The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

At first look, I thought the headline on CNN’s weekend homepage was a wry joke accidentally lifted by a sleeper editor from a satirical outlet like The Onion. It read: “Cash-strapped schools spend millions on solar,” with the subtitle “A school district that’s lost $20 million in recent years due to budget cuts has spent millions on solar panels—all to save money.” This “spend money to save money” argument employs the kind of shaky logic that would make our ebullient vice president proud.

The article itself describes efforts by 90 school districts and colleges in California to install solar panels on school buildings in the hopes of trimming long-term electricity bills. The San Ramon Valley school district, for example, borrowed a cool $23 million in federal stimulus dollars to finance the work, and officials were immediately gushing about the potential savings. Terry Koehne, a district spokesman, estimated the panels would pay for themselves in 16 years. “It’s pure profit after that,” he said. “[We’re] going to start realizing savings of $2 (million), $3 (million), $4 million a year.”

This rationale—that the long-term energy savings outweigh the costs—is the only justifiable one for such a project at a time when states and districts are grappling with massive budget cuts. Yet lost amidst the hoopla and self-congratulation is an awareness of what it will take to actually realize these savings. (Special thanks to AEI scholar Ken Green, an authority on environmental issues, for helping to shed light on some of these economic realities.)

Continue reading

Of the organizations responsible for shaping K-12 schooling, state education agencies (SEAs) play one of the most critical roles. They are also one of the least understood.

Once tiny departments primarily concerned with channeling federal dollars to local school districts, the past couple of decades have seen unprecedented demands placed on SEAs and their leaders surrounding such issues as turning around low-performing schools, developing accountability systems, and structuring teacher evaluation and pay.  Similarly, SEA chiefs are now some of the most important figures in the school reform effort; Rhode Island’s Deborah Gist, for example, was one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in 2009.

And yet, despite the increasing public attention paid to SEAs and state education chiefs, remarkably little is known about them, and whether they are actually capable of playing these new roles. The last major effort to ascertain reliable figures on SEA staffing levels and budgets was way back in 1994. Academic attention has been sparse: one literature review examining research over the past 50 years on the state role in education only identified nine sources that looked at SEAs. Considering how drastically the expectations, demands, and ambitions of SEAs have changed over the past two decades, this is a severe deficit.

This week, two AEI reports attempt to address this shortage. The first is “State Education Agencies as Agents of Change: What It Will Take for the States to Step Up On Education Reform,” a joint effort by Rick Hess and myself along with Cindy Brown and Isabel Owen at the Center for American Progress.  After surveying the existing literature on SEAs, we go straight to the top—interviews with 13 current and former SEA chiefs about the nature of their role, challenges they face, and what they need to make SEAs a focal point of school reform.

We offer a number of fascinating findings in the paper.  There’s a stunning lack of transparency when it comes to SEAs reporting basic staffing and budgeting data, making it difficult to analyze agency performance. Federal dollars, usually the dominant funding source for SEAs, are also typically tied to specific programs and employees, giving the state chief little control over how these funds are spent and thus little room to maneuver. Perhaps most important, though, is that these agencies are often overly focused on compliance, not reform.  “The traditional role of the SEA,” we observe, “is to administer state and federal funds, and customarily SEA employees have worked to ensure the SEA complies with the law rather than focusing on how to best help districts and schools increase student achievement.”

This conclusion echoes one in a second report, “Overlooked Conditions: How the Current Federal Compliance Framework Works against Federal Education Policy Goals” by Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric. Junge and Krvaric argue that the multilayered and extraordinarily complex compliance framework for many federal education programs often leads to huge burdens for states and districts. For example, Title I, the federal program directing funds to low-income school districts, has an estimated 588 distinct requirements. This means states and districts tend to emphasize adhering to laws over creatively thinking about how to reform troubled schools. As Junge and Krvaric conclude, “Federal oversight activities encourage spending that is ‘safe’ from a compliance perspective, rather than ‘effective’ from a student perspective.”

This culture in state education departments is one of the leading reasons creative and innovative state leaders have such a hard time pushing through substantive reform at the state level, and presents one of the biggest challenges going forward. Our hope is that these reports will call attention to the limits of how SEAs are currently run while offering helpful insights into how successful state education chiefs have managed to turn SEAs into more reform-minded organizations.

Daniel Lautzenheiser is a research assistant in education policy studies.

professorOver on his Ed Week blog, Rick Hess unveiled the first annual Public Presence metric for university-based education scholars, an initial attempt to gauge a scholar’s influence on education policy discussions in the public square. To readers of the Enterprise Blog, a number of names may be familiar. Reform-minded scholars who scored well included Stanford’s Rick Hanushek and Caroline Hoxby, Harvard’s Paul Peterson, the University of Arkansas’s Jay Greene, and the University of Washington’s Dan Goldhaber.

The primary aim of the Public Presence metric is to push universities to consider how their scholars can usefully engage in policy talks. Ivory-tower scholarship can easily lie buried in academic journals, laden with jargon, and otherwise out of the public eye. This is a shame, as these scholars have the knowledge to help craft smart education policies on such issues as teacher evaluation, cost efficiency in schools, and proper accountability systems. By recognizing scholars who are able to generate top-notch research readily accessible to policy debates and the general populace, the Public Presence metric is designed to nudge universities to similarly value and reward scholars who step out of the ivory tower and wrestle with real issues.

There are obviously a number of caveats. The Public Presence metric, for example, is heavily weighted towards recent books and blogs or news references over the past year; it is unlikely to factor in a book that might have been very influential ten years ago. What’s more, the metric ignores a number of other considerations we would deem important for a good professor—teaching skills, departmental duties at their university, ability to mentor younger faculty, and so forth.

But these are cautions inherent in any ranking system. U.S. News’ university rankings by no means paint a complete picture of life at a particular school, but are a helpful starting point in considering things like class size, graduation rates, and alumni giving. Similarly, the endless rankings to figure out the best quarterback in NFL history hinge on the criteria used—whether the number of Super Bowl rings, or winning percentage, or record book stats.

Ultimately, the Public Presence metric does tell us something. It is a first attempt to ascertain how a given scholar’s academic research influences education policy debates and, hopefully, will stir professors and their universities to think likewise.

Daniel Lautzenheiser is a research assistant in education policy at AEI.

Image by Juraj Kubica.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has touted education as “the civil rights issue of our generation.” But the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has recently been at loggerheads with the Obama administration on several key school reform efforts. As such, it was a good time to hear from the NAACP’s current president, Benjamin Jealous, on the organization’s agenda for education policy and reform.

The NAACP has been critical of Obama’s signature education initiative Race to the Top (RTT), a $4.35 billion state competition to incentivize education reform. While a number of education experts feared RTT would ultimately fund too many states, thus dulling competitive spurs, the NAACP is concerned that RTT rewarded too few states. In their framework for No Child Left Behind reauthorization, they argue that, “The implementation of the Race to the Top Fund’s grant process highlights our concerns about an approach to education funding that relies too heavily on competition,” since only 11 states and D.C. ultimately won money.

The NAACP, with the United Federation of Teachers, also successfully sued to prevent Chancellor Joel Klein in New York City from closing down 19 failing public schools across the city. In his talk, Jealous defended the suit, arguing that the decision was not due to the closures themselves but to a lack of community and parental involvement in the process. But this obscures the issue. Community input, however important, will never generate the hard-charging reforms necessary to fix broken schools.

The NAACP gets it right on a number of issues, such as supporting high-quality charter schools and improved data systems. Still, their opposition to competitive grant programs, push for greater and greater funding in the face of massive budget shortfalls, and emphasis on vague notions of community involvement dampen their potential to be truly effective in school reform. To do so, they should take a more aggressive position on dismissing bad teachers and closing failing schools, more vocally support charters, and recognize that exercising financial restraint is the prudent course in a tough economic climate.

Daniel Lautzenheiser is a research assistant in education policy at AEI.

What’s Up with Maryland?

By Daniel Lautzenheiser

August 25, 2010, 11:36 am

marylandflagThere are many troubling things about the round-two winners of Race to the Top (RTT), the federal government’s $4.35 billion state competition to incentivize education reform. This includes the fact that education reform lightweights Ohio and Hawaii won while reform hotshots Colorado and Louisiana missed out. But perhaps the biggest head-scratcher was Maryland’s inclusion in the final ten—a truly bizarre selection in light of Maryland’s barren reform record and utter lack of stakeholder buy-in on the plan, a key part in the RTT scoring rubric.

The Old Line State never got its act together to even apply for round one. Andy Smarick spent months blasting Maryland on the blogs, noting that all the hullabaloo surrounding RTT didn’t prompt the state to make changes to existing laws prior to the round-one due date. Their charter school record is abysmal, allowing only a single authorizer and having minimal accountability metrics. And while it did adopt the Common Core standards (a requisite for winning), so did every other round-two finalist. As analyst Mike Petrilli says over at Flypaper, “[Secretary of Education Arne Duncan] might even have nixed Maryland, which nobody in their right mind regards as an incubator of serious education reform.”

In light of round one’s emphasis on stakeholder buy-in, one would at least expect to see near-perfect support in Maryland’s app from Local Education Agencies (LEAs), local school board leaders, and teacher unions. But a quick scan of Maryland’s application makes their win all the more baffling. They were the only round-two winner to not have perfect LEA support (91.6 percent of LEAs signed approval of the state’s application); one of only two states to not have perfect school board support (at 87.5 percent); and, most shockingly of all, had an impressively low 8.3 percent support rate from teacher unions.

Maryland did make one significant change between round one and round two in passing the Education Reform Act, a bill that links teacher performance to student achievement. It’s an important piece of legislation. But setting aside the fact that other states with longer reform records passed similarly bold measures and still fell short (think: Colorado), the real question is whether Maryland can enforce a law that was passed for the sole purpose of applying for RTT, has strong union opposition, and was done in a state that has a contentious gubernatorial election in November that could easily see a new party take office with a wholly different agenda.

Daniel Lautzenheiser is a research assistant in education policy at AEI.

Image by Seth Sawyers.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI