The Campaign for Educational Equity TEACHERS COLLEGE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
The Fifth Annual Equity Symposium STIMULATING EQUITY? The Impact of the Federal Stimulus Act on Educational Opportunity February 8 - 9, 2010
SYMPOSIUM MATERIALS
SSupportedupported byby thethe FordFord FoundationFoundation
The Fifth Annual Equity Symposium
STIMULATING EQUITY? THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL STIMULUS ACT ON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
February 8 - 9, 2010
Cowin Conference Center Teachers College, Columbia University
SYMPOSIUM MATERIALS
Supported by the Ford Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS
Welcome Letter……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Press Release……………………………………………………………………………………………………….2 Symposium Schedule……………………………………………………………………………………………...4 The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009…………………………………….………...……8 Symposium Paper Summaries……………………………………………………………………………...……9
An Early Look at the Economic Stimulus Package and the Public Schools: Perspectives from State Leaders………...... ……………………………………………...... 9 Center for Education Policy
Stimulating Equity? A Preliminary Analysis of the Impact of the Federal Stimulus Act on Educational Opportunity ……………………………………………………………………………….11 Michael A. Rebell, Jessica R. Wolff, and Daniel Yaverbaum The Campaign for Educational Equity
Filling Budget Holes: Evaluating the Impact of ARRA Fiscal Stabilization Funds on State Funding Formulas………………………………………………………………………………………….14 David Sciarra and Danielle Farrie, Education Law Center Bruce Baker, Rutgers University
School Reforms and Equal Education Opportunities for All Children: The Changing Federal Role in Education…………………………...... 16 Maris A. Vinovskis, University of Michigan
Safeguarding the Right to a Sound Basic Education in Times of Fiscal Constraint……………..…….19 Michael A. Rebell, The Campaign for Educational Equity
Biographies……………………………………………………………………………………………………….21 Contact Information………………………………………………………………………………..…………...33
Welcome to Teachers College and the fifth annual Equity Symposium, “Stimulating Equity? The Impact of the Federal Stimulus Act on Educational Opportunity.” This event will mark the first major national forum to analyze, in-depth, the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on educational equity and educational opportunity.
The U.S. Department of Education is expected to distribute approximately $100 billion over the next two years to states, school districts, and higher education institutions. The availability of this enormous increase in federal funding provides not only invaluable assistance to states in maintaining jobs and educational programs in these difficult times, but also an extraordinary opportunity to advance educational opportunity nationwide.
This year’s symposium will, therefore, examine the impact of the stimulus funds through an educational equity lens, presenting nationwide analyses of how the stimulus funds have been used, case study examples of effective and ineffective uses of the funds, and explorations of the long-term implications of this massive spending experience on the role of the federal government in promoting educational equity and educational reform.
We look forward to your participation.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Rebell Executive Director Campaign for Educational Equity, and Professor of Law and Educational Practice
1
PRESS RELEASE PRESS CONTACTS: Joe Levine Office: (212) 678-3176 [email protected]
Where Is $100 Billion in Education Aid Going? States Are Using Education Stimulus Money for Budget Gaps Instead of Equity, Teachers College Study Suggests
NEW YORK, NY, February 8, 2010 - States are using federal stimulus money intended to promote innovation and equity reforms in schools to instead plug holes in education budgets ravaged by the economic recession. That’s the finding of at least one major study that will be presented at “Stimulating Equity? The Impact of the Federal Stimulus Act on Educational Opportunity,” a symposium that will be held at Teachers College, Columbia University on February 8th and 9th. The event convened by the College’s Campaign for Educational Equity, is the first major national symposium to analyze the impact of The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), which is enabling the U.S. Department of Education to distribute $100 billion to states over the next two years for public schools suffering from the effects of the recession. The symposium will discuss whether this windfall of federal cash – more than double the Department’s 2009 budget – will improve equity and opportunity for low-income students. The keynote speakers at the symposium are Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell, who has insisted that funding for educational equity provisions in his state continue as scheduled despite the current economic downturn; and Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, who is responsible for enforcing civil rights law in schools. When Congress passed ARRA last February, one intent was certainly to stabilize education funding. But its other aims were to continue equity and adequacy reforms, and promote education reforms to boost student achievement. “Our initial analysis indicates that Congress largely achieved its purpose of stabilizing state education budgets and ensuring continuity in educational services, but the “equity goals” of bolstering services for disadvantaged students who tend to be the greatest victims of budget cutbacks, were only partially achieved,” said Michael Rebell, founding director of the Campaign for Educational Equity and organizer of the annual symposium. “Important new programs have been implemented with the additional Title I and IDEA funds, but the rapid termination of this funding in 2011 will create major problems.” At the symposium Rebell, who is an attorney, will deliver a paper arguing that, even in a recession, states are legally required to continue to equalize educational opportunity for all children. “Children’s constitutional rights are not put on hold because there is a fiscal crisis,” he said.
2 Also at the symposium: • PBS NewsHour’s John Merrow will lead a conversation on how to handle the hard times to come with Jack Jennings, president and chief executive officer of the Center on Education Policy, and Chester Mitchell, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education. • Maris Vinovskis, professor of history, University of Michigan, will deliver a paper on the expanding role of the federal government in education. • Education Week’s Michele McNeil will explore the challenges and promising practices observed in different regions of the country with Joseph Martin, Executive Director of the Georgia School Funding Association; Timothy Mitchell, Superintendent of the Chamberlain School District 7-1 in South Dakota; and Candace Cortiella, Director of Advocacy Institute in Washington, D.C. • New York Times education reporter, Jenny Medina, will lead a roundtable discussion on handling budget shortfalls in New York State with Photeine Anagnostopoulos, Chief Operating Officer, and Alison Avera, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, of the New York City Department of Education; Dan Lowengard, Superintendent of the Syracuse City School District; Mary Anne Schmitt-Carey, Executive Director of Say Yes to Education in Syracuse; Glynda Carr, Executive Director of Education Voters of New York State; and Geri Palast, Executive Director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity.
The full agenda for “Stimulating Equity? The Impact of the Federal Stimulus Act on Educational Opportunity” is available at http://www.tc.edu/centers/EquitySymposium/symposium10/program.asp.
Summaries and copies of the full reports being presented will be available starting February 10, 2010 at http://www.tc.edu/centers/EquitySymposium/symposium10/resource.asp .
Teachers College is the largest graduate school of education in the nation. It is affiliated with Columbia University but is legally and financially independent. The editors of US News & World Report have consistently ranked the College as one of the leading graduate schools of education in the country.
For more information, please visit the College’s Web site at www.tc.columbia.edu.
The Campaign for Educational Equity is dedicated to promoting equity and excellence through improved policy and practice. For more information, please visit the Campaign’s website at www.equitycampaign.org.
###
3 STIMULATING EQUITY? THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL STIMULUS ACT ON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE
Monday, February 8, 2010
MORNING SESSIONS
9:00 AM Welcome and Conference Overview Michael Rebell, Executive Director, Campaign for Educational Equity
Keynote Address (via live video feed) Edward G. Rendell, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Welcome and Introduction: Susan Fuhrman, President Teachers College
10:15 AM Session 1. The Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on Educational Equity and Innovation
A. The View from the States: Governors’ and State Education Department Perspectives on ARRA Implementation Presenter: Jack Jennings, President and CEO, Center on Educational Policy
B. Following the Money: A National Survey of How the ARRA Funds Are Really Being Used Presenters: Jessica Wolff, Policy Director Daniel Yaverbaum, Researcher, Campaign for Educational Equity
Moderator: Luis Huerta, Associate Professor of Education, Teachers College
11:15 AM Coffee Break
11:30 AM Session 1 (continued)
C. The ARRA and School Funding Equity? A Quantitative Analysis Presenters: Bruce Baker, Associate Professor, Rutgers University David Sciarra, Executive Director, Education Law Center
12:30 PM Lunch and Break-out Discussions with Presenters
• Boxed lunches available in discussion rooms: Rooms 138 & 150 Lunch Talk with Jessica Wolff & Daniel Yaverbaum (Following the Money): Rm 138 Lunch Talk with David Sciarra and Bruce Baker (The ARRA & Equity?): Rm 150
• Boxed lunches available in room 140 for those not attending a lunch discussion General lunch seating available: Rooms 144 & 152
4 Monday, February 8, 2010
AFTERNOON SESSIONS
1:45 PM Session 2. Challenges and Promising Practices: Voices from Across the Nation
A. Fiscal Stabilization Joseph Martin, Executive Director, Georgia School Funding Association
B. Title I Timothy Mitchell, Superintendent, Chamberlain School District 7-1, South Dakota
C. IDEA Candace Cortiella, Director, Advocacy Institute
Moderator: Michele McNeil, Assistant Editor, Education Week
3:15 PM Coffee Break
3:30 PM Session 3. Handling Budget Shortfalls in New York State: The Impact of Budget Cuts, CFE, and ARRA
A. New York City Photeine Anagnostopolous, Chief Operating Officer Alison Avera, Deputy Chief Operating Officer New York City Department of Education
B. Syracuse Dan Lowengard, Superintendent, Syracuse City School District Mary Anne Schmitt-Carey, President, Say Yes to Education
C. New York State Glynda Carr, Executive Director, Education Voters of New York Geri Palast, Executive Director, Campaign for Fiscal Equity
Moderator: Jennifer Medina, Reporter, The New York Times
5 Tuesday, February 9, 2010
MORNING SESSIONS
9:00 AM Welcome Michael Rebell, Executive Director, Campaign for Educational Equity
9:15 AM Keynote Address Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of Education
10:00 AM Session 4. The Changing Federal Role in Education
Presenter: Maris Vinovskis, Professor of History, University of Michigan
Discussants: Carl Kaestle, Professor Emeritus of Education, History and Public Policy Brown University Elizabeth De Bray, Associate Professor, University of Georgia
Moderator: Thomas James, Provost and Dean, Teachers College
11:30 AM Coffee Break
11:45 AM Session 5. Safeguarding Progress toward Educational Equity and Opportunity in Hard Times
Presenter: Michael Rebell, Executive Director, Campaign for Educational Equity
Discussant: Jamienne Studley, President and CEO, Public Advocates, Inc.
Moderator: Ted Shaw, Professor of Practice in Law, Columbia Law School
1:00 PM Lunch and Break-out Discussions with Presenters
• Boxed lunches available in discussion rooms: Rooms 138 & 150 Lunch Talk with Maris Vinovskis: Rm 138 Lunch Talk with Michael Rebell: Rm 150
• Boxed lunches available in room 140 for those not attending a lunch discussion General lunch seating available: Rooms 144 & 152
6
AFTERNOON SESSION
2:15 PM Session 6. Maintaining Educational Opportunity in the Hard Times Ahead: Federal and State Perspectives
Presenters: Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Jack Jennings, President and CEO, Center on Educational Policy
Moderator: John Merrow, President, Learning Matters, & Education Correspondent, PBS NewsHour
3:45 PM Closing Plenary
7 THE AMERICAN REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009 The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus act, included two important and unprecedented initiatives in regard to public education. First, it allocated about $100 billion in additional funding for education -- more than double the entire amount of federal aid to elementary and secondary education in 2009. Second, it contained a number of significant adequacy and equity provisions that gave promise of partially or fully immunizing low income and minority students from the impact of recessionary budget cuts.
The largest pot of education money provided by ARRA is the approximately $48.3 billion earmarked as the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which is intended to mitigate anticipated cutbacks in funding for public schools and public postsecondary institutions and related job losses. The Act provides the states an additional $13 billion for economically disadvantaged children under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and $12.2 billion more for students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Act also includes a number of smaller programs, including an additional $5 billion in discretionary grants that the Department will be distributing under a “Race to the Top” Incentive Fund and a separate Innovation Fund. This report will focus on the three largest programs, ESF, Title I, and IDEA.
Congress passed ARRA both to create jobs in the short run and to make needed investments for the long run. In the area of education, these investments were geared toward ensuring that existing programs designed to overcome achievement gaps and enable all students to achieve at high levels of academic proficiency would be maintained and that new programs designed to accelerate progress toward these goals would be developed. Specifically, ARRA contains the following provisions that have substantial implications for maintaining educational funding at adequate levels needed to achieve these goals and for promoting their equitable aims:
1. In order to obtain ARRA funding, each governor submitting an application must provide assurances that the state will (a) take actions to improve teacher effectiveness, and to address inequities in the distribution of effective teachers between and high and low-poverty schools; (b) establish a longitudinal data system to track student progress and improve educational practice; (c) take steps to improve state academic standards and the quality of academic assessments it administers; and (d) provide intensive support and effective interventions in low-performing schools.
2. ARRA K-12 funds must first be used in the following ways:
a. To maintain the state’s primary elementary and secondary funding formulae in each of fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 at the level of the greater of funding in fiscal year 2008 or 2009; and b. To allow, during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, funding for the continued phase-in of state equity and adequacy adjustments that were enacted pursuant to state law prior to October 1, 2008. 3. After meeting the basic funding needs described in the previous paragraph, any remaining funds must be distributed to local school districts based on their relative shares under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which means in accordance with their proportion of economically disadvantaged students.
4. Substantial grants, amounting to approximately a 50% increase over two years in federal funding, in addition to regular annual Title I and IDEA funding, are provided to local school districts to provide additional services to educationally disadvantaged students and students with disabilities.
8 SYMPOSIUM PAPER SUMMARIES
An Early Look at the Economic Stimulus Package and the Public Schools Perspectives from State Leaders
The Center on Education Policy
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), represents an unprecedented infusion of federal dollars into the nation’s public education system – about $100 billion over two years, more than double the fiscal year 2009 budget for the entire U.S. Department of Education.
States are supposed to use the funds to stave off teacher layoffs, stabilize declining state and local education budgets, and blunt other negative effects of the economic downturn for schools. The grants are also meant to encourage reforms in schooling that will improve student achievement. States must assure in their applications for ARRA funds that they will make progress in four areas of education reforms:
• Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers; • Establishing and using data systems that track students’ progress from pre-kindergarten through college and careers that foster continuous improvement; • Developing and implementing rigorous standards for college and career readiness and high- quality assessments; • Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around the lowest- performing schools.
The Center on Education Policy surveyed education officials in 44 states and the District of Columbia (which is counted as a state in this report) to find out how they planned to utilize the money. At the time of the survey, states had applied for and received the first rounds of stimulus money for elementary and secondary education, and these funds had just begun trickling down to districts and schools.
Several findings emerged from this initial phase of CEP’s research on ARRA, including:
• State education funding problems are likely to worsen in 2010, as more states foresee shortfalls in their K-12 education budgets. ARRA funds appear to have staved off education budget cuts in some states, but they may be a short-term fix. • Forty-one states said they plan to apply for “Race to the Top” grants, a $4.5 billion portion of the overall $100 billion allocation even though the requirements governing this competitive grant program are stricter than those for other ARRA programs. This suggests that states are looking for funding from all available sources to counteract the dire economic situations they expect to face in the near future. • According to Department of Education rules, states receiving ARRA funds will need to show progress in four areas. Of the four, states have clearer plans for creating longitudinal data systems and adopting rigorous new academic standards and assessments, than for improving the effectiveness and distribution of teachers and turning around low-performing schools. The second two are more nebulous goals that often require systemic, multi-faceted, and long-term approaches and controversial actions.
9 • All 42 of the responding states (including the District of Columbia) reported plans to create a longitudinal data system containing test records of individual students. A large majority of states plan to create general information about students at each level, unique student identifiers, and a state data audit system. • Thirty-five out of 42 states reported stepping up assessment and standards, including state assessments aligned with new academic standards. • To accomplish the assurance that states will promote educator effectiveness and equitable distribution of effective teachers, 30 states plan to support teacher retraining and professional development, while 27 said they would begin to link student achievement data to individual teachers, and 26 said they would expand alternative pathways to teacher certification. • In response to the federal requirement to reform low-performing schools, 29 states said they would improve teacher recruitment, professional development and placement, while 16 said they would assign new principals and teachers. • States are taking an active role in overseeing and directing local uses of ARRA funds. • The main problems states have encountered in allocating or using ARRA funds are multiple or inconsistent reporting requirements, a lack of administrative funds, and a lack of state capacity.
10 Stimulating Equity? A Preliminary Analysis of the Impact of the Federal Stimulus Act on Educational Opportunity
Michael A. Rebell, Jessica R. Wolff, and Daniel A. Yaverbaum The Campaign for Educational Equity1
A year ago, when the stimulus program was first announced, many observers expected that both the job creation and the equity goals of the Act would be amply met. Researchers predicted that ARRA funding would allow more than half the states both to fund their established education finance formulae fully and have significant resources available to promote the four types of reform initiatives to which their governors had committed.2 USDOE similarly expected that “A State facing a large deficit can avoid reductions in total education funding while a State with a stronger budget situation can increase total education spending to work toward the education reforms.3 Given these high expectations, the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University, initiated a project last summer to examine how states were actually spending their stimulus funds during the first year of the Act’s implementation. The particular emphasis of our inquiry was to determine the extent to which the states were implementing the adequacy and equity provisions of the law and were achieving the progress toward improving educational opportunities for economically and otherwise disadvantaged students that both Congress and USDOE had anticipated. The methodology focused on the following 20 states, chosen to represent the nation’s diversity in terms of location, size, urbanization, and equity in funding: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. In order to obtain a rapid, but penetrating, understanding of how ARRA funds were actually being used in the state, the Campaign studied official federal and state reports, budget documents, websites, newspaper articles, and other documents, and they also spoke in each state with a number of people involved in the process from a variety of perspectives: advocates, government officials, school officials and administrators, think tank analysts, and academics. Findings: • ARRA was highly successful in achieving its goal of assisting states to maintain or even increase their pre-recessionary levels of basic educational funding, at least for FY 2009 and FY 2010, the first two years of the economic downturn. Seventeen of the 20 states were able to maintain their FY 2008 funding levels throughout this two year period, and 12 of these states maintained their higher 2009 funding level during 2010. Only three states were unable to maintain their FY 2008 funding level through FY 2010. It is questionable whether states
1 Funding for this research project of the Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University, was provided by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The statements made and the views expressed in this report are solely the responsibility of the Campaign and the authors. Pawanpreet Dhaliwal provided significant research assistance to the project. 2 Roza, M. (May 18, 2009). Ranking the states: Federal education stimulus money and the prospects for reform. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington. 3 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General. (September 30, 2009). Potential consequences of the maintenance of effort requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Alert memorandum, p. 2. Retrieved on November 6, 2009 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/AlertMemorandums/l03j0011.pdf
11 will be able to continue to maintain these funding levels with dwindling stimulus dollars and mounting deficits in 2011. • No states distributed ESF funds to school districts to “take action” in the four reform areas identified in the ARRA statute. Moreover, the data indicated that all of the states explicitly or implicitly “backfilled,” that is, they adjusted their level of state support and their allocation of ESF funds in a manner that would allow them to reach prior year funding levels or continued implementation of the state’s funding formulae, but without leaving any surplus for subgrants to local educational agencies. • Of the eight states in our sample that should be phasing in “equity and adequacy adjustments” in their state funding formulae, six used ESF funds to continue implementing equity adjustments in whole or in part, and two made no continuing equity adjustments. • The huge increases that ARRA has provided districts for Title I and IDEA funding have led in many areas to important new program initiatives and infrastructure investments, as well as an extension of service to thousands of disadvantaged students. However, the pressures of “facing the cliff” of a sudden termination of these large funding allocations after 2011 is placing major constraints on efficient and effective use of the funds, especially in regard to Title I. • Unintended loopholes in both the Title I and IDEA statutes are allowing large portions of these funds to be used to maintain positions and programs in general education rather than to initiate new programs or expand or improve services for disadvantaged and disabled students. The analysis of these findings emphasized first the significance of ARRA’s largely successful effort (at least through the current fiscal year) to assist states in maintaining adequate levels of educational expenditures during times of fiscal constraint. Congress’s intent to maintain or increase pre-recessionary levels of spending on education during these times of severe economic downturn complemented and bolstered state court constitutional rulings that that children’s educational rights should not be tied to the ebb and flow of economic cycles. In regard to the equity goals of the Act, the stark fact that no state in the sample reserved any of its ESF funding for new initiatives in the four priority reform areas, despite substantial jawboning from USDOE, demonstrates that states are not going to set aside scarce funds to support new initiatives for equity if they are not backed up by mandatory directives or strong maintenance of effort requirements. On the other hand, the fact that six of eight states continued to phase in equity and adequacy adjustments, even if mainly on a partial basis, suggests that where local constituencies and state court rulings are pressing for continuation of existing commitments to equitable reform, federal encouragement of these efforts can be significant. Congress’s huge equity commitment in driving major new resources to Title I and IDEA programs for disadvantaged students and students with disabilities is of enormous significance, especially since these disadvantaged populations are usually among those who are most detrimentally affected by recessions and attendant budget cuts. Even with these earmarked equity grants, however, the pressures to maintain existing positions and programs has induced states and local districts to use these funds to maintain the status quo or to find ways to divert these funds to general uses. The need to spend these funds quickly has also led districts to use Title I funds to add large numbers of temporary staff positions or to concentrate their efforts on technology purchases and short-term professional development programs, rather than invest in teacher recruitment and retention, ongoing, high quality professional development, and other enduring capacity-building efforts that would have more lasting reform impact. In addition, a number of districts, especially in large urban areas, have used their Title I funds to expand the number of students being served, a practice that may create great difficulties if services have to be
12 denied to these students, or the concentration and possibly the quality of programming have to be reduced, when the extra ARRA funding terminates in two years. In light of these findings and analysis, the Campaign recommends that in the near term USDOE issue regulations defining “primary educational formulae” in order to ensure consistency in state reporting of their use of ARRA funds. They also call upon Congress to close the IDEA loophole that threatens to permanently reduce local school districts’ maintenance of effort requirements for funding of special education programs, and to extend the termination date for exemplary Title I and IDEA programs in order to reduce “face the cliff” pressures. For the long term, Congress needs to provide a second round of stimulus funding. Future stimulus bills, Race to the Top competitions, and the ESEA reauthorization should provide incentives and mandates for states to improve both the adequacy and the equity of their education finance systems. This could be accomplished by requiring each state to define (with federal guidelines) its concept of a “sound basic education” and then demonstrate either that it is presently providing all students an opportunity for such a sound basic education, or that with its federal funding it will make progress toward doing so. Similarly, states should be required to demonstrate the extent to which their current education finance systems allocate available funding in an equitable manner between and within local school districts, and where inequities exist, commit to taking specific steps to reduce such inequities.
13 Filling Budget Holes: Evaluating the Impact of ARRA Fiscal Stabilization Funds on State Funding Formulas
By David G. Sciarra and Danielle Farrie, Education Law Center Dr. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University
This paper analyzes the distribution of $39 billion in federal stimulus funds for education known as the “state fiscal stabilization funds” in 11 states, and the impact of SFSF funds on the states’ K-12 school funding formulas. The SFSF funds are part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which has the following objectives:
• to give money to states to maintain and restore state aid through designated “primary” funding formulas to FY2008 or FY2009 levels, whichever is greater; • implement any previously planned increases, or equity or adequacy adjustments, in those funding formulas; • maintain overall state support for K-12 education above 2006 levels. This research attempted to determine the extent to which states met the objectives set by Congress for SFSF program funds. It also sought to shed light on several related, and often asked, policy questions:
• Did states use SFSF funds to address shortfalls in non-education programs in the overall state budget? • What impact, if any, did SFSF program funds have on the fairness of school funding in the states, especially in districts with high concentrations of student poverty? • To what extent did the U.S. Department of Education ensure states met the ARRA benchmarks and objectives for SFSF program funds? • What lessons can be learned for future Congressional efforts to use federal funds to maintain and improve state support for K-12 education through state funding formulas? Main Findings
• Several states did not restore K-12 formula aid to FY2008 or FY2009 levels. Mid-year cuts may put more states below this level. • Four states had planned formula increases, but only two partially funded those increases. Further, in most states, SFSF program funds did not improve the fairness of the school funding formulas. • While states may have initially maintained K-12 support above the FY2006 maintenance floor, mid- year aid cuts may drop states below that level, and below those in approved SFSF applications. • The state-designated “primary” formulas represent only a portion of total state support for K-12 education, masking the underlying condition of the school funding in the states. • Although funds from one-time SFSF grants were supposed to last for two years, most states used almost 70% of the total SFSF allocation in FY2010. This raises serious concern about state compliance with ARRA objectives and benchmarks in FY2011. • The absence of a complete and reliable data source on state school funding formulas seriously hindered effective review of the states’ SFSF submissions to ensure compliance with ARRA objectives.
14 • Federal oversight of the SFSF program had serious shortcomings, resulting in a lack of assurance that states used SFSF funds to achieve the objectives and benchmarks in the ARRA statute. Conclusions
• States experienced various levels of overall budget and revenue declines, but Congress established a specific allocation of SFSF funds to each state, and the federal Education Department did not deny the application of any state. • The fairness of underlying school funding formulas varies widely among states. “Progressive” funding formulas provide a systematically higher level of state and local revenues per pupil to higher poverty districts. “Regressive” formulas provide less revenue to higher poverty districts. “Neutral” formulas provide about the funding levels to low and high poverty districts. • These data underscore a critical factor regarding school funding: “Restoration” or “maintenance” of K-12 aid levels have a very different meaning across states, given the wide disparity in the fairness of the underlying funding formulas.
15 School Reforms and Equal Education Opportunities for All Children: The Changing Federal Role in Education
By Maris A. Vinovskis, University of Michigan
The U.S. Constitution does not designate education as a federal government responsibility, and the federal government had almost no role in K-12 education until the mid-1960s. Since then, it has been more involved in education, mostly through partnerships with the states at the expense of local school districts. This has not improved students’ academic achievements. “Especially disappointing has been the inability to provide more equal education opportunities for disadvantaged students,” Vinovskis reports.
State and Federal Involvement in K-12 Education before 1960
• From the beginning of K-12 education through the early 20th century, local communities were responsible for K-12 education, with occasional support from the federal government through legislation such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Slaves and free blacks, however, were denied equal opportunities to attend schools. • Federal involvement increased through programs such as the 1946 National School Lunch program and the 1950s “impacted” areas aid program. The federal share of education funding increased by 1961, but was still only 4 percent of the total K-12 revenues. • In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, that segregated schools were unconstitutional. • In 1958, the National Defense Education Act provided federal aid to education at all levels but focused primarily on math, science and foreign languages in reaction to Russia’s launch of Sputnik in 1957.
Federal K-12 Involvement in the 1960s and 1970s
• In 1965, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allocated federal dollars to programs for disadvantaged children, and Head Start was created. “These programs remained fairly stable through the 1970s, despite questions about their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students,” Vinovskis writes. • The courts became more involved in enforcing school desegregation at the local level and ensuring more education opportunities for special education and bilingual students. The federal contribution to K-12 schooling doubled from 1964 to 1965, but then rose only slightly to 9 percent by 1980.
Education Reforms in the 1980s and 1990s
• In 1979, President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, which Ronald Reagan tried, unsuccessfully, to dismantle. • The National Commission on Excellence in Education was created and issued an influential 1983 report, “A Nation at Risk,” which graphically described the mediocre condition of American education. • In 1988, Congress reauthorized ESEA as the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School
16 Improvement Act, which authorized state education authorities to work with schools whose at-risk students showed no progress in two years. The federal share of K-12 funding, however, had dropped from 9 percent to 6 percent in 1988. • In 2000, President George H.W. Bush announced the America 2000 strategy, which called for world- class standards in math, science, English, history, and geography; voluntary national tests in the 4th, 8th, and 12 grades for those subjects, parental school choice. Congress failed to pass the bill, but parts of it were implemented administratively. • President Bill Clinton incorporated many of the America 2000 components, including the national education goals (which Congress expanded to eight), the American 2000 communities (renamed the Goals 2000 communities), and the New American Schools. Using the Goals 2000 framework, ESEA was reauthorized six months later as the Improving America’s School Act (IASA) and provided more federal and state involvement in public schools. • After Republicans unexpectedly won control of the House and the Senate in 1994, Goals 2000 receded as a federal priority, although elements of it continue to serve as a framework for education reform. • Under George W. Bush, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002. Among the provisions, all students in a state had to achieve academic proficiency, as defined by each state, in math and English language arts, within 12 years; schools failing to make adequate progress regularly faced increasing penalties; and all teachers hired under Title I had to be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-6 school year. Experts differ on how effective NCLB has been in narrowing the achievement gap.
The Obama Administration and Education
• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008 includes $100 billion in federal dollars to stabilize local school budgets. The money can also be used to supplement Title I and programs for disabled children (IDEA funds), as well as money for competitive “Race to the Top Funds,” and innovation funds. • Education advocates fear that governors might use some of the stimulus funds to balance existing local education budgets or redirect the broadly discretionary monies to other non- education critical needs. Indeed, some states have cut their education contributions and reallocated those monies elsewhere. • States applying for competitive “Race to the Top” grants were urged to advance reforms in four areas: adopting high standards and assessments, building state data systems, improving teacher quality, and turning around failing schools. • RTT guidelines will be a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s education reforms as well as possible guidelines for NCLB reauthorization. • The unexpected severity of the economic downturn meant that federal assistance was not enough even to replace all of the immediate budgetary shortfalls. With almost all of the State Fiscal Stabilization, IDEA, and Title I funds already committed, the financial situation of schools in some communities may be even worse in FY2010. • Title I monies have always been widely distributed so that almost all congressional districts receive at least some of those funds. While this has ensured political support for the program, it means that the poorest school districts with the most disadvantaged students receive less assistance than needed. • At the same time, much of the additional $1.7 billion reserved for funding school improvements in
17 FY2009 and FY2010 will assist the growing number of NCLB academically troubled schools, thereby providing assistance to some of the most disadvantaged students. • Discussions of the impact of the education stimulus frequently focus on the increasing federal involvement. Yet the legislation also enhances the role of state governors. • At the same time, the $4.5 billion “Race to the Top” program allowed the Obama administration to give out federal funds to programs that met its priorities for reform. Part of the application process many states altered their current education systems and practices, especially in the areas of data, standards, assessments, expanding charter schools and turning around the worst schools.
18 Safeguarding the Right to a Sound Basic Education in Times of Fiscal Constraint
By Michael A. Rebell, The Campaign for Educational Equity
With the nation hunkered down for what looks to be lengthy bad times, American public schools, grappling with the most severe budget cuts in more than three decades, are reducing educational services to millions of children.
This past fall California laid off 20,000 teachers, resulting in average class sizes in Los Angeles high schools of 42.5. Teachers in Hawaii were “furloughed” and classes cancelled for 17 straight Fridays, In Illinois, 30,000 children lost preschool services, bilingual education was cut 25 percent and teacher recruitment in hard-to-staff schools was substantially reduced. Georgia cut $112 million intended to help close the gap between wealthier and poorer districts.
And there’s worse to come. Even after plugging budget holes with money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – originally intended to stimulate innovation and create opportunities for low-income students -- 39 states are now reporting midyear shortfalls and projecting additional large gaps for FY2011. In New York, Governor David Paterson has proposed cutting the base budget by $1.4 billion next year.
The American boom-and-bust approach to educational opportunity has drastic consequences. Children cannot learn in over-sized classes, especially in needy schools with the least experienced teachers. Furloughs shorten the school calendar at a time when research increasingly argues for longer school days and years -- especially for low-performing students. And the persistence of such conditions permanently damages the life chances of entire generations of children.
But cutting education services in this manner is not only unconscionable – it’s unconstitutional.
In recent years, the highest courts in 21 states have held that state constitutions guarantee the right of all public school students to an “adequate,” a “thorough and efficient,” or a “sound, basic education.” The courts in these “adequacy” cases have consistently emphasized that children are entitled to meaningful educational services that will prepare them for the competitive global marketplace and to function as capable citizens in a democratic society. And, in most instances, they have ordered states to substantially increase education spending in poorer districts.
The courts that have specifically considered the issue of the impact of budget cuts on constitutional rights to an adequate education have also agreed – in every single instance -- that the constitutional right to a quality education is not conditional and should not evaporate during times of recession. In Washington State, the Superior Court ruled that “the duty of the state to fully fund the common school program is not suspended in any part during period of fiscal crisis, even where the existing tax revenue is not sufficient to fund programs that the Legislature believes are necessary to meet the needs of the people of this state.” High courts in New Hampshire and New Jersey have issued similar rulings.
Many budget cutting actions states are currently taking are violating these constitutional precepts. A case study analysis indicates that serious constitutional issues are raised by New York State’s past decisions to freeze current year foundation funding at last year’s levels, to extend the phase-in of increases resulting from the CFE litigation well beyond the four year period identified by the courts, and by the governor’s recent proposal not only to continue the freeze, but to actually reduce foundation funding by $1.4 billion for the next fiscal year.
19 Does that mean school spending is completely untouchable, even in times of economic crisis? No – but it does mean that when vital educational services are at issue, the burden is on the state to show how necessary services for all students will be maintained, despite a reduction in appropriations. All feasible steps to do so must be taken, including assiduously pursuing additional revenue sources and minimizing the actual costs of constitutional compliance.
To fulfill these requirements, courts and legislatures must undertake cost analyses that relate to the essential outcomes of public education and that identify the resources needed to attain these outcomes, especially in regard to low-income students and other disadvantaged children. State education finance systems should establish a basic foundation funding amount that corresponds to the funding levels needed to provide the core sound basic educational services. Additional categorical funding mechanisms must supplement, not supplant, the constitutional foundation
When cost reductions must be made, states should be required to devise specific policies that save money without affecting the constitutional core of educational opportunity. These might include:
Zero-based budgeting. During flush times, most states simply layer new education initiatives over old ones, even when the latter haven’t proved their worth. Often the motivation for this is to avoid fights over “sacred cow” programs that are the darlings of advocacy groups. A zero-based approach would require managers to reconsider and justify every item in the district’s budget.
Multiyear budgeting. Stable funding can promote cost savings by, for example, eliminating hasty purchasing at the end of the year to avoid losing an appropriation or the scrapping of new programs simply because of heavy start-up costs. It could also enable many schools to forego the current common practice of proactively laying off teachers in the spring to cover a range of possible budgetary scenarios in the fall. The costs of recruiting, hiring and training a single replacement teacher have estimated between $10,000 and $20,000.
School district consolidation. The potential savings of this approach are enormous: One study found that doubling enrollment reduces costs by 61.7 percent for a 300-pupil district and 14.4 percent for a 1,500 pupil district. Bigger districts can offer a wider range of courses, academic and curricular supports, technological resources and effective teachers.
Pension reform. Teacher retirement constitutes one of the largest components of state public employee retirement systems, and now the stock market collapse has created a crisis in pension obligations for school districts. California’s teacher pension alone has lost $56 billion. In New York City, pension fund contributions in fiscal 2008 were $5.7 billion, or approximately 10 percent of the entire budget. Chicago is saddled with similar costs. Reducing pension payments for newer teachers offers some respite, but real savings will come only from scaling back promised benefits for older teachers. With life expectancy now nearing 80, many states still allow teachers to retire with full benefits at 55 – and many of these “retirees” engage in double-dipping, continuing to work for the school system or for private employers.
Finally, all states must put practical mechanisms in place to avoid periodic funding crises whenever downturns and recessions occur. The basic mechanism needed is quite simple: states need to follow the biblical example of Joseph in Egypt and store surplus during the good years so that resources will be available to maintain stable service in the bad years that will inevitably follow. Most states have stabilization or rainy day funds, but the funds are capped at levels far below what’s necessary. States should eliminate caps and establish dedicated revenue sources, such as a substantial percentage of sales or income taxes, for education and education stabilization funds.
20 SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
Russlynn Ali
Russlynn Ali is the assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education. As assistant secretary, Ali is Secretary Duncan’s primary adviser on civil rights and responsible for enforcing U.S. civil rights laws as they pertain to education—ensuring the nation’s schools, colleges and universities receiving federal funding do not engage in discriminatory conduct related to race, sex, disability or age. Until her appointment to the Department of Education, Ms. Ali had been a vice president of the Education Trust in Washington, D.C., and the founding executive director of the Education Trust-West in Oakland, Calif., since 2001. In those positions, she developed and implemented a long- range strategy to close achievement gaps among public school students in California; worked with school districts to improve curriculum and instructional quality at high-poverty and high-minority public schools; and designed, field-tested and implemented comprehensive audit tools that examined inequities in schools and districts.
In the education arena, Ali was a teacher, served as the liaison for the president of the Children’s Defense Fund and as assistant director of policy and research at the Broad Foundation, for which she was also on loan as chief of staff to the president of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Board of Education. She has also taught at the University of Southern California Law Center and the University of California at Davis. In the legal field, Ali was a contract attorney at Bird, Marella, Boxer and Wolpert, deputy co-director and of counsel at the Advancement Project and English, Munger & Rice, and an attorney at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, all in Los Angeles.
Ali is a member of the California State Bar. She was a member of the review board of the Broad Prize in Urban Education, the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Education Excellence, to which she was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the Curriculum and Instruction Committee of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, and she was a fellow of the Aspen Institute’s New Schools Entrepreneurial Leaders for Public Education Fellowship. Prior to joining the Department, Ali sat on numerous boards of directors and advisory committees, including College Track, the Institute for College Access and Success, and Great Schools.
Ali received her J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law, where she was awarded the Lowden- Wigmore Prize for Trial Advocacy and was a Julius Miner Moot Court Finalist. She received her bachelor’s degree in law and society from the American University. She also attended Spelman College.
Photo Anagnostopoulos
Photo Anagnostopoulos is the Chief Operating Officer of the New York City Department of Education. Her previous responsibilities at the NYC DOE have also included early development of a knowledge management system, work on a new formative assessment program and on the development of a new data management and reporting system. Before moving to the NYC Dept of Education, Photo led the McGraw-Hill Digital Learning team in the enhancement and development of effective K-12 technology-based programs that improve teaching and learning, as well as McGraw-Hill Education’s comprehensive strategy in the area of formative assessment. Prior to joining McGraw-Hill, Photo served as a senior vice president of The College Board, and led the largest overhaul of the SAT, the college admissions exam taken by 2.2 million students each year. Photo also launched a number of major products for the company, including web-based programs incorporating instruction and formative assessments to better
21 prepare students for the SAT and academics in college. Before joining The College Board, she was vice president of Business Development for Classroom Connect, a provider of professional development programs and online instructional materials for the K-12 market. Photo holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from Harvard College and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Alison Avera
Alison Avera currently serves as the deputy chief operating officer for the New York City Department of Education with primary responsibility for coordinating management of over $1 billion in Recovery Act funds available to the DOE. She has also served at the DOE as chief of staff for the Empowerment Schools, where as a member of the senior leadership team, she helped develop strategy and provide operational support to 500 schools participating in the city’s landmark reforms to give more autonomy to principals. Previously, Avera served as vice president of alumni affairs for Teach For America, where she led development of a new national goal and strategies to leverage over 10,000 alumni as a force for change in public education. Avera discovered her interest in public education as a Teach For America corps member teaching biology in New Orleans. She has also served as membership director with the Philadelphia area Girl Scouts, where she recruited and supported more than 7,000 volunteers to serve over 20,000 members. Avera completed the Broad Residency in Urban Education and earned an MBA at Harvard Business School.
Bruce Baker
Bruce Baker is an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. From 1997 to 2008 he was a professor at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS. He is lead author with Preston Green (Penn State University) and Craig Richards (Teachers College, Columbia University) of Financing Education Systems, a graduate level textbook on school finance policy published by Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Professor Baker has written a multitude of peer reviewed research articles on state school finance policy, teacher labor markets, school leadership labor markets and higher education finance and policy. His recent work has focused on measuring cost variations associated with schooling contexts and student population characteristics, including ways to better design state school finance policies and local district allocation formulas (including Weighted Student Funding) for better meeting the needs of students.
Professor Baker has also consulted for state legislatures, boards of education and other organizations on education policy and school finance issues and has testified in state school finance litigation in Kansas, Missouri and Arizona. He is a member of the Think Tank Review Panel, a group of academic researchers who conduct technical reviews of publicly released think tank reports on education policy issues.
Glynda Carr
Glynda Carr is the Executive Director of Education Voters New York. Glynda Carr is responsible for strategic planning, program implementation, fund development, and strategic growth of Education Voters and Education Voters Institute of New York. Glynda has an extensive and diverse background in public relations, fundraising, program management, campaign development, and leadership development. She has long-standing working relationships with New York State political and business leaders, and a track record of building effective teams of corporate executives. Her experience includes marketing strategies for reaching underrepresented populations, implementing diversity seminars, and organizing programming for historically Black Colleges and Universities. For the past six years, Glynda was Chief of Staff for State Senator Kevin Parker (Brooklyn), and managed his re-election campaign.
22 She also managed the campaign to elect Jennifer James to the New York City Council. She has held senior management positions with the New York Blood Center, the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, and Big brothers Big Sisters of America.
Glynda earned her BA from the University of Hartford, where she is now a candidate for a MA in Communications. She serves on the Advisory Council for the Junior League of Brooklyn and the New York Blood Center, and participated in the National Urban League’s Black Executive Exchange Program.
Mitchell Chester
Mitchell Chester has served as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts public schools since May 2008. As Commissioner he is responsible for the public education of the Commonwealth’s nearly 1,900 schools and more than one million students. Dr. Chester began his career as an elementary school teacher in Connecticut where he taught grades 1, 2, 4, and 5. He was a middle school assistant principal and a district curriculum coordinator. He moved to the Connecticut State Department of Education, where, as Chief of the Bureau of Curriculum and Instructional Programs, he oversaw subject area programs, educational technology, comprehensive health education, and federal entitlement programs, and helped to develop standards and performance assessments for both new and veteran teachers and administrators. In 1997 Dr. Chester was named the Executive Director for Accountability and Assessment for the School District of Philadelphia. There he headed the offices of Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Student and School Progress, and Pupil Information Services. In 2001 he moved to Ohio, where he served as the Senior Associate Superintendent for Policy and Accountability for the Ohio Department of Education, where he oversaw standards, assessments, accountability, policy development, and strategic planning. In addition he was responsible for the state’s implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Dr. Chester has presented nationally on accountability, assessment and teacher induction and retention. He has served as a consultant to states and school districts regarding curriculum and instruction, teacher evaluation, student achievement, and assessment and accountability.
Dr. Chester holds a doctorate in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from Harvard University, as well as advanced degrees from the University of Connecticut and the University of Hartford. He and his wife Angela live with their son Nicholas in Winchester.
Candace Cortiella
Candace Cortiella is founder and director of The Advocacy Institute (AI) (www.AdvocacyInstitute.org), a non-profit organization dedicated to the development of products and services that work to improve the lives of people with disabilities. She has been a disability rights advocate for 20 years, serving as a parent advocate and trainer, an expert on special education policy and on advisory boards of several national organizations and federal projects. She currently serves on the Research-to-Practice Advisory Panel of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (www.NCEO.info), the Advisory Boards of The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements (http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu) and Smart Kids with Learning Disabilities. She is a public policy analyst for the National Center for Learning Disabilities and writes extensively on IDEA and NCLB. In 2000, she received the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Learning Disabilities Jeannette Fleischner Award for outstanding contribution to the field of learning disabilities. She is a graduate of the Fashion Institute of Technology and the parent of a young adult with learning disabilities.
In 2009, Candace launched the IDEA Money Watch project (www.IDEAmoneywatch.com), a nationwide initiative
23 to report on the $11.3 billion provided for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Elizabeth DeBray-Pelot
Elizabeth DeBray-Pelot is an Associate Professor in the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy in the College of Education, University of Georgia and Associate Director for Policy at the Georgia Education Policy & Evaluation Center.
She received her Ed.D. in Administration, Planning and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2001. She served research assistant with the Consortium for Policy Research in Education from 1997 to 2001, and research associate with the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University from 1998 to 2002. Dr. DeBray-Pelot’s major interests are the implementation and effects of federal and state elementary and secondary school policies, and the politics of education. She has authored articles on school desegregation, school choice, high schools’ organizational response to accountability policies, and compensatory education. Dr. DeBray-Pelot served as program at the United States Department of Education, from 1992 to 1996. She is author of Politics, Ideology, and Education: Federal Policy during the Clinton and Bush Administrations (Teachers College Press, 2006), which analyzes the politics of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the 106th and 107th Congresses. She was a 2005 recipient of the National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship, which supported her research on education interest groups, think tanks, and Congress.
Danielle Farrie
Danielle Farrie is research director at Education Law Center (ELC) in Newark, New Jersey. ELC advocates to make high quality public education available to all children. She conducts analyses to support litigation and public policy for ELC and partner organizations. She holds a doctorate in Sociology from Temple University with a concentration in Urban Sociology and the Sociology of Education. Her research in the field of urban education has focused on such topics as white flight from schools, the effect of school choice policies on the racial and economic segregation of schools, and the effect of racial integration on perceptions of school quality.
Susan Fuhrman
Susan Fuhrman is the President of Teachers College, Columbia University. Prior to her post at Teachers College, Dr. Fuhrman served as Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education (Penn GSE) and the school's George and Diane Weiss Professor of Education. From 1989 to 1995, she was Professor of Education Policy at Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. In addition, from 1994 to 1995, she was a professor in the Department of Public Policy at Rutgers'''' Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
In 1966, she taught social studies at Lyons Township High School in Western Springs, Illinois. She then taught social studies at Eron Preparatory School in New York City until 1970. Dr. Fuhrman also is Chair, Management Committee of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), which she founded in 1985. CPRE is an extensive, five-university program of research and dissemination. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the Council for Corporate and School Partnerships of the Coca-Cola Foundation. In 2003, she chaired the OECD Study of Education Research in Mexico.
24 Luis A. Huerta
Luis A. Huerta is an Associate Professor of Education and Public Policy at Teachers College, Columbia University. He teaches courses in policy analysis and implementation, school finance and organizational sociology. His research and scholarship focus on school choice reforms and school finance policy. His research on school choice reforms examines policies that advance both decentralized and market models of schooling—including charter schools, homeschooling, tuition tax credits and vouchers. His research also examines school finance policy and research, with a specific focus on how legal and legislative battles over finance equity in schools and the research which has analyzed the effects of resources on student achievement, have consistently overlooked how resources are used within schools. His research applies theory grounded in organizational sociology and economics together with policy analysis frameworks, and aims to discover how these school reforms affect equity and quality in schools. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley in 2002.
His recent scholarship on school choice and school finance is published in Educational Policy, Journal of Education Finance, Teachers College Record, Peabody Journal of Education, Journal of Education Policy, and Phi Delta Kappan. In addition, he recently served as an expert witness on school finance policy in the Williams et al. v. State of California case, and as an expert consultant on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York case.
Thomas James
Thomas James is Provost and Dean of the College at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he also holds a tenured professorship in educational history. He worked previously as Dean of the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and before that as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and subsequently Vice Dean at the Steinhardt School of Education at New York University, simultaneously holding the rank of tenured Full Professor in those institutions. His earlier faculty roles were at Wesleyan University and Brown University. He earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard University and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history and education from Stanford University. His major scholarly interests include the history of American education, public policy and education, and the role of experience in education.
Jack Jennings
Since 1995, Jack Jennings has been the founding president and chief executive officer of the Center on Education Policy. From 1967 to 1994, he served as subcommittee staff director and then as general counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Education and Labor. In these positions, he was involved in nearly every major education debate held at the national level, including the reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Vocational Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Higher Education Act, the National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, and the authorization of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Mr. Jennings is currently serving on the board of directors of Phi Delta Kappa International Foundation and has served on the board of trustees of the Educational Testing Service, the Title I Independent Review Panel, the Pew Forum on Standards-Based Reform, the Maryland Academic Intervention Steering Committee, and the Maryland Visionary Panel. He holds an A.B. from Loyola University and a J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law, and is a member of several legal bars, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
25 Carl Kaestle
Carl Kaestle is University Professor and Professor of Education, History, and Public Policy emeritus at Brown University. Among Kaestle’s books are Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools in American Society, 1780—1860 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1983) and Literacy in the United States: Readers and Reading Since 1880 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). From 2001 to 2005 Kaestle directed the Advanced Studies Fellowship Program at Brown, whose fellows collaborated on the book To Educate a Nation: Federal and National Strategies of School Reform (Kansas, 2007). Upon Kaestle’s retirement, a conference resulted in Clio at the Table: Using History to Inform and Improve Education Policy, ed. Kenneth Wong and Robert Rothman (New York: Lang, 2009).
Kaestle has been Principal of the American School of Warsaw, Director of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, the President of the National Academy of Education, Vice-Chair of the Board on Testing and Assessment of the National Research Council, and a principal consultant for the PBS documentary, “School.” He is currently working on a history of the federal role in elementary and secondary education from 1940 to 1980.
Daniel G. Lowengard
Daniel G. Lowengard is the Superintendent of the Syracuse City School District. Dr. Lowengard began his educational career in Syracuse, New York as a middle school teacher, and since then has served as an administrator, vice principal at elementary and high school levels, and principal at the middle school level in the Syracuse public schools. In 1997, Dr. Lowengard became the superintendent of the Utica City School District (NY). There, he raised the high school graduation rate to 70 percent and the percentage of students receiving New York State Regents Diplomas from 25 to 60 percent. In January 2006, Dr. Lowengard was appointed superintendent of the Syracuse City Schools where he served with the main goal of “working with the community to transform the District into a place where all children will be successful, regardless of race or poverty.”
As superintendent of the Syracuse schools, he has partnered with Syracuse University and the Say Yes to Education Foundation to make Syracuse the state and national demonstration for economic development and school reform. Students who graduate from the city’s schools are given tuition scholarships, as well as essential school supports like after school programming, summer camps and more social workers to aid them ine college bound. Mr. Lowengard has also promoted K-8 schools, instituted Smaller Learning Communities (SLC’s) in all high schools, required looping at the middle schools, encouraged a connection between community services and the children schools serve. Scores have increased on standardized state exams 30 percent in math and 20 percent in reading in three years.
Mr. Lowengard is a graduate of Syracuse University where he obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees, Superintendent Lowengard and Linda, his wife of 35 years, are the parents of two daughters, Sara and Katie.
26 Joseph G. Martin, Jr.
Joseph G. Martin, Jr., is the executive director of the Georgia School Funding Association. His passion is public education, but he is also a business and civic leader in Atlanta. Mr. Martin has developed a number of public-private real estate projects in Atlanta. He has been president of the Atlanta Economic Development Corporation, represented businesses as president of Central Atlanta Progress, and coordinated community improvements related to the 1996 Olympic Games. He has been inducted into the Georgia State University Business Hall of Fame.
As a member of the Atlanta Board of Education for twenty years, he was recognized for distinguished service by the National School Boards Association. He helped to write Georgia’s Quality Basic Education Act, served on several state commissions, and was the nominee of the Democratic Party for State School Superintendent in 1998.
Active in community organizations, Mr. Martin is a long-time Trustee of his church and former President of the National Alumni Association of Vanderbilt University. He holds degrees from Vanderbilt and the Harvard Business School and was an officer in the U.S. Army. He and his wife, Larrie Del, who is Executive Director of Atlanta Habitat for Humanity, have two grown children. Michele McNeil is an assistant editor for Education Week and co-author of the Politics K-12 blog. She covers the U.S. Department of Education, federal education policy, and school finance. Michele McNeil covered education and state government in Indiana for a decade before joining Education Week as a state policy reporter in June 2006.
Jennifer Medina
Jennifer Medina has covered New York City public schools since 2007 for the Metro section of The New York Times. She has focused extensively on budget and financing issues, standardized testing and the impact of education reforms in urban schools. Prior to writing about education, Jennifer reported on politics and public policy in Albany and Hartford, Connecticut.
John Merrow
John Merrow began his career as an education reporter with National Public Radio in 1974 with the weekly series, “Options in Education,” for which he received the George Polk Award in 1982. He is currently President of Learning Matters and scholar in residence at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching at Stanford.
Since 1984 he has worked in public television as Education Correspondent for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and as host of his own series of documentaries, The Merrow Report. His work has been recognized with Peabody Awards in 2000 and 2006, Emmy nominations in 1984, 2005, and 2007, four CINE Golden Eagles and other reporting awards. A frequent contributor to USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and Education Week, he is the author of Choosing Excellence (2001) and co-editor of Declining by Degrees (2005).
Merrow earned an A.B. from Dartmouth College, an M.A. in American Studies from Indiana University, and a doctorate in Education and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He received the James L. Fisher Award for Distinguished Service to Education from the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education in 2000 and the HGSE Alumni Council Award for Outstanding Contributions to Education in 2006. He is a Trustee of Teachers College, Columbia University.
27
Timothy Mitchell
Dr. Timothy Mitchell is Superintendent of Schools for the Chamberlain School District 7-1 in Chamberlain, South Dakota. He has served in that position since 1995. He received his M.A. in Educational Administration (1995), his Ed.S in School Superintendency (2000) and his Ed.D in School Superintendency (2008) from the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, South Dakota. His dissertation “South Dakota Public School Superintendents’ Perception of Innovation” is an in-depth study of innovative leadership characteristics of superintendents, public school districts and school boards in South Dakota.
He served on the Executive Board of the South Dakota School Superintendents Association (SDSSA) and was President during the 2005-2006 school year. He served on the Executive Board of the School Administrators of South Dakota (SASD) and was President for the 2006-2007 school year. He currently serves on the American Association of Administrators (AASA) National Governing Board.
He recently was one of nine rural superintendents selected by the AASA to meet with U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on November 17, 2009. The focus of the meeting was to provide feedback on school improvement strategies in rural areas and input on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act.
Geri D. Palast
Geri D. Palast is the executive director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE). During her tenure, CFE won the final Court of Appeals decision in the landmark litigation establishing the constitutional right to a sound basic education for all public school students and ordering New York State to provide the necessary resources and accountability to achieve these results. Under her leadership, CFE led the successful campaign to turn CFE litigation into law, and transformed CFE into a watchdog and advocate to ensure successful implementation of the law and address the ongoing needs for education reform.
In 2008, Palast served as education policy counsel for Presidential-Elect Obama’s Transition Team. Formerly, Palast was the founder and executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a national organization working to ensure fair and impartial courts. From 1993-2000, she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs during President Clinton's two terms. She was a leader in the successful enactment of the minimum wage increase, the Workforce Investment Act -- the overhaul of the nation''s employment and training system -- Welfare to Work, School to Work, and the historic congressional ratification of the International Labor Organization convention against abusive child labor. Prior to joining the Clinton Administration, Palast was the Political and Legislative Director of Service Employees International Union, 1981-1993. She founded and co-chaired the bipartisan coalition that was responsible for enacting the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act. Earlier in her career, she established and ran the Washington Office of the National Employment Law Project and she worked for the National Treasury Employees Union and AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees).
Palast is currently an Adjunct Professor and Advisor at New York University for the Program on Social Ventures and Social Entrepreneurship.She is an attorney, a Root-Tilden Public Service Law Scholar from NYU School of Law, and an honors graduate of Stanford University. She is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, and she is an inactive member of the California State Bar.
28 Michael A. Rebell
Michael A. Rebell is the executive director of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University. Previously, Mr. Rebell was the co-founder, executive director and counsel for the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which won a major education rights decision from the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court. Mr. Rebell has also litigated numerous major class action lawsuits, including Jose P. v. Mills, which involved a plaintiff class of 160,000 students with disabilities. He also served as a court-appointed special master in the Boston special education case, Allen v. Parks.
Mr. Rebell is also a Professor of Law and Educational Practice at Teachers College, Columbia University and Adjunct Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Previously he was a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School, and for many years, a Visiting Lecturer at the Yale Law School. He is the author or co-author of five books, and dozens of articles on issues of law and education. Among his most recent works are COURTS AND KIDS: PURSUING EDUCATIONAL EQUITY THROUGH THE STATE COURTS, (U. Chicago Press, 2009); MOVING EVERY CHILD AHEAD: FROM NCLB HYPE TO MEANINGFUL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY (Teachers College Press, 2008) (with Jessica R. Wolff), Equal Opportunity and the Courts, PHI DELTA KAPPAN, February, 2008, and Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A Proposal For Enhancing The Validity of Education Adequacy Studies, 109 TCHRS C.REC. 1303 (2007).
Edward G. Rendell
Edward G. Rendell is the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania. He began a second term of office on January 16, 2007. As Governor, Rendell serves as chief executive of the nation’s 6th- most-populous state and oversees a $28.3 billion budget. Governor Rendell’s unprecedented strategic investments have energized Pennsylvania’s economy, revitalized communities, improved education, protected the environment and expanded access to health care to all children and affordable prescription drugs for older adults.
Under Governor Rendell, student achievement is on the rise at every grade level and in every subject. Pennsylvania’s public schools now have the resources to invest in proven education initiatives like pre-kindergarten, full-day kindergarten and tutoring. Pennsylvania has gone from one of the nine states in the country that failed to fund pre-kindergarten to a national leader in early childhood investment, and for the first time ever more than half of Pennsylvania kindergartners are in full-day programs.
From 1992 through 1999, Governor Rendell served as the 121st Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. Among his many accomplishments as Mayor, Rendell eliminated a $250 million deficit; balanced the city's budget and generated five consecutive budget surpluses; reduced business and wage taxes for four consecutive years; implemented new revenue-generating initiatives, and dramatically improved services to the City's neighborhoods. The New York Times called the Philadelphia renaissance under Rendell “the most stunning turnaround in recent urban history.” Before serving as Mayor, Rendell was elected district attorney of the City of Philadelphia for two terms from 1978 through 1985.
The Governor, who served as general chair of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 Presidential election, has always been active in the community through a variety of memberships on boards, and also teaches government and politics courses at the University of Pennsylvania. An Army veteran, the Governor is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1965) and Villanova Law School (J.D. 1968). He was born on January 5, 1944.
29 The Governor and his wife, First Lady Marjorie O. Rendell, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, have a son, Jesse. They celebrated their 38th wedding anniversary on July 10, 2009.
David G. Sciarra
David G. Sciarra is Executive Director of Education Law Center (ELC) in Newark, New Jersey. A noted civil rights lawyer, Sciarra has litigated numerous cases involving socio- economic rights, and his work has resulted in precedent-setting rulings in such areas as affordable housing, shelter for the homeless, and education equity. Since 1996, Sciarra has served as lead counsel for the plaintiff urban students in Abbott v. Burke, New Jersey's landmark school finance case. Sciarra secured the seminal NJ Supreme Court rulings establishing the "Abbott remedies" for improving urban education, which include standards- based education and reform, adequate school funding, high quality preschool, and school facilities financing. Sciarra represented the plaintiffs in Abbott in over 15 separate proceedings before the NJ high court. Founded in 1973, ELC seeks to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for disadvantaged public school students through policy initiatives, action research, public engagement and legal action. ELC focuses on serving New Jersey's school children, but also provides technical assistance and support to education rights advocates and lawyers across the nation. Sciarra also does research, writing and lecturing on education law and policy in such areas as school finance, early education and school reform.
Mary Anne Schmitt-Carey
Mary Anne Schmitt-Carey is President of Say Yes to Education, Inc. (Say Yes), a national non-profit foundation committed to changing the lives of inner-city youth through the promise of post-secondary education and the delivery of comprehensive support services. Ms. Schmitt-Carey joined Say Yes from New American Schools (NAS) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) in Washington, DC. For the past six years she served as President and CEO of NAS (which was recently merged with AIR). Ms. Schmitt-Carey provided leadership to NAS, enabling the nonprofit organization to grow from a pilot initiative to the model for a national school improvement program called Comprehensive School Reform. During her 11-year tenure at NAS, she also held positions as its COO, Vice President, and Director of Communications and Public Policy. In addition, over the last year she served as Vice President for Public Policy and External Relations for AIR. Prior to joining NAS, she worked for the U.S. Department of Education as Director of the Goals 2000 Community Project, where she created and managed a support network for local communities seeking to improve education. In addition, Ms. Schmitt-Carey has worked in public relations and has held several senior level positions in national political campaigns. Ms. Schmitt-Carey earned her MBA degree from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in May 2001 and graduated magna cum laude from SUNY Albany in May 1987, earning a BA degree in Political Science and English.
Theodore M. Shaw
Theodore M. Shaw is Professor of Professional Practice in Law at Columbia Law School. Director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) from 2004-08, he is one of the nation’s leading voices in civil rights. Shaw joined LDF in 1982 and in 2004 became the fifth person to lead the organization. While at LDF, he was lead counsel in a coalition that represented African-American and Latino students in the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions case. That case, Gratz v. Bollinger, went before the United States Supreme Court in 2003, along with Grutter v. Bollinger, which challenged the use of affirmative action at The University of Michigan Law
30 School. Shaw worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1979-82, where he litigated civil rights cases at the trial and appellate levels and at the U.S. Supreme Court. He currently serves on the Legal Advisory Network of the European Roma Rights Council based in Budapest, Hungary. Shaw previously has taught at Columbia, University of Michigan, Temple and CUNY law schools. He is the recipient of the Wien Prize for Social Responsibility from Columbia Law School; the A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Memorial Award from the National Bar Association Young Lawyers Division; and the Baldwin Medal from the Wesleyan University alumni body.
Jamienne S. Studley
Jamienne S. Studley became President of Public Advocates Inc in 2004, drawn by its dual mission of advancing civil rights and strengthening community voices. She served as President of Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, and deputy and acting general counsel of the U.S. Department of Education in the Clinton Administration. Earlier she was Associate Dean and Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School, where she helped establish the loan forgiveness program for graduates in public service, and adjunct faculty at University of California at Berkeley School Law. As the first Executive Director of the National Association for Law Placement she led its race, gender and sexual orientation equity programs. She is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia and practiced there with Bergson, Borkland, Margolis & Adler (litigation) and Weil, Gotshal & Manges (administrative law). A graduate of Barnard College (1972 magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, honors in American Studies) and Harvard Law School, where she was president of the student-faculty government, Studley served on the American Bar Association Commissions on Women in the Profession and on Loan Forgiveness and Repayment. She was appointed to the San Francisco Ethics Commission by the City Attorney in 2007. She serves on the boards of the Association of American Colleges & Universities (treasurer), The Urban School, American Craft Council, and San Francisco Museum of Craft & Design; Harvard Law School Advisory Committee on the 2008 Celebration of Public Service; and chaired the Equal Justice Works E-Guide project advisory committee.
Jessica R. Wolff
Jessica R. Wolff is the policy director of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University. Part of the leadership team that develops the goals, strategies, platforms, and programs of the Equity Campaign, she has primary responsibility for developing and directing the implementation of key research, policy, advocacy, public engagement, and demonstration projects. She is the executive editor of the Equity Matters research review series. Ms. Wolff is co-author with Michael A. Rebell of Moving Every Child Ahead: Beyond NCLB Hype to Meaningful Educational Opportunity (Teachers College Press, 2008) and co-editor (with Michael A. Rebell) of NCLB at the Crossroads: Reexamining Federal Efforts to Close the Achievement Gap (Teachers College Press, 2009), as well as author or coauthor of numerous articles and reports.
From 2000-2005, Ms. Wolff served as director of policy development of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE), where she played a critical role in bringing the public voice into policy development. Her work with the Sound Basic Education Task Force on Accountability helped guide recent school funding legislation in New York State. Among other works, she is author of the series, In Evidence: Policy Reports from the CFE Trial. Prior to CFE, she wrote widely on public school issues for the Public Education Association and, for many years, authored a monthly column on public education for the award-winning online news journal Gotham Gazette. Ms. Wolff has a B.A. from Brown University and an M.A. from New York University.
31 Maris A. Vinovskis
Maris A. Vinovskis is the University of Michigan Bentley Professor of History, ISR Research Professor, and Professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Vinovskis has published ten books, edited seven books, and written over 100 scholarly essays. Among his books are The Origins of Public High Schools (1985), An “Epidemic” of Adolescent Pregnancy? (1988), History and Educational Policymaking (1999), Revitalizing Federal Education Research (2001), The Birth of Head Start (2005), and From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind (2009). He was the Deputy Staff Director to the U.S. House Select Committee on Population in 1978 and served as a consultant on population and adolescent pregnancy issues in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the early 1980s. He worked in the U.S. Department of Education in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations on questions of educational research and policy. Vinovskis was a member of the congressionally-mandated Independent Review Panels for Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind. He has received a Guggenheim fellowship and was elected to the National Academy of Education, the International Academy of Education, and President of the History of Education Society.
Daniel Yaverbaum
Daniel Yaverbaum is a researcher for the Campaign for Educational Equity. Prior he worked for sixteen years as a high school teacher and administrator in Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina. He has created curricula for philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and advanced physics. Mr. Yaverbaum earned his M.A. in physics from City College of New York, and his B.A. in both physics and philosophy from Amherst College. A passionate believer in the heliocentric model, Dan’s son is the center of his universe.
32 CONTACT INFORMATION
Launched in 2005, The Campaign for Educational Equity is committed to expanding and strengthening the national movement for quality public education for all by providing research-based analyses of key education policy issues. The Campaign promotes educational equity through focused research, raising awareness of equity issues within Teachers College and to external audiences, rapid dissemination of research and relevant information, and demonstrations of improved policy and practice.
To learn more about The Campaign visit www.equitycampaign.org.
Teachers College is the largest graduate school of education in the nation. Teachers College is affiliated with Columbia University, but it is legally and financially independent. The editors of U.S. News and World Report have ranked Teachers College as the nation’s leading graduate schools of education in the country.
Teachers College is dedicated to promoting excellence and equity in education and overcoming the gap in educational access and achievement between the most and least advantaged groups in this country. Through scholarly programs of teaching, research, and service, the College draws upon the expertise from a diverse community of faculty in education, psychology and health, as well as students and staff from across the country and around the world.
For more information, please visit the College’s Web site at www.tc.columbia.edu.
For further information about the Symposium and its presenters, please contact:
Joe Levine, Teachers College, Columbia University, 212-678-3176, [email protected]
Educational equity—a moral imperative for the 21st century
33 The Campaign for Educational Equity TEACHERS COLLEGE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 525 W. 120th Street, Box 219 New York, NY 10027 (212) 678-3291 | Fax: (212) 678-8364 www.equitycampaign.org/symposium