July 2009 Archives

From guest blogger Erik Robelen:

It's going to be an uphill climb—maybe I should say up-mountain climb, as in the Rockies—but a bipartisan group of six senators yesterday introduced a bill to save the voucher program for the District of Columbia.

Leading Democrats in Congress have long opposed the program, and with their party firmly in control of both chambers, and with a Democrat in the White House, many analysts believe the D.C. voucher program's days are numbered.

President Barack Obama has called for something of a middle ground between the program's friends and its foes, who would like it shut down yesterday. He wants to phase out the program, essentially allowing students already enrolled in private schools with the vouchers to finish, but not admitting any new applicants. Meanwhile, spending legislation approved earlier this year contains language saying the program would end after the 2009-10 school year unless reauthorized by Congress.

And reauthorize the program is exactly what the group of senators, including Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connect, is hoping to do.

"This program, while not the entire solution to the problems that plague the D.C. public schools, should continue to play a valuable role in improving the educational opportunities for disadvantaged students in the District," said Sen. Lieberman in a July 30 press release.

The co-sponsors of the reauthorization measure include Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio, and John Ensign of Nevada.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program was established as a five-year pilot in 2004, and served some 1,600 low-income students as of this past school year. It's become a major flashpoint of debate nationally between voucher supporters and opponents.

The bill would make a few changes to the program, according to a summary in Sen. Lieberman's press release.

First, it would increase the maximum voucher level from $7,500 to $9,000 for grades K-8 and $11,000 for high school. It would add a sibling preference "so as not to separate families." It also requires schools that have been operating less than five years to have proof of adequate financial resources, and requires "adequate financial systems, controls, and policies to ensure that funds are used in compliance with the program."

And, it requires that "core" teachers of the voucher students have a bachelor's or equivalent degree.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 2:50 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

A bipartisan effort to boost funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund by an extra $100 million went down to defeat today during the full Senate Appropriations Committee's markup of the bill funding the U.S. Department of Education in fiscal year 2010.

The bill already includes $300 million for the TIF, a teacher performance-pay program that is currently funded at $97 million. The proposed increase in the failed amendment would have been paid for by taking $100 million out of the federal State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality program.

The Obama administration had asked for $487 million for the Teacher Incentive Fund in its FY 2010 budget request, and the House of Representatives last week approved $445 million for the program. The amendment went down 13-16, with both Republicans and Democrats voting for and against.

The defeat came despite an assertion from the amendment's sponsor, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that the TIF is the president's highest priority. She said she expected the amendment to be noncontroversial and pass on a quick "voice vote."

But instead there was a lot of pushback. Other lawmakers, including Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., expressed qualms about the program.

"This amendment will take a significant amount of money from programs that are already supporting teachers," Murray said. "I know my state will lose $1.6 million with [this amendment]." She added that lawmakers should take a closer look "before we add another $100 million to this program, which has never been authorized."

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who supported the language, said the legislation would require collaboration with educators on programs, which he said helped alleviate his "qualms" about the program.

Marc Egan, a lobbyist for the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union, said that the organization was "very thrilled with the vote." He said that the union would have had difficulties with any measure that sought to divert money from other education programs and put it in the TIF, because, given the trying economic times, "there are a lot more pressing needs."

There weren't other substantive changes to the bill since a Senate subcommittee considered the measure earlier this week.

Expect the TIF to continue to be an issue when the Senate bill hits the floor, or goes to conference with the House version.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:11 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Education has been on the national stage plenty lately. (In fact, Politics K-12's own Michele McNeil talked about the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund on National Public Radio's "To the Point" just yesterday.)

But, we haven't heard much about the law that has dominated education policy for going on nine years now: No Child Left Behind.

For those who need a quick review: The bill was scheduled to be reauthorized back in 2007, but Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ran into a brick wall when he took a crack at it, because of lack of consensus on teacher pay and issues around how to measuring student progress.

After that, everyone expected work on the new bill to get going once a new president took office. And, as we've pointed out before, it should, at least on the surface, be a little easier this time. Miller and the Obama administration share very similar views on education.

Still, the debate hasn't moved forward very much, at least publicly, in part because of the stimulus, which made some major changes on education policy. That may have alleviated some of the pressure for renewal.

And, in case you haven't heard, Congress (including the committees that oversee education) is very busy working on student loans, and especially, health care. In fact, over at Eduwonk, Andrew Rotherham, a former Clinton administration official, sketches out how the health-care bill and NCLB renewal may be linked.

The upshot? Anything can happen, but don't hold your breath for a reauthorization, or even any major action on renewing the law, this year. In fact, many folks say that lawmakers are waiting for the administration to unveil its plan for reauthorization before they get going on a bill. Right now, observers say that seems likely to happen in January. My money's on a mention in Obama's State of the Union Address.

But, if you want to brush up on the law in the meantime, check out Education Week's Spotlight on No Child Left Behind, which includes five articles and three commentaries in a downloadable PDF. More information is available here.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Lesli A. Maxwell:

California officials have been sweating bullets since President Barack Obama singled outthe state last week as likely to be shut out of winning grants in the $4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTTT) competition later this year, unless education leaders there become willing to drop the firewall that right now prohibits the use of student test scores to size up teachers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has pledged to use his influence to rewrite state law around this issue. And yesterday, state schools chief Jack O'Connell parachuted into the Long Beach Unified School District where leaders have been using student data to evaluate instructional strategies and program effectiveness.

O'Connell wanted to make the case that the state law in question doesn't bar such uses of student data at the school district level, even though he acknowledged that Long Beach Unified is rare for doing so. The Times story refers to a 2006 state law that bars student test scores from being used to evaluate teachers at the state level.

Any California experts out there care to jump in and tell us what exactly state law allows, and what it doesn't, when it comes to student-achievement data and teacher evaluations?

Ironically, President Obama cited Long Beach Unified, a nationally acclaimed district that has won the Broad Prize for Urban Education, in his first major education address in March for "using data to track how much progress a student is making and where that student is struggling." I'm sure school leaders there would be bummed if their state was shut out of RTTT money.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:09 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who was hanging out with Michele all day yesterday in Florida, also found time to name five new staff members to key positions at the Education Department:

*Michael Roark, chief administrative officer, office of the deputy secretary: Previously, Roark worked as chief financial officer for AOL Europe. Back in the early 1990s, Roark worked for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who is considered pretty liberal on education (and just about everything else).

*Jacqueline Jones, senior adviser for early learning: Jones has been working for the New Jersey Department of Education as an assistant commissioner for the Division of Early Childhood Education. Before that, she worked for the Educational Testing Service (ETS) as a senior research scientist and director of early-childhood research and development.

*Katherine Tobin, deputy assistant secretary for performance and improvement: Tobin served for the past three years as a governor of the U.S. Postal Service. She has also worked as college and university administrator.

"Emma Vadehra, deputy assistant secretary, in the Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development: Until recently, Vadehra served as a senior education counsel for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Before that, she worked at Uncommon Schools, a charter-management organization.

*Nia Phillips, deputy general counsel for departmental and legislative services: Philips served as then-Sen. Barack Obama's political director and constituency director for Georgia in the 2008 general election.She also taught 1st grade for three years at a public school in Brooklyn in New York City. Before that, she provided legal counsel for Viacom Inc. and worked as an attorney.

Finally, some non-Department of Ed personnel news: Mary Ellen McGuire, who heads up the New America Foundation's education activities and previously served as a top aide to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is going to work on the White House Domestic Policy Council as a senior adviser for education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:54 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who oversees the Senate appropriations committee, kicked off a mark-up of the education spending bill today by reminding everyone that schools and colleges got $100 billion under the stimulus.

He didn't say so explicitly, but that one-time windfall was probably a key reason that the Obama administration, the House of Representatives, and now the Senate subcommittee on education spending proposed just modest increases for education spending this year.

The Senate subcommittee proposed $63.45 billion for the U.S. Department of Education, an $800 million increase over fiscal 2009. That's just a little less than the $64.16 billion in the House bill and the $64.18 billion in Obama's request.

The bill includes $13.8 billion for Title I grants to districts, a significant boost over the President's request of $12.9 billion, but also a pretty major cut from the fiscal year 2009 level of $14.5 billion. A bill approved by the House of Representatives last week includes $14.5 billion for the grants, about the same level as fiscal year 2009.

Obama had asked for less money for Title I grants to districts in fiscal year 2010 than the program got in fiscal year 2009, in part because Title I grants got a huge influx in the stimulus of $10 billion over two years, and in part because Obama wanted to shift some of the money to Title I school improvement grants, which help turnaround struggling schools. Obama sought $1.5 billion for the grants.

That didn't happen here. Instead, the committee level-funded school improvement grants at $546 million, the same amount the program got in fiscal 2009 and in the House bill.

But the bill includes $700 million for school renovation grants, a perennial priority for Harkin. Districts must compete for the grants, and then match the federal money with local dollars, Harkin said.

"School renovation should have been funded in the Recovery Act," Harkin said. "But in the end school renovation ended up with no money whatsoever." (If you'll remember, some $16 billion was stripped out of the Senate's version of the bill at the eleventh hour to appease moderates in both parties and didn't get put back in during conference.)

Marc Egan, a lobbyist for the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union, praised the school facilities money.

"We applaud Chairman Harkin for continuing his push for school modernization," he said. "While we're pleased the bill restores some of the proposed cut to Title I basic grants, it does not go far enough and we hope that will change as the bill advances."

The measure doesn't go as far as the House bill, or the President's request, in financing the Teacher Incentive Fund, which doles out pay-for-performance grants to districts on a competitive basis.

It provides $300 million for the TIF, a substantial hike over the $97 million the program received in fiscal 2009, but not as much as the mega-increase sought by the Obama administration of $487 million. The House bill was much closer to the administration, with $445 million for the teacher pay program.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, hinted that she might try to introduce an amendment to hike funding for the TIF when the bill goes to the full committee for consideration on Thursday.

"I'd like to work with you to figure out a way that we could increase funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund," she said.

But Harkin said states could use a portion of the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund to cover the cost of performance-pay programs. (Of course, that program is competitive. So it's likely that not all states could get a piece.)

The measure also eliminates the $112 million Early Reading First program, which Obama had sought to increase to $162 million. Instead, it pumps $263 million total into the Striving Readers program, which aides said would lead to a more comprehensive approach to reading, at all levels of instruction.

Right now, Striving Readers is funded at $35 million. The Senate level still isn't as much as the President asked for. Obama wanted $370 million for Striving Readers. The House put $146 million into the program.

Other highlights:

*Special education grants to states got $11.5 billion, about the same as in fiscal year 2009, the House bill, and the President's request.

*Education Technology State Grants got $100 million, the same as in the House, and the Obama budget, but a lot less than the $269 million the program got in fiscal 2009. The program got $650 million in the stimulus, spread over two years.

*The administration's $50 million drop-out-prevention initiative was fully funded.

*Charter schools would get $256 million, an increase of $40 million over fiscal year 2009, but less than the $268 million the President wanted.

*The state Safe and Drug Free schools grant program would be eliminated, in keeping with an Obama proposal.

*The $66 million Even Start Family Literacy Program would also be zeroed out, as Obama suggested.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:30 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

So remember that nearly $90 billion worth of savings projected by those "bombshell" student loan changes in the bill approved last week by the House Education and Labor Committee? The savings that were supposed to pay for a $10 billion new investment in early-childhood education, a big boost for Pell Grants for college students, not to mention $10 billion in new money for community colleges?

Well, that much money may not be available, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis, requested by Sen. Judd Gregg (PDF), a Republican from New Hampshire and noted deficit hawk. He asked the CBO to do another estimate, taking into account "market risk," and that changed things considerably.

The Gregg-requested estimate projects about $47 billion in savings, leaving less money for new education investments.

So who is right? Congressional Democratic leaders, with their original analysis of nearly $90 billion, or the new analysis, requested by Gregg? Interestingly, the new analysis is closer to the administration's original estimate, put out by the Office of Management and Budget, of about $40 billion. (We wrote about that estimate in this story.)

Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top Republican on the House Education panel, already has a statement out on the estimate Gregg requested.

“Democrats herald an alleged $87 billion in savings and government earnings as evidence that billions in new government borrowing is sound fiscal policy. This analysis from the Congressional Budget Office confirms once and for all that these savings are a myth. A government takeover of our student loan programs is just a budgetary gimmick designed to finance the latest entitlement spending spree, leaving our children and grandchildren to pick up the tab.”

If Gregg is able to persuade his Senate colleagues that the calculations he asked for are closer to reality, will that chamber still include the early-childhood and community college proposals in its yet-to-be-introduced version of the student-loan legislation?

Should make for an interesting debate, with a lot of money for education at stake.

UPDATE: The back-and-forth has begun: Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, just released a statement saying that the Gregg-requested analysis isn't accurate and doesn't change the official estimate of the House legislation.

“It’s clear that Republicans didn’t like the truth – that our legislation generates almost $90 billion that could be used to help students, families, and taxpayers – so they shamelessly decided to have a little fun with the numbers,” Miller said in the statement.

UPDATE 2: The U.S. Department of Education also has a response to the CBO analysis Gregg requested. They describe why they prefer the CBO's original estimate of $87 billion in savings, saying the methodology used in that analysis "is required by federal statute and provides a longstanding, neutral, and objective basis for comparing the costs to Government of federal loan and loan guarantee programs, and to other forms of federal spending."

The Department adds that the 'market cost' analysis "provides a useful perspective—and confirms that the administration’s approach saves tens of billions of dollars—the cost estimate using the official methodology is a more accurate depiction of the policy’s impact on federal deficits and debt."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:27 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Tomorrow, I'm spending the day with Arne. Yes, the Arne.

And, I'll be tweeting about it, so follow along via the Politics K-12 Twitter feed.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be in Florida as part of his Listening and Learning tour. He'll also give a speech at the GE Foundation's meeting.

In between visits, I'll try to get answers on my questions (and yours) about Race to the Top.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:43 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Friday's unveiling of the criteria for the Race to the Top awards answered a lot of questions about how the U.S. Department of Education is going to dole out $4 billion in competitive grants.

But a lot of questions remain, at least as far as we're concerned:

1. Given that the applications require signatures from the governor and the chief and the state board of education president, what if one is particularly obstinate and won't sign on? Not all chiefs and governors have gotten along, after all. South Carolina would be a top contender for testing this rule.

2. Who is the department going to find to judge these things? They want "peers" who are education experts in their fields, but so many of these folks work in or for states. University professors might be key here.

3. The list of people and entities that the department wants to see support from, regarding a state's application, is lengthy and exhaustive. From every participating local school district to teachers' unions to charter school organizers to the state attorney general (when state laws are being presented as evidence of having a policy in place.) You can find the list on page 36 of the proposed rules. Does the department really want hundreds of letters and/or signatures?

4. Given the department's focus on turning around large numbers of low-performing schools, which are concentrated in urban areas, do states with mostly rural populations have a shot at this money? And in states with big urban centers that win the money, will rural schools lose out?

What questions do you have about Race to the Top?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:05 PM | Permalink | 7 Comments | Recommend

Only two things can render a state ineligible for Race to the Top grants.

And only one of them is a biggie: the student-teacher data firewall issue.

This effectively means New York, California, and Wisconsin, at the very least, are ineligible for Race to the Top—or will at least have some explaining to do. They have laws on the book that essentially bar the use of student-achievement data in some teacher-evaluation decisions.

Whether to elevate any criteria to the category of "must have," and if so, which ones, was apparently the subject of a lot of discussion among education department staffers. Should the charter-school cap issue be make-it or break-it? Should another teacher-quality measure get top billing?

When Education Department staff members finally settled on the data firewall rule, which would effectively knock out two states with giant student populations and powerful Congressional delegations, I'm told that education staffers took it up to those above their pay grades.......

To Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and eventually, to the president himself. And Obama, apparently, didn't need much convincing.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:49 PM | Permalink | 5 Comments | Recommend

The House of Representatives approved its version of the fiscal year 2010 budget bill, which we wrote about here and here. The big story here was a mega-increase for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a pay-for-performance program.

The bill was approved on a very partisan vote, which all you Congress-geeks out there can take a look at here.

The Obama administration released a statement yesterday, giving a thumbs up to the bill's major increase for the Teacher Incentive Fund, and a thumbs down to lawmakers' decision not to boost funding for the Title I school improvement grants by $1 billion. The House instead kept that money in Title I grants for districts.

The administration also asked for more money for the Innovation Fund, which was created under the stimulus and is meant to reward districts and nonprofits groups that make major gains in student achievement.

There weren't any major changes to the education provisions, although Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, did introduce an amendment that made a few tweaks to the bill. It included an extra $10 million that can be used to replicate successful charter schools and he included $6.95 million for the Reach out and Read Program in the Fund for the Improvement of Education (which is sort of a slush fund that includes a number of programs).

Meanwhile today, 10 senators urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to include the full $487 million for the Teacher Incentive Fund in their version of the education spending bill. The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education subcommittee could consider their bill as early as next week.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Even as folks are busily digesting the Race to the Top draft application, the U.S. Department of Education has released even more information on the stimulus.

There are new proposed requirements on just how states should show progress toward those four education-improvement-oriented "assurances" spelled out in the stimulus law: improving teacher quality and distribution, revamping state data systems, turning around struggling schools, and bolstering standards and assessments.

If you'll remember, states must promise to get to work on those "assurances" in order to get a piece of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which is meant to help states make up for previous cuts to K-12 and higher education.

The department has already given out much of Round 1 of the funding, but this guidance will apply to Round 2. Most the requirements seem to be asking for information from states, which would help the department get a picture of where they stand on the four key areas.

My colleague, Steve Sawchuk, has the goods on the very interesting teacher quality requirements over at Teacher Beat. So check it out.

But there are some interesting pieces on the other three assurances:

*On data systems: The stimulus law embraced the Data Quality Campaign's description of a high-quality data system, so it's no surprise to see that states must explain their process and timeline for implementing those elements, under the requirements. States must also explain whether they are sharing information with teachers about how much their students progress.

*On standards and assessments: The draft says that states should supply information on the extent to which they are working to "enhance" their assessments, including for English-language learners and students in special education.

And it also says states should explain how they are using "multiple measures from multiple sources" in gauging student achievement. I'm wondering if that will have implications for No Child Left Behind renewal ... will states eventually have to use multiple measures in their accountability systems?

The draft also asks states to report how many students graduate from high school in four years and go on to a pursue college or technical training. States must also specify whether they are working with other states to revamp their assessments.

*School Improvement:The department is asking for a lot of information on charter schools here, including the number of charters allowed to operate in the state, the number actually operating, and the number and identity of any charters that have closed in recent years. States must also detail how they are working with schools in corrective action, meaning that they have been chronically struggling to meet achievement targets for years.

That's my preliminary take, but the draft is about 116 pages long, so I'm sure I missed something. What jumped out at you? E-mail me or better yet, hit up the comments section.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:30 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

The most talked about, written about, and speculated about part of the stimulus, the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund, is getting top billing across the edu-blogsphere today.

The coverage comes in advance of a big rollout of the application process for the grants, which are meant to reward states that make progress on particular areas of school reform, at the U.S. Department of Education today. (Politics K-12's own Michele McNeil will be there. And oh yeah, also President Barack Obama).

After you're done reading Michele's excellent story on the applications, check out these good reads:

Over at Flypaper, Mike Petrilli, a former Bush administration official, has a great post, explaining why the application process embraces a Washington to the Rescue Approach. Bonus: It's accompanied by a picture of a horse with a carrot up its nose (yes, he somehow ties that back to ed policy).

At Gotham Schools, Elizabeth Green explores New York's chances of getting a piece of the RTT pie, given that it has a data firewall (which takes states out of the running, according to the guidance). And at Eduwonk, former Clintonite Andy Rotherham has a good overall analysis and even suggests some states to watch. And at Swift & Changeable, Charlie Barone has a very cool chart, showing why this is a big chunk of change, even compared with some of the foundations' largess.

And check out USA Today, the Washington Post (which also features an interview with Obama), the Associated Press, and The New York Times.

Finally, over at This Week in Education, edu-media critic Alexander Russo gives his take on all the coverage.

UPDATE: Duncan continued his full-court press this morning, holding a call with regional reporters about the Race to the Top program. Not surprisingly, most of the questions boiled down to "Will my state be eligible?"

For instance, reporters from New York and Wisconsin asked whether states would have enough time to remove their data "firewalls" and to be able to qualify. Duncan said the grants would be doled out in two rounds, extending the time frame a bit. And a Nebraska reporter asked whether states with a lot of rural schools would be able to qualify for the grants. In much of the department's rhetoric, there's been a focus on urban schools. Duncan said there would be an emphasis on rewarding good teachers for being willing to teach in hard-to-staff schools, which are in both urban and rural areas.

My colleague, Steve Sawchuk, managed to sneak in a substantive question about whether it's essential for teachers' unions to sign off on applications. He'll have Duncan's answer later today at Teacher Beat.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Education Department has unveiled proposed criteria for deciding who will get a slice of the $4 billion Race to the Top fund.

Check out the details here.

I'll be tweeting tomorrow's event at the Education Department (so long as technology cooperates), so follow me over at the Politics K-12 twitter feed.

And, some are speculating that President Obama may even make an appearance. It's an important enough subject that he sat down with the Washington Post to talk about it, even emphasizing that politics won't play a part in awarding the grants. Think Ohio.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The word on the street (and by street, I mean twitter) is that the Race to the Top application process is going to be announced as soon as tomorrow. (The folks at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think-tank in Washington, are saying it outright.)

The $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, which was created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to reward states that make significant progress on teacher quality and distribution, standards and assessments, school improvement, and tracking student progress through data systems.

Folks are wondering just how serious the Education Department is about some of the things it has proposed to take into account in allocating the grants, such as lifting those charter caps, tearing down that data firewall, and just who will have to sign off on the applications. (Superintendents? State chiefs? Unions?)

If the buzz is right, we'll find out soon enough.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:01 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

The Education Department's Office of Inspector General offers an interesting history lesson today that seeks to foreshadow just how states and school districts will misspend their stimulus dollars.

And if history is any lesson, there will be stimulus-related waste and fraud.

The OIG has audited its audits, looking for patterns in 41 investigations from 2002 until the present that found pervasive problems either in the spending or financial internal controls. These audits found $1.6 billion in either questioned costs or funds at risk of fraud because of internal-control weaknesses. In addition, another 13 audits ended in criminal prosecutions. That amounts to a little less than 1 percent of the total amount of money (or $193.7 billion) that the Education Department administered in the federal programs that were the subject of these audits. Of dourse, these were the fraud and spending problems that auditors were able to find, document, and prove. The amount of waste and fraud is probably much higher.

There were common problems that auditors uncovered in states' and school districts' handling of federal money that don't bode well for the spending of some $100 billion in stimulus. These problems included unallowable or undocumented expenses, supplanting and not supplementing funds, and problems with inventory control.

The OIG made recommendations to the Education Department for helping states and local school districts better track stimulus money, and most of it centered on better training.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Without many fireworks or much fanfare, the House Education and Labor Committee approved a bill that would completely overhaul the federal student-loan program, using projected savings to direct new resources to school facilities, early-childhood education, Pell Grants, and community colleges.

The measure was approved on a partisan vote of 30-17, with just two Republicans, Reps. Todd Platts of Pennsylvania and Thomas Petri of Wisconsin, crossing over to vote with the Democrats.

The committee approved a few tweaks to the portion of the bill on early-childhood education, including amendments that would allow the government to take into consideration when doling out the $10 billion in available grants how well states' programs serve students with special needs and utilize behavior programs based on positive reinforcement.

And, under an amendment approved by voice vote, community colleges receiving grants under the measure would be encouraged to partner with area businesses to meet labor needs.

Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican from Delaware, introduced an amendment that would have directed the more than $4 billion available for school facilities in the bill to special education. He said the feds should meet their existing commitments before creating new programs that will just compete for scarce dollars.

That sparked a back-and-forth with Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, who said that, over his decades in Congress, he's watched both parties pass up opportunities to increase funding for special education.

Castle ultimately withdrew his amendment, although I think it would have been pretty interesting to see which members supported it.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:48 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Today the House Education and Labor Committee is considering that "bombshell" higher education loan bill. And while we've told you quite a bit about the early learning piece of this legislation, there's more in the measure for the pre-college set.

The bill includes more than $4 billion over the next two fiscal years for a green-schools initiative, something Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., has been trying to get through Congress via a variety of legislative vehicles. (For instance, this bill, but also the House's original version of the stimulus. It was eventually stripped out because of opposition from some conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans).

The program would be paid for through the $87 billion in projected savings available under the higher education loan bill, according to a CBO estimate.

Under the measure, the school facilities grants would go out under the Title I, Part A formula. But every Title I district would get a grant of at least $5,000. The majority of the funds would need to be used for projects that meet green building standards.

Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware, a moderate Republican, brought up one of his major concerns on the school construction piece: Congress is spending money on a brand-new program while it still hasn't provided enough funding for special education.

We've written before about the complicated politics facing school facilities. My guess is that this section of the bill will make it through passage in the House (assuming the rest of the measure does...the student loan piece is very controversial, even with many Democrats). But it's hard to say whether the Senate will include the program.

Still, the school construction piece gives long-time supporters of federal school construction money (namely these folks) another reason to put their lobbying muscle behind this bill.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:39 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

The U.S. Department of Education is redesigning its Web site, and to get the ball rolling, wants to know how users navigate ED.gov.

Though they haven't asked for our input specifically on how to improve their site, we offer these suggestions to get them started:

* Bigger font, please.

* Better navigational categories along the left-hand side of the home page.

*Pretty it up, in general. For what to do, check out the Department of Transportation. For what not to do, check out the Department of Commerce.

* More user-friendly format for the main stimulus page.

What are we missing? Leave your comments at ED.gov or in the comments section below and we'll pass them along.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:19 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

For your weekend reading:

Alexander Russo offers advice to new education reporters (including to get off the beat soon because it's not very prestigious). And he's surely annoyed the Education Department by asking for EdSec Duncan's daily schedule -- and not the one that's already online. Russo wants to know who the secretary is meeting with who's not on the schedule. This is an important issue, and the Ed. Dept. should promptly release this information because Duncan is a public official and who he meets with while on the taxpayer's dime should be public information. After all, in addition to setting and implementing federal education policy, the guy is now in charge of doling out a whopping $100 billion or so in education stimulus aid.

GothamSchools highlights Indiana's teacher-evaluation "mini drama" and ties it to New York's ban on linking student data and teacher evaluations—all with implications for Race to the Top.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, in an effort to make sure everyone knows he's his own man, claims that his reversal on expanding charter schools had nothing (nothing!) to do with Education Secretary Arne Duncan's arm-twisting and the potential for a slice of the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund. Seriously?

Andy Smarick, over at Flypaper, examines the potential role for faith-based schools in stimulus-driven reform, especially in terms of the competitive Race to the Top and innovation grants.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Relax, Teacher Incentive Fund fans: It doesn't look like the full House Appropriations Committee is going to make major changes to that education spending bill approved last week by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

The House Appropriations Committee today was debating the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, which finances the U.S. Department of Education and, as I'm sure you'll remember, includes a huge windfall for the TIF. Final passage wasn't expected until this evening, but it was mostly other congressional business, not education, that was holding up debate.

Under the bill, the TIF, the main federal performance pay program, would go from just $97 million to $446 million. That's a little under the President's request of $487.2 million, but still a huge windfall. And that's on top of the $200 million TIF got in the economic-stimulus package.

During the markup, Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc., the committee chairman, who has expressed skepticism about the TIF in the past, said that the program was the Obama administration's "highest priority."

But not everyone is so thrilled about the increase. Marc Egan, a lobbyist for the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, said he wishes the committee had instead boosted funding for one of the major formula grant programs, such as Title II, which helps states pay for teacher training, and Title I, which helps districts cover the cost of educating disadvantaged students.

The bill does contain a provision requiring the Institute of Education Sciences to perform a "rigorous evaluation" of the TIF program.

But Egan said he was "pleased" that the committee decided to restore a $1.5 billion cut to Title I grants to districts proposed in the president's budget. The Obama administration wanted to direct that money to school improvement grants, which help turnaround schools struggling to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, the committee decided to level-fund the school improvement grants at $545 million. The program received $3 billion in the stimulus package.

James W. Kohlmoos, the president of the Knowledge Alliance, a non-profit organization representing education researchers, said he was disappointed by the move, since he supports targeting a greater share of Title I resources to struggling schools. Still, he was happy to see that the committee boosted research and development to $199.2 million. That's a $32 million increase over fiscal year 2009, but not quite as high as the $224.2 million the Obama administration wanted.

The bill under consideration does make a few changes to the version marked up by the subcommittee last week. It restores funding for the $7.4 million Gifted and Talented Education program, which the previous version of the bill, and the Obama budget, sought to eliminate. And it includes an additional $3 million for the Innovation Fund, which was created under the stimulus and is meant to reward districts and non-profits that are raising student achievement. The Obama administration had asked for an additional $100 million for the program in its budget.

Other highlights: The bill includes $100 million for the Educational Technology State Grants, the same amount the Obama administration asked for, but a lot less than the $269 million the program got in fiscal year 2009. The grants got a huge boost in the stimulus, though, to the tune of $650 million.

And the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which finances after-school efforts, got $1.18 billion, a $50 million increase over the president's request. If you'll remember, advocates were pretty upset that the Obama administration level-funded the program.

Finally, the measure restored funding for the $66.4 million Even Start Family Literacy program, which the Obama administration had sought to scrap, also to the chagrin of many advocates.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:00 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Lesli A. Maxwell:

In his campaign for turning around the nation’s worst public schools, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan this morning called for a cadre of “warrior principals.”

Speaking to principals from across the country, Mr. Duncan said that without strong leaders, any effort to dramatically transform the thousands of public schools that have failed for decades would be futile. He challenged the leaders to “take on the toughest job in America.”

“We need a team of warrior principals to leave the easier places and go into the most underserved communities with a chance to build a new team,” Mr. Duncan said to the roughly 350 principals who are in Washington this week for the annual meeting of the National Association of Elementary School Principals and National Association of Secondary School Principals. Mr. Duncan said he would need to enlist about 1,000 principals a year, over the next five years.

The secretary has been pushing hard for turning around thousands of failing schools, and has already implored other groups of educators, including the charter school movement, to get involved in that work. Mr. Duncan also asked the principals to work on fixing the “broken” teacher evaluation system by developing evaluations that are “fair, thoughtful, but meaningful.”

The principals peppered him with questions that reflect a wide range of concerns among school leaders. One question, from the executive director of South Carolina’s principals association—who made the room roar with her joke about Gov. Mark Sanford’s peccadilloes—was about the secretary's position on school vouchers.

“I’m a big fan of choice,” said Mr. Duncan, who said he doesn’t object to private philanthropy being tapped as a way for poor children to attend private schools. But government-sponsored vouchers, he said, “pull out one to two percent of children but leave the other 99 percent to drown. As a federal government, we have to be more ambitious than that.” The principals LOVED that response.

And, of course, Mr. Duncan used the school choice question as one more opportunity to push for turning around failing schools. “We have to save more than one percent to sleep well at night," he said. "That’s why the turnaround effort is so important.”

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:35 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

Cabinet secretaries Arne Duncan (education) and Kathleen Sebelius (health and human services) held a very ho-hum conference call this morning to announce their support of a $10 billion Early Learning Challenge Fund grant program introduced in legislation this week by Rep. George Miller. As if their support was in question.

Investing in early learning is a big priority of President Obama, and Rep. Miller (the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee) would pay for this initiative by overhauling the federal student loan program. (UPDATE: It's worth adding that the President called for this kind of investment—and the Early Learning Challenge Grant program—back in March, and that Miller was the first to answer that call.)

Sebelius said early education is the best economic investment a state can make, while Duncan emphasized that states will be expected to build a quality workforce to serve in early education jobs.

Miller's bill, which is expected to be marked up next week, would establish a competitive $10 billion grant program for states to improve their systems of early education. States are expected to develop evidence-based quality standards for programs, improve support for parents and professional development for teachers, and require that teachers have degrees in early education.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The U.S. Department of Education and Arizona are in a stand-off over money from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, as state officials accuse the feds of delaying the release of stimulus funds. That forced Arizona to borrow some $130 million to make a payment to schools. Read all about the kerfluffle here.

The most interesting thing, to me, is how this all started. Turns out, there's a fraud and accountability alert built into the stimulus reporting system that's akin to credit card fraud protection (which often results in a call from your credit card company when a funny charge appears to be going through). Arizona officials, within the last several days, attempted to draw down from their $681 million stimulus allocation more than $400 million—which is an unusually high amount, especially in a state that hadn't drawn down a single dollar of stimulus money so far, says ED's Sandra Abrevaya. That unusually high amount triggered some sort of alert to ED officials, who called Arizona officials to ask what they were using that money for.

Turns out, ED officials say, Arizona wasn't planning to use it for education purposes, as promised in its application and as required by the stimulus law. Instead, state officials planned to use the money to plug general budget holes.

The feds and state officials hope to resolve this in a conference call today. Stay tuned.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:43 AM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Remember those bombshell higher education proposals unveiled as part of President Obama's very first budget earlier this year? Well, tomorrow, one of them will take a step closer to becoming reality.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, is set to introduce a bill that would scrap the Federal Family Education Loan Program, in which the government subsidizes private lenders to make federal loans. Instead, starting in July of next year, all loans would originate with the direct-lending program, in which students borrow right from the U.S. Treasury. The change would save about $87 billion over 10 years.

A chunk of those savings, about $10 billion, would be invested in the area of early childhood. No word on yet on just what that would look like, although one of these bills could serve as a model. And Obama had some interesting early childhood proposals in his fiscal year 2010 budget request.

Another portion of the savings would be used to pay for the major community college proposal Obama introduced earlier this week. And $10 billion would be used to help reduce the deficit.

A huge chunk of the projected savings, about $40 billion, would go to Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college. The measure wouldn't go as far as making the Pell Grant program mandatory, meaning beyond the whims of the appropriations process. Obama had proposed that in his budget, but apparently, that wasn't fiscally feasible. But the measure would index Pell Grants to the Consumer Price Index, plus 1 percent, as Obama had proposed. Pell Grants would go from $5,550 in 2010 to $6,900 in 2019 under the bill.

The measure is sure to face significant opposition from some student lenders and members of Congress, who worry about expanding the federal government's role in originating loans. And some college officials have also said it might be tough to switch to the direct-loan program in such a short time frame. (For more background, read this story.)

Still, the bill would preserve a role for the private sector. It would establish a competitive bidding process that would permit the Education Department to choose lenders to service loans, based on the quality of their service to borrowers. Non-profit lenders would still have a role in servicing student loans, too.

More details, including on the early childhood piece, are likely to be available tomorrow, when the bill officially drops. So stay tuned!

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:03 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

President Obama is planning today to announce a $12 billion infusion into community colleges to jumpstart progress to a new goal he's setting to increase the number of graduates by 5 million by 2020.

According to the Washington Post's article, the breakdown for the $12 billion is: $2.5 billion for construction and renovation at the nation's community colleges, $500 million to develop new online courses and $9 billion for "challenge grants" aimed at spurring innovation at the colleges.

UPDATE: According to excerpts of Obama's remarks, distributed by the White House, the President is calling this the "most significant down payment yet on reaching this goal in the next ten years. It’s called the American Graduation Initiative." And to pay the tab, Obama says: "We pay for this plan by ending the wasteful subsidies we currently provide to banks and private lenders for student loans, which will save tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years."

Obama's announcement is well timed, given the latest jobs report my colleague Catherine Gewertz blogs about over at High School Connections.

And if you'll remember, in a February speech, Obama set a new goal that the United States will be No. 1 in the world for college graduates by 2020.

Still, we've heard very little from the Obama administration (including EdSec Arne Duncan) about how to boost high school graduation rates, specifically, especially given that high school is the gateway to postsecondary education. In May, Catherine explored this issue, and whether the 2020 goal is realistic. Clearly, the $100 billion in education aid that's wrapped up in the stimulus package may indirectly help improve graduation rates, but so far, stimulus money is supporting the status quo rather than reform—and the status quo isn't going to boost high school, or college graduation, rates.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:12 PM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

Alyson and I are back from vacation and eager to get back to blogging. But first, we were wondering: just who is reading this blog? We can track our statistics, and we always appreciate your comments and emails (keep 'em coming), but we are curious as to what types of people love education policy and politics so much that they read Politics K-12. So take a second, and click one of the options below:

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:54 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

From guest blogger Dakarai I. Aarons:

The Obama Administration has said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would not only help drag the economy out of the doldrums, but also lead efforts to make the nation better equipped and more competitive in a global economy.

Or as U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan so often puts it, the economic-stimulus funding should be used to save jobs and drive reform.

But a report by the Government Accountability Office, released this week to Congress, shows those hopes for big improvement initiatives in the area of education haven't yet materialized. That's particularly true when it comes to the $48.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the biggest single pot of education-related stimulus funding.

Instead of focusing on the kinds of efforts Duncan has been traversing the country to promote, school district officials said they were planning to use the money primarily to avert layoffs, bolster professional development, and make up for any budget holes caused by cuts in state education funding.

School leaders in Flint, Mich., for example, said they simply didn't have enough money to start thinking about reform:

"In Flint, Michigan, officials reported that SFSF funds will be used to cope with budget deficits rather than to advance programs, such as early childhood education or repairing public school facilities. According to the Superintendent of Flint Community Schools, the infrastructure in Flint is deteriorating, and no new school buildings have been built in over 30 years. Flint officials said they would like to use SFSF funds for renovating buildings and other programs, but the SFSF funds are needed to maintain current education programs."

Even if schools wanted to use the state fiscal stabilization money for reform, the report found, many district leaders said they found directions on how to do so unclear.

“Officials in many school districts we visited reported having inadequate guidance from their state on using SFSF funding, making reform efforts more difficult to pursue. School district officials in most states we visited reported they lacked adequate guidance from their state to plan and report on the use of SFSF funding.”

The GAO is expected to release these stimulus updates every 60 days or so, and we'll keep you posted on what they find.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:35 PM | Permalink | 5 Comments | Recommend

By guest blogger Erik Robelen:

House lawmakers have taken their first stab at President Obama's education spending request for the coming fiscal year. And the verdict? A case of "you win some, you lose some" with two top Obama priorities. A big increase for the Teacher Incentive Fund? Yes, if perhaps grudgingly. A big increase for Title I school improvement grants? Not a chance.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education this morning approved by voice vote a spending plan with $446 million for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which seeks to help reward effective teachers and principals. That's pretty darn close to Mr. Obama's request of $487 million. And it may come as a surprise, since the Democratic chairman of the panel, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, expressed skepticism about the program in a recent hearing with Secretary Duncan. Here's Mr. Obey's opening statement, which includes a few details on the budget.

But the subcommittee was not inclined to go along with the president's plans to redirect some $1.5 billion of aid under the flagship Title I grants to school districts program. He wanted to take $1 billion of that to roughly triple the size of the $545 million Title I school improvement program. Also, the president is hoping to create a $500 million Title I early childhood grants program. Instead, the subcommittee approved keeping Title I aid essentially flat at $14.5 billion (not including, of course, the one-time influx of stimulus aid for Title I).

Overall, the subcommittee bill would provide a small increase for the Department of Education's discretionary budget, some $1.2 billion, bringing the total to $64.7 billion. This increase is roughly comparable to what the president proposed, but it does not reflect his call to shift the Pell grants program from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the budget. This comparison also does NOT include any of the federal stimulus dollars for education.

The subcommittee was kind enough to share a few more details about the budget plan, but left a lot out. The detailed package isn't expected out until early next week. Here are a few other tidbits:

--$156 million for charter schools (the president wants $268 million);
--$50 million for a new high school dropout prevention initiative the president has requested;
--$10 million for a new Promise Neighborhoods program the president wants;
--more than $400 milllion for "new approaches to improving reading instruction in our schools."

UPDATE: It appears Chairman Obey's summary of the subcommittee bill included a not-so-small error--to the tune of $100 million for charter schools. Under the bill, $256 million, not $156 million, would be set aside to help launch charter schools. (I saw this on the Charter Blog, published by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which aptly dubbed the error the "$100 million typo.") The figure is still shy of President Obama's request of $268 million, but the revised figure is a lot closer, and $40 million above the current level.

Also, the full House Appropriations Committee is now scheduled to take action on the budget bill this Friday, July 17.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By guest blogger Erik Robelen:

Not only is there a new ranking Republican on the House education committee, Republicans now are getting a new staff director for the panel, Barrett Karr, who brings experience both in Congress and in the George W. Bush White House. Rep. John Kline, of Minnesota, the top Republican on the committee, made the announcement today. (See Alyson's recent post on her interview with Rep. Kline here.)

A press release from the committee tells us that Karr brings "a wealth of knowledge on education, health care, and labor issues gained during a 13-year career that spanned both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."

She will replace Sally Stroup, who is expected to step down at the end of this month.

For eight years, Karr worked for Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, the final four as chief of staff. Following that, Karr spent four years in legislative affairs at the White House, finishing as a deputy assistant to the president.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By guest blogger Erik Robelen:

Better read this fast and start commenting. The Education Department this afternoon released draft guidance offering more details on the waivers states and districts may seek from Title I requirements as they spend the $10 billion made available under the economic-stimulus law for that program.

Those wishing to submit comments to the department on the guidance have until next Monday, July 13, to do so. That's right, folks: Just six days.

The 46-page document deals with a variety of issues, from the law's school choice and supplemental education services provisions to "maintenance of effort" and professional development requirements. As I understand it, the department has already indicated most of the types of waivers it would consider--such as set-asides required for the provision of supplemental educational services and free transportation for public school choice--but this draft document attempts to flesh those out.

However, it also offers a new area for waivers.

"In addition to the waivers referenced in prior documents, through this Guidance, the Secretary is also inviting requests for a waiver that would permit an LEA with one or more schools in improvement to offer [supplemental educational services], in addition to public school choice, to eligible students in Title I schools in the first year of school improvement," the draft says.

Happy Reading.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:29 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Dakarai I. Aarons:

The National Journal has rounded up a veritable who's who among education policymakers to talk about the pros and cons of mayoral control of schools on its new education blog today, including Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who famously said he will have "failed as secretary" if more big cities don't have mayoral control by the end of his tenure.

Duncan kicks off the discussion, saying: "Mayoral control also clearly defines accountability. One person is in charge. ... For cities that need to take bold action to improve their schools, creating a clear line of accountability to one person is an important step in turning around the schools."

But he also says mayoral control may not be right everywhere, but an important tool to consider.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten says mayoral control can and does work, but her seven years of experience with it in New York City (where the law expired last week because of inaction by the New York Senate) shows that transparency and accountability are key, including independent reviews of financial decisions and a formal place for parents to be heard.

Rep. John Kline, the newly-minted ranking Republican on the House committee that oversees education, also favors a measured approach:

"Mayoral control has certainly worked well in some large cities, and I applaud it. But in other areas, engaged school boards have been able to implement the right kinds of reforms to improve student achievement. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to education, whether you’re talking about governance or curriculum."

Check out more responses here from other top thinkers, including former NYC schools chancellor Harold Levy, AEI's Rick Hess, Fordham's Checker Finn and NSBA's Anne Bryant. The school boards group delivered a stern smackdown to the secretary after he promoted the virtues of mayoral control at their April conference.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:55 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

In his fourth and final speech on the education reform "assurances" that are featured in the economic stimulus package, Education Secretary Arne Duncan walked into the lion's den NEA convention in San Diego today and called for merit pay for teachers.

It's reminiscent of the National Education Association's big summer confab last year, when Barack Obama was just a presidential candidate, getting booed by some delegates for mentioning performance pay.

My colleague Stephen Sawchuk, who is in San Diego, will have much more on this speech (including whether Duncan gets booed) over at the Teacher Beat.

According to prepared remarks, Mr. Duncan took on some of the prized benefits of being a teacher: tenure, the salary schedule, and union protection.

On tenure:

"When an ineffective teacher gets a chance to improve and doesn’t—and when the tenure system keeps that teacher in the classroom anyway—then the system is protecting jobs rather than children. That’s not a good thing. We need to work together to change that."

On teacher evaluations:

"...to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible."

On teacher pay:

"We’re asking Congress for more money to develop compensation programs 'with' you—and 'for' you—not 'to' you—programs that will put money in the pockets of your teachers and support personnel by recognizing and rewarding excellence."

Duncan also emphasized the importance of improving the quality of school and district leadership, calling on those leaders to accept the same new education-reform demands as teachers.

And if you need a refresher on Duncan's previous speeches on the assurances, read about his standards speech here, data here, and low-performing and charter schools here.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:00 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Consider this a Happy New Fiscal Year gift from the U.S. Department of Education.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan and crew announced today that $2.7 billion in government services funding from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is going out early. (Vice President Joe Biden let the cat out of the bag around noon, during an update on the recovery act.) This government services money is the smaller, $8.8 billion portion of the larger $48.6 billion stabilization fund that's discretionary—funds governors can choose to use for things such as K-12 education, public safety, or any other pressing budget needs.

Federal officials were holding back $2.7 billion in government services funding, and one-third of the rest of the stabilization fund money, to make sure states spent the first round wisely. Though the government services money is going out a couple of months early, the rest of the stabilization money will still be kept for safe-keeping, until being released in the fall.

For the majority of states that have approved stabilization fund applications, they'll get their money, about $2.4 billion, today—the start of new fiscal years in most states. For those states with pending applications, they'll get their money as soon as the applications are approved.

And, by the way, every state made the department's July 1 4:30 p.m. EDT deadline for submitting their application. Texas was the last one in the door, at 4:12 p.m.

The department decided to accelerate the money after hearing that states are facing increasing budgetary pressure, even though two-thirds of the stabilization fund money has already gone out.

In a statement, Duncan said: “To date, the Department has done everything possible to get stimulus funds out the door quickly and effectively, including approving Phase I applications within 10 days. This money, which represents the final third of the government services fund, provides maximum flexibility for states to save jobs and drive reform.”

Important to remember is that just because the education department releases the money doesn't mean states immediately start spending it. The latest spending report from the department as of June 26 shows that of the $45.5 billion in overall stimulus money that's been obligated to states, only $8.7 billion of it has been drawn down by states.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:08 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Lesli A. Maxwell:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg lost control over the city's public schools at midnight. Now, the mad scramble is on to figure out exactly who will be in charge of the nation's largest school system. The pre-mayoral control board of education is apparently in the process of reconstitution and is set for an emergency meeting today at noon. Mayor Bloomberg has authority to appoint two members of the seven-member panel, and two of the city's borough presidents will reportedly select members who are supportive of mayoral control.

So, despite all the chaos and confusion, it's still possible that the mayor's education policies will stay intact and Chancellor Joel Klein will remain in charge, though there will no doubt be lots of grandstanding from all sides of the issue. Until political upheaval in the New York Senate erupted last month, Bloomberg's seven-year grip on the schools, though widely debated and criticized, seemed headed for extension by state lawmakers.

As usual, GothamSchools has the best up-to-the-minute developments in this wild story.

UPDATE:(12:34 p.m.) Folks at the U.S. Department of Education told Michele that Klein called Education Secretary Arne Duncan yesterday to ask him to publicly weigh in on the issue. Duncan, if you'll remember, is a big fan of mayoral control. But it was unclear how Duncan would be able to effectively weigh in as the clock ticked toward the deadline, and before that could be figured out, mayoral control in the city expired. Nonetheless, Duncan still supports mayoral control and thinks cities should at least consider it when trying to turn around failing schools. Although Duncan has a habit of singling out states for making, in his opinion, bad policy choices, chief spokesman Peter Cunningham told Michele that this won't count against New York in the Race to the Top grants.

UPDATE (1:30 p.m.) New York City's new Board of Education, in a meeting GothamSchools' Philissa Cramer says lasted just nine minutes, voted to affirm the status quo of the last seven years.

The seven-member panel voted unanimously to keep Joel I. Klein as schools chancellor and voted 6-0 to endorse mayoral control in the form of the bill passed by the New York State Assembly, which made relatively few changes to the original 2002 law. (Dolores Fernandez, a Klein critic, abstained.)

The new board, which selected Dennis Walcott, the city's deputy mayor for education, as board president, voted to adjourn until Sept. 10.
-- guest blogger Dakarai I. Aarons

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:40 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend