charter schools

School Enrollment Math in DC

Eduflack charter schools, DCPS, Michelle Rhee

According to The Washington Post, 37,000 students are expected to start in DC Public Schools today.  That number is down 17 percent from those who ended the year back in June, and it falls about 17 percent short of the 44,681 DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee has been targeting for the 2009-2010 academic year (and the number on which this year’s budget is based).  The full story can be found here. 

Despite the advertising campaigns, the door-knocking, and the community marketing designed to boost public interest in DCPS — “Go public and get a great free education!” — families are still not looking to send their kids to DC public schools.  DC-CAS scores may be up, but enrollment is down.  Rhee is focusing on teacher quality and new standards for teachers, but enrollment is down.  Theoretically, we’ve closed some of DC’s lowest-performing schools, thus giving more students access to a decent public school, yet enrollment is still down.
To be expected, DCPS has its reasons.  First, school leaders say that DC parents traditionally don’t complete their paperwork on time, so that number will increase over the course of the school year (we’ll forget for a second that not every kid currently enrolled today will stay at DCPS or even stay in school before all is said and done, thus making the whole thing a wash).  We’ll hold our tongues on how those students who are late to enroll are probably the ones that need that free education from day one in the first place.  
Of course, we also hear that the charter schools are threatening the growth of DCPS.  Despite the hype about improved DC Public Schools, boosts in student achievement, and an overall change in attitude, DC families are still looking to send their kids to charters before they go to traditional public schools.  Currently, nearly a third of DC school children are enrolled in charters, and charters are posting a 10 percent increase in enrollees, up to about 28,000.  Guess charter families don’t have the same challenges getting their paperwork in by the first day of the school year.
On top of it all, we also need to factor in the demise of the DC Voucher program.  This year, there are no new kids getting vouchers under DC Choice.  Clearly, those students are looking to attend school somewhere.  But they must be choosing between charters and private schools, based on the numbers.  Where are the 216 denied their choice enrolling once the protests are over?
Eduflack doesn’t mean to beat DCPS while it is down, but the numbers do raise an interesting question.  Right now, enrollment at DCPS is down about 7,500 students from last year and from where it was projected for this year.  Enrollment at DC charter schools is up by about 2,600 students.  So where are those nearly 5,000 students?  Are they finishing up a late beach week, and will join DCPS as school officials believe?  Have they moved on to the private schools, looking for a better pathway?  Have their families moved out of the District, bringing them to schools in PG or Montgomery Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in Virginia, or other communities throughout the United States?  Or are these students just not present and unaccounted for?
We all want to see a real renaissance at DCPS, with teacher quality improving, student achievement rising, and all DC children having access to a high-quality high school that can get them into a postsecondary program.  But even if we assume that each and every new student in the charter schools is one lost by DCPS, we still have more than 11 percent of the projected 2009-2010 DC student body undocumented.  For a district of DCPS’ size, that’s an awful lot of students to misplace or fail to document. 
I want to believe DCPS that those students are merely stragglers, and their paperwork will soon be in and they will be enrolled at their neighborhood public schools  I don’t like the fact that they will have missed the start to the school year, but I’d like to believe they are just running a little late.  But how do we know for sure?  And what happens if those 5,000 or 6,000 students aren’t on the DCPS rolls by September or October?  Are those just more kids that are written off in the ongoing saga of urban public education?
  

Hittin’ the Road with Rev. Al and Newt

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, assessment, Broad Prize, Chancellor Klein, charter schools, RTT

Politics, and education reform, do indeed make strange bedfellows.  When the Education Equality Project launched last year, many were left scratching their heads with regard to the Rev. Al Sharpton and NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein teaming up to improve the quality and results of our nation’s public schools.  Since then, their list of signatories reads like a who’s who in both Democratic politics and education reform circles, including many leading urban mayors and superintendents.

