Race To The Top: Pre-Game

Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thomas W. Carroll, the president of the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability, provides a sound analysis of states' chances of winning Race to the Top funding in phase one. [Hat tip: Alexander Russo]

I would agree that Florida and Louisiana are the likeliest winners in phase one, and would be surprised if Delaware and Tennessee were not, at least, semifinalists. I'm not as keen on Colorado and Michigan, but agree that Georgia is a likely semifinalist as well. Here are some other possible phase one semifinalists from my vantage point: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio and Rhode Island. Much will depend on how many states make the cut (Rick Hess says 10-15) and where Secretary Duncan draws the cut line.

Semifinalists are expected to be announced this coming week, possibly as early as Monday. Teams from those states will be invited to make a formal presentation before a panel of reviewers in Washington, DC sometime in March. Finalists are expected to be announced in April.

Who are your favorites? Which states am I overlooking? Which am I crazy to even be including in my list of possible semifinalists?


UPDATE: Education Week weighs in with its picks for RttT finalists.

Phase One winner picks: Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee

Phase One semifinalist picks: all above plus Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island

Wild cards:
California, District of Columbia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania


UPDATE 2: Eduflack weighs in with some picks as well.

Barring any real surprises in the interview stage, I'm going with California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Rhode Island. How does that fare against the $4 billion pool? Cali and Florida will account for $1.4 billion. Ohio picks up $400 million. Indiana and Tennessee get $200 million apiece. Colorado and Louisiana split $300 million. Rhode Island gets $50 million. That's $2.55 billion on the first eight states.

TFA 'Set Aside'

Friday, February 26, 2010
The Washington Post's Nick Anderson reports that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan was grilled by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) yesterday about why he proposed eliminating the set aside for Teach for America in the Administration FY2011 federal budget.
"We made some tough calls. And what we did is we simply eliminated all the earmarks. We increased the chance for competition," Duncan said.

"Teach for America is an earmark?" Doggett asked.

"It was a set-aside," Duncan clarified. The organization, he said, would have "every opportunity to compete and get, frankly, significantly more money."

My question is: Why should TFA receive such a set aside while other high-quality education non-profits do not? What about KIPP, Urban Teacher Residency United, The New Teacher Project? How about the nonprofit I work for, the New Teacher Center? All of these nonprofits are national in scope. Is there something special about TFA that merits direct federal funding and forces these other organizations to exclaim, "We're not worthy!"?

Frankly, I like the Administration's competitive approach. Let the cream rise to the top. That's a very American concept.


UPDATE: Here's more on the TFA funding issue from Eduwonk.

Central Falls Redux

I have to side with Rick Hess over Andy Rotherham on the question of whether the mass firing of teachers at Rhode island's Central Falls High School is a portend of things to come. In yesterday's Christian Science Monitor story, Hess calls the situation in Central Falls "a canary in a coal mine." In a blog post yesterday, Rotherham calls is "a bogus trend story."
“This will be a canary in the coal mine,” says Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Such dramatic moves are likely to multiply as “an increasing crop of no-excuses superintendents and state commissioners” take the view that “it’s essential to clean house” to improve persistently failing schools, he says.

This Rhode Island high school situation sure seems like a bogus trend story. Turnarounds may be a trend but really dramatic moves like this seem pretty anomalous. That whale in Florida killing people seems like a more common trend than schools firing all the teachers en masse. -- Eduwonk
In a Tweet this morning, Alexander Russo sardonically notes that "'mass layoff' sounds so much worse than school 'closing' or school 'turnaround' tho they're all the same thing." Indeed.

This morning word comes from the Providence Journal blog that teachers will appeal their firings. No surprise there.

Related Post: Rhode Island District Fires All Of Its High School Teachers (2/25/2010)


UPDATE: President Obama comments on Central Falls in his prepared remarks before the America's Promise Alliance Education Event on March 1, 2010 (via TWIE, via D_Aarons).

"If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn't show signs of improvement, then there's got to be a sense of accountability. And that's what happened in Rhode Island last week at a chronically troubled school, when just 7 percent of 11th graders passed state math tests -- 7 percent."

More Good Decisions

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Kudos to the Obama administration for nominating some very fine colleagues to the National Board of Education Sciences!

Adam Gamoran is an exemplary education leader, Deborah Ball a fantastically original dean, and Bridget Long one of the most creative thinkers on higher ed policy. Bravo.

Rhode Island District Fires All Of Its High School Teachers

Today's Providence Journal story reports that Central Falls, Rhode Island's "tiniest, poorest city has become the center of a national battle over dramatic school reform." Even the New York Times and the Washington Post have taken notice.

While firing the entire teacher corps at Central Falls High School is a dramatic step, the school board's and superintendent's decision was largely based on the district's track record of very poor student outcomes, the teachers' rejection of a reform plan ultimatum from state Education Commissioner Deborah Gist targeting the state's lowest-performing high schools, and accountability pressures from the federal Education Department. The decision is supported by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who recently weighed in on the controversy,
applauding them for “showing courage and doing the right thing for kids.” Nonetheless, the impact on individual teachers is great and undoubtedly places their lives into significant turmoil and uncertainty.

Providence Journal (2/24/2010):

Duncan is requiring states, for the first time, to identify their lowest 5 percent of schools — those that have chronically poor performance and low graduation rates — and fix them using one of four methods: school closure; takeover by a charter or school-management organization; transformation which requires a longer school day, among other changes; and “turnaround” which requires the entire teaching staff be fired and no more than 50 percent rehired in the fall.

State Education Commissioner Deborah A. Gist moved swiftly on this new requirement, identifying on Jan. 11 six of the “persistently lowest-performing” schools: Central Falls High School, which has very low test scores and a graduation rate of 48 percent, and five schools in Providence. Gist also started the clock on the changes, telling the districts they had until March 17 to decide which of the models they wanted to use. Her actions make Rhode Island one of the first states to publicly release a list of affected schools and put into motion the new federal mandate.
I expect that this story will be replicated elsewhere. On one hand, dramatic change IS needed in chronically low-performing schools and districts. BUT if educators and prospective educators see the wholesale firing of staff as a likely consequence in such challenging schools and districts, are they less likely to take jobs in such environments? What is the long-term consequence for such schools' and districts' ability to attract and retain high-quality teachers?

My Guv'nah Is Stronger Than Your Guv'nah

Governors are an interesting group. Always. They are not interchangeable spirits. Just think of some of the characters and personalities amidst their ranks: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rick Perry, Bill Richardson, Jennifer Granholm, Ed Rendell, Haley Barbour.

With regard to education, governors do not come to the job with equal chances to impact the policy agenda. I grew keenly aware of this when I worked for the National Governors Assoiciation (NGA) from 2001 to 2004. Some of this is due to personalities and individual capacities, such as whether they effectively use their bully pulpit and engage in policy conversations. And some is due to politics, such as whether they campaigned for office on education. But much of the reason for this variation is out of governors' control: It is due to widely varying nature of state educational governance systems.

This Education Commission of the States brief [summarized below] maps four models of state educational governance, present in 40 of the 50 states. (The other 10 states utilize hybrid models, furthering confusing the situation.) The most important fact is that ONLY 13 governors directly appoint the chief state school officer. That gives one pause in considering how empowered chief executive officers really are to tackle changes to public education. Most certainly cannot go it alone - and perhaps that's a good thing in certain ways, but it certainly doesn't produce direct reform trajectories.
Model One: The governors appoints the members of the state board of education. The state board, in turn, appoints the chief state school officer (variously called the State Superintendent, Commissioner, Education Secretary, etc.) Twelve (12) states utilize this model: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia.

Such state systems do not provide the governors much power over education governance. They accrue it over time as they appoint state board members -- usually with staggered terms -- and eventually gain a majority if they remain in office long enough.

Model Two: In this model, the state board of education is elected and the board appoints the chief state school officer. Eight (8) states utilize this model: Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

Clearly, this model generates extremely weak gubernatorial control over public education, although chief executives in these states still wield the power of the purse, vetoes, and the like.

Model Three: In this model, the governor appoints the members of state board of education. The chief state school officer is elected. Eleven (11) states utilize this model: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Wyoming.

Again, this is a governance blueprint for weak gubernatorial influence, although right-to-work states with histories of strong state influence over education -- such as North Carolina -- challenge this general assumption. Former NC Governor Jim Hunt has a lot to do with this, I believe. In his case, the power of personality transcended a weak governance structure. Differences also can be caused by differential continuums of power between state boards of education and chief state school officers.

Model Four: In this model, the governor appoints the state board of education and the chief state school officer. Nine (9) states utilize this governance model: Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

This would appear to be a template for strong gubernatorial control over public education, but of course it doesn't always turn out that way, depending on personalities, political choices made, and state education systems with a strong history of and preference for local control (here I'm thinking Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire). However, this group of states has certainly produced recent governors that were strong leaders in education -- Tom Kean of New Jersey, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mark Warner of Virginia, Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania are examples.

The remaining 10 states function under modified versions of the above four models. Models A (Louisiana and Ohio) and D (Texas) are relatively strong pro-governor structures, while Model B empowers state legislatures over governors in New York and South Carolina. Model E as implemented in Minnesota and New Mexico also provides those governors with significant power; not so much in Wisconsin, although the Badger State governor historically has had very strong veto powers. (Ever heard of the Frankenstein or Vanna White veto?)

A. Elected and Appointed State Board; Appointed Chief

In Louisiana, eight board members are elected and three are appointed by the governor. In Ohio, 11 board members are elected, while the governor appoints eight members.

B. Legislature Appoints State Board; Appointed or Elected Chief

In New York, the state legislature appoints the board members and the chief state school officer is appointed by the board. The South Carolina legislature appoints the board, but the chief is elected.

C. Joint Appointment of State Board; Appointed or Elected Chief

The governor, lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House appoint members to the state board in Mississippi. The state board appoints the chief state school officer.

In the state of Washington, the board of education is made up of 16 members ­—­ five of whom are elected by district directors (three for the western half of the state, two for the eastern); one at-large member elected by members of boards of directors of state-approved private schools; the superintendent of public instruction; seven members appointed by the governor; and two student members (non-voting). The chief state school officer is elected. Washington moved from a model whereby the state board was elected by district directors (local boards) to this model in January 2006.

D. Elected Board; Governor Appointed Chief

The governor appoints the chief state school officer who also serves as the executive secretary of the elected state board. Texas uses this model.

E. No State Board or Advisory Only; Elected or Appointed Chief

Minnesota and Wisconsin do not have a state board of education. New Mexico has an elected body (Public Education Commission), but is advisory only.

Minnesota and New Mexico – chief state school officer is appointed by governor

Wisconsinchief state school officer is elected.

As Education Week's Alyson Klein reports, in this recent blog post about the just-completed NGA winter meeting, governors of both parties are AOK with the Administration's initial movement on ESEA reauthorization. NGA Chairman and Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, however, did invoke the word 'flexibility,' which is a tried-and-true part of the NGA mantra and which is being peddled far more aggressively by the NGA's sister organization, the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In today's meeting, which was part of the National Governors Association's Winter Conference, governors voiced "zero" concerns about federal intrusion in state business when it came to the Title I proposal, Secretary Duncan said in an interview with reporters outside the White House.

"This is being lead by the governors," he said. "We have to educate our way to a better economy. All of the governors understand this."
That's all well and good. But, the fact is, that some governors' opinions matter more than others, and some, while not wholly irrelevant, are hardly decisive actors. The fact that Race to the Top has empowered governors to take the lead in education reform conversations and to lead states' applications for these competitive dollars has changed the dynamic somewhat. Because they are not directly in charge of public education in most states, however, most governors cannot expedite change along the lines that the Obama Administration is calling for without attending to building relationships, cajoling, convincing, and achieving reform one step at a time.

The Childcare Crisis

Sunday, February 21, 2010
As a mother of two, including a 7-week-old infant, I think about childcare constantly. Who provides the best care? How much does it cost? What's the travel time involved? Can I find an arrangement that accomodates my desire to nurse? These difficult questions are keeping me up at night, as I struggle to find a situation that works for my infant, my toddler, my husband, and (last and possibly least) me and my career.

But I'm also aware that my situation is quite good, especially when compared to others on our college campuses. The number of unmarried parenting students is rising, doubling over the last twenty years from seven to just over 13% of the undergraduate population. More than one-third of black female undergraduates nationwide are unmarried parents, and so are 21% of all Native American undergrads.

More than half (59%) of these folks are really struggling--earning less than $10,000 a year. Unbelievably, 38% earn less than $5,000 annually! They are trying to make ends meet by doing it all--raising children while both working full-time and attending college full-time. For example, national statistics indicate that in 2007-2008 three-fourths of all unmarried parents enrolled in college full-time were working at least 15 hours per week; and 30 percent were working 40 or more hours per week. This represents a dramatic change from earlier times--in 1989-1990, less than half (48%) of unmarried parents enrolled in college full-time worked at all. Given these statistics, we can't be surprised that only 5% of unmarried parenting students finish a BA within 6 years of starting college (another 12% earns an AA, and 30% earns a certificate).

We could do so much more to support these men and women, and we have to start by providing affordable, accessible on-campus childcare. Fully 25% of unmarried parenting students have unmet financial need of $11,500 or more-- approximately the same amount that the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates it costs to raise a child under age 5 each year.

While surveys consistently indicate that a lack of high-quality, affordable, on-campus childcare prevents full engagement in college life, only half of all institutions of postsecondary education provide any form of childcare on campus, and most are over-enrolled. In fact, national data indicate a severe shortage of campus childcare centers--with existing resources meetings only one-tenth of the demand. This is particularly true when it comes to infant care--only about one-third of campus childcare centers accept infants. At the same time, federal support for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program (the sole federal funder of such centers) declined by 40 percent (to just $15 million) between 2002 and 2009. According to calculations by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, this means an allocation of just $8 per family headed by a parenting student. That's just appalling.

Parents who try and juggle too much often end up stressed out, and stressed out adults don't make for the best parents. This is a no-brainer--support these parents and not only will they complete their own degrees, but their children will also benefit--and be more likely to grow up to earn college diplomas of their own.

*** The statistics in this post come from a paper authored by UW-Madison graduate student Kia Sorensen and myself, to appear in the journal Future of Children this fall.


Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Is this really any surprise given an education accountability system that grades performance and issues sanctions based on a single indicator: student test scores?

Hat tip: This Week in Education

Maryland's Taoiseach Proposes Reform

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and state school Superintendent Nancy Grasmick can finally agree on one thing: O'Malley's proposal to make the state competitive for Race to the Top round two.

Score one for Grasmick? Before Maryland decided not to apply in the first round of the Race to the Top competition -- making it one of only 10 states not to -- O'Malley said that no legislative changes were needed, while Grasmick insisted that they were if Maryland was to submit an application that had a snowball's chance in hell of being successful.

It looks like the Governor has come around. The Baltimore Sun reports that the Governor "wants to add a year to the time it takes public school teachers to achieve tenure and to tie their performance evaluations to data on how well their students are doing" and that Grasmick is "very happy."

A draft of the governor's Education Reform Act of 2010 shows that it includes:
•Lengthening the teacher tenure track from two to three years.

•Requiring that schools provide mentors to new teachers who are in danger of not achieving tenure.

•Making data on student growth a "significant component" of teacher evaluations, one of "multiple measures."

•Providing incentive pay (contingent upon Race to the Top funding) for "highly effective" teachers and principals who serve the bottom 5% of lowest-achieving public schools.
But will the Legislature agree? That remains to be seen, but the fact that the Governor and the state Superintendent could agree -- and that the proposal is supported by the state teachers' unions -- bodes well.


Wednesday, February 10, 2010
This post isn't specifically about education, but the lack of political comity in Washington these days will impact the prospects for solidifying education reform and reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (not in 2010, maybe in 2011 or 12, if ever)....

I finished reading the late Senator Ted Kennedy's autobiography, True Compass, on the plane ride back home from California yesterday. It reminded me that Teddy Kennedy was no blind partisan. Sure, he called Republicans on the carpet when they deserved it and campaigned vociferously for fellow Democrats, including President Obama. But he also looked for bipartisan opportunities to pass legislation to strengthen education and further social justice. His work on the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) with two different Presidents Bush are testament to his legislative accomplishment and his focus -- especially in the latter part of his career -- on being a policymaker first and a partisan firebrand second. His Senate colleagues, Democrat and Republican, agreed. But he also leaves a legislative legacy in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), his work with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to expand SCHIP, and his tireless effort which resulted in the Edward M. Kennedy National Service Act of 2009.

Sadly, Kennedy seems to represent a bygone era. There are too few honest brokers left in Congress, willing to reach across the aisle and put in the hard work to build something rather than destroy it. Among the 535 congresspersons and senators, sure there are some legislative diehards. But there aren't enough of them. And they are overshadowed in our modern, media-driven politics by the bomb throwers, would-be (and actual) talk radio hosts, rhetorical empty vessels, obstructionists, partisan extortionists, and finger-to-the-wind moderate extortionists.

Being a hard-working legislator doesn't seem to pay off, at least not politically.

In a quest for ideological purity, the Republican Party currently seems most interested in purging its elected officials who dare even speak to members of the other party, let alone hug them. Just ask Lindsay Graham or Susan Collins -- or Florida Governor and U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist. Currently, congressional Republicans are staking their immediate political future on a legislative strategy that consists of little more than just saying 'no' and obstructing nominations and votes in the U.S. Senate. Now, Democrats certainly have been complicit of similar conduct in the past, but far more selectively and less brazenly, I believe the congressional record will attest to. Sadly, this political strategy appears to be working, at least for the moment.

Sarah Palin may be the personal embodiment of this ethos. She chose to quit as Alaska Governor in July 2009. Strangely, in the current political context, while seemingly disingenuous and typically unintelligible, her comments actually make a bizarre kind of sense, despite the fact she might run for President (which would be a title, wouldn't it?)
I’ll work hard.... But I won’t do it from the governor’s desk. I’ve never believed that I nor anyone else needs a title to do this, to make a difference, to help people.
Short of changing Senate rules (an unlikely band-aid, at best), I am not sure that there is an easy solution to changing the current political culture in Washington or in much of America. What really needs to happen is for the American people to stand up and demand that their elected officials do their jobs, legislate, and focus on the nation's problems, dealing honestly with disagreements on the issues. Perhaps the President's proposed health care summit will provide a narrow opportunity to do that. Perhaps more attention need be paid to "Congress behaving badly" stories to shame them into changing their ways.

But we can't rely on summits and exposés to deal with all of the problems and issues that need addressing. The whole political dynamic needs to change, as James Fallows argues in the January/February 2010 Atlantic magazine and in this blog post. Summon the spirit and example of Teddy Kennedy! Some how, some way, the bipartisanship that existed in generations past needs to be reborn. In the end, it is going to come down to the leadership of the folks in power, to build and leverage personal relationships with their colleagues in the other party -- some risking thoughtless and unfair political recriminations in doing so -- to make life better for the American people.

But on this score, sadly, I'm just not all that optimistic.

UPDATE: Neither is Senator Evan Bayh apparently....

Live from San Jose

Monday, February 8, 2010
Tomorrow I'll be Twittering from the New Teacher Center's 12th National Symposium in San Jose, California.

Tuesday's agenda features a morning keynote panel on measuring teacher effectiveness. Panelists include Terry Holliday, Kentucky Commissioner of Education; Brad Jupp, Senior Program Advisor, Teacher Effectiveness and Quality, U.S. Department of Education; and Tom Kane, Professor of Education & Economics, Harvard University and Deputy Director for Education, Gates Foundation. It is moderated by my intrepid NTC colleague, Eric Hirsch.

Today, keynoters include Linda Darling-Hammond and Richard Rothstein, but my schedule likely won't allow me to have my thumbs affixed to my phone or laptop during their presentations.

To follow me, here is the link to my Twitter account.

Winners & Losers

Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Eduflack offers up a first-rate post today on the winners and losers in the education portion of the President's FY2011 budget.

Claus von Zastrow issues a wise caution regarding federal funding for professional development (UPDATE: as well as a second thought).

The New York Times's Sam Dillon and the National Journal's Eliza Krigman (hat tip: Eduwonk) have the scoop on implications for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.

The budget is just at the first step and Congress has yet to have its say. Likewise, I wouldn't bet on reauthorization this election year (yep, congressional elections are only nine months away!). 2011? 2012? Anyone? UPDATE: Here is what the Education Experts at the National Journal's blog think.

Spin Cycle

Education Next apparently has provided a platform for school choice advocate George Mitchell to shill for voucher schools outside of the state of Wisconsin. Here is his latest spin on a study that shows the high school graduation rate to be 12 points higher in seven Milwaukee voucher schools compared with 23 Milwaukee public high schools.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story by Erin Richards provides the crucial quote regarding causation from the study's author, John Robert Warren, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota:

"We still don't know whether it's going to the voucher school that causes you to be more likely to graduate, or if it's something about the kinds of families that send their kids to voucher schools would make them more likely to graduate," he said.

Then there's the whole question of which and how the voucher and public high schools were chosen for purposes of comparison. More questions than answers. Unlike Mitchell, I neither see this report as providing "another piece of evidence suggesting that urban students benefit when afforded more educational options," nor "new data" to encourage President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan to take "a second look at the power of parent choice."

The study was funded by the voucher-advocacy group School Choice Wisconsin, run by Mitchell's wife, Susan. The Mitchells have split from national school choice leader Howard Fuller who is devoting his current efforts to furthering accountability and quality in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.

After the spin cycle, be sure to rinse.

For past perspective on Voucher Inc, please visit here.