A Good Deal.

Via the PEN NewsBlast, the Chicago Tribune reports on efforts in Chicago to introduce a residential school in the district. Having recently toured the SEED school in D.C., I’m encouraged to hear that the idea of a residential public school is spreading. Though, as the article points out, the price tag is a big deterrent—the SEED school’s planned Maryland school will apparently have a price tag of $34,000 per student.

But considering that the annual cost of incarcerating a juvenile offender in Illinois tops $70,000—not to mention the economic benefits of having well-educated, productive citizens—that starts to seem like a pretty good deal.

Long Before NCLB...

With so much attention paid to the future of NCLB--when will it be reauthorized and what will it look like--today's event was a great opportunity to look back at what got us to this point. Chris Cross, Sam Halperin, Kati Haycock, and Jack Jennings led us through the history of the law and what it means for today's debates. It's important stuff. If you missed it, listen here.

Smoldering

In the announcement heard 'round the edu-blogosphere today (but on the back page of the Washington Post), Secretary Spellings invited states to apply to be one of 10 which will be granted more flexibility under NCLB. The selected states will be allowed to differentiate consequences for schools that are failing to reach NCLB goals on multiple measures and those that aren't hitting them on just a few. Or, in Secretary Spellings' words, states will be able to distinguish between "on-fire schools and those with a smolder."

Hopefully this change will bring about some good innovation and thinking in the pilot states, and help guide national policy on how to address the needs of the schools in the most trouble, without forgetting that those schools in which one or two groups of students aren't reaching proficiency still need assistance and accountability for improvement.

This article in Monday's Washington Post highlights the continued need for attention on within-school achievement gaps. The article cites the credit many, particularly disabilities rights advocates, give to the law for finally bringing attention to the needs--and perhaps most importantly, the learning potential--of students with disabilities.

Secretary Spellings' added NCLB flexibility should allow a more reasonable, targeted approach to school reform, which is certainly a positive development. But this change should not allow some 'smoldering' schools to get by without any attention to implementing the reforms needed to also put out the smaller fires.

March Madness Round Two

Yesterday, we declared Stanford the winner of the ES graduation rate tournament. Today, we look at who comes out on top looking at the difference between the institution's overall graduation rate and their basketball team's grad rate--the one with the smallest difference wins.


--Thanks again to Abdul Kargbo, Sumner Handy and Kevin Carey.

Potholes

Last month, we published a Chart You Can Trust showing that, when it comes to getting into college, it's still better to be a mediocre student with a high-income family, than it is to be a high scoring, low-income student.

The Consortium on Chicago School Research just released a report looking at why this might be the case. This second report in a series on what determines students' success in getting to college looked at the college search and application process and where students "encounter potholes on the road to college". The results speak to the importance of having a strong college-going culture in schools and having adults that can help students navigate the complex application and financial aid process--results that are relevant far beyond Chicago schools.

The chart below shows the pathway to (or away from) college for the sample of students CCSR followed. Definitely some potholes along the way. To find out more and read through all of the results, click here.

Haters vs. Critics

One of the more difficult things about adopting a left-leaning but essentially reformist stance on K-12 education is that you end up arguing with teachers unions a lot, not because you're anti-union, but because teachers unions are the most influential and vocal representatives of the existing education establishment that you're trying to reform. There's a world of difference between criticizing the policy positions that teachers unions adopt and hating the idea of unions generally. I think The Quick and the Ed can be fairly described as having a healthy amount of the former and absolutely none of the latter.

Even so, I'm regularly challenged to pre- or re-establish my pro-labor credentials as the price of questioning the wisdom of some standard union position or NEA talking point. It's tedious, particularly for someone who spent his whole career before coming to Ed Sector working for Democratic politicians and non-profits that advocate for low-income children. But then people like these idiots come along with their "Ten Worst Union Protected Teachers" contests and other sundry insulting tactics, ensuring that my tedium will continue into the foreseeable future.

Reasonable people understand the distinction (although with too many caveats, c'mon); people who are pretty much just as unhinged as their critics don't. As AFTie John notes, the vlog in question hilariously blames teachers unions for promoting standardized tests and accountability, which is kind of like complaining about the AARP's nefarious plan to privatize Social Security.

The Big Dance with an ES Twist

Following on last year's successful NCAA graduation rates bracket (well, not successful if you used it in your office pool), we've taken a look at how this year's teams would fare at the big dance if winners were based on the team's graduation rate. As usual, expect plenty of upsets (click on the image to see the full bracket).


For another measure of school success, check out Inside Higher Ed's NCAA bracket here. And stay tuned for a bonus round tomorrow.

--Posted with substantial help from Abdul Kargbo, Sumner Handy, & Kevin Carey

Life After Sallie

There have been numerous news reports of the “tightening” credit markets and their potential impact on student loan availability. The majority of federal student loans are made through private banks and if these banks can’t find investors to buy their loans, they don’t have money to make new loans—hence, a problem with student loan availability (to be clear, there is currently no problem with federal student loan availability). This problem isn’t actually new to student lending and the federal government solved it almost forty years ago.

When the federal student loan program first began in 1965, it faced the same “tight” credit market—not because of turmoil in global credit markets, but because banks were having a hard time finding investors who wanted to buy risky student loans. To solve this problem, the federal government created Sallie Mae.

For over 30 years, Sallie Mae provided a needed secondary market for student lending. But then things changed. Growing profits from student loans and a greater willingness among investors to buy student loan debt, combined with pressure from Republican lawmakers, resulted in Sallie Mae separating from the federal government. Sallie Mae fully ended its secondary market operations—and its relationship with the federal government—in 2004. Sallie Mae then proceeded to expand and become the biggest seller of student loan securities—the precise market that is seeing such trouble right now.

Privatizing Sallie Mae left the federal student loan program without any direct access to treasury funds and completely reliant on private credit markets. In the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress established the ‘lender of last resort’ program to provide assurance that students would have access to loans, even if there were no banks to provide them. The program authorizes guarantee agencies, non-profit entities that help administer the federal loan program, to step in and make the necessary loans, and gives them access to treasury funds. (The legislation also specifically requires Sallie Mae to act as a lender of last resort, as part of its repayment for receiving governmental benefits for the first 30 years of its life.)

This program has never been used. And as Secretary Spelling’s comments at Friday’s hearing before the House Committee made clear, we’re not really sure how effectively the lender of last resort program will operate—the ability of guarantee agencies to administer the program, whether electronic processing of loans is possible, and whether the federal treasury can make the needed funds available. Fortunately, we also have the Federal Direct Loan program, which enables the federal government to loan directly to students and to access treasury funds as needed.

The privatization in federal student lending has certainly led to some improvements, making it easier for students to get loan funds, improved loan servicing, and lower costs for many students. But what the past year has made clear is that the federal student loan program, just as it did back in 1965, needs direct involvement from the federal government. A loan program that receives the benefits of the federal government (a guarantee on defaults, low interest rates to students) but without the necessary oversight from the Department of Education and without readily available treasury funds, is much too vulnerable to the risky and sometimes unscrupulous behavior in the private market.