Department of Education Releases Phase 2 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Application

Yesterday the Department of Education released the finalized applications for Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The SFSF, a major component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), provides $48.6 billion in federal funds to states so that they can fill gaps in their education budgets. States that successfully complete the Phase 2 application process will receive the remaining 33 percent of their SFSF monies (unless the state was eligible to receive more than 67 percent during Phase 1). Much like the Phase 1 applications, the Phase 2 applications require state governors to sign off on a series of promises surrounding four areas of reform outlined in the ARRA. The Phase 2 promises center on the collection and public availability of data and information on each state’s progress towards the reform areas.

The Phase 2 application that states must submit to the U.S. Department of Education outlines various data or information of interest pertaining to each of the four reform areas and requires governors to state whether they currently collect this data and whether it is currently publically accessible. If a state does not collect the data or make it publically accessible, governors must outline a plan and timeline for collecting the data and making it publically accessibly on the internet by September 30^th, 2011. In some cases, the application also cites existing data and asks each governor to verify whether that data is correct.

The number of indicators required for each reform area varies. The application describes seven indicators pertaining to improving teacher distribution, three indicators pertaining to improving the collection and use of data, and twelve indicators for both improving standards and assessments and supporting struggling schools.

While some of the indicators appear somewhat basic, such as the number of academic courses taught by highly qualified teachers, other indicators require states to collect and make public very complex information. For example, under improving teacher distribution, the application asks whether states currently collect and make available data on the number and percent of principals rated at each performance level under the principal rating system. This data is likely unavailable in the majority of states because principal rating systems are often locally controlled and not reported at the state level.

The application also asks states whether they collect and report the number and percentage of high school graduates who enroll in and complete at least one year’s worth of college credit. This data is also unlikely to be available in most states because few have the ability to track students as they graduate high school and enter higher education, let alone whether they complete a year’s worth of credit once they get there. No doubt, this data could provide much needed information on the status of college readiness in America. Unfortunately, the applications do not require states to implement the means to collect and publish this data. Instead, it only requires states to develop such means.

With respect to supporting struggling schools, the application asks states whether they collect and report data on the number and identity of low-achieving high schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, federal Title I funds. This data would illuminate the degree to which Title I funds primarily support elementary schools at the expense of struggling high schools in every state. Because Title I distributions to schools are decided at the district, rather than the state, level, this data is unlikely to be currently available in most states.

While the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase 2 application will likely compel many states to collect and publically report important data that are currently unavailable like those described above, it does not require governors to get down to the nitty gritty of how they will actually further the four reform areas. In fact, governors have almost no control over how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds are used at the local level and must hope that school district administrators try to use the funds in the most reform-focused ways possible. Without specific plans on how each state will improve teacher distribution, data collection and use, standards and assessments, and support for struggling schools it is unclear how states will bring any of these goals to fruition under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.