Ed Money Watch

A Blog from New America's Federal Education Budget Project

Congress Close to Finalizing Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
April 12, 2011

Following intense bipartisan negotiations, Congress has released a compromise bill that would fund all federal agencies and programs subject to the annual appropriations process through the end of fiscal year 2011. (Fiscal year 2011 began on October 1st, 2010 and ends on September 30th, 2011.) Until now, lawmakers have not been able to agree on a year-long appropriations bill for any federal agency and instead have passed a series of Continuing Resolutions to temporarily fund federal programs in fiscal year 2011 (see timeline here). This compromise bill, which Congress is expected to pass later this week, maintains the education program cuts made to 2011 funding under the preceding Continuing Resolutions. However, it also contains a few surprising developments.

Perhaps most surprising is that final bill provides continued funding for two of the Obama Administration’s key reform programs. The bill provides $700 million for a new round of Race to the Top grants and $150 million for a new round of Investing in Innovation grants. Both programs were originally created in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to encourage innovation and reform at the state and local levels. The program received no new funding in regular fiscal year 2010 appropriations, which means that this budget bill actually adds two programs that have never been funded through regular appropriations before. The bill also amends the existing law governing the Race to the Top program by adding a new area of focus for the program – high quality early education. This means that any states that choose to apply for Race to the Top under this new round of funding must include a plan to increase participation in and the alignment of high quality early education. Previously, early education was not a competitive priority for Race to the Top, meaning states were not required to include early education in their proposals. For more details, see this post on our sister blog, Early Ed Watch.

The Obama Administration had requested $1.4 billion for Race to the Top in its budget request for fiscal year 2011 and $500 million for the Investing in Innovation program. Though many believed that these programs would not ultimately receive funding in 2011 – previously enacted 2011 Continuing Resolutions and other proposed 2011 appropriations bills did not include either program – the president managed to eek out a deal in the final hours.

The bill provides level funding for several programs including Title I, Part A grants for the disadvantaged ($14.5 billion) and Teacher Incentive Fund grants ($400 million). The bill provides $23 billion in Pell Grant funding and maintains the maximum grant at $5,550. But because program costs have been growing rapidly, the bill eliminates the “summer” or “year-round” Pell program to reduce costs and ensure that the appropriation will be adequate to fund the maximum grant. A previous version of the 2011 appropriations bill released in mid-February that passed in the House by not the Senate included a $693 million cut to Title I and a $845 cut to the maximum Pell grant level. Both of these cuts were unpopular with education stakeholders who disagreed with cutting programs targeted at low-income students.

Many education programs that received funding in 2010 were eliminated in the 2011 bill on top of the previous eliminations and earmark cuts that occurred in Continuing Resolutions – all of which are maintained in the final, year-long bill. These programs include Educational Technology State Grants ($100 million in 2010), Javits Gifted and Talented Education ($7 million in 2010), and Byrd Honors Scholarships ($42 million in 2010). However, the bill does reserve up to approximately $29 million of the $2.9 billion Teacher Quality State Grants program for a competitive grant program that would provide support for some of the recently cut earmarks like Teach for America and the National Writing Project. The Obama Administration’s budget request for 2012 also proposes creating a similar competitive grant program for these programs and projects.

And several programs were cut but not eliminated entirely. These include the International Education and Foreign Language (cut $50 million down from $108 million in 2010), TRIO (cut $25 million down from $853 million in 2010), GEAR UP (cut $20 million down from $323 million in 2010), and the Institute of Education Sciences (cut $49 million down from $659 million in 2010). Of these programs, the president had requested level funding for 2011 with the exception of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). As a result, the appropriations bill funds IES at $129 million below the president’s request.

In all, this appropriations bill provides $68.5 billion for the Department of Education, about $1.3 billion less than in 2010. Though the bill does make some significant cuts to education programs, they are focused mainly on small programs, many of which the Obama Administration had previously requested to be cut or eliminated in its budget requests to Congress. The major programs, including Title I, Part A, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, and Pell Grants, remain unscathed and the administration sealed a major victory with funding for Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation.

Assuming both houses of Congress pass this bill and the president signs it, it looks like the 2011 appropriations saga is finally coming to an end.

Friday News Roundup: Week of April 4-April 8

  • By
  • Maggie Severns
April 8, 2011

Colorado lawmakers approve $250 million in education cuts for FY12

N.J. treasurer lists range of cuts if Supreme Court rules against Christie in schools funding case

Mississippi Gov. Barbour signs $423 million bond bill

Ohio Universities face an average 13 percent drop in funding next year

University of Arizona to use reserve funds to offer students $750 tuition rebate

Colorado lawmakers approve $250 million in education cuts for FY12
Colorado lawmakers reached an agreement on the 2012 state budget on Tuesday. The budget would restore some tax breaks for businesses, but also soften cuts to education: Lawmakers settled on a $250 million cut in K12 education from the prior year’s level, which is less than the other proposed amount, $332 million. The budget would also require that state workers contribute an extra 2.5 percent to their pensions, a measure many Democrats oppose but is less than the 4.5 percent Gov. Hickenlooper originally proposed. More here…

N.J. treasurer lists range of cuts if Supreme Court rules against Christie in schools funding case
New Jersey State Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff testified before the state Senate budget committee last Monday, saying that New Jersey could face wide-ranging budget cuts targeting programs such as Medicaid if the state Supreme Court rules that more money must be set aside for school districts in the Abbot v. Burke case. The Abbot v. Burke rulings require that the New Jersey legislature provides equitable funding to poor districts in the state. During the three hour session, Treasurer Sidamon-Eristoff said the Christie administration does not have a contingency plan for providing more school funding if the Supreme Court orders them to do so. More here…

Mississippi Gov. Barbour signs $423 million bond bill
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour signed a $423 million bond bill today. The bill will fund over 100 projects, including nearly $99 million for universities. More here…

Ohio Universities face an average 13 percent drop in funding next year
Gov. John Kasich’s proposed Ohio budget includes an overall 2.7 percent increase in higher education funding, but the drop off in federal stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) will still leave universities with an average of 13 percent less funding than last year. Universities are discussing tuition increases, though they are currently capped at 3.5 percent for each of the next two years. Broken down by the type of institution, state funding would increase 7.6 percent for community colleges, 2.7 percent for regional campuses, and 1.2 percent for four-year universities. More here…

University of Arizona to use reserve funds to offer students $750 tuition rebate
Tuition at University of Arizona will increase by approximately $1,800 next year, but undergraduate students will also receive a $750 rebate on their tuition. Fees will be set at $10,350 for Arizona residents, a 22 percent increase from last year and over twice the amount residents paid five years ago. The Board of Regents voted 7-2 in favor of using reserve funds to offer undergraduate students the $750 rebate off of the $10,350 tuition, instead of using the funds toward both tuition and other rising costs (such as employee benefits). The University of Arizona is facing a $100 million budget gap for FY 2012, including $78 million in state budget cuts. More here…  

Issues:

The Surprising Survival (at least for now) of an Unpopular Federal Student Aid Program

  • By
  • Stephen Burd
April 7, 2011

President Obama in his fiscal year 2012 budget request put two federal student aid programs for college students on the chopping block: the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program, which provides states with money for need-based aid for undergraduates, and the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship program, which provides funds to states for merit scholarships. In their efforts to reduce federal spending in the current fiscal year, federal lawmakers have already killed the LEAP program but have so far left the Byrd scholarship program in place.

This may prove to just be a temporary reprieve, however, as the White House and Congress continue to negotiate a final budget bill for the remainder of the year that would make deeper spending cuts than those that have already been approved. Nonetheless, the fact that the Byrd Honors Scholarship program, which dates back to the 1980s, has made it through the first several rounds of cuts unscathed is fairly remarkable considering that it doesn’t have much of a constituency outside of Congress fighting for it. In fact, it is one of the few federal student aid programs that the Student Aid Alliance, a coalition of higher education associations and student advocacy groups, does not champion.

Truthfully, given its namesake, the program has never really needed the groups’ support. The program was the brainchild of the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who not only was the longest serving Member of Congress ever but also was the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee for nearly two decades. In that position, he held a powerful grip over the country’s purse strings.

According to a 2005 Chronicle of Higher Education article, Byrd had a very personal reason for pushing for a program that would reward top performing high-school students with college scholarships. As “the valedictorian of his Depression-era high school” in the mid-1930s, Byrd had been heartbroken to find “that he could not afford to attend college at the time.” He didn’t want other exceptional students to suffer the same fate.

Under the program, which Congress created in 1986 as part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act, the U.S. Department of Education provides funds to state educational agencies, which then use the money to allot scholarships of $1,500 each to top high school seniors who plan on attending colleges that participate in the federal student aid programs. At first, the scholarships were non-renewable. But in 1992, Congress expanded the program to allow students to continue receiving these awards for up to four years of college.

The overall amounts of funds states receive each year are based, according to the Education Department, “on the ratio of the state’s school-aged population (5-17 year olds) to the total school-aged population in all participating states.” The U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, America Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are each guaranteed 10 new scholarships per year. No state or territory can receive less than $15,000 in new scholarship funds in a given year.

Under the temporary spending bills that Congress has passed so far for the 2011 fiscal year, the Byrd program is scheduled to receive $42 million, the same amount as it got in 2010. Under this appropriation, the program would be able to continue to fund 28,000 scholarships a year, including 7,350 new ones.

But is the program needed at a time when colleges and states are already shelling out billions of dollars in merit based aid each year?

The Obama administration certainly doesn’t think so. The Byrd program was one of a little more than a dozen education programs that the president proposed eliminating as part of his fiscal 2012 budget request.

“By targeting students who are already likely to attend and succeed in college, and by awarding relatively small amounts, the Byrd Honors Scholarship program does not effectively improve college access or completions,” the Education Department stated in its budget summary. “The Administration believes that the reallocation of funding from the Byrd Honors Scholarship program to larger programs with more flexible authorities will result in administrative savings and improved college access.”

The administration has proposed replacing both the LEAP and Byrd program with a new College Completion Incentive Grant program, which would provide $1.25 billion to states over the next five years to make "systemic reforms” in their higher education systems with the goal of graduating more students. With Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives, and the appetite on Capitol Hill for budget cuts, the chances that this proposal will be enacted are, to be generous, slim to none.

Still, most student aid experts agree with the administration’s assessment that there is absolutely no need for the government to continue supporting an exclusively merit-based aid program. [The administration and Congress have already allowed two short-lived student aid programs that rewarded both merit- and need -- Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants -- to quietly expire.]

Without the support of the administration or of any constituency to speak of, it seems unlikely that the Byrd Honors Scholarship program will continue to escape the budget axe for long. After all, it is a small, redundant program that has long outlived its purpose, considering the vast sums that states and colleges pour into merit aid each year. Still, the program may very well live to see another day, if lawmakers feel it is just too soon to kill a program that bears the name of their former formidable colleague.

House Appropriations Committee Proposes Yet Another Continuing Resolution

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
April 5, 2011

Yesterday the House Appropriations Committee introduced yet another Continuing Resolution to temporarily provide fiscal year 2011 appropriations for another week. Fiscal year 2011 began on October 1, 2010 and thus far Congress has not finalized a year-long funding bill. Instead, Congress has passed a series of temporary Continuing Resolutions (CR) that have extended fiscal year 2010 funding levels temporarily, with a few notable exceptions. The current CR funding federal programs will expire Friday, April 8th. If the CR just released by the House Appropriations Committee passes the House and goes on to win approval in the Senate and the president’s signature, fiscal year 2011 appropriations for education programs will be extended through Friday April 15th, giving Congress another week to craft a final appropriations bill. (This most recent CR, however, does provide appropriations for the Department of Defense for all of fiscal year 2011.)

The new proposed CR makes $12 billion in cuts to discretionary spending programs. However, the cuts to education programs are relatively small compared to past CRs. The CR only eliminates funding for the Teaching American History program, which received $119 million in fiscal year 2010. However, education cuts made in past CRs will still be in effect. This includes $890 million in cuts to programs such as Striving Readers ($250 million in fiscal year 2010), Even Start ($66 million in 2010), and Small Learning Communities ($88 million in 2010), and the elimination of education-related “earmarks” like the Reading is Fundamental program and the annual appropriation for Teach for America.

The new CR also includes some interesting language that suggests lawmakers are looking to rescind education funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 that remain unspent today. This move would effectively create savings that lawmakers could use to meet goals to reduce federal spending. For example, the bill would rescind $186.5 million in unobligated funds from the 2010 appropriation for Striving Readers, a competitive literacy program that was eliminated in an earlier 2011 CR. The Department of Education has just begun the process of requesting applications for the 2010 Striving Readers grant competition, which means that the vast majority of the program’s $250 million 2010 appropriation has not yet been spent. It appears that the House Republicans want to not only eliminate the program in fiscal year 2011, but end any further grant awards made from fiscal year 2010 appropriations.

Though federal education programs would remain relatively unscathed in the latest CR proposed by House Republicans, the federal appropriations process may not be over yet. Assuming that this CR passes the House and Senate and is signed by the president, negotiations on fiscal year 2011 appropriations will continue for another week. At this point, it is difficult to speculate what an additional week of wheeling and dealing will mean for funding for education programs in the remainder of fiscal year 2011. But if past CRs are any indication, more education cuts seem likely.

Check back with Ed Money Watch as this process continues.

Title I Comparability Fix Gains Traction in the Senate

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
April 4, 2011

Last week, Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) introduced a bill, called the Fiscal Fairness Act, which would close the Title I comparability loophole. This bill is the companion to a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA). Closing the comparability loophole is an important step towards ensuring equitable state and local funding between Title I and non-Title I schools and one that should become a permanent part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Current law allows school districts to meet the federal comparability rule through methods that obscure the amount of state and local funding that schools receive before they are allocated federal Title I funding. For example, districts can demonstrate comparability by balancing student-instructional staff ratios between Title I and non-Title I schools or by presenting a district-wide salary schedule that demonstrates that all teachers with similar qualification earn the same amount of money in the district. Even when districts use per pupil expenditures to demonstrate comparability, they can ignore variation in teacher salary due to years of experience, the most significant driver of teacher pay.

More experienced, and therefore higher paid, teachers tend to seek out positions in higher-income schools, while low-income, Title I schools tend to employ primarily less experienced, lower-paid teachers. As a result, higher-income schools receive a greater share of state and local funds to pay for their teachers than low-income schools. But an observer viewing school resources through only the federal comparability rule would never know it. This is known as the comparability “loophole.”

The Fiscal Fairness Act, introduced by Bennet and Cochran in the Senate and Fattah in the House, would ensure that comparability determinations reflect actual funding provided to schools. The bill would require districts to demonstrate comparability using actual per pupil expenditures including variation in teacher salary due to years of experience. It would also require that per pupil expenditures in Title I schools are no more than 3 percent below those in non-Title I schools, meaning that Title I schools must receive at least 97 percent of the resources provided to non-Title I schools. Under the current comparability rule, resources in Title I and non-Title I schools can differ by as much as 10 percent.

Comparability is likely to become a major part of negotiations during reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, currently called No Child Left Behind). In the past, disagreements over the details of comparability and closing the "loophole" have been a sticking point for bill passage. Hopefully, the current bipartisan support for the Fiscal Fairness Act will ensure the bill a greater chance of inclusion in a final version of ESEA.

Ed Money Watch has written frequently about the importance of strengthening comparability. Select the links below to read more:

  • On the latest research revealing disparities in teacher pay and per pupil expenditures due to weak comparability requirements here.
  • On Representative Fattah’s bill here.
  • On the role of teacher transfers in strengthening comparability here.
  • On the Obama Administration’s Blueprint and its take on comparability here.

Friday News Roundup: Week of March 28-April 1

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
April 1, 2011

Washington State’s prepaid tuition plan declared financially sound

All Connecticut public universities, colleges likely to limit tuition, fees hikes to 2.5 percent next year

New York State budget eases school aid cut to 3.5 percent

K-12 funding overhaul bill clears Minnesota Senate

Washington State’s prepaid tuition plan declared financially sound
A new report from the Washington State actuary says that the state’s prepaid tuition program, called the Guaranteed Education Program (GET), is financially sound for the next 50 years. The report gives the GET program a 0.7 percent chance of becoming insolvent. If that were to happen, the state would need an additional $4.6 billion to cover the shortfall. The report also finds that a proposed alternative to the current GET program, GET 2, could actually be less financially sound because it is likely to attract fewer participants. Under the current program, 100 prepaid tuition units buy one year of tuition at either the University of Washington or Washington State University, the state’s two most expensive institutions. If GET 2 were to be put in place, 100 units would buy the average tuition at all state institutions, a less attractive deal because it would not cover all costs at some schools. Proponents of the existing plan hope that the actuary’s report will be sufficient to keep the current GET program in place. More here...

All Connecticut public universities, colleges likely to limit tuition, fees hikes to 2.5 percent next year
It appears that tuition and fee increases in Connecticut state colleges and universities, including community colleges, will be held at 2.5 percent for the 2011-12 school year. If this increase passes in each system – University of Connecticut, the state university system, and the community college system – it will be the smallest increase in tuition since 2000. Tuition increases are necessary to help cover a projected $22 billion shortfall in funding for the higher education system due to budget cuts. However, the colleges and universities will also have to make cuts to services. Additionally, the state university system is considering charging a 2.5 percent “convenience fee” for tuition payments made with credit cards. Last year the system paid $2.1 million to cover credit card fees. More here...

New York State budget eases school aid cut to 3.5 percent
The New York State legislature recently passed a fiscal year 2012 budget that makes a 3.5 percent cut in education aid. However, this cut is $272 million smaller than the one originally proposed by Governor Cuomo. Some state officials believe that school districts should use rainy day funds to make up for the cuts, rather than cut jobs or services. However, some districts do not have any reserve funds remaining and will have to make up for their budget gaps another way. More here...

K-12 funding overhaul bill clears Minnesota Senate
Earlier this week, the Minnesota Senate passed a K-12 spending bill that would freeze staff salaries for two years and prohibit teacher strikes. The bill also makes a $50 to the state’s basic per pupil funding formula while capping expenditures on special education and services for low income students. Additionally, it makes future teacher pay raises dependent on student academic achievement. While some stakeholders believe that the change will make teaching unattractive to new potential teachers, others hold that it will help prevent layoffs in schools. Minnesota’s Governor Dayton does not approve of some of the changes in the bill and is looking to discuss other approaches with the bill’s sponsor. More here...

Briefly noted:
A report on Delaware’s progress on its Race to the Top grant finds that the state has made strides toward setting high standards and using a high quality assessment and data system but needs to do more on early childhood education and funding equity.

Two Senators Propose Commission on Education Regulation

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
March 31, 2011

Local school and district leaders have long complained about the competing and duplicative regulations from the federal, state, and local level. In many cases, these regulations – from financial reporting to resource accounting – create additional burdens for districts and schools. While many leaders have chalked up the redundant nature of these regulations as a necessary evil of the way public education in America is currently funded, two U.S. Senators put forth legislation to form a commission that would help identify and eliminate ineffective and redundant regulations.

Senate bill 622, as proposed by Senators Bennet (D-CO) and Alexander (R-TN), would create the Commission on Effective Regulation and Assessment Systems for Public Schools. Though the bi-partisan sponsorship of the bill suggests that it may be politically viable, it seems unlikely that it would find much traction in the House of Representatives because the bill represents additional federal involvement in state and local affairs.

According to the bill language, the Commission would be made up of Governors, legislators, state school officers, teachers, experts, and other education stakeholders. Notably missing from the list are teachers union representatives or parents. The Commission would meet every six months and publish an annual report of its findings. The bill authorizes no funds for the program because Commission participants would not be compensated.

The duties of the Commission would include examining and reviewing federal, state, and local regulations, identifying areas of redundancy, assessing the cost of implementing these various regulations, and investigating the degree to which local interpretations of these regulations create additional burdens for schools and districts.

This certainly seems like a worthy effort for a national commission, particularly given the increasing burden on schools and districts as a result of extensive reporting and data requirements. Perhaps of most value would be the work the Commission would do on local interpretations of regulations. As we have mentioned during previous discussions of Title I provisions like supplement not supplant, local interpretations of federal laws can cause unnecessary stress for local officials and prevent innovation in schools.

The Commission would also examine current testing and assessment structures to make sure that these processes are efficient, effective, and meaningful. This would include reviewing federal, state, and local testing requirements, identifying the purpose or goal of each test, determining the quality of these assessments, and reporting on the frequency and efficiency with which results are made available to the public. Many school officials believe that, like regulations, education tests and assessments are becoming burdensome and redundant. Some states have separate tests for No Child Left Behind accountability, high school graduation, and end of course exams. This has resulted in a loss of instruction time and frustration among teachers, parents and students.

The Commission established by the Bennet/Alexander bill would examine regulatory and testing burdens for schools and districts with the hope of bringing some relief. Eliminating these burdens will be particularly important as districts try to cut costs and increase efficiency during difficult economic times. Political realities, however, may make the Commission impossible. It might make it into a Senate version of an Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill, especially given the bi-partisan support it currently enjoys. The House, though, is unlikely to run with the idea because it involves increased federal oversight in state and local decisions.

Regardless of the political viability of the bill, it is refreshing to see collaboration across the aisle on education issues. Hopefully this collaboration will spill over into the greater Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization process.

A Closer Look at Race to the Top Delays

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
March 29, 2011

Education stakeholders across the country have been closely following developments in the 12 states that received Race to the Top grants through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Race to the Top (RttT) is a $4.35 billion competitive grant program to help states implement reform strategies focused on teacher effectiveness, standards and assessments, supporting struggling schools, and data usage. Since the awards were made in April and August of 2010, many winning states have been slow to draw down their Race to the Top funds. An Ed Week article published today highlights some of the reasons states have been sluggish in using those funds – many have submitted amendments to their RttT proposals slowing the pace of implementation, and others have not yet received approval for their “scope of work” plans from the U.S. Department of Education.

So far, the Department of Education has only approved “scope of work” plans for Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. This means that these states have the go ahead for implementation of their RttT plans including any amendments they may have submitted. As a result, it should come as no surprise that most of these states have spent slightly more of their funds thank those that have not had their plans approved. (As to be expected, Delaware and Tennessee – winners of the first round of the RttT competition – have spent the highest percentage of their awards. They received the funds five months before the winners of the second competition.) It also means that Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island are still waiting to receive approval for their scope of work plans, which explains why those states have barely spent any of their funds.

rttt%20chart.png

Six states and the District of Columbia have submitted amendments to their initial proposals. Though the Department of Education only posts letters indicating which amendments have been approved (so we can't comment on what else the states have asked for but have been denied), these amendments give insight into the struggles states are facing as they implement RttT. These amendments primarily include scaling back planned programs, reallocating funds for different purposes or reassessing timelines for implementation of certain aspects of their applications. New political climates or timing issues have likely spurred these changes to their Race to the Top proposals.

The Department of Education indicates in each approval letter that the amendments are not expected to alter the scope or outcomes of the proposal. But this does not always seem to be the case. For example, North Carolina originally proposed to implement a retention bonus program for every new teacher in the state. Due to budget restrictions, however, the state has requested that this program be limited to a pilot program for 181 teachers each year. According to the National Center on Education Statistics, each school district in North Carolina hired an average of 66 new teachers in the 2007-08 school year. Given that there are 115 school districts in the state, this means that the state employs almost 7,600 new teachers every year. Based on these numbers, the pilot program would reach just over 2 percent of new teachers annually. Though this pilot will surely provide some important information on the efficacy of retention bonuses, it will not have the widespread effect initially intended in the Race to the Top application.

It is well known that many states have had trouble gaining political traction for their Race to the Top proposals and these challenges may partially explain the delays and amendments. In some states, the November elections brought in a new administration that disagreed with important parts of their proposals and sought to slow them down or change them. In other states, districts that initially indicated they would participate in the RttT effort backed out due to teacher union pushback or other influences.

Despite these obstacles, it is important that states hold up their end of the bargain and stay as true as possible to their Race to the Top applications. How far can states push the Department of Education until they refuse an amendment or rescind some RttT funds? Only time will tell.

Friday News Roundup: Week of March 21-25

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen Kabaker
March 25, 2011

Florida Governor Scott signs teacher pay, tenure bill

Most Ohio school districts will see funding increase

Tennessee Governor’s tenure reform bill for teachers passes House

Nebraska Committee faces possible showdown with governor over state aid to schools

Florida Governor Scott signs teacher pay, tenure bill
Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a teacher pay and tenure bill that would implement a test-based merit pay system and eliminate tenure for teachers hired after July 1 of this year. Proponents believe the bill will allow schools to get rid of ineffective teachers more easily and compensate effective teachers at a higher level. Though the merit pay plan won’t go into effect until 2014, school districts must begin developing new tests for the merit pay system, which may cost funds they do not have. The Florida teachers union has not yet decided whether it will challenge the law in court. However, a spokesperson for the organization called it an “unfunded mandate.” More here…

Most Ohio school districts will see funding increase
According to estimates from the Office of Budget and Management in Ohio, more than 400 of Ohio’s 614 school districts will see increases in state basic aid funding in the 2011-12 school year. However, the estimates obscure potential cuts that those districts will see in other state education grants, such as funding cuts  to gifted education. Additionally, the estimates do not account for losses in federal stimulus funding. Those funds have supported many districts in the state for the past two years. Some districts, however, will see large cuts to their state basic aid, including several districts already in severe financial trouble. Representatives from the districts anticipating funding decreases suggest that Ohio Governor Kasich is purposely detracting attention from these cuts. More here…

