From Edsource
Coming as it did on the heels of the state’s unprecedented budget crisis, the education component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – also known as the federal stimulus – first received attention in California as a source of extra, much-needed funding for schools. In the months since, it has become increasingly clear that the reforms ARRA embodies could have a bigger and more lasting impact than the nearly $8 billion it has provided to public K-12 education since February 2009.
This is perhaps an opportune moment to step back and consider this federal direction and its potential impacts. What have been its immediate effects? How well does it align with California’s ongoing reform efforts? To what extent do the items in the federal stimulus package foreshadow the approach of President Barack Obama’s administration to reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind? What might be the benefits and the costs – or unintended consequences – of these new federal programs?
The stimulus has saved jobs and energized discussions on reform
In the short term, the stimulus funding provided states – California included – with much-needed fiscal relief. Stabilization funding and the augmentations to Title I (for disadvantaged students) and IDEA (for special education) represented billions of dollars that cushioned – but did not eliminate – the impact of state funding cuts on California’s schools.
“There are teachers teaching today who wouldn’t be there without this effort,” says Rick Miller, deputy superintendent of policy development and external affairs for the California Department of Education.
In addition to providing financial assistance, the stimulus helped create a sense of urgency in California around education reform. Media attention and funding application deadlines prompted lively discussions in Sacramento about the stimulus. During fall 2009, much of that energy was focused on the competitive Race to the Top grants.
The federal reforms align with some, but not all, of California’s ongoing efforts
The buzz around the stimulus might not exist if education stakeholder groups did not agree that its major goals are sensible and appropriate. While under the constraints of difficult budgets, California policymakers and educators have made strides since the 1990s in the same four reform areas that the stimulus focuses on – effective teachers and principals, data systems, standards, and turning around struggling schools. But some of the details of the state’s approach have differed from the new federal strategies, and these differences are causing some concerns.
Some state policymakers, such as EdVoice President and State Board of Education Member Rae Belisle, want to make sure that California not only makes changes on paper, but also responds to the federal initiatives with thoughtful and vigorous policies. Belisle worries that “we’re going to move quickly and take the easiest way rather than the best way.”
The Association of California School Administrators wants the state to continue to build upon the corrective action model that was developed by the state superintendent and governor a few years ago, where districts are held accountable to reforms that support all of their schools – in particular, the lowest achieving schools.
“Unfortunately, the state-to-school intervention programs did not work in California,” said Sherry Skelly Griffith, ACSA legislative advocate. “We have eliminated all of them. We don’t want to go backward, but rather continue to ensure district-based reform, and hold districts accountable to all of their struggling schools. We are particularly concerned the state will embrace school turnaround models that have not been proven by research to be effective.”
Some groups, such as the California Teachers Association and California Federation of Teachers, have cautioned policymakers against rushing to align state policies with the new federal direction, describing some of its strategies as untested, unproven, or disruptive of long-standing California investments and efforts. Although other observers view the federal initiatives more positively, clearly the details of the federal approach only partly align with California’s ongoing efforts.
The federal emphasis on using student performance data in teacher and principal evaluations will push California
For example, under the “effective teachers and principals” reform area, some of the policies federal officials are calling for have been in place for years in California. Others, however, are generating politically difficult conversations and would require challenging legal and technical solutions. Examples of points of alignment include California’s work on creating alternative pathways to teacher and administrator positions and efforts to equalize the distribution of “highly qualified” teachers.
ACSA supports the use of student achievement data as one significant factor in teacher and principal evaluations, but believes the process must be developed locally and the evaluations must include multiple variables. “For principals, this must include whether a leader has sound management skills, good parent and community relations, strong school safety and discipline policies, and is a strong instructional leader,” said Griffith. “We believe it is absolutely critical that federal reform funds be provided for strong teacher and principal development, including mentoring and coaching, and that this is a high priority for teachers and principals in struggling schools.”
CTA legislative advocate Patricia Rucker also sees the federal reforms as lacking important elements. She says California has created nuanced policies regarding teacher professional development (policies on credentialing, subject matter training and delivery of instruction) that she did not see in the 2009 federal package.
Rucker and other union officials have serious concerns about Washington’s emphasis on using student test scores to inform teacher and principal evaluation, promotion and retention. Language in the Race to the Top draft guidance calling for student growth on state assessments to be used as “a significant factor” had some concerned that such data would become the significant factor. They did not want to see educators judged by “a single number,” arguing that research shows student achievement is influenced by several factors that cannot be reflected in the results of a single test.
During an August 2009 legislative hearing in Sacramento, both Ted Mitchell, president of the State Board of Education, and Michael Hanson, superintendent of Fresno Unified School District, tried to assuage such concerns. Mitchell said that a single measure should not be used as the basis for performance evaluations. Hanson agreed. Student assessments, he said, need to continue to “fuel necessary growth and development” for students. But, he emphasized, student data are not and should not be “viewed as a weapon.”
“I think that’s what you hear from teachers and other folks frequently,” he added. “They’re fearful that a number or a test score will be weaponized.”
Such feedback from leaders in California as well as other states had an impact on the final regulations issued by the federal government in November 2009.
The regulations “emphasize that evaluation needs to be assessed based on multiple measures, not simply student test scores; that student growth, not raw achievement scores, are a significant evaluation consideration; and that evaluation systems for teachers and principals need to be developed with teacher and principal involvement,” according to a summary of the regulations by the EducationCounsel, a Washington, D.C. firm providing legal and policy advice on education issues.
The regulations also support the use of local rather than statewide student achievement data to inform professional development and foster continuous improvement.
Of course, general principles expressed in Washington and Sacramento do not always translate into local policy implementation, and the continuing federal emphasis may prompt many California districts to have challenging conversations regarding the role of student assessment in educators’ performance evaluations.
But both labor and management in California seem to agree that those issues should largely be worked out at the local school district level. During the August hearing, union representatives, district officials and state policymakers, such as Mitchell and Sen. Joe Simitian, supported the concept. As Long Beach Superintendent Christopher Steinhauser put it, evaluating teachers is “my responsibility, working with my local union.”
State and federal visions regarding longitudinal data systems generally align, but cost is an issue
California’s education leaders for many years have wanted to create a longitudinal data system similar to the one envisioned in Race to the Top. In the late 1990s, state policymakers authorized the creation of California School Information Services to facilitate student-level data reporting by local education agencies to CDE, other local agencies, postsecondary institutions, and some other state agencies.
Later, California began development of longitudinal data systems focusing on student achievement and teacher characteristics. And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has supported legislation aimed at, among other things, fostering the type of interagency data-sharing that the new federal programs call for and allowing student achievement data to be used in the evaluation of certificated employees.
But for the past decade, California has lacked the funding necessary to pay for developing these systems, especially the cost of building local capacity to provide timely, accurate data. To help address that, the state decided in December 2009 to compete for a federal grant. (The decision on whether California was successful was expected after this issue of the magazine went to press.)
Even with federal funding help, the ongoing state budget mismatch between revenues and expenses constrains the state’s willingness to invest in a robust data systems – despite agreement on their importance as a tool to strengthen the education system.
California’s education leaders are concerned about the effect of the federal initiatives on state standards
California has shown a commitment to rigorous academic content standards for a number of years. When NCLB required states to define “proficient” for setting student achievement objectives, California maintained the high bar it had established prior to that law’s enactment.
Thus, many inside and outside the state see California as ahead of other states in this area. They view California’s standards as a foundation on which to anchor reforms – not as an area in need of reform. The U.S. Department of Education’s call for states to work together to develop a common core of internationally benchmarked standards can be seen as re-opening discussions of California’s standards, which is causing concern.
CDE’s Miller, though seeing merit in common standards, says the movement could create pressure to “lessen the rigor of our expectations in California, which is something we could not accept.”
The federal approach to turning around schools asks the state to target schools more narrowly and play a more active role
In its attempts to turn around struggling schools, California has taken several approaches, which have differed in their level of flexibility, district involvement, funding, and the range of schools targeted. For example, the state allows struggling schools to be converted to charter schools, though districts have rarely exercised this option.
The more common approach has been to leave the governance structure and staff in place and provide extra human and financial help to diagnose and address schools’ root problems. Much of the work has been handled locally, with the state monitoring schools’ annual test scores. Formal evaluations of two California intervention programs showed that they had limited success.
Some California stakeholders are concerned that national policies could bring a one-size-fits-all or overly prescriptive approach to solving problems and that the federal turnaround strategy is not sufficiently flexible. Miller believes that the Obama administration may be overcompensating for the vagueness of NCLB’s “other restructuring” option that districts with schools in Year 5 of Program Improvement (the federal intervention program) could take.
Superintendent Steinhauser agrees. During the August legislative hearing, he said that when it came to turning around low-performing schools, “there is no magic formula; they’re all different.”
Through the Race to the Top program, the federal government is calling on states to take an aggressive approach to turning around schools that are at the bottom 5 percent in performance rankings. However, California’s various intervention programs have served a wider range of schools, in some cases drawing from the bottom half of the rankings. Federal officials will also have to reconcile this narrowing of focus with current regulations regarding Program Improvement, which includes any school that does not meet student performance goals for two years in a row.
The stimulus package’s education components provide a preview of the ESEA reauthorization discussion
The federal stabilization funding and the augmentations to Title I and IDEA held the promise of substantial funding for California’s schools. Thus, the state’s leaders quickly committed to the four assurances required to secure that funding, particularly because those assurances mostly reinforced existing federal programs and required the reporting of data, as opposed to substantial programmatic changes.
In addition, they prompted state legislators, the governor and education officials – after lively debates – to craft a competitive grant application for Race to the Top funds.
Many state officials predict that the stimulus package’s four reform areas will be major themes in the overdue reauthorization of ESEA, which drives states’ education policies in several areas and governs the distribution of substantial funding. Reg Leichty of EducationCounsel agrees. He said in September 2009 the U.S. Department of Education “already has team members assigned to translating its ARRA policies into coherent ESEA strategy.” Leichty also expects the congressional education authorizing committees to draw on ARRA in shaping the reauthorization bill. Thus, the importance of these competitive grant programs may come less from the amount of money being offered to states and more from the policy signals the U.S. Department of Education is sending with the programs.
Views differ on the long-term effects of the federal reform effort
The full effects of federal policy will likely not be felt for some time. Observers offer guarded predictions of what the long-term effects might be. Leichty notes that so far, the federal programs have mostly been used to backfill states’ funding cuts, but the Obama administration’s rhetoric has focused on promoting reform. Leichty is concerned that this approach could raise public expectations that may not be met quickly, which could dampen Congress’ appetite for more education investments going forward.
EdVoice’s Belisle is taking a wait-and-see approach. She says that if the federal initiatives “go long enough and you can make a couple of big changes, then it could be a really good thing in the long run.”
Miller of CDE is more optimistic, saying the stimulus is “looking at the whole system, so I think it could have incredible meaning for long-term change.”
How this federal reform effort will be viewed in the future will depend greatly on the details of its implementation. One unresolved question is whether the final version of the new initiatives will redefine the role of the federal government in education policymaking.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said NCLB “got backwards the idea of what needs to be tight in this country and what needs to be loose.” He says NCLB is not specific enough about its goals because it lets states create their own standards and bars for proficiency on those standards. Yet, he says, NCLB is overly prescriptive in telling states how to reach the goal of having all students achieve proficiency.
Duncan says he wants to “flip” that approach. He wants the federal government’s “limited” role to be specific about the college-ready, career-ready, internationally benchmarked standards students must reach, but give states flexibility in how they help students do that. Details of ARRA’s education programs can help observers decide whether the policies are matching the rhetoric.
The reform areas included in the stimulus package also bring up questions about the amount of authority states should have with respect to local districts. For example, the Stabilization and Race to the Top programs currently encourage a more forceful role for the state in turning around persistently struggling schools. Some will undoubtedly regard this as an intrusion on “local control,” while others will welcome it as a necessary external support for schools that have not succeeded under local leadership.
The best way to move forward
Whether or not the new federal programs “get it right,” they have certainly gotten California’s stakeholders talking. From these renewed dialogues may come agreement on the best way to move forward toward the shared goal of improved student achievement.
As Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell has said: “We must be bold and force conversations that make us all uncomfortable. But we must do so in a fashion that puts the needs of our students first.”
Adapted from EdSource’s report, “The New Federal Education Policies: California’s Challenge,” published in October 2009.