stimulus

Gutting School Improvement to Keep the Lights On

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, charter schools, RTT, stimulus, teachers

Short-term pain relief or long-term improvement?  That seems to be the choice that is currently facing Congress, as the House debates how to fund “edujobs,” the federal relief necessary to supposedly save hundreds of thousands of teachers’ jobs in this difficult economy.

Earlier this month, Eduflack wrote on the edu-jobs issue and how Congress could get creative in finding the $23 billion needed to protect classroom jobs.  Since then, the edu-jobs issue has gone nowhere.  The U.S. Senate, in particular, seems to lack the fortitude to vote for additional spending, even it was to save the jobs of K-12 teachers.  So edujobs has just been left hanging, with no resolution in sight.
Until this week.  In the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Chairman David Obey has offered plans to move $10 billion in edujobs dollars.  The full text of Congress’ spending plans can be found here, on the House Rules Committee website.  But since the release of the report language, it begged the question — where is Congress finding the money to offset the dollars being spent on edujobs?
It is a question that Alyson Klein over at EdWeek and its Politics K-12 blog has refused to let go of.  Now, Klein has the answers for us.  It seems that, to ease the short-term pain of school districts struggling to meet payroll, that Congress is ready to sacrifice some of its commitment to wholesale school improvement efforts.
According to Klein, much of the money needed to offset the spending for edujobs comes from cuts to existing school improvement efforts.  Chairman Obey and company are planning on pulling $500 million from Race to the Top, $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, and another $100 million from innovation and improvement (which she reads as charter school moneys) to help fund the $800 million in budget offsets Democrats have promised.  
In response, Rep. John Kline (MN), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee referred to the move as exploitation, and said Dems were taking the first chance to “discard education reform.”    
So it begs an important question — is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain?  Is one year of supporting teachers’ salaries worth slashing one-eighth of the RttT pool?  Is it worth eliminating the $200 million increase that the stimulus bill originally gave to TIF?  And is it worth slashing charter dollars after we demanded that states change their charter laws and promote the establishment of more charter schools?
RttT, TIF, and innovation dollars are all long-term investments.  Cutting $500 million from Race, for instance, likely means at least three or four states that won’t be able to participate in the Phase Two program.  Those mid-sized states that could have taken a Race and done some real good with it over the next few years will now lose out.  All to cover salaries for the coming school year (and one coming year only).
What makes such a move dangerous is that this is stopgap; it isn’t a solution.  What happens next year when we need another $10 or $15 billion to help with teachers’ salaries?  And more importantly, what happens with plans to add new phases to RttT or i3?  Once these cuts to education reform efforts are made, it becomes near impossible to restore them.  Supporting teacher pay becomes a long-term obligation, with little opportunity in the near term to add new programs or expand competitive grant programs. 
Without question, it is important that our school districts figure out ways to pay their workforces, both this year and the years to come.  But should that maintenance mean sacrificing real efforts to improve our schools and their outcomes?  Do we really want to get into a position where we are choosing between paying teachers and improving student test scores?  And do we really want the federal government to become more and more responsible for paying salaries in our localities?
 

A Work-Around for Edu-Jobs?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, stimulus, teachers, Workforce

Edu-jobs.  For the past month or so, we have been hearing how our K-12 public school systems need $23 billion in emergency funding from the federal government in order to keep teachers across the nation in jobs this fall.  EdSec Arne Duncan has made passioned pleas on Capitol Hill for such funding.  The teachers unions have stood behind Duncan’s request in a way far stronger than they have ever supported the EdSec.  And House leaders like Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Appropriations Chairman David Obey (WI) have echoed the calls and urged their fellow leaders on the Hill to ask, “what about the teachers?”

To date, though, Congress has resisted.  Many senators, wary of spending more and more money, have refused to move the issue forward.  They even cite the absence of edu-jobs from President Obama’s request for emergency funding from Congress.  Despite the best of intentions, right now, it seems like efforts to fund edu-jobs aren’t going anywhere.

It all has Eduflack thinking.  In February of 2009, the U.S. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion spending bill designed to help states and localities IMMEDIATELY deal with the budget shortfalls and shrinking coffers just about everyone was facing.  By spring, we saw roadside signs erected declaring that this public works project or these jobs were funded courtesy of ARRA.  Our K-12 schools got a big chunk of that money as well, with ARRA funding Race to the Top, i3, and big boosts to Title I and IDEA funding just for starters.

We’ve also heard how a great deal of the education ARRA funds went back to the school districts to pay for salaries.  Despite the initial guidance that stimulus dollars were meant to be one-time injections, and were not designed to pay for long-term obligations (like teachers’ salaries) that would have to be funded well after all the ARRA money was spent, we still used the stimulus for teachers’ salaries.  Just last month, one of President Obama’s leading economic advisors declared ARRA had saved 400,000 educator jobs across the country (while saying that one out of every 15 teachers could now be laid off without the additional $23 billion). 

Curiosity has gotten the better of Eduflack.  We committed $787 billion to economic stimulus that was needed as soon as possible.  The funds were made available in February of 2009.  It is now June 2010.  The nearly $800 billion is all supposed to be spent by September of this year.  According to the Recovery website, of that $787 billion that was so desperately needed, $406 billion has actually been paid out.  There is still $381 billion still sitting in the kitty.

In California, the state seen as having the most dire current economic position (and the most difficulty paying teachers), only $8.8 billion of the nearly $22 billion promised to the Golden State has been dispersed.  In New York, they’ve gotten $2.5 billion of their $12 billion.  Illinois has taken in $3.7 billion of its $8.1 billion.  Georgia’s taken in $2 billion of its $5.4 billion.  Oregon’s taken in just $809 million of its $2.5 billion.  And even the cash-strapped Ohio has only tapped $1.7 billion of its available $7.6 billion.

So it begs the question, why don’t we just reallocate some of the committed $787 billion in stimulus money to pay for the $23 billion in edu-jobs?  The money was designed to help states and localities save jobs.  Check.  Funds have already been used to save teachers’ jobs (those 400K that Christina Romer touts).  Check.  There is plenty of money that still hasn’t been spent.  Check.  And we need to spend this soon.  Seems like a win-win for all involved.  And one could even win over the reformer crowd (which has been concerned that edu-jobs funding will simply perpetuate the notion of last hired, first fired and prize tenure over effective teaching).  Tie the dollars to the priorities in ARRA, using RttT language to ensure that new edu-jobs spending is aligned with teacher and principal quality provisions being moved through Race.

A simplistic idea?  Perhaps.  But new federal funding for teachers’ jobs isn’t going anywhere.  If the goal is to protect those educators and avoid laying off the “one in 15,” then why not ask Congress to reallocate the funding they’ve already spent?  At this point, it is just like asking if we can use our allowance to buy baseball cards instead of bubble gum.  The money’s already left Congress’ wallet. 

Eliminating Rainy Day Funds in NJ Schools?

Eduflack stimulus

Last fall, when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was suffering through one of its worse budget stalemates in modern memory, one of the debates was how deep should the state dip into its “rainy day” fund to balance the current budget.  Do you completely deplete your reserves to get a budget many can live with?  Or do you hold back some of that rainy day fund, with the fear that 2010 or 2011 may not be particularly sunny either?

Ultimately, Pennsylvania (like a lot of states in similar situations) decided to tap the vast majority of those reserves to keep the state moving forward.  Such funds are established to help navigate those doomsday budget scenarios, and those dollars, along with the billions coming through the feds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, help many a K-12 state school system stave off disaster.

With the federal stimulus money nearing sunset, we are starting to see those doomsday scenarios coming back to the forefront.  In Eduflack’s home state of Virginia, new Gov. Bob McDonnell is proposing a $731 million cut in K-12 education.  Details are still in the works, but it seems clear that most public school systems — urban, suburban, and rural — will face the butcher’s knife before the coming fiscal year’s budget is complete.  Many feared that cuts were coming, but few expected them to be as deep as McDonnell is currently proposing.

More interesting, though, is what is happening in New Jersey, where equally new Gov. Chris Christie has also declared that the public schools will face massive cuts.  In many ways, the Garden State is in an even more dire financial situation than the Old Dominion, with higher unemployment rates, a bigger budget deficit to overcome, and a generally dimmer light at the end of the tunnel.

For nearly two weeks, communities in New Jersey have been abuzz about the impact of the cuts.  The Christie Administration has told all districts to prepare for the possibility of at least 15 percent reductions, with virtually every school district now talking about $1 million-plus reductions to the money they receive from the state.  And it comes at a time when local taxes are also unable to pull out from their downward spiral.

But what makes New Jersey so thought provoking is what Christie is actually proposing.  If Eduflack is reading the proposals forward, New Jersey’s governor is particularly targeting those school districts that have established their own rainy day funds.  Those LEAs that have been reasonably good stewards of their tax dollars, and have established reserves to plan for their own Armageddon, are being asked to zero out those reserves and use them to fund the coming year’s operations.  Those districts that have no reserves, and essentially have always eaten what they killed, will be funded at levels comparable to what they typically receive from the state.

Honestly, Eduflack isn’t sure what to make of all this.  I was surprised to learn that so many school districts had more than a million dollars socked away in a coffee can in case the financial monsoons came.  Like many, I assumed that districts live (financially) from year to year, and spend every dollar they can get their hands on on their operating budget (particularly important since 80-90 percent of a school system budget can go to the salary and benefits one has to pay for each and every year).  So in these tough economic times, it seems it many be time for those saver school districts to dip into those accounts if they want to keep instruction and services at the levels we expect.