Earlier this year, they made a little extra room in the EEP bed for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has joined with them.  Gingrich has become a leading voice for EEP these days, focusing on the need to improve and the perils of the current mediocrity of American education and the dangers of an achievement gap that just doesn’t seem to want to budge.  It is quite ironic when one remembers that back in the mid-1990s GIngrich was the architect that called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, demanding that K-12 decisions should be made by localities.  Now he is rallying reform through a national microphone with a federalist approach.
When EEP was first established last year, the then CEO of Chicago Public Schools was also a signatory.  Showing he was open to all good approaches to school improvement, Arne Duncan also signed onto the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education Initiative.  While EEP and BBA couldn’t be more different (in desired outcomes, measurements to track those outcomes, and general philosophical approaches to education and education reform), Duncan joined a deep list of practitioners and policymakers that decided to hedge their bets and sign onto both, simply saying we need to improve, and they will support whatever gets us there.
With today’s announcement out of the U.S. Department of Education, it looks like we can see where EdSec Duncan’s true heart lies.  This afternoon, Duncan will be a guest on the Al Sharpton Show radio show.  He will be joined by the brains behind the 1994 Republican Revolution, Gingrich.  The three will be speaking to their plans to take a joint road trip, visiting schools in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans to talk school reform.  ED is also planning at least one similar stop in a rural community for the same purpose. 
The tour should come as a shock to no one.  EEP has been an active voice promoting the Administration’s education policies, with their most recent white paper on teacher accountability reading like a cover tribute to the Race to the Top provisions.  EEP also has the added benefit of being the current Gates Foundation advocacy banner holder, having assumed Ed in 08/Stronger American Schools’ infrastructure and support.
Eduflack finds the stops along the Strange Bedfellows tour to be curious choices.  Baltimore shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, with the EdSec having just been up in Charm City praising school district leadership for turning around the district and helping it shed the state takeover label.  But that’s just it.  ED just made a big deal of Baltimore, so much so that the superintendent is now stating that they are the national model for urban school transformation.  We have to go back to the oldies but goodies already?  There are no other good urban “success stories” to promote?  
Then we move onto the City of Brotherly Love.  We have not heard Philly mentioned as a “reform” city since Paul Vallas left there years ago.  Current superintendent Arlene Ackerman is an EEP signatory, but her activities in DC and San Francisco speak far more to a BBAer.  Setting aside the city’s relatively stagnant test scores, Philadelphia is also a strong union city, with union members likely not to thrilled with the idea of merit pay and linking their assessment with the academic achievement of their students.  Things could get interesting in a city that once pelted snowballs at Santa.
And speaking of Vallas, we move to the Big Easy.  New Orleans makes the most sense, as it is an incubator for any and all reform that comes around (much as Chicago was during Duncan’s tenure).  They love them some charters down in New Orleans, and have embraced alternative certification, TFA, and New Leaders for New Schools.  And now that Vallas is setting aside his Illinois political dreams, Louisiana has a strong superintendent with a track record of innovations and student improvement.  But its test scores are far from catching up to its promise.
It helps that both Pennsylvania and Louisiana are on the short list of RttT states, standing as two of the 15 receiving technical assistance and $250,000 checks from the Gates Foundation to help with their RttT application preparation.   If anything, Gates understands the value of working across platforms, and linking their grantmaking with EEP rhetoric and RttT only strengthens their hand in the long term.
But the choices do leave me scratching my head a little.  No room to share a little love for Michelle’s work down in DC or for the progress made in Boston over the past decade?  No hat tip to the great work Beverly Hall and the work she has done down in Atlanta?  No show of confidence for the bold reforms that Robert Bobb is trying to put into place up in Detroit?  No continued love for Broad Prize winners Long Beach Unified in California or Brownsville (TX) Public Schools?  What about Houston, the birthplace of KIPP?  Not even a rolling stop in New York City?  Nothing for aspiring cities like Indianapolis, Charlotte-Mecklenberg, Clark County (NV), Cleveland, Austin, or Portland?  
Yes, all questions that are rattling around in my noggin.  But they are pushed aside by a bigger question.  Day after day, we witness the escalation in rhetorical sparring happening around the country over proposed healthcare reforms.  We see staunch advocates for both sides offering their sweat and tears (with many looking to draw some blood as well).  Will these whistlestops serve as a kumbaya moment for all involved, with conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, reformers and the status quoers joining together to fight the good fight for the “sake of the children?”  Or will that loyal opposition we know is out there start organizing and have their voices heard?  Will we see teachers fighting to protect their tenure?  Will we hear from those local controllers who want to return all accountability and assessment to a citizen school board and keep the feds out of their classrooms?  Will we witness concerned parents and community activists stand up for the “whole child” and profess there is more to education that just reading and math, and we need a host of qualitative measures and a greater emphasis on the arts and the social development of the child?  Will the home schoolers demand that school choice include more than just charter schools?
Or will we simply have more of the same, with everyone just hoping that they will have a chair when the music stops playing?  Since Eduflack’s rant in search of the “loyal opposition” earlier this week, I’ve heard from some that they are quietly organizing or silently twisting arms behind close doors to try and influence which tune we’ll be playing as we start walking the ESEA reauthorization circle.  Is that true, or are those who are quietly grumbling into their pillows at night simply hoping beyond hope that Holding Out for a Hero is going to start blasting through those ed reform speakers?
Am I trying to instigate an education reform fight?  Maybe.  But maybe I also think that these proposed reforms can only improve and get stronger if we force them to withstand public scrutiny.
 I too want to see these proposals succeed, but I also know that if support is merely on the surface, real change will never take hold once good ideas are moved into status quo implementation and decisions are made that leave many states and districts in the cold when it comes to new innovation money.  Are we playing for the love of the game, or will pay to play take effect, with SEAs and LEAs quickly losing interest when there isn’t a U.S. Treasury check there to reward their “loyalty?”

Where Is the “Loyal Opposition” in Ed Reform?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, high-stakes testing, national standards, NCLB, RTT, stimulus

The drumbeat toward reform continues.  Wisconsin’s Democratic governor is now calling for changes to the state law to tear down the firewall preventing the tie between teachers and student achievement.  Indiana continues its push to “reform” teacher certification, with the state superintendent looking to more fully embrace the alternative certification pathways advocated by the U.S. Department of Education and its Race to the Top guidance.  Even states like New York and California are looking for ways to show they are “reformers” and not the status quoers they have long been known as.

Earlier this week, Politico ran a much-anticipated profile of EdSec Arne Duncan and his push to reform and improve public education in the United States.  The full article can be found here.  As is typical with these sorts of pieces, Politico sought to get some opposing viewpoints on the Duncan agenda.  The end result?  Critique from the usual critic Jack Jennings, concerns about federal control of education from the top Republican on the House Education Committee, and frustrations from a parent advocacy group in Chicago that clearly didn’t get its way when Duncan was CEO of the Windy City’s public school system.
For the past six-plus months, Duncan and his team have moved forward with a bold, ambitious agenda for reforming education.  Through State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, RttT, the anticipated Innovation Fund, and regular prioritization of the pending budget, they have made their plan for improvement clear and unquestioned.  Student achievement is the name of the game.  Charter schools, alternative certification, teacher incentives, and other such tactics are the drivers.  STEM and core standards are foundations.  And ED is going to great lengths to avoid the phrase, Adequate Yearly Progress is still very much the name of the game.  Those states and districts that want to feed at the federal innovation and improvement trough will need to demonstrate that they are making continued, sustained gains in student achievement.  Those who can narrow the achievement gap along the way will get extra gold stars (and possibly extra zeros at the end of their checks).
In response to this agenda, most of the education community is falling over itself to demonstrate that it is already marching in lockstep with ED (or is willing to do whatever it takes to pick up the beat as quickly as possible).  There is little, if any, chatter coming from states about potential changes to RttT.  Instead, states are trying to figure out how they will change to meet RttT.  Instead of questioning one of many of the 19 criteria established in RttT, we are asking if each will hold equal weight.  We want to know if getting union sign off is as important as removing the charter school cap or agreeing to sign on to core standards before they are written and analyzed.
It all begs one very important question.  Where is the loyal opposition to these proposed education reforms?  Why are we not hearing voices speaking out against the proposed policies, the proposed measurements, and the proposed outcomes that will result from this agenda?  Have we truly found a reform agenda that we all agree to, or are concerned voices too worried about retribution or being tagged as roadblocks if they speak out against current plans?
All told, the United States spends more than $500 billion a year on K-12 education.  So RttT represents less than 1 percent of what we spend in a given year.  When you factor in the realization that less than half of states are likely to be dubbed with the RttT honor, the impact is even smaller.  So it can’t just be worry that criticism today means rejection tomorrow, can it?  Do we believe that if a state raises concerns about some of the criteria now that the “expert panel” of reviewers will hold that against them when their RrrT applications (those expected to take states upwards of 700 man hours to complete) will be dinged by such rhetoric?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is a strong supporter of most of reforms moved forward by Duncan and crew.  I believe we need to expand school choice, particularly for those students in chronically low-performing schools.  We should be incentivizing effective teachers, particularly those who are teaching in at-risk communities.  All states should not only adopt core standards, but there should be strong national standards with equally strong assessments to go with them.  We need to provide both the financial carrot and stick to drive reforms, and we need to focus on key states and districts as incubators for real change and improvement, using them to model what is possible for the rest.
But I also believe that good ideas become great policy when they are debated, dissected, and forced to withstand the scrutiny of critics and defenders of the status quo.  Call it being a contrarian or an agitator, but I just can’t believe we get it “right” the first time around.  We let our friends offer improvement, and we listen to our enemies to shore up the plans and make sure we are taking those steps which we believe in, can stand behind, and can demonstrate real return on.  No, we don’t look to build consensus policy.  Consensus is usually the kiss of death, the best friend of the status quo.  But you have to show you can withstand the best shots of the competition, demonstrating the strength of your foundations.
When NCLB was signed into law six and a half years ago, it was an equally bold reform agenda with arguably greater discretionary spending coming from the federal government.  From day one and a half, we had critics and attack dogs going after the policy, the personalities, and the goals.  States threatened to refuse federal money to keep local control.  Teachers unions and advocates sued in court.  Membership organizations spoke out against the law’s narrow focus and perceived unfunded mandates?
Where is similar outrage and organization today?  Are critics building their case against these policies, keeping their powder dry until the RttT guidelines are final and the “law of the land?”  Are groups waiting for a third-party voice to step up and draw the heavy fire from DFER, EEP, TFA, and other such organizations viewed as aligned with the Duncan agenda?  Or are we simply accepting these as a fait accompli? 
I can’t imagine that Jennings is the only voice in the education community that believes there is too much emphasis on charter schools.  I can’t believe that U.S. Rep. John Kline (MN) is the only person concerned we are spending without a comprehensive strategic plan and specific measurements and benchmarks.  So why is that loyal opposition so quiet?
Nothing from traditional voices who have long questioned the role of charter schools in the traditional public school system.  Relatively nothing from teachers and their representatives on teacher incentives and effectiveness being measured by student performance on state assessments.  Virtually nothing on the focus on alternative certification, all but eliminating discussion of improving teacher colleges and traditional pathways.  Quiet on issues like the continual measure of student achievement based on reading and math scores only.  Some minor sparring on the abandonment of the voucher system in DC.  Not a word about teachers unions and their expected approvals of state reform agendas.  Relative silence on the adoption of core standards as a requirement.
Where are our backbenchers and rabble rousers?  Where are our whol
e child advocates and proponents for local control?  Where are our defenders of the status quo and of the whole child?  Where are our critics of “high-stakes” tests and federal mandates?  Where are our doubting Thomases and cynical Samanthas?  
A great deal can happen between the finalization of RttT next month and its implementation at the state and local level.  Now is the time for voices to get on the record, both those echoing the call from ED and those questioning the priorities and the expected outcomes.  Ultimately, those who don’t speak now will have little ground to stand on if they want to play “I told you so” a year or two from now.  Vigorous and educated debate only improves the final outcome.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.
    

Is Ed Reform “Un-American?”

Eduflack accountability, charter schools, national standards
In recent weeks, we’ve seen some start to reflect on the impact healthcare reform could have on education reforms, at least at the national level.  If healthcare stalls, will they bring ESEA forward?  If healthcare fails, will the Obama Administration have the support to push more education reforms?  If we should reform the healthcare system this fall, does it provide momentum for major sea change in other domestic policies, including education?
In this morning’s USA Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offer up an opinion piece attacking those who are attacking the proposed reforms to our nation’s healthcare system.  The full piece can be found here, but the most interesting statement (and that receiving the most attention) is that “drowning out opposing views is simply un-American?”
So it got ole Eduflack thinking.  Can the same be said about education and education reform?  Is drowning out opposing view on education reform un-American?
If a teachers union shows up in force at a local school board meeting to oppose a merit pay proposal, is that un-American?
If parents in the District of Columbia rise up and hold a sit-in to protest the shutdown of the voucher program, is that un-American?
If Minnesotans drown out Rep, Kline at one of his town halls, demanding that he make education a civil right guaranteed by the U.S. government, is that un-American?
If New Yorkers yell and scream until the State Senate restores mayoral control to NYC schools, is that un-American?
If concerned citizens gathered together and demanded that charter schools be held to the same standards, expectations, and outcomes as their traditional public school brethren, is that un-American?
Of course not.  The history of education reform has been one rooted in dissent and warring sides.  Phonics versus whole language.  Old math versus new math.  Federalization versus local control.  Reformers versus the status quo.  Our differences (and the strenuous defense of both sides of the debate) are what makes for better policy.  The more vigorous the debate, the better our policy can actually become, assuming we don’t water it down to appease everyone.
A decade ago, did anyone really think we’d embrace charter schools as a core part the K-12 system and be talking about their unionization?  Did we expect the largest expansion the role of the federal government in public education to come from a Republican president?  Did we think merit pay for teachers, tied to student assessment data, would be an idea pushed by a Democratic president?  Did we think that alternative certification paths and programs like Teach for America would grow so strong in unionized urban school districts?  Did we ever think national standards could become the norm, and could be developed in less than a year’s time?  (OK, maybe we’re still not sure on that one, but time will tell.)
All of those are possible because education reformers refused to be silenced.  The calls for change and improvement to our K-12 system became so loud that reformers ultimately drown out those who defended the status quo.  It is far easier to stay the course than to change directions.  Change comes from public outpourings, a louder and louder drumbeat, and advocates for change breaking through the white noise.  
We often talk about how education can learn from the business community or from the successes of those in other industry sectors.  Maybe it is time for successful education reformers to teach a thing or two to those seeking reform in other sectors.  It seems to me that the only way we bring real change and improvement to public education is when good ideas finally do drown out the defenders of the status quo.  Those so-called reforms that are easily overtaken by the voices defending the “way it is” usually aren’t true improvements.  They are merely nibbles along the edges, designed to placate some but have no lasting impact.  Am I wrong?

Racing Toward Long-Term Change?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, national standards, stimulus, Teacher Education

It should come as no surprise that we are seeing a great number of states and school districts instituting new reforms so they appear to align with the goals and ambitions of Race to the Top and the overall Duncan reform agenda.  Just this week, Indiana’s state superintendent announced major policy shifts (including a relaxing of teacher certification regulations), Illinois’ governor agreed to double the number of charter schools in Chicago, and even the Los Angeles superintendent is looking for ways to qualify for the RttT moneys, even if California is rejected because of its firewall issues.

Without doubt, governors, chief state school officers, and urban superintendents have been listening carefully to what EdSec Arne Duncan and his team at the LBJ Building are expecting from those who will be a part of the federal school improvement gravy train.  For more than half a year, we’ve listened to speeches and dissected policies on topics such as teacher quality and incentives, charter school availability and quality, data systems, alternative teacher pathways, and core standards.  We’ve scrutinized the details and criteria of last week’s RttT draft RFP, knowing that little, if anything, will change in the final.  We all want to show we are part of the solution, and not part of the problem.
Those in the know seem certain that only a select group of states are going to be bestowed the title of Race to the Top states.  The betting odds are 10 to 15 states will earn the RttT seal.  That leaves another 36 (if you count DC) knowing the end game, but possibly lacking the financial resources to truly innovate.
Earlier this month, the National Conference of State Legislatures released data on the budget gaps.  It is no surprise that many of the states on the short end of the budget stick are states that many believe have an inside track for RttT.  For instance, Connecticut has a $4.1 billion budget gap; Illinois a $7.3 billion gap.  New York posts a $17.65 billion gap, while California clocks in at $38.95 billion.  Even with State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars, these states have major obstacles to overcome just to keep pace with previous budget years.  That means a lot of energy spent running in place, when ED is looking for states who will be sprinting out of the gates.
On the flip side, there are some interesting states that appear to be in the best financial shape, where their budget gaps are less than 5 percent of the general fund, meaning (in theory) that public education will face a scalpel, and not an axe.  So there may be opportunities in states like Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio to quickly put real reforms in place and document the impact it is having on student learning.
It begs the question, who will win RttT?  Are we looking for states with the greatest need, the states with the largest achievement gaps to overcome?  Are we looking for low-hanging fruit states, where a couple of billion dollars in education funding can make the difference?  Are we looking for states that want to invest in one major area, like STEM or teacher incentives, or are we looking for states that will be the full embodiment of the ED reform agenda?  Are we looking for states that are willing to “match” federal funding with state and private dollars to spur innovation and improvement, or are we looking for those states extending the most aggressive hand?
And equally important, will the Indianas and Illinoises of the world continue with their reform agendas if they do not get added federal funding?  We all want to believe that these proposals and changes are being offered because state decisionmakers see them as in the best interests of the schools and the students.  But the cynic in Eduflack wonders how many are acting to give their states “curb appeal” as ED starts shopping for a home for more than $4 billion in new federal education funding.  Will Illinois’ legislature fund the doubling of charter schools in Chicago without a check from the feds?  Will Indiana’s state superintendent be able to move forward with his reform agenda if the Hoosier State is a spectator, and not a participant in the great Race?  If the core standards movement doesn’t gain steam, will anyone other than RttT states endorse them?
Ultimately, programs like RttT are designed to model what is possible and spur innovation across the board. One expects RttT states to be incubators where the remaining members of our great union can see what is possible and what can work for them.  We also expect those RttT states to continue their programs well after the federal funding spigot is turned off.  But will that be the case?  At the end of the day, will states who are not Race states change, without the financial incentive to do so?  
One hopes they will, but history tells us that status quo education is status quo for a reason.  It is far easier.
 

Top 10 RTT Questions

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, assessment, AYP, charter schools, Gates Foundation, national standards, RTT, stimulus, Teacher Education

The clock has officially started.  Last night, the U.S. Department of Education officially posted the draft Race to the Top (RTT) RFP on the Federal Register.  Interested parties can find at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-17909.pdf.  The big change from the draft circulating before last week’s unveiling is the proposed criteria are now put in a handy, dandy chart, instead of just being pages and pages of text.  Regardless, all interested parties have until August 28 to provide their comments and recommendations to officials at ED.  Eduflack would be surprised if the final version of the RFP is not released to states as close to September 1 as possible.

Earlier this week, ED officials held a conference call to speak to the RFP (along with other funding streams such as State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, ed technology grants, and the like).  After taking some time to digest it all, Eduflack is left with more questions than he has answers.  So rather than suffer with these queries on my own, I’m just going to put them out there so others can struggle along with me (or at least realize that they are not alone).  So here’s my top 10.
1) How many states does ED intend to bestow with RTT grants?  Clearly, they aren’t intending most states to secure Race funding (else the language would be quite different).  But is this intended for half the states?  A quarter?  Fewer?  I’ve heard six to 10 states.  Alexander Russo has reported at thisweekineducation.com that the Gates Foundation is helping 15 states with their applications.  So how many states will actually become RTT states?
2) Speaking of Gates, if it is true, who are the 15 states that they are assisting?  I’ve heard two handfuls of states mentioned as possibles/likelies, including Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Illinois.  Will the four states that will play home to Gates’ deep dive states be priorities for funding?  Can states like Texas, which receives big Gates dollars, overcome the political and administrative obstacles to qualify if they have the right assistance?  Will we ever know who Gates is helping?  (Some ED RFPs require that the applicant disclose who actually wrote the proposal, but I don’t see that in the requirements here.)
3) We know that there will be a Phase One and a Phase Two of grants, so what prevents a prospective state from laying the weeds, waiting to see who is approved in Phase One, and then liberally “borrowing” from the previously approved application?  We saw some of this in the initial rounds of Reading First back in 2002.  Will we see it again this year?
4) And about those approvals, who, exactly, will be reviewing applications?  The folks over at Education Week and its Politics K-12 blog have noted that ED is expecting to get top-notch, expert, experiences individuals with SEA backgrounds to review these applications.  Obviously, reviewers can’t have a dog in the fight.  So who are these reviewers who aren’t currently working with individual states or the organizations that represent them (like NGA or CCSSO) that will be determining how the $4-plus billion is spent?
5) Are California and New York (and Wisconsin) really knocked out of the running because of their prohibitions to link teacher identifiers with student performance data?  ED did a great deal of research and vetting of what was happening in the states before releasing this draft.  I guarantee that they knew about the CA and NY laws.  And we heard EdSec Duncan in California earlier this year expressing some doubts about California being an RTT state.  Is the Golden State just too big with too many moving parts to demonstrate measurable change out of the gates?  Would we prefer to work with smaller states like Delaware, Georgia, or Ohio that may be easier to navigate in the early going?
6) How sacrosanct are the proposed criteria that guide selection?  I can’t help but notice one of the criteria is a letter of endorsement from the state teachers union.  Is that a recommended or a non-negotiable?  Do the state chapters of the NEA and AFT essentially have veto power over a state’s RTT application?  How does a state determine whether they need this item, or whether it is just a nice value-add?
7) With regard to charter schools and requirements around school choice, how will reviewers distinguish between states whose laws essentially prohibit charter schools versus those like Virginia that have terrific charter laws on the books, but just don’t authorize them?  Is the measuring stick intent or actual implementation?
8) The draft focusing on alternative certification, but where is emphasis on improving the quality of traditional certification paths?  Collecting data on the student achievement of graduates of specific colleges of education?  Comparing the impact of traditional certification with alternative certification (and with Teach for America)?  How can RTT be used to ensure an ample supply of effective teachers, regardless of the path they take to the classroom?
9) What is the real crosswalk with core standards?  It seems like ED is hedging its bets, asking states to provide annual reports based on their state assessments, yet requiring RTT states to sign onto the core standards by mid-2010 (if they are out).  Assuming core standards are in place, do we not expect assessments to accompany them?  Or do we expect that such assessments will not be completed and in place until after RTT’s four-year run?
10) Other than state self-reporting, how will we actually know that RTT dollars have improved student performance and closed the achievement gap?  What specific measures, other than state tests, will be in place?  What is ED planning on replacing AYP with for the long haul?  How do we ensure that dollars are being invested to change practice for the long term, and that RTT reforms will stay in place and have impact long after the funding is gone?  
A lot of questions, I know.  Hopefully, others are asking these questions as well as part of the review process.  Or are these just the rants and musings of an education agitator?                     

Racing to the Top?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

Back in March, everyone held high hopes for the billions of dollars moving from the feds to the states through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF).  Since the release of the economic stimulus package, EdSec Arne Duncan has focused on the need for innovation and improvement, improvement and innovation.  So much so that you’d think that SFSF was actually funding innovation and improvement.

Unfortunately, a recent GAO study has found that SFSF funds are not exactly going to the sort of innovation and new programs we originally dreamed about a few months ago.  Short-term stimulus dollars are going to plug existing holes and, in most places, are going to fund teachers and other long-term, non-discretionary school expenses. 
So it is no wonder that attention has no turned to the Race to the Top (RTT) Fund and all of the new dollars that will be directed to the states to improve student achievement and break the chains of the status quo in public education.  RTT is seen as the latest in big dollar federal education programs, the latest sugar daddy in a long and distinguished line.
The current talk is that the draft RTT RFP will be released by the end of the month (july 31), followed by a short public comment/review period.  By fall, states will be busily assembling their RTT applications, with most seeking the big dollars to turnaround low-performing schools and introduce their struggling school districts to the ideas of innovation and improvement.  If the plan holds, RTT dollars will be delivered by those ED armored trucks by the end of January 2010.
Obviously, the SEAs are going to be asked to address ED’s four pillars of policy: 1) standards and assessment; 2) data systems; 3) teacher quality; and 4) school turnaround.  The RFP is likely to look like those states addressed with Reading First nearly a decade ago the supposed proposals they were asked to provide on SFSF earlier this year.  States will pledge to improve student performance and close the achievement gaps.  They’ll promise to track their progress.  They’ll prioritize the lowest performers and the historically disadvantaged.  And they will have plans, boy will they have plans.
But how can ED make sure that the SEAs are truly going to focus on outcomes, and not simply to inputs?  How do we move from plans to results?  How do we hold SEAs accountable for their promises, ensuring that RTT dollars are actually resulting in student achievement and gap closures?  How do we guarantee that RTT leads to return on investment, with state and local actions charting a course for scalable improvements and innovations that chart the course for the wholesale turnaround that Duncan is looking for?
And how do we do so on the current timetable?  Offering a few weeks during the summer for public comment and review is likely to stretch beyond the planned timeline, extending into the fall.  If past experiences are any guide, the execution of RTT will take longer than expected.  States won’t get the funds until the spring of 2010, after spending for the FY2010-2011 budgets have already been determined.  That means that fast-tracked RTT funds won’t make their way until our schools until the 2011-12 school year.  Two more school years may pass before our local decisionmakers have real dollars in their hands to implement the improvements and innovations Duncan and other officials at ED are calling for now.  Two more years of status quo and mediocrity.  Two more years of our most struggling schools and students muddling through a system that has failed them to date.
So how do we rectify the two?  How do we serve as responsible stewards of new funding while demanding real results from the get-go?  How do we get new dollars into the field as fast as possible, while avoiding the implementation problems of the past?  How do we use RTT to bring about real, meaningful change instead of just continuing the status quo?
There is a great deal riding on RTT.  For many out there, we are looking for this new funding program to bridge the gap between innovative rhetoric and status quo action.  For many, RTT serves as the blueprint for charter schools, alternative certification, improved teacher quality, and data systems.  It will move us from the bare minimums of the adequate in AYP to the higher expectations of student achievement for all.  It is a way for districts in need to break the pattern that has resulted in decades of struggles, providing them the opportunity to do what is new and what will actually change school outcomes for the better.  
Is that what we will see at the end of the month?  Is that what we will see in the final RFP after key stakeholders get to weigh in and have their say?  Currently, Duncan is riding the wave as the reigning Mr. Congeniality in education.  At some point, he will have to take a hard stand that results in some stakeholders disliking him or getting frustrated with the policy borne of the rhetoric.  The big question is whether he will frustrate the reformers or the status quoers.  Will RTT result in the innovation we’re all talking about, or will it support the same old-same old that SFSF is propping up?  The end of the month will be a telling road marker.  Using the bully pulpit is easy.  Moving that vision into policy and funding programs is hard.  

Charter-ing the Race

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, CPS, Gates Foundation

There seems to be little question about it.  Charter schools are front and center when it comes to the federal government’s new approach to school improvement and student achievement.  EdSec Arne Duncan has been promoting charters as a core part of successful Race to the Top grants and as necessary components to comprehensive district turnarounds.  Duncan can even point to his use of the charter tool in Chicago as the justification for his new push.

