Race to the Top Analysis: Spreading The Wealth

EPILOGUE (8/24/2010): Well, my predictions below didn't quite pan out. FL and RI came in strong, but IL and SC flopped (but by mere points, of course). I was almost right that with two large states funded -- Florida and New York -- it would limit the number of winners. But the predicted nine became ten with the surprise inclusion of Hawaii (75 mil) among the winners, along with DC (also only 75 mil). For more on the winners, see here.

---

Education Week (and its Politics K-12 blog), the Hechinger Report, the New America Foundation's Ed Money Watch, and the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education have provided some excellent Race to the Top Phase 2 analysis.

Based on Phase 1 scores, reviews of Phase 2 applications, and other considerations, I believe Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island and South Carolina are locks for Phase 2 funding. [UPDATE (8/4/2010): One thing that should be concerning to Georgia is an extremely low level of district buy-in (14%) to its application. The only two other states below 50% buy-in are California (18%) -- by design -- and Pennsylvania (32%). As a result I've moved Georgia from a 'lock' to a 'strong' contender.]

Further, I think that Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania have strong chances at winning Phase 2 funding. (That would place the remaining finalists -- Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii and New Jersey -- outside the winners' circle.) That said, which and how many states will eventually be funded from the remaining pot of $3.4 billion is largely contingent upon the successes of the Big Three, each eligible to win $700 million: Florida, New York and California. The presence of numerous $400 million eligible states in the mix also has the potential to limit the number of winners.

Let's look at a variety of scenarios, assuming in each case that Florida can bank on the $700 million. Of the three, I think New York has the next best shot at the dollars, with California's chances slightly less. In each case, I have listed the states in Phase One rank order (so feel free to replace any with your preference).

Scenario #1 (Florida only)
TOTAL = $3.375 billion 11 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
Georgia	$400,000,000	3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Pennsylvania Rhode Island Kentucky	$400,000,000 $75,000,000 $175,000,000	7 8 9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10
Louisiana	$175,000,000	11
No. Carolina	$400,000,000	12
DC	$75,000,000	16

Scenario #2 (Florida & New York)
TOTAL = $3.425 billion 9 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
New York Georgia	$700,000,000 $400,000,000	15 3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Pennsylvania Rhode Island Kentucky	$400,000,000 $75,000,000 $175,000,000	7 8 9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10

Scenario #3 (Florida, New York & California)
TOTAL = $3.325 billion 8 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
New York California Georgia	$700,000,000 $700,000,000 $400,000,000	15 27 3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Rhode Island Kentucky	$75,000,000 $175,000,000	8 9
DC	$75,000,000	16

Scenario #4 (Max. Applicants w/ Florida)
TOTAL = $3.4 billion 12 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
Georgia	$400,000,000	3
Illinois	$400,000,000	5
So. Carolina	$175,000,000	6
Pennsylvania	$400,000,000	7
Rhode Island	$75,000,000	8
Kentucky	$175,000,000	9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10
Louisiana	$175,000,000	11
Massachusetts	$250,000,000	13
Colorado	$175,000,000	14
DC	$75,000,000	16

Unless Florida somehow manages to fall on its face in Phase 2, I don't think it is realistic to envision more than 12 applicants receiving funding -- and that would require one of the $400 million-eligible states (such as North Carolina or Ohio) to be eclipsed and knocked out by a smaller state ranked lower in Phase 1 (such as Colorado, Massachusetts and/or the District of Columbia) or by Maryland, which did not apply in Phase 1 [see Scenario #4]. So although the U.S. Department of Education has dangled the possibility of as many as 15 Phase 2 winners, I don't see realistically how we can get there.

Related Posts:

• Race to the Top, Phase 2 Finalists
• Race to the Top Applications Posted
• Race to the Top: Picking Favorites

Race to the Top, Phase 2 Finalists

Education Week's Michele McNeil and Alyson Klein at Politics K-12 have the scoop on the Race to the Top, Phase 2 finalists. There are 19 of them:

• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina

Generally, I think this is about the number of and group of applicants that most expected, including me. The two biggest surprises on the list are Arizona (although it received support from Gates in Phase 2) and Hawaii. There are no shocking omissions from the list, although some felt that the likes of Arkansas, Connecticut, Michigan, Oklahoma and Utah had outside shots at success.

Want to read all the finalists' applications to see what's so good about 'em? You can find links to all the applications here.

Winners are expected to be named by the U.S. Department of Education in late August or early September.

This Is Rich

This policy proposal from Senate Republican Leader Jon Kyl (of Arizona) with a $678 billion price tag -- yes, BILLION -- puts the hullaballo over the $800 million "edujobs" controversy into some perspective. How about we tap into THAT source of revenue by letting the tax cuts expire to save teachers' jobs and leave the currently authorized education reform programs alone?

From Huffington Post ("Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit"):

Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.

White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."

With concerns over the massive budget deficit, rising income inequality, and an inability to fund existing programs, why again should we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that were bad policy when they were enacted? And this at the same time when Republicans are refusing to extend $30 billion of unemployment benefits for Americans hit hardest by the recession. That's rich.

The Washington Post editorial page weighed in on this issue in today's edition, too.

Positive Effects of Comprehensive Teacher Induction

Today, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. released the final report of its IES/U.S Department of Education-funded randomized controlled trial (RCT) of comprehensive teacher induction. It shows a statistically significant and sizeable impact on student achievement in mathematics (0.20 standard deviations) and reading (0.11 standard deviations) of third-year teachers who received two years of robust induction support. That's the equivalent of moving students from the 50th to 54th percentile in reading achievement and from the 50th to 58th percentile in math achievement.

As a basis of comparison, I note that in 2004, Mathematica conducted a RCT of Teach for America (TFA). In that study, it compared the gains in reading and math achievement made by students randomly assigned to TFA teachers or other teachers in the same school. The results showed that, on average, students with TFA teachers raised their mathematics test scores by 0.15 standard deviations (versus 0.20 standard deviations in the induction study), but found no impact on reading test scores (versus 0.11 standard deviations in the induction study).

In another recent Mathematica report (boy, these folks are busy!), the authors note that "The achievement effects of class-size reduction are often used as a benchmark for other educational interventions. After three years of treatment (grades K-2) in classes one-third smaller than typical, average student gains amounted to 0.20 standard deviations in math and 0.23 standard deviations in reading (U.S. Department of Education, 1998)." In that report -- an evaluation of the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), Mathematica researchers found a very powerful impact from KIPP: "For the vast majority of KIPP schools studied, impacts on students’ state assessment scores in mathematics and reading are positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial.... By year three, half of the KIPP schools in our sample are producing math impacts of 0.48 standard deviations or more, equivalent to the effect of moving a student from the 30th percentile to the 48th percentile on a typical test distribution..... Half of the KIPP schools in our sample show three-year reading effects of 0.28 standard deviations or more."

Is it appropriate to compare effect sizes among RCTs or, for that matter, among research in general? I am told that it is, although certainly considerations such as cost effectiveness and scalability have to enter into the conversation. Implementation issues also must be attended to. With regard to teacher induction, the issue of cost effectiveness was addressed in a 2007 cost-benefit study published in the Education Research Service's Spectrum journal and summarized in this New Teacher Center (NTC) policy brief.

Disclosure: I am employed by the NTC which participated in the induction RCT, and I helped to coordinate NTC's statement on the study.

The NTC is "encouraged" by the study. However, NTC believes that "it does not reflect the even more significant outcomes that can be achieved when districts have the time, capacity and willingness to focus on an in-depth, universal implementation of comprehensive, high-quality induction. It speaks volumes about the quality of induction and mentoring provided and the necessity of new teacher support that student achievement gains were documented despite [design and implementation] limitations to the study."

UPDATE: Read the Education Week story by Stephen Sawchuk here. And the Mathematica press release here.

Hire This Teacher!

Welcome to a special new series of the Education Optimists: the Promising New Teachers Award! We aim to identify, praise, and help place a few incredibly talented young women and men who are seeking the opportunity to work for schools across the country.

Our inaugural choice is Stephanie Ake of New Hope, Minnesota.

Stephanie is a recent graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's School of Education with a degree in elementary education. She has also completed three years of extraordinary training and service as the nanny to the children of the Education Optimists!

Stephanie has numerous qualities and dispositions that make her a stellar teacher. She is caring, patient, responsible and understanding -- skills necessary to manage a classroom of young children. She is reliable and trustworthy, always on time, always prepared, always ready. She is one of the most organized, and dependable people we have ever met, and at the same she is flexible and calm. It was a testament to her skills that when it came time to choose a preschool and a teacher for our son, Liam and I found ourselves comparing every candidate to Stephanie.

Stephanie seeks a teaching job in the Twin Cities area teaching preschool through 5th grade. We give her our highest recommendation. Please feel free to email her opportunities directly (ake@wisc.edu) or contact us with questions.

Keep An Open Mind

As discussions about the future of for-profit colleges intensify, my email inbox has begun to fill with inquiries. Why haven’t I weighed in? What do I think—is Congress on the right track? What does my recent conspicuous silence portend?

While I’m flattered (and a little confused) by a seeming desire to hear my opinion, the truth is I haven’t been ready to provide one. Over the past few months I’ve spent a lot more time thinking about the for-profits and the tough questions their growing presence in higher education raise. I’ve struggled with an intellectual exercise of sorts, attempting to set aside the financial interests associated with the sector and simply consider whether common objections to the industry would exist even if its colleges were not-for-profit. It’s not easy to sleep at night when wrestling with complex demons like that.

I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, objections would continue. We’d be worried about the quality of what’s being proffered, what students are actually learning, how hard the colleges are working to recruit students not really ready for college work, how much debt folks are graduating with relative to their new income, etc.

Here’s the rub: We should have the same concerns about our current public and private non-profit institutions of higher education. Many of us do have these concerns. We are just less vocal about them, perhaps because it is so much easier to object to treating people badly while making a buck, compared to treating people badly while not making a buck.

Our concerns are well placed, but they are also too narrow. We are looking for trouble only under a single lamplight, simply because that’s the spot illuminated. We need to look more broadly. There is a reason enrollment in the for-profit sector is growing, and it has at least partly to do with student demand. Our public colleges and universities aren’t sufficiently equipped to do the job—and blame for that is shared by states and localities, institutions, researchers, and taxpayers. It’s a little hard to know where the buck stops in that situation. It’s not so hard in the case of for-profits—so we disparage them more easily.

I’m not saying I’ve become a fan of the for-profits, or that my worries about how they are serving students have been allayed. Admittedly, the more I learn, the more I become somewhat more impressed--for example, by the innovative efforts of some to help transfer students and older students find a more fluid and efficient way to a credential. There are some examples of that kind of work at public institutions, but it feels a bit less "outside the box."

The current discussion in D.C. is worth having. It needs to be broadened and deepened. More voices need to enter the conversation. It’s in the interest of students all over the country for it to continue.

You Must Live Here

The Chicago Public Schools residency requirement has ensnared a district social worker and recent kidney donor, the Chicago Tribune reports. He may lose his job, unless CPS chief Ron Huberman intervenes.

We've written previously about such residency requirements being bad policy.

6/2/2010 UPDATE: So the man's job is safe (Chicago Tribune), but why necessitate special treatment? Why not eliminate the policy that restricts the district's ability to employ the best and the brightest regardless of whether they live within city limits or not?