RTTT is the "Carrot That Feels Like a Stick," says Mike Petrilli (of all people). He "can’t help but feel remorse for the death of federalism."

As I prepare for a talk at DePaul University tomorrow, I’m racing (ha!) to review the assessment program of Race to the Top. After having vented yesterday, several things stand out as politically significant in the assessment competition.

It is key to understand that the content of Race to the Top is bribery. While in the past the main criticism from various quarters was that much of NCLB’s testing requirements were “unfunded mandates;” today they are funded, but in an even more coercive way. Those who do the bidding of Obama, Duncan and a host of venture philanthropists, will receive tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This itself is significant, for as I’ve noted before, bribery as a method signifies illegitimacy: “The use of the public treasury to bribe educators is an open admission that the path being imposed by the ruling elite cannot be justified” — that is, it is against prevailing public opinion. Despite all the talk about putting children first, kids do not want more testing, they are not craving to have their entire academic experience converted to numbers and letters in some federal database (as RTTT appears to aim to create), nor are they demanding teachers who only spend a few weeks preparing to enter the classroom, high on a mission inspired by the White Man’s Burden. Nor are children and youth narrowly interested in education for a career. So, as is often the case, things are not what they seem. The irrationality of the project requires that its political functions be explored. Eligibility requirements for receiving the competitive grants are a good place to begin.

An Analysis of Select Requirements

To be eligable for the Comprehensive Assessment System (the first assessment competition), the Executive Summary states:

Eligible applicants are consortia of States. To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible applicant must—1. Include a minimum of 15 States, of which at least 5 States must be governing States (as defined in the NIA); 2. Identify in its application a proposed project management partner and provide an assurance that the proposed project management partner is not partnered with any other eligible applicant applying for an award under this category; and; 3. Submit assurances from each State in the consortium that, to remain in the consortium, the State will adopt a common set of college- and career-ready standards…

It will be important to thoroughly explore the degree to which this arrangement has precedent, but there are, it appears, some significant breaks with past practice. Unlike national associations like the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) — which is nonetheless playing an important role in creating national standards — RTTT requires placing some states as “governing” over others and require states in the consortia to sign “assurances” of compliance with the governing state and executive demands at the federal level to receive funding. Whereas CCSSO and possibly other associations are framed as advocacy organizations, this arrangement appears to create new governance structures. It appears to structure a new form of political inequality among states as well.

So what of these new governance structures? First, it is important to take seriously the use of the word consortium. Similar to the increasingly used concept of partnership, consortium is typically understood as “an association, typically of several business companies.” The social and political arrangement in which this makes sense is typically understood as belonging to the private realm of private enterprise, or that of “civil society” in the form of a professional association or “non-governmental agency” — as distinct from the state. But here we have the federal apparatus, under the direction of an executive, and not the law making body, forming through the use of bribes governing structures that do not obviously conform to the U.S. constitution or even state constitutions. What are we to make of a group of states forming a governing alliance that controls curricular content and standards for assessment whether teachers are teaching and students are learning that content, under the direction of executive bodies of the federal government? Will such alliances compete with each other? Will there be a Confederate consortium?

In the Federal Register notice, we find this interesting option:

Application Requirements: An eligible applicant’s application must—1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether—(a) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium; or (b) The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf; 2. Be signed by—(a) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium, the Governor, the State’s chief school officer, and, if applicable, the president of the State board of education from that State; or (b) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a representative of the consortium.

It is completely unclear, albeit on its face significant, what it means to allow for states to form a consortium that “has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity.” Such as a private corporation or non-for-profit institution?

Second, what might be most significant about this arrangement is not that it violates states rights (presumably the out for the Obama administration here is that Duncan is not actually forcing any state to apply for these grants) but rather that it restructures executive authority by creating “partnerships” between associations of states that relate as single entities to federal bodies, where these consortia appear to be de-linked both from federal and state law making bodies.

A related criteria for winning the competition is the role given to public institutions of higher education (IHEs). The Summary explains:

The Department gives eligible applicants competitive preference points based on the extent to which they have promoted collaboration and alignment between member States’ public elementary and secondary education systems and their public IHEs…Eligible applicants addressing this priority must provide, for each IHE or IHE system, a letter of intent that—(a) Commits the IHE or IHE system to participate with the consortium in the design and development of the consortium’s final high school summative assessments in mathematics and English language arts in order to ensure that the assessments measure college readiness; (b) Commits the IHE or IHE system to implement policies, once the final high school summative assessments are implemented, that exempt from remedial courses and place into credit-bearing college courses any student who meets the consortium-adopted achievement standard (as defined in the NIA) for each assessment and any other placement requirement established by the IHE or IHE system; and (c) Is signed by the State’s higher education executive officer (if the State has one) and the president or head of each participating IHE or IHE system.

This arrangement appears to have the effect of brining state public education systems under a governing apparatus of consortia of states — neither at the state level nor the federal level — that, in turn, interacts with the federal department of education. Of course, there is much to say about this — the implication of mandating the elimination of remedial courses for example — but that is for another time.

Another feature that suggests significant restructuring of executive power is this requirement stipulated under Consortium Governance. It notes that the “terms and conditions of the Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements executed by each member State” must include the “State’s commitment to and plan for identifying any existing barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and to addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system.”

Like Race to the Top requirements that bribe states into rewriting their laws — the most notable examples being the removal of caps on charter schools and rules limiting the use of test data for teacher evaluation purposes — this places executive bodies in a quasi-law making role. Along with venture philanthropy and other monopolies, governors and some legislatures are demanding changes to state law to increase state chances for winning Race to the Top funds. While a key point here is the clear focus on emasculating teachers unions and the spreading of massive disinformation about “putting kids first”, the point here is that this structure creates a new governing mechanism, neither at the level of state, nor clearly at the federal level; in some ways, it is not clear that the consortia to be formed are fully public in nature (e.g., a consortium that “established itself as a separate eligible legal entity”). It is important to understand that these changes are enabled by the ARRA, the result of the crimes of Wall Street (while some banks are “too big to fail” public institutions of historic proportion, such as public schools and universities, are being forced to fail).

Another clue that suggests limited public status for these governing structures is the manner in which RTTT insists on technical standards that are, generally speaking, open source or cross platform, while maintaining test secrecy. This ensures the public continues to be blocked from access to test content. Again the notice in the Federal Register is more helpful. It states:

In addition, we are requiring that eligible applicants receiving awards under either category in this competition develop assessment items and produce student data in a manner that is consistent with standards for interoperability, and that they make all assessment content (i.e., assessments and assessment items) developed with funds from this competition freely available to States, technology platform providers, or others that request it for purposes of administering assessments, consistent with States’ needs and with consortium or State requirements for test or item security.

Suggesting that public dollars are again being used to develop technology latter utilized by private entities, the notice reads:

We believe that these requirements will ensure that assessment content developed with funds from this competition is widely available, including to States that are not part of consortia receiving funds under this competition as well as to commercial organizations wishing to further develop, extend, and incorporate the content into assessment products intended for State use. Moreover, we believe that making assessment content freely available will spur innovation in assessment technology and enable technology providers to compete for States’ business on the basis of their developing efficient, effective, economical, and innovative assessment platforms.

It does not appear than that the issue is simply one of state’s rights and the death of federalism. Rather, it appears the very nature and scope of executive power is changing, and working to further distance governance from the public and its will.

Related posts

• Detroit Free Press: MEAP may be replaced by national online test (0)
• Maryland First State to Bar Schools Releasing Tests to Military (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead! (0)
• Hess on Federal Jargon & the Jargon of Venture Capitalism and Wall Street Dictate (0)
• Preparing for Tests, Learning…? (0)

Matthew Stone, writing in the Kennebec Journal quotes Duncan: “States such as Maine that don’t allow charter schools are putting themselves at a ‘competitive disadvantage’.” According to the article, 10 states do not allow charter schools, while 26 put caps on the number of charter schools. These states risk being denied Duncan’s so-called “Race to the Top” funds, widely recognized as bribes for complying with unpopular initiatives of the federal government.

Stone reports:

Critics of charter schools in the Legislature said a new set of schools would divert too many resources away from local districts at a time when they’re struggling to make ends meet.

Sen. Justin Alfond, D-Portland, said during debate that a vote against charter schools was a vote of confidence in Maine public schools.

“It’s time for us to put confidence back to the schools that we already have here,” he said Thursday.

As reported in The Tennessean, state lawmakers have also been put into motion by Duncan’s carrot.

Republicans “contend that Tennessee could lose out on $100 million as part of a $4.35 billion ‘Race to the Top’ federal grant program for states that commit to education reform — including increasing access to charter schools. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is scheduled to talk to reporters today about President Barack Obama’s administration’s emphasis on the importance of charter school access to receiving the funds.

Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton said, “States that don’t search for innovative solutions certainly don’t help their chances.”

In previous committee discussions, some Democrats accused charter school leaders of targeting urban areas to draw poor, black students and their state funding away from the public school system for monetary gain.

With budget cuts scheduled for physical health and safety programs, losing student funding could further hurt schools, said Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner, D-Old Hickory.

“We’re cutting things from schools already, and now we’re talking about taking money out of schools? That’s a problem,” he said.

[...]

State law allows up to 50 charter schools, which typically can accept only low-performing students and students in low-performing schools. Tennessee now has 16 charter schools, including three in Nashville.

[...]

But the $100 million doesn’t depend solely on charter school eligibility, and Tennessee hasn’t lost out on any of the funds because they haven’t been distributed yet, said Earl Wiman, president of the Tennessee Education Association, which opposes the bill.

If legislators are going to expand eligibility of charter schools, they should tighten regulation and give the schools less time before being subject to state review, Wiman said.

“If they’re going to be getting that money and making that promise, they shouldn’t be afraid of increased accountability,” Wiman said.

Applications for the federal grant program will be accepted beginning in late fall 2009. First payouts are scheduled for spring 2010.

Related posts

• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles (0)
• Charter Schools/Market Violence/Disruptive Innovation: Student Beating, Paying the Rich, and the Irrelevance of Facts (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Think Tank Review: Report on Impact of Charters Overstates Results (0)
• “Uncommon Schools” Charter School Executive Will Be NYS Education Deputy (0)

I’m proud to work for a President who has created a comprehensive agenda that addresses the needs at every level of our educational system, from expanding access to high-quality early childhood programs to improving the rigor of the academic programs in our K-12 schools to making college more affordable and accessible.

We have gotten off to a fast start. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we have laid the groundwork for reform on the K-12 level and made an early down payment on expanding access to early childhood education and increasing student aid for college students. The law made available almost $100 billion for education. That money will help prevent layoffs, fill holes in state and local budgets, and provide financial aid to college students. The money is needed to help our economy in the short term, but reforms efforts driven by these funds will be the key to our long-term economic success.

Under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, states will receive $48.6 billion to supplement their own budgets during these difficult economic times. The Recovery Act says that states must spend most of that funding on education. $39.8 billion of that should go to schools.

I want to assure you that I will be scrutinizing how states spend their stabilization money to make sure they are focused on education. I have heard that some states plan to use their stabilization money so as to maintain their rainy day fund and that others may rely on their stabilization grants to pay for tax cuts instead of investing in reforms. I will do everything in my power to reject any schemes that would subvert the intended purpose of the Recovery Act, which is to help schools through the economic downturn and push reform, thereby ensuring our economic prosperity in the future. When reviewing applications for the Race to the Top Fund, we plan to consider whether a state used their stabilization money to aggressively push reforms.

In addition to helping states solve their budget problems, the stabilization fund lays out a path to reform. To receive their money, states must make four commitments that are essential to reforming our K-12 schools. They will improve the effectiveness of teachers and make sure the best teachers are in the schools that need them the most. They will promise to improve the quality of their academic standards so that they lead students down a path that prepares them for college and the workforce and global competitiveness. These standards need to be aligned with strong assessments. In addition, states must work to ensure that these assessments accurately measure the achievement of English language learners and students with disabilities.

Under the third assurance, states must commit to fixing their lowest-performing schools. Finally, states must build data systems that can track student performance from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and their parents know when they are making progress and when they need extra attention. This information must also be put in the hands of educators so they can use it to improve instruction. Right now, according to the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah are the only states that are reporting to have comprehensive data systems meeting the basic elements of a good system. With $250 million in the stimulus and another $65 million in our annual budget for fiscal year 2009 and again in fiscal year 2010, we expect these numbers to continue to grow, which is vital for reform.

In addition to the stabilization money, the Recovery Act gave us $5 billion to spur innovation in states and districts. Through the Race to the Top Fund, we will be awarding $4.35 billion in competitive grants to states built around the four pillars of reform outlined in the stabilization fund. Through the What Works and Innovation Fund, we also will be awarding $650 million in competitive grants to districts and non-profit organizations to scale up successful programs and evaluate promising practices.

Our fiscal year 2010 budget will expand our commitment to reforms in several important ways, addressing the needs from early childhood through K-12 education.

Under the Title I program, we will provide $1.5 billion for the School Improvement program. This money is vital for helping states and districts address problems in schools in the most trouble. We already have $3 billion for this program from the Recovery Act and another $545 million from fiscal year 2009. By adding $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2010, we’ll have more than $5 billion to address the problems of our lowest-performing schools. I’d like to set a goal to turn around 1,000 low-performing schools a year for each of the next five years. I don’t want to invest in the status quo. I want states and districts to take bold actions that will lead directly to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders to find change agents who can fix these schools. I want them to provide incentives for their best teachers to take on the challenge of teaching in these schools. And where appropriate, I want them to create partnerships with charter school operators with a track record of success. I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult step of shutting down a failing school and replacing it with one they know will work. We’ve proposed a $52 million increase in funding to develop and expand successful charter schools.

Many of you have heard me say that I believe education is the civil rights issue of our time. I truly believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. I will work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make sure that we properly review compliance in all programs and policymaking.

The fiscal year 2010 budget starts new programs and expands existing ones to address our priorities in early childhood education and literacy. We will create the $300 million Early Learning Challenge Fund that will award grants to help states set up the support and services necessary to build quality early childhood education. We will provide $500 million in grants through Title I to help districts use their Title I money to establish and expand preschool programs. We will expand the Striving Readers program from a small $35 million program focused on middle school and high schools to a $370 million program that addresses the reading needs of children in elementary schools as well. The program will take a comprehensive approach to reading instruction, ensuring that students develop the basic skills as well as the reading comprehension that is so vital to their success in high school and beyond.

We also continue our focus on promoting the teaching profession. With $517 million in our fiscal year 2010 budget, we will continue and expand our support for local efforts under the Teacher Incentive Fund to develop comprehensive strategies for recruiting, preparing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers. We also request $10 million to plan new Promise Neighborhoods, modeled on the successful Harlem Children’s Zone. We are committed to acting on the evidence. And we request $72 million more for the Institute for Education Sciences, so we can identify what works based on rigorous research.

Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused on helping states do the right thing. And that’s appropriate because States are responsible for establishing systems of education through the 12th grade. It’s our role to make it a national priority to reform schools and help states and districts do that.

For more than 40 years, the federal government has played a leading role in helping students pay for college. Continuing this vital role, the total amount of aid for students has increased by $32 billion since President Obama has taken office. By subsidizing loans and by providing work-study programs and, most importantly, giving Pell Grants to low-income students, the federal government is fulfilling the dreams of students who want to go to college but might not be able to pay for it. President Obama has set a goal that, by 2020, the United States once again will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That’s an achievable goal but, to do that, we have to make college affordable.

The Recovery Act made an important down-payment on our plans to expand student aid. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $17.1 billion so we could raise the maximum Pell award from $4,731 to $5,350. It also added $200 million to the Work-Study program, providing colleges and universities with additional money to provide jobs to students to help with their college and living expenses.

In our fiscal year 2010 budget, we make three important and permanent changes to ensure students have access to student aid and loans. The first thing it will do is move the Pell Grant program from a discretionary program into a mandatory, appropriated entitlement. This approach will provide more certainty to students and families applying for student aid about the aid that’s available to them. In addition, the Pell Grant amounts will grow annually at a rate higher than inflation so that it keeps up with rising college costs.

The second thing this budget does is address the problems with the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. I think we can all agree that the FFEL structure is broken and the federal student loan programs are in need of a dependable, cost-effective way of providing college-bound students and their families with the resources they need to meet the growing cost of postsecondary education. The direct lending program is the best way to do that. Through it, we are able to leverage the government’s lower cost of funds to finance and originate student loans and private-sector expertise to service the loans. The President’s proposal provides a comprehensive and reliable solution for today’s students while saving taxpayers over $4 billion a year. It will be more stable and efficient – reducing risk for students and lowering costs for taxpayers.

The third thing we are doing is boosting the Perkins loan program from $1 billion to $6 billion per year. The number of students served will rise from 500,000 to 2.7 million – and the number of schools that can participate in the program will increase from 1,800 to 4,400, which also means that we will serve more students. Also, to help keep college affordable our Perkins proposal allocates funds to schools based on their role in keeping tuition down and providing grant aid to needy students. This further builds upon Congress’ recent mandate to create watch lists of colleges with high or excessive increases in tuition.

In closing, I’d like to remind you of one thing the President said when he addressed Congress in February. “In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity — it is a prerequisite.”

Thank you for your support so far in ensuring that our children and young adults have the education they need to ensure they enter the workforce with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful and to help rebuild our economy.

Delivered on May 20, 2009  | Speaker sometimes deviates from text.

Related posts

• Obama’s speech at Hampton University commencement (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record (0)

Detroit should follow the path of Chicago and New Orleans, says Duncan.  “Duncan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, newly elected Detroit Mayor Dave Bing and Robert Bobb, the district’s emergency financial manager, spoke with students at Cody High School about improving education.  The city was Duncan’s second stop on his national ‘Listening and Learning Tour’.”

“He’s got billions of dollars in Race to the Top Recovery Act money that they are willing to invest in the cities that are willing to make the changes necessary to get the results we want,” Granholm said.  Despite evidence that eliminating public control over education improves what goes on inside schools, “Duncan has been a proponent of turning control of Detroit’s school system over to the mayor, and said he is encouraged by Bing’s interest in Detroit schools.”

Williams notes: “An elected school board runs the system, and Detroit voters in 2004 overwhelmingly turned down a proposal to hand over that power to the mayor. But with $5 billion at Duncan’s disposal, Bing doesn’t see a problem. “I think the mood of this city and its citizens have really changed since five years ago. Everybody is pretty much outraged with the outcomes at this point, and a change is necessary.”

Related posts

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)

Under “General Principles” for the use of ARRA funds, the law states: “The President and the heads of Federal departments and agencies shall manage and expend the funds made available in this Act so as to achieve the purposes specified in subsection (a) [described above], including commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management.”      

While the ARRA provides broad latitude to heads of federal agencies, the emphasis on using ARRA funds to compel educators and state and local authorities to adopt the Obama administration’s agenda for education goes beyond what explicitly appears in the ARRA legislation and is possibly contrary to the explicit purpose of the law, that is, to stimulate the economy.

Approximately $100 billion of the stimulus package’s $787 billion is devoted to education programs. While the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), the national-level association for K-12 educational administrators, recognizes that the ARRA is aimed at “stimulating” the economy and “helping states address their deficits (of which education is one of the largest state expenditures) and forestalling teacher layoffs at the local level,” it also emphasizes another feature of the stimulus. In the ASCD brief entitled “Eligible Education Activities for Funding,” the association observes that, “Education Secretary Arne Duncan has, however, signaled a third priority for this unprecedented federal infusion of education funding: reform.” Duncan demands the funds be used for activities he determines “promote student achievement.”

The one-time nature of the stimulus funding (all of it is to be spent by September 2011 at the latest) encourages expenditures on activities that do not result in ongoing or recurring expenses beyond that date, after which districts will be solely responsible for the costs. Neither the law nor federal policy regarding the disbursement of funds addresses how meeting a main stated objective — forestalling teacher layoffs for example — will not result in “recurring expenditure.” In the words of the ASCD, the Department of Education dictates funds be used to “elevate the quality of the teaching profession by using a significant amount of the stimulus funds for professional development activities.” These activities, it should be noted, will have little impact on “stimulating the economy” although they will serve to enrich for-profit providers of professional development services (the value of which has long been questioned by educators), especially those “approved” by the U.S. Department of Education or state agencies.

Major Areas of Education Funding Within the Stimulus

Most of the nearly $100 billion for education activities will be delivered to states and districts through one of four distinct mechanisms: through the existing Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) formulae, the state’s primary K-12 funding formula, and competitive grants under the auspices of the Secretary of Education. Both the $5 billion in competitive grants (“Race to the Top” funds) and the more than $50 billion in state fiscal stabilization funds (the largest portion of the ARRA money targeted to education) require application (from school districts and state governors, in the case of stabilization funds), with funds released to each state and district on the condition that the Secretary of Education judges their efforts to be in compliance with President Obama’s vision for education “reform.”

Title I, Part A—$10 billion

Title I is prominent feature of federal K-12 education funding. According to the ASCD: “The $10 billion of stimulus funds earmarked for Title I over the next two years are in addition to the regular appropriation for fiscal year 2009 of $14.5 billion.” Half of this money is being made available immediately (April, 2009), with the other half to be dispursed during the summer and fall of 2009, pending Secretary Duncan’s approval of state spending plans, record keeping and reporting. In addition, 95 percent of these funds must be allocated to districts for “school improvement” activities such as professional development as well as extension of the school day and school year.

In visits to numerous states, Duncan has suggested that states and districts that adopt governance mechanisms that eliminate unions (such as Colorado’s “Innovation Schools Act” providing waivers from collective bargaining agreements) and reduce or eliminate public control of school districts (such Secretary Ducan’s call for mayoral control of urban school districts) will be more likely to receive more ARRA funds than states that are less aggressive in adopting such measures.

Duncan’s model of education, as evidenced in his support of KIPP charter schools and similar charter programs across the U.S. that effectively ban teachers unions, require teachers “who are willing or able to work long hours for low pay” according to an article in Slate magazine. These schools run 10 hour programs during the week, half day programs every other Saturday, and require teachers to be available for hours in the evening for assistance with homework. Not surprisingly, these schools have high rates of teacher turnover, and despite monopoly media reports, do not perform better on state tests.

Title I School Improvement Grants—$3 billion

The School Improvement Grant subprogram under Title I funds “turnaround activities” at schools identified as “in need of improvement” based on the arbitrary testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Since 2004, under former Chicago School Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan, many neighborhood schools in African American and Latino communities have been closed despite public opposition. These schools were subsequently either turned into selective enrollment schools for the wealthy or over to outside “turnaround” specialists leading to corporate charter status. Closing “low performing” schools has been described by Department of Education officials as a key part of “school improvement grants” issued under ARRA.

IDEA Part B— $11.3 billion

Federal funding through IDEA helps “defray the additional costs of states and districts associated with educating students with disabilities” according to the ACSD. The stimulus funding of $11.3 billion essentially doubles the $11.5 billion for IDEA state grants in the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. “Additionally, the stimulus provides $400 million for the IDEA preschool program and $500 million for the IDEA infants and toddlers program.” As with Title I funds, half of this money is being made available immediately. In order to receive the remaining Part B recovery funds, a state must submit, for review and approval by the Department of Educaiton, an amendment to its fiscal year 2009 application to address the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the ARRA.

Aside from the potential uses of IDEA stimulus dollars below, it is important to note that under the existing IDEA rules, local districts can reduce their state and local expenditures by up to 50 percent of any federal increase received under the normal IDEA appropriation and apply it to ESEA activities. The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging districts to take “advantage of this flexibility to focus the freed-up local funds on one-time expenditures such as the equitable distribution of effective teachers and the quality of assessments.” The move encourages state reliance on federal funding and thus increased federal executive control over state education systems.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund for Education—$39.8 billion

$48.3 billion is earmarked for state use under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and is allocated to states by formula: 61 percent on the basis of relative population of 5–24-year-olds and 39 percent on the basis of the relative share of the total population. The money is divided into two pots for use within states. The largest pot, $39.8 billion, must be used to restore (in equal proportions) both a state’s K-12 and higher education funding to either fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009 levels, whichever is higher. States must distribute these funds to local districts based on the state’s primary education funding formula. If any funds remain after K-12 funding restoration, such a surplus will be distributed to districts on the basis of the Title I formula (but is not required to be used for Title I activities).

This method does not take into account actual state and district financial needs, serving to exacerbate inequalities between states and regions. For example, states such as Texas, Alaska and Wyoming have not cut K-12 funding, yet they will nonetheless receive stimulus funds aimed at restoring educational funding. Rural districts will receive relatively little ARRA funds as a result of this calculation. States such as California and Florida will not receive enough funds under this formula to achieve the stated aim of “restoring funding” to previous levels.

The second pot, the remaining $8.5 billion, is to be used for “public safety” and other government operations and may include K-12 services (or the renovation/repair of school facilities—but not new building construction). At the district level, there are specific provisions related to the use of education funds, which can be used for any activities under No Child Left Behind, IDEA, the Adult and Family Literacy Act, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act).

To receive the initial 67 percent of the State’s allocation under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a Governor must submit to the Department of Education an application that includes assurances that the State will commit to advancing education reform in four specific areas:

(1) Achieving equity in teacher distribution;
(2) Improving collection and use of data;
(3) Enhancing the quality of standards and assessments; and
(4) Supporting struggling schools.

Secretary’s Innovation Fund—$5 billion

The most direct and obvious stimulus investment in education reform is a $5 billion fund overseen by the Secretary of Education to promote his four reform priorities. The “Race to the Top Fund” is $4.35 billion worth of competitive grants to states “making the most progress” in reform as determined by the Secretary.

The Investing in What Works and Innovation Fund is $650 million in competitive grants to Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and nonprofits that “have made significant gains in closing achievement gaps and are models of best practices. Because the grants are awarded on a competitive basis and are also somewhat contingent on state and district use of other stimulus funds, the government will award these grants last. The 2010 awards will be made in two rounds, first in late fall 2009 and then again in summer of 2010,” according to the ASCD.

Education Technology State Grants— $650 million

The stimulus plan provides $650 million for the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT, or E2T2) state grant program beyond the fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $270 million. The program helps districts utilize technology to improve teaching and learning to increase student achievement and technological literacy. States must use 25 percent of stimulus funds distributed under this program for professional development.

Related posts

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)

“If folks are playing shell games, if folks are operating in bad faith, it puts their second chance at billions of dollars in jeopardy,” he said. “We have significant carrots and sticks.” — Arne Duncan, April 15, Chicago Tribute.

In a April 1, Washington Post interview, under the banner of “New Voices of Power,” staff writer Lois Romano queries Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: “So you have all this money, but, in a sense, aren’t you a little bit powerless because, in the end, the States are going to decide how to spend the money?”

Duncan: “Well, we’re going to work very, very closely with those states, and we’ve given out–we will give out over the next couple weeks billions of dollars, but we’re going to keep billions of dollars here to really watch and monitor how states do in terms of implementing these reforms.”

“Secondly, there’s unprecedented discretionary dollars, a $5-billion Race to the Top Fund where we’re going to work exclusively with those states and those districts that are really willing to challenge the status quo and get dramatically better.”

“So we’ve never had greater resources, more carrots, but also some sticks to make sure that we’re doing the right thing by children around the country.”

Lois Romano: “You talked about carrots and sticks. What are your sticks going to be?”

Duncan: “Well, again, if states aren’t doing the right thing with the stimulus package, basically they’re going to disqualify themselves from even competing for the Race to the Top Fund, and so there’s a huge financial incentive.”

During a March 24 interview with Education Week reporters Alyson Klein, Michele McNeil, and Stephen Sawchuk, Secretary Duncan was asked the following question: “Would you ever ask for money back if you found that states didn’t use it in the way you think was intended?”

Duncan: “We want to be very, very clear: If things are not going the way we like, we are going to challenge that. But … I’m much more interested in getting it right the first time, and it is absolutely in states’ best interest … to get it right the first time.”

Again Duncan is querried: “There are a couple of states [for example South Carolina] that made news because they want to reject stimulus money, especially education money. Are you working with people in those states to figure out how to possibly still get some of that stimulus money into those states, or is it going to be a dead end for you all?”

Duncan: “We are absolutely working with folks in those states who care passionately about the care of their children’s education, and there isn’t a state in the country [that] doesn’t have tremendous unmet educational need. … And so we are actually looking to be creative and work with people who have a vision and a passion for this and want to do the right thing by children.”

The reporters push Duncan: “What can you do?”

Duncan: “Stay tuned.”

Arbitrary Power against the Public & the Crisis of Legitimacy

Since being appointed Secretary of Education by President Obama, Arne Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education have initiated a massive media campaign of interviews, speeches, and news and department press releases, a sample of which is reprinted above, which focus on how the Obama Administration will use ARRA funds to further its agenda for education, with Ducan emphasizing that “this is the President’s vision.”

Key to this campaign is the role given to “incentives” at the disposal of executives, such as Duncan, who arbitrarily use the funds to support “what they like”. “We have significant carrots and sticks,” Ducan emphasizes. This arbitrary use of large sums of the public treasury by executive and unelected officials signals a significant concentration of power and a challenge to the constitutional powers given to states. But one cannot understand the drive to increase executive power, the secretary’s emphasis on “carrots and sticks,” absent an understanding of the opposition to “the President’s vision” for education.

As outlined in speeches by both Obama and Duncan, the administration is calling for more high-stakes testing, academic sweatshops for teachers and students in the form of corporate run charter schools and more mayoral control of urban school districts against more, not less, public control over education. Yet, by the U.S. Department of Education’s own accounts, and by the accounts chronicled in decades worth of independent research on school reform, not to mention people’s own direct experience these “reforms”, none of these methods have served to improve education.

So why the continued pursuit of “reforms” that have not served the aims for which they were officially established? Why the emphasis on “carrots and sticks” or what amounts to outright bribery?

While Duncan misuses the carrot and stick idiom (as it refers to a “carrot on a stick,” where a driver would tie a carrot on a string to a long stick and dangle it in front of the donkey, just out of its reach, to induce the donkey forward) the content of bribery is clear.

To bribe means to “persuade (someone) to act in one’s favor by a gift of money or other inducement”. Importantly, bribery only makes sense in the face of a norm, standard or other basis for refusal to act in a manner desired by the person offering the bribe. What is very significant from the political point of view is that, as a form of persuasion, bribery does not rest on reasoned argument, the use of facts and logic to justify a proposed course of action. At the level of federal law and policy, bribery is a form of persuasion that rests on the open assertion of authority against public opinion: one would not need to bribe educators and locally elected officials into doing what was inherently in their interest. The use of the public treasury to bribe educators is an open admission that the path being imposed by the ruling elite cannot be justified.

Thus, the use of ARRA funds to compel educators to take up “reforms” that have already been discredited as ineffective and against voters demand for change (not more of the same Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush cooperate education agenda) signals a profound legitimacy crisis. It signals a fairly broad opposition within official organizations to the wrecking of public education. The National School Boards Association has, for example, continually opposed mayoral control as both ineffective and anti-democratic. Every major education research organization, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Educational Research Association, has opposed in some form, to take another example, the use of high-stakes testing. Only a few weeks ago, Warrick County (Indiana) Superintendent Brad Schneider criticized the Bush-sponsored No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act as “mind-boggling” and “absurd.” And, public opinion still supports public education against privatization.

The transformation of public funds into “carrots and sticks” to be used against students, educators and parents must be rejected as an illegitimate use of power against public opinion. It must also be recognized as an admission on the part of the elite that they have no solutions to the problems in education and society. What is needed is more, not less, control over institutions that have an inherent public function.

Related posts

• Clifford Adelman’s “White Noise of Accountability” (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Is Thinking a “Skill”? Values and Problems in Thinking About the “Liberal Arts” (0)
• Realism and Social Change (0)