Obama Gets It Right

God, I love having smart people in the administration!

This morning I listened as Bob Shireman and Ceci Rouse unveiled an ambitious, thoughtful plan to increase college completion rates among low-income students. DOE is on the right track-- the story is completion, rather than access, and to make advances requires some serious restructuring of incentives.

The part of the plan to Restore America's Leadership in Higher Education that I'm most excited about is the creation of reliable Pell Grant -- making its funding mandatory rather than discretionary, and indexing the maximum grant to grow at CPI + 1%.

What's more, they're proposing a five-year $2.5 bil incentive fund to stimulate state-federal partnerships to increase degree completion. The best part? These folks actually get that we DO NOT KNOW what will work, and therefore whatever states try out needs to be rigorously evaluated. Build the knowledge base and we'll improve policy and practice. Exactly the shot in the arm higher ed needs, if only they hold true to a good definition of rigor and require states to contract out those evaluations. I'd also suggest that evals of ongoing, rather than simply new, programs be allowed -- why waste time when we can start learning now?

Lastly: one thing I didn't hear that I'd like to -- let the financial aid experiments continue. The last administration called a halt to institutional efforts to try out innovations, and this was a mistake. We need to know more about how aid can better be distributed, not less. Let 'em go on.

In Search of Adult Suspenders

It's hard being junior. After years of starving to get through a dissertation, swimming through the murky seas of the job market, and climbing into a jungle full of publication nightmares and man-eating beasts disguised as service, we assistant professors sometimes find it hard just to wake up in the morning.

It's not that the work is too hard. Nah, we're up for that. Working 80+ hours a week is what we're used to.

And it's not that the pay is too low. Again, we know how to get by.

But what's especially hard to take is the heaping pile of steamy stuff piled on us day in and day out by a system that rewards seniority over innovation and grizzliness over sheer effort. No matter how many times a bright new idea threatens to change the status quo (or perhaps because it does), we get shoved back down. Bring a landmark opportunity to the table? Forget about it, grow up, and go get yourself a pair of adult suspenders before you dare to wear pants. (Meaning, of course, put a real professor on your grant apps or don't bother applying.)

Everyone means well, I know. But look at the evidence: Nobel Prizes are won for the work people do when they're young (e.g. under the age of 50). We're hungry, we're tireless, we kick butt. Why deny it, and question our capacity? What are you afraid of?

Sorry, We Don't Deliver

One of Sara's favorite things in the world is The New York Times. I'll admit, I kinda like it, too. Until last fall, we were subscribers and awoke to find a copy of the Times in our driveway every day of the week. However, since moving out of the People's Republic of Madison (as some call it) to a smaller Wisconsin city, we have been utterly unsuccessful in securing home delivery of the Times.

What's that you say? Sometimes you have to give up such things for the slower pace and quality of small-town life. Sometimes. But why is it that our friends two blocks down the street get Sunday delivery and their neighbors across the street get seven-day-a-week delivery? Hmmm...

Believe me. We didn't take NO for an answer. We made more than a dozen calls to customer service. We got different answers each time, ranging from "we'll have a newspaper on your doorstep tomorrow" to "we don't deliver to your community." We talked to supervisors. We found out the local news carrier's name, called his house, and spoke to his wife. We formally canceled our subscription and initiated a new one, first for 7-day delivery, then for Sunday-only. Nothing.

We've resorted to going down to the local convenience store on Sunday mornings to pick up a full-price ($5.00) copy of the Sunday Times. But we kinda miss that home delivery and deep discount that comes with an educator subscription discount to the paper. Reading the Times online just isn't quite the same either. Maybe we're just "old school."

A recent Atlantic article ("End Times") predicts the imminent death of the print version of the Times (at least all but the Sunday edition):

Regardless of what happens over the next few months, The Times is destined for significant and traumatic change. At some point soon—sooner than most of us think—the print edition, and with it The Times as we know it, will no longer exist. And it will likely have plenty of company. In December, the Fitch Ratings service, which monitors the health of media companies, predicted a widespread newspaper die-off: “Fitch believes more newspapers and news­paper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010.”

As a result, you would think that, if feasible, newspapers like the New York Times would do everything they can to retain existing subscribers. In our case, due to the layout of our neighborhood, we're certain that our local carrier passes within sight of our house to deliver papers to at least two other households in our community. Yet, we're told that the Times cannot deliver to our address and, as a result, they have lost needed subscription revenue and committed subscribers. Perhaps the business side of the operation is, in part, what is ailing The New York Times.

Clearly, though, larger forces are weighing on the Times and the newspaper industry as a whole: the growth of the web and the economic recession. I've seen the twin impact of these forces through a personal lens -- my sister-in-law -- who has lost jobs at newsweeklies in two different cities over the past year.

I'll confess that I have resorted to reading elements of the Times online. Through Google Reader, I am a subscriber to its RSS feeds for Education, Opinion, Paul Krugman, and Week in Review. Some of that content is just too relevant to my work or too good to pass up. But what revenue is the Times receiving from me? Zero. Ziltch.

More, from The Atlantic article:

The conundrum, of course, is that those 1 million print readers, who pay actual cash money for the privilege of consuming the paper, and who are worth about five figures a page to advertisers, are far more profitable than the 20 million unique Web users, who don’t and aren’t. Common estimates suggest that a Web-driven product could support only 20 percent of the current staff; such a drop in personnel would (in the short run) devastate The Times’ news-gathering capacity

Perhaps therein lies the problem that faces print media across the board. Readers are accessing free content and dropping subscriptions or failing to stop by newsstands to pick up physical copies of newspapers. I suppose that I am in the minority in that I am willing to pay for a print subscription -- if only the Times would let me have one.

How to fix this dynamic is a topic for blogs and outlets other than this one. Will people pay for online content is a key question? It seems to me that generally the answer is "no," which puts the traditional media in a real pickle. Sure, they can sell ad space, but do enough readers actually clicks on those online ads to generate sufficient revenue? All good questions.

Until the Times creates a new, workable business model, however, it seems to me that it should maximize revenues from its current one. I may not have a MBA, but from my perspective in this corner of Wisconsin, clearly it is not.

Obama on Education

Tonight, in a speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama proclaimed three areas of investment of vital interest to the nation's economic future: energy, health care and education. Here are my favorite lines from the education portion of the President's speech (in no particular order):

• "But we know that our schools don't just need more resources. They need more reform."
• "...the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow."
• "And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American."
• "I speak to you not just as a President, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home."
• "That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world."

I dare say the President's education proposals have a Clintonian air to them: opportunity and responsibility.

For those of you who missed the speech, here is a transcript courtesy of the Washington Post.

The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity - it is a pre-requisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.

This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education - from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.

Already, we have made an historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life. We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children's progress.

But we know that our schools don't just need more resources. They need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We'll invest in innovative programs that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Senator Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country - Senator Edward Kennedy.

These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them. In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a President, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home.

Duncan's Team

Linda Darling-Hammond may not be joining Team Duncan at the U.S. Department of Education (TWIE/Politics K-12), but Jo Anderson is -- as a senior advisor to the Secretary.

Who is Jo, you ask? Well, folks in Illinois know him very well as the executive director of the Illinois Education Association, a post he's held since 2005. I've gotten to work closely with him over the past three years through the New Teacher Center's work on a statewide teacher induction policy committee in the Land of Lincoln.

Jo is a dynamic presence and a thoughtful advocate for public education. He's also the type of guy who is not afraid to roll up his sleeves and get his hands dirty. He won't let Washington or a big title at the USDoE go to his head. In addition, Jo sees the big picture as well as understanding that policy details matter. He'll serve Secretary Duncan well.

Plus, he's a fellow Boston College grad. Go Eagles!

Here's a brief bio on Jo for those of you who want to know more about him:

Jo Anderson Jr.
In November of 2005, Jo Anderson Jr. was named executive director of the Illinois Education Association. IEA is an association of 120,000 members composed of Illinois elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty and staff, educational support professionals, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers.

Prior to becoming executive director of the IEA, Anderson was director for the IEA-NEA Center for Educational Innovation, a center created to facilitate school restructuring and reform efforts throughout Illinois. The center serves as a catalyst for positive changes in education and provides Illinois Education Association locals with the resources, expertise, and motivation to experiment with school restructuring.

