Education Funding

On use of stimulus funds: Duncan is watching!

maureen — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:39:59 -0500

In case you missed it last week, EdSec Arne Duncan’s message to states regarding the use of stimulus funding is becoming ever-clearer: If states use stimulus dollars to plug budget holes instead of boosting aid for schools, the federal government may withhold millions of dollars of additional stimulus funding.

This Boston Globe article had harsh words for states like Pennsylvania, Texas and Arizona—that have been accused of cutting education funding due to the pending influx of stimulus dollars—but also for other states who may have implemented similar, more under-the-radar cuts to education:

“Obama did not intend for state lawmakers to simply cut state education spending and replace it with stimulus dollars.

Congress made that tough to enforce; the stimulus law generally does not prohibit states from using some of the money to replace precious state aid for schools. The result is that school districts could wind up with no additional state aid even as local tax revenues plummet.

But Duncan does have leverage; he alone has control over the $5 billion incentive fund. And in some cases, he may be able to withhold some stimulus dollars that have been allocated for a particular state.”

You've been warned.

Just your daily dose of stimulus…

maureen — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:28:22 -0500

In case you missed it, Ed Sec Arne Duncan penned a great op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. While I would love to post the whole thing, citing point after point of right on calls for accountability, common standards and charter schools, I’m not exactly keen on having Rupert Murdoch break down my door in the middle of the night. I will, however, leave you with this (in case there was any doubt as to the way in which stimulus competitive grants will be awarded):

“Through the guidance we have published on our Web site, we explicitly told governors, state education chiefs, mayors and district superintendents that the application for competitive grants will begin by asking how noncompetitive grant funds are being spent. If they used the funding to invest in more of the same ineffective programs, they will not receive grant money.”

On the Ed Stimulus: Duncan explains it all

maureen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:01:01 -0500

Check out this great Washington Post interview with Ed Sec. Arne Duncan. The interviewer, Lois Romano, is no slouch about asking tough questions about the ed stimulus, but Duncan answers most questions honestly and affably. And if you ever questioned whether or not the stimulus would be used to leverage reform, your answer comes at about minute 1:20.

Positioning Education Washington for the Economic Stimulus

kathleen — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:25:23 -0500

Federal Dollars to Drive Innovation and Reward Results
Basic Education Bills Move Forward
High School Assessments and Graduation Requirements Remain Intact

Federal Dollars to Drive Innovation and Reward Results

The time for holding ourselves accountable is here. And what’s required is not simply new investments, but new reforms.

President Barack Obama

The education components of the $787 billion federal stimulus package passed last month promise both a reprieve from draconian budget cuts and unprecedented financial incentives for reform. Of the $48.7 billion in education stabilization funds intended to help states keep education funding at 2006 levels, Washington expects to receive $1.5 billion.

On the innovation front, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will oversee $5 billion in discretionary competitive grants. Dubbed the “Race to the Top Fund,” these grants aim to drive innovation and reward practices proven to accelerate student performance. An additional $250 million is set aside to help states implement longitudinal data systems, while another $200 million can be used by states or districts to pilot pay-for-performance initiatives.

While final guidelines for the competitive grants have not yet been issued, criteria are likely to include a state’s commitment to innovative reforms (e.g. charter schools, pay-for-performance), the enactment of college and work ready standards and assessments, track record in improving student performance and closing achievement gaps, and robust data and accountability systems. We are encouraged to see the Obama administration embracing many of our long-standing education priorities. Partnership for Learning intends to leverage the stimulus package by pushing for reforms that both position our state to compete for federal dollars and strengthen the quality of our education system.

Basic Education Bills Move Forward

Both the House and the Senate have moved beyond "title/intent only" bills (SB 6048 and HB 2261) on basic education finance and, last night, the House passed HB 2261 with amendments to include all day Kindergarten and increased graduation requirements. The bills now lay out a “roadmap” for fully funding the instructional program of basic education.

While the two versions differ in some aspects, they do share an approach to funding using "model schools" as the example. Both bills would also create workgroups to further develop school funding models and programs to support learning assistance for struggling students, bilingual education and a special education funding safety net.

Partnership for Learning is working to ensure that any effort to redefine basic education:

focus on the stated goal that all students will graduate from high school college and work ready,
include a state-of-the-art data system that can be leveraged to drive instructional practice, track student achievement and ensure accountability for results, and
include a clear and transparent system of accountability for the state, districts and schools and provide the state with authority to intervene when districts and schools fail to make progress.

