Andrew Rotherham, Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding

8/7/2019 Andrew Rotherham, Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding

1/23

Tow ard Performance -Based Federal Education Funding

Reau thorization of the

Eleme ntary and Se condary Educat ion Act

By Andrew Rotherham

Progress ive P ol icy Ins i tute

April 1999

As Congress prepares this year to reauthorize the Elementary and Second ary Edu cation

Act (ESEA), lawmakers face a critical choice: They can refight old battles or th ey can break

the mold with a third way approach that addresses the demand for a public education

system that gradu ates stud ents prepared for the new global economy.

The ESEA is the 14-title federal law that tod ay d irects more than $13 billion in

annual edu cation assistance to states and school d istricts throu gh a crazy qu ilt of more than

50 program s.1 The largest and best known p rogram is Title I, which is the cornerstone of

the federal governments commitment to ensure edu cational equity for poor children. The

reauthorization gives Congress the opp ortun ity to transform Washington s role in

elementary an d second ary education from a focus on p rocess to performance, and thus

leverage the limited role federal spend ing p lays in p ublic education into a m ajor force for

change.

ESEA tod ay is best viewed as a welter of spending dictates that prescribe how

states and localities mu st spen d federal dollars, but does not hold them accountable for

achieving measurable imp rovements. In the futu re, federal dollars shou ld be tied toperformance and results. With this transformation, Washingtons role will shift from a

passive enabler of failure to a catalyst for success. In short, what is needed is a new bargain

on federal education spending: States and localities should get increased flexibility for

using federal resources but must take an increased responsibility for accountability for

results.

In his 1999 State of the Union address, President Clinton challenged Congress to tie

ESEA spend ing -- more than h alf of the $21 billion tota l federa l investment in elementary

and second ary education -- to resu lts on five key measures of state and local per formance:

end ing social prom otion, imp roving teacher quality, reconstituting failing schools, issuing

school report cards, and enforcing discipline codes.2 The Clinton p roposal represents a

historic shift toward s performance-based fund ing and away from virtually unconditional

sup port to states and localities. But u nless it is coup led with more flexibility, the

President's proposal risks add ing yet anoth er layer of federal prescription on local districts

already burdened by excessive reporting requ irements. At the state and local there is an

un derstand able resistance to anything that app ears to be add itional federal regu lation.

State and local officials wan t ad ditional resources, but describe the layering of additional

program s one on top of the next as, "an ad ministrative nightmare."3


2/23

Enacted in 1965, ESEA is a Great Society land mark that signified a national interest

in assuring equ al access to a quality education for all Americans. In essence, the federal

govern ment took respon sibility for compensating poor schools d istricts to pu t them on

a fiscal par w ith more affluent d istricts. It is essential that the federal governm ent continue

to play tha t role. How ever, we can no longer define equ ity solely in terms of fiscal parity,

since, more than 30 years and $100 billion later, the performance gap between low-incomeand middle class students still remains disconcertingly wide. To narrow that gap,

Washington needs to red efine equ ity in term s of concrete results.

We need a progressive alterna tive to the lefts habitual deman d for more spending

and the rights incessant campa ign to shrink Washington s role in edu cation. Republicans,

for examp le, propose conver ting ESEA program s into block gran ts with no accountability

for results, or into personal vouchers or, in the extreme, to eliminate the Department of

Edu cation. Too many Democrats, refuse to acknow ledge that the problems with ESEA

program s goes beyond their fund ing level.

Neither block gran ts nor more of the same-old "top-down" categorical approach

that d rives today s ESEA will ultimately benefit the na tions school children, esp ecially th e

20 percent who live in poverty and are most likely to be in failing schools.4 Since 1965,

titles and program s have been add ed, but the und erlying philosophy and m ethods have

not been rethou ght. The federal role embod ied in ESEA is still critical; how ever, as a result

of interest group pressure, constituency politics, and Washington s inability to eliminate

or consolidate even the smallest or least effective governm ent p rogram , ESEA has calcified

into a confusing, unfocused, and largely ineffective statu te. In 1999, ESEA is more

reflective of symbolic attention to issues than substan tive solutions. That is why PPI

believes a dramatic new approach is essential to reshap ing the ESEA.

PPI is not alone in th is sentimen t, group s across the ideological spectrum are calling

for substan tial changes to ESEA. For examp le, the conservative Heritage Found ation is

calling for greater control of federal programs to be given to the states in exchange forgreater accountability. This appr oach, du bbed "Super -Ed-Flex" will likely be introd uced

in Congress this year.5 PPI supports the Super-Ed-Flex goal of greater flexibility in

exchan ge for greater accountability, but believes that this proposal fails to substan tively

ad dress the basic problems of the categorical app roach.

The federal role in elementary and secondary education is limited but not

insignificant. While overall Washington contr ibutes only abou t 7 percent to total edu cation

expend itures in this country, this money is concentrated, although n ot to the d egree it

should be, on imp overished areas. How ever, Washington m ust d o better job of leveraging

this investmen t to drive better performance. Specifically, this report proposes that the

current categorical approach is broken but th at Washington can, and should, play a vital

role in elementary and second ary edu cation.

To support states, school districts, and schools that are at once becoming more

flexible and m ore accountable for per formance, th e federal role in education mu st become

flexible and performance-based itself. To achieve a marriage of real accountability and

flexibility, a real link mu st be established between fun ding and results. This mu st be done

in tandem w ith a commonsense consolidation of programm atic spend ing and an increase

in flexibility. In 1965, equ ity could be measu red in d ollars, in the New Econom y, equity


3/23

mu st be measured by quality.

To update ESEA for the information age, PPI believes Congress mu st:

Introduce real accountability by making ESEA fund ing performance-based

rather than a gu aranteed source of revenue for states and school districts;

Define p erformance benchmarks for states and localities; Consolidate ESEA program s into fund ing p rimarily for compensatory edu cation,

professional development, limited English proficient students, and innovative

strategies;

Concentrate ESEA fun ding on imp overished a reas where schools are most likely

to be in d istress;

Terminate funding for states and d istricts that consistently fail to meet

established benchmarks.

With th is new role, Washington shou ld p lay a more active role in bench marking

quality and measuring performance. It shou ld do less micro-managing of how local school

officials raise their stud ents and teachers to higher levels of performance. The federa l

government should get out of the bu siness of accoun ting for program matic inputs and

instead focus more strategically on empower ing citizens with information, setting broad

standards and goals, measu ring and comparing results, and researching effective strategies

for school improvem ent.

In the New Econom y, knowledge intensive jobs are increasingly the norm . As

Robert Atkinson and Randolph Court rep orted recently, "Since 1969, virtually all jobs lost

in goods production and distribution sectors have been replaced by office jobs."6 In the

past, students at the bottom-end of America s education system were not learning

advanced skills and know ledge. This reality was pap ered over by, and to some degree

driven by, an abu nd ance of unskilled an d low-skill jobs. The econom y lent itself to schoolsthat were, in the words of Hugh Price, "expected to educate a small percentage of

supposedly bright kids extremely well" while paying "scant attention to those who

struggled academically."7 The old economy didnt demand a large number of highly

edu cated w orkers. In the New Economy all stud ents must be comp etent learners if they

are to thrive in this new era.

ESEA in 1999:

When ESEA was p assed in 1965 it was landmark legislation because it codified the federa l

role and national interest in ensuring qu ality education for all stud ents. Prior to 1965,

impoverished stud ents and studen ts of color had been denied access to quality edu cation

and a chance to become upw ard ly mobile in the econom y. Before 1965, Congress had

passed smaller bills to aid education, the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 for vocational

education, Impact Aid in 1950, and the National Defense Education Act of 1958, but

resistance arising from segregation, and the participa tion of private and r eligious schools,

had p revented large scale federal assistance to elementary and secondary schools. The

Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped alleviate the racial issues and ESEA was passed the


4/23

following year.8

Now , ESEA has evolved into a hodgepod ge. As a whole, it app ears to add ress

different and comp lementary needs. In add ition to the Title I program , there are program s

for technology, migrant students, womens educational equity, teacher professional

development, civics education, foreign languages, gifted and talented children, arts in

education, native American and native Hawaiian children, and various demonstrationprojects.

Fund ing for the various p rograms is distributed one of two ways, by formu la or by

competitive grants. Formula program s send m oney to states and school districts based on

certain factors for example overall number of stud ents or the n um ber of poor stud ents.

Comp etitive grants are aw arded based on an ap plication and selection p rocess.

Besides Title I, the larger p rograms includ e the Impact Aid p rogram ($864 million)

which compen sates school d istricts that lose prop erty tax revenue because they host federal

buildings or installations such as military bases. The Safe and Dru g Free Schools pr ogram

($566 million) which, as the name implies, is targeted at violence and substance abuse

prevention. There is also a p rofessional developm ent title ($335 million), and the Title VI

block-grant program ($375 million) which now also includ es last years class-size

reduction initiative ($1.2 billion). In ad dition, there is a title devoted to technology ($698

million) and anoth er for bilingual ed ucation ($380 million). School constru ction is even

given a title although it was only fund ed briefly before the fund ing was rescinded .9

In short, Washington has created a p rogram to ad dress every ill on the ed ucational

landscape. What th is has created is a statute that is long on sym bolism, but w oefully short

on substance. By u nd ertaking to accomp lish so many things through ESEA and related

program s, the federal government has end ed u p d oing nothing particularly well. And , the

overw helming emph asis on process has come at the expen se of results.

While there is no d oubt that federal leadership has improved schools over the past34 years, especially by draw ing attention to the special need s of impoverished stud ents, it

is d ifficult to attribute these gains to particular categorical program s. Moreover, as

edu cation researcher Dr . Paul Hill points out, many federal p rograms and regulations

have, "weakened schools by putting p rocess before results, caused d isplacemen t of goals

from serving students to gua ranteeing ad ministrative comp liance, and weakened schools

ability to pursue effective instructional programs and solve the problems presented by

their students".10

ESEA is still arran ged and administered in 1999 with the sam e ph ilosoph y as 1965.

Federal edu cation dollars are sent to states and localities throu gh a Byzan tine patchw ork

of programs and formu las targeting d ifferent d iscrete needs and pop ulations. This creates

confusion, redu nd ancy, and inefficiencies. It also makes system atic collection of useful data

a herculean and thus far unsuccessful task.11 In fact, with th e exception of Title I, there is

a substan tial lack of data abou t the effectiveness of these program s. In add ition, in many

states it has created a d epend ency on federal fund s to supp ort state education departments

essentially aping the prescriptive structure of Washington.12

A Closer Look at ESEAreveals the problems with the current ap proach:


5/23

Title I

With annu al spend ing of more th an $8 billion, Title I is the largest ESEA program. Title I

is in essence fund ing, sent to localities by a formula, to undertake comp ensatory ed ucation

activities for impoverished students. In this sense, Title I is essentially a block grant.

Althou gh 99 percent of Title I dollars reach the local level, the m oney is spread too thinly,and there is no enforced accountability for results with the fund ing.13 Between 70 and 80

percent of Title I funding is used for staff and the remainder is used to purchase

educational services and material, increasingly from the private sector.14

Washington has spent m ore th an $118 billion on Title I since its inception in 1965,

and several recent evaluations confirm that these dollars have failed to close the

achievement gap between impoverished stud ents served and their more affluent peers.15

While some school d istricts have made demon strative gains with Title I dollars; overall the

fund ing has not prod uced the intended comp ensatory effect.

Not a ll impoverished schools and impoverished stud ents are served by Title I so

blanket comparisons of Title I spending to the overall achievement of poor students are

misleading. As a result of the 1994 Title I reauthorization, Title I fund s are more

concentrated on high-poverty areas, but still not to the degree that they should be.

Currently, 58 percent of schools nationw ide receive at least some Title I fun ding.16 While,

95 percent of schools with a poverty level of 75-100 percent receive Title I funding, often

schools with lower but significant percentages of children in poverty do not.17 For

examp le, one in five schools with poverty in the 50-74 percent range d oes not receive any

Title I dollars and only 64 percent of schools with poverty in the 35 to 49 percent range do .18

Research clearly dem onstrates that poverty imp acts learning, yet many schools with high

percentages of impoverished kids receive no Title I fund ing. At the very least, considering

fund ing limitations, fund ing should be more focused on the highest need schools. Despite

continuing efforts to concentrate Title I funding, the distribution is still based more onpolitics than p olicy. While there are four d ifferent Title I formulas (two are currently

unfunded); 86 percent of Title I fund ing is allocated based on the least concentrated of the

four.19

Dur ing the last reau thorization of ESEA in 1994, Congress also made substan tial

changes to Title I allowing local school d istricts mu ch m ore flexibility w ith Title I d ollars

wh ile requiring that Title I stud ents be held to the same high stand ards as other studen ts.

States were required to adopt assessments to ensure that poor children were making

progress and mechan isms were built into the statute to ensure accountability if these steps

were not taken. Unfortunately, as one ind epend ent evalua tion of Title I stated , "there is

wide variance in the d egree to which states have comp lied with the requirements of the

new Title I."20

Sweeping conclusions based on Title I evalua tions are risky. The method ology of

social science in this area is notoriously suspect because often obtaining rand om sam ples

means denying services to students who could otherw ise benefit from them. In essence a

random control group is rarely possible. Therefore, as the massive longitud inal evaluation

of Title I, the "Prospects Repor t", pointed out tha t, the "inability to d iscern a comp ensatory

effect of [Title I] is not necessarily an indication of program failure" because while the


6/23

achievement gap didnt lessen as a result of Title I it did not grow either.21 Basically,

because you cant deny a specific group of children services, it is often impossible to

measure w hat wou ld have hap pened to these stud ents in the absence of this fund ing.22

In ad dition, there is evidence of improvem ent in math and reading scores among

the most impoverished students.23 Nonetheless, on aggregate, empirical results from

analysis of Title I are not encouraging. Further, ind ependent evaluations of Title I stillind icate a lack of academ ic rigor in activities that the fun ding sup por ts.24 The Departmen t

of Educations own analysis of Title I states that, "a review of the evidence provided by

states shows that [Title I] plans ap pear to be w eak in bench-marking standards against

external criteria."25 Rather than raising and holding all stud ents to high standard s, too

often Title I fund s perpetua te a two-tiered ed ucational system that has lower expectations

for impoverished stud ents than affluent ones. And , because there is not a tru e results-

based focus around Title I, often the federal government is a silent accomplice in the

continuation of this bifurcated ap proach to schooling.

Many analysts attribute the d isapp ointing achievement results prod uced by Title

I to the wid espread use of unqu alified aid es or parap rofessionals in the classroom.26 The

high p ercentage of Title I fund ing used for staff isnt surprising because, by its nature,

education, is a labor-intensive activity. However, the type of staff this fun ding most often

sup ports is sur prising. Half of Title I instructional staff are parap rofessionals who are

used in many Title I schools for teaching even though they lack the educational

background to do so.27 Congress has set the bar ridiculously low for these instructional

aides requiring only that aides "have a secondary school diploma, or its recognized

equivalent, or earn either within two years of employment".28 Equally problematic is

where these aides are most often found , 84 percent of principals in high p overty schools

reported using aides compared to only 54 percent of their peers in low-poverty schools.29

Moreover , in h igh poverty schools only 10 percent of aides have bachelors degrees.30 This

means that the students most in need of high quality instruction are least likely to get it.However, again it is important to note that Title I isn t a singular program at all.

Rather, it is a fund ing source for state and local compen satory ed ucation activities which

take many forms. That Title I hasn t shown more encouraging results is not p roof that

these d ollars cant be made to work. Overa ll results of Title I are eviden ce that w ithout

consequences for r esults, all states and localities havent been forced to make Title I work.

Ineffective practices such as the use of unqu alified teachers, especially around the most

needy students, wou ld certainly be curtailed if fund ing were contingent u pon results.

Accoun tability provisions are only as effective as the w ill to enforce them is strong. In the

case of Title I, that w ill has been weak.

Because the Department of Education has never d emand ed results with Title I

fund ing, it has created a sense among man y states and p rogram ad ministrators that Title

I is an und ertaking without consequences. Although states are not required to fully

implement the changes made to Title I during the 1994 reauthorization until 2001, it is

unclear if this dead line will be met. The Departm ents own evalua tion of Title I states that,

"states are making significant progress in developing content standards, but progress is

considerable slower w ith respect to d eveloping performance standard s according to the

timeline set forth in the statu te." 31 Washington has never fiscally sanctioned a state or


7/23

school district for non-per formance. Sanctions have been levied for fiscal noncompliance

and civil rights v iolations bu t never for simply chron ically failing to ed ucate kids with Title

I dollars. Over 34 years this has created a sense that regu lations aroun d Title I have no real

meaning. Without fiscal enforcement of the substan tial changes mad e to the law in 1994

unfortun ately, this trend will continu e. Clearly, state and local officials share some of the

blame for the shortcomings, but in the w ords of the Citizens Comm ission on Civil Rights,"the federal governm ents failure to take the actions needed to implement and enforce the

new Title I has also retarded educational progress."32

If simp ly spend ing money on impoverished stud ents were the key to imp roving

student achievement, Title I dollars would have generated more encouraging results.

Equally important to resource allocation is accountability for resu lts with th ose resources.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Title I, this has been a forgotten part of the equation.

Safe and Drug Free Schools

While Title I is the largest an d most v isible program in ESEA, other p arts of the law are

problematic as well. The Safe and Drug Free Schools program offers an excellent examp le

of the focus on symbolism at the expense of results in the current categorical approach.

The $566 million program is a marriage of the prescriptive problems associated with

categorical programs and the lack of accountability often associated with block gran ts.

The rationale behind Safe and Drug Free Schools makes perfect sense. Drugs and

violence clearly impact learning and hen ce school districts have a compelling interest in

ameliorating both of these problems. Safe and Drug Free Schools fund s are provided for

this pu rpose. It is the classic evolution of a categorical program, identify a problem

(preferably one that is politically attractive and h as a constituency) and create a p rogram

to address it.With the exception of money set aside for state departments of education and

prevention activities led by p olice officers (in p ractice usually the p opular bu t ineffective

Drug Abu se Resistance Edu cation (DARE) program ), school d istricts are allowed latitud e

in spend ing their Safe and Drug Free fund s. As with Title I, targeting is a problem.

Because of a lack of concentra tion, most school districts don't receive a mean ingful amoun t

of Safe and Drug Free money. Accord ing to Secretary of Edu cation Richard Riley, "three-

fifths of school d istricts cur rently r eceive grants of less than $10,000 with the average grant

provid ing only about $5 per stud ent."33

There is no comp rehensive data on th e effectiveness of Safe and Drug Free Schools

funds and in p ractice meaningful data would be d ifficult to gather. Amp le anecdotal

evidence suggests that funds a re often n ot used effectively and that the program lacks a

clear focus.34 DARE America, the advocacy group that lobbies for the DARE program

pu rports to have d ata proving the effectiveness of that particular app roach. In reality,

these are studies of student and teacher perceptions about the program and student

perceptions about drug and alcohol abuse.35 Actual empirical data about the DARE

program show that it prod uces results that are "marginal at best".36 In practice this is

probably because DARE is most often offered as an isolated activity to kids du ring one


8/23

year of school rather than as part of a comp rehensive focus on dru g preven tion. How ever,

political pop ularity and a vocal constituency has p rotected DARE from being forced to sink

or swim on its own merits.

This doesnt mean that the DARE program cant work, but u nd er the current system

it is not forced to w ork. Because there is fun ding set-aside for DARE in the Safe and Drug

Free schools program, beyond the comm itment of local police officers to d iscour aging druguse among k ids, there is little incentive for the program to p erform. DARE, and Safe and

Drug Free Schools as a whole, are symptomatic of the p roblems inheren t in a Washington

top-down app roach to edu cational policy. Various constituencies, each protecting and

ad vocating their slice of the pie, end up taking either the flexibility, accoun tability, and

often both out of program s. The General Accoun ting Office highlighted problems inherent

in balancing flexibility w ith accountability in a program like Safe and Drug Free Schools,

stating tha t while local innovation is one of the goals of the program "the lack of uniform

information on program activities and effectiveness" hind ers federal oversight.37

Federal process-based accountability is an impossible role for Washington to play.

There are more than 14,000 school districts opera ting in the coun try right now, how can th e

federal govern men t possibly monitor them effectively for process compliance?38However,gran ting flexibility in the absence of per formance measures does noth ing to d iscourage

ineffective p ractices.

Limited-Engli sh Proficient Students

The $380 million bilingual education program is another example of how entrenched

interests can use the inflexibility of the curren t system to protect categorical programs,

often at the expense of children . It also typifies symbolism trum ping substan ce in ESEA.

As with Title I and Safe and Drug Free, bilingu al fun ding is also spread too thin to make

a real difference. In ad dition, the program has no concrete performan ce measures and

often sup por ts activities that research ind icates are ineffective.

Edu cating limited -English-proficient (LEP) stud ents is an u rgent issue for many

school d istricts, how ever, ind ications are that the need is not being met. There are 3.2

million LEP stud ents in the Un ited States and more than 75 percent of them attend high-

poverty schools.39 Each year, 640,000 limited English p roficient stu dents are not served by

any sort of program targeted to their unique needs.40 Most telling, the dropout rate for

Hispanic stud ents (the largest cohort of LEP students) is abou t 30 percent, 44 percent for

Hispanic students born outside the Un ited States.4142 A Department of Edu cation report

on d ropou t rates stated that wh ile not the sole cause of the Hispanic drop out problem,

langu age d ifficulty "may be a ba rrier to participa tion in U.S. schools."43 Further, and fairly

obviously, read ing ability is a key pred icator of grad uation and academ ic success.44Bilingual education an d tr ansitional bilingu al education are tw o d ifferent concepts.

Bilingual edu cation seeks to teach one langu age while developing p roficiency in a second.

Transitional bilingu al edu cation simp ly seeks to teach English as quickly as possible so that

a stud ent can transition into mainstream classes.

The federal response to the pressing need to educate LEP kids is a competitive gran t

program that gives priority to bilingual education programs that, "provide for the


9/23

development of bilingual proficiency both in English and another language for all

participating students".45 In practice this generally means bilingu al for Hispanic students

only, because qualified teachers in langu ages other than Spanish are rare. More

importantly, although the research on bilingual education is mixed and often

meth odologically susp ect there is no evidence that bilingu al is preferable to other methods

of teaching LEP youngsters English. In fact, the National Research Councils Comm itteeon the Prevention of Read ing Difficulty in Youn g Children stated that while most bilingual

evaluations are too small or flawed to be useful, "the m ost careful met-analysis of stud ies

comparing bilingual to English-only pr ogram s for language-minority children carried out

by Willig (1985) shows better literacy outcomes in English for children who received

transitional bilingu al edu cation."46

In 1998, two types of federal bilingu al grants were awarded, Enhancement Gran ts

and Comp rehensive School Grants (there are not comp etitions for every type of grant each

year). 255 school d istricts applied for Enhan cement Grants and 36 gran ts were award ed.

401 school districts app lied for a total of 63 Com prehensive School Grants. The average

Enhan cement grant in 1998 was $130,300 while the average Comprehensive School Grant

was $250,000.47 Essentially, in 1998, 15 percent of school districts that believed they n eededfederal assistance to edu cate limited English proficient students received it. Even a

$250,000 grant can be insufficient for a school district struggling to educate a diverse

pop ulation of stud ents.

Again, the federal focus on bilingual education as a strategy to educate limited

English proficient kids is surprising in the first place. It seems the only people sup por ting

actual bilingual programs are academics and practitioners with a vested interest in its

continuation. A portion of the federal bilingu al fund ing goes to these researchers who, not

surp risingly, have a proclivity for producing pro-bilingu al research. As James Traub

reported in a recent New York Times Magazine article, an academic and pedagogical

rationale to su pp ort the bilingual p rogram actually came abou t after its inception.

48

Theprogram itself was, in the words of bilingual scholar Ursula Casanova, not based on

academ ic theory but rather w as "the resu lt of political strategies designed to funnel federa l

poverty fund s to the southwest."49 Boston University p rofessor, and bilingual researcher

Christine Rossell and Keith Baker who has directed bilingual studies for the U.S.

Department of Edu cation, conducted an exhaustive review of evalua tions of 300 bilingual

program s and failed to find an y stud ies showing bilingual to be superior to other methods

of teaching English to LEP students.50 In fact, of the 300 evaluations they reviewed , Rossell

and Baker only found 72 that w ere "meth odologically soun d."51 Moreover, a recent Public

Agenda Found ation report found that 66 percent of Hispanic parents and 75 percent of

foreign-born parents reject the idea of bilingu al edu cation, preferring English immersion.52

As a practical matter, bilingu al just isnt an option in many school districts. Some schooldistricts now serve students speaking more th an 100 native tongues.53

Voters in California recently gave their verdict on bilingu al edu cation by passing

Proposition 227. That referend um shifted the focus from bilingual education to teaching

kids English as qu ickly as possible. Although, it is too soon to gauge the actual effect of 227

on school districts, clearly changes are afoot around bilingual education there. 54

Meanw hile, a similar initiative is on the ballot in Arizona , states that receive little or no


10/23

bilingu al fund ing are coping w ith influxes of limited English proficient kids, and Americas

school-aged pop ulation continu es to get more diverse.

As a result of demographic and statutory changes, school districts and states

nationwide are d ealing with a rapidly changing and in many cases, unaddressed situation

wh en it comes to limited English proficient students. How ever, they are supp orted by a

static, and sym bolic rather than substan tive, federal role.

Teacher Quality and Class Size

Reducing class-size is obviously not a bad idea, quite the contrary there is substantial

research tha t ind icate it can be an effective strategy to raise student achievement. As

Progressive Policy Institute has pointed ou t, "all things being equal, teachers are p robably

more effective w ith fewer stu dents."55 However, in education, all things are rarely equal.

For example, as a result of a teacher shortage exacerbated by a mand ate to reduce class-

size, 21,000 of Californias 250,000 teachers are working with emergency permits in the

states most troubled schools.56

Now a part of Title VI of ESEA, Presiden t Clintons $1.2 billion class-size red uctioninitiative illustra tes Washingtons obsession w ith means at the expense of results and also

the triumph of symbolism over sound policy. The goal of raising stud ent achievement is

reasonable and essential; however, mandating to localities that they d o it by redu cing class-

size precludes local decision making and unnecessarily involves Washington in local

affairs.

Dur ing deba te on the Clinton class-size proposal it was correctly pointed out that

in terms of stud ent achievemen t, research indicates that teacher quality is a more important

variable than class size. If fact, this crucial find ing was even bu ried in the Departm ent of

Educations own literature review on the issue.57 The Committee on the Prevention of

Reading Difficulty in Young Children, stated that although, "the quantity and quality ofteacher-stud ent interactions are necessarily limited by large class size, best instru ctional

practices are not guaranteed by small class size."58 In fact, one study of 1000 school

d istricts found that for every dollar spent on m ore highly qualified teachers "netted greater

improvem ents in studen t achievement than did any other use of school resources."59 Yet,

despite this, the class-size initiative allows on ly 15 percent of the $1.2 billion appr opr iation

to be spent on professional development. Instead of allowing states and localities flexibility

to address their own particular circumstances, Washington created a one-size-fits all

approach. Considering the crucial importance of teacher quality, the current shortage of

qualified teachers, and the fact that class-size is not a universal problem throughout the

coun try, shouldnt states and localities have the option of using m ore than 15 percent of

this fun ding on p rofessional developm ent?

Smaller Programs

The smaller program s within ESEA are equally as prescriptive, ineffective, or irrelevant as

the larger ones, they are just less expensive. Throughou t ESEA, but particularly in Title

X, the Programs of Na tional Significance portion of the law, there are nu merous p rogram s

for such activities as read ing, writing, civics, arts, gifted and talented stud ents, and various


11/23

dem onstration p rojects. Individually, these program s are small and seemingly innocuous,

collectively they add up annu ally to m ore than $200 million in ann ual spend ing.

Because of political popularity and constituency politics Congress refuses to

eliminate or redirect fund ing from even p rograms that the Depar tment of Education says

ough t to go. For example, each year the Department recommends eliminating fund ing for

the Ellender Fellowships, a small program tucked into the Title X of ESEA. The Ellend erfund ing, $1.5 million last year, goes to the Alexandria, VA, based Close-Up Found ation.

Close-Up is an excellent program that brings students from all 50 states and many U.S.

territories to Washington to government for a week du ring the school year.

The Ellend er Fellowships were established to p rovide scholarships for low-income

students to attend Close-Up. However, a 1992 evaluation of the program found that

"despite a pattern of increasing Federal fun d ing for the program an d significant increases

in pr ivate sector sup port for the Close-Up Found ation, the num ber of fellowships had

steadily declined ."60 Close-Up an d the Departm ent of Education d eveloped a plan to wean

Close-Up from its dependence on the treasury and as a result the Departm ent consistently

recommends against funding the Ellender program.61 Non etheless, each year Close-Up

comes throu gh the congressional app ropriations p rocess unscathed. It is but one exampleof a larger problem.

Fiscal concerns about the use of the Ellender funds aside; it is also an important

ph ilosophical example. Close-Up itself is worthy program with broad bipartisan supp ort

and it is valuable to many studen ts. H owever, does every worthy activity deserve a federal

program ? As a practical matter, who is in a better position to make decisions abou t

worthiness, Washington or states and localities?

The Categorical Problem

In his book, Demosclerosis, Jonath an Rauch likens the cur rent p ractice of layering federalprogram s one on top of the next without eliminating or modifying old ones to building

houses, each atop its predecessor. The result, he writes, might work in the short ru n bu t

would ultimately become "a teetering dysfunctional mess."62 ESEA typifies this

ph enomenon . Its crucial pu rposes are lost in a maze of program s that stifle ingenuity,

flexibility, and innovation an d as a result un der-serve the childr en they are intended to

help.

This year, in an effort to address this problem, Congress is already considering

legislation to introd uce more flexibility into federal education p rogram s. This legislation,

commonly referred to as Ed-Flex, wou ld allow school districts to app ly for w aivers from

certain state and federal regulations surrounding federal programs.63 In theory, this

flexibility would come in exchange for grea ter accountability for resu lts. Ed-Flex is a stepin the right direction, flexibility in exchange for accountability; however, it has two

draw backs. First, it vests add itional pow er in the hand s of bureau crats rather than

practitioners by establishing yet another process arou nd federal program s, albeit a waiver

process. Second, it doesnt ad dress the core problems w ith categorical program s.

The fact is, categorical programs and specific grant programs, large or small,

inevitably spaw n constituencies and interest group s wh o then assume a change-averse


12/23

posture arou nd their program. Common-sense change becomes difficult and large-scale

change nearly imp ossible. This ph enom enon isnt unique to ESEA, a look through the

federal tax cod e or agriculture subsidies for examp le reveals a parallel trend . It is also a

practice that is not unique to either party. Repu blicans and Democrats share equal blame

for the cur rent state of ESEA. Creating program s with nebulous pu rposes and no

accountability has over time been a bipartisan activity. A side effect of this proliferationof programs has been the accomp anying thin d ispersal of fun ds.

Because edu cational d ecisions are genera lly made at the state or local level, a federal

role built around man y d iscrete categorical pu rposes inherently preclud es state and local

decision making. We cant expect schools and school d istricts to be flexible and innovative

wh ile supp orting them th rough an outd ated, static fun ding system.

ESEA in the New Economy: Towards a results-based partnership

In the N ew Economy the federal government shou ld p lay the role of investor and catalyst

rather than "comm and and control" man ager. National benchmarks should be set and

Washington should em pow er states and localities to make progress towards them. Mostimp ortantly, Washington shou ld use its resources to drive and support ineffective practices

and should not subsidize failure.

Ideally, state and school district performance should be measured against national

benchmarks. Presiden ts Bush an d Clinton both tried to take comm onsense steps toward s

creating a national framew ork of standa rds and assessments. In his 1997 State of the Un ion

address, Clinton p roposed voluntary n ational tests in the 4th-grade for reading and in the

8th-grade for math ematics. Clinton hoped that the test would d rive national, not federal,

standards that embodied what students needed to know in the New Economy.64

Unfortunately, Clintons pr oposal for national testing w as killed on Cap itol Hill in 1997

and 1998. National stand ard s and a national assessmen t will u ltimately create an

environmen t of less testing for stud ents and mor e flexibility for states and localities. In

add ition, stand ards an d assessments create a focus on w hat w ill be taugh t and wh at should

be learned.65 This creates clarity for students and teachers and is essential for raising

student achievement. PPI continues to supp ort the Presidents prop osal; however, in the

absence of these benchmarks and a way to assess pr ogress against them, states and school

districts should be required to d emonstrate progress toward s established state standards.

This is the crux of performance-based sup port: dem onstrative p rogress tow ard s established

goals.

Further, withou t national standard s and assessments some national comp arative

measure, for example the N ational Assessmen t of Educational Progress, (NAEP) shou ld

continu e to be employed to allow interstate comp arisons and help the p ublic gauge thecomparability of standard s. Ind epend ent group s that monitor the quality of standard s and

assessments in various states will also play an essential role as providers of public

information and arbitrators of quality.

The federal role in education is limited bu t not trivial. While federal fun ds do only

make up only about 7 percent of edu cation spend ing in this country, because of existing

targeting, they tend to be more concentrated in certain areas increasing the ability of


13/23


14/23

circumstances, for example stimulating and supporting innovative practices, but are

inheren tly un fair because not all school d istricts have the capacity to effectively comp ete

for these dollars. With competitive grants, often the d istricts that need them the most are

least likely to get them. Small ru ral school districts are at a particular d isadvantage here.

While there is variance on a state by state basis, localities contribu te an average of

43.2 percent to public school funding with the states contributing 47.5 percent and thefederal government and private sources adding the remainder.72 At the extreme, New

Ham pshire schools are almost en tirely locally fun ded wh ile Washington State and New

Mexico rely heavily on state fund ing. Overall, there is a reliance on the prop erty tax at the

local level, which puts wealthy districts at an advantage compared to poor districts.

Further, poorer school districts tend to have higher concentrations of stud ents with special

needs and tend to be the most in distress.

It is here that the federal government can play a v ital role by providing fund s to

impoverished school d istricts to help them meet the un ique challenges they face. For

examp le, principa ls in h igh poverty schools repor t more d ifficulty hiring teachers; this is

particularly tru e in high-poverty urban areas.73 For stud ents, research demon strates a clear

link between poverty and learning p roblems. Moreover, wh en a significant p ercentage ofstudents at a school are imp acted by p overty, the achievement of all stud ents is imp acted.74

It is in impoverished areas wh ere studen ts are most likely not receiving th e edu cation that

they w ill need in the N ew Economy and increased accountability for results is most sorely

need ed. Consistently, when scores on national and international tests are disaggregated

it is imp overished stud ents who are m ost likely to be failing in school. Or, more accurately,

it is impoverished students who are most likely to be in school systems that are failing

them . The realities of poverty m ust be taken into account, but are not an excuse for failing

schools.

It is in these school districts wh ere the tru e crisis in p ublic edu cation lies and here

that federal dollars can most effectively leverage change. Federal fun ds are concentratedon these districts now, but n ot to the degree that they could or shou ld be. The Washington

Post recently referred to this diffusion of federal funds writing that, "[education]

reauthorization fights have an earthier side as w ell. They are partly about mon eythe old-

fashioned issue of slicing th e p ie."75

Liberals will continu e to talk only abou t more of the sameadd ing programs and top

dow n solutions. Conservatives will continue to argue that block grants and vou chers are

educational panaceas. Since the GOP controls Congress, block grants are likely to

dominate the Republican approach -- and there are three primary reasons that this

approach to ESEA is ill-conceived . First, sending fun ding to states or school d istricts solely

on a per-pup il basis comp letely ignores the rea lity of school finan ce in the United States.

Schools are heavily dep end ent on property taxes for revenu e; hence, wealthier districts areat a fund ing advantage relative to poor districts. Second, simply transferring regulatory

control from on e bureaucracy in Washington to 50 in state capitals around the country

doesnt add ress the core problems with the current regulatory burd en on schools. Third ,

the federal role in education has more defined purposes than simply revenue sharing;

block gran ting edu cation program s ignores these pu rposes, chiefly performan ce goals.

At the same time, the liberal Democratic solution of simply creating new p rogram s


15/23

without reforming or eliminating ineffective ones is equally ill-advised. By defending

outmod ed, ineffective, and unsuccessful p ractices, liberal Democrats inad vertently swell

the ranks, and strengthen the hand , of those who believe pu blic education is a wasteful and

ineffective enterprise. The incredible response that a privately funded voucher program

sponsored by Ted Forstmann and John Walton generated p rovides clear evidence that the

voucher movem ent isnt arising ou t of a vacuu m. Many parents, par ticu larly in inner cities,have lost faith in the status quo, and for good reason. Too man y schools d ont perform.

And throwing good money after bad wont alter the political dynamic or, more

importantly, improve the schools.

The Third Way: Performance-Based Grants

There are too many federal education programs creating a confusing and top-heavy

bureau cracy but the answer isnt simp ly carte blanche consolidation. In the word s of PPI

analysts Ed Kilgore and Kathleen Sylvester, simply "tur ning federa l programs into block

gran ts makes them easier to adm inister, but d oes not accomp lish any clarification of federal

and state rules, or of the national and local concerns that justify them."76 In addition,Republican block grant proposals decrease rather than increase accountability.

Performance-based funding creates greater flexibility while requiring increased

accountability by giving "flexibility in exchan ge for achieving d efined r esults that embody

the na tional purpose justifying the use of federal fun ds."77

Federal per formance-based ESEA funds should become focused on und erpr ivileged

children, limited English proficient children, professional development, and driving

innovative practices. These dollars shou ld be contingent up on d emonstrated results and

states and school d istricts that d ont meet targets shou ld be sanctioned fiscally. Likewise,

states exceeding goals and states with p articularly rigorous goals should be reward ed.

PPI Recommends creating 5 performance-based grants for compensatoryeducation, professional developm ent, limited-English proficient stud ents, innovative

practices, and state ad ministration and oversight. Specifically we recomm end :

Turning Title I into a completely performan ce-based compen satory edu cation

grant distributed by formu la. Building on what President Clinton has proposed,

in order to receive Title I funding states mu st demonstrate that they have a p lan

in place to identify and reconstitute failing schools, are ending social prom otion

by identifying and intervening to help stud ents in need, and have a standard s

and assessment plan in p lace so they can be held accountable for the

performance of impoverished stud ents. Title I fun ding shou ld be contingent

up on demonstrated p rogress toward s established state content standard s andmore concentrated to better serve stud ents in impoverished areas. Making Title I

performance-based d oes not und ermine the 1994 reforms bu t instead strengthens

them. While the use of aides shou ld be left as a state and local decision, the

qualification prerequisite for these aides should be raised to a bachelors degree.

Title I should be an edu cation program , not a jobs program .


16/23

Creating a second performance-based gran t for teacher and edu cation leadership

professional development. Again, building on President Clinton s prop osal, in

order to receive this fun ding states mu st demonstrate that they are taking

reasonable steps to curtail out of field teaching an d are pu tting rigorous testing

procedures in place for all teachers to improve teacher qu ality, and are offering

alternative paths (not simp ly emergency certification) to attract qualified p eopleinto the profession. Performance will be ind icated by imp rovements in student

achievement. This fund ing should be sent to school d istricts by formula and the

existing local matching requiremen ts shou ld be kept in place. Consolidating 4

existing p rofessional developm ent program s under the Eisenhow er program ,

Title III technology program s, bilingual edu cation, and the Reading and Literacy

Grants p rogram would alone create a fund of more than $700 million for

professional developm ent. This fun ding, ideally augm ented throu gh

consolidation of other lower p riority programs could for the first time p ut fiscal

mu scle behind professional developm ent. School d istricts shou ld have the

flexibility to determ ine the specific use this fun ding and cooperative

arrangemen ts with other school districts and entities should be encouraged.Local school d istricts can continue to work w ith trad itional p roviders of

professional developm ent or they can u se this funding to procure professional

development services from other outlets. Rather than gu aranteed revenu e

streams for any provider of professional developm ent services, a market built

arou nd delivering high quality services to school d istricts will emerge. The

providers m ay be traditional ou tlets such as regional education laboratories and

un iversities, or non-traditional venues such as corpora tions and consulting firms.

Fund amentally, school districts shou ld be able to access the services they believe

best suit their needs.

Conver ting the existing Title VII Bilingual Education Program into a th ird

performance-based grant for teaching English to limited-English p roficient

studen ts. Performance should be based on a three-year goal for moving

studen ts served w ith this fund ing into mainstream classes and measured by

wh ether stud ents are learning English or not. Excluding professional

development, Washington still spends $330 million on bilingual and m igrant

edu cation und er Title VII of ESEA. This sum shou ld be augm ented by new

fun ding or fund ing from lower priority p rograms to a full $1 billion to p rovide

federal fun ding of $300 per-LEP stud ent sent by formu la to imp acted school

d istricts. There is a compelling national interest in providing substantial fund ing

for the edu cation of limited English p roficient students; however, states andLEAs should have the flexibility to teach English in the manner they believe to

be most effective. The federal government shou ld not mand ate nor preclud e any

particular curricular or pedagogical approach to educating limited English

proficient stud ents. Results, not p rocess are the best way to gau ge success.

Creating a fourth performance-based grant focused on innovative strategies.


17/23

Again, higher stud ent achievement shou ld be the p erformance measure rather

than the method s states or school districts employ. Rather than individua l

federal programs targeted a t technology, dru g free schools, class-size reduction,

etcetera, the federal governm ent shou ld send ta rgeted aid to school district to

drive innovation. Again a formu la shou ld be used to ensure that the fun ds are

sent to districts that require add itional fiscal capacity. Giving local schoold istricts flexibility w ith this fund ing w ill drive m arket-based services and

solutions at the local level. Already, pr ivate sector providers of edu cational

services are working w ith school districts all over the country. Washington

should seek to empower this activity.

A portion of this money shou ld be set aside to create a competitive grant

program to supp ort and stimu late innovative practices. By creating a true source

of fun ds for innovative strategies initiated by states and school districts that

require an up -front comm itment of resources Congress can stimu late innovative

activity and help researchers captu re data on prom ising ideas. These practices

includ e, but are certainly not limited to, innovations such as longer school days,longer school years, innovative teacher men toring p rograms, and creating

charter d istrictsdistricts wh ere every school is on a performance contract and

parents can choose from among d ifferent schools.78

Ending "set-asides" of fun ds for state dep artments of education w ithin each

program and instead creating a fifth p erforman ce-based grant for state

administration and oversight. Performan ce ind icators for this fund ing will be

based on the goals a state has set for its comp ensatory ed ucation, limited -English

proficient, professional development, and inn ovative strategies performance-

based grants. These fund s will sup por t state oversight, accoun tability, andreporting requirements. Reward or incentive mon ey for states will also come

from this grant. Rather than state dep artments of edu cation relying on varying

percentages of fun ding from each categorical program a separate gran t shou ld

provide fund s to states for administration, oversight, and accoun tability. This

fun ding shou ld be d istributed to states on a per-pup il basis and the states shou ld

be given discretion to spend it.

Recognizing the permanen ce and impor tance of pu blic school choice. Charter

schools and magn et schools are now an integral part of the edu cational

landscape. A separate title shou ld be created for public school choice program s

includ ing charter schools, magnet schools, and school report cardsthe keyinformational comp onent to effective public school choice. 34 states and the

District of Columbia now h ave charter schools and magnet schools are found

through out the country. The unique natu re of charter schools requires federal

fun ding start-up fun ding and support. This can be accomp lished w ithou t

hind ering the flexibility of these schools or u nnecessarily involving Washington

in their operation.79 A recent evaluation of charter schools by the US Departm ent


18/23

of Education found that 59 percent of char ter schools found a lack of start-up

funds to be a "d ifficult" or "very d ifficult" challenge.80

Sustaining Impact Aid . As long as most states continue to rely in large part on

the p roperty tax for a substantial amount of school fund ing, the Imp act Aid

program will be an importan t federal contribution. Impact Aid comp ensatesschool d istricts for the fiscal d isplacemen t caused by federal p roperty (military

bases, offices, etc.) within their taxing auth ority. Since federal prop erty cant be

taxed, its presence adversely affects the local tax base. Impact Aid alleviates this

problem and plays an imp ortant role in local school finance.

Critics will comp lain that w ithout stringent federa l control of means school d istricts

are likely to squand er their fund s on ineffective practices. Certa inly this will occur in some

places; how ever , Washington is in a better position to demand results for its investmen t

than to regu late mean s. This complaint also ignores the reality that substantial federal and

state process-based regu latory accountability has failed to curta il ineffective p ractices. If

the p ast 35 years of ESEA prove anyth ing, it is that a system comp rising 50 states and morethan 14,000 diverse school districts doesn t lend itself to process-based accountability.

Critics of performance-based grants will also attack them as masking cuts in

edu cation spending. They will point out that in 1981, 38 edu cation programs were

consolidated into a block grant (now the current Title VI) and that funding for that

program has drop ped by more than 60 percent since then.81 This phenomenon has more

to do with the u nfocused natur e of that particular block grant than an y inexorable trend

of consolidation equaling lower fund ing. As opposed to performance-based grants, the

current Title VI program fails to articulate either a national interest or performance

indicators.Education, especially the education of poor children , is an expensive und ertaking.

Even fiscal conservatives acknowledge that additional spending is needed and public

opinion is strongly in favor of add itional investment in edu cation.82 How ever, simp ly

spending a lot of money doesnt guarantee that impoverished students are receiving a

quality edu cation. At a minimum, the more than $13 billion cur rently spent on ESEA,

consolida ted arou nd essential pu rposes and targeted where it is needed wou ld for the first

time pu t substantial federal fiscal muscle behind importan t pu rposes in ESEA rather than

spread ing fun ding arou nd too thinly to make a difference.

Even with the introduction of consolidated applications for states and school

d istricts, the process of applying for federal fund s is still too arduous. In add ition to the

basic pr erequisites described above, in order to r eceive federal fund s, states should onlyhave to submit to the Secretary of Education their goals on state assessments and should

be held fiscally accoun table for reaching those goals. Until national stand ard s and

benchmarks are d eveloped , Washington cant hold states and school d istricts accountable

to them, but by linking federal dollars to state standards and assessments and

commonsense improvem ents, such as those outlined by the President, at the state and local

level, the federal governm ent can en sure that taxpayer d ollars are d riving results-based


19/23

1. According to the Depa rt men t of Edu cation, ESEA spen ding, including Goals 2000 and Clas s Size

Reduction (now par t of Title VI) was $13,614,654,000 in FY99. As to the exact n um ber of program s,

estima tes vary depending on criteria u sed. The problem is exemplified by th e Departm ent of

Educat ions ina bility to produce an exact num ber.

2. Tota l federa l spending on elemen ta ry a nd secondar y education wa s $21.4 billion for the 1997-98school year accordin g to th e U.S. Depart men t of Edu cation.

3. Sum ma ry of Comm ent s from Title I foru ms conducted by t he Amer ican Associat ion of School

Administrators in Detroit, Houston, San Diego, New Oxford, Pennsylvania, and Worcester,

Massachuset ts. Unpublished Document.

4. United Stat es Census Bur eau, Poverty Est imat es by Selected Char acteristics 1997.

education at the state and local level. Writing in the Los A ngeles Times, Ronald Brownstein

recently du bbed this sort of relationship "flywheel federalism".83 It is an ap t description

and a new m ore empow ering and constructive app roach to edu cation policy.

While some are far from ideal, 49 states cur rently have or are developing stand ard s,

federal dollars should support states that are taking this commonsense step towards

accountability.

84

State standard s are not a substitute for national ones, but the d evelopmentof national standards is a process that will take time from both a policy and political

stand point. In the mean time, it is worth noting that 29 of the 41 countr ies pa rticipating in

the Third Interna tional Mathematics and Science Stud y (TIMSS), set cur riculum standards

at the national level.85

Conclusion

The federal government can p lay a tremend ous role in pu blic education; however too often

federal involvement doesnt play to its strengths and instead maximizes its weakness.

Effective learning happens as a result of adequate resources, high standards, and

accountability for resu lts. The federal governm ent can p lay a leadership role in facilitatingthe existence of these cond itions at the state and local level, bu t it cann ot and shou ld not

do the job for states and localities. Recasting the federal role to focus on provid ing

resources and dem and ing results sup ports the national interest in a strong public school

system and m ost effectively leverages federal strengths. Everyone recognizes that schools

mu st imp rove, but the federal role mu st change too in ord er to more effectively sup port

and emp ower states and localities to achieve excellence.

About the Author:

And rew Rotherh am is the d irector of the Progressive Policy Institutes 21st Century

Schools Project. For more information abou t Mr. Rotherh am and this project, please

visit our website at PPIOnline.org.

Endnotes:


20/23

5. Rees, Nina Sh okraii, an d Kirk. A. J ohnson., "Why A Super Ed-Flex Pr ogra m Is N eeded To Boost

Academ ic Achievemen t"., The Her ita ge Founda tion. Mar ch, 1999.

6.Atkin son, Robert D., an d Ran dolph H . Cour t. The New E conomy Index: Unders ta nding Americas

Economic Tra nsforma tion., Progressive Policy Inst itu te, 1998. pp. 9.

7.Price, Hugh B., "Establish an Acad emic Bill of Right s", Edu cation Week, Mar ch 17, 1999.

8. Ravitch, Diane., The Tr oubled Crus ade: American Edu cation 1945-1980., Basic Books, 1985.,

conta ins an excellent discussion of the hist ory sur rounding the enactmen t of ESEA.

9.All figures cited a re for F iscal Year 1999 and pr ovided by the U.S. Depar tm ent of Edu cation.

10.Hill, Pa ul., "Gett ing It Right t he Eight h Time: Reinventing th e Feder al Role". New Directions:

Federa l Education Policy in t he Twenty-First Cent ury., Thoma s B. Fordha m F ounda tion, 1999.

11.Testimony of Carlotta C. Joyner, Director Edu cation a nd E mployment Issues Health , Education,

an d Hu ma n Ser vices Division before E ducation Ta sk F orce, Comm ittee on t he Budget, US Senat e,

November 6, 1997. Gener al Accoun ting Office, Was hingt on, DC. GAO/T-HEH S-98-46.

12. Genera l Accountin g Office, Ext ent of Feder al F un ding in Sta te E ducat ion Agencies.,

GAO/HEHS-95-3. 1994.

13 99 percent of Title I funding r eaches t he local level and 90-93 percent of th is is spent on

instr uction or instru ctional support a ccording t o Promising Results, Continu ing Challenges: The

Fina l Report of the Na tiona l Assessment of Title I. United St at es Depart ment of Education, 1999.

pp. 1.

14 Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes, ABT Associates, Planning and Evaluation Service,

U.S. Departm ent of Education. pp. 16.

15. ibid. pp. 56. For a dditional discussion see: "Title Is $118 Billion Fa ils to Close Ga p", Los AngelesTimes, J an ua ry 19, 1999: pp. A1.

16 Pr omising Results, Continu ing Challenges: The F inal Report of the Na tional Assessment of Title

I. United Sta tes Depar tm ent of Education, 1999. Chapter 5, pp. 6.

17 ibid.

18 ibid.

19 ibid. Chapt er 5, pp. 1.

20 Title I In Midstr eam : The Fight to Impr ove Schools for P oor Kids., Citizens Commiss ion on Civil

Rights, 1998.

21 Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes, ABT Associates, Planning and Evaluation Service,

U.S. Departm ent of Education. pp. 56.

22 ibid. pp. 54.

23 Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title

I. United Stat es Depart ment of Educat ion, 1999. Chapt er 2, pp. 1.


21/23

24 Title I In Midstr eam : The Fight to Impr ove Schools for P oor Kids., Citizens Commiss ion on Civil

Rights, 1998.

25 Pr omising Result s, Continu ing Challenges: The Fina l Report of th e Nat iona l Assessmen t of Title


26.Fra mm olino, Ralph., "Title Is $118 Billion Fa ils to Close Ga p", Los Angeles Tim es, Janu ary 19,

1999. A1.

27 Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title


28. Elementa ry an d Secondar y Education Act of 1965, as am ended.20 U.S.C. 6301, Sec. 1119.29 Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title


30 ibid.

31 ibid. Executive Sum ma ry, pp. 10.

32 Title I In Midst rea m: The Fight to Impr ove Schools for P oor Kids., Citizens Commission on Civil

Rights, 1998.

33 Testimony of Richa rd Riley before House Committ ee on Ed ucat ion a nd t he Work force, Febru ar y

11, 1999.

34 An excellent exa mina tion of th is program by Matt hew Rees can be foun d in: New Directions:

Federa l Education Policy in th e Twenty-First Centur y., Thoma s B. Fordham Foundat ion, 1999.

35.The DARE website a t www.dare-amer ica.com feat ures a list of these stu dies.

36. Ray, Oakley, an d Char les Ksir, Drugs, Society, and H um an Beh avior., 1999 McGra w-Hill. pp.

455.

37 Genera l Account ing Office, Safe an d Dru g Free Schools, Balan cing Accoun ta bility With St at e an d

Local Flexibility., GAO/HE HS-98-3. 1997.

38 Digest of Education St at istics 1997. United Sta tes Depar tmen t of Educat ion, Washington, DC.

39 Depar tm ent of Edu cation, Office of Bilingual Edu cation an d Minority Langua ges Affair s,

Washington, DC.

40 ibid.

41According to Tren ds in The Well Being of Children a nd Yout h 1998., Un ited St at es Depar tm ent of

Healt h a nd Hu ma n Services, Wash ington, DC., Hispanic students a re t he largest cohort of LEP

kids.

42 Dropout Ra tes in the Un ited Stat es, 1996. United Sta tes Depart ment of Educat ion, Wash ington,

DC.

43 ibid.


22/23

44 Pr eventin g Reading Difficulties in Young Children., Nat iona l Resear ch Coun cil, 1998. pp. 21.

45 Elemen ta ry an d Seconda ry Edu cation Act of 1965, as a men ded. 20 U.S.C. 7426, Sec. 7116.

46 Pr eventin g Readin g Difficulties in Youn g Children., Nationa l Research Council, 1998. pp. 236.

47 Depar tm ent of Edu cation, Office of Bilingual Edu cation an d Minority Langua ges Affair s,

Washington, DC.

48 Trau b, Ja mes., "The Bilingual Ba rr ier", Th e N ew York Tim es Magazine, J an ua ry 31, 1999.

49. ibid.50 Garvin, Glenn., "Loco, Completamente Loco", Reason Magazine, Ja nuar y 1998.

51 ibid.

52. A Lot to Be Than kful For., Public Agenda Found at ion, Sept ember 1998.

53 Garvin, Glenn., "Loco, Completamente Loco", Reason Magazine, Ja nuar y 1998.

54 Gorma n, Siobhan ., "A Bilingua l Recess", N ational Journal, Ja nua ry 30, 1999.

55 Ha nush ek, Er ic., Improving Studen t Achievement: Is Reducing Class Size the Answer.,

Pr ogress ive Policy Inst itut e, 1998.

56Soler, Steph an ie., Teacher Qu ality is J ob One., The Pr ogres sive Policy Instit ut e, 1999.

57 Reducing Class Size: Wha t Do We Know? Un ited St at es Depar tm ent of Edu cation, May 1998.

58 Pr eventin g Reading Difficulties in Young Children ., Nationa l Resear ch Coun cil, 1998. pp. 230.

59 ibid. pp. 278-79.

60 Depart ment of Education Budget Sum ma ry FY98, FY99, FY00.

61 Ibid.

62.Rauch, J onat ha n., Demosclerosis., Times Books, 1994. pp. 148-149.

63 At t he t ime th is paper was pr inted a conference comm ittee t o resolve differences between th e

House and Sen at e versions of Ed-Flex ha d been appointed, but h ad not yet met . In a ddition, Ed-

Flex does not cover some of th e program s with t he grea test regula tory bur den on schools, most

notably the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

64 Jen nings, John F., Why Nationa l Stan dards and Test s., Sage Publicat ions, 1998. pp. 176.

65 ibid. pp. 183.

66 Digest of Education St at istics 1997. United Sta tes Depar tmen t of Educat ion, Washington, DC.

67. Genera l Accountin g Office, Sta te a nd F edera l Efforts t o Tar get Poor St uden ts., GAO/HEH S-98-

36. 1998.


23/23

68 ibid.

69 Genera l Account ing Office, Exten t of Feder al Fu ndin g in St at e Edu cation Agencies., GAO/HEH S-

95-3. 1994.

70Hill, Pa ul., "Gett ing It Right t he Eight h Time: Reinventing th e Feder al Role". New Directions:

Federa l Education Policy in t he Twenty-First Cent ury., Thoma s B. Fordham Foundat ion, 1999.

71 Felter , Mark ., "Car rot or Stick? How Do School Per form an ce Report s Work?", Edu cation Policy

Analysis Archives, October 7, 1994. Via t he Web.

72. U.S. Depart ment of Educat ion. Nat iona l Center for Educat iona l Sta tistics. Sta te Compa risons

of Edu cation St at istics: 1969-70 to 1996-97, NCE S 98-018. Wash ington, DC: 1998.

73Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty., National Center for Education Statistics,

U.S. Depart ment of Education. 1996.

74 Pr eventin g Reading Difficulties in Young Children ., Nationa l Resear ch Coun cil, 1998. pp. 31.

75. "School Aid Dispu te", Th e Washington Post, Febru ar y 9, 1999. B6.

76Kilgore, Ed., an d Kat hleen Sylvester ., Blocking Devolut ion: Why Block Gra nt s ar e th e Wrong

Approach to Devolution an d Three Pr ogres sive Alter na tives., Pr ogress ive Policy Ins tit ut e. 1995.

77 ibid.

78 For a more det ailed discussion see Th e N ew Dem ocrat, November/December 1996 an d

Mar ch/April 1999.

79 Schroeder, J on., Defining a Pr oper Feder al Role in Su pport of Cha rt er Schools., Pr ogress ive

Policy Inst itut e, 1997.

80 A Na tional St udy of Cha rt er Schools, 2nd Year Report ., United St at es Depart ment of Education.

1998.

81Jenn ings, J ohn F., "Comm enta ry on the N at ur e of an Omn ibus Bill", Nat iona l Issues in

Educat ion: Elementa ry an d Secondar y Education Act., Phi Delta Kappa a nd The Ins titut e for

Edu cational Leader ship. 1995. pp. xxi.

82 "Domenici Wan ts t o Boost E ducat ion F un ds", The Washington Post, Febru ar y 6, 1999. A10.

83 Brownstein, Ronald., "Both Pa rt ies Take Similar Pat hs a s Na tion Travels Road t o Innovat ion",

Th e Los Angeles Tim es, Mar ch 8, 1999.

84 Quality Count s 99.,Ed ucation Week, Ja nua ry 11, 1999.

85 Pu rsu ing Excellence, A Study of 8th -Gra de Math emat ics a nd Science Teaching, Lear ning,

Curr iculum a nd Achievement in Inter na tional Context., United Sta tes Depar tm ent of Education,

Nat iona l Center for Edu cation Sta tistics. 1996.

Andrew Rotherham, Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding

Documents

Transcript of Andrew Rotherham, Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding