I want to like the education stimulus package. I really do. Regardless of what the Klonsky brothers might tell you, I'm no Rush Limbaugh, hoping for President Obama's policies to fail. I'd love to see the cause of education reform accelerated as a result of the influx of federal funds. But I'm increasingly convinced that this entire exercise is going to end in a quagmire, or worse.
I know that puts me at odds with much of the education reform community. The major foundations and advocacy groups are giddy with the possibility that these funds, and the leverage they provide to Uncle Sam, could drive deep, long-lasting change in the education system. My heart wishes they were right but my head suspects otherwise.
The reformers are enthusiastic about several provisions in the stimulus bill that they see as offering a golden opportunity for reform, especially the "assurances" that governors must provide in order to get the big bucks. Among other things, they must promise to create robust data systems; elevate their academic standards to college-readiness levels; develop appropriate assessments for students with disabilities and English language learners; and develop ways to measure teacher effectiveness and determine whether it is inequitably distributed around the state.
Now, these are all valuable projects. But why on Earth would the reform crowd believe that any of this is actually going to get implemented, and well? Have they not learned the first lesson of the NCLB era (and the Great Society before it): the federal government can coerce states (and districts) to do things they don't want to do, but it can't coerce them to do those things well. Consider "highly qualified teachers." Consider "supplemental services." Consider the meaning of "proficiency." And on and on. Why are so many people suffering from policy amnesia?
But it's different this time, many of my friends will argue. First, the dumb Bushies are out and the smart Obama team is in.* And second, there's the $5 billion "race to the top" incentive fund, which provides a strong carrot for states to stay on the side of angels. Arne Duncan has made it clear: if states want some of this frosting, they have to be responsible with the cake.
Sure, maybe, ideally, possibly, hypothetically, that could do the trick, at least for a few states. But here's the rub: these same states are coping with five-alarm fires called severe revenue shortfalls. These same state agencies that are supposed to build fabulous data systems and measure teacher effectiveness and ramp up their standards and develop meaningful assessments and on and on and on are hemorrhaging staff, cutting contractors, and otherwise battening down the hatches. These SEAs are schizophrenic right now, taking the axe to staff and programs with one hand and scooping up stimulus dollars with the other. I hear from colleagues closer to the action that most state agencies don't even have the capacity to manage the influx of funds, much less manage complicated reforms. The picture looks much the same at the local level. So tell me again how this is supposed to work?
From almost everyone I talk to, on the left, right, and center, I'm hearing the same thing: states and districts are paralyzed. They don't know what to do with the new money, they don't want to take risks and later get creamed by the Department's Inspector General, they don't have the staff to figure this stuff out, and they don't know how to get straight answers from anyone. It's the early days of No Child Left Behind all over again, except on a timetable that's ten times as fast and with new dollars that are ten times as big.
This is not an environment where "education reform" can flourish, it seems to me. I hope I'm proven wrong.
* Update (2:17): A friend emailed me to say that I shouldn't set up a straw man argument (that some reformers have renewed hope in federal action because the "dumb" Bushies are out and the "smart" Obama team is in). No one but me is making that case, he said. Fair enough. (It's stricken.) But now I'm more confused than ever: why do people have such endless optimism that federal involvement in education will end well? Meanwhile, "Mike G" says:
I'm seeing what you're describing at state and district level.Note to USDOE....
Spring for up-to-$100k grants to each state. Right now. Cost u $5 million of your $5 billion. Money needs to be spent only on hiring someone whose 60 hour a week job from now until submission is to craft really good plan, reports directly to state's Education Commissioner.
Get that money out door in a week.
Now that's a great idea.
