coming attractions

Four education storylines to watch as New York kicks off its 2017 legislative session

PHOTO: Kevin P. Coughlin/Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor Andrew Cuomo delivers his State of the State address in 2017.

Governor Andrew Cuomo just finished his whirlwind six-stop State of the State tour, but the legislative action in Albany is just heating up.

Education — or at least higher education — is likely to a huge topic of discussion this legislative session, if last week is any indication. Standing next to former presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, Cuomo made a striking proposal to provide free tuition at state colleges for families making $125,000 or less.

“This society should say, ‘We’re going to pay for college because you need college to be successful,’” Cuomo said.

The announcement was a showstopper for many in the education world, despite concerns that it doesn’t target some of the state’s neediest students. But there are other stories to watch, including a push to increase the state’s funding for schools, which totaled roughly $24.8 billion last year.

“State aid, state aid, state aid,” said David Albert, spokesman for the New York State School Boards Association, when asked about his group’s top three priorities for this session. “Obviously that is the most crucial proposal that the governor typically makes for schools.”

State aid is front and center, in part, because most other hot-button education issues — like revamping the Common Core learning standards and deciding how to evaluate schools — are being overseen by the State Education Department.

In 2015, the governor proposed several major school reforms, including a contentious teacher evaluation system that stressed the use of standardized tests. After significant blowback, he has, in recent years, left more policymaking to the education department and its governing body, the Board of Regents.

Still, plenty of issues remain on the table for the legislature. Here are a few:

This could (finally) be the year schools get a long-awaited boost in “foundation aid.”

They say this is their year, but they are no strangers to disappointment.

Supporters of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity are pushing, once again, for the state to provide $4.3 billion in funding they say schools are owed under the terms of a 2006 settlement which led to the creation of what’s known as the “foundation aid formula,” designed to distribute aid more fairly among schools. Advocates want the schools to receive that additional funding over the next two years, according to the Alliance for Quality Education, a group that has pushed for the funds.

The funding bump was largely derailed by the recession, which also caused a set of education cuts — called the Gap Elimination Adjustment — that were ultimately restored last year. Now, advocates argue, the time has come to fulfill the lawsuit’s full promise.

Activists have already walked 150 miles from New York City to Albany and staged a massive rally this year to draw attention to their cause. And some in Albany are listening. In his opening speech, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie urged his colleagues to create a timeline to provide the increase in foundation aid, and the Board of Regents suggested phasing in the $4.3 billion sum over three years.

Even the governor, who has not yet released his specific school aid proposal, signaled support for a spending increase in his State of the State address held in New York City.

“I am proud to announce that this year we will increase funding for education to a new record-level all-time high all across the state and that New York City will receive more aid for education than it has ever received by the state of New York ever before in history,” Cuomo said.

Cuomo’s free college proposal could steal the spotlight from K-12.

Cuomo’s landmark college tuition announcement will consume hours of debate. Does that mean Albany will forget about kindergarten through high school?

“It’s definitely possible that the governor will try, in that way, to pit K-12 against higher ed,” said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.

But Regent James Tallon, who chairs the Regents state aid subcommittee and helped draft what he deemed an “aggressive” school funding proposal, said he is more optimistic.

“I don’t want to fall into the trap of just setting up a zero sum game between [budget] deficits, higher education, and P-12,” Tallon said.

Meanwhile, as the legislative session continues, lawmakers will have to decide if Cuomo’s college tuition plan goes far enough to help the state’s neediest kids. The lawmakers could propose additional funding for low-income students to defray non-tuition college costs, extend the program to part-time students, or work toward including undocumented students — a subject already proving divisive.

The governor is poised to continue a softer approach to education policy.

Two years ago, Cuomo proposed a set of education policies focused on test-based teacher evaluations and outside takeover of struggling schools. After a public outcry, he reversed course. His main agenda item in 2016 was support for “community schools,” giving underperforming schools extra resources to provide things like health services and tutoring.

So far this year, he seems to be sticking with that new approach. Cuomo’s K-12 agenda items include $35 million in grants to support after-school programs in high-need areas, funding for students to take Advanced Placement exams, and support for computer science teachers. Many of the programs echo initiatives that Mayor Bill de Blasio has championed in New York City.

Education advocates, including union officials, are generally pleased with the new policy direction.

“We’ve gotten away from some of the more punitive measures,” said Albert from the School Boards Association. “I think we’re getting toward much more positive, constructive policies.”

The State Education Department could get a boost.

In addition to funding schools directly, the state will also decide whether or not to fund specific policy proposals from the State Education Department.

Funding for the department isn’t headline-grabbing, but without it, the department would struggle to implement its goals.

Case in point: The department has asked for millions of dollars to revamp state tests by creating native language assessments for English language learners, bringing back foreign language Regents exams and piloting project-based assessments, which ask students to complete a series of tasks.

The Regents have floated the idea of substituting a foreign language exam or a project-based test for students struggling with the state’s current graduation exams.

Officials also asked for more funding to help prospective teachers pay for costly certification exams. That could ease the burden on prospective teachers and fulfill another policy goal: encouraging more low-income teachers and teachers of color to join the profession.

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.