The Gates Foundation has announced its plans to go in and do a “deep dive” in four school districts across the nation, focusing $125 million per district on improved professional development.  On the short list for the final four, an unnamed charter school district in the Los Angeles area.  Only the village idiot doesn’t realize that Green Dot is the intended target for these funds.
We’ve seen greater interest and appreciation for what KIPP has done, due in large part to Jay Mathews’ recent book on that charter system.  And the number of ED employees with ties to the NewSchool Venture Fund, one of the top thinkers on the effective development of high-quality charter schools (and part of New Leaders for New Schools’ model for teacher incentives under their TIF-funded EPIC program) continues to grow by the day.
So for those who thought charters may take a back seat under a new Democratic administration, they have been sadly mistaken.  The economic stimulus package called for states to raise their charter caps.  Other states are being pushed to actually maximize their current laws (like my home state of Virginia, which has a decent charter law, but just doesn’t allow any charters to actually get started under it, thus failing to live up to the promise).  And others still are being asked to establish flexible, growth-oriented charter laws that demonstrate the value-add charters can play to a school district on the rise or a school district in need of improvement.
But who is doing it well?  A decade ago, charters were tagged with a reputation of low quality and low results.  We had images of individuals running schools out of their homes and their basements, trying to take advantage of available funding or looking to thrust a particular political or religious point of view on a select group of students.  Many still subscribe to that stereotype, despite the hard work undertaken by groups like NACSA to ensure that states have strong charter establishment and accountability laws and by organizations like the Center for Education Reform for continually providing new data on how well our charter systems are doing.
CER actually has a new report out, this one called Race to the Top for Charter Schools: Which States Have What It Takes to Win, Rankings and Scorecard 2009.  In the study, CER provides some interesting data, grading our states on issues such as the number of charter operators, number of schools allowed, operations, and equity.  We see that three states earn As from CER — the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and California.  Four states earn Fs — Kansas, Virginia, Iowa, and Mississippi.  D seems to be the most popular grade when it comes to charter scores.
When you couple this data with recent CER data on charter school achievement and the costs involved (showing that charters are putting up equal or better performance when compared to their traditional public school peers for nearly half the per-pupil dollars), it gives you a strong sense for why Duncan and company are emphasizing the opportunity available under charters … and how much work we really have to do before we effectively integrate charters into the public school network.
Most states want to get their Race to the Top dollars and the chances that come with it.  In the process, hopefully they will recognize that good, effective charter networks are designed to supplement, not supplant, our traditional public school systems.  They aren’t the magic bullet for struggling schools, but they sure are a useful tool.  And that like most in school improvement, charters only work when we focus on quality, proven research, assessment, and accountability.

ARRA: Rise of the Charters

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, Gates Foundation, Green Dot, stimulus

Can one make lasting improvement working solely within the confines of the status quo?  That seems to be the question the US Department of Education, particularly EdSec Arne Duncan, is asking as additional details on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and our federal education policy come into crisper focus.

In recent weeks, the education community has “discovered” that ARRA included language requiring states to boost their charter school cap, essentially requiring the expansion of charter offerings if states want access to all of the new economic stimulus money.  Couple the details of ARRA with recent speeches by Duncan and hires of those with backgrounds that include organizations such as the NewSchool Venture Fund, and we are starting to see that the limits of the status quo simply will not hold.
Today, the EdSec went all in on the topic.  Addressing the media on how to turnaround our lowest performing schools, Duncan cited the value of “real autonomy for charters combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance standards.”  Among the stats used by ED this afternoon:
* 10 states currently do not have laws allowing charter schools;
* 26 states put artificial caps on the number of public charter schools (with President Obama calling on states to lift those caps);
* The Maine state legislature is debating a bill to establish a pilot program for its first charter schools (though this afternoon’s headlines looked like the legislature would reject the proposal and risk losing its education stimulus dollars); and
* Tennessee refuses to lift its charter enrollment restrictions while Indiana is considering a moratorium on new charter schools.
And that status quo question?  Duncan seemed to answer that this afternoon as well.  “I am advocating for using whatever models work for students, and particularly where improvements have stagnated for years,” Duncan said.  “We cannot continue to do that same thing and expect different results.  We cannot let another generation of children be deprived of their civil right to a quality education.”
While one has to question Duncan’s definition of insanity to be used as a justification for expanding our charter laws, he does have a point.  And all this talk is bound to generate a great of attention, particularly with the positive press generated by charters like KIPP and the Gates Foundation’s likely intention to provide a $125 million “deep dive” into a “network of charter schools” in the Los Angeles area (can we all say Green Dot?).  The real challenge, then, for Duncan, Obama, Gates, and others is to ensure that this is not an either-or situation.
In the early days of the charter debate, opponents of public charter schools fought the good fight, accusing school districts of looking to replace traditional public schools with these new charters.  Over time, we have witnessed that the best of our charter schools are in communities where they complement the traditional publics.  Strong charters, with strong accountability, offer greater opportunity.  They can raise quality.  They increase choice.  And, if held to high standards, they contribute to student achievement gains and can be a useful lever in turning around our lowest performing school districts.  They can also give families and students a choice in communities where previous choice was between one failing school and another.
Ultimately, the EdSec is right in seeking to include charter schools in our Race to the Top funds.  if we are to turn around persistently underperforming schools, we need to do something different.  We can’t simply pump more dollars into historically troubled schools and expect that student achievement will improve.  After all, we’ve tried that approach for decades now.  How has it worked so far?
But we also must recognize that charters are not the magical elixir that will aid any district in need.  We can point to plenty of school districts with liberal charter policies but poor student achievement (just look at our nation’s capital).  Charters work when they take a firm line with regard to structure, expectations, and accountability.  Such a line isn’t for everyone.  Too often, we make compromises, offering charter schools destined for many of the same failings their traditional publics are suffering through.  If the Race to the Top is going to work, we need new ideas and new approaches.  But we also need the research and accountability behind them to ensure success.  Otherwise, we will keep throwing good money after bad, doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome.  With the stakes as high as they are, that, my friends, really is insanity.
 
   
 

We’re Building Schools After All

Eduflack Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

When we first started off the debate on economic stimulus many months ago, well before ARRA was an acronym that held any real meaning (particularly in the education community), there was an initial thinking that stimulus dollars would be poured into school construction projects.  After all, such projects were “shovel ready” (hard to believe how quickly we’ve forgotten that adjective) and they were viewed as the best example of projects that could benefit from the immediate influx of funding, but wouldn’t require continued care and feeding over the years.

Then SC Gov. Mark Sanford threatened to use stimulus money to pay down state construction bonds, or not take money at all.  We shifted to talks about using dollars to pay for teacher salaries.  And soon we launched into our current discussion of “one-time” money, dollars going to student achievement-centric projects, no second round of ARRA funding coming, and many at ED scratching their heads asking why so many states are slow to get in their applications and receive part two of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money.  Surely, they are not content with the no-strings Title I and IDEA dollars they’ve gotten, and they’re not just sharpening their pencils waiting for the Innovation grants to be released.
It is a bit of an understatement to say there has been continued confusion as to how SFSF dollars are intended to be spent.  Despite the good intentions of Judy Wurtzel and others at ED, technical assistance and current guidance is still not providing the complete answers (or at least the answers the boots on the ground want to hear) as to what and how to spend the new federal dollars.  So last night, EdSec Arne Duncan released a letter to all chief state school officers explaining the current thinking on school construction and ARRA.
The highlights?  There’s $6 billion in school construction bonds to be allocated this year.  The feds are staying in the school construction biz.  Energy efficiency and “green” buildings are important.  Charter schools are treated as equals with traditional public schools.  There has been and will continue to be school construction and rehab money available from the feds.  The average layman or policy wonk isn’t necessarily supposed to understand the finer points of all this.  We have a bunch of new acronyms we have to learn, at least if we are going to talk about school building.
The full text of the letter follows below, courtesy of Fritzwire:

May 29, 2009

 

Dear Chief State School Officers:

 

I am pleased to inform you about the authorization of Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) and Build America Bonds (BABs) and the extension of Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs).  The authorizations provide Federal subsidies for public school improvement and modernization activities.  TheAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) makes QSCBs and BABs available for the first time, while extending and expanding the authority for QZABs.  QZABs provide funding for school repairs and renovation and certain other activities for eligible schools and may not be used for new construction, while QSCBs and BABs provide funding for new construction as well as renovation. 

 

Charter schools as well as traditional public schools may benefit from all of these types of bonds.  I encourage you to consider serving charter schools through these programs.

 

You may use all three of these types of bonds to modernize buildings and convert obsolete non-school buildings into modern school facilities.  I encourage you to design energy-efficient school facilities that meet widely recognized rating systems for green buildings.  Please also consider ways these bonds can improve communities in general.  For instance, some local educational agencies (LEAs) have designed school facilities in a manner intended to facilitate their serving as centers of their communities that are available for non-school purposes outside of regular school hours.  Particularly in a time of economic difficulty, making school facilities go further by designing and providing them for multiple uses makes eminent sense.

 

The benefit of all of these programs is that they help LEAs save money and make their repair, renovation, or construction dollars go further.  Purchasers of QSCBs and QZABs receive a Federal income tax credit.  The U.S. Treasury Department establishes State allocation limits and sets a tax-credit rate for the QSCB and QZAB bond programs that, on average
, equals the amount of interest schools would ordinarily pay on debt.  With the Federal Government covering most or all of the interest on the bonds, LEAs receive a substantial benefit as interest payments typically equal approximately 50 percent of the economic cost of a bond. 

 

The ARRA makes available, to States and certain large LEAs, $11 billion for 2009 and $11 billion for 2010 in QSCB bonding authority for construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a public school facility and for the acquisition of land on which the school facility is to be constructed with QSCB funds.  (An additional $200 million in each of those years goes to the Department of the Interior for assistance to schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Education.)  The QSCB bond allocation authority generally goes to States (not necessarily State educational agencies) based on their shares of Title I Basic Grant funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  The District of Columbia and possessions of

the United States also receive these allocations.  Possessions other than Puerto Rico, however, receive their shares of the QSCB bonding authority based on their share of the population below the poverty line.  Forty percent of the national QSCBs bonding authority goes directly to the 100 LEAs with the largest number of school-aged children living below the poverty line.  The designated LEAs receive this bond allocation in proportion to their share of ESEA Title I Basic Grant funds.  States with LEAs that receive bond allocations directly from the Federal Government receive a reduced direct allocation. 

 

BABs are bonds that can be used to finance a wide range of projects, including construction and modernization of school facilities.  The BABs program allows municipal bond issuers in 2009 and 2010 to offer an unlimited amount of taxable debt and to elect either to receive a cash subsidy from the Federal Government or to provide bondholders with a tax credit.  Both the payment and the tax credit would be equal to 35 percent of the interest paid on the bonds.  BABs can assist public postsecondary institutions in addition to LEAs.

 

QZABs are another important tool that States and LEAs can use to provide additional resources for improving school facilities and instruction.  The ARRA extends QZABs through 2010.  As you may know, QZABs were first authorized in 1997 and are bonds the Federal Government subsidizes by allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately equal to the interest that States and communities would pay holders of taxable bonds.  As a result, issuers are generally responsible for repayment of just the principal.  QZABs may now be purchased by any individual or private business.

 

States and LEAs have considerable flexibility in the use of QZABs.  They may be used for rehabilitating or repairing school facilities, purchasing equipment, developing curricula, and training school personnel, but not for new construction.  To meet QZAB eligibility criteria, a public school must be located in either an Empowerment Zone or an Enterprise Community or have at least 35 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the Federal lunch program (National School Lunch Act).  The school must also have an education program designed in cooperation with business; receive a private contribution (which may be in-kind), the net present value of which is not less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the bond; and have an education plan that is approved by its LEA; and its students must be subject to the same standards and assessments as other students in the LEA.

 

As the following chart shows, previously authorized QZABs are still available.  However, unused funds from the 2007 allocations will expire at the end of this year and, to make use of these allocations, States or municipalities must issue the bonds by December 31, 2009.  If a State does not issue the amount of QZABs allocated by the Federal Government between the calendar year the funds are first made available and the date by which they must be issued, the unused QZAB allocation expires and cannot be used. 

 

QZABs Amount

Calendar year first available

Bonds must be issued by December 31 of the year

$400 million

2007

2009

$400 million

2008

2010

$1.4 billion

2009

2011

$1.4 billion

2010

2012

 

On April 3, 2009, the Treasury Department issued 2008 and 2009 State allocations of QZABs bonding authority and 2009 allocations of QSCBs bonding authority for the States and the 100 large LEAs.  I am enclosing those tables for your information.  I am also enclosing a Fact Sheet prepared by our Department on these bond programs. 

 

If you have questions about this information or these programs, please contact Branch 5 of the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Associate Chief Counsel/Financial Institutions and Products, at 202-622-3980 or Jane Hess of the U.S. Department of Education at 202-401-8292.  I am confident that these bonds can help your communities meet some of their facility needs.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/

 

Arne Duncan

 

2 Attachments Follow

 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

Qualified School Construction Bonds and

Qualified Zone Academy Bonds

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) authorized tax-credit bonds for school construction by expanding Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) from $400 million annually to $1.4 billion for each of calendar years 2009 and 2010 and authorizing $11.2 billion in Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) for the first time.  QZABs provide tax credits primarily for school renovation and may not be used for new construction, but QSCBs provide tax credits for new construction as well as renovation. 

 

The U.S. Treasury Department establishes State allocation limits and sets a tax-credit rate for both of these bond programs that, on average, equals the amount of interest schools would ordinarily pay on debt.  Since the Federal Government covers most or all of the interest on these bonds, local educational agencies (LEAs) receive a substantial benefit, as interest payments may typically equal up to 50 percent of the economic cost of a bond. 

