(page 3 of 10)
Eight states do not set any math course requirements. Furthermore, in many states, any math course counts toward that requirement, as if consumer math were the same as calculus. If high standards encourage young people to make the most of their talents, then low standards discourage them from doing so—and right now, that is our predominant policy. I applaud the commitments made by more than 30 governors to raise their states' math and literacy standards and ensure K-12 policies help students meet the demands of college and work. I commend the President and Secretary of Education for their call for rigorous coursework and the members of this Committee for their tireless attention to these issues. We need to continue to support these efforts by offering incentives for states to adopt higher standards.
We also must understand how well our schools and students are performing relative to these standards. Data collection systems must be transparent and accurate so that we can understand what is working and what isn't and for whom. Therefore, we need data by race and income. I urge this Committee to support the creation of a Center for State Education Data, which will serve as a national resource for state education data and will provide one-stop access for education research and policymakers, along with a public website to streamline education data reporting. But we can't just collect data. We also need to use the data we collect to implement change, including by personalizing learning to make it more relevant and engaging for students—and thereby truly ensure that no child is left behind.
We also need to accurately define and measure graduation rates. Currently, states use a variety of different methods for calculating graduation rates. There is no universally accepted standard that would allow easy comparisons between states or school districts. Recently, the governors of all fifty states took a big step to correct this problem by signing the National Governors Association's Graduation Rate Compact, which commits them to adopt accurate and consistent measurements. Federal policies should provide incentives for states to meet this important goal.
If we are going to demand more from our students and teachers, then it is our obligation to provide them with the support they need to meet the challenge. All students—regardless of age, grade level, gender, or race—do better when they are supported by a good teacher. Committed, quality teachers are the lynchpin of a good educational system, and those that excel—especially in challenging schools or in high-need subjects like math and science—should be rewarded. The Teacher Incentive Fund is an important first step in ensuring that teachers are rewarded, valued and respected as they would be in my company or in any other organization. This program should be made permanent through authorization.
We also need to take steps to ensure that curricula are engaging and relevant to students' current needs. A model for this is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, of which Microsoft is a member. This unique partnership of education, government, and business leaders seeks to help schools adapt their curricula and classroom environments to align more closely with the skills that students need to succeed in the 21st century economy, such as communication and problem-solving skills.
Finally, we must also ensure that our struggling students have more opportunities for in-depth learning and personal attention. This means more quality learning time in schools, access to high-quality learning materials, after school enrichment programs, and tutors.
Making these changes will be hard, but not impossible. This committee has done important work in this regard through the No Child Left Behind legislation. The reauthorization of No Child Left Behind offers Congress an opportunity to build on this work and address the other critical issues I have highlighted. I know these changes are possible in part through my work with the Gates Foundation, which has invested over $1.