Thoughts about ARRA

By Arnold F. Fege, PEN's Director of Public Engagement and Advocacy

Now that the largest single outlay of federal funding is moving through the governmental pipelines in every state, it seems appropriate to revisit the impact of the stimulus plan, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

First, the stimulus plan that was signed into law was not as generous as the measure originally passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, but is far superior to the version originally agreed to by the U.S. Senate.  Such was the price of getting votes from the three Republican senators who supported the measure, as well as in keeping the votes of Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Second, let us hope that at least for now that a lot of teaching and support jobs will be saved. States and localities will be given some breathing room as the nation tries to reorganize its financial system and its economy. While not perfect, and perhaps not large enough to fully address all the economic needs of the nation, ARRA provides welcome breathing space – the looming catastrophe for public education we would have confronted without the act's education measures is at least postponed. It looks like the cuts that many states were going to have to impose upon educational funding can now either be avoided or at least somewhat lessened as a result of the monies that will flow to them as a result of ARRA.

Three, the lack of local community input about funding priorities is troubling.  If what we are hearing from LEFs and other local nonprofits is true, governors and state legislators are making funding decisions that will not meet the varying academic and educational needs of local school districts and communities.  Local communities feel totally shut out of the decision-making, especially as related to the $53.6 billion over which the states have total discretion.

Four, a line item also was added that had not been part of the original proposal.  This is a fund of $5 billion to be used at the discretion of the U.S. Secretary of Education to be awarded to states that meet key performance measures in education. This is really a discretionary slush fund to use as the secretary sees fit to promote innovation.  In my memory, I cannot recall another education secretary having this much money to spend at his or her disposal. In the past, Congress did not trust education secretaries to spend this kind of largess wisely. Secretary Arne Duncan, who is on record as saying he wants better methods of measuring what our students are learning, said that he will use the funding incentives to reward and encourage high performing schools, so this could be a beneficial expenditure toward improving standards and assessments.

Five, out of a $5 billion program above that which is solely under the secretary's discretion, $650 million is devoted to “charter schools and nonprofit organizations” that have demonstrated impact upon increased student achievement.  In talking with various administration staff, it seems that providing money to charter schools is the major priority of this outlay, and little thought seems to have been given to the criteria related to how LEFs and other nonprofits would qualify for funding.  PEN is seeking clarification as to whether criteria exist and how LEFs would qualify for funding.  Administration officials also emphasize that the major purpose of ARRA is to stimulate the economy.  PEN is emphasizing that stimulating the economy, while spending wisely are not mutually exclusive goals. 

Six, some in the American education community are not happy with the final shape of the bill.  Remember that a major reason for the existence of the federal role in K-12 education was to somewhat level the playing field.  The original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was a part of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program.  President Johnson had seen firsthand the inequities of schooling when, right out of San Marcos State Teachers College, he taught minority children in a poor district in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.  But groups like the 21st Century School Fund and the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) worry that the stimulus in its current form does little to alleviate the discrepancy between wealthy suburban districts and financially struggling districts in urban and rural areas.

Some other thoughts:

• The department emphasizes that the stimulus money is ONE TIME FUNDING, which means that districts will be cautionary about spending funds on new programs or personnel that they believe they cannot support once the stimulus funding no longer exists.

• The current national total for IDEA Part B is now $11.3 billion over two years, rather than the originally budgeted $13 billion.

• The $20 billion in the original House version for school construction and renovation ($14 billion for K-12 and $6 billion for higher education facilities) was eliminated completely.

• The original $79 billion for the Title XV Fiscal Stabilization Fund for the states in the House bill was ultimately cut way back in the Senate.  Only the last-minute intervention by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats was able to restore the Title XV Stabilization Fund for the states to $53.6 billion with an "agreement" that "some" of the funds could be used by the states for "renovation" (not for construction). The backlog of deferred maintenance needed just to bring existing school structures up to local building codes is well in excess of $100 billion nationally.

• At the urging of Rep. George Miller, (D-Calif.), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, ARRA sets aside $650 million for school districts or districts in partnership with nonprofit groups that have advanced student achievement in struggling schools.  

• Although states can use their stabilization money for this purpose, no categorical money was set aside for English Language Learners.