Despite the hype, It sounds like a (sadly) pretty easy race to the top for states hoping to take a victory lap around the Department of Education’s discretionary pot ‘o stimulus money for innovation.

In formal announcements last week about the Race to the Top competition, Secretary Duncan singled out a few states he thinks are already out of the gate toward the stimulus fund victory lap as far as their work with charter legislation is concerned, but is it possible he’s already lowered the bar before they get to the finish line?

Take a look at the “accomplishments” of five states he has already commended and see for yourself:

Rhode Island - After working towards making mayoral academies a reality in the Ocean State last year, reformers had to wage a fight on the pages of national newspapers just to receive the money they were promised to open two new charter schools. So, a legislature that reneges on a promise only to save face by fulfilling it in the end is a contender in the Race to the Top? (They still have a cap by the way, Mr. Secretary.)

Connecticut - At the end of the day, a budget cut to charters was voted down. Innovation at work.

Indiana - A charter school cap and moratorium were fiercely debated, but in the end taken off the table. So, not deciding to limit the growth of charters is enough to win a place of honor?

Massachusetts - The Bay State may or may not expand charter options to a specific group of students in specific areas. They may or may not pass proposed legislation to have a slightly less restrictive cap on charter seats in some districts. Will a wink and a nod from DoEd turn the tide one way or the other?

Colorado - Of all states, Colorado may be the most shameless in actively seeking $timulus support without much reform. They added a $10 million fund and some people to their state education budget with only the goal of securing education money from the Race to the Top.

If this is any guide, it’s going to be a very sad race.

(At least legislators won’t have to break a sweat…)

More of the Same at Twice the Price

The National Education Association has prepared a vital tool for anyone interested in assessing the potential impact of the economic stimulus bill on education in the U.S. As major media figures have pointed out in the last several days, the stimulus bill is nothing more than additional funding for the education programs and structures that already exist, regardless of efficacy. And the NEA’s drawn up the charts to prove it. (Notice that reform efforts currently implemented at national and state levels, like charter schools and No Child Left Behind, are completely bypassed.)

Both Senate and House versions nearly double funding of all major programs, such as Title 1 – funding which flows to school districts, where it subsidizes existing staffs and programs. While this may help state and local administrators avoid laying off teachers, it is not tied to student achievement, ensuring that all monies spent simply prop up schools that exist, rather than boosting schools that succeed (NCLB links funding to results, but this pay out comes before the next meaningful achievement assessment, and thus is not tied to accountability). The same is true for the multi-billion dollar school modernization program, for special education and for myriad other program increases.

Also not lost on the status quo supporters of this bill is the fact that there are administrative set-asides at the federal, state and local level. What’s 1 percent of $100 billion? That’s right — government will grow by $1 billion, at the minimum, thanks to this effort. That doesn’t even take into account higher education stimulus funds, another $40 billion or so of which is included in this bill.

There’s also LOTS of money for researchers – the National Science Foundation gets several million more, as does the Institute for Education Sciences. Some discretionary funds (we call it play money) – about $340 million – are also in place for the Secretary to spend as he sees fit on “innovative” programs. But shouldn’t innovative or successful new programs simply draw funds equitably and directly from all federal appropriations (rather than being shunted through the federal-state-local system, with a little – or a lot - being siphoned off at each bureaucratic stop)? Why must “innovation” be separately accounted for in a slush fund, when such reforms are mainly responsible for all the achievement gains of the last decade? And as a result of a decade of reforms, the nation already knows how to succeed in educating children – we simply lack the political resolve to make the hard choices. So why more research in this time of economic crisis? Oh, that’s right. It’s about the jobs of adults, not the education of children.

Consideration of whether or not our current education programs work is missing from the creation of this bill altogether – when it should be the central concern. For years Washington’s representatives fought accountability. NCLB began to shed light in that dark corner. Subsequently ignoring the vetting of programs’ effectiveness before shelling out hard-earned taxpayer dollars is not the way to bring about change and fix failing schools. Which, not incidentally, is the long-haul, big-picture solution to getting – and keeping - our economy back on track for good.

Check out the NEA analysis yourself. We’re glad to finally make use of the taxpayer dollars we give them through mandatory dues payments to see where it’s all going – if the status quo has its way.

I hate to be the skunk at the garden party but will all the education reformers out there please stop asking how to get their pet programs included in the stimulus package?? Not only should real reformers stay far away from this massive, one-time spending bill, they should understand that this stimulus is likely to result in less reform, not more, no matter what happens.

By its very nature, a stimulus is a boost, a kick. Several stimulus – stimuli – should produce many boosts. Boosts take energy – stimulus suggests forward movement, activity. It’s got positive connotations. Lots of good things happen when you stimulate them, right? That is, of course, unless the stimulus is an artificial substance, like a drug, which does something unnatural and temporary, and potentially addictive, to the user.

The stimulus package proposed by the President and being negotiated now in Congress is sort of like a bad drug, at least when it comes to education spending.  After achieving much success in finally convincing the American people of the destructive effects of the status quo - a reliance of inputs over results for kids - the stimulus package promises to return us to the oh so yesterday 80s, where money and government grew for education with little impact on student achievement.

There is much to say about this, and Edspresso will provide live, in person testimony about what occurs when federal spending, in particular, blows out through the Education Department, allegedly headed for schools. Here’s just one fact of life when it comes to federal education spending, than transcends political party or ideology:

Every dollar spent at the federal level will grow the federal bureaucracy first, state government second, local district personnel third, and will only then, reach the schools, where funds will be disbursed not to those who do the best or need it the most, but who have been around the longest.

The process by which the spending is determined will not be specified in the stimulus package. Those decisions will be made amidst the maze of programs, divisions, and branches in the Education Department, with little influence from new political parties (no, Secretary Arne Duncan won’t be able to reach down and change this). The rules and regulations for processing funds will result in increased power for those who distribute the funds, from feds, to states, and incorporate very little innovate thinking, as innovation is not a natural state of the traditional education agency.

Just like the famous story of the Annenberg grant, which spread out millions amongst the worst school districts with no impact, the stimulus bill’s education chapter will have the same impact. But like those drugs we warn our children to stay away from, the initial euphoria will be great when those dollars start flowing. And after it all wears off, we’ll be looking for more money to feed our habit. Will we ask ourselves if we really need it? Is that what addicts do? No, didn’t think so.

Don’t believe it? The Washington Post seems to agree.

MEMO

TO: Readers
FROM: Ed M. Onitor
DATE: January 28, 2009
RE: Did you think it was all about the kids?

I wanted to flag for you Sam Dillon’s piece on the education portion of the federal stimulus package from today’s New York Times.

Some lines worth highlighting:

“The economic stimulus plan that Congress has scheduled for a vote on Wednesday would shower the nation’s school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending…”

“Critics and supporters alike said that by its sheer scope, the measure could profoundly change the federal government’s role in education…”

“Obama administration officials, teachers unions and associations representing school boards, colleges and other institutions in American education said the aid would bring crucial financial relief to the nation’s 15,000 school districts and to thousands of campuses otherwise threatened with severe cutbacks.”

“This is going to avert literally hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Tuesday.”

“This really marks a new era in federal spending…”

And perhaps the most on-target statement comes from AEI’s Rick Hess (it almost made me spill my coffee):

“It’s like an alcoholic at the end of the night when the bars close, and the solution is to open the bar for another hour…”

Instead of throwing money at our crisis, why don’t we throw some innovation at our failing education system?

Got Mandate?