Swift & Change Able

Independent Commentary on Education Policy

Analysis of Education Provisions in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (Updated)

01/19/09

Analysis of Education Provisions in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (Updated)

06:28:23 am, Categories: Announcements [A]

"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically… Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

——————————-

Summary and analysis of education provisions in the

"AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT PLAN"

Full Committee Mark-up Begins January 21 at Noon

——————————

The good news is that the House is set to approve an unprecedented sum of money for federal education programs. If the basic numbers in the deal hold, this will be the largest increase in federal education funds in history, far eclipsing the previous record set in 2002.

Schools deserve the increase. Not only because of the threat to state and local budgets due to the economy, but because for the last seven years they have been asked to undertake bold reforms while being doled out funding increases that have barely kept pace with inflation.

As giddy as some of us may be about the numbers, however, there are some policy issues that should be examined closely as this deal moves forward. Opportunities to leverage real change in the quality of education provided to public school students come fairly infrequently. It’s important that this one be maximized.

✎$13 billion dollars for ESEA Title I is huge. These dollars are targeted at schools with the highest concentration of low-income students.

A few key points here:

* Actually the figure is $12 billion for the Title I formula-driven program. The other $1 billion is for the "School Improvement Program" that aids schools struggling to meet their achievement goals.

The $12 billion in formula dollars brings total Title I funding to $25.9 billion, meaning the program will for the first time exceed its authorized amount of $25 billion. By the commonly accepted definition, the Title I program is now "fully funded." Not only will funds going to Title I schools double, but so will funds that flow to state education agencies through set-asides.

* $1 billion for struggling schools is a nice idea. As a Congressional staffer, I pushed for inclusion of the School Improvement Program in law and helped write the legislative language.

But as it is currently administered, I think the SIP is a colossal waste of money. States dole funds out in small chunks ($50,000 -$100,000 per school) largely for the hiring of consultants, with little evidence of systemic change. The money should be reserved for schools and districts that are being fundamentally overhauled i.e., restructured or reconstituted.

The more targeted uses of money - such as $200 million for the teacher incentive fund - make more sense and should be considered for (much) larger increases.

✎There is some programatic language in the bill that looks good on paper. States must provide "assurances" that funds are being used to improve assessments, more efficiently collect data, and equalize the distribution of qualified teachers.

But such assurances are worth about as much as the paper they are written on. State have already provided assurances on all these issues as part of their federally approved plans. All they will have to do is copy and paste language from their old plans and re-submit them.

This means that with all the complaints we have heard about current assessment systems (the responsibility for which lies solely with the states) and the inequitable distribution of teachers (the responsibility for which lies with both schools and districts) and the promises for change, states and districts can take billions and billions in new federal education dollars and do more or less on these issues exactly what they are doing now.

✎The vast majority of education funds in the bill will be funneled to states through a formula much less targeted than Title I, and then awarded to districts through a competitive grant process. This makes sense for the $20 billion in the bill for school construction and modernization, because districts have to have a lot of things in place in order undertake such projects.

It makes a lot less sense for the $39 billion set-aside for K-12 and higher ed grants, and the $25 billion slush fund that can be used for schools among a lot of other things.

- The premise of the package is that an infusion of funds is urgently needed to bail out troubled school districts. But competitive grants require the setting up of a whole new grant-making process, the issuance of RFPs, etc. The schools most strapped for resources will be the ones least likely to be able to hire grant-writers to access the state-administered federal funds.

Competitive grants will squander both time and resources, even though we are told the situation is urgent, and resources are scarce.

- Competitive grants are notoriously bad at sustaining any kind of lasting programmatic changes. Once the money dries up, the programs end. By the time a program is evaluated, it is ancient history, and everyone has moved onto the next shiny pot of money.

What is it that states could ask districts to do through the competitive grant process that they aren’t already trying to do under other various programs?

Why make districts jump through a whole other set of admistrative hoops to access funds?

Why give states money that can be slushed around? Have we not learned anything from the 2008 bailout of banks and financial institutions?

Whatever the feds decide to give directly to states should be given directly to states (keep in mind that states get a set-aside from every federal program right off the top, anywhere between 1% and 5%. Most state education agencies receive at least one-third of their funding from the feds. Some receive more than half from the feds).

Whatever the feds decide to give to districts should be distributed to districts by formula so that they can meet the accountability requirements already set in federal law with a minimum amount of additional hassle and red tape.

Here’s a rundown of education funds in the bill, in descending order of dollar amounts:

$79 billion fund to help prevent cut backs to key services.

- $39 billion will be available to local school districts, public colleges and universities

- $25 billion can go to other state priorities, including, but not limited to, schools.

$20 billion for school construction and modernization including technology upgrades.*

- $14 billion for K-12

- $ 6 billion for higher education

$15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant

$2.1 billion for Head Start
$2 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant

$1 billion for School Technology
$300 million for improving teacher quality
$250 million to improve state data systems

The summary prepared by the House Appropriations Committee is: here

The summary prepared by the House Education and Labor Committee is: here

* Funds can be used to improve energy efficiency per the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act (H.R. 3012), passed by the House in June of 2007.

Updates:

Greg Toppo of USA Today published a piece yesterday with various views on the "strings" attached to the big education bucks in the stimulus. Kati Haycock and Tom Toch are a bit more optimistic than I am that the package will prompt serious changes in assessments and the equalization of the distribution of effective teachers.

Mike Kruger, Online Outreach Specialist for the House Committee on Education and Labor sent a link to a document prepared by the Congressional Research Service which estimates the amount of education funding that each school district will receive from certain aspects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment bill: here.

He says:

"Specifically, this document estimates what each school district in the country would receive under the bill’s program allocations (not including the $80 billion State Stabilization Fund) for Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), and K-12 School Modernization ($14 billion) over FYs 2009 and 2010."

Last but not least, a friend sent this Emily Dickenson poem that seems appropos for the week:

“Hope is the thing with feathers –

That perches in the soul –

And sings the tune without words –

And never stops – at all.”

Permalink • 2 comments » • Send a trackback »

Trackback address for this post

Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)

2 comments

Comment from: Marilee Greene [Visitor]

I find as I work in and visit schools that the above thoughts are right on track. More money is wasted on useless programs that make all kinds of promises and don't deliver. It is a boon for Publishers of textbooks and new boxed programs. Meanwhile libraries are closed, have no money for books, and no passion for reading and learning is stimulated in the schools. We already give teachers too much to do and not enough time to do it. Spend the money on hiring classroom aides that work with the teachers and give them another voice and presence in the classroom. Aides doing classroom work on their own is a waste because the students are pulled from the classroom and get further behind. We have data to prove this. Put the help with the teacher.
Give the students newspapers and magazines and books to read and inspire
them.
Field trips are all gone. Students need to go on these trips if they come from impoverished districts. They do not have the "Velcro" for learning that the students get from the parents in upper middle class districts.
Education...an never ending challenge.

01/23/09 @ 11:23

Comment from: Melissa Rentchler [Visitor] · http://melissarentchler.pbwiki.com

I have to agree fully with Marilee Greene's post, " Comment from: Marilee Greene [Visitor]
I find as I work in and visit schools that the above thoughts are right on track. More money is wasted on useless programs that make all kinds of promises and don't deliver. It is a boon for Publishers of textbooks and new boxed programs. Meanwhile libraries are closed, have no money for books, and no passion for reading and learning is stimulated in the schools. We already give teachers too much to do and not enough time to do it. Spend the money on hiring classroom aides that work with the teachers and give them another voice and presence in the classroom. Aides doing classroom work on their own is a waste because the students are pulled from the classroom and get further behind. We have data to prove this. Put the help with the teacher.
Give the students newspapers and magazines and books to read and inspire
them.
Field trips are all gone. Students need to go on these trips if they come from impoverished districts. They do not have the "Velcro" for learning that the students get from the parents in upper middle class districts.
Education...an never ending challenge."
I am a California Teacher Librarian at two elementary school sites in Broad Award winning Long Beach Unified School District, both Distinguished California Schools and one this year STAR award-winner. At both sites the library program has diminished over the past 5 years: open 2 or 3 days a week with a credentialed Teacher Librarian who is still servicing the same large student populations without classified support staff and for the last three years insignificant new materials budgets ($200 = about 15 books) or zero budgets. The library program is no longer about critical thinking, lifelong learning, and keeping kids engaged in reading who have just gotten "hooked" and are also the result of all of those school specialists' work in Reading Recovery. NCLB was never funded so the funds that previously went to programs one would consider normal for schools like music, the arts, fieldtrips, library and librarian, credentialed physical educators, technology teachers (computer lab) are cut in order to fund reading specialists, speech specialists, guidance counselors, nurses, psychologists, facilitators (often bi-lingual community interfacers). ALL of these professionals are needed in our heavily impacted English Language Learning student schools who often are also from low socioeconomic (unenriched, struggling parents with several jobs and little energy remaining for parenting let alone student support at home) environments.
I like what I see outlined in the NCLB changes above but it is CRITICAL that the money is used for identified CORE school work and positions and not squandered like I've seen done when a sudden unexpected source of funds arrive that must be spent or lost (another bad idea).
CORE school programs need to be identified and prioritized and not become political footballs at School Site Councils where often community members are unaware of being manipulated by school professionals to vote for their pet positions or projects to the detriment of the school as a whole program.

http://calmtadvocate.pbwiki.com
http://melissarentchler.pbwiki.com

01/24/09 @ 08:53

This post has 871 feedbacks awaiting moderation...

Comment feed for this post

September 2010
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
<< <		> >>
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30