Who Is In Charge

JBC struggles with education budgets

There were faint glimmers of budgetary hope during a key Joint Budget Committee hearing Thursday, but they only involved variation in the possible size of cuts.

“There will be cuts to K-12. The question is how big,” said Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, during the afternoon figure-setting session for the Department of Education.

The analysis presented to the committee by staff member Carolyn Kampman suggested that K-12 cuts next year could be as low as $290 million for 2011-12, instead of the $332 million proposed by the Hickenlooper administration. But a lot of financial pieces would have to fall into place for that to happen, including taking money from other education programs and from state school lands revenues.

Cuts also are unavoidable for the state colleges and universities, the subject of a morning figure-setting session. The good news there, from a college president’s point of view, was that the committee decided not to go with the deeper cuts proposed by staff analyst Eric Kurtz, instead opting for the smaller bite proposed by the Hickenlooper administration.

The JBC hearings Thursday kicked off what will be a crucial two weeks in legislative deliberations on the 2011-12 budget. The committee is expected to finish figure setting for all departments by the middle of next week, after which the staff will tote things up to see if the proposed budget is balanced. If the committee will need to trim some more.

Next Friday, March 18, fresh state revenue estimates will be given to the JBC by legislative and executive branch economists. If those estimates are rosier than the ones made in December, budget cuts won’t need to be as large as proposed. If state revenues have weakened, it’ll be time to cut deeper.

JBC staff director John Ziegler told committee members they’ll need to decide no later than March 22 how much of a K-12 cut to propose in order to have a balanced budget.

School funding history chart
Chart shows components of school funding over the last decade. Click to enlarge; note legend on right

The committee deferred that decision Thursday, with Ferrandino saying, “I’d rather do that target after the revenue forecast.” (School finance is controlled by two different bills – the main state budget, called the “long bill,” and the annual school finance act. The target Ferrandino referred to is the amount of the cut that will be dictated by the school finance act.)

To complicate things further, legislative Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are scrambling to find additional revenues and cuts to other programs that can be applied to K-12 spending.

One such proposal, Senate Bill 11-184, was passed by the Senate Finance Committee Thursday. It would establish a tax amnesty program next summer, with the extra revenue collected going to education. Some estimates put that at up to $15 million. Whether that plan and any others the Democrats come up with will succeed in the Republican-controlled House is iffy.

While the committee put off the big K-12 decision, it did approve several other Kampman recommendations that cut specialized education programs.

Those included cutting the Colorado Counselor Corps from $5 million to $2.5 million (Kampman recommended zero), elimination of funding for the Closing the Achievement Gap program and shutting down the School Leadership Academy.

Many such programs were pet projects of various legislators and created in the last three years.

Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, also raised the question of cutting the writing section of the CSAP tests to save money, but the discussion didn’t go any further. (That’s not to say it may not come back later.)

Panel can’t bear to cut colleges any more

Sources of higher education funding
Chart shows changes in sources of higher education funding over recent budget years. Click to enlarge.

The committee voted 5-0 to accept the Hickenlooper administration’s recommendation for college and university funding in 2011-12 – about $519 million in state tax support.

That’s down from the $620 million colleges received this year – a large chunk of that one-time federal stimulus funds. It’s also less than the $555 million requested by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (But higher ed leaders have figured they could survive with anything north of $500 million.)

Committee analyst Eric Kurtz recommended $500 million, arguing that overall college funding has left higher ed no worse off than the rest of state government. Members didn’t want to go there.

“I’m having a really hard time with the conversation,” said Vice Chair Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen. “I can’t support it.”

Kurtz is right that direct state support is only part of the picture – total higher ed system funding next year is expected to be more than $2 billion, about three quarters of that from tuition.

Kurtz said institutions “can absorb” a $500 million funding level and “there’s potential to go lower,” also saying, “I don’t think higher education is worse off than the rest of state government.”

Ferrandino said, “I have come to understand Eric’s point of view after three years of butting heads” but “I think higher education has suffered.” Kurtz is known as something of a contrarian and regularly proposes provocative ideas for the committee to consider.

Committee members weren’t wild about the $519 million figure. “I would have liked to have held it to $555 million. I’m an unhappy yes,” said Gerou.

Ferrandino wasn’t comfortable with the CCHE formula for distributing the cuts by college, which fast-growing campuses like Metro State and the community colleges think penalizes them. “Even though I’m not happy with it, I will acquiesce,” he said.

But freshman Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, said, “This is the right decision … and I hope higher education understands that.”

Do your homework

Read Kampman’s recommendations for K-12 (the heart is on pages 69-81, but remember the committee didn’t act on the cut “target” mentioned on page 77).

Read Kurtz’ higher education recommendations (remember that the JBC didn’t accept his main recommendation on page 42).

a closer look

Fact-check: Weighing 7 claims from Betsy DeVos’s latest speech, from Common Core to PISA scores

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy

In a speech Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made the case for giving up on the type of school improvement efforts favored by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush. In its place, she argued, the federal government should encourage tech-infused innovation and school choice.

Looking to weigh her claims? Here’s a closer look at a few.

1. DeVos: “The most recent Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, report, with which you are all familiar, has the U.S. ranked 23rd in reading, 25th in science and 40th in math. And, you know this too: it’s not for a lack of funding. The fact is the United States spends more per pupil than most other developed countries, many of which perform better than us in the same surveys.”

This stats are accurate, but may not be fair. The U.S. does spend more per pupil, in raw dollars, than most other countries. But international comparisons of these sorts are complicated, and American spending is similar to countries with similarly sized economies.

As we’ve written previously, it’s also misleading to say that more money wouldn’t help American schools. A number of studies have found precisely the opposite, including a recent one showing how cuts to schools during the Great Recession lowered student test scores and graduation rates.

2. DeVos appeared to refer to Common Core as “federal standards,” saying, “Federally mandated assessments. Federal money. Federal standards. All originated in Washington, and none solved the problem.”

That’s off the mark. As advocates for the Common Core never tire of pointing out, the creation of the standards was driven by state leaders through the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, with the support of several private organizations, most prominently the Gates Foundation. (Gates is a funder of Chalkbeat.) As DeVos notes earlier in the speech, the Obama administration did incentivize states to adopt the standards, though, and Secretary Arne Duncan was a vocal champion.

3. DeVos: “At the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.”

This is true, in a sense — the Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed before DeVos became secretary, prohibits the federal government from pushing states to adopt specific standards. But DeVos doesn’t control what academic standards states adopt, and most states are still using use some version of the Common Core.

4. DeVos: “Throughout both initiatives, the result was a further damaged classroom dynamic between teacher and student, as the focus shifted from comprehension to test-passing. This sadly has taken root, with the American Federation of Teachers recently finding that 60 percent of its teachers reported having moderate to no influence over the content and skills taught in their own classrooms. Let that sink in. Most teachers feel they have little – if any — say in their own classrooms.”

The statistic DeVos pulled from this poll is accurate, though her framing may be more negative than the results suggest. It asked teachers to rate how much control they had over “setting content, topics, and skills to be taught.” The most common answer was “a great deal” (at about 40 percent of teachers), and another 30 percent or so chose moderate control. Twenty percent said minor, and only 10 percent said they had no control.

5. DeVos: “To a casual observer, a classroom today looks scarcely different than what one looked like when I entered the public policy debate thirty years ago. Worse, most classrooms today look remarkably similar to those of 1938 when AEI was founded.”

This statement is misleading but has a grain of truth. We examined a similar claim when the TV program produced by the XQ prize argued that schools haven’t changed in 100 years. In short, DeVos is right that many basic trappings of school — a building, a teacher at the front of the class, a focus on math, reading, science, and social studies — have remained consistent. But this glosses over some substantial changes since 1938: the end of legally mandated race-based segregation, the rise of standards for special education students, and the expanded use of testing, among others.

6. DeVos: “While we’ve changed some aspects of education, the results we all work for and desire haven’t been achieved. The bottom line is simple: federal education reform efforts have not worked as hoped.”

This is a big assertion, and it’s always tricky to judge whether something in education “worked.” As DeVos pointed out, a federal study showed the federal school turnaround program didn’t help students. She also highlighted relatively flat international test scores, and others have pointed to flat national scores in recent years.

That said, there were substantial gains in math in fourth and eighth grade, particularly in the early 2000s.

But raw trend data like this can’t isolate the effects of specific policies, particularly when other unrelated changes — like the Great Recession — can also make a big difference. Studies on No Child Left Behind have shown positive results in math, but little or no effect in reading. An analysis of Race to the Top was inconclusive.

One bright spot: a program that paid performance bonuses through the federal Teacher Incentive Fund led to small test score bumps, according to a recent study by DeVos’s Department of Education.

7. In response to a question about school performance in Detroit, DeVos said she shouldn’t be credited — or blamed — for the results in the city. “You’re giving me a whole lot of credit to suggest that whatever happened in Detroit was as a result of what I did,” she said. “We have been long-term supporters of continued reform and choice in Michigan.”

This one is up for debate, though it’s clear DeVos has long been a major player in Detroit’s education scene. She has supported charter schools, which educate about half the public school students in that city, and been a major donor to Republican politicians and causes in the state. She started an influential advocacy group in the state called Great Lakes Education Project.

She was also a key opponent of a commission that would more tightly oversee Detroit charter schools, which ultimately failed amid GOP opposition. It’s clear she has had an impact in the city, but that doesn’t mean she’s gotten everything she’s wanted: in 2000, Michigan voters rejected a DeVos-funded effort to fund vouchers for private schools. She also hasn’t gotten her wish that Detroit have a traditional school district eliminated entirely.

DeVos on offense

DeVos criticizes Bush-Obama policies, saying it’s time to overhaul conventional schooling

PHOTO: U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaking to the Council of Great City Schools.

One era of federal involvement in education is over, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said Tuesday, in some of her most expansive public remarks since taking over the department last year.

DeVos used a speech at the American Enterprise Institute to hit on familiar themes: America’s schools haven’t changed in many years, failing to embrace technology while still spending more and more money. But she also offered a pointed skewering of the approach of her recent successors.

“Federally mandated assessments. Federal money. Federal standards. All originated in Washington, and none solved the problem,” said DeVos. “Too many of America’s students are still unprepared.”

She also gave a harsh assessment of one of the most controversial policies of the period. “Common Core is a disaster,” DeVos said, echoing her boss, President Trump. “And at the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.”

In place of those efforts, DeVos offered a different framework for improving education: overturning a host of conventional approaches to schooling.

“Why do we group students by age?” she asked. “Why do schools close for the summer? Why must the school day start with the rise of the sun? Why are schools assigned by your address? Why do students have to go to a school building in the first place? Why is choice only available to those who can buy their way out? Or buy their way in? Why can’t a student learn at his or her own pace? Why isn’t technology more widely embraced in schools?”

Some of these questions dovetail with DeVos’s embrace of private school choice programs and tech-infused approaches to schools, including fully virtual options. The emphasis on technology is aligned with a number of wealthy philanthropies that have embraced computer-based “personalized learning.”

They also mark a departure from the paradigm of previous administrations. No Child Left Behind, the law signed by President George W. Bush, and the Obama-era Race to the Top program both focused on improving academic standards, instituting tests, holding schools and teachers accountable for results, and expanding charter schools, though generally not private school voucher initiatives.

DeVos’s vision is more aligned with a strain of conservative thought that has grown increasingly skeptical of test scores. “I talk about accountability more in terms of transparency and information that parents can access to find out how the schools are doing for their child,” DeVos said in a follow-up session with Rick Hess of AEI, the conservative think tank whose board DeVos previously sat on.

This rift is not entirely surprising. Former secretary Arne Duncan has sharply criticized DeVos and Trump, and left-of-center charter advocates have attempted to separate themselves from an unpopular and polarizing president and secretary of education.

In a rare agreement with the American Federation of Teachers, DeVos argued that federal involvement had put too much focus on test scores, citing a poll commissioned by the union. “The result was a further damaged classroom dynamic between teacher and student, as the focus shifted from comprehension to test-passing,” she said.

The AFT responded icily on Twitter: “More American educators feel disrespected by DeVos than anyone else in the entire world. You can’t blame Bush & Obama for that.”  

Debates about evidence continue

Earlier at the event, “Bush-Obama school reform: Lessons learned,” researchers and policymakers conducted a post-mortem of the last couple of decades of federal school reform.

The results weren’t always pretty. Virtually all participants agreed that well-meaning efforts had proven difficult to implement and sustain: No Child Left Behind had become widely reviled for increasing testing; teacher evaluations pushed by the Obama administration continued to rate most teachers as effective and faced stiff opposition from teachers’ unions; Common Core became the target of conservative ire and the associated tests were scrapped in most states; and a comprehensive study of the federal school turnaround program found that it made little impact on test scores or graduation rates.

Evaluating large policies, like Race to the Top or Common Core, is inherently challenging.  Nationwide test scores have been fairly stagnant in recent years, though that may be due to the effects of the Great Recession.

At one session, participants suggested that not enough had been done to incorporate teachers’ perspective into federal policy. (Notably, no current teachers or union representatives participated in panels at the AEI event.)

Still, research suggests that No Child Left Behind substantially improved math achievement. Studies in some districts have found benefits of their revamped teacher evaluation systems, too.

Joanne Weiss, chief of staff at the Department of Education under Duncan, cautioned against judging policies too quickly. “At some point you gotta say, the results should be in today,” she said. “[But] we have a history in education of calling it too early and moving on to something else, and then 10 years later the research comes in.”

Nevertheless, DeVos seized on the mixed results of past efforts to make the case for her favored changes: more school choice and more innovation at the school level, not driven by the federal government.

She didn’t mention the research on those approaches, which is decidedly mixed and even negative in some cases.

A number of recent studies on school voucher programs have found showed they hurt student test scores, though they bounce back for some students who stay in private schools for several years. In DeVos’s account of disappointing federal programs, she did not mention a recent study of Washington D.C.’s voucher program, which showed drops in math achievement. (A few studies have found positive impacts on high school graduation rates and college attendance.)

Fully virtual charter schools, which DeVos has long backed, have posted even worse results. And some math programs that blend technology with more traditional classroom culture have posted positive results, but as a whole, the evidence base for those approaches remains thin.

DeVos’s skepticism of federal involvement also highlights the central paradox of her job: As the leader of the very agency she is critiquing, how will she advance her agenda without expanding the federal footprint?

So far, DeVos has rolled back a number of Obama-era regulations and supported a new federal tax break for private school tuition, while acknowledging its impact would be modest.

We also fact-checked seven claims — from Common Core to PISA test scores — DeVos made during her speech. Read more here.