3rd Annual Accountability Policy Forum Nov 14-15

From alternativeaccountabilityforum.org

Recently, I was asked why I highlight the annual Accountability Policy Forum (the third annual forum is set for Nov. 14-15 in San Diego) when there are so many meetings around the country on education and youth issues. The reason is simple: Its participants are trying to find a better way to address the policy barriers that get in the way of our young people graduating from high school. It’s a critical issue, yet the advocates focused on youth re-engagement and employment (eduployment) are structured around federal policy, when state-level issues primarily are impacting educational opportunities for youth.

I’m not blaming the national youth advocates. In fact, I think funders were primarily the ones who dropped the ball at the time (including myself while I was at Mott). Many foundations did direct investments towards developing capacity to respond to the devolution process, in which power was shifting to the states. The network of state organizations, such as the California Budget Project, allied with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, is a good example of this strategy. It takes more money to fund a national advocacy organization with representation in up to 50 states. But the investment was well worth it, even if something else had to be taken off the list of investments.


In the youth field, however, we continued to invest in the national organizations. We were so focused on integrating youth development into systems and addressing the sense in DC that “nothing works” that we failed to take into account the huge implications of the devolution of power. I had several conversations about how to develop more state capacity, but never heard any strategic ideas beyond adding a staff person to the national organizations to respond to states. Nor do I think any of the program staff involved in youth education and employment had budgets adequate to manage such an enormous strategic shift. But I can’t help but ask myself, If we had thought bigger, organized ourselves, made the arguments, could we have pulled together the funds that were needed to restructure the field?

We’ve made incredible progress in the past decade in recognizing the graduation crisis, stepping up investments in dropout prevention, high school reform and re-engagement (which we used to call multiple pathways to graduation). However, states are still the biggest player in developing an aligned system that is designed to re-engage vulnerable youth in completing high school and moving on to further post-secondary education and training. And we still don’t have the infrastructure to support it. That’s why the policies to raise the age students can leave school to 17 and 18 have not been balanced with policies to raise the age that students can receive an education in the K12 system. With K12 funding being significantly larger than adult education, being able to receive a full education until 21 or even until 24 is an essential policy for young people that may have had their education interrupted.

The practitioners and advocates that gather at the Third Annual Accountability Policy Forum are doing the work that we failed to invest in two decades ago. They started meeting because it was important, not because there was foundation support. They are forming alliances with other groups, such as the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, that share the concerns that accountability systems are inadequate to respond to over-age, undercredited students.

Until we build the state-level capacity we need to effectively advocate on behalf of over-age, undercredited students, I’ll always do what I can to try to correct for a mistake I made twenty years ago.