High School Assessments and Graduation Requirements Remain Intact

The House Education Appropriations Subcommittee has adopted amendments to a bill (SB 1646), which would have delayed the assessment graduation requirement for math and science to 2014 or potentially later. Further delays to Washington's graduation requirements are a major step backward and would only bring us closer to abandoning the promises made to our students of a world-class education.

Accordingly, Partnership for Learning is pleased that the amendments accomplish two things:

The state will no longer require OSPI to develop and administer end-of-course assessments in Integrated Math I and II. Algebra I and Geometry end-of-course tests will still be developed. This modification simplifies for students and schools what is required for students to meet state standards in math without losing any rigor in the requirement.
Solidifies the requirement that students must pass a state assessment in math and science in order to graduate from high school beginning in 2013. Students will be able to use the WASL or end-of-course assessments as a means of meeting the math requirement until 2015. This is particularly important because it provides reassurance that any delays in the development or administration of end-of-course assessments will not further delay implementation of the graduation requirement.

Washington Stimulus Questions? Watch LEV's Vidcast

laura — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:01:52 -0600

Stimulus. Recovery Act. Budget. Funding. Trying to understand what the $787 billion dollar economic stimulus package means for Washington education can get confusing. And rightfully so, since its estimated that Washington’s education programs will receive a total of $1.47 billion. While the majority of the funds—$819.9 million—will go toward fiscal stabilization for local school districts and public colleges, there is plenty leftover. Bonnie Beukema, from League of Education Voters, put together a vidcast answering a handful of questions about how the funding will help Washington’s schools. It’s definitely worth checking out.

Promising Education News from the Washington Legislature

larry — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:15:40 -0600

Promising Education News from the Washington Legislature
Basic Education Finance Bills and Reform: What Might the Impact be for Teachers?
Maintaining High school Assessments Critical to Students' Future
A Conversation with Superintendent Randy Dorn

Promising Education News from the Washington Legislature

There has been some encouraging legislative news in education over the past few weeks. Last Monday, the Senate Education Committee amended two bills that were of significant concern to us. The first, Senate Bill 5260, previously included language that called for eliminating the WASL as a requirement for high school graduation. That section was struck from the bill. The second bill, Senate Bill 5498, previously included language that delayed implementation of the math and science requirements slated for 2013. The amended version keeps math and science as scheduled.

Clearly, it's still early, with two-thirds of the session left to go and two weeks until the first cut-off, anything can happen. However, at the Partnership, we are increasingly encouraged that our concerns regarding implementation of the graduation requirements are being taken seriously by key legislators and that the governor continues to be a very helpful advocate on these issues.

Basic Education Finance Bills and Reform: What Might the Impact be on Teachers?

Although the Basic Education Finance bills (Senate Bill 5444 and House Bill 1410) proposed by the Basic Education Task Force (BETF) are large and complex, they represent an incredible opportunity for education reform by providing funding for the State Board of Education’s CORE 24 proposal and rewarding teachers for boosting student achievement. The bills have, however, raised many questions on the effects they will have on Washington teachers. Thankfully, BETF Member Sen. Fred Jarrett has put together a list of frequently asked questions about the bills to help citizens and teachers better understand the potential impact of the proposal.

Q. Does this bill make the state one big school district?
A. No. It makes the accounting system, implementation and results transparent for local voters while still allowing individual school districts to allocate resources to best accommodate local conditions.

Q. Are you taking away any part of teachers' pay?
A. We don't propose to take pay. We intend for the state to pay the TRI pay currently funded by local levies and increase compensation to competitive levels in the labor markets the teacher teaches in. (TRI pay is compensation in addition to the state's salary schedule, paid from local levies, for "time, responsibility and incentive.")

Q. Does the bill take away TRI pay?
A. No. The BETF proposal does not eliminate TRI pay.

In the BETF proposal, TRI pay is "bought back" by the state and becomes a part of the state salary apportionment. We eliminate "R" and "I", leaving only "T." When we looked at the data around TRI pay, what we learned was that it correlated very closely to cost of living or housing costs. That suggested to us that the local bargaining process had correctly forced local districts to adjust the flat state apportionment for salaries to a more reasonable level for the districts based on local economic conditions. So, in fact, local levies are inappropriately funding basic education.

Q. What is the proposed evaluation system?
A. The movement from student to resident and from resident to professional would be based on a rich peer evaluation. Individual teacher compensation increases significantly when teachers receive certification through peer evaluations. Peer evaluations would involve multiple measures of performance, including in-class visits and reviews of lesson plans, student work, and possibly video of actual teaching. The Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) would oversee this system.

The PESB and the colleges of education have expressed concerns about some of the elements of 5444 and we are working with them to correct deficiencies and improve the career ladder. Our intent is to build on the work they are doing, not drive off in a different direction.

Q. Will this bill require accomplished teachers with advanced degrees to go through National Board Certification in order to attain the highest salary?
A. Experienced teachers with investments in education and degrees will continue to be paid under the current system unless they choose to migrate to the new system. The proposal suggested a ten year period for dual compensation, but that's an arbitrary number. We do not expect that there will be a disadvantage for teachers in the old system, though the additional compensation for the National Board Certification may provide motivation to make the change.

To find out more, read State Board of Education Chair Mary Jean Ryan's editorial on the basic education bills in the Seattle Times, view a comparison of the two sets of basic education proposals by the League or Education Voters, and learn about the issues surrounding Washington education finance through Funding Washington Schools.

Maintaining High School Assessments Critical to Students' Future

Despite the promising efforts mentioned earlier by the legislature to defend Washington’s assessment system, there remain two proposals that would eliminate or delay high school assessments as a graduation requirement for Washington students.

Although House Bill 1341 is intended to create savings that could be used to “motivate students to pursue postsecondary education,” the bill would eliminate the high school assessment as a graduation requirement. And, though in 2007, the legislature delayed the implementation of the math and science high school assessment as a graduation requirement until the class of 2013, HB 1646 would further delay the requirement to the class of 2014 and potentially further out—if decided by the State Board of Education.

Both proposals send the message to students that the state isn’t serious about making sure they master the skills needed to succeed in college, work and life.

Year after year, more and more students are succeeding and passing the high school assessments. Last year, 93 percent of graduating seniors met the requirement, and the number one reason for seniors not graduating on time was a lack of necessary credits--not the high school assessment. Our state has made the commitment to Washington students that attaining a high school diploma means they are ready to meet the challenges that lie ahead—be it in a job, apprenticeship training or college classroom. Eliminating the high school assessment or delaying the math and science assessments as a graduation requirement would renege on this commitment and weaken Washington’s promise to provide a meaningful diploma to its students.

A Conversation with Superintendent Randy Dorn

A Community Lunch

In November, voters elected Randy Dorn for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. How does Dorn see his leadership style and how has he been approaching the transition from 12-year Superintendent Terry Bergeson? Can we expect new directives and funding coming from the other Washington to help? And how does he plan to make sure we have the global education to match Washington's global economy? To answer these questions and yours, join us as we meet the new Superintendent!

Date: Thurs. Feb. 26, 2009
Time: noon to 1:30 p.m.
Location: Washington Athletic Club, Seattle, WA
To RSVP visit: City Club's website.

Improving education – with and without more funding

larry — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:18:34 -0600

A list of seven ideas for improving student achievement that require no funding is welcome news amid the doom and gloom of state budget impacts on K-12 education.

Washington Post education columnist Jay Matthews suggests devoting more attention to reading, increasing parent-teacher and student-teacher communications (more positive encouragement all around) and unleashing charter schools. Of course the latter would apply only to the 40 states that allow charter schools, not Washington and the other nine states that maintain their quaint opposition to innovative school models.

On the other hand, the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff believes that increased funding for and innovations in K-12 education should be the country’s number one priority. His solution is increased funding coupled with reforming teacher evaluation and certification, increased pay for the more effective teachers, and providing disadvantaged kids with a higher number of effective teachers. Kristoff believes “…the existing national school system is broken and we’re not trying hard enough to fix it”.

These opinions, along with those of President Obama, reflect a growing consensus that the “business-as-usual” approach to improving our schools cannot continue, and a growing frustration with those in education who want only more funding to maintain the status quo.

Read about a local academy and its parent foundation who ARE breaking the mold, enjoying success, and have big plans for scaling up their work.

Questions Answered: Senate Bill 5444 and House Bill 1410

laura — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:59:52 -0600

Are you unsure about whether Senate Bill 5444 and House Bill 1410 makes the state one big district? And are you still wondering what the proposed evaluation system is? Well, you’re not alone. Many people have been left with questions regarding the proposals of the Basic Education Task Force that are embodied in the Bills. And rightfully so, there is a lot to dissect. Therefore, we thought it would be helpful to share a partial list of FAQ’s drafted by Wash. Senator Fred Jarrett, who serves on the Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee.

Q. Does this bill make the state one big school district?

A. No, what it does is make the accounting system implementation and results transparent for local voters while still allowing individual school districts to allocate resources to best accommodate local conditions.

Q. Does the bill take away TRI pay?

A. No. The BETF proposal does not eliminate TRI pay.

TRI pay is compensation in addition to the state's salary schedule, paid from local levies, for "time, responsibility and incentive."

Q. Are you taking away any part of teachers' pay?

A. We don't propose to take pay. We intend for the state to pay the TRI pay currently funded by local levies and increase compensation to competitive levels in the labor markets the teacher teaches in.

Q. Will this bill require accomplished teachers with advanced degrees to go through National Board Certification in order to attain the highest salary?

A. Experienced teachers with investments in education and degrees will continue to be paid under the current system unless they choose to migrate to the new system. The proposal suggested a ten year period for dual compensation, but that's an arbitrary number. We do not expect that there will be a disadvantage for teachers in old system, though the additional compensation for the National Board certification level may provide motivation to make the change.

Q. What is the proposed evaluation system?

A. The movement from student to resident and from resident to professional would be based on a rich peer evaluation. Individual teacher compensation increases significantly when teachers receive certification through peer evaluations. Peer evaluations would involve multiple measures of performance, including in-class visits and reviews of lesson plans, student work, and possibly video of actual teaching. The Professional Educator Standards Board would oversee this system.

Understanding what this legislation means to you as a citizen can be a little daunting. Hopefully, this FAQ helped answer some of your questions. But if you still have a thirst for more, click here, here, and here, as these bills continue to be a lively debate at our states Capitol.

This Just In: Washington, the Writing is On the Stimulus Wall

maureen — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:44:36 -0600

Yesterday, Laura posted on the significant sum of money that will come education’s way through the latest stimulus package. But if you’re thinking this money comes as a free lunch or merely a life raft to keep state education budgets afloat, think again. Two statements released today—an editorial by Bill and Melinda Gates and a speech by Ed Sec. Arne Duncan—confirm that a large part of the education stimulus will be used to reward and incentivize education reform.

So just what will those incentives for reform be? Duncan’s message is becoming increasingly clear. He said the Education Department would want to use the money in part to reward states—as well as districts and nonprofit groups—that have set rigorous standards linked to strong assessments and monitored by student-data systems.

“There’s a series of things we’re looking for,” Duncan told Ed Week, last week. “This is absolutely a historic opportunity to reward excellence, to ‘incent’ excellence.”

When asked, Duncan indicated he may consider using the incentive money as part of a push for national or other more-uniform standards. “Sure, absolutely,” he answered. “We want to reward rigor and challenge the status quo.”

In his speech yesterday, Duncan also called out Teach for America and KIPP charter schools as “proven strategies ready to go to scale.” Washington currently employs neither.

Education saviors Bill and Melinda Gates were more explicit in their wish list for the education stimulus. Detailed in an editorial released today in Roll Call, the Gates’ called for four key reforms to serve as the backbone of the stimulus:

Improve Data and Measurement Systems
Facilities Funding for High-Performing Charter Schools
Increase and Focus Student Financial Aid That Helps Students Complete Their Degrees
Support and Measure Innovation

According to the Gates’, “We urge Congress to ensure that the final package prioritizes reform-minded investments that stimulate spending and focus funding on those things that will improve student outcomes and system performance.”

The writing is on the wall: The states that will benefit most from the stimulus are doing things differently—catalyzing innovations—and doing them better—setting high expectations for all students with clear measures of progress and data-driven accountability.

So the question for Washington state remains: If money from the education stimulus will include reform strings, will our state step up to meet this challenge?

Olympia, are you listening?

Federal Economic Stimulus Package and Washington Education

laura — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:17:02 -0600

If the $819 billion economic stimulus package passes through Congress, it could mean $120 billion for state education budgets. This is exactly what a sick economy needs, according to U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. The goal is to reform education.

According to the Washington Post, the stimulus money from the House version would be used to renovate classrooms, keep teachers in their classrooms, pay for charter school facilities and state data systems, and fund teacher bonuses tied to student performance.

This doesn’t sound too bad, considering the budget cuts against which educators continue to struggle.

Of those federal funds, Duncan is proposing $15 billion be turned into state incentive grants to those states who boost achievement. We think it’s best for Washington’s 1.1 million public school students to go after those funds. However, our track record isn’t that great in this respect. Last year Washington walked away from a $13.2 million NMSI grant that was to strengthen math and science A.P. courses. So, what will Wash. do this time around if another grant to improve our schools is on the table? Hopefully not walk away. The schools that received the NMSI grant funds saw improvements, and walking away is a mistake.

The funds would supplement core funding and help students and teachers succeed in Washington. Let’s make sure we take action with these competitive grants. It could mean a more modernized teaching workforce, new approaches to teacher compensation, modernized charter schools, and improvements to math, science and engineering instruction.

All of these are necessary to ensure students receive a high quality education so they are prepared for college and work in a growing competitive global market. So, while the back and forth continues on the Senate floor, education dollars remain in question.