| /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
|
// |
Stateline.org
May 4,
2009
Three sticking
points could stunt stimulus education reform
By Allison Armour-Garb, Special
to Stateline.org
Since the publication more than a quarter century ago of the landmark report,
“A Nation at Risk,” political leaders and policy experts have argued that
America’s competitive position is directly tied to education. Most recently,
a study by McKinsey & Company found that U.S. GDP could have been $1.3
trillion to $2.3 trillion (9 percent to 16 percent) higher in 2008 had
the United States raised educational achievement to the levels attained
in top-performing nations.
Now, President Barack Obama is seeking to use his economic stimulus package
to leverage education reform. But his reform aspirations may be on a collision
course with competing realities.
Because states and localities control most aspects of education, federal
officials have struggled with how to translate a sense of national priority
into concrete educational improvements. President Bill Clinton wanted to
tie federal funds to state reforms, but the demands on states were never
enforced. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, enacted under President
George W. Bush in 2002, leveraged federal dollars to spur reform of state
education standards and testing, but large achievement gaps persist nevertheless
between U.S. students and their peers in high-performing European and Asian
countries.
The Obama administration is betting big money that education reform will
be good for the economy, and that economic stimulus will be good for school
reform. One-eighth of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds—some
$100 billion—is earmarked for education. The largest line item is a “stabilization
fund” that will be allocated to states and that comprises $39.8 billion
in formula funds for state support to local districts and public higher
education institutions, and a $5 billion competitive grant program for
which states can apply. One stated purpose is simply to stabilize the education
sector and save teaching jobs. At the same time, however, the law asks
that states invest in reforms that advance long-term educational goals.
The Recovery Act also includes $17.1 billion in post-secondary financial
aid, $13 billion to high-poverty school districts, $12.2 billion for special
education,and numerous smaller funding streams.
To receive their first of two allocations from the $39.8 billion fund,
states are supposed to assure Washington that they will make progress in:
-
Achieving equity in teacher distribution
-
Improving collection and use of data
-
Improving standards and assessments
-
Supporting struggling schools
To get the second round of funding,
states will have to update data regarding these four areas – though they
need not demonstrate actual progress. Public airing of the data may prove
embarrassing to laggard states, but the reform provisions carry no real
“stick.” The carrot is the $5 billion in competitive grants, the bulk of
which will be awarded to the states that make the most progress on the
four sets of reforms.
This approach may help the president achieve both his economic and education
goals. But three sets of tensions may get in the way.
The first tension is between the fund’s dual goals of spending dollars
quickly to save jobs, while at the same time investing in reforms that
advance long-term goals. Paradoxically, it may be the neediest states—
those having the hardest time making ends meet in their schools— that will
be in the weakest position to compete for the $5 billion in discretionary
reform funds.
A second tension is between the stimulus provisions pushing states to improve
their standards and assessments, and countervailing incentives under NCLB.
The stimulus law asks states to
improve their assessments and to align their standards “with the knowledge
and skills necessary for success.”
Yet in important ways, NCLBworks against those requirements. It gives state
and local education officials strong incentives to demonstrate increases
in the percent of students scoring “proficient,” and in graduation rates.
One of the easiest ways for states to make schools look good under NCLB
is to set a low bar for proficiency. That’s resulted in a lot of what critics
call “dumbing down” the tests. Can states handle the Recovery Act’s countervailing
pressures to make standards tougher?
The stimulus provisions urging states to strengthen standards and tests
give an early indication of the Department of Education’s likely direction
in the years to come. When NCLB eventually comes up for reauthorization,
it seems probable that the Obama administration will try to revise the
aspects of the law that exert downward pressure on standards and lead to
dumbed-down tests. Until then, however, if the idea is to reward states
that establish stronger standards and tests, the administration could consider
easing up on NCLB requirements and sanctions.
A third tension is between the four quite specific reform goals, on the
one hand, and the allowable uses of funds—which are very broad indeed—on
the other. This sets up potential conflicts between the states, which stand
to win competitive dollars if they demonstrate progress on the reform areas,
and the localities, where the primary pressures are to save teachers’ jobs
and compensate for declining property-tax revenues.
Given the economic pressures they face in the recession, the temptation
for school districts will be to pay lip service to reform and use the new
federal dollars merely to replace declining state and local revenues. So
it remains to be seen whether the stimulus will succeed in driving meaningful
education reform at the state and district levels.
|
/ |
