Taking Requests for Non-Education-Related Pop Culture Posts

From time to time I'll be at an event or conference of some sort and someone will walk up, introduce themselves, and say "I like your blog." (This is, FYI, a surefire conversation-starter; I'm as susceptible to flattery as the next guy.) Yet often--it actually happened twice this week--this is followed by "especially the posts that aren't about education." From there the conversation trends quickly to matters like the tragedy of Frank Sobotka and why Omar loved Honey Nut Cheerios. While this is all to the good since you really can't spend too much time pondering the larger meaning of Omar, it does make me wonder about the posts about education. But I'm going to yield to the collective wisdom of our readers (or at least our sociable conference-going readers) and take requests for further posts on topics wholly unrelated to education. The final season of Galactica? The new Watchmen movie? Books? Video games? Rock music? You tell me! The comments are open. 

Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste

If all goes as planned, the Department of Education's budget could double between now and President's Day. Double. In. Less. Than. Three. Weeks. As I read reports and reactions in the edusphere, I'm amazed at the nonchalance from the left and the lack of imagination from the right.

Let's start with the left. With post titles like "Overstated" and "Stimulus Bill Intensifies But Does Not Change Federal Role" from sites and sources I respect, my mind keeps going back to the figures we're talking about here. As Charlie Barone points out in a great post, the new money will be the largest increase in federal education funds ever. Money alone does not change the federal role in education, but it's hard to believe that this kind of increase will not have a major impact, especially come re-authorization time.

There's indication that people are already getting used to the money. A USA Today article on the stimulus package had this innocent-looking paragraph in it:

Mary Kusler, a lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators, says Title I and IDEA "are areas where they cannot cut back three years from now."

Congress continues to assert that these funds are temporary, although those assertions are somewhat unbelievable. In a conference call on the stimulus on Wednesday, House Committee on Education and Labor Chairman George Miller was somber and eloquent throughout the call. But when asked if a $500 increase in the Pell Grant would be permanent or for only the next two years, as the stimulus is, Miller reiterated that it was an "emergency recovery act" but also indicated the decision would be made later, in concert with President Obama's future budget requests. My question is: does anyone really believe the first time we "fully fund" No Child Left Behind, as this bill does, it will be the last? Won't cities, states, and interest groups (like the American Association of School Administrators, for example) adjust to this influx and kind of like it?

The right is as upset as the left is credulous. Over at the Gadfly, Mike Petrilli and Checker Finn are ready to pronounce the entire school reform movement dead. "How so?" they ask:

Because of what turns out, in retrospect, to be a tragic flaw in the strategy of many reformers in recent decades: offer the education establishment a lot more money in return for a little reform. Understandable, sure, and in many state capitols and along the banks of the Potomac there probably was no other way to go about it. But what happens when the extra money dries up? When even the pre-reform money sinks into the recessionary soil? During flush times, buying reform seemed to make a certain kind of sense and to be relatively low risk, a bit like buying a big new house or fancy new car. During hard times, however, that turns out to be the very definition of unsustainability.

This analysis is both gloomy and missing in all creativity. The stimulus may or may not have some key ed reform provisions, depending on which way the Senate goes, but if George Miller, Arne Duncan, and Barack Obama have a say (and I think they will), the provisions will be in the final version. What's more, the Gadfly analysis has no vision into the future. "Fully funding" NCLB gives the Department of Education and future Congresses more leverage to go after pet reforms. Advocates of local control used to be able to say that federal spending in K-12 education was "only nine percent" of all education dollars. But now that ratio is changing, and where I come from, more money contributed means more influence. A higher percentage of federal dollars means greater clout, too.

That, I think, is the real lesson here. The stimulus package is an unfathomably large sum of money that will be passed through Congress in an incredibly short period of time. Three weeks is a blink of an eye in legislative history, and soon the federal role in education will be changed irrevocably. Let's not pretend that that's not true or that it's an entirely bad thing. Crisis breeds opportunity.

Additionally: If you're still unconvinced, consider doubling the federal investment in education again. It would then total 35-40 percent of all revenues. Or, think of the fact that, in a few weeks, we'll have doubled the federal investment in education in 2002 and again in 2009. 2016, anyone?

Stimulus Package – Restricted Funds Grow While Unrestricted Funds Shrink

States will be glad to see the in large infusion of federal funds into K-12 education. But will they help districts balance their budgets without major teacher layoffs? Most of the reductions in state and local resources are unrestricted funds resulting from reductions in local property tax revenues or state general support for schools. All of the new federal funding will be restricted funding that can not replace the unrestricted funds that districts are losing. So, likely districts will have to lay off hordes of teachers that are supported with unrestricted funds at the same time that they hire teachers for special education and Title I activities. Much of the time, these will not be the same teachers (if we want them to be highly qualified). The fix would be to allow Fiscal Stabilization funds to be used for general K-12 purposes instead of restricting the funding for Title I, special education and career tech. Here are the details:

Let’s just concentrate on the three big pots of funding – Title I ($13 billion), Special Education ($13 billion), and Fiscal Stabilization Funds ($39 billion – shared with higher education).

Title I – These funds are distributed through existing Title I formulas, and the funds are general subject to restrictions that the funds support disadvantaged students (Schoolwide Title I schools have a little more flexibility). These funds have supplement not supplant requirements which restrict the funds from replacing funding sources that the state or locals would otherwise have provided. Estimates of district by district allocations for Title I and special education are available (here).

Special Education – Distributed by existing formulas can only be used for special education, and subject to supplement not supplant language.

Fiscal Stabilization funds – The distribution of these funds is a little more complicated, but once the state shares have been determined, and K-12’s share of that is determined, then the K-12 funds are distributed using a combination of the general purpose funding formula used in that state, and the state’s allocation method for Title I funds. While the funds are distributed using the general purpose fund formula, the Stabilization funds can only be used for ESEA, Special Education and Perkins Career and Technical Education purposes.

States are Cutting General Purpose K-12 Funding that Can’t be Backfilled with Title I and Special Education Funds
To illustrate this point, it might be easiest to focus on a specific school district. I will look at the impact on Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) which is the second largest in the country and located in a state that is facing one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Based on the analysis of the Congressional Research Services (referenced above), LAUSD would receive $218 million in Title I funds and $91 million in special education funds for the 2009-10 school year. I estimate that LAUSD will get in excess of $250 million in fiscal stabilization funds (there are too many moving parts to get an accurate estimate here). So in total, LAUSD would receive around $550 million for 2009-10 to be used mainly for Title I and special education purposes.

California’s Governor has proposed cutting general purpose funding to schools by about $2 billion in the current school year, and effectively $3 billion in 2009-10 from the current funding level (which has already been cut in adopting the 2008-09 budget). As part of this reduction, he is also allowing schools to reduce the school year by 5 days. Of course there are other specific programmatic cuts, deferrals and other budget gimmicks, but most of the reductions are general purpose. LAUSD educates roughly 11 percent of California’s students, LAUSD share of the cuts will be around $550 million for the two fiscal years combined. [It should be noted that California education advocates would argue that the reductions are much larger than suggested here because these cuts come on top of the state not providing statutorily required cost of living adjustments in either year. The advocates estimate the total cuts at around $10 billion. Which the actual cuts are probably somewhere between the Governor’s numbers and the advocates numbers, using the Governor’s numbers makes the point on the impact of the stimulus package]

LA’s Cuts Roughly same as LA’s Funding Under Stimulus
Perhaps by magic perhaps by intent, but the cuts that LAUSD will face under the current budget proposal are roughly equivalent to the new Stimulus funds they would receive. Unfortunately, the color of the money is different. They will lose general purpose funds, and get restricted funds. What will this mean for their budget? Basically, they will have to cut a large number of programs being funded with general purpose funds. Then at the same time they will have to create or expand another set of programs to serve special education and Title I students. And, if they cut a program that is general fund supported, and replace it with new ESEA, special ed or Stabilization funds, they will likely violate the supplanting language and have to give some of the funding back to the feds.

What Can be Done About This?
A simple change in the stimulus package to allow the fiscal stabilization funds to be used for general purposes instead of targeted purposes could quickly fix the issue. This would mirror the flexibility that higher ed or other parts of state budgets will have with respect to the stabilization funds. Absent such a change, it will be difficult for districts to use the stimulus funds without a whole lot of unintended consequences.


Correction: It was brought to my attention that may initial post was inaccurate. The Fiscal Stabilization funds can be used for any ESEA purpose not just Title I uses. While this broader flexibility would provide districts more options than just Title I, it is still replacing general purpose funds with restricted funds.

Why KIPP Matters

I first heard the word "kip" in seventh-grade gymnastics class. It was a special move where, lying on your back, you pulled your legs to your chest and then quickly pushed them forward. The momentum would propel you up and into a standing position. This was all theoretical of course, at least for me; I never have been able to do one.

I find it fitting that this gymnastics move is a homophone for one of the most well-known and successful innovations in the education world today. The Knowledge is Power Program (the education world's KIPP) has performed this same motion for hard-luck children for the last 15 years, not in a theoretical way but on the ground where it counts. Last night Education Sector hosted Jay Matthews to discuss his new book, Work Hard. Be Nice.: How Two Inspired Teachers Created the Most Promising Schools in America, with Jonah Wright Edelman, executive Director of Stand for Childen, and Richard Barth, CEO of the KIPP Foundation. If you missed the discussion, please enjoy it below:

ContreDemps

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Obama White House are facing an early test of their school reform street cred. Earlier this week the Senate Appropriations Committee, where Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa chairs the subcommittee with jurisdiction over education, stripped out of the stimulus package several provisions being pushed by school reform groups, the administration, and Democratic leaders on education in the House. Harkin, a pro-labor guy, dropped money targeted to charter school construction from the infrastructure section of the package, lopped off a $100 million that would have doubled the size of Teacher Incentive Fund (a federal effort to promote teacher performance pay), jettisoned language requiring school systems to distribute teachers equitably among affluent and impoverished schools as a condition for portions of the incentive funding, and struck language requiring states to establish computer systems capable of linking students and student test scores teachers, a prerequisite for rating schools and teachers on the basis of how much their students learn. Since these initiatives have been opposed by teacher unions seeking to preserve the hegemony of public schools and the current practices of paying and assigning teachers on the basis of credentials and seniority, it's not much of a stretch to assume that the teacher unions got to Harkin. The looming question is how Duncan and Obama are going to deal with the divisions within their own party on the education issue.

Van Milder

If you're a policymaker looking at how long it takes college students to graduate these days and you know that educating upperclassmen costs more than educating freshmen and sophomores (the former take smaller classes and use more campus resources), you might think it would be a good idea to penalize students who take more than four years to graduate. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Students who graduate with more than the bare minimum of credits could be lazy cretins who only want to hang on to a partying lifestyle, true, but they could also have perfectly legitimate reasons for needing those additional credits. Students accumulate superfluous credits when they study abroad, transfer, seek additional majors or minors, or, heaven forbid, change their minds.

The policymaker role should be to examine why some students graduate in four years and others do not. Is it because they were required to take remedial classes that did not count towards a major? Is it because they changed their minds seven times (oh and by the way that's the average now)? Is it because their major simply required more credits, or because they chose to pursue multiple majors and minors? Were they transfer students whose credits were not accepted? The answers to these questions matter.

Only careful policies can address these issues. Legislators in Virginia, on the other hand, are proposing a crude one: they want to charge all in-state students who fail to graduate after accumulating 120 credits (the bare minimum) the out-of-state rate. In other words, a student from Virginia attending the University of Virginia would see their tuition bill climb $10,000 per semester as soon as they reached the 120 credit limit. They except students pursuing majors requiring more than 120 credits.

Part of their complaint hinges on the concern that qualified students from northern Virginia are being rejected at the three major public universities in Virginia (UVa, Virginia Tech, and the College of William and Mary) in favor of out-of-state students who pay higher tuition bills. The logic behind their proposal is to create an incentive for students to finish earlier and thereby create more room for in-state students. But the solution makes no sense for this problem for a couple reasons. To begin with, the proposed penalties target in-state students only, which does not solve the problem of too many out-of-staters. Next, these three schools are not the ones with time-to-degree problems. All three have very high four-year graduation rates, and a 2005-6 report found that at all state public four-year postsecondary institutions, first-time, full-time students took an average of 4.1 years and 131 credits to complete their degree, and the numbers were even better at the targeted schools. This also means the average student would be subjected to the legislators' tax for one full semester.

Policymakers should be concerned about time-to-degree. We know that too many students take too long to graduate, and often the policies of colleges and universities are to blame. Take a look at page 28 of this report out of Tennesee and you'll notice that transfer students are routinely forced to take 20-25 additional credits in order to earn their degree. Those are credits that are wasted in the transfer process due to instituional policies. Those are the types of barriers Virginia state legislators should target in order to accomplish their stated aims.

H/t/Eduwonk.

Obama Tells Truth About Washington Weather Wimpiness

Today President Obama brought some much-needed leadership and tough-minded thinking to the crucial education policy issue of hair-trigger weather sensitivity and resulting needless school closures (at HuffPost via Russo):

"My children's school was canceled today, because of what? Some ice," Obama said, and all at the table started laughing. "As my children pointed out, in Chicago school is never canceled," he continued. He said that in their old hometown, "you'd go outside for recess in weather like this. You wouldn't even stay indoors." The President said he would have to bring "some flinty Chicago toughness" to Washington. Asked if he was calling Washingtonians wimps, Obama responded: "I'm saying that when it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things."

So, so true. I lived in Connecticut until I was 12 and then upstate New York through college, and it's just sad the way school gets cancelled here in DC every time the National Weather Service forecasts a 5 percent possibility of light flurries. An inch or more of snow and civilization itself immediately lurches toward post-apocalyptic chaos with all kinds of public institutions shutting down, cars careening off the road, and hordes of people descending on supermarkets to stock up on bread even though we live in a densely populated city with access to major interstate highways and rail lines and as such there is no chance whatsoever that we're going to run out of food.  In four years of high school in Schenectady, New York, where it drops below freezing around Thanksgiving and stays that way until Easter, school was cancelled exactly once and the superintedent endured all kinds of grief about it because all we got was a measly six inches of ice. When I was in Finland last month, I visited a day care center where four-year old children play outside in sub-freezing weather for three hours every morning, and the Finns have the highest test scores in the world. Clearly there's just a basic underlying weakness of character in this part of the country which in turn explains all kinds of other things. 

Gates Speaks

The Post exerpted the education part of Bills Gates' annual State of the Gates Foundation letter on their op-ed page this morning (Disclosure: Education Sector receives grants from the foundation). It proceeds in pretty standard fashion until this sentence, about halfway through:

Many of the small schools that we invested in did not improve students' achievement in any significant way.

That's one of the (many) good things about being one of the richest and most famous people in the world. You can straightforwardly admit that your initiatives haven't always been successful, because having done so you're still one of the richest and most famous people in the world. It's also the upside of moving into charitable work in the middle of your life as opposed to the end--you have time to learn, refine, and plan for the long term. Gates also said:

We had less success trying to change an existing school than helping to create a new school.

This is important because it goes right to the heart of how we think about accountability and educational improvement. NCLB-style regulatory accountability systems are primarily designed to identify low-performing schools and make them better. How they make them better is complicated and subject to debate: we identify them publicly, we give their students the option to transfer away, perhaps we give them more money, or send a technical assistance team from the State Department of Education, or ask them to submit an improvement plan, or implement a new curriculum, or extend the school day, or replace the principal, or the teachers, or something else. There are a lot of options. But they all involve preserving the existing school. And that approach , in turns, stems from the fact that schools are seen as public institutions, which they are, and thus we apply public institution improvement ideas to them. In many areas of public interest, we have little choice--if the Department of Defense isn't performing well, we have to improve it, because we can't not have a Department of Defense, nor can we build a whole new one from scratch. 

Schools are different. They're structurally small and decentralized, whereas Defense Departments are, for obvious reasons, not. We don't have to improve existing low-performing schools. It's perfectly possible to just shut them down and build new ones. The fact that the Gates Foundation had more success creating new schools than changing old ones is unsurprising--turning around a chronically underperforming school is really difficult. So difficult that it's worth asking why we should try, when there are other, better, faster, less expensive options instead? 

Go, Grassley, Go!

As college endowments rose dramatically over the last several years, higher education leaders explained low endowment payout rates as savings for hard times. The rates would inherently rise, they said, when the market turned sour. The market's as curdled as it's been in decades, but a survey released today ($) found less than four percent of colleges are planning to raise their payout rates.

The savings-for-tough-times rationale has not matched actions so far. During the 2008 academic fiscal year (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008), the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 13 percent and college endowments 2.7 percent. Yet, the average payout stayed the exact same (4.6 percent) as in 2007, when the Dow rose almost twenty percent.

Let's take the case of Harvard, because they're the biggest and most interesting. Harvard's endowment began fiscal year 2000 with $14.3 billion in assets. In nine and a half years since, a period in which the broader market declined, Harvard's endowment doubled to $28.5 billion. Using the rule of 72, it managed to grow in value about seven and a half percent annually. The word "value" here is important; it signifies not the rate of return, but total holdings after donations and its payout rate of 4.25 percent are included. They owe some of that growth to federal tax policies, policies that give breaks to donors and exempt earnings from the grasp of tax collectors.

Reading the stories describing the losses incurred during the first six months of fiscal year 2009, I was heartened to see Senator Charles Grassley (Rep., Iowa) continue his campaign to require colleges and universities to pay out at least five percent of their endowment annually--a requirement that all other foundations manage to meet. The idea makes a lot of sense for college and university foundations, and the five percent requirement, moreover, would affect only the top tier of university foundations, since ones with lower assets tend to spend more than five percent already. The best counterpoint against the five percent mandate is to consider what would happen if colleges and universities were forced to spend all of a largesse in one year. That money could not be spent responsibly or sustainably, and Senator Grassley would be wise to allow for flexibility through some sort of rolling average over a multiple year period.

While heavy-handed government action is the least desired outcome, if colleges and universities do not spend more of their endowments during tough times, a five percent minimum would be a helpful prod.

"Work Hard. Be Nice."

Famously, that's the slogan of the much-discussed KIPP network of charter schools that have had great success in helping low-income and minority students learn. Now it's also the title of veteran Washington Post education reporter Jay Matthews' new book chronicling how the organization came to be what it is today. Education Sector is sponsoring an event this Wednesday, January 28th, at 5PM where Jay will be discussing his book along with Richard Barth, CEO of the KIPP Foundation, and Jonah Edelman, executive director of Stand for Children. Spaces are still available but they're going fast! Sign up here.