But at the same time, should we be penalizing school districts for being financial prudent?  And with so many districts in NJ following such a rainy day policy, should we be rewarding those school system “squirrels” who did not save their nuts for winter?

So which seems more reasonable, a Virginia approach where most districts are going to be asked to share the pain or a New Jersey approach where those who can most afford to sacrifice are the first to do so?  Definitely no winners here, but can one path make a school district less of a loser?   

UPDATE: For those looking for more info on the New Jersey debate, check out NJ Left Behind here for a discussion on the “surplus drill-down,” with a critique from Rutgers University’s Bruce Baker here on how such a policy actually hurts the poorest districts the most.

Second Leg of the Race

Eduflack accountability, RTT, stimulus

It can be almost a full-time job to follow the musings and presumptions regarding Race to the Top.  During the summer, most believes that the public comment period was pro forma, and we would see a final RttT RFP (bearing remarkable resemblance to the draft) would be released as quickly as possible this month (meaning September).

Seems most didn’t expect the 1,500 or so missives on the draft guidance.  And while many of the public comments can be written off as blatant self interest, there are some important issues that need to be addressed, including the timetable for the adoption of core standards, how traditional teacher certification fits with the focus on alternative certification, the firewall issue, and how ED can effectively review existing reform efforts in the states.  There also seems to be some wavering as to whether this goes to the originally intended 10-15 states, or if most states have a legitimate chance of winning a portion or the RttT pot.
So now, Eduflack is hearing the final RFP won’t likely be released to the states until November 2009.  That aligns with the recent call for RttT reviewers, which has Phase I apps reviewed January through March 2010.  RttT RFP released in November.  Phase I apps due first week of January for immediate review.  Phase I awards expected before the end of the school year.  If I were a betting man, that’s the schedule that I would parlay on.
In talking with several states, though, there seems to be some uncertainty as to what happens next.  Most states have been working under the assumption that the draft RttT language would be near identical to the final.  So many an application will likely have to be revised once the final language comes out.  (And I’d take a look at the comments from NEA, EdTrust, DFER, NGA, and CCSSO for the best guidance on what might be changed.)  So flexibility is quickly becoming the name of the game.
But the other issue out there is what happens in the second leg of RttT.  A state is awarded its RttT grant, and then what?  Eduflack has been operating under the assumption that each state would then hold a competitive grant process, letting LEAs build their specific plans aligned to the state goals and promises.  The emphasis would obviously be on how the school districts would be able to turn around the bottom 5 percent of the state’s schools.  But the process would be similar to Reading First, where the state wins the grant, and then the LEAs would have to apply and demonstrate that they bought into the state’s strategy.
But I’ve also heard some states suggest that there will be no competitive process.  As part of the state’s application, they will need to get endorsement letters from local LEAs.  The assumption is that that action is sufficient, and when the federal money rolls in, the state will simply pass on funds to those LEAs.  It gets the money into the field quickly, but it does so without a real plan of operation or any true accountability.
I sure hope that’s not the case.  Much of the state’s RttT application deals with state issues, such as standards and data collection.  The LEAs need to focus on the other two pillars — teacher quality and school turnaround.  Seems that the districts need very specific plans (including the partners and vendors they will use) to deliver on the state’s promises for those two pillars.  That doesn’t come from a letter of endorsement.  That comes from a competitive process that makes clear that each district needs to fight to show they are worthy of RttT and will be using it effectively.
If the White House and the U.S. Department of Education are working hard at improving RttT (and I have every reason to believe they are), they can hopefully clarify this issue as well.  The stakes are too high for this not to be a truly competitive process.  Without requiring a clear plan for school districts, we’re just throwing good money after bad.  Someone needs to make clear what happens once a state wins.  How exactly will the 50 percent or so of RttT funds that the state doesn’t keep get dispersed?

Setting a Start Time for the Race

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, RTT, stimulus

While the public comment period is now closed on Race to the Top and we await finalization of the RttT RFP and guidance that will direct states’ applications (as if those aren’t fully underway, as evidenced by the 15 Gates-funded states that have been hard at work on their apps for months and drafts of apps such as those circulated recently by Illinois), some additional details are now coming into sight with regard to timetable.

We’ve all been expecting tight turnaround on these grants.  Most expect the final RFP to be released within the next few weeks (mid-September has long been viewed as the target).  And some were overly aggressive in their expectations, thinking that Phase I applications would be due in October, with awards made before the end of the year.  In fact, Eduflack had recently heard from a “front-running” state that the President may be looking to award Phase I RttT grants in mid-November.
But a little-publicized letter this week from EdSec Arne Duncan provides us some better insights on both timetable and intentions.  In a missive dated August 31, the EdSec issued the call for RttT application reviewers.  The full letter can be found here .  But there are some interesting nuggets of information we shouldn’t overlook.
Clearly, there is not a reviewer panel in waiting.  And the language about conflicts of interest and expected qualifications means that ED will be working with a relatively small pool.  CVs/applications for recommended reviewers are due by September 30.  And they are expecting the sun and moon when it comes to quals.  (We also expect reviewers to be self-motivated, as reviewers will primarily work individually).
But the timetable put forward in the letter, letting potential applicants know of the possible time commitments, is what is most intriguing.  ED is expecting Phase I application reviews (those many hoped would be awarded before the end of the calendar year) to occur between January 2010 and March 2010 (meaning awards at the end of the 2009-2010 school year).  Phase II reviews are slated to take place between June 2010 and September 2010, meaning awards right around election time 2010.
The timing is significant.  We sometimes forget that RttT has to happen in two phases.  We are now taking of Phase I awards in late spring 2010, and phase II awards at the end of 2010.  Those are awards to the states.  Once a state wins the big Race prize, school districts within that state then need to apply for access to those funds (or at least to the 50% of the RttT grant required to go to the LEAs).  So at best, we are talking about RttT Phase I money making its way to actual school districts for the 2010-2011 school year, but more likely the 2011-2012 school year (figuring states will need more than three months to set up their own RFP process, allow LEAs to submit proposals, review, and then award).  So we may be three school years away from that money reaching the ground level, and four years away before the same happens for Phase II grantees.  
Why is this so important?  That’s a long time to wait before real dollars start flowing for turnarounds and school improvements.  Congress has already been signaling that it is unlikely to provide additional federal education dollars beyond that scoped out in SFSF, RttT, and i3.  Congressional authorizers and appropriators want to see some return on their investment, particularly when the majority of SFSF money continues to sit untouched, despite many states talking about teacher furloughs.  So a second round of RttT funding won’t happen until we see results on the ground.  And we don’t even anticipate getting dollars into the very schools that need them the most until three years from now — at the earliest.  At to that the research realities that it often takes four to five years to see the longitudinal effects of a reform, and we won’t see results until a two-term President Obama is joining the exclusive ex-President’s club.
Those three or four years are an eternity for public education.  That’s a generation of kids who could end up missing out.  That can mean an entire middle or high school experience.  That means three or four more cohorts at a drop-out factory.  That means another elementary school where 40 percent of kids can’t read at grade proficiency by fourth grade.  That means new silver bullets and magic elixirs hitting the ed reform market before RttT.  That means a lot of waiting for what is needed right now.
Across the nation, we have state legislatures and governor’s offices that are making policy and budget decisions based on a scenario where RttT money comes in and saves the day.  At the state level, that money in 2010 can be of immediate help for issues like data systems and accountability measures, building on what is currently in place or putting in place what is desperately needed.  But what about those other two pillars of the plan — teacher quality and school turnaround?  If we look at the timeline, we are talking years before those dollars are ever received by school districts or individual schools.  We may even be talking about ESEA being reauthorized before those local checks are cut.  From past experience, a lot can happen between draft regs and final payment.

Equity in Teacher Distribution

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, high-stakes testing, NCLB, RTT, stimulus, teachers

The wonkiest of the education policy wonks are currently poring over the more than 1,500 comments, critiques, and outrages submitted as part of the open comment period for the draft Race to the Top criteria.  As Eduflack has written before, much of what has been submitted has been put forward in the name of self interest, with key groups looking to protect their constituencies, their missions, or their very existence from the potential steamroller that is becoming RttT.

Over at the Politics K-12 blog, Michele McNeil has done a great job distilling the volumes of opinion into a few key issues.  Most provocative to Eduflack is the message put forward by National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers that RttT demand that all winning states adopt core standards by the summer of 2010 is far more aggressive than NGA and CCSSO has required of the very states who are being asked to help develop and implement the standards.  While we appreciate the EdSec’s zeal in seeking to get core standards into the K-12 framework as quickly as possible, the timetable is one that is probably best left to Gene, Dane, and their respective teams.  You can see McNeil’s full blog entry here .
What’s tickled my interest this afternoon, though, is a letter that was submitted to the EdSec nearly a month ago (August 3, 2009 to be exact).  The page-and-a-half letter is signed by nine members of the Congressional Black Caucus — U.S. Representatives Danny K. Davis (IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Chaka Fattah (PA), Bobby Scott (VA), Donald Payne (NJ), Yvette Clark (NY), Marcia Fudge (OH), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), and Diane Watson (CA).  The nine serve as co-chairs and/or members of CBC’s Community Reinvestment Taskforce or CBC Education Subcommittee.
The topic of their missive?  Achieving equity in teacher distribution.  These members of Congress note that No Child Left Behind “requires the State educational agency ‘…to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers …'”  They note that Congress underscored this demand deep in the language of the stimulus bill, noting that “States receiving recovery dollars should comply with the teacher equity provisions within ESEA.”  (Of course, they refuse to use the NCLB acronym, utilizing ESEA throughout the letter.)
In reviewing the RttT draft guidance, these U.S. Representatives (and their staffs) note that the “the proposed regulations related to Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution do not address the statutory requirement that States take action to address disparities, fail to recognize the inequities based on race, and replace three statutorily specified indicators with the single and fatally flawed ‘Highly Qualified Teacher’ indicator.” 
They continue to push on Duncan by stating “By ignoring data related to whether teachers are out-of-field or inexperienced and by failing to disaggregate this data by race/ethnicity, we cannot truly understand whether there is an equitable distribution of experienced and qualified teachers.  Moreover, the regulations fail to enforce the statutory requirements to address these inequities.”
These members of the CBC close their letter by noting that the education improvement and innovation sought by President Obama and EdSec Duncan “will only happen if civil rights issues are consistently taken into consideration.”
And why does Eduflack care about this 500-word letter, when there are 1,500 hundred other comments and observations to key in on?  For more than three decades, education advocates have been looking for a way to overturn San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, seeking a way to make a high-quality public education a civil right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.  In Rodriguez (as well as in subsequent cases in New York, California, and elsewhere), the equity issue has been one measured by school finance and actual dollars.  Back in 1973, the US Supreme Court sided with San Antonio ISD, stating that school funding built on the local tax base does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.  The quality and equity of public education remained a local issue, and the guaranteed federal right has been eluded ever since.  And with urban districts spending so much per pupil, it is hard for some to see that our schools are “inequitable,” even when the outcomes clearly are.
Whether intentional or not, the CBC is seeking to reframe the debate on school equity.  When one reads RttT, it is no secret that traditional paths of teacher education have taken the back, back seat to vogue riders like alternative certification.  Charter schools, with limited union influence and typically lower teacher requirements, are seen as a magic wand to fix what ails our struggling schools.  With all of the talk about effective teaching, there is little focus on the effective teacher.  Instead of talking about pre-service education, clinical training, mentoring, in-service PD, and the like, RttT’s headline has been about firewalls and linking teachers to student achievement.  
It seems to forget that in all of those cities that play home to drop-out factories, historically struggling schools, and systems that persistently fail to meet AYP, we have a real teacher problem.  Reformers will say incentive pay is the solution, as if the few extra dollars are all that are holding back teachers in poor and minority communities (unfortunately, that’s where we have our greatest learning and teaching inequities).  The status quoers will cling to National Board Certified Teachers, not wanting to admit that most NBCTs are out in the ‘burbs, and those that aren’t will often use their newly found certification to change schools and move up the educational ladder.
We can match classroom spending dollar for dollar, with urban schools getting the same money as their lily white, suburban competitors, but that doesn’t ensure an equal education.  Heck, it doesn’t even ensure an equal opportunity to an equal education.  It is what we do with the resources that matter.  And we can’t get around the fact that our K-12 schools in most need of good teachers are the ones getting the lousy teachers.  They are serviced by colleges of education that push low-coursework and no-clinical programs, tossing unprepared teachers in the classrooms that need them the most.  Those teachers struggle.  The majority quit within five years.  Those that stick around are the survivors, not necessarily the achievers.
If we are to make a strong public education a national civil right, the answer may very well lay in the quality of the teacher, and not the size of the per pupil expenditure.  With all of the money going into data tracking, teacher preparation (alternative and traditional), and human capital development, we are identifying the qualities and performance measures that define effective teaching (as if we don’t already know the answers).  If we accept that there is more to teacher quality than purely student performance on the state assessment, we can clearly build a rubric for effective teaching.  Then we can apply that rubric to all of our schools.  How do the drop-out factories stand up against their college prep brethren?  How do the magnets hold up versus the dilapidated?  How do the “fails to meet” compare to “exceeds expectations?”  More importantly, how do the teachers in formers measure up to the educators in the latters?
Would
anyone be surprised to see that those schools experiencing the greatest failure rates are the schools that are denied effective teachers?  Would anyone argue that there is currently equity by teacher distribution?  Can anyone argue that a qualified, well-supported, effective teacher has the power and tools to boost student achievement?  
Do I think RttT is going to change its language on HQTs and address the concerns raised by CBC?  Of course not.  But I believe that its point, that the proposed “guidance abandons prematurely what is currently the only available avenue toward achieving — for all students — equitable access to strong teachers.”  And at the end of the day, those strong teachers are going to be what makes or breaks this great federal education reform and innovation experiment.
I talk with a lot of folks who believe that Rodriguez is ripe for overturn by the Court (particularly based on its new makeup).  Maybe, just maybe, the line advocates should be looking toward is one of equitable distribution of effective teachers.  Historically disadvantaged students should have the same access to well-trained, effective teachers as their wealthy or white classmates.  If the dollars are equal, but we’re putting our ill-equipped and ill-prepared teachers in one silo of schools and our well-equipped and well-prepared teachers in another, that is the very definition of inequity.  And I’m willing to bet the house that that inequity is alive, well, and not planning on taking any vacations any time soon.
 