Anderson has facilitated collaborative negotiations in over 60 situations in Illinois and other parts of the country. He has extensive experience in innovative negotiating processes such as win-win and interest-based bargaining. He is also a founder and facilitator of the Consortium for Educational Change (CEC), a network of 50 school districts throughout the Chicago suburbs that are working collaboratively to restructure and improve their schools. He has presented an array of training programs and workshops in Illinois and other parts of the country in the areas of collaborative labor-management relationships, professional unionism, and educational change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE -- March 12, 2009 -- Three weeks later, here is Secretary Duncan's official announcement of Jo Anderson Jr.'s appointment. And here is reaction from Teacher Beat.

Polly, Want A Story?

A third-grade teacher in Los Gatos, California says that her students have benefited from reading to a parrot, according to a story in the San Jose Mercury-News.

Third-grade teacher Judy Quigley said her students' learning experiences have actually been enhanced quite dramatically by reading to Starbuck, a 7-year-old Timneh African Grey parrot.

During the exercise, students take a seat next to Starbuck, who generally rests atop a classroom chair or bird perch. The children read a variety of different illustrated stories aloud to the bird, holding the book open to him.

Yeah, OK. But can the parrot live up to its name and whip up a non-fat, no-foam soy latte?

Experiments, Experiments Everywhere!

As you know, the only serious education research going on these days involves randomly assigning kids or classrooms to interventions. Anything else is bogus. Ok, I'm KIDDING folks-- laugh a little!

While I totally do NOT believe that's the case, I must admit I get a little tingle when I discover that experiments are happening that I didn't know about. Probably because I'm just a sucker for the promise of new knowledge, fast.

So here's my tingly-discovery of the day:
The Experimental Sites Initiative of the U.S. Department of Education.

As reported in today's Chronicle of Higher Ed this program involved 100 colleges across the country in an effort to figure out how to make the process of delivering financial aid to students easier. Of course...drumroll please...the Bushies shut it down! Shocking, I know.

I need some more time to dig into this, learn more about what the experimenting has shown, etc.-- and I promise to report back. In the meantime, if you or someone you know has any results or details to share, please please send them my way. Inquiring minds want to know....

The Difference Between Us

The more time I spend with my good buddy Doug Harris (we spend a LOT of time together, for why see here) the more I wonder about the real differences between sociologists and economists. What distinguishes us, really?

Back in graduate school, I knew for sure. In the old ugly McNeil Bldg at Penn I spent all my time in Sociology, 2nd floor. From the atrium couches stained with styrofoam lunch remains, I could look up to the 3rd floor and see the Economists. Boys. All boys. Around me in Sociology, all girls. So the answer was clear: Sociology, female. Economics, male. They thought people were supposed to be rational, and we knew they simply were not.

Ah, to be young and naive. Also, to be in the throes of a flush economy.

These days I find myself frequently saying that people, programs, policies are inefficient, that if they are not cost-effective they are not worth doing, and that impacts needs to be assessed with true costs in mind. That said, I also mean something different by "costs"-- I can't stand that costs are measured by what's spent instead of what needs to be spent in order to achieve a desired outcome.

But back and forth, back and forth, I also find myself very concerned about the broader implications of actions, the meanings we create just by doing, the non-monetary costs we constantly accrue. I can almost see Doug's quizzical face asking me to clarify...

So tell me readers, in an "interdisciplinary" world where many academics are concerned with creating genuine social changes, where do the disciplinary boundaries still lie-- and should they, will they, begin to lie down?

My Sister is Unemployed

She's damn talented too. My little sister, graduate of an "elite" college, willing to work for peanuts just for the chance to put some words on a page, laid off twice in one year.

Check her out.

Looking for a good writer, make her an offer-- she, and I, will thank you.

UPDATE: Lisa landed at the Broward-Palm Beach New Times.

Musical Elective Of The Week

The Musical Elective Of The Week is Tift Merritt.

Tift is a 34-year-old singer/songwriter based in North Carolina. Her music is in the alt-country vein, although her sophomore album went in a decidedly rock and soul direction. Tift's got a distinctive, pure voice that lends a warmth and forthrightness to her lyrics.

Tift released her first solo album only in 2002 and already has three studio albums and one live album under her belt. Pretty good work. Her debut album, Bramble Rose, was widely acclaimed, making both Time Magazine's and The New Yorker's top 10 lists for that year. My favorite is 2005's upbeat Tambourine, featuring the tracks "Good Hearted Man," "Stray Paper," "Write My Ticket," and "Shadow In The Way." Tambourine was nominated for a Grammy for Country Album of The Year even though I think it is the least "country" of her three studio albums. Go figure. Last year, Tift released Another Country, with the tracks "Broken," "Keep You Happy," and "I Know What I'm Looking For Now." Popmatters calls her latest album "nothing short of stunning in its candor, simplicity, and grace."

She'll be releasing a new live acoustic album, Buckingham Solo, on February 24, 2009. Keep an eye out for it! She'll also be touring through the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic in spring and will be part of the Bonnaroo festival this summer.

Check out more at her official web site.

I wish I were a freeway laid out clearer than a bright day.
I’d run wide open down this causeway like brand new
Singing louder than the whole block, all my love would be a straight shot
Night would dream the dreams that I got, and so would you.

But I’m broken and I don’t understand
What is broken falls into place once again.
Hand of kindness, come and gather me in like a rainstorm

--"Broken," Another Country (2008)

Click here for past Musical Electives of the Week

Working Mama Recipes

Liam has his music, and I have..... my food. I love, love love to cook. That said, I hate to bake. Measuring at home just isn't any fun. So, this will be my first share in a series of recipes I've come to know and love. I'm no expert, but I like to make these inexpensive, uncomplicated, and yummy things up. Humor me-- try one!

Spiced Pork Tenderloin (created 12/17/05)

Pork tenderloin, about 1.5-2 lbs
Ginger
Jalapeno pepper
Serrano pepper
New Glarus Belgian Red Wisconsin Ale

Wash and salt & pepper the pork well, with plenty of pepper. Slice ginger and chilis, make slashes in the pork and insert. Wrap up and stick in the fridge for 3-5 hours. Heat the oven to 275. Brown the pork in a dutch oven with some butter. Pour in the ale, just about 1- 1.5 cups, not too much. Put in oven, cook for about an hour or 70 min, turning over once. Remove when pork is about 160 degrees. Take out the pork and set aside on cutting board, loosely covered in foil. Add 2-3 tbsp honey to the pot, and heat on high for 5 min. Drizzle the sauce on top of the pork and serve with cornbread (the good kind from Sentry, if you live in Wisconsin) and sauteed spinach with garlic. Drink a syrah.

Then and Now

In one of the most radical higher ed policy moves of the twentieth century, the City University of New York (CUNY) threw open its doors to urban residents, did away with tuition, and let the masses enter. This was the early 1970s, and the move may have helped quell social uprisings (as suggested by David Karen and Kevin Dougherty).

Fast forward 30 years, and as empirical evidence of the positive effects of CUNY's transformation mounted (see the longitudinal analysis performed by David Lavin and Paul Attewell, among others), CUNY gradually rolled backwards. Over-enrollment meant crowded classrooms, demoralized faculty, lots of remediation, a decline in "prestige." At the same time it also meant greater opportunities to grow a NYC black middle class, and increases in the attainment of women and their children. The city responded negatively, ending remediation at 4-year colleges, shifting the majority of poorer students to 2-year schools, and generally imposing regressive policies.

Now, travel south to Washington DC, which has lacked a community college for decades, relying heavily on the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) to provide access to college-goers who couldn't afford a private school and/or didn't want to leave home. UDC has been through a lot (and that's a massive understatement). Now, in 2009, at the peak of collective ambitions for a bachelor's degree, it is ending its open door policy and hiking tuition from $3800 to $7000. Not surprisingly, students are upset.

Now, the goal of this transformation is in some ways a laudable one. DC needs a community college, and the plan is to make UDC partly a more selective 4-year college (e.g., 2.5 GPA and 1200 SATs) and partly an open-door community college. But it's hard not be wary of this move. It's being championed by the same guy who tried to end open admissions at Queens College-- Allen Sessoms. It flies in the face of plenty of evidence that the differentiation of colleges like this, if not accompanied by some excellent policies that equip all students with great navigational abilities, will result in greater inequalities. It's pretty unlikely that UDC the community college will draw folks into higher education who weren't already enrolling when UDC was cheap and offering a BA.

It is clear that relegating remedial coursework to the purview of community colleges unnecessarily restricts the college opportunities of a group of students who are disproportionately disadvantaged to begin with. Requiring more students to begin at a two-year college is likely to reduce their chances for bachelor’s degree completion. At least one study from New York suggests that students denied access to four-year institutions because of a need for remediation (known as being “de-admitted”) often do not end up enrolling at community colleges and thus are not in college at all. Eliminating remedial education at four-year institutions may therefore in effect diminish opportunities for earning a bachelor’s degree. Not what DC needs.

The Washington Post reports that the citizens of Washington DC are agitated over the proposed "transformation." In a city already deeply divided by race, income, and education, this is hardly a step in the right direction.

President Obama Calls For Education Reform

Amen.

In comments about the stimulus plan at last night's press conference [see above link for transcript], President Barack Obama called for education funding accompanied by more reform. (Kudos to Politics K-12 blog for its post on this topic.)

"I think there are areas like education where some in my party have been too resistant to reform and have argued only money makes a difference. And there have been others on the Republican side or the conservative side who said, 'No matter how much money you spend, nothing makes a difference, so let's just blow up the public school systems.' And I think that both sides are going to have to acknowledge we're going to need more money for new science labs, to pay teachers more effectively, but we're also going to need more reform, which means that we've got to train teachers more effectively, bad teachers need to be fired after being given the opportunity to train effectively, that we should experiment with things like charter schools that are innovating in the classroom, that we should have high standards." -- President Barack Obama, February 9, 2009

President Obama is right on the mark. His pragmatism and practicality is quite refreshing. Not liberal, not conservative, not even moderate necessarily. How different from the holier-than-thou, we-like-to-get-our-names-in-the-press Senate "moderates" that slowed the bill down over ... what exactly? Cuts in funds for shovel-ready school construction projects (read: jobs) and help for shell-shocked state governments?

The President's comments get to the heart of my recent posts (here, here, and here) which argued that money alone would neither transform the federal role in education or lead to more reform. President Obama seems to agree. Fortunately, there'll be future opportunities to inject some needed policy reforms and retool some spending priorities in education. The stimulus package alone is not going get that done, but will inject some desperately needed funding into things like Title I, special education and Pell Grants and hopefully help to keep schools and students afloat ... once it gets out of the Capitol Hill sausage factory.

Higher Ed Cop Out #4

Today's topic: Defining a college's "popularity" by its admissions yield.

I know, it's fun to try and assign schools and colleges a status according to how cool and popular they are-- it's just like the little social games we play in grade school.

But a common method for assessing the popularity of colleges-- by using the admissions yield (% of accepted applicants who enroll), is just plain stupid.

This is practice employed not only by popular publications like the U.S. News and World Report but also by many academic researchers. Take this list of the most popular national universities:

1. Harvard
2. Brigham Young
3. University of Nebraska-Lincoln
4. Stanford
5. MIT
6. Yale
7. Princeton
8. U. Pennsylvania
9. Yeshiva
10. U. Florida

This is silly. Here are just a sample of the myriad reasons why a college can have a high yield, for reasons having nothing to do with popularity:

1. A pool of applicants that didn't apply to lots of colleges. Applications are expensive-- each application carries a fee, and while waivers are available, many students don't know about them.

2. A pool of less-qualified applicants-- those that manage to get in have fewer options at other places.

3. Location. Is the college located near lots of other colleges, or in an area where a place-bound applicant pool would have few alternatives? (notice the presence of University of Nebraska, Lincoln for example)

4. Admissions criteria. Desire to attend a college, a sense of "match", if used in deciding who to admit, will maximize yield. This doesn't mean the school is more popular, only that it admits students who like it more. (this is probably contributing to the ranking of the Ivies- above-- these schools are inclined to admit those students who express a preference for their school over others- maybe because their parents are alums?)

5. Specialties of the college. If the college is among the only that offers a certain mission, it automatically makes it the school of choice for those that want that mission. That's not popularity, it's a niche. (witness Brigham Young and Yeshiva)

Instead of yield, how about considering the use of "revealed preference rankings" such as those proposed by Carolyn Hoxby and Christopher Avery?

Or, better yet-- how about simply deciding that "popularity" isn't a good reason to choose a college? Stop drinking the KoolAid folks....

We're Going To Conference

The U.S. Senate approved its version of the federal stimulus bill. As always, the New America Foundation's Ed Money Watch blog comes through with a detailed summary of the Senate bill - and how it compares to the House version.

Big changes made by the Senate include: the elimination of all increases in school construction funding (what happened to the "shovel ready" mantra?), Teacher Incentive Fund dollars, Impact Aid, and statewide data systems funding; the halving of the increase in HEA's Teacher Quality Partnership Grants; a halving of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund increase; a significant reduction in the increase for higher education facilities construction; and a slight trimming of Title I funding.

Although the education community is arguing over comparative crumbs in the overall stimulus package, this ought to be an interesting conference committee.

Stim-U-Less

It's been quiet around the blog lately ... I just returned yesterday from four days in California, at the New Teacher Center's Annual Symposium and work-related meetings in Santa Cruz. Despite not spending much time outdoors, it was nice to get away from the 20s and into the 60s for a few days.

That said, I'm catching up on the news and the political negotiations around the stimulus bill. Tuesday's New York Times featured this editorial ("A Vital Boost For Education") which gets to the main point I made in last week's blog post ("Overstated"). Despite some such as Ed Sector's Chad Aldeman ("Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste") who have already popped the cork in celebration of a new era in federal education policy, more money alone will not transform the federal role in education or lead to necessary school reforms.

Here are the cautions and recommendations from The Times:

The stimulus measure being debated in Congress contains a vital $140 billion education package that would more than double the Education Department’s discretionary budget and give the federal government unprecedented leverage over a school-reform effort that has been controlled primarily by the states. Congress has to make sure, however, that the spending does not actually undermine reform. The money needs to be targeted in a way that forces the states to adopt reforms required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.

For that to happen, Congress would need to embrace the stronger House measure, which was framed with an eye toward forcing the states to end the shameful practice of shunting the least qualified teachers into schools that serve the neediest students.

...

The purpose of the measures is to protect schools from damaging cuts and layoffs while preserving the momentum toward reform. But that won’t happen if the states adopt the familiar strategy of cutting their own contributions to education — and shifting the money to other uses — while using federal dollars to plug the hole. That could result in a decline in total financing for education despite the mammoth federal expenditure. Worse still, money that moves from the education fund to say, road building, is often lost to the schools forever.

...

Congress is doing the right thing by helping the states stave off layoffs and other problems. But the stimulus will fail Americans in crucial ways if Congress squanders the opportunity to push the country’s schools toward long-overdue reform and allows the education money to be turned into more pork-barrel spending.

This is not a done deal, folks.

Further, since that editorial was published three days ago, news out of Washington, DC (courtesy of Tom Toch at Ed Sector) is that a bipartisan group of Senate moderates is insisting upon greater cuts in stimulus spending, cuts that would disproportionately affect the education-related stimulus provisions.

It seems short-sighted to me to bank too heavily on old-school infrastructure spending (let alone more tax cuts) to lift us out of the economic ditch we're in. Our nation's increased reliance on the knowledge economy -- which will have to be a key part of the recovery -- suggests that vital investments in education and human capital need to be a significant part of the stimulus package as well.

The House version of the stimulus bill provided a good balance of additional dollars and some reform provisions (Teacher Incentive Fund, Teacher Quality Partnership Grants). It could have gone further. The Senate stepped too far back from this approach and now appears to be stripping funding for the bill as well.

I hope that the Obama Administration stands firm on the need for stimulus funding focused on education, discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education, and the inclusion of reform provisions, such as a requirement of equitable teacher distribution in the final package.

Stimulus for America's Community Colleges

The following is my new web-ed, co-authored by Alan Berube:

The Brookings Institution

February 03, 2009 —

Many people in the education sector are rooting for the economic recovery package now working its way through Congress.

That’s because the package’s education component—an estimated $150 billion in the House plan—represents a central part of the Obama administration’s efforts to lay the groundwork for future economic growth. These investments can produce tremendous returns, driving long-run employment and earnings gains, and increasing the chances that future generations will become well-educated.

When it comes to investments in higher education, however, President Obama and congressional leaders should exercise focus. Resources should be targeted in ways that stimulate enhanced educational attainment, and close disparities in degree completion.

To that end, the recovery package—and future federal higher education policy—must do more to help transform America’s community colleges.

Faced with high tuition costs, a weak economy, and increased competition for admission to four-year colleges, students today are more likely than at any other point in history to attend one of the nation’s 1,100 community colleges. Annually, community college enrollment is increasing at more than twice the rate of that at four-year colleges, by 2.3 million students in the first half of this decade alone.

The rise of these institutions reflects their important roles in training workers, especially first-generation college students, for well-paying, high-demand jobs and in providing students a bridge to even higher levels of education.

We need to get more out of the system, however. Columbia University researchers estimate that the community college dropout rate is 50 percent. Despite the fact that community college degree and certificate holders earn considerably more than workers with only a high school diploma, just one-third of students who entered a community college in 1995 completed a degree of any kind by 2001. With many of the fastest-growing occupations requiring some post-secondary education, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree, serious challenges await if community college performance does not improve.

Part of the problem lies in the way we fund community colleges. Owing to their historical role in serving local labor markets, community colleges are hampered by a heavy financial dependence on states and localities, where negative budget outlooks today portend deep funding cuts. Moreover, they are funded primarily based on enrollment, without regard to whether their students earn degrees or get good jobs. This gears community colleges' incentives toward inputs and process, rather than outcomes like student success.

Given the critical function of community colleges for meeting our nation’s future economic needs, the federal government has a responsibility to improve this state of affairs. Its current role is limited; community colleges receive less than 30 percent the level of federal government support provided to four-year colleges.

A forthcoming paper from the Brookings Institution proposes a major shift in this relationship. It calls for four key federal reforms: a new focus on national goals for the two-year sector guided by a first-ever accountability system; expanded federal funding to help community colleges meet these more ambitious goals; stimulating greater innovation in community college policies and practices to enhance educational quality; and developing student data systems that enable crucial tracking of outcomes. As recognized by ambitious initiatives such as the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream project, a “culture of evidence” focused on student achievement—when coupled with capacity-building efforts to make success possible— can have a rapid and transformative impact.

On funding, the federal government should double its current level of direct support for community colleges, from $6 billion to $12 billion, in order to account for 30 percent of their budgets. Resource needs, especially for infrastructure, technology, and faculty, are significant and pressing.

Since 1974, only 149 new community colleges have been built, and many campuses today are bursting at the seams. While community college students tend to enroll part-time, even these students require space in which to learn. In the first two years, this spending would amount to just 1.4 percent of the proposed costs of the recovery package, and would support infrastructure upgrades that truly stimulate the economy. Over the longer term, it would add modestly to federal higher education expenditures, but would ensure that our nation realizes an economic payoff from increasing enrollments.

The federal government should not simply expand funding, but use these new resources explicitly to promote greater success for community college students. Colleges receiving enhanced funds would be required to track and report student results, such as completion of a minimum number of credits, earning a degree, and landing a good-paying job. Over time, a majority of federal dollars would be awarded based not on enrollment, but on colleges’ performance on these critical measures.

Our community college system, long on the sidelines in funding and policy debates, now needs a seat at the table. Ensuring that American workers are trained to compete in the global marketplace, to earn a place in the middle class, and to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens requires expanding and improving their experience with postsecondary education. By better supporting the affordable and accessible higher educational institutions found within all of our communities, and asking more of them in exchange, we can put our nation and its families back on the path to economic prosperity.