Tennessee Governor’s tenure reform bill for teachers passes House
The Tennessee House passed a bill that would increase teacher tenure requirements from three years to five years. Additionally, it would make it possible return tenured teachers to probationary status if they fail to reach expectations two years in a row. The bill would also implement a stricter teacher evaluation system that would include annual observations and student test scores. However, the bill leaves several details unspecified including how the system will handle teachers that teach untested subjects. The state Senate previously passed a similar version of the bill. More here…

Nebraska Committee faces possible showdown with governor over state aid to schools
The Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee has proposed a state K-12 education budget that diverges from the governor’s proposed funding levels. Under the Committee’s plan, the state would provide $822 million in 2012 and $880 million in 2013 to schools. The governor’s plan, on the other hand, would freeze current state spending at $810 million for 2012 and increase it to $860 in 2013. The $810 million budget for schools in fiscal year 2011 does not include $140 million in federal stimulus funds that schools have also been receiving. Those funds would disappear in 2012, leaving schools with only state funding, a 15 percent cut in funding if state levels remain at $810 million. Many school districts are nervous about these possible cuts and the ramifications for educational services. More here…

New Evidence on Investments in Improving Teacher Quality

  • By
  • Emilie Deans
March 24, 2011

States and school districts across the country have been trying to figure out new and innovative ways to attract high quality teachers into their schools. Washington state, for example, has a policy of providing national board certified teachers (NBCT) with $5,000 bonuses each year and an additional annual bonus of $5,000 to NBCTs who work in “challenging” (low-income) schools. This week, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) released a report that studied these efforts, titled What Does Washington State Get for Its Investment in Bonuses for Board Certified Teachers? by Jim Simpkins. Simpkins finds that this policy does, in fact, lead to more teachers getting certified. However, the bonuses for teaching in challenging schools do not appear to act as an incentive for NBCTs to transfer or persist in those schools. The current federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) provides grants to entities attempting to improve instruction in high-need schools through programs like the one in place in Washington. Congress should consider studies like this one as they shape the role the federal government will play in improving teacher compensation structures.

Washington State began a pilot program in 2001 that provided annual bonuses of $3,500 to NBCTs. The pilot program ran through the 2006-07 school year. In 2007 the state legislature adopted a bill that increased the annual bonus to $5,000 and added the challenging schools bonus of $5,000. The bill defines a “challenging school” as having at least 70 percent of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) in elementary schools, 60 percent FRPL eligible students in middle schools, and 50 percent in high schools. The program cost $10 million in its first year.

Simpkins found that the number of NBCTs in Washington has nearly tripled since the 2007-08 school year. In addition, the proportion of NBCTs in challenging schools has increased from 14.8 percent in 2007-08 to 22.5 percent in 2009-10. However, less than 1 percent of NBCTs with full-time jobs in non-challenging schools have switched to challenging schools each year, with an almost equal number of NBCTs switching out of challenging schools. Most of the increase in NBCTs in challenging schools stems from the increase in the number of schools qualifying as challenging schools and from teachers already teaching in challenging schools receiving their certification. In other words, no real increase in the quality of instruction in challenging schools has occurred as the National Board Certification process simply identifies teachers who are already effective. In addition, NBCTs are no more likely to remain in challenging schools than non-NBCT certified teachers, so the additional bonus for NBCTs in challenging schools does not appear to be effective.

Based on his findings, Simpkins questions whether this policy is the best way for Washington State to spend education dollars. Governor Chris Gregoire has proposed cutting the program in her 2011-13 budget request. With the program rising in cost by about $10 million each year, state legislators should closely examine the program and consider alternatives.

The federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program provides competitive grants to LEAs, states, or partnerships with nonprofit organizations to implement financial incentive programs like Washington’s NBCT program for teachers and principals that increase their effectiveness and help improve student outcomes in hard-to-staff schools and subjects. With federal dollars for education at a premium, the federal government should take a close look at the incentives provided under TIF to ensure that grants monies are actually contributing to greater numbers of highly effective teachers in those schools that need them most. They should use findings from studies like this one from CRPE and others regarding the effectiveness of these programs to develop more targeted incentives to improve instruction in high-need schools.

Syndicate content