2009

A collection of past Themes in the News from Oct. 16 - Dec. 18, 2009.

Stimulus Saves 250,000 Education Jobs, but What Happens Next?

10-30-2009

By UCLA IDEA staff

Themes in the News for the week of Oct. 16-23, 2009

The stimulus funds may have blunted an education catastrophe, but many deep concerns remain about how states will manage as their revenues remain low and the stimulus funds run out.

The White House reports that the economic stimulus package has saved 250,000 education jobs; including 6,000 education jobs in Los Angeles. Still, many people who lost education jobs since the economic crisis began have not been replaced and schools continue to cut programs.

For many districts, San Diego Unified, for example, the stimulus funds helped save some jobs and programs, but the threat of layoffs, larger class sizes, and cuts to critical programs continues. The district cut $200 million from its budget in the past two years and is looking at cutting $119 million to $175 million next year (San Diego Union-Tribune). The Los Angeles Unified School District, already looking at a $258 million budget gap for next year, now faces an additional $221 million in potential cuts (Los Angeles Daily News).

The federal stimulus allocated approximately $100 billion for education nationally with $67 million already spent. Nearly $40 billion was appropriated specifically to stabilize state education budgets. According to the administration, “Filling these budget gaps has allowed the Recovery Act to avert layoffs of educators in school districts and universities across the nation, saving and creating at least a quarter of a million education jobs, while helping school districts make progress on reforms that will improve teaching and learning in America’s classrooms” (Politico). Further, the stimulus funds have enabled many states “to restore nearly all of their projected education budget shortfalls for fiscal 2009 and 2010” (Education Week).

Although, as United States Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “catastrophic layoffs” (Los Angeles Times) were averted due to the stimulus funds, many educators and policymakers worry about education budgets once the funds run out in 2011. Education Week reports that the stimulus allocates funds over two years and many districts will spend relatively more in 2009-10, to make up for budget shortfalls thus setting up deep cuts the following year and even deeper in 2011-12.

Many states continue to experience deep deficits that threaten further budget cuts, and leave little room for new reform initiatives. While the stimulus funds will run out at the end of 2010-11, many states are predicted to experience declining revenue for many years to come. (U.S. News and World Report). A report released last week by the Nelson A. Rockeller Institute of Government, says that “state revenues are faltering and are likely to remain shaky for the next several years.” The study found that declines in state revenues are roughly twice what states have gained from the stimulus program so far (Education Week).

Kathy Novak, mayor of the Denver suburb of Northglenn, Colorado, and president of the National League of Cities discussed the issue of declining revenue. “…Property and sales taxes, the sources cities tend to rely upon the most, lag far behind the rest of the economy in any recovery. If the economy is beginning to bounce back, as some economists say, it still may take some time for employment, retail sales and property values to recover. And that means it could be two years or more before local government finances begin to stabilize (NPR).

Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin expressed the view of many analysts across the nation. “There is little, if any, good news in our budget situation” (KMPH).

Education Secretary Calls for Improved Teacher Education While Schools Struggle to Meet Payrolls

11-13-2009

By UCLA IDEA staff

Themes in the News for the week of Oct. 26-30, 2009

United States Education Secretary Arne Duncan called college teacher training programs “cash cows” that do a “mediocre job of preparing teachers for the classroom” (USA Today). He charged universities with diverting “profits” to smaller, more prestigious graduate departments such as physics instead of using resources on “research and training for would-be teachers.”

Duncan wants education systems to use data to link students’ achievement to their teachers and the colleges that trained and certified the teachers (San Francisco Chronicle). “We should be studying and copying the practices of effective teacher preparation programs, and encouraging the lowest performers to shape up or shut down," Duncan said. (USA Today).

Using data in this way has been a centerpiece of administration education policy. But such policies face technical problems. UCLA Education Professor Mike Rose offers an example of the limitations of using test scores as tools for reforming practice, “There are a host of factors that can affect scores: the non-random mix of students in a class, the students’ previous teachers, the lobbying of senior teachers for higher-scoring classes or the assignment of such classes to a principal’s favored teachers” (Truthdig).

Even if the necessary data-based systems were well developed, there is little evidence to show they would have a significant and timely impact on schools and training institutions. Linking teacher and student data does not, in and of itself, promote better teaching and improved student learning. Identifying problems and inadequacies in teaching is only one piece of the jigsaw, there must also be a commitment to provide the opportunities to learn that students and their teachers require.

Duncan’s call to base reforms on students’ and teachers’ performance comes at a time when schools are struggling to retain essential programs and keep teachers, counselors, and staff employed—even with the welcome infusion of federal stimulus funds. Those funds allowed schools to keep their doors open and avoid massive teacher layoffs—but month-to-month survival is a poor foundation for “revolutionary” reform, as Duncan called it, reform.

Well, not all schools are keeping those doors open. Recent news from Hawaii, which “already ranks near the bottom in national educational achievement” (USA Today) reveals that Hawaii public school children will have 17 fewer days of instruction. On most of the remaining Fridays in the academic year, schools will be closed. “…Advocates believe the plan will have a ‘disparate impact’ on poor families, ethnic communities and single parents” (USA Today).

Affluent Areas Approve Parcel Tax Measures to Fund Public Schools

11-07-2009

Poorer Communities Face Deeper Cuts Due to Election Results

Themes in the News for the week of Nov. 2-6, 2009

By UCLA IDEA staff

Following a predictable pattern, Tuesday’s election saw the defeat of “parcel taxes” in poorer communities, and passage of those taxes in wealthier ones. Parcel taxes are additional levies on top of property taxes, and require approval by two-thirds of the voters. The taxes have become an important source of local revenue as state taxes are less able to provide for local schools and other services. Parcel taxes are based on a fixed amount of money per “lot,” and are not calculated according to the value of the land itself. It is called a “regressive” tax because everyone, regardless of the value of their property or ability to pay, is charged the same.

Fourteen parcel tax measures were on the ballot across the state; eight passed. All but three of these measures intended to bring funds into public schools. Culver City Unified School District’s parcel tax measure passed. The tax, $96 a year for the next five years, is expected to “to help pay for math, science and technology and music and art programs; update instructional materials and libraries; and keep class sizes small” (Los Angeles Times). The measure is expected to produce $1.2 million annually. Meanwhile Long Beach’s tax failed, garnering only 43% of “yes” votes (Ballotpedia). The Los Angeles Times’ analysis suggested that the Culver City’s “… small size (just over 6,700 students) and relatively affluent population” were factors in the measure passing.

Indeed, the Times also reported earlier this year that “voters in small wealthy communities were more likely to approve parcel taxes than those in larger, less-affluent areas” (Los Angeles Times). For example, earlier parcel tax measures passed in San Marino, South Pasadena, and Palos Verdes, producing millions of dollars for public schools (KPCC).

The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) stood to gain $11.5 million for each of the next five years, which would have softened the effects of its $100 million budget cuts over the last five years. In addition, LBUSD faces $90 million in cuts over the next two years, along with the resulting teacher layoffs and increased class sizes (Long Beach Press-Telegram, KPCC).

"We knew this was a long shot, but we wanted to give voters one last chance before we make some severe cuts," said Chris Eftychiou, spokesman for LBUSD (Los Angeles Times).

Voters in Contra Costa County resoundingly approved a parcel tax for the Walnut Creek School District, generating $1.2 million in revenues. “The parcel tax helps to keep class sizes smaller, classroom computers and technology up-to-date, helps fund school libraries and pay for teachers” (Contra Costa Times).

A UCLA IDEA analysis of the results of the parcel tax measures found that as the proportion of low-income students rises, the chances that a parcel tax will pass falls. 8 out of 9 districts with less than 40% of students receiving free or reduced price lunch passed their parcel tax. Conversely, all 6 districts with more than 40% of students receiving free or reduced price lunch failed to pass the parcel tax.

Next year, the Los Angeles Unified School District, where more than 75% of students receive free or reduced price lunch, is also proposing a parcel tax measure to close its budget gap (KPCC).

'Race to the Top' Guidelines Announced: Teachers Cautious but Optimistic

09-23-2009

By UCLA IDEA staff

Themes in the News for the week of Nov. 9-13, 2009

Funds from ‘Race to the Top,’ one of the education components of the federal stimulus package, will be distributed soon to a small number of states on a competitive basis. California and other states are scrambling to pass legislation to make themselves eligible. The state Senate’s bill, introduced by education committee chair Gloria Romero, “embraced many of the Obama administration's proposals, including lifting the cap on the number of charter schools allowed and using test scores as an evaluative tool” (Los Angeles Times.)

This week, Secretary Duncan and the Education Dept released new rules for the Race to the Top funds. The new rules promise both a greater focus on student outcomes and attention to a broad set of indicators of teacher effectiveness. This balance marked a new spirit of partnership with teachers and teachers unions. “Secretary Duncan’s approach is right on target. It is time to end the finger-pointing, set aside differences and start working together on behalf of our students. When schools work, it is because the entire community—businesses, teachers, their unions, kids and parents—has a stake in that success,” said American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten (American Federation of Teachers).

Weingarten, who had opposed key elements of draft rules proposed earlier, was pleased with the final version. She noted changes that were made to ensure that teachers are evaluated on multiple measures; not just student achievement (The Washington Post). The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, also offered cautious optimism for the final rules, but still thought that there is too much focus on linking student test scores to teacher performance (The Washington Post).

States will compete for “points” in order to get a piece of the $4.35 billion ‘Race to the Top’ funds. A 500 point scale measures states’ plans to “enact a variety of reforms, including implementing data systems, turning around low-performing schools, and paying effective teachers and administrators more” (Los Angeles Times).

“They worked hard to find the right balance. I see a real culture shift in these regulations from what we had seen in the previous administration. At the end of the day, the culture shift is about can we collaborate, work together to make schools better,” said Weingarten (The Washington Post).

Education Cuts State in Kindergarten and Don't Stop

11-20-2009

"I Can't Afford It"

Themes in the News for the Week of Nov. 16-20, 2009

By UCLA IDEA staff

More sobering news from Sacramento this week: legislative budget analysts projected a $21 billion budget deficit, which would lead to “…across-the-board cuts again” (Los Angeles Times). 2010 could be worse than this year when the state issued IOUs for the just the second time since the Great Depression, while cutting billions from education, healthcare, and social services. There is no more to cut from our schools,” said California Teachers Association President David Sanchez. “There is no more meat on this bone…The next step is amputation” (Los Angeles Times).

California Watch finds that many K-3 schools opened this year with fifty percent more students than specified in class size reduction bill passed in 1996. Since that bill, the state has invested over $22 billion to reduce class sizes; including $1.8 billion this year (The California Report, KGO-TV). Before the July budget cuts, school districts would lose a per-student incentive of $1,071 if they exceeded the class size limit. With the current crisis, those restrictions have loosened, and now schools continue to receive class reduction funds for class-size reduction even as class sizes rise to staggering levels. “My worry is that with 30 kids in the class, I won’t be able to reach out and touch, and get to every child in my classroom,” said Cheryl Accurso, a kindergarten teacher at Oliveira Elementary School in Fremont (Center for Investigative Reporting). Even before these recent increases, California already had the largest class sizes in the country for both high schools and middle schools, according to IDEA director John Rogers (New America Media).

Budget cuts have also shaken up California’s higher education. University of California Regents just increased student fees by 32 percent, raising average annual fees for undergraduates ($3,429 per student in 1999) to about $10,300 next year, plus another $1,000 for other campus-based charges. Room, board, and books may cost students an additional $16,000 (Los Angeles Times). Democracy Now! interviewed Laura Nader, professor of social cultural anthropology at UC Berkeley, who provided an historical and social perspective on the links between a vibrant democracy and a strong system of education. “You have the profit model of education, or you have the public model of education. The public model says it’s a public good. … [In] 1868 our university was founded, and it was founded as a public good. Everybody over the age of fourteen of moral character could come to the University of California. It was meant to be free. They didn’t achieve that completely. But even in 1952, it was only $28 a semester” (Democracy Now!). Ananya Roy, also a UC Berkeley professor, took part in the statewide strike to protest the fee hikes. Roy said that the budget cuts have “devastated the infrastructure of public education.” “We’re fighting for . . . .Californians and Americans,” said Roy. “But we’re also fighting for the future of our particular university, the UC system, and we’re fighting to be represented by leaders who believe in and can defend the mission of public education” (Democracy Now!).

Jeff Bleich, chairman of the California State University Board of Trustees says that the fee hikes are a result of many years of neglect towards public education. “To win votes, political leaders mandated long prison sentences that forced us to stop building schools and start building prisons. This has made us dumber but no safer. Leaders pandered by promising tax cuts no matter what and did not worry about how to provide basic services without that money. Those tax cuts did not make us richer; they've made us poorer” (Los Angeles Times).

Students from all across the state came to UCLA on Wednesday and Thursday to protest the fee hikes. Once the UC Regents approved the fee hikes, reality set in for some students. Jasmine Guerrero, a freshman at UC Santa Barbara, feared that she would have to drop out of school. “I can’t afford it,” she told the Los Angeles Times.

Charter School "Magic Bullet" Falls Short

09-23-2009

Contradictory reports from former pro-charter allies

Themes in the News for the week of Nov. 30 - Dec. 4, 2010

By UCLA IDEA staff

Charter schools remain in the news with the Obama administration’s intention to spend more than $4 billion to guide education reform. One of the U.S. Department of Education’s four requirements for funding pushes the nation’s local officials to close failing schools and reopen them with new teachers and principals. Further, it allows school districts to turn a school over to a charter school operator or other management organization (The Associated Press). Are charter schools effective in improving low-performing schools? For bridging the achievement gap?

Notably, two Stanford University researchers are at odds with their reports on the efficacy of charters. In the past, pro-charter advocates have relied heavily on both of their work. However, political scientist Margaret Raymond from Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes, has found that “most charter schools deliver academic results that are worse or no better than student accomplishments in regular public schools” (The Washington Post).

On the other hand, Carolyn Hoxby, principal investigator for The New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project criticizes the Stanford study and counters it with her own study using New York data. Hoxby finds that “charter school students are making much more progress than peers who sought entry to those schools by lottery but were turned down.” (The Washington Post).

A summary of some of the major findings from each study, from The Washington Post:

Stanford study:
* Thirty-seven percent of charter schools had smaller gains in math than regular public schools, while 17 percent of charter schools had superior gains. Forty-six percent had no significant difference.
* Charter schools show some positive effects in elementary and middle schools and negative effects in high schools and schools with mixed grade levels. Charter schools tend to do better the longer students are enrolled. They beat the norm in some states and lag in others. (D.C. charter schools, she found, had no significant difference compared with regular schools.)

New York study:
* Students who attend a New York charter school from kindergarten through grade 8 would close 86 percent of the achievement gap between affluent Scarsdale and high-poverty Harlem in math and 66 percent of the gap in reading.
* A student who stayed in a charter high school for three years would score higher on certain state tests

What do the studies mean? Not much, according to Kevin Welner, director of the Education and Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Welner told The Washington Post that the two studies used different methods to examine different schools. “Neither report is definitive or without notable weaknesses”.

Both of the charter school studies presumed to measure the ‘quality’ of charter schools by using test scores alone. Although one important indicator, test scores should be combined with other factors such as students’ ability to produce creative work, engage in problem solving, and civic engagement.

Charter schools exhibit widely different governance structures; they are publically funded, but operate free of many state and school district regulations. Some charters do a very fine job of educating children. Some charters are simply terrible. What is missing in the charter school debate is transparency that lets the public know what their children and schools need to succeed and if those needs are met—regardless of whether the school is traditional or charter.

“Providing what children and schools need is more important than focusing on a pro-charter or anti-charter position,” says John Rogers, director of UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. Rogers authored a research brief which laid out principles for equitable and democratic school choice. One principle to keep in the forefront of the charter debate is that “all public schools should provide the conditions necessary for a high quality education and they should draw upon roughly equivalent resources.”

Readers can find useful analyses of these reports prepared by EPIC and Arizona State University’s Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU): Report’s Hype Overstates Results andHeadline-Grabbing Charter School Study Doesn’t Hold Up To Scrutiny.

'Race to the Top' is Underway

09-23-2009

So is the Race for Federal Dollars

Themes in the News for the week of Dec. 7-11, 2009

By UCLA IDEA staff

The Obama administration’s signature education policy, “Race to the Top,” (RTTP) is in its formative stages. In recent weeks, the education news has focused as much on the race to get the money—the federal incentives for changing state policies—as on what the policy hopes to accomplish and why it is expected to work.

On the one hand, the immediate stakes in this race seem high: California, in the midst of a public education crisis, could receive up to $700 million of $4.35 billion in federal money from the RTTT education initiative. On the other hand, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters points out that the RTTT funds are just a side issue, amounting to, at best, just 1% of the state education budget.

The competition for RTTT money will be judged on a point system that includes eliminating caps on the number of charter schools the state allows, improving data systems to support instruction, and linking student achievement to teacher evaluations. For California to receive the funds, state politicians need to pass a bill that accommodates these requirements; but “scoring” these points can also be at odds with different parties’ core education and political goals.

An Assembly bill, authored by Education Committee Chairwoman Julia Brownley, is backed by teacher unions, and was approved in committee on Wednesday (Los Angeles Times). A competing Senate Bill, sponsored by Education Committee Chairwoman Gloria Romero, favored by charter school organizations, was “effectively shut down” (Sacramento Bee). “The Romero bill included provisions to give parents a stronger voice in how schools are run, while Brownley's bill would establish more oversight for charter schools, among other differences” (Sacramento Bee).

Walters points out that Governor Schwarzenegger, who supports the Senate bill, wants “more charter schools free to set their own curricula, more parental choice in schools, and tougher performance standards for teachers and pupils alike” (Sacramento Bee). Education advocates and the California Teachers Association (CTA) argue that “California's education problems stem mostly from a lack of money” (Sacramento Bee).

Does the Race to the Top initiative promise real education reform in California? Marty Hittelman, writing in the California Progress Report says that the state legislature shouldn’t pass a bad law simply to compete for federal funding. “In a year that Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature have made billions of dollars in catastrophic cuts to school funding, it is ironic that the Legislature is rushing to adopt bad policy to compete for a relative pittance in federal funding.” Hittelman says that too much emphasis is placed on charter schools. He cites a study that finds that most of them do not do better than regular public schools; and many, do worse. Hittelman also says that charter schools need to be held accountable, and be required to serve “English-language learners, students with disabilities, and very low income students (California Progress Report).”

Dennis Shirley, an education professor at Boston College, recently testified at a Race to the Top public hearing in Los Angeles. Shirley calls for reform measures that will last after the federal funds expire. He proposes a “transformational model” that provides “struggling schools with professional development to help them to learn to work with data, while also providing them with supports to deal with those aspects of student learning that are not captured by data.” Shirley favors helping “teachers who are succeeding with the students in turnaround schools to share their practices with others.”

Shirley’s comments underscore the limits of RTTT’s promise to leverage and influence the direction of education policy while paying too little attention to whether its mandates can (or should) be brought to scale quickly—that is, expanded and sustained so that all children get the education that is their right. Although new federal support is welcomed and urgent, the RTTT initiative promises incremental funds to a small number of schools while most public schools struggle to make do with declining budgets. California has cut $18 billion in public education funding the last two years, thousands of school staff have been laid off, and class sizes have increased in many schools. Whichever bill to secure RTTT funds passes in the state legislature, California will still rank near the bottom (currently, 47th in the nation) in education spending.

Themes in the News for the week of Dec. 14-18, 2009

09-23-2009

A weekly summary of themes in education news provided by UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access.

'Race to the Top' is Underway

So is the Race for Federal Dollars.

By UCLA IDEA staff

A new study looking at the status of the teaching profession in California found some much-needed positive news – teachers are significantly better prepared. The study, released by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (CFTL) reports that there were 11,000 under-prepared teachers in California last year, down from 42,000 in 2000. Also, the study pointed out that California had “responded admirably to criticism that its teachers needed to have a greater command of their subject matter; the great majority now do” (Los Angeles Times). However, very serious cause for worry remains for the future of California schools. The news is grim for equity, resources, and the supply of future teachers.

“[H]igh schools with the highest portion of minority students have five times as many underprepared teachers as those in the schools with the lowest portion of minority students,” (CFTL). Further, the report shows that fewer teachers are in the future-teacher “pipeline.” This raises concerns for the future supply of teachers, and it would constrain efforts to reduce class sizes in a state whose classes are among the most crowded in the nation.

John Fensterwald from The Educated Guess blog points out that there have been many changes in teaching methods as a result of school reform over the years. Teachers are “to inject real-world relevance into their courses, to individualize instruction in classes with a wide range of students, to require complex portfolios of their students’ work, include project-based learning and to do the jobs that counselors once did.” The CFTL study points out that many teachers are not adequately prepared for these school innovations. "The job of the high school teacher has changed. They're having to deliver instruction in a new way," said Margaret Gaston, president and executive director of CFTL (San Francisco Chronicle).

Unequal conditions persist in spite of news about a general improvement in the number of adequately-prepared teachers. According to the CFTL study, “fewer than half the principals in high-poverty schools said their teachers had the skills to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving among their students, while more than two-thirds of their counterparts in wealthier communities said their teachers possessed those abilities (Los Angeles Times). Additionally, the study found that teachers in the lowest-performing schools are more than twice as likely as those in the highest-achieving schools to be working without at least a preliminary credential.

“California’s poorest communities are where reforms are most urgently needed, but they are also where teachers are likely to be the least prepared or supported to deliver what their students need,” says Gaston (CFTL). The CFTL study suggests ways that policy makers and educators ““can help close the gap between the preparation and support teachers’ need to succeed in reforming high schools and what they currently receive” (CFTL).

Representatives of both the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Department of Education (CDE) found some common ground in the study’s findings. CTA president David Sanchez said, "If you're willing to provide professional development and align it to the reform movement that's out there, that's wonderful. Let's find the money to do that."(Los Angeles Times) Similarly, Gavin Payne, chief deputy superintendent of the CDE, said 'the study demonstrated that the state has the ability to retool teacher training but needs the will and the money.”