March 2010 Archives

Behind the overall scores for the Race to the Top applicants is a complicated 500-point grading scale that weighs each state's plan according to more than a dozen different categories. The peer reviewers' scores and comments shed more light on the method behind the Race to the Top scoring madness.

After a quick review of the 16 finalists' scoring charts, here are some highlights I picked up:

Why Delaware and Tennessee won—In addition to the reasons detailed here, it's clear in looking at the judges' scores that the full panel of five peer reviewers agreed these were strong applications, in all categories. There were no wild swings in which one peer reviewer awarded a state all points in one category, while another peer reviewer drastically disagreed and awarded low points. In Florida's scoring, by contrast, one peer reviewer thought the state's plan for turning around lowest-performing schools was worthy of a perfect score, or 50. Another peer reviewer thought it was worth only 30 points. In Colorado, there was a 42-point difference in how the peer reviewers individually scored the teacher- and principal-effectiveness category. (To arrive at a final score, the individual judges' scores were averaged.)

Why Louisiana got a surprisingly low rank of 11th—Although there are many reasons, one big one is that the state lost out on an easy 15 points that all other finalists got for addressing STEM as a priority. Only two of the five peer reviewers agreed the state addressed this, not a majority of reviewers, so the state got none of the 15 points in this all-or-nothing category. An additional 15 points would have vaulted Louisiana to fourth, ahead of Florida but still behind Georgia. UPDATE: I just noticed that Louisiana became dangerously close to being entirely knocked out of the competition. Only three of the five peer reviewers declared, in a simple "yes" or "no" vote, the state met the "absolute priority" of offering a comprehensive approach to education reform. If one more judge had voted "no," then the state's application wouldn't have been considered at all.

Where the District of Columbia is not in need of improvement—In turning around the lowest-performing schools. Each of the five peer reviewers awarded D.C. a perfect score of 50 points, which, by my review of the scores, is the only place in any finalist's application where peer reviewers reached unanimous agreement on perfection. D.C.'s final score placed it 16th.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Education Department has made an important change to Round 2 of the Race to the Top competition that has big—and not necessarily positive—implications for the remaining 48 states and D.C. if they plan to seek a share of the $3 billion or so still left.

In Round 2, Race to the Top awards will be capped at levels outlined in what originally were the Education Department's original nonbinding estimates. Those estimates will now be binding.

That means Round 1 winning states Delaware and Tennessee, in addition to bragging rights, got a financial bonus, too: Their grants are larger than they would have been under the new rules for Round 2. And they'll also likely be worth more per student than any state that wins in Round 2. In the first go-round, the department suggested that a state of Delaware's size could win up to $75 million, but it turns out the state is getting an additional $25 million. Tennessee's top-line budget estimate was $250 million, and the state is getting twice that.

Capping the awards at those top-of-the-line estimates could force states to make some tough choices. Florida, for example, submitted an application that asked for $1.1 billion to fund it, but if they apply in the next round, their next application must be built on programs that can be funded with no more than $700 million.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a briefing today that he's doing this to ensure there's funding for as many good applications as possible.

But this could mean states, which in almost every case submitted Round 1 applications that asked for far more money than called for in the non-binding estimates, would have to ratchet down their promises or rework their plans.

And that's probably going to give states pause as they consider their Round 2 applications. In South Carolina, state chief Jim Rex said in a call today with reporters that, given the state's tough budget conditions, officials will have to make sure they can build a successful application and have the capacity to deliver on the promises. The state built its original application around $300 million in anticipated federal funding, but will be capped at almost half that in Round 2.

"We may not do quite as much," Rex said of Round 2. He said no decision has been made yet on whether the state will even apply.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Finally making good on promises to set a "very, very high bar" for Race to the Top, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has picked Delaware and Tennessee as Round 1 winners of the $4 billion education-reform competition, according to an official who was briefed on the winners this morning. (The Education Department has now confirmed this via Twitter.)

Since then, Duncan has made the announcement official, declaring: "We now have two states that will blaze the path for the future of education reform." He singled out Tennessee and Delaware for their strong stakeholder support, and for building a statewide, comprehensive plan that will affect "every single child" in those states.

"This isn't about funding nice pilot programs," he said during a conference call with reporters. "This is about taking student achievement to an entirely different level, and doing it at scale."

For more on why the two won, read this follow-up blog item here.

While both of these states were thought to have strong applications, what's most interesting is the two front-runners who didn't win: Florida and Louisiana. We don't know yet how much money each state won, but Delaware asked for $107 million (their top-line budget was $75 million) and Tennessee asked for $502 million (or twice the $250 million the education department had budgeted). Each of those requests was above the state-by-state nonbinding estimates the department had set.

UPDATE: Delaware will get about $100 million, and Tennessee will get about $500 million.

What we do know is that since the biggest states, such as Florida, New York, and Illinois, did not win in this round, there will be plenty of money left over for Round 2.

Less than a month ago, the department named 15 states plus the District of Columbia as finalists, representing one-third of all Race to the Top applications. That prompted criticism far and wide that Mr. Duncan's bar wasn't really that high. In all, 41 states (including D.C.) applied in Round 1. A second round starts now, with applications due June 1.

Finalists came to D.C. in the middle of this month to make a final, in-person pitch to the panel of peer reviewers. Now, we know who really shone (or at least who didn't tank) in that part of the application process.

The education department won't confirm the winners until today's official announcement at 1 p.m. And that means we'll be bringing you more analysis today, and throughout the week.

But big questions remain: How much money will the winning states get, which is an important question given that all but one state asked for more money than the department was estimating? Who just barely missed winning in Round 1? What did the final scores look like, and whose scores changed because of their in-person presentations? And just who were the secret peer reviewers?

We hope to bring you those answers soon.

UPDATE: When I told Alyson who the winners were, she pointed out that Tennessee and Delaware just happen to be the home states of two powerful, Republican lawmakers the Obama administration is trying to court in its bipartisan push to renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. Both are the ranking minority members in the subcommittees in their respective chambers dealing with K-12 policy, and both are considered leading moderate voices on education who have worked well with Democrats in the past. In fact, in an interview with the Washington Post's David Broder, Secretary Duncan singled out Alexander and Castle as the two Republicans who had offered ideas that were incorporated into the administration's ESEA blueprint.

Of course, the Obama administration has stressed repeatedly that politics would play absolutely no part in Race to the Top and set up a process intended to keep just these sort of considerations out. But the fact that Tennessee and Delaware apparently submitted such stellar applications might be a lucky break for the administration as its works to get GOP support for its ESEA ideas.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In two words: stakeholder support.

Both states had strong plans and significant buy-in from local school districts and teachers' unions. Other reasons the two states won, according to the Education Department:

Delaware
• Unanimous participation, broad collaboration: 100% of the state's districts and teachers signed on; 100% of the state's students will benefit; stakeholders include governor, state education department, local districts (LEAs), unions, business community
• New state law on teacher/principal effectiveness: no educators can be rated as "effective" unless their students demonstrate satisfactory levels of growth; teachers rated as "ineffective" for two to three years can be removed from the classroom, even if they have tenure
• Financial incentives help to more equitably distribute effective talent: teacher and principals can earn transfer bonuses and up to $10,000 per year for teaching in high-need schools and subjects
• Turnarounds, or "time-limited escalation" strategy: allows an identified school to locally bargain for implementation of turnaround or transformation model; if unsuccessful, the state implements restart or closure model; school must show improvement within two years

Tennessee
• Broad participation and collaboration: 100% of the state's districts signed on; 93% of the local teachers' unions signed on; 100% of the state's students will benefit; stakeholders include governor, state education department, state legislature, LEAs, unions, business, and philanthropic communities
• New state law, First to the Top Act of 2010, creates foundation for education reform: allows meaningful use of value-added data for teacher and principal evaluations and state intervention in persistently lowest-achieving schools
• Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): build on data that's been collected since 1992 and now can be used for evaluations; state can move from the "highly qualified teacher" paradigm to an "effective teachers and leaders" model immediately; data will be accessible on-demand to all teachers and principals this year, and used (by law) as a significant part of evaluations by school year 2011-12
• Strong turnaround plan: escalating series of interventions for low-achieving schools, culminating in moving the persistently lowest-achieving schools from their home LEAs into the Achievement School District, run by the state education department
• Strong data, research, and evaluation infrastructure and culture: Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation and Development will study Tennessee's Race to the Top activities, inform mid-course corrections, and provide valuable lessons for the state and the nation

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So it's finally here, or almost here ... The U.S. Department of Education says it will announce the lucky winners in the first round of the $4 billion Race to the Top competition on Monday.

There were 16 finalists this time around, but the department hasn't yet said how many winners to expect.

But it seems likely the number will be on the small side. Joanne Weiss, the department's Race to the Top guru, told state officials there would be plenty of money left in Round 2.

Those that don't make the cut will get feedback from the peer reviewers and are eligible to apply for the second round of grants.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

With the Race to the Top winners expected to be announced "very soon," it seems particularly urgent to start thinking about what the winning states will actually do with all of their money. And whether it will do any good...

As I've blogged before, all of the states--except Pennsylvania--asked for more money in their RTT applications than what the Education Department had estimated as a top-of-the-line grant. Which brings up important questions about a state's capacity to deliver on its grand promises, with less money.

This question become even more critical when you look at the potential winners, and just how bad off their overall K-12 budgets are.

In researching an upcoming story about states having trouble meeting basic funding requirements to get their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars, an eagle-eye education policy analyst pointed out something very interesting: the list of states that have applied for a SFSF waiver from maintenance-of-effort requirements looks a lot like the list of RTT finalists.

Seven of the 14 states that have applied for at least one waiver are RTT finalists. This means that as they are racing to the top, they cannot muster up enough cash to maintain K-12 or higher education funding levels from 2006 (that's four years ago!).

These RTT finalist states, which have applied for at least one waiver in either fiscal years 2009, 2010, or 2011, are: Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

Can a state lead the nation in this education reform march if its budget situation is so dire it cannot match 2006 levels? Some would argue the greatest change, and the greatest efficiencies, can come out of a budget crisis. So maybe it's possible. What do you think?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:31 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last week, lawmakers began to turn up the pushback on the department's budget proposal, including an extension for the $4 billion Race to the Top program for another year.

Much of the ire came from the House Appropriations Committee, especially its chairman, Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc., who has questioned the administration's reform agenda in the past.

Here's a snippet from his opening statement at a hearing last week on the U.S. Department of Education's fiscal year 2011 budget, at which Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testified:

That request includes over $3.5 billion for new and untested initiatives, for which you will control how the funding is allocated to States, school districts, and other providers. In times like this, we need to worry about our core, foundational programs which go out by formula and are widely shared across the nation. A school district's ability to attract funds should not depend on its capacity to write a grant application.

I want to support this Administration and your education priorities, but not at the expense of reliable and predictable federal support that thousands of districts across the country depend on. Perhaps most troubling is the lack of any increase at all in the title I funds, which are broadly distributed by formula to all school districts in need. At the same time, the budget includes an extra $500 million to expand the Innovation Fund, which makes grants through competition run by your Department. Similarly, it seeks to more than double the appropriation for the Teacher Incentive Fund ($950 million) - even though your Department has yet to complete any rigorous evaluation of this five year old program.

Obey pointed out that he and Duncan are both Democrats and then said, "I just do not understand why when we finally have a shot at it, we're not greatly emphasizing Title I. I will be a whole lot more interested in putting money into reform efforts in two years when the economy is recovered than now when everybody is sucking for air."

And Obey asked just how Duncan plans to guard against Reading First-style conflict of interest problems, considering just how much money in competitive grants is at his disposal. Duncan assured him that he would be transparent and keep safeguards in place.

It's probably worth noting that Obey's home state of Wisconsin wasn't a finalist for the Race to the Top competition. He said during the hearing that state officials there told him that the program was mostly focused on the Badger State's five urban counties, not the whole, largely rural state.

I asked Obey directly after the hearing whether he would support the Race to the Top expansion. He said he'd let his statements about Title I funding speak for themselves.

So ... that sounded to me like a "probably not." Of course, in Congress, there's always horsetrading and the proposed $1.35 billion Race to the Top extension is a top priority for the administration, so it's tough to say at this early stage of the game that the extension is definitely out of the question.

Last year though, Obey helped block an Obama plan to shift money from Title I grants to districts to the School Improvement Grants. But he went along (mostly) with a big increase for the Teacher Incentive Fund.

And Obey isn't the only key member of Congress who has recently had questions about the Race to the Top program.

When the House Education and Labor Committee heard testimony from Duncan last week, Rep. John Kline, the top Republican on the committee, said he'd like to see the list of peer reviewers made public. (Maybe he's a Politics K-12 reader. Or checks one of the many other edublogs that wrote about this.)

Kline's line of questioning is especially interesting, given that Minnesota frequently made the list when folks (including of course, Edweek bloggers) made their guesses on who would be a Race to the Top finalist. It makes sense that Kline would want to know just who made the decision to leave the North Star State out of the finals.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Kline (one of the Big 8 the administration is targeting for help in pushing reauthorization) said he's somewhat skeptical of the proposal to extend Race to the Top for an additional year, since there isn't yet any data about the program's effectiveness, given that the money from the first round of grants has yet to flow.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Those who don't know what the terms "internal validity" and "external validity" mean.

That's the message that came through loud and clear at Friday's technical assistance planning seminar in Baltimore, which the U.S. Department of Education put on to help folks navigate the Investing in Innovation, or i3, grant application process.

This $650 million grant program is open to school districts, and nonprofits that partner with a school district or a consortium of public schools. Applications are due May 11, with awards announced in September. And if attendance at Friday's seminar was any indication, the department is going to need a ton of peer reviewers to handle all of the applications. More than 400 people attended, with 1,000 online, and a crowd of wait-listed people gathered outside the hotel ballroom just in case there were no-shows. My sense was the audience was made up mostly of representatives from nonprofits and foundations.

When it comes to i3, here's what seems to matter most: Evidence. Evidence. Evidence.

If you don't have the right kind of evidence, or enough evidence to support your vision, you will be disqualified by the department from the get-go. And the quality of evidence is judged by internal and external validity (and if you don't know what those terms mean, ED's i3 czar Jim Shelton says you need to find someone who does and partner with them).

The evidence requirement is so important that the department will be sponsoring a webinar at a later date to address the myriad of questions that still persist.

In the simplest terms, the largest $50 million grants require the strongest evidence, or high internal and external validity. But even the smallest, $5 million development grants, which can be based on a "reasonable hypothesis," must have been tested or studied in some way, according to a new frequently-asked-questions document now available on the department's web site.

Of course, to win an i3 grant, you also need a great idea, too.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Obviously, this is the biggest news out of Congress this weekend. But, as we've mentioned before, a major change to the student lending program is hitching a ride with the health care overhaul.

The most important details for K-12 folks are that a) the bill shores up and provides an increase for Pell Grants, which expand access to college for low-income students, and b) in shoring up the Pell program, this bill may indirectly help appropriations for other key K-12 programs, including new Obama priorities.

The bill's supporters told me that if it didn't pass, they would have to find the money to fund Pell grants somewhere else ... and that would almost certainly have put the squeeze on Title I, special education, and other K-12 priorities.

The loans bill is part of that package of changes to health care that will be made through reconciliation, so it's still got to get 51 votes in the Senate.

And it's important to note that money for early-education and other key programs in an earlier version of the bill are missing from this loans package.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Mixed news for some Obama administration and Democratic priorities on the student loan front.

It looks like student loans are indeed hitching a ride with the health care overhaul legislation. And Congress, indeed, is on the brink of requiring that all loans be originated through the Direct Loan program, in which students borrow right from the U.S. Treasury. This would effectively end the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which uses subsidized lenders. Subsidized lenders would compete to "service loans."

The unfortunate news, from the perspective of some education advocates? It appears the Early-Learning Challenge Fund, which was intended to help states expand and bolster prekindergarten programs, didn't make it into the bill. Neither did new money to help revamp community colleges, or dollars aimed at school facilities. The programs were in the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives last fall.

The bill does include $2 billion to help improve education and training programs at community colleges. That's different from the American Graduate Initiative, the new program to bolster community colleges that was in the original House legislation, but it is still some money for those schools.

By the time the bill made it to legislative prime time, there just wasn't enough money left over to pay for those programs, in part because of the high demand for Pell Grants, and in part because so many schools had already switched to Direct Lending.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the top GOP lawmaker on the House Education and Labor Committee, sent out a statement saying that the bill would "siphon" off $9 billion in college financial aid funding to help cover the cost of the "massively unpopular" health care overhaul package. The Republicans are worried that 100 percent Direct Lending would mean fewer loan choices for students.

UPDATE:A House Democratic aide just called to let me know that the roughly $9 billion Rep. Kline is referring to would be used for deficit reduction. And this aide said that savings from some health care programs would be used to help cover the cost of some of the new education spending in the bill, including a program aimed at helping students interested in working in the health care field and new money for community colleges.

In response to the statement, Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said, "This is interesting coming from the same Republicans who in 2005 used reconciliation to cut $12 billion in lender subsidies to give tax cuts to rich people, instead of help students." She's referring to this bill.

The bill has other implications for education spending: A huge projected shortfall in the Pell Grant program would be covered through this bill, using mandatory funds. That could be good news for fans of major K-12 programs (like Title I grants to districts and special education). Those programs are funded out of the same pot of money as the Pell Grant program. If this bill fails to pass, lawmakers may have to find the money to shore up Pell, and some lobbyists told me they were worried there wouldn't have been much left over for some K-12 priorities.

It's unclear whether lawmakers have a Plan B to pay for prekindergarten programs, community colleges, and facilities. Members of the House Appropriations Committee asked U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan about it today. He told them pre-K is a high priority, but he didn't propose a specific, alternate vehicle.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Maybe the senators were too busy dealing with health care and student loans to think of many zingers for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan this morning, or maybe they really do like the direction of the Obama administration's blueprint for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Either way, the tone of a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing at which Duncan testified on the administration's plan was surprisingly congenial, with key players (including Republicans) praising both Duncan and the draft.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the committee's chairman, who also oversees the panel that deals with education spending, said Duncan is the right guy for his job at the right time.

"I appreciate that you're willing to have this kind of vision for the future," he told Duncan. "I'm working with you and the administration to make sure we have the resources to implement this bold vision for the future."

Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the top Republican on the committee, said he thought that the blueprint stayed true to Duncan's promise to be tight on goals for achievement, but looser on districts and schools for how to get there.

His main beef is that there doesn't seem to be a good option for low-performing rural schools among the four turnaround models spelled out in both the blueprint and the regulations for $3.5 billion in school improvement money. Duncan told him those schools could try the so-called "transformation model" (which requires extended learning time, alternative pay, and a new instructional program, among other remedies).

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., called the blueprint "an excellent beginning." But he suggested that instead of trying to tackle a comprehensive reauthorization this year, Congress should just fix the parts of the No Child Left Behind Act (the current version of ESEA) that everyone seems to agree need fixing, such as the highly-qualified teacher provision, and the need for more nuanced accountability system.

"We greatly agree on a number of ... things," he said. "This is a very helpful blueprint."

In an interview after the hearing, Harkin didn't seem to be down for the targeted approach; he thinks reauthorization should address other issues important to schools, including health and early-childhood education.

But Alexander's question seemed to suggest that he thinks that there's agreement on the broad principles of the draft, especially the new elements that significantly address the accountability system at the heart of the law.

Other praise:

*Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said he's "been fighting for years" to overhaul teacher training and was glad to see the administration addressed that in its blueprint.

*Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., a fairly liberal former Air America host, told Duncan, "I really love that you're focusing on progress and growth and not just hitting an arbitrary score."

Of course, it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops:

*Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., didn't sound too pleased that Duncan has proposed making money for teacher training competitive. She's worried that programs won't have an incentive to improve.

*Alexander said he's worried that rolling the Teacher Incentive Fund, which doles out grants for performance pay programs, into a broader funding stream aimed at improving teacher quality could diminish the program's effectiveness.

*Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., an important moderate voice, said he's worried that the Title I formula shortchanges some states.

The big news out of the hearing wasn't actually directly related to ESEA. After extolling the virtues of early childhood education over and over during the hearing, Harkin said, "It's a shame that we lost that $10 billion for early childhood education in the loan bill. We'll try to save some of it." (For background, read this entry from last week.)

He told reporters after the hearing that negotiations are still pending and that he thinks the loan change will be in health care overhaul bill, with some of the savings directed at funding Pell Grants.

Reading between the lines: It sounded to me like Harkin thinks, given the current state of negotiations, that Congress won't have much money for the early-learning challenge fund or new community college program originally proposed in the version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives last fall.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So, the places to see and be seen tomorrow are the two Capitol Hill hearing rooms where U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be taking questions from lawmakers on the House and Senate education committees about the ESEA blueprint.

He'll start off in the Senate (at 10 a.m.) and move over to the House (at 2:30 p.m.)

As I've said before, reaction from many groups has been generally positive (except, of course, the unions). But we haven't heard much from lawmakers, beyond canned statements (I guess they're busy with this), so the hearings should be interesting.

There's a lot in the blueprint that needs to be fleshed out, and maybe Congress can help us get some answers. Here are some suggested questions:

1) What exactly does it mean to be "college- and career-ready," especially for states that don't sign on to the Common Core State Initiative? And, in particular, what "careers" are schools responsible for preparing students for? For example, is Walmart greeter on the list? Because if it is, I think we're mostly there already. I know, that's probably not what you had in mind, right? How do we make sure we get the career part right, without being accused of being too prescriptive?

2) ) What's up with this 2020 goal for getting all students college- and career-ready? You're saying that's not a hard-and-fast deadline. What will that look like in practice? How should we structure growth models around that?

3) How do you want us to structure the transition from the new accountability system to a new one? It could be a really messy process, and we'd like to avoid that.

4) The blueprint says that schools that aren't in the lowest 10 percent of schools and those that don't have a major achievement gap can pretty much choose their own interventions. Should we develop a menu, and do you have some suggestions for what should be on it? Or is it better to let folks think creatively?

5) What about schools that aren't consistently low-performing (so not in the bottom 10 percent) but have persistent problems with a particular subgroup (but don't fall into that 5 percent with the greatest achievement gaps)? I'm thinking of, say, a school where English-language learners fail to make progress three years in a row, but where the rest of the school is pretty much on track. Any intervention for them? Or you think we should trust the state and district on this one and focus the feds on schools in much worse shape?

6) And, on those schools with persistent achievement gaps ... What happens if the top students start to slip, does that constitute closing the gap? Probably not what you had in mind, right?

7) So you're saying we should let states test students in subjects other than math and reading and let those tests count for the new adequate yearly progress, which you're calling and College and Career Ready. You gave history as an example of an additional subject. Okay, that one makes sense. But do we also include, say, art and physical education? And if we do, does that make us look like we're trying to make sure kids are exposed to a rich curriculum or like we're being fluffy and watering down core academics?

8) How do you think a system of rewards and consequences for states and districts should be designed?

9) For Democrats to pose: Judging from your blueprint, it looks like you want a permanent authorization for Race to the Top and the Investing in Innovation funds, which now are part of the economic-stimulus program. Once we authorize something like that, it's pretty much on the books forever. So what if former Gov. Sarah Palin becomes president? Are you saying we give her Secretary of Education the same flexibility to design an incentive program that we gave you under the stimulus?

Alternate Question 9 (from Republicans): So you want to get rid of mandated SES and choice, huh? Okay, but we've taken a look at your process for turning around low-performing schools. And no matter how you slice it, that's slow and difficult work. You're saying kids in those majorly underperforming schools can't have public school choice or tutoring in the meantime?

10) What should we name this new law? We need to think fast on this one because having that No Child Left Behind name out there in all the stories on your blueprint is really terrible PR. Also, we need a good acronym. Something snappy, like i3. Any suggestions? (Note: Please refrain from using the word "dramatically" in your answer.)

That's the best list I could come up with. But I'm sure I missed something. What do you want to know? What do you want Congress to ask?

Before you answer, you may need to do some additional background reading, so check out these ESEA related items at Curriculum Matters, Inside School Research, and Teacher Beat.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So I'm sure you're well aware by now that the Obama administration released its blueprint for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. You can check out our story here and take a look at the full document online here.

When I made calls to get reaction for the story, what jumped out at me was the fact that, for the most part, lots of people seemed basically pretty happy with the general direction of the blueprint. (That wasn't the case nearly three ago, when Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, released a draft bill with some similar elements. That draft was attacked by just about everyone.)

But this time, even folks who don't always agree with one another on policy direction (like the Education Trust, the American Association of School Administrators, and the Council of Chief State School Officers) found much to like in the blueprint. (Of course, all of those folks also said they were commenting based on the initial outline and were still waiting for more details. A lot could change when parts of the proposal are fleshed out further.)

Still, the first round of reaction would seem to bode well for the chances of actually getting reauthorization passed this year, right? Well, sure, but it's still gonna be an uphill battle.

One big reason? Both of the unions are really unhappy.

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, told me that the plan would put "one hundred percent of the responsibility on teachers while giving them zero percent authority."

And Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association, said in a statement that:

"The accountability system of this 'blueprint' still relies on standardized tests to identify winners and losers. We were expecting more funding stability to enable states to meet higher expectations. Instead, the 'blueprint' requires states to compete for critical resources, setting up another winners-and-losers scenario. We were expecting school turnaround efforts to be research-based and fully collaborative. Instead, we see too much top-down scapegoating of teachers and not enough collaboration.

And that may make Republican support even more important. So far, it's tough to say what the GOP will make of the plan. Allowing districts to opt out of the choice and tutoring provisions in current law may be a tough sell with some Republicans. (GOP lawmakers are likely to be concerned about that, a spokeswoman for Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, told me.)
I'm guessing that choice and tutoring might be big areas of debate.

Of course, some GOP lawmakers may agree with Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a former Bush administration official who thinks the choice and tutoring provisions in current law haven't been very effective. (Petrilli, a self-proclaimed "Whole Foods Republican" is "thrilled" that the blueprint largely delivers on Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's plan to be tight on goals but loose on how states and districts reach them.)

The bigger and more important question might be whether or not Congress can deliver any sort of major, bipartisan legislation so close to the 2010 midterm elections. Lawmakers' recent track record isn't a great sign for fans of the administration's blueprint. We may have a better idea of where things stand later this week, when the House and Senate education committees hold hearings on the proposal.

What do you think? Are you putting your money on passage this year? What will help or hinder the blueprint's chances?

UPDATE: Petrilli just emailed me to point out that there's no mention of tutoring or school choice in a statement on the draft just released by Kline's office.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Remember we told you that the student-loan bill might hitch a ride with the health-care bill through that wonky procedural mechanism known as budget reconciliation?

Well, it looks like the administration and the chairmen of both the House and Senate education committees officially want that happen. But it's unclear whether the rest of Congress will go along with that plan or what the final loans package will look like, including whether some new education programs that would be created under the House version of the bill will be in the mix.

Some background: Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (Congress' resident, non-partisan numbers crunchers) estimated that the administration's proposed change to the student lending system would save $87 billion over ten years. The House passed legislation implementing the change. The bill would call for students to borrow right from the U.S. Treasury (through a program called Direct Lending) rather than relying on subsidized lenders to do the job (essentially scrapping the Federal Family Education Loan Program).

With the savings, House lawmakers would create a bunch of new programs, including grants to help states improve early childhood, bolster community colleges (including dual enrollment and early-college high school programs) and money for school facilities. Read all about it in this story.

And, in an important move for college access, the bill also sought to shift Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college, from the discretionary side of the ledger to the mandatory side, where it wouldn't be subject to the whims of the appropriations process (becoming mandatory is the best thing that could happen to a federal program). It would also index them to the Consumer Price Index, plus 1 percent, to keep up with rapidly-rising college costs.

The complication: Now the $87 billion estimate has changed to $67 billion, in part because lots of schools have already switched to the Direct Lending program. Also, many more students are seeking Pell Grants because so many folks are looking to go back to school to bolster their skills during this economic downturn. (Demand for Pell Grants tends to go up when the economy goes south.) In fact, 20 percent more people applied over the past year than previously, a senior administration official told me.

Pell Shortfall: If the student loan change isn't passed, there will be a major shortfall in the Pell Grant program, a senior administration official told me. In fact, the maximum grant would go to $2,150 from $5,300. If the bill doesn't pass, Congress may have to make up for that deficit by cutting other programs. (Pell grants are funded out of the same pot of money as special education and Title I money for disadvantaged students.)

Another issue: Because of the major shortfall in Pell and the lower CBO estimate, it's unclear just which, if any, of those other education programs will be part of the mix. The administration official I talked to said that's still being worked out.

The pushback: It's not clear the rest of the Congress will go along, especially some important moderates. In fact, six Senate moderates sent a letter to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader on the issue. They're worried, among other things, about potential job losses in the student lending sector.

And many Republicans are generally wary about the changes to the student loan program. They see the change as a government takeover of what has been a private sector responsibility and have been skeptical of the savings estimate.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It sounds like the Education Department is edging closer and closer to releasing its draft proposal on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And even though we haven't seen a comprehensive draft, a lot of the details have already been made public, either through announcements from the White House, the fiscal 2011 budget proposal, Race to the Top regulations, or U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's speeches.

For instance we already know that:

*The Obama administration wants to replace the current metric for gauging student achievement—adequate yearly progress—with a system that measures whether students are ready for college or a career.

*The administration wants to tie Title I funding to states' adoption of college- and career-ready standards.

*The administration also wants states to develop a definition of "teacher effectiveness" that is partially based on student outcomes. And it wants states to link teacher effectiveness to student achievement data. This proposal was in the administration's 2011 budget plan. It sounds like states would have to take those steps to get Title I money. (Check out Page 18 of this budget document and read this Teacher Beat item for more info.)

*The Education Department has a menu of interventions it would like to see states use in the schools struggling the most to reach the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. All of the options call for fairly dramatic interventions, and nearly all of them would require that a failing school get rid of its principal.

*The department wants to offer incentives to school districts that do a great job of closing the achievement gap. (That's in the budget proposal too, on Page 4.)

*The department wants to consolidate smaller, targeted programs and create competitive grant streams.

*The department wants "richer assessments" and has dedicated $350 million in stimulus money from the Race to the Top Fund toward that goal.

And folks who have been closely following the debate over the reauthorization of the ESEA don't need a crystal ball to know that some other things are practically a given:

*Growth models - Everyone seems to be for measuring student progress through growth rather than comparing groups of students with each other. The department already has a pilot project that allows states to use growth models. Growth models were in both the 2007 draft proposal for reauthorizing ESEA put forth by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and in the Bush administration's 2007 blueprint for renewing the law. And Duncan has spoken quite a bit about how the current system doesn't reward teachers and schools for helping individual students advance.

*Differentiated consequences - I think this is going to be a big part of the new accountability system. Again, it's something everyone seems to be able to agree on, at least in principle. There is already a differentiated consequence pilot project run by the department. And the proposal was in both the Bush reauthorization plan and Miller's 2007 draft, meaning it could generate bipartisan support.

What are differentiated consequences? Basically, they would involve a more nuanced look at a school's performance. For instance, schools that miss achievement targets because all of their students are struggling would be subject to a different set of interventions than schools that generally are doing a good job with most students, but are having trouble with, say, helping students in special education learn to read. It's a "tiered" approach to looking at how schools are doing and fixing their shortcomings.

Given the broad support for the concept in the past, it seems pretty likely that such an approach will be in the administration's draft. The question is what it will actually look like. What will be the different tiers? What kinds of interventions will we see for each? Also, from a salesmanship perspective, "differentiated consequences" isn't a very catchy name. I'm sure the folks who coined "Race to the Top" can think of something better ...

*Incentives - That's the watchword of the Obama administration and likely to be a theme of the proposal. I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama folks sought to make Race to the Top, the Investing in Innovation Fund, or both, permanent in their ESEA proposal. (If you take a look back at Miller's draft, he had something very similar to i3 called the "Grow What Works" fund.)

Some big remaining questions:

*Will the administration seek to keep the 2013-14 deadline for bringing all students to proficiency (or college-and career-readiness—CCR?)

*What's going on with school choice and tutoring?

*Exactly how will AYP (or CCR) be calculated? Will non-academic factors be part of the mix?

*How will we test students? In what grades? How often?

*What exactly does college- and career-ready mean, especially for states that don't join the Common Core State Standards Initiative?

That's about all the questions and obvious proposals I can think of now. But the law has many moving parts and I'm sure I missed something. Please let me know what it is in the comments section!

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last week, the House Education and Labor Committee kicked off its hearings on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And today, it was the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's turn.

As in the House, there was virtually no discussion of any of the major ESEA proposals the Obama administration has put forward so far, including tying Title I money to rigorous common academic standards and replacing adequate yearly progress with a new mechanism for gauging college-and-career readiness.

There may be more concrete reaction next week. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is scheduled to testify next Wednesday in both the House and Senate on the Obama administration's ESEA proposals. In fact, the House Committee hearing is actually called "The Obama Administration's Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization Blueprint," according to a notice sent to committee members. (I'm guessing that means the administration's blueprint, or at least part of it, could be out by that point.)

Most of the discussion at today's Senate hearing centered around big ideas, like education's role in the overall economy, as opposed to nitty-gritty details, such as just how to tweak the accountability system at the center of the current version of the ESEA law, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.

The high point of today's hearing: Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who served as Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush, asked Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association, whether he supported the Teacher Incentive Fund, a $400 million program that doles out grants to districts to create pay-for-performance programs. Van Roekel said he's for it if his local affiliates are for it, but that he doesn't want teachers to be judged on just a single test score. Which is pretty much what NEA has said before.

Other interesting points:

*Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of both this committee and the appropriations subcommittee that oversees education spending, said he's concerned about larger class sizes and thinks keeping class sizes small could help teachers be more effective. He's worried that the feds don't seem to have stayed focused on the goal of reducing class size. (That was a Clinton administration priority.)

*Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., said that he doesn't think the current testing regime under NCLB is working. He wants to see more formative assessments. "This is ridiculous, the way this is working," he said of NCLB.

*Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., brought up a litany of perennial concerns about the NCLB law, including that it narrows curriculum (by focusing too heavily on math and science), doesn't allow for student growth, encourages teachers to focus on "bubble kids," and penalizes the schools that need the most help.

*Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., the former Denver schools chief, asked what the impediments are to bringing promising practices at the district level to scale.

This was just the first in a very long series of hearings the Senate education committee will hold between now and the end of April on ESEA. Topics are to include standards and assessments, school turnaround, teachers and leaders, special populations (I'm guessing that would include English-language learners and students in special education), and "educating the whole child" (which usually means looking beyond reading and math to subjects including art and music).

Also in Congress ... Tomorrow Rep. George Miler, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Reps.Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Phil Hare, D-Ill., are set to introduce new jobs legislation that would include funding to help retain education jobs, plus aid for local communities, which they could use to hire teachers, law enforcement professionals, and others.

The bill is likely to come as welcome news to education advocates, who are worried that the jobs bill Congress approved earlier this month didn't include new money to help stave off layoffs at the district level at a time when schools are staring down the funding cliff. The House passed a jobs bill last December that included money to keep teachers employed, but that proposal hasn't yet gained much traction in the Senate.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Ian Quillen:

After urging students and teachers to try to "change the world," federal school safety chief Kevin Jennings insisted Monday that conservatives' calls for his resignation haven't affected his visibility.

It's just not Washingtonians, he said, who are seeing him.

"I feel like there is a genuine Beltway mentality where it becomes an echo chamber," said Jennings, the assistant deputy secretary for the U.S. Department of Education's office of safe and drug-free schools, in an interview after a rare public engagement in the nation's capital. "I think it's more that I don't speak in D.C. I'm on the road a lot."

Jennings, a former history teacher who took his current post last July, lunched Monday at the National Press Club with about 50 teachers from Close Up, a 39-year-old program that aims to inspire students to informed citizenry with hands-on experiences in Washington and elsewhere. He later spoke to 200 student participants at an auditorium near his office.

Jennings encouraged teachers to foster activism in students by emphasizing that many smaller actions in the civil rights movement made Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech possible.

"Segregation did not come to an end because Martin Luther King got up, did this speech, and white people in America went, 'Oh my God! We didn't know. We're so sorry,' " Jennings told teachers. "That's really not how it happened. There were decades and decades and decades of folks who came before Martin Luther King."

Jennings also described to students a pilot program that will survey students about the greatest safety needs in their schools. States that win participation in the competitive-grant program will receive money to address those needs, he said. The program will begin in seven states next year, with potential for expansion thereafter.

A former activist himself--best known as the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN--Jennings drew outrage from the right last October after decades-old advice he gave a high school student about a sexual relationship with an older man resurfaced.

Jennings, who is openly gay, touched on his sexuality Monday, but stopped short of relating LGBT rights struggles today and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s.

"It's impossible for kids to believe that in the lifetime of someone they see in front of them, it was impossible for two people of a different race to get married," he said. "They just think it was inevitable that it was going to end. I remember when it wasn't inevitable at all. .... LGBT rights are not a settled field. So it wouldn't have quite the same historical impact."

Asked if he drew a parallel, Jennings responded: "But that's not my job. That's not the point of the story."

PHOTO: Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, speaks with students at the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools on March 8 in Washington, D.C. Andrew Councill for Education Week

Posted by Michele McNeil at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

We've heard a bit about the process for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the House, while the Senate has been relatively silent on the issue.

But it sounds like that could change tomorrow when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee holds its very first hearing on renewing the law.

The hearing's title? ESEA Reauthorization: The Importance of World-Class K-12 Education for our Economic Success. Sounds like they're starting out with an "economic competitiveness/job creation strategy," which makes sense from a messaging standpoint, given that in survey after survey, the public says it wants Congress to focus on jobs.

But the topic doesn't give us much of a hint on where the committee stands on the key questions going into reauthorization, including how to measure student learning, gauge teacher effectiveness, and turn around low-performing schools.

On the four-man witness list? Some are usual suspects:

*John Castellan, the president of the Business Roundtable in Washington

*Dennis Van Roekel, the president, National Education Association in Washington

And some are not:

*Andreas Schleicher, the head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, Education Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development in Paris, France

*Charles Butt, the chairman and CEO of H-E-B in San Antonio, Texas

Interestingly, there's no one from the Obama administration, which is expected to put out some sort of ESEA blueprint soon.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:34 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So it looks like Congress will attempt to push through health care overhaul by using the procedural mechanism known as "reconciliation," which doesn't require a 60-vote majority in the Senate and generally deals with taxes and deficit reduction.

Why does that matter for education? Well, if it happens, there's a good chance an important student lending bill that could become part of the broader legislative package. And, as folks who are following this will remember, that student loan bill would provide some major new money for early-childhood education programs and community colleges (including dual enrollment and early-college high schools).

The bill, which is based on a proposal in the Obama administration's fiscal year 2010 and 2011 budgets, would cause a seismic shift in the student lending world by scrapping the Federal Family Education Loan Program (which relies on subsidized lenders) and allowing all student loans to originate with the Direct Lending program (in which students borrow right from the U.S. Treasury). The change in the student lending program would free up savings, part of which could be used for the health care program, proponents say.

Legislation has yet to be introduced in the Senate. (Some folks actually think those in the Senate were holding off in case reconciliation became necessary for health care.) But the House passed a version of the student loan bill last fall that would also include money for school facilities as well as early-childhood education and community colleges.

The pluses to passing a loans bill this way? Easier for Democratic leaders to get the measure through—they might not have another chance for a while. And this wouldn't be the first time that Congress has made major changes to the student loan program through reconciliation (check out this bill from 2005).

The minuses? Some Democrats in both chambers have concerns about the higher education bill (though mostly about the loans piece) and may be angry if it ends up being attached to health care. And Republicans, whose leaders say health care is being rushed through without enough bipartisan support, will likely be fired up even more if major student lending legislation is added to the mix.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Written by guest blogger Mary Ann Zehr

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan plans to promise in a speech today to reinvigorate enforcement of civil rights laws in U.S. schools by issuing guidance and implementing new compliance reviews.

"The truth is that, in the last decade, the office for civil rights has not been as vigilant as it should have been in combating gender and racial discrimination and protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities," Duncan wrote in a draft of his speech, which was circulated to members of the press.

Duncan said that compliance reviews will aim to make sure students have equal access to educational opportunities, including a college-preparatory curriculum, advanced courses, and STEM courses. In addition, the speech says that the Education Department will review whether school districts are implementing discipline policies fairly, "without regard to skin color." (The Associated Press, The Washington Post and the New York Times published stories today on Duncan's plans. The blog Why Boys Fail also picked up on the issue.)

Duncan plans to deliver his speech late afternoon today at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., to mark the 45th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday," when several hundred activists faced state troopers on the bridge to advocate for their civil rights. The state troopers beat the protesters with billy clubs and used tear gas to disperse them.

I have heard some murmurs lately that the Obama administration intended to provide more guidance to schools on how to protect students' civil rights. Russlynn Ali, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, told me recently in an interview that this spring, the department would issue civil rights guidance to apply to several different areas of education.

When reporting recently on what civil rights law has to say about the process of identifying English-language learners in schools, I learned that federal education officials had visited Arizona recently to discuss civil rights issues with state education officials there. The office for civil rights is investigating a complaint contending that changes in Arizona's home-language survey violate students' civil rights because they lead to underidentification of ELLs.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Given Education Secretary Arne Duncan's statements yesterday that any one of the 16 finalists could win a coveted Race to the Top grant, it drives home the point of how important the in-person presentations will be later this month.

After all, Duncan has said "very few"—as in less than half—will actually win these awards when they're announced in April.

Apparently, the point spread is so close that these state presentations, in which teams of five will make their closing arguments to the peer reviewers, will determine who wins millions, and who leaves empty-handed.

Based on my conversations with folks at the department about the judging process, these presentations will inform the scores peer reviewers assign to each application—and peer reviewers can go back and change their scores based on what they hear.

So what does Duncan want to see in these presentations? Things like "validation", "capacity," "commitment," "courage," and "heart-to-heart conversations." These are the words he used during a conference call with reporters yesterday.

These are definitely Arne-isms. But using the crude, 500-point grading scale that clearly outlines the path to winning, there are no points for "courage" or "heart" as such. The peer review process, based on a clear rubric, is a rather mechanical process that protects the department from claims of favoritism. So the question is: How much will the touchy-feely parts of these presentations influence points? Some state teams may be more likeable than others. Some will have better presentations. Some will have more persuasive speakers.

There may be states entering this final portion of the Race to the Top that start out farther behind in points, but leapfrog ahead because of their presentations. Others that start out ahead could falter.

This signals the importance of the department revealing not only the final scores for each of the states once the awards are made in April, but what their scores were when the list of finalists was determined—or, in other words, the scores before the presentations took place.

UPDATE: The uber-responsive folks at the Education Department say that the scores and comments that were given before and after the presentations will be made public. So we will be able to see how the presentations influenced a state's standing—and kudos to the department for making this clear now.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

And the highly anticipated Round One finalists are...

Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The Final 16 beat out 25 other states and earned the highest scores from the peer reviewers, who awarded points based on a 500-point grading scale that judged states' commitments to improve teacher effectiveness, data systems, academic standards, and low-performing schools.

The list of finalists is supposed to reflect U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's promise that he would set a very high bar for this education-reform competition, which has become one of the Obama administration's most high-profile policy levers. At stake is $4 billion from the economic-stimulus package approved by Congress last year, not to mention bragging rights.

We'll have more analysis on the winners—and losers—later, but our first take on the list of finalists is that many of them are Southern, right-to-work states. New York is a surprise because many argue its student-teacher data law is weak, and its attempt to loosen restrictions on charters failed. Kentucky made the list, but has no charter law. Also, Colorado is the only Western state to make the cut.

Now, these finalists will each assemble a five-person team that will come to Washington the week of March 15 to make a presentation to the peer reviewers, who can then adjust their grades before coming up with a final score. Duncan will have the final say—especially when it comes to how many awards are given out in this first round—but the general idea is that the scores will be ranked in order, with the highest-scoring states winning.

Winners will be announced in April. Losers can reapply by June 1 for Round Two; the final awards will be given out in September.

UPDATE: So the early reaction is in. Flypaper's Andy Smarick thinks there are too many finalists, and Edspresso agrees. Eduwonk is scratching his head over Ohio and New York, but says South Carolina's inclusion shows this wasn't political. Eduflack isn't nearly as surprised and notes that the list encompasses a wide range, in terms of actual student outcomes.The Des Moines Register blog says Iowa isn't a finalist partly because it's rural and urban schools are expected to be a focus of Race to the Top.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Sing along if you know the words: U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sketched out his proposal for revising the Elementary and Secondary Act today before the House Education and Labor Committee.

Not only were there no new specifics, there were very few new phrases from the secretary.

On including incentives in ESEA: Duncan said that under current law, there are "fifty ways to fail" but very few rewards for success.

On common standards: "It's an idea whose time has really come."

On accountability: We need to be "tight on goals" but loose on means.

And although few folks brought up any sort of sharp critique of Duncan, the hearing itself wasn't a love feast. The tone was generally collegial, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle still had some pointed questions about Duncan's agenda.

For instance, Rep. John Kline, of Minnesota, the top Republican on the committee, asked why the president proposed only a $250 million increase for special education in his fiscal 2011 budget. He said he agreed with the view of Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., that the proposal amounts to "budget dust." (DeLauro is considered a liberal Democrat, and Kline is conservative on many issues.) "I just want to tell you how deeply disappointed I am," Kline said. "There had to be groans from coast to coast" when districts saw the request. "It should have been billions."

He noted that there appears to be money available, including $1 billion that's contingent on ESEA passage.

Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., said he's "very, very skeptical" of the administration's proposal on after-school programs, which includes a focus on extended-day programs. Duncan repeated a pretty well-worn point, saying he thinks added learning time will help kids compete with those in China and India.

And Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., asked whether Duncan had plans to place a priority on students' nonacademic needs.

"Some students are considerably more in need of support," she said. "They aren't fed well, they're scared, they don't have parental stability."

Duncan said he "couldn't agree more" that schools need to provide students with food, glasses, and other support in trying to raise achievement.

Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., asked how the department would like Congress to revamp assessments for English-language learners and students in special education. He said that lots of schools in his district aren't meeting achievement targets because of these groups.

Duncan said that he thinks that might be the toughest question the department has to tackle in reauthorization. He is working with members of his staff (namely Alexa Posney, the department's special ed guru, and Thelma Melendez, the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education and a former English-language learner herself) on what to do.

After the hearing, Duncan had a quick press availability. He said the department's ESEA blueprint is coming "soon," but that's as specific as he got. And, no, he wouldn't tell us who won the Race to the Top competition—or even just how many finalists there are.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

With a Race to the Top announcement of the finalists slated for tomorrow, it seems important to start looking ahead to what happens to the states that actually win.

One thing many have been curious about is what happens if a state builds an ambitious plan, and assembles a working budget, but wins far less money than it asked for. Florida, for example, asked for $1.1 billion, but the department's top-line (though nonbinding) estimate for a state of Florida's size is $700 million. Colorado asked for $377 million, and may get only $175 million. Illinois asked for $510 million, and may get only $400 million. Do you see a pattern here?

So, if a state wins less money than it banked on when it built its plan, can it scale back its plan?

Not really. At least not very easily.

I had a chance to ask Joanne Weiss, the Education Department's Race to the Top director, this question. She essentially said that once a grant is awarded, a state's plan cannot be changed. After all, the peer reviewers scored the application based on a state's entire plan, and if the plan had been less ambitious, it might not have won.

In Weiss' words: "We can't change the scope under which they won the grant or they might not have won."

She did say, however, that the department will have detailed budget conversations with each winning state—and that's where such discussions about scope and scale would take place.

So, the phrase "Go big or go home" could come back and haunt some states, especially when many are so cash-strapped they're talking about cuts to basic K-12 education services.

Of course, as with any grant, the department has the authority to discontinue funding if a state doesn't make good on its commitments.

The big question is: Can these ambitious states, if they win, really deliver on their promises? And how will we know?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Politics K-12 has learned that states will get the official word on whether they make it as a finalist for Race to the Top at 11:30 a.m. Thursday. And the news will come via email. So, as you're filling out your own Race to the Top Madness bracket, Politics K-12—with a big assist from Teacher Beat's always-snarky Sawchuk and State EdWatch's Lesli Maxwell—offers up our own version of what those winning, and losing, emails will sound like.

Dear (Insert Winner State Name Here),

Congratulations! You are one step closer to having Arne Duncan show up at your door with a fistful of balloons and a check for up to $700 million. You are a finalist for Race to the Top!

Before you get too excited, (and we realize not all governors may be thrilled at the prospect of taking even more stimulus money) please keep in mind that you must come to Washington, D.C., to make an in-person pitch the week of March 15. Your state must send five people to make a presentation to the judges. (This means you should make sure you've actually read the application you've submitted.) Please leave your McKinsey and other Gates-funded consultants at home. But media stars like Oprah, Angelina Jolie, and Randi Weingarten are definitely welcome.

And, lucky for you, your entire presentation will be videotaped and then made public on the Internet, where everyone will laugh at your lavender suit with shoulder pads, so choose wisely. For all of you governors and state schools' chiefs who may have an election in your future, this will surely serve as great fodder for future campaign commercials.

Again, congratulations. And we look forward to seeing you in D.C. soon. Don't forget to stand on the right and walk on the left when negotiating the Metro escalators.

Sincerely,
The Education Department

Dear (Insert Loser State Name Here),

Thank you very much for your interest in Race to the Top. We regret to inform you that you did not clear the very, very high bar that Arne Duncan has set, or fall within a 'natural break' in the list of scored applications. You are not a Round One finalist.

Despite the pockets of excellence that are buried somewhere in the 1,000-plus pages of your application, we are not interested in supporting your version of the status quo at this time.

We encourage you to try again. Do not be discouraged at having to submit another 1,000-page application, or having to get all of your LEAs to re-up on those memoranda of understanding, or having to convince your state legislature to create charter schools even though your state is as rural as rural gets. After all, our children cannot wait!

Enclosed, please find helpful comments from our secret panel of peer reviewers, such as: "Define what you mean by 'partner,' 'incent,' and 'leverage.'" And one other word of caution: Please try not to steal shamelessly from the winning applications. We will run the applications through Plagiarism.org.

Sincerely,
The Education Department

P.S. We have the Common Core standards. Please don't put them in the appendix.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Twenty-two Democratic senators from rural states are telling Secretary of Education Arne Duncan that he should make sure rural schools get a fair shot at all that competitive grant money the department is seeking in its fiscal year 2011 budget request.

The senators hail from largely rural states, many of which are considered "red" or "swing" states in presidential elections, including Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

You can read the full letter here, but the important point is that the senators appear especially concerned that some of the department's policy prescriptions (like charters and even extended-day programs) just don't work in really remote areas that have trouble supporting even one school. Instead, they're urging the department to check out other options, such as distance learning, that have a better shot of having an impact in rural communities.

Rural districts have often expressed concerns about the department's push for more competitive funding. They say that rural schools just don't have as much capacity as urban and suburban districts to go after competitive grants. The letter suggests that the department provide technical support to help rural schools better compete.

And it suggests that the department establish an Office of Rural Education, to help look at policies from the standpoint of rural districts.

The department has received the letter, and officials say they're aware of these issues and are working on ways to make sure rural schools are included.

"Arne continues to seek the advice of rural school superintendents, principals, teachers, and students in order to create a balanced national education plan," said John White, a spokesman for the Department of Education, in an e-mail.

He said that the department's push to include more discretionary funding hasn't lead to a major decrease in formula funds (the administration's budget proposal calls for about 2 percent less in formula funding than last year, he said). And he said that that the department will look for ways to help rural district compete for funds (for instance, the proposed rules for the $650 million Investing in Innovation Grants include a special priority for rural schools).

Also, Duncan in the past year has visited nearly all 50 states and came back with the knowledge that rural schools face a unique set of challenges. And he has met at least twice with rural superintendents (at least one conference call and one in-person meeting) to get a sense of their concerns so that the department's solutions aren't one-size-fits-all.

Rural advocates: Do you see this reflected in the department's policy so far? Do you think we'll have a better sense when we see how many rural schools get competitive grants?

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

My colleague over at State EdWatch, Lesli Maxwell, and I teamed up to put together our Race to the Top Madness bracket. We should know the finalists any day now.

For more about the reasons behind our selections, check out Lesli's blog. In the meantime, here's our bracket predicting the finalists and the winners. Who would you cross off—or who would you add—if you did your own bracket?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Even though this Associated Press story makes it sound like President Obama is making big news today with a school improvement plan, it's really old news.

According to the story, he's using an America's Promise Alliance education event to tout the four turnaround models that are tied to acceptance of the Title I School Improvement Grants. We've written about this endlessly.

And his news peg is that he now wants to devote some $900 million to it; again, we've already covered this, courtesy of EdWeek's Alyson Klein, as part of our budget coverage.

Obama's scheduled to speak in just a few minutes. If we do find any news in his remarks today, we'll pass it along.

UPDATE: Obama ruffled some feathers by patting a Rhode Island district on the back for terminating a bunch of teachers in order to further school reform goals. Steve Sawchuk has more at Teacher Beat.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend