The House of Representatives voted to approve an $819 billion stimulus plan today, but despite the optimism displayed by its supporters and an unprecedented hug-it-out meeting between President Obama and Republican law-makers yesterday, the final vote on the measure was decidedly discouraging: not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus plan.

The partisan-line vote speaks to a lot of interesting elements of the dynamic within this 111th Congress and between it and the President, but it also reflects a fundamental debate about the nature of the stimulus itself. And it's enough of a debate that it should give us pause in determining whether the package approved by the House is in fact the kind of stimulus package that is best for Americans.

The basic structure of the debate is this: how much of the package should be apportioned to immediate programs that will inject new blood (i.e. dollars) into the economy now, and how much should be targeted at the kinds of long-term solutions that our nation desperately needs if we want to sustain a growing, prosperous economy in the future?

The problem is, there are very few spending proposals that are capable of doing both at the same time. For example, tax cuts will inject dollars into the economy now, but they won't do much at all to fix major problems in our health care, energy, education, and other infrastructure systems. On the other end of the spectrum, dollars dedicated to implementing long-term fixes like renewable energy research or teacher compensation reform, while crucial to the long-haul, won't do much to save or create jobs, improve consumer confidence, and spur capital investment quickly.

To complicate matters, there is a school of thought that looks at this problem as not just a simple debate between now and later, but as a debate between now and never--which is to say that the stimulus bill represents a profound opportunity for progressives to implement controversial but much-needed policy solutions that may never arise again. Under this school of thought, why not use this political moment to make big changes to health care, education, and energy policy, even if it means prevailing along strictly partisan lines (and especially if Republicans are going to play the party of "no" anyways).

This broader policy context is, as usual, perfectly exemplified in the world of K-12 education policy. The stimulus plan passed by the House today contains a paradigm-shattering $150 billion in additional federal education spending over the next two years, which would more than double current school spending by DC. The thing is, almost all of the spending is of the quick-fix kind, aimed at saving existing jobs ($39 billion in grants to states and local government to help prevent teacher layoffs and the like) or creating new jobs ($20 billion for school renovation and construction, which some argue actually is an example of a spending program that helps America both now and later, although there's not great data linking student learning to shiny, new classrooms).

To be sure, some of the money is planned for what might better be described as long-term fixes ($8 billion for increasing Pell Grants to low income college students and a spending increase for Head Start) that might not do much for jobs today, but will improve our chances of having a productive, innovative work force in the future. But it's fair to ask: why not spend more on future fixes? What good will we have done if we add almost a trillion dollars to our national debt over the next two years, only to discover that one of the biggest root causes of economic weakness--a low-quality public education system--is as bad as ever?

What would it look like to have these kinds of long-term policies? Why not create, as a condition on the $39 billion in direct aid to states, some requirement that the state actually improve student achievement (and perhaps improve data collection systems as a first step), or else be forced to pay back pro-rated portions of the aid as loans once the economy gets back on track? Why not expand on the (paltry?) $200 million that the House has recommended for a program to spur on innovative teacher compensation systems to align the economic interests of teachers with the educational interests of children and families? Or why not create a condition that in exchange for the huge influx of federal dollars, states increase the length of the school year and school day--a vital, common-sense, albeit unpopular solution that is ripe for a moment like this? After all, what better way to create political cover for local school officials against the short-term student and educator backlash from a plan to increase the amount of time our students spend in school than to say, "we had no choice; we needed the money to keep our schools open and keep all our teachers at all, and the federal government was the only one who could provide it!"

Posted by Aaron Tang at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As President Obama vowed to "restore science to its rightful place" in his widely watched inaugural address from our nation's capital, school officials in Texas acted to do the same, amending the state's science curriculum standards to get rid of language that supporters of creationism and intelligent design had trumpeted for the past two decades.

The decision by the Texas State Board of Education came after heated debate among its 15-person membership, where 7 of the members are avowed social conservatives. The debate itself was over specific language in the state's science standards which requires students to critique all scientific theories and explore the "strengths and weaknesses" of each. The "strengths and weaknesses" language was first inserted into the standards twenty years ago in an effort to appease social conservatives, and has since been used as justification by proponents of creationism who seek to promote teaching religious objections to evolution in the classroom.

In endorsing the removal of the language from the state standards, the State Board of Education risks a backlash from parties who object to the unqualified teaching of evolution in our schools. But supporters of the decision point to a significant benefit of the decision that makes the backlash worthwhile: the reality that textbook publishers, who frown upon the practice of publishing alternate versions of the same book for different markets with different standards, are more likely to continue publishing science-based explanations of evolution without reference to religious objections.

The debate over the teaching evolution in our schools is much, much older than most of our contemporary reform debates over teacher quality, accountability, charter schools and so on. The famous 1925 Scopes Trial, which pitted famous American attorney Clarence Darrow against the equally famous politician and creationist William Jennings Bryan, is one of the earliest famous incidents, portrayed through the famous movie "Inherit the Wind" (I've pasted the famous scene from the movie below - start watching at about 3:35 for maximum effect).

In the 84 years since the Scopes trial, however, proposals to teach Creationism in our schools as a counter-weight to evolution have come and gone routinely like the tides, but this week it seems as though the combination of President Obama's inaugural nod to science and the Texas School Board decision will mark a low tide for creationists in the battle over science instruction in public school classrooms.

Posted by Aaron Tang at 08:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

These days, it's not too rare of an occasion when you unfold your morning newspaper (ok... more likely when you open up your web-browser to your newspaper homepage) and scroll down to see a headline that makes you cringe. Rising unemployment numbers, falling stock values. Violence and death in the Gaza strip, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Corporate scandals and Ponzi schemes. Tax cuts for teachers.

Wait, what?

Some background: yesterday's NY Times Column by the highly esteemed writer and political commentator Thomas Friedman ran under the headline "Tax Cuts for Teachers," and among the many ideas he puts forward in the column is the exact proposal suggested in the headline.

And now my admission: I intended no sarcasm or sleight of hand when I included that headline in a list of news topics that make me cringe. (Ok, ok, I obviously didn't intend to equate the idea of cutting teacher taxes with the sheer magnitude of the problems raised in the other headlines in the above list, but I do mean that it was a bad headline - if only because Friedman's article raises much more eloquent and well-thought out ideas than the tax cuts).

Cutting taxes for teachers is a horrible idea for two primary reasons, despite what would likely be its moderate impact of encouraging more people to enter the teaching profession.

The first reason why cutting taxes for teachers is a bad idea is that there are far better ways to use the lost tax revenues to further the vital goal of increasing the entry of high quality professionals into teaching. We're talking about real money after all; eliminating income taxes for all teachers could cost somewhere in the ballpark of $20 billion / year (according to respected education analyst Kevin Carey), and increase the average annual teacher salary by somewhere around $6,000.

To be sure, this will necessarily attract some people to consider teaching as a profession, but there are better ways to use the $20 billion: namely, to spend that money in a more targeted fashion to hire new teachers in hard-to-staff fields like math and science, in hard-to-staff districts with higher levels of low-income and minority children, and to pay teachers who aren't just entering the profession but who are actually doing a good job at it as well.

What do I mean by that? For starters, Friedman's basic cut-taxes-for-all-teachers proposal would reward our nation's oldest teachers and those who have the most advanced degrees. This means that a first year teacher making $35,000 (the average annual starting salary) would stand to get something like a $3,500 tax break, while an older teacher making $65,000 a year would stand to receive a disproportionate $10,000 break. Setting aside the fact that research and common experience both indicate that neither of these two factors have much influence on how much students actually learn, ask yourself this: if you were considering entering the teaching profession, under which of the two salary schedules below would you be more likely to make the jump?

Package #A: You start out at $38,500 and maxed out at $75,000 only after 30 years of teaching regardless of how hard you worked or how well your students learned.

Package #B: You start out at $45,000 and can earn up to $75,000 after only a few years if your students make great strides in the subjects that you teach.

Mr. Friedman prefers package A; I think that more people are likely to consider teaching and their incentives are more aligned with what's best for kids under package B. (Full disclosure: it might cost more than $20 billion / year to implement package B if a large number of teachers go above and beyond the call of duty and bring about exceptional student learning in their classrooms - a tradeoff that I am more than eager to make).

There's a second problem with cutting taxes for teachers, and this problem is political. Namely, what about the argument for cutting teacher taxes is so special that it can't be raised (equally effectively) for nurses, firefighters, policemen, doctors? Opening up the treasury to well-meaning educators through a tax cut may strike a harmonious tone in the minds of most Americans, but the tone will grow ever so discordant when most Americans make the logical analytical step: my job is important too, shouldn't I be entitled to some of that tax relief? In other words, what on its face appears to be an easy political sell would, in practice, end up nothing of the sort.

Finally, out of fairness to Mr. Friedman, I have to point out that I think the broad idea behind his recent column is absolutely, 100% correct: in our rush to stimulate the economy today, we can't only invest in "shovel-ready" projects because these projects are band-aids (albeit the highly-necessary kind of band-aid, not the touchy-feely kind). We also need to address the root causes of the problem in America's economy, and no issue is more fundamental in that respect than improving our schools. I just happen to disagree over whether cutting taxes for teachers is a good way to bring about that improvement.

Posted by Aaron Tang at 09:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Pop quiz. Take a look at this picture and see if you recognize the gentleman who is portrayed...

If you don't recognize him, you're one of what I'm guessing is well in excess of 99% of Americans who cannot put a name to his face. If you guessed that his name is Michael Bennet, you get two points for using context from the title to arrive at the correct answer. And if you actually knew without needing the title that the person in the picture is Michael Bennet, the new junior Senator from Colorado, you get a million points for being either an astute news watcher or a dedicated follower of Denver politics.

But why, in an education blog, does Mr. Bennet's nomination matter so much? After all, I haven't written (nor will I write) about the controversial Roland Burris appointment in Illinois or the fiery debate over Caroline Kennedy in New York. In short, Mr. Bennet's nomination matters so much because of his track record of success in three years as Denver's public school superintendent, and the possibility that he will work together with other Senators and Representatives to fashion a strong education policy under the Obama administration.

FIrst, a little about Mr. Bennet, who at 44 has never so much as run for--much less held--an elected office. He made waves as a corporate lawyer specializing in restructuring failing businesses (if you've been to one of these lately, then you've seen some of Mr. Bennet's handiwork, albeit indirect, as a debt-restructuring specialist), and also served for two years as chief of staff to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (who most Coloradoans expected to be Governor Bill Ritter's choice to replace outgoing Senator Ken Salazar, and not Bennet). Then Mr. Bennet was tabbed to serve as the Superintendent of Denver Public Schools.

To reiterate, Mr. Bennet's professional resume is most notable because for what it lacks than what it posessess: the last time Mr. Bennet ran for any office or received any kind of a vote may well have been in a high school student council election. But if you look closely enough, there's a lot in his resume as a public servant overseeing Denver's schools that should be encouraging to any onlooker concerned with federal education policy.

For instance, in the past three years, Denver reading and math scores are up by 6%. Early education access has been increased with more full-day kindergarten and pre-school openings, and the school district's budget has been balances in each of the past two years--a remarkable feat given the prior five years worth of $83 million in budget cuts. Perhaps most vitally, Mr. Bennet worked with Denver's teacher unions to create one of the most innovative teacher compensation programs in the country.

The program--called ProComp--reflects well on Mr. Bennet as much for its cutting edge policy provisions as it does for the tricky political process that he successfully navigated to see the plan through to success. Teachers unions are traditionally strongly opposed to any payment structure that seeks to differentiate pay based on student learning gains or anything else that is not seniority or advanced degrees, but Denver's teachers agreed to buck that trend. In ProComp, Denver's teachers have a 9-year agreement with the district to tie teacher salaries to four distinct components: student learning gains, professional evaluations, market incentives (such as bonuses for harder-to-staff schools and subjects), and the old stand-by knowledge and skills. Crucially, the program has no ceiling for how much a teacher may earn--effectively allowing a teacher to be paid truly according to their worth in meeting the educational mission of their school.

Without question, the appointment of Mr. Bennet is risky, as most commentators have pointed out. Mr. Bennet will have to run for re-election in two years as a result of his special appointment, and with no campaign or elected office experience, no one can say for sure whether he will be up to the challenge. But if he is, America's children have another strong advocate in the halls of the Capitol to fight for their access to quality public schools.

Posted by Aaron Tang at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)