Two of the Obama administration鈥檚 signature initiatives鈥攖he economic-stimulus program鈥檚 Race to the Top competition and a massive expansion of federal School Improvement Grants鈥攁re running into some resistance on Capitol Hill.
Key lawmakers charged with crafting a renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act continue to argue that the four models offered in regulations for the $3.5 billion School Improvement Grants are inflexible, unproven, and unrealistic, particularly for rural schools.
Lawmakers also have qualms about a separate proposal from the administration to extend the $4 billion Race to the Top competition for another year, citing questions about the scoring process and the desire by some to steer as much funding as possible to formula-driven programs rather than competitive grants.
At the least, such criticism could jeopardize the administration鈥檚 bid to extend the Race to the Top program through the regular budget process for an additional year, analysts say. Worse, some observers say it might be a signal that congressional support for the administration鈥檚 K-12 agenda is becoming increasingly precarious.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 鈥渉as had his day in the sense that the last year and a half he鈥檚 had unparalleled freedom, and I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 going to last,鈥� said Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, a research and advocacy organization in Washington. He also served for nearly three decades as an aide to Democrats on the House education committee.
鈥淲e understand that a lot of the elements of our agenda push people outside their comfort zones,鈥� said Peter Cunningham, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education. 鈥淲e鈥檙e trying to be very responsive to all these concerns while at the same time remaining committed to the goal鈥� of giving all children a chance to succeed. 鈥淲e hope that everyone will have the patience to allow the reform agenda to work,鈥� he said.
No other education secretary has been handed such vast sums of money, with so few restrictions from Congress. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which passed last year, Mr. Duncan was given authority over nearly $100 billion in education aid. And he was given leeway to design two new competitive programs: Race to the Top and what became the $650 million Investing in Innovation grants.
But other analysts say some lawmakers鈥� skepticism may shift as they see the positive impact these policies have on schools in their districts.
鈥淚 see [congressional skepticism] as growing pains,鈥� said Charles Barone, the director of federal legislation for Democrats for Education Reform, a New York City-based political action committee that supports candidates who favor policies such as expanding charter schools. 鈥淚 think there are things happening that people don鈥檛 want to see happen,鈥� such as putting in place new, outcome-based evaluation systems for teachers.
And Mr. Barone, who is also a former aide to Democrats on the House education committee, noted that most of the $4 billion in Race to the Top money has yet to be awarded.
Budget Outlook
The next major test of the Obama agenda will come when the House and Senate appropriations committees consider the fiscal 2011 spending bills for the Education Department. Those measures will determine the fate鈥攁t least for this year鈥攐f major administration priorities, including Mr. Obama鈥檚 request for $1.35 billion to extend the Race to the Top program.
The administration is also seeking a $345 million boost for the School Improvement Grants, which would bring the program to $900 million in fiscal 2011. The program was first authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 but received an unprecedented, $3 billion infusion under the recovery act.
Some lawmakers the administration is trying to court in its push to reauthorize the ESEA have questioned whether the four school improvement models put forth in Education Department regulations are sufficiently grounded in research and offer a realistic array of options for perennially struggling schools鈥攑articularly in rural areas.
Under the regulations, officials can close a perennially struggling school and send students to higher-achieving schools; turn it around by replacing the principal and most of the staff; or 鈥渞estart鈥� the school by turning it over to a charter- or education-management organization. Under the fourth option, a school could implement a mandatory basket of strategies labeled 鈥渢ransformation,鈥� including extending learning time and revamping instructional programs.
鈥淭hese four choices are interesting, but they鈥檝e got to be fleshed out here,鈥� said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee at a hearing on the topic last month. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a portfolio of things you need to bring to this problem.鈥�
Rep. Miller questioned one of the prominent strategies outlined in the menu of turnaround options: getting rid of many of the teachers. He said that, in many cases, educators at struggling schools have the potential to be effective but just aren鈥檛 given sufficient support and assistance.
Key Player
Rep. Miller鈥檚 critique of the administration鈥檚 turnaround strategy is especially significant because it is difficult for critics to accuse him of pandering to the teachers鈥� unions, who also have concerns about the models, particularly the emphasis on removing staff.
The education committee chairman has bucked the unions on a range of issues, including merit pay and the need to link student data with teacher effectiveness.
On the Senate side, Sen. Michael B. Enzi, the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has also expressed concern about the turnaround models. He said during a hearing this spring that the four models don鈥檛 include a good option for rural schools and rely on research that is 鈥渁t best, sketchy.鈥�
Mr. Cunningham said that there is plenty of evidence that turnarounds don鈥檛 work if they are done in 鈥渉alf-steps.鈥� He said that schools need to employ the full range of strategies outlined in the regulations in a comprehensive way, including extending learning time and revamping the curriculum, to see a real change in school culture and student outcomes.
Race to Top Scoring
The Race to the Top competition, which the administration has sought to codify in its blueprint for reauthorization of the ESEA, has also attracted opposition, particularly from lawmakers on the committees that craft the spending bills for the Education Department.
Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said at a hearing earlier this spring that, given the state of the economy, he鈥檇 rather see the money put into formula grants, such as Title I and special education, than Race to the Top.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., whose state was considered a front-runner for the first round of Race to the Top, but didn鈥檛 win a grant, railed against the program鈥檚 emphasis on gaining cooperation from districts and teachers鈥� unions. She said that could force states to 鈥渨ater down鈥� their applications.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., also questioned whether there is enough emphasis in the scoring system on states鈥� efforts to bolster science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees K-12 spending, said he agreed and would look into the matter.
But Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the Education Department, said officials are pleased with the results of the competition so far. He noted that 35 states and the District of Columbia applied for the second phase of the competition. And he said that 47 states have changed their laws or policies to better compete in a way that will ultimately benefit students.
