With the stroke of a pen on Tuesday, President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan became the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I'm no economist but I certainly buy the president's basic argument about the need for such a stimulus. Even from the inside-the-beltway bubble, where we Washingtonians are sheltered from the worst of the downturn's ravages, one can sense that we're in free fall. That's why I reluctantly came to concede that now isn't the best time to lay off hundreds of thousands of teachers or education bureaucrats, at least for the economy's sake, since we need these people spending money, making their mortgage payments, and serving as a bulwark to the private sector's collapse.??
But on this blog, we don't evaluate economic policy, we evaluate education policy. And I don't have an Economic-Stimulus-o-Meter at my disposal, I have an Education Reform-o-Meter. So setting aside whatever virtues the stimulus bill might have for the economy, how is it likely to impact the cause of education reform?
Let's start with its many downsides. First, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which includes at least $40 billion for education (k-12 and higher ed), is designed simply to plug state budget holes, and alleviate the need to lay off educators. Which, let me say it again, might be smart economic policy, but it takes away a huge opportunity for school reform. As I wrote the other day, one of the greatest weaknesses of our education system is that we've chosen teacher quantity over teacher quality. We've been obsessed with lowering class sizes, hiring aides and specialists, and offering pay-and-benefits packages that are not only unsustainable (especially pensions) but that don't differentiate between lousy and great instructors. This recession is a chance to let go of some of those ineffective or unnecessary staff, so that, when budgets return to normal, we can afford initiatives focused squarely on teacher quality, such as pay-for-performance plans or hefty bonuses for serving in challenging schools. So let's call the Fiscal Stabilization Fund what it really is: the Status Quo Stabilization Fund, because it merely locks in place the same old inefficient, ineffective ways. What a lost opportunity.
Then there are the huge increases for Title I ($13 billion more over two years) and IDEA ($12 billion more). From what I've heard and read, this part of the package is likely to be an unmitigated disaster. That's because there is language in the law that will make it hard for districts to use these funds to make up for budget cuts at the state and local level--the only rationale I can see for boosting these programs now, outside of the appropriations process. So if districts can't use this money to plug budget holes, what exactly will it go for? The system will be swamped with new money--keep in mind lots of states and districts struggle to spend the federal dollars they already receive--and the inclination will be to spend more on more of the same. Or not spend it at all, which is just as likely. (Oh well for the economic stimulus.) And for all of this largesse, this "fully funding" of No Child Left Behind and historic funding for special education, what reforms are required in return? Nada.
But there are some redeeming elements to the plan. The most promising is the $5 billion State Incentive Grant, which gives Secretary Arne Duncan the leeway to reward states that are working toward greater equity in the distribution of their teachers; the development of longitudinal data systems; stronger standards and assessments; or more effective supports for schools identified as needing improvement under NCLB. The fairest take on this huge fund is that it has enormous potential, but it's now up to Secretary Duncan and his team to realize it.
The same goes for the $650 million "innovation fund," a.k.a. the largest education slush fund in history. These dollars can go to almost anyone for almost anything. Again, the ball is in Arne's court.
And yes, there's $200 million for the Teacher Incentive Fund (to support merit pay programs), $250 million for data systems, and language that will help charter schools get their share of the big dollars in the package (or at least some of that share). But it's fair to call these pieces peanuts, or fleas on the elephant's back, if you prefer, compared to the truly big dollars.
Now, some will say that the most important language in the law, in terms of school reform, is the set of conditions imposed on states in order to tap the big stabilization fund.?? According to Education Week's David Hoff, states will have to describe how they are working to "increase the number of students meeting the state's definition of proficiency... comply with the rules requiring a uniform graduation rate... close the achievement gap between whites and minorities with historically low achievement... address the inequitable distribution of highly qualified teachers... improve the quality of tests used under NCLB... and support schools struggling to make NCLB's achievement goals."
Ah yes, until now states haven't been serious about closing the achievement gap, but thanks to this emergency funding they are going to get right on it! If anyone thinks this language will actual compel meaningful changes, they are even more na??ve than I am.
So how does this all add up? With big dollars for the status quo, tiny dollars for reform, and promising potential in the "incentive" and "innovation" funds, I think the fairest rating for the ARRA is "Chilly"--or the same grade given to the original House bill. If Arne Duncan really comes through with his promise to push reform until it hurts, the temperature may rise. But for now, all we can do is hope that he turns up the heat. And it couldn't be more important--I give this a 10 out of 10 for significance, as its hard to imagine anything else the Obama team will do on education that will make a bigger splash (or thud, as the case may be).
What do you think? Cast your vote below.
