

The StudentsFirst Report Card is another step forward for education reform and accountability. Every American taxpayer has invested in our public education system and informing them as to what works (and doesn't) is a great service. (Courtesy of Freedom Works .org)

The Wisconsin Legislators Need to Focus!

As the 2013 Legislative Session is underway in Wisconsin, the citizen leaders marvel at the lack of focus on any work that would make a difference in the lives of families and children, thus far. 

Business as usual politics needs to be interrupted in Wisconsin. The buying and selling of bills for hire needs to be called what it is as it is a 'brand new day with new priorities to set!' 

Wisconsin Scores on Student Achievement - See Where Wisconsin Ranks




One of the Wisconsin Legislative duties according to the State Constitution is education. As performance rates continue to drop in our educational community, one can hardly avoid the fact that this ranking "trickles up" to those responsible for the education of our young people ..... the Wisconsin State Legislature and the existing DPI Chief Tony Evers.

The Chatter instead in Madison today is "how large county governments should be, with comments rendered by the new "Speaker of the House" hard charged to shrink the size of Milwaukee's large county government.

In the struggle to be relevant, perhaps it time for all of us to insist that the Wisconsin Legislature put its 'eyes on the ball' of education and see if it can raise our abysmal ranking of D to at least a mediocre one, say "C!"

The families and children of Wisconsin deserve better folks.  It is time for the grown ups to once again govern so that the children can once again raise their sights on reaching the goal of competing in a global marketplace.

Terri McCormick, M.A.
Educational Administration and Leadership
Founder of Wisconsin's Charter School Movement 


Children First Wisconsin, Inc. · PO Box 13463
300 Packerland Dr., Green Bay, WI 54307-3463
Copyright 2013 © All Rights Reserved.
Children First Wisconsin