Picture of the Day: Failure to Serve

Everyone wants to be "the best." Stuyvesant High School in New York City is one of those considered to be winning the race to the top.  According to this picture, and the New York Times, not so much.

You have read this article creaming / high schools / Race To The Top with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2012/02/picture-of-day-failure-to-serve.html. Thanks!

Thoughts on the Obama Blueprint for Higher Education

Today President Obama unveiled his latest blueprint for the reform of higher education at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, a public institution with relatively high tuition and relatively advantaged students, and a place in the midst of a dispute over graduate student labor practices. It's just miles from Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, where on July 14, 2009, Obama released his American Graduation Initiative, a blueprint for transforming the nation's community colleges, which was essentially destroyed as it was caught up in political debates over the health care legislation.

The blueprint responds to the groundswell of concern about the high and ever-expanding cost of college attendance, and the corresponding growth in the costs of financial aid. It resonates with efforts by the Occupy movement, and especially with the agendas of the Lumina and Gates foundation. It's also consonant with the work of many labor economists.

On the one hand, there are many things to like here-- for example, it's about time the Administration shined a light on the fact that tuition is rising primarily because states are cutting their support to higher education. Despite some recent unfortunate remarks by Vice-President Biden, faculty salaries don't account for much of the increase in tuition. While it is the case that the salaries of SOME professors are too high, such discussions serve only to distract from the real problems-- and have the political effect of pitting educators against students. That may be convenient for administrators, or conservatives who simply want to put the predominantly liberal faculty out of work, but it isn't solving the problem of rising tuition. We shouldn't expend effort making policy based on anecdote or a few bad apples, especially when a wealth of data is staring us in the face, pointing the way.

But in many ways, what President Obama does in this blueprint is deeply problematic. First, it demonstrates his clear adherence to market-based logics of educational reform. He seems to actually believe that Race to the Top is working so well that it ought to be replicated by creating another competition in higher education. Where's the evidence to support that? Too much faith in Arne Duncan, if you ask me.

Second, the approach of tying Perkins and SEOG dollars to these new requirements has a consequence--perhaps unintended--of restricting the abilities of financial aid administrators to exercise their professional judgment in directing aid to students. These are some of the most flexible dollars at their disposal-- and some institutions have very, very few. I'm concerned that we don't yet know whether the choices aid administrators make maximize the effects of these dollars in ways that will now be minimized-- and also that these frontline workers would seem to have little control over the institutional and state actions needed to ensure the dollars keep coming in. In other words, aid officers may have fewer flexible dollars to work with now, but no additional control over how their universities set tuition.

I'm happy to see some money to promote the adoption of practices that can increase productivity in higher education, but as Doug Harris and I have pointed out, the evidence-base on which to make judgements about cost-effectiveness of programs is very, very thin. So I'm very disappointed that this program didn't begin by first endowing the Institute for Education Sciences with the resources needed to establish multiple higher education research centers, and task them (in part) with evaluating effects of this effort.

Also, given that some of these approaches to enhanced productivity have negative effects for faculty worklife, it would have been good for Obama to at minimum urge policymakers to avoid pitting students against their educators-- as they have in criticizing teachers' unions-- and instead be cognizant that students and professors have many common interests, and those should be emphasized. I predict that next up we'll be told that faculty aren't really interested in student success, and thus can and should be replaced. Of course, no one will produce hard evidence to back that up-- and yet we'll be demonized.

When it comes to specific aid programs, it is absurd for Obama to double the American Opportunity Tax Credit without any explanation, while barely mentioning the Pell Grant. As Sandy Baum and Mike McPherson recently wrote, when "will we also debate whether government expenditures targeting low-income college students deserve much stricter scrutiny in this age of attempted austerity than government expenditures through the tax code targeting more-affluent students?"

Overall, my reaction to this proposal is a simple "Meh." (HT to Sue Dynarski) Lately Obama has come out fighting, talking about the rich and poor, and about not backing the same old policies which got us into this economic crisis in the first place. What I see in this proposal is a lot of his approach to k-12 education and it's neither radical or progressive. Sure, it resonates with the desire of moderates and conservatives (as well as so-called reformers) to hold the academy's feet to the fire, and it does talk about state responsibility. But a progressive blueprint would've referred to higher education much more strongly as a right and a public good, focused on policies that could most benefit the struggling public institutions (think community colleges and state u's-- not flagships) and left all privates out of eligibility, stressed the importance of both faculty success and student success to the definition of "quality", and instead of framing change as a "race to the top" he should have called for a "war on educational inequality."


PS. After reading my take, please consider Clare Potter's. She is spot-on, and I only wish I'd made the case as well as she did!

You have read this article affordability / Arne Duncan / Barack Obama / Race To The Top with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2012/01/thoughts-on-obama-blueprint-for-higher.html. Thanks!

Alphabet Soup

A recent report raises a fundamental education policy question that requires more than simply refuting the report's premise.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- a self-proclaimed "free market, limited government" non-profit, which is really just a spout of Republican policy ideas -- recently released its 16th annual Report Card on American Education. First of all, the LAST thing education needs is another report card. But I have to give it to my friends at SmartALECk which has been nothing less than persistent (in the true conservative spirit), having apparently kept this up for 16 years. Second, I note that ALEC's Board of Directors is populated almost entirely by Republican office holders. Third, I note that the report's foreward was written by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a Republican. It is no mystery for whom ALEC is shilling.

That said, the ALEC Report Card grades states based on two criteria: (1) Education Performance Rank and (2) Education Reform Grade. Specifically, a state's Education Performance Rank "measures the overall 2009 scores for low-income children (non-ELL and/or non-IEP) and their gains/losses on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2009." A state's "Education Reform Grade" is based on the following reform criteria (few of which are central to educational outcomes, but which are all weighted equally): state academic standards, change in state proficiency standards, private school choice, charter school laws, mandatory intra- and inter-district open enrollment, online learning policies and programs, homeschooling regulation levels, alternative teacher certification, identifying high-quality teachers, retaining effective teachers, and removing ineffective teachers.

The state of Vermont provides a case in point about what is flawed about ALEC's methodology and typifies a troubling dynamic in some of today's education policy and reform conversations. ALEC ranks the Green Mountain state #1 with respect to its educational performance, but gives it the lowest grade of any state - a 'D' - on education reform. I guess the question for me is what is the fundamental purpose of the American education system: To warm the cockles of would-be reformers' hearts by adopting their pet reforms? Or to achieve educational outcomes and accelerate student learning? Assuming you don't have trouble answering that question, what does this example say about broader education policies and reform conversations? Well, it reminds me that too often we seem more interested in the means rather than in the ends. And that's a big problem.

At the federal level, the Obama Administration is onto something with its "tight on ends, loose of means" mantra. Arne Duncan's Education Department has attempted to use that catchphrase to articulate a stronger federal role over education policy while reassuring educators and policymakers that it won't make policies too prescriptive if the desired results are achieved. In a sense, it is not entirely unlike No Child Left Behind's accountability system which more or less allowed schools to keep on keeping on as long as they didn't run afoul of adequate yearly progress requirements. As Fordham's Gadfly recently noted, the future of federal education policy is very much in doubt, dependent on the outcomes of November's elections, control of one or both houses of Congress, and whether the Know Nothing Tea Party forces seize control of the GOP agenda.

But prescriptive-ness is sometimes an invisible line. The Race to the Top program probably went too far down the path of requiring certain reforms that don't have much of an evidential basis, aren't ready to be fully implemented, or aren't scalable. In addition, as Vermont Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca (my high school principal at Essex High School in Vermont!) has noted, some of these faddish and sensible-in-certain-context reforms don't make sense or cannot be successfully implemented in a small, rural state such as Vermont. One also could ask whether RTTT scoring insufficiently weighted "improving student outcomes" -- which accounted for only 25 of the application's 500 total points (a mere 5 percent) -- in favor of promises of future reform. Again, is it about educational outcomes for students? Or it is about reform for reform's sake?

Back to the SmartALECk report: It would seem to me that ALEC is right in one sense. There *is* an argument for reducing federal regulation, and in education the answer is to leave well enough alone when a state such as Vermont is achieving great results. Now, we can argue over how those results should appropriately be measured, but that would be a more important conversation than talking about a metric such as 'reform' that is focused on pet approaches to privatizing education, firing teachers and enabling home schooling that likely have little bearing on student outcomes and that have little basis in research.

It is hypocritical of an organization like ALEC, committed to loosening regulations and limited government, to offer up such a prescriptive laundry list of reforms that states must enact to receive an 'A.' By ALEC's own outcome metric, Vermont is doing the best job of any state in the country in achieving equitable educational outcomes for low-income students. (Arguably, that is as much if not more due to Vermont's social safety net and universal health care as anything its schools are doing.) Accordingly, SmartALECk should let those results speak for themselves and save its ABCs and Ds to fill many bowls of alphabet soup during the coming winter.

You have read this article American Legislative Exchange Council / Arne Duncan / Barack Obama / federal / Race To The Top / reform / U.S. Department of Education / Vermont with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/09/alphabet-soup.html. Thanks!

Crist Off the Hook?

Predictions that Florida Governor Charlie Crist's veto of a monstrosity of a teacher effectiveness bill back in April 2010 would cause his state to lose the Race to the Top competition have proven false.

Charlie Barone (Democrats for Education Reform), Mike Thomas (Orlando Sentinel columnist), Clayton Christensen, and others wrote at the time that Crist's veto would cost Florida its Phase Two Race to the Top funding. Nope. Even former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Andy Smarick (a favorite to be next New Jersey education commissioner) intimated that Crist's move was the wrong step and could harm Florida. But, lo and behold, the sky did not fall and Republican Crist is still standing (as an independent running for U.S. Senate). And the feds are cutting a $700 million check to the Sunshine State any day now (Orlando Sentinel).

You have read this article Charlie Crist / Florida / Race To The Top / RttT with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/09/crist-off-hook.html. Thanks!

Who Knew That Race to the Top Would Cause Joblessness?

In cycling races such as the Tour de France, riders tragically have lost their lives particularly in mountainous stages in the Alps or Pyrenees. Fortunately, no one was killed in the making of Race to the Top applications. But one state school chief, New Jersey's Brett Schundler, has lost his job as a result of it.

Read the Newark Star-Ledger's story for more:

Gov. Chris Christie fired state education commissioner Bret Schundler this morning after Schundler refused to resign in the wake of the controversy over the state's loss of up to $400 million in federal school funding.

The state lost a competitive grant contest for education funding by 3 points. While the state lost points across a number of areas for substantive issues, a blunder on one 5-point question has caused an uproar in Trenton. The state lost 4.8 points by seemingly misreading the question, which asked for information from 2008 and 2009 budgets. The state provided information from 2011.

You have read this article ARRA / employment / New Jersey / Race To The Top / RttT with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/08/who-knew-that-race-to-top-would-cause.html. Thanks!

Race To The Top Phase Two Winners

UPDATED 11:28 a.m. CDT

The complete list of 10 winning applicants:

District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Rhode Island

Here is the official U.S. Department of Education press release and the list of Phase Two scores:

Phase Two Winners:
1. MA - 471.0
2. NY - 464.8
3. HI - 462.4
4. FL - 452.4
5. RI - 451.2
6. DC - 450.0
7. MD - 450.0
8. GA - 446.4
9. NC - 441.6
10. OH - 440.8
------------
Finalists:
11. NJ - 437.8
12. AZ - 435.4
13. LA - 434.0
14. SC - 431.0
15. IL - 426.6
16. CA - 423.6
17. CO - 420.2
18. PA - 417.6
19. KY - 412.4

This was an especially competitive round. And, as you can see above, there was NOT a natural cut-off point in the scores between successful applicants and unsuccessful ones. That's got to make the loss sting all the more for states such as New Jersey, Arizona, Louisiana and South Carolina especially. Just three points separate a funded state (Ohio) and a non-funded state (New Jersey)!

I am most surprised by the inclusion of Hawaii among the winners, but I was impressed by the strength and comprehensiveness of the teaching/leadership portion of its application. It will be interesting to see a full analysis of its very high score -- third highest, trailing only Massachusetts and New York.

The biggest shock to me is the absence of Illinois in the winners' circle. I felt that it had put together one of the more compelling applications and had been ranked 5th overall in Phase One. South Carolina is another strong contender that missed out; it had the 6th highest ranked application in Phase One.

You have read this article ARRA / Race To The Top / RttT with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/08/race-to-top-phase-two-winners.html. Thanks!

Race To The Top: Start Spreading The News

Dorie Turner of the Associated Press is reporting via Twitter that New York is one of the winners of Race to the Top, Phase Two. If that is the case -- and heavily favored Florida also is shown the money -- then we are likely looking at fewer than 10 winners today. That is, unless states are funded at less than the maximums that they requested. Under such a "spreading the wealth" scenario, then there could be more winners.

I'm not going to make predictions -- I think the cut off is likely to be determined by a few points here and there. But I still like the chances of Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island, and South Carolina best.

You have read this article ARRA / Race To The Top / RttT with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/08/race-to-top-start-spreading-news.html. Thanks!

Race to the Top Analysis: Spreading The Wealth

EPILOGUE (8/24/2010): Well, my predictions below didn't quite pan out. FL and RI came in strong, but IL and SC flopped (but by mere points, of course). I was almost right that with two large states funded -- Florida and New York -- it would limit the number of winners. But the predicted nine became ten with the surprise inclusion of Hawaii (75 mil) among the winners, along with DC (also only 75 mil). For more on the winners, see here.

---

Education Week (and its Politics K-12 blog), the Hechinger Report, the New America Foundation's Ed Money Watch, and the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education have provided some excellent Race to the Top Phase 2 analysis.

Based on Phase 1 scores, reviews of Phase 2 applications, and other considerations, I believe Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island and South Carolina are locks for Phase 2 funding. [UPDATE (8/4/2010): One thing that should be concerning to Georgia is an extremely low level of district buy-in (14%) to its application. The only two other states below 50% buy-in are California (18%) -- by design -- and Pennsylvania (32%). As a result I've moved Georgia from a 'lock' to a 'strong' contender.]

Further, I think that Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania have strong chances at winning Phase 2 funding. (That would place the remaining finalists -- Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii and New Jersey -- outside the winners' circle.) That said, which and how many states will eventually be funded from the remaining pot of $3.4 billion is largely contingent upon the successes of the Big Three, each eligible to win $700 million: Florida, New York and California. The presence of numerous $400 million eligible states in the mix also has the potential to limit the number of winners.

Let's look at a variety of scenarios, assuming in each case that Florida can bank on the $700 million. Of the three, I think New York has the next best shot at the dollars, with California's chances slightly less. In each case, I have listed the states in Phase One rank order (so feel free to replace any with your preference).

Scenario #1 (Florida only)
TOTAL = $3.375 billion 11 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
Georgia	$400,000,000	3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Pennsylvania Rhode Island Kentucky	$400,000,000 $75,000,000 $175,000,000	7 8 9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10
Louisiana	$175,000,000	11
No. Carolina	$400,000,000	12
DC	$75,000,000	16

Scenario #2 (Florida & New York)
TOTAL = $3.425 billion 9 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
New York Georgia	$700,000,000 $400,000,000	15 3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Pennsylvania Rhode Island Kentucky	$400,000,000 $75,000,000 $175,000,000	7 8 9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10

Scenario #3 (Florida, New York & California)
TOTAL = $3.325 billion 8 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
New York California Georgia	$700,000,000 $700,000,000 $400,000,000	15 27 3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Rhode Island Kentucky	$75,000,000 $175,000,000	8 9
DC	$75,000,000	16

Scenario #4 (Max. Applicants w/ Florida)
TOTAL = $3.4 billion 12 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
Georgia	$400,000,000	3
Illinois	$400,000,000	5
So. Carolina	$175,000,000	6
Pennsylvania	$400,000,000	7
Rhode Island	$75,000,000	8
Kentucky	$175,000,000	9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10
Louisiana	$175,000,000	11
Massachusetts	$250,000,000	13
Colorado	$175,000,000	14
DC	$75,000,000	16

Unless Florida somehow manages to fall on its face in Phase 2, I don't think it is realistic to envision more than 12 applicants receiving funding -- and that would require one of the $400 million-eligible states (such as North Carolina or Ohio) to be eclipsed and knocked out by a smaller state ranked lower in Phase 1 (such as Colorado, Massachusetts and/or the District of Columbia) or by Maryland, which did not apply in Phase 1 [see Scenario #4]. So although the U.S. Department of Education has dangled the possibility of as many as 15 Phase 2 winners, I don't see realistically how we can get there.

Related Posts:

• Race to the Top, Phase 2 Finalists
• Race to the Top Applications Posted
• Race to the Top: Picking Favorites

You have read this article ARRA / Race To The Top / RttT / U.S. Department of Education with the title Race To The Top. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/07/race-to-top-analysis-spreading-wealth.html. Thanks!