President Obama was on this Hill this morning lobbying members of Congress on the stimulus bill. The House is voting on its version today and members expect to have legislation on the President’s desk by February 13. For the next couple days we are going to highlight some of the items that may be contained in the package. First up: education.

The House bill would include $150 billion of new federal spending for education — doubling the Dept. of Educations current budget. According to the New York Times:

The proposed emergency expenditures on nearly every realm of education, including school renovation, special education, Head Start and grants to needy college students, would amount to the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II.

Other proposals include:

• $79 billion to states to help them maintain services and avoid cuts to schools and pre-k programs
• $20 billion for school renovations
• $6 billion more for Pell Grants, increasing the budget for the aid program to $27 billion from $19 billion.

Critics of the bill are concerned about wasteful spending, but if the alternative is collapsing schools and a mass lay off of teachers, then we cannot let our education system crumble with the economy.

Earlier this month, I wrote about a decline in college graduation rates and the need for public policy ideas, such as scholarships with “incentive compontents,” to boost retention. The economic boosts from college stem from earning a degree, not just attending.

Today, the Wonk Room takes on this issue and links to this chart from The Quick and the Ed:

This flatlining should be a wake up call to policymakers, colleges and universities, and individual students.

Earning a college degree is a big predictor of future economic success and mobility. The emphasis there should be placed on the degree, not attendance. Statistics show that it is the completion and actual degree - either from a two- or four-year institution - that boosts mobility.

Research from MDRC shows that half of all students who begin community college drop out before they are finished and do not go on to complete a degree within six years. However, scholars at MDRC have found a scholarship program that works to keep students enrolled and working toward a degree - making it a perfect topic for today’s “what works” post.

They evaluated a supplemental financial aid program in Louisiana that contained an “incentive component” to encourage students to stay in school:

With funding from the Louisiana Department of Social Services and the Louisiana Workforce Commission, the colleges offered students $1,000 for each of two semesters ($2,000 total) - distributed in three separate payments each semester - if they met two conditions: They had to enroll in college at least half time and they had to maintain an average grade of “C” or better. Students did not have to be welfare recipients, and the scholarships were paid in addition to federal Pell Grants. Program counselors monitored whether students met benchmarks, and physically handed the students their checks at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester.

They found very promising results from their random assignment study:

• More students registered for community college
• Students who participated in the program were more likely to be registered than those who weren’t part of the program;
• Students who participated earned more credit hours
• And the program made participants feel more engaged in their school environment

It seems that our Memo to the President came out just in time for the latest early education buzz. In today’s New York Times, reporter Sam Dillon writes about the renewed excitement in the early education community due to Obama’s education pledge and the announcement of Arne Duncan as his choice for Secretary of Education.

In November 2007, Obama made a campaign pledge to increase spending on federal education programs by $18 billion - 10 billion of which will be used on early education programs.  He also proposed a ” Presidential Early Learning Council” to coordinate federal, state and local efforts, increase financing for Early Head Start, expand home visiting programs for low-income moms, and provide grants to states for early education programs (we also called for performance-based grants in our early education memo).

Early education advocates haven’t forgotten this campaign promise. Dillon writes:

It was the morning after the presidential election, and Matthew Melmed, executive director of Zero to Three, a national organization devoted to early childhood education, could barely contain his exultation.

Mr. Melmed fired off an e-mail message to his board and staff, reminding them of President-elect Barack Obama’s interest in the care and education of the very young and congratulating Mr. Obama for campaigning on a “comprehensive platform for early childhood.”

Mr. Melmed was not alone in his excitement. After years of what they call backhanded treatment by the Bush administration, whose focus has been on the testing of older children, many advocates are atremble with anticipation over Mr. Obama’s espousal of early childhood education.

Even the National Campaign Against Teenage Pregnancy has expressed excitement over the renewed interest in early education. Why? Because studies have shown that high-quality, early education reduces teenage pregnancy. On their blog, Lawrence Swiader writes:

Back in June 2004, The National Campaign featured early childhood education in its Science Says publication concluding, “research suggests that children’s experiences in programs many years earlier may also contribute to a reduced likelihood that they will become parents too soon. Indeed, studies indicate that early childhood and elementary school programs can contribute to reduced risk of adolescent pregnancy.”

Granted, Obama made this pledge last November during the beginning of primary season. Since then we have officially entered a recession and federal funds have become scarcer. However, as we write in our Memo to the President, we can’t let this deter our commitment to young children:

By investing money in the education of students who are still at the most important developmental stage of their lives, our nation can reap extraordinary, lasting benefits. The United States needs to invest in early education not despite the current economic crisis, but because of it. When money is scarce, we must spend it with extra care -and no other public investment promises a bigger return than the expansion of early-childhood schooling.

Be sure to check out the latest addition in PPI’s Memos to the President series that I co-wrote with Loranne Ausley, a member of the Florida House of Representatives. In our memo we argue that when the next administration starts working on education reform, they should begin at the beginning. That is, focus education policies on students who are at the very start of their schooling—three-year-olds and four-year-olds.

We suggest that the Obama administration make the federal government a vigorous partner with the states in expanding the current patchwork of programs, so that high-quality pre-K becomes available for every poor and disadvantaged child in America. The federal government should not supplant state efforts, but instead, should powerfully reinforce them with a performance-based grant that gives states the flexibility to expand access to high quality pre-K.

Click here for more details of our proposal.

An article in today’s Washington Post reports that “students D.C.’s charters schools have opened a solid academic lead over those in its traditional public schools.” The gains are particularly hopeful because of the charter schools’ successes in educating low-income children - those who most often lag behind.

• In a comparison of low-income students, those who attended DC middle-school charters scored 19 points higher on reading tests than those in regular public middle schools.
• Charter middle school students scored 20 points higher on math tests compared to their non charter, public middle school counterparts.
• Charter middle schools have a 13 percent higher passing rate on average for city standardized tests.
• D.C. charter schools have better attendance and higher graduation rates.
• Teachers in D.C. charter schools are more likely to meet the city’s definition of “highly qualified.”

One reason for this success stems from the charter schools’ ability to jump bureaucratic hurdles. For example, many of the District’s charter schools operate much longer than the typical school schedule - some with school days that last until 5 p.m. As the Post article notes, these schools often have more resources and staff to “help charters achieve one of their prime goals: interceding in the chaotic home lives of poor children to keep problems from derailing learning.”

Many of the Charter Schools also operate under the assumption that failure is not an option and every child has the ability to succeed. The authors of the article followed a teacher at KIPP KEY Academy, a charter school in Southeast Washington writing:

“Our success is not from moving kids out,” she said, but is attributable to a highly unified school culture that teachers and students embrace.

Four days into the start of school this July, a teacher gave a hand signal to 80 fifth-graders waiting for lunch in the white cinder block cafeteria at KIPP KEY Academy in Southeast Washington. The students were already well drilled in the mind-set of their school, and the room immediately fell silent. The teacher began the call-and-response: “What room is this?”

Shouting at the top of their lungs, students and teachers belted out one of KIPP’s signature rhythmic chants:

This is the room

That has the kids

Who want to learn

To read more books

To build a better tomorrow,

To build a better tomorrow.

The teacher responded quietly: “What year do you go to college?”

The 11-year-olds bellowed: “2016.”

Education reform must be a top priority of Obama’s new administration. Officials will not have to travel far to find examples of flexible, creative and results driven schools that create opportunities for the poorest of our nation’s children.

The scores from the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), a study that compares math and science achievement for fourth and eighth graders in over 35 countries, were released today. The results were mixed.

The good news first: In 2007, the math test scores of U.S. students in fourth and eight grades improved.

Fourth Grade Math

• U.S. fourth-graders scored 529, on average. - higher than the TIMSS scale average of 500.
• The average mathematics achievement of U.S. fourth-graders in 2007 was 11 score points higher than the average score in 1995
• The average mathematics score of U.S. fourth-graders was higher than those in 23 of the 35 other countries, lower than in 8 countries (all 8 were in Asia or Europe), and not measurably different from the average scores of students in the remaining 4 countries.

Eight Grade Math

• U.S. eighth-graders scored 508, on average, in mathematics, which was higher than the TIMSS scale average of 500.
• The average mathematics achievement of U.S. eighth-graders in 2007 was 16 score points higher than the average score in 1995
• The average mathematics score of U.S. eighth-graders was higher than those in 37 of the 47 other countries, lower than in 5 countries (all of them in Asia), and not measurably different from the average scores of students in the remaining 5 countries.

Now for the bad news: Since 1995, U.S. students have made no measurable gains in the science portion of the study. In a Washington Post article, Francis Eberle, executive director of the National Science Teachers associate says the results should cause alarm:

“We need to pay attention to the results. We’re just static, and other countries are improving,” said Francis Eberle, executive director of the Arlington-based National Science Teachers Association. “Whether it’s global warming, energy production or conservation or homeland security, people need to be able to understand enough to make decisions as a citizen.”

Watch to see if the TIMSS results create louder calls for better STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released their biennial report that shows net college costs - tuition and fees - increased 439 percent between 1982 and 2007. Not that this comes as a surprise to anyone who has been paying tuition bills or student loans lately.  Like most of the bad economic statistics, these numbers are pre-recession, meaning it’s likely to get worse.

“If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education,” said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education.

“When we come out of the recession,” Mr. Callan added, “we’re really going to be in jeopardy, because the educational gap between our work force and the rest of the world will make it very hard to be competitive. Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.”

A college degree is a key requirement for moving up the economic ladder. As Congressional leaders and the new Administration look for ways to help people during these tough times, college affordability must be a priority.

Graduating from high school is a minimal requirement to succeed in today’s workplace. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, high school dropouts earned on average $428 per week in 2007. Those with a high school diploma earned $604 per week and college graduates earned $987. Thus, it is no surprise that increasing graduation rates is a key priority among education policy experts.

Today’s “What Works Wednesday” post focuses on new research that shows freshman attendance and academic performance predict high school graduation. An MDRC report shows that of students who missed 10-14 days of ninth grade, only 41 percent graduated in high school in four years; of those who missed 15-19 days, only 21 percent graduated in four years; and of those who missed 20-24 days, only 9 percent graduated in four years.

ninth grade is a make-or-break year and that there is much that educators can do to help students navigate the transition into high school.

If high school freshmen succeed, graduation rates go up. That’s why many school districts are focusing their retention efforts on ninth graders. In Maryland’s Prince George’s County, freshmen attend class in a freshman academy annex to help them ease into high school. Students starting ninth grade with a weak academic record attend a “summer bridge” prep program before starting high school.

The research on successful programs is still in it’s early stages, but the link between ninth grade performance and high school graduation is clear. Policy makers and education practitioners should take advantage of this knowledge and implement creative “freshman factor” programs. Researchers Elaine Allensorth and John Easton said it best in their 2007 study:

Knowing that graduation is directly tied with course grades suggests two potential strategies for addressing dropout problems. At the very least, we can use freshman course performance to identify students at high risk of dropping out and target with support and intervention. At the most, if schools and teachers can influence the quality of students’ performance in their coursework, then they have a direct lever to affect graduation rates - a lever that should simultaneously improve student achievement.

Can good teachers improve academic performance for the poorest of children in America? Are the effects of a difficult home life and poverty so strong that they outweigh any school-based effort to decrease the education gap?  Jay Matthews, the Washington Post education columnists, addressed these two theories in his column on Friday. The column is a response to an email from a Philadelphia teaching applicant who was frustrated with the belief that good teachers can raise achievement of all children, regardless of their backgrounds. He solicited comments from a number of teachers and education policy experts.

The issue can get very personal, which might explain why I rarely hear discussions of it. It is too easy to make one side think they are being called racists and the other side thinks they are being called bullies. So this time, it is a debate at a distance, nobody in the same room, just sending e-mails to a nosy columnist.

There seems to be a good deal of truth on both sides. We can never close the education gap if teachers in high poverty schools do not believe it can be done. Furthermore, we must hold teachers accountable for producing real, measurable results. However, children from low-income families often start school way behind their more affluent peers. Without addressing that reality, it will be hard to boost academic performance.

The entire article is worth the read. Here are a few of the best emails:

Rafe Esquith, central Los Angeles fifth grade teacher and best-selling author of “Teach Like Your Hair’s on Fire”:

I’m with the teacher on this one.

Of course, there are teachers who give up far too easily and make excuses. I think of myself as a reasonably hard worker and someone who gives every child my best effort.

But there are fantastic doctors who have patients that die. Is it always the doctor’s fault? Certainly there are patients who will not survive despite a great doctor’s heroic efforts.

People who believe that “all children will learn” have watched too many Hollywood movies about teachers. I’m pretty good at what I do and fail all the time. There ARE circumstances that are beyond my control, despite the fact that I normally work 18 hours a day and spend every penny I have on the kids.

And as you wrote about me when you said kind words about my book, many of the teachers who “save everyone” don’t even teach anymore. The idea that all children will learn sounds wonderful, but these words need to be surrounded with a little bit of realism.

Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the D.C. public schools and founder of the New Teacher Project:

You have to know the challenges our kids come with, take them seriously, try to provide resources to address them but at the end of the day they CANNOT be an excuse for low achievement levels. That’s the bottom line. If a teacher doesn’t believe it’s possible for a teacher or school to overcome those factors that is actually okay. Those teachers should teach in Fairfax County or somewhere where the challenges are not as great. And they’ll do good things for those kids. No issues with that. But we need people with a different mindset for our kids.