No Child Left Behind

Solve the Title I Set-Aside Problem by Tapping Funds for Pre-K

Sara Mead — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:41:00 -0400

Ed Week’s David Hoff draws attention to a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that could complicate school districts’ efforts to spend $10 billion in Title I funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Under NCLB, school districts must provide students with supplemental tutoring or give them the option of transferring to a better-performing public school if they are enrolled in schools that have failed to meet student achievement benchmarks for multiple years. Districts must set aside up to 20 percent of Title I funds for these purposes.

But in practice, many school districts with low-performing schools haven’t actually spent the full 20 percent set-aside on school choice or tutoring (also known as supplemental educational services, or SES). That's in part because of a lack of better-performing schools for students to transfer to, and in part because many districts have done a lousy job of making parents aware of their options under the law. Districts that don’t spend the full set-aside may use that money for other purposes, but they must wait until the following year to do so. With the new infusion of Title I funding, the amount of set-aside money districts are unable to spend is likely to grow. And some observers fear that a delay in spending these funds could undermine their stimulative impact.

Complicating the picture are regulations put in place near the end of the Bush administration that would make it more difficult for school districts to roll over unused set-aside funds and use them for other purposes. Lobbyists for school districts and school administrators are citing the stimulus as a reason that the Obama Administration should undo those regulations and expand waiver authority for districts to use the set-aside funds for things other than public school choice and SES. Education reformers and advocates for low-income children fear that such changes might make it harder for children stuck in poorly performing schools to get the educational supports they need and could reward school districts for bad behavior.

We have a better idea: Maintain the requirement that districts set aside 20 percent of Title I funds for public school choice and SES, but allow them to use that funding for pre-K as well. Don’t allow districts to roll over unspent set-aside funds, but if they can’t or don’t spend the full set aside on choice and SES, require them to use the remaining funds to provide high-quality pre-K for children in neighborhoods. Services could be provided through school-based programs, Head Start, or community-based providers who meet high quality standards (such as employing teachers with bachelor's degrees).

This approach has a number of virtues: First, it provides a way for districts that can’t or don’t spend their full Title I set-aside funds on public school choice and SES to spend that money, without giving them a blank check to use it however they see fit. Second, it eliminates the incentives that currently exist for school districts to dissuade parents from taking advantage of public school choice and SES options. Because districts now may roll over unused set-aside money and use it for other purposes, they have an incentive to keep uptake in choice and SES as low as possible, in order to maximize the amount of money they can keep. Forcing them to spend that money on pre-K would eliminate that perverse incentive. Third, it supports efforts to improve low-performing schools by providing a proven intervention—high-quality pre-K—targeted to individual children in communities with a history of poor school performance. If these children arrive in school better prepared to learn, then their schools will have an easier time making adequate yearly progress in the future.

Finally, this proposal would help compensate for the ARRA’s failure to adequately support state and local investments in pre-K programs. While the stimulus provides increased funding for Head Start and CCDBG, it doesn’t include funding specifically to help maintain funding levels for state pre-K programs. Although the ARRA provides more than $53 billion in state fiscal stabilization funds, the largest share of which is dedicated to education, the way in which the law specifies those funds be distributed actually makes it difficult for governors to use that funding to maintain state pre-K expenditures. In fact, the law’s maintenance of effort provisions for K-12 and postsecondary education may actually create a disincentive for governors to maintain pre-K funding.

The bright spot is that school districts—which are receiving most of the education funds in the ARRA—can use those funds to invest in pre-K programs, but districts are facing lots of competing pressures on their budgets right now, too. Policies that create an additional push for districts to spend Title I funds on pre-K—such as allowing them to use set aside funds for pre-K—could play an important role in helping maintain access to early education for low-income youngsters.

Education Funding in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:17:00 -0500

Yesterday, the House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committees released the text of the 2009 Omnibus bill. This bill dictates appropriations for fiscal year 2009, which started on October 1^st, 2008. In the majority of cases, the 2009 Omnibus increased program funding from the 2008 level. The total Department of Education appropriation is $66.5 billion, up from $62.1 billion in fiscal year 2008.

Typically, the annual appropriations process begins after Congress adopts a budget resolution, usually by late spring. Congress adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year 2009 in May 2008. Although the Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate took up the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bills in June, neither chamber adopted a bill. Eventually, majorities in both Houses opted to postpone consideration of all 2009 appropriations, except Homeland Security, until after the elections. (For a timeline of events surrounding 2009 appropriations, please see here.)

Given the delay in the process last fall, it is no surprise that the 2009 appropriations are now being conducted through an Omnibus bill. Appropriations bills are usually broken into 12 jurisdictional areas each encompassed by a separate appropriations subcommittee such as the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. But considering each bill individually is a cumbersome political process. As a result, Congress has recently gotten into the habit of lumping several, if not all 12, individual appropriations bills into one bill that is considered as a single piece of legislation. This is called an Omnibus.

The 2009 Omnibus bill determines line-by-line appropriations for every education-related program including the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), student financial aid, higher education, and the Institute for Education Sciences (IES). A table detailing these appropriations for major programs can be found below.

Programs that received major increases in funding from 2008 to the 2009 Omnibus appropriation include NCLB Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) ($594 million), IDEA Grants to States Part B ($561 million), Pell Grants ($3.1 billion), and Assessment under IES ($35 million).

A few programs had their funding reduced in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus. These include Reading First State Grants, for which all funding was cut in 2009, and ACG/SMART Grants, for which funding was cut by $322 million due to a budgeting quirk. The Appropriations Committees justified cutting Reading First funding due to a recent study that found that the program had no significant positive impact on reading. ACG/SMART Grants lost funding in 2009 because remaining money from earlier appropriations is expected to be sufficient to meet demand for the program in 2009.

Now that both Appropriations Committees have released the Omnibus bill, it must be approved by both Houses. It appears that both the House and Senate are poised to pass identical Appropriations bills, making the conference committee process unnecessary. This is good because the current Continuing Resolution (CR) which temporarily provided funding for fiscal year 2009 expires on March 6^th, meaning that the Omnibus bill must be signed by the President before then.

Examining Fund Distribution for Title I

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:39:00 -0500

Here at Ed Money Watch and the Federal Education Budget Project (FEBP) we are always working to better understand the distribution of federal education dollars to schools and districts. The Department of Education recently released a report that seeks to do just that for six federal education programs: Title I, Title II, Title III, Reading First, Perkins Vocational Education Grants, and Comprehensive School Reform (CSR).[1]

In general, the report gives a frank assessment of the degree to which federal programs effectively or ineffectively distribute funds to the schools and districts that most need them - those with large low-income populations. The most interesting findings pertain to Title I, the largest source of K-12 federal funding created to provide low-income, high need students with supplementary academic services.

The report suggests that Title I funding formulas do not effectively benefit high poverty schools, contradicting the program's stated goal. Title I is currently distributed through four different formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIGs). Although Targeted Grants and EFIGs allow for the most targeted distribution of funds, the majority of Title I funds flow through Basic Grants. Of those Basic Grant funds, only 47 percent appear to flow to districts in the highest poverty quartile. Between 56 and 58 percent of the funds distributed via the other three formulas flow to the highest poverty districts.

The report also finds/suggests that Title I funds are unevenly distributed across grade levels. Although middle and high schools serve 20 and 22 percent of poor students respectively, they receive only 14 and 10 percent of Title I funds respectively. In contrast, elementary schools receive 76 percent of funds while they serve 56 percent of poor students.

In terms of distribution of funds to high poverty schools and districts, the report found that while high poverty districts receive a larger share of federal and state dollars per student, they receive a significantly smaller share of local revenues compared to low poverty districts - a difference of $3,377 on average. Title I funds are not enough to make up for this disparity. Even after including an average of $6,478 in state funds and $1,449 in federal funds, high poverty districts still receive $811 less than low poverty districts per student.

Most surprising is the finding that high poverty schools receive less Title I funds per poor student than low poverty districts - $558 compared to $763. And the amount of Title I funds each high poverty school receives per low income student has remained relatively flat since 1997-98. This suggests that Title I formulas do not effectively distribute funds to districts with the most need. Because districts distribute Title I dollars to schools based on the number of low income students per school, low poverty districts are able to concentrate funds on their small number of poor students. In comparison, high poverty districts must spread their Title I funds across many high poverty schools and the poor students in them.

The report found that poor students in failing schools also receive less support from Title I. Title I schools identified as "In Need of Improvement" by No Child Left Behind receive less funding per pupil than Title I schools not identified as such.

The majority of Title I funds go to support instructional staff, adding an average of two teachers and one teachers aid per school. Title I dollars for instructional staff went farther in high poverty schools, adding 4.5 full time equivalent teachers, than at low poverty schools, which gained 1.7 full time equivalent teachers on average. While this may sound promising, a word of caution: this disparity is likely due to the lower salaries teachers in high poverty schools earn because they are less experienced and have fewer advanced degrees.

On the whole, the report suggests that Title I does not leverage its funds to benefit high poverty schools and districts. High poverty schools continue to receive less money per poor student than low poverty schools. And Title I funds do not close the funding gap perpetuated by disparities in local funding.

Distributing the majority of Title I funds through Basic Grants, instead of more targeted formulas, disadvantages low income schools and districts. These schools and districts educate nearly half of the poor student population and should be equipped to give them the additional services they need to succeed. Congress has an important opportunity to improve the targeting of Title I funds during the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. We hope that they use this chance to improve the distribution of federal funds to students in high-poverty, high-need schools.

[1] The report is based on data from federal program allocations from FY 2004 appropriations for all 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico, and further fiscal data from a representative sample of 300 school districts and 1,483 schools from the 2004-05 school year. Data was compared to findings from a previous study conducted using 1997-98 data and NCES data from 2000-01. For the analysis, districts and schools were separated into poverty quartiles where districts in the highest poverty quartile served 49 percent of poor students.

Looking Forward to NCLB

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:53:00 -0500

We've previously written about both presidential candidates' unwillingness to talk about No Child Left Behind (NCLB). That's changed a bit - especially since the Teacher's College debate between Obama spokesperson Linda Darling-Hammond and McCain advisor Lisa Graham Keegan brought it back into the public eye. Regardless, it's impossible to deny that whoever wins the election will have to tackle NCLB head-on. It's not going to be an easy battle.

Reauthorizing NCLB will likely be a long process that demands the next President's leadership and guidance. The list of topics that is likely to make or break the reauthorization process is extensive and overwhelming. But in honor of this Election Day, we have selected a few that are near and dear to our hearts for the future President-elect to look forward to.

First and foremost is the looming 2014 deadline for 100 percent proficiency on academic tests. As we've read in the headlines time and again, schools, districts, and states are struggling to reach intermediate goals, let alone approach 100 percent proficiency in all subjects for all student subgroups.

Accomplishing such levels of proficiency could take a miracle. Many states set low initial annual achievement goals in their trajectory towards 100 percent proficiency. As a result, their schools are expected to make double digit leaps in proficiency between now and 2014. This type of growth is near to impossible.

Given the limitations of reasonable growth, maintaining the 100 percent requirement in a new iteration of the law will result in more Schools In Need of Improvement (SINIs). States and districts barely have the capacity to turn around the number of low-performing schools they already have. Imagine the strain on their capacity should the list of SINIs grow.

Some stakeholders have suggested that the reauthorized version of NCLB focus on student academic growth, rather than static levels of achievement, and allow more flexibility for schools, districts, and states to reach those growth goals. Moving away from 100 proficiency may present a political obstacle, but directing federal accountability towards realistic expectations could mean real, positive change for low-performing schools.

Speaking of Schools In Need of Improvement, the current version of NCLB is short on guidance and funds for improving or restructuring schools that haven't made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for at least two years. Drastically improving schools takes ample time, money, and planning, and many districts and states lack the dollars, infrastructure, or expertise to do so.

Currently, little research exists to guide school improvement and restructuring - an area where federal investment could make a big difference. Hopefully, a new NCLB will include provisions for research and development on school improvement strategies, direction for schools and districts undergoing the process, and financial support for, well, "supporting" schools.

Another hot-button issue for NCLB reauthorization is the comparability provision for Title I funding. Comparability is intended to prevent school districts from systematically spending less on students in their highest-poverty schools and ensure that Title I funds supplement, not supplant, services to those students. Districts can demonstrate comparable funding by issuing written assurances of comparability or comparing student-instructor ratios, per pupil teacher salary spending, or per pupil expenditures across Title I and non-Title I schools.

But comparability is subject to a series of loopholes that gut the provision. For example, when calculating per pupil teacher salary spending, districts can exclude salary differences due to years of experience. As a result, two schools in the same school district can be deemed "comparable" even if teachers in one school are far more experienced, and therefore higher paid, than those in another. Typically, high-poverty schools lose out in this game, employing primarily inexperienced teachers.

Comparability regulations currently allow districts to remain "comparable" while unevenly distributing experienced teachers and putting low-income students at a disadvantage in the classroom. If the next President wants to ensure that all children are given the tools they need to succeed, comparability regulations must be strengthened to resolve inequities in teacher distribution.

There's also a growing list of special programs the next President will have to negotiate and pare down. Various stakeholders have been fighting for universal pre-K, school construction funds, national standards, and all manner of pet projects. Some programs have more merit than others, but there will not be enough money to pay for them all. It will be impossible to please everyone with the reauthorization bill, and we wish the new President luck as he works his way through it.

Finally, there is the need for a new, snappy title for the law. Surely "No Child Left Behind" has worn thin on the public's patience and a new name could be just what the doctor ordered. But given the problems detailed above, that's probably the least of the President-elect's education concerns.

Performance Based Assessments Take the Stage

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:03:00 -0400

Today on the Diane Rehm Show, Obama spokesperson Melody Barnes mentioned that if elected, Barack Obama would like to consider portfolios as a form of NCLB assessment. This news is both surprising and timely - yesterday the Forum for Education and Democracy held an event focusing on the benefits of performance based assessments (PBAs) in a standards-based and accountability-focused world.

Like portfolios, performance based assessments ask students to demonstrate their learning through open ended prompts, projects, presentations, and papers rather than in the multiple choice format commonly found in today's K-12 accountability system. A few states and localities like Rhode Island and the New York Performance Standards Consortium have implemented such systems with some success.

The educators and advocates advancing these assessments believe that they are a better indicator of 21^st Century Skills - problem solving, decision making, communication, teamwork, and self management - than those consisting primarily of multiple choice questions. While multiple choice questions test memorization and basic skills, PBAs have the potential to examine a student's ability to adapt knowledge to new contexts, think creatively, and initiate ideas.

In sum, PBAs can provide a more complete picture of a student's academic achievement than one score on a standardized multiple choice test. As one presenter suggested: "You wouldn't ask a doctor to give a diagnosis based on temperature alone."

Supporters cite similar testing systems in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong as evidence of promise for PBAs in the United States. These countries score high on PISA tests in math and provide models for innovative applications of quality PBA programs. For example, some countries use the outcomes of PBAs as part of a school's accountability score (often more than 50 percent of the score), leaving room for basic assessments like multiple choice tests, to be used as well. In these systems, PBAs augment accountability and drive school improvement, while benefiting from high grader reliability.

It is also believed that PBAs encourage student engagement by including students in assessment formulation and allowing them to take ownership of their projects. Performance based assessments can also be sensitive to good teaching by freeing teachers from the confines of a test-centered curriculum and allowing them to innovate.

Of course, performance based assessments, like portfolios, have significant implications for the cost of accountability programs like NCLB. Performance based assessments are more costly and more time consuming to implement on a broad scale. They require good planning and preparation to ensure grader reliability, proper implementation, and alignment to standards.

Many states and districts claim that current testing regimes are too demanding. As a result, federal enforcement of a PBA system could be met with great resistance. But perhaps states are up to the challenge given the potential benefits to learning.

Regardless, it's difficult to imagine such a policy change without increased federal funding to support it. The federal government spent more than $408 million on state assessment development and implementation grants in 2008, averaging almost $8 million per state. We don't know how much a good PBA system would cost to get up and running and it's hard to predict what federal involvement in such a system would be. But asking states to develop whole new performance based assessment systems from scratch, even in an efficient consortium-style organization, would not be a simple undertaking.

However Barnes' comment plays out in the campaign and in a potential Obama administration, we are excited to hear that politicians are considering alternatives to status quo multiple choice assessments. The need to focus accountability and standards on real 21^st Century skills is more apparent than ever in today's economy.

A New Take on the Cost of NCLB

Jennifer Cohen — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:32:00 -0400

For most of the law's existence, politicians have been debating whether No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is underfunded. School districts, states, and stakeholders have sued the federal government for enforcing an "underfunded mandate" that requires them to meet proficiency and attendance levels without providing what they believe are necessary funds to do so. For several years the fight has gone on with seemingly no hope for conclusion. But three researchers have finally shed some light on the cost of NCLB goals.

Duncombe, Lukemeyer, and Yinger recently published a study in a book titled Improving on No Child Left Behind: Getting Education Reform Back on Track, that estimates the cost of bringing students in four states to various levels of proficiency. To say that the results invoke sticker shock is an understatement.

The states in question are California, New York, Missouri and Kansas. While California and New York are highly urbanized, Missouri and Kansas are primarily rural. New York and Kansas have demonstrated relatively high student achievement while California and Missouri have demonstrated relatively low achievement.

The researchers used regression analysis to estimate the relationship between spending and student achievement at current levels. From the analysis, they created a cost function to determine how much money would be required to bring students in each state to 70 percent, 80 percent and 90 percent NCLB proficiency. The district level data used in the study included per pupil spending, student performance, poverty, special education enrollment, English language learner population, and total enrollment from 2006.

The analysis concluded that among the four states, per pupil spending would have to increase between .4 percent and 38 percent ($12,797 and $8,635, respectively) to reach 70 percent proficiency and 16 percent and 58 percent ($7,078 and $10,283, respectively) to reach 90 percent proficiency. States with relatively high achievement required the smallest spending increases, while those with low achievement required larger increases. This analysis suggests states are not spending nearly enough to bring 100 percent of students to proficiency.

The researchers also isolated three sources of financial inputs and determined how much each would need to be increased to reach each of the three proficiency levels while holding the others steady. These three financial inputs are federal Title I funding, state funding, and school district efficiency.

If state funding and school district efficiency were held steady, federal Title I spending would have to increase by 10 percent in New York and 1,820 percent in Missouri to reach 70 percent proficiency. To reach 90 percent proficiency, spending would have to increase 587 percent in New York and 2,522 percent in Missouri.

These are enormous and likely unattainable numbers. Given current spending levels and a goal of 90 percent proficiency, Title I spending would have to reach over $29.4 billion in California, $7 billion in New York, $4.7 billion in Missouri and $521 million in Kansas. Keep in mind, current Title I funding for all 50 states is $14 billion. Through the lens of the given calculations, 100 percent proficiency seems like pie in the sky.

Granted, it is ridiculous to expect federal funds to take on the full financial weight of meeting NCLB goals. But, according to the authors, if state funding and school district efficiency increased 25 percent, Title I spending would still have to increase 300 to 500 percent in low proficiency states to reach 90 percent proficiency. And in states with relatively high proficiency, a 5 percent increase in state funding and school district efficiency would require a 200 to 300 percent increase in Title I funding to reach 90 percent proficiency.

School district efficiency refers to how effectively a school district turns inputs into outputs or achievement. A school with excellent teachers and good technology is likely to be more efficient than a school with mediocre teachers and outdated technology. Research shows that efficiency is both hard to measure and difficult to increase.

When taken at face value, this study reveals some scary truths about current spending levels as the 2014 requirement for 100 percent proficiency draws near. Unless federal spending drastically increases, actions must be taken to dramatically increase state spending and school efficiency. And while we don't expect federal spending to increase by thousands of percentage points any time soon, we do hope that these findings have an impact on NCLB reauthorization and reconsideration of the 100 percent proficiency requirement.

Matching Funds in Tight Times

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:08:00 -0400

It's hard to underestimate the impact of the financial crisis on education. States across the country are struggling to keep their education budgets afloat. Districts have lost millions of dollars in failed investments. Schools are considering cutting staff, programs, and services to make ends meet. School construction projects are being put on hold and in some cases may be abandoned.

But the problems don't end there - as states and localities pare down their education budgets, the amount of money they are able to allocate to federal programs that require matching funds is also sure to drop. Because eligibility for many federally funded programs relies on matching funds, a state or locality's inability to provide those funds may mean the end of particular programming.

For example, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which provides funding for free or reduced priced meals for poor students, requires a 30 percent state match based on the amount of federal funding the state received in 1980. Child Nutrition programs currently distribute nearly $13 billion to states for school meals and many states and districts are already having trouble maintaining meal programs without increasing prices, firing staff, or cutting corners. If states were no longer able to provide the 30 percent matching funds, that $13 billion could disappear overnight, leaving over 30 million students without school meals.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that any Governor would risk losing these kinds of dollars, never mind want to weather the firestorm that would certainly ensue for taking food from children's mouths. Still, one must wonder what other programming would be cut to keep programs like school lunch afloat.

Matching funds are not just required among billion dollar programs; many smaller grant programs require matching funds as well. The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program, which aims to change how teachers are trained, recruited and retained, requires grantee states to provide 50 percent in matched funding. These grants are generally between $1 and $2 million, requiring state matches of $500,000 or more.

Advanced Placement Incentive Grants, which provide states and localities with funds to improve low-income students' participation in Advanced Placement courses, range in amount from $500,000 to $1 million and require a two to one match. Simply put, states must provide $2 for every federal dollar, amounting to a $1 to $2 million commitment.

Combined, the federal programs that require matching funds amount to far more than chump change for states and localities. Eliminating them would mean a decline in services and programs states, districts, and schools can offer.

Still, it is possible that programs that require matched funds will weather the economic storm. With these programs, states and localities literally get more bang for their proverbial buck because of accompanying federal funds, making it more beneficial to keep them around during economic crunch time.

Unfortunately, we can't predict how states and localities will manipulate their budgets at the end of the day. States may choose to cut federal programs that require matches and put those dollars elsewhere or invest more heavily in them because of the added impact of the federal dollars. Only time will tell.

The VPs on Education

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:22:00 -0400

In light of the Vice Presidential debate tonight we put together a short primer on where both of the VP picks stand on education. Needless to say, this is not an exhaustive or official list of either candidate's stance. Rather, we have attempted to trace both of their activities on education before they were potential VPs to paint a fuller picture.

Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic VP nominee, has a history of support for higher education legislation including expanding the college tuition tax deduction, the lifetime learning credit and the HOPE credits. He has co-sponsored bills related to Public Service Academies, education funding equity, expansion of school-age childcare, and school safety. He also co-sponsored the Educational Excellence for All Act in 2003 which aimed to increase the funding authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Biden's platform from his presidential race website adds a few more details. He believes in a strong and comprehensive early education system, reduced class sizes, and the importance of graduating from high school. He would like to pay teachers more, create a scholarship program to encourage students to enter teaching, and improve mentoring and induction programs. His platform also presents a College Access Plan that would increase Pell Grant limits, begin college counseling in eighth grade, and create a $3,000 tuition tax credit.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican VP nominee, ran for governor in 2006 on a platform that supported accountability, vocational and technical training, parental choice, charter schools, home schooling, and other alternatives to traditional public education. She proposed a three year school funding plan for Alaska that would increase funding by $1 billion each year to raise the base student allocation, provide more services for special needs students, and increase forward-funding to allow schools and districts to plan ahead. She also proposed creating a $20 million need-based aid program for the University of Alaska system.

In speeches and interviews, Palin has expressed her support for school choice, abstinence education, moral education, and career-readiness tests. As Mayor of Wasilla and during her gubernatorial race, she voiced her support for teaching creationism or intelligent design in science classrooms but did not introduce legislation tied to these issues. During her speech at the Republican Convention, she pledged to be an advocate for special needs students.

This background gives us a little peak into the candidates' approaches to education; we would love to learn more. While there is no guarantee that education will make an "appearance" during the debate tonight, we will be watching in hopes that it does.

Disclaimer: The editor of Ed Money Watch used to work for Senator Biden.

Looking into the Future

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:28:00 -0400

With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization on the horizon, it never hurts to look into the future of American public education. Thankfully, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released its Projections of Education Statistics to 2017. This report provides some valuable information when considering reasonable future expenditures on education.

According to NCES, total public school enrollment is expected to increase 10 percent between 2005 and 2017. This growth is expected to occur primarily in the South and West, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The Pre-K through eighth grades can expect the greatest enrollment growth, 12 percent, while the high school grades are only expected to grow by 4 percent.

The report predicts that the number of public high school graduates will increase 8 percent between 2005 and 2017. While Nevada, Arizona and Utah will see particularly large increases in the number of high school graduates, Louisiana, Vermont, and North Dakota will see particularly large decreases. These numbers highlight the states that are expected to particularly excell or fail at graduating students from high school.

Of greatest note, however, is the predicted growth in spending on education - about 42 percent (with a low estimate of 32 percent and high estimate of 50 percent) over the 12 year period. At this rate, projected K-12 spending in 2017 would rise to $626 billion. Of course this growth was predicted before the present economic situation.

On average, federal dollars account for 9 percent of education funding or $39.7 billion of the $441 billion spent on education in 2005 according to the report*. In order to maintain this spending level in 2017, the federal government will have to spend $56.3 billion on K-12 public education, or almost $17 billion more than currently spent. This is a hefty increase, especially given that inflation adjusted federal K-12 education spending has actually decreased slightly in the six years since NCLB was authorized. Reversing this trend in the next ten years to reach more than 40% growth in spending will represent a drastic change for the federal education budget.

If federal education spending does increase by 2017 to mirror the current 9 percent spending level, Congress should do all that it can to make sure that their money is well spent.

* All dollar amounts are given in inflation adjusted 2006 dollars.

Teacher Recruitment and Retention in the Next Administration

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:02:00 -0400

Districts across the nation are in need of highly qualified teachers, particularly in math, science and special education. Given that the estimated cost of current teacher attrition is around $2 billion annually, maintaining and growing the teaching force may be one of the greatest, and most expensive, challenges in education for the next administration. Sadly, little research has been done to examine the value added of current or potential teacher retention and recruitment activities.

Currently, the federal government makes some efforts to increase the pool of qualified teachers, with special emphasis on hard-to-staff schools. Title II of NCLB currently allocates $2.9 billion in state grants for teacher recruitment and retention activities such as incentive programs for teachers who work in hard-to-staff schools or teach hard-to-staff subjects. The TEACH grant program, part of the College Cost Reduction Act, provides up to $24,000 in tuition grants to college students in exchange for four years of teaching service in hard-to-staff schools and subjects with an expected total cost of $325 million over five years. The Higher Education Opportunity Act "spends" an unspecified amount to support innovative teacher training programs and accountability for teacher preparation schools as well as $300 million on partnerships between schools of education and high-need districts.

In response to the need for more teachers - highly qualified teachers - both presidential candidates have developed plans for teacher recruitment and retention, should they take office:

John McCain's plan dedicates 5 percent of existing NCLB Title II funding to states to recruit teachers in the top 25 percent of their class or who have undergone alternative certification programs. His platform also allocates 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for teachers who teach in hard-to-staff schools and subjects and 35 percent of Title II funding for high quality professional development programs. Using today's Title II dollars, this would amount to roughly $145 million for recruitment, $1.7 billion for incentive bonuses and $1 billion for professional development.

Barack Obama wants to dedicate an unspecified amount to teacher incentive bonuses, expand funding for teacher mentoring to $1 billion, and dedicate $100 million to improving teacher education programs through school-university partnerships and research-based methods. His platform also mentions Teacher Service Scholarships (which sound very similar to TEACH grants) for college students and mid-career change teachers, and Teacher Residency Programs to bring new teachers into urban schools.

Thankfully, the candidates are dedicating time and money to teacher recruitment and retention. Some of their ideas sound similar to programs already in place and many of them have yet to prove their effectiveness. Yet, getting Congressional backing for expansion or creation of any of these programs will ultimately require the candidates to demonstrate why their programs are better or more deserving than programs already in place.

For example, Teacher Residency Programs, currently expanding in cities like Chicago and Boston, provide opportunities for second career teachers to enter classrooms alongside mentors while earning their teaching credential. While there is anecdotal evidence of their effectiveness, there is no rigorous research that definitively shows that Teacher Residencies are more effective than other teacher training programs. Similarly, the jury is still out on teacher incentive bonuses, grants for teaching service, and alternative certification programs as a whole.

Lack of evidence is not in itself a condemnation of a program. Conducting rigorous research on teachers is a challenging undertaking. The majority of states and localities lack the ability to link teachers to students, making it difficult to attribute student achievement to teacher characteristics such as participation in a particular training program. Building these data capabilities will take time and money, but the outcome will be invaluable as we consider expanding and improving our teaching force.

There is no question that teacher recruitment and retention deserves federal attention. Both candidates bring some new ideas to the table; it's a start. We would request that as the candidates' plans translate into policy, they incorporate opportunities for rigorous program evaluation at the start and further down the line.