Thursday, February 23, 2017

Civil Rights Rollbacks, the Federal Role in Education, and the Need for Judicial Intervention: An Interview with Jennifer Berkshire

Jennifer Berkshire was nice enough to talk with me the the future of civil rights enforcement under this new administration, as well as several of the ideas I raise in Ending Zero Tolerance.  Her questions consistently go to the heart of the matter.  I am sure many of you follow her work more than mine, but I highly recommend it.  Her pieces go deeper than mine--more in the vein of investigative journalism at times.  She also has a great podcast series.  

Her interview with opens:

Jennifer Berkshire: The Trump Administration has just rescinded guidelines to schools banning discrimination against transgender students. There’s a lot of speculation about just how the joint letter from Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions actually was. But you seem unconvinced by the portrayals of DeVos as a fierce protector of civil rights.

Derek Black: The stream of bad news over the past few months has been steady. The Trump transition team said the administration would scale back the civil rights work in education. At her confirmation hearing, Betsy DeVos was reluctant to take an affirmative stance on enforcing students’ disability rights. Since taking the post, she has remarked that she could not *think of any* current pressing civil rights issues where the federal government has a role to play; things like racial segregation and exclusion of females were things of the past in her opinion.

Now reports are coming out that Gail Heriot is likely to be the next head of the Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Heroit has been critical of the Office’s aggressive civil rights stance in recent years. With these individuals in place, it is hard to imagine much good happening at the federal level. Even if they do not rescind other Department positions on integration, school discipline, English Language Learners, and school resources, they are very unlikely to enforce existing regulations and policy guidance. Disparate impact enforcement, for instance, will be non-existent. Rather than take on traditional civil rights concerns, I would expect they will identify fringe issues to pursue.

Berkshire: OK—forget about *much good happening at the federal level.* Is there anything we can feel hopeful about? That was only the first question of our interview and I’m not sure how much more of this I can take…

Black: We have been here before. Disparate impact was not enforced during the Bush era either. And it focused on more marginal issues like Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. I think we are actually in a better place to weather the storm today than we were last time. The school-to-prison pipeline is a household word now. More districts are voluntarily pursuing integration. California is bringing back bilingual education. And parents are fed up with standardized testing. On a host of issues, there are local advocates and local politicians that are going to do the right thing regardless of what the Department of Education does. No doubt about it, there is a storm coming, but there are a lot of hardworking and committed people on the ground.

Berkshire: You’re the author of a book called Ending Zero Tolerance: The Crisis of Absolute School Discipline that is turning out to be alarmingly prescient.

Black: One of the central premises of the book is that when nobody else will stand up for kids, it has to be the courts. There are numerous systemic instances over the past few decades where schools and states have gone too far. And when they do it is only the courts that are the saving grace, because we have good political times and bad political times, as we are seeing.

Get the full interview here.

February 23, 2017 in Discipline, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Bad News for the Office for Civil Rights and the Students It Serves?

A Chronicle of Higher Education story indicates the likely nominee for the Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil Rights will be Gail Heroit, who may take the Office in an entirely new direction.  As discussed here and here, the Office has recently done incredible work.  It seems that the task of the new Assistant Secretary is to undo substantial portions of it.  The Chronicle writes:

Leading conservative activists are predicting that the Trump administration will put a prominent critic of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in charge of it, to scale back its efforts.

Although the White House has yet to tip its hand on its pick as the department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, speculation among plugged-in Republicans whose views have influenced other cabinet picks centers on two well-known conservative figures: Gail Heriot and Peter N. Kirsanow. Both Ms. Heriot and Mr. Kirsanow are members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who recently have accused the department of overreach in dealing with sexual assault and the rights of transgender students on college campuses. Both also have been vocal critics of colleges’ consideration of race in admissions and student housing.

Of the two, Ms. Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego, may be most likely to get the nomination. That’s partly because Mr. Kirsanow, a labor lawyer in Cleveland, has a broad background that places him in the running for an array of other federal positions. That Ms. Heriot is a woman also could work in her favor, as the Trump administration might see her sex as giving her a measure of political cover in carrying out one of its top priorities for the civil-rights office — reducing the office’s guidance on Title IX, the federal gender-equity law.

More than 240 activists and college faculty members, nearly all conservative or traditionalist in their views, have joined the National Association of Scholars and six other organizations in sending Trump-administration officials a letter endorsing Ms. Heriot as assistant secretary.

February 22, 2017 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 20, 2017

It’s a Terrible Time to Be Secretary of Education, Especially If You Don’t Understand the Job

Even if Betsy DeVos understood her job, she could not have taken over the Department of Education at a worse time.  The busiest and most complex process that any Secretary of Education will likely see over the next several years is beginning.  States are set to submit their brand new implementation plans for the Every Student Succeeds Act.  They have been operating under No Child Left Behind plans since 2002 and are now transitioning to entirely new schemes.

These plans include lots of moving parts and policy choices within a much larger regulatory structure.  The people who understand those parts just exited the Department of Education building.  New staffers are coming into the building and, as evidenced by the confirmation hearing, their boss does not understand the basic rules that have been in place for decades, much less the new ones.

To make things worse, DeVos just added to the confusion.  On February 10, DeVos sent a letter to states telling them that the timeline for submitting their implementation plans remains in place, but everything else is up in the air.  In November, the Department enacted final regulations outlining what should be in those plans, but DeVos indicates states should not worry about complying with those regulations.  She points to a letter from White House staff and the possibility that Congress might disapprove the regulations.  In such case, "these regulations 'shall have no force or effect.'"  In other words, turn your state plans in on time, but forget the rules. 

This letter creates a host of problems, none of which have anything to do with partisan politics.  White House staff cannot repeal or stay regulations once they become final--certainly not with a memo.  Final regulations can be repealed through the legislative process, but only if the House, Senate, and President act together.  While the House has voted to repeal the regulations, the vote was largely symbolic.  During the Obama administration, the House passed several similar resolutions regarding non-education regulations, but the Senate never acted.  Senator Lamar Alexander has made rumblings about repealing these regulations, but one has to think they are largely rumblings.  Congress recessed last week having taken no action.  Quite simply, the Senate has much bigger fish to fry right now: agency confirmations, a Supreme Court Justice, and repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act.  The last time Congress debated the ACA it led to nearly a decade-long delay in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  In short, my money is on the regulations remaining in effect for some time.

Regardless, repealing the regulations in whole will create a huge vacuum, leaving states with no detailed guidance regarding an entirely new process.  Surgically removing some of the regulations is equally problematic because it requires that someone actually understand the regulatory substance and structure.  Consider, for instance, just one issue like the difference between student proficiency and student growth.  Who is Congress going to ask about regulations that go much deeper than proficiency versus growth?  Besty DeVos? 

If any of the regulations are repealed, the Department will presumably want to replace them.  That takes time--often lots of time.  The Department must go through the notice, comment, and finalization process.  The regulatory vacuum will persist while this drags out.

Even if time were not an issue, new regulations require a sense of where the Every Student Succeeds Act should go.  Betsy DeVos standard line is to let states decide.  But states do not want to decide everything.  They need some sense of the parameters. More important, so does Congress.  While the Every Student Succeeds Act gives states a lot of discretion, Congress did not just pass a 400 page bill so that states would be left with no rules or regulations at all.  Congress could have done that in a page.

The current regulations are the law whether the Secretary likes it or not.  Secretaries may defer enforcement of certain matters on a case by case basis, but Secretaries lack the authority to skip the entire administrative process through letters that repeal or disregard entire regulatory structures.

These problems make the lower level political appointments at the Department more important than ever.  Someone who understands education and administration needs to steer the ship. If someone does not figure this out soon, the Every Student Succeeds Act will be dead on arrival.

As a way of limiting the Secretary’s power, the Act includes a provision that automatically approves state plans if the Secretary does not reject them within 120 days of receiving them.  So if Department’s leadership does not figure out the Act quickly, any state plan that comes through the door will be approved.  If a state wants to rate schools on how often they clean their windows, and punish those who clean too infrequently with mandatory ice cream breaks on Fridays, those plans will set the course for education reform.

February 20, 2017 in ESEA/NCLB, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 6, 2017

New Department of Education Study Reveals Disappointing Results of School Improvement Grants

The Department of Education recently released its findings of its study of the impact of school improvement grants (SIG) to districts.  The results were not that promising.  First, the districts receiving grants did not seem to adopt reform at a significantly higher rate than other schools.  They did implement certain reforms, but so did other schools.  In other words, they may have received grants to do things they would have done anyway.  Second, the specific reforms implemented did not appear to affect student achievement.  To be clear, however, the problem may have simply been in the reform models preferred by the SIG grants.  Spending money on the wrong policies surely will have no positive effect. Unfortunately, this is not new.  Benjamin Superfine wrote a similarly interesting article on the Race to the Top grants.  See  Benjamin Michael Superfine, Stimulating School Reform: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Shifting Federal Role in Education, 76 Mo. L. Rev. 81 (2011).  In any event, the Department offered this summary of its new findings:

  • Although schools implementing SIG-funded models reported using more SIG promoted practices than other schools, we found no evidence that SIG caused those schools to implement more practices. Our descriptive analysis found that schools implementing a SIG-funded model used significantly more SIG-promoted practices than other schools (22.8 of the 35 practices examined [65 percent] versus 20.3 practices [58 percent], a difference of 2.5 practices). Our more rigorous RDD analysis found a similar ES-2 difference of 3.3 practices, but it was not statistically significant. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that SIG caused the observed difference in use of practices.
  • Across all study schools, use of SIG-promoted practices was highest in comprehensive instructional reform strategies and lowest in operational flexibility and support. In the comprehensive instructional reform strategies area, study schools reported using, on average, 7.1 of the 8 SIG-promoted practices examined (89 percent). In the operational flexibility and support area, study schools reported using, on average, 0.87 of the 2 SIG promoted practices examined (43 percent).
  • There were no significant differences in use of English Language Learner (ELL)- focused practices between schools implementing a SIG-funded model and other schools.
  • Overall, across all grades, we found that implementing any SIG-funded model had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.
  • When we compared student achievement gains from different models in elementary grades (2nd through 5th), we found no evidence that one model was associated with larger gains than another. For higher grades (6th through 12th), the turnaround model was associated with larger student achievement gains in math than the transformation model. However, factors other than the SIG model implemented, such as baseline differences between schools implementing different models, may explain these differences in achievement gains.

Get the full study here.

February 6, 2017 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, February 3, 2017

Have Those Who Support Education Already Won in the Betsy DeVos Confirmation Fight?

When news broke a couple of days ago that two republican senators would vote against confirming Betsy DeVos as the next Secretary of Education, speculation over the possibility that she might not be confirmed went into hyper-drive.  If just one more senator defected, DeVos would fail and there were five or more republican senators who, due to politics in their home states, might very well vote against her.  Given that opposition to her was not just political, but basic competency, picking off just one senator seemed possible.  After all, some major charter school advocates had even come out against her.  If her confirmation died, it is not clear that anyone other than Donald Trump would be personally bothered (although those whose bundle campaign contributions might feel the pain).  The past two days seemed to dash those hopes, however, as one, after another, Senators Rubio, Toomey, Heller, Fischer and others have indicated support for her.  

This morning at 6:30 a.m., the full Senate began the process of voting on her.  For procedural reasons, the final vote will not happen until Monday or Tuesday.  I would not rule out a last minute surprise, but odds are that she will be confirmed.   Some will see this as a loss, but at this point, the vote does not really matter.  Those who want to protect education have already won.  Here's why.  

First, Trump is not going to nominate anyone that public education supporters will like.  He has all but called public schools cesspools of financial waste and failure.  If Betsy DeVos fails, Trump would double down on undermining education, not moderate.  So a no vote on DeVos would be a moral victory, but not necessarily a practical one.

Second, Trump would be unlikely to make the same mistake twice in terms of appointing an incompetent Secretary.  Often times, blocking a nominee draws a concession of sorts, but because the problem with DeVos is competency, the concession--if there was one-would be on credentials.  Trump's second nominee would likely have some education experience and knowledge.  If so, that person would sail through and look strong by comparison.  Finding such a person would be easy.  As I pointed out, Betsy DeVos may be in the top one percent in terms of wealth, but she is probably in the bottom twenty-five percent in terms of education knowledge.

Third, someone with competency would be more dangerous than DeVos.  As I pointed out here, DeVos does not appear to really understand the nature of the Secretary's job.  If she does not understand her job, it is reasonable to predict she might not be able to do much with it. True, she offers no hopes for those who want to see improvements in education, but it is possible she might just be irrelevant.  

Fourth, and here is the key to why she might become entirely irreverent, this bruising confirmation and the possibility of only being confirmed by virtue of Mike Pence casting a tie-breaking vote has mortally wounded Betsy DeVos.  She may become Secretary of Education, but she will not have a bully-pulpit or political support.  So many groups have come out against her publicly that she has lost what would have been her presumptive base.  And everyone is now clear that she is unqualified for the job.  Why would they listen to her?  And she has fired teacher unions and supporters who would normally take a measured approach.  Even those senators who vote for her are unlikely to stick their necks out for her in the future.

The skeptic might say, yeah, but if she wins, she has power and can do what she wants.  Fortunately, that is just not true.  As a reaction to Secretary Duncan's overreach with No Child Left Behind waivers, the Every Student Succeeds Act severely restricted the powers of the Secretary.  As I explain here, the Act shifted an enormous amount of power and discretion back to the states, reducing the Secretary to a paper-pusher.  

The Secretary, as paper-pusher, is free to cheer-lead for the policies he or she likes, but that is about it.  The silver-lining of this confirmation is that DeVos is a cheerleader that half of the Senate wants to tar and feather and another third wants to just go away and not be seen any more.  After all, her nominal supports are smart enough--I hope--to remember they have already taken away the Secretary's power, so what difference does it make if she is incompetent.

For a number of reasons, including symbolism and leadership, I think competence does matter and my idealism still wants to see her voted down because it just is not right to have someone who lacks basic qualifications to rise to this level.  But given the way things are shaking out, those who support schools and competency may have already won.

February 3, 2017 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Department of Education Releases Guide to Diversifying Schools

Former Secretary of Education John King said the Department would work until the last moment, as it had important work still to do.  January 19th, 2017 did not disappoint.  The Department released a guide for improving diversity in public schools.  The introduction states:

This brief provides information to support school districts and stakeholders seeking to improve student diversity in their schools through voluntary, community-led programs as part of an overall effort to increase equity and excellence for all students. Diversity can include many factors, such as race, national origin, disability, socioeconomic status, and language proficiency. What follows is an action-oriented summary of considerations when embarking on efforts to increase student diversity, starting with possible steps to consider when conducting a diversity needs assessment and planning for implementation. Potential diversity strategies and a few examples from the field are included, as well as thoughts on efforts to sustain an inclusive environment once diversity strategies are being implemented.

The guide goes through the nuts and bolts of data collection, decision making, and funding for diversity programs--the basic things a school needs to look at to determine what is or is not necessary.  It then focuses on five specific types of programs and policies that schools can use to diversify: magnet schools; controlled choice; open enrollment; high-quality charter schools.  The guide also offers suggestions for maintaining an inclusive environment in diverse schools: culturally relevant instruction, detracking/expanding access to advanced coursework within schools; diversifying the teacher workforce; and teacher development.

There is nothing particularly new in the document, but it offers good resources and a strong vote of confidence for districts considering positive changes.

Get the full report here.

February 1, 2017 in Federal policy, Racial Integration and Diversity | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Most Troubling Thing About DeVos May Have Nothing to Do with Education

Trying to get a better sense of where Betsy DeVos stands on education, reporters have descended on Michigan in recent weeks to study what has actually happened.  Jennifer Berkshire canvassed the state and took a close look at its present and past history.  The story she tells is that Betsy DeVos's charter and voucher agenda is a small part of a much bigger agenda.  DeVos' real goal is political and her real target is the Democratic Party.  The basic strategy: undermine public schools and you undermine public school teachers.  Undermine public school teachers and you undermine the biggest unions.  Undermine the biggest unions and you kill the Democratic Party.  

That is pretty somber logic, but fits well with other data points outside of DeVos.  Advocates in California, New York, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits claiming that teacher tenure violates students’ right education under state constitutional law.  On its face, their claims are plausible.  But the motivations behind those claims had relatively little to do with education and far more to do with breaking the backs of unions.  That movement had been underway in several states and when it failed, advocates come up with the idea of these lawsuits.  A major problem in those lawsuits, however, was that advocates overplayed their hands.  They let their policy preferences for how teachers should be hired, fired, and evaluated dominate their constitution claims.  In the end, their policy preferences were masquerading as constitutional claims and courts began to see through it.

I stand by that analysis, but these recent reports out of Michigan suggest that it is niave to consider these claims solely in the context of education policy.  For those funding the movement—although certainly not all those who joined it--the challenge to teacher tenure was not just about policy preferences in education.  It was about seizing political power.  

This adds troubling layer onto the nomination of DeVos.  Over the past few days, those who care about education have been shocked by how little DeVos actually knows about education.  Enforcing disability laws, for instance, may very well be the biggest job of the Department of Education.  Complaints of disability discrimination consume forty percent of the Department’s civil rights docket.  And in terms of day-to-day functioning, ten percent of more the nation’s students are in enrolled in special education, which federal law closely governs.  DeVos could not answer the simple question of whether all schools should have to comply with these laws.  Later, she tried to clear up her lack of knowledge by saying she may have been “confused” about what the law required.  In other words, she did not realize that it is a mandatory obligation of all schools receiving federal funds.  

But if we go back to DeVos’s larger agenda in Michigan, these responses should not be shocking at all. Her desire and qualification for this job may not be about education at all.  It may be about pure politics.  This fits with a fact she was willing to confirm.  Senator Bernie Sanders asked if it was true that her family has donated $200 million to the Republican Party over the years.  After first evading the question, she admitted that it was “possible.”  

The scary idea is not that DeVos knows nothing of education or event that the Secretary of Education position is quid pro quo for politic donations. Those things happen.  The scary idea is that she might use the power of the Secretary of Education to break the Democratic Party.  Parents and families of all political parties want a Secretary of Education who cares about education, regardless of whether they agree with her policies.   

January 26, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Betsy DeVos Will Not Bring the Disruption the Department of Education Sorely Needs

Betsy DeVos's lack of expertise has been cited as a point of opposition to her appointment, but as this morning's commentators remarked, DeVos was not appointed for her expertise. She was appointed to shake up the system.  She, in fact, describes herself as a disruptor.  This is her claim to fame.  If this is the basis for her appointment, however, she is still not a good choice for Secretary Education.  The problem with some disruptors is that they do not know enough about the thing they seek to disrupt to actually disrupt it.  They speak with bluster, but in the end, that is all it is.

Anyone who thinks the Department of Education has not been disruptive as of late and is just doing the same old things has not been watching closely.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan shook up the education status quo like no one in a long time.  He went after teacher rights and public school monopolies.  Teacher unions and tenure have long been seen as immovable aspects of the status quo that prevented serious reform.  Likewise, traditional public schools' "monopoly" on education made competition and institutional reforms similarly difficult.  

Arne Dunce broke the backs of both of these pillars of education.  Through Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waivers, he encouraged, cajoled, coerced, and compelled more than forty states to institute teacher evaluation systems that fundamentally altered the way teachers are hired, fired, retained, promoted, and tenured in many places. These changes were so radical that they generated a series of lawsuits in places like Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and New York, alleging that teachers' constitutional rights had been violated.  

Likewise, when state education budgets were in free-fall during the recession, Duncan told states that if they did not lift their caps on the number of charter schools they would create, he would, in effect, kill their applications for new federal funding.  This move, combined with other factors, resulted in the number of students attending charter schools doubling during the recession.  Although Duncan did not compel it, while states were at it, several also drastically expanded their voucher programs.  Caps on who could apply for a voucher were lifted and voucher funding doubled, tripled, quadrupled, and septupled in some instances.

These are the same types of policies DeVos supports.  So the policies she wants to bring to Washington are already there.  In fairness, she would seek to significantly expand these policies, but this is not disruption; this is fueling the system.  If we look back at Duncan's tenure, would she say she wants to fuel much of his system?  If that is all she would do, is she really the leader she claims to be?  Would parents be excited about her ideas?

The one type of disruption we need and have not seen in Washington in decades is a serious commitment to equal access to learning opportunities.  The Every Student Succeeds Act is one of the worst examples of gutting this concept from federal policy.  And charters, vouchers, and other choice-like reforms are insulting substitutes for equal access to learning opportunities.  They espouse the premise that all students are entitled to equal learning opportunities and reason that since students are not getting those equal opportunities in public school, they should be allowed to go elsewhere.  The irony is that the people promoting these policies are so often unwilling to do much of anything to ensure students get equal access to learning in regular public schools.  Likewise, they are unwilling to place oversight on vouchers and charters to determine whether opportunities are equal there either.  In other words, they are pursuing choice for choice's sake, and the reasoning in support of choice is circular.

 

This leaves us in a tough place.  Those who want disruption through DeVos will not get it.  And if they understood enough about the system to know what real disruption is, they probably would not want it.

As a small update, DeVos's hearing has been postponed from today until next week so that she can complete her financial disclosures and other paperwork.

January 11, 2017 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 9, 2017

Are Pence and DeVos a One-Two Knock Out for Education Policy? Recent Reports Out of Indiana Suggest Yes

My recent posts have focused on DeVos and the problems she presents for public education, although I emphasize that without new legislation she does not have power to do too much.  Some new information out of Indiana regarding the education system Governor Pence has overseen suggests more trouble on the horizon and give me pause about assuming an incompetent education administration.  Pence actually has a track record of getting things done in Indiana and what he has accomplished should raise red flags for those invested in improving public education.  

Most notably is the state's teacher bonus system.  By law, the state mandated that $40 million in bonuses be handed out to the state's teachers.  I am all in favor of increasing teacher pay in ways that make the profession more attractive to new teachers and encourage others to stay.  Indiana's incentive pay, however, has two major problems.  First, it is having a very inequitable effect on teachers and driving most of the money to school systems that need it the least. Cory Doctorow offers this summary:

[The state gives] bonuses for teachers who preside over high-achieving classes. This year, the biggest payouts will go to schools teaching the richest kids in the state, while schools for poor kids will get little-to-none of the payouts.

The biggest winner in the giveaway are the Carmel Clay Schools, where 9% of kids qualify for free or subsidized lunches, where the teachers will get $2422 each. The Indianapolis district -- the largest in the state -- will give each teacher a $128.40 bonus.

Emanuel Felton adds:

Carmel Clay Schools, where just 9 percent of their 16,000 students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, will get the most— $2.4 million or roughly $2,422 per teacher. Another well-off Indianapolis suburban district, Zionsville Community Schools, where fewer than 5 percent of students qualify for the free and reduced-price lunch program, will receive about $2,240 per teacher. Meanwhile, Indianapolis, the state's largest district will receive just around $330,875, or $128.40 per educator. So teachers in those wealthy suburban districts will get bonuses nearly 20 times larger than effective and highly effective educators in Indianapolis.

Indiana State Teachers Association President Teresa Meredith calls it a "flawed" system.

"While educators at well-resourced schools performed well and received a much-deserved bonus, the educators teaching in some of the most challenging districts where socioeconomic factors can negatively impact student and school performance, were left out," she said in a statement. "We need high-quality educators to teach at our most-challenged schools, and this distribution of bonuses certainly won't compel them to do so."

Even if Indiana fixed this inequity, the performance pay has a second big problem: no evidence shows that these systems actually improve student performance.  Instead, they tend to frustrate teachers because the metrics that determine whether teachers receive a bonus are ones over which teachers have little control.  The distribution of bonuses appears random or keyed to who gets to teacher certain students.  More on these problems here.

Of course, the more obvious problem in Indiana is a voucher system on steroids that increasingly drives public funding to middle and upper income families in private schools while funding for public schools falls short.  Indiana was among the nation's worse offenders on that score in recent years.  More on that here.

All of this spells trouble.  While one could hope for an isolated and irrelevant Secretary of Education, this one, should she be confirmed, may have an ally in the White House who knows how to implement new education frameworks.

January 9, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The Key to Blocking the New Administration's Education Policies Moving Forward

Two big challenges will face advocates in dealing with the Department of Education in the coming years: 1) insisting that it enforces civil rights law and 2) stopping it from excesses of power.  Advocates will have relatively few tools in their bag to force the Department to do its civil rights job, but they will have clear statutory language and powerful precedent on its side to stop the Department from going beyond its job.  On this second point, one need look back no further than the recent controversies surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

In the process of writing Federalizing Education by Waiver?, I spent a good deal of time worrying about whether I was being fair in my assessment that Secretary Duncan had exceeded his power in imposing various conditions on the statutory waivers he began granted under NCLB.  To be honest, when he initially rolled the waiver process out in 2012, I paid almost no attention.  The process was bureaucratic, something had to be done to avoid the sanctions that NCLB would have required, and almost anything seemed better than the decade of high stakes testing our schools had endured.  I saw little need to crack open the statute and seriously consider the matter.

Common Core, as a matter of substance, did not pique my interest either.  Lesson plans and what is actually taught in K-12 curriculum goes beyond my expertise.  I found the new teacher evaluation systems curious primarily because they relied so heavily on the standardized tests everyone had railed against for years, but the systems were so complex that, again, I did not dig deeper.  It was really only the growing power of the Secretary between 2012 and 2014 and the sense that he might just do anything he wanted in elementary and secondary education that finally gave me pause.  And it was because I was generally neutral as to the substance of his policies that I reassured myself that my conclusions were sound and I was not simply crying foul because I disliked his policies.

My conclusions in Federalizing Education by Waiver? and proscriptions for the future seem all the more valid and important now.  The point of the article was to take executive power seriously, even when your friends are the ones exercising it, because some day some one other than your friends may exercise it.  And the best way to maintain credibility in calling out those with whom you disagree is to call out your friends for the same thing.  So while the NCLB waiver process and the legal issues it raised seemed to fade into nothing last year when Congress replaced NCLB with the Every Student Succeeds Act, I am glad I wrote the article (and later testified against the department).  And the importance of statutory text and the limits it places on executive power remain crucially important to those who may disagree with the privatization model that Trump administration intends to pursue.

As I wrote yesterday, it is not clear that Betsy DeVos really knows what her job is and what its limits will entail.  Should she secure the job, I hope that her general counsel will read the Every Student Succeeds Act carefully and advise her as to what it makes abundantly clear: the Secretary now has very limited power and will serve more as a figure head and paper pusher than anything else.  If she attempts more than this, Republicans should challenge her use of executive power as forcefully as they did that of the prior administration.  Surely, Democrats will be right beside them.  

This time around, I clearly disagree with the substance of the policies the administration is proposing.  But if DeVos, or any one else, seeks to impose or cajole them through the Every Student Succeeds Act, I will oppose them because they are beyond the Department's power.

 

December 13, 2016 in ESEA/NCLB, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 12, 2016

Betsy DeVos Won't Be Doing Too Much As Secretary of Education, But It Is Not Clear She Knows That

It is not clear whether Betsy DeVos really knows what her job will be as Secretary of Education or if she is just blowing smoke like the person who nominated her.  She is telling news sources that she will put the brakes on the Common Core.  “It’s time to make education great again in this country. . . . This means letting states set their own high standards and finally putting an end to the federalized Common Core. . . . The answer isn’t bigger government — it’s local control, it’s listening to parents, and it’s giving more choices.”

The truth is that Congress has already gutted the Common Core and shifted enormous control back to states and districts.  The Every Student Succeeds Act bars the Department of Education from requiring or even suggesting that a state use the Common Core.  The Act is so anti-Common Core and anti-federal standards that I could imagine DeVos and her staffers getting in trouble if they even brought the subject up.  The Act prohibits the Department from engaging states on their academic standards altogether, allowing states to submit a self-attested letter to the Department that their standards are challenging. The point is to prevent the Secretary from monkeying with academic standards in any respect.

The limits on the Secretary and the Department, however, go much deeper than this.  As I write in the introduction to Abandoning the Federal Role in Education: The Every Student Succeeds Act, California Law Review (forthcoming),

On December 10, 2015, the [Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)] lost its historic way. Congress reauthorized the [ESEA] under the popularly titled bill the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). To the delight of most, the ESSA eliminated the punitive testing and accountability measures previously dictated by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). But in the fervor to end NCLB, few stopped to seriously consider the wisdom of what would replace it. The new Act, ESSA, moves education in a direction that would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago: no definite equity provisions, no demands for specific student achievement, and no enforcement mechanism to prompt states to consistently pursue equity or achievement themselves.

The ESSA reverses the federal role in education and returns nearly full discretion to states. Although state discretion in some contexts ensures an appropriate balance of state and federal power, state discretion on issues of educational equality for disadvantaged students has proven particularly corrosive in the past. Most prominently, states and local districts vigorously resisted school integration for two decades, and sometimes longer, following Brown v. Board of Education. In fact, it was this resistance that made passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act necessary in 1965. State resistance to equality, however, is not limited to desegregation, nor a remnant of the past. Over the last decade, states have made large cuts to education funding and refused to reinstate funding even as their economies improved. The effects of these cuts have often hit low-income and minority school districts hardest. This regression marks a troubling new era in which states are willing to flaunt their state constitutional duties to deliver adequate and equal educational opportunities.

Although the ability for states to adapt solutions to local needs is important, complete discretion also opens the door to ignoring the Education Act’s historical mission of equal opportunity and supplemental resources for low-income students. The ESSA’s framework will, in effect, reduce equal educational opportunity to a random occurrence rather than a legal guarantee. First, the ESSA grants states near unfettered discretion in creating school performance systems and setting goals. States are free to assign almost any weight they see fit to test results, as well as consider any number of other soft variables to counterbalance the weight of tests. With this discretion, as many as fifty disparate state systems could follow. Second, even assuming states adopt reasonable performance systems, the ESSA does not specify the remedies or interventions that states must implement when districts and schools underperform. Third, the ESSA undermines several principles that have long stood at the center of the Act’s mission to ensure equal and adequate access to resources. In particular, the ESSA weakens two major equity standards and leaves a major loophole in a third one that, in effect, exempts 80 percent of school expenditures from equity analysis. To make matters worse, Congress left federal funding flat and afforded states more discretion in spending existing funds.

In other words, what DeVos and Trump claim they want to do in education has already been done.  And because the Secretary is so weakened under the Every Student Succeeds Act, all the other stuff they want to do is beyond their power.  Moreover, there with be no waiver process this time around that allows the Secretary to impose new conditions or policy items on states.  Congress made sure of that when it revised the Act.  So if DeVos and Trump want to push more charters and vouchers, they are going to have to get Congress to pay for it through new legislation.  That means selling an idea that works, not exercising the existing power of the Department.

Get my full analysis of the Act here.

December 12, 2016 in ESEA/NCLB, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 9, 2016

Office for Civil Rights Releases Annual Report and Reflections on Past Eight Years, Citing Accomplishments and Lingering Challenges

This from the Department:

Protecting our students’ civil rights is fundamental to ensuring they receive a high-quality education. Two reports released today spotlight the challenges and achievements of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

According to OCR’s FY 2016 annual report, the number of complaints filed last fiscal year skyrocketed to a record 16,720 at a time when OCR’s staffing levels remained at a near all-time low. Still, OCR has resolved more than 66,000 civil rights cases during the Obama Administration, according to a second narrative describing progress made toward educational equity through strong civil rights enforcement from 2009-2016.

The Department released the new reports during an event with U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr., former Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon, as well as Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children’s Defense Fund.

“Much progress has been made in the past eight years, but much work remains to ensure all children enjoy equitable access to excellence in American education,” said U.S. Education Secretary John B. King Jr. “These two reports highlight the ongoing vital necessity of OCR’s work to eliminate discriminatory barriers to educational opportunity so our nation’s students may realize their full potential.”

Lhamon added, “We thank our school communities for palpable progress toward realizing the promises Congress has made decade after decade to our nation’s students that their educational experiences should be fundamentally equal.  Our investigations confirm ongoing need to safeguard those rights, as well as daily commitment from educators across the country to our core democratic value of fairness.  We celebrate student victories and continue to stand ready to safeguard rights of students who need us.”

Over the last eight years, one of the Obama Administration’s highest priorities has been to protect the access of all students to a world-class education. As a result, the Department and OCR have seen significant progress in increasing educational equity nationwide and reducing discriminatory barriers that students face.

From FY 2009 to 2016, OCR:

  • Received 76,022 complaints, with each year breaking the previous year’s record of complaint receipts;
  • Resolved 66,102 cases;
  • Proactively initiated 204 investigations known as compliance reviews;
  • Issued 34 policy guidance documents;
  • Monitored, on average, about 2,000 resolved cases per year to ensure compliance with resolution agreements; and,
  • Conducted three major national, state, school- and district-level Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) surveys.

The FY 2016 annual report details the work of OCR over the past year to secure equal educational opportunity by conducting investigations, monitoring schools under resolution agreements, providing technical assistance and administering the CRDC. In FY 2016, complaint vol­ume increased to a record-high 16,720 complaints – a jump of more than 10,000 over the 6,364 complaints in FY 2009. During this same period, OCR resolved 8,625 cases overall - including 1,116 resolutions that secured changes protective of students’ civil rights in schools around the nation – and initiated 13 proactive compliance reviews, despite a near record-low of 563 full-time employees. By contrast, OCR had about 1,100 staff in 1981.

Additionally, OCR released the latest Civil Rights Data Collection and, for the first time, made available the 2013-14 CRDC database for direct download by the public.

OCR also developed and released five policy guidance documents in FY 2016 and hosted 72 policy-related listening sessions with stakeholders on a variety of topics. Notable cases and their resolutions are described in both reports, including cases related to equitable access to courses and educational opportunities, racial harassment, equal opportunity for English learners, bullying and harassment, accessible technology for students with disabilities, and sexual harassment and violence.

For more information on the work of OCR, please visit the office’s home page or its Reading Room which features policy documents, case resolutions, manuals, reports, religious exemptions and other materials.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A video, "Office for Civil Rights: Eight Years of Accomplishments," is available here: https://youtu.be/baftPNOhuBA.

 Congressman Bobby Scott also added these thoughts:

The Office for Civil Rights reports released today shows much progress has been made during the Obama Administration to expand educational opportunity across the nation for all students. However, challenges do remain. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) received a record number of complaints last year – yet it is at its lowest staffing level ever. I commend the staff at OCR for enforcing civil rights laws that eliminate discriminatory barriers for students, even when Congress has failed to provide the Office with adequate funding and resources. The Department of Education is tasked with a unique role in protecting and promoting the civil rights of students, a role bigger than any elected official or Administration. As we look ahead, I will continue to fight to ensure Congress provides the OCR with all the resources it needs to ensure every student has equal access to a quality education.

December 9, 2016 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

What Betsy DeVos Does Not Know About Public Schools and Probably Assumes About Private Ones

Yesterday, Alyson Klein, pointed out that Betsy DeVos, the nominee for Secretary of Education, 

would be the first person to head the department in its more than 35-year history who hasn't either attended public schools or sent her own children to them. . . . And DeVos, a school choice and voucher advocate, sent each of her own children to private schools as well, Truscott said. . . . "She believes all parents should have access to the same choices her children had," said Matt Frendewey, a spokesman for the American Federation for Children, a school choice advocacy organization that DeVos chaired until recently. . . . She'd also be one of only a few secretaries entering the job without experience teaching in a K-12 school, or college; running a university, school system or state education agency, or overseeing public education as a governor, or governor's education aide. 

As a counter, some have pointed out that President Obama is primarily a product of private schools and has sent his daughters to private schools.  From my perspective, this counter does not help DeVos much.  First, Obama's two Secretary of Education appointment did have significant experience in public schools, which shaped their views tremendously.  Second, there are plenty of critiques of Obama's education policy to go around.  Obama's first term may have fractured support for traditional public schools more than any before, although I do not believe that was necessarily the intent.

Regardless, DeVos vision for education and her general operating principle of expanding choice are private market ideas.  These ideas, if not properly tailored to public values, are antithetical to public education itself.  As I argue here, these private ideas undermine the very justification for public education itself if pursued to their logical conclusions.  Public education is not a private commodity and it serves ends well beyond the interests of individual parents or students.  Public education, of course, would be of little good if it did not also produce significant benefits for individuals, but it also produces benefits for overall communities, states, and societies.  Hence,  we all pay taxes and all have a voice in the ends and values it should pursue.  If that balance shifts too far to individuals, it ceases to be public education and worthy of the same level of public support.  It begins to look more like housing, transportation, and other aspects of society.  In these areas, government support and regulation is more limited.  Public policy supporting them comes from a confluence of interests between the public and private, not from a public interest per se. 

DeVos' ideas threaten to move us in this direction.  Her lack of public school experience may, moreover, lead her to discount the distinction between private and public education, not out of malevolence but ignorance or naivete.  Because private choice has worked for her and those who can afford to carry its burdens, she may incorrectly assume that it will work just as well for those who are poorly positioned to carry its burdens.  Then again, maybe she is right and it is my own experience in public schools that breeds my skepticism.  I do, however, know one thing.  The educational opportunities that I received in public school and a few key decisions that made later educational success possible for me were not made by me or by my parents.  They were made by a few public school teachers who believed I could make something better of myself.  They never told me or my parents this.  They simply and quietly put me in an advanced placement class that gave me a shot and asked me to make the most of it.  In fact, on the first day of class, I raised my hand and said "I don't think I am supposed to be in here."  In this and several other ways, I credit public school for entirely altering the course of my life.  Due to my experience, I have to believe this is the ethos of public schools, when they are properly supported and structured.  

I admit that I know little of most private schools.  I do, however, place significant stock in Chris and Sarah Lubenski's nationwide study that found when comparing apples to apples, public schools actually outperform private schools.  This is not to deny the high average SAT scores in many private schools, but to recognize those high averages are a result of the high concentration of demographically advantaged students who attend those schools, not something special the private school is doing.  Students with those demographics do just as well in public schools.  They are just not as heavily concentrated there.

December 7, 2016 in Charters and Vouchers, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 1, 2016

New Report Examines School Climate Post-Election, Finds Heightened Anxiety and Harrassment

The South Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance project conducted a survey in the days following the election and got responses from over 10,000 teachers, counselors, administrators and others who work in schools.  SPLC described the responses as "indicat[ing] that the results of the election are having a profoundly negative impact on schools and students. Ninety percent of educators report that school climate has been negatively affected, and most of them believe it will have a long-lasting impact. A full 80 percent describe heightened anxiety and concern on the part of students worried about the impact of the election on themselves and their families.  Also on the upswing: verbal harassment, the use of slurs and derogatory language, and disturbing incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags."  The survey used the results from its earlier survey in March as its baseline to determine if things had gotten worse.  One of the most troubling lines in the report is: "The increase in targeting and harassment that began in the spring has, according to the teachers we surveyed, skyrocketed. It was most frequently reported by educators in schools with a majority of white students."

Its summary findings include:

  • Nine out of 10 educators who responded have seen a negative impact on students’ mood and behavior following the election; most of them worry about the continuing impact for the remainder of the school year.

  • Eight in 10 report heightened anxiety on the part of marginalized students, including immigrants, Muslims, African Americans and LGBT students.

  • Four in 10 have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.

  • Half said that students were targeting each other based on which candidate they’d supported.

  • Although two-thirds report that administrators have been “responsive,” four out of 10 don’t think their schools have action plans to respond to incidents of hate and bias.

  • Over 2,500 educators described specific incidents of bigotry and harassment that can be directly traced to election rhetoric. These incidents include graffiti (including swastikas), assaults on students and teachers, property damage, fights and threats of violence.

  • Because of the heightened emotion, half are hesitant to discuss the election in class. Some principals have told teachers to refrain from discussing or addressing the election in any way.

The title of the report hangs this problematic upswing on the President-elect: The Trump Effect: The Impact of The 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation's Schools.  While the upswing in problems seems clear enough, the cause of the problem is far more complex.  Trump no more created racism than did Obama eliminate it.  The election of both may have ironically unleashed new strains of it in their own time.  Likewise, as bitterly contested as the election was among their parents, it is no surprise that tensions filtered into schools.  In schools, thing can often get worse because schools offer a captive audience populated by immature (which is not meant pejoratively) and developing young persons.  Some might recall students proudly donning Obama T-Shirts following his elections, which predictably led to incidents.  

With that said, this time it does appear to be more serious.  The important point, however, is not Trump, Obama, or the election.  The important point is that, thus far, the climate in many schools and for many children has not been good. When that climate produces a negative environment aimed at students based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or language status, federal law obligates schools to act to address the situation.  If they do not, it will be the job of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education to step in, both now and under the next administration.  And federal law aside, when the climate negatively effects student learning, it is the job of school leaders to constructively address it.

Get SPLC's full report here.

December 1, 2016 in Bullying and Harassment, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Building Firewalls: Protecting Public Schools in the Trump Era by David Sciarra

With the selection of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary, Donald Trump has made good on his promise to do everything possible to undermine and weaken America's public education system. President-Elect Trump made few promises about his education agenda during the campaign, but what he did promise - $20 billion in federal funding taken from public schools to be used for private and religious school vouchers - foreshadowed his pick of a conservative billionaire who has donated considerable sums to promote charters and vouchers at the expense of the public schools and the children they serve. Ms. DeVos's track record in Michigan provides a clear picture of her priorities as Education Secretary. She and her husband have funded campaigns to increase the number of charter schools, including for-profit charters, especially in high poverty communities such as Detroit and Flint. They have funded this effort despite the fact that Michigan's expansive charter sector is among the least accountable and worst performing in the nation. Ms. DeVos also bankrolled an attempt to bring vouchers to Michigan, but those efforts were stymied due to a constitutional amendment passed in 1971 prohibiting public funding for private schools.

The bottom line is this: the Trump Administration will do nothing to support public education across the country. Instead, federal funding will be used as a carrot, or perhaps a stick, to force states to accelerate the unregulated growth of charters and expand existing voucher programs or enact new ones to facilitate the flow of tax dollars from public schools to private and religious schools and other private providers.

What we can also expect is a wholesale retreat from federal enforcement of civil rights protections for vulnerable student populations, from LGBTQ to ELL students. In short, it is not an exaggeration to call the Trump-DeVos education agenda an all-out assault on our public schools, the centerpiece of which is the diversion of billions of dollars from public education to private spending.

What can the vast majority of Americans who care about public education do?

This is a good time to remind ourselves that public education has always been - and will continue to be - the obligation of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This obligation is embedded in the guarantee of a public education in state constitutions. It is the states, not the federal government, that control access, quality, governance, student rights and the bulk of funding for their public education systems.

A storm of policy and public relations to promote educational inequity and disparity across the nation will emanate from Washington under the new administration. But if we turn our full attention to the states, we can - and must - energize existing coalitions and campaigns of parents, educators, students and community organizations to protect and defend the public schools. Let's start now to erect state and local firewalls to safeguard our schools.

Here are a few ways we can begin:

1) We must press our congressional delegations to oppose the Trump anti-public education agenda, starting with the DeVos appointment but continuing to block other proposals, from dismantling the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to diverting Title I funding for vouchers under the guise of "portability."

2) If a state constitution prohibits the use of public funding for other purposes, it's time for advocates and activists to get ready to stand behind it. Some state constitutions contain such prohibitions or have been interpreted by courts to do so. If state law is unclear, it's time to propose a law to "lockbox" and protect public school funding. Most states already underfund their public schools, and what our children don't need is the federal government trying to divert any amount of that funding to private and religious schools.

3) This is the right time to start state-level conversations about rejecting offers of federal funding that come at the price of defunding public education and causing even more inequity and disparity of opportunity for students, especially low-income students, students with disabilities, English language learners and students of color.

4) Legislative campaigns for charter school reform must be reinvigorated. In many states, an overhaul of charter school laws is long overdue to ensure full accountability with regard to student access and school performance, as well as the use of public funds. Segregation of students based on disability, the need to learn English, academic risk or other factors must be fought in statehouses, including moratoriums to prevent funding loss and student segregation resulting from uncontrolled charter growth.

5) We must review state-level student and civil rights protections and develop an agenda to strengthen that critical framework. This must include enhancing anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws; school discipline reform; open admissions for homeless children, youth in foster care, and un-documented students; and other measures to safeguard the rights of students.

On the one hand, a Trump Administration offers the opportunity to join the many advocates laboring to ensure equal and quality education for all children in their states, often in extremely challenging political environments. On the other hand, Trump's election is a wake-up call about a fundamental, enduring lesson: education equity advances or regresses primarily through state action on funding, essential resources and programs, and students rights. Actions taken by the federal government, even those intended to promote equity in the states, can only go so far. And sometimes those actions impede progress.

Let's not get distracted by "inside the beltway" prognostications or rarefied debates over how bad things may be. Those of us working in the states know what's coming. It's time to renew and redouble efforts to protect public education in our states and communities. Millions of children are depending on us.

David G. Sciarra is Executive Director of the Education Law Center, where he serves as lead counsel in the landmark Abbott v. Burke school funding litigation and directs ELC's advocacy on behalf of the nation's public school children.

November 30, 2016 in Federal policy, School Funding | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

How the Every Student Succeeds Act Abandons Equity

My forthcoming article Abandoning the Federal Role in Education: The Every Student Succeeds Act, California Law Review (2017), is available on ssrn. I offer this summary in the abstract:

Congress recently passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), redefining the role of the federal government in education. The ESSA attempted to appease popular sentiment against the No Child Left Behind Act’s (NCLB) overreliance on standardized testing and punitive sanctions. But in overturning those aspects of NCLB, Congress failed to devise a system that was any better. Congress simply stripped the federal government of regulatory power and vastly expanded state discretion. For the first time in fifty years, the federal government now lacks the ability to prompt improvements in student achievement or to demand equal resources for low-income students. Thus, the ESSA rests on a bold premise: states will abandon their historical tendencies by voluntarily providing low-income students with equal educational opportunities.

Although the ESSA remains committed to equality on its face, it does the opposite in practice. First, the ESSA affords states wide latitude on student performance, accountability, and school reform. Wide state discretion opens the door to fifty disparate state systems, none of which guarantee equality. Second, the ESSA directly weakens two existing equity standards and leaves untouched a loophole that exempts eighty percent of school expenditures from equity analysis. Third, the ESSA leaves federal funding flat, eliminating the possibility that additional resources will offset the inequalities that the foregoing provisions permit. These changes to federal education law are so out of character that they beg the question of why the federal government is even involved in education at all.

Although Congress is unlikely to repeal the ESSA just months after passing it, it is set to expire by its own terms after four years. This Article proposes that Congress cure the ESSA’s flaws by increasing the federal investment in education to: 1) create the leverage needed for states to accept federal prohibitions on unequal funding practices; and 2) meet the outstanding needs of low-income students.

 

October 11, 2016 in ESEA/NCLB, Federal policy, School Funding | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The Perverse Disincentive of School Improvement: Fund Termination

A group of public school parents has filed a lawsuit against the New York Education Department and the Budget Division.  The challenge relates to the loss of school improvement funds.  Each year the state, per federal law, is required to identify schools in need of improvement and those that persistently fail over the course of years get access to supplemental funds for two years.  The funds are intended to help those schools improve.

The irony, however, is that nine schools were put on the persistently failing list and received funds for one year and expected to receive them again the second year.  But when the New York Education Department updated its list of failing schools this year, nine schools that were on the list last year were not on it any longer.  As a result, they lost their supplemental funding.  In other words, they improved enough or the money worked well enough that the state terminated the second year of funding.  

According to this New York Times story, the state is sympathetic to these schools' plight, but the parties cannot come to an agreement as to how to fix the problem--hence the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs are well represented by the Education Law Center, so this is certainly a case to watch.

On another note, this unfortunate story reminds me of some of the past perversities of federal desegregation funding.  As long as school remained segregated and under court order to continue efforts to eliminate the vestiges of segregation, it remained eligible to receive federal desegregation funds.  But once a district actually integrated or was deemed "unitary" by a court, it lost its funding.  This lead to a number of ironic desegregation cases, whereby school districts in the later stages of desegregation would side with plaintiffs and argue that they had not eliminated the vestiges of discrimination.  As I discuss here, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to this day, also includes some perverse incentives.  If a state undertook interdistrict desegregation to deconcentrate student poverty, it might very well end up receiving a smaller Title I grant from the federal government.

 

September 7, 2016 in Federal policy, School Funding | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Renowned Scholars Examine Effective, Equitable School Reforms in New Book

William Mathis and Tina Trujillo new edited volume, Learning from the Federal Market-Based Reforms, is now available.  The press release offers this summary:

With chapters written by a who’s who of the educational research world—a collection of authors that Larry Cuban describes as “a cast of all-star scholars” and Gloria Ladson-Billings calls “some of the nation’s best minds”—the National Education Policy Center released its latest book: “Learning from the Federal Market-Based Reforms: Lessons for ESSA.” Editors William Mathis and Tina Trujillo brought these researchers together to create a critique of recent reforms followed by a series of proven, research-based reform strategies.

With states now finalizing their improvement plans for the new federal “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA), the book provides a timely guide for policymakers and practitioners.

Pointing to the need to move beyond the discredited test-based, discipline-and-punish mentality, David Kirp says the volume makes a clear and convincing case for a genuine reform agenda. “It’s a must-read for anyone concerned about the quality of American education.”

Pedro Noguera adds, “This book points to what we must do differently if we are to succeed in providing all children an education that will prepare them for life in the 21st Century.”

Throughout the book, scholars such as David Berliner, Gary Orfield, Mike Rose, Janelle Scott, Richard Rothstein, and Angela Valenzuela remind us that reform requires us to address the root causes of inequities within schools and beyond the school walls, closing opportunity gaps wherever they arise. We must address deprivation, poverty, racism and the inadequate and unequal distribution of resources.

Among the federally promoted reforms examined in the book are school choice, testing, teacher evaluation and school reconstitution. Other chapters look at the research around class size, early education, adequate and equitable funding, community involvement, and detracking. 

In its foreword, Jeannie Oakes praises the book as a tool for closing the gap between research knowledge and education policy decisions: “We must marry the best empirical evidence with efforts to shift cultural norms and increase the political power of those who are seen as the beneficiaries of research-based reforms. We must convince our communities, large and small, of the relationship between having better facts and being better people. … [W]e have this book to help.”

The book is available from Information Age Publishing here and from major booksellers. EARLY ORDER SAVINGS – You can purchase the book on the IAP website at a substantially reduced price of $30 per paperback or $70 per hardcover plus s/h. The code to use at checkout is LFMBR30350.

The book will also be available as an eBook within the next 90 days from Google, Apple, and over 25 other online outlets.

September 6, 2016 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Office for Civil Rights Report to Congress Shows Agency Doing More with Less

The Office for Civil Rights has released its annual report to Congress.  Like last year, it is very well written and informative--a break from past traditions.  The biggest numbers OCR wanted to emphasize is that it processed over 10,000 complaints--a new record high--with only 540 staff members--a new record low.  Doing more with less will certainly make many in Washington happy, but it may also raise questions as to whether OCR is doing the job as well as it could or should.  The numbers won't really tell us that.  On the other hand, it is possible that OCR has wrenched out this efficiency without sacrificing quality by being very clear about its own standards.  If OCR is clear with itself and school districts as to exactly what a violation of Title IX is, for instance, then it might move more quickly to reach a resolution of complaints in that area.  Toward that end, this current administration has done an excellent job of updating and issuing various different policy guidance documents.  In just this past year, OCR released nine separate policy guidance documents.  This is on top of several key ones from the prior year in areas like school discipline and resource equity.  None of this, however, should undercut OCR's request for more resources. The demand for OCR's services is clearly high and the current stewards of those resources are allocating them well.  Sounds like an agency to support, not undermine.

The report offers this executive summary:

In In FY 2015, the quality and pace of OCR’s enforcement work remained high. OCR received a record-high 10,392 complaints, initiated 19 compliance reviews and directed inquiries, and resolved 9,250 cases overall, including 1,044 resolutions that secured changes protective of students’ civil rights in schools around the nation. (See the Appendix for the total number of resolution agreements in FY 2015 by jurisdiction, state, and type of investigation.) Over several years, the number of complaints OCR received generally rose in several areas, including restraint or seclusion of students with disabilities; accessibility of curriculum through technology for students with disabilities; harassment based on race, color, or national origin; appropriate support for English Learner (EL) students; and sexual violence.

OCR developed and released nine policy guidance documents and hosted policy-related listening sessions with stakeholders on the following issue areas:

• resource equity and resource comparability and discrimination based on race and national origin;

• obligations of elementary and secondary schools to respond to the bullying of students with disabilities that denies a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and disability-based harassment of students with disabilities;

• schools’ obligations surrounding effective communication for students with disabilities;

• questions and answers regarding singlesex elementary and secondary classes and extracurricular activities;

• applicability of federal civil rights laws to juvenile justice residential facilities; • implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Ebola guidance for schools;

• schools’ obligations to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and equally in school and to communicate information to limited English proficient (LEP) parents in a language they can understand;

• addressing the risk of measles in schools and school obligations to students with disabilities medically unable to obtain vaccinations; and

• the importance and role of Title IX coordinators in fostering compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

OCR provided more than 250 technical assistance sessions to a wide range of stakeholders – including schools and districts, state education agencies, colleges and universities, parent groups, nonprofit organizations, advocacy organizations, and other federal agencies – and conducted other outreach to galvanize action on important civil rights topics. Notable outreach efforts include a convening at the White House on school discipline (with the Supportive School Discipline Initiative), a celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and continued leadership in the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.

OCR administered and collected data for the 2013-14 school year Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) from approximately 97,000 public schools serving about 49 million students nationwide. OCR improved the data collection process for thousands of school districts by instituting customized data submission checks that provided them with realtime technical assistance while significantly cutting back on the possibility of submission errors. OCR also launched a pilot program with eight states to pre-populate local CRDC data, thereby dramatically reducing the reporting burden on districts in those states.

 

May 10, 2016 in Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Special Issue on 50th Anniversary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

 

University of Georgia College of Education Professor Elizabeth DeBary and University of Southern Mississippi College of Education and Psychology Assistant Professor Ann E. Blankenship have published Volume 3 of the Education Law & Policy Review, serving as Guest-Co-Editors-in-Chief for this special double issue.  The Education Law & Policy Review is a publication of the Education Law Consortium (ELC) in cooperation with the Education Law Association (ELA), the premier international education law professional association founded in 1954.   It is a peer-reviewed law and policy journal providing scholarly reviews and commentary on national and international issues in education law and policy in K-12 and Higher Education, publishing leading law and policy research and analysis for use by scholars, policymakers, judges, lawyers, and educators. 

This special double-issue of the journal is dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015.  As scholars with backgrounds in policy and law, DeBray and Blankenship challenged both the education policy and law fields to generate fresh proposals for the ESEA reauthorization − to make recommendations for legislative changes that were grounded in research that could lead to improved educational practice. Preeminent scholars in education law and policy responded with thoughtful responses to the dramatic changes in ESSA and provocative ideas for improving education through incentivizing equity, strengthening mandates, and building capacity.  All of these are viable strategies for attempting to leverage improved educational outcomes for students. 

The issue is available electronically here and in print through Amazon.  This issue features scholarship by Gary Orfield (UCLA and The Civil Rights Project), Jack Jennings (founder and former CEO of the Center on Education Policy), Megan Hopkins (University of Illinois-Chicago), Christine Malsbary (Vassar College), P. Zitali Morales (University of Illinois-Chicago), Emily Hodge (Montclair State University), Erica Frankenberg (Pennsylvania State University), Christopher Suarez (Williams & Connolly, LLP), Tina Trujillo (UC Berkley), Kara Finnigan (University of Rochester), Jennifer Jellison Holme (University of Texas at Austin), Nicholas Triplett et al. (University of North Carolina, Charlotte), and Benjamin Superfine (University of Illinois-Chicago).

April 7, 2016 in ESEA/NCLB, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)