GOP Spending Cuts Follow Tax Cuts For The Rich

Just as I said.

Republicans now controlling the House promised Thursday to slash domestic agencies' budgets by almost 20 percent for the coming year, the first salvo in what's sure to be a bruising battle over their drive to cut spending to where it was before President Barack Obama took office.

"Washington's spending spree is over," declared Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who announced the plan.

The White House says the GOP effort could cause widespread furloughs of federal employees, force vulnerable people off subsidized housing, reduce services in national parks and mean less aid to schools and police and fire departments.

Popular programs such as health research and federal aid to school districts appear likely to take a hit when lawmakers write the spending bill for the departments of Education, Labor and Health and Human Services.

Tax cuts for the rich prioritized over all else.

I note that former Labor Secretary and current Berkeley professor Robert Reich, in his Twitter feed (@RBReich) today, backs up a point I made about these proposed tax cuts being a precursor to Republican efforts to launch an assault on domestic spending and entitlements -- using the federal budget deficit made so much worse by these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires as their rationale.

I said: "I recognize that this issue isn't specifically about education, but it is inexorably linked. Given President Obama's apparent unwillingness to go to the mat for Democratic principles (and his own campaign pledge!), Republicans have succeeded in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- not just for the first $250,000 or $1,000,000 of their income, but all of it up to infinity. The total cost of all the proposal's tax cuts is $900 billion. Republicans' likely next step is too take off their "tax cutter" hat and don their "deficit hawk" cap, saying that the federal government is living beyond its means, and will fire away at domestic spending. You don't think education will avoid being in their crosshairs at that time, do you? You know that this is more than simply a ploy to line the pockets of rich Americans, right? It's part of a plan to bleed government dry and then argue that government programs need to be reduced, eliminated or privatized."

Reich wrote: "$900 b tax cut w/ lion's share for rich explodes deficit and makes future domestic discretionary spending sitting duck for R cuts."

Yes, folks. This isn't just about tax cuts for the richest Americans. This is but a front in the war to reduce the size of government regardless of its collateral damage to Americans who need government the most.

Economic inequality is already at an all-time high in this country -- even higher than prior to the start of the Great Depression. Our educational system only has a finite amount of power to overcome such overwhelming inequities. If these forces are left unchecked, it may become an impossible job, especially as education programs themselves may fall victim to all-too-easily-predictable budget cuts.

At least the House Republicans can say that they kept this promise. This proposal shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

You have read this article budget / Education / federal / Republicans / taxes with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2011/02/gop-spending-cuts-follow-tax-cuts-for.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 federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/09/alphabet-soup.html. Thanks!

Keep An Open Mind

As discussions about the future of for-profit colleges intensify, my email inbox has begun to fill with inquiries. Why haven’t I weighed in? What do I think—is Congress on the right track? What does my recent conspicuous silence portend?

While I’m flattered (and a little confused) by a seeming desire to hear my opinion, the truth is I haven’t been ready to provide one. Over the past few months I’ve spent a lot more time thinking about the for-profits and the tough questions their growing presence in higher education raise. I’ve struggled with an intellectual exercise of sorts, attempting to set aside the financial interests associated with the sector and simply consider whether common objections to the industry would exist even if its colleges were not-for-profit. It’s not easy to sleep at night when wrestling with complex demons like that.

I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, objections would continue. We’d be worried about the quality of what’s being proffered, what students are actually learning, how hard the colleges are working to recruit students not really ready for college work, how much debt folks are graduating with relative to their new income, etc.

Here’s the rub: We should have the same concerns about our current public and private non-profit institutions of higher education. Many of us do have these concerns. We are just less vocal about them, perhaps because it is so much easier to object to treating people badly while making a buck, compared to treating people badly while not making a buck.

Our concerns are well placed, but they are also too narrow. We are looking for trouble only under a single lamplight, simply because that’s the spot illuminated. We need to look more broadly. There is a reason enrollment in the for-profit sector is growing, and it has at least partly to do with student demand. Our public colleges and universities aren’t sufficiently equipped to do the job—and blame for that is shared by states and localities, institutions, researchers, and taxpayers. It’s a little hard to know where the buck stops in that situation. It’s not so hard in the case of for-profits—so we disparage them more easily.

I’m not saying I’ve become a fan of the for-profits, or that my worries about how they are serving students have been allayed. Admittedly, the more I learn, the more I become somewhat more impressed--for example, by the innovative efforts of some to help transfer students and older students find a more fluid and efficient way to a credential. There are some examples of that kind of work at public institutions, but it feels a bit less "outside the box."

The current discussion in D.C. is worth having. It needs to be broadened and deepened. More voices need to enter the conversation. It’s in the interest of students all over the country for it to continue.

You have read this article college / federal / for-profit / higher education with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/06/keep-open-mind.html. Thanks!

Race to the Top's Dropouts

UPDATED 5/28/2010

The deadline for state applications in Phase Two of the Race to the Top (RttT) competition is next Tuesday, June 1st. Only two states, Delaware and Tennessee, succeeded in winning funding in Phase One. The U.S. Department of Education has estimated that 10-15 states will win funding in Phase Two.

With the higher stakes -- more states will be funded this go 'round and this could be the final competition (despite the Obama Administration's request for a third round of RttT funding) -- more skirmishes have broken out, particularly between would-be reformers and teachers' unions. The nastiest of these disputes appears to have been in Minnesota, which apparently scuttled its application as a result. Just check out these quotes:

Governor Tim Pawlenty, 2012 Republican presidential aspirant: "Unfortunately, the DFL-controlled Legislature in Minnesota refuses to pass these initiatives because the they are beholden to Education Minnesota, which is the most powerful interest group in Minnesota. What we saw in this session should be an embarrassment to the DFL-controlled Legislature. They continue to put the interests of union members ahead of the interests of schoolchildren and education accountability."

Education Commissioner Alice Seagren charged that the state had been "bought and sold" by Education Minnesota, the state teachers' union and made "legislators afraid to step up."

Education Minnesota teachers union president Tom Dooher said that Pawlenty was doing "a great disservice to the state of Minnesota" by deciding not to apply for the second-round grants. "The problem with the governor is that if you disagree with him about policy he calls you an obstructionist. Tim Pawlenty has had eight years to do something about eliminating the achievement gap. Now, given one last chance, he does nothing."

Aggressive policy action has occurred in an attempt to win Phase 2 funding. Colorado's new teacher tenure and evaluation law has been widely heralded as a potential model for the nation. Florida's simplistic, poorly designed legislation, which would have based half of a teacher's evaluation and salary on a single test score, was wisely vetoed by Charlie Crist, the state's Republican governor and now-independent candidate for U.S. Senate.

Other states where notable policy changes have passed, potentially boosting Phase Two competitiveness, include Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland (although on-going disagreements and lack of union support may hurt), North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Legislative efforts continue at the eleventh hour in states like Kentucky, New York (5/28 update), and Pennsylvania. The District of Columbia's IMPACT teacher evaluation system and recent teachers' contract agreement could help its chances, but the lack of support from the Washington Teachers' Union and contentious relationship between the WTU and DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee won't help.

All states are busy gathering stakeholder support for their applications. The deal struck in Rhode Island to save the jobs of teachers in Central Falls should boost that state's chances in Phase Two; the recent announcement that more local teachers' unions as well as the state AFT chapter will sign onto the state's application also bodes well. The New Jersey Education Association, which opposed the state's Phase One application, announced its support for Phase Two. [6/1 Update: Apparently, Governor Christie undid this compromise at the 11th hour today.] Other states that have announced greater stakeholder support than in Phase One include Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Others have set this week as a deadline for districts and unions to support the state application.

Let's look at which states are -- and aren't -- competing in Phase Two. In total, 38 states (and DC) expressed an intent to apply in Phase Two, but by my count 35 states and DC will actually submit an application by the due date (ID, MN and WV filed intents but have since pulled out). By my count, six states which did not submit an application in Phase One are applying in Phase Two: Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada and Washington.

Here's the full breakdown:

OUT (13)
Phase One Applicants (9)
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Minnesota
Oregon
South Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

Phase One Non-Applicants (4)
Alaska
North Dakota
Texas
Vermont

IN (36)
Phase One Applicants (30)
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California (applying in partnership with only six large urban school districts)
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts (state education commish has suggested state may not apply)
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
Wisconsin

Phase One Non-Applicants (6)
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
Washington

PHASE ONE WINNERS (2)
Delaware
Tennessee

You have read this article Education / federal / Race To The Top / reform / RttT / stimulus with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/05/race-to-top-dropouts.html. Thanks!

ESEA Hearing on Teachers and Leaders

The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is holding a hearing this morning on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind. Today's hearing focuses on the teacher and school leader elements of ESEA.

Among the witnesses are:

• Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers
• Stephanie Hirsch, Executive Director, National Staff Development Council
  
• Jon Schnur, CEO, New Leaders for New Schools
  
• Ellen Moir, CEO, New Teacher Center
  
• Timothy Daly, President, The New Teacher Project
• Thomas Kane, Professor of Education and Economics, Harvard University and Deputy Director, U.S. Education, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  

UPDATES:
A video replay of the hearing -- as well as links to the participants' testimony -- is available here.

You have read this article ESEA / federal / NCLB / New Teacher Center / teacher / teacher effectiveness / U.S. Senate with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/04/esea-hearing-on-teachers-and-leaders.html. Thanks!

TFA 'Set Aside'

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.

You have read this article Arne Duncan / budget / federal / Teach for America / teacher / TFA with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/tfa-aside.html. Thanks!

More Good Decisions

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.

You have read this article Barack Obama / federal / National Board of Education Sciences / U.S. Department of Education with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-good-decisions.html. Thanks!

Winners & Losers

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.

You have read this article Barack Obama / budget / ESEA / federal / No Child Left Behind / President / professional development with the title federal. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/winners-losers.html. Thanks!