 

In addition to QZABs and QSCBs, the ARRA contains other provisions regarding tax-exempt debt and tax-credit programs that entities may use to finance construction of school facilities as well as other types of facilities.  Build America Bonds (BABs), for example, are taxable bonds that can be used to finance a wide range of projects for governmental purposes.  This BABs program allows municipal bond issuers in 2009 and 2010 to offer an unlimited amount of taxable debt and to elect either to receive a cash subsidy from the Federal Government or have it provide bondholders with a tax credit.  Either the payment or the tax credit would be equal to 35 percent of the interest paid on the bonds.  BABs can assist public postsecondary institutions in addition to LEAs.  The Treasury Department’s recent guidance on this new program can be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-26.pdf.

The benefit of all of these school construction financing tools is that they can help State and local governments save money and make their repair, renovation, modernization, or construction funds go further. 

Basic Facts about Qualified School Construction Bonds

 

Under this new category of tax-credit bonds, the Treasury Department distributes $11 billion of the bond allocation in both 2009 and 2010 among the States and certain large LEAs.  QSCBs are bonds the Federal Government subsidizes by allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately equal to the interest that States and communities would pay holders of taxable bonds.  As a result, issuers are generally responsible for repayment of just the principal.  States may directly issue the bonds on behalf of eligible schools or they may suballocate authority to issue the bonds within the State. 

 

  • QSCB allocations go to States (not necessarily State educational agencies) based on their share of Title I Basic Grant funds.  The District of Columbia and possessions of the United States also receive these allocations.  Possessions other than Puerto Rico, however, receive their shares of the QSCB bonding authority based on their share of the population below the poverty line.  States with LEAs that receive bond allocations directly from the Federal Government receive a reduced allocation as a result of the allocations described in more detail below. 

 

  • 40 percent of the national QSCB bonding authority goes directly to the 100 LEAs with the largest number of school-aged children living below the poverty line.[1]  The designated LEAs receive this bond allocation in proportion to their shares of Title I Basic Grant funds.  An LEA in this category that receives a direct allocation may reallocate any of its unused QSCB allocations to its State.

 

  • If an allocation to a State is unused for a calendar year, the State may carry it forward to the next calendar year.  In other words, States have up until the end of 2010 to use their 2009 allocation and until the end of 2011 to use their 2010 allocation.

 

  • In addition to the amounts described above, the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs receives $200 million annually in QSCB authority for its school facilities in 2009 and 2010.  Indian tribal governments are qualified issuers.

 

QSCBs are less restrictive in their uses than QZABs.  For a QSCB bond that is issued by a State or local government where a public school is located, 100 percent of available project proceeds must be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of the public school facility.  In addition, a portion of the proceeds of such a bond may be used for the acquisition of land on which a public school facility is to be constructed. 

QSCBs may be purchased by any individual or private business, and used to generate a tax credit against the individual’s or entity’s Federal income taxes.  The Department of the Treasury recently issued initial guidance for the program, which is posted at:  www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-35.pdf, that reports the allocation of the annual bond volume among the States and the 100 largest LEAs.

Basic Facts about Qualified Zone Academy Bonds

 

QZABs were first authorized in 1997 and are bonds the Federal Government subsidizes by allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately equal to the interest that States and communities would pay holders of taxable bonds.  As a result, issuers are generally responsible for repayment of just the principal.  The Treasury Department allocates the authority to issue these bonds to States based on their proportion of the U.S. population living below the poverty line.  States may directly issue the bonds on behalf of eligible schools or they may suballocate authority to issue the bonds within the State.  These bonds may be used only on behalf of schools or programs that:

 

  • are located in an Empowerment Zone or an Enterprise Community; or
  • have a reasonable expectation (as of the date of the bond issuance) that at least 35 percent of their students will be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches under the National School Lunch Act. 

 

To benefit from a QZAB, an eligible school must also:

  • have an education program designed in cooperation with business;
  • receive a private contribution (which may be in-kind), the net present value of which is not less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the bond;
  • have an education plan that is approved by its LEA; and
  • subject its students to the same s
    tandards and assessments as other students in the LEA.

 

QZABs  may not be used for new construction but may be used for the following activities:

  • renovating and repairing buildings;
  • investing in equipment and up-to-date technology;
  • developing challenging curricula; and
  • training quality teachers.

In past years, QZABs could be purchased only by banks, insurance companies, and other companies engaged in the business of lending money.  Effective October 2008, however, QZABs may be purchased by any individual or private business.  The Department of the Treasury has issued recent guidance for the extended program available at:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-30.pdf.  Existing ED guidance on QZABs is available at:   www.ed.gov/programs/
qualifiedzone/faq.html.

TABLES FOR STATE ALLOCATIONS OF QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS:

 

2009 Allocations to States of Volume Cap for

Qualified School Construction Bonds

 

(Net of Allocations to Large Local Educational Agencies)

 

State/Territory

Total Allocation by State/Territory

Alabama

118,776,000

Alaska

29,784,000

Arizona

186,292,000

Arkansas

113,443,000

California

773,525,000

Colorado

87,147,000

Connecticut

105,092,000

Delaware

29,784,000

District of Columbia

0

Florida

106,806,000

Georgia

201,062,000

Hawaii

0

Idaho

37,665,000

Illinois

244,435,000

Indiana

177,861,000

Iowa

64,252,000

Kansas

79,589,000

Kentucky

135,132,000

Louisiana

131,622,000

Maine

42,074,000

Maryland

50,354,000

Massachusetts

144,783,000

Michigan

296,860,000

Minnesota

75,850,000

Mississippi

132,443,000

Missouri

141,441,000

Montana

31,623,000

Nebraska

32,343,000

Nevada

6,767,000

New Hampshire

29,784,000

New Jersey

223,279,000

New Mexico

64,602,000

New York

192,049,000

North Carolina

187,167,000

North Dakota

25,740,000

Ohio

267,112,000

Oklahoma

87,018,000

Oregon

112,886,000

State/Territory

Total Allocation by State/Territory

Pennsylvania

315,737,000

Rhode Island

22,062,000

South Carolina

131,364,000

South Dakota

29,784,000

Tennessee

121,738,000

Texas

538,585,000

Utah

50,962,000

Vermont

24,845,000

Virginia

191,077,000

Washington

164,111,000

West Virginia

78,219,000

Wisconsin

98,589,000

Wyoming

24,080,000

 

 

American Samoa

10,748,000

Guam

10,980,000

Northern Marianas

10,703,000

Puerto Rico

0

Virgin Islands

9,974,000

 

 

Total

6,600,000,000

 


[1] The law also permits the Secretary of Education to select up to 25 additional LEAs to receive allocations from this 40 percent share, based on such factors as a low level of resources for school construction and enrollment growth.  For 2009 the Secretary has decided not to select additional LEAs.