The Money Chase

Today's Wisconsin State Journal (Madison's daily paper) reports that Governor Jim Doyle soon will release a proposal to eliminate the state's existing law that restricts student assessment data from being considered in teacher evaluations. This step is in direct response to the 'ridiculous' label that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan slapped on the state, and an attempt to qualify to apply for competitive Race To The Top funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The Governor apparently also will embed within this proposal a series of other policy items, including requiring a third year of math and science for high school graduation (first announced in his 2005 State of the State address) and a push for alternative teacher compensation.

Doyle didn’t say when he would release details of his proposal or whether programs would be introduced individually or as a package. But he said he’ll urge the Legislature to pass the reforms by early next year.

Doyle said he would propose changes that would:

• Better track student performance, from prekindergarten to college. “With that data you can make really sound decisions about what works and what doesn’t work — not based just on what one test shows but on the performance of students that have had certain kinds of schooling over time,” he said.

• Require students to pass three years of math and science before graduating from high school. Currently, a little more than 70 percent of Wisconsin high school students take a third year of math and science. A third of all districts require three years of math, while a quarter of all districts require three years of science.

• Revamp school finance and teacher pay. Doyle wants to let districts get out from under state revenue caps, imposed since 1993, if they work together on union contract negotiations, make employees use the state health plan unless they already use a cheaper plan, and revamp teacher pay, among other things. Money saved can be used to hire teachers and raise student achievement, Doyle said.

Lawmakers and the governor already wiped out the “qualified economic offer,” or QEO, which lets school districts impose a minimum wage-and-benefit increase of 3.8 percent if bargaining fails to produce an agreement.

That move, Doyle said, will spur the development of alternative pay programs.

“You’re finally going to begin to see some innovation in teacher compensation,” Doyle said.

The state teachers union -- the Wisconsin Education Association Council -- is cautiously supportive of the Governor's proposals.

But will these 11th hour changes, if successful, be enough for Wisconsin to race ahead of other states with greater reform credentials in the Race To The Top competition?

Here's To Your Health

The Wisconsin Governor's School Health Award is a worthy initiative that recognizes schools for creating environments that promote student health and support learning. (Disclosure: I was involved in the establishment of this program when I served as the Governor's education advisor.)

A number of national education organizations -- some supported by the Centers for Disease Control, Division of Adolescent and School Health -- have been active for years in supporting this type of work. They include the National Association of State Boards of Education and the National School Boards Association. In addition, the National Governors Association released a comprehensive policy brief on building healthy schools back in 2006.

Stimulus: Milwaukee's Odds

Recent stories suggest that policymakers and education leaders are beginning to bank on competitive funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that in actuality will only flow to reform-minded, results-oriented states and districts. I'm talking about the competitive $4.35 billion Race To The Top grants (for states) and the $650 million What Works and Innovation Fund (for school districts and nonprofits).

With regard to the What Works and Innovation Fund (WWIF), some things are clear. In order for a school district to be eligible to apply, they must meet four specific criteria, one of which is having met or exceeded the state's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives for student achievement for at least two years.

This criterion alone will render many school districts ineligible for this competitive funding. And that's OK, says the U.S. Department of Education. This WWIF is intended to take effective innovations to scale, not to provide districts in-need with additional resources. That's what the major injection of Title I funding in ARRA was intended for.

So it was curious to see this press release cross my desk ("Governor Doyle, Mayor Barrett Announce Effort to Reform MPS"). The joint release from Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett unveils a 5-point plan "to drive innovation, school improvement and fiscal responsibility" in Milwaukee Public Schools. Plank number one is this:

Compete for American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding - Working together with educators, parents, and the community, Governor Doyle and Mayor Barrett will lead Milwaukee-based efforts to compete for federal incentive grant funding available through the ARRA.

These highly competitive federal grants are intended to reward states and districts that are making major reforms to successfully reduce achievement gaps and improve student learning. There are a few clarifications needed here. First, Milwaukee won't be eligible to compete directly for the WWIF because it is a district "in need of improvement" under the No Child Left Behind Act--in other words, it hasn't met AYP objectives at all (and this in a state that has tried to game the system by unrealistically projecting that nearly all achievement growth will occur in the out years). Second, Milwaukee could apply for the What Works and Innovation Fund in partnership with a nonprofit, assuming that nonprofit could demonstrate impact along those 4 objectives. Third, Milwaukee could benefit from a successful Wisconsin state application to the Race To The Top fund. But looking at the chief criteria for that competitive fund--rigorous academic standards and high-quality assessments, pre-k to college data systems, making improvements in teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of teachers, and intensive support to low-performing schools--suggests that Wisconsin, at best, is a 30-to-1 shot. Given its track record (or lack thereof) on some of these education policy elements in recent years, it's going to have a difficult time competing with leading states. And the Education Department has been very clear that these dollars will flow to a select number of states. My money is on Wisconsin not being one of them. I'm an optimist--but I'm not that optimistic.

If I have time, perhaps I'll explore some of these policy issues in greater depth and why Wisconsin's recent failures to lead on reform will likely cost it these additional resources.

One thing is clear: State policymakers and district leaders should do their homework--and consider the odds--before counting on these competitive monies to fuel education reform. The check may well not be in the mail.

UPDATE: Milwaukee Voucher Program

Dr. Howard Fuller -- a Milwaukee-based national school voucher advocate, long-time champion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, and former Milwaukee Public Schools superintendent -- today announced his support for greater regulation of voucher schools, as proposed by Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle in his biennial state budget. (Nice summary of the Governor's proposal at Blogging MPS.)

I am glad to see that Governor Doyle has not backed away from the proposals he made for greater accountability in the voucher program back in 2005 and 2006--specifically, higher standards for voucher-school teachers and public reporting of standardized tests for each voucher school. With Democrats now in control of both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature, the path has been cleared for needed reforms to the program -- reforms in the best interest of students and parents.

Read more in Alan Borsuk's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story ("Key voucher advocate says more regulation, standards for program needed"). Excerpts below:

Howard Fuller, the former Milwaukee Public Schools superintendent who is now a central figure nationally in advocating for school choice, said he wants school leaders to join with Gov. Jim Doyle, legislative leaders and others in working out new ways to assure that students of all kinds have quality teachers in quality schools.

"We can't just keep wringing our hands about these terrible schools," Fuller said. "We have a moral responsibility to our children to not accept that."

Fuller was reacting both to a new set of studies of the voucher program and to a dramatically different situation for voucher supporters in the state Capitol.

In Madison, with both houses of the Legislature now controlled by Democrats, prospects are strong for passage of legislation pushed by critics of the voucher program that would impose stricter rules on many fronts. Such proposal have not passed in recent years because Republicans controlled at least one house of the Legislature and voucher leaders - including Fuller - resisted many of them.

In his state budget, Doyle called for changes in the voucher program, including requiring teachers to meet higher qualification standards and requiring the voucher schools to give standardized tests and report the results publicly.

"Many of the provisions he has in there are sensible and reasonable, and we ought to do this," Fuller said.

Reacting to specific proposals made by Doyle, Fuller said, "Who can argue with the need to have standards for how kids move from one grade level to another?" He said the same was true for such ideas as setting stricter standards for graduation, annual hours of instruction and handling of student records in a standardized way that allows such things as school transfers to be made smoothly.

The state Department of Public Instruction released a list recently of 57 new applicants to participate in the voucher program next fall. Most of them were people who have not run schools before and appeared to have little structure or backing for their plans.

"We've got to figure out a way to stop people (such as those) from starting schools in the first place," Fuller said. "Who in their right mind would argue that we don't have to do something like that?"

State law currently requires voucher school teachers to have high school diplomas. Fuller said, "Who could argue with a notion of a bachelor's degree for teachers?"

What about the private schools giving state standardized tests and making the results public?

"We clearly have to do that," he said.

Evaluation of Milwaukee Voucher Program

Alan Borsuk of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel writes ("Study finds results of MPS and voucher schools are similar") about the first report from a long-awaited and on-going evaluation of the Milwaukee school voucher program by the School Choice Demonstration Project.

The first research since the mid-1990s comparing the academic progress of students in Milwaukee's precedent-setting private school voucher program with students in Milwaukee Public Schools shows no major differences in success between the two groups.

Summarizing a comparison of how matched groups of voucher and MPS students did across two years of tests, the researchers wrote:

"The primary finding in all of these comparisons is that there is no overall statistically significant difference between MPCP (voucher) and MPS student achievement growth in either math or reading one year after they were carefully matched to each other."

When I worked in Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle's Office, we worked hard to bring greater accountability to the $129 million taxpayer-funded Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The 2006 compromise ("Governor and Speaker Gard Announce Deal on School Choice, Accountability, and Small Class Size Funding") -- made necessary because of the then-Republican Assembly Speaker (who had close ties to local and national voucher school lobbyists) -- wasn't perfect or as strong it might otherwise have been, but it was a step forward.

The push for greater accountability was precipitated over concerns about student learning (such as reported by Rethinking Schools in 2005) and widespread fraud and abuse (such as this and this) that seemed to be rampant within many start-up schools financed solely by the public subsidies available through the voucher program. This national evaluation -- along with stronger financial reporting requirements, independent accreditation, and participation in standardized testing -- was one piece of that accountability rubric passed into law. (Here is a link to a summary of the Act (2005 Wisconsin Act 125).

Other elements of accountability discussed back in 2005 and 2006, and still under discussion within the Wisconsin education policy community, include certification of educators in the voucher schools and a reporting of school-by-school assessment results. The argument for teacher certification was made to ensure a minimum standard of teacher quality based on evidence that teachers in voucher schools were not required to have graduated from college. In addition, it was felt that in order for parents to make informed choices for their kids academic information on the voucher schools needed to be available the same way it is for schools within Milwaukee's public system.

After all, taxpayer money -- from the state of Wisonsin and from the city of Milwaukee -- finances this program. And these kids deserve the best education possible. Certainly, they deserve some assurance of basic quality.

For readers who can't get enough of this issue, check out these links for further background about this issue:

Education Optimists: "School Vouchers Are No Silver Bullet"
Eduwonk: "Vouching Toward Gomorrah"
Quick & The Ed: "I Should Know Better..."
Fordham Institute: What's The Place of Accountability in School Voucher Programs
David Figlio & Cecelia Rouse: Do Accountability and Voucher Threats Improve Low-Performing Schools?