Title I-derland

Free Fallin’ … Off the Fundin’ Cliff

June 30, 2011 – 7:32 pm | By David DeSchryver | 1 comment

July is here and that, to me, means two things. First, my wife and I are expecting our first child early this month. Because it coincides with the Tour de France, I decided that her name will be “Le Tour.” My wife has not signed off on this decision yet. Second, July 1 is only 91 days from September 30, 2011. As we discussed previously, this is the date of the "funding cliff", the date by which school districts must "obligate" most of their stimulus dollars and fiscal year 2009 allocations.  (A defensive aside:  I’m not really counting the days until the funding cliff arrives. I'm a little more intellectually alive than that. But for the purposes of this blog, please suspend disbelief and pretend I’m that much of a wonk.)* When the Obama administration passed the stimulus act in 2009, the administration hoped that the funding would help bridge the divide between the start of the economic downturn and its recovery. It was a Keynesian gamble that clearly has helped the fiscal situation for school districts over the last two years, but it may have been a bridge too short.  According to new report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), approximately 85 percent of districts that experienced funding decreases in the 2010 – 2011 school year used stimulus funds to compensate for the decrease in funding. Unfortunately, it appears that an even greater proportion of districts anticipate funding cuts for the upcoming 2011–12 school year and, unlike the previous year, Uncle Sam's stimulus aid will no longer be available. Beyond that, school districts probably face another year or two of reduced state and local support as state budgets tend to lag market indicators. If the economy begins to revive by the fourth quarter of this year, district budgets may not benefit from that until the 2013-14 school year or later. For economists, “the waiting is hardest part” (let's see if this draws a Tom Petty cease-and-desist letter). Is there any upside to this? It all depends on the tint of your rosy idealism. It is an ideal time for school districts to begin a serious effort to clarify how they distribute and manage their revenues. The process for most districts is less than clear. When districts receive funds, they typically distribute their allocations to their schools based on per-staff allocations that are related to per-pupil-enrollment counts. Some funding sources also have particular eligibility requirements and restrictions, as Title I’s ranking and serving requirements illustrate.  The money goes out on the basis of these formulae, and the district leadership can fill gaps or meet particular school needs with additional discretionary allocations.  According to some education finance experts, the process makes it difficult to report how the funds are used in each school on a per student basis. For example, it is hard to report how much each school spends, per student, on extracurricular activities relative to core academic programs. It is harder, then, to connect such financial accounting to student academic progress in a way that informs the school’s stated academic’s priorities. The dearth of such fiscal insight is unfortunate. Over the next few years, this type of information would be invaluable as district leadership faces critical decisions about their academic investments due to tight budgets. (I won't even get into the issue of fixed-costs for a school district: salary and benefits. That, too, compounds the difficulty.) It's likely that the next few years will drive superintendents crazy enough to demand clearer financial analysis. In fact, I'm sure it is already happening in many places, more than I realize. That begs the question, though: Where? Is this information accessible via a link? How do we go about learning more and making such practices more common? *Editor’s Note: The first stage is always denial. Photo Credit: Jason Minahan

ED Announces Final 2011-12 Title I Allocations

June 30, 2011 – 3:58 pm | By Chuck Edwards | No comments yet

 The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has announced the Title I school district allocations for school year 2011-12. A complete national table, as well as state summary tables and state-by-state breakouts of district amounts, is posted at NCLBonline.com. Readers are cautioned that, in most cases, state-adjusted district allocations will be less than these amounts. State educational agencies (SEAs) must deduct mandated state administrative and school improvement costs. Also, several states have permission to pool allocations for districts with populations of under 20,000 and suballocate the funds according to poverty data of their own choosing. Another significant factor in the state adjustments is charter schools. Due to the limitations of census data, the department is only able to calculate allocations for regular school districts with defined attendance areas. SEAs must then adjust these allocations to give charter districts appropriate funding based on their relative share of eligible children. In states with many charter districts -- such as Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina -- this can have a dramatic impact on the regular district allocations calculated by ED and listed in these tables. All of the SEA adjustments are based on formulas embedded in Title I law and regulations. SEAs have little discretion in this process. SEAs will communicate the definitive amounts to their districts at a later date according to state-determined schedules. Photo credit: Steven Goodwin

All Your Eggs in One Basket

June 30, 2011 – 1:08 am | By Steve Peha | No comments yet

Many of the schools I work in have such large populations of disadvantaged children that they are afforded extra flexibility in how they use their Title I funds. Sometimes this means that large amounts of money can be pooled for a single overarching purpose. But few schools ever spend their money this way. And that’s a pity because putting all your eggs in one basket can catalyze powerful change — provided you’ve got enough eggs and you put them in the best basket. The most stunning successes I’ve been involved in have occurred when schools made significant commitments to writing. One school I worked with gained almost 60 points in writing across two school years — but it also saw huge gains in reading and math as well, even though no additional resources were used in those areas. How can this be? Writing isn’t just a subject. It really is a process. And as processes go, it’s the single best brain workout kids can get. Writing includes all of the skills of reading, the logical skills of math and science, graphomotor skills, and social skills as well when kids write to real audiences. But writing is not an NCLB-tested subject. And many states have dropped their own writing tests to save money. As such, kids are writing less and less as districts focus more narrowly on tests. Ironically, however, the best way to ready kids for testing in all subjects is to have them writing regularly. One of the biggest incentives to put more eggs in the writing basket is the link between writing and retention of information. Most kids can keep track of a new idea during a lesson. But even a day or a week or a month later that learning will be gone. Attention helps us form a memory; recall helps us strengthen a memory. But how do we hold onto memories? What’s the best way to store information so we can remember it weeks, months, or even years later? Memory expert Dr. Harold Pashler puts it this way: “Many studies have concluded that the key factor is elaboration: active processing that uncovers connections between a to-be-stored item and other information in long-term stor[age].” So to put something into long-term memory, we have to do something more with it. At school, writing is probably our best choice. Writing involves “active processing” and the “uncover[ing]” of connections between what we want to remember (the “to-be-stored item”) and what we already know (“other information in long-term stor[age]). Elaboration gives us all the benefits of attention (to form a memory) plus the added benefits of recall (to strengthen a memory). If a school has money to spend, and a certain amount of freedom with which to spend it, focusing on writing would probably generate the biggest bang for the buck. Your financial advisor may always tell you to diversify your investments. But when it comes to investing in student achievement, putting all your eggs in the writing basket may provide the best possible return on investment. (Guest contributor Steve Peha is president of Teaching That Makes Sense, an education consultancy based in Carrboro, NC.)

Idaho Plays ‘Chicken’ with the Feds

June 27, 2011 – 11:45 am | By Chuck Edwards | No comments yet

What are the legal consequences of Idaho’s willful defiance of the No Child Left Behind Act? The bottom line: The state would lose its Title I grant — approximately $54 million in school year 2011-12 — as well as smaller amounts under the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act programs. Idaho would, however, keep its grant under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the second biggest pot of federal K-12 funds), as well as grants for professional development, adult education and career and technology education. These are the consequences outlined in a letter sent to Utah in 2004 when that state’s legislature considered withdrawing from Title I, which contains all of NCLB’s critical accountability provisions. The current imbroglio arose June 21 when Idaho State Superintendent of Education Tom Luna sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan saying that the state would not raise its NCLB school achievement targets this spring as required under its approved Title I application. Instead, said Luna:  "the state will keep its current proficiency targets in place and begin implementing a new model of accountability. Idaho, like many other states, does not have the luxury of spending time and limited resources on meeting the rigid requirements of an outdated accountability system while we transition to a new one that we all know works better for students. Therefore, our time and resources will focus on the new accountability system, an accountability system that is based on academic growth and is aligned with the CCSSO Principles for Next-Generation State Accountability Systems."  This is not a waiver request. This is a flat refusal to implement a key component of NCLB.  Interestingly, the state does not say that it is withdrawing from the program, which would mean that it would forfeit its 2011-12 Title I grant, due for release July 1. The absence of such a statement might indicate that it is playing a game of “chicken” with the feds. That is, Idaho might secretly nurture the hope that ED will accept its defiance and continue the state’s funding, or at least make a counteroffer. ED has a variety of methods at its disposal to enforce compliance with program rules. These include such actions as putting conditions on the state’s Title I grant, temporarily withholding all or part of the funds until the state comes into compliance, or requiring a formal compliance agreement. But these alternatives are intended for states that at least pretend they want to come into compliance with the law’s mandates, not for states that simply refuse to implement the law. ED probably will have to treat Idaho’s action as a withdrawal from the program. It’s easy to understand why Idaho is taking action now. As NCLB’s school year 2013-14 deadline for universal proficiency approaches, Idaho faces big jumps in the percentage of students who must be judged “proficient” for their schools to avoid being placed in NCLB’s improvement process. For scores on this spring’s tests, the required percentages jump from 85.6 percent to 90.2 percent for reading, while the required percentage for math jumps from 83 percent to 88.7 percent. According to Luna, 60 percent of Idaho’s schools made “adequate yearly progress” last year, which means that 40 percent did not. This spring’s jump in the AYP targets would shove even more schools into improvement. Who will be the winner and who the loser in this game of chicken? More important, will Idaho’s students be the better or worse off when one side or another does — or doesn’t — back down? Photo credit: Andrew Beierle

Whatchu Talkin’ ‘Bout, Arne?

June 24, 2011 – 2:43 pm | By Travis Hicks | 1 comment

House Education Committee Jon Kline, R-Minn., yesterday sent a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan requesting an explanation of the secretary’s legal authority to grant No Child Left Behind waivers with conditions. To be clear, the chairman is not so much exercised at the prospect of waivers as he is by Duncan’s intent to link relief to adherence to aspects of the administration’s agenda, as under Race to the Top. Section 9401 of NCLB grants Duncan waiver authority of “any statutory or regulatory provision,” excepting certain fiscal provisions like supplement not supplant and comparability, as well as parental involvement and civil rights laws. The statute doesn’t explicitly say the secretary may attach conditions in exchange for waivers, but it doesn’t bar the practice either. So beyond the fact that precedents go back to the time of ED Secretary Margaret Spellings, Chairman Kline already may have his answer. It’s in a novel, but little-noticed, provision the U.S. Department of Education added in the 2009 ARRA waiver guidance (see the second sentence):   Q: How will the Secretary determine whether to grant a waiver? A: The Secretary will review each waiver request to determine whether the SEA, LEA or Indian tribe has complied with the requirements of Section 9401(b). The Secretary may also consider other relevant policy factors as granting a waiver is ultimately a discretionary act of the Secretary (emphasis added).   Before the 2009 waiver guidance, ED had never bothered to explain the rationale behind its authority to attach conditions to a waiver. Certainly, Secretary Margaret Spellings, who handed out multiple waivers loaded with conditions, never provided an explanation. She just did it — and no one objected. Now Kline certainly may challenge this assertion on the basis that it is contained in guidance — and not statutory language — but we think the secretary is right, based on past precedent and leeway provided in Section 9401. Although its not surprising that Chairman Kline, a strong believer in states’ rights in education, would oppose Duncan’s attempt to impose a top-down agenda in exchange waivers, we predict Duncan’s response (which Kline demands by July 1) will be a two-page version of that Q&A. This post was written by Chuck Edwards and Travis Hicks. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Education.)

Riding the Waive

June 24, 2011 – 1:21 pm | By David DeSchryver | No comments yet

This is getting out of hand. Secretary Duncan made the pronouncement that if Congress would not reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “we will be prepared with a process that will enable schools to move ahead with reform in the fall.” With that, the gates swung open and states began to devise proposals — and why not? The states just spent months coming up with Race to the Top plans; may as well get some mileage out of them. Kentucky beat everyone to the punch and submitted their waiver application earlier this week, asking to swap its own state accountability system for ESEA’s.  CCSSO released their “Principles for State Leadership on Next-Generation Accountability Systems.” The document repackages a lot of the work states presented in their RTT applications as the next phase of accountability, and executive director Gene Wilhoit is leading the charge. “We're going to come to the department with a set of waivers ... en masse,” he said. Storm the castle!  Idaho’s leadership, according to a June 21 letter to the secretary, decided that it’s not even worth storming the castle — just phone it in.  From their perspective, the waiver process is probably too troublesome. Idaho will do as Idaho sees fit.  The Secretary can expect more such letters from other states next week. How in the world is ED supposed to navigate this situation? The Secretary's bravado put the department’s critics on high alert, including House education Chairman John Kline (R-MN). They are waiting, perhaps even hoping, that ED transgresses its legal authority. In response, I suspect ED will huddle with the states to carefully map their submissions, sticking close to the requirements of ESEA section 9401, which grants the Secretary the discretion to grant waivers from statutory and regulatory requirements. As discussed in a previous post, the entity seeking a waiver must submit evidence that complies with the notice and comment requirements and the entity must:

• Identify the federal program affected by the requested waiver;
• Describe how the waiver will increase the quality of instruction for students and improve the academic achievement of students;
• Describe specific measurable educational goals, in accordance with the current law, for the state and each district that would be affected;
• Describe the methods to be used to measure annual progress;
• Explain how the waiver will assist the state and each district to reach those goals; and
• Describe how schools will continue to provide assistance to the same populations served by the programs for which the waiver is requested.

ED will likely trace these requirements and steer clear of the issues that the law prohibits the secretary from waiving. There are of these prohibitions, but the one that will likely cause ED trouble pertains to waiving statutory requirements relating to “parental participation and involvement.” Parental involvement is in the law’s DNA.  It will not be easy to relieve districts from the responsibility of providing choice and supplemental educational services, for example, as this is closely linked to parental involvement. Doing so may provide a target for those eager to challenge the Secretary’s actions. Charlie Rose, Kay Rigling — I feel for you!  Ms. Rigling, in particular, who has been in the Office of General Counsel since 1979, probably thought that she had seen it all by 2009. Then Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Now this? Kay, I know a good book agent. I can connect you for a small commission. Call me. This post was written by guest contributor David DeSchryver, vice president of education policy at Whiteboard Advisors.

Pushback on Waivers — From Democrats?

June 23, 2011 – 1:09 pm | By Travis Hicks | No comments yet

Not that it’s a battle, so to speak, but from the sound of it, congressional Democrats won’t sit back idly and accept a blanket waiver structure from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan. I’ll be the first to admit that Congress doesn’t necessarily have a leg to stand on (after all, Congress, for all intents and purposes, has had three years to reauthorize No Child Left Behind), but, according to my take on comments made yesterday by Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., House Democrats want to ensure that the potential waivers suggested by Duncan don’t fully gut the nearly 10-year-old law. “We talked to the secretary yesterday and emphasized that we are concerned about a whole-scale waiver process [just] because the reauthorization is eluding us at this point,” the congressman said during a brief discussion at a Capitol Hill event looking at successes in the middle grades. Specifically, Grijalva cited the potential for waivers to undercut NCLB’s positive impact on dropout prevention and the achievement of various subgroups, such as English learners. “In waiving some components, there could be intended and unintended consequences all the way down that could affect the work … and the reforms that we’re pushing for,” he said. Grijalva acknowledged that lawmakers are “taking the waiver process seriously,” adding that congressional Democrats wanted their concerns to be addressed as the department crafts the waivers, a process that already has begun. Let me be clear here: When Grijalva said “we,” I — and the lobbyist sitting beside me — made the educated assumption that he’s referring to House Democrats (most likely the ones on the chamber’s education committee). Still, the fact that Grijalva even discussed the prospect of waivers seems to corroborate something of which I’ve long been convinced: A reauthorization of NCLB isn’t happening this year — or anytime soon for that matter. The issues are too big and the available time too short. So, as a betting man who understands that Congress has a big vacation coming up in five weeks, I’m placing 2-1 odds on Duncan issuing a waiver request by mid-August or early September. Does anybody want to take the other side of this wager? (Photo courtesy of Dan Macy.)