Inclusive Prosperity Programs Shortchanged in Mayor Bowser’s Budget

April 17, 2017

My last post merely mentioned shortfalls in the Mayor’s proposed budget, due at least partly to the $100 million or so she chose to forfeit by doing nothing to halt the automatically triggered tax cuts.

I’ll turn now to my picks for programs she shortchanges, based on how she styles her budget — a roadmap to inclusive prosperity.” Still only summaries. And not all programs some advocates have flagged.

Nevertheless, more than I can cover in a single post with enough substance to convey what’s under-funded — or unfunded — and why that violates the budget’s promise. So I’ll deal here with what seem the most obvious and followup with a couple of others that matter too.

Education and Training

We also all know that education and relevant job training generally move people along the road to some modicum of prosperity. For many adults in the District, the first step must be remedial education — basic literacy in reading and math, help in preparing for the GED exams.

For others, appropriate programs include those leading to a regular high school diploma and /or vocational education courses in other publicly-funded institutions, e.g., charter schools and alternative education in regular public schools like the Ballou High School’s STAY program.

Several surveys have found that adult learners miss classes because they can’t come up with the transit fare. Eighty-six percent of the youngest who had subsidized transportation said it would hard or altogether impossible to attend without it.

No reason to believe that’s not true for at least as many older adults, who’ve often got to spend more of such income as they have on basic needs for both themselves and their children. And, of course, we’ve got to assume that some of all ages drop out.

The Deputy Mayor for Education recommended an adult learner parallel to the Kids Ride program, which covers the public transit costs of getting to and from school.

Not a big ticket item—a mere $1.5–2 million. But no money in the Mayor’s budget for it.

Double-Duty Work Support

The full, unsubsidized cost of child care in the District is higher, on average, than in any state. Though low-income parents are officially eligible for subsidies that help pay for it, as a practical matter it’s difficult, if not impossible to find a center that will accept them.

This is a long-standing problem rooted in the insufficient rates the District uses to reimburse providers. For this, among other reasons, it was shy roughly 14,000 slots for infants and toddlers in 2015.

They’re the most costly to care for properly, what with diaper changing, feeding and all — hence local center charges averaging $22,658 a year.

The kids are too young for pre-K, of course. But the quality of care, e.g., nurturing relationships, talking to, has more impact on brain development than at any later stage. The very young children who get it will do better in school — and thus have a better chance of sharing in prosperity.

Now, if you can’t find trustworthy care for your child, you’re unlikely to work. Nor enroll in an education or training program that would prepare you to do so. And you won’t do either if you can’t pay for it.

Charges for licensed childcare are likely to increase, since the District recently set new licensing standards that require not only teachers, but their assistants to have at least a two-year college degree, unless they’ve got an independently-awarded Child Development Associate credential.

Those who manage to get either surely — and reasonably — will expect increases in their pay. It’s already, on average, extremely low — $26,470, on average, according to the latest figures.

If they don’t get them they can find employers that will. And that’s likely to further reduce open slots, since replacing them would be as difficult as keeping those who left.

Yet the Mayor’s budget doesn’t nothing about this. It would instead put $15.3 million into a new initiative to increase center capacity. But the new slots would be market rate — helpful for better-off parents, but no help at all for the most in need of affordable care to move down her road.

Paid Family Leave

The Mayor proposes no funding to translate the paid family leave law the Council passed into an operating program.

That requires both the creation of a new agency to administer the law, e.g., to ensure employers pay what they owe, pay out to eligible workers for the time off they take, and a new computer system to make all this possible.

We know the Mayor doesn’t like the law. But the essence of being an executive is executing laws.

Forcing more than half a million workers to wait for who knows how much longer to either keep working when they need time off for compelling  for compelling family reasons — or at least as likely forgo needed income — hardly comports with including them in prosperity.

Her refusal to propose the $20 million needed to get the program started doesn’t, I think, reflect only spending constraints imposed by her deciding not to even hit the pause button on the tax cuts. But they do perhaps provide some cover.


No Proof Trump-Targeted Programs Work?

April 6, 2017

Congress set in motion a sensible response to the incessant claims from the right that anti-poverty programs don’t work.

It passed a bill that creates an expert commission to review federal program data and make recommendations for using it to support program evaluations and improvements based on results.

Now we’ve got justifications for Trump’s budget that fly in its face — specifically that certain programs that serve low-income people’s needs should cease to exist right now because we don’t have enough proof they work.

The Community Development Block Grant would end because it’s “not well targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results.”

Communities use CDBG funds to meet various needs. That’s what a flexible block grant is supposed let them do. Some unknown number support Meals on Wheels. They collectively supplied prepared meals for more than 2.4 million homebound seniors last year.

The OMB Director says that Meals on Wheels “sounds great,” but we can’t keep giving states money for “programs that don’t work.”

We do, in fact, have some research showing Meals on Wheels does—probably behind his ken. In any event, he brushes off the lost benefits by donning the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

The Trump budget would also zero-fund grants to local Community Learning Centers, which channel them to afterschool programs, especially in high-poverty, low-performing schools.

The director says more or less the same about them. “There’s no demonstrable evidence that they’re .. helping kids do better in school.” Again, we’ve got some evidence they do, though limited. Not, one infers, demonstrable enough to make the administration even pause.

The budget would also eliminate the Low Income Home Heating and Energy Assistance Program because it’s among the “lower-impact” programs and “unable to demonstrate strong performance outcomes.”

Now, we truly don’t want to fund programs that have no positive or only minimal effects. On the other hand, measuring a program’s effects by the so-called gold standard, i.e., a multi-year comparison of impacts on those who received benefits or services and a control group that didn’t, is a costly business — and still not conclusive.

One need only look at the gold-standard Head Start impact studies. The second, which tracked recent participants through the third grade found that gains didn’t last.

But when research teams at the Brookings Institution and UCLA looked instead at the long term, they found that the children fared better in significant ways

The real issue here, however, is what evidentiary standard a program has to meet for it to be considered funding-worthy.

Consider LIHEAP. It’s done less than it might for quite awhile because it’s been under-funded — and increasingly so. Its appropriations were small, even before the Budget Control Act capped spending on non-defense programs — just $5.1 billion in 2010. Less ever since.

At the same time, home heating costs have increased, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. So states, which get shares of the funding as block grant, have had to cut back on the number of low-income households whose home energy costs they subsidize and by how much.

The program nevertheless keeps the heat on for nearly 6.1 million poor households. Seventy percent are especially vulnerable, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association states, protesting what Trump intends.

Now, common sense tells us that that having heat in the winter averts new or aggravated illnesses due directly to the cold — even death, since roughly a quarter of LIHEAP households include a member who uses electrically-powered.medical equipment.

Bills paid for electricity also prevent injuries, since rooms can be lighted at night and food poisoning by keeping refrigerators running and stoves operating. (This last would be true of natural gas as well, of course.)

Whatever the energy source, the assistance LIHEAP provides can prevent homelessness and other hardships, e.g., food insecurity, because low-income households otherwise have to spend far more on home energy than the less cash-strapped—16%, as compared to 4%, according to findings when energy costs were lower.

Do we really need to find out what happened to another similar group of people who had their utilities cut off and couldn’t scrape up the money to get them turned back on?

It would be bad enough if the Trump administration were holding programs to an unreasonable standard — or merely ignorant of research-based evidence that they work.

But when it says it won’t fund programs without proof of that, it’s putting a self-serving, deceptive gloss on decisions made to cut spending on safety net and other non-defense programs.

How do we know? Well, Trump is bound and determined to fund private school vouchers. Do we have evidence of their outcomes? We do, to some extent, each focused exclusively on one state’s voucher program, plus the District of Columbia’s.

The earliest two found positive effects, e.g. higher graduation rates and, in the District, higher reading, but not math scores.

On the other hand, three of the four most recent, including one financed by a pro-voucher institute found that children in voucher programs scored lower in both reading and math than children in public schools. The fourth found no effect, as measured by graduates going on to college.

A foolish consistency isn’t always the hobgoblin of little minds. In this case, it’s minds of greater capacity engaging in inconsistency to justify their policy preferences — hoping futilely that no one will challenge their alternative facts.


What Trump Could and Wants to Do to Disadvantage Disadvantaged Kids

April 3, 2017

Having canvassed the big problems with public funding for private school vouchers, I’ll turn to what I’ll call some backdoor maneuvers, plus other ways Trump’s budget would further disadvantage disadvantaged kids..

Backdoor Federal Funding for Private School Choice

Trump wouldn’t have to have to put all federal funding for private school enrollment into the spending part of his budget. He could propose tax credits, taking a leaf from state playbooks. Like all other credits, that’s spending through the tax code.

But it doesn’t seem to grow the government — a big bad from the right-wing perspective, including Trump’s, of course.

In fact, as the Tax Policy Center says, it seems to do the opposite, without really doing so. In this case, the revenues lost could instead be plowed into programs to foster educational equality.

Four states award tax credits to parents for private schools tuition—and two of these for other expenses also. The credits, of course, benefit only parents who owe state taxes. Federal tax credits would do the same.

And as we know from former Presidential candidate Romney’s gaffe, many lower-income people don’t owe federal income taxes. But, as I early said, the voucher system tilts toward well-off families.

Seventeen states offer tax credits to organizations that donate money for scholarships to private schools, including those operated by religious organizations.

This is a clever way of getting around what many view as a breach of the First Amendment prohibition against any law establishing a religion, including one that promotes it.

The Supreme Court nonetheless let Arizona’s tax credits stand, but the narrow majority based its decision on legal technicality, not the substantive complaint.

The federal tax code already allows filers to take such donations as deductions, if the money goes to a non-profit. But Trump could jawbone prospective donors, dangle promises, celebrate the persuaded, etc. Very much in his dealmaker mode.

Backdoor School Choice in the Budget

Trump’s budget blueprint includes $1 billion more for Title I of the Education Act — now named the Every Child Succeeds Act.

The blueprint says it’s “dedicated to encouraging districts to adopt a system … that enables Federal, State and local funding to follow the student to the school of his or her choice.”

This would fundamentally undermine the purpose of Title I and the way all versions have achieved it. As things stand now, basic grant funds go to schools districts based on the percent of poor and near-poor children they have.

So they help provide equal educational opportunity — in part because it costs more to educate poor children and in part because public schools in high-poverty neighborhoods generally have less to spend. Like all public schools, they’re funded largely through property taxes, rFederal grants and state funding notwithstanding.

Trump would shift funds from high-poverty schools by having a student’s portion go to any publicly-funded school s/he enrolled in, including one a wealthy community. That much less then for a school that needs it most—and for the children left behind.

Title I portability, as it’s called, was a controversial issue during the effort to revise No Child Left Behind. In the interests of bipartisanship — and one would like to think, commitment to the fundamental purpose of Title I —  members of the responsible Senate committee agreed not to include it.

At the time, the National Coalition for Public Education warned that proposals like Trump’s version portability were intended to make initiating private school vouchers easier. No reason, I think, to view Trump’s differently, despite his first relatively low-cost stab.

Other Disadvantages for Disadvantaged Kids

The Trump budget would, among other things, eliminate funding for after-school programs — a larger cut than the extra he’d commit to Title I.

The programs vary a lot, but as a whole they shore up students’ academic skills, e.g., by pairing them with tutors, increase their interest in learning by engaging them in intriguing activities like computer coding.

They also foster their health through team sports, other physical exercise and free or nearly-free snacks, nutritionally balanced according to guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which subsidizes them. For some children, it’s the last food they’ll get for the day.

And on top of all this, they provide free, supervised care so that parents can work after the school closing bell rings. The alternative, would cost, on average, $67 a week  — and a whole lot more in some states.

But even the average would cost a parent with two school-age kids more than she’d earn at the federal minimum wage rate. So she’d forfeit the pay — another way this piece of Trump’s budget would disadvantage disadvantaged kids.

Also proposed for zero-funding is a program that helps fund “the quality and effectiveness” of teachers and principals and “provide low-income and minority students greater access to them.”

While not only for teachers in high-poverty schools, ESSA gives heavier weight to districts with these schools than its predecessor, as well it should. Recent studies confirm what many have said for a long time.

By all major measure of teacher quality, e.g., teacher experience, scores on licensing exams, the least qualified teachers are the most likely to have the responsibility for educating students disadvantaged by poverty and/or color.

So far as “access” is concerned, it seems to mean reducing class size, judging from how school districts used their recent grants. That, of course, enables teachers to give individual kids more attention, which means, among other things, that they pay attention instead of acting up in the back of the room.

Overly-large classes may help account for the teacher experience quality gap. Teachers in high-poverty schools get frustrated because they’ve got too many kids to teach, especially given the disadvantages they bring to the classroom, e.g., fewer or no books at home, fewer words heard, stress, hunger.

So the teachers find other professional opportunities or they transfer to a better-off school — a privilege they gain with seniority that a higher percent recently took advantage of than teachers in low-poverty schools.

Both avenues out leave openings that seem likely to be filled by a new cohort of less-qualified teachers. We thus have still another way that low-income and other disadvantaged students would lose out if the Trump budget prevails.

More to Come?

The blueprint, of course, is merely a preview. The Education Department would lose $9.2 billion — 13.5% less than what it has today, when the spending caps in the Budget Control Act have constricted funding.

So we’re sure to see more and larger cuts when he’s signed off on a full-fledged proposed budget. And you can bet they’ll fall heaviest, directly and indirectly, on poor and near-poor students.


What’s Wrong With “School Choice” Vouchers?

March 30, 2017

School choice is back in the news, thanks to Trump’s choice of school choice advocate — some would say zealot — and more, recently his budget plan. The hot-button part is federally-funded support for parents to send their children to private schools.

Most people understand this to mean vouchers, though we might see other proposals as well. This is one of the things I learned from a webcasted speech and panel discussion hosted by the Center for American Progress.

Those who know CAP know the event aimed to expose the problems with vouchers. And it did — well enough, I think, to move anyone on the fence off to the opposition side.

Senator Patty Murray, the most senior Democrat on the HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee led off by summarizing a lengthy letter she’d just sent to colleagues. The panelists filled in with supporting research and those other proposals we might see.

Big takeaways here. A followup soon on another way Trump might try to fund private school choice, plus some further threats targeted specifically high-poverty schools and their students.

Accountability and Transparency

The Every Child Succeeds Act, which replaced No Child Left Behind, gives states more flexibility in how they assess students’ mastery of three basic skill and knowledge areas — reading/language arts, math and science.

They’ve got flexibility they didn’t have to set standards for assessing schools, though they must include those test scores and, for high schools, graduation rates. They’ve also got more flexibility in what to do about schools that consistently don’t measure up.

But test at least those basic skills they must, at the same grade-level intervals and to virtually all the students in those grades.

And both they and school districts must still publicly report, among other things, the tests results broken out, e.g., by race-ethnicity, with a disability, whether disadvantaged by living in poverty or near-poverty.

They must also now report other relevant data, e.g., broken-out suspension and expulsion rates, percent and number of teachers who lack experience and/or the customary formal credentials.

ESSA is the latest version of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. So it applies only to state education agencies and to schools districts they distribute their share of federal funds to.

Private schools don’t get any So they can test students whenever and however choose — or not at all. They can inform parents or not. Even if they do, parents have no reliable way to know whether their children are learning more or less than they would in a regular public or charter school.

Quality Education

The freedom private schools have from learning standards extends to staffing choices. They don’t have to hire only teachers who have state teaching credentials.

State requirements differ, but they include a four-year college degree, including courses in education (or a major for elementary school) and a major or minor in a subject they’ll teach.

And only about half of the 20 voucher programs that the General Accountability Office surveyed had any sort of accreditation from a state or other established quality assurance organization.

What this means is that students may graduate, but discover they can’t get into college without completing a GED. Or, as in a case Murray’s letter cites, can’t transfer to the next grade level in a public school.

Equal Education Guarantees

All regular public and publicly-funded charter schools must comply with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act — a federal law that requires them to ensure that every disabled child has a free and individually-appropriate education.

It’s, as Murray’s letter says, basically a civil rights law, since it expands and spells out in detail how schools must ensure the equal educational opportunity guarantee in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Private schools don’t have to comply with IDEA, except those in the District of Columbia that enroll students with vouchers because they’re federally-funded — another unwanted intervention in local policymaking and mostly a channel of support to religious schools.

They would nationwide if federally-funded, as Trump’s budget envisions and his Secretary of Education dearly wants, notwithstanding her earlier view that IDEA requirements would “be best left to states.”

But what we know about private schools that enroll students with state-funded vouchers should, at the very least, make us suspicious. Private schools have, for example, rejected children with vouchers because of disabilities — or deterred parents from enrolling them.

Not long ago, only a minuscule fraction of children with disabilities were enrolled through vouchers in Wisconsin’s private voucher schools. And the schools warned they’d not provide the level of services IDEA requires.

In Florida, parents of children with scholarships exclusively for those with disabilities must sign away all their IDEA rights.

Federally-funded vouchers would in theory, if not in practice at the very least give children with disabilities an education more appropriate for them than some state programs. But that wouldn’t resolve the equality issues.

Title IX expressly exempts religious schools from complying with its prohibition against sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs so far as that would run up against their tenets.

This means, among other things, that they can have sex-segregated curricula based on based on their beliefs about gender roles, different conduct codes and fewer or no athletic opportunities geared to women students’ interests and abilities. They can also, of course, rampantly discriminate against LGBT students.

Other Inequities

Vouchers won’t make private schools affordable for lower-income parents unless they’re virtually budget-busters.

State-funded voucher programs were worth, on average, $2,000–$5,000 last year. Private school tuition alone averaged about twice the higher range of this average. And then come books, uniforms and probably other costs.

So vouchers don’t truly mean choice for parents who can’t substantially supplement them. On the contrary, studies of voucher programs in four states found that most of the money went to parents who already had enough to have their kids in private schools.

Finally, they’re worthless for kids in many rural communities, where even the nearest public school is often far away—and a private school even further.

But the public schools provide transportation. They’ll have less money to spend for that, as well as other things if the federal government funds vouchers. The add-on in Trump’s budget doesn’t change this. Without it, there’d be more money for public schools.


What to Ask About New Safety Net Work Requirements

March 6, 2017

As I said last week, we’ve reasons to expect that more work requirements imposed on “work-able” adults who have — or need to have — safety net benefits. So it’s worth considering how we might assess what state governors and legislatures propose.

We have two major models for work requirements — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and SNAP (the food stamp program), as applicable to able-bodied adults without dependents.

Both permit not only work for pay, but participation in a program that prepares for such work. Participation counts only if for a minimum numbers of hours. generally averaged over some period of time.

Assuming, as I think one can, that proposed new work requirements will include a broader range of permissible activities than work for pay, we thus have some experience to assess them. Some questions then.

Will the state ensure that all unemployed or under-employed adults who are otherwise eligible for the safety net program can get a slot in a job training program for the requisite number of hours?

Very few states do for the ABAWDs, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports. The federal government provides states with some funds expressly for SNAP-related employment and training. But most states use most of those funds to move adults with children into the workforce.

Experience with TANF also makes this a relevant question. I haven’t seen a comprehensive account of slot shortages. This much we know. States spend, on average, 7% of their federal funds, plus those they must spend to get them on work activities.

The District of Columbia’s TANF program reflected a similar priority in the not-too-distant past. In 2014, parents waited up to 11 months for access to a job training program. And the clock kept ticking, so to speak, toward the date when they and their children could never have TANF benefits again.

Will the state provide the other resources many of the adults will need to work or participate in a job training program for the required number of hours?

The adults, by definition, have little, if any income. And such as they have, must often pay for rent, food (even with SNAP benefits) and other basic needs, e.g., supplies and handfuls of coins for laundry, telecommunications of some sort.

Will the state provide transportation and/or a transportation subsidy, e.g., an auto fuel allowance for those with a car, a bus pass and/or subway fare card for those on a public transit route?

And what about the adults with children not old enough to be in school during all the hours they’re supposed to work or prepare for same? They’ll need free or nearly-free child care. And it’s unrealistic, as well as potentially unsafe for the kids to expect parents to count on friends or relatives.

The affordable childcare record generally indicates a gap to fill. Last year, for example, 20 states had waiting lists for childcare assistance or had closed them, the National Women’s Law Center reports.

Virtually all states require parents to chip in some money of their own, as a co-pay. It’s generally small as a percent of income for those below the poverty line.

But in at least four states, it’s at least 10% — $250 a month for a single parent with just one child. (Some exceptions here that wouldn’t apply to every parent subject to a new work requirement.)

How will state identify adults who aren’t work-able?

SNAP rules exclude from the ABAWD requirement adults who are medically certified as unemployable due to a mental or physical condition, pregnant or otherwise already exempt, presumably because they’ve qualified for SSDI (Social Security Disability Income) or SSI (Supplemental Security Income).

The bar here is very high. Someone, for example, may be employable, i.e., able to work and get a job, but not for an average of 20 hours a week or for months at a time. One or both are common enough for people with certain chronic conditions.

So what standard will the state set? Will it ensure that all adults potentially unable to work can have the requisite medical review — and, if necessary, the legal help to surmount to notorious barriers to gaining federal disability benefits?

Consider too that adults who’ve no disabilities may have compelling, related reasons not to work — a child with severe disabilities who needs constant care, for example, or a frail, aged parent.

Most states and the District exempt TANF parents with such responsibilities from work requirements. Will states do the same if they opt for new work requirements?

Will participating adults be able to find jobs — and keep them?

No job training program lasts indefinitely. And it’s very doubtful that a state would allow a work-able adult to move from one to the next and then the next until s/he could find a job.

Yet some safety net participants have what are commonly called barriers to work, e.g. mental or physical disabilities that don’t rise to the SSI/SSDI level, functional illiteracy. Just plain long-term unemployment is a barrier too, as are common consequences—credit checks, for example.

On the other hand, many adults who rely, at least for awhile on safety net benefits had jobs no longer available in the area they live in — or elsewhere.

The jobless former factory workers and coal miners that Trump appealed to would seem to need retraining tailored to employers’ needs in their area — and others projected nationally.

Will the state do the necessary market and personal assessments? How will it provide these and other services to poor people in small rural communities, if it has them?

Where will the money come from?

Well, the state shouldn’t look to the federal government for more funds — not at least for the foreseeable.

Recall that the flexibility states would gain to impose work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries would also shift costs to them, increasingly over time — currently estimated at $560 billion over the next 10 years.

Experience with not only TANF, but SNAP E&T offers further cautions. Congress, as you probably know, has never increased funding for the former. The latest Farm Bill restored the latter to the same maximum it had in 2004 — in real dollars, about 44% less.

And the budget Trump is trumpeting would reduce total federal spending for non-defense discretionary programs by $54 billion — not a happy prospect for the grants states receive for job training, placement help and the like.

These aren’t the only questions I’d want to ask. But they must suffice for now, lest this post swell entirely out of compass. Would any of you like to add others?


Testing Backlash Will Harm Disadvantaged Kids

August 11, 2016

Diane Ravitch explains (again) why she no longer supports the Common Core standards. She gets as column in The New York Times for this because she’s not just any old disaffected wordsmith.

She gained a following when she publicly renounced No Child Left Behind after having served as an Assistant Secretary for Education when the first Bush administration proposed it. And she later argued for national standards and assessments.

The Common Core and related tests aren’t national. But they would be if all states adopted them, as I think the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association hoped when they initiated the lengthy standards development process back in 2009.

I’m not by any means prepared to assess the standards. Nor the curricula that translated them into classroom lessons. Nor the tests developed to measure how well students have learned what they were supposed to.

But I don’t need that sort of expertise to recognize problems in the Ravitch piece. (Those interested can find a point-by-point rebuttal by Blair Mann at the Collaborative for Student Success.)

What concerns me most is the hostility to standardized tests — now directed at the Common Core, but older and fostered by major teachers unions.

They’ve licensed — and in some cases, encouraged — what are essentially parental strikes, i.e., refusals to let their kids take the tests. That, of course, skews results. And it’s justifiably alarmed major civil rights organizations.

Now, teachers do have griefs — among them, the way some school districts use standardized test scores to evaluate their performance, without factoring in the unique challenges of educating poor children and others disadvantaged in the classroom, e.g., because they’re still learning English.

Parents too have legitimate objections — mostly the barrage of tests administered in part to prep students for the relatively few tests No Child mandated and in part to collect more scores for the teacher evaluations.

But neither the Common Core itself nor the related tests have anything to do with how schools use scores, for good or ill, or how much testing they do in hopes of getting kids to score high.

Both, as I (and many others) have written before, have their roots in the just-superseded No Child. Now we have a new version of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — the also ambitiously named Every Student Succeeds Act.

States get more flexibility, of course. The U.S. Department of Education is expressly prohibited from using its clout to promote or deter their choices, as it did with the Common Core.

States still have to test students at certain points in their education, however. And the Department of Education must still issue rules to spell out everything the law requires them to do.

The test issue, therefore, takes on a special timeliness. So, therefore, does one of Ravitch’s beefs with the Common Core. The tests, she rightly says, are tougher than those that some states used before they switched.

She faults them because failure rates are “staggeringly high” for blacks and Hispanics, students with disabilities and those for whom English is a second language.

This, she says, creates “a sense of failure and hopelessness among them.” We should instead insist that all children have equal opportunities to learn, back that with sufficient funding and let teachers teach and test however they choose.

But we’d then have no reliable basis for determining whether the equal educational opportunity mandate in the Civil Rights Act has any practical effect at the school, district or state level. Likewise the more equal academic achievement that Title I has always aimed to promote.

Nor would teachers, administrators or policymakers. The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, which Ravitch says suffice, yield only state-level comparisons, though states may get breakouts for some large urban districts.

The tests don’t reflect what every child has learned (or not), let alone learned what any current curriculum calls for. And the criterion they’ve used for low-income students is less reliable now than it used to be because many schools can now serve free meals to all their students, not only those qualified by their family’s income.

The real value of the NAEP is that the tests remain relatively consistent over a long period of time and provide a useful perspective on states’ own assessment scores. We need that, since some states shrewdly kept their tests easy — or made passing easier.

We shouldn’t, of course, dismiss the “hopelessness” low scores may foster in students already struggling because they don’t have the advantages their better-off peers enjoy. And we surely shouldn’t dismiss the need to make equal educational opportunity a reality everywhere.

But the ignorance Ravitch seems to advocate isn’t bliss for low-scoring students. They already know they can’t read the textbooks, do the math problems, understand the science behind the experiments, etc.

And it’s not bliss for their parents, who surely want to know whether their kids are learning what they’ll need to be “college and career ready,” as the Common Core intends.

We don’t need only standardized tests that reflect school-by-school learning. We need breakouts that tell us whether children with long-known disadvantages have mastered critical knowledge and skills.

ESSA requires the breakouts, plus some we haven’t had before. And the draft rules reportedly track the law (paywall precludes link).

States can still develop their own tests — or use those already developed to reflect the Common Core. Forty-four states and the District of Columbia chose the latter. But more than half have since decided to design their own.

They’ve defected mainly for political reasons. In some cases, state lawmakers perhaps responded to parents’ outcries when their kids scored lower because the tests were harder.

But more, it seems, want to push back against the Common Core itself, viewing it as one of the Obama administration’s intrusions into their affairs.

Now Ravitch has lent her authority to rejecting the Common Core — and the standardized tests that yield reliable cross-state comparisons. Worse, she’s lent her authority to opting out of any standardized tests in our public school systems.

A classic case of killing the messenger, I think.

 

 

 

 

 


No Shortage of Ideas for Better, More Affordable Child Care

May 9, 2016

I’m on somewhat of a tear about high-quality, affordable child care, as you who follow this blog know. That’s in part because I’ve discovered so much that I didn’t know and felt an urge to share.

So I’ve dealt with the extraordinarily high costs of unsubsidized care and the barrier that poses to low-income families. And I’ve dealt with quality standards and related factors.

In both posts, I’ve dwelt on money — or more precisely, lack of enough to give all low-income children, especially infants and toddlers the high-quality care they need when their parents need them to have it.

So time now to look beyond the defects to policy solutions. We’ve got a range, as I’ve already said.

One focuses strictly on what childcare workers get paid — an aspect of quality, for several reasons I’ve already tried to capture. The Fight for $15 campaign has broadened its original fast-food base by recruiting childcare workers. They too are speaking out for that increase in the minimum wage.

Sad to say, a victory would probably increase average earnings for childcare workers nationwide and in the District of Columbia, though the conventional phase-in for increases makes it hard to be sure.

The District may have a $15 minimum wage in 2020 — the last phase-in year set by what could be on the November ballot and by a bill the Mayor has sent to the DC Council. If it were effective now, it would increase the average childcare work wage.

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute and DC Appleseed want the District to do something that would enable childcare providers to raise workers’ wages sooner and apparently higher, without cutting back on subsidized slots or spending less on other program quality components, e.g., educational materials, professional development.

The partners recommend increasing reimbursement rates for providers that care for children with subsidies. The measure they use for shortfalls, though not necessarily for their recommendation is 75% of what providers charge for unsubsidized care.

This is what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has long recommended. Not, however, to great effect. Only one state reimbursed at about this level last year — significantly fewer than in 2001.

One can readily infer that public funding hasn’t kept pace with need. What we know for sure is that total federal funding in 2014 dropped to its lowest level in twelve years.

Yet states and the District face a further potential cost crunch now that Congress has revamped the Child Care and Development Block Grant — the single largest source of federal funds for programs that serve poor and near-poor families.

CLASP and the National Women’s Law Center suggest that it needs more funding, even for states and the District to serve as many eligible children as they have at the same subsidy rates because they’ll have to spend more to meet the new requirements, including larger quality investments.

Bills recently introduced in Congress would go further. They would create a mandatory funding stream for the block grant, leaving it less vulnerable to annual spending choices.

The bills aim specifically to ensure high-quality care for all infants and toddlers in families with incomes no greater than 200% of the federal poverty line — about $40,300 for a three-person family now and sure to inch up over time.

States could get their share only if they had a plan to both expand access to these low-income kids and to improve quality — in part, by paying providers enough so they could meet standards specifically for the age group.

Don’t look to this Congress to pass those bills. They’ve got only a handful of cosponsors. They’re not so urgent as regular spending bills — an especially troublesome matter in the House. And their effect, if any, on the federal budget would prove troublesome in its own right.

The House bill would increase federal spending by about $25.3 billion over the first five years. The Senate bill seeks to offset the cost by collecting taxes from many U.S. companies that have managed to evade them through inversions — and others that will if the gaping loophole isn’t closed.

We already know how Congressional Republicans view a similar change — and not only, one gathers, because the Obama administration didn’t leave the matter to them.

Broader solutions floated nonetheless. The Center for American Progress, for example, calls for universal pre-K — a modest proposal, also advocated by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, among others, and already adopted by the District.

This, as I’ve suggested, addresses the need for early education, but not the need for high-quality care during all the hours parents work. CAP addresses that need too, with a tax credit to subsidize such care for children under five.

There already is a tax credit for child care, but only fairly well-off families gain the full benefit. And it’s a small one — at most, $3,000 per child and only twice that, no matter how many more children receive paid care.

CAP’s tax credit would instead deliver the greatest benefit to the lowest-income families, though families with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty line would qualify for some support. And it would go, on a monthly basis, to providers, as health insurance subsidies already do — thus delivering the money directly and when it’s needed.

The Make It Work campaign reaches even further, advocating subsidies for all but wealthy families with children not yet in their teens. Costs to families would be capped at 10% of what they earn. And “providers” — presumably childcare workers — would get that $15 an hour wage.

Much pie in the sky, one may think. But the U.S. had something near to universal child care during World War II and would have had it again if President Nixon hadn’t viewed it as overly-costly and threatening to families.

All the proposals I’ve summarized here do have a price tag, of course. But the return on investment would be very high. We’d have more parents (mainly mothers) in the workforce — and more working full time. So there’d be more tax revenues flowing in, as well as going out.

The long-term returns, especially from quality care for low-income children would be greater and more various, as the Center for Equitable Growth shows.

We’d see, among other things, fewer needs for remedial instruction, less child abuse and neglect, less criminal behavior, better health, higher earnings and so both more tax revenues and fewer needs to spend them compensatory measures, including safety net benefits.

Seems to me family-strengthening. Strengthening for our economy and the frayed bonds of our society too.