December 2011 Archives

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the current GOP presidential frontruner, wants to see schools tout the benefits of marriage and pay their beginning teachers more.

He also thinks the No Child Left Behind Act was a step in the right direction because "only the federal government had the clout to force testing through the barricade mounted by the national teachers' unions."

Those are just some of the views sketched out in Romney's book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness" , which was published back in March of 2010, in advance of Romney's White House bid. The book devotes a whole entire chapter to education, in which he emphasizes schools' role in preparing students for a changing workforce, and on education as a civil right.

And in the book, Romney talks about the relationship between social issues and education, in a way he hasn't yet on the campaign trail.

"I believe it's time for Americans to be honest with ourselves," Romney writes. "We will never be able to truly address the achievement grap until we eliminate the high rate of out-of-wedlock births in our country. It's not a coincidence that student achievement scores by ethnicity mirror the rates of out-of-wedlock births." He cautions that this isn't just a problem for minorities since "most out-of-wedlock children are born to white mothers." And he says that kids must be taught in school about "the advantages of marriage."

Romney adds: "Any discussion of out-of-wedlock births must exercise extreme care and compassion to make sure we in no way appear to judge or condemn these moms or their children. These moms are some of the best people we know."

Romney hits teacher quality hard. He suggests setting a high bar for education schools and opening up alternative pathways. More controversial is his pitch for an increase in salaries for beginning teachers—that's a bit unusual for a Republican. He also wants to see a movement away from a "lockstep seniority-based grid."

Romney has some ideas on social studies education, too, where he wades into some culture war issues. It bugs him that "progessives have de-emphasized the subjects that had previously been considered essential", such as the history of Western and American civilization. "They presented all the world's cultures to our children and insisted that none was superior to others," he wrote.

He also cites research showing that class size has no impact on student achievement (complete with charts and graphs). And he advocates for expanding school choice, particularly charter schools.

He's a testing fan. He rejects the claim that No Child Left Behind advocates "teaching to the test", which he attributes to teachers' unions.

"'Teaching to the test' can only mean teaching the fundamentals fo math, algebra, geometry, calculus, reading comprehension, and English composition. If giving these students these skills is 'teaching to the test' then I'm all for it."

And Romney likes the idea of using technology to make it easier to teach kids with different learning styles. Teachers' unions oppose a "good deal" of the new "computer learning revolution", he writes. He's a fan of homeschooling too. (He tips his hat to his sister in law, Becky Davies, who has homeschooled four of her children.)

Romney is not a fan of teachers' unions generally, calling them an "obstacle" to education reform. (He's hardly the first Republican—or policymaker—to take up that mantle.)

"Teachers' unions do their very best to secure...insulations from performance for their members, and the results are lack of accountability, rising pay as a simple function of years on the job, and near-absolute job security," he writes. "These have a deadening impact on student achievement. I don't blame teachers' unions...I blame administrators, school boards, and parents for saying yes, even when schools are manifestly failing their students."

And if Romney could "wave a wand over American education and get one result"? He'd want to see schools rededicate themselves to teaching writing.

Romney also showcases his record as Massachusetts governor. Here's what he defines as his "education sucesses" back in the Bay State:

•Creating a scholarship for the students who scored in the top 25 percent of their high school class on state graduation exams. The scholarship could be used at any state institution and was worth about $2,000 a year.

•Vetoing a bill that would have prohibited the creation of new charter schools.

•Implementing the state's high school exit exam program. Romney threatened to pull state funding from one district (New Bedford) when the mayor threatened to give a high school diploma to all students, regardless of whether or not they passed the test. The mayor relented.

—Championing "English-immersion" programs for English-language learners, rather than "bilingual education."

Romney also seems to have the biggest cadre of education advisers in the GOP field right now.

They include: Nina Rees, who served as assistant deputy secretary for innovation and improvement under President George W. Bush; Marty West, a Harvard professor, and F. Philip Handy, the former chairman of the Florida State Board of Education under former Gov. Jeb Bush. (Handy worked as an education adviser on Sen. John McCain of Arizona's campaign back in 2008.)

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Maybe we should call 2011 the Year of the Waive?

After all, many of the big events that headlined 2011 involved the push to reauthorize ESEA, the recognition that the legislation was indeed going nowhere, and finally the acknowledgment that the accountability landscape would temporarily but significantly change as the Obama administration granted waivers under No Child Left Behind. Meanwhile, edu-consultants continued to get work helping organizations with federal grant competitions, including Race to the Top. And, to end the year, the U.S. Department of Education delivered a stern letter to Hawaii threatening to take its Race to the Top money back after the state failed to hit key milestones.

But here were readers' favorite news items, as measured by the number of page views logged:

1. "Obama Makes Education a State of the Union Centerpiece," Jan. 25: President Obama called on Congress to "replace" No Child Left Behind with something that looks more like Race to the Top. Lawmakers have yet to take him up on that one.
2. "Obama Gives Go-Ahead for NCLB Waivers to States," Aug. 8: With no more stimulus money left to hand out and reauthorization of ESEA stalled in Congress, Education Secretary Arne Duncan figures out how he can further influence education policy—by using broad waiver authority under NCLB to demand changes in exchange for flexibility under the law. The Obama administration, which had already telegraphed that it was going to grant waivers to states, strung us along for quite awhile and didn't actually reveal the all-important details of how the waivers would work until six weeks later.
3."Obama Administration Sets Rules for NCLB Waivers," Sept. 22: The administration's long-awaited waiver package gave states options on setting goals for student achievement, and called for new teacher evaluation systems. But it remains to be seen if the waiver plan will live up to the administration's promise to "unleash innovation."
4. "Stopgap Spending Bill Severs Array of Education Programs," March 3: Congress followed through on promises to cut spending, by slashing more than a dozen K-12 programs, including money for popular national nonprofits, such as Teach for America and the National Writing Project.
5. "Duncan: Teacher Salaries Should Be $60,000 to $150,000," July 29: There was a lot of wishful thinking in this speech, especially given the tight budget constraints states are facing. But the eye-grabbing salary figures surely helped make this item a reader favorite.
6. "Senate ESEA Draft Bill Would Scrap Adequate Yearly Progress," Oct. 11: Finally, after more than four years of waiting, lawmakers introduced a bill to renew the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. The bipartisan bill got voted out of committee, but, for now, it's headed nowhere and states are looking to waivers for relief.
7. "Are 82% of Schools 'Failing' Under NCLB, as Duncan Warned?," Aug. 3: Politics K-12 was very, very skeptical when Arne Duncan claimed that 82 percent of schools would be failing this year if NCLB was allowed to continue. This post began to lay out the facts—that the failure rates being reported weren't coming anywhere near that high number.
8. "New Race to Top Stresses Pre-K Tests, Early Ed. Program Ratings," July 1: Race to the Top has become a very popular brand for the Obama administration. This was the announcement of rules for a new $500 million competition for states to improve early learning, which emphasized the hot-button issue of testing prekindergarteners. Controversy is never bad for gaining Internet traffic.
9. "Debt Ceiling Deal: Big Questions for K-12," Aug. 1: Congress finally reaches an agreement to raise the debt ceiling by creating a "supercommittee" charged with making long-term deficit reduction recommendations. But the panel never reached agreement, and now draconian cuts to domestic spending are set to kick in. It's sure to be a hot topic of debate in 2012.
10. ""Is Pizza a Vegetable? In School Lunches, Congress Says Yes," Nov. 15: Say what!!??

Posted by Michele McNeil at 7:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Lisa Graham Keegan, who served as a top adviser on K-12 issues during Sen. John McCain's bid for the presidency in 2008, is set to join former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's campaign early next year.

Keegan, a former superintendent for public instruction in Arizona, has a long record in education politics. She very nearly became President George W. Bush's first secretary of education. (He ultimately picked former Houston school superintendent Rod Paige instead.) And she headed up the Education Leaders Council, a coalition of conservative education officials. The ELC ran into some federal audit issues back in 2006, which Keegan addressed while campaigning for McCain.

Back in 2008, as McCain's go-to-guru on K-12, Keegan went toe-to-toe with a host of Obama's campaign advisers. (Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who is now the administration's education secretary, wasn't on the campaign trail.)

More recently, Keegan has been working in the area of school choice, as president and founder of the Education Breakthrough Network. And she testified before the House education committee earlier this year, to help inform reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Keegan told me in an interview last week she's excited about joining Gingrich. She said he gets the issue because "he's an educator" himself. (She was referring to his work as a history professor.)

I asked her whether Gingrich's work stumping with the Rev. Al Sharpton, a noted civil rights activist, and Secretary Duncan, squared with his new plan to slim down the U.S. Department of Education.

"I think it squares exactly," Keegan told me. The tour was part of Gingrich's work with the Education Equality Project, a non-profit organization advocating for a "no excuses" approach to education redesign.

The tour "wasn't about the specific pathways to getting there. ... [It was] simply advocating for the view that all children must have access to schools that work," Keegan said. Gingrich strives to communicate with people with whom he disagrees, and find common ground when possible, she added.

"The country has to be able to talk to each other," she said.

UPDATE: Joining Keegan is Michael Moe, an entrepreneur and investor who now serves as CEO of GSV Asset Management Center, an investment company. Moe sits on the board of the Center for Education Reform, an organization in Washington that advocates for expanding school choice. He is also on the board of ePALs Corporation, an education technology company, and serves as co-chairman of Arizona State University's Education Innovation Council.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Seven states that were runners-up in last year's $4 billion Race to the Top competition will share a $200 million consolation prize that will fund small pieces of their original plans, with many choosing to focus on implementing common standards and improving teacher evaluation systems.

The seven winners are: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Their grants range in size, based on each state's student population, from $17 million for Colorado, Kentucky, and Louisiana to nearly $43 million for Illinois.

"These states are absolutely ready to do great things," U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a conference call with reporters yesterday evening.

The announcement comes as the U.S. Department of Education has begun to raise the pressure on the 12 winners of last year's competition. On Wednesday, federal officials cited Hawaii for "unsatisfactory performance" on its Race to the Top grant and placed the state on "high-risk" status. That means the state will have to ask the department for permission before spending any more of its $75 million, will face an extensive on-site review, and increased reporting requirements. The department's letter to Hawaii clearly telegraphed that the state is in danger of losing its grant.

Duncan said during the conference call that Hawaii's progress was "nowhere near" where it should be. "I'm less concerned about time frames and more concerned about momentum."

He said he talked to Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Thursday, and that the state needed to ramp up its momentum in the early part of 2012 to make good on its Race to the Top promises.

"They are in danger of losing their resources," Duncan said. "This hasn't been a great year for Hawaii."

Hawaii aside, Duncan said he was still "extraordinarily pleased" with the progress of Race to the Top states in general.

The announcement of the latest, $200 million in awards was surrounded by little suspense. The department made all nine runners-up from last year eligible to win this time around so long as they agreed to stick to the reform agenda they pitched last year, and demonstrated how the piece of their plan that they chose to highlight also benefited the STEM, or science, technology, engineering, and math, subjects.

Two other runner-up states did not get a piece of this smaller prize: South Carolina was ineligible, and the department determined that California submitted an "incomplete" application.

With just $200 million to be split this time around—far less than the $4 billion up for grabs last year—the fact that two states did not participate bumped up everyone else's prize.

The department has now awarded all of its fiscal 2011 Race to the Top money, and can turn to figuring out what to do with the nearly $550 million Congress set aside to extend the brand during fiscal 2012. Duncan has said no decisions have been made on how that money will be awarded. However, during last night's call, he made clear that he does want to use at least some of the money for districts, saying that Congress' decision to open up Race to the Top to the local level was a "great opportunity." He also said the money is an opportunity to focus more on early learning and STEM.

Awarding Race to the Top money to an additional seven states enhances the reach of President Obama's signature education-reform initiative. Duncan can say (as he does in the press release announcing the seven winners): "These seven states are now among 22 Race to the Top winners spread out across the country that are investing in key education reforms to prepare more students for college and careers." He also says that Race to the Top money now reaches 59 percent of the nation's students and 69 percent of all low-income children.

In addition to today's seven winners and the 12 winners of the original $4 billion Race to the Top, there were nine winners of the Race to the Top early learning competition (including three new states).

Details on how each state will use the Race to the Top winnings can be found in this department document. Among the highlights:

• Arizona: Plans to establish five regional education centers, support the transition to Common Core State Standards, and improve data systems to inform educational decision-making.

• Colorado: Plans to transition to college- and career-ready standards, improve educator effectiveness by providing statewide training to implement its new teacher-evaluation system, and continue with STEM integration.

• Illinois: Plans to create a group of "reform exemplars" among participating districts that will agree to meet a high bar for implementing a comprehensive set of reforms, build systems and processes to continue and sustain improved student outcomes for all participating school districts, and build state capacity to extend reforms statewide.

• Kentucky: Plans to focus on its "one-stop shop" technology support system for Kentucky educators and to scale up the AdvanceKentucky project, which is aimed at engaging underserved and underrepresented student populations in advanced STEM courses.

• Louisiana: Plans to implement a performance-management system statewide to measure teacher and leader effectiveness and increase professional development resources available for STEM teachers, and develop and deliver professional development modules aligned with the Common Core in mathematics, among other things.

• New Jersey: Plans to develop model curricula that will assist teachers and leaders in the transition to Common Core assessments; launch its newly created teacher evaluation system statewide and pilot a new evaluation system for principals; and enhance its charter school application review and renewal processes.

• Pennsylvania: Plans to expand student and teacher access to quality courses and instructional resources to improve student achievement, particularly in STEM subjects, and refine and implement teacher and principal evaluation systems that incorporate student performance results as a significant factor.

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

Hawaii is in danger of losing its $75 million Race to the Top grant after the U.S. Department of Education notified state officials yesterday that the state has not made "adequate progress" in fulfilling the promises it made as part of last year's $4 billion competition.

In a Dec. 21 letter to state officials, the department said it was placing the state on "high-risk status," limiting access to its remaining grant money, rejecting several requests for significant changes and delays in its Race to the Top plan, and planning an extensive on-site review in early 2012. And, in a more overarching statement that puts the fate of Hawaii's $75 million grant in question, the department said it is "concerned" that Hawaii can't fulfill the commitments it made to win the grant.

While the department has certainly put states on warning before regarding other grants, those warnings have usually surrounded issues like cash management—not "unsatisfactory performance". Consider this the department's first official warning shot to the 12 Race to the Top winners, which are in the throes of implementing President's Obama signature education-reform initiative. These 11 states, plus the District of Columbia, shared a $4 billion prize funded by the 2009 congressional economic-stimulus package after pitching what outside judges determined were the boldest plans for improving their respective K-12 systems.

So far, implementation has been slow in a number of states, plagued by delays and plan adjustments. But Hawaii has perhaps experienced the biggest implementation problems, as chronicled in this recent Education Week story. Hawaii did not secure a crucial collective-bargaining agreement with the state teachers' union to implement its teacher-evaluation pilot program, which set off a chain reaction of other delays. These delays have prompted a couple of education policy experts to publicly call for the Education Department to revoke Hawaii's grant.

Indeed, according to yesterday's letter, the state has asked to change all projects in its Race to the Top plan—usually by delaying their implementation. From the federal department's perspective, Hawaii has not demonstrated "adequate progress" in implementing its proposals, according to the letter, signed by Ann Whalen, the director of policy and program implementation. "The Department is concerned about the State's ability to fulfill its commitments within the grant period," the letter states. "In addition, the Department has determined that the scope and breadth of the amendments submitted by the state may constitute a significant change in the state's approved plans."

In an interview last night with Education Week, Hawaii Superintendent of Education Kathryn Matayoshi acknowledges delays and missed milestones, but also added that within the last few months—as senior staff members at the department have come on board to help implement the state's plan—the trajectory and pace have improved. Within the last month, she said, state officials have begun informal meetings with the teachers' union to begin to hash out Race to the Top issues. She said the state remains committed to its plan.

"We were hopeful that significant progress [within the last few months] would take us off the radar screen, but apparently that was not the case," Matayoshi said. "We know that transformation work is hard. ... We want everyone now to step up to this challenge. We need to run a little faster and push a little harder."

Matayoshi said she also wants more clarification from the department as to why certain proposed changes were rejected, and what exactly the state needs to do to get off "high-risk" status.

Although the federal department approved more than a dozen delays in Hawaii's plans, it also rejected several requests for changes to new prekindergarten programs, teacher induction and mentoring, and a new leadership program for its turnaround schools. Department officials also let the state know how significant it is that officials there failed to secure a collective bargaining agreement with the Hawaii State Teachers Association. "It is our understanding that without a revised contract, the State cannot fully implement many initiatives in its approved Race to the Top plans," the letter says. From the department's perspective, the state doesn't have the "proper authority"—either in law, regulation, or contract—to even carry out its plan.

As part of being a "high-risk" grantee, Hawaii will now only be able to get its remaining grant funds (just over $71 million) on a reimbursement basis, essentially having to ask permission first. (This high-risk designation is an official status that can apply to any Education Department grant, and triggers various ramifications.) The department will also conduct a more extensive on-site review, on an unspecified date, in which Hawaii officials will be expected to provide "clear and compelling evidence that it has made substantial progress." And, the state must submit extensive monthly reports about that progress.

The Education Department has promised to hold all Race to the Top winners to their promises while giving them wiggle room to implement significant policy changes in a short, four-year time period. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said he's prepared to take money away from any state not worthy of its award.

It's unclear whether Hawaii will be able to do enough, and quickly enough, to satisfy the department. This "high risk" designation could eventually lead to a more severe consequence—which could involve the department forcing Hawaii to give its remaining award money back. To that end, the state has not spent most of its award —only $3.8 million of the $75 million had been drawn down as of Dec. 16.

It's pretty rare for the department to revoke a grant. But it's been done before, most recently when the department made California give back a $6 million data-systems grant. And, there's never been such a high-profile, top-dollar contest like Race to the Top before.

Depending on how far this enforcement action goes, pulling Race to the Top money from the Aloha State could prove politically problematic. One of the state's senators—U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Democrat—serves as the chairman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, which oversees spending for all federal programs, including Race to the Top. The program has already faced criticism on Capitol Hill, including from House Republicans, who tried to eliminate it entirely and recently bragged in a press release about cutting Race to the Top by 20 percent.

If the department pulls a prestigious grant from Inouye's home state, will he continue to fight for Race to the Top's fiscal future? It's an open question.

There are implications for other Race to the Top states as well. If the department is putting Hawaii on notice, could other states also be in trouble? New York, for example, is in a court battle over its teacher-evaluation regulations. And Florida is racking up a long list of sometimes-lengthy delays. Just how much will the department tolerate?

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

On the heels of last week's announcement of the winners of the Race to the Top Early Learning challenge, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said he isn't sure yet whether there would be a second round of funding for early-childhood programs.

The administration's signature grant competition, Race to the Top, is getting $550 million in the latest budget agreement. The money can be used for either states or districts. And, in language accompanying the spending bill, lawmakers directed the department to include a "robust early childhood education component" in the next round of Race to the Top.

But they don't say how much money to put toward it, or whether it has to be a separate competition, or just a factor in awarding the grants. That will up to the secretary.

So far, he's demuring. In a conference call with reporters last week, Duncan was directly asked whether he'd use some of the money for early education. And he wouldn't commit.

"We don't know yet," he said. "Stay tuned."

Early childhood advocates say the department shouldn't drop the ball now.

"We absolutely want to see it ... we're going to be screaming for it," said Cornelia Grumman, the executive director of the First Five Years Fund, which champions early-learning programs. She said states put a lot of thought in their applications into improving the quality of their programs for young children. "It would be a shame to lose all that momentum," she said.

The Obama administration is garnering a lot of headlines through the competition. But, despite a big campaign promise of $10 billion for early childhood, it took a while for the administration to get going on its plan to improve early-learning programs, which caused some to question its commitment on the issue.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Center on Education Policy has released a pair of reports that indicate states have a lot of work to do as they apply for waivers under the No Child Left Behind Act and try to take the reins on school accountability.

One report indicates that only a few states actually have completed work that the U.S. Department of Education wants done in areas such as adopting and implementing college- and career-ready standards, developing a differentiated accountability system, beefing up teacher evaluations, and reducing administrative burdens on schools and districts . To get a waiver, states have to address these four areas of improvement in their applications.

Of 26 states that responded to a CEP survey and indicated they would apply for a waiver, only one state had completed its differentiated accountability system, one had finished its new teacher evaluation system, seven had adopted and implemented the new academic standards, and four had reduced administrative burdens. The rest were either "planning" or had efforts "underway."

And, when it comes to the waiver plans themselves, "several" of the 11 first-round applications contain "significant ambiguities that make it difficult to describe precisely how some of the proposed changes in accountability would apply in practice." That's according to a second report by CEP, which examines major accountability themes embedded in states' waiver plans.

So, at a minimum, it seems that the first round of states need to do a better job articulating their plans, if not further developing them.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Before the 23 winners of the U.S. Department of Education's $150 million Investing in Innovation program could cash in on their grants, they had to secure matching funds from private donors.

Today, the department announced they all met their match—raising $18 million by the Dec. 9 deadline.

This year's private match requirement was easier to meet than last year's, when all winners had to secure 20 percent in private funds before they could cash in. There was even a last-minute scramble for those private dollars before everyone eventually made it.

As a result, the department changed the rules to decrease the amount of matching funds to between 5 percent and 15 percent, depending on the category won.

The school districts, nonprofits, and groups of schools that won this year's i3 contest will receive between $3 million and $25 million to implement their projects. The funding came from the fiscal 2011 budget approved in the spring by Congress, but is an extension of the $650 million i3 program started under the economic-stimulus package of 2009.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A new report from the Center for American Progress identifies the two states that are stand outs among a field of 11 that submitted applications for the first round of waivers under No Child Left Behind. But there are questions—sometimes big questions—surrounding key parts of the remaining nine states' plans.

The new report, out this morning, identifies potentially significant weaknesses in some states' plans, including: a lack of attention to individual subgroups, and a lack of information about the capacity to actually implement new teacher-evaluation systems.

Some of these findings—such as a new emphasis on "super subgroups"—were covered in EdWeek's extensive package of stories about the waivers.

So the report adds to the growing body of research into the promises, and pitfalls, of these new state-led accountability systems. (The report has a number of really handy charts that examine different issues, such as state approaches to teacher evaluations, on a state-by-state basis.)

The Center's Jeremy Ayers, a senior education policy analyst, evaluated states on how clear their goals and school ratings were, how they treated subgroups in their accountability systems, and how ready they were to implement new evaluation systems, among other things.

Along those lines, two states turned in "stand out" applications: Massachusetts and Tennessee, which were praised for clear and challenging goals, ready-to-implement evaluation systems, and solid data infrastructures. The report, however, does still raise concerns about Massachusetts' attention to subgroups, and raises red flags about problems Tennessee has had in implementing its new teacher-evaluation system.

Five states were classified as "middle of the pack": Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, and New Mexico, which had some positives and negatives. Among the problems in these states: Colorado's data system can't link student data to individual or multiple teachers, Florida's plan makes it unclear whether schools would be held accountable for subgroup performance, and Indiana didn't specify what factors would be used in new teacher evaluations. In Minnesota's plan, student achievement goals were not clearly ambitious, and New Mexico needs legislation to enact its teacher-evaluation plans.

The remaining four states fell in the "needs more detail" category: Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Oklahoma. Among Georgia's problems are its lack of a growth model, and Kentucky is dinged for setting confusing goals (which involve things like "standard deviations"). New Jersey doesn't provide much detail at all on its new accountability system, while Oklahoma's rating system seems a bit confusing, the report found.

What's more, the Center has some good advice for the Education Department: Don't rush to approve every application, demand more information (especially about subgroups, teacher-evaluation reforms, and reducing burden on districts, and schools), and carefully scrutinize how each state deals with subgroups.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

More than two years ago, President Barack Obama pledged to scale up the Harlem Children's Zone's model of pairing education with health and other community services. Now that idea is finally bearing fruit: Five communities are getting up to $6 million each implementation grants to create new Promise Neighborhoods under the federal program of that name.

The winners, announced by the U.S. Department of Education today, are:

—Westminister Foundation. of Buffalo, N.Y.; which got $1.49 million

— Berea College in Berea, Kentucky which will work with Clay, Jackson, and Owsley counties in that state; which got nearly $6 million

—United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County in San Antonio, Texas, which got $4.3 million

—California State University - East Bay in Hayward, Calif., which got nearly $4 million

— Northside Academy, in Minneapolis. which got $5.6 million

Most of these organizations—with the exception of Northside Academy— got Promise Neighborhood planning grants from the department last year to do local needs assesments and think through how best to help their communities.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said on a conference call with reporters that he and the president share a "powerful, personal, and permanent commitment" to the work of the program, which he said is "especially important for children living in struggling communities and surrounded by poverty."

The planning money can help give an organization a leg up in the competition for a full-fledged implementation grant, which is money to create an actual Promise Neighborhood. But there's no guarantee; 21 communities got planning grants last year, and most of them didn't secure an implementation grant.

The department also gave money to 15 new communities for planning grants. They are: the Mission Economic Development Agency, in San Francisco; Reading and Beyond, in Fresno, Calif.; Mercer University, in Macon, Ga.; Community Action Project, of Tulsa in Tulsa, Okla.; the Elmezzi Foundation, in New York City; South Bay Community Services, in Chula Vista, Calif.; Black Family Development, in Detroit, Mich.; Children Youth and Family Services, in Charlottesville, Va.; CAMBA, in New York; SGA Youth and Family Services, in Chicago; Ohio University, in Glouster, Ohio; Meriden Children's First, in Meriden, Conn.; Martha O'Bryan Center, in Nashville, Tenn.; Catholic Charities of Albany, in Hudson, N.Y.); and Campo Band of Mission Indians, in Campo, Calif.

Most of the planning grants were for roughly $500,000, although one, for the Campo Board of Indians, was much smaller, at just $168,000. (That group had the lowest rating among the winning programs, so perhaps the department did not have the resources to give it a full grant, but wanted to make sure the group got some funds for planning.)

The Promise Neighborhood program has drawn a lot of interest from non-profits and higher education institutions, receiving more than 200 applicants this year. And it was one of a handful of winners in the most recent congressional spending bill, for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. It got $60 million, double its previous budget.

But it's also faced some pushback. A House Republican spending bill would have scrapped the program entirely. And U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., tried to remove language creating the program out of a bill renewing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was approved by the Senate education committee in October. Kirk didn't like the structure of the program—he said most of the money had gone to planning and not to actually create new communities.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The nine winners of the Race to the Top early learning contest are surely rejoicing at their good fortune. But three states (including one winner!) may be especially bummed out about the results.

Consider...

New Mexico: The state narrowly missed winning, at 7.6 points behind 9th-place finisher and winner California. The merits of New Mexico's proposal aside, this state had a wild swing in scores among the five judges. On a 280-point scale, the difference between the highest-scoring judge and the lowest-scoring judge was a whopping 90 points! That was clearly enough to kick the state out of the winners' circle. The effect of scoring outliers was also an issue in last year's $4 billion Race to the Top. (To see score breakdowns by judge, click on the spreadsheet called "State Data Workbook" on this Education Department web page.)

Colorado: The state, which was a favorite in last year's original Race to the Top, lost again. The New America Foundation had pegged it as a frontrunner this time, too.

California: This was the biggest loser among the winners. It wanted nearly $100 million (the cap the U.S. Department of Education set), but with only $500 million available and a 9th place finish, only $52 million was left for them. That's not a lot of money for a state with more than 6 million students. It's interesting that the Education Department chose not to shave a little off the other states' winnings to give California a bit more. But it's also interesting that the department gave them anything, and didn't use their $52 million to give everyone else a little more. Perhaps Education Secretary Arne Duncan wanted to send a little love California's way, especially after snatching back a data systems grant and ruling their effort to apply for a Race to the Top consolation prize inadequate. What's more, by giving California a Race to the Top grant, Duncan was able to make the claim—as he did during the White House announcement Friday—that Race to the Top money now reaches 60 percent of the nation's students and two-thirds of low-income students. Those figures would have been far less impressive had California not won.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

GOP lawmakers on the House education committee are likely to write a Republican-only version of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said today that the committee has been working for months on a bipartisan rewrite of the law, but lawmakers haven't been able to reach agreement.

Here's his statement:

Since the start of the 112th Congress, education reform has been a top priority for the committee and my Republican colleagues. We convened 11 hearings and invited dozens of witnesses to describe the challenges and opportunities facing the nation's schools. My colleagues and I also spent months engaged in bipartisan talks on the way forward for reform of the elementary and secondary education act. There were several areas where we forged new agreement, but others in which we ultimately could not come to a consensus. The urgency to reform the law has not changed. I look forward to a robust debate once legislation is introduced in the coming weeks.

A Republican only bill is a big departure from the way that ESEA reauthorization is typically crafted—it's one of the few bills that is almost always bipartisan. In fact, the currrent version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act, passed by overwhelming bipartisan margins back in 2001.

Kline and Rep. George Miller, of California, the top Democrat, had been talking about a bipartisan approach this time around. But it looks like the two sides are just too far apart to go that way when it comes to sticky issues at the heart of the law, such as accountability, advocates said.

The House education committee, which is breaking up the renewal into bite-sized pieces, has a mixed record so far when it comes to bipartisanship. The panel was able to craft a bipartisan bill on charter schools. But two other pieces of legislation, one offering districts funding flexibility and another eliminating more than 40 programs, were only supported by GOP lawmakers.

A partisan ESEA bill in the House would be a big deal, because it would dim the chances that reauthorization would get done before the end of President Barack Obama's first term.

For one thing, further Senate action may depend on the House. U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate education committee, which passed its own version of the ESEA renewal earlier this year with some Republican support, has said he won't seek to advance the bill until the House approves a bipartisan product.

In fact, here's what Harkin had to say about the House's inclination to do a GOP bill:

Given that the HELP Committee was able to come to bipartisan agreement on a strong bill to reauthorize ESEA, I sincerely hope Chairman Kline will reconsider his decision to not pursue a bipartisan bill. There is widespread agreement that No Child Left Behind needs to be fixed for the sake of our nation's children, and I hope we will not abandon the longstanding tradition of bipartisanship when it comes to the education of our kids. Without a bipartisan bill coming out of the House, I believe it would be difficult to find a path forward that will draw the support we need from both sides of the aisle to be able to send a final bill to the President that advances education for America's students.

If Congress can't get its act together, the administration's waivers will become the main vehicle for fixing the controversial law. And the waivers themselves have faced a lot of pushback on Capitol Hill.

Miller, for one, is not very happy about the partisan direction. Here's a statement from him:

I have communicated to Chairman Kline my disappointment that he has chosen to go the partisan route. Partisanship means the end to NCLB reform in this Congress. Bipartisanship is the only successful way forward. The Senate has moved a bipartisan bill out of committee. The House could do the same if it had the political will to do so. Our nation's children deserve a real process for achieving consensus, not partisan political games.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan also said a GOP-only bill isn't the way to go.

Education reform requires all of us - parents, teachers, students, and elected officials from both sides of the aisle - to come together and do the right thing for kids. Our children only have one shot at a good education, so it's disappointing to hear that some Members of Congress may let partisan politics stand in the way.

"We are sad and disappointed," said Kate Tromble, the director of legislative affairs for the Education Trust, which advocates for poor and minority kids. "ESEA has always been bipartisan. Moving forward in a partisan direction breaks with all tradition."

UPDATE: A Senate Republican aide pointed out that, while ESEA has always been bipartisan, the measure hasn't always garnered the overwhelming support NCLB did back in 2001. For instance, in 1994, an renewal bill was approved in the House that had the support of most Democrats and 45 Republicans. But 124 GOP lawmakers voted no. Here's the vote.

"That's hardly some grand bipartisan victory of process," the aide said. "Who's to say that a partisan bill that moves through the House under Republicans couldn't garner similar levels of Democrat support?"

That certainly seems possible in this case. During consideration of the Senate's ESEA measure, GOP lawmakers found common ground with Democrats (and the National Education Association) on issues including giving states more leeway in turning around their lowest performing schools, and teacher evaluation. Similar dynamics could emerge in the House.

But, at the same time, party members often defer to the ranking member on a committee. So getting Democratic support could be tougher if Miller really doesn't like what Kline puts forward. Should be interesting to watch.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

Nine states will share $500 million in Race to the Top early learning grants, the U.S. Department of Education confirmed this morning.

They are: California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington. They will get grants ranging from $50 million to $100 million, based on the state's student population, to significantly improve early-education programs in their states. North Carolina was ranked No. 1 by the outside peer reviewers who judged the competition. California, by at least one account, was the surprise dark-horse winner. A must-read New America Foundation blog post also agrees that California—and even North Carolina—were surprises.

"Investing in early learning is one of the smartest things we can do," U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said during the White House announcement of the winners this morning. "I'm confident these nine states will lead the transformation."

Duncan added that there were far more stellar applications than he could fund, and he and others in the Obama administration indicated they would like to fund more states if they can. And indeed, it seems the Education Department will get another $550 million in Race to the Top money in fiscal 2012, according to a budget deal just reached by congressional negotiators. However, later in a conference call with reporters, Duncan would not commit to using that money for early learning, saying he didn't know yet what the focus of future competitions would be.

Six of the nine state early-learning grantees are repeat Race to the Top winners, so they're only adding to their bounty (and to the long list of obligations and promises they must live up to): Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

Do these states have the capacity to implement two big education overhauls, one of their K-12 systems, and the other of their early education programs? Duncan noted, in response to a question during a media call about Delaware, that this competition was judged independently of any other. "I have tremendous confidence in Delaware's leadership," he said this afternoon. "None of this is easy. It takes significant change."

The winning nine states emerged from a field of 37 competitors for early-learning grants.

"This is absolutely the missing puzzle piece for our work in Rhode Island," Commissioner Deborah Gist, whose state won a bigger Race to the Top grant last year, told my colleague Lesli Maxwell at this morning's White House event. Rhode Island will likely get $50 million.

Notably missing from the winners' circle: Colorado, which was considered a front-runner by some to win. If you'll remember, it was a favorite to win last year's big Race to the Top competition, but lost out to other states considered less reform-y, such as Hawaii and New York. That's a double ouch. The New America Foundation is also surprised that Pennsylvania and Oklahoma weren't winners, either.

To win, states had to craft rating systems for their programs, appropriate standards and tests for young children, and clear expectations for what teachers should know.

The grants are made possible through an additional $700 million Congress set aside for the Obama administration's Race to the Top brand in the fiscal 2011 budget deal reached earlier this year. While $500 million went to early learning, the other $200 million was offered to the nine finalists that did not win last year's $4 billion general education-reform competition. The finalists, seven of which chose to apply for a small piece of the $200 million consolation prize, had to pick a part of their original application to pursue, with a special emphasis on the STEM, or science, technology, engineering, and math, subjects. Those winners could be announced as early as next week.

Interestingly, the early-learning winners don't largely reflect the predictions of the New America Foundation, which detailed the frontrunners and laggards in an August analysis. Of the 11 frontrunners, only three won: North Carolina, Maryland, and Ohio.

"I'm happy that people finally understand that child care is education," Flora L. Gee, the director of the Greenbelt Children's Center, told my colleague Lesli. Gee helped her state, Maryland, prepare its winning application.

There was no talk of the losers at today's White House event.

"This early learning challenge will redefine the future of early childhood education in this country," said Linda K. Smith, the deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which partnered with the Education Department in running the grant competition. "We now have a foundation in place for moving forward."

You can read the winning state's applications (and all applications, for that matter) here.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

The U.S. House's $1 trillion spending bill released Wednesday revives an abstinence-based sexual education program killed by lawmakers just last year, and advocates and opponents of the program believe the Senate has agreed to resurrect the program, too.

The program was previously allowed to expire, although a separate abstinence-based education program was created shortly thereafter.

Although the House budget includes just $5 million for the Community-Based Abstinence Education program, opponents say this small line item has the potential to grow much larger. The group Advocates for Youth notes that the previous iteration of CBAE grew from $20 million in 2001 to $113 million before it expired in 2010.

"Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs promote ignorance in the era of HIV and AIDS," said Debra Hauser, the group's executive vice president. "Parents, medical experts, and young people agree that schools have a responsibility to provide sex education that includes information about both abstinence and contraception."

The National Abstinence Education Association hailed the House action.

"This really provides choice for the communities, choice to the schools," said Valerie Huber, the NAEA's executive director, adding that abstinence-based education programs are widely supported by parents. Advocates for Youth cited polls that find parents support more comprehensive sex ed, which includes information about abstinence and contraception.

One recent study found that abstinence-based sex ed can be effective, however federal rules governing these programs don't allow abstinence-based programs to be taught in the way the program found to be effective was taught.

The federal rules for abstinence programs require that those programs teach an abstinence-until-marriage message, but the program found effective focused on activities with messages warning that having sex at a young age can interfere with a teen's goals and dreams.

A 2007 congressionally mandated study found no statistically significant beneficial effect on the sexual behavior of young people participating in abstinence-based programs.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

Key formula programs that school districts depend on—Title I grants for disadvantaged kids and special education—would see a tiny increase under a spending bill for fiscal year 2012 put forth early Thursday. The House voted Friday to approve the bill, 296-121.

And big Obama priorities, including the administration's signature Race to the Top initiative, the Investing in Innovation grant program, and the School Improvement Grants, would continue.

The measure, which would fund a number of government agencies—not just education—until Sept. 30, 2012 is the result of an agreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats. The Senate is expected to approve the bill.

A Senate bill, approved earlier this year, level-funded nearly all education programs, but only cut a handful. A House measure, which proposed big $1 billion increase for Title I and special education, eliminated 31 other programs, including the administration's favorites.

Under the compromise spending bill, Title I grants for districts would see a tiny boost of $60 million, bringing the total to $14.5 billion. And the $60 million increase will be divided among thousands of school districts, so it's unlikely to make much a difference overall.

Special education would also see a teeny hike, to $11.6 billion, a $100 million increase. Advocates are sure to celebrate that the funding is heading in the right direction, but that tiny boost is unlikely to have a huge impact on the bottom line for many districts.

Race to the Top, which would have been completely eliminated under the House bill, was funded, but the program was cut from nearly $700 million in fiscal year 2011 to $550 million. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, touted the reduction in its press release, saying that the "Obama administration's unpopular Race to the Top" was cut. The grants can be made to either states or districts. That would be a big change for the program.

Other Obama priorities survived the chopping block. The School Improvement Grant program, which covers the cost of turning around the nation's lowest performing schools, got $534.6 million, according to the Committee for Education Funding, a lobbying coalition. That's the same level as last year, but a little less than the $600 million the Obama administration wanted to see.

The Investing in Innovation grant program, which scales up promising practices at the district level, got nearly $150 million, according to CEF, or the same level as last year.

And the Promise Neighborhoods program, which helps communities pair wraparound services, such as health, with education, was a big winner. It got $60 million, according to CEF. That's up from about $30 million last year.

The bill also includes $160 million in new money for literacy programs, which took a beating in the fiscal year 2011 budget agreement. The measure would create a new, comprehensive literacy program, according to an analysis by Penn Hill Group, a government relations organization in Washington. And the bill includes level funding for English Language Acquisition, at $733 million, Penn Hill Group found.

Head Start, an early childhood program, was a big winner. It got a $424 million boost, to $8 billion. (The program is run by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Education Department.)

But the Teacher Incentive Fund, which doles out grants to districts to create performance pay programs, was a big loser. It was cut 25 percent, from $400 million to $300 millon, according to CEF.

And the $46 million Teaching American History program was eliminated, according to CEF.

Pell Grants, an area that has caused Congress tons of angst this session, will stay at the same maximum level of $5,550. But there were changes in the program's eligibility. For instance, students would have to have a GED or a high school diploma to tap a grant. And the grant would only be eligible for 12 semesters, down from 18 semesters.

Lawmakers are also proposing an across-the-board cut to all education programs of 0.189 percent, according to CEF. That might round down, ever so slightly, some of the estimated totals for individual programs. The Department of Education would be financed at $71.3 billion in the legislation, which is $153 million below last year's level and $9.3 billion below the budget request, according to the House committee.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Remember when U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan issued the warning that 82 percent of schools would fail to make the grade this year under the No Child Left Behind Act, and hoped that would spur Congress to rewrite the law?

Well, the researchers (or politicians!) behind Duncan's prediction clearly are "in need of improvement," based on one group's analysis.

The real number, according to today's latest report from the Center on Education Policy: 48 percent.

That's how many schools are estimated to have failed to make "adequate yearly progress" under NCLB during the 2010-11 school year. The proportion is up from 39 percent the year before, but nowhere close to Duncan's 82 percent prediction. (This year's number could change by a percentage point or two, CEP researchers say, because some states are still finalizing their numbers and working through appeals from individual schools.)

Duncan's team missed the mark by 34 percentage points!

"Unfortunately, their estimate is off," said CEP President Jack Jennings. Regardless, he added, the increase in schools failing to make AYP "shows that NCLB needs to be changed." What's more, he said, the administration is justified in issuing waivers.

Under NCLB, the number of "failing" schools is expected to escalate each year as the country gets closer to the 2013-14 school year deadline for all students to be proficient in math and reading.

Duncan used this 82 percent figure number as a scare tactic to try to goad Congress into reauthorizing the law. It didn't work, and now his department is issuing waivers from key elements of NCLB. At the time, education policy experts on both sides of the political aisle were critical of this intimidating prediction, which some said would only serve to create an atmosphere of fear and damage the department's credibility.

Duncan said yesterday in a statement that even though the numbers are different, the message is still the same. "Whether it's 50 percent, 80 percent, or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken," he said. "That's why we're moving forward with giving states flexibility from the law in exchange for reforms that drive student success."

[UPDATE 12:20 P.M.:] It's also worth pointing out that it's possible states made changes to their cut scores or academic targets after the Education Department made its estimates. Take Delaware, as one example. In 2010, 60 percent of schools did not make AYP. This year, the failing number plummeted to 17 percent. Did schools improve that much in one year's time? Probably not, and that improvement is more likely attributed to state officials moving the bar lower as they instituted a new test. In addition, a few states (think Montana and Idaho), successfully lobbied federal officials to freeze their achievement targets at last year's levels, meaning there would be fewer new schools added to the failing list. So if it had not been for changes like this, the AYP failure rate might have gotten somewhat closer to Duncan's 82 percent estimate.

In fact, only three states, plus the District of Columbia, actually hit or exceeded Duncan's estimate on failure to make AYP: the District, at 87 percent; Florida; at 89 percent; Missouri, at 88 percent; and New Mexico, at 87 percent.

On the other end of the spectrum are Wisconsin, where only 11 percent of schools did not make AYP; Kansas, at 16 percent; and Rhode Island at 17 percent.

Importantly, the report notes that this doesn't mean Wisconsin, Kansas, and Rhode Island necessarily have better K-12 systems than their counterparts with much higher failure rates. Instead, the difference in AYP success is likely more a reflection of test difficulty, cut scores, student demographics, and the academic targets.

This discrepancy, Jennings said, "shows the wisdom of having common academic standards and common tests."

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

If you haven't had time to read the thousands of pages that make up the NCLB waiver applications for the first 11 states, that's okay. Your intrepid Politics K-12 bloggers, along with other EdWeek colleagues, have.

The bottom line: Even if you can make it through the incredible complexity of the states' accountability plans, and the sometimes surprising vagueness of states' teacher-evaluation and turnaround plans, you will be left with a lot of questions about what this new state-led accountability looks like. To be fair, these first-round states had mere weeks to complete their plans, which are meant to take the place of a comprehensive federal accountability law. And, the U.S. Department of Education and its outside peer reviewers will presumably work to shore up states' plans, and deal with those unanswered questions.

If you want to read the applications, check out the map below. (Set it in motion, then click on the state to see a link to its application.)

Otherwise, for an overview of how the states are proposing to grade schools and hold them accountable—including an intriguing emphasis on a new "super" subgroup—check out this story.

For a look inside how these states plan to implement common core standards and common assessments, check out Catherine Gewertz's story, which shows that teachers are often the last to be trained on the new standards.

For an in-depth look at how states plan to comply with the Education Department's requirements on teacher evaluations, read Stephen Sawchuk's piece, which shines a light on most states' reluctance to acknowledge the role of collective bargaining in those plans.

If you want to learn about states' plans to turn around 15 percent of their worst schools, then check out Alyson Klein's story, which reveals the lack of creativity on the part of some states. However, the story also points out that this lack of creativity may be because the Education Department's requirements were somewhat stifling.

And if you want to gauge the impact these waivers will have on English-language learners, read Lesli Maxwell's two blog posts that zero in on the plans of Florida, New Mexico and Massachusetts.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to consider a bill that would require those seeking Unemployment Insurance to have a high school diploma or GED—or be working toward one—in order to receive those benefits. The provision is part of a push to extend unemployment benefits while revamping the program, in part by shortening to 59, from 99, the number of weeks people are eligible.

States, which provide Unemployment Insurance, could get a waiver from the diploma or General Educational Development certificate requirement if it they feel it would be overly burdensome for certain individuals (for instance, older workers). Check out the full summary here. The provision would only apply to new recipients, not those already getting benefits.

It would be a first for the federal government to attach an education requirement to unemployment benefits, said Neil Ridley, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Law and Social Policy, an organization in Washington that advocates for low-income people. (Here's the group's statement on the bill.)

"It would fundamentally alter the program by creating a new condition for eligibility," he said. And he added that those without a high school diploma or GED are "one of the most vulnerable groups" of unemployed workers. They may not have the means to seek more education while looking for a job, he said.

What's more, he said, state adult education programs don't have a lot of extra capacity to accomodate an influx of students. According to a 2010 survey, there were 160,000 people on waiting lists for GED programs.

Ridley understands why lawmakers would want to see unemployed people go after a GED, but said it would make more sense to do that through expanding educational opportunities. Unemployment Insurance is the wrong policy lever, he said.

But a spokesman for the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the Unemployment Insurance program, said the provision is intended to encourage unemployed individuals to boost their skills:

Not all [Unemployment Insurance] recipients lack a high school diploma, but the ones that do have the highest unemployment rates and the hardest time getting work. We want to help states and help more people overcome that. We are setting the expectation that these individuals should be making progress towards a GED or the equivalent. And again states can opt out of that if it would be 'unduly burdensome,' for either the individual or the state.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Lawmakers are putting the finishing touches on a bill financing the U.S. Department of Education for the rest of the fiscal year (which goes until Sept. 30, 2012). And it looks like the Obama administration's signature education reform initative—Race to the Top—is going to get another year of funding.

Even though Race to the Top is one of the president's favorite programs, it's renewal wasn't a slam-dunk. President Obama asked for $900 million to continue the program for another year. The administration also wanted to open it up to districts.

It looks like at least part of its wish is coming true. Race to the Top would be funded in the bill, soon to be introduced. For the first time it would include a district-level competition, sources say.

But we'll have to wait until the bill comes out to find out just how much money is up for grabs this time. The Race to the Top competition initially got $4 billion for individual state grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But it only got about $700 million in fiscal year 2011.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have both written spending bills for the U.S. Department of Education next year. And they have very different visions when it comes to K-12 funding.

A bill approved by the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee included nearly $700 million for Race to the Top, the same as in fiscal year 2011. But a bill introduced in the House zeroed out Race to the Top, along with other major Obama administration initiatives such as Promise Neighborhoods, the Investing in Innovation Grant program, and the School Improvement Grants. In all, the House bill seeks to eliminate 31 Education Department programs.

Those cuts freed up money for huge increases to Title I grants for districts and special education funding—the core federal programs that go out to just about every school district in the nation.

Meanwhile, the Senate measure provided level funding for both Title I and special education, but only cut a handful of very small, targeted programs, such as the $25 million Voluntary Public School Choice, and the $26 million Foreign Language Assistance Program.

Lawmakers in both chambers will have to figure out a way to reconcile these two very different measures. A bill to do that could released as soon as tonight.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

Remember how First Lady Michelle Obama was trying to break a world record about jumping jacks?

She did it.

The goal was to break the Guinness World Record for the most people doing jumping jacks in a 24-hour stretch, which until today stood at 20,425. She incorporated the goal into her Let's Move! campaign, an effort to end the childhood obesity epidemic within a generation.

On Oct. 12, Mrs. Obama gathered with a few hundred D.C. school children to get the record-breaking going. They did jumping jacks on the White House lawn.

In a brief video on the Let's Move! website, Mrs. Obama said more than 300,000 people did jumping jacks to contribute to breaking the record.

"That's 300,000 people getting their hearts thumping and their bodies moving... to make history," she said.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Newt Gingrich's comment that the feds should revamp child labor laws to give students a chance to work in their school buildings was an early flashpoint in Saturday night's GOP presidential debate.

Gingrich's chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination—former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—singled out Gingich's comments on child labor as one area where he disagrees with the former House Speaker, during a Dec. 12 debate at Drake University, in Iowa.

Some background: Gingrich told a forum at Harvard University that he thinks that kids, particularly disadvantaged kids in underperforming schools, should be given a chance to make some cash by helping to clean up their schools (instead of "unionized janitors"), working in the library or front office. He billed this as one way to help combat poverty and improve education, and said there will need to be changes to child labor laws to make it happen.

Gingrich continued to defend that position during the debate, saying:

Kids ought to be allowed to work part-time, in school, particularly in the poorest neighborhoods. ... You could give lots of poor kids a work experience in the cafeteria, in the school library, in the front office, in a lot of different things. I'll stand by the idea young people ought be able to work. Middle class kids do it routinely. We should give poor kids the same chance to pursue happiness.

Romney agreed that it would good for young people to get more involved in helping out around their schools. But he doesn't think child labor laws need to change in order for that to happen.

Politics K-12 fact-check: Students can start earning money as early as age 14, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. So what Romney is saying seems to be true for most high school kids, at least as far as federal law goes. (Union contracts and state laws may be another story.) And some districts have considered school work itself a "job" and offered kids financial rewards for making progress. The Department of Labor has also supported students in the Cristo-Rey program, a network of Roman Catholic schools that requires students to work during the school day.

Plus, lots of schools try to expose students to the workforce without necessarily asking them to take over for the janitor. Schools offer credit or other rewards to kids who take on job-like responsibilities, such as working as a teachers' aides, or helping out in the school store.

Politics K-12 fact-check 2: Meanwhile, Gingrich also said that an entry janitor in New York City schools get pays twice as much as an entry level teacher. He may have gotten that fact from this story, which shows that the figure is true at least one high school in the Bronx.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

More school-based health clinics will be upgraded, expanded, or built from scratch—at least one will move out of a janitor's closet—thanks to a fresh infusion of federal cash that will also add enough capacity eventually to serve about 53,000 additional students across the country.

The $14 million in grants awarded to 45 sites by the Health Resources and Services Administration today are in addition to $95 million awarded to 278 centers in July. The money can be used only for improvements to facilities and equipment, not to hire staff. The grants come from money set aside in the federal Affordable Care Act passed last year.

Supporters of clinics at schools say the services they provide reach students, and in some cases families, who are uninsured or underinsured or who have chronic conditions including asthma and diabetes. They provide preventive care and can work on issues including obesity and bullying, said Mary Wakefield, HRSA's administrator, during a call with reporters today.

The second round of winners includes the city of Portland, Maine, which will get $198,000 to turn a clinic at a school now housed in a custodial closet into a space that will have two exam rooms and include room for dental care and mental health services, Ms. Wakefield said. Some school districts received awards to expand or build health care centers, but most grants were for health care providers.

Altogether, the grants awarded this year will provide access to care to about a half-million additional students.

Joy Grady, executive director of the Wilmington Health Access for Teens, in North Carolina, said the $382,275 grant awarded to her agency will be used to buy new equipment. The agency has three locations that provide physicals, nutritional counseling, care for colds and flu, pregnancy tests, and sex education, among other services.

But it is still using some of the equipment it has had since it was created in 1997.

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

GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry has launched a new campaign ad, promising to end "Obama's war on religion", including limits on prayer in schools.

Here's a snippet from the ad, airing in "heavy rotation" in Iowa, according to this story.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.

Quick fact check: The Obama administration has indeed overseen the dismantling of the "don't ask don't tell policy", allowing military personnel to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation. But there haven't major policy shakeups to that level on Christmas or prayer in schools during the president's tenure.

Watch the ad here:

Posted by Alyson Klein at 6:34 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Montana is formally rejecting the U.S. Department of Education's offer for more flexibility under the No Child Left Behind Act, declaring that it doesn't make "educational or financial" sense to apply for a waiver.

In a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Montana cites the costs involved with implementing the "unfunded" requirements that accompany a waiver. State schools' chief Denise Juneau also points out that by the Education Department's own estimates, it would take her small office 336 hours to complete the waiver application. [UPDATE, 12/12, 11:58 a.m.]: Thanks to the eagle-eye Politics K-12 reader who pointed out that Montana got some important NCLB leeway back in August when the federal department allowed them to change their proficiency targets so that fewer schools failed to make AYP. In the short term, at least, this made a waiver less important for Montana.)

California officials also appear poised to reject the waiver offer, also citing costs.

So far, 11 states have applied for a waiver, with more than a dozen scheduled to submit their plans by a second-round Feb. 21 deadline. (See map below.)

Juneau said in her letter, which was also signed by organizations representing the state's administrators, teachers, and school boards, that she didn't want to embark on something that would be overturned by Congress when it reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

And lastly, Juneau laments that Duncan didn't make a much more simple waiver offer: that states be allowed to freeze their academic targets at current levels until Congress rewrites NCLB.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The GOP's presidential frontrunner, Newt Gingrich, has one of the longest records on K-12 policy in the Republican field. His views on education have gotten a lot of attention lately. But they have been—and seem to still be—all over the map.

For instance, Gingrich said in a recent debate that he likes Race to the Top, the grant competition run by the feds that rewards states for embracing certain reform priorities, including the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

But he's also said he'd like to "shrink" the Education Department. And in 1995, as Speaker of the House, he backed an effort to scrap the department altogether.

Back in 2008, Gingrich, and then GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona,endorsed the mission statement of the Education Equality Project, which calls for strong accountability at all levels, including the school and district level.

Gingrich even appeared with Rev. Al Sharpton—and then-incoming Secretary of Education Arne Duncan—at a school in Washington, D.C., during President Barack Obama's inauguration to push the Education Equality Project's mission.

Here's a snippet from the EEP's "manifesto". The document, which is from 2008, was signed by Gingrich and Duncan. It says that policymakers should strive to:

•Ensure that there is an effective teacher in every classroom, and an effective principal in every school, by paying educators as the professionals they are, by giving them the tools and training they need to succeed, and by making tough decisions about those who do not;

• Empower parents by giving them a meaningful voice in where their children are educated including public charter schools;

• Create accountability for educational success at every level—at the system and school level, for teachers and principals, and for central office administrators;

• Commit to making every decision about whom [schools] employ, how money is spent, and where resources are deployed with a single-minded focus: what will best serve our students, regardless of how it affects other interests;

The manifesto frames education as a civil rights issue. It also says that the signatories must:

Insist that our elected officials confront and address head-on crucial issues that created this crisis: teachers' contracts and state policies that keep ineffective teachers in classrooms and too often make it nearly impossible to get our best teachers paired up with the students who most need them; school funding mechanisms that ignore the reality that students are supposed to be the primary focus of schools; and enrollment policies that consign poor, minority students to our lowest-performing schools.

So, do these ideas square with a significantly slimmed-down Education Department? And does Gingrich's record on K-12 make him an education-flip-flopper...or someone with nuanced, evolving positions? Comments section is open.

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

Getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education is high on the wish list of Republican voters in Iowa, who next month will hold the first-in-the-nation caucus to select a GOP presidential nominee.

More than half of likely caucusgoers or 54 percent of those surveyed by The Des Moines Register, want to scrap the department. One voter interviewed by the Register said she thinks K-12 policy should be a state and local responsibility, a common belief among conservatives.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas have all called for getting rid of the department. Meanwhile, frontrunners former Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have said they want to scale back the federal role in education.

That's a marked change from a decade ago, when then-candidate Texas Gov. George W. Bush emphasized his interest in education to establish his credentials as a "compassionate conservative."

Still, shuttering 400 Maryland Ave. is not as easy it might sound. And the idea may not play well in the general election, since voters tend to interpret being against the Education Department as being against education, analysts say.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Lesli A. Maxwell

Federal civil rights officials today said that school districts and colleges and universities may legally consider race when making decisions about school assignments, admissions and other programs that are designed to increase diversity and reduce racial isolation.

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education jointly released the new, more flexible guidelines that are meant to clear up confusion on how and when race can be considered in the wake of three earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The two sets of guidance documents—one for K-12 school districts and the other for colleges and universities—cancel out those that were issued by the Education Department in August 2008 during the Bush administration.

All educational institutions that receive federal funding—roughly 15,000 school districts and more than 3,000 colleges and universities—will receive the guidance.

"Racial isolation remains far too common in America's classrooms today and it is increasing," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. "This denies our children the experiences they need to succeed in a global economy, where employers, co-workers, and customers will be increasingly diverse. It also breeds educational inequity, which is inconsistent with America's core values."

The new guidelines are meant to clarify how school districts may legally consider the race of students in their plans to promote diversity and limit racial isolation in schools. The guidance is based largely on three Supreme Court rulings that directly addressed the use of race in decisions about school assignments and admissions by educational institutions: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.

According to the new guidance, school districts may use "race-neutral" approaches to make decisions about whether to admit individual students into competitive admissions schools or programs, as well as for drawing school boundary lines. Such approaches would include using students' socioeconomic status, parental education levels, the socioeconomic status of neighborhoods and the composition of an area's housing, such as its share of subsidized housing or rental housing.

The guidance says that such race-neutral approaches are required to be used "only if they are workable." In some cases, the guidance states, "race-neutral approaches will be unworkable because they will be ineffective to achieve the diversity that the school district seeks or to address racial isolation in the district's schools."

When a race-neutral approach doesn't work, the guidance spells out that school districts may use "generalized race-based approaches" that employ express racial criteria as long as it does not involve decision-making on the basis of any individual student's race. The generalized approach could include consideration of overall racial compositions of neighborhoods when drawing attendance zones.

School districts will also be able to consider the race of individual students if it is "narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest" such as avoiding racial isolation, the guidance states. Districts should first determine that using a race-neutral approach won't work to achieve its goals.

The guidance also lays out the types of programs and scenarios in which districts may wish to consider race: Locating schools, closing schools, opening up magnet programs, changing feeder patterns, redrawing attendance boundaries and admissions for competitive schools and programs.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you haven't yet read all 11 No Child Left Behind Act waiver applications, read this story instead—my attempt at synthesizing the major components of states' plans to use flexibility to implement their own accountability systems.

It's clear that these first-round waiver applications already raise some significant questions about the future of state-led education accountability. Among them:

• Will a new emphasis on "super" subgroups really work to close achievement gaps and bring the lowest-performing students up to speed? More than half of the 11 states are proposing a heavy emphasis on new "super" subgroups that encompass either the lowest 25 percent of students in each school, or a melding of the smaller traditional subgroups (e.g. English-language learners, special education students) into one larger subgroup. States have good reason to do this—to alleviate problems with "N-size," to remove a perhaps oversized emphasis on a single cohort of kids—but will individual groups with varying needs get lost in a bigger subgroup? Many of the states still pay attention to individual subgroups in one way or another, but will it be enough?

• Do AMOs count for anything meaningful anymore? These annual measurable objectives, or academic targets, must still be set every year, and for the traditional NCLB smaller subgroups. But most states aren't emphasizing these AMOs in their grading systems at all—and it's these grading systems that are driving much of the states' accountability. So even though subgroups are prominent in the AMOs, if they don't count for much, are they that meaningful?

• How much leeway will federal officials give to the states that need to pass laws to make their plans happen? Will they still get waivers, at least conditionally? New Mexico, Georgia, and New Jersey all need legislation to implement new statewide teacher evaluation systems. In fact, New Jersey has an ambitious legislative package outlined in its waiver package, the success of which the legislation seems far from certain.

• What about the choice kids? States will need to come clean about what they plan to do with the small number of students who are taking advantage of the school choice option that NCLB requires schools to offer once they continue to fail to make AYP. Will the students get to stay in those schools, at least for awhile? Most states don't address this.

• Will SES survive, in some form? Although only Colorado and Oklahoma really address supplemental education services (aka tutoring) and choice head on, with some intention to keep it. Most states identify tutoring as a meaningful intervention for low-performing schools. But, as Steven Pines of the Education Industry Association, in Vienna, Va., observed: "Who's delivering those services and how they're structured, well, those details are glossed over." So, there might still be a prominent place for outside tutoring providers even in states that don't want to keep a formal "SES" program, he added.

• And how easy will it be for parents, schools, and members of a local community to understand these new accountability systems? They're incredibly complex, with varying student achievement goals. (For example, in Kentucky, growth targets are set using standard deviations, a statistical method that makes a lot of sense, but may be an elusive concept to the average parent.) As stated above, sometimes AMOs count for a lot, sometimes not at all. Many states are using A-F letter grades, others are creating indices, and systems of colored flags and stars. Some states have had their systems in place for years, such as Florida, but even then these waiver plans are driving some changes. How easy will it be for a school to know exactly what it has to do to make the grade?

To read state's applications, set the map below in motion then click on the state to find the link:

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend