October 2011 Archives

Political junkies getting revved up for the Nov. 8 state elections should plan on tuning in a week early to Colorado, where voters will decide on a ballot item that carries big implications for schools and taxpayers.

On Nov. 1, residents will go to polls to decide the fate of Proposition 103, a measure that would impose a temporary sales and income tax hike to go toward public education.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the measure has drawn the backing of a number of school organizations, including the Colorado Education Association. So does the Colorado Association of School Boards, though representative of the group say not all of their members favor it.

Conservative organizations and a number of business groups have lined up against it, saying it will drag down the state's economy.

"The last thing Colorado needs in the wake of a devastating recession is a $3 billion tax hike," wrote Victor Mitchell, campaign chair of Save Colorado Jobs, which opposes the measure. "One that would hit just about every wage earner, every consumer, every employer."

Meanwhile, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, has stayed determinedly neutral on the issue, to the frustration of backers of the plan.

If approved, the item would raise the state income tax from 4.63 percent to 5 percent, and boost the rate of the state sales and use tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent for a period. Each tax hike would last for five years and revert to the previous level after that.

Why the unusual early election day? A constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters years ago requires that ballot issues be decided on the first Tuesday of November in odd-numbered years—and that's four days from now.

The measure will offer a gauge of voters' willingness to pay more in taxes for schools, in an economy that appears to be in a slow, listing recovery. In 2010, Republicans won massive victories at the state level in 2010 running on a small-government, low-tax message. We'll see if the outcome in Colorado shapes state candidates' thinking heading into 2012.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

After stalling earlier this year, a measure to create a new voucher program was approved by the Pennsylvania state Senate on Wednesday.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1, would offer money to low-income families to have their children attend private schools, with the amount varying by income level.

The measure was approved by the Republican-controlled chamber by a 27-22 vote, with a few Democrats on board. It now moves to the state's House of Representatives, where the GOP also has a majority. If the measure makes it into law, Pennsylvania would become one of several Republican-led states to approve voucher measures this year.

The bill also expands an existing state program that provides tax credits to organizations for supporting a range of educational efforts, including private-school scholarships and education programs designed to improve public schools.

Republican Gov. Tom Corbett recently reiterated his interest in creating a new voucher program. Bill sponsor Jeffrey Piccola said in a statement that he is "hopeful the governor will vigorously engage on Senate Bill 1 and my colleagues in the House will move this legislation to his desk in a dramatic fashion."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has offered his support for Ohio's controversial law limiting collective bargaining, but some rivals are questioning his commitment.

Romney was accused by fellow GOP candidates Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry of flip-flopping and offering only tepid support for the law, which is the subject of a repeal effort is backed by unions and many Democrats.

That measure, which is supported by Ohio's Republican governor, John Kasich, would strip teachers and other public workers of many collective-bargaining powers. Backers of the law maintain it will reign in local government costs and save taxpayers money.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, had given his public backing for Kasich's efforts previously. But critics seized on remarks that Romney made earlier this week, in which, by some interpretations, he appeared to suggest he was not taking a position on the Ohio fight.

Huntsman and Perry seized on those comments to accuse Romney of waffling.

"Unlike @MittRomney, I stand with John Kasich in opposing the individual mandate and supporting public sector union reform. Pls RT," tweeted Huntsman, a former Utah governor.

"Mitt Romney's finger-in-the-wind politics continued today when he refused to support right-to-work reforms signed by Ohio Governor John Kasich—reforms Romney supported in June," Perry's team said in a statement. Perry is governor of Texas.

Adding to the intrigue: a Quinnipiac poll released this week that showed Ohio voters favoring repeal of law by a wide margin.

But on Wednesday, Romney said he had been misunderstood, telling an audience at a campaign stop that he meant he was not taking a position on other items on the Ohio ballot—but that he supported Kasich's law, now known on the ballot as Issue 2.

"I fully support that," Romney said at an appearance on Wednesday. "I am 110 percent behind Gov. Kasich and in support of that question."

All of this greatly pleased the Ohio Democratic Party, whose chairman called Romney a "serial flip-flopper."

The fact that Issue 2 has risen to the realm of presidential politics probably speaks to Ohio's importance to all of the candidates—and to the law's broader signficance. As was the case with Wisconsin's passage of a similiar law earlier this year, the fate of the Ohio measure could send a signal to other governors and lawmakers considering similiar proposals to either push forward, or pursue a different strategy.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Lowering the the costs of state pension programs for teachers and other public workers is highly desirable, but it's also messy, and the savings are not immediate, notes a new report, which highlights state and local attempts—many of them controversial—to change those retirement plans.

Published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the report also looks at charter schools' often-complicated efforts to create low-cost pension systems.

Numerous states recently have approved laws aimed at lowering their pension bills, in an effort to reduce state spending and lower unfunded liabilities. In most cases, those steps resulted in teachers being asked to pay more.

Fordham's report, "Halting a Runaway Train: Reforming Teacher Pensions for the 21st Century," examines a few state efforts to find savings and the complications they faced. Alaska switched from a "defined benefit" pension system, in which enrollees receive a promised return, to a "defined contribution" model, generally a 401-k-style approach, in which returns are tied to market performance; Utah went with what the authors describe as more of a hybrid approach.

While charter schools in many states have freedom to operate outside of certain state regulations, that's often not the case when it comes to designing their own teacher-pension systems, the report says.

Just 16 of 40 states with charter laws allow charters to opt out of their state retirement systems—which are typically defined-benefit plans, the authors say. In states that do give charters more freedom in this area, some schools have joined their states' plans, others have offered their own alternatives, and some have offered no retirement plans at all (see a previous post on this subject).

The report highlights some charters' experiences in choosing plans or crafting their own. One charter, for instance, was able to save money on its pension system and channeled part of that money toward teacher bonuses for student achievement.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Most governors are fond of talking about education—why it needs to be improved, how they're going to improve it, the consequences of not improving it, and so on.

But when governors attempt to use the bully pulpit to sell their ideas about education to the public, what are their favored rhetorical themes? A new analysis examines that question, and finds that governors overwhelmingly choose to frame education as important for economic reasons, rather than for the development of individual abilities, or as a matter of civic responsibility. And that political strategy has implications for society and its schools, the researchers say.

The analysis, published in the International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, is based on a detailed review of governors' "state of the state" addresses between 2001 and 2008. Why focus on those speeches? Because they're the most widely reported examples of gubernatorial rhetoric, and, the record shows, they typically provide an accurate roadmap of where governors' policies are headed, according to the authors.

Authors Dick M. Carpenter, of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, and Haning Hughes, of the United States Air Force Academy, reviewed passages in nearly 360 combined governors' speeches and 560 phrases in which the elected officials spoke about the purposes of education. The authors then coded the passages within different categories, according to themes raised by the speakers.

The authors examined the extent to which governors define the purpose of education in four broad categories: economic efficiency; self-realization, which is generally defined as developing individual abilities, curiosity, and creativity; what they call human relationship, which focuses on issues of, and tensions between, individual freedom, justice, and social equality; and civic responsibility, or preparing students for roles as citizens and leaders.

Over the time period studied, the authors found that governors defined the importance of education in economic terms much more often—62 percent of the time—than they did in other ways.

Governors touched on the importance of education for self-realization only 27 percent of the time. And they connected education to civic responsibility just 7 percent of the time.

The paper offers a sampling of that rhetoric:

Education is "vital if we are to strengthen our economy," former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, said in one speech.

"Knowledge is the new economic fuel, not physical labor," asserted one-time Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia.

"In the knowledge economy, business and education are linked," said Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat and then governor of Michigan, as quoted by the authors. "You cannot succeed at the former if you do not excel at the latter."

There were few regional differences among the various governors, in terms of the rationale they offered for supporting education. Republican governors made reference to human relationship and civic responsibility significantly less often than Democrats. GOP governors discussed economic purposes more often than the other party, but not in a way that was statistically significant.

Why does any of this matter?

Because governors create policies based on how they define the purpose of education, Carpenter and Hughes contend. The emphasis that governors place on "economic efficiency" is likely to feed states' overall interest in standards, assessment, and accountability, the authors say.

It's also important, they argue, because state goals in education that are not related to economic growth "will quite likely remain marginalized."

And finally, "the de-emphasis of the other purposes of education carries with it the potential of perpetuating a citizenry committed to self above all," the researchers conclude, "shrugging off responsibilities inherent in a free and pluralistic society."

"Considering the breakdown of social capital, the disengagement of youth, students' lackluster knowledge of civics, and voter apathy," the authors say, "such a dynamic may be in contemporary evidence in the United States."

Disengagement has never been an issue for readers of this blog, so I trust that you'll give me your read on the prevailing rhetoric from the governors, and the authors' analysis of it.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

One of the states that opted not to apply for the Race to the Top early-learning competition was Louisiana, and that decision has drawn the wrath of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu.

In a letter to Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, the senator, a Democrat, said she was "disappointed and concerned" that the state would not seek money through the $500 million competition, which has drawn applications from 35 states.

"I hope you will provide a detailed explanation as to how the administration failed to even submit an application," Landrieu wrote on Oct. 19. "Your decision not to even compete for these funds is one that will have a negative impact on thousands of children in our state. I hope your reasons for failing to apply for these funds are strong enough to justify these consequences."

Louisiana would have stood to gain up to $60 million had it won a Race to the Top award. Ed Week readers will remember that the state competed for, but did not win, an award in the earlier rounds of the competition—to the surprise of some observers.

Landrieu said that early-childhood experts from around the state had spent "several months working to complete an application" and wondered why one wasn't submitted.

Kyle Plotkin, a spokesman for Jindal, said that a number of state agencies, including the Department of Children and Families, studied the grant and determined that it was the "exact opposite approach our state should take to help our kids."

The governor believes the grant amounted to one-time aid that would not result in sustainable services for children, he added.

"We need to streamline the governance structure, funding streams, and quality standards in our early childhood system—and the grant would only make things worse by reducing flexibility and adding more micromanagement and regulatory obstacles," Plotkin said in a statement. "We want less red tape, not more."

The announcement that the state would not apply for the grant was made by the DCFS, and its secretary, Ruth Johnson, a Jindal appointee.

Johnson said Louisiana is already in the process of streamlining the state's early-childhood programs, and that Race to the Top would only add "more of the same—more micromanagement, more regulation, and less flexibility."

In particular, the secretary questioned the program's approach to raising the qualifications of early-childhood educators, which she described as onerous and not grounded in research.

"This grant has strings attached that will force more state and federal control on our education system," said Johnson.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Teacher colleges need to give aspiring educators much more thorough, intense exposure to K-12 classrooms during their training—and set higher standards for admission—a group representing state school boards contends.

The National Association of State Boards of Education, in a report released today, says that experience in actual classroom settings, as well as continued mentoring once teachers are on the job, are critical to keeping top-notch educators in the job.

But the report also says that the admissions standards for many teachers' colleges are unacceptably low—they may not, for instance, require minimum test scores or grade-point averages—and many of them draw candidates from the bottom two-thirds of their college classes.

Transforming that process is essential to raising the overall status of teaching profession to something approaching its lofty place in other, high-performing nations, the authors say.

"As foreign countries endure teacher shortages, they do not lower the standards for admission," the NASBE report explains, "but instead find innovative ways to recruit and induct candidates. These methods have yielded much lower attrition rates than the United States."

The report, titled "Gearing Up: Creating a Systemic Approach to Teacher Effectiveness," is the product of a study group, comprised of state board members from around the country, who were charged with examining better ways to educate, retain, and evaluate teachers. Many of the concerns it raises about teacher-education programs have been raised by other sources, including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The report also urges caution in states' creation and adoption of new teacher evaluation and merit-pay systems. While teacher-compensation was one issue the authors were tasked with exploring, they said they concluded that it warrants a separate report, which they said NASBE should consider sponsoring.

(The authors did conclude, however, that boosting teacher salaries, in addition to improving working conditions, would likely lure more graduates from the top-third of college classes into the profession.)

When it comes to teacher evaluation—a dominant issue in K-12 these days—the authors recommend that student achievement, as well as observation, and measures of teacher content knowledge, be used to judge educator effectiveness. But they also said those systems should be designed carefully.

"[G]iven the uncertain correlation between student test scores and teachers' overall effectiveness, in even the best value-added data," the authors say, "creating an evaluation system in which student growth is a preponderant component of evaluation can jeopardize the fairness of the evaluation and teachers' trust in the process."

The report also urges state school boards to work with teacher-licensing boards to align certification requirements and evaluation standards, and ensure that there is a system in place to monitor the quality of teacher-education programs.

In addition, the authors say state boards and teacher colleges need to ensure that educators-in-training are given a broad range of experiences. Among them: learning to collaborate with colleagues, developing expertise with formative assessment, and spending time in well-monitored teacher residency programs.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Alabama will be one of the next states to try to reign in the costs of teachers' pensions, if one of the state's most powerful lawmakers has his way.

House Speaker Mike Hubbard tells the Birmingham News that he and the leader of the state Senate are determined to bring down the state's costs, by focusing on making changes to the retirement system for future, rather than current employees.

"We can't change the rules in the middle of the game for people," Hubbard said, according to the News. But he warned of a "colossal train wreck" if the state doesn't fix the problem.

In fiscal 2011, the state paid a total of $963 million to the state's teachers' and employees' retirement systems to help keep them financially healthy. That was an increase of $449.2 million over a five-year period.

At least 27 states have made changes this year to their pension systems affecting teachers or other public employees. In most cases, states made changes that required public workers to chip in more for their retirement plans.

Many state officials have argued that they need to drive down the costs of public pension plans, which they say are eating up too much of state budgets. Teachers unions have countered that pension liabilities have been exacerbated by the recession, and that state lawmakers and governors have made the problem worse by having skimped on the yearly contributions necessary to support those plans.

Expect to hear those arguments playing out in Montgomery soon.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

President Obama has vowed that he won't give up on promoting his jobs bill, despite a recent Senate defeat for the $447 billion package. By the looks of it, neither will U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Duncan recently proved a willing soldier in the administration's efforts to sell the proposal, which may dead inside the Beltway, but which the White House seems intent on making a defining issue in the 2012 re-election campaign.

While Duncan has won bipartisan praise for his work, he did not shy away from bashing GOP lawmakers, in a speech last week before an Oregon business group, for what he sees as shortsighted education and economic policy in opposing the jobs bill.

Duncan argued that Republican opposition to the jobs bill will hurt the country's long-term economic competitiveness—and put the United States at odds with nations that are outperforming American students on international tests.

The title of the speech summed up the message: "A Tale of Two Theories of Education and Economic Growth," as described by the Department of Education.

"[T]his idea, that today education and economic growth are tightly linked, stems from the recognition that the job market has changed profoundly," Duncan said in the Oct. 12 speech, according to a transcript. "In a knowledge-based global economy, countries that out-educate us will out-compete us. ... If you think education is expensive in the 21st century, try ignorance. It won't take you far in the information age."

While the president sees investment in education as vital to promoting economic growth and the workforce, Republicans are too eager to cut government spending, at any cost, Duncan argued.

"An alternative theory of education and economic growth is taking hold in some quarters of Congress," Duncan said. "The proponents of this theory have a self-described, three-word prescription for job creation and economic growth: Cut, cut, cut."

"Cut government spending, cut regulation—and cut taxes, not just for small businesses and middle-class Americans, but for corporations and the affluent too."

Congressional Republicans argue that Obama's jobs bill is a continuation of earlier government-spending proposals that haven't created enough jobs. And they oppose his idea to pay for the package by raising taxes on the rich, saying it will undermine a fragile economy.

"Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn't worked—along with a massive tax hike that we know won't create jobs," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said recently.

In his speech, Duncan, while pointing out that he's "not an economist or a business leader," nonetheless waded into Econ 101 territory, saying that "the cut-cut-cut theory of education and job growth seems to defy common sense and economic history."

Film buff, baseball fan, or possibly both, the secretary went on to say that, "This theory of job creation is the 2011 Field of Dreams—if you cut spending and regulation, the job creators will come."

South Korea, a nation that regularly beats the United States on international exams, is hiring thousands of teachers of English, even recruiting them from abroad, noted Duncan. He contrasted that policy with the cuts to thousands of teaching jobs in the United States, and the likelihood of more in the time ahead.

"They are out-educating us, out-competing us—and they can't hire teachers fast enough," Duncan said, "In America, we're letting go teachers en masse. Something is radically wrong with that picture."

On his west coast swing, Duncan was scheduled to appear at a California fundraiser for Obama, Politico reported. Following his apperance in Oregon, Duncan made another stop to promote the president's jobs bill, in Richmond, Va., a likely campaign battleground state. He focused on another piece of the jobs plan—the proposed investment in renovating dilapidated schools.

In the president's proposal, job creation is meant to result in school-jobs creation. So it seems likely that Duncan could keeping up his sales work on behalf of Obama's plan in the months ahead.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett is making the case this week for his education agenda, one that includes core conservative ideas—namely, the promotion of vouchers—as well as concepts that have drawn bipartisan support in other states, such as charter expansion and new appoaches to evaluating teachers.

Corbett, a first-term Republican elected last year, proposes the creation of "Opportunity Scholarships," private-school vouchers available to students in the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools across the state.

Participating students would have to take tests measuring their academic achievement. That's an idea that sometimes has proven controversial among private-school choice supporters, but Corbett says the exams, which would be administered by the state, would ensure "accountability."

Republicans in several states have won approval of new private-school choice plans this year, over the objections of unions and other opponents. Some of those measures are now being challenged in court. The chances of Corbett's plans taking hold are unclear; a GOP-backed voucher plan offered earlier this year in his state did not gain legislative traction.

The governor also wants to expand an existing tax credit program that provides support for students' private school costs, as well as supplemental education services in public schools.

Corbett's plans would also create a new statewide entity to license and oversee charter schools, and make it easier to convert facilities into charters. He also vows to increase academic and financial oversight of charters.

The governor's proposed teacher-evaluation system, meanwhile, would build upon an existing pilot evaluation system. The new model would judge teacher effectiveness based on student learning gains and classroom observations, and create different rating systems for teachers, principals, and education specialists. Those ratings would serve as the basis for decisions about pay, tenure, and dismissal.

"We are set to start work on one of the most important jobs state government can do,'' Corbett said this week, in explaining his plan. The goal is "rearrange' the state's education priorities, he said: "It needs to be: child, parent, teacher... and just in that order."

States across the country this year approved a wave of new teacher-evaluation measures, following up on the initial round of laws and policies approved by states in the run-up to the Race to the Top competition.

Like governors in other states, Corbett has come under criticism for not providing more money to schools, a decision that local district officials say has resulted in significant layoffs and the loss of programs and services. Whether his plans can win the support of local school officials, and lawmakers, remains to be seen.

Photo: Corbett calls on a student at Lincoln Charter School, in York, Pa., where he announced details of his charter plan. Marc Levy/AP

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A group of Texas school districts and taxpayers is suing to overturn the state's education funding system, which they argue unfairly punishes financially struggling schools.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County district court, alleges that heading into this year, Texas used an "arbitrary hodge-podge of approaches" to fund its schools, one that gives richer school systems greater access to funding.

The situation was made much worse, the districts contend, with deep cuts to school funding approved by Texas' Republican-controlled legislature and Gov. Rick Perry this year.

Texas officials, who faced a major financial shortfall heading into this year, approved a two-year, $172 billion budget, and changed state law so that they could provide schools with $4 billion less over the next two years than they had been required to fund them under the states' foundation formula.

As a result of the state's funding system, taxpayers in relatively impoverished districts who are willing to tax themselves at the highest possible rates "are unable to access the same dollars for education as taxpayers in high-wealth districts" who pay lower taxes, the lawsuit says.

The system is not "efficient, suitable, or equitable," the districts claim, and "it violates the equal protection rights of students in low-wealth districts." The lawsuit calls for the court to block Texas officials from distributing money through the funding system until they create a fairer method for doing so.

The Texas Education Agency is still reviewing the lawsuit, spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said.

"Obviously, this is an issue that the courts and the legislature will ultimately have to resolve," she said in an e-mail.

School budget cuts in Texas have had a disruptive effect on some districts across the state, particularly as schools have tried to meet staffing needs while also coping with layoffs and cuts through attrition. School funding cuts have also emerged as a campaign issue. President Obama railed against teacher layoffs during a recent foray into GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry's backyard.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Campaign for Educational Equity, which advocates for spending more on the neediest students, is arguing in favor of increased investment in out-of-school support services, a financial commitment it says will bring major returns for education and the economy.

Today's political and economic climate might not seem conducive to expanding government services, but the campaign, headed by lawyer and professor Michael Rebell, contends that such spending pays off over time.

The campaign, which is based at Teachers College of Columbia University, has released five papers laying out its rational for increasing out-of-school support services. Those papers will serve as the basis for a forum Tuesday, to be attended by New York state education commissioner John King and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, among others.

"A range of services is needed to overcome the impediments to learning created by poverty," Rebell said in an interview. "If we are serious about what we say is the nation's primary educational goal"—closing the achievement gap—"then this what we have to do."

What kinds of out-of-school services can have the biggest impact? The campaign argues in favor of expanded childhood-education services, starting from birth; after-school and summer school programs, and a much richer range of health services that can help students succeed in school and away from it.

How much would it cost? The pricetag would be an additional $4,000 to $5,000 per student, depending on the state. Rebell acknowledges that increasing spending "sounds like it's crazy in this environment," but he believes the financial pressures created by the sluggish economy could compel government agencies to find lower-cost ways to deliver crucial services. He also says the campaign is not arguing that the investments should happen overnight, but rather over an extended length of time, perhaps 10- to 12 years.

And those investments will pay off, Rebell argues. One of campaign's papers offers the following example:

Approximately half of all New York City public school students who live in families with incomes less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level do not graduate from high school, the authors say. What would happen if those students were given access to a set of comprehensive services that could "effectively raise the educational attainment levels of low-income children to levels associated with middle class children," they ask.

The report estimates the impact on a single cohort of 37,000 New York City 12th graders whose families were at that level of poverty. New York City and state spend an estimated $82,000 for each high school dropout (in lifetime, present value) on health care, criminal justice, welfare and other services, and collect only $45,000 in tax revenues for each of them—a $37,000 loss. For students who receive at least a bachelor's degree, the city and state spend $55,000, but bring in tax revenues of $143,000, allowing government to come out $88,000 ahead.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Few states are as closely associated with unions as Michigan, the heart of the American auto industry and home a substantial amount of organized labor. Now, a Republican legislative proposal has set up a clash with a major teachers' organization over the right of educators to work without having dues deducted for union fees.

A bill introduced by state Sen. Arlan Meekhof and other GOP lawmakers would forbid school districts from entering into contracts that require employees to pay union fees.

The language of the measure specifically pertains to schools, and to unions representing 50,000 or more members—meaning that, as written, it would appear to target one union in particular: the Michigan Education Association.

The union already objected to K-12 budget cuts approved by the Republican Gov. Rick Synder and GOP lawmakers this year, and it is suspicious of their recently unveiled legislative agenda for schools. Backers of those measures say they will expand public school choice and create more flexible delivery of educational services, but union officials believe the plan is aimed at encouraging more privatization.

The legislation affecting union dues bears some similarities to proposals introduced recently in some other states, including an Alabama law approved last year that blocked automatic payroll deductions from public employees to unions' political arms. It also comes on the heels of major public feuds between Republican officeholders and teachers' unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and other states.

Backers of the Michigan legislation—who call it the "right to teach" bill—say it's unfair for educators, who may not agree with union agendas, to have to make the payments.

"Teachers are doing a public service," said Bob DeVries, chief of staff for Sen. Meekhof, adding that a "large number" of educators have told lawmakers they don't believe they should have to pay for performing that service.

The Michigan Education Association sees the issue differently.

"This isn't about people being forced to join a union—the law already prevents that," MEA President Steven Cook said in a statement. "What this bill actually does is allow for individuals to choose not to pay for services they receive under their collectively bargained contract. Instead of paying their fair share, they could 'freeload,' receiving the same representation and benefits as their colleagues while sticking others with the bill."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:50 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Phil Handy, who advised John McCain on school issues during the 2008 presidential campaign, has signed up to help Republican Mitt Romney in his bid for the White House.

Handy had been working for another 2012 presidential contender, Tim Pawlenty, but the former Minnesota governor dropped out of the race in August.

In addition to having experience working on a White House campaign, Handy is a member of the National Board for Education Sciences, which advises the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences as it sets research priorities.

He also served as chairman of Florida's state's board of education under former Gov. Jeb Bush, whose campaigns for governor he also chaired, so he brings a knowledge of politics and school policy in a crucial GOP battleground state. He also serves on the board of one of the former governor's education foundations, according to its web site.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Over the past few years, a pack of education interest groups have sought to put their stamp on school policy in the states. You know some of the names: Stand for Children, StudentsFirst (founded by Michelle Rhee) and Democrats for Education Reform.

Now another such organization, known as 50CAN, which currently works in a handful of states, is vowing to scale up its work to across the country. The group wants to be in 25 states by 2015, and eventually have a presence in all 50 states, according to its president and founder, Marc Porter Magee.

Ed Week readers might remember that the group's Rhode Island chapter organized a campaign earlier this year to urge state's newly elected governor, Lincoln Chafee, keep state schools chief Deborah Gist on the job. The group has also backed a host of new laws in the states, such as the passage of a measure in Minnesota to allow alternate routes to teacher certification.

50CAN says its model is to help local leaders—nonprofit leaders, former officeholders, business officials—become effective advocates for changes in school policy. What kinds of policies? 50CAN has backed charter school expansion, new forms of teacher evaluation, and the adoption of the "common core" academic standards, among other efforts. Unlike Stand for Children, which has state chapters that have political action committees and supports individual candidates, 50CAN does not have a PAC and is not involved in elections, Magee said.

This was a wild year in state legislatures, one that brought deep—and often divisive changes—in state policy. Expect to hear of the work of 50CAN in future state policy debates in the years ahead.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The battle over efforts to repeal an Ohio law that puts limits on the collective bargaining powers of teachers and other public workers is well underway. The controversial law, backed by Republican Gov. John Kasich and opposed by many Democrats and by teachers' unions, was approved earlier this year, and a ballot item to repeal the measure, known as Issue 2, will go before voters Nov. 8.

Backers of the law apparently are betting that one of its provisions—the creation of a merit-pay system for teachers—will prove popular with the public, judging from a recently released ad.

Will this prove to be a smart selling point? Poll results released last year found that a strong majority of Americans favor merit pay for teachers, and the ideas has grown over time. A more recent survey also indicated support for the idea, though basing pay on student test scores was less popular than judging educators on some other factors, such as experience.

A "yes" vote, by the way, is a vote in favor of keeping the law. Here's the clip, put forward by Building a Better Ohio, a group which supports Issue 2:

Opponents of the measure say teachers and other public employees are being unfairly singled out for Ohio's state and local budget woes. They've put out a bunch of ads and videos to try to drive home their point. For a sample, see this montage by We Are Ohio. One teacher says the law—originally known as Senate Bill 5—will end up "destroying the middle class."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The leaders of the country's two largest teachers' unions today joined Hispanic advocacy groups in denouncing an Alabama law that requires schools to check students' citizenship status upon enrollment.

Dennis Van Roekel, of the National Education Association, and Randi Weingarten, of the American Federation of Teachers, described the law as a misguided policy that would have the effect of turning school employees, including teachers, including to immigration-enforcement officials.

"Teachers should never be put in this position," AFT President Weingarten said on a call with the media. "They are safety nets, not snitches."

Van Roekel agreed, saying he is hearing reports from teachers in Alabama that the law has provoked an "atmosphere of fear" in schools, and had made parents afraid to enroll their students for fear of alerting authorities to families' immigration status.

"We firmly believe our schools should be a safe harbor for all of our children," the NEA president said, but the law is pushing immigrant families "into the shadows of society."

Weingarten called the policy "a crippling blow to the hopes and dreams of Alabama's youngest students."

The two union chiefs took part in a phone call with representatives of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Alabama's law, approved earlier this year, requires public schools to check the citizenship status of new students. Specifically, it mandates that they "determine whether the student enrolling in public school was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States." The law does not bar children who are undocumented from receiving free primary and secondary schooling.

Students or their parents must show an original birth certificate at the time of enrolling in schools. For those who can't present proper documentation, schools are required to assume they are "unlawfully present" in this country. The measure requires schools to keep statistics about the numbers of those students.

The law has been widely criticized by civil rights' groups, who say it stigmatizes and discriminates against Latinos. Backers of the measure, including Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, dispute that notion, and argue that the measure (which affects immigration policies outside of schools) will help keep more jobs open for legal residents and reduce the state's costs in providing services.

Late last month, a federal judge blocked portions of the law, but upheld its requirements that schools check on students' immigration status. The Obama administration had challenged the legality of the law.

Reports are increasing of Latino students not showing up to school since the judge's decision, said Sam Brooke, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center. That decline is almost certain to undermine schools' budgets.

"As enrollment goes down, they will be losing money," Brooke said.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who has praised President Obama's work on education, announced today that he won't be running for president in 2012, despite clamoring from some in his party.

"Now is not my time," Christie said at a news conference in Trenton, adding: "New Jersey, whether you like it or not, you're stuck with me."

Christie, now in his first term of office in the Garden State, had described President Barack Obama as an "ally" on school issues, though there are some clear differences. While some of the Obama administration's policies have disappointed teachers' unions, Christie has feuded continually with his state's leading teachers' union, the New Jersey Education Association. (See my previous item on the governor for background.)

The New Jersey governor's view of Obama's work on education contrasts sharply with those of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the front-runners in the GOP presidential field, who has lambasted the president's policies on the Race to the Top competition, and common standards, despite the popularity of those programs among some Republicans.

Christie's decision seems likely to tilt the rhetoric coming out of the Republican primaries on school issues toward Perry's views.

Here's a clip from the governor's press conference:

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is the latest state leader to come forward with his own ambitious plan to change education policy, one that would make dramatic changes to how teachers advance in the field and are compensated for their work.

The Republican governor, who returned to office last year after previously serving in the post from 1983 to 1999, unveiled a detailed proposal for a system to pay teachers on four tiers, and offer a bump in pay for beginning educators.

The model would establish four levels—apprentice, career, mentor, and master—for teachers and give pay raises for those who move up.

Teachers could earn extra money by agreeing to work in programs that have longer school days or longer school years. (A similar type of reward is being offered in a very different educational environment, the Chicago public schools, at the direction of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat.)

The governor traced many of the ideas to an education summit that he and other state officials hosted during the summer, which drew guests such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (Branstad is a fan of Christie's) and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Most of the proposals would require legislative approval, Tim Albrecht, Branstad's spokesman, said in an e-mail. He did not have an estimate of the cost of the plan, yet, saying that such estimates would come together after a "consensus on policy" is reached.

Branstad also says he wants to provide value-added measures for "all schools, grades, and educators," with measures that take into account both students' backgrounds and gains in achievement.

At a time when states are exploring new online options—and the quality of some online programs is being called into question—the Iowa governor wants to create a state clearinghouse of online courses and make sure there are licensed educators capable of teaching them.

Branstad says he also intends to have Iowa, like many other states, apply for a waiver to the No Child Left Behind Act. He vows to work with "key education groups and leaders" to design a new statewide accountability system.

One key education group, the Iowa State Education Association, offered a muted response to Branstad's ideas.

The union "strongly believes that any education agenda needs to put students at the center of reform," the group's president, Chris Bern, said in a statement. "The details of any 'blueprint' are essential. Like all Iowans interested in the future of our great state, we still await a clear vision of how to move these ideas forward, how to fund them, and what the real application of these plans would be."

The debate over Branstad's plan now moves to the realm of public opinion, and the legislature.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:12 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

An increasingly nasty fight over private school vouchers in Oklahoma is playing out in the courts—and via social media.

The furor stems from a lawsuit filed by a pair of Oklahoma school districts that challenges a law that provides private-school aid to students with disabilities, a measure the districts say violates the state's constitution. (See my story last week on the raft of school lawsuits over vouchers and other issues playing out in the states.)

Those districts' stance drew a harsh response from Jennifer Carter, the chief of staff at the Oklahoma State Department of Education, who labeled them "dirtbags" in a tweet sent out last month.

Her message—first reported by the Tulsa World—appeared to be directed at the Jenks and Union school districts' decision to sue the individual families receiving private school vouchers. (The superintendent of the Union district, who I interviewed a few weeks ago, told me that the districts did not want to sue the families but had no other legal option in trying to block the law.)

Jenks school officials responded to Carter's tweet by saying the voucher law is using special education students as "pawns in an attempt to initiate vouchers in Oklahoma."

In their view, the law, approved in 2010 and amended by state lawmakers this year, violates provisions in Oklahoma's state constitution that prevent public tax dollars from flowing to religious institutions.

"Our school boards believe the two laws will be deemed unconstitutional by the courts," Jenks officials said in a statement to Education Week, "and we find it revealing that others apparently do not want this issue decided by the courts."

Oklahoma state schools superintendent Janet Barresi said her aide had used a "poor choice of words," but also took the opportunity to criticize the school districts for their lawsuit.

"[I]t is morally wrong for superintendents of school districts to sue parents who want nothing more than what's best for their children," Barresi said in a statement. "I think Oklahomans are concerned and shocked that any school district would vindictively target the parents of special needs children with a groundless lawsuit."

Legal challenges to state voucher laws are quite common, and they usually hinge on the language of state constitutions and the extent to which they forbid public money from flowing to religious institutions. Some states have very restrictive language, which can derail private school choice, while others are more open.

Oklahoma has been the site of rancorous educational and political clashes over the past year. Members of the state's board of education waged a public feud with Barresi over her selection of staff—including Carter—at the state's department of education, one that had some bizarre ramifications. It appears the latest fight will be decided in court.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend