How much is a hundred billion dollars? Roughly speaking, it’s over $6,000,000 for every school district in America; $1,000,000 per school; $25,000 per teacher; and $2,000 per student.

This ain’t chump change.

But before we talk about where I’d spend it, let’s talk about how it has already been spent. A tiny portion, about 5%, will go for Secretary Duncan’s “Race to the Top”, a competitive grant program for states who are willing to implement the things Mr. Duncan wants them to implement. But most of it will go to fill education budget deficits in struggling states. Effectively, this means shoring up the status quo. I’d rather we invested in the future.

If I had a hundred billion dollars to invest in education, I’d invest it in a national training infrastructure for teachers. I’d set up a National Center for Teaching and Learning in each of the 50 states, with money apportioned by population. These centers would be like the DOE’s Regional Education Laboratories but focused solely on producing the best teachers in the country.

Tuition for the highly coveted degrees and certifications provided by these premier institutions would be free as long as graduates agreed to serve at least four years working in public schools. Over five to ten years, these institutions would flood the country with thousands of the most competent new teachers available.

Naturally, admission would be highly selective. But organizations like Teacher for America have already shown how this can work. BAs, MAs, and doctoral degrees would be available. But only BAs would be free.

In addition to educating the nation’s best educators, these centers would work together to develop the best approaches to educational training. It might take 10-15 years to figure all this out, but the investment of time and money would be worth it.

Many of the countries whose education systems we envy have national models for education training. And since it’s highly unlikely that even one state will take up this issue on its own, a national strategy is our only hope.

Whereas the current majority of ARRA funds for education go to propping up schools in the present, I think the money would serve us much better as an investment for the future. Everyone agrees that teacher quality is the most important factor in student success. But as yet, we have failed to make significant, well-coordinated investments in teachers nationwide. In my opinion, this explains why the handful of reforms we’ve implemented over the last decade have produced such poor results.

Here’s another way to think about it: Take all the money states spend on testing, standards, vouchers, charters, and merit pay over a five to ten year period. Would we be farther along if those resources were targeted at improving teaching? The ARRA education money gives us a chance to find out. But only if we invest it where the payoff will be the largest: with teachers receiving state of the art training.

Every time pots of money become available for education, we seem to spend them in ways that contradict the best research and common sense. Whether at the state or federal level, most of the money we spend goes to preserve what we’ve already been doing or to bolster reforms that we’re not sure are working.

What’s wrong with investing in teachers? What’s wrong with creating a national infrastructure for teacher training? Obviously, something must be wrong because the people in charge aren’t doing it – or even suggesting it. Instead, they’re hanging on with a white-knuckled grip to reforms whose success has been limited, inconclusive, or non-existent.

Teachers are under incredible amounts of pressure these days. They’re being asked to do more every year. But we’re not giving them more to do it with. And yet, time and again, we run into the research on the importance of teacher effectiveness. Most researchers who have studied this note that it is more important than any other factor, and that improving teacher quality holds the best hope of closing the achievement gap, raising the high school graduation rate, and getting more kids into and through college.

A hundred billion dollars isn’t play money. Yet it appears we’re going to play around with it like we always do, putting a little here, a little there, paying off a constituency, mollifying a critic. In other words, business as usual.

Investing an historic amount of money in education is a great thing. But making that investment in a game-changing approach that would pay huge dividends for generations to come would be much better.

The president's most important job in education is the bully pulpit, followed closely by the creative and firm use of incentives to put talk into action. The federal government should also tend to people most in need, and when it comes to education, that means poor kids, school districts with a history of bad policy or inequities, and any special needs. While the stimulus bill was intended to stem a flood of layoffs and money woes, with the exception of the $5 billion of discretionary "play money," it didn't really address the three fundamental ways the feds can and should influence the delivery of great schools for all kids, and instead directs money in traditional ways that ignore success.

That there is talk about using the discretionary funds to catapult states to reform -- from performance pay, to better charter laws -- is good news. And indeed, in a few instances -- lllinois, Tennessee, Louisiana -- modest changes to charter laws have been made recently with the hope that money will then flow plentifully. But that's only one small part of what this Administration has the ability to do -- and the political capital to get done. Stimulus funds shouldn't flow to failing schools or school districts like Detroit, or to cities like Little Rock, where the teachers union is negotiating a contract that will circumvent any federal accountability legislation, unless they offer up a plan for immediate restructuring of such schools and suspension of failed policies. Money should only flow to states and communities that can truly demonstrate that they will use the money to follow and underwrite success, and should be denied to traditional education entities (i.e. school districts) that refuse to close down failing schools and create more nimble independent public schools, like hybrid models or charters.

There may be many other worthy ideas deserving funding, but few will make a difference if state laws don't allow it and the feds don't require something in return. Other Administrations have come and gone with a commitment to reforming education, but spending federal money brings with it strings, special interest directives and creative non-compliance on a scale not seen in any other "industry." So the Obama folks must be firm, resolute and prepared to do battle with the stimulus money if there is to be any difference in results. Use the bully pulpit more, fund innovation, withdraw funds from any failing communities and force states to deal with the problem directly. The only other option is to keep sending money to schools through formulas based on head counts and student characteristics, which years of experience shows hasn't made any fundamental difference.

Oh, and by the way, let's not forget a tiny $14 million for DC's opportunity scholarships, a small pittance to pay for a program that works, as opposed to hundreds that don't.

Clearly, we have to preserve jobs and drive school improvements.

Let’s do a little experiment about trying one but not the other. Imagine if we use the stimulus funds to help a school district buy all the necessary materials to implement a solid, content-rich curriculum that has been shown to provide students with a high-quality comprehensive education, but then we fail to prevent massive teacher layoffs in the district, which means class sizes rise to unmanageable levels. No matter how good the curriculum, it won’t be effective if we don’t give students and teachers a good learning and working environment.

In the current economy, with state budgets hit hard, we can’t drive school improvement without also taking steps to make sure schools aren’t forced to lay off teachers, cut back on support staff, or strip away resources that students and teachers need.

I believe America’s low graduation rate is our most pressing issue as a nation and is the culmination of years of failure. When 1.3 million students drop out every year and the high school graduation rate for African American males is only 44%, our directive about where we need to focus our energies and resources becomes obvious.

While the ARRA funds are a historic infusion of investment in our education system, the government must be clear that this is not a license for business as usual; it’s a one-time opportunity to stop activities that are ineffective and ramp up those that are.

A quarter of all dropouts occur in the nation’s 50 largest cities where the average graduation rate hovers around 50%. More than half of dropouts can be traced to about 2,000 of the nation’s 16,000 public schools. We know these students don’t just wake up one day in the 11th grade and decide to drop out. The path to leaving school is long and paved with many warning signs. Attendance, truancy, math and reading scores are all smoke signals for communities to monitor. Notice I use the word “communities” and not “schools” because at America’s Promise Alliance we know that a young person’s academic performance is determined as much by what happens outside of the school room as inside.

To really institute the kind of reform that is associated with these funds we need to start where the challenge and need is the greatest – in these 2,000 schools, their feeder middle and elementary schools, and surrounding neighborhoods. We need to institute early warning and superior data collection systems that allow us to compare schools and states consistently. These funds can also help attract and retain the most talented teachers and administrative staff at these schools. At the same time, we need to ensure programs exist allowing multiple pathways to graduation and opportunities for career exploration so students see the relevance of the curriculum. We must also think seriously about making schools the “hubs” of communities and a center stage for delivery of comprehensive supports for children, such as healthcare. To do this, we not only need support and resources from the federal government, but we also need every sector of our communities – business, faith, nonprofit and parents and young people themselves – to take action.

The dropout crisis has persisted without acknowledgement for many years and its solution won’t be overnight or with one investment. But with the right focus and use of these funds we can make real progress towards preserving the educational and economic foundation of the country.

Updated at 12:45 p.m. on July 6.

In rural areas, there is a saying "root hog or die" meaning times are so tough that the livestock, which traditionally eat what is readily available on top of the ground, must now dig deep for roots to survive. In education funding for most states and school districts, drastic changes in behavior will be required to meet the combined crisis of declining revenues and rising expectations for student outcomes. The reality for most states is that the projected revenue shortfalls continue for several years after the one-time stimulus dollars expire. And I have not run into anyone who believes the Congress will be appropriating another $100 billion simply to preserve the existing education system. Thus the education stimulus dollars aren't about just helping states bridge a rough two years until the traditional funding sources return; ARRA is a one-time capital investment to assist education and policy leaders initiate the innovations and reforms that everyone knows are needed.

State, local and federal education leaders are faced with the same momentous decisions that the auto industry, financial world and just about every other part of our modern economy are contending with---restructuring because the old model no longer functions. Admittedly, while struggling just to keep classroom doors open and school buses running, it is difficult for local leaders to be envisoning simultaneously restructuring an educational system. Yet the one-time ARRA dollars must be used in a way that brings some stability while quickly introducing the necessry changes. Once again, the revenue trend lines for states worsen long after the stimulus dollars are gone, and no one in the federal government is assuring local leaders to expect continued massive federal aid. What is more likely is that any increases in future federal funding will reflect the ARRA'sapproximately $10 billion specifically tagged for reform and innovation (Race to the Top, Teacher Incentive Grants, data systems, School Improvement Fund, etc.) rather than the traditional Title 1 formula funding.

Interestingly, the $5 billion discretionary "Race to the Top" funding seems to generate far more state and local discussion than the more traditional revenue streams. Congress needs to be encouraging and rewarding those state and local leaders who understand the future, the economic realities, and are looking for assistance, both financial and legislative, to make vital systemic changes .

Sounds like most of us agree: while a portion of the stimulus dollars must save jobs and deficits, on moral, rational and economic grounds, some percentage must also be used to achieve long-term student improvement. If all the funds are dedicated to jobs and deficits, that would do nothing but perpetuate the status quo, which is I think unacceptable to all of us. And yes, whether this will happen is entirely up to state and local leaders in control of purse strings.

The real question is what percentage of incoming resources is the minimum amount that a state should target entirely towards improving student performance? To measure whether these funds are being wisely spent, we first need to identify a threshold. Yes, the answer may differ slightly among states and localities—but what should that minimum threshold be? 50 percent? 30 percent? 10 percent? I’d love to hear thoughts on this.

As others have noted, the federal Department of Education will allocate the final $5 billion in discretionary dollars to states/districts that have smartly used funds to raise student achievement through innovative, research-based and/or proven reforms. So to state and local leaders who hope to gain such cash… If you are willing to be politically courageous and make at least a threshold investment: you have at your disposal suggestions (based on decades of research and collective experience of more than 30 national education policy leaders and practitioners) of concrete ways to invest the stimulus dollars to support long-term student achievement increases, evidence showing why these institutional reform investments can and will yield increases in student achievement, examples (and contact info) for localities already yielding student gains due to such reforms, and resources to help you move forward:
http://www.coalitionforstudentachievement.org/economic_rec.asp for using the K-12

Maybe i'm hopelessly idealistic or unforgivably naiive, but I believe that the only purpose of spending public dollars on education is to educate students effectively, that is, by manifesting high levels of student achievement. I have my doubts about whether funneling dollars through federal education spending channels is a very good way to stimulate the economy, but that argument is not mine to make, certainly not here.

I do like the strategies the Congress and the Administration have endorsed through the four assurances and believe that, if well implemented, this Race to the Top spending could help improve student achievement. Yet, as much as I like the record and pronouncements of Secretary Duncan, I have concerns about implementation and would like to use this short response to send warning flares that I hope may be useful in avoiding mistakes that could make an utter failure of this noble experiment.

First, how will the Department tell the difference between those applications that have all the right words and those that really will lead to fundamental and positive change? Good grant writers come a dime a dozen, and I understand that such folks are already hard at work in the states. These grant writers know what is "wanted." I hate to say it, but states and districts are especially good at securing funding through grant programs. I was on a school board once. I know these things firsthand. How will the Department truly separate the wheat from the chaff?

Well - you might say that those states that have signed the NGA/CCSSO letter on common standards should have a leg up. Does that make sense? California signed, but on condition that the standards turn out like theirs! Virginia signed, but on condition that anything new would await a re-write, which is quite some time off. Texas did not sign because it just adopted new, higher standards and is investing literally billions in delivering to them. Some states signed because they're serious about an imminent standards re-write. Others signed because "they wanted to be at the table." Yet, others signed because "they were supposed to to be eligible for funds." Surely, signing a letter with a vague commitment to very little of substance as a response to a request of certain trade associations shouldn't play any role whatsoever in federal spending decisions.

There is no bigger fan of charter schools than I. I've been promoting charters in Texas since we first authorized them. We devote considerable pro bono effort on behalf of one of the most successful non-profit charter outfits in the country. I am very grateful that the Secretary and the President are supporters of charter schools. They should be commended for that. But should eligibility for funding as defined in the stimulus act be determined on the basis of narrow differences in state law on charters? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't figure out how that would work.

Some states have made far greater gains for poor students and students of color than other states on the NAEP. How could states with low relative achievement on the NAEP get funding ahead of states that have actually turned reforms into real and better results for poor kids? I hope they don't, certainly if it's only on the basis of pretty words in a well written application and/or on the basis of promises to do new and wonderful things.

Will states that receive funding put substantial skin in the game themselves? I hope so. In my view, if only a dozen or so states get money, they should have a track record that shows they've committed their own substantial effort and money to strong initiatives to closing the achievement gap through improved standards, assessments, and delivery; sophisticated and useful data systems that make accountability work well and inform instruction; powerful steps toward teacher professionalization and the distribution of effective teachers to poverty schools; and serious, successful efforts at transforming low performing schools. If they don't have a past track record in all these areas, surely the Department will require as a condition of eligibility dramatic and demonstrated actions, through both approved legislation AND funding, both public and private, to rigorously implementing these reforms. If not, it's utterly inconceivable that such states could or would get funding ahead of states that are so committed and have gotten improved results for disadvantaged students.

So, money should indeed promote reforms that are proven to increase student achievement. The challenge for the Secretary, and it's a huge challenge, will be to be true to that aim. Good decisions here will serve as true incentives, actually promoting more effective action. Bad decisions will show that politics or fads rule the day. I trust the Secretary will get it right. A lot is riding on it.

It’s true that some states are facing state budget woes, and stimulus dollars will inevitably be used to stave off serious cuts—the best example of this is California. But we should not excuse states from advancing reform on this basis. The biggest impediment to reform is—and has always been—political will, not money.

Congress and the Administration have sent two messages with this unprecedented level of federal funding: fill in budget gaps, and reform education. There’s been lots of talk about how to fulfill both priorities at once. But the answer isn’t really about the money and what the fiscal situation looks like in each state. The reality is that Congress punted the issue to state and local policymakers to make these decisions, as almost all of the stimulus dollars are awarded by formula to states and districts. If local leaders have the political will to stand up to the status quo and really spend money on reform-oriented policies, then it’s within their ability to do so. But the real problem is that too many have been unwilling to engage in making hard decisions, and those that have taken on the fight have been defeated by a well-funded group who prefers the status quo.

Nothing in federal law has ever kept states from raising standards, designing better assessments, rewarding good teachers, and removing those teachers that are not raising student achievement. Yet for some reason, we are having this debate in Washington about which states we can expect more out of. The answer should be all of them. Money can help on all these issues—it is always easier to buy reform—but to suggest that money is the sole problem lets policymakers at all levels—federal, state, and local—off the hook, and worse, it continues to deny the sorry state of affairs when only half of minority students graduate from high school on time.

This is an important question. It’s exactly the type of question that should have been debated by Congress before the stimulus was enacted, and it’s the perfect example of why it was a mistake to pass the bill first and ask questions later.

With $100 billion on the line, it’s hard to argue against the idea that taxpayers should get something for that investment. Simply throwing money at schools has never solved their problems in the past, and there’s no reason to believe that it would solve their problems today. But let’s not forget, this money was sold to states and local communities as a temporary funding infusion designed to fill gaps in state budgets and prevent massive layoffs and program cuts. With Democrats in Washington sending mixed signals about their intentions for this money, it’s no wonder that states and school districts are confused about what’s expected and struggling to balance the push for reform with the knowledge that these resources are only temporary.

We need to recognize that when it comes to education, Washington doesn’t always know best. Will states truly be better off two years from now, when the money disappears but the bureaucratic Washington mandates remain? I don’t think so, and I’ve shared this concern with Secretary Duncan. During a hearing last month, I pointed out that even the temporary cash infusion under ARRA fails to bring the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to full funding. Worse still, the funds will disappear after two years, after schools have been told to absorb and operate at the higher funding levels. This is simply not the type of federal commitment that I’d like to see.

Rather than holding states and school districts hostage to a $100 billion ultimatum, policymakers in Washington should look at long-term policies to benefit our nation’s schools. That means fulfilling existing funding obligations like IDEA and being cautious about assuming that Washington bureaucrats know more than parents, teachers, and principals.

I have a simple suggestion. Let’s admit that people, schools, districts, states and organizations are not going to change their fundamental philosophies or cultures in response to an unprecedented influx of federal money. Those whose actions have consistently reflected a lack of concern for student achievement, or simply an unwillingness to confront the impediments that prevent it, will not be convinced by having more money. If that were the case, surely the past decade would have seen widespread greatness.

We know who the education players are, what they believe, and how they perform. Thankfully, after the last decade, we have the data to prove their value, and we have an education Secretary in place – again – who believes in achievement first. I say we encourage the Secretary to use his discretionary dollars ONLY to fund those people and organizations that were already committed and striving for excellence before the money showed up. Use these dollars to expand the percentage of individuals in the system whose daily mission is to confront the barriers that poison our students’ chances. Do this above all else, and without apology.

The best hope we have for long term change in American schools is to expand the number of urgent, competent educators who lead and staff our schools. We have experienced a painfully slow yet steady advance in the number of individuals and organizations who don’t buy into the passive, resigned, too easily satisfied philosophies that underpin most of our schools. If the country is going to spend 5 billion dollars of hard earned money, 100% of it should be used to expand the numbers of those already proven to succeed. We have waiting lists for great schools that could expand, waiting lists full of the country’s brightest graduates who want to teach and lead schools for us…use these dollars to let them do so.

(I am personally writing off the other $95 billion as budget hole plugging. Anybody who is actually working in the field and has heard a single mediocre or failing school or system say they will use this money as an opportunity to do things differently, please call to astonish me. It will make my day.)

If you were not trying to fire incompetent or dangerous teachers yesterday, you won’t use more money to do so tomorrow. If school choice for students in failing schools offends you today, having the money to transport students will be an irrelevant opportunity. If a school board has declined the opportunity to recruit excellent teachers from organizations that excel such as Teach for America or the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, more money will simply be spent on preserving the same failed routes to teaching that are in place.

The world is replete with failures born of believing that dollars will create a desire for excellence. Only people who have consistently fought for excellence in hard times can be counted upon to expand those efforts given the money to do so.

How to spend ARRA stimulus funds isn't an either/or issue. I expect that the federal Department of Education will insist that states use the money to avoid layoffs and also take some steps towards the Race to the Top goals. Anyone who truly thinks that a budget disaster will somehow move reform should put their chips on California, because even with ARRA funding, California is in a horrible mess. All those who are looking to new teachers to bring fresh blood into public schools should be the last to want layoffs. If those new teachers are fired by the thousands, all we are doing is paying lip service to improving teacher quality.

The early lesson on ARRA appears to be that the state's context matters a great deal. California is the paradigmatic case, because ARRA support is absolutely essential but not nearly enough to stave off a budget crisis. I live in Florida, and ARRA funds were almost but not quite sufficient to stave off cuts--several of Florida's county school districts have laid off teachers, but not nearly what would have happened without federal dollars. Secretary Duncan and Senator Alexander were able to help Tennessee Governor Phil Bredeson push a charter bill through the state's legislature, and part of that is tied to ARRA, but it also required a specific context in Tennessee where the bill was just a little shove away from law. In other states, charter caps will probably remain as they were before ARRA.

We will also have to wait to see the effect of the Race to the Top competition: the proposals will not be due until the fall and not awarded until winter. Race to the Top will most help the states that meet two rough policy (and political) goals: (1) using the stimulus dollars well and not ignoring the assurances; and (2) have ideas on using the extra bundles of cash that are coherent and ready to go.

States have long expressed a desire for additional resources to support education reform initiatives they want to implement but are unable to fund. With ARRA, now is the time for states to walk the walk and use this once in a lifetime infusion of federal funds to change how and what they do to educate student populations whose low achievement has long been ignored. After all, ARRA funds are intended to support precisely the school reform initiatives that are on the wish lists of superintendents, state education secretaries, and governors.

ARRA presents us with a great opportunity to scale up what works, particularly for underserved student populations, including English language learners (ELLs). The Innovation Fund in particular enables decision makers to target programs with a track record of improving ELL education such as early college high schools, dual language programs, after-school and expanded learning time programs, and charter schools. Race to the Top funds can only be effective by explicitly including ELLs in reform activities. This means that ARRA implementation should result in (1) appropriate – and high – standards to challenge ELLs, and better assessments to determine whether or not ELLs are meeting the standards; (2) certainly, data systems that include ELLs; (3) better instruction resulting from a teacher corps that is prepared to work with ELLs; and (4) scaling up the success that school districts like San Jose Unified experienced by using dual-language education programs as a way to turn around low-performing schools.

Whether states use ARRA funds to support improvements in teaching and learning or to plug leaking holes in state budgets, it is imperative that they keep ELLs in mind. The vast majority of our nation’s ELLs are U.S. citizens who have not been well-served by our education system. To truly turn around schools and improve student academic achievement for every student, states must consider their most vulnerable student populations. If ARRA does nothing to improve ELL education – which is a possibility unless it is well implemented – it cannot be considered a success.

Albert Einstein said that “in the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.” Many states and districts are wrestling with gaping holes in their budgets—but they should resist the temptation to use the unprecedented $100 billion in new federal education funding to simply plug those holes. Instead, they should seize this (admittedly difficult) opportunity and these resources to take an honest look at how effectively their resources are being used and as cover to make bold—and sometimes uncomfortable—changes to ensure that every dollar supports student achievement. It’s worth noting that some needed reforms such as legislative and certain policy changes can be accomplished at no or minimal cost. States and districts in less dire fiscal straights should also put a magnifying glass to their practices—and undertake even more aggressive reform.

In undertaking such self-analysis, many states and districts will discover they don’t really know how effective their efforts, initiatives, and programs are. Now is the time to invest in tools such as better data systems, more sophisticated assessment systems, and improved personnel practices and teacher evaluations that will shed light on that question—and give policymakers and the public greater comfort that resources are being used efficiently and wisely. Secretary Duncan is right on in pushing states to leverage maximum reform through ARRA funding—but his Department needs to keep that pressure up and be as transparent as possible. States in turn must be transparent as they pass funds to districts, so that education advocates and the public can fairly measure the impact of the ARRA.

At the Commission, it is our hope that states and districts—particularly those that earn Race to the Top dollars—will advance strategic, capacity-building reforms, setting the stage for a strong reauthorization of NCLB. If they do not, they may find that Congress and taxpayers are less inclined to accept business as usual—and requested funding increases—in the future.

Of the $100 billion we’re spending on the education portion of ARRA, $95 billion is designed to save and create jobs, and $5 million is aimed at “reform” via the Race to the Top and Innovation funds. That $5 billion is quite a chunk of change by historical standards and if it’s spent on a few big ideas in a few states, and not spread evenly into every congressional district, it’ll make waves.

But we shouldn’t let states off the hook in spending the other $95 billion, even if times are tough, and even if the money has to trickle down to schools by formula. Taxpayers are spending less – about $60 billion – in the auto bailout, and wringing concessions in productivity and even ownership from the beneficiaries. The long-term cost of temporizing is far worse in education than in auto manufacturing.

Why don’t we simply demand greater productivity in exchange for stimulus funds? Instead of averaging-up funding and expecting nothing different in return, states should use the bucks to ratchet up expectations. Keep the overall teacher workforce stable, but change the mix toward the most productive teachers. Send the money down by formula, like the law says, but let districts know that you’re keeping an eye on results and will provide the cover needed to make tough personnel decisions. Create real incentives for them to recruit and retain the best teachers, but offer the weak ones buyouts and retraining for other lines of work.

Action needn’t wait for perfect longitudinal, student-based data systems to be in place. Even without perfect value-added data, districts and unions can cooperate on how to make the funding a carrot for higher performance.

And if spine-stiffening is needed, do a Google search for “Rhee, Michelle” and scroll down to “layoffs.” Our DC chancellor just excessed 150 teachers while in the middle of a tough-as-nails contract negotiation, showing once again what happens when student learning trumps adult interests.

With states and districts in dire economic shape, it will not be easy to focus their attention on change and improvement as opposed to mere survival. Still, at least some states will aim to obtain ARRA "Race to the Top" funds for improvement purposes. Any reform worthy of the label must begin to overhaul the No Child Left Behind law and address the damage it has caused to America’s schoolchildren. Much of that effort will have to await reauthorization of NCLB, but some steps can be taken as part of ARRA. Indeed, each of the “four assurances” states must provide to receive ARRA funds can be addressed with positive programs that avoid NCLB's pitfalls of narrowed curriculum and teaching to the test.

On standards and assessments, states could use funds to develop comprehensive state and local assessment systems. These could prioritize performance assessment, include classroom- and school-based evidence of student learning, promote formative assessments, and build in extensive professional learning. When ready, local measures could be part of accountability systems. Such balanced assessment systems would counter teaching to one standardized test while providing richer data to use in evaluating schools and helping them improve. I have explained elsewhere why these assessments must be primarily local.

To improve teaching, the primary focus must be on high-quality professional development, using stimulus funds to provide opportunities for educators to work together to strengthen their skills. The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), which I chair, has proposed focusing substantial federal support in this area; the stimulus funds provide a major opportunity to finally do professional learning well. On the other hand, as Richard Rothstein and his colleagues have shown, 'payment for results' has a dismal track record and is only infrequently used in other professions, so states should avoid going down that road.

To assess schools accurately and promote real improvement, data must mean far more than test scores. In Empowering Schools and Improving Learning, FEA calls for data on opportunity to learn, school improvement processes, and outcomes. All require multiple indicators. Then schools must become, as Deborah Meier as phrased it, “data-informed,” not “data-driven.” NCLB is a prime example of the danger of relying on data to make formulaic decisions.

There is little evidence of successful school "turnarounds." Clearly, it is unconscionable to allow inadequate schools to continue to fail to educate their students. On the other hand, there are often complex causes of poor performance that we ignore at our peril, and there are no simple solutions. Gathering richer data about schools and communities, using sophisticated assessment systems, and providing for strong professional development are all necessary components for transforming troubled schools. There is also a need for adequate resources and addressing community efforts such as the lack of adequate medical care or housing.

Taken together, efforts to meet the four assurances could lead to intensified teaching to the test, further narrowing the curriculum, and making genuine improvement more difficult. They could produce mere tinkering around the edges of needed change. Or they could open the doors to far superior efforts in assessment, professional development, data collection and use, and genuine school improvement. The results will depend on the federal guidelines, actions of advocates, state applications, and department responses to the states.

I need to reframe this question to answer it—because I don't accept the premise that states and districts are in dire straits or that the Department of Education is able to do much with ARRA dollars to promote meaningful reform.

In theory, the money be used for reform rather than to subsidize the status quo. However, I'm profoundly concerned that these dollars will serve to dampen the modest fiscal pressure that can serve as a prerequisite for transformative reform. In good times, leaders in any organization-- public or private, for-profit or non-profit-- have incentives to push off hard choices and let inertia rule. It is only when circumstances pinch that leaders typically find the stomach to take a necessary axe to budgets, programs, or personnel; and only then that they can plausibly blame such acts on necessity.

In schooling, of course, budgets have historically increased year-in and year-out. This means that hard choices are never made. Indeed, this spring we've seen districts wring their hands about painful cuts even when budgets remain static. Budgets and programs are hardly ever scrutinized in a tough-minded fashion, and what passes for bold management or aggressive cost-cutting is thin gruel indeed. The result is that not only have the ranks of teachers increased relative to the ranks of students by 50% since the early 1970s, but in the past decade-- an era marked by the economic chaos of the dot-com bubble and the real estate bubble, and seemingly a sensible time for prudent management-- districts added teachers at twice the rate they enrolled new students.

While the economy has deflated along with property values, school districts are still living within budgets built for a bubble economy. The rapid decline in property valuations won't fully filter through to state revenues until 2012 or 2013. Given that property taxes account for about a third of school spending, the tight fiscal situation of most states, massively underfunded public employee pension plans, and the nation's perilous fiscal situation, it's unlikely that substantial new sums will be flooding into K-12 coffers. This suggests the urgent need for belt-tightening and transformation; and the sooner, the better. Unfortunately, the construction of the stimulus bill and the way the Department has proceeded in fulfilling that bill means that, at best, all but a tiny percentage of the spending will prop up overextended state and district budgets and dull the appetite for meaningful change.

I feel as if contributors are being asked to opine on whether the sun should rise and set tomorrow. With the possible exception of Arne Duncan and the members of Congress on this contributor list, nothing we say is going to have much impact on the answer to this question! The uses of most of the "stimulus" money--better termed "bail out" money--are fixed in statute, in existing programs and formulae through which those dollars flow, and in state and local budget difficulties that they are meant to palliate. Like Andy Rotherham, I don't think this is a particularly inspired or strategic use of federal dollars. (The effect in a number of places will be to temporarily prop up outdated and misguided policies, programs and priorities.) The "discretionary" portions of the federal money are another story and there I believe Secretary Duncan and his team are doing their best to "leverage" some desirable reforms. In those situations where the actual expenditure of the $$ can itself purchase something being done that wouldn't otherwise be done (e.g. development of new assessments to accompany new "common" standards), well and good. But when it comes to incentivizing fundamental changes in policy and practice by a large number of states and districts, all I can say is I wish them well. Now could we please change the topic?

Reports abound that states are planning to divert education stimulus funds to other more needy areas of the state budget or to maintain "rainy day surplus pools." And while Secretary Duncan has warned that states that use funds this way will lose out in the competition for $5 billion in Race to the Top Funds, it’s unclear how many states will choose to heed this warning. They may decide they have bigger fish to fry in other portions of their budget.

In any case, they will at least have some additional funding, particularly supplemental Title I and IDEA funds that could be used to advance reforms. The one-time nature of these funding sources creates the perfect situation for breaking old ways of using resources that aren't working for students. At CAP, we are hoping that states and districts will take this opportunity to re-think how they are using their education resources and ensure their spending is aligned with the goal of promoting student achievement. Districts could hire an independent organization to map out how they are using their resources and whether their spending is aligned with their goals. For example, many districts don’t have a handle on how they are spending professional development dollars and whether these resources are being used effectively. For a more in-depth discussion, this report offers ideas for strategic spending in three key areas—taking stock of current practices, focusing on support for quality instruction, and making transitional investments.

Budgets cuts are always referred to as "deep" or "drastic," but budget increases are never referred to as "bloated" or "excessive." Much of today's fiscal heartburn was caused by the overindulgences of the last 10 years.

To use just one example: In 1998-99, there were 46,274,699 K-12 students enrolled in the U.S. public education system, and 2,818,313 classroom teachers.

In 2008-09, there were 49,194,898 K-12 students - an increase of 6.3% - but 3,219,317 classroom teachers - an increase of 14.2%. (All figures are from the National Education Association's annual Rankings & Estimates reports.)

Reasonable people can debate whether this increased staffing was worth the price, but it should have occurred to someone that the cost of hiring and maintaining one additional teacher for every seven additional students was unsustainable.

If the purpose of the stimulus fund is simply to keep teachers employed, then by all means use it to fill budget caps. But it's a lot of money that will only delay the day of reckoning.

There is broad consensus that states should use ARRA funds to both stave off drastic cuts and leverage reform, but does anyone truly understand how these funds are actually being spent? Most importantly, do local educators understand how to access funds within their state? A handful of the programs within ARRA, such as the Race to the Top, are discrete, clearly visible activities. A far greater amount of money is simply flowing by formula into state coffers, some of which will flow by pre-existing formula into school districts and then by pre-existing formula to schools.

How do educators who want to do something new and innovative tap funds that are flowing through pre-existing formulas? How can a superintendent who wants to implement a performance pay pilot program access these funds for her district? How does a school leader access funds for a longer school day or school year? My association’s members have told us that the processes and criteria for allocating ARRA funds within their state are largely a mystery. If local educators do not understand how to access funds, or even how to put forward reform ideas, the decisions on how to distribute funds, to whom and for what purposes will be made only at the highest levels of state and local government. And when those officials are facing significant budget constraints of their own, they are most likely to use the funds to balance their own budget, not fund fundamental reform.

We can and must strengthen the outcomes from ARRA by requiring transparency and an open process within states.

Rep. Obey is wrong when he suggests it is unrealistic for cash-strapped states to pursue "dramatic new reforms" right now because of their dire fiscal situations. These states, in particular, should be willing to take bold steps to make sure that public education is positioned to survive for the long-haul. Using the $100 billion in stimulus dollars just to patch holes in unrealistic state budgets merely prolongs the inevitable, and puts public education on a collision course with a future fiscal climate that could be even worse than it is today. This is the time to couple change with the federal bailout of public schools that is underway.

At Democrats for Education Reform, we have viewed the BULK of the $100 billion as akin to "the cost of doing business" for reform. Most of that money is going to support the status quo. What the federal government is asking for in terms of reform and innovation is just a sliver of the overall package. It is understandable why groups representing organizations tied closely to the status quo would want to resist this push, but it would be a WASTED OPPORTUNITY if all we've done at the end of this process is spend another $100 billion without doing anything to better position public education to save itself (from itself.)

You can read DFER's Advisory memo on the stimulus festivus here, along with an update here. For some ideas we are pushing on the Race To The Top contest click here.

There is no doubt that education stimulus funding will be used by the states that are in great financial difficulty to prevent large-scale teacher layoffs and to offset some of the draconian cuts in education spending created by the recession. At the same time, Congress intended through the “assurances” required of states before they are to receive State Fiscal Stabilization funds, that they agree to significant reform efforts. These assurances include creating a robust K-16 data system; developing college and career-ready standards, and the assessments to accompany these standards; improving teacher effectiveness and placing our best teachers in our most challenging schools; and intervening effectively in chronically low-performing schools. Secretary Duncan is doing everything he can to see that these reform measures are adopted but the jury is out as to what is actually happening on the ground. There is little or no transparency at the state level to determine whether the stimulus funding is being used to advance the reform agenda laid out by Congress. Also, at this point, little of the stimulus funding has reached the districts, so it is difficult to tell how the funds are being spent.

The Coalition for Student Achievement, of which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a member, brings together over 50 business, civil rights, policy groups and foundations in the cause of education reform. The message is clear – if $100 billion does not help turn around public education in this country, those who oppose a vibrant Federal role in this effort will be strengthened in their opposition and can fairly say, “I told you so.” The states must be able to “walk and chew gum” at the same time. They need to use the stimulus funding to offset the effects of the recession and at the same time, bring about needed reforms in our public school system.

States face tough choices in tough times as they balance the desire for innovation against the need to fill budget gaps. Because of this severe recession, California faced a $24 billion shortfall in its budget for the current fiscal year. For students and educators, this means a direct and devastating hit to the classroom: class sizes will grow; 15,000 teachers and thousands of education support professionals will lose their jobs; summer school programs will be canceled; and new textbooks won’t be ordered.

The reality is that the state economic outlook has worsened since ARRA was signed into law in February. While states are in different situations with their budgets, first we must stop the hemorrhaging. The funding must be used to backfill states’ financial holes by helping them stave off cuts to critical education programs and save crucial jobs. Capacity is essential to sustaining future reform efforts—implementing a new, cutting-edge technology initiative is futile if the Instructional Technology Specialist is let go.

Yet this is not a Sophie’s choice between staunching the bleeding and spurring innovation. We can do both. In Connecticut, the CommPACT program is transforming eight urban schools through a partnership among teachers, parents, administrators and community members. This is just one example of many innovative programs conceived and led by NEA members across the nation – from Syracuse to Seattle, and from Hamilton County, Tennessee to Milwaukee.

This is an historic opportunity – the economic recovery bill included the largest federal education investment in history. We can’t neglect the opportunity to leverage reforms that will close the achievement gaps and improve teaching and learning. Likewise, we can’t ignore that the ground has shifted since ARRA was passed. State leaders must meet the basic needs of our students and be held to reasonable expectations in the race to stimulate educational improvement.

The ARRA has always been schizophrenic when it comes to at once saving jobs and reforming schools. From the perspective of the federal budget it’s a false choice: Stimulating the economy and improving schools are not inherently mutually exclusive goals. Money spent on reform also goes into the economy just as money spent on status quo activities does.

Under the ARRA, however, most of the money was intended to avert layoffs and overall the statute was not constructed as an education reform initiative. Yet it was sold politically as a reform initiative. To his credit, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has wrung about as much reform out of the fiscal stabilization money as could be hoped. What Duncan did was establish some reform priorities and put states on notice that while they were not obligated under the statute to spend the money on reform he was going to watch carefully how they spent their funds and factor that into future decisions about federal funds. Hardly ideal in the context of a $100 billion infusion of new education spending, but certainly better than nothing and probably the best hand Duncan could play after the law was passed.

Still, the big test is ahead. The law also gave Secretary Duncan about $5 billion to replicate best practices and incentivize and reward states that are taking the lead on school reform. In particular he has about $4.3 billon that he can give to states to invest in reform largely as he sees fit. That’s where the action will be. It’s fair to ask whether it’s possible to really impact an industry that spends $600 billion annually – our public schools – with a $5 billion initiative. But there is a course of action that would enable Duncan to drive real change, and possibly even transformative change, with this money.

First, he must resist the temptation to spread these funds all around and instead concentrate it on relatively few states. That’s harder than it sounds. As long as every state has two senators there will be pressure on Capitol Hill to spread the money out among more than just a few states. And, of course, many of the states themselves are less than enthusiastic about a pot of money tied to more ambitious reforms than most are currently undertaking. Meanwhile, key education special interest groups are discombobulated by the prospect of a large pot of money tied to various disruptive reforms. It adds up to a lot of pressure and a lot of politics.

So, second, Duncan must establish clear and rigorous criteria for eligibility and for these funds. So far he has indentified some benchmarks around standards, charter schools, and teacher effectiveness, and data. Translating these issues into criteria will help create much needed transparency and allow for defensible delineations amongst the states making the administration’s choices more understandable. Besides, the issues Duncan is taking on clearly pass the “Good Morning America test.” In other words, they’re not so wonky or complicated that you can’t explain them in a way the general public will understand and appreciate.

Finally, these funds can’t be just a one-time dollop of school reform. Duncan has to find ways to use this money and other money to entice more states to commit to reform and to continue to reward the leader states as well. This likely means holding back some funds for a second round if states change their policies over the next year as well as developing and implementing a coherent strategy across the range of federal education programs to encourage the sort of real reform Duncan is seeking. In the end, Duncan has a lot more leverage than just these $4.3 billion if he chooses to use it.

None of this is easy. But with the discretionary “Race to the Top” funds Secretary Duncan has the best chance in a long time to drive genuine change in education policy. He’s already changing the national conversation about school reform through the priorities he has attached to the stimulus funds, now comes the hard part of actually changing the policies.

We have unprecedented resources available—more than $100 billion—to help save jobs and push reforms forward. There’s enough money to avoid catastrophic cuts in education and invest in reforms that will pay dividends decades into the future.

The Department of Education already has distributed $25 billion to 35 states under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. All states must apply by July 1. We promise to turnaround their applications quickly. We’ve also distributed $6.5 billion for the Title I program, $6 billion for special education, and more for other programs. All of those programs will receive another payment in fiscal 2010. This money will help save jobs that might otherwise be lost, but it also can be used for reforms that create jobs in the future.

There are significant ways states should and must use the money for reform. Under the stabilization fund, states must address four key elements of reform:

• Recruiting, retaining, and rewarding highly effective teachers;

• Adopting standards and assessments that ensure students are prepared for success in college or the workforce;

• Building data systems that track student progress from grade to grade;

• Turning around the lowest-performing schools.

States should focus their efforts under the stabilization fund on these reforms, and the ARRA provides money in other programs to support these activities. Of the Title I money already allocated, $1.5 billion is for school improvement programs to support turnarounds. Another $1.5 billion will be available in fiscal 2010. The Recovery Act also includes $250 million to support the development of data systems. This is money that must be spent directly on reforms.

In the coming weeks, the Department of Education will be issuing draft guidelines for the Race to the Top Fund. All of the $4.35 billion available for this program will be spent directly on reforms. I have decided to reserve $350 million to help states pay for assessments aligned to common standards that are being developed. The rest will be allocated to states that are leading the way on standards, effective teachers, data systems, and turnarounds.

All of this money will be dedicated to reforms. States that win money from Race to the Top will be leading the way—and others to be following.