Sign up for our newsletter
Contact

We Need More Than Charm

November 1, 2012 By

What Has Arne Done For Us?
by Fawn Johnson
National Journal
October 29, 2012

If nothing else, Education Secretary Arne Duncan has made waves. In the last four years, he has brought about incredible changes in education policy, no thanks to Congress. That’s a point that education writer Richard Colvin (a contributor to this blog) makes in a recent column in Kappan magazine. “The breakdown of the legislative process hasn’t prevented the U.S. Department of Education from pursuing what may well be one of the most far-reaching education reform agendas ever,” Colvin writes. Duncan shepherded $4 billion for Race to the Top competitive grants and created No Child Left Behind waiver program for states. Let’s not forget also that the Common Core State standards are now…well…common.

This has not made everyone happy, particularly conservatives who don’t want to see new education policies put in place by fiat. Fordham Institute Executive Vice President Mike Petrilli (whose boss Chester Finn is also a contributor on this blog) argued in reaction to Colvin’s article that the White House could have pushed for legislation instead of the NCLB waivers, even if it didn’t like where Congress was going. “Both the Senate and House passed reauthorization bills out of their respective committees, and had the administration wanted to get them across the finish line, it could have pushed for it, and I think achieved it,” Petrelli said in an e-mail. Had that happened, NCLB would have been more or less dead. But it would have been a sound legislative process.

It is debatable whether Congress would have been able to pass any bill reauthorizing the complex elementary and secondary education system. It is also worth asking whether the administration did the responsible thing in responding to the gridlock, which had real consequences for states, with its “We Can’t Wait” waiver program. But it is beyond question that everyone involved in the debate has been shocked at how difficult it is to accomplish anything. Everyone involved in the talks agrees with 90 percent of the changes that are on the table. Colvin quotes one Capitol Hill aide who quit out of frustration. I have met staffers who say that Congress has regressed more than 10 years in its thinking on education.

In spite of all this, Duncan broke through these barriers and instituted programs that education researchers will be studying for the next decade. If President Obama wins reelection, Duncan will stick around, but his impact probably won’t be as large as he continues the programs he started. He won’t have $48.6 billion in economic stimulus money to play with, and he will instead have to focus on where he can cut to meet budget constraints.

It doesn’t matter because Duncan has already made his mark.

What lessons can we learn from the Education Department under Arne Duncan? What is his legacy? How important is the waiver program in considering next steps for NCLB–i.e., assessments, testing, disaggregation? How important is Race to the Top in encouraging state innovations? Are there other, better ways that an agency can deal with an intransigent Congress? What did Arne do for us in Obama’s first term?

 
Response: We Need More Than Charm
by Jeanne Allen
National Journal
November 1, 2012

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is engaging personally and professionally. As a superintendent, he honed his communication skills, so whether he was talking to a teacher, the union president or a parent, they all equally think he’s on their side and committed to doing the right thing. He can shoot hoops with anyone, on or off the court. And he’s received praise far and wide for being so, well, so good and so reform-minded. But having listened and watched him carefully now for four years, I’m seeing a pattern. It’s the pattern of a disciplined player that knows how to get in the game, stay competitive, and never look like he’s going to miss.

Duncan’s basic formula is this: Speak to a group and mention all the things you know they are interested in; quality, charters, collaboration, we have to fix our schools, we can make them better, investment, accountability, choice, parents, engagement…. And in the process, we confuse activity with action, and policymaking with reform.

Duncan scores lots of points for reminding the nation that we have a problem and that there are many ways to solve the problem. A+ on that. And he’s tenacious in going places, meeting with people, speaking to people — keeping the issue alive. Great moves, all of it. But when it comes to his efforts resulting in substantive change that impacts student achievement, I’m not seeing any. In fact, Duncan has created a perverse incentive system where states and districts now know that in order to get money, all they have to do is promise to play ball for whatever policy prescription is on the table. Common core, teacher evaluation, turn-arounds/turn-overs/collaborative-reinvestment-engagement schemes, charter schools (though it need not matter what kind of policy one is recommending and whether it works)… The average state or local grant writer knows that once the money comes, they can have the meetings, convene stakeholders, make plans and try to do what they said they’d do, and whether or how quickly new processes and plans and goals and outcomes are sketched, they’ll keep getting paid for students based on archaic formulas that have little to do with whether children are learning.

