11_04_2003 Policy

Handed out group work questions for next time (11/11) Review case with these questions in mind

Federal aid and impact of main federal focus.

Table of Share of Per Pupil Spending by Program – 9 District Average (9 large city districts across the nation)

	Share of Total Per Pupil Spending		Change in Share
	1967	1991	1967-91
Regular education	79.6%	58.8%	-20.9
Special education	3.7	17.0	13.3
Special populations	9.2	13.2	4.0
Other	7.6	10.	3.2
Security	0.1	0.4	0.3
All programs	100	100
Overhead A located to above programs:
General and School Administration	9.4	9.7	0.2
Operations and Maintenance	15.7	14.3	-1.4

Source: Economic Policy Institute

10 years ago: input and process enforcement – making sure the money goes where it's targeted, the main previous focus of federal aid (pre-accountability push).

Real problems of urban education in maintaining non-target-group students – no federal aid!

Now there is outcome accountability – accountability used to be, is the money being spent on what it's supposed to be spent on and are the correct processes observed? That's still there (input accountability) but now output accountability for underperforming schools.

Whole school is now unit of accountability rather than subgroups/subprograms.

In these readings you have 3 foundations –

Heritage Foundation is on the Republican right

Left of center - Center for Ed Policy

Hard to categorize - Ed Trust

Elmore – leading policy analyst thinks this is bad policy.

MK says his own policy is that no judgement gets made for at least 3 years – "It's like a baseball game in the third inning" Predicts balance between good-bad-indifferent will tip in another decade.

Hold this date: Chester Finn (Fordham Found)

SUSE School of Ed Rm 204

Nov. 20^th, 12-1:30

He has a debate for No Child Left Behind – debates himself, at two podiums. Sounds hilarious.

Jennifer O'Day is the expert on reconsitution of schools

Reconstitution: You eliminate entire staff and administration, and bring in a new staff and make it work – VERY hard to do, Chicago tried it, SF tried it, and it's the final step, but MK is very skeptical that it can work on a huge scale – "The Dance of The Lemons"

"Reconstituted" just makes me think about really bad mashed potatoes. Boiling pots, lemons, and reconstituted mashed potatoes…ewwww. School lunch.

After 2 years have to offer tutoring AND pay for it…where will the money come from? Schools have offered but not been very aggressive about marketing. Companies may market.

Transferring assumes there's space – even where there is parents aren't necessarily taking advantage of it. Law requires that district/school must pay for the transport to new schools?

MK says that over time these people who are in failing schools are going to figure out what their rights are, get together, and demand the advantages they are promised under law. At some point this will like a tide you can't hold back.

Special populations:

• ELL 25%
• Special Ed 11%
• Low Income 20%
• Gifted and Talented
• Vocational Education

Incentive for multiple handicap labeling because fitting into several targeted populations garners money for each. Still has to be spent on individual -

• $5,000 regular education
• 1.2
• 1.25 blind
• 1.5 deaf
• blind and deaf = 1.7 can provide services for 1.4

Possible combinations of strategies (overhead handout.)

Table 2: Some Possible Combined Strategies And How They Provide Incentives, Capabilities, and Opportunity

	INCENTIVES	CAPABILITIES	OPPORTUNITY
Strategy 1: Decentralization within the system, using standards, contracting, and whole-school designs (Memphis, England, Seattle)	School-specific performance agreements with superintendent or school board, specifying which school-wide design the school will follow and how it will meet state standards. Expectation that school will follow distinctive approaches to instruction.	District investment in new curriculum, materials, and technology. Creation of new teacher training system responsive to individual school needs.	School control over high proportion of funds, school hiring of staff, school specification of staff development needs.
Strategy 2: A highly centralized system, using standards and major teacher development investments (Sacramento, San Diego, LA and NYC are headed that way)	Close performance-based supervision of school principals by superintendent. Expectation that all schools use district-sanctioned methods and be assessed via state standards.	District investment in new curriculum, materials, and technology. Central office provides extensive teacher training opportunities.	Schools free to request specific waivers to allow tailoring of standard methods to student needs
Strategy 3: A system with diverse providers, using whole-school designs, charters, contracting, standards, and vouchers (Milwaukee, Philadelphia)	Every public school has a distinctive contract or charter which specifies the school's design or approach to instruction. Parents can choose schools. New schools can be chartered to replace failing schools, and lowest-achieving students can get vouchers to attend private schools.	District promotes formation of many independent non-profit providers of curricular advice, instructional materials, and teacher training. Schools purchase their own advisors and providers of assistance.	Schools control all funds, hire staff, and purchase assistance; are accountable only to provide services promised and show student results. A central office has only two functions: supporting the Board in making agreements with individual school and assessing school performance in terms set by these agreements.

Source: Paul Hill, University of Washington, 1998

GROUP WORK

Out of state schools – how deal with "A-G requirements"?

• Like the premise that the default should be high student achievement
• Encourage students to challenge themselves, to succeed

Population of unprepared students – what will schools do if they don't opt out?

• Will students fail? Cost of remedial work in HS?
• Cost of early remediation? Beefing up of K-8?
• Lowering of standards so kids are less academically prepared for college

Rift – social and academic – between those who are "success-tracked" and those who aren't

Alice: Reality of our society is that the power and the money sits with those people who have graduated from college. By not giving them that as the default, you're tracking them down

Mike: college-prep coursework doesn't require college, it could as easily track into vocational education

Nick: Kids going to Berkeley and UCLA v. Cal State and Hayward

Tamecia – Is this split going to create more money for the opt out kids, from the feds? Will they now get more money than the state-funded college-prep kids?

Nara – there's not any money attached to this.

Alice: What worries me is that they make this decision in 9^th grade.

It's gonna have some of the same outcomes as the other programs – they'll either delay it or create another program to support it

More qualified teachers, more qualified counselors

Need: What outcome are we using – grades? # students completing A-G?

Based on faulty premise – that students know college entrance requirements

Alice, Nick and Mike endorsing – Alice says not perfect but better than status quo

Nara : dissenting – no supportive funding for associated costs & programs.

Tamecia: needs more information

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Journal

Group 3:

• Increase in minority eligibility to college
• Increase in students going to college
• Shortage of capacity in higher ed
• Increased dropout rates in HS
• Increased need for counseling in HS
• Shortage of qualified teachers
• Might not change racial makeup of higher education given that many of the problems were in rural schools (primarily white) so this might skew pale.

Lowering of standard of CP curriculum

Group 2:

• Federal impact with more people applying for federal/state financial aid
• Laurie – disagree that there would not be qualified teachers – if a teacher is credentialed in English, all you're asking them to tach something else in English
• Adam R – no money in bill

Group 4: Amended Bill!

• Parent expectations needed to be addressed – clear statement that this CP program doesn't guarantee spot in school
• Careful not to water down curriculum
• Edgar – comes from a border community in S. Texas, 90% Hispanic, high dropout rate
• These courses could increase the dropout rate – all these classes and requirements scare them
• Language barrier – capacity to teach bilingual ed, will the funding be there.
• Information good
• Migrant population – how do you track their attainment over all schools?
• Legal status – how does this affect elegible kids when they get into college – in state, out of state?

Voc Ed teachers – enrollment drops, but they aren't CP certified

Could HEAVILY cut community college remediation budget. 55% of the first-time freshpersons in America are enrolled in a community college

Laboratory space – where are all the labs coming from for 2 years of wet labs?

You could say that all negative outcomes could be mitigated by parents signing the form. But what parents are going to sign that? What if they refuse?