Filling the Gaps on Innovation

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Gates Foundation, RTT, stimulus

For much of the summer, we’ve been handicapping the future of Race to the Top and which states are going to be the beneficiaries of the $4.35 billion honeypot.  As of this morning, more than 1,500 comments and suggestions have officially be submitted with regard to the draft regs.  To date, the media highlight has been the statement issued by the National Education Association, making clear that effective teaching needs to focus on good, well-supported teachers.  As noted last week, Eduflack was most taken by the remarks jointly submitted by EdTrust, DFER, CAP, and EEP, which provided a broad-brush approach to many of the issues keeping us up at night.

As those comments have been diligently filed on www.regulations.gov (with many parties submitting three, four, or even five position papers apiece), the handicappers in the Vegas-version of education reform have been putting the odds on those states that will win, place, or show when it comes to RttT.  Florida and Louisiana are looking strong.  Tennessee and Arizona are mounting strong darkhorse candidacies.  States like Texas, California, and Pennsylvania are quickly seeing the roadblocks that will get in their way.  And of those not getting a special boost from the Gates Foundation, places like Rhode Island, Virginia, and Colorado offer some potential.
We all know that not every state will become an RttT state.  In fact, no one seems to expect that half of the states will receive the designation.  That leaves a lot of states on the outside looking in, particularly for those seeking to make some real change but currently lacking some of the intangibles.  So what happens to those who won’t make the short list?
Along comes a little program called the Investing in Innovation (or i3) program.  in our zeal to embrace RttT, many have forgotten all about i3 and its $650 million.  And while we are still waiting for the draft regs around i3 to be released, the rhetoric surrounding the program is starting to give us a roadmap for where we are headed, making it clear that i3 is designed to help fill some of the innovation gaps created by RttT.
To date, EdSec Duncan has spoken about i3 and its real investments in proven-effective innovations.  We’ve talked about working with non-profits and other third parties that are able to drive real change and improvement in the schools.  We’ve discussed how K12 and higher ed need to work together, and how we can leverage current pilot projects into future success stories.  
Clearly, i3 is going to reward those states that don’t benefit from RttT (or from the upcoming Gates Deep Dive grants, I’d suspect).  So think Chicago and i3 for its TAP teacher quality program.  A little love for NYC and its continued efforts to boost student achievement.  Some continued support for a few Texas cities that have shown some real high school improvements (since Eduflack is all but certain Texas will not win RttT, despite Gates’ best attempts).  We may even see some reward for Robert Bobb and Detroit if the Motor City can find some “successes” on which to build, as that seems to be the name of the i3 game.
Without seeing the draft protocols for Investing in Innovation (we wait with baited breath), the safe money seems to be on those communities that will not be covered through RttT.  Instead of further leveraging investments, we will likely see RttT going one direction and i3 going in another. Current stimulus dollars will be spread to hit as many regions as possible.  (The lone exception may be Tennessee, which looks good for RttT and where Memphis is a current Teacher Incentive Fund site, is a likely Gates Deep Dive site, and could truly double down with some i3 money.)  
The race will be on to see whether state-based or district-based reforms are the quickest paths to success.  RttT will let us try something new.  i3 allows us to take promising practice and innovation up to scale.  How fast we move down each path will likely determine the direction and emphasis of ESEA reauthorization over the next 12 to 18 months.  Through our federal lens of education reform, does success come through state leadership or district implementation?  
    

Speaking Collaboratively on RttT

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, ELL, national standards, RTT, stimulus

For months now, Eduflack has been asked the same question from a growing group of education policy observers and a great many of those who are looking to get out of the stands and into the game.  The question focuses on why a number of groups have been relatively silent on issues like the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to the Top, and other new funding streams coming out of the U.S. Department of Education.

Typically, the query focuses on two groups — Education Trust and Democrats for Education Reform.  Is EdTrust just planning on transferring its status as NCLB cheerleader and chief over to RttT (somehow those folks seemed to miss the strong critique coming out of EdTrust during the stimulus debate)?  Or is EdTrust speaking no evil because Russlynn Ali is now over at ED?  Is DFER simply basking in the glow of having so many of its disciples named to ED posts?  Or is DFER simply measuring itself for NCLB 2.0 cheerleader skirts?
All of those questions were put to rest last night with a quick look over to the public comment postings for the draft RttT language.  In a strong, powerful statement, EdTrust and DFER, along with the Center for American Progress and the Education Equality Project, offered a detailed, thoughtful, and tough critique of RttT (and SFSF), making quite clear that we have far to go before we have “perfect” education reform and improvement policy.  The full statement can be found here.
The reform collaborative reminds us that, with all of the talk about reform and improvement, we can’t lose sight of those schools most in need, those “serving large numbers of low-income students, English-language learners, and students of color.”  And at a time when we are talking about using SFSF monies to backfill budgetary losses, the organizations are quick to point out that “the temptation to use State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top funds to get things back to normal must absolutely be resisted.”  In other words, using funds to get us back to the status quo is the wrong path to take.  Funding systems that result is only 40 percent student proficiency and a growing number of drop-out factories is simply not the way to improve and innovate.
The groups make several thought-provoking points:
* In our zeal to use data to determine and reward teacher quality immediately, we fail to acknowledge that we don’t have the information systems needed to deliver on the promise.  Such data systems are years and years away, yet the law could be using bad data or incomplete information to identify and reward “effective” teachers.  This is particularly true in schools and districts that serve historically disadvantaged students.  We just don’t have the data or the systems to collect the data to truly measure teacher effectiveness.
* Struggling schools are not stuck because they don’t know what to do.  We need to move off the notion of focusing on “the metrics only on the interventions made,” and instead be sure to require reporting of subsequent student achievement results.  In simpler terms, like its predecessors before it, RttT runs the risk of evaluating inputs and processes, and not outcomes and results.  And while the group acknowledges that ED is working toward fixing the problems of measuring high schools, the current proposal is still not adequate.
* While applauding the core standards movement, the collective notes that “better standards and better tests aren’t enough.”  Teachers need better curriculum, students need better instruction, and we all need better expectations.
* In addition to ED’s current focus on standards and assessments, real reform needs greater emphasis on college and career readiness.
As one would expect from EdTrust, DFER, and the like, the education thought leaders offer three specific recommendations for improving RttT language:
* Assure a stronger focus on equity by (a) asking states not just about the amount of funding in education, but also about the fairness of its distribution to high- and low-poverty and high- and low-minority districts and schools, and (b) asking states to document their efforts (required under federal law) to address gaps in teacher quality between high- and low-poverty and high- and low-minority schools.
* Ensure that higher education does its part by including a sign-off from the state’s chief higher education officer (or CEO of the public university system) on the RttT application.
* Bolster the evidence of progress in raising achievement and closing gaps requested of states.
When one takes a look at the more than 106 pages of RttT online comments (representing well more than 1,000 pieces of “input” provided from all sorts of groups with specific interests and self-interests in mind), it is easy to see many groups and individuals looking to defend their “turf.”  What makes this collaborative statement so interesting is that it isn’t about the four organizations who have lent their signatures to the final draft.  It is about improving teaching and learning for those students who need improvement the most.  While these reccs may not influence the final RttT guidance, they certainly should serve as a guide for how we can improve standards, assessment, data, and teachers as part of ESEA reauthorization and the future of education policy.
Kudos to DFER, EdTrust, CAP, and EEP for putting forward this draft and focusing on the bigger picture.  Rather than getting hung up in the weeds, they are offering a clearer, alternative path for improvement and innovation.  And these groups know of which they speak.

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 Stimulus Stimulating Our Schools?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, RTT, stimulus

Back in March, we heard how our public schools were in desperate need of the quick injection of cash made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  We heard how the $55 billion in new education spending would be quickly distributed to the districts, with the majority of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars distributed this spring, Title I and IDEA dollars quickly moving to the states through formulas, and the remainder of the SFSF funds getting out there this summer, after the states’ stimulus plans were approved by the U.S. Department of Education.  To some, all that is left to disseminate is the $5 billion or so available through Race to the Top and the Innovation Fund.

Originally, the money was supposed to go to immediate and one-time funding needs.  We thought the dollars would go into textbooks and computers and the purchase of “stuff.”  But according to the Association of American Publishers, spending in the school publishing market is down 24 percent for the first six months of the year, compared to last year.  Much of this can be attributed to California’s budget woes, but it seems most states and districts simply aren’t spending, either because they don’t have the dollars or they don’t have the approved budgets.
We’ve also heard how the money had to get into the states immediately to avoid teacher layoffs.  Although the money wasn’t intended to pay long-term costs like salaries, exceptions were made to ensure that teachers stayed on the job.  We heard about the need in Georgia, where they are talking two-week furloughs.  South Carolina said not taking the stimulus money would cost the state thousands of teacher slots.  But here we stand today with little evidence that the economy has cost teachers their jobs … and even less evidence that ARRA funding helped states avoid it.
The simple fact of the matter is it is hard to find ARRA having a real impact on school districts yet.  We aren’t hearing about teachers being paid or long-delayed textbook adoptions going through because it just isn’t happening.  If the stimulus intended to have an immediate impact on our schools, it isn’t showing itself.  If we expected to see a trickle-down from the feds to the states to school districts in need, there is no trickle.  In fact, it doesn’t seem like the spigot is on at all.
Each month, ED provides an accounting of how education stimulus dollars are being spent by the states.  So let’s look at the big board.  ARRA provides $55 billion in education spending.  As of August 1, $12.4 billion has been distributed to the states.  More than 77 percent of that high-need money is still sitting in the Treasury, untouched by the states as we head into the 2009-2010 school year.  Thats $42.7 billion in education money that the states haven’t tapped yet.
When we take a closer look, the numbers are even more disturbing:
* In Florida, they still have $2.9 billion of their $3.1 billion available
* In Georgia, $1.5 billion of their $1.7 billion is still available
* In Illinois, $1.2 billion of a total $2.4 billion is still available (so the home team has figured out how to spend half of what they have coming to them)
* In Louisiana, $816 million of the possible $840 million is still there
* In Michigan, as Detroit Public Schools prepare for bankruptcy, $1.4 billion of their $1.9 billion is available
* In New Jersey, $1.2 billion of a total $1.5 billion is available
* New York’s $3.8 billion is relatively untapped, with $3.7 billion still available
* Despite all of their state budget problems, Ohio still has $1.9 billion of their $2.1 billion in federal education dollars available
* Similarly, Pennsylvania still has $677 million of its $750 million unclaimed, as they continue to work through the state budget
* In Texas, $4.4 billion of the $4.6 billion is still available
Even for California, the poster child for state budget woes, there is still $1.9 billion of the possible $6.7 billion available.  These are all states with real education needs, particularly in their urban areas, and real opportunities with federal stimulus dollars.  Yet few are taking full advantage of what is available to them.  Why?  Is the financial need in K-12 not as real as we think?  Hardly.  School districts need the funds, particularly as property values stand where they are.  Has the state figured out alternative ways to get additional dollars to schools in need?  I think not.  Are we waiting for a rainy day when we really need this money?  I hate to point out, but is close to pouring these days.
Across the nation, we have school districts in urban and rural settings who have long put off the purchase of textbooks because they simply can’t afford it.  Seems this is an opportune time to open the ARRA wallet and buy students the new textbooks they need for today’s classroom.  We are talking more and more about teacher quality.  Seems the perfect moment to spend some of those stimulus gold coins on professional development programs for teachers in our struggling schools.  With teachers and students in such need of resources, how is it we can’t get the money intended for them actually to them?
Or maybe ARRA is just so six months ago, and we are looking for the latest trend.  The majority of states, including many of those on the list above that have left the majority of their stimulus funds on the table to date, are hopeful of winning RttT grants this fall or winter.  Seems to Eduflack that ED should put an additional requirement on RttT determination.  States can only get these additional dollars for innovation and improvement AFTER they have spent the first $55 billion intended for school improvement and a general shoring up of our classrooms.  Instead of worrying about their share of the $4.4 billion RttT fund (likely to be in the neighborhood of $295 million per state, spread over four years), shouldn’t Florida spend the $2.9 billion already available to them to race to the top right now?  What about Georgia and its $1.5 billion, can’t that be used to avoid teacher furloughs?  New York can’t find a need for its $3.7 billion in available dollars?  Even the District of Columbia still has $111 million of its obligated $115 million available.  MIchelle Rhee doesn’t know what to do with $100 million right here and right now to help struggling kids and schools in our nation’s capital?
In a perfect world, all of these federal dollars are meant to offer states a building block approach to school improvement.  ARRA goes to shore up the foundation and make sure funding remains on par with years past.  Proposed budget increases ensure that key programmatic dollars are flowing back to the states and districts, watering the improvement gardens.  And a select group of states will get RttT money to help accelerate their building and successfully build on what is already happening.
How can we distribute RttT funds if ARRA hasn’t taken hold?  How can we fund proposals from the states on needed improvements and innovations if they haven’t finished building the original house yet?  We are already seeing states scurrying to change their laws and policies to align with RttT draft guidance.  If that was the intent, why not just attach those regs to SFSF funds?  And at the end of the day, how do we know what was responsible for driving student achievement?  Was it ARRA or RttT, or another factor?  Until we have effective measurements in place, all of this could just be more of the same building on a flood plane that we see too often in education.