Now what, Mr. Secretary???

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 gives approximately $100 billion to education over the next two years. And President Obama has tied this funding to high expectations to schools, with the money expected to provide new opportunities for the education system to innovate—the vast majority of these funds are to supplement, not supplant, state and local education dollars. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has promised that "Where we see a state or district operating in bad faith or doing something counter to the president's intent, we're going to come down like a ton of bricks."

Well, Mr. Secretary…

In Loudoun County, Virginia:
“After hearing that an initial batch of $11.8 million in federal funds would soon arrive in Loudoun County, supervisors slashed $7.3 million from the schools budget. They also made clear that if more federal recovery money flows to schools, schools might be asked to give back an equal amount of county dollars.”
--The Washington Post, April 13, 2009

In Rhode Island:
“The second usage of the stimulus funds involves Individual Disability Education and Title I funds." These funds have a great deal of restrictions on how they can be spent," Lukon said. "The governor plans to reduce state aid by the amount of money we will be receiving in IDEA and Title I funds," she said. Essentially, this will create a situation wherein, although it appears to be an even trade, it is not, Lukon said.

Dr. Robert Fricklas concurred with Lukon, "These funds need to be directly tied into what IDEA is all about. There is little discretion in how these funds can be used," Fricklas said.

Lukon summed up the situation by explaining that the substitution of IDEA and Title I funds for general funds essentially leaves a hole in the operating budget of approximately $106,000.”
--The Jamestown Press, April 2, 2009

In Hawaii:
“Governor Lingle plans to cut the schools' budgets, replenish them with stimulus money and use the savings to fill the state's budget gap.”
--The Associated Press, April 13, 2009

Your move, Mr. Secretary...

Labels: budget, economy, stimulus

Thoughts on the Stimulus Money...

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, approximately $100 billion has been made available for education in the next two years. Given my rudimentary understanding, it appears there are two main streams of this money: the State Stabilization Fund (which totals approximately $48.3 billion and which is meant to fill holes in state budgets that popped up due to the economic crisis) and increased funding to existing federal programs designed to promote educational equity (an additional $10 billion for Title 1 and an additional $11.3 billion for IDEA, with another billion going to the preschool and infants programs). There is an additional $5 billion to be spent at the Secretary's discretion on innovative programs—his “Race to the Top” funds. The rest of the funding is divided among other programs, some very controversial. If you are interested in a brief summary of the available funding, Jack Jennings at the Center on Education Policy has written an excellent one.

This money represents unprecedented federal spending in education, and the Obama administration is really pushing states, districts, and schools to use the money smartly, to reform education and improve achievement. See this Education Week article (published on-line April 7, 2009) as an example.

But a couple of things from the Ed Week article strike me as a little odd. First, one of the U.S. Department of Education suggestions for spending the IDEA funding is to “hire transition coaches to help graduating high school seniors find employment or get postsecondary training.” One of their suggestions for spending Title 1 money is to “create summer programs for algebra.” Both are fabulous ideas that could have an enormous impact on achievement. BUT…this funding is only guaranteed for TWO YEARS. Those are both long-term ways to raise achievement. What happens to these coaches and these summer programs in two years when the money is gone? Would they lay off the coaches and close down the programs? What does the DOE suggest…or are they even thinking about that issue?

In addition, the DOE suggests the following uses for the stabilization funds:
• Create new, fair, reliable teacher-evaluation systems based on objective measures of student progress and multiple classroom observations.
• Train educators to use data to improve instruction.
• Purchase instructional software, digital whiteboards, and other interactive technologies and train teachers in how to use them.

BUT near as I can tell, those funds are meant to prevent layoffs and to bring state spending up to previous levels (any leftover money (not guaranteed) flows to districts through Title 1 formulas). Unless such priorities were already included in state budgets, how is the state stabilization fund to cover that? Should states layoff teachers for the sake of new technology?

Another concern I had with the Ed Week article was Secretary Duncan’s quote, referring to the application for the competitive Race to the Top grants: “The first question, … I promise you, will be what did you do with the stabilization money to drive reform and improve achievement. It there isn’t a good answer to that, they might as well just tear up the form.”

A noble sentiment, to be sure. BUT, again…the stabilization money is meant to fill holes and prevent lay-offs. It isn’t necessarily new money. How innovative can states be if they are using the money as intended to prevent layoffs and class size increases, and repair buildings with asbestos falling from ceilings? (Note: I recognize that some states with less severe budget constraints may have additional money remaining once they have met their shortfall—those states may be able to use stabilization money more towards reform rather than simply stabilization…but those might also be the same ones that need the innovation funds the least).

This money is a great thing for education. I am just a little concern that expectations are a little too high for what states can do with this money in this time frame.

Labels: stimulus