July 2011 Archives

By guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

Now that the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action events in Washington, D.C. are over, organizers of this movement against high-stakes testing and test-based accountability are already plotting their next move.

During a four-hour meeting of about 200 people today, the group decided that the passion they witnessed during a two-day conference last week and a rally and march Saturday provided enough fuel to keep their passion burning.

"There are tremendously high spirits," Bob Schaeffer, one of the spokesmen for the movement, told me after the Sunday meeting, which was not open to the press. "Everybody thought the march and conference that preceded did it exactly what they wanted. They delivered the right message."

What message, exactly?

"There needs to be more input by the local school community, including teachers, parents, and concerned citizens, and an end to top-down dictates by politicians and their campaign donors who have little understanding about the realities of classroom education," Mr. Schaeffer said.

Education author Jonathan Kozol, who marched alongside a few thousand others Saturday, and educator and education reformer Deborah Meier offered to help the movement raise money to keep their efforts going, Mr. Schaeffer said.

The group had raised about $125,000 to host the conference and march, including about $50,000 from teachers' unions, but all of that money has been spent.

The organization will probably be restructured, at least a little, but it's likely that at least some of the 13-member organizing committee, which includes teacher educators, and current and former teachers, will continue to lead the group.

In addition, it's likely the group will expand their goals beyond high-stakes testing, equitable funding for all schools, unions and collective bargaining, and changes to curriculum. The importance of quality early childhood education will likely become a part of the group's platform, among other issues, Mr. Schaeffer said.

The Save Our Schools group said they are still interested in a meeting with the White House, should another opportunity arise. They declined to meet with White House education adviser Roberto Rodriguez on Friday because the meeting would have conflicted with their conference. They also wanted U.S. Department of Education officials and President Barack Obama to take note of their march Saturday before a meeting, and had suggested a chat today, but the White House did not offer such an opportunity. (They are a little preoccupied, after all.)

The SOS organizers haven't decided when they will hold another meeting of their own, but there was talk of another mobilization similar to events of the last few days during early 2012, Mr. Schaeffer said, adding that folk should "Stay tuned."

Note: Several people who blog for or have worked for Education Week are involved in the Save Our Schools March. Education Week Teacher opinion bloggers Nancy Flanagan and Anthony Cody are on the organizing committee. Endorsers of the event include Education Week opinion bloggers Peter DeWitt, Diane Ravitch, and Deborah Meier; former reporter James Crawford; and Ron Wolk, the founding editor of Education Week and the chair emeritus of Editorial Projects in Education, the nonprofit corporation that publishes it. Education Week and Education Week Teacher are not affiliated with the event and take no editorial positions about it.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called for a radical upending of the nation's teaching pipeline—higher salaries, improved performance-based teacher accountability, and a higher bar for prospective students to enter schools of education.

In remarks today to a conference of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, he called for teachers to start out making $60,000 a year, topping out at around $150,000. His speech comes as thousands of teachers from across the country descend on the nation's capital to protest many of the Obama administration's policies, from the increasing reliance on standardized tests to using test scores to help evaluate teachers.

"We must think radically differently," he said, according to prepared remarks. "We must ask and answer hard questions on topics that have been off limits in the past like staffing practices and school organization, benefits packages and job security—because the answers may give us more realistic ways to afford these new professional conditions."

Top salaries of $150,000 a year won't come cheap, and Duncan acknowledged as much.

"And it will cost money—and—given the current political climate with the nation wrestling with debt and deficits—I am sure some people will immediately say that we can't afford it without even looking at how to redirect the money we are already spending—and mis-spending.

He called on colleges of education to raise the bar for prospective students, to lure the brightest in. "Top undergraduates will flock to a profession that demands high standards and credentials," he said.

Although Duncan's remarks today shouldn't surprise anyone, this does mark a fresh, reinvigorated push from the secretary, who wants to help remake the way we find, educate, evaluate, and compensate the nation's teaching force. He's already pushed states to alter policies on merit pay and teacher-student data linkages through the Race to the Top grant competition.

Now, he appears to be using the bully pulpit to continue to advance that message. As he begins to explicitly lay out the problem—the first step in any public policymaking process—expect him in the fall to begin proposing exactly what the Education Department can do to achieve this radical transformation.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

From guest bloggers Nirvi Shah and Nora Fleming:

The Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action is now in full swing, a day and a half into the four days of seminars, speeches, and marching.

All that activity means it's getting hot out there—and I'm not just talking about the Washington, D.C., weather.

The rally organizers, who decry the role standards- and test-based accountability have taken in public schools, turned down an invitation from the White House to meet today, saying they simply are too busy meeting with supporters and hosting seminars to attend. They also want President Obama to see the scope of their movement, which includes a march around the White House on Saturday afternoon, before any meeting. They've countered with an offer to meet Sunday, to which the White House has not yet responded.

The organizers did not, however, turn down an impromptu meeting with Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Wednesday. The conversation was described as "respectful," but not necessarily fruitful.

Meanwhile, the group's rhetoric about engaging parents, toning down testing, and boosting funding for schools is drawing some sharp criticism.

"S.O.S is about deforming education, not reforming it," said Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform. "They put up the guise that this is for the families and students, but in truth, these groups want to restrict and remove any power parents have in their child's education."

Her organization took issue, in particular, with the organizers' push for more equitable funding for schools but less accountability in its current form. The center mocked the event as being about saving the status quo, rather than schools, echoing the comments of Indiana Superintendent Tony Bennett last month.

The organizers disagree. "This is the same tired rhetoric public-school advocates often hear from defenders of the real status quo: The decades-long misuse and abuse of testing, and the illusion of school 'choice' that treats families like school shoppers instead of public school stakeholders," countered Sabrina Stevens Shupe, one of the SOS organizers. "Given the lack of evidence supporting test-based accountability and turnaround schemes, it's unsurprising that they have resorted to name-calling instead of honest conversation."

Momentum Grows, Cause Unclear

For SOS marchers who agree on what the frustrations are—if not necessarily on specific ways to overcome them—what should be the next steps for change? That was the main question that teachers, parents, and community members wrestled with at the second day of the premarch gathering at American University. The answer, for now, seems to be: Just keep being heard.

In an early session, Wisconsin teachers narrated their experiences mobilizing teachers in response to state legislation curbing members' bargaining rights. Amy Daroszeski, a middle school English teacher in Milwaukee, Wisc., told how her efforts using social media, websites, and phone trees were successful in rallying her teacher peers for school walkouts and general social protest. Though she'd had little union involvement prior to the spring, she created a Facebook group, now with close to 12,000 members, that was used to galvanize protests and helped organize a weekend "grade-in" at malls throughout the state, where teachers sat in food courts grading papers to show the time they spent on the weekends for work.

Audience members then discussed how they make a difference in their communities and their concerns that many teachers were afraid to speak out and that unions were hesitant to act. One guest said she knew of teachers in Virginia who were afraid to come to Saturday's rally for fear of losing their jobs.

"It doesn't matter if you're heard or not," the woman said. "It matters if you can say this out loud."

Later in the afternoon, one group talked about the way to deliver a message, how to get buy in and response, how choosing the right words or analogies to make a message more meaningful.

After chronicling the situation in Philadelphia public schools in one session, parent activist Helen Gym said she was hopeful.

"The stories out of Philadelphia are like many other struggling cities," she said, but she had one unanswered concern.

"We need to think about immediate options," she said, "not just about ideology."

Diane Ravitch Interviews Herself

Earlier Friday, education historian Diane Ravitch interviewed herself before an eager crowd.

"Dr. Ravitch," she began, "mind if I call you Diane?"

Other snippets from her conversation with herself:

Q: Is U.S. education in crisis?

A. "Well, yes, we're in crisis, but we've been in crisis for hundreds of years. ... But the crisis is not what you think it is. It's a crisis caused by [the No Child Left Behind Act]."

Ravitch, who once embraced that legislation, is now one of its most outspoken critics, but drove that point home by asking herself about it.

Q: "So Diane, what do you think of NCLB?"

A: "I'd say it's one of the worst pieces of federal legislation ever passed. No I take that back, it is the worst piece of legislation ever passed. Schools are narrowing curriculum, states are gaming the system, and grownups are cheating to save their jobs. Principals and teachers are being fired because they can't make an impossible goal without cheating."

Then she asked herself about her thoughts on evaluating teachers by test scores.

"It is one of the worst ideas ever. This is something George W. Bush could only dream of doing. You had to have a Democratic president to sell it. What do politicians know about evaluating teachers? Nothing. Methods of evaluation should be designed by evaluators, not legislators."

Ravitch went on to ask herself about how schools should be improved and reformed.

"First of all, we have to elect a whole lot of different people. Anyone here from Ohio? We have to get a referendum and turn over Senate Bill 5 [which took a swipe at collective bargaining rights in the Buckeye State.] Throw out those rascals in Wisconsin!"

And merit pay?

"The program that never works and never dies."

She reinforced the march organizers' mantra that anyone can begin a movement that makes waves by writing to lawmakers, involving friends, commenting on blogs, and writing letters to the editor.

"These people who call themselves reformers have almost all the money and all the political power. But things change. This is a democracy: We vote. The reformers, they are few, and we are many. Let's let this democracy work for the many and not the few."

Note: Several people who blog for or have worked for Education Week are involved in the Save Our Schools March. Education Week Teacher opinion bloggers Nancy Flanagan and Anthony Cody are on the organizing committee. Endorsers of the event include Education Week opinion bloggers Peter DeWitt, Diane Ravitch, and Deborah Meier; former reporter James Crawford; and Ron Wolk, the founding editor of Education Week and the chair emeritus of Editorial Projects in Education, the nonprofit corporation that publishes it. Education Week and Education Week Teacher are not affiliated with the event and take no editorial positions about it.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The organizers of the Save our Schools March and National Call to Action are saying "no thanks" to a White House invitation to meet with education advisers to President Barack Obama tomorrow.

Organizers instead say the White House can come to them, or they'll come to the White House on Sunday. Obama officials had no comment on the executive committee's response to their invitation.

In a statement this evening, the executive committee said:

We sincerely appreciate the interest of the White House in the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action. We'd be pleased to host any White House or Department of Education personnel on the Ellipse on Saturday so they can hear firsthand what teachers, students, parents and community members from around the country have to say about public education. Thousands of concerned citizens will be sharing their experiences and their thoughts on the future of our schools. July 30th is your opportunity to listen to us. After the March, we will be open to meeting with White House or Department of Education leaders to further discuss our specific proposals.

This evening, Save our Schools spokesman Bob Schaeffer told my colleague Nirvi Shah that corganizers are not turning the White House down. "We think it's important for them to see the breadth and depth of our concerns," he said. Schaeffer explained that the executive committee has a full day of programming on Friday, but is available on Sunday for a meeting. And, the "best path" for the White House to hear the concerns of those marching is to come to the rally, he said.

Up until at least 7 p.m. tonight, the White House thought the meeting was still on. A White House official told me: "A couple of the President's education advisers (including Roberto [Rodriguez]) will meet with folks from SOS tomorrow as part of our ongoing commitment to listen to and work with teachers as we reform our education system to deliver a 21st century education for every child."

And, Save our Schools leaders had even talked to Nirvi about a press conference they were likely going to hold after the meeting.

Yesterday, three key organizers met with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his senior staff at the department to discuss their concerns about the direction of education reform. An invitation to the White House isn't to be taken lightly, and while organizers surely have a busy day on Friday, White House officials may have other things to do on Sunday.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 7:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As you may have heard, Congress is desperately scrambling to reach some kind of an agreement on the debt ceiling before the nation goes into default on Tuesday. That means that education advocates are also desperately scrambling to influence the process and to ensure that lawmakers look out for K-12 interests in a final agreement.

The debt ceiling discussion presents a unique challenge for education advocates, because, right now, there aren't any actual numbers proposed for specific programs (like Title I grants for disadvantaged students), for K-12 as a whole, or even for the U.S. Department of Education.

So the number advocates are keeping their eye on is total federal discretionary spending, which must be balanced in any final agreement against taxes and mandatory spending (for programs such as Social Security and Medicare).

"It's all about the size of the box," said Joel Packer, the executive director of the Committee for Education Funding, a lobbying coalition. "Before we get to deciding Title I versus special education versus [college access programs], it's what size is the box. ... How much money a program gets can be determined by how big the box is."

In some cases, education advocates have teamed up with folks in the health and civil rights communities, since education, labor, and health programs are all funded under the general heading of discretionary spending.

The Committee for Education Funding, whose members include the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Association of School Administrators, have already sent a letter to the leaders on Capitol Hill, asking them to continue to invest in education even as they try to gain control of the deficit. The group has also circulated news stories about the impact of education cuts around the nation.

The NEA is also launching its own lobbying effort, said Mary Kusler, the manager of federal advocacy for the teachers' union. The NEA is working with its state affiliates to target congressional leaders and moderate Republicans. For example, the union is working with its Ohio affiliate to lobby Rep. John Boehner, the speaker of the House, and Sen. Rob Portman, a Republican. Other targets include Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

The American Federation of Teachers has also sent a letter opposing a House plan for raising the debt ceiling.

Pell grants are another particular area of concern. More background here. A coalition has formed to help look out for the program, which helps low-income students pay for college. The group includes the Children's Defense Fund, the National Council of La Raza, The Education Trust, and the KIPP Foundation.

UPDATE: The NEA and other public employee unions are running ads in the districts of some GOP lawmakers on the debt ceiling negotiations. The ad will run in the districts of seven house lawmakers and Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev.

Check it out below:

Posted by Alyson Klein at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Everyone knows that cabinet secretaries are busy people, so when you want to get your message across, it's all the better to be brief—and memorable.

So when the organizers of the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action wanted to quickly convey their concerns with the direction of education reform, they presented Education Secretary Arne Duncan with an art installation: a baby doll in a box. Not just any box, either, but a box wrapped in testing bubble answer sheets. Just like the one pictured here.

Their message was simple: There is too much emphasis on testing and test prep, which is stifling student and teacher creativity.

As a bonus, three of the organizers—whose march is being held in protest of many of the reforms embodied by Duncan and the Obama administration—got a face-to-face meeting with the secretary and his top staff, and got to present the doll personally. Yesterday afternoon, for an hour, senior-level Education Department officials, including two press officers and the deputy chief of staff, listened to the concerns of the organizers. Duncan popped in for 10 minutes and described the meeting as a "good conversation." He added that "There is a lot of common ground out there."

Although the organizers described the meeting as "respectful," they disagreed with Duncan's assessment that he and they are not very far apart on their hopes for change to American public education.

Before the meeting, SOS organizers had arranged 50 cardboard boxes holding dolls with messages to Duncan outside the department's offices.

The boxed dolls, each representing a teacher, were the brainchild of Morna McDermott, a longtime teacher-educator.

Although the movement opposes many federal education policies, Education Department officials reportedly helped the SOS folks navigate the General Services Administration's permitting process for a march, a process that can be bureaucratic and time-consuming.

Staff writer Nirvi Shah contributed to this post.

Photos of the art installations supplied by Morna McDermott.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By guest blogger Nirvi Shah

UPDATED

Today kicks off the four-day Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, a gathering and rally in Washington, D.C., organized by teachers who say they are fed up with test-driven accountability for public schools—and, increasingly, for teachers.

The group, which maintains that it is a grassroots, from-the-ground-up organization, hopes to send a message to national and state policymakers about their displeasure, as well as highlight a variety of principles for improving public education. The group has developed a series of position papers outlining its views on high-stakes testing, equitable funding for all schools, unions and collective bargaining, and changes to curriculum, among other issues. For the most part, the position papers aren't yet at the level of detail of formal policy prescriptions, and it remains to be seen whether such proposals will emerge from the gathering.

March organizer Sabrina Stevens Shupe said however that policy proposals aren't necessarily the goal of the events. "What we're talking about is creating the right conditions, not prescriptive policies," she said. "There's no one silver bullet that's going to save anything," she added, referring to attempts to craft education reforms for the last 30 years.

The big event happens Saturday, when thousands of teachers and supporters of the cause are expected to rally and march at The Ellipse, near the White House. (About 1,000 people have indicated they'll attend via the movement's website, but registration is not required, and organizers believe 5,000 to 10,000 marchers will turn out.) The group will wrap up with a closed-door meeting Sunday at which participants will try to determine how to keep the momentum from the rally going. (Movement organizers haven't disclosed the meeting's location, and it is not open to press.)

Watch this blog and our issues page for developments from the movement's events today and through the weekend.

The movement began with a small group of teachers, including Jesse Turner, who walked from Connecticut to the District of Columbia last August to protest the No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top. Their efforts predated actions by state legislatures across the country this spring to curb teachers' collective bargaining powers and tenure, noted Bess Altwerger, a member of the movement's organizing committee, who hosted a reception for Mr. Turner last summer. She said the shortcomings of the American public education system do not lie with teachers.

"This has been framed as somebody's fault—either the parents' fault or the teachers' fault," Ms. Altwerger said. "The fault lies with an education policy that does not work."

Eventually, both of the nation's largest teachers unions threw their financial and philosophical support behind the movement.

The American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association have donated about $25,000 each to the effort. The bulk of the rest of the donations have come from one-time gifts provided through the Save Our Schools website. Conference organizers estimated that they'd raised over $125,000. After this weekend, they will have to begin fundraising efforts anew to keep their work going.

Taking Message to Obama Administration

Three organizers of the SOS March met Wednesday for an hour with senior-level Education Department officials, including two press officers and the deputy chief of staff. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was in attendance for about 10 minutes, and described the meeting as a "good conversation." He added that "there is a lot of common ground out there."

Following that meeting, Ms. Altwerger said she and other SOS organizers were invited to speak with Roberto Rodriguez, who advises President Obama on education matters.

According to a White House official, a couple of Obama's education advisers—including Rodriguez—will meet with folks from the march tomorrow as part of "our ongoing commitment to listen to and work with teachers as we reform our education system to deliver a 21st century education for every child."

Organizers say they plan to share the message at the heart of this week's events:

"We want them to change the priorities... away from new standardized testing to thinking through equity issues, to making sure we can create situations in schools that ensure we have quality education for everyone rather than have everybody race to the top from an unequal playing field."

Note: Turns out the SOS organizers are not going to meet with White House officials Friday after all.

Interestingly, Education Department officials reportedly helped the SOS folks navigate the General Service Administration's permitting process for a march, a process that can be bureaucratic and time-consuming. Finally, several of the SOS organizers bequeathed Duncan a gift of a portion of an art installation. It consists of a box covered with test-form "bubble sheets" with a baby doll inside—apparently an ironic commentary on the narrowness of testing and its dominance in school reform. Before the meeting, SOS organizers had arranged 50 cardboard boxes holding dolls with messages to Mr. Duncan outside the department's offices.

Although the organizers described the meeting as "respectful," they disagreed with Mr. Duncan's assessment that he and they are not very far apart on their hopes for change to American public education.

The list of speakers who will lead discussions today and Friday and rouse the crowd Saturday reads like a who's who of the most vocal opponents of the standards- and test-based accountability movement, with a little star power thrown in for good measure. Event organizers say Jon Stewart has recorded a message that will be delivered by Jumbotron on Saturday, and Matt Damon, flying in on a red-eye that morning and flying out that night to shoot a movie in Vancouver, is scheduled to speak.

Philadelphia high school English teacher Madeline Nist said she couldn't forgive herself if she didn't attend the rally in person. She said she spent much of the last school year drilling her students, preparing them for Pennsylvania's standardized tests. Although she has taught for more than 20 years, she said this past year's experience was a first.

"Our kids missed Emerson. They missed Thoreau. I barely got in the Harlem Renaissance. Now they hate English class more than they ever hated it before," she said.

She said she was aghast at a recent education roundtable hosted by President Obama that included business leaders, but no teachers.

"I hope that this is just the start. We don't have that billionaire money, but we do have that determination."

Rich Schools, Poor Schools

As part of a pre-march conference today and tomorrow, teachers, education professors, and others are gathering at American University to share ideas about a variety of topics.

On Thursday morning, author and activist Jonathan Kozol rallied the crowd, speaking of the heroism of American teachers, the "reign of terror" inflicted by current standards and testing-based accountability, and his firm belief that the achievement gap between races is growing.

"In the rich schools, kids are still empowered to interrogate reality," Mr. Kozol said. "Not so in the poor schools."

While many teachers and activists are expected to travel from across the country to Washington to attend, the movement has also helped organize a series of events in many states to coordinate with Saturday's march in D.C.

After Mr. Kozol's speech, more than 450 conference attendees scattered to dozens of sessions on topics including how to reform public education, become community activists, engage parents—especially black and Hispanic parents—and, oddly, learn how to self-publish students' writing.

In one afternoon session, conferencegoers began plotting their next steps. Educators tossed around ideas including building a policy arm for the movement. Teachers and other SOS attendees raised hands in favor of forming an institute tentatively known as the "Think/Do Tank."

Lamenting their feelings of fragmentation, the educators jumped at the chance to unite and deliver a targeted message. The idea of using YouTube videos to promote their message drew big cheers, but their exact message is still to be determined.

Note: Several people who blog for or have worked for Education Week are involved in the Save Our Schools March. Education Week Teacher opinion bloggers Nancy Flanagan and Anthony Cody are on the organizing committee. Endorsers of the event include Education Week opinion bloggers Peter DeWitt, Diane Ravitch, and Deborah Meier; former reporter James Crawford; and Ron Wolk, the founding editor of Education Week and the chair emeritus of Editorial Projects in Education, the nonprofit corporation that publishes it. Education Week and Education Week Teacher are not affiliated with the event and take no editorial positions about it.

(Politics K-12's Michele McNeil and Education Week staff writer Alexandra Rice contributed to this report.)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:54 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Pell Grants were the elephant, gorilla, pick-your-large-animal-cliche in the room when U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testified Wednesday before the Senate panel that oversees K-12 spending.

The grants have become an issue in talks over just how to raise the debt ceiling before the nation goes into default Tuesday. Demand for Pell has soared in recent years as more and more students seek higher education, and as the shaky economy results in more students qualifying for the grants, which are aimed at helping low-income students cover the cost of college.

The dueling plans for raising the debt ceiling, floated by Rep. John A. Boehner, the Speaker of the House, and Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, each seek to put Pell on firmer fiscal footing, but only for two years. (For an excellent, non-partisan explanation of the debt ceiling and Pell, check out this blog post from the New America foundation.)

Pell is also an issue in the talks over the fiscal year 2012 budget for education, since it is eating up an ever-larger share of the U.S. Department of Education's nearly $70 billion budget. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the K-12 spending committee, admonished Duncan about runaway spending at the department. He said the department has requested a more than 20 percent increase in spending compared with two years ago.

But Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the panel's chairman, pointed out that most of that money is Pell Grants.

"What's going on is, we've got a lot of people out of work," he said. "Most of this increase is because of the increased use of Pell grants. We have an increased use of Pell Grants because we have more poor people in this country. ...We have a choice to make: Do we cut these kids off at the knees and say, 'You qualify, but you don't get the money?'"

In general, the department's signature education reform program, Race to the Top, got very little love from the committee.

Shelby said he was baffled at his home state of Alabama's low rating under the competition since, in his view, the state is a leader when it comes to math, science, and technology education.

I understand that education reform is never easy. However, it is made significantly more difficult when states must meet prescriptive requirements—in this case a de facto requirement for charter school legislation—to even compete for available funding. ... Instead, the department chose only states with charter schools as awardees. Despite its nationally recognized STEM program, a key component to our future workforce competing in a global economy, Alabama finished dead last in the latest round for Race to the Top funding.

Even Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from one of the dozen states that actually won the competition (Rhode Island), is not a huge fan. He'd rather see the money go to Literacy Through School Libraries, a $19 million program that got scrapped in the fiscal year 2011 budget, which eliminated more than a dozen education programs.

Hearing Blooper Reel Moment: Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., opined about how his home state doesn't get a very large share of Title I funds. He asked to see an evaluation of the department's Title I rewards program, which was proposed in its fiscal year 2012 budget to reward districts that do a great job closing the achievement gap. Duncan managed to stay professional and above board in telling Cochran he couldn't produce an evaluation for a program that doesn't exist yet.

Suggested Summer Reading: Teachers out there who think you could do a better job than Congress of figuring our way out of the debt mess? The Onion agrees with you!

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A bit of ESEA history: First, the target date for a Senate markup of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was Easter. Then it was late spring. Now it's sometime this year.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, declined in an interview today to be more specific about exactly when the Senate education committee would get around to marking up the very, very long-overdue ESEA reauthorization bill (renewal has been pending since 2007, back when President George W. Bush was president). Harkin joked that he has not been able to meet any of the timelines he's set in the past. Right now, the committee doesn't even have a public draft of the legislation.

Harkin is negotiating with Sen. Michael B. Enzi, of Wyoming, the top Republican on the Senate, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Harkin is chairman of both that committee and the panel that oversees education spending. Harkin said that the negotiations with Enzi have been going well, but issues including accountability, teachers, and comparability are still under debate. That sounds like pretty much like the whole ball of wax to me, or at least the important parts.

Inside-the-Beltway folks have been wondering whether Harkin would consider a Democratic-only bill, if he and Enzi can't reach agreement soon. But Harkin said he's really hoping for a bipartisan product. He acknowledged that the current political environment is difficult, but he thinks that the Senate has the ability to pass a bipartisan ESEA bill. He was less confident that the House would get Democratic support for its efforts. (So far, the House education committee has passed three ESEA renewal bills, two of which were very partisan.)

Some advocates are worried that it will be hard to gain GOP support for ESEA without Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former U.S. Secretary of Education who was initally negotiating with Harkin, but is not currently part of the Harkin-Enzi discussions. Many GOP lawmakers look to Alexander on K-12 issues and may not support a measure that doesn't have his seal of approval, advocates say. That could make passage on the Senate floor—already likely to be a challenge—much tougher.

So what about the Obama administration's Plan B of offering states waivers from key parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, the current Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said he would like to begin offering those waivers in the fall, unless Congress is somehow able to reauthorize the law before the start of the school year. Looks like that will definitely not happen.

Harkin has been staunchly against those waivers; so has Rep. George Miller, of California, the top Democrat on the House education panel. But today Harkin said he'd be open to the idea, if the committee isn't able to make progress on the legislation. He declined, however, to specify an exact timeline for when it would be okay for the department to step in and offer states relief because Congress hasn't been able to get the job done.

Harkin's comments came in a quick interview after Duncan testified before the Senate Appropriations committee on the department's fiscal year 2012 budget. More on that here.

The hearing itself yielded one more nugget of ESEA news. Alexander said he thinks states should measure teacher effectiveness in part by looking at student achievement data.

That's not really big news. The interesting part is that Alexander thinks that a shift toward effectiveness might best be accomplished by offering states and districts incentives for overhauling teacher evaluation and compensation, through Teacher Incentive Fund competitive grants, as opposed to making it making measuring teacher effectiveness a requirement for getting Title I money (which was in the administration's ESEA proposal.)

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

From Guest Blogger Nirvi Shah:

A new undertaking from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education targets school discipline policies that end up pushing children into the juvenile-justice system for crimes and rule-breaking on campus—and keeping them from pursuing their education.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan unveiled the Supportive School Discipline Initiative at a meeting of a Justice Department committee meeting Thursday afternoon.

"When our young people start getting locked up early... they start to move out of schools, out of the pipeline to success," Mr. Duncan said. He recalled how when he led Chicago public schools, he found that 7 percent of schools were responsible for more than half of the arrests of young people in the city. A small group of principals were calling the police too often to deal with minor disciplinary issues, he said, while schools with similar demographics handled the same behavior problems in other ways.

"People wanted to do the right thing. They just didn't know better," he said. "So many of these children need assistance. What they don't need is to be pushed out the door."

The initiative announced Thursday has four parts:
• building consensus for action among federal, state and local education and justice stakeholders;
• collaborating on research and data collection needed to shape policy, such as evaluations of alternative disciplinary policies and interventions;
• developing guidance to ensure school discipline policies and practices are in line with the federal civil rights laws;
• and promoting awareness and knowledge about evidence-based and promising policies and practices.

Holder and Duncan referenced a report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center from earlier this week that found that more than half of all Texas middle and high school students were suspended or expelled at least once between 7th and 12th grades.

"I think these numbers are kind of a wake-up call," Mr. Holder said. "It's obvious we can do better."

The departments will work with nonprofit and philanthropic groups including the Council of State Governments and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Supporters of Pell Grants are nervously eyeing the debate over raising the debt ceiling. Pell Grants, which are federal scholarships to help needy students cover the cost of post-secondary education, have become increasingly popular in recent years, as more students return to seek another degree.

And while that's a good thing for college-access fans, it's putting a big strain on spending. In fact, the Pell Grant program has an $11 billion deficit. (To put that number in perspective, that's about how much money the feds are spending this year on state grants for special education. So we're talking a large amount of cash, even in federal budget terms.)

Now there's speculation that lawmakers are looking to the Pell Grant program to find savings that will help fuel an agreement to boost the debt ceiling. In fact, a proposal recently released by a group of six senators working on debt reduction calls for trimming the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education collectively by $70 billion over the next 10 years.

Spending committees would get to decide where that money comes from, but advocates fear there's no way to get to that number without at least making some changes to the Pell Grant program. Advocates are especially worried because, at least for now, the primary folks doing the negotiating on the debt ceiling aren't lawmakers with a long-term interest in education, they're folks with budget expertise.

There's no telling whether the compromise proposal, which still must be fleshed out and was just announced July 19, will end up becoming law. But advocates are hoping the administration and Congress will pledge to take Pell Grants off the table.

"If we're going to be economically competitive in the future, we need these students to get degrees, but we're talking about taking away the support they need" to pay for them, said Kate Tromble, the director of legislative affairs for The Education Trust, which advocates for poor and minority students. She said that there's been a "huge push in states to ensure students are college- or career-ready," and helping needy students pay for higher education is part of that effort.

Over the past week, there's been a flurry of letters to top congressional leaders and the administration, urging them to protect Pell. Check out one from an array of advocacy groups here and another from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and progressive lawmakers here.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:36 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Even though there is far less money available for the second round of the Investing in Innovation program, interest has not waned.

Nearly 1,400 districts, schools, and nonprofits say they plan to compete for $150 million in prize money from the U.S. Department of Education, which wants to find and scale-up innovative education ideas that also have some track record of past success.

Last year, more than 1,600 applied for $650 million, and 49 won.

According to a summary document the Education Department posted online today, interest comes from every state, and most applicants plan to apply for the smallest, or "development" grants, which require less evidence of past success but bring a smaller jackpot of $3 million than the other categories. Nearly 1,000 say they want those development grants, while 242 say they plan to apply for the mid-level "validation" grants of up to $15 million, and 89 say they plan to apply for the biggest, $25 million "scale-up" grants. Just as in the first round, the bigger the grant, the more evidence an applicant needs to show that its idea might work.

These likely applicants also indicated which areas their proposal will focus on. The department this year added STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and math ) and rural districts as new priority areas, and folks have responded. STEM is the clear favorite. The rural category appears to be drawing the least amount of interest, but the department has already signaled that it may pick good rural proposals even if they don't score as well as other applications. Other areas applicants can focus on are effective teachers and principals, standards and assessments, and low-performing schools.

And based on the list of those who filed an "intent to apply"—which is not a binding commitment to apply—some winners from last year want a crack at more money. Teach for America and Success for All, which won $50 million scale-up awards last year, want to repeat.

If you have a favorite organization that is not on this list, don't lose hope, as anyone can still turn in an application. But time is running out. Applications are due Aug. 2. Yes, that's the same as the deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling, so get your application in before the country defaults.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Congress and President Barack Obama are still struggling to reach a deal to end a fiscal showdown over the $14.3 trillion federal debt ceiling, and K-12 education will likely be affected one way or another, no matter how it's resolved.

Any deal to raise the debt ceiling—and avoid a U.S. default —will likely mean sharp cuts in federal government spending that will affect most agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education. Even though Obama has said he will not support draconian cuts to federal education spending, some cuts seem likely.

If Congress can't reach a deal by the Aug. 2 deadline, then all bets are off. Schools, districts, and states could encounter several consequences.

First, if the federal government is forced to choose which bills to pay and which to put off, education programs could be directly affected. For example, says John Musso, of the Association of School Business Officials International, federal dollars that flow to districts—such as Title I money to help disadvantaged students, or Carl Perkins vocational funds—could be delayed.

Separately, he said, states could end up rejiggering their own spending on K-12 and other areas to make up for delays in federal aid for programs such as Medicaid.

"This is all happening so quickly, I don't think many school people have thought about it," Musso told me. "The domino effect could go in so many directions, it is hard to speculate all the combinations."

NCSL's Crystal Ball

In a recent memo made available to state lawmakers across the country, the National Conference of State Legislatures said if there's no deal, it's unclear how the federal government would set priorities for which programs that provide money to states—such as Medicaid, and spending on energy, child welfare and nutrition, and education—would receive money first.

In the event that the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2, and the federal government has to rely only on incoming revenues to cover its bills, states would most likely have to tap their own revenues to maintain some or all of their committed spending for various state and federal programs, NCSL's memo explained. States could also be forced to decide which programs would be halted temporarily.

"At this point, you have no idea" how states would be forced to respond, Jeff Hurley, an NCSL policy specialist, told my colleague Sean Cavanagh in an interview. All of the scenarios for states are "vague and not very specific," he said. "Everyone's playing it by ear."

On the borrowing front, school districts could feel some pain if interest rates go up because of the uncertainty or in the event of a default, which would make borrowing more expensive. "States and school districts borrow a good amount of money," said Mike Griffith, a fiscal analyst for the Education Commission of the States.

Long-term borrowing for construction projects and major maintenance could get more expensive, but so could short-term borrowing. Many districts, because of up-front costs of buying things like new textbooks, do a lot of short-term borrowing to increase cash flow until state aid payments catch up to expenses.

Shutdown Analogy

Scott D. Pattison, the executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said a short delay would have a relatively modest effect on state budgets, comparable to a relatively brief government shutdown. But he said it's difficult to predict the extent to which federally funded programs in education or in other areas would be affected, partly because the federal money flows on different schedules.

At the school-district level, there would probably not be any immediate consequences unless an impasse dragged out for an extended period of time, Pattison said. And while a failure to raise the debt ceiling could cause upheaval in the financial markets, the turmoil would have to last a long while for it to have an impact on state and local tax revenues, Pattison added.

And Pattison said he was confident that Congress would not allow a default on U.S. debt, given the economic consequences of failing to act. Even if deal to raise the debt ceiling is not in place by the Aug. 2 deadline, Pattison predicted it would be a short time before federal lawmakers took that step.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Governors in 36 states, along with District of Columbia officials, have told the U.S. Department of Education that they want to compete for $500 million in new Race to the Top money that is designed to spur improvements in early-childhood programs across the country.

The expected applicants are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Now, this doesn't mean governors can't change their minds. They were asked to signal their intent as a courtesy to the department. A governor who isn't on this list could decide to apply in the end, or a governor on the list could decide not to. Applications will be available in late summer, and awards will be made by the end of the year.

But this list provides a gauge of national interest in the Race to the Top brand, and the money that comes with it.

More interesting, at least to me, are the states that did not say they planned to apply: Alaska, California, Florida, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Some on the may-not-apply list are not surprising. Alaska, Texas, and North Dakota did not apply for either round of the $4 billion Race to the Top pot last year. Indiana, South Dakota, and Virginia did not apply for the second round. South Carolina, with a new state education chief, doesn't even want a piece of a separate $200 million pot of new money for runners-up from last year's Race to the Top, which essentially is easy money.

It's interesting that big states Florida and California, and to a lesser extent Tennessee, may not compete. But with top awards of only $100 million for this contest, perhaps officials in those states think that's not enough money to justify all the time required to get their applications ready. Plus, Florida and Tennessee won Race to the Top grants last year, so maybe they're raced out. If these states do sit out this competition, that means more money for the remaining states.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A significant part of Education Secretary Arne Duncan's education reform agenda relies on states and school districts having good, reliable data from test scores. So it's no surprise that he and his Department of Education crew are trying to figure out what they can do to stem the damage done by cheating scandals, including the at-times-shocking one that's unfolding in Atlanta.

Duncan has already said he believes the Atlanta cheating scandal is being looked at by the department's inspector general's office, which is its law enforcement arm. That office, which tries to ferret out fraud and waste involving federal funds, has had no comment on the cheating scandals. But back in 2010, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta was investigating whether the district committed fraud by inflating test scores, which earned the district federal education bonus dollars through No Child Left Behind.

While a federal investigation is presumably ongoing, what else can the Education Department do?

Several things, actually. If a state doesn't develop a "robust and effective" response to a cheating scandal, then the department can attach strings to federal education funds, or withhold them altogether.

The department is also looking at requiring states to beef up their testing security measures before receiving federal funds, and to increase spot testing in districts with dramatic improvement on test levels.

And finally, the department is considering bringing in e-testing experts to help determine what other measures states across the country should take as they deploy the next generation of online assessments.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, a former district superintendent in California who became the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education, is leaving the federal government to go back to the West Coast.

She will be the new superintendent of the 58,000-student Santa Ana school district in Orange County, Calif., the Orange County Register reports.

There's no word yet on her replacement at the Education Department, where she'll wrap up her work in the next couple of weeks. UPDATE, 2:31 p.m.: Michael Yudin, the deputy assistant secretary in that office, will take her place—at least for the time being.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

President Obama hosted a meeting at the White House today with top business executives to highlight the role of corporate cash contributions to K-12 education. The White House packaged the event as a way to reinforce its message of tying educational progress to the nation's economic future.

"There's no other group that better understands the importance of increasing excellence in America's schools than our business leaders," said Melody Barnes, White House domestic policy adviser, in remarks after the meeting.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan followed up on the economic theme, saying that millions of high-paid, high-skilled jobs remain unfilled and that "business can be an amazing partner in driving reform."

Already, three companies are announcing new pledges totaling $66 million toward education initiatives: $50 million from Bank of America for programs targeting low-income students; $15 million from Microsoft Corp. for research into initiatives such as game-based instruction; and, $1 million from the Nike School Innovation Fund to improve schools in Oregon. (Interestingly, the shoemaker's innovation fund website isn't very current, as its top story is from 2010 and touts the leadership skills of ex-Atlanta Public Schools chief Beverly Hall, who is now embroiled in a cheating scandal that has enveloped her former district.)

In addition to the three corporate pledges, America's Promise Alliance Grad Nation Community Impact Fund announced it will raise $50 million to help deal with persistent, high dropout rates. America's Promise was started by former U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and now chaired by his wife, Alma J. Powell. Both were at the White House meeting.

Also on the list for today's meeting were: Intel, Time Warner, America Online, United Way Worldwide, Accenture, ING, Fidelity Personal Investments, State Farm, AT&T, Raytheon, Target, and Discovery Communications.

The dollar amounts unveiled today aren't as eye-popping as, say, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million donation to the Newark Public Schools in New Jersey. Of course, Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, has his own foundation, which invests heavily in education. But cash-strapped states and school districts will surely appreciate any extra money they can find.

If you'll remember, the Education Department last year helped organize an announcement from a coalition of philanthropic organizations in which they said they planned to donate $506 million toward education last year. Except little of that was new money specifically tied to that announcement. We're told that the pledges announced today are all new pledges, made specifically in conjunction with the meeting with the president.

Photo: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founder of the children's advocacy group America's Promise Alliance, leaves the White House on July 18 following the education roundtable President Obama hosted for business leaders to discuss the role of corporate contributions to K-12 education. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's been about a month since U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced that, since Congress wasn't making significant progress on reauthorizing the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education, he would step in and offer waivers to states from parts of the law.

Now, of course, the big question is: What exactly would that mean?

The department has been mum so far (even to some members of Congress) but speculation about the specifics is high, particularily among state chiefs.

Here's what is under discussion, according to sources:

• There would be three kinds waivers under No Child Left Behind, and states would have to sign up for all of them—it wouldn't be an either/or thing. This is something Duncan made clear in the initial waiver announcement.

• To waive the 2014 deadline for all students to be proficient in math and language arts, states would have to adopt college- and career-readiness standards and assessments. It's not clear yet what that would mean. But, presumably, Common Core would be involved. Student growth could be used to measure achievement.

• To essentially freeze in place the law's system of sanctions, states would have to propose their own differentiated accountability systems that would incorporate growth and establish new performance targets. States also would have to establish differentiated school improvement systems that more accurately meet the needs of schools with different challenges. The accountability systems would not have to include choice or free tutoring. Districts also no longer would have to set aside Title I money for such programs.

• To waive the law's highly qualified teacher requirement and get funding flexibility, states would have to adopt evaluation systems for teachers and principals that are based on growth and make sure districts actually do what they say they're going to do.

Apparently, the four models under the current School Improvement Grant program are the most significant sticking point in discussions of what the waivers should look like.

Politics K-12 take: Sounds like the department is trying to get as many states as possible on board with the waiver plan, since the "reforms" being considered are not as onerous/innovative as the requirements for the Race to the Top program.

It also sounds like none of this is yet set in stone. The White House is heavily involved in the waiver discussion. And the administration is trying to get top Democrats in Congress, particularly Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, on board. Both have dissed the idea of waivers.

Will this play in states? Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett, who's had conversations with Duncan about the waiver plan, told Michele he supports the idea that states propose their own differentiated accountability plans. But he also noted such a process might take time, especially if those plans have to go through a lengthy peer review process.

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

State and district officials would get broad leeway to shift federal dollars now aimed at particular populations—such as children in poverty—to other programs, under a measure approved today by the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Republicans say the measure, part of a move to begin reauthorizing the ESEA piecemeal, would make it easier for districts and states to direct federal money to where it is needed most, which they see as a must in tough economic times.

Democrats argue that the Republicans are proposing too much leeway, and that it would allow districts and states to ignore the students most at risk—poor and minority kids—and trample on students' civil rights.

The measure, approved along party lines in the committee, would allow states and districts to take money out of an array of programs governed by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—including Title I grants for disadvantaged children—and direct the money to other purposes that they believe will do the most to improve student achievement.

For instance, districts could move all of the money out of Title I and direct it to teacher training. Districts could also transfer funding into a program aimed at innovation, which allows for a broad range of activities, from pre-kindergarten to adult education. School districts would still be subject to program reporting and accountability requirements. More background on the bill from the committee here and from Politics K-12 here.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee and the sponsor of the bill, said the measure would help school districts and states direct dollars to the most effective programs.

"Time and time again, school officials have talked about the innovative reforms they would undertake if only they had the flexibility to target federal funds according to their priorities," he said.

But Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the committee, argued that the measure would create "a slush fund that would allow [districts and states] to ignore the needs of poor and minority students. ... This legislation would allow school districts to siphon away money specifically intended for these students and instead use that targeted funding for nearly any other activity" allowed under ESEA.

To assuage those concerns, Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., introduced an amendment to make clear that nothing in the legislation would conflict with existing civil rights or accountability requirements.

"Providing additional flexibility in the use of federal funds will not harm any subgroup of students," he argued. "Instead, we expect all students—regardless of race and ethnicity or socioeconomic status—will benefit from the increased opportunities this legislation provides school districts and state officials."

Thompson also contended that Democrats, in voting against the legislation, were failing to trust local education officials to make the best decisions for students in their districts.

Democrats were unconvinced.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., worried that federal funds meant for disadvantaged students and racial minorities would ultimately go to other students whose families are more likely to be able to put political pressure on local education leaders.

"Where do you think that money will go?" he asked. "If you leave it to the market, the privileged will get more. We have serious divisions in our society, we have serious inequalities in our society, it is incumbent on us to do everything we can to address those."

Democrats also countered that the bill does nothing to address the sort of flexibility that they say districts and states are really asking for, such as allowing districts to keep funds they must now set aside for school choice and tutoring.

Democrats introduced a series of amendments to exempt particular pots of money from the proposed flexibility. For instance, an amendment by Miller would have prohibited districts from moving money out of Title I and diverting it to other purposes. Other amendments sought to protect funding for English-language learners, neglected and delinquent children, migrant students, American Indians, and Alaska Native and Hawaiian children. All were defeated on party-line votes.

Holt introduced an amendment that would require school districts that access the funds to explain how they are serving particular populations. Kline said there was already a similar requirement in the legislation.

The flexibility bill was the third in a series of smaller, more targeted measures aimed at reauthorizing parts of the ESEA. (Check here for information on the first two bills—a bipartisan charter school bill and a GOP-backed measure to eliminate programs deemed unnecessary.)

It's an open question whether the next two pieces of legislation the committee has planned—one dealing with teachers and another with accountability—will garner bipartisan support. But if the reauthorization of the ESEA is going to happen this year, Republicans and Democrats will need to come to agreement sooner or later.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The list of delays states are encountering in implementing their Race to the Top plans keeps getting longer.

Every state but Georgia has now amended its Race to the Top plan in some way, usually to push back a timeline or scale back an initiative. In all, the dozen winners from the $4 billion competition have changed their plans, so far, 25 times, according to the list of amendments approved by the U.S. Department of Education. Remember, the winners were chosen based, at least in part, on their promises in those plans.

The changes includes a 32-page amendment with dozens of changes to New York's plan, including one of the first amendments I've seen that doesn't just push back a timeline, but eliminates a small piece of the state's plan. That particular amendment eliminates a $10 million program to provide competitive grants for charter school facilities in New York, and redistributes the money across a few other programs, including a general "school innovation fund." This may—or may not—be a big deal, but it's at least worth noting.

An amendment to Maryland's plan is postponing for a year full implementation of its new teacher evaluation system to allow districts more time to pilot it. The state also is delaying a couple of teacher incentive-pay programs and scaling back some of its professional development initiatives, including summer academies that were proposed to be five days covering four content areas, but ended up being three days worth of training covering two content areas.

We've told you about these implementation delays before, and the Government Accountability Office also flagged problems states were encountering in a recent status update on Race to the Top.

This is only the beginning of implementation woes that are bound to plague such a high-profile, ambitious, and unique program. In fact, Hawaii could be headed toward a major roadblock as it struggles to adopt a new teacher evaluation system as it promised to do in its Race to the Top application.

For those out there who wonder if these states overpromised—and that's a very legitimate and important question—it's worth pointing out that these states have four years to implement their plans. They won based on their previous student achievement track records, their education-reform landscape, and their plans for pushing reforms forward with millions of extra federal dollars. They did not get points, per se, for how quickly they would turn their plans into reality—so as long as they get the job done when the grant is up in four years, that seems to be what matters. Or is it?

States could, however, put themselves in a real bind by pushing everything back until the last minute. (Think of rising proficiency targets under No Child Left Behind, when many states backloaded their targets so they will have to make giant leaps in student achievement in these final years before the 2014 deadline for 100 percent proficiency.) But perhaps the folks with the most on the line are top officials at the U.S. Department of Education, and namely Secretary Arne Duncan. After all, Race to the Top is the signature education initiative of President Obama. So the pressure's on.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:52 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Rural districts with lots of low-income families would see more Title I funding under a measure introduced today by U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa.

The Title I formula is highly complicated, but in a nutshell, the money is distributed to districts based on their size and concentration of poverty, among other factors. That means that, generally speaking, larger districts and big urban areas often come out ahead of poor, rural districts and small cities. For instance, Fairfax County, Va. (one of the richest counties in the nation) gets a disproportionate share of Title I dollars than some rural districts with higher concentrations of poverty.

The bill, called the All Children Are Equal Act (ACE), would seek to scale back the population part of the formula, so that Title I dollars are more focused on student poverty, not just population density.

"In rural Pennsylvania, we have a lot of experience stretching a buck, but the differences are staggering," Thompson at an event today highlighting the legislation.

The politics: Title I formula funding is the sort of issue that doesn't divide neatly along partisan lines. Thompson is the lead sponsor, but he also has the support of a number of Democrats, including Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas. The bill also has fans among Thompson's fellow House Education and Workforce Committee Republicans, including Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa.

There is no Senate sponsor yet, but in the past, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has expressed interest in this issue.

Thompson will almost certainly need the support of Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Educaiton and the Workforce Committee, if he's going to advance this bill. Sounds like Kline thinks that a discussion of the Title I funding formula is worth having. Here's a statement from his spokeswoman, Alexandra Sollberger:

Chairman Kline looks forward to working with Rep. Thompson to address inequities in the Title I formula that affect smaller and rural school districts' ability to meet the needs of disadvantaged children. As we continue our efforts to reform the elementary and secondary education law and ensure all children have access to a quality education, the committee is in the process of developing a proposal to further address Title I formula and accountability issues.

Putting a Face on the Problem: Carolyn Ross, the superintendent of the 4,500 student Churchill County School District in Nevada, is hoping the bill becomes a reality. Her district gets about $717,000 annually from Title I, but that would jump to $860,000 if the legislation becomes a reality. She'd use the extra money, she said, to hire staff and help her existing teachers learn how "work with students in poverty."

Who Supports This: The Rural School and Community Trust, for one; it has been asking for changes to the Title I formula practically forever.

The American Association of School Administrators, which is based in Arlington, Va., and represents a number of rural and suburban superintendents, is also for it. And it's got the seal of approval of the National Alliance of Black School Educators, among other groups.

The Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington, has also recommended changes it says would make the formula more equitable. Raegan Miller, CAP's associate director for education research, said the Thompson bill "pushes in the same direction" as the group's own proposal.

Chance of Passage: That's unclear right now. Thompson said he sees the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the right vehicle for the measure. But a fight over the formula could also slow down the process of reauthorizing the NCLB law (which is already going at a snail's pace).

Without a major increase in Title I dollars (not a very likely prospect, given that Congress isn't in a spendy mood lately), legislation like Thompson's could create a fight that divides more along the lines of district character (urban and suburban vs. rural) than any partisan lines.

Thompson is trying to head off this kind of tension by including language in the bill that would phase in the new funding formula so that districts wouldn't have to adjust to less money all at once. Another option would be to have a pot of transitional funding, but Thompson is probably correct that a phase-in is a more politically viable option in this tight fiscal climate.

And even if a formula-funding fight would gum up the works on reauthorization for a bit, supporters of the bill think it's a debate worth having.

"If the formulas are changed, it happens at the very end" of discussion on a bill, said CAP's Miller. "There's a fight, it takes up some oxygen, [but] it doesn't mean that the formula fight derails" reauthorization.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The U.S. Department of Education has given Montana an Aug. 15 deadline to report how the state plans to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act.

This formal condition placed on millions of dollars in Title I funds threatens enforcement action, including the withholding of Title I money, if the state doesn't comply.

State education chief Denise Juneau, who informed federal officials she would freeze proficiency targets at 2009-10 levels, told me earlier she had no plans to reverse course. But she also said she wouldn't jeopardize schools' funding either.

So stay tuned. This is getting interesting.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

States and districts would get unprecedented leeway to move around federal money under the latest in a series of bills to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But the measure is already being decried by a top Democrat as a "backdoor" way to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and as an attack on students' civil rights.

The bill, introduced today by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, envisions a very different role for the federal government when it comes to telling states and districts how to spend their money.

Instead of directing states and districts to spend a certain amount on a particular population—say, English-language learners—states and districts could move the dollars out of that program and spend them on a wide range of activities authorized under the ESEA (whose current version is No Child Left Behind).

That would mean that districts could, for instance, move all of the money out of Title I grants for disadvantaged students, and spend it on, say, professional development under the Teacher Quality State Grants program. States and districts would still be required to fulfill reporting requirements for all programs, even if they move all of the money out of them. (For more specifics, check here and here.)

"It has been perplexing to [superintendents] and schools throughout the country that they cannot move money where they need it," Kline said today on Morning in America, former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett's radio program.

Kline had hoped to consider the funding bill earlier this year, but he pulled it back, in part to garner support from Democrats.

That support doesn't look likely now. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House education committee, said the measure is "an offensive, direct attack on civil rights" that is sure to weaken efforts to ensure that disadvantaged and minority kids get access to educational opportunities.

"This back-door attempt at fulfilling campaign promises to dismantle the federal role in education will turn back the clock on civil rights and especially harm low-income and minority students," Miller said.

"Pretending like the federal government doesn't have a role won't change why it exists, it won't change the history of separate but equal, but it will endanger our schools, our economic stability, and our global competitiveness," he said. "The implications of a bill like this are disastrous for students, communities, schools and the future of this country."

Miller made it clear that Kline's bill would make bipartisanship tough going forward. "This bill makes it much more difficult to continue in a bipartisan manner to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," he said.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is also not a fan of the bill. "This bill doesn't fix the real problems with NCLB and runs the risk of short changing students with the greatest needs," said Justin Hamilton, his spokesman. "We need a true bipartisan reform bill for the President to sign by the start of the school year. Time is running out, and kids can't wait."

Kline said, "There are people who just claim ownership to certain pieces [of the law] and won't let go."

What Advocates Say: The legislation has major fans and serious detractors.

Count the American Association of School Administrators among the major fans. The legislation "trusts that local educators are the best equipped" to make decisions about what will impact student achievement, said Noelle Ellerson, the AASA's assistant director of policy analysis and advocacy.

And she said that, since the measure would call for states and districts to continue to meet reporting requirements, it shouldn't be viewed as backsliding on accountability for the funds.
But civil rights advocates are already warning of the legislation's potential impact on disadvantaged and minority children.(Check out AASA's letter of support here.)

"This kind of flexibility isn't what our schools need to raise achievement and close gaps. ... We don't see how anything good comes out of this," said Kate Tromble, the director of legislative affairs for the Education Trust, an advocacy organization in Washington that works on behalf of low-income and minority students.

The bill "undoes the core federal role in public education," a key part of which is ensuring that long-overlooked populations got their fair share of resources and attention, she said. Allowing states and districts to move money out of those dedicated funds could mean those students will be swept under the rug again, she said.

The Council of the Great City Schools, which represents urban districts, is also unhappy with the bill.

The council "will oppose the new ESEA Funding Flexibility bill and any bill that undermines the integrity of the Title I program for disadvantaged students and the Title III program for students with limited English proficiency," Michael Casserly, the council's executive director, said in a statement circulated by Miller's staff.

The National Education Association also opposes the measure. "We support flexibility, we just don't think you need to threaten childrens' civil rights in order to provide it," said Mary Kusler, the union's manager of federal advocacy.

So will this pass? It has a good chance in the GOP-controlled House. But, given the early reaction from Miller and Duncan, it seems the bill would struggle to gain support from Democrats in the Senate—and President Barack Obama.

More mechanics: It's important to note that one of the pots of funding districts could move money to is Title V, which is called Innovative Programs. That's a mega-flexible funding stream. Districts can use the money for pretty much anything under the sun, from charter schools to technology to class size reduction to pre-kindergarten and adult education classes. Check out the whole list here (starting on page 11).

Under the bill, states would be allowed to shift money out of the following programs: School Improvement Grants (state administration); Title I administrative funds; Migrant Education; Neglect and Delinquent programs; Teacher Quality State Grants; English Language Acquisition Grants; 21st Century Community Learning Centers; and the Education Jobs Fund.

And school districts could transfer funds from Title I grants for disadvantaged kids; Migrant Education; Neglected and Delinquent programs; Teacher Quality State Grants; English Language Acquisition Grants; Indian Education; and the Education Jobs Fund.

So where could the money go? It could be funneled to the School Improvement Grant program; Title I grants to districts; Reading First; Migrant Education; Neglect and Delinquent Programs; Teacher Quality State Grants; Math and Science Partnerships; English Language Acquisition Grants; 21 Century Community Learning Centers; Innovative Programs; Grants for State Assessments; Rural Education; Indian Education; and services for early intervention under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Under the measure, districts would have to let states know ahead of time how they planned to use the funds, and states would have to keep the Department of Education in the loop on their spending plans. But there wouldn't be any sort of application or approval process.

More politics and policy: Democrats counter that districts never asked for flexibility of this kind, and largely don't take advantage of the flexibility they're already allowed. Democrats on the education committee have put out a report on the issue.

In a nutshell, the report says that states and districts can move already 50 percent of funding out of certain programs, including Teacher Quality State Grants, but very few do. And committee Democrats say that the bill doesn't address some of the flexibility that districts have asked for, including not having to set aside part of their Title I funding for school choice and tutoring.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, gave a preview of his panel's funding flexibility bill today on former Education Secretary Bill Bennett's radio show, Morning in America. And he said that the bill won't be introduced with bipartisan support.

The bill will come out later today, so we'll have more details then. But Kline said, basically, that the measure would allow districts to move money from one part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to another. For instance, he told Bennett that districts could move money out of Title I (which goes to disadvantaged kids) and put it into Title II (which is for teacher training).

Kline gave the example of a superintendent who would want to "upgrade computers across the whole school, and it will help all the kids," and might want to move some money out of a fund just for English-language learners to do that.

Kline said the legislation won't be bipartisan because "there are people who just claim ownership to certain pieces [of the law] and won't let go."

You can check out the full interview here. For more background on an earlier version of the legislation, check here.

The bill hasn't been officially dropped yet, so we haven't seen the reaction. But my guess is that some superintendents will probably cheer at this news. I'd be surprised if it went over well with some folks in the civil rights community—including, for instance, advocates for English-language learners.

UPDATE: Count Secretary of Education Arne Duncan among the bill's first detractors. "This bill doesn't fix the real problems with NCLB and runs the risk of short changing students with the greatest needs," said his spokesman, Justin Hamilton. "We need a true bipartisan reform bill for the President to sign by the start of the school year. Time is running out, and kids can't wait."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So, Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, is less than thrilled with the response from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to his request for more information about the department's plan to give states leeway on parts of the No Child Left Behind Act in exchange for signing onto a package of reforms-to-be-named-later.

Here's Duncan's response. To summarize, if you expected the department to provide Kline & Co. with a thorough, detailed explanation of the waiver proposal, you'll be sorely disappointed.

The letter lays out the rationale for the waiver plan (the law is overdue for reauthorization, states are clamoring for an update, the vast majority of the nation's schools will be identified as failing). And, in response to Kline's query on the legality of waivers, Duncan cites a section of the law that gives the department flexibility to waive requirements if it will help boost student achievement and improve instruction. (This is the same response he's been giving to reporters.)

But, even though Kline asked for details, the letter doesn't say just what these waivers will look like. It also doesn't say when the waiver plan will be finalized, how waiver requests will be reviewed, or when the waivers would become effective—all questions that Kline wanted answered.

Duncan says that the department will be asking states, districts, and schools for feedback on the plan. And he says he'd welcome any input from Kline and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif, who oversees the subcommittee on K-12 policy and also signed on to letter asking Duncan for information.

But Kline clearly doesn't think this response makes the grade.

"It is disappointing the secretary continues to elude questions about his plan that 'trades regulatory flexibility for reform'," said Kline's spokeswoman, Alexandra Sollberger. "Instead of touting murky alternatives, the secretary should lend his support to the House Education and the Workforce Committee's ongoing efforts to advance targeted education legislation."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Up to six communities will get the chance to create a version of the Harlem Children's Zone in their own backyards, now that the U.S. Department of Education has opened up the very first round of Promise Neighborhood implementation grants.

The grants will be $4 million to $6 million annually for three to five years, the department announced today.

That isn't a lot of winners, especially when you consider that more than 300 communities threw their hats in the ring for one of the "planning" grants made available under the program last year. Just 21 communities ended up getting those grants, which were aimed at helping communities figure out what kind of wraparound services (pre-kindergarten, college counseling, health services, etc.) they needed to boost student achievement in their area.

It's important to note that just because communities got planning grants, they're not necessarily shoe-ins for the implementation grants. They'll just have done the thinking needed to make themselves competitive.

The department will also give out 10 new "planning" grants this year.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan loves talking about the Promise Neighborhood program, particularly in answer to critics who say the department doesn't do enough to provide schools with the kind of wraparound services that some see as vital to overcoming the impact of poverty and boosting student achievement. So why so few actual Promise Neighborhoods?

Well, the program has never actually gotten a whole lot of money. It got just $10 million in its first year (fiscal year 2010), and then got a little less than $30 million this year, even though President Obama had sought a big boost for the program, $250 million. Now, he's asking for $150 million, and I'd be shocked if Congress came close to that.

So ... are four to six small programs really going to make a difference?

Jim Shelton, the assistant deputy secretary for innovation and improvement thinks so. He said the program "was always meant to be a demonstration program," providing an example communities could learn from. And he said that many communities that don't win grants are likely to proceed with the work, even without the federal backing.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:21 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

On April 25, Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau informed the U.S. Department of Education that she planned to freeze annual proficiency targets at current levels, rather than march on toward that goal of getting 100 percent of students proficient in math and language arts.

More than two months later, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote her back.

In a letter dated July 1, Duncan told her that Montana is out of compliance with No Child Left Behind, and he urged her to reconsider her decision. He said the department has "no alternative but to pursue enforcement action." And that "may include the withholding" of its Title I funds.

In an interview today, Juneau told me her staff would review the letter, but that she currently has no plans to reverse course. She also said she planned on having further conversations with the department to see what exactly the enforcement actions might entail.

She told me she would not jeopardize millions in Title I money, which she said schools desperately need. Whether the department can pursue other enforcement action, besides withholding money, is unclear. I'm waiting for an answer from the department on that one.

Juneau told me she's interested in whatever waiver package Duncan ultimately comes up with as states await congressional action to rewrite the federal accountability law. But if Duncan's "plan B" would entail creating charter schools (Montana has no plans to do so) or state takeover of failing schools (not currently authorized under Montana law) then it's unlikely her state would be able to seek those waivers. She pointed out that the state legislature doesn't even return until January 2013.

Montana may not be the only state entering into a standoff with the department. Idaho and South Dakota have also informed the department that they plan to defy parts of NCLB.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Apparently, the U.S. Department of Education is not making Adequate Progress on its response to the Republican leaders on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

As I'm sure you'll remember, Rep. John Kline, the chairman of the committee, sent a letter last week to the department asking for details, by July 1, of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's plan to give states wiggle room on some unspecified parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, in exchange for adopting certain yet unspecified "reforms."

That July 1 deadline has come and gone and, apparently, Kline hasn't heard back from the department yet, according to this news release.

Kline's staff also pointed reporters to a June 28 report from the Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan research arm of Congress. CRS found that the Secretary has the authority to waive major portions of the NCLB law, including on accountability, standards, school choice, the 2014 deadline, and other hot-button parts of the law.

But Kline's office points to language in the report handicapping possible legal challenges to the Secretary's plan to give states on leeway in exchange for action on certain reforms. Here's the paragraph cited:

"If the Secretary did, as a condition of granting a waiver, require a grantee to take another action not currently required under the ESEA, the likelihood of a successful legal challenge might increase, particularly if [the department] failed to sufficiently justify its rationale for imposing such conditions. Under such circumstances, a reviewing court could deem the conditional waiver to be arbitrary and capricious or in excess of the agency's statutory authority."

If you're in the mood for some very wonky beach reading, you can check out the full report here.

In essence, CRS says the department is generally within its rights to go ahead with waivers, but needs to tread carefully. The administration has the authority to grant waivers that come with strings, more or less, as long as those waivers are totally voluntary, meaning that states don't have to apply. But the department is on shakier ground if it tries to require states to apply for the waivers and, therefore, embrace the new policies, CRS says.

Confused? Can't blame you. Plus, CRS added a sort of all-inclusive, cover-all-the-bases, legalese caveat, saying that the success of any potential lawsuit on the waiver issue would really depend on the facts of the case, and we're a long way from that.

Another important question: Who would actually do the suing on this? States that get turned down for waivers? Congress? Education advocates or practioners who still like NCLB? Those concerned about federal overreach? No one? Stay tuned.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

To the states out there that plan to disregard the No Child Left Behind Act, the Education Department says this: Not so fast.

Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota so far have notified the department that they do not plan to follow the federal accountability law, and instead will use their own accountability systems. But that's not going to fly, department officials say. If Congress does not rewrite the law, either Education Secretary Arne Duncan will enforce the existing law, which he has called "broken," or he will allow states to earn waivers in "exchange for reform." (That's plan B.) There is no plan C.

Spokesman Justin Hamilton said this today when I asked him about the states that plan to disobey the law: "We all agree NCLB is broken, and the best way to fix it is for Congress to send a bipartisan bill for the President to sign by the start of the school year. If Congress needs more time, our plan B would be to offer relief in exchange for reform to states who desperately want flexibility from NCLB's broken provisions. This will give all states the option of either complying with existing law, or participating in plan B. One way or another, we need to enforce the law or change it."

But states, and Congress, are still waiting for details on that supposed plan B. In fact, the department apparently didn't meet the July 1 deadline set by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee, to cough up more details on Duncan's waiver plan.

Hamilton said, "We are in touch with Rep. Kline's office about the letter and are working to get [a response] to them soon."

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

To win a grant in the U.S. Department of Education's new Race to the Top competition for early-childhood education aid, states will have to develop rating systems for their programs, craft appropriate standards and tests for young children, and set clear expectations for what teachers should know.

That's according to the proposed rules released today by the Obama administration that will govern the $500 million competition, which was made possible by the fiscal 2011 budget deal Congress passed in April.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was given $700 million in new Race to the Top money, and chose to put most of it into early education, while keeping a $200 million slice to award to runners-up from last year's competition. (Details of that separate contest have yet to be announced.)

The Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge awards will range from $50 million to $100 million, depending on a state's population, and the contest is open to all states, not just the winners in last year's competition. This could be especially attractive for small states, which were eligible for maximum grants of $75 million in the first edition of Race to the Top. For big states, $100 million won't go as far; the biggest states in the original Race to the Top won $700 million each. For this early-learning competition, four states—California, Florida, New York, and Texas—are eligible for $100 million.

In crafting this new iteration of Race to the Top, the Obama administration is building upon the success of last year's $4 billion competition, which pushed states to embrace charter schools, merit pay for teachers, and better data systems. This competition is designed to improve the quality of and access to early-childhood programs, and to eliminate some of the "vast inequities" in care, said Special Assistant to the President for Education in the White House Domestic Policy Council Roberto Rodriguez, speaking in a call with reporters Thursday afternoon.

"We believe this Race to the Top can have the same kind of impact," Rodriguez said. "How do we really do more to boost the quality of our early-learning programs?"

Under the competition guidelines developed by the Education Department—working with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—a winning state must:

• Come up with and use early-learning and development standards for children, along with assessments;
• Develop and administer kindergarten-readiness tests, and develop rating systems for early-education programs;
• Demonstrate cooperation across the multiple agencies that touch early-childhood issues (from departments of health to education), and establish statewide standards for what early-childhood educators should know;
• Have a good track record on early learning, and an ambitious plan to improve those programs;
• Make sure early learning and prekindergarten data is incorporated into its longitudinal data system.

(And no, states do not have to develop pay-for-performance plans for early childhood teachers—which was an important component in the first Race to the Top competition.)

In a nod to rural districts and advocates, who often feel overlooked by the department, the Obama administration says it may go out of its way to reward states with large rural populations, potentially bypassing a higher-scoring urban state in favor of lower-scoring rural state.

Just as in the original Race to the Top, this competition will rely on outside judges to pick the winners. But the ultimate decision rests with Duncan.

Because the department has to get these awards out the door by the end of this year, officials have waived the typical rulemaking process. But they are asking for input. The public can comment on the proposed criteria through July 11. Applications will be available in late summer, and awards will be made by the end of the year. States will have until Dec. 31, 2015 to spend their winnings.

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