| « Race to the Top: Colorado Takes Early Lead | The Long And Winding Road...to Education Reform? » |
ARRA Stabilization $: Education Reform is Dead, Long Live Education Reform
04/02/09
07:28:46 am, Categories: Announcements [A] As it turns out, there are some fundamental flaws either in the stimulus bill itself, or in the guidance issued yesterday by the Department of Education, that render it virtually useless as a vehicle for statewide education reform.
This may have merits in terms of providing a revenue stream for states and districts to backfill budgets and pay off debt. Things are tough out there, and this dynamic is perfectly understandable. But in terms of driving change in the 4 areas that Congress specified - standards and assessments, teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of teachers, data systems, and turning around underperforming schools - there no longer is any there there.
The stakes for the Secretary’s $5 billion "Race to the Top" fund have been raised substantially. In fact, it is now the only education reform game in town.
Most people had expected that there would be disagreement about how strong the guidance on stabilization funding was on issues like teacher performance and school restructuring. And the guidance could be much more rigorous, to say the least, in these and other areas. The flow chart we did yesterday illustrates what was the prevailing view that the guidance on these policies issues, as well as federal and state fiscal restraint on things like maintenance of effort and supplanting, would be the pivotal points in the link between between money and reform.
But the guidance issued yesterday introduces much more fundamental problems. Here are our top three:
1) Allocation Schedule Front-loaded: The Department had signaled originally that it would disperse 67% of of the stabilization funding now (within two weeks of state applications) and the remaining 33% in September. But yesterday’s guidance says that states may apply to receive up to 90% for Phase 1.
This is important because eligibility for Phase 2 funding is supposed to be based on how states do on key performance indices. The "carrot" of Phase 2 funding - for some, many, or most states - as an incentive to undertake robust reforms has now shrunk by more than two-thirds.
This could have an upside in that withholding 10% for states that do not make progress may be more viable politically than withholding 33%. Whether the Administration sets a high enough bar for Phase 2, and whether it is willing to ding states on Phase 2 allocations, however, remains to be seen.
2) Impact Aid Packs a Wallop. The ARRA statute specified that stabilization funds could be used for any purpose under the ESEA statute, including Impact Aid. Impact Aid is a federal program for school districts in which there is a federal presence, almost always a military base, that negatively impacts local revenues (a municipality cannot tax federal property).
Impact Aid is the mother of all block grants, and rightly so, because it is there to supplement local revenues, not drive reform for poor, minority, and disabled children. But in the context of ARRA, the Impact Aid provision, at least as interpreted by the Department, turns out also to be the mother of all loopholes.
The Guidance states that:
"Because the ESEA includes the broad Impact Aid authority (see Title VIII of the ESEA), an LEA may use Education Stabilization funds for activities that would be allowable under Impact Aid. This flexibility applies to all LEAs that receive Education Stabilization funds, and is not limited to those LEAs that also receive Impact Aid funds." [emphasis added].
So, pretty much, anything goes, for any district. For example, the guidance says that stabilization funds cannot be spent on frivolous items like "an aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool." But could a district use stabilization funds to pay down debt incurred from purchasing such frivolous items, or from other less flagrant but still egregious practices, including mis- or malfeasance on the part of local officials? The Impact Aid provision, as interpreted by the Department, suggests that the answer is: "yes".
3) Statewide Reform Gutted. The fallout from the Impact Aid provision should have been mitigated by the fact that in exchange for stabilization funding, the Governor has to assure the feds that he or she will undertake reform in the four areas laid out by Congress: standards and assessments; teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of good teachers; data systems; and, turning around underperforming schools.
But, the guidance explicitly tells Governors that they cannot dictate to districts how to spend the funds. And locals are free to disregard any reforms initiated by the Governor. This is a mind-boggling development.
Let’s say a Governor, using stabilization money, devises statewide "college and career ready" standards and a statewide assessment system aligned with them. This is great, and in keeping with what the Secretary says he wants. Except that every district is free to say "no thanks," ignore the Governor, and continue to use a system that is easier and makes them look better. Or they could pick up the system, but ignore the accommodations for limited English proficient students and children with disabilities worked out between the Governor and the Secretary. This dynamic can easily be extrapolated to the other 3 assurances.
Calling what the guidance does to the statute a "loophole" with regard to statewide reform would suggest a favorable, and in this case inaccurate, comparison of what remains of the statute with confetti.
Last Stop for Reform: Race to the Top. All of this enormously raises the stakes for the Race to the Top fund.
The Secretary has been saying all the right things on "Race to the Top" and although some say $5 billion is a drop in the bucket, it is more than one-third of what Title I was just a scant two months ago. In my opinion, it could do a lot. Much more has been done at the federal level with a lot less money. Title I was "only" $8.8 billion in 2001 when NCLB was passed, and that was for all 50 states and territories; Race to the Top is only for the upper tier or vanguard states.
I’m not sure it is fair to rate Governors on use of the stabilization money, as the Secretary has said he intends to do, given that they have been completely disempowered. But some evaluation of state willingness to undertake reform, in part based on their track record, will be necessary. Here, the "metrics" sketched out in the cover letter to states, which will be followed by a more specific proposal to be published "soon" in the Federal Register, will be key in setting the stage for the Race to the Top initiative. Stay tuned for a close look at this in a subsequent post.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
4 comments
Comment from: Dick Schutz [Visitor] · http://ssrn.com/author=1199505
You've got it right, Charlie. But why are you (and Ken deRosa) apparently the only ones to see it?
Consider"the 4 areas that Congress specified"
--standards and assessments
States have been mandated to "reform" since 1989. What is there to make one think that they will have a revelation by June to do any better?
--teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of teachers"
"Reform" here goes back to at least 1965. We don't know what makes for an "effective teacher."
--data systems
When "proficiency" has been diminished to arbitrairily-set cut scores on ungrounded statistical scales, there is hardly "form" let alone "reform." Again, no sudden "revelations" are in the cards
--and turning around underperforming schools
D'ya think if anyone knew how to do that reliably, they wouldn't have done it?
And these miracles are to be performed while state and local general funds as well as state and local educational funds are in serious shortfall? And when states are urged to spend the money quickly and not to spend it on anything requiring sustained investment? Sure.
What happened to "Change we can believe in?"
Secretary Duncan appears to be getting very faulty Educational Intelligence.
Consider"the 4 areas that Congress specified"
--standards and assessments
States have been mandated to "reform" since 1989. What is there to make one think that they will have a revelation by June to do any better?
--teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of teachers"
"Reform" here goes back to at least 1965. We don't know what makes for an "effective teacher."
--data systems
When "proficiency" has been diminished to arbitrairily-set cut scores on ungrounded statistical scales, there is hardly "form" let alone "reform." Again, no sudden "revelations" are in the cards
--and turning around underperforming schools
D'ya think if anyone knew how to do that reliably, they wouldn't have done it?
And these miracles are to be performed while state and local general funds as well as state and local educational funds are in serious shortfall? And when states are urged to spend the money quickly and not to spend it on anything requiring sustained investment? Sure.
What happened to "Change we can believe in?"
Secretary Duncan appears to be getting very faulty Educational Intelligence.
04/03/09 @ 11:04
Comment from: Kimmy [Visitor]
The main shift I see/hear from the GOP to Dems is that we have to make data meaningful. All we got in the first round of NCLB was ... chart it/track it... Now the message is... You've got to use that data, and that data should point to challenges and interventions.
Texas looks good on paper ... but that's about it. We have teacher incentive pay but have only figured out it needed technical support in the last year. We have charter schools, but they underperform due to lack of support. We have data, but our state department doesn't see the worth of analysis yet... I think the USDE is going to have to drag them there.
And, yeah, data gives us a much better picture of where the system is failing... And it pinpoints the problems in underperforming schools. We see it here in Texas, looking at... say... the drop between 8th and 9th grade math scores. Something appears to be missing in the curriculum, but it's only when you pull data apart that the problem becomes much more striking.
I heart data... and, maybe, someday, we'll figure out the value of various proper interventions ...
Texas looks good on paper ... but that's about it. We have teacher incentive pay but have only figured out it needed technical support in the last year. We have charter schools, but they underperform due to lack of support. We have data, but our state department doesn't see the worth of analysis yet... I think the USDE is going to have to drag them there.
And, yeah, data gives us a much better picture of where the system is failing... And it pinpoints the problems in underperforming schools. We see it here in Texas, looking at... say... the drop between 8th and 9th grade math scores. Something appears to be missing in the curriculum, but it's only when you pull data apart that the problem becomes much more striking.
I heart data... and, maybe, someday, we'll figure out the value of various proper interventions ...
04/04/09 @ 08:42
Comment from: john thompson [Visitor]
Just between you and me, what language did you suggest to get around this problem?
Seriously, you data-driven reformers are in the situation we traditional reformers have been facing. Its hard to beat anything without a concrete proposal. And like the two previous commenters indicate, we don’t know a lot about turning around hardcore schools.
We should agree to disagree on whether the proponents of NCLB should have anticipated how education’s “culture of compliance” would create problems for NCLB-type accountability. The challenge here is even greater. As Russ Whitehurst just wrote, we need innovative “processes” not innovative "products," and human capital not quick fixes. But the rules of the two year Stimulus could encourage Cover Your Ass purchases. For instance, NCLB funded professional development out the wazzoo, and PD can make improvements on the margins, but what is the recommendation for new IDEA money? Professional development.
All I know about Boston and TFA is what I read today, but I’m curious how you’d respond to their situation. I see a compromise where TFAers hired while teachers are facing layoffs are retained if they teach in areas where there is a shortage of teachers. But we can’t expect TFAers who have been hired to position where there are qualified teachers to be welcomed in schools. Either the district should seek new funding for them from somewhere or they should be reassigned.
I mention this as an example of the challenge. In just a few months we need to thrash out some daunting problems and if we don’t concentrate on achieving compromises, we’ll have a mess.
Seriously, you data-driven reformers are in the situation we traditional reformers have been facing. Its hard to beat anything without a concrete proposal. And like the two previous commenters indicate, we don’t know a lot about turning around hardcore schools.
We should agree to disagree on whether the proponents of NCLB should have anticipated how education’s “culture of compliance” would create problems for NCLB-type accountability. The challenge here is even greater. As Russ Whitehurst just wrote, we need innovative “processes” not innovative "products," and human capital not quick fixes. But the rules of the two year Stimulus could encourage Cover Your Ass purchases. For instance, NCLB funded professional development out the wazzoo, and PD can make improvements on the margins, but what is the recommendation for new IDEA money? Professional development.
All I know about Boston and TFA is what I read today, but I’m curious how you’d respond to their situation. I see a compromise where TFAers hired while teachers are facing layoffs are retained if they teach in areas where there is a shortage of teachers. But we can’t expect TFAers who have been hired to position where there are qualified teachers to be welcomed in schools. Either the district should seek new funding for them from somewhere or they should be reassigned.
I mention this as an example of the challenge. In just a few months we need to thrash out some daunting problems and if we don’t concentrate on achieving compromises, we’ll have a mess.
04/04/09 @ 15:41
Comment from: Dick Schutz [Visitor] · http://ssrn.com/author=1199505
It's going to take more than language and compromises to clean up the mess, which like the "clowns" we don't need to "bring in." It's already here.
Increasing the productivity of the el-hi enterprise is independent of the "stimulus" funds.
Increasing productivity entails spending less not more by getting more reliable outcomes at less cost.
See, "A Game Plan for Dramatically Improving the Productivity of the El-Hi Schooling Enterprise"
http://ssrn.com/author=1199505
The paper has my fingerprints on it, but the ideas aren't mine.
It's a "concrete proposal"--not a wishful "reform/intervention."
This particular game plan isn't the only conceivable one. But as long as we continue to do the same old things, we're going to continue to get the same old results.
Ironically, the best educational "data" available, receives very little attention. The NCES Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies ECLS-K
and B--Kindergarten and Birth Cohorts indicate that "what you read in the papers" "ain't the way it is" in many respects
The $100 million 5-yr impact study of Reading First has been all-but ignored. (There's also a paper on the study accessible from the SSRN page.)
The IES study of DC vouchers (called scholarships) very recently released
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/
contains nothing to support the enthusiasm of charterists and free marketeers. What the report neglects to even mention is that average standardized test performance in both "treatment" and "control" doesn't rise above the high 30's.
Before chasing "Change that is not going to happen," it would seem to make sens to stop and look at the solid data we have on the state of the el-hi enterprise.
Increasing the productivity of the el-hi enterprise is independent of the "stimulus" funds.
Increasing productivity entails spending less not more by getting more reliable outcomes at less cost.
See, "A Game Plan for Dramatically Improving the Productivity of the El-Hi Schooling Enterprise"
http://ssrn.com/author=1199505
The paper has my fingerprints on it, but the ideas aren't mine.
It's a "concrete proposal"--not a wishful "reform/intervention."
This particular game plan isn't the only conceivable one. But as long as we continue to do the same old things, we're going to continue to get the same old results.
Ironically, the best educational "data" available, receives very little attention. The NCES Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies ECLS-K
and B--Kindergarten and Birth Cohorts indicate that "what you read in the papers" "ain't the way it is" in many respects
The $100 million 5-yr impact study of Reading First has been all-but ignored. (There's also a paper on the study accessible from the SSRN page.)
The IES study of DC vouchers (called scholarships) very recently released
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/
contains nothing to support the enthusiasm of charterists and free marketeers. What the report neglects to even mention is that average standardized test performance in both "treatment" and "control" doesn't rise above the high 30's.
Before chasing "Change that is not going to happen," it would seem to make sens to stop and look at the solid data we have on the state of the el-hi enterprise.
04/05/09 @ 12:12
This post has 703 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