Meanwhile, the states that have accomplished the most with reform are those where teacher tenure was significantly reformed or removed, where educators have more flexibility, where schools are turned over without account for union collaboration and where schools are scored and parents have choices. Our top ten states for Parent Power provide a key to why some states are doing better than others, if you need more context. It’s no secret why Indiana comes out number 1.

To be fair, Education Secretary Duncan’s positive, affable rhetoric and embrace of change has helped keep education hot amidst a sea of other important issues, and has allowed more Democrats to embrace changes they may have never have endorsed if it were only the Rs who were in power. He’s used the Bully Pulpit well, and that’s a clear score. But inside and outside the Ed Department, Duncan has indeed confused caused many to think they’ve already achieved significant gains because of the policies they’ve embraced. It all sounds the same, and whether or not one did performance evaluations right doesn’t matter as long as they did them, period. That means they’ll probably not push more on that, or closing failing schools, or taking on the unions, or charters or tenure, or adopt new innovations like widespread online learning or real school choice! They can claim credit and move on to another issue, which tends to be the attitude of a lawmaker not particularly engaged in education reform once they’ve done something, anything others praise. And that, I’m afraid, may be the extent of the legacy Arne Duncan leaves.

Filed Under: Opinions Tagged With: , ,

Edreform Election Tools

November 1, 2012 By

Dear Voter,

No doubt you’re as tired of all the ads as we are, but in this great nation, having the opportunity to vote for one’s precious ideals is such a gift that we all tend grin and bear it! Another thing we tend to grin and bear is the condition of our schools, which remain in trouble, and despite tremendous progress over time, are not delivering the kind of education our children need and deserve.

You can do something about that this Election Day.

The Center for Education Reform’s CANDIDATE METER has evergreen advice for your use in measuring the multitude of positions and opinions offered by your candidates for local, state and even national office. We know that despite our best efforts, it’s easy to end up voting for people without regard for their education reform views because we just don’t know them or they sound pretty good.

The reality is that if a candidate doesn’t have a strong point of view one way or the other about school choice, charter schools accountability and teacher quality, he or she is very unlikely to get reform minded after elected. So now’s the time to make sure you can measure your candidate’s pedigree on education reform to spread the word among your family, friends and colleagues so as to ensure exceptional results for education reform across the country.

We know the status quo has been out in droves to fight candidates and initiatives that are pro-edreform and has millions of dollars invested to help them do so. We know voters who typically need school choice or access to better and brighter teachers are often disenfranchised by the process and union propaganda.

The time is now to help elect Education Reform! CER, for the past 20 years has been tracking campaigns, candidate platforms, ballot initiatives and has developed an arsenal of data and analysis on how education reform can win on Election Day.

So please use these tools, forward this to 10 of your friends and get ready to VOTE for EDREFORM!

-Your Friends at the Center for Education Reform

Filed Under: Activism

My View: Why Mitt Romney is a better choice for education reform

November 1, 2012 By

by Jeanne Allen
CNN
November 1, 2012

Editor’s note:  Jeanne Allen is the founder and president of The Center for Education Reform (CER). The center was founded in 1993 to bridge the gap between policy and practice and restore excellence to education.

Schools of Thought has published and will continue to publish other views on this topic in the days up to the election.

“We can fix our schools because we don’t get the biggest share of our campaign donations from the teachers’ unions.”

This short, simple statement from Gov. Mitt Romney in an October 24 speech in Nevada sums up the real distinction between education reformers and protectors of the status quo, and reveals why when it comes to education policy, Romney would be a superior president – because he promised to put children, parents and teachers first, and to “put the teachers’ unions behind.”

The day has passed when that could be considered a partisan statement. We’ve heard stronger words, for example, from many Democrats, from former NYC Chancellor Joel Klein (also of the Clinton administration) to former New York City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz (now of Success Charter Network) who pressed the unions to explain why their contracts were protecting mediocrity instead of boosting high-performing teachers.  Pennsylvania Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams helped then-Republican Gov. Tom Ridge push through a charter school law in 1997.  And in 2010, Williams ran for governor on a platform of school choice. His core message was that parents and teachers should come ahead of unions. Sound familiar?

Education reform is not, by any stretch, a “Republican” issue.  The national Democratic Party has always viewed the education establishment as its bedrock constituency – from unions to school districts.  But it’s different at the state and local level, where Democrats often reject the status quo, joining in a diverse coalition of voices pressing for significant reforms at every level.

While individually most of those Democrats will vote with their party, they are nevertheless closer to Romney’s view of education than they are to Barack Obama’s. Many have confided to me that their hope is to change the Democratic Party’s culture from one that favors teachers unions to one that favors parents.

But we cannot wait another generation or more for that to happen.  Our children only get one chance at a decent education, and the clock is ticking. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it, “Educational failure puts the United States’ future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk.”

We are falling behind the rest of the world, and millions of students are stuck in failing schools to which they are relegated solely by virtue of their zip code.

So how, exactly, would a Romney education regime handle education differently from the Obama administration?  A number of ways:

Unions — It’s time to stop conflating “teachers” with “teachers unions.”  They are not the same. Unions and bureaucrats stand in the way of real education reform. President Obama could have spent the past four years calling the unions on the carpet, but all we hear from his administration are platitudes about “getting along” and “collaborating.” Romney has no such allegiance.

School Choice — Organizations like the Black Alliance for Education Options have rightly made school choice a civil rights issue.  But President Obama has resisted some programs that would provide such equal educational opportunities. His antipathy to a popular school choice program in Washington, D.C., which enjoyed prominent Democratic support (including then-Sen. Joe Biden) separates him from Gov. Romney, who has proposed that federal funds follow students to schools of choice if they happen to live in a state that offers it.

Charter Schools — President Obama and his administration emphasize their support for quality charter schools, but in the same breath say they are for “any school that performs well.” Performance contracts result in bad charter schools closing, but failing public schools get more and more funding under Obama administration programs. Such programs have favored the status quo while federal incentives for strong charter school laws have been ignored.  An authentic advocate in the White House could make an impact on how those laws are molded, resulting in more quality charter schools.

Federal Role – Gov. Romney recognizes that the purview of these vital issues belongs in the states, closest to the parents and students most affected. In the Obama administration, a state can get additional funds just by promising to create new rules and processes favoring union-district collaborations (as if that, in and of itself, leads to achievement). Romney’s approach would be different: show progress using any tool, and money will follow success.

No Child Left Behind Act – Before it was enacted, officials were able to mask the data that proved schools were failing despite billions of dollars spent.  A federal solution was no one’s cup of tea, but it was a response to state and local leaders abdicating their responsibility to make funding work for kids. But in implementing NCLB, rather than encouraging quality teaching and monitoring the results, school officials took the easy way, forcing teachers to obsess over tests. The Obama administration, responding to the outrage that resulted (“Someone actually wants accountability for results?  The nerve!”), has issued multiple waivers to the program.  But it wasn’t the law itself, but rather its poor implementation in the states, that caused the backlash.  That will no doubt be on the list of fixes for a Romney agenda, whereas Obama will continue to defer to the unions.  And if he wins reelection, the unions will further emboldened for having helped him to do so!

In the end, either side can enable or thwart the will and actions of local leaders and educators and parents. But no one can stop the tide of reform that has ignited a new generation of picky parents, choosy children and tenacious educators who find mediocrity unacceptable and know that no matter what their background or zip code, something better is out there waiting.

Whoever our country salutes on Inauguration Day, one thing is certain — reforms that center on choice and accountability must continue to rule the day.  Washington needs to back off and let the people closest to the children make the real decisions about their kids.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeanne Allen.

Filed Under: Opinions

Candidate Meter: Make Your Vote Count!

October 31, 2012 By

Download or print your PDF copy of Candidate Education Meter

Filed Under: Education 50

Unions Refusing Race to the Top

October 31, 2012 By

Local teacher unions are refusing to sign on with district Race to the Top plans. The reason? Teacher evaluations. Failure to get unions to sign on to reform plans means the Los Angeles Unified School District in California and the Clark County School District in Nevada both will be ineligible to win $40 million in federal funding.

The irony here is that unions are typically the ones pushing for more money and funding, but if they can’t have a say in where it goes, or if it puts their members in jeopardy of losing their job, then all of a sudden they aren’t screaming for more funding for education.

Whether or not these districts’ plans were truly reform-minded or not is another issue, and union refusal to sign on doesn’t necessarily indicate these plans were heavy on reform since in both districts unions were already experiencing disagreements pre-Race to the Top proposals.

The bigger point, however, is what we can learn from the first Race to the Top competitions. It isn’t federal grants that will bring about reform, but on-the-ground work from parents, advocates, and legislative leaders that can bring about real change.

Filed Under: Federal Policy Tagged With: ,

School Reform on the Ballot

October 31, 2012 By

Review & Outlook
Wall Street Journal
October 30, 2012

The education reform movement has been gaining speed across the country, and a pair of important ballot initiatives next week in Washington and Idaho will either extend or retard that progress.

Evergreen State voters will decide on Initiative 1240, which would allow up to 40 charter schools over a five-year period. A mere 40 charters sounds very modest in a state with 2,345 public schools. But Washington is one of only nine states that has no charter schools, and three times—in 1996, 2000 and 2004—the Washington Education Association and its union allies have used their dues money and scare tactics to defeat charter initiatives.

The losers have been Washington students, about one in four of whom fails to graduate from high school in four years. That puts the state 37th in the nation for high school completion. Fewer than half of fourth and eighth graders were proficient on national reading and math tests in 2011.

These sorry results have inspired some of Washington’s biggest business names to back the charter initiative. Microsoft MSFT +1.91% founder Bill Gates has chipped in more than $1 million to the “yes” campaign. Other contributors include Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, the parents of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, among others. Even the liberal Seattle Times is on board. A recent poll by KCTS 9 Washington showed I-1240 ahead 47% to 39%.

A different test is shaping up in Idaho, where Governor Butch Otter and state schools chief Tom Luna last year pushed through the legislature some of the most far-reaching reforms in the country. They phase out teacher tenure, limit collective-bargaining rights, and institute a merit-pay plan that gives bonuses to better-performing teachers.

Three initiatives are now on the ballot that require voters to approve different pieces of the reform if they are to remain in effect. Proving how important these Idaho reforms are, the National Education Association has poured more than $1 million into driving the “no” vote, and polls show all three initiatives could go either way.

It’s notable that reform opponents in both states are making a conservative pitch to voters. They claim that charters and merit pay waste taxpayer money and that state-level reforms are a power grab that strips parents of local control. The truth is that the unions control these school districts, denying parents much of any say.

As for taxpayer dollars, the reforms introduce competition designed to get more results for the money. Charters don’t always succeed, but they almost always cost less than regular public schools because they aren’t bound by union contracts.

These tactics reveal that the traditional union attack lines about charters “siphoning” money from public schools, or that reformers hate teachers, aren’t working. Here’s hoping voters in both Washington and Idaho see through the latest union ruse and keep the reform momentum going.

Filed Under: Breaking News

Practical Hurdles at Play in Pa. Charter-Law Stumble

October 31, 2012 By

by Andrew Ujifusa
Education Week
October 31, 2012

A recent effort by Pennsylvania officials to re-examine the state’s charter school laws highlights the challenges states may face as they try to change the policy and political environment for charters.

Only seven states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, South Carolina, and Utah) and the District of Columbia have statewide charter authorizers, according to the Washington-based Center for Education Reform, which supports charters. Those authorizers have varying degrees of autonomy, a fact that is a sore spot for charter advocates.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Filed Under: CER in the News

“Won’t Back Down” Theme Isn’t New

October 30, 2012 By

October 30, 2012

So there’s another movie out there that pits a great teacher against the system, only this one is set in rural South Carolina and it’s based in the 1960s, not today. At the end, after imparting wisdom and knowledge, Mr. Conroy gains the support of parents but the scorn of the administration, which doesn’t understand people out of step with the status quo, despite his success. In the end, the teacher tells the island’s parents — who learned to appreciate him and value education — that they are now in charge of their children’s education. “Never Back Down,” he says. “Never Back Down.” See, the theme is indeed universal. Thank you, Hallmark Hall of Fame, for creating “The Water is Wide” and check it out when you have a chance.

Filed Under: Commentary, Edspresso

Most of NEA’s Largest Affiliates Are Awash in Red Ink

October 29, 2012 By

Education Intelligence Agency’s Communiqué for the Week of October 29, 2012 is so great that we couldn’t help but bring it to you in its entirety:

An Education Intelligence Agency analysis of 2010-11 Internal Revenue Service filings reveals as many as eight of the National Education Association’s 11 largest state affiliates do not have the financial assets to match their liabilities and total almost $400 million in combined debt.

The lion’s share of the union’s debt comes from employee pension and post-retirement health care liabilities. The costs of these benefits have troubled NEA affiliates for many years, causing budgets crises in places like Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Even staff at NEA headquarters made concessions to help ease the strain of post-retirement benefits on the national union’s budget. The latest data show that many affiliates continue to struggle despite receiving substantial relief in pension liabilities.

EIA has constructed a table that lists each of NEA’s state affiliates, its budget deficit or surplus for 2010-11 and its net assets, positive or negative, as of the end of the 2010-11 school year. For purposes of comparison, the table also lists the number of days each affiliate could operate solely on reserves based on its 2010-11 expenditures and net assets.

These latter numbers are important because while certain state affiliates may have run budget deficits in 2010-11, they may still have more than enough reserves to cover one or more years of shortfalls. Others, however, continue to add to their mounting debt and will require some outside force to balance the books.

The New York State United Teachers ran a $29.9 million deficit in 2010-11, and is a total of $201.1 million short of assets to pay all liabilities. NYSUT is on the hook for $286 million in post-retirement benefits.

The California Teachers Association is much healthier, with a small $1.4 million surplus in 2010-11 and net assets of more than $115.6 million, good enough for 230 days of operation.

The New Jersey Education Association managed a $1 million surplus after gaining more than $29.3 million in pension relief. Still, NJEA has more than $38.7 million in red ink.

The Pennsylvania State Education Association greatly improved its budget picture, but has only $6 million in net assets, enough for only 37 days of operation.

The Florida Education Association is similarly situated, with a small surplus and only 53 days of operational reserves.

The Illinois Education Association is still climbing out of a deep hole, finally breaking into the black after $4.9 million in pension relief, but its net assets will allow for only two days of operation.

The Michigan Education Association is a financial basket case, carrying an $11 million deficit in 2010-11, and falling $113 million short in assets. Believe it or not, the picture could have been much worse, as MEA managed to generate $31.1 million in pension relief.

The Ohio Education Association is not much better off. Despite $27.4 million in decreased pension liabilities, OEA still had a $9.1 million deficit and is $14.4 million short in net assets.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association cut pension liabilities by $10.1 million, but is still $2.8 million short of its obligations.

The 2010-11 picture for the Wisconsin Education Association Council was still relatively good, despite a $2.6 million budget deficit. The union had 168 days of operational reserve. However, these figures were mostly compiled before the effects of Act 10 on WEAC’s existence. We can expect next year’s numbers to look very different.

I make note of the 11th largest affiliate simply because its internal money problems have very much occurred under the radar. The Washington Education Association was able to reduce its unfunded pension liabilities by $3.2 million and run a surplus, but it is still almost $18.6 million short of covering its liabilities.

At least six other NEA state affiliates were able to reduce their pension obligations. Some were able to rescue their bottom lines, others were not. You can see from the table that the efforts of Connecticut and Minnesota left them both with a very large surplus, but affiliates in Iowa, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia were only able to slightly lighten their red ink.

I need to add that the South Carolina Education Association has not filed, or has not yet had posted, its disclosure report for 2010-11. SCEA was placed under NEA trusteeship in April 2010 and its report would cover the first year of national oversight of its finances.

It is ironic that the internal situation of these affiliates are very much, in microcosm, like that faced by state governments. There are a number of ways out of the red ink: increased dues, increased membership, and better return on investments on the revenue side, and reduced staff, reduced benefits, and negotiated relief with employee unions on the expenditure side. And, like some state governments, unions could just ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Although NEA would rather we didn’t, we should pay close attention to the measures it uses to deal with its own runaway labor costs.

Filed Under: Unions & Establishment

Event Review: Education Reform in the Next White House

October 29, 2012 By

Unfortunately, jobs and the economy have overpowered the presidential campaign and debates, leaving little room for President Obama and Governor Romney to discuss education. Because of the lack of information, it’s vital that when an opportunity rises, both sides discuss the specifics of each of their policies to reform our country’s broken education system to make it work for all students.

The opportunity for this vital education debate was created at an event, Education Reform in the Next White House, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where representatives from the Obama and Romney campaigns discussed the differences in the candidates’ vision for education and the future of education reform in the next administration. Jon Schnur represented the Obama campaign and Martin West represented the Romney campaign.

While both representatives agreed that there is greater potential for bipartisan collaboration in education than most other areas of policy, there remain substantial differences between the two candidates’ vision for the federal government’s role in education, as evidenced below.

On education funding and school choice:

• Obama Campaign: Education is a public institution and not an industry. Portability of funds is an overreach, but he supports school choice via the growth of charter schools. President Obama’s administration will look at all programs and eliminate funding based on their performance and evidence of their success.

• Romney Campaign: Money would always follow the student, so formula funding would transform into portable funds to empower students, not bloated school districts. Martin West noted that Obama claims to eliminate programs based on effectiveness, but has openly tried to eliminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship program, which has evidence of success.

On No Child Left Behind:

• Both agreed that what was successful in NCLB was that it shined a light on the achievement gap and made education a national priority.

• Obama Campaign: The accountability measures were flawed and actually led to states lowering standards.

• Romney Campaign: The quality of information was too crude and accountability measures failed to recognize student growth. Romney would introduce a school grading system across the U.S., much like Florida’s A-F system.

On Race to the Top:

• Obama Campaign: Race to the Top was leverage to drive change and prevented states from making enormous, immediate cuts in education funding.

• Romney Campaign: While Romney praised the President on his support of charter schools, the emphasis on student-teacher linked data, teacher evaluations, and merit pay, Race to the Top was too small of an agenda and prevented the state/local areas from delaying budget issues.

On reauthorizing ESEA:

• Obama Campaign: Efforts to reauthorize ESEA were blocked in Congress, but in the next four years, President Obama will champion reauthorization. Waivers were offered as a relief from NCLB.

• Romney Campaign: Governor Romney’s priority will be reauthorization and to review the NCLB waivers, which were an unprecedented act of authority.

On Common Core:

• Obama Campaign: Common Core is a historical, bi-partisan effort and governors should be lauded for their work. These are state-driven standards, and although states are not required to adopt them, state standards should reflect college and career-readiness.

• Romney Campaign: Standards are the foundation of progress, which was championed in Massachusetts when Governor Romney was in office. However, the Common Core standards are too politicized and federally-driven.

On the Chicago Teachers Strike:

• Obama Campaign: The President did not want to intervene in local issues, but both sides of the strike were supporting student interests.

• Romney Campaign: President Obama and Secretary Duncan should have stood up against the union to stand up for efforts they themselves are championing. Unions protect employees and the interests of teachers and students are not always aligned.

On Parent Trigger laws:

• Neither of the two representatives are paid employees by the campaign, so they are not privy to conversations regarding parent trigger laws. However, the Romney Campaign stressed that Governor Romney is supportive of anything that empowers parents.

Filed Under: Federal Policy
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »