The vast majority of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) education funding was designed simply to save jobs and plug budget holes, but the generally reform-minded Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been trying to make sure that as much of the stimulus funding as possible is used for improvement and innovation (for more, see here).
He lacks sticks in this battle, but he does have one relatively small carrot. He can direct $4.35 billion to the states of his choosing. So he is telling them, “If you want this money, enact reforms; otherwise, you’ll be left out.”
So is this strategy working? Are Secretary Duncan’s threats causing states to change policies?
About a week ago, a group called Democrats for Education Reform weighed in. DFER is an exciting and increasingly important organization, pushing he Democratic Party to get serious about education reform. The group issued a press release hailing the positive influence of Duncan’s tactics, declaring it an “early policy success.” They accurately point out that some states are moving in the right direction. Connecticut, for example, made some important changes in the areas of funding and teacher quality. Overall, however, I think DFER overstates the cumulative effect and claim victory a bit too early.
The best analysis I’ve seen so far comes from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Since a major part of Sec. Duncan’s admirable hectoring revolves around states improving their charter school policies, looking at changes in this area can be instructive.
To date, none of the 10 states entering the year without a charter school law have budged. But three states have lifted their caps on charter school growth: Illinois allowed 60 more, Tennessee 40, and Louisiana removed its cap completely. Several states have improved their charter funding formulas. But in a number of other important areas, improvements were either blocked or remain in play.
I asked the alliance’s state policy leader—a diligent, trustworthy, and even-handed analyst—for his take on whether Duncan’s strategy is working in the charter space. He said that compared to an average year, there have been more state-level wins. He thinks the secretary’s work and the president’s pro-charter advocacy have been very helpful and he expects more headway to be made in the months to come.
This progress is encouraging. However, in my mind, a question more important than whether progress is being made is whether enough progress is being made. We have to bear in mind that about $100 billion in federal funds have been provided to help states and districts weather this economic storm. So, are we getting a sufficient reform return on this enormous investment?
Here’s one way to look at it: thanks to policy changes this year, 100 new charters will be allowed in Illinois and Tennessee. If we add in, say, another 50 for Louisiana’s total cap lift, the stimulus has bought us a total of 150 new charters so far. That means $100 billion has purchased us a 3 percent increase in the national charter sector. Or said another way, each new charter school has cost us about $667 million. (By comparison, each F-22 costs about $150 million.)
Of course, this isn’t a completely fair analysis—hopefully we’ll see more charter wins down the line and additional reforms in other areas (teacher quality, data use, etc.). But it does put in context the gains made to date; that is, they came with a major price tag.
Andy Smarick is an adjunct fellow at AEI and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.