A Cliff Hanger: How America’s Public Schools Continue to Feel the Impact of the Economic Downturn is the 7th survey in AASA’s series on the impact of the economic downturn on public schools.

The results of these surveys have been well-received not only by AASA members, but also on and around Capitol Hill and in the media. Your feedback to these surveys is very helpful in helping Congress, the Department of Education and the general public understand the obstacles public schools are facing in light of the current economic situation.

This survey includes key questions from previous surveys, to provide benchmarking, as well as questions examining the role of competitive funds, given the proposed FY11 budget which calls for a significant increase in the proportion of discretionary education dollars distributed through competitive grants and not formulas.

Please take a few moments to complete this survey. It should take no more than 10-15 minutes. You can access the survey here.

Has accountability become mechanistic and antithetical to good education? Are charter schools sucking the best students and committed parents from both the public and parochial systems? According to Diane Ravitch, the answer to both questions is “yes”. Ravitch, a conservative and highly respected educational historian, is now critical of reform initiatives for which she once was a strong proponent. This is clearly evident in her recently released book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

As the assistant secretary of education in the first Bush administration, Ravitch had advocated for national academic standards, promoting testing, accountability, choice and markets. This is no longer the case. Having reversed her opinion on much of what she stood for, she now believes that government backed charter schools are killing the public and parochial systems, and that accountability and other market based reforms will destroy public education if left unfettered. Once a strong supporter of No Child Left Behind, she now believes its requirements for testing in math and reading have squeezed vital subjects out of classrooms and believes a broad national curriculum with top notch art and music education needs to be developed. Believing K-12 education should recapture the strength of the traditional public school system and operate like a family, she is now critical of competition and believes there should not be an educational marketplace.

Ravitch’s desires for a reform do-over comes during an interesting time. The notion of undoing charter laws, performance based pay, testing and results based accountability certainly provokes interesting conversations in light of the current reform efforts driving education today. Certainly her changing perspective is worth reflecting upon as educators begin competing amongst each other in the race to the top.

 Lisa Fry, Grant Wood AEA, Cedar Rapids IA

16 Finalists Announced in Phase 1 of Race to the Top Competition Finalists

From U.S. Department of Education:

"Today the Department of Education announced that 15 states and the District of Columbia will advance as finalists for phase 1 of the Race to the Top competition. Race to the Top is the Department's $4.35 billion effort to dramatically re-shape America's educational system to better engage and prepare our students for success in a competitive 21st century economy and workplace.

"States competing for Race to the Top funds were asked to document past education reform successes, as well as outline plans to: extend reforms using college and career-ready standards and assessments; build a workforce of highly effective educators; create educational data systems to support student achievement; and turn around their lowest-performing schools.

"The phase 1 finalists are:

Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee

"These states are an example for the country of what is possible when adults come together to do the right thing for children," Secretary Arne Duncan said.

"'Everyone that applied for Race to the Top is charting a path for education reform in America" Duncan continued. "I salute all of the applicants for their hard work. And I encourage non-finalists to reapply for phase 2.'

"The 16 finalists were chosen from among the 40 states and the District of Columbia that submitted applications for phase 1. Winners for phase 1 will be chosen from among the 16 finalists and announced in April. Applications for phase 2 will be due on June 1 of this year, with finalists announced in August and winners in September. The only states prohibited from applying in phase 2 are those that receive awards in phase 1.

How Finalists Were Chosen

"Panels of 5 peer reviewers independently read and scored each state's application. The panels then met in February to finalize their comments and submit scores. Each state's score is the average of the five independent reviewers' scores.

"The Department arranged the applications in order from high to low scores and determined which applicants were the strongest competitors to invite back based on 'natural breaks'—i.e. scoring gaps in the line-up. The top 16 applications were then selected as finalists. All 41 applicants from phase 1 will receive their peer reviewers' comments and scores after the winners are announced in April. The Department will post the scores and applications on its Web site.

Choosing Winners from Among the Finalists

"The finalists will be invited to DC in mid-March to present their proposals to the panel that reviewed their applications in depth during the initial stage, and to engage in Q&A discussions with the reviewers.

"The purpose of the finalist stage is to allow reviewers to ensure that the state has the understanding, knowledge, capacity, and the will to truly deliver on what is proposed. The presentations will be videotaped and posted for viewing on the Department's website at the end of Phase 1.

"At the conclusion of the presentations, the reviewers will meet again to discuss each application, finalize scores and comments, and submit them to the Department. Again, the final score for each application will be an average of the five peer reviewers' scores. The scores will be arranged in order from high to low and presented to Secretary Duncan for final selection.

Number of Winners & Award Sizes

"The number of phase 1 winners will be determined by the strength of the applications. While the department does not have a predetermined amount of money to award in each phase of the competition, we expect no more than half of the money will be awarded in phase 1 to ensure a robust competition in phase 2.

"'We are setting a high bar and we anticipate very few winners in phase 1. But this isn't just about the money. It's about collaboration among all stakeholders, building a shared agenda, and challenging ourselves to improve the way our students learn. I feel that every state that has applied is a winner—and the biggest winners of all are the students,' Duncan said.

"Of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funds provided under the Recovery Act, the Department will distribute approximately $4 billion directly to states to drive education reform and $350M to consortia of states that compete in a separate competition to create new college and career-ready assessments. The assessment competition is still in the design phase.

"Based on Race to the Top's early positive effect on national education reform, President Obama proposed to continue the program next year by requesting $1.35 billion in the Administration's FY 2011 budget."

The U.S. Department of Educacton will hold its monthly conference call for state and local elected officials, school board members and superintendents on Tuesday, March 9, from 3 to 4 p.m. ET. Sec. Duncan and senior officers will provide a quick update on three American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant programs: School Improvement Grants, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and the Investing in Innovation Fund.

Also, staff will introduce the Department’s Open Innovation Portal, where funders, innovators and practitioners can spotlight areas of need, propose and suggest improvements to solutions, and fund, implement and improve these solutions in and outside of the classroom. The Open Innovation Portal is at https://innovation.ed.gov/.

Call-In #: 1-888-989-8174

Passcode: EDUCATION (given verbally)

RSVP: Please reply to Adam.Honeysett@ed.gov by COB Monday, March 8, if you or a designated representative will be able to join the call.

NOTE: In order to accommodate a large number of participants, please only use one line per office. Also, please call-in 10-15 minutes early. There will be time reserved for questions.

Harris Interactive, Inc., a national market research firm engaged by the FCC, sent out online surveys last week to a randomly selected group of FY 2008 E-rate applicants. The survey, which includes a number of questions on the applicants, their Internet facilities, and E-rate funding, is part of an FCC effort to address the educational and technological needs of schools and libraries in connection with the FCC's National Broadband Plan.

Completion of the survey is voluntary, but we would encourage selected applicants to respond. Harris Interactive estimates that a survey can be completed in less than 20 minutes. The following is a brief outline of the questions posed in the survey:

1. Applicant information
1. Type of applicant, e.g., school, district, library, or consortium
2. For schools: number of students (and students/computer)
3. For libraries: number of registered borrowersUrban vs. rural
4. E-rate funding in FY 2008
5. Position of person completing the survey
6. Types(s) of Internet access connection(s)
1. Dial-up, T-1, DSL, fiber, wireless, etc.
2. Bandwidth: current and needed
7. Equipment used, e.g., PCs, laptops, E-books, smart phones, etc.
1. Networking, if any, with local, regional, and government entities
2. Internet usage 
1. Applications, current and future
2. Barriers to effective usage, e.g., outdated computers, lack of staff training, unavailable bandwidth, costs, etc.
3. E-rate funding 
1. Services supported by E-rate, with focus on Telecommunications and Internet access services
2. Funding history and discount rate
3. Funding received in FY 2008 by category and service types
4. Use of outside consultants

Although the survey is relatively straight-forward, the following two points should be noted:

1. When asking about FY 2008 funding, the survey does not clearly indicate whether the amount "received" is meant to apply to all funds awarded or to actual funds disbursed. Our recommendation is to report the amount of funds actually used - estimating, if appropriate, any discounts that have not yet been invoiced, but that are expected to be used and received. The easiest way to review an applicant's funding history is to use E-Rate Central's Funding Quick Search tool located in the upper left-hand corner of the appropriate State Information page.
2. Individual applicant surveys have been e-mailed to the associated contact people. In some cases, however, these contacts (e.g., consultants) may be responsible for multiple applicants. Unfortunately, there is no indication in the e-mails identifying the specific applicants — a critical factor if the results of these random surveys are to be statistically valid. Contacts in these situations should seek additional clarification from Harris Interactive.

Over the past few weeks, I have been mulling over the importance of education, the interplay between education and civil rights, the President's budget proposal and the proposed increase in the proportion of education dollars flowing through competitive grants (as opposed to formula programs). With President Obama and Secretary Duncan tirelessly--and correctly--emphasizing that education is the civil rights issue of this generation, I began to think about what their new proposal for increased emphasis on competitive funding in education really means. Education is a civil rights issue. Students are in public schools that will have to compete for a record proportion of federal education funding dollars. So does that mean students are competing for their civil right (education)?

This sentiment was echoed by Schott Foundation President John Jackson earlier this week, and rang in the halls of Congress this morning at the House Budget Committee Hearing on the proposed FY11 budget, with testimony from Secretary Duncan. Apart from several members expressing their concerns over the sizeable shift to competitive grants, Rep. Moore (D-WI) was especially strong, noting that in a competition, there are winners and losers. She expressed a concern that while understanding the importance of local control in education, many of the federal policies put in place over the years were well intentioned and did/do much to ensure civil rights for everyone, including the ESEA and Title I. Doesn't the shift to competitive funding in education represent a step backwards, then, from a civil rights points of view?

It was a very interesting line of questioning, and different iterations of the same concerns--overemphasis on competitive funding, providing funds for all students, the equity of competition--rang throughout the hearing. Structuring an education funding system that creates a default set of 'losers' seems to fly in the face of a truly equitable public education system. Even if we engage in the usual word-smithing, calling them winners and runners-up, almost everyone can identify with the sentiment that 'second place is the first loser', and second place is no place for any student or school.

Is the education of a disadvantaged child in an urban school worth more than the education of a disadvantaged child in a rural school? Should a disadvantaged child in a wealthy suburb count more in a federal funding formula than a disadvantaged child in a high-poverty rural community? If you don’t think so, join the Formula Fairness Campaign to fix what’s wrong about the formula for distributing federal funds for the education of disadvantaged students in public schools.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as No Child Left Behind) provides federal funding to local school districts to help them meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students, primarily those living in poverty. The formula by which these funds are distributed is badly flawed.

One provision sends more money for each disadvantaged student in a large school district and less money for each disadvantaged student in a small district, even if the poverty rate in the smaller district is higher than the poverty rate in the larger district. It’s called “Number Weighting” and it takes money from small schools with the most poverty and gives it to big schools with the least poverty.

Another provision sends more money to states that spend more per pupil on public education – wealthy states – and less to states that spend little – poor states. This lets legislatures in states where support for education is weakest dictate how much federal funding goes to help disadvantaged students.

To learn more about these and other formula injustices, go to www.formulafairness.com.

The Formula Fairness Campaign takes aim at these unfair provisions based on this simple principle: The education of a disadvantaged child in a small, rural school is worth as much to the nation as the education of a disadvantaged child anywhere.

The Formula Fairness Campaign’s objective is to end Title I formula discrimination against disadvantaged rural students. We will press for reforms, engage people in the process, find solutions, and get them enacted.

Rural poor children are not the only ones unfairly affected by the Title I formula. Many high-poverty cities are also adversely affected. The Formula Fairness Campaign will work with advocates for these children to make the formula fair for them as well.

What you can do now:

1. Go to www.formulafairness.com to:

• Sign up as a Supporter of the Formula Fairness Campaign
• Encourage organizations you are active in to Co-Sponsor the Formula Fairness Campaign
• Sign the petition to congressional leaders and the Secretary of Education
• Sign up to receive Formula Fairness Campaign updates and action alerts.

2. Forward this to your friends, co-workers, members of organizations you belong to.

The Formula Fairness Campaign is sponsored by the Rural School and Community Trust, a national non-profit organization dedicated to helping rural schools and communities get better together. To learn more about the Rural School and Community Trust, go to www.ruraledu.org.