February 2010 Archives

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee—one of the key lawmakers the administration is trying to court in its push to renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with bipartisan support—said he's withholding judgement on the administration's proposal to make Title I funding contingent on states adopting college- and career-ready standards.

"We'll see what that means" once more details are worked out, Kline told reporters yesterday. "In all of these cases, where we often get into a rub, is [who is setting the standards]. If the United States Department of Education is the one setting those standards ... then, clearly we have some concerns. ... If we came forward with national standards, you'd have a rebellion" among House Republicans.

But Kline said he supports the notion of states voluntarily working together on more rigorous, common standards.

Kline also shared a list of Republican principles on K-12 education, put together by GOP committee members and approved by the Republican Caucus. They are very broad.

Most notably, Republicans want to "restore local control," which would mean allowing states and districts to set curriculum, "testing systems," and academic standards. But Kline stopped short of saying the administration's recent Title I proposal would violate that principle, reiterating that he's waiting for details.

The GOP principles also call for "empowering parents" to play a greater role in selecting their children's "learning environment." And they say that Congress should let "teachers teach", which would mean removing "onerous federal requirements" to allow teachers and schools greater operating autonomy. The principles also call for "protecting taxpayers," meaning the feds should eliminate programs that don't work.

Beyond that, Kline offered few policy specifics, explaining he doesn't want to get ahead of what has been a broad, bipartisan processs so far on ESEA reauthorization involving House, Senate, and administration leaders.

"I want to underscore my support for the process, the way it has started out," he said. "And I don't think it's helpful for either [Republicans or Democrats] to get dug in too early."

It sounds like even though the administration has put out some ESEA proposals, discussions in Congress are still somewhat in the preliminary stages. I'm sure that will change once lawmakers have held more hearings on the issue, and figured out what they want to do about this.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday, I said that the House Committee on Education and Labor was likely to be able to come together on a bipartisan basis to embrace the proliferation of good charter schools. (This was also the very first hearing this year on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.)

And, as expected, there was a lot of praise for charter schools at the committee's hearing today and for the the potential of charters to serve as laboratories to improve public schools, tailor services to students with a range of learning needs, and emphasize subjects (like science) that sometimes get short-shrift in traditional public schools.

But it seems that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are focusing not just on how they can expand good charter schools. They're also looking at how Congress can make sure the expansion of charters goes hand-in-hand with quality and help ensure that special populations have access to good charter schools.

In his opening statement, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, who has traditionally been a cheerleader for charters, said these schools can be better equipped to engage parents, provide extended learning time, and encourage effective teaching than many traditional public schools.

But he added that, while many charter schools are doing "outstanding things," others aren't effective and need to be "shut down." And he said that charter schools, for all their potential, are not "a silver bullet."

Lawmakers also expressed concern about the fact that many charter schools don't tend to serve certain special populations, such as students in special education and English-language learners, in the same proportions as do traditional public schools.

Thomas Hehir, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education who has studied the issue, recommended in his testimony that states should be required to submit their authorizing regulations for charters to their Departments of Education for approval, to make sure that the needs of special populations are being met.

And he said the feds should establish a technical assistance center to help charter schools work with special populations, and should finance research on the topic. (Check out his testimony and other hearing materials here.)

The hearing was the very first on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but there was almost no discussion of the sticky issues at the heart of that debate, such as how to overhaul the accountability system at the heart of the law's current version.

A charter bill by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado, that formed the basis for the hearing could be rolled into ESEA or passed on a standalone basis. Check out this fact sheet and this summary by the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools. (Page 3 notes that there is language in the bill stating that charter authorizers explain their strategy for serving special populations, such as students in special education.)

Interestingly, no one mentioned President Obama's proposal to make receipt of Title I funding contingent on states adopting college- and career-ready standards, either by working with their institutions of higher education or joining with the Common Core State Standards Initiative being spearheaded by the Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. Maybe it's still too new for detailed reaction.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday, we heard from governors who either praised the proposal to tie Title I money to rigorous college and career-readiness standards in a renewed Elementary and Secondary Education Act ... or said they were still "studying" it.

But last night, the National School Boards Association put out its own statement. And that group is not happy with what it sees as federal "coercion" (Catherine Gewertz over at Curriculum Matters has more.) Meanwhile, David Shreve over at the National Conference of State Legislatures also told me he's worried about the feds stepping on what has been a state and local issue. It seems the farther you go down the chain of government, the more concern there is over this proposal, although a number of groups have yet to weigh in.

And we still haven't heard from another key constituency: Congress. Tomorrow, I'm planning to attend the House Education and Labor Committee's very first hearing on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The topic is charter schools, probably the issue most likely to have Republicans and Democrats joining in a kumbaya chorus of bipartisan agreement.

But I'm wondering if there may be some off-topic reaction to the Title I proposal. If there is, I'm particularly interested in what Republicans have to say. After all, the Obama administration has stressed that it wants this reauthorization to be bipartisan. The reasons for that are probably two-fold. First, the administration wants a bipartisan victory on an important domestic issue as the battle over health care reform continues. And, second, given the divisions in the Democratic party over K-12 education, it's likely the administration will need to attract some GOP support to pass a bill.

In order for this standards proposal to become part of a final bill, at least a few Republicans will have to sign-off. But, in a recent hearing, some Republicans (and even a few Democrats) expressed qualms over the department's plan to give states that adopt common, rigorous standards an edge in the Race to the Top competition. (The president's latest proposal doesn't specifically say you have to join the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in their Common Core State Standards Initiative, but that's the main game in town right now.)

GOP lawmakers, in particular, seemed worried at that last hearing about federal intrusion, and if they were so worried in connection with Race to the Top, I've got to wonder what they'll make of the Title I proposal.

To be sure, under the president's proposal states could opt not to join in a common standards effort and instead work with their higher education institutions to draft rigorous, college- and career-ready standards. But who will decide whether state's standards actually meet that definition? Yesterday, Secretary Duncan said that's still being worked out. But if the answer ends up being the U.S. Department of Education, it might be much harder to get Republicans on board with the proposal.

UPDATE: Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education (who, along with other ED press folks is now on twitter) responded to NSBA's criticism, saying:

We think every child deserves to graduate from high school college and career ready. Under our proposal, states can achieve that goal on their own, or join with the consortium of 48 states to adopt common core standards. Bottom line, the states are in the drivers seat.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So far, governors appear open to the administration's proposal to make receipt of Title I funds contingent on states adopting higher, more uniform college- and career-readiness standards, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said today. President Barack Obama outlined the proposal in a speech to the governors earlier today, part of his emerging blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In today's meeting, which was part of the National Governors Association's Winter Conference, governors voiced "zero" concerns about federal intrusion in state business when it came to the Title I proposal, Secretary Duncan said in an interview with reporters outside the White House.

"This is being lead by the governors," he said. "We have to educate our way to a better economy. All of the governors understand this." He added that the administration hasn't set a hard and fast deadline for releasing all of its ESEA reauthorization proposals.

Some governors said that they were still studying the proposal to make Title I money contingent on adopting college-and-career-ready standards.

"Some of the people who spoke most glowingly about the president's leadership on education were Republican governors," including Gov. Sonny Purdue of Georgia, said Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, a Democrat. "There's was a pretty broad consensus [on education] ... There was none of the sort of parochial throw-down 'Don't tell us what our standards should be,' there really wasn't." He said most governors are aware that their students are competing in a global economy and will need to be prepared accordingly.

But while Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican from Vermont and the chairman of the National Governors Association, said he understood that the nation needs to be more globally competitive, he said he is still studying the administration's Title I proposal.

And he stopped short of saying his state would definitely adopt the common core standards being drafted by the NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers. He also said he didn't know yet just how many of the 48 states that signed onto their Common Core State Standards Initiative would, ultimately, sign on to the proposed standards once they become final.

And in response to questions, he said that federalism will always be a concern when dealing with any state-federal issue.

"Our pitch ... on anything is flexibility," he said.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As Lesli Maxwell over at State EdWatch previewed yesterday, President Obama today dropped another big clue as to how the administration wants to reshape the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is timely especially as congressional hearings in the House get underway on Wednesday, and as finalists for Race to the Top are expected to be announced next week.

In order to qualify for billions of dollars in Title I money for disadvantaged students, states will have to certify that their math and reading standards are college- and career-ready. They can either do this by adopting the state-led "common core" standards, or work with an institution of higher education to certify their standards. Read a one-page fact sheet here.

Practically speaking, Obama's plan doesn't require states adopt what comes out of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, being spearheaded by the NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers—but it's clearly the administration's preference. "You'll be able to better compete for funds," President Obama told the governors today at the White House. That means as the administration seeks to make more education funds competitive, participants in the common core effort will have a leg up.

Watch the rebroadcast of the president's remarks to the governors on C-Span here, fast-forwarding to minute 10 or after.

It's important to point out that the federal government isn't requiring states to set their standards at a certain level, but is putting the onus on them to certify their own standards as college- and career-ready. For the 48 states that have joined the common core effort, simply staying on that track will do the trick. But states such as Texas and Alaska, which have already opted out of the common core effort, would have to work with an institution of higher education to "certify" standards as college- and career-ready. That could set up an interesting dynamic between K-12 and higher education leaders.

Surely, this will all give skeptics of common standards more ammunition to charge that the federal government is trying to assert itself in the state-led effort. One Republican senior Senate staffer told me last week—before this announcement was made—that there's a growing feeling the standards movement is being "hijacked" by the federal government.

However, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and crew would surely counter that they're doing is exactly what the federal government should be doing: giving support, and money, to education reforms that are being driven by the states.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The state-led effort to adopt a common core of academic standards is getting a lot of back-up from the feds.

And President Obama is expected to give the movement another shot in the arm tomorrow. Lesli Maxwell over at State EdWatch has the scoop.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is getting kicked into high gear with the announcement today that the House will start holding hearings next Wednesday, with the first meeting focused on charter schools.

In a joint statement, the top Democrats and Republicans on the House Education and Labor Committee said they were launching a "bipartisan, open, and transparent effort to rewrite No Child Left Behind," the current version of the ESEA.

Of course, take note that this is a bipartisan group in the House; the Senate has been mum. But given the failure so far to get passage of health-care reform--a top domestic priority for the Obama administration--many have hoped the ESEA would provide an opportunity for bipartisan support, and a success for President Obama.

Here's the complete statement from Reps. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the committee; John Kline, R-Minn., the senior Republican on the committee; Dale E. Kildee, D-Mich., the chairman of the subcommittee on elementary and secondary education; and Michael N. Castle, R-Del., the senior Republican on that subcommittee:

"Today, we're announcing a bipartisan, open, and transparent effort to rewrite No Child Left Behind--a law that we all agree is in need of major reform. It will start with a series of hearings in the coming weeks to explore the challenges and opportunities ahead as we work to ensure an excellent education is available to every student in America. With a real commitment to innovation, we invite all stakeholders who share our serious interest in building a world-class education system to e-mail us their suggestions."

The committee's first hearing will focus on charter schools and will be held on Feb. 24 at 10 a.m.

Comments and suggestions will be accepted until March 26. (This is probably a signal of the committee's timeline.) The e-mail address is eseacomments@mail.house.gov.

Today's announcement comes just in the nick of time, according to former longtime Democratic aide Jack Jennings, who just yesterday was urging the Obama administration to get in the game or risk getting stuck with current NCLB rules for years to come. Probably with the Department of Education's blessing, Congress appears to be taking the lead for now.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

That's the dramatized version of the message former longtime Democratic congressional aide Jack Jennings has for Education Secretary Arne Duncan and crew.

And Congress appears to be leaning towards now, according to a story in the Washington Post that went online late Wednesday night.

If Jennings knows anything after 20-plus years working for Congress, it's the congressional schedule, said Jennings, who is now the Center on Education Policy's president and CEO.

If the gears don't start turning on reauthorization in the next two months, he predicts we'll all have to live with the rules of No Child Left Behind Act until the 2012-13 school year. That's because members of Congress soon will start running for re-election, and they'll become more "risk averse." Then, a new Congress will be seated, and it'll have to get organized. So it will be a while before they're ready to tackle any meaty issues.

By then, in some states, nearly all of the schools could be labeled failing--for not making adequate yearly progress, the signature yardstick of the current accountability law. The Obama administration has already signaled it wants big changes to AYP.

Jennings, who in a conference call Wednesday with reporters was promoting the Center on Education Policy's new report that contains recommendations for reauthorization, said the Obama administration campaigned on "bringing sense to NCLB."

"We're 13 months into the administration, and there's no proposal to do that," he said.

The Education Department wouldn't talk about its timing for releasing its draft proposal of ESEA. But it's possible Duncan and crew may be waiting for Congress to make the first move, à la health care.

According to Nick Anderson's story in the Post, Congress plans to start a series of hearings in the coming weeks. So stay tuned.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today is the one-year anniversary of the economic stimulus package, which infused an unprecedented $100 billion in new federal aid into education. To me, the biggest effect so far has been how it saved states from making scary-deep, Draconian cuts to K-12 budgets. It remains to be seen how much impact the stimulus will have on Race to the Top-style reforms.

Rather than looking back, or celebrating the birthday, as countless others are doing in statement after statement, I want to look ahead and examine the biggest question marks out there as we go into the stimulus package's second and final year. Here's what makes my list:

1. Who will win Race to the Top?
2. How gutsy will the Department be in holding winning states accountable for their Race to the Top promises, especially as states face increasing budget pressure and become desperate for more money to plug budget holes?
3. When you're talking about $100 billion in education aid, including some high-profile competitions (e.g. Race to the Top), there's bound to be a scandal. What will it be? And how good will the Department of Education, which has been fairly deft at managing communications crises, handle said scandal?
4. As Secretary Duncan, via the stimulus package, tries to force states and school districts to embrace merit pay--and knowing that changing how we evaluate teachers is very difficult work--will new evaluation systems actually make any improvement in teaching? Or will such programs be merely window dressing to qualify for federal aid?
5. Turning around low-performing schools is very difficult work, and though there are pockets of success, no strategy has succeeded on a large scale. Can Secretary Duncan succeed with his four-model, highly prescriptive plan?
6. How many states will really, truly, adopt and implement common standards?
7. Will Duncan's popularity, which surged in part because education was such a big part of the stimulus package, remain?
8. Will stimulus-era reforms, especially those embedded in Race to the Top, be codified in the new ESEA?
9. Which states will fall hardest off the funding cliff?
10. And finally, when the last penny of stimulus money is spent, what will we have to show for it?

These are the big questions that came to mind first. What did I miss?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

On the heels of Michelle Obama's launch of her new "Let's Move" initiative to combat childhood obesity, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is gearing up for the reauthorization of the $18 billion national school lunch and breakfast programs.

The goals for this reauthorization are two-fold, Agriculture Secretary and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said today in a conference call: improve access to free or reduced-price meals, and improve their nutritional value.

On the issue of access, Vilsack points out that while there are 31 million students in 102,000 schools that take advantage of free or reduced-price lunches, only 11 million students in 88,000 schools also get breakfast. That's a big gap. And it persists because either students or families don't take advantage of breakfast, or their schools don't offer it. (Often, it costs schools more to provide the free meals than they receive in federal reimbursement. Vilsack has proposed a $1 billion increase.)

What's more, agriculture and education officials estimate that as many as one-third of children who may be eligible don't take advantage of these programs, for many reasons. It could be students don't like the stigma that may be attached, or the paperwork is too complicated, or families simply don't know about it.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, whose agency isn't directly involved in the meals program, has nonetheless been trying to break through traditional agency barriers to work on the problem of access and quality to school meals. He joined Vilsack on the call today.

Duncan said one of the biggest barriers when he was the Chicago public schools' chief executive officer was getting parents to sign up. "There' s a lot of paperwork, it's bureaucratic," he said.Yet, "we think children can't do their best academically if they're hungry."

And given the sour economy, it's likely more kids are going hungry. While officials have seen an uptick in the number of people qualifying for and taking advantage of food stamps in this down economy, Vilsack said the same uptick has not been seen in the breakfast and lunch programs.

To improve access, federal officials want to promote better use of the direct-certification process, in which families that qualify for food stamps have their children automatically enrolled in school meals programs. Although all states offer this, Mr. Vilsack said school districts are not "proficient" at maximizing this opportunity.

As for quality of school meals, Mr. Vilsack has already publicized plans to require schools to offer more nutritious options in school vending machines, which often offer hard-to-resist, and cheap, sweets to hungry youngsters.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:31 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., a major advocate for math and science education, has announced that he will retire.

Ehlers, a real-life nuclear physicist, is one of the co-chairs of the STEM Education Caucus, a group of lawmakers who work to enhance education in math, science, engineering, and technology in K-12, higher education, and in the workforce.

And Ehlers often reaches across the aisle on behalf of STEM education. For instance, last year, he introduced this bill with Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that would charge the National Assessment Governing Board with drafting voluntary math and science standards. States would receive incentive grants to adopt them. (The bill is one of a number of proposals floating around Capitol Hill that was very Race to the Top before there even was a Race to the Top).

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I'm at a two-day symposium in New York City put on by the Campaign for Educational Equity (and sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University) that's examining whether the stimulus funds have been spent and used equitably to help improve achievement, especially among at-risk students.

Sam Dillon did a piece previewing the papers being presented, in which he focused on the funding cliff that the stimulus is creating. Since we've already written a lot about the funding cliff, I thought the more interesting part of these papers, and the symposium itself, was the warning flags being raised about some of the long-term consequences of the stimulus package.

Although I'll have a more complete story soon, here's what I'm talking about:

• Since the stimulus law required roughly $48 billion in State Fiscal Stabilization Funds to be distributed through a state's primary funding formula, the "maintenance of effort" provision that required a state to maintain its own funding only applied to this formula. But this ignores the fact that in many states, there are smaller categorical funds that make up total state aid, but aren't given out to school districts by a formula. This paper, by David Sciarra and Danielle Farrie of the Education Law Center and Bruce Baker of Rutgers University, points out that in Pennsylvania, for example, only 57 percent of funds are driven through the "primary" formula. What does this mean? States tended to avoid cuts in their primary formulas to meet federal requirements, but may have slashed the heck out of other programs--programs that could be targeting low-income, minority, and other at-risk children.
• Because of a quirk in the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and we've written about this issue some, too, states are able to lower their own funding levels for special education by certain amounts because of the increase in new federal aid. What does this mean going forward? States will have a lower funding base they'll be required to meet, which will likely mean less state aid for special education once the stimulus funding runs out. You can read more about this, and other issues, in this paper by Jessica Wolff and Daniel Yaverbaum of the Campaign for Educational Equity.
• And, as several papers point out, states used an influx of Title I funds to expand services to more at-risk students--essentially lowering the poverty threshold so more students became eligible. That seems great, but there's a downside, too. Once the stimulus funding runs out, either they'll have to take services away from those new Title I kids, or spread existing resources more thinly across more kids. That's a dilemma.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 7:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As we've already reported, the U.S. Department of Education put out a bold new budget proposal last week that includes major program consolidations and sketches out the preliminary details of the administration's plan to renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

That reauthorization would have to pass this year for many of the budget proposals to become reality. Many folks think that's a long shot. And it appears that the department is at least preparing for the possibility that the bill won't make it to prime time this year.

Buried in the mega-thick budget document is the administration's budget contingency plan, in case there's no reauthorization. (For the full proposal go here, then click on the link that says Fiscal Year 2011 Education Budget Summary and Background Information. The chart is on page 33.)

The headline? The contingency request seeks $900 million for the Teacher Incentive Fund, more than double the $400 million the program received in fiscal year 2010. That's about the same level as the $950 million Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund, which is one of the new funding streams proposed in the department's budget.

But last year, folks in Congress were skeptical about the TIF's effectiveness when the administration was seeking to bring it to $487 million. This bigger proposed hike is likely to prompt even more probing.

And the administration's plan to revamp teacher and leader quality is evident in other requests, not dependent on a reauthorization of ESEA, such as $50 million for a new teacher recruitment initiative and $79.2 million for school leadership programs, a $50 million hike over fiscal year 2011.

The request also seeks $310 million for charter schools, a $54 million increase over fiscal year 2011.

The administration is also asking for $1.35 billion to continue the $4 billion Race to the Top competition beyond this year and open it up to districts. And it's asking for $500 million to continue the Investing in Innovation Fund, which scales up promising practices in districts.

Both the RTTT and i3 requests are also part of the traditional, non-contingency budget, although Andy Smarick points out here it's tough to tell if the grants for those programs are working ... since none have actually been given out yet.

The administration is also asking for $900 million for School Improvement Grants, and $210 million for the Promise Neighborhood initiative, which supports education programs that are bolstered by a range of other services, such as prekindergarten and health. Both of those requests are part of the regular budget blueprint, too.

The consolidations being proposed may be a long shot. What do you think of the prospects for Budget Plan B?

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In a sign that the final regulations for the $650 million Investing in Innovation competition are just about ready, the Education Department has put out a call for peer reviewers. The deadline for those interested to apply is March 1.

In many ways, the i3 competition is a much bigger logistical problem for the department than Race to the Top, which has higher stakes. For Race to the Top, only states (and D.C.) could apply, limiting the number of applications. But i3 is open to all school districts, of which there are thousands across the country. Plus, within i3, there are three levels of grants, creating mini-competitions within a larger competition.

It will be difficult for the department to find i3 judges who are knowledgeable enough to judge all parts of an application. Since a big chunk of i3 is about providing evidence that a program does or might work, the Education Department will have to find experts in statistics, experimental and quasi-experimental models, and general research principles. Thus, the department is looking for people who are experts in at least one of these areas: education reform and policy, evidence, innovation, strategy, and application review as defined below. Likely candidates will be preK-12 teachers and principals, college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grantmakers and managers.

I'm not sure how many peer reviewers they're looking for, but given that they needed about 60 for the first round of Race to the Top, my guess is they'll need at least double that.

Peer reviewers will be screened for conflicts of interest, and must be available for training sessions and to read applications for four weeks from May to July. There's an honorarium attached, although I'm not sure how much. Race to the Top judges get $5,000.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

We may not know who the Race to the Top peer reviewers are, but the Education Department has provided some basic demographic information on this jury that will help dole out the first round of $4 billion in competitive grants.

Not that these tidbits will satisfy the critics of the department's decision to keep the panelists' identities secret, but they're worth sharing nonetheless.

The crew of 58 looks like this:

• 15 are former principals, 30 are former K-12 teachers


• 4 are attorneys


• 35 have doctoral degrees


• 12 have served on state or local boards of education


• 15 are former state or district superintendents


• 25 are from the Northeast, 13 from the West, 13 from the South, and seven from the Midwest


• 32 are women, and 26 are men

So that seems to indicate that the composite picture of the average peer reviewer is a former female teacher from the Northeast who has a PhD.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From State EdWatch blogger Lesli Maxwell

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says he's sorry for saying that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing that had happened to the education system in New Orleans. This morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, he told host Joe Scarborough that the remarks were a "dumb" thing to say and that he had expressed them in a "poor way."

Since the remarks were made public last Friday, the blogosphere and Twitterverse have been ablaze with chatter, much of it critical, about the secretary's choice of words in an interview he did for "Washington Watch with Roland Martin," which aired on Sunday on the cable channel TV One.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the secretary had phoned New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin on Friday night to explain his comments. And look here for a story from my colleague Mary Ann Zehr about local reaction to what the secretary said.

Here's the secretary's interview from this morning:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Posted by at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Obama administration is seeking to revamp adequate yearly progress, the main vehicle for gauging student progress under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, according to budget documents. It would be replaced with a system that measures whether students are ready for college and careers.

The total budget for fiscal year 2011 would be $49.7 billion, as compared to last year's $46.8 billion. Those totals include a proposal, also released last year, that would move Pell Grants to the mandatory side of the ledger, meaning they wouldn't be subject to the whims of the appropriations process.

The budget also includes a $3 billion increase in competitive funding for ESEA. That includes $1.35 billion to continue Race to the Top, plus $500 million for the Investing in Innovation Fund, which is meant to scale up promising practices.

And it would include $950 million in competitive grants to states and school districts that build comprehensive systems to recruit, prepare, retain, and reward effective teachers and principals. We don't have all the details yet, but it would seem that at least some of the money for the competitive teacher-quality program would come from consolidating other funding streams. (Last week, the Department announced that it would consolidate 38 programs into 11 under the budget.)

The budget also includes $210 million for Promise Neighborhoods, to help communities create schools that are bolstered by other support services, such as health programs, pre-kindergarten, and college counseling.

More updates when we have them!

UPDATE: We still don't have all the details yet. But if you remember, last week the Education Department said it would seek an additional $1 billion from Congress if ESEA is reauthorized. That money would be for Title I grants to districts, state assessments, and a revamped version of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which now pays for after-school programs and tends to be popular with Congress.

It also looks like Title I would have a new name under the administration's yet-to-be-unveiled reauthorization proposal. It would be called College-and-Career Ready Students. In one of the summary documents posted by the OMB, it looks like that program would get $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, about the same level Title I received in fiscal year 2010. But we don't have all the details yet, so it's tough to say if that amount would go to the same activities and flow through the same formula as Title I.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend