The Stimulus and Investing in Education Reform

The Department of Education (ED) recently released a document titled “Using ARRA Funds to Drive School Reform and Improvement” as an addendum to previous stimulus guidance. The document provides recommendations on how to use the new State Fiscal Stabilization, Title I, and IDEA stimulus funds to encourage reform and student achievement while preventing funding cliffs. Although some of the recommendations present valuable ways for states and school districts to spend the stimulus money, many of them are either overly simplistic or overly complex and distract from the stimulus’ goal of saving or creating jobs.

The recommendations are separated into five parts – the first four mirror the four reform goals identified in the stimulus legislation (improving standards and assessments, establishing data systems, increasing teacher effectiveness and distribution, and improving low performing schools) while the final section pertains to improving results for all students. The recommendations range from simple activities districts should already be doing to pie-in-the-sky education reform efforts that few administrators have been able to master, and everything in between.

Some of the recommendations sound like common sense activities that any progress-oriented state, school or district should be engaging in. For example, improving access to Advanced Placement courses, developing sensible student assessments, and buying high quality curricula all seem like things states and school districts should already be doing regardless of the new stimulus funds.

On the other hand, many of the recommendations support activities that few schools or districts have been able to do under ideal conditions, let alone in economic crisis conditions. For example, the recommendations encourage states and districts to “aggressively restructure or close a district’s persistently lowest performing schools.” But little specific information is provided on the best way to restructure a failing school or which model the existing school should be replaced with. In fact, some would claim that the education community does not know the best way to be doing these things. This would surely present problems for a local district attempting to follow the recommendations.

Other recommendations are right on point – suggesting constructive improvements for how to educate students. For example, the document suggests using existing student data to help teachers identify students in need of additional support or developing a reliable and productive teacher evaluation system. These single-expenditure activities could produce long- term benefits for students.

Regardless of how feasible each of the options presented in the document are, many of them seem in conflict with the other goal of the stimulus – saving and creating jobs. In fact, not only are states and districts expected to use the funds to save or create jobs, but they are required to report the number of jobs saved or created quarterly to the Secretary of Education. By requiring fund recipients to report the job numbers, ED may be encouraging states and districts to spend the new funds on teacher and staff salaries rather than the potentially powerful interventions and other efforts the document recommends.

This is particularly the case where the reform efforts recommended involve large expenditures on materials or services like data systems, professional development programs, and new technology for classrooms. Districts will be hard pressed to maintain music and physical education teachers while also investing in smart boards for classrooms and a more flexible IEP system.

We anticipate that states and school districts will struggle to strike a balance between investing in reform and saving and creating jobs. And unless ED provides them with more support and guidance to undertake some of the hefty reforms recommended in the document, it is likely that states and districts will lean towards saving jobs and the status quo.