Ed Money Watch

Ed Money Watch has Changed Locations

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:39:00 -0500

Ed Money Watch has been moved to a new location. All new blog posts can be found at http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogmain.

Additionally, if you view Ed Money Watch through an RSS reader, please update that address to http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogmain/feed.

Happy Thanksgiving from Ed Money Watch

Jennifer Cohen — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:08:00 -0500

Ed Money Watch will be taking the week off in honor of turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, and gathering friends and family around the table to enjoy them. Check back for new posts on December 1st. Happy Thanksgiving!

Friday News Roundup: Week of November 16-20

Emilie Deans — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:26:00 -0500

At Ed Money Watch, we discuss and analyze major issues affecting education funding. In our Friday News Roundup, we try to highlight interesting stories that might otherwise get overlooked. These stories emphasize how federal and state policy changes can affect local schools and districts.

Alabama Considers Charter Schools in Pursuit of Federal Race to the Top Funds

New York Plans to Reform Teacher Preparation Efforts

Missouri Freezes Higher Education Tuition

Florida Will Request $1 Billion in Federal Race to the Top Funds

Alabama Considers Charter Schools in Pursuit of Federal Race to the Top Funds
As Alabama grapples with a recession that continues to eat away at its education budget, the state is contemplating charter school legislation to increase the state's chances of receiving a slice of the federal Race to the Top (RttT) pie. In the past, Democratic state legislators, backed by the Alabama Education Association, have opposed charter schools. State Representative Max Gipson, a Republican, introduced charter school legislation a few years ago, but the bill never made it out of committee after opponents accused him of trying to re-segregate schools and take money away from traditional public schools. However, with a potential $175 million in federal RttT funds for Alabama, many legislators are re-thinking their stances on charter schools. By enacting charter school legislation, they hope to improve their chances of receiving a large chunk of the competitively awarded RttT funds, which will help them finance K-12 schools overall. More here...

New York Plans to Reform Teacher Preparation Efforts
The New York state Board of Regents this week approved a plan to change the way the state prepares new teachers. The reforms would place more emphasis on classroom experience and streamline the process for professionals in other fields that want to become teachers. Under the new plan, cultural institutions, research centers, and nonprofits would be allowed to certify teachers - a job currently dominated by universities. Bonuses of up to $30,000 would be awarded to teachers in high-demand fields who agree to teach in high-needs schools. The Board of Regents plans to include colleges, teachers unions, and community groups in the planning and implementation of the new plan. More here...

Missouri Freezes Higher Education Tuition
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon this week announced that the state's public four-year colleges and universities will freeze in-state tuition for the second year in a row. The agreement must still be passed by Missouri lawmakers and college and university governing boards, which appears likely. Lawmakers and higher education officials seem to agree that keeping higher education affordable is a priority. The freeze came in response to a decade of annual tuition hikes - averaging 7.5 percent - in Missouri. Though Governor Nixon and higher education officials don't yet know where the 5.2 percent in spending cuts to higher education will come from, they agree that improvements must continue to be made even while cutting costs. Ultimately, Governor Nixon says, keeping higher education affordable will be one step to turning the economy around. More here...

Florida Will Request $1 Billion in Federal Race to the Top Funds
Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith this week announced that the state will likely apply for $1 billion in federal Race to the Top (RttT) funds - nearly one quarter of the overall budget for the competitive grant program. According to guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Education, Florida and two other states are eligible to receive between $350 million and $700 million if they are awarded grants. But states may apply for higher amounts if they believe their proposals warrant it. Union and school district officials are working together on plans to align Florida's system with each of the four reform areas given priority in RttT awards. The reforms will likely include proposing teacher merit pay systems, getting involved in a consortium with other states on student achievement standards and testing, developing more rigorous teacher certification exams, and establishing school reforms like extended school days or year, or expanded full-day pre-K. Because of these plans and existing reforms, the state appears to be well positioned to win a large chunk of federal RttT funds. More here...

Briefly Noted

Kansas regents hold meeting to outline higher education budget issues.

The Proliferation of Federal High School Intervention Programs

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:58:00 -0500

The dismal state of America's high school graduation rates - less than 75 percent nationally and below 50 percent in some areas - has become a key federal public policy issue in the last decade. Existing federal programs, including TRIO and GEAR UP, already seek to improve high school graduation and college going rates in underserved populations. But recent developments, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, and President Obama's 2010 Budget Request, have brought new high school intervention programs to the table. Are these programs really all that different? And what resources could the federal government commit to these efforts?

TRIO/GEAR UP
TRIO Talent Search, TRIO Upward Bound, and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) are three existing federal programs that attempt to increase high school graduation and college going rates in low-income students through small programs aimed at individual students or groups of students. These programs include out-of-school programs or pull-out sessions during the regular school day, after-school and weekend instruction, tutoring support for core academic subjects and college and financial aid applications, and counseling, mentoring, academic support, and college outreach services.

Research suggests that TRIO/GEAR UP are inadequately funded and contain significant overlap and redundancies. While evaluations favor GEAR UP somewhat, neither program has shown significant benefits. In fiscal year 2009, GEAR UP received just over $313 million and the TRIO programs received $905 million in federal funds. The President's 2010 budget request funded both programs at 2009 levels.

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) Proposed Programs
The House passed its version of the SAFRA bill in September including a College Access and Completion Innovation Fund and an American Graduation Initiative, both aimed at increasing college going and graduation rates, but not through interventions in high schools. Although the Senate has taken no action on companion legislation, an unofficial Senate version of SAFRA has circulated within the education policy community that contains a new high school program called the Pipeline to College Initiative.

This five-year, $2.5 billion program ($500 million annually) would provide competitive grants to states to improve student achievement and graduation rates and implement various high school reform and improvement systems in schools with particularly low graduation rates. This proposed reform program requires states that receive awards to annually evaluate high schools based on a series of benchmarks to determine whether they are making continuous and substantial progress toward academic goals.

Additionally, under the proposed Pipeline to College Initiative participating states must create early warning indicator and intervention systems for struggling students and distribute grants to local education agencies to implement school improvement programs in failing high schools.

Unlike the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, which are small programs aimed at select students within schools, the Senate Pipeline to College Initiative would use a whole-school approach to high school interventions, seeking to improve the system in which struggling students receive their educations rather than supporting them individually.

President's Budget Request
The President's 2010 Budget Request, and House and Senate 2010 Appropriations bills pending in Congress, all include a new $50 million program called the High School Graduation Initiative that would provide grants directly to local education agencies to run intervention programs for schools and students. Much like the Senate's Pipeline to College Initiative, it would provide funds for the creation of early warning indicators for struggling students and allow for partnerships with outside organizations. The funds could also be used to create comprehensive plans for keeping at-risk students in school or bringing students have dropped out back into the system. The program is meant to provide opportunities to evaluate and learn from new innovative programs at the local level that could later be expanded.

Should Programs Focus on Schools or Students?
The existing and proposed high school programs vary widely in cost ($50 million for the High School Graduation Initiative versus $905 million for TRIO) and more importantly on whether they focus on groups of students or entire schools. While TRIO and GEAR UP provide assistance to groups of students from low income families, the Pipeline to College and High School Graduation Initiative involve reforms at the school level and extensive use of data. Conflicting evidence exists on the successes of GEAR UP and TRIO, so it is unclear if programs directed at groups of students are enough to propel America's high school graduation rates above 75 percent. The new approach envisioned in the Pipeline to College Initiative and the High School Graduation initiative will provide a glimpse into the potential for programs directed at entire schools, not just a handful of students.

Comparing House and Senate School Facilities Programs in the Student Loan Bill

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:31:00 -0500

In July we analyzed funding for K-12 school facilities in the student loan reform bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, as passed by the House Education and Labor Committee. The full House passed the bill in September and preserved the $2.0 billion per year school repair program. Although the Senate has not yet acted on a similar student loan reform bill, a version drafted by the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee was leaked a couple of months ago. The leaked bill suggests the Senate is headed in a different direction than the House when it comes to funding school facilities construction.

Both of these pieces of legislation provide a glimpse into the federal government's first major foray into directly funding K-12 school facilities and neither propose an insignificant amount of money. The most striking difference between the two versions is that the House includes a two-year, formula-based investment in K-12 school facilities, and the Senate bill creates a five year competitive program for K-12 school repair, renovation, and construction.

The House bill distributes funds for repair, renovation, and modernization among states and school districts according to each state and district's share of total federal Title I dollars. This means that every school district in the nation that receives Title I funds will receive some share of its state's school facilities funds after the state withholds up to 1 percent for administrative purposes.

Unfortunately, the House bill spreads just over $2.0 billion in each year over more than 13,000 eligible school districts. In the end, it's likely to amount to a drop in the bucket relative to the total expense of modernizing schools. Additionally, the House bill prohibits spending on new school construction, with the exception of $30 million each year for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

The leaked version of the Senate bill, however, avoids the danger of spreading the funds too thin by creating a competitive program administrated by the states but funded by the federal government. Essentially, the program distributes $500 million each year from 2010 to 2014 to states according to their share of Title I funds, much like the House program. However, once states receive their funds, they must create a competitive grant program through which they will award funds to selected school districts and charter schools within the state.

The Senate version does place some restrictions on how the funds must be divided among schools. For example, the proportion of each state's facilities funds distributed to charter schools must reflect the proportion of funds that charter schools receive under Title I. For example, if charter schools received 30 percent of a state's Title I allocation, then 30 percent of the state's facilities funds must also be awarded to selected charter schools. Similarly, the Senate legislation states that the competitive grants must be awarded to both selected high-need and rural school districts in proportion to the amount of Title I funds each type of school receives. Any remaining funds can be distributed to regular, high-need, and rural districts or charter schools as the state sees fit.

Additionally, the Senate bill outlines some priorities for the competitive grants including districts with large impoverished populations, high need for school repair and construction, plans to support "green" practices, or a lack of fiscal capacity to fund construction or repair activities.

The Senate bill also requires that school districts provide matching funds for the federal grants for facilities they receive. However, the required match amounts can be determined on a sliding scale based on the relative size of the impoverished population in each district in a state. Charter schools are not required to supply matching funds.

In all, the Senate program for school facilities is much more likely to have a lasting impact on the condition of school buildings in America. It provides consistent funding over five years, rather than two, for select districts and charters identified through a competitive grant process. As a result, it will provide an infusion of funds in particularly needy schools rather than a small amount of money across the board. It also targets high-need, rural, and charter schools which typically require the most assistance with facilities. Additionally, it requires matching funds, assuring that districts and charters are committed to the facilities investments they are making and that the federal dollars go as far as possible.

The student loan legislation represents a major shift in the federal government's role in K-12 school facilities. Past efforts have mainly involved tax credit bonds and programs for schools with large populations of students that live on military bases or Indian reservations. Although we don't know whether the Senate version of the student loan bill has changed since it was leaked over the summer, we hope that it maintains the targeted and competitive aspects that are likely to make it more effective.

Friday News Roundup: Week of November 9-13

Emilie Deans — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:57:00 -0500

New Mexico Lawmaker Proposes Budget Fix Using Endowment Fund

Colorado Cuts to Education Bigger than Expected

More Cuts for South Carolina Schools

New Mexico Lawmaker Proposes Budget Fix Using Endowment Fund
New Mexico State Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez this week laid out a proposal to tap into the state's $9 billion Land Grant Permanent Fund to help balance the state's budget. The fund makes yearly payments to school districts, universities, hospitals, and other public institutions. Sanchez's plan would take $2 billion from the fund to pay for these and other critical government operations and minimize tax hikes over the coming years. Sanchez also seeks to bolster state finances for projected state deficits for next year and potentially slow economic growth over the next few years. The state already needs $400 million to fill a hole in the fiscal year 2011 budget. Opponents to the proposal claim that removing the money will slow the fund's growth and result in smaller payments to schools and the other beneficiaries later. If Sanchez's proposal passes the state legislature, voters will have to approve it in November because it includes a change to the state's constitution. More here...

Colorado Cuts to Education Bigger than Expected
Cuts to spending on K-12 education in Colorado for fiscal year 2011 will total 6.1 percent despite Governor Bill Ritter's claims that it is only 4.6 percent. According to a calculation by the Colorado Department of Education, cuts to spending on education in the fiscal year 2011 budget total $374.1 million, or 6.1 percent of what schools would have normally expected for that fiscal year. Governor Ritter's calculation, they say, made cuts appear smaller because it was done using the current fiscal year 2010 budget as a baseline. The cuts to spending on schools will likely mean increasing class sizes, teacher and staff layoffs, salary cuts or freezes, and possible service reductions. However, categorical funding for transportation, special education, and some other programs will not be affected by the proposed cuts. Funding for full-day kindergarten programs is also expected to hold steady. For higher education, Governor Ritter's plan includes a modest $1.98 million growth in spending despite a projected decline in support from federal stimulus funds. The spending growth would come from a proposed 9 percent tuition increase. More here...

More Cuts for South Carolina Schools
The South Carolina Board of Economic Advisors this week released a reduced estimate of state revenue, citing concerns over the nearly half million people in the state who are unemployed. Given this new estimate, Governor Mark Sanford told the state's K-12 schools, colleges, and prisons to prepare to cut another $120 million from their fiscal year 2010 budgets. This comes on top of a $328 million cut from the current budget to these services over the summer. It is not yet clear where exactly cuts will come from at the state level, so school districts are waiting for more information before they make any final decisions on where to trim their budgets. More here...

Briefly Noted

Alabama Board of Education endorses proposed "plan of survival" for K-12 schools.
Illinois budget cuts squeeze the state's universities.

Race to the Top and the Status of Education Innovation

Emilie Deans — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:45:00 -0500

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with Center for American Progress and Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, on Monday released the report "Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation." The report evaluates states based on several indicators of innovation including school management, finance, and technology and identifies significant shortcomings in nearly all categories. In fact, most states received Cs and Ds with a few exceptions that earned As and Bs in one or two categories. In all, it paints an underwhelming picture of the status of education innovation in the United States public education system.

The National Journal on Wednesday released a brief video about the report and challenges states face in using federal stimulus funds for innovative purposes. The video examines states' use of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), which was mostly used to save jobs, and draws lessons from that experience to illuminate expectations for the upcoming Race to the Top (RttT) competitive grant program. In the video, Ed Money Watch's Jennifer Cohen commented on what we can expect from states and districts for RttT.

"There are some states who have already said, ‘We're just not going to do the Race to the Top,'" Cohen said, citing states' financial concerns about the program's reform goals. "They've said ‘We can't guarantee that after a couple of years that we'll be able to continue these programs' or - in a lot of cases - whether they even have the capacity to start them to begin with."

We will be watching closely to see how states proceed after the U.S. Department of Education (ED) releases the finalized RttT priorities and application later today. While some states have spent the past few months scrambling to make themselves eligible for the competitive grant program, others have decided not to apply. We're also eager to see how closely ED sticks to its previously identified reform goals, and which states are ultimately awarded the grants.

The full video can be viewed below:

Department of Education Releases Phase 2 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Application

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:47:00 -0500

Yesterday the Department of Education released the finalized applications for Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The SFSF, a major component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), provides $48.6 billion in federal funds to states so that they can fill gaps in their education budgets. States that successfully complete the Phase 2 application process will receive the remaining 33 percent of their SFSF monies (unless the state was eligible to receive more than 67 percent during Phase 1). Much like the Phase 1 applications, the Phase 2 applications require state governors to sign off on a series of promises surrounding four areas of reform outlined in the ARRA. The Phase 2 promises center on the collection and public availability of data and information on each state's progress towards the reform areas.

The Phase 2 application that states must submit to the U.S. Department of Education outlines various data or information of interest pertaining to each of the four reform areas and requires governors to state whether they currently collect this data and whether it is currently publically accessible. If a state does not collect the data or make it publically accessible, governors must outline a plan and timeline for collecting the data and making it publically accessibly on the internet by September 30^th, 2011. In some cases, the application also cites existing data and asks each governor to verify whether that data is correct.

The number of indicators required for each reform area varies. The application describes seven indicators pertaining to improving teacher distribution, three indicators pertaining to improving the collection and use of data, and twelve indicators for both improving standards and assessments and supporting struggling schools.

While some of the indicators appear somewhat basic, such as the number of academic courses taught by highly qualified teachers, other indicators require states to collect and make public very complex information. For example, under improving teacher distribution, the application asks whether states currently collect and make available data on the number and percent of principals rated at each performance level under the principal rating system. This data is likely unavailable in the majority of states because principal rating systems are often locally controlled and not reported at the state level.

The application also asks states whether they collect and report the number and percentage of high school graduates who enroll in and complete at least one year's worth of college credit. This data is also unlikely to be available in most states because few have the ability to track students as they graduate high school and enter higher education, let alone whether they complete a year's worth of credit once they get there. No doubt, this data could provide much needed information on the status of college readiness in America. Unfortunately, the applications do not require states to implement the means to collect and publish this data. Instead, it only requires states to develop such means.

With respect to supporting struggling schools, the application asks states whether they collect and report data on the number and identity of low-achieving high schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, federal Title I funds. This data would illuminate the degree to which Title I funds primarily support elementary schools at the expense of struggling high schools in every state. Because Title I distributions to schools are decided at the district, rather than the state, level, this data is unlikely to be currently available in most states.

While the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase 2 application will likely compel many states to collect and publically report important data that are currently unavailable like those described above, it does not require governors to get down to the nitty gritty of how they will actually further the four reform areas. In fact, governors have almost no control over how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds are used at the local level and must hope that school district administrators try to use the funds in the most reform-focused ways possible. Without specific plans on how each state will improve teacher distribution, data collection and use, standards and assessments, and support for struggling schools it is unclear how states will bring any of these goals to fruition under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

Friday News Roundup: Week of November 2-6

Emilie Deans — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:43:00 -0500

As Enrollment Grows in Utah, Budget Shrinks

Arizona Budget Shortfall Forces Cuts

Pennsylvania Universities Anxiously Await Decision on Gambling Taxes

Nebraska Legislators Propose Cuts to School Aid

Kentucky Higher Education Council to Vote on Budget Plan

As Enrollment Grows in Utah, Budget Shrinks
Utah's State Office of Education this week released data showing that enrollment in the state's public K-12 schools increased by 12,260 students since last fall. This growth came at the same time the state's education budget decreased by 5.2 percent from the previous year, thanks to the economic downturn. These numbers mean that schools will have to cut services for students, and per pupil expenditures will go down. And the forecast for next year doesn't look much better - the State Office of Education predicts a similar increase in K-12 enrollment with no increase to the budget. The state may need to dip into its rainy day fund just to maintain spending levels from the current fiscal year. More here...

Arizona Budget Shortfall Forces Cuts
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is planning a mid-November special legislative session to address the state's $2 billion budget shortfall. Governor Brewer has been working with House and Senate leaders to come up with a package of spending cuts to make up for a $500 million revenue shortfall. Most of the cuts will reflect those proposed in a package previously vetoed by Governor Brewer, including much of the annual inflation adjustment for K-12 public schools and funding for purchases of computers, textbooks, and other equipment. Additional cuts will be made during a second special legislative session and during the 2010 regular session, which begins in January. More here...

Pennsylvania Universities Anxiously Await Decision on Gambling Taxes
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have reached a stalemate over details of a bill to legalize and tax gambling table games, like poker, at the state's existing slot-machine casinos. Last month's budget agreement between Governor Ed Rendell and state legislators assumed passage of the bill to raise $200 million in tax revenues. This revenue would contribute to university funding, without which the universities could have to raise tuition for the 2010 spring semester. The universities are pressing the legislature to ensure that they will receive the full amount they've been promised as tuition bills will go out on November 13^th. More here...

Nebraska Legislators Propose School Aid Cut
In a special budget cutting session of the Nebraska state legislature, the State Senate Education Committee proposed cuts totaling about $47 million to schools for fiscal year 2011. About half of the savings would come from limiting to 1 percent the annual funding increase for most school districts. An additional $24 million in cuts would be made by reducing state aid to school districts based on the number of teachers with graduate degrees. The Education Committee's proposal—one of seven introduced on the first day of the special budget-cutting session—came as part of Governor Dave Heineman's plan to cut about $336 million from the state's current two-year budget plan. More here...

Kentucky Higher Education Council to Vote on Budget Plan
The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, the state's coordinating agency for higher education, was scheduled to vote this week on a budget recommendation calling for a $2.1 billion increase in state spending on higher education in the 2011-2012 two-year budget. The increase includes $70 million in each fiscal year to replace federal economic stimulus funding included in the current fiscal year 2010 budget. It also includes a request for a $50 million fund for higher education institutions to promote student retention and graduation rates. This request comes as state officials brace for a difficult budget session - revenue to the state's General Fund is expected to fall about $1 billion short of the $9 billion required for the current fiscal year. Governor Steve Beshear told higher education officials that the upcoming budget will be difficult, but that access to higher education for all Kentuckians is a priority. More here...

Comparing Department of Education and Recipient Reported Stimulus Data

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:40:00 -0500

When Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), they included extensive data reporting requirements so that the public could closely track expenditures. Now that the recipient reported data on expenditures is publically available, tracking education funds should be easy. But as we discussed earlier this week, data reported by school districts and institutions of higher education is lacking in comprehensive information and is difficult to decipher. Unfortunately, state-level recipient reported data does not match previously available Department of Education (ED) reported data for many states, further undermining the value of the data. If the point of the data collection process was to provide accessible data on the progress of the stimulus, this data falls short of that goal.

ARRA recipients reported the total amount of federal stimulus funds they had received as of September 30^th, 2009 for all stimulus programs (except Pell Grants). This data can be compared to data ED reported on the amount of funds disbursed for the same programs. To do this comparison, we aggregated the recipient reported data on total ARRA funds received by state and compared it to ED's reports on funds it disbursed after subtracting any disbursements related to Pell Grants. We found a fair number of discrepancies between the recipient and agency reported data.

Of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, only 27 states or territories reported grant amounts received that were anywhere near the amount that ED reported it had disbursed. The majority of these states reported slightly higher amounts of funds received than the ED agency reported data.

Of the 25 states or territories that reported data that differed from data that ED reported by more than 5 percent, 20 reported receiving higher amounts. For example, the District of Columbia reported that it had received $3.6 million in federal stimulus grants as of September 30^th. However, the ED reported data suggests that only $271,095 had been disbursed to DC as of that date, a discrepancy of 92.5 percent. Similarly, there is a discrepancy of 87.6 percent and 67.6 percent between Alaska's and Delaware's recipient and ED reported data, respectively.

Five states reported lower amounts of federal stimulus funds received than the ED reported data suggests. For example, Kansas reported that it received $42.2 million less than the ED agency reported $203.2 million, a 25.4 percent difference. North Carolina also reported that it had received $391.2 million, $61.9 million less than ED reported it had disbursed.

Without further information on how the states reported the amount they had received, it is impossible to understand why the recipient reported data differs from the agency reported data so greatly. However, these discrepancies call into question the value and validity of the recipient reported data in general. It seems that the states were either ill equipped to collect this data in such a short time span or the school districts and institutions or higher education are doing a poor job of tracking the funds as they come in. Either way, these data suggest that the current recipient reported data system will require significant refinement to become completely useful.

Complete data for all 50 states, Puerto Rico and DC is available here.