January 2012 Archives

President Barack Obama's sweeping plans to shake up higher education funding will need to get through a politically polarized Congress, and the initial reviews from some top education lawmakers indicate a rocky road ahead.

The president's wish list includes creating a form of Race to the Top, and the Investing in Innovation program for colleges. And he wants to rejigger funding for campus-based aid programs so that they go to institutions that give students good bang for their buck. More here.

Reaction on Capitol Hill was mixed.

U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said he'd take a look at some of the affordability proposals. "Competition and transparency are basic principles Republicans have long supported to help lower costs in higher education, and institutions have a responsibility to do everything they can to provide a good education at an affordable price," he said in a statement.

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., was less enthusiastic. He said that taking away campus-based financial aid hurts students, not colleges.

Within the same paragraph of his State of the Union address, the president first promised to increase student aid, and then threatened to reduce it, saying that if tuition goes up, taxpayer funding will go down. But federal taxpayer funding for colleges and universities is almost all through grants and loans that go to about 20 million students, so his threat to reduce federal spending for colleges is really a threat to cut federal aid to students....Colleges do need to become more efficient. I've suggested that they could offer three-year degrees to some students. Colleges could also operate more in the summertime, which would make more efficient use of campuses and reduce their costs.

Key Democrats were more receptive.

"I applaud the President's focus on making college affordable and accessible for all students," said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate education committee in a statement. He said he's looking forward to reviewing the proposal.

And U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House education committee, gave the proposals the thumbs-up in his statement:

The cost of education is one of the most urgent kitchen table issues for the middle class. Congress needs to join the President in addressing these issues. The President's Higher Education Proposal rightly calls on colleges, universities and states to maintain a commitment to keep college costs low making it easier for American families and their children to afford a college education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Go-to source Jack Jennings, who has led the Center on Education Policy since he founded it 17 years ago, is retiring Jan. 31. His partner-in-crime, Diane Stark Rentner, also known as the director of national programs for the center, will become the interim director.

Under Jennings, the center has analyzed the implementation of No Child Left Behind, the turnaround of the country's low-performing schools, and the status of state high school exit exams. Heck, If it weren't for Jennings & Crew, we might not know that Education Secretary Arne Duncan's claim that 82 percent of schools this year would "fail" under NCLB was way off base.

A former longtime aide to Democrats on the House education committee, Jennings is a legend on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers in both parties singled him out, by name, during hearings to thank him for his expertise. And nearly every version of the Elementary and Secondary Act has his fingerprints on it. He has a Wikipedia-esque knowledge of every corner of the law, but he can explain it in simple terms even a reporter can understand.

As he retires, he's leaving behind some parting thoughts—a post-game analysis of sorts of the last half-century of education reform, and recommendations going forward. He writes: "We can talk for another 50 years about making the schools better, and succeed for some.We can adopt piecemeal approaches that have some effect. But if we want broad, major improvement for our nation's schools, we have to act boldly, not just talk or try partial fixes." It's worth a read.

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

UPDATED

The White House wants another Race to the Top competition for states, this time aimed at making higher education cheaper and better.

President Barack Obama's plan, which he is fleshed out in a speech at the University of Michigan this morning, would create a new, $1 billion version of his signature Race to the Top competition for states to improve their higher education systems.

To snag the grants, states would have to smooth the transition between K-12 and college education by aligning entrance and exit standards between the two systems. That proposal would appear to build on an incentive in the original, $4 billion Race to Top for K-12 (Race to the Top Classic), which rewarded states for many things, including if they signed onto the Common Core State Standards Initiative—an effort by states to create more uniform, rigorous standards that prepare students for post-secondary education.

That may be a tall order in the current cloudy economic forecast, in which nearly every state has squeezed funding for post-secondary education in recent years.

"We're telling the states, if you can find new ways to bring down the cost of college and make it easier for more students to graduate, we'll help you do it," Obama said in his speech. "We will give you additional federal support if you are doing a good job of making sure that all of you aren't loaded up with debt when you graduate from college. And states would have to maintain adequate levels of funding for higher education."

The adminstration also is seeking to create a $55 million grant contest, dubbed the "First in the World" competition, to help institutions scale up promising strategies in areas such as technology and early-college preparation.

Obama is also calling on Congress to rework federal, school-based financial aid programs, including the Perkins Loan program. Right now, that aid is distributed under a formula that rewards schools in part for longevity. Under the change, colleges that keep tuition low and graduate a relatively large share of Pell Grant-eligible students would be rewarded with a larger share of the grants.

"We are putting colleges on notice...you can't assume that you'll just jack up tuition every single year," Obama said. "If you can't stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down. We should push colleges to do better. We should hold them accountable if they don't."

And Obama is proposing a new $55 millon competition that would dole out money to colleges and universities to scale up promising practices in areas including technology and early college preparation. At first blush, that program appears modeled on the Investing in Innovation grant program, which offered similar rewards to schools and non-profits.

The administration is also planning to create a "College Scorecard" to make it easier for students and parents to choose a college they can afford, and that will help advance their career goals. The so-called "shopping sheet" would include post-graduate earnings and employment information, according to published reports.

The proposals would all require congressional approval.

UPDATE: So far, GOP lawmakers, at least in the House, didn't immediately throw cold water on the proposals. But they don't sound like they're jumping up and down with enthusiasm over them either.

Here's a snippet from a statement by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee:

"Competition and transparency are basic principles Republicans have long supported to help lower costs in higher education, and institutions have a responsibility to do everything they can to provide a good education at an affordable price. We need responsible solutions that will serve the students of today and tomorrow without increasing the federal role in our nation's education system. The president has proposed a number of interesting ideas that deserve a careful review."

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a huge fan of English immersion programs. Romney's state used a CNN-sponsored debate in Florida to reiterate his love for programs that teach kids only in English. He's said in other debates, and in his recent book, that kids don't learn as well in bilingual education classes.

And, in response to a question about why his wife, Callista, would make a good first lady, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich talked up her expertise in arts and music education, an area that has faced major cuts both at the federal and local levels.

In fact, Callista Gingrich made a video extolling the virtue's of music education and bemoaning cuts to music education at the local level.

"Many schools are threatening to cut or eliminate entire music programs," she says in the video, released in December. "Many studies suggest a strong link between music and academic achievement. ... To eliminate music from our schools is to diminish a large part of our cultural experience. Together, we can work to support music education in our nation's schools and preserve our cultural identity."

So does that mean a President Gingrich would support sending money to schools to support music education? If so, that could be a pretty tough sell with Republicans in Congress who are bent on slimming down the U.S. Department of Education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A top GOP lawmaker's plan for rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act amounts to a "rollback" of the law, 38 business, civil rights, and other advocacy organizations said in a letter, sent Jan. 24 to its sponsor.

The draft from U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House education committee, "would thrust us back to an earlier time when states could choose to ignore disparities for children of color, low-income students, English-language learners, and students with disabilities," the letter says.

The letter was signed by a number of organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Federation of Teachers, the Education Trust, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the National Council of La Raza.

Where do the groups' concerns stem from? Under the current law, states have to test students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. They have to set annual achievement goals for all students, including racial minorities, and students in special education. Schools that don't meet those targets are subject to increasingly serious, federal sanctions. Under the Kline plan, states would still have to test students. But they wouldn't have to set goals for student achievement anymore. And they wouldn't have to intervene in schools that aren't making progress with particular subgroups.

The letter shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the debate over the renewal of the ESEA. Most of the same groups released a similar letter in the fall, raising more or less the same concerns about a renewal bill sponsored by U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Michael B. Enzi, R-Wy., the chairman and ranking member of the Senate education committee. The Senate measure also doesn't require any special, federally-mandated interventions for schools that don't make progress with subgroup students.

Kline, in a statement, indicates that he doesn't think his proposal amounts to a watering down of accountability for schools:

'"The Student Success Act opens doors for superintendents, teachers, principals, and other education leaders to implement innovative approaches to meet the needs of individual student populations. In no way does the proposal allow states and school districts to shirk the fundamental responsibility of helping every child succeed in the classroom. I am disappointed critics have chosen to disregard this responsible proposal and vilify the motives of state and local leaders—leaders who have been clamoring for exactly the kind of flexibility and opportunity provided in the Student Success Act."

It's important to be clear that Kline's proposal is just a draft. He'll put forth a full-fledged bill soon.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, any day now, is supposed to announce which states will get waivers from parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, in exchange for embracing certain education reform priorities.

But a pair of Democratic education leaders in Congress have some concerns about aspects of the 11 state applications submitted so far, and they're urging Duncan to adhere to the very high bar he says he'll set for approval.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and U.S. Rep. George Miller, of California, sent a letter to Duncan on Jan. 17 outlining what they see as specific problems in the initial applications. The department has been working with states to make changes and tweaks to their approaches, but those discussions have not been made public.

"We felt the first round of applications didn't go far enough to maintain the strong accountability approach that was expected," a Harkin aide said. "We wanted to make sure that even though some of the first-round applications don't look like they are there yet, [the department] would work with states to reach a high bar."

The lawmakers don't name specific states, but it's clear they think there need to be big changes to nearly all the applicaitons before they're approved.

For instance:

•At least nine of the 11 state applications would create a "super subgroup" essentially lumping together students with disabilities, English-language learners, and racial minorities, according to a report by the Center on Education Policy, a research and advoacy organization in Washington. Harkin and Miller are worried the concerns of specific subgroups could get swept under the rug in that arrangement.

•The lawmakers want to make sure states really emphasize graduation rates in their accountability systems. "Low graduation rates cannot be obscured through changes in test scores or vice-versa," they write. A report from the Alliance for Excellence in Education, in Washington, questioned whether states are really doing a good job of ensuring that graduation rates count for accountability purposes.

•Teacher evaluation is another area of concern. At least six states that applied haven't yet adopted the specifics spelled out in the waiver guidelines, according to an Education Week analysis. And a report by the Center for American Progress, in Washington, also questions whether states have the capacity to deliver on the evaluation portion of the applications.

It's notable that Harkin would have an issue with states' handling of the teacher-evaluation requirement. His own bill, introduced with U.S. Sen. Michael B. Enzi, the top Republican on the education committee, doesn't call for evaluations at all, unless a district or state wants competitive grant money.

But that bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations, while the letter reflects Harkin's own priorities for reauthorization, which includes teacher evaluation for everyone, a Harkin aide explained. (Harkin's original bill did ask all districts to craft evaluations, but that language got jettisoned to garner GOP support for the measure.)

Why so much focus on this first round of waivers? The applications that get approved now will set the bar for future rounds, as states seek to copy successful strategies, a Miller aide said. And, if a bunch of states end up using similar accountability systems, that could be incorporated into a future reauthorization of the law.

Of course, the lawmakers might be assuaged by some of the changes the Education Department has already demanded states make to their waiver applications—but unfortunately, we don't know what those changes entailed. The department refuses to make public the formal feedback letters it has issued to states, which outline the department's concerns and ask for changes.

Duncan's reponse to the lawmakers' letter? He promises that no child will be left, well, behind:

"ESEA flexibility will allow states to target aid where its needed the most while not compromising an inch on achievement gaps," said Justin Hamilton, Duncan's spokesman, in an email. "States will have the flexibility to craft local plans for local issues, but they must address the needs of every child."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

From guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

Alexandria, Va.—Long-awaited rules about what school breakfasts and lunches that cut salt and fat, limit calories, and increase servings of fruits and vegetables became final Wednesday, about a year after they were proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The sweeping changes, which school districts must act on in the 2012-13 school year, were made based on recommendations from the medical community, and could have a huge influence on children's health in the U.S., because many kids get more than half the calories they eat in a day at school.

The announcement was made here at Parklawn Elementary school, with First Lady Michelle Obama, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and celebrity chef Rachael Ray on hand to eat along with children, who were choosing from the kind of menu that will soon be required of all schools in the country. Students at Parklawn Elementary were eating turkey tacos with brown rice, and had a choice of different types of fresh melon or strawberries and kiwi as a side dish, among other items.

"It's a red-letter day for nutrition," Secretary Vilsack said in a call with reporters. "This is the most significant change we've seen in nutrition standards in a generation."

Their original proposal for the new school-meal rules was tweaked based upon tens of thousands of opinions and actions by Congress, which successfully chipped away at some of the changes USDA wanted to make.

Among the key changes the new standards require: Students must be provided with double the amount of fruits and vegetables as in the past; all grain products served must be whole-grain rich; all milk offered must be low-fat or fat-free; there are limits on sodium; and meals will have calorie minimums and maximums.

Plans for other big changes the USDA hoped to make were squelched, however. Congress prevented the agency from limiting servings of starchy vegetables, including white potatoes, corn, lima beans, and peas. The USDA also wanted to end the practice of counting tomato paste, including the sauce on a slice of pizza, as a serving of vegetables. But politics got in the way of that change, too. The political backlash came despite bipartisan support for the bill that required the changes to school meals, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

Here's a comparison of how the proposed changes compare with what was ultimately decided by USDA.

"Our kids would eat candy for breakfast, follow it up with French fries... and then come home for a big chocolate sundae," Mrs. Obama said. "It's our responsibility to make sure they don't do that. And when we're doing what we're supposed to be doing at home, the last thing we want is for these things to be undone at school."

Vilsack said the 32 million students who eat school meals each day will still see fewer starchy vegetables because there are minimum requirements of many other types of veggies—dark green, orange, and red—that must be served in a given week.

Margo Wootan, the director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said she welcomed the updated standards despite the political "shenanigans."

At the Kids' Safe and Healthful Foods Project, an endeavor of the Pew Charitable Trusts, project director Jessica Donze Black was also enthusiastic.

"The updated nutrition standards for school meals are now in line with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the federal government's evidence-based guidance to promote health, reduce the risk of chronic diseases and decrease the prevalence of obesity," she said. "The focus on improving school meals comes at a critical time for children's health. Nearly one in three adolescents in the United States today is overweight or obese, and young people increasingly suffer from diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure."

Beyond the health benefits, Mrs. Obama said the improved meals will help students' academic performance.

"Kids can't be expected to sit still and concentrate when they're on a sugar high," she said, "or, when they're hungry."

Some school districts, which have been adjusting their lunches to boost the amount of whole-grain items served, adding more fruits and vegetables, and serving low-fat and fat-free milk, have said the new meals will be too expensive to prepare, and despite a required boost in school-meal prices charged to students and more money from the USDA per meal, they will struggle to pay for all the the new requirements.

"We can spend a little bit now and and see it go a long way," Ms. Ray said a little while before joining Parklawn 2nd and 4th graders in the lunch line.

Others have found that students aren't fans of healthier meals.

The School Nutrition Association did endorse the changes however.

"These national nutrition standards will help school nutrition professionals build on their successes," said SNA Chief Executive Officer Frank DiPasquale. "For schools hampered by tight budgets or limited equipment and staff,the School Nutrition Association will continue to provide training and support to help school nutrition professionals achieve the new meal pattern."

Photo: First lady Michelle Obama takes her seat as she has lunch with school children at Parklawn Elementary School in Alexandria, Va. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

President Obama gave college affordability a prominent place in his domestic agenda during his annual State of the Union address, calling directly on universities to hold down costs in order to make higher education more accessible to the middle class. He outlined a set of proposals that include threatening universities with a loss of federal money if they are unable to tamp down tuition.

"Let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down," Obama said in his hour-long address. He didn't offer specifics, however, and the blueprint document the White House sent out to accompany the speech didn't get specific either. But advocates expect him to lay out more concrete details in the coming days.

In a speech that emphasized four pillars—manufacturing, energy, worker training, and American values—he advocated for one concrete K-12 policy: He urged states to raise the dropout age to 18. "We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma," he said.

And, he reiterated his call for Congress to approve some version of the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the country as children, if they go on to college or the military.

'Teachers Matter'

The president actually spent little time recounting his past efforts on K-12 education reform, or his administration's push to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act. And, he didn't even refer to his signature education initiative— Race to the Top—by name.

He said only: "For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning—the first time that's happened in a generation."

And he stressed the importance of teaching, a key theme he's hit on before.

"Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones," he said. "In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn. That's a bargain worth making."

According to a "blueprint" sent out by the White House during the speech, Obama wants to create a new competitive program that will challenge states and districts to work with their teachers and unions to comprehensively reform the teaching profession. This new competition seems to be a twist on and an expansion of the existing Teacher Incentive Fund. It would seek to: reform colleges of education and make these schools more selective; create new career ladders for teachers to become more effective, and ensure that earnings are tied more closely to performance; and, establish more leadership roles and responsibilities for teachers in running schools.

The competition would also seek to improve professional development and time for collaboration among teachers; create evaluation systems based on multiple measures, rather than just test scores; and, reshape tenure to raise the bar, protect good teachers, and promote accountability.

This proposal aside, the focus of Obama's education agenda in the coming year seems to be on college affordability.

Lawmakers React

Obama's call to withhold federal funding from colleges that don't do a good job of holding down their tuition costs met with mixed reaction from lawmakers on the education committees.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., who oversees the House subcommittee that deals with higher education, said that shouldn't be the job of the U.S. Department of Education.

"I don't believe the federal government has any business being involved in education," she said in an interview. And she took exception to the president's description of education programs as workforce 'training.'"

"You train your dog," she said. "You educate people."

Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., who has a long record on postsecondary issues, is also unsure whether withholding federal aid from universities is a good way to go. "I'm not sure it's workable, or the right way to go," he said. He was much more enthusiastic about Obama's proposal to hold down student loan interest rates, which he said has a chance of passing the education committee, if the administration can pinpoint "the right pay-fors" to cover the cost.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., the former Denver schools chief and a leader on K-12 issues, was more enthusiastic about the package of proposals. "Incentivizing institutions to be more efficient is entirely appropriate," he said. But he's anxious for more details on the proposal.

Controlling College Costs

While putting responsibility on colleges and universities, Obama also wants states to do their part and spend more on higher education. And, he has an assignment for Congress, too.

"Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars," he said. "And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years."

Obama also called for community colleges to partner with local businesses to help create jobs.

College affordability is not a new theme for the administration, which has already taken a number of steps to make it easier for students to cover the cost of college, including simplifying college-aid forms, boosting the maximum Pell Grant from $4,731 to $5,550 and scrapping the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which used subsidized private lenders, in favor of direct government loans. And it has implemented income-based repayment plans, which make it easier for graduates to repay their loans.

But there has been backlash. Republicans have criticized the administration for raising Pell Grants too quickly, bringing the program under enormous financial pressure as more students seek post-secondary education to boost their skills. In fact, in the most recent budget agreement, lawmakers made some big changes to the program's eligibility requirements, including slashing the number of semesters students can receive the grants from 18 to 12.

Both of the country's major teachers' unions—who are very important to the Democratic base in such a key election year—praised the speech overall. And they really liked Obama's call for an end to "teaching to the test."

"We appreciate the president's call to support teachers and to stop teaching to the test," said Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association, in a statement. "Teachers and educators are eager to work with the Obama administration on ideas to strengthen the profession of teaching and help all students succeed."

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten echoed those sentiments.

"Obama also made clear tonight what America's teachers have long understood: We can't test our way to a middle class; we must educate our way to a middle class. The overemphasis on testing has led to narrowing of the curriculum, rather than creating a path to critical thinking and problem solving," she said in a statement.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who many fellow Republicans wanted to see run for president, delivered the GOP response, hammering Obama for leading a "big and bossy" government that's built on the backs of middle-class Americans and is dragging down the economy. However, he had two bits of praise for the president: one, for killing Osama bin Laden, and the second, for "bravely backing long overdue changes in public education." Although Daniels did not cite specifics, the president has made some policies that Republicans often support—such as expanding charter schools and revamping teacher evaluations—central to his Race to the Top competition.

Last year, Obama used the State of the Union speech to call on Congress to renew the ESEA. But the administration doesn't like either of the two proposals lawmakers have put out so far—including a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate education committee last fall, and a draft proposal released earlier this month by U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said that the administration's waiver package is stronger on accountability than either of those proposals.

Michele McNeil contributed to this report.

Photo: President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Jan. 24. Listening in back are Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner, right.
(Saul Loeb/AP-Pool)

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

Education issues are supposed to be one of four main themes in President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech tonight. And so a handful of educators, students, and advocates will be guests of First Lady Michelle Obama.

They include:

• Sara Ferguson, a teacher from Columbus Elementary in Parkside, Pa. When her district, the Chester Upland School District, faced bankruptcy, Ferguson said she'd continue teaching without getting paid. "We are adults; we will make a way," she said. "They don't have a contingency plan. They need to be educated, so we intend to be on the job."

• Mahala Greer, a student at the University of Colorado Denver who has been accepted into Teach for America. She will graduate from school with more than $35,000 in debt.

• Amber Morris, a law school graduate from Virginia Beach, Va., who is struggling to repay her student loans and working as a waitress.

• Laurene Powell Jobs, who is the founder and Chair of Emerson Collective, an organization in Palo Alto, Calif., focused on helping folks in underserved communities tap into their potential. Jobs is also the president of the board of College Track, an after school program that prepares students from disadvantaged communities for success in college.

Two things to note here: First off, looking at this list, it's clear college affordability will be a big theme. And second, most of these folks are from swing states.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Fresh off a stunning blow to Hawaii's Race to the Top efforts, Gov. Neil Abercrombie pledged to make good on his state's education reform promises—with or without the help of the state teachers' union.

In his state of the state address yesterday, Gov. Abercrombie, a Democrat, promised that the state will adopt a new teacher-evaluation system that complies with its Race to the Top promises.

Last week, the state appeared to be making significant strides in getting itself out of the doghouse with the U.S. Department of Education, which had placed Hawaii on "high-risk status" and threatened to take away its $75 million award. The state and the governing board of the Hawaii State Teachers Association had reached a tentative agreement creating a new teacher-evaluation system based in part on student achievement, a key milestone that the state had missed, placing its award in jeopardy. But the rank-and-file members were not on board, and resoundingly rejected the contract.

"We wanted to cross the Race to the Top finish line side-by-side with the HSTA. Make no mistake we will cross that finish line," the governor said in his speech. "We will be using all management, administrative, legislative, and legal tools we have at our disposal to implement an evaluation system that not only measures, but achieves student growth; turns around low-performing schools; and supports teachers in increasing their effectiveness."

Does that mean we could be seeing strong legislation from Hawaii that would put such an evaluation system into law, rather than just putting it into a contract? That seems likely.

For Hawaii, the clock is ticking. The U.S. Department of Education plans to send a team to Hawaii to closely examine its Race to the Top progress. That visit is expected in late March, state officials said.

"Our goal is to have clear and compelling evidence for the U.S. DOE that shows we have the legal authority to implement these reforms," Stephen Schatz, the assistant superintendent for strategic reform at the Hawaii education department, said in an interview Jan. 23.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Education is one of four areas President Obama will focus on during his State of the Union address tonight, according to this Associated Press story. The big question is: What will he say?

In giving this election year State of the Union speech, Obama may brag about some of the steps his administration has taken on education, including creating the Race to the Top education redesign competition, and offering states wiggle room under key parts of the No Child Left Behind Act if they agree to take-on the administration's reform priorities.

And he could talk about steps the administration has taken to help boost college affordability, including getting rid of federally-subsidized student lenders in favor of direct government loans. The administration used the savings to boost aid for students. But the Pell Grant program, which offers grants to low-income students to attend college, remains under major financial pressure. Are there new initiatives Obama can talk about in this area, or will he just recap what has happened so far?

Community colleges and higher education are likely to be a part of the speech, White House aides said. And teacher quality may also be highlighted.

Last year, President Obama asked Congress to pass a bipartisan reauthorization of the law. But it never happened, and now the administration is moving ahead with a waiver package that Obama's own secretary of education thinks is stronger than any of the legislation under consideration. So, if I were a betting woman, I'd guess there won't be much talk about NCLB this time.

Early pushback: Republicans in Congress are already pointing to what they see as flaws in some of the Obama administration's edu-accomplishments. For instance, they note that a number of states are having trouble implementing Race to the Top.

And House Republicans say waivers will simply create confusion for states, since there could potentially be a number of different plans approved. They are also questioning the secretary's authority to issue waivers. And they worry that the president's plan for student loans could mean that taxpayers will end up holding the bag.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As the four remaining candidates for the GOP nomination duked it out in Florida during tonight's debate, there was little talk of education. But former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did get a question on the DREAM Act legislation, which would create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children and who go on to enter college or the military. This is likely an important issue to many voters in Florida, which has a large, strong Hispanic population.

Mitt Romney, who mentioned during the debate that he's a supporter of English-language immersion in schools, already has said he would veto the DREAM Act, although he supports a path to citizenship for those who enter the military.

Gingrich—Romney's biggest rival—said during the debate (sponsored by NBC, National Journal and the Tampa Bay Times) that he wouldn't veto DREAM Act legislation, but instead would work for a "signable version" that allowed only those who enter the military to work toward citizenship. Simply going to college wouldn't be good enough, in his view.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

President Obama is nominating Deborah Delisle, the former Ohio schools' chief, to be the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education.

She would replace Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, who left the department in July to lead the Santa Ana school district in Orange County, Calif. In the interim, Michael Yudin, who was Melendez's deputy, has been filling in.

Delisle, who will need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, served as Ohio superintendent of public instruction from 2008 to 2011 under then-Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat. Delisle, whose state won a coveted Race to the Top grant during her tenure, was essentially forced to resign by Republican Gov. John Kasich.

In her new post, she would be in charge of Title I and most other key K-12 programs. And presumably, her office will play a key role in implementing and overseeing waivers the department ends up granting under No Child Left Behind.

Her bio, according to the White House's announcement tonight:

Deborah Delisle served as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Ohio Department of Education from 2008 to 2011. Previously, Ms. Delisle worked in the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District in Ohio, first as Associate Superintendent from 2001 to 2003, then as Superintendent from 2003 to 2008. Since beginning her career as an elementary teacher in Connecticut in the 1970s, Ms. Delisle has served in a variety of roles at the school district level in Ohio, including as Director of Academic Services, Director of Curriculum and Professional Development, and Coordinator of Gifted and Talented Programs. Ms. Delisle has served on several education boards, including the Governing Board of the Minority Student Achievement Network, Executive Board of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, and the Council of Chief State School Officers Executive Board. Ms. Delisle is a recipient of the Betsy Cowles Women in Leadership Award and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators Distinguished Service Award. She holds a B.S. from Springfield College and an M.Ed. from Kent State University.

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

Hawaii is already in big trouble with the U.S. Department of Education for failing to hit key milestones the state promised to deliver as part of its $75 million Race to the Top prize. At stake is roughly $72 million that's left of the state's award, which federal officials are threatening to take back.

Things were looking up in the Aloha State, when earlier this month the state and its teachers' union reached a tentative contract deal to end the stalemate and put in place a new teacher-evaluation system based in part on student growth—a key component of its Race to the Top plan.

Hawaii's rank-and-file teachers had other ideas. They voted yesterday by a 2-1 margin to reject the contract deal, which also would have reversed a 5 percent pay cut. The Honolulu Civil Beat news site, which has been providing great on-the-ground coverage of the Race to Top woes and contract battles, aptly put it this way: "Hawaii Teachers Vote A Stunning Blow For Race to the Top."

I'd say! (Apparently, this was the first time in the union's 44-year history that it rejected a contract deal that its board had approved, according to Civil Beat.)

An online message from Hawaii State Teachers Association President Wil Okabe didn't indicate what the union's next steps are—although he mentioned that options could be to return to the bargaining table, take a strike vote, or continue legal challenges.

Within the next several weeks, federal officials will visit Hawaii in search of "clear and compelling" evidence that it has made, or is making, substantial progress, on its Race to the Top promises. This is not the kind of evidence they want to see. In fact, if nothing changes, the department will likely have an easy decision to make.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I sat down with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan yesterday for a wide-ranging interview on the hot education topics of the day: waivers, Race to the Top, reauthorization, and the election.

If you want more than just the highlights, check out the full transcript. Or, read through snippets of our conversation below.

On Waivers

Q. The first waiver announcement is expected soon from your department. You've talked about how this is not a competition, and so you want all states that want to, and can commit to certain things, to get a waiver under No Child Left Behind. But you also say you want to keep a high bar. How do you do both?

A. I think the first goal is clearly more important, to have a high bar. The goal is not to just give a waiver to everyone. ... We're going to go back and forth with states and say this looks great, you've got a challenge here, think about it in different ways. Again, no hard deadlines. This creates an opportunity for those who want it.

Q. People have been clamoring for the ability to measure growth. In reading the first 11 waiver applications, it's clear growth is a huge part of these new accountability systems. Are you worried that there will be so much emphasis on growth that you lose this desire to still get kids to a certain level of proficiency?

A. I think all of these are false choices. The only way you ever hit a high bar is by better growth. So it's growth to what? ... I think some of these accountability systems will be more complex, there will be more factors, but I think it will be such a more fine-tuned system. And not that it's going to be perfect. ... So, yeah, the growth is important to me. But look at graduation rates. Look at dropout rates. Look at our kids going to college. ... And so I think you're going to see a level of sophistication that just didn't exist 10 years ago, and we want to look at a range of factors. ...

Q. How does the Education Department monitor dozens of different, sophisticated state accountability systems?

A. I think about that a lot. Part of the business we should be in is managing a portfolio of states. And so it's 50 relationships. It's not insignificant, but I think it's really manageable. ... And then the other thing, just like Race to the Top, I'm not promising anyone we're going to bat 1,000. We may grant a waiver to a state that makes its commitments in good faith, but doesn't keep them. And just to be very clear, and just as in Race to the Top, if we need to revoke the waiver six months from now, a year from now, two years from now, because folks can't deliver on what they said, we're more than prepared to do that.

Q. How do you hold states accountable for waivers?

A. They're putting forward a plan. Are they executing against that plan? For example, that bottom 5 percent of schools or that 10 percent for gap schools, we'll be able to look across the portfolio of states and look at what percent of gap schools are you moving out of that category. What's your rate of gain? At the end of the day, it's not the system, at the end of the day it's student achievement. ...

On Enforcing the No Child Left Behind Act

Q. What about states that don't apply for a waiver, are you willing to take away Title I money? Or how far do you go to enforce NCLB?

A. It is the law, so I think we have an obligation to enforce the law.

Q. So would you withhold money?

A. Again, not my first choice, but if it was warranted, if you had to for whatever reason there was, absolutely. (Chief of Staff Joanne Weiss added that any money withheld likely would be state administrative money, and not the Title I dollars that go directly to benefit students.) We want to do things the right way. ... We're trying to do two things, and I don't think this department has really done much of either: We're trying to really support folks and give them technical assistance and help them be successful, and we're trying to hold them accountable. ... It's hard to try and do both of those, but that's what we're trying to do. ...

On Race to the Top

Q. Is Hawaii on its way to saving itself?

A. They took a big step in the right direction. I actually congratulated them publicly. But there's still a lot of hard work to go there. But are they in a better place than they were two weeks ago? Sure.

Q. How big a trouble is New York in?

A. I think the governor came up with a pretty significant plan today (Jan. 17) that makes me hopeful. But again, I just have no interest in handicapping odds. We just look at results. We just look at what the facts are. And so for every single one of these states, either they are hitting their benchmarks or they're not. And the rhetoric and the political whatever, I'm just not interested in. I'm interested in getting some work done. And again, getting work done that the state committed to that was their plan. We're just asking them to fulfill the commitments they made.

Q. What would a Race to the Top for districts look like?

A. Still working on that.

Q. Would it look a lot like the state competition?

A. We're still really thinking that through. I don't want to talk through any of the specifics, I'll just say that I love that we played at the state level. I love that we played in the early childhood space, but I'm really, really pleased now to have a chance to participate with districts, and there's a huge appetite there. There are fantastic districts doing some really creative stuff in states that are less functional that we haven't had a chance to do anything with. And these guys have been begging me: "Arne, when are we going to have a chance to play?" and so to have half a billion dollars ... I think we can have a real impact there. ...

Q. Do you think you'll use all of the money for districts? Most of it?

A. No, I think we'll use it for the districts. You can do different things. You can do early childhood as a piece of that, or STEM as a piece of that. You can get at different things through it. ... I don't want to commit, but the bulk of the money will go through districts—but what we'll be asking of districts is still very much up for consideration. We're trying to talk to lots of folks on the outside to get their best advice...

On Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Q. We have a couple reauthorization bills now from the House and the Senate. Given what you've seen, is your waiver plan a stronger plan? Which would you take? Would you rather go with waivers or a reauthorization at this point?

A. No question the waivers are a stronger plan. I hope that changes. I hope at some point next month, six months from now, or next year that we get a strong bipartisan bill. Unfortunately that's not reality.

On the 2012 election

Q. Are we going to see you out on the campaign trail with the president a lot?

A. I'll do some, but obviously I don't think that's my strength. I don't think that's how I best help the country. I think the way I best help the country is to help education on this cradle-to-career continuum. ... There are a lot of folks who are a lot better politically than I am, and that's their skill set and their strength. It's not mine.

Q. Do you think education is going to be a big part of the debate? Or do you think there's not a big difference between the president and say, Mitt Romney, on education?

A. I don't know. I say all the time, you know, Republican, Democrat, Independent, I wish everyone was going to the voting booth and education was in the forefront. ... And I think far too many politicians talk the talk on education and far too few walk the walk. And we have really tried to walk the walk. We want to be held accountable. ...

On His Future

Q. If the president is re-elected, will you stay on for his second term?

A. I'll have to see if he's sick of me first.

Q. And if he's not?

A. I'd love to stay. These three years have gone ... it's ridiculous how fast these three years have gone. It's scary. This work takes a long time. I believe in life you have to stay with stuff. I said repeatedly I desperately wanted to do 10 years in Chicago. I did 7½, and literally this was the only job in the world that I would have left Chicago for. And I don't think there's a job in the world that I would leave this for. You gotta stick with this work, stick with it for the long, long haul. ...

Photo: U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at his office in Washington on Jan. 17. (Stephen Voss for Education Week)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Flush with $550 million in new Race to the Top money, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said he intends to use the vast majority of it to design a new competition just for school districts.

In an interview with Education Week yesterday, Duncan for the first time foreshadowed what the department's next Race to the Top competition will look like.

"I think we'll use it for the districts," he said. "You can do different things. You can do early childhood as a piece of that, or STEM as a piece of that. ... I don't want to commit, but the bulk of the money will go through districts...what we'll be asking of districts is still very much up for consideration."

Duncan, in a 30-minute, wide-ranging interview, also addressed what he sees as the strength of his department's waiver plan, the weaknesses of congressional attempts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and his desire to stay on as secretary through a second term if President Barack Obama is re-elected.

In the fiscal year 2012 budget deal, Congress late last year awarded the department another $550 million to extend Race to the Top—Obama's signature education initiative—and this time allowed the money to be awarded directly to school districts, and not just to states.

It's clear that Duncan sees the potential of investing a half-billion dollars in districts, especially in states that are, as he calls them, "less functional" and haven't won any other competitive grants.

"I love that we played at the state level. I love that we played in the early childhood space," said Duncan, who is expected to talk about the new Race to the Top in a speech before the nation's mayors in Washington today. "But I'm really really pleased now to have a chance to participate with districts, and there's a huge appetite there."

Besides hammering out the details of what a new Race to the Top competition for districts would look like, Duncan's most immediate task is overseeing an ambitious new plan to grant states waivers from many of the core components of the No Child Left Behind Act—his answer to Congress' inability, so far, to formally rewrite the law. Already, 11 states have applied in the first round, with a second wave of applications due Feb. 21.

Given the choice between sticking with his waiver strategy or having to live with one of the proposed versions of a new ESEA Act offered by the House and Senate, he said the choice is clear.

"No question the waivers are a stronger plan," he said. "I hope that changes. I hope at some point next month, six months from now, or next year that we get a strong bipartisan bill; unfortunately that's not reality."

For the first time, Duncan telegraphed how tough he plans to be on states that win a waiver. It's the same kind of tough talk he engaged in before and during the original $4 billion Race to the Top competition for states.

"I'm not promising anyone we're going to bat 1,000. We may grant a waiver to a state that makes its commitments in good faith but doesn't keep them," he said. "And just to be very clear, and just as in Race to the Top, if we need to revoke the waiver six months from now, a year from now, two years from now, because folks can't deliver on what they said, we're more than prepared to do that."

He was almost as tough on states that don't apply for a waiver—such as California—and decide to stick it out with the current NCLB requirements. Though he said it wasn't his first choice, he said he was prepared to withhold Title I money to states, if needed.

"It is the law, so I think we have an obligation to enforce the law," Duncan said. "If it was warranted ... absolutely." (Chief of Staff Joanne Weiss added that any money withheld likely would be state administrative money, and not the Title I dollars that go directly to benefit students.)

In Race to the Top, Duncan is starting to live up to that tough talk, most recently by putting Hawaii on "high-risk" grant status and threatening to take away its $75 million award. Although the state has made progress in the last several days by reaching a tentative contract deal with teachers, which was a major stumbling block for Race to the Top, he said it's too early to tell if Hawaii is out of the woods. And the same goes for New York, which he said he's monitoring closely as that state also stumbles on its Race to the Top promises.

As for his future, Duncan—a former Chicago schools' chief—made clear that if Obama is re-elected, he wants to stay on for another four years.

"I'll have to see if he's sick of me first," Duncan said of the president. "I'd love to stay."

He cited all the work that's left to do, such as bringing down "unacceptable" high school dropout rates, and raising the country's college graduation rate.

"This work takes a long time. I said repeatedly I desperately wanted to do 10 years in Chicago. I did 7½, and literally this was the only job in the world that I would have left Chicago for," he said. "And I don't think there's a job in the world that I would leave this for. You gotta stick with this work, stick with it for the long long haul. I know how far we have to go."

Photo: U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is interviewed at his office in Washington on Jan. 17. (Stephen Voss for Education Week)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

During this weekend's debate, Sen. Rick Santorum expressed major remorse over his vote in favor of the No Child Left Behind Act.

But former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has no regrets when it comes to his contention that kids in poverty would do better in school if you only they could earn some cash through "light janitorial work."

Santorum's comments on NCLB came in response to a dig from Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who was also in Congress at the time and was just of a small handful of lawmakers to oppose the legislation.

Santorum said he's really sorry and that he was just trying to support President George W. Bush's "signature initiative." And he'll make up for his vote by working to repeal not just the law, but "all of the federal government's role in primary and secondary education." (Really? No more Title I grants for disadvantaged kids and special education money?)

Gingrich, on the other hand, did not back away from his idea that poor schools would improve if kids as young as eleven were given a chance to earn some money working in the cafeteria or sweeping up the gym. Juan Williams, one of the debate's moderators, noted that those comments have been viewed as racist and classist.

But Gingrich stuck to his guns.

"I've had over 50 people write me about the jobs they got at 11, 12, 13 years of age. ... What I tried to say—and I think it's fascinating, because Joe Klein reminded me that this started with an article he wrote 20 years ago. New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union. You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They'd learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money."

Factcheckers are not in Gingrich's camp on this one.

Check out the full transcript of the debate, which was sponsored by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, here.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former Massachusetts of Gov. Mitt Romney coasted to an easy win in the New Hampshire GOP primary last night, garnering nearly 40 percent of the vote.

Romney has the longest roster of education advisers among the GOP candidates. And he's got a record in the Bay State of championing standards-based reform. He pushed for science to be included in the state's testing system, and leaned on a district that tried to wiggle out of a requirement that all kids pass an exit exam before graduating from high school. He also likes charter schools and performance-pay for teachers.

Coming in second, with nearly 23 percent of the vote, was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas who's called for getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education and phasing out the student loan program.

And third place went to former Utah Gov. Jon Hunstman, with nearly 17 percent of the vote. As governor, Huntsman helped his state buck the No Child Left Behind Act—although it eventually backed down.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania finished fourth, and fifth respectively. Texas Gov. Rick Perry was dead last, getting less than 1 percent of the vote.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So what do folks inside the Beltway think of Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.'s draft bills the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka No Child Left Behind)? That depends on whom you talk to.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, for one, isn't happy with either the substance or the process. He said the administration is going to stick with its plan to give states waivers from pieces of the NCLB law in exchange for embracing certain reform priorities.

I appreciate the effort, but this bill retreats from reform, accountability and bipartisanship. We need to set politics aside and put kids first. Until Congress can pass a real bi-partisan reform bill that the president can sign, we'll be moving forward with our ESEA flexibility package because America can't wait.

Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the committee, is also not a fan. He put out a statement last week highlighting his problems with its handling of accountability, funding, standards, and school improvement.

And Sen.Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Education Committee and the author of that chamber's bill, also lamented that the bill only has Republican support.

"I am disappointed that he [Rep. Kline] has abandoned the longstanding tradition of bipartisanship when it comes to the education of our kids," he said.

Generally speaking, groups that represent school officials see the draft as a good starting point. But advocates that look out for particular groups of children, such as students in special education, are really unhappy with the draft.

The American Association of School Administrators, for one, is in the good starting point camp.

The draft gets back to a more local vision for education, while maintaining strong accountability by ensuring that schools continue to test students and disaggregate those results for particular subgroups of students, such as English-language learners, said Noelle Ellerson, the assistant director for policy analysis and advocacy at AASA.

"We see this as a good middle ground," Ellerson said. "I have a hard time understanding why people think there's not a sense of accountability in a bill like this." If school district folks are given good data, they'll be better able to serve all kids, she said.

"We start from a place that assumes that school districts and school leaders act in good faith and have the interest of children at heart," she said.

The Council of Chief State School Officers has also found much to like in the proposal, said Chris Minnich, the senior membership director at CCSSO.

"We think that this sets the table for some sort of action that could actually get to the finish line," Minnich said. "We're excited about a lot of things in here. ... We appreciate the flexibility. It's a huge selling point for our members."

CCSSO is especially happy that states would get much more leeway to craft their accountability systems, and that the draft would require some sort of teacher evaluation system. But there are some areas the chiefs would like to see discussed further, including the possibility of some sort of student performance targets. (There aren't any in the bill right now.)

Another area is improvement strategies for the lowest- performing schools. The chiefs have major qualms about the strict four models the department has directed states to use for the bottom 5 percent of schools. But they don't like that the entire School Improvement Grant program would be scrapped under the House draft. That would take away resources for turnarounds, Minnich said.

But there's also plenty of pushback.

Laura Kaloi, the public policy director at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, is concerned the draft could result in much lower expectations for students in special education.

"The [draft] falls short in many areas," Kaloi said. She called the draft "a retraction" from any kind of standard or expectations for students with disabilities, who she said have "benefited greatly from being part of an accountability system with high expectations."

Right now, schools that don't meet achievement targets for those students are subject to serious sanctions. But under the draft, states would get to build their own accountability systems—and there would be no federal interventions for schools that don't improve outcomes for students with disabilities. States would have to decide whether to do that on their own.

And, unlike in current law, there are no caps in the draft on the number of kids that could take alternative assessments. That means lots of kids with learning disabilties could be subject to easier tests and lower standards, Kaloi said.

Charles Barone, the director of federal legislation for Democrats for Education Reform, said he has trouble "taking this seriously." If a renewal bill is going to pass this Congress, it has to be bipartisan, he said, since the Senate is in Democratic hands.

"I think this is a stage prop rather than a real legislative effort," Barone said. "They're just doing this to say they did something." Under the bill, accountability would be "pretty much anything goes," he said. "It's just a bunch of vague language."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In its first official assessment of $4 billion in Race to the Top grants, the U.S. Department of Education today commended the 12 winners for working hard to implement the first year of their reform plans—but raised specific red flags about the pace of change in Hawaii, New York, and Florida.

Overall, the majority of Race to the Top recipients seem to be on the right track in implementing their ambitious reform agendas, the department said in weighing progress by the 11 winning states and the District of Columbia. But it found that nearly all have had significant problems in hiring employees and vendors to turn their plans into reality.

Specifically, the state-by-state reports show that most winners are struggling to implement new teacher-evaluation systems based at least in part on student growth. Many also are navigating tricky waters in their relationships with local schools districts, which ultimately must make the Race to the Top plans work.

In addition, four states—Hawaii, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee—have seen turnover in the governor or chief state school officer's jobs since the grants were awarded in 2010, hampering implementation to varying degrees, the reports say.

UPDATE, 11:45 A.M.: One area where states seem to be doing well: common standards work, as my colleague Catherine Gewertz reports.

Called to Account

The reports, reflecting first-year implementation of President Obama's signature education initiative, seem to indicate that Maryland, Massachusetts, and Ohio may be doing the best job at fulfilling their promises so far.

But the reports also provide ammunition for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who has vowed to hold Race to the Top winners to a tough standards in implementing their commitments.

He used their release to turn up the heat on New York, in particular. That state, which won $700 million, is embroiled in legal and district battles over how to implement a 2010 law, enacted in the run up to Race to the Top, which created a new teacher-evaluation system partially based on student growth.

"New York made significant progress through Race to the Top over the last year, but has recently hit a roadblock that not only impedes Race to the Top but could threaten other key reform initiatives, as well," Duncan said in a statement released today. "New York has a chance to be a national leader or a laggard, and we are only interested in supporting real courage and bold leadership. Backtracking on reform commitments could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars for improving New York schools."

Indeed, New York education chief John King acknowledged the state's precarious position in an interview with Education Week's Christina Samuels for an article this week.

"We are concerned about district capacity to execute on commitments they made on Race to the Top. We are concerned about being able to fulfill our state race to the top objectives," he said. Separately, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, in his state of the state speech last week, admitted the 2010 teacher-evaluation law didn't work.

Already, the department has indicated that Hawaii's grant is in big trouble. Federal officials have put the state on "high-risk" status and threatened to revoke the remaining $70 million or so of its $75 million Race to the Top grant.

But today, Duncan commended the state for reaching some sort of agreement with its teachers' union that's supposed to help.

Details remain sketchy about the agreement and how it would help jump-start the teacher-evaluation plans that put the grant at risk. Hawaii officials couldn't be reached for comment yesterday. Still, Duncan said in a statement: "The recent collective bargaining agreement will play a critical role in making Hawaii's education reform plan possible."

Duncan also clearly thinks Florida has gone off track, though the Sunshine State seems to be in better shape than New York and Hawaii.

"In year one, Florida made a great deal of progress but also experienced some serious setbacks," Duncan said. "As Florida moves further into year two, we will be looking to them to demonstrate unwavering commitment and continued collaboration to ensure that their work gets back on track."

Florida officials, however, don't characterize their setbacks as "serious" and say they have met new contracting deadlines. What's more, Pam Stewart, the K-12 chancellor for the Florida Department of Education, said in an interview last night she's confident the state can still meet its ambitious goals by the time the four-year grant runs out—and points to the good work accomplished so far, such as in implementing new teacher evaluations (which so many other states have struggled with).

As far as the contracting process, "we did not execute everyting in Year One that we had hoped," she said. "It is a lengthy process, it makes it a good process."

State by State

Some highlights of the big challenges states have faced, as outlined in the reports:

• Delaware: The state, which won $120 million in the first round, was forced into a one-year delay in using its new teacher-evaluation system to inform personnel decisions. Delaware also had problems reconciling what the local districts perceive their needs and commitments are under Race to the Top with what the state thinks those needs and commitments really are.

• District of Columbia: The District experienced significant challenges with staffing the grant, worth $75 million. The report indicates that multiple people have been responsible for administering the grant, each person for fewer than six months. No one who actually worked on the grant is helping administer it now for the District. Delays particularly hampered its school turnaround work.

• Florida: The state, which won $700 million, has budgeted nearly every penny (98 percent) of its half of the grant for contracts and has struggled to issue them in a timely manner. (Although now, all of the contracts have been issued, state officials say.) Many first-year activities have been delayed at least a year because of this. (UPDATED, 9:24 A.M., to reflect that the contracts are coming out of the state's share of the grant. The other half, $350 million, goes to districts.)

• Georgia: Six of the state's largest school districts experienced leadership challenges, hampering implementation of the $400 million grant. Although the state experienced typical timeline delays, it was further hampered by the fact that state officials did not update and push back those timelines when they submitted their application in the second round of grants. The timelines were the same as in the state's losing Round 1 application.

• Massachusetts: The state, which won $250 million, experienced trouble finding high-quality employees and vendors to do its data-system work.

• Maryland: Recommendations for a statewide teacher-evaluation system, made by a state task force, were delayed six months. The state won $250 million.

• North Carolina: The state, rather than a contractor, will implement a new teacher corps program, delaying that program by a year. In addition, a new instructional improvement system is delayed, as is a program to expand virtual courses in math and science in low-performing schools. North Carolina won $400 million.

• New York: The state faces a big challenge in getting its 715 districts to implement teacher-evaluation plans via new labor contracts.

• Ohio: Staff hiring delays delayed the rollout of the kindergarten-readiness assessment pilot. The number of participating school districts dropped to 478 from 538, primarily because some districts were going to get small grants. The state won $400 million.

• Rhode Island: The state, which won $75 million, faced challenges in supporting its low-performing schools and in implementing a high-performing charter schools initiative.

• Tennessee: The time it took to fill key leadership positions meant delays in timelines and problems providing capacity to support local districts. Tennessee won $500 million in the first round of competition.

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

Education is still taking a backseat to ... pretty much every other issue out there in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

But there have been some interesting moments lately:

•In one of two debates over the weekend, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who was just one of a handful of lawmakers to vote against the NCLB law back in 2001, chided former Sen. Rick Santorum for voting in favor of it. Paul called the law a "doubling" of the size of the U.S. Department of Education. Santorum has since backed off his pro-NCLB stance, telling CNN that his vote was a mistake.

• Santorum also recently said Obama's push to get more kids to go to college amounts to "snobbery." Being an auto-mechanic is a perfectly good, good paying job, he said.

(Politics K-12 fact check: Being an auto-mechanic does require some heavy-duty technical training, which can be completed during high school or as a post-secondary career. The Obama administration has called for students to be "college-and-career" ready, which would presumably include kids who want to pursue high-skills technical careers.)

•Former Gov. Mitt Romney said last week that, as president, he'd veto legislation that would give undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship, as long as they enroll in college or in the military.

The legislation, known as the DREAM Act, failed to pass in Congress even when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. It's unlikely to be ready for a presidential signature anytime soon. But the politics here could prove interesting. The DREAM Act could create a "wedge" issue in the race, if the general election comes down to Obama and Romney. Will Hispanic voters, a key demographic in a number of swing states, be reluctant to support Romney if he opposes it?

• The mayor of Manchester, N.H., gave Romney credit for fighting the Obama administration on NCLB's testing requirements. Really? Romney has recently talked about giving more control over education to states, but he's always made it clear he's a fan of standardized tests. In fact, it's a huge theme of the education chapter in his book.

•Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman published an editorial in the Concord Monitor last week in which he calls for both more support for the Common Core State Standards Initiative and greater local control.

•Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote an editorial for the Washington Post on No Child Left Behind that is basically a commercial for his administration's waiver plan. He also says he wants to see a "bipartisan" rewrite of the law, which would appear to be a veiled swipe at House Republicans, who wrote a GOP-only draft bill. Okay, fine, that has nothing to do with the primary, but it's still interesting.

•Speaking of No Child Left Behind, EdWeek has a series of commentaries published on the topic, in honor of the law's 10th anniversary.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Within the last couple of weeks, the U.S. Department of Education has issued significant feedback as part of the peer-review process to the 11 states seeking waivers from the core components of the No Child Left Behind Act.

This feedback, in the form of a formal letter plus notes from the outside judges to each state, could in many cases force significant alterations in states' waiver proposals and shape how states plan to hold their schools accountable in an era of greater flexibility. The letters give feedback on all areas of states' proposals, including how they will implement common core standards and teacher-evaluation systems based in part on student growth. (UPDATE 12:52 p.m.: It seems not all states may have gotten their official letters yet).

The Education Department is refusing to make details of the letters available, at least for now. Officials have indicated they will make the letters public once some sort of decision has been reached on the waivers.

Spokesman Justin Hamilton said: "We're still working with states as they finalize their applications and plan to make our feedback public after states have had time to process and consider it."

This comes after U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pledged from the get-go that the peer review process would be a "public" one with a "lots of give and take". These letters seem to be a key part of this give-and-take process, and yet they remain closed to the public despite promises of transparency.

Minnesota Public Radio got hold of its state's letter, and did a story seeking to illuminate what changes the state will have to make. For instance, the feds are concerned about Minnesota's reliance on "normative growth," rather than student growth needed to achieve proficiency; a possible lack of capacity to implement the sweeping plan; and a lack of incentives to improve achievement and narrow gaps among and between all groups of students.

Pretty major stuff.

Politics K-12 can offer many good arguments for why the Education Department should make all of these letters public now. First and foremost, Duncan pledged this would be a "public" process. That says to me that while judging is ongoing, the department would make its best effort to keep the public in the loop. At issue here are not recordings of conversations among senior staff, or peer reviewers, or raw notes or emails, but official feedback letters to states that will shape their accountability plans.

Second, the Education Department has signaled that it values public input in the waiver process by requiring states to collaborate with stakeholders in drafting the plan. Why, then, would the department devalue public input at a critical stage of the process—when states are reshaping, tweaking, or overhauling parts of their proposals? Certainly, states should and could make their own letters public. Minnesota obviously did, and more states should follow—if they haven't already. However, that doesn't absolve the Education Department of its duty as well.

Third, unlike Race to the Top, this is not a competition. The Education Department has said it wants all states eventually to clear a high bar and win flexibility under NCLB. If the department is going to make the letters public eventually, why not now?

What do you think?

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

House Republicans released a pair of bills today that would go the furthest of any proposal yet in dismantling the federal accountability at the heart of the decade-old No Child Left Behind Act.
The proposals would squelch the federal role in intervening in schools that miss achievement targets, require teacher evaluations, and give districts significant new funding flexibility.

This is the third major proposal for revising the NCLB law, the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Act. The others include a bipartisan ESEA renewal bill that passed out of the Senate last year, and the Obama administration's plan to grant state waivers from key parts of the NCLB law. It's important to note that this is a discussion draft and could change.

The Politics: Unlike the Senate bill, the House version is a Republican only-affair. Kline had been talking to the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. George Miller of California, but those discussions broke down.

It's tough to say what the partisan nature of the bill means for its political future. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate education committee, and the sponsor of the Senate bill, said he won't move his bill further along in the process until there is bipartisan legislation passed in the House.

So, for folks who want to NCLB reauthorized sooner rather than later, it's probably not a good sign that the House is starting off on a partisan note. Will other Democrats go for the measure even if Miller doesn't? And how much Democratic support in the House would be enough for Harkin to move his bill? That remains to be seen.

Already Miller has made it known he isn't happy with the proposal. He said:

"The draft language abandons students, parents, and taxpayers alike by failing to hold school systems accountable for improving student achievement. It walks away from the broad consensus reached throughout the country that our schools must prepare students to graduate college-ready and career-ready. It undermines programs for our most vulnerable students, shirking the civil rights responsibilities of the federal government. It eliminates critical programs and funding that promote a balanced education such as those that create a well-rounded curriculum or wrap-around services for students. Additionally, the Kline draft removes critical assurances to taxpayers that states and districts maintain education funding."

But, in an editorial published on CNN.com, Kline said this is the right direction for the 10-year-old law.

"No Child Left Behind taught us that parents, teachers and state and local leaders are more suited to address students' needs than a one-size-fits-all accountability system developed by Washington bureaucrats," Kline wrote. "It's time to put control back in the hands of those who interact daily with our children."

Similarities: There is some common ground between the House and Senate approaches. Like the bill that passed with bipartisan support out of the Senate education committee last year - and like the administration's waiver proposal - the draft would scrap the law's signature yardstick Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP - while still requiring districts to test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. And test score data would continue to be disaggregated by student subgroup.

Schools would no longer have to test students in science, however, which would be a change from current law.

And, as in the Senate bill, and the administration's waiver proposal, states would get big say in intervening in most schools that miss achievement targets. Under all three proposals, schools would no longer be required to use the federally-mandated interventions of free tutoring and school choice, for instance.

But there are significant differences between the House GOP vision for overhauling the law and the Senate's bill.

For example:

•States would have to develop standards that prepare kids for college or a career. But under the bill, the secretary would be violating federal law if he supported efforts like the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

•The House draft doesn't include any sort of federal interventions for schools that states say are in the bottom five percent, performance-wise. Both the Senate bill and the administration's waiver package want to see specific steps taken for those schools

•The House draft doesn't set aside another percentage of schools for special attention. That's another difference from the Senate bill, which wants states to focus on schools with persistent achievement gaps. The administration's waiver package wants to see states work to help an additional ten percent of schools that are in danger of slipping into the bottom five percent, performance-wise.

•On teachers, the House draft would scrap the law's highly qualified teacher requirement, which calls for teachers to be certified in their subject area. The Senate bill keeps that requirement in place.

•The House bill would require states and districts to develop local teacher evaluation systems that rely at least in part on student performance, and use more than categories for rating teachers. But the Senate bill only requires teacher evaluations for districts that want to go after competitive money (either through the Teacher Incentive Fund, or Race to the Top.)

•The House would put in place significant new funding flexibility. States and districts wouldn't be required to The House proposal also makes big changes when it comes to funding flexibility for schools. It would scrap the requirement known as maintenance of effort, which calls for states and school districts keep up their own financing for education at a certain level, in order to tap federal funds.

• Also on funding flexibility, the legislation would allow districts to transfer money aimed at one special populations - such as English Language Learners - to another - such as disadvantaged students. Basically, the measure would merge programs aimed migrant students, neglected and delinquent children, English Language Learners, rural students, and Indian kids, into the biggest K-12 program, the Title I program, which helps educate disadvantaged children. Districts could use the funds for any activity authorized under those programs. No money could be transferred out of Title I schools, but extra funds could go to other low-income schools.

This is not the first piece of ESEA overhaul legislation that the House committee has drafted. Last year, a bill eliminating over 40 education programs passed on a party line vote. And a bill giving districts major new funding flexibilities was also approved.

The only bipartisan piece of legislation so far? A bill that would bolster charter schools.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

With Republicans on the House education committee poised to release a GOP-only bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Council of Chief State School Officers is calling on education leaders in the House to come together to pass bipartisan legislation.

"We hope that Congress and the administration will not miss the chance to focus on fundamental areas of agreement and work together," the chiefs wrote today to President Obama, House and Senate leaders, and lawmakers focused on K-12 policy.

The administration's plan to offer states wiggle room from key parts of the NCLB law is helpful, but it's not a substitute for an honest-to-goodness reauthorization, CCSSO writes. The group thinks the bill passed out of the Senate education committee last fall represents a starting point for "good faith floor debate" in the Senate.

So why this letter now?

CCSSO doesn't say this, but folks are worried that a partisan process in either chamber could all but scuttle reauthorization until after the presidential election. Congress is divided right now, so if CCSSO (and others) want a bill sooner rather than later, it'll have to be a bipartisan product in the end.

Check out the full letter here.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The House education committee will put out draft bills this week that address the issues at the heart of the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act—teacher quality and accountability, Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said this morning on Bill Bennett's radio show "Morning in America."

Kline, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, didn't elaborate on the substance of the bills. But it does sound like this is going to be yet another blow to Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP, the law's signature yardstick. The administration's waiver package and an NCLB reauthorization bill that passed out of the Senate education committee last year essentially scrap AYP as it's used now.

Kline doesn't like it either.

"The Adequate Yearly Progress measurement was always going to be unworkable," Kline said, calling it "a huge intrusion of federal government into K-12 education."

Still, big questions remain, such as whether Kline will require teacher evaluations, and whether he'll keep NCLB's schedule of testing kids in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. Also, will he retain some sort of federal focus on the bottom 5 percent of schools?

Kline also said he had hoped to introduce a bipartisan bill, with the support of Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the committee. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. (More on that here.)

The source of the conflict, according to Kline?

"Democrats are reluctant to let go of the power of the secretary of education," he said. "We do agree that the law needs to be changed and we'll go back from there.

Kline told Bennett it's unclear whether the House and Democratically-controlled Senate will ultimately be able to reach agreement on an NCLB overhaul. But he said, "it's worth continuing" the debate, in part because "the president has decided to take unilateral action" by "allowing Secretary Duncan to issue conditional waivers."

Lots of folks in Congress see the waivers as a power grab by the administration, while the White House is using the issue to push its "we acted because Congress couldn't" re-election strategy.

Quick recap on ESEA: The Senate education committee passed one bill with some bipartisan support, even though most Republicans on the committee were against it. The House education committee has passed two GOP-only bills, one dealing with funding flexibility and one eliminating programs. The full House has also approved one bipartisan piece of legislation, on charter schools.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

A new federal initiative aims to provide paying jobs to up to 100,000 low-income young people this summer, a combined effort of the federal government and private companies, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

In the U.S., last summer was a record low for youth employment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, with a little less than half of people age 16 to 24 employed. Among minority youth, only 34.6 percent of African-Americans and 42.9 percent of Hispanics had jobs in the summer of 2011. (Around the globe, the high number of unemployed young people has been a factor in the Arab Spring uprisings and calls for political change across Europe.)

A new White House analysis shows that, in 2011, taxpayers spent more than $93 billion to support young adults disconnected from school and work.

With "Summer Jobs+", the latest in the Obama administration's "We Can't Wait" series of actions intended to exercise federal authority in the absence of Congressional action, President Obama said the federal government and private sector have committed to creating nearly 180,000 employment opportunities for low-income youth this summer and hope to add another 70,000 jobs by the start of the summer. He said at least 100,000 of those slots will be paid jobs or internships. (In recent years, more young people looking for work experience have turned to unpaid internships, but that strategy has raised questions.)

A new job-search website, Summer Jobs+ Bank, will launch within the next two months. Companies and organizations that have already pledged to hire young adults this summer include large corporations such as AT&T, Bank of America, and Starbucks, as well as nonprofits including Easter Seals, WE ARE GOLF, and Operation HOPE.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus by the thinnest of margins, edging out former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum by just eight votes, according to published reports. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a longtime critic of the federal role in education who has said he wants to scrap the federal student lending program, placed a close third.

Romney has a long record and a lot of ideas on education redesign. He's a fan of standardized testing, and has credited the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 with providing a much-needed boost to accountability. In fact, he was one of the NCLB law's biggest champions when he ran for president back in 2008. But this year, he has also emphasized the need to step up the state role when it comes to K-12.

He's also complimented President Barack Obama's signature education reform program—Race to the Top—saying the program "had done some good things."

Romney devoted an entire chapter to education in a book published in March of 2010. In it, he called for getting rid of teacher salary schedules, but said he'd like to pay beginning teachers more. He also waded into the culture wars, saying he thinks students should be taught about the advantages of marriage.

Santorum had said during debates last year that he doesn't think schools serve "the customer," meaning parents. He said he thinks that has to change, but he didn't say exactly how he'd make that happen. And, during consideration of the NCLB law, he pushed in the Senate for language
encouraging schools to teach about the controversy behind evolution.

Back in 2004, Santorum withdrew his children from a Pennsylvania cyber charter school after critics in the Keystone State questioned whether he could educate them at state taxpayers' expense when his family lives most of the year in a Washington suburb.

In other Iowa caucus developments, Texas governor Rick Perry, who has clashed with the administration on federal stimulus funding, Race to the Top, and common state standards, finished with just 10 percent of the vote. He's considering whether there he still has a "path forward" in the race, according to published reports.

Photo: Votes are collected and tallied as Iowans caucus at Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, on Jan. 3. (Mike Burley/Dubuque Telegraph Herald/AP)

Posted by Alyson